Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 06:11:22 JST 
?? Humpleupagus ??
I think the problem is two fold.
The first is that state courts tend to enforce state statutes unless they're found unconstitutional by SCOTUS on its face. This means that its a long game. Most people don't have the time or money (I note that to practice before SCOTUS, you have to be admitted to its bar. That requires another member to vouch for you, so 99.9% of lawyers available for hire couldn't take the case from the start to where it needs to go).
The second is that the accused fold, including taking plea deals under pressure of imprisonment that waive their right to review, and sweetheart plea deals are more likely where the charges are bullshit. Look at Richard Golden. He folded.
I hope one of these kids has a lawyer daddy or a big firm uncle, and they fucking crush this DA, personally, via all of the legal and political tools at hand.- Sexy Moon likes this.
-
Embed this notice
Tyler (tyler@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 07:23:22 JST 
Tyler
This has been an extremely dangerous and abusive trend for state legislation to pass clearly unconstitutional statues, with no repercussions, and put all the burden on the accused to undo it. There's very little pro bono work in criminal defense, I imagine. ?? Humpleupagus ?? likes this. -
Embed this notice
Ash Kvetchum (ash_kvetchum@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 07:33:28 JST 
Ash Kvetchum
>and put all the burden on the accused to undo it
accurate, powerful naming of their behavior -
Embed this notice
?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 07:33:28 JST
?? Humpleupagus ??
I 100% agree. I practice in California (civil not criminal), and California is constantly passing new laws which are literally shit (comparatively federal law, like it or not, tends to be well written). So it's always a novel issue of first impression.
I've done a few statutory interpretation cases against the state in my career, and they're just about impossible to win even if it's obvious. The court will back the state, and if the decision is shit, depublish it.
This is why such cases are best used strategically.
In one instance, the trial court agreed with the state, but before I appealed, I got a full settlement and the legislature subsequently amended the statute to address the issue I raised. A loss on the record, but a win off the record for my client.
In another instance, I used the challenge to distract the state agency from its failure to enter judgment against my client personally (they only entered judgment against a wholly owned llc). They were so busy defending the statute that by the time they discovered the error, it was too late. Dissolve the llc, and start a new business. Judgment uncollectable. Loss on the record, win off the record for my client.Sexy Moon likes this. -
Embed this notice
?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 11:01:17 JST
?? Humpleupagus ??
Don't you find it interesting that the higher up the ladder you fo, the less liability and more immunity there is? Judges are immune from civil suits for act on the bench, even if competely illegal, politicians and administrators for acts in the course of their duties. Police, being closer to the plebians, only get qualified immunity, and us bottom feeders are absolutely liable even if wet believed we were following the law.
This is counter to the idea of duty. The higher the duty, the greater the liability. Without liability, duty is a sham. My position is, by way of example, that if a judge knowingly violates the constitution from the bench, that should be deemed a violation of the union, and ergo, treason, and the death penalty should be swiftly employed to deter other judges from doing the same, so on and so forth. The highest duty should entail the highest punishment for violation. This is the Roman way. -
Embed this notice
Växẍ Säbbäth (vaxxsabbath@poa.st)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 11:01:18 JST 
Växẍ Säbbäth
@Humpleupagus @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Paulyfrog64 this is why I liken "law", in this age, to "fractional-reserve currency" (cc'ing @plotinus_enjoyer for this one), except that instead of gold specie underlying it, the reserve of law is "violence"
these creatures - being far removed from even the most notional conceptions of violence except as a theoretical entity, and because they are so far removed from it - wantonly exercise raw power without constraint; as far as they're concerned, it's just a job, a game whose numbers they grind out and minmax until they have enough juice to springboard to a political career or a white-shoe law firm for big bucks
not a single one of them, or so near as to make no difference, has a conception of the idea that there is a metaphysical duty, on their part, to participate in not just a legal system but a justice system, which requires the active connivance of all participants towards that goal; sort of like physicians and the Hippocratic Oath, the idea of a sacred duty has been devalued to the point of laughability (and they do laugh at the idea)
in a better world, such men would at the very least be called out for trial by combat by the aggrieved victims of their malicious lawfare; the survivors would learn quickly that the tools they employ are not to be wielded with either lightness of heart or lightness of purpose, and would become far more reticent to engage in the blatant abortions of justice they now perpetrate on the regular
in this world at the present time, the likelier outcome (soon) is that they will be called out for, uh, "surprise" trial by combat (involving L-shaped formations around geographic bottlenecks and that sort of thing)
-
Embed this notice
Charles_in_Charge (charles_in_charge@poa.st)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 11:31:56 JST 
Charles_in_Charge
@VaxxSabbath @Humpleupagus @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Paulyfrog64 There's a scene in the TV show Firefly (I know I know, TV) where a semi-crazy bounty hunter is talking to the ship's doctor. He tells the doctor that surgeons should be shot, or stabbed or whatever. They should understand the kind of pain and shock their patients go through. That scene always stuck with me.
Maybe we should force all our lawyers and politicians to be randomly snatched off the streets, tried for crimes real or imagined, then thrown in prison for a year. Same for banksters.
youtube.com/watch?v=O5aSwzUCfE0 -
Embed this notice
?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 11:31:56 JST
?? Humpleupagus ??
I'm one of the good guys though. 😭 -
Embed this notice
Charles_in_Charge (charles_in_charge@poa.st)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 11:41:12 JST
Charles_in_Charge
@Humpleupagus @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Paulyfrog64 @VaxxSabbath No such thing as a "good" lawyer. At their very best, there are idealistic lawyers, often foolish and naïve, that have yet to turn sour. Lawyers are, by and large, mercenaries. They serve a needed function, like prostitutes and actors, but like prostitutes and actors, they are almost always disreputable people decent folk would do well to avoid whenever necessary.
If I had a magic wish and could only use it to change the legal system, I would do away with what we have and replace it with some kind of Thunder Dome operation. Maybe, if I were in a good mood, I would allow the defendants and complainants to hire professional gladiators to fight on their behalf. Trial by combat would be more fair, less prone to corruption, and less noxious than what we have now. -
Embed this notice
?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 11:41:12 JST
?? Humpleupagus ??
The ancient rights of trial by battle or trial by ordeal -
Embed this notice
?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 11:59:38 JST
?? Humpleupagus ??
Also, a properly functioning system requires well mannered and moral people. If the people are corrupted, the system cannot function.
And regardless of the arguments about whether there's a political solution or not, some system is required, and from my perspective, and I think locke was right on this point, a tripartite system seems natural, even if merged into one man. Someone must make rules, adjudged, and execute. Courts, legislatures, and executives are as natural as water.
Further, courts and legislatures are parliamentary institutions, each with their own procedures due to their different functions. Even executive administration's have internal procedures that mimic a parliament.
As for lawyering, I look at lawyering as being akin to being the oarsman on the boat on the river stix. By the time someone comes to me, something life altering is in the works. It's my job to guide them to the other side, but I can't always control what's there. -
Embed this notice
Växẍ Säbbäth (vaxxsabbath@poa.st)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 11:59:39 JST
Växẍ Säbbäth
@Charles_in_Charge @Humpleupagus @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Paulyfrog64 yeah, that works - for a little while
the reason we came up with "laws" in the first place, preferring them to "trial by combat", is because the latter is an inherently unfair system: an 6'8" 350-lb MMA dude can do whatever the fuck he wants, whether good or bad, and everybody else just has to live with it
this is not conducive to the stable social contract identified in "The Fuck Rate Is About To Implode", namely, that "mid men get pussy and everybody else gets core infrastructure"; without some way to enable people to relax and enjoy their livelihoods - which in most cases do not, and probably should not, involve personal combat - human progress screeches to a halt
the idea of an impartial process is acceptable and achieves this goal, but unfortunately is meta-stable; it cannot exist longterm without being corrupted absent "extra-systemic corrections" (things not "thinkable" or "allowable" within the context of the system itself, or in other words, what Jefferson referred to as "watering the tree of Liberty") to bring it back in line with its own ideals
a "lawyer", in the idealized case, is someone who understands what the law is, understands what it is for, and understands the fact that all solutions in this world are imperfect but that it is incumbent upon the person in a position of privilege and power to use that power in "right" ways
it is not someone whose skill is amorally twisting rulesets into desired outcomes (i.e. a jew)
-
Embed this notice
?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 13:29:56 JST
?? Humpleupagus ??
Fighting a woman from deep in a hole.
Many such cases. -
Embed this notice
Felix Krull (felix_krull@poa.st)'s status on Sunday, 17-Mar-2024 13:29:59 JST 
Felix Krull
@VaxxSabbath @Charles_in_Charge @Humpleupagus @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Paulyfrog64 Trial by combat was retarded, but there were handicaps enforced. A big guy would have a shorter sword or fight without armor or whatever.
There's an old medieval illustration showing a guy fighting a woman, and the guy is in a deep hole so he can't move.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the