"definitive Conclusion By Logic"

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Behunin+Feb 3 2004, 06:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Behunin @ Feb 3 2004, 06:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Feb 2 2004, 09:47 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 2 2004, 08:34 PM

Lawyers aren't the problem.  They share human nature with everyone else, with all the idealism, greed, honor, and deceit that entails.  The problem is a legal system whose structures sometimes reward the worse aspects of human nature rather than the better.

Ummm,

Aren't lawyers the largest and most powerful part of the legals system?

Yes they are! You can't be a "judge" without belonging to the "bar".

There would be no need for so called "lawyers" if we lived in a world where everything was voluntary.

While that may be mostly true, it is not entirely true. Some judges are elected, and anybody can be nominated. I have a friend who is a judge, and he is definitely not a lawyer.

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 2 2004, 06:57 PM

Who you gonna call, Ghostbusters? Your Bishop? Try a good lawyer. Pray all you want, but a lawyer is what you will need to get all those long term care bills paid. And what about compensation for your loss of quality of life. Isn't that worth something? Try going to court yourself, without a lawyer and see how good you are at making your case? Most people can't reason and persuade themselves out of a paper bag. You will get nothing, because you (and most people) wouldn't know how to present a coherent and logical case that cites the appropriate legal precedents and statutes.

That's what lawyers are for---to get for you what you deserve under the law.

Who you gonna call? Let's see, due to a monopoly maintained by violence, you have no choice but to call a member of the so-called "bar."

Go to court yourself? Let's see, the average person deals with facts and concrete use of language. Lawyers? That's right, words mean whatever some black-robed lawyer says they mean, until more black-robed lawyers change the meaning AND the rules for the millionth time. Conflicting "precedent?" You bet, especially in California, good to be the king isn't it, can't ever be wrong can you? Who can "reason and persuade" when the meanings of words are changed and some black-robed lawyer controls what can be said? Drop the "legal precedents and statutes" and see how much easier disputes can be resolved. Oh, but then we wouldn't need lawyers then would we?

People can reason, but when violence and uncertainty are Standard Operating Procedure, who can make any sense? That's right, "officers of the court," the insiders, the lawyers. Those same "officers" who real "allegiance" is not to their pretended client, but to the court, another lawyer.

You praise a profession whose very foundation is violence. Even if you don't pick up a gun yourself, you and your fellow lawyers cannot maintain your profession without violence. If my car breaks down my husband can fix it and no "mechanics union" is going to send armed troops to put him into prison. But, if he writes up a simple agreement for me, oh no! Call the troops to protect those lawyers.

Lawyers are there for one thing, to get what THEY believe they deserve under the law. Law of course written by lawyers, enforced by lawyers, interpreted by lawyers, all for the benefit of lawyers.

And who do lawyers pray to? That's right, to another lawyer with a black dress on. In England they pray to their "lord," the lord chancellor in their "petitons and "motions." Lawyers do the same thing in the U.S. In their documents, they pray to the court, another lawyer.

Reason? Lawyers use ad hominen attacks when they cannot defend their positions. The typical "government" lawyer's response to a non-government litigant: "specious, frivolous, scurrilous and for harassment purposes only." No susbstance at all.

[Guest antishock82003]

My only real gripe with the judicial system other than Torts are Judges. How can judges not make rulings according to Law? For example, the Law states that if Plaintiff doesn't do XYZ, then Plaintiff can't sue for ABC. Yet, in many cases, especially in Civil Court, we see Judges disregard the XYZ and make arbitrary rulings not based on ABC, but rather their personal views. Yes, one has the appellate process, but that is subject to a certain amount of bureacracy that the average citizen has a hard time following. We see silly rulings by the 9th Circuit Judges, or the Supreme Court Justices that are based more on ideology than the Rule of Law. It's very disappointing.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 2 2004, 10:26 PM

I think ALL lawyers are garbage....plain and simple.

Well then I'm sure you won't be offended when people who have had bad experiences with Mormons think you are garbage. (Do you really think Proud Duck is garbage? I have a hard time with that.)

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bizabra@Feb 2 2004, 10:34 PM

I think all theists are garbage, plain and simple.  Why, just lookee here at all the evil things done in the name of god over the entire history of man. All the purges and cleansings and pogroms and burnings and hangings and such.  And the GUILT that theists heap upon the head of anyone who dares to disobey!  tsk tsk

Sheesh.  The world would be a better place if it weren't for all those horrid awful people who believe in god.

And don't forget....all those horrid people who don't! LOL (like lawyers!)

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Behunin+Feb 3 2004, 06:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Behunin @ Feb 3 2004, 06:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Feb 2 2004, 09:47 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 2 2004, 08:34 PM

Lawyers aren't the problem.  They share human nature with everyone else, with all the idealism, greed, honor, and deceit that entails.  The problem is a legal system whose structures sometimes reward the worse aspects of human nature rather than the better.

Ummm,

Aren't lawyers the largest and most powerful part of the legals system?

Yes they are! You can't be a "judge" without belonging to the "bar".

There would be no need for so called "lawyers" if we lived in a world where everything was voluntary.

I agree.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 3 2004, 02:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 3 2004, 02:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Feb 2 2004, 10:26 PM

I think ALL lawyers are garbage....plain and simple.

Well then I'm sure you won't be offended when people who have had bad experiences with Mormons think you are garbage. (Do you really think Proud Duck is garbage? I have a hard time with that.)

LOL...I am not offended when someone says all mormons are garbage...cause I have been abused by garbage all of my life...: )

So...about PD. If he is a lawyer...i believe he is garbage.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 3 2004, 03:21 PM

So...about PD. If he is a lawyer...i believe he is garbage.

Your attitude is astonishing. It seems out of character.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Peace+Feb 3 2004, 03:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Feb 3 2004, 03:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@Feb 3 2004, 02:51 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Feb 2 2004, 10:26 PM

I think ALL lawyers are garbage....plain and simple.

Well then I'm sure you won't be offended when people who have had bad experiences with Mormons think you are garbage. (Do you really think Proud Duck is garbage? I have a hard time with that.)

LOL...I am not offended when someone says all mormons are garbage...cause I have been abused by garbage all of my life...: )

So...about PD. If he is a lawyer...i believe he is garbage.

I'm shocked Peace.

So does that mean you would never associated with a lawyer? - ie Mortgage, Wills, defending yourself if accused of a crime.

M.

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Jenda+Feb 3 2004, 07:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Feb 3 2004, 07:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Behunin@Feb 3 2004, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by -Snow@Feb 2 2004, 09:47 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 2 2004, 08:34 PM

Lawyers aren't the problem.  They share human nature with everyone else, with all the idealism, greed, honor, and deceit that entails.  The problem is a legal system whose structures sometimes reward the worse aspects of human nature rather than the better.

Ummm,

Aren't lawyers the largest and most powerful part of the legals system?

Yes they are! You can't be a "judge" without belonging to the "bar".

There would be no need for so called "lawyers" if we lived in a world where everything was voluntary.

While that may be mostly true, it is not entirely true. Some judges are elected, and anybody can be nominated. I have a friend who is a judge, and he is definitely not a lawyer.

Then you are fortunate. I am sure your friend will do a decent job.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 3 2004, 03:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 3 2004, 03:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Feb 3 2004, 03:21 PM

So...about PD. If he is a lawyer...i believe he is garbage.

Your attitude is astonishing. It seems out of character.

LOL....you rock Curvette! My character is the whole point...I am a <span style=\'color:red\'>big character!

[Guest curvette]

Ah, so you are just playing with our minds. (not nice--naughty Peace!)

[Cal]

Peace---I guess Howard W. Hunter, a "prophet" of the Lord was garbage too. He was a lawyer. And don't forget Dalen H. Oaks, also a lawyer, yes, what a scumbag he is, right, Peace?

[srm]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2004, 08:55 PM

Peace---I guess Howard W. Hunter, a "prophet" of the Lord was garbage too. He was a lawyer. And don't forget Dalen H. Oaks, also a lawyer, yes, what a scumbag he is, right, Peace?

A lawyer friend of mine was the Stake President. president Faust came out to do a stake Conference. My friend asked him how he deal with the lawyer jokes. He said that he used to be a lawyer but repented and became a General Authority.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2004, 08:55 PM

Peace---I guess Howard W. Hunter, a "prophet" of the Lord was garbage too. He was a lawyer. And don't forget Dalen H. Oaks, also a lawyer, yes, what a scumbag he is, right, Peace?

 

Now you're getting the idea! B)

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by srm+Feb 3 2004, 09:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Feb 3 2004, 09:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 3 2004, 08:55 PM

Peace---I guess Howard W. Hunter, a "prophet" of the Lord was garbage too. He was a lawyer. And don't forget Dalen H. Oaks, also a lawyer, yes, what a scumbag he is, right, Peace?

A lawyer friend of mine was the Stake President. president Faust came out to do a stake Conference. My friend asked him how he deal with the lawyer jokes. He said that he used to be a lawyer but repented and became a General Authority.

LOL....that was so fine!

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2004, 09:55 PM

Peace---I guess Howard W. Hunter, a "prophet" of the Lord was garbage too. He was a lawyer. And don't forget Dalen H. Oaks, also a lawyer, yes, what a scumbag he is, right, Peace?

Let's not forget about Paul, Alma, the sons of Mosiah and Zeezrom. These were all wicked men; Alma, was one of the "vilest of sinners" and after he repented he became the head of the church.

The manner in which all lawyers (this is not a personal attack) operate is contrary to the teachings of Christ. A good example is D&C 121:41: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned..."

All so-called "bar associations" are built and maintained on a foundation of violence. It is even worse for pretended "judges." Dallin H. Oaks was a "supreme court justice." This "job" is wholly inconsistent with the above revelation. Standard operating procedure for "judges" is to force their opinions on others. One of the questions in a temple recommend interview is: "Are you honest in all your dealings with your fellow man?" How can this be answered "yes" when you are a lawyer or worse a "judge?" How are "judges" paid? By money that was taken by force, not consent; that's called stealing. How can one be honest when they force their opinions on others and take their money by force?

"These things I command you, that ye love one another." John 15:17.

[Cal]

Beh--I have yet to hear Dalen H. Oaks (or Howard W. Hunter for that matter) "repent" of being a lawyer.

What you have said about lawyers MAY be true of some. However you idea that a nation governed by the rule of law is somehow evil reveals a profound lack of knowledge of 1) what lawyers do on a daily basis. 2) how the legal system functions.

You have probably read a bunch of anti- trial lawyer stuff put out there by organizations like large corporations who have been called to task for the harmful products they have foisted on the public in the past. They hate having to pay out millions in damages, so they attempt to discredit the legal system.

YOu said: maintained by virtue of the priesthood. What does practicing law have to do with the priesthood? Your own Jesus said, "render unto Caesar..." I don't know anywhere in your scriptures that says that when a person is injured, he has no right to compensation for his injuries by the person who CAUSED them. Wake up, dude!

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 4 2004, 09:23 AM

Beh--I have yet to hear Dalen H. Oaks (or Howard W. Hunter for that matter) "repent" of being a lawyer.

What you have said about lawyers MAY be true of some. However you idea that a nation governed by the rule of law is somehow evil reveals a profound lack of knowledge of 1) what lawyers do on a daily basis. 2) how the legal system functions.

You have probably read a bunch of anti- trial lawyer stuff put out there by organizations like large corporations who have been called to task for the harmful products they have foisted on the public in the past. They hate having to pay out millions in damages, so they attempt to discredit the legal system.

YOu said: maintained by virtue of the priesthood. What does practicing law have to do with the priesthood? Your own Jesus said, "render unto Caesar..." I don't know anywhere in your scriptures that says that when a person is injured, he has no right to compensation for his injuries by the person who CAUSED them. Wake up, dude!

OK, I did not write "repent" of being a lawyer. I referred to repentance in regards to the way lawyers do business, using violence, forcing one's opinions on others etc.

What I wrote is true of the way in which ALL lawyers do business; take away the violence and they have no profession. You accuse me of a "profound lack of knowledge," you must be unaware of "how the legal system [really] functions." You also claim there is a nation governed by the rule of law." Let's see if the facts establish if it is "somehow evil."

First, a "nation" is supposed to be a "voluntary association of individuals" and any services provided are supposed to be by "Consent." My husband goes into detail on this on his website: www.adventuresinlegalland.com, scroll down and click on Christian Nation. You will find out there is no "nation," that is a lie itself.

Is the legal system provided to the alleged customers on a voluntary, take it or leave it basis? No, it's provided and paid for on a violent, compulsory basis. Is that evil? I would say so. I believe even atheists would agree that providing a service on a compulsory basis is wrong.

Don't you realize you make my case for me by throwing up the "Caesar" reference? Caesar violently CONQUERED the Israelites. Caesar never lied by claiming to be the Israelites' servant and operating by contract. He was a more honest tyrant than these pretended "judges" today. When Dallin H. Oaks, or any "judge" claims to be a "servant" they are lying.

Wake up? That is what my husband is helping people to do everyday. You talk about a "right to compensation." Think about this, and I mean think: if someone hurts you in a car accident, do you have a "right" to pick up a machine gun and go to his house and take what you think is your "compensation?"

If you answer no, then why would anyone use lawyers and armed troops to do it for you?

Should the person compensate you and make you whole? Sure, of course. Does that mean you should or need to employ physical violence in order to accomplish that? No. If you think physical violence and threats of violence are necessary to solve problems, then explain how physical violence helps to solve math problems.

Last, practicing law and the priesthood. The discussion was about priesthood holders who are, or were, lawyers. Priesthood holders are ALWAYS priesthood holders when they are worthy, even when they are on the job.

[Guest Starsky]

Personally I doubt very much that any lawyer has priesthood while 'doing his job'.

There is so much compromise of correct principles and integrity...I can't see Jesus ever being a Lawyer...and infact He detested them!

GS Scribe

Scribes are frequently mentioned in the New Testament and are sometimes called lawyers or doctors of the law. They developed the law in detail and applied it to the circumstances of their time (Matt. 13: 52; Mark 2: 16-17; 11: 17-18; Luke 11: 44-53; 20: 46-47).

Matt. 23: 13

13 ¶ But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Matt. 23: 14

14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. (So much for compensation for harm)

Matt. 23: 15

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Matt. 23: 23

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Matt. 23: 25

25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Matt. 23: 27

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

Matt. 23: 29

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

Luke 11: 44

44 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them.

Alma 10: 17

17 Now they knew not that Amulek could know of their designs. But it came to pass as they began to question him, he perceived their thoughts, and he said unto them: O ye wicked and perverse generation, ye lawyers and hypocrites, for ye are laying the foundations of the devil; for ye are laying traps and snares to catch the holy ones of God.

[Guest curvette]

You two are absolute fruitcakes. I think you need to buy an island and start your own legal system.

[Behunin]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 4 2004, 01:11 PM

You two are absolute fruitcakes. I think you need to buy an island and start your own legal system.

Please, let's be specific here. I am a "fruitcake" because I do not believe a service should be provided on a compulsory basis?

However, if I did start my own system, you would be free to participate or not participate. I would not send armed troops to forcibly take your property to pay for a service you do not want.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Behunin+Feb 4 2004, 02:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Behunin @ Feb 4 2004, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Feb 4 2004, 01:11 PM

You two are absolute fruitcakes.  I think you need to buy an island and start your own legal system.

Please, let's be specific here. I am a "fruitcake" because I do not believe a service should be provided on a compulsory basis?

However, if I did start my own system, you would be free to participate or not participate. I would not send armed troops to forcibly take your property to pay for a service you do not want.

Okay, I'm getting a clearer vision of you now. Let me guess--you don't believe in paying taxes do you?

[Cal]

Beh--what is this "violence" crap? I've never once, as a lawyer, seen any lawyer hit another. I'm sure it has happened once or twice in history, but in my practice of law, I have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about, and neither do you. When a person is sued for damages in a court of law, the plaintiff must PROVE, through facts, evidence and reason, that he has been injured by the defendant. If the jury or judge decide that the plaintiff has made his case by the PREPONDERANCE of evidence, then the judge or jury may award the plaintiff damages.

WHERE IS THIS PHYSICAL VIOLENCE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? If the defendant doesn't pay compensation, YES, the court can order the seizure of certain property (however even the court won't usually order the sale of basic necessities like your home, car and personals.

The only violence I can think you MIGHT be refering to is when people resist criminal law enforcement, and have to be sudued or incarcerated. Is that what you are talking about?

Beh---you have called Dalen H. Oaks a liar, do you mean that? If you do, please tell me SPECIFICALLY, what evidence you have that he is a liar. And if you can't then YOU are the LIAR and a hypocrit.

Peace and Beh---can either of you cite any ACTUAL reliable scientific study that shows that lawyers as a group, are less honest or trustworthy than the general population? And I don't mean your own thoughtless ramblings--I mean actual controlled studies.

[Jenda]

Cal, from reading Behunin's posts, I feel (and she can correct me if I am wrong) that she is referring to the punitive nature of the law. If someone is found guilty of a crime, or even in a civil case, there are penalties. People are coerced into doing things because of the penalty they would have to pay if they did them. And some of the penalties are very violent. Death. That's kind of violent. (I'm not stating my opinion on the matter one way or the other, just stating that putting someone to death is violent.) Incarceration with inmates who would not hesitate to abuse other inmates in one way or another is violent. Fines up to millions of dollars can be considered violent.

To me, that seems the point of her post. But I could be wrong.