"definitive Conclusion By Logic"

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 4 2004, 06:17 PM

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.

I don't think so. I think she is simply an anarchist who doesn't deserve to be an American citizen.

[Behunin]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 4 2004, 03:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 4 2004, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Behunin@Feb 4 2004, 02:25 PM

<!--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?

I usually do not address ad homenin attacks, however I will tell you that I file a tax return every year and sometimes a get a refund!

By the way, what is a tax?

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 4 2004, 07:02 PM

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.

I will explain it again. There are men and women who do business as a "state" or "government." Their "services" are provided and paid for on a compulsory basis. You have no choice in the matter. These men and women do not provide their "services" on a free, take it or leave it, no strings attached basis. An example is George Bush; his "services" are so valuable that payment is compulsory.

So-called "states" (including the courts) cannot function without violence and threats of violence because that is how they get their money; they take property by force. If they didn't take property by force they could not pay anyone to be "leaders." All "bar associations" are maintained by that force and threat of force i,e., lawyer are "officers of the court" and you must get a "license" or you go to prison.

Why do people answer "lawsuits?" Because if they don't, eventually armed troops will take their property by force.

People erroneously focus on the criminals and not to the pretended customers, the so-called "citizen." The one who is forced to accept and pay for the services of individuals he has no contract with.

Evidence that Dallin H. Oaks has lied. OK, he was a lawyer and a supreme court justice. As a justice his "services" were provided and paid for on a compulsory (violent) basis. That is dishonest, unless of course the mafia is now an honest business. He claimed to be the servant of people who were forced to accept and pay for his "services." (That itself is a lie) He was a regular attendee to the temple and had to get a recommend. When asked if he was honest in all his dealings with his fellow man he had to say yes to get the recommend. That is inconsistent with taking property by force.

[Behunin]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 4 2004, 07:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 4 2004, 07:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 4 2004, 06:17 PM

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.

I don't think so. I think she is simply an anarchist who doesn't deserve to be an American citizen.

OOOOOO owch!!! Who are you to judge me on my political opinion? Libertarianism is not well known nor accepted. Hopefully someday this will change.

I believe that in the eternities that we will not need a leader of any kind. Heavenly Father does not have a leader over Him. One is not needed. Order does not need control. It does that itself.

There were 2 plans: 1) man would control himself and 2) man would be controlled. The one who wanted to control lost.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 4 2004, 12:11 PM

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

LOL.....that is funny your would say such a thing...because on another forum I was asked, that if I could move to an island what books, etc would I take, and what kind of government would I have there...

Here is my reply:

I would start with the scriptures..of course. But then I would add literature books from the early 1900s...those of which my father handed down to me from his college days.

I would include books of art, and of every kind of science, maths, and lots and lots of pencils/pads of paper.

As for government, it would be a co-operative government. One based upon the united order. Everyone would take part and have a voice. There would be no welfare, but there would be a group effort towards taking care of those who couldn't take care of themselves.

Children would be raised by the community with an everyone is family- and-everyone-takes-care-of-everyone-else based nature.

I have seen documentaries on tribes or peoples in remote areas who were much like my dream civilization.

It would be a government/community based upon a belief in God and respect for life.

I have seen some American Indian culture concepts which I would addapt. The beliefs and rituals which show respect for all God has given to us.

I don't know BTP, I think my 'dream life' would include all the cultural things which have been used successfully in all religions and peoples which produced peace, wisdom, unity, and technical and scientific progress.

I guess I would like to actually live in Heaven on earth.

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 5 2004, 12:04 AM

I guess I would like to actually live in Heaven on earth.

Me too! :)

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 5 2004, 12:04 AM

As for government, it would be a co-operative government. One based upon the united order. Everyone would take part and have a voice. There would be no welfare, but there would be a group effort towards taking care of those who couldn't take care of themselves.

I re read your last post Peace. I really like what goes on on your Island

With the United Order, they would be no poor. Everyone's needs would be met. Once you are given stewardship over property (from a pair of pants to a house) it would become yours, never to be re assigned. As you would make your talents (property) prosper, that would be given to the order and everyone would benefit. But you would still retain that which you have stewardship over, but with an increase. And if everyone worked and participated, there would be no poor, no need for a welfare "state".

This is how the united order was explained to me. It is not a "red" order.

[Guest Starsky]

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.

LOL! Who can control a lawyer? Controlled study indeed. LOL

Okay...seriously....public opinion rules...and public opinion has pretty much made it clear that Lawyers are in reality...not Perry Masons, or Matlocks... They are men we deal with in everyday life that looks out for #1.

What makes a lawyer great? WINNING CASES. How does a lawyer win cases? ANYWAY HE CAN GET AWAY WITH LEAGALLY!

What more proof do you need? Controlled studies indeed. When the people, over all, hate lawyers...there is a good reason...actully many good reasons all of which are based upon personal experience with lawyers.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 4 2004, 06:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 4 2004, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Feb 4 2004, 06:17 PM

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.

I don't think so. I think she is simply an anarchist who doesn't deserve to be an American citizen.

WOE NELLY! And you are who?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Behunin+Feb 5 2004, 06:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Behunin @ Feb 5 2004, 06:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Feb 5 2004, 12:04 AM

As for government, it would be a co-operative government. One based upon the united order. Everyone would take part and have a voice. There would be no welfare, but there would be a group effort towards taking care of those who couldn't take care of themselves.

I re read your last post Peace. I really like what goes on on your Island

With the United Order, they would be no poor. Everyone's needs would be met. Once you are given stewardship over property (from a pair of pants to a house) it would become yours, never to be re assigned. As you would make your talents (property) prosper, that would be given to the order and everyone would benefit. But you would still retain that which you have stewardship over, but with an increase. And if everyone worked and participated, there would be no poor, no need for a welfare "state".

This is how the united order was explained to me. It is not a "red" order.

Cool. :) But it appears some here love lawyers so this kind of island probably won't be found on this planet any time soon.

[Guest Starsky]

Evidence that Dallin H. Oaks has lied. OK, he was a lawyer and a supreme court justice. As a justice his "services" were provided and paid for on a compulsory (violent) basis. That is dishonest, unless of course the mafia is now an honest business. He claimed to be the servant of people who were forced to accept and pay for his "services." (That itself is a lie) He was a regular attendee to the temple and had to get a recommend. When asked if he was honest in all his dealings with his fellow man he had to say yes to get the recommend. That is inconsistent with taking property by force.

Not only that...he admitted that he lied about the Mark Hoffman stuff to cover for the Pinnock mess up. He admitted lying.... I think it was all those years of practice as a lier....I mean lawyer, that allowed him to so easily lie at that time.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Peace --

When the people, over all, hate lawyers...there is a good reason

The German saying for that sentiment is "Keine Rauch ohne Feuer." If everyone hates 'em, they must be worth hating. Turn on the Zyklon-B ....

*Normally I think the reductio ad Hitlerum argument is juvenile, but sometimes I can't just help myself.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 3 2004, 09:36 AM

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.

My pet peeve, too. The trend seems to me to have started in the early 1960s, where judges who'd gotten a little academic postmodernism into their systems started waxing metaphysical about the fluidity of language and how it really doesn't have the significance people traditionally ascribed to it. The next thing you know, you can make a serious legal argument over the meaning of "is." Not coincidentally, at the same time, litigation and its associated costs explode. When even basic language is in play, everything is a potential claim.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 5 2004, 02:31 PM

Peace --

When the people, over all, hate lawyers...there is a good reason

The German saying for that sentiment is "Keine Rauch ohne Feuer." If everyone hates 'em, they must be worth hating. Turn on the Zyklon-B ....

*Normally I think the reductio ad Hitlerum argument is juvenile, but sometimes I can't just help myself.

You know what we really need is a forum for people to come and report their experiences with lawyers and cops.

I think it would be filled up with bad experiences so fast, they would have over-load problems.

No matter where we are, and no matter what kind of croud we are mingling with, when the topics of bad experiences with lawyers and cops comes up, everyone....and I do mean everyone....has a story or two or three or more to tell.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Cal --

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.

Ad hominem fallacy. Criticism of trial lawyers (or the rules that let them make out like bandits) is to be dismissed, because it's probably just self-serving on the part of "large corporations," those villains.

Harmful products like, say, silicone breast implants? Which is more likely to provide an accurate assessment of whether implants are harmful: controlled, objective, peer-reviewed medical studies conducted by competent professionals, or the result of a process by which professional rhetoricians play to the emotions and sympathies of retired postal workers?

Guess which process determined that silicone breast implants were not associated with elevated health risks? Guess which process determined that they were horrible and awful and entitled their users to millions of dollars, of which the lawyers will take 30% to 40%?

John Edwards (John Kerry's speed bump in the Democratic primaries) made his millions convincing jurors that cerebral palsy in infants was caused by doctors' mistakes. As a result, the percentage of deliveries by C-section has increased from 4 to 26 percent, as doctors take absolutely no chances that their decision to allow vaginal birth will be second-guessed. Medical-journal articles have shown pretty conclusively that complications during delivery are not a significant factor in cerebral palsy cases. Again, though -- a nice NEA secretary on jury duty just sees the poor crippled child and bereft parents (through the picture the plaintiff's lawyer paints) and can't even follow the scientific evidence, so she just votes with her gut. The result -- lots of unnecessary C-sections.

As part of my mandatory continuing legal education, I attended an all-day mock-trial seminar, which concluded with actual jurors (who'd volunteered for the program after they'd been called to service, but whose trials didn't go forward) deliberating on closed-circuit TV. The mock case involved an actual auto accident that had been the subject of litigation the previous year. A large number of the jurors were inclined to return their verdict notwithstanding that the position they were taking contradicted the basic laws of physics. Although the mock jury eventually got it right, we were later told that the actual result in the real trial had been the opposite.

I used to love diving off the high dive at the high-school pool. It's gone -- liability insurance, driven directly by the screwed-up tort system, requries the killing of that particular childhood pleasure. Playground equipment, once genuinely adventuresome, is now invariably some Swedish socialist plastic monstrosity two feet off the ground and inspiring all the thrill of brussels sprouts. Same reason.

In California, 97% of all cases settle. In my experience with litigation, the issues are never so clear-cut that I'd conclude that the average plaintiff has a 97% probability fo success. Usually, I'll finish what I think is a great brief, and then get an opposition back, read it, and think, "Hmm ... he's got some good points, too." I'd figure the odds of any given plaintiff being right as about 50-50; maybe 60-40. But since the plaintiff stands to gain if he wins and lose nothing if he loses (especially if the case is on a contingency basis), while the defendant stands to gain nothing if he wins, but lose substantially if he loses -- and has to pay the attorney fees himself (not on a contingent basis) in either case, the incentives are totally out of whack. The defendant, even in a case where he's almost certainly right, has every incentive to settle. Filing a lawsuit is almost a no-lose proposition.

So what's to be done? I tend to agree with those villainous evil rich corporations who are trying to get away with poisoning the public, etc. I tend to think awards against the above bad guys should only be made when they've actually done something wrong. One possibility might be to adopt the English rule (i.e. loser pays the winner's attorney fees), which is used by virtually every other legal system in the world, or some variation on it. Another might be to restrict the use of amateur-night juries in cases involving scientific evidence; the fact that plaintiffs' attorneys try to keep informed people off juries says a good deal about whether the process is designed to get at the actual truth. Still another might be to establish, in medical malpractice cases, a universal standard of care, so that each physician's actions aren't evaluated in a vaccuum.

Bottom line -- The fault isn't necessarily with the lawyers; as long as opportunities for money are there, people will be drawn to them. And the answer isn't the anarchy suggested by Behunin (shouldn't it be Bakhunin?) and Peace, because there are plenty of occasions where somebody really has done something wrong, and leaving it to individuals to sort things out has historically tended to lead to everybody solving their disputes with clubs -- Hobbes' "state of nature," solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Law is a basic aspect of civilization. Civilization is better than barbarism, on the whole, but civilization also has its weaknesses. Instead of sudden savage outbursts that happen when an uncivilized culture goes bad (and Peace, the "noble savages" of primitive cultures are largely a myth; look into the discrediting of Margaret Mead for a good example of how the myths got started and why they're wrong), a degraded civlization works its damage by corruption. We lose the fortitude to call things what they are, and quibble disingenuously about things we all know to be true. We use civilization's tools as weapons for our own personal or ideological gain, instead of for civilization's sake, and deny that we are doing so. We've been confused into thinking that our dedication to equality requires us to accept as legitimate the arguments, no matter how far-fetched or transparently contrived, of every individual, when the proper thing to do would be to throw him out of court and sanction his sorry backside. And yet we're so confident of the resilience of our civilization that we think we can keep on doing this forever, without any ill effect.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 5 2004, 03:13 PM

Cal --

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.

Ad hominem fallacy. Criticism of trial lawyers (or the rules that let them make out like bandits) is to be dismissed, because it's probably just self-serving on the part of "large corporations," those villains.

Harmful products like, say, silicone breast implants? Which is more likely to provide an accurate assessment of whether implants are harmful: controlled, objective, peer-reviewed medical studies conducted by competent professionals, or the result of a process by which professional rhetoricians play to the emotions and sympathies of retired postal workers?

Guess which process determined that silicone breast implants were not associated with elevated health risks? Guess which process determined that they were horrible and awful and entitled their users to millions of dollars, of which the lawyers will take 30% to 40%?

John Edwards (John Kerry's speed bump in the Democratic primaries) made his millions convincing jurors that cerebral palsy in infants was caused by doctors' mistakes. As a result, the percentage of deliveries by C-section has increased from 4 to 26 percent, as doctors take absolutely no chances that their decision to allow vaginal birth will be second-guessed. Medical-journal articles have shown pretty conclusively that complications during delivery are not a significant factor in cerebral palsy cases. Again, though -- a nice NEA secretary on jury duty just sees the poor crippled child and bereft parents (through the picture the plaintiff's lawyer paints) and can't even follow the scientific evidence, so she just votes with her gut. The result -- lots of unnecessary C-sections.

As part of my mandatory continuing legal education, I attended an all-day mock-trial seminar, which concluded with actual jurors (who'd volunteered for the program after they'd been called to service, but whose trials didn't go forward) deliberating on closed-circuit TV. The mock case involved an actual auto accident that had been the subject of litigation the previous year. A large number of the jurors were inclined to return their verdict notwithstanding that the position they were taking contradicted the basic laws of physics. Although the mock jury eventually got it right, we were later told that the actual result in the real trial had been the opposite.

I used to love diving off the high dive at the high-school pool. It's gone -- liability insurance, driven directly by the screwed-up tort system, requries the killing of that particular childhood pleasure. Playground equipment, once genuinely adventuresome, is now invariably some Swedish socialist plastic monstrosity two feet off the ground and inspiring all the thrill of brussels sprouts. Same reason.

In California, 97% of all cases settle. In my experience with litigation, the issues are never so clear-cut that I'd conclude that the average plaintiff has a 97% probability fo success. Usually, I'll finish what I think is a great brief, and then get an opposition back, read it, and think, "Hmm ... he's got some good points, too." I'd figure the odds of any given plaintiff being right as about 50-50; maybe 60-40. But since the plaintiff stands to gain if he wins and lose nothing if he loses (especially if the case is on a contingency basis), while the defendant stands to gain nothing if he wins, but lose substantially if he loses -- and has to pay the attorney fees himself (not on a contingent basis) in either case, the incentives are totally out of whack. The defendant, even in a case where he's almost certainly right, has every incentive to settle. Filing a lawsuit is almost a no-lose proposition.

So what's to be done? I tend to agree with those villainous evil rich corporations who are trying to get away with poisoning the public, etc. I tend to think awards against the above bad guys should only be made when they've actually done something wrong. One possibility might be to adopt the English rule (i.e. loser pays the winner's attorney fees), which is used by virtually every other legal system in the world, or some variation on it. Another might be to restrict the use of amateur-night juries in cases involving scientific evidence; the fact that plaintiffs' attorneys try to keep informed people off juries says a good deal about whether the process is designed to get at the actual truth. Still another might be to establish, in medical malpractice cases, a universal standard of care, so that each physician's actions aren't evaluated in a vaccuum.

Bottom line -- The fault isn't necessarily with the lawyers; as long as opportunities for money are there, people will be drawn to them. And the answer isn't the anarchy suggested by Behunin (shouldn't it be Bakhunin?) and Peace, because there are plenty of occasions where somebody really has done something wrong, and leaving it to individuals to sort things out has historically tended to lead to everybody solving their disputes with clubs -- Hobbes' "state of nature," solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Law is a basic aspect of civilization. Civilization is better than barbarism, on the whole, but civilization also has its weaknesses. Instead of sudden savage outbursts that happen when an uncivilized culture goes bad (and Peace, the "noble savages" of primitive cultures are largely a myth; look into the discrediting of Margaret Mead for a good example of how the myths got started and why they're wrong), a degraded civlization works its damage by corruption. We lose the fortitude to call things what they are, and quibble disingenuously about things we all know to be true. We use civilization's tools as weapons for our own personal or ideological gain, instead of for civilization's sake, and deny that we are doing so. We've been confused into thinking that our dedication to equality requires us to accept as legitimate the arguments, no matter how far-fetched or transparently contrived, of every individual, when the proper thing to do would be to throw him out of court and sanction his sorry backside. And yet we're so confident of the resilience of our civilization that we think we can keep on doing this forever, without any ill effect.

PD--Harmful products----No, not necessarily silicone implants, but things like the Ford Pinto, the Corvair..I'll go on if necessary. You have mentioned, perhaps, some that were questionable, which does nothing but scratch the surface of things large corporations have done to harm the public health. They go to great lengths to minimize their exposure, but only after they are called to task.

Juries---the fact that juries sometimes screw up is more a commentary of the state of public education, than on the legal system. Notwithstanding, the reforming of jury instructions in CA is something which I totally support. Nevertheless, I could support a panel of judges schooled in science in cases involving difficult scientific issues. However, I think you overstate the problem. The judges I know have all said they always consult experts to get up to speed on cases involving sci. evidence.

You reveal a bias toward corporations typical of the Republican mind set. But because I do agree with much of what you post on this forum, I'll forgive you!

[Guest Starsky]

Well PD, I won't quote your entire diatribe, but I will say it definitely substantiates the fact you are a lawyer.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Behunin+Feb 4 2004, 09:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Behunin @ Feb 4 2004, 09:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 4 2004, 07:02 PM

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.

I will explain it again. There are men and women who do business as a "state" or "government." Their "services" are provided and paid for on a compulsory basis. You have no choice in the matter. These men and women do not provide their "services" on a free, take it or leave it, no strings attached basis. An example is George Bush; his "services" are so valuable that payment is compulsory.

So-called "states" (including the courts) cannot function without violence and threats of violence because that is how they get their money; they take property by force. If they didn't take property by force they could not pay anyone to be "leaders." All "bar associations" are maintained by that force and threat of force i,e., lawyer are "officers of the court" and you must get a "license" or you go to prison.

Why do people answer "lawsuits?" Because if they don't, eventually armed troops will take their property by force.

People erroneously focus on the criminals and not to the pretended customers, the so-called "citizen." The one who is forced to accept and pay for the services of individuals he has no contract with.

Evidence that Dallin H. Oaks has lied. OK, he was a lawyer and a supreme court justice. As a justice his "services" were provided and paid for on a compulsory (violent) basis. That is dishonest, unless of course the mafia is now an honest business. He claimed to be the servant of people who were forced to accept and pay for his "services." (That itself is a lie) He was a regular attendee to the temple and had to get a recommend. When asked if he was honest in all his dealings with his fellow man he had to say yes to get the recommend. That is inconsistent with taking property by force.

Beh--Yes, I can see you are an anarchist. The idea that a complex society, made up of people who will take advantage of eachother and injure eachother, has no right to REQUIRE that people behave in a civilized manner )ie that they compensate eachother for wrongs they do to eachother, or that they may be, yes, forcibly removed from society if they do things like kill, maim, rob, rape etc eachother) is an absurdity reserved for the mind of a 4 year old.

How would you suggest we deal with rapists etc? . Sit them down and have a nice long CHAT?

If I refuse to pay the medical bills of someone I have NEGLIGENTLY just run over with my car, what do you suggest? That the government say "oh, that's ok, just don't do it again"?

You are living in lala land!

[Guest Starsky]

How would you suggest we deal with rapists etc? . Sit them down and have a nice long CHAT?

LOL, I think the answer to that is in the BofM.

If I refuse to pay the medical bills of someone I have NEGLIGENTLY just run over with my car, what do you suggest? That the government say "oh, that's ok, just don't do it again"?

Did you know that the present system of sueing everyone is not all that old? The earth worked quite well for severl malenia without this compensation for every thing that happens to you. A lot of it was just chalked up to 'life' in an imperfect world...and the fact that someone thinks they need to be compensated for everything that happens to them shows just how stupid it really is.

Everyone does something stupid and destructive sometime in their life. So everyone is sued...how does that make it right?

I personally have had a doctor kill my unborn baby....stupid, negligent, damaging....but we didn't choose to sue. We had our son operated on twice because after the first time, the doctors pushed another issue that endangered his life which precipatated the 2nd operation. We didn't sue then either.

We have been hit by people who just didn't see us, and damage was done, we didn't sue then either.

I do believe that we are a very sick society that has come to think we need to have everything made right through MONEY....

You are living in lala land!

Wouldn't that be nice...but actually we are living in the very opposite of la la la la land.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

You reveal a bias toward corporations typical of the Republican mind set.

Sure my "bias" towards corporations isn't merely the lack of a bias against them? I just don't think a man turns from Jekyll to Hyde the moment he files articles of incorporation. Corporations can hurt people. So can limited liability companies, partnerships, sole proprietorships, non-governmental organizations, governments, and individuals. And lawyers. I'm still extremely cheesed off about losing my high dive. It's human nature for us, and our organizations, occasionally to be careless or malicious.

In short, a multinational corporation and an Erin Brockovich-style "advocate" is equally likely to cut corners or step on toes in their respective self-interests. It's silly to pretend that one class is always on the side of the angels because of the particular hat it wears. The plaintiff's bar claims to be for the people against the powerful, or some other such nonsense -- neglecting to mention that it itself is an economic interest more powerful than Microsoft. Check out John Grisham's new book "The King of Torts."

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Hmm ... thread on President Faust's view of the Book of Mormon caroms off into discussions of lawyers. Interesting where things go.

[Cal]

PD--no question that there is nothing perfect about the plaintiff's bar. Nevertheless, it serves to at least keep the powerful from getting too arrogant in the way they produce and market their products. If I were to guess as to which group gets the short end of the stick most of the time, it is the plaintiff. As you mentioned, Pacific Gas and Electric has paid out big bucks to the families of Eric B.'s firm. But who was the really big loser, no matter how much PG&E paid out? Unless we can dissuade the PG&E's of this world to be a little more careful, you and I could be next. The only thing most people understand, be it a Corporation, Partnership or even individual is the pain of losing a big law suit (or even having to defend one)

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 5 2004, 11:06 PM

Beh--Yes, I can see you are an anarchist. The idea that a complex society, made up of people who will take advantage of eachother and injure eachother, has no right to REQUIRE that people behave in a civilized manner )ie that they compensate eachother for wrongs they do to eachother, or that they may be, yes, forcibly removed from society if they do things like kill, maim, rob, rape etc eachother) is an absurdity reserved for the mind of a 4 year old.

How would you suggest we deal with rapists etc? . Sit them down and have a nice long CHAT?

If I refuse to pay the medical bills of someone I have NEGLIGENTLY just run over with my car, what do you suggest? That the government say "oh, that's ok, just don't do it again"?

You are living in lala land!

Again you resort to ad homenin attacks. I address each "substantive" point you raise and you come back being non-responsive and hurling personal attacks. You have not shown where any of the points I have raised are incorrect.

You speak of a "complex society" and then talk about "forcibly" removing people. You are so closed off to new ideas you fail to see the flaws in your statements. I do not have to the time to point out all the flaws in that first paragraph.

First, in the act of trying to kill, maim, rob and rape, in a truly free society a potential victim may be armed (oh no, maybe even concealed!) and may defend themselves. However, after the fact such "perp" may be removed from society in a non-violent manner. There are alternatives to violence. Remember Ghandi?

I don't suggest a "government" doing anything but leaving people alone and getting real jobs. Normal people provide their services and products on a voluntary basis.

And this is where you have a problem. You attack me by comparing me to a "4 year old." Yet, at the heart of this, you believe a mere service, provided by men and women, should be provided on a compulsory basis. Apparently you cannot conceive of a service, provided by men and women, being provided and paid for on a voluntary basis. This appears to be your problem. You think coercion is necessary to provide a service. Why can't the same services, by the same people, be provided on a voluntary basis like other services?

Last, there are only two groups of men and women who provide their services on a compulsory basis: 1) gansters and 2) so-called "governments."

[Guest Starsky]

Last, there are only two groups of men and women who provide their services on a compulsory basis: 1) gangsters and 2) so-called "governments."

Here! here!

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 5 2004, 03:39 PM

You know what we really need is a forum for people to come and report their experiences with lawyers and cops.

I think it would be filled up with bad experiences so fast, they would have over-load problems.

No matter where we are, and no matter what kind of croud we are mingling with, when the topics of bad experiences with lawyers and cops comes up, everyone....and I do mean everyone....has a story or two or three or more to tell.

I think your correct, but I think it would be a very educational website, and a healing one too!

Maybe you and I should start one.........