LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Waiting for Fitzgerald (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=704)

Penske_Account 09-17-2005 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nononono
I'm against sending American malcontents to France. That is the last thing France needs.
Gaza?

sgtclub 09-17-2005 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Gaza?
Hell - can't you put in a good word for us with your father?

Penske_Account 09-17-2005 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Hell - can't you put in a good word for us with your father?
"Us"? Since when did you become a malcontented rabble-rousing leftist?

nononono 09-17-2005 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Gaza?
Well, that would preserve my vacation options.

Hank Chinaski 09-17-2005 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Hell - can't you put in a good word for us with your father?
Chavez's speech had him proposing moving the UN to Jerusalem, because that would solve most of the Wrold's problems. He got the biggest ovation of the summit.

Do you think the diplomats would vote to move it to Jerusalem, you know, if it were a secret vote?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_world_summit

taxwonk 09-17-2005 06:59 PM

Exclusionary Rule
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I said at the outset that sovereign immunity currently makes this alternative approach impossible. It would be necessary to eliminate sovereign immunity for damages actions for unlawful searches.

As for criminals being sentenced to death, 2 to spanky. Unlawfully seized evidence is not unreliable (this is not coerced confessions). No one has ever said it is. The only reason it's excluded is it's a way to vindicate the 4th amendment.

As for your damages, there are plenty of ways that civil litigation has evolved to address just such a concern, including class actions and punitive damages. Why are neither sufficient here?
Damages aren't sufficient because they fail to remedy the injury. The exclusionary rule is all about the externalities.

As a citizen, I have no use for cash. What I want is to know that the cops won't come crashing in my door because my neighbor, who is pissed at me for letting my dog shit in his yard (hi Pony!), has told the cops that he thinks I might be dealing.

If the cop is going to get a demerit on his record because the city has to pay me $10,000 damages, but he's going to get his sergeant's stripes if he busts a drug dealer, isn't going to give a shit about whether the neighbor is right or wrong. He's kicking the door in because it no longer costs him anything to be wrong.

What the fuck is it about some people that they think that all the wrongs in the world can be solved by throwing money at them?

taxwonk 09-17-2005 07:02 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Of course not. I'm just saying that your suggestion that Dirty Harry movies illustrate how bad the exclusionary rule is does little to tell me about the actual state of affairs with the exclusionary rule and more to tell me that you get your info on law enforcement from bad cop movies.

The point of the CLE wasn't to ask Hollywood to change. It was to illustrate that we as lawyers have a huge task of educating our clients on what is and is ethical since our clients are likely to have very bad information on legal ethics because of what they see in the movies.
Using Spanky as your example, apparently some lawyers got their knowledge from the same source. Which I guess explains why he's now preying on unfortunate homeowners instead of practicing law.

taxwonk 09-17-2005 07:06 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I never have gotten enough credit here for my consistentcy with respect to civil rights. Most of you poo poo me because of the economic side, but I doubt you will find someone that backs personal liberties more whole heartedly than I.
I have always given you credit for that. It's one of the main reasons it rustrates me so much when you refuse to see that some of your economic ideas truly screw over the same people you would otherwise protect.

Penske_Account 09-17-2005 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Chavez's speech had him proposing moving the UN to Jerusalem, because that would solve most of the Wrold's problems. He got the biggest ovation of the summit.

Do you think the diplomats would vote to move it to Jerusalem, you know, if it were a secret vote?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_world_summit

I would favour the anywhere but here approach. Good riddance. I am sure all the loud mouthed adherents of socialism and marxism and anti-US imperialism who are also diplomats at the UN would find any third world city to be much more to their liking. And it frees up some prime real estate in NYC for more capitalistic development.

Penske_Account 09-17-2005 10:30 PM

Exclusionary Rule
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Damages aren't sufficient because they fail to remedy the injury. The exclusionary rule is all about the externalities.

As a citizen, I have no use for cash. What I want is to know that the cops won't come crashing in my door because my neighbor, who is pissed at me for letting my dog shit in his yard (hi Pony!), has told the cops that he thinks I might be dealing.
2nd Amendment takes care of this.

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk


If the cop is going to get a demerit on his record because the city has to pay me $10,000 damages, but he's going to get his sergeant's stripes if he busts a drug dealer, isn't going to give a shit about whether the neighbor is right or wrong. He's kicking the door in because it no longer costs him anything to be wrong.
I am not sure why this of concern to you....in Chicagoland, I am pretty sure that anyone who might raise their 4th Amendment rights to challenge a police search gets another visit from the police explaining why the invocation of such "rights" might not be in their long term health's interest.

Of course this oppression and abuse of government is due to the right wing thugs who have controlled Cook County for so long.


Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk


What the fuck is it about some people that they think that all the wrongs in the world can be solved by throwing money at them?

The political heirs of JMK, FDR and LBJ.

Penske_Account 09-17-2005 10:31 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Using Spanky as your example, apparently some lawyers got their knowledge from the same source. Which I guess explains why he's now preying on unfortunate homeowners instead of practicing law.
And we are all jealous.

Penske_Account 09-17-2005 10:32 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I have always given you credit for that. It's one of the main reasons it rustrates me so much when you refuse to see that some of your economic ideas truly screw over the same people you would otherwise protect.

That is the intelligent design of economic darwinism.

Spanky 09-17-2005 11:37 PM

Exclusionary Rule
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Damages aren't sufficient because they fail to remedy the injury. The exclusionary rule is all about the externalities.

As a citizen, I have no use for cash. What I want is to know that the cops won't come crashing in my door because my neighbor, who is pissed at me for letting my dog shit in his yard (hi Pony!), has told the cops that he thinks I might be dealing.

If the cop is going to get a demerit on his record because the city has to pay me $10,000 damages, but he's going to get his sergeant's stripes if he busts a drug dealer, isn't going to give a shit about whether the neighbor is right or wrong. He's kicking the door in because it no longer costs him anything to be wrong.

What the fuck is it about some people that they think that all the wrongs in the world can be solved by throwing money at them?
I think your problem is that you don't think dealing drugs is a crime. You are not worried about someone having their rights infringed on, you are worried about someone getting caught dealing drugs.

You don't use a child molester and kidnapper as your example because that is a crime everyone agrees is bad.

If your neighbor gives the reason for the cops to bust in and they find chained up children in your basement then everything would work out great. The children would go free, and your heirs would get the money for the damages done to you while you rot in jail for the rest of your life.

The answer to your issue is not the exlusionary rule, you don't like some of the laws we have.

If they break in and you are not a drug dealer, I think $10,000 is pretty good compensation. For $10,000 the cops can come do an illegal search of my house any time. In fact I wish they would.

Spanky 09-17-2005 11:44 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Using Spanky as your example, apparently some lawyers got their knowledge from the same source. Which I guess explains why he's now preying on unfortunate homeowners instead of practicing law.
What is scary is that you are still practicing law when you can't separate two obviously different issues. You just don't grasp that the purpose behind the exlusionary rule is not to prevent guilty people from getting caught, it has to do with stopping the cops from overreaching their authority. Letting a guilty guy go free is not the intention of the rule, just an unintended consequence.


Spanky 09-17-2005 11:53 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Using Spanky as your example, apparently some lawyers got their knowledge from the same source. Which I guess explains why he's now preying on unfortunate homeowners instead of practicing law.
I save people from going through forclosure. They are upside down so they are about to lose everything. I stop the forclosure and get them some money. They love me. It is the banks that don't like me so much.

What do you do besides insuring that your rich clients pay less taxes (insuring that more of the burden falls on the poor).

Penske_Account 09-18-2005 12:14 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I save people from going through forclosure. They are upside down so they are about to lose everything. I stop the forclosure and get them some money. They love me. It is the banks that don't like me so much.

What do you do besides insuring that your rich clients pay less taxes (insuring that more of the burden falls on the poor).
We should do away with the tax code. A simple flat tax at a set level, no deductions, no credits, no government induced market warping incentives or disincentives, no nothing. A 1 page filing:

Dear Secretary of the Treasury:

My SSN is xx-xx-xxxx. I made $x last year.

Attached is a check for $y, representing my tax obligation of z%.

Spend it wisely or else!!!

Sincerely,

Jack Taxpayer


I pray for President Bush to have the fortitude to lead us to such a promised land.

dtb 09-18-2005 12:33 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
We should do away with the tax code. A simple flat tax at a set level, no deductions, no credits, no government induced market warping incentives or disincentives, no nothing. A 1 page filing:

Dear Secretary of the Treasury:

My SSN is xx-xx-xxxx. I made $x last year.

Attached is a check for $y, representing my tax obligation of z%.

Spend it wisely or else!!!

Sincerely,

Jack Taxpayer


I pray for President Bush to have the fortitude to lead us to such a promised land.
In this promised land, does x include only wage income? Investment income? Alimony? Gambling winnings? Tips?

Just curious.

Penske_Account 09-18-2005 12:58 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by dtb
In this promised land, does x include only wage income? Investment income? Alimony? Gambling winnings? Tips?

Just curious.
No double taxation, so dividends are out. Alimony is out. Your others are mainly mostly in.

Hank Chinaski 09-18-2005 12:58 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by dtb
In this promised land, does x include only wage income? Investment income? Alimony? Gambling winnings? Tips?

Just curious.
Or say if you are an up and coming politico, and some rich guys let you rob a futures market account to bribe you, and to set you up for a run at National office- would those illegal proceeds be taxed?

Penske_Account 09-18-2005 01:02 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Or say if you are an up and coming politico, and some rich guys let you rob a futures market account to bribe you, and to set you up for a run at National office- would those illegal proceeds be taxed?
This hypo sounds far-fetched, I am not sure it could ever happen irl. Isn't more likely that a first time investor could just get lucky and make outsized profits in a very short period in the complex world of the commodities markets, cash out on a high and then never trade in such instruments again? The latter seems more like the common fact pattern to me.

SlaveNoMore 09-18-2005 06:40 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Penske_Account
This hypo sounds far-fetched, I am not sure it could ever happen irl. Isn't more likely that a first time investor could just get lucky and make outsized profits in a very short period in the complex world of the commodities markets, cash out on a high and then never trade in such instruments again? The latter seems more like the common fact pattern to me.
Moo

Penske_Account 09-18-2005 08:36 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Moo

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/gonz/image001.gif

sgtclub 09-18-2005 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
"Us"? Since when did you become a malcontented rabble-rousing leftist?
By "us" I meant us rational thinking people, so we can banish the looneys to Gaza.

sgtclub 09-18-2005 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Chavez's speech had him proposing moving the UN to Jerusalem, because that would solve most of the Wrold's problems. He got the biggest ovation of the summit.

Do you think the diplomats would vote to move it to Jerusalem, you know, if it were a secret vote?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_world_summit
I think the diplomats would vote to give Jerusalem to the Palis - That big nuke that the Israelis have is the equivalent to the 2nd Amendment protection.

sgtclub 09-18-2005 11:58 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I have always given you credit for that. It's one of the main reasons it rustrates me so much when you refuse to see that some of your economic ideas truly screw over the same people you would otherwise protect.
My economic ideas are consistent with my ideas on civil rights - stay the fuck out.

sgtclub 09-19-2005 12:00 AM

Exclusionary Rule
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky

If they break in and you are not a drug dealer, I think $10,000 is pretty good compensation. For $10,000 the cops can come do an illegal search of my house any time. In fact I wish they would.
Just make sure you tell the neighborhood kids to leave before they do.

Spanky 09-19-2005 12:09 AM

Exclusionary Rule
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Just make sure you tell the neighborhood kids to leave before they do.
Good idea.

Penske_Account 09-19-2005 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
By "us" I meant us rational thinking people, so we can banish the looneys to Gaza.
Got it. I will say the appropriate prayers.

Penske_Account 09-19-2005 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think the diplomats would vote to give Jerusalem to the Palis - That big nuke that the Israelis have is the equivalent to the 2nd Amendment protection.
Can you imagine if Clinton had convinced Arafat to take the Clinton-Setting-the-Israelis-up-to-be-driven-into-the-sea-Deal back in 2000. The nuke would have been meaningless unless they just want to self-destruct. I wonder if Israel would even exist today.

Odd that Clinton would have been so anxious to sell Israel out given that Hillary is a "self-proclaimed jew".

Spanky 09-19-2005 12:17 AM

Question for People against the War in Iraq
 
I have two questions (1 and 2a or 1 and 2b) for the people that supported the war in Afghanistan but not the war in Iraq.


1) If the Taliban were not connected with Al Queda would it have been morally justifiable for the United States to invade and take over Afghanistan?

2a) If no, how badly does a government have to abuse its people before another country has the moral right to invade and take it over?

2b) If yes, what makes Afghanistan under the Taliban so much worse than Iraq under Saddam Hussein?

sgtclub 09-19-2005 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Can you imagine if Clinton had convinced Arafat to take the Clinton-Setting-the-Israelis-up-to-be-driven-into-the-sea-Deal back in 2000. The nuke would have been meaningless unless they just want to self-destruct. I wonder if Israel would even exist today.

Odd that Clinton would have been so anxious to sell Israel out given that Hillary is a "self-proclaimed jew".
I don't think his intent was to sell out Israel. I think his intent was what his intent always is - to benefit Clinton. It was a legacy thing.

sgtclub 09-19-2005 12:28 AM

Question for People against the War in Iraq
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I have two questions (1 and 2a or 1 and 2b) for the people that supported the war in Afghanistan but not the war in Iraq.


1) If the Taliban were not connected with Al Queda would it have been morally justifiable for the United States to invade and take over Afghanistan?

2a) If no, how badly does a government have to abuse its people before another country has the moral right to invade and take it over?

2b) If yes, what makes Afghanistan under the Taliban so much worse than Iraq under Saddam Hussein?
Is this from syligisms (sp?) for dummies?

Penske_Account 09-19-2005 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think his intent was to sell out Israel. I think his intent was what his intent always is - to benefit Clinton. It was a legacy thing.
MY rhetoric notwithstanding, I agree, in part, with the cavaet being, how could he have been so willingly to put the continued existence of Israel at such risk for the sake of his short-term legacy when if, in fact, the worst case scenario occured, which at a minimum the Palis eventually would have tried, his long-term legacy would end up worse than it already will be (and it will be pretty bad as is), no??????

Penske_Account 09-19-2005 12:42 AM

the goron legacy
 
Schroeder..........refused to concede defeat, saying he could still theoretically remain in power if talks with other parties were successful.

Has he called President Gore for advice?

http://www.rosecity.net/al_gore/sniveler.jpg

while 09-19-2005 08:34 AM

they want us to die
 
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/2169/fl4se.jpg


The Associated Press caption accompanying the image with a black person says he's just finished "looting" a grocery store. The AFP/Getty Images caption describes lighter skinned people "finding" bread and soda from a grocery store. No stores are open to sell these goods.



New Orleans, Sept. 1, 2005 - It's criminal. From what you're hearing, the people trapped in New Orleans are nothing but looters. We're told we should be more "neighborly." But nobody talked about being neighborly until after the people who could afford to leave … left


There are gangs of white vigilantes near here riding around in pickup trucks, all of them armed, and any young Black they see who they figure doesn't belong in their community, they shoot him.


But nobody cares. They're just lawless looters ... dangerous


The hurricane hit at the end of the month, the time when poor people are most vulnerable. Food stamps don't buy enough but for about three weeks of the month, and by the end of the month everyone runs out. Now they have no way to get their food stamps or any money, so they just have to take what they can to survive.


Every day countless volunteers are trying to help, but they're turned back. Almost all the rescue that's been done has been done by volunteers anyway.


here is the real truth, they were watching our in need of help Americans die and suffer because they are afraid of us African Americans and other poor races & it make me mad because these scum just are sitting around while people die and it is sick.


they can't even take care of our affairs here in America, how are they going to help other country's when this place is a hell hole. It made me sick to see Veterans dying and they fault for this country like my dad, & my step brother is now fighting in Iraq & even he called me & said that he feels ashamed & appalled at what he has saw this week from our fake country


I moved this post from the Texas board to here, where it is more appropriate. RT

Hank Chinaski 09-19-2005 09:48 AM

the goron legacy
 
Germany back in line. North Korea lining up, although I'm sure someone here will post some blog that shows we would have been better off if we had followed the Carter plan. The only rouge nation left is Iran, oh and France.

dtb 09-19-2005 09:51 AM

FactCheck.org - Katrina
 
From FactCheck.org
  • Katrina: What Happened When
    It will take months to get the full story, but meanwhile here are some of the key facts about what happened and when officials acted.

    September 16, 2005

    Summary

    Multiple investigations are likely into the response by federal, state, and local officials to the disastrous flooding of New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. New facts are still emerging, and we expect it will be months or years before a full picture can be properly assessed.

    [Full analysis, including sources and links available here ]

Penske_Account 09-19-2005 10:30 AM

the goron legacy
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Germany back in line. North Korea lining up,........
Clinton gets the credit, no? Biden?

Hank Chinaski 09-19-2005 10:44 AM

the goron legacy
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Clinton gets the credit, no? Biden?
Well, Biden, technically. But he really just copied a plan of gore's.

sgtclub 09-19-2005 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
MY rhetoric notwithstanding, I agree, in part, with the cavaet being, how could he have been so willingly to put the continued existence of Israel at such risk for the sake of his short-term legacy when if, in fact, the worst case scenario occured, which at a minimum the Palis eventually would have tried, his long-term legacy would end up worse than it already will be (and it will be pretty bad as is), no??????
If we've learned nothing about Clinton, we learned that he was into immediate gratification.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:07 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com