Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I don't think they're bad people, but I think being allowed to lie as a central component of your job withers the soul. See also, anyone who sells cars and/or real estate.

How many cases have you won without using at least five or six "constructive lies"? Even when your client's totally in the right, there are those bad facts in a case that must be massaged. And by massaged, I mean spun. And by spun, I mean avoided, forgotten or shaded in a manner suggesting the presence of events diametrically opposed to those which actually took place. And by that I mean, how many times have you tried a case without employing "lawyer's lies"?

Exactly.

Now, remove the word "lawyer's." Because that in itself is misleading. The only descriptive that honestly fits is "lies." You have lied, I have lied. Every litigator has lied. Hundreds of times over his career.

It doesn't wilt the soul for me. If no one lied, we wouldn't have courts.

[Adder]

But here's U.S. court not applying "sharia" all on its own. It must have really conservative strict refudiationist judges or something.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How many cases have you won without using at least five or six "constructive lies"? Even when your client's totally in the right, there are those bad facts in a case that must be massaged. And by massaged, I mean spun. And by spun, I mean avoided, forgotten or shaded in a manner suggesting the presence of events diametrically opposed to those which actually took place. And by that I mean, how many times have you tried a case without employing "lawyer's lies"?

Exactly.

Now, remove the word "lawyer's." Because that in itself is misleading. The only descriptive that honestly fits is "lies." You have lied, I have lied. Every litigator has lied. Hundreds of times over his career.

It doesn't wilt the soul for me. If no one lied, we wouldn't have courts.

I'll leave it to Sidd to defend the profession, but to me there's a difference between presenting facts that are not The Truth (because they are incomplete, or misleading, or even because their sole witness is a person you know to be a liar) and saying things that are lies. We privilege FBI agents to lie in order to accomplish the tasks we have set out for them, and that's unique -- when lawyers lie, they're violating an oath they gave and a rule of professional conduct, but when FBI agents lie they're acting working the official job description. I'm not saying they lie on the stand -- heaven forfend! -- but I think they're uncomfortable being on the stand because they're not in control in a very specific way: they've lost the option to tell an untruth without consequence, and that's why they squirm.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

But here's U.S. court not applying "sharia" all on its own. It must have really conservative strict refudiationist judges or something.

you don't even realize when you're proving the other side's case, do you?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you don't even realize when you're proving the other side's case, do you?

There's an other side?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

There's an other side?

I took your earlier point to be that the proposed law was absurd since sharia would never be raised as a basis for a court to use comity. now, as "futher proof" that the law was unnecessary you submit a case where a court was asked to do just that.

See? that means the Oklahoma congressman who suggested the law was not fully paranoid.

and beore you start your drivel, let me say that i thought the law stupid and very unwise as it would pretty much cause every other country to throw out comity WRT Oklahoma, so I'm not saying the proposed law was well thought, I'm saying hiring you was perhaps a poor decision by your new firm

and I'm not happy to have reached that conclusion as I'm promising myself to be even nicer this new year's!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I took your earlier point to be that the proposed law was absurd since sharia would never be raised as a basis for a court to use comity.

I see your confusion then.

and beore you start your drivel, let me say that i thought the law stupid and very unwise as it would pretty much cause every other country to throw out comity WRT Oklahoma, so I'm not saying the proposed law was well thought, I'm saying hiring you was perhaps a poor decision by your new firm

You are just blinded my my continual resort to personal attacks.

and I'm not happy to have reached that conclusion as I'm promising myself to be even nicer this new year's!

Perhaps you should save your resolution until the new year?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I took your earlier point to be that the proposed law was absurd since sharia would never be raised as a basis for a court to use comity. now, as "futher proof" that the law was unnecessary you submit a case where a court was asked to do just that.

See? that means the Oklahoma congressman who suggested the law was not fully paranoid.

and beore you start your drivel, let me say that i thought the law stupid and very unwise as it would pretty much cause every other country to throw out comity WRT Oklahoma, so I'm not saying the proposed law was well thought, I'm saying hiring you was perhaps a poor decision by your new firm

and I'm not happy to have reached that conclusion as I'm promising myself to be even nicer this new year's!

What I enjoy about this is that post-Oklahoma law, of course, the argument will still be made, now combined with an argument that the Oklahoma law doesn't apply or is unconstitutional.

If the goal was to prevent the argument from being made, they should enact a law that criminalizes anyone who ever makes such an argument. They passed the wrong law!

Can someone forward this to the appropriate Oklahoma legislator, so they'll have the benefit of the highpowered legal team of Hank & GGG?

See what we can accomplish when we work together!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

You are just blinded my my continual resort to personal attacks.

on your break over the weekend read up on constructive criticism vs. personal attacks.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I'll leave it to Sidd to defend the profession, but to me there's a difference between presenting facts that are not The Truth (because they are incomplete, or misleading, or even because their sole witness is a person you know to be a liar) and saying things that are lies. We privilege FBI agents to lie in order to accomplish the tasks we have set out for them, and that's unique -- when lawyers lie, they're violating an oath they gave and a rule of professional conduct, but when FBI agents lie they're acting working the official job description. I'm not saying they lie on the stand -- heaven forfend! -- but I think they're uncomfortable being on the stand because they're not in control in a very specific way: they've lost the option to tell an untruth without consequence, and that's why they squirm.

The Chinese wall there is about as thick as a Chinese noodle. When it comes down to an argument about the instrumentalities used to reach an admittedly improper result, the debate's well beyond academic, deep into frivolous.

That's not to say I don't recognize and appreciate the difference you noted. Advocacy's similar to abortion. Nobody likes it, it's viewed negatively for good reason, but it's necessary because the circumstances allow no other cure for the problem. Humans are venal, deceitful creatures. We litigators at least agree to bullshit each other with some level of attention to underlying truth. Courtrooms provide the most principled system in which lies can compete and our peers can figure out which they like best.

I'd prefer fisticuffs myself, at least to settle civil disputes (much more effective, elegant and efficient), but my views on this aren't considered mainstream enough to gain any traction.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Thank you for posting that. When I read Ty's comment -- "I would suggest that the assholishness of government agents is in inverse relationship to the prestige and importance of their agency" -- I had to wonder just how many federal judges he's been in front of. (Not that I've ever met any I consider to be assholes, of course, but I've heard stories from lawyers at other firms.)

I don't think of federal judges as government agents. YMMV.

Also, I think it's fairly obvious that the assholishness of individuals will vary within an agency, and that there will be jerky FBI agents and pleasant DMV clerks, but since it seems I have to spell that out, there it is.

[LessinSF]

My prediction of waiting for the first "opt-out" protester to drop trou has come true. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...1S34.DTL&tsp=1 . Yay, me.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

on your break over the weekend read up on constructive criticism vs. personal attacks.

That you think this response either funny or appropriate, yet are for the second time entirely in error, suggests perhaps that your partners should re-think your corner office.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

That you think this response either funny or appropriate, yet are for the second time entirely in error, suggests perhaps that your partners should re-think your corner office.

I no longer have a "corner." I have a "side of the building" office. that's two corners plus the intermediate offices.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

That you think this response either funny or appropriate, yet are for the second time entirely in error, suggests perhaps that your partners should re-think your corner office.

i don't usually respond to the same post twice, but let me just note that when I point out logic errors in your arguments I assume you might listen, learn and grow. so if I say something you find hurtful you can be assured I meant well.

No one takes you seriously at all, so when you attack me you can't possibly feel you're trying to help me improve.

You can't see that?