# It is implausible that pchaos is a lawyer and he should stop claiming to be one **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 14, 2013, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316 "2013-02-14T20:34:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![leftfield6](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leftfield6/32/18780_2.png) [@leftfield6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leftfield6)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/81 "2013-02-15T15:23:25Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > That’s like asking Human Action whether he’s human…yeah I am, but I really regret saying it. An attorney friend of mine was absolutely right, being an attorney can be a huuuge plus or a huuuuuge minus. The public has such strong feelings about the profession. So now you’re a lawyer, but you’re not proud of it. Well, the logic skills you’ve displayed would lead one to conclude you can’t be a very good lawyer, so perhaps your lack of pride is justified. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/82 "2013-02-15T15:24:17Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > That’s like asking Human Action whether he’s human…yeah I am, but I really regret saying it. An attorney friend of mine was absolutely right, being an attorney can be a huuuge plus or a huuuuuge minus. The public has such strong feelings about the profession. I am beginning to see what people mean about your thinking skills. Regardless of the user name, I assume **Human Action** is human because he/she is posting on this message board. Being human isn’t required, but it seems a safe assumption. I assume **Chefguy** is a chef until he states otherwise, and some of his posts are directly related to being a chef and support my assumption. The user name **pchaos** conveys nothing to me about being a lawyer. If you don’t want people to think of you as a lawyer, don’t mention it anymore. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/83 "2013-02-15T15:25:31Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > You’re the one who brought it up the first time - trying to score some instant credibility? > > That’s pathetic beyond words. To a certain extent it was…but I brought it out in a very self-deprecating manner. It still didn’t work. I’m sure that a lot of attorneys post on SDMB but they haven’t been dumb enough to admit it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/84 "2013-02-15T15:29:48Z")
> [@Simple\_Linctus](#): > > That Beryl Mooncalf thread leads me to a question and no real need to start a new thread - could someone explain to me why it is that you cannot try someone for a lesser included offence? > > It seems to me that if offence X includes A, B, and C > > while offence Y includes B and C > > then if one is guilty of offence X one is obviously guilty of offence Y (although I appreciate it would violate double jepordy to be done for Y as well). However, if you are found not guilty of offence X, without further information as to why you were found not guilty, surely you could be guilty of offence Y - specifically, that would be in a case where the jury found that B and C were proved, but A wasn’t. So why is it a breach of double jepoardy to try someone for Y if they were found not guilty of X? Is it just to stop prosecutors from whacking everyone with the most serious offence they can think of and then retrying again and again with slightly-lesser included offences if found not guilty? And if that is the reason, then wouldn’t that just be covered by abuse of process anyway? Find the post in that thread where I explained Blockberger v. US. The test for whether two crimes are different for double jeopardy purposes is if each includes an element that the other does not. In your example, we don’t have that. Offense X includes an element that Offense Y does not, BUT Offense Y does not include an element that X does not. So they’re not different offenses – Y is a “lesser-included offense” of X. So, during the same trial, the state could charge both X and Y, and the jury could respond by: [ul] [li]Acquitting on both X and Y[/li][li]Convicting on both X and Y[/li][li]Acquitting on X and convicting on Y[/li][li]Acquitting on Y and convicting on X[/li][li]Hanging on X and convicting on Y[/li][li]Hanging on X and acquitting on Y[/li][li]Hanging on Y and convicting on X[/li][li]Hanging on Y and acquitting on X[/li][/ul] Each of these scenarios has it’s own analysis. **Acquitting on both X and Y** The accused goes completely free, and the state is barred from retrying him on either X or Y. **Convicting on both X and Y** The two offenses are the same for the purposes of Double Jeopardy, so they merge into one offense for sentencing purposes. The state is barred from retrying him again on X or Y in the future. **Acquitting on X and convicting on Y** This is a consistent jury verdict. That is, the jury pretty obviously found elements B and C proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and did not find element A proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is sentenced for Y, and the state is barred from retrying him on X or Y again in the future. **Acquitting on Y and convicting on X** This is an inconsistent jury verdict. To convict on X, the jury must have found elements A, B, and C beyond a reasonable doubt… so how could they also acquit on Y? To determine what would happen here, we’d have to have more fact detail, to determine if the inconsistent verdict is logically inconsistent or legally inconsistent, and we’d have to know what jurisdiction we were in. Federal courts and most state courts will let inconsistent verdicts stand, reasoning that they may result for factors such as jury leniency. So in the majority of cases, federal and state, the result will be that the accused will be sentenced for Y, and the state is barred from retrying on X or Y. The seminal case for the federal system is _US v. Dunn_. If you’re interested in a further explanation of those states which address the differences between logical inconsistency and legal inconsistency, let me know…we’ll have to delve into collateral estoppel and the mysteries of Ashe v. Swenson, but I’m game if you are. **Hanging on X and convicting on Y** Also treated as an inconsistent verdict. The accused will be sentenced on Y; the state cannot retry on X or Y. **Hanging on X and acquitting on Y** Perfectly consistent. The jury disbelieved element A, and acquitted on offense Y. They could not reach a verdict on lesser-included offense X. The accused may be retried only on X, because the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a retrial after a hung jury. **Hanging on Y and convicting on X** This also varies by state. The prosecution may have the option of retrying on Y or accepting the X guilty verdict. **Hanging on Y and acquitting on X.** An acquittal on X means either A, B, or C was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Collateral estoppel may stop the prosecution from retrying count Y; it depends on an analysis of the facts of the case and the theory of the case presented to the jury. Again, Ashe v. Swenson is the seminal case. Similar calculations come into play when assessing a trial for just one offense followed by a trial for the other offense. The Double Jeopardy Clause generally prevents a subsequent prosecution for the same offense following a conviction, or following an acquittal. Since these are “the same offense” for DJ purposes, most instances of a trial for X following a trial for Y would be prohibited, or vice-versa – assuming the first trial ended with either a conviction or an acquittal. Hope this helps! ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/85 "2013-02-15T15:32:07Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > …I know lawyers. Lawyers are good friends of mine… You my good man, have no soul. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/86 "2013-02-15T15:41:06Z")
To some degree I agree. I don’t like hanging around attorneys much either. They just talk shop too much…it’s always the latest in what the CA Supreme Court is doing…or they want to talk about the latest Obamacare regulations…whatever. Even worse, is the one upmanship, the I bought a second vacation home…so when are you going to get yours type inquiry. I like hanging out at my local church where people really know me…and forgive me for being an attorney…lol. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/87 "2013-02-15T15:42:08Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > To a certain extent it was…but I brought it out in a very self-deprecating manner. It still didn’t work. I’m sure that a lot of attorneys post on SDMB but they haven’t been dumb enough to admit it. Off the top of my head, **Bricker** , **Hamlet** , **jtgain** (although he may still be in law school). Also, there’s someone whose handle starts with a G. Possibly also **RNATB**. There’s **lawbuff** , but he’s not a lawyer. **Kimmy** something is one. I don’t know why I’m feeding you, though. I just can’t resist, I guess. ETA: **KimmyGibbler** ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/88 "2013-02-15T15:43:41Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > You my good man, have no soul. Eh, it was worth admitting it for the Benson joke. Possibly the best zinger in the history of debates. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/89 "2013-02-15T15:44:48Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Also, there’s someone whose handle starts with a G. GFactor. And there’s **pravnik** , who was here as a poster, went through law school, and is now in practice – he grew up into a lawyer on these very boards!! **BottledBlondeJeanie** is a former prosecutor. **Oakminster** does family law and is/was a magistrate. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/90 "2013-02-15T15:45:25Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > To some degree I agree. I don’t like hanging around attorneys much either. They just talk shop too much…it’s always the latest in what the CA Supreme Court is doing…or they want to talk about the latest Obamacare regulations…whatever. > > Even worse, is the one upmanship, the I bought a second vacation home…so when are you going to get yours type inquiry. > > I like hanging out at my local church where people really know me…and forgive me for being an attorney…lol. Who the fuck are you responding to with this post? ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/91 "2013-02-15T15:46:03Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Off the top of my head, **Bricker** , **Hamlet** , **jtgain** (although he may still be in law school). Also, there’s someone whose handle starts with a G. Possibly also **RNATB**. There’s **lawbuff** , but he’s not a lawyer. **Kimmy** something is one. > > I don’t know why I’m feeding you, though. I just can’t resist, I guess. > > ETA: **KimmyGibbler** **Oakminster** and **BrainGlutton** are also lawyers, I believe. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/92 "2013-02-15T15:49:29Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Off the top of my head, **Bricker** , **Hamlet** , **jtgain** (although he may still be in law school). Also, there’s someone whose handle starts with a G. Possibly also **RNATB**. There’s **lawbuff** , but he’s not a lawyer. **Kimmy** something is one. > > I don’t know why I’m feeding you, though. I just can’t resist, I guess. > > ETA: **KimmyGibbler** Not me, until September 2014 (hopefully). **jtgain** is in the same boat but I think he is taking the bar exam this month. In addition to those **Bricker** named, there’s **BrainGlutton** , who I believe has retired from the practice of law; **Elendil’s Heir** , who is a magistrate in Ohio; and **friedo** (I think). And **Ascenray** , who does administrative law in the DC area. And **Drain Bead** and **Hello Again**. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/93 "2013-02-15T15:53:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > GFactor. > > And there’s **pravnik** , who was here as a poster, went through law school, and is now in practice – he grew up into a lawyer on these very boards!! > > **BottledBlondeJeanie** is a former prosecutor. > **Oakminster** does family law and is/was a magistrate. Right! **Gfactor**. I had forgotten about **Oakminster** and **BrainGlutton**. I didn’t know about **pravnik** or the other ones. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/94 "2013-02-15T15:54:58Z")
Me, I’d never claim to be a scum sucking lawyer. But I am a scum-sucking geophysicist working mostly for the oil/gas business. I should probably see a doctor about all the scum I’m sucking. “Woe is me, people don’t like me because I’m a lawyer.” No, dumbass, people don’t like you because you’re dumb. The tired US Protestant “persecution” complex is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever experienced. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/95 "2013-02-15T15:59:33Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > We have no problem with lawyers here-we have quite a few. Our problem is the how you cast a bad light on the profession. > But like everything else, you’ve already been told this many times. Assuming you’re just another Christian troll that thinks that word games and lying are o.k. when done in The Name Of The Lord, I’ve just got to ask you this: What are you going to tell God when he asks you “Why did you drive so many people away from Me?” Like I said I’m not here to proselytize. In many of the threads, I was just trying to find out what atheists believed. What I found out is that the basic attitude is okay. In other words you need to be skeptical and scientific in your approach to life, but it is not the type of life I would want for myself. Sometimes I would rather just act based on informed intuition and faith. None of us are going to get out of this alive. But while I’m alive I want to give a 100% and sometimes that means you need to act based on courage and faith. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/96 "2013-02-15T16:06:32Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > I assume **Chefguy** is a chef until he states otherwise, and some of his posts are directly related to being a chef and support my assumption. He’s not, for what it’s worth. He just mentioned it yesterday. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/97 "2013-02-15T16:09:05Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > He’s not, for what it’s worth. He just mentioned it yesterday. I’m taking the opposite route with you. I won’t believe you’re a Labrador or a Deceiver until you provide evidence to the contrary. Me, well I like to think I’m Great, but I’m not particularly against Bobs in general. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/98 "2013-02-15T16:09:39Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Like I said I’m not here to proselytize. In many of the threads, I was just trying to find out what atheists believed. What I found out is that the basic attitude is okay. In other words you need to be skeptical and scientific in your approach to life, but it is not the type of life I would want for myself. > > Sometimes I would rather just act based on informed intuition and faith. None of us are going to get out of this alive. But while I’m alive I want to give a 100% and sometimes that means you need to act based on courage and faith. Lying troll trolls and lies. Nothing new. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/99 "2013-02-15T16:12:24Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > I’m taking the opposite route with you. > > I won’t believe you’re a Labrador or a Deceiver until you provide evidence to the contrary. You’re 100% correct, my good man. I’m actually a very honest German Shepherd. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316/100 "2013-02-15T16:13:26Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > I’m taking the opposite route with you. > > I won’t believe you’re a Labrador or a Deceiver until you provide evidence to the contrary. > > Me, well I like to think I’m Great, but I’m not particularly against Bobs in general. You might be able to get him with the “Labrador” part, but he is either telling the truth about being a “Deceiver”, or he’s lying about being a “Deceiver”… in which case he’s still telling the truth about being a “Deceiver”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-implausible-that-pchaos-is-a-lawyer-and-he-should-stop-claiming-to-be-one/650316.md?page=6)