The dearly departed smartguysmile had his problems, but he certainly picked a good thread title for one of the three he started: Loblaw you Ass.
So you’re saying Bricker lied by calling himself a lawyer when he no longer practices, and your evidence that he’s a liar is a concurrent thread where he’s completely upfront about not practicing anymore, a fact he has stated many times on this board.
A phony comparison. “Football player” means someone who actively plays football, like “praciting lawyer” means someone who is doing that. If “football player” term meant someone who is legally eligible to play football, as “lawyer” means someone who is licensed to practice law, Steve Young would be a football player.
In short, Bricker is a liar because you don’t know things other people do - like his status as a lawyer, or what words mean. Damn that oily bastard.
FINALLY. 7+ pages into the thread and Bob finally makes a valid, intelligent point. It’s the only one he’s made, but the journey of a million miles…
So why didn’t he say in this thread that he was a non-practicing lawyer? He said, I’m a lawyer and proceded to give his legal opinion. In the other thread he’s asked for his legal opinion and qualifies it, like he should have here. He wanted me to believe it to enhance his credibility. It’s a rather fucking important distinction when seeking or getting legal advice to know if the lawyer is the real deal or just a dilettante.
Round and round the cobbler’s bench
The monkey chased the weasel,
The monkey thought 'twas all in fun
Pop! Goes the weasel.
A penny for a spool of thread
A penny for a needle,
That’s the way the money goes,
Pop! Goes the weasel.
A half a pound of tupenny rice,
A half a pound of treacle.
Mix it up and make it nice,
Pop! Goes the weasel.
Up and down the London road,
In and out of the Eagle,
That’s the way the money goes,
Pop! Goes the weasel.
I’ve no time to plead and pine,
I’ve no time to wheedle,
Kiss me quick and then I’m gone
Pop! Goes the weasel.
It really all depends on what the meaning of is is.
Well dude, I admitted it in the Loblaw is an ass thread too. Shit, I have no problem with the truth. I’m an ass and I know it and I has me a good time with it too. But I sure as hell don’t claim to be something I’m not to gain credibility. Oh, maybe I can claim to have seen war and raised twins and raising twins is worse, like George Bush has said.
A dilettante? Remarkable. Gives me the urge to use a great quote by Inigo Montoya.
How dare you call Bricker a liar when he hasn’t been convicted of lying in court? Why do you have such disrespect for our Constitution and the presumption of innocence?
Somehow, you’ve managed to be a self-important ass (“Bricker lied just to me to make his opinion carry more weight”) in a post where you quoted “Pop Goes the Weasel.” Some people struggle with their stupidity, but you make idiocy dance like a Baryshnikov.
I’ve said it dozens of times, over the past five years or so, on this board.
What I said in this thread was intended to convey that I have the requisite legal training and work experience to offer an informed judgement about whether a particular set of facts constitutes probable cause.
Now, when someone asks a question about inheritance, or contracts, or bad-faith insurance on these boards, I don’t touch it. Alhtough I had to struggle through the Slothful Executor and the Fertile Octagenerian just like every other lawyer, my exposure to those subjects was always academic.
On the other hand, my exposure to criminal law in the practical realm was extensive and thorough. It’s true that it’s been a few years since I argued a probable cause motion. But when I was a PD, I argued hundreds. I tried hundreds of cases. The intervening years have not diminished my ability to look at a set of facts and analyze probable cause.
Now, it’s true that although I keep myself reasonbly up-to-date on case law in the criminal world - not just required CLE but actual study - I would hesitate before offering in-depth analysis of what enhancement facts need to be proved to a jury, because Apprendi and Ring came along after I stopped practice. I would study an anonymous tipster situation carefully, because I know Florida v. JL changed the fmailar landscape of Alabama v. White. If we were discussing those issues, I might have been moved to say that I no longer practice criminal law, but here’s what I think.
Here, however, the question isn’t even close. You have multiple answers to questions, even questions proferred by the accused’s own counsel, that fly in the face of the facts. And we’re talking probable cause, the lightest burden (aside from Terry) that a court has to deal with. Probable cause is no trouble at all to reach. So the fact that I haven’t practiced criminal law in a few years is of absolutely no moment to the question of whether I have the requisite knowledge to identify the issues associated with the finding of probable cause.
And you have, either skillfully or unintentionally, dragged this conversation a considerable distance from where it started. Good move for you; it concealed the fact that you haven’t answered, AGAIN: **What about the fact that Clinton’s own lawyer asked the question? Are you saying that he can appeal an improper question by his own lawyer? **
(He can, of course). That would be a Strickland claim, one that he’d have no chance of winning either.
So even if I grant your compound and complex garbage - Bennett asked the same question during his exam. Clinton answered in the negative. Issue is waived.
Right?
'Tisn’t.
And Bob Loblaw, you’re not just an ass; you’re an onager.
Fact is, I’m a guest, I haven’t been posting for five years and that’s why you were challenging me. You are as much of a liar as Clinton, and as much of a hypocrit as a common Republican elected official.
By the standard you’ve posted, by raising the issue yourself, you’ve waived the issue and that gets us to the answer to your question. And once the judge has overruled your objection, you need not refuse to defend on the issue, you may rely on the judge’s ruling and take it up on appeal.
It all depends on what the meaning of is is, ya weasel. Talk about pyschological projection.
When you are trying, even unsuccessfully, to get someone to back down because you are a lawyer, doncha think “I used to practice law” would be more accurate. It substantially hurt your credibility with me. You may have disclosed to all the old people the last 5 years, but you didn’t to me and you challenged me on that subject. That is in fact a lot like Ken Starr taking on the Lewinsky investigation after having advised Jones’ lawyers on how to nail Clinton without disclosing to the AG that he had done that and then saying it was widely known in the public. That’s not how a conflict of interest disclosure is made: it’s made in writing with the client signing it to make sure they’ve understood. Not only have we never seen you and Bill Clinton at the same time, we’ve never seen you and Ken Starr at the same time.
I’m not saying you are an evil person or a perjurer. I am saying that you are the same kind of weaseling liar that Bill Clinton is. If you haven’t practiced law for 5 years, you aren’t a present tense lawyer as the public understands it, and teh public has a right to know before relying on your expertise. That is not to say that you have no expertise. But lawyers don’t give extra weight to their opinions by declaring “I’ve handled lots of cases like that your honor”, but by citing the case in question, and then folks go look at it and see if it is being applied correctly.
What a lawyer says is not evidence, it is not legal authority, but rather, put into an understandable and persuasive format. And lawyers disagree. Last time I checked, there were lawyers on both sides of every case where the folks could afford it, and they disagreed on everything that was in dispute. Sometimes the law is so clear it resolves disputes, usually there is something to argue about in the common law system.
Very funny Eddy! You are the Onager of wits, and your insult was gentle enough that I don’t think you an ass.
Then why did everybody here understand it except you?
Because everyone here had previously known from 5 years of other threads. I didn’t because I haven’t been around for more than 3 weeks. It says “Guest” on my status, to indicate I haven’t been around for more than 30 days. The post was addressed to me: “I am a lawyer” “What are your qualifications”.
I’ll explain it to you as though you were a small child: if you’ve known someone a long time, you know things about them. But if you only meet them, everything about them is not only new to you, but everything about you is new to them. Some of your mommy and daddy’s friends know things about you because your mommy and daddy have told them about you, others haven’t heard about you before because there is a whole world of people and most of them don’t know you and you don’t know most of them.
OK, Chuckles, you caught me. Slimey and weasly I am, and but for your keen ability to read another thread in which I carelessly revealed the truth, I’d have gotten away with it.
Now answer my question: how do you claim that Bennett’s objection has any validity on appeal, when he himself asked his client the same question to which he earlier objected? Are you saying that Clinton can, on appeal, point to a question his own lawyer asked him and claim it was improper, and the answer therefore inadmissible?
Anytime you get around to responding to my posts would be fine by me. But it seems you’d much rather fling shit than actually debate. Your last 10+ posts have been nothing but idiotic namecalling. Which, of course, is your perogative. I, for one, will not miss you when you’re gone.
Yes, its called an appeal of the judge’s ruling on the objection. The parties are required during the trial to honor the judge’s ruling, to not do so is a contempt.
Once there is a final judgment, I may appeal any ruling of the lower court that I contend is both in error and would have affected the outcome, that is, would be prejudicial. I do not waive my objection by asking questions about the same subject matter in order to rehabilitate or clarify. For example, suppose I were a criminal lawyer representing a man accused of forging checks and the judge allowed a line of questioning about his juvenile record of forging checks in the exact same distinctive manner, and I object on the grounds that the juve record is sealed and inadmissible and 20 years old to boot. The judge makes a mistake and allows it in. The client tells me privately that he and his brother did it 20 years ago and he does not know how to do that, his brother did. Now, if I decide to bring that out on the stand by getting him to admit his brother was the real 20 year ago forger, and he just the passer, do I give up my right to appeal the judge’s ruling on admissibility? Assume that the judge did make a mistake and that the juve record cannot be used for any purpose in that jurisdiction. Good faith mistake on the judge’s part.
Of course not. Of course I can follow up with the same line of questioning and not waive my objection. I have not invited the error, the other side did. If I had invited the original error, then I’d have waived it.
It’s like if I had (please forgive me, this is too rich) asked you early in the thread: “How come you know so much, have you gone to law school or ever practiced criminal law, and by the way I consider anyone who still pays their bar dues and keeps up on their CLE’s even if they don’t regularly practice to currently be a lawyer, are you a lawyer?” You respond, “That’s entirely unintelligible, ungrammatical, contains a spelling error and is internally inconsistent”, I retort, “Just answer the damn question” and you say “I am a lawyer.” Well, then I’ve invited the error and opened the door, haven’t I. I can’t then at a later time scream, hey, he never told me he wasn’t still practicing! And if I did raise a ruckus, just because you later repeated the question back to me and I ansewered it doesn’t mean that you couldn’t defend yourself by saying, it was objectionable, I was instructed to use the question, I did, but I didn’t lie, the question is still unintelligible.
So if Bennett actually offered the definition (he’d be guilty of malpractice), yeah, he’d have screwed his client. If he was required to use it, no, he can appeal that requirement the same as any ruling. I suppose he can also appeal the constitutionality of the criminal statute if it is impermissibly vague. I seem to recall something that criminal statutes cannot be so vague or ambiguous as to cover constitutionally protected conduct. Void for vagueness, overbreadth, usually applying to free speech cases.
Beryl Mooncalf, indeed.
I wasn’t talking about everyone knowing Bricker isn’t practicing. You’re the only one who’s voiced confusion over the meaning of the word “lawyer.” Even if we all knew Bricker doesn’t practice, if his use of the term was so dishonest and misleading, why didn’t it stick out to anyone but you?
Ooo!!! Ooo!!! I know this one.
Because he’s a fucking brain dead idiot.
What do I win?
Your first sentence is untrue, or at least misleading. You cannot appeal a ruling that you invited, except as plain error.
This isn’t “the same subject matter.” It’s the EXACT SAME QUESTION.
Do you have a cite for the claim that asking the exact same question on cross as was objected to on direct does NOT waive the objection?
Would you care to give us a bit of discussion on procedural default of issues? I believe your understanding of procedural default is flawed.