[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return" "Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign" "We Hate Communism!!" "Mamdani and the Democratic Schism" "The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death" "President Badass" "Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster" "How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran" There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined. "This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like" America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996] Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment? Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit "The Addled Activist Mind" "Don’t Stop with Harvard" "Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?" "Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF" "'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal" Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! Status: Not Logged In; Sign In LEFT WING LOONS See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles Title: Reality TV ... judge judy --- fake - real ! Source: lf.com URL Source: http://hereherehere Published: Dec 16, 2015 Author: mememe Post Date: 2015-12-16 19:58:28 by BorisY Keywords: fake justice news politics tv, fake justice news politics tv, fake justice news politics tv Views: 6013 Comments: 15 She ruled against a guy ... who couldn't avoid hitting a stopped car in an accident --- ahead of him ! I believe a blind turn was involved ! She so much as said anyone hitting another car from behind is always in the wrong ! I know there is law about ... illegal change of lanes - interfering in the right of the way --- of another ! Also the man was middle age - older ... the woman suing for damages --- was much younger - teenagerish ! Sorry for taking this tv joke show so seriously ! Poster Comment: She makes more money than the ussc ... can't she pay --- for some legal advice ! Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13. #4. To: BorisY (#0) She so much as said anyone hitting another car from behind is always in the wrong ! According to state law and legal precedent, she was correct. But the basic rule is that you have to drive at a distance and speed behind somebody that you can stop without hitting him. In the case of a blind turn, slow down. rlk  posted on  2015-12-16   23:51:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: rlk (#4) According to state law and legal precedent, she was correct. But the basic rule is that you have to drive at a distance and speed behind somebody that you can stop without hitting him. In the case of a blind turn, slow down. Yep. Pretty basic, isn't it? Vicomte13  posted on  2015-12-17   6:31:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: Vicomte13 (#5) Yep. Pretty basic, isn't it? The Courts have recognized three specific fact patterns which may rebut this presumption: 1.Affirmative testimony regarding a mechanical failure; 2.Affirmative testimony of a sudden and unexpected stop or unexpected lane change by the car in front; and 3.When a vehicle has been illegally and, therefore, unexpectedly stopped. BorisY  posted on  2015-12-23   22:59:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: BorisY (#6) (Edited) Yep. Pretty basic, isn't it? The Courts have recognized three specific fact patterns which may rebut this presumption: 1.Affirmative testimony regarding a mechanical failure; 3.When a vehicle has been illegally and, therefore, unexpectedly stopped. And therefor because of bad legal precedent established by some slick lawyers in front of dumb juries one is not required to use cautionaly intelligent forsight in driving a car. rlk  posted on  2015-12-23   23:23:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: rlk (#7) The lawyers didn't establish the bad legal precedent. They just argued their cases. 'Twas the judges - the agents of government - that set the precedent by deciding in favor of the lawyers' arguments. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-12-23   23:31:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Vicomte13 (#8) The lawyers didn't establish the bad legal precedent. They just argued their cases. 'Twas the judges - the agents of government - that set the precedent by deciding in favor of the lawyers' arguments. It would be nice to be able to blame it all on agents of government, but that is not reality. People pay tens of thousands of dollars to good lawyers because they have a history of putting arguments together that will convice juries, and even judges, of unreality in favor of their clients. Those arguments are out of the judge's hands unless opposing legal counsel wishs to make a good objection to them. The outcome of the trial becomes legal precedent. rlk  posted on  2015-12-24   1:05:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: rlk (#11) That's right. I'm a lawyer. I get paid by clients to represent them in their cases. I am not an agent of the government. I am not an agent of the public. The public does not pay me. My client does. When I argue a case, I am not paid by the other side to take their viewpoint into account. I do consider the other side's viewpoint, so that I can anticipate it and refute it at every turn. I don't take the government's viewpoint into account, other than for the same reason. There is precedent, and I have to argue within the bounds of that, but with the understanding that new precedent can always be established. Before I was a lawyer, I was a naval officer, of the line, a ship-driver and then a pilot. My job then was not to take the enemy's viewpoint into account or to try to find a fair and reasonable solution with him. It was to win, to defeat him and bring complete victory to my own side. As a lawyer, it is very much the same thing, except that there is a negotiation phase in lawsuit where you are trying to come to a reasonable workout rather than having to fight. The caveat, though, is that I don't get to determine what is reasonable - in either case. In the military, it is the role of the President and the State Department to try to negotiate a solution to a crisis. I hope they do, but if they don't, my job was to go and destroy the other side, not to be "fair". Similarly, once things pass out of negotiations and mediation into a full-fledged legal battle, it is a zero-sum game. My client wins, or the other side wins. And MY job is to get as much for my client as I can. He is the only person who is paying me. The other side is trying to get me off the case, if I am effective. And the government is just taxing away my success. Our legal system is adversarial, not collegial. Each side hires a champion to go and fight for him. The public is not paying me - and pretty much detests me and my profession (until they need a lawyer). And the public always COULD change our system. Give me a hand in legal reform and I could produce a much better legal system than the one we have. But it is not my role when I am hired for a job to pretend that we live under a different system than the one we have. The judges are not paying me. The government is not paying me. The only person paying me is my client. I fight for HIM, not for the public, not for the judge, not for the adversary, and not for the little old lady next door. It would be grand if we had a grand system of conciliation based on Christian principles, whereby disputes taken into court were always resolved according to the principles God spelled out. But we do not have that system, and we're not likely to - because God's system would mean simply letting people get away from many offenses unpunished, or immediately physically punishing other criminals and them letting them go, or pressing criminals into service to the people they harmed. Under God's system, there is no protection or privilege for agents of government, and there is no right to remain silent - everybody must testify. Also, under God's system, debt are forgiven, wiped clean, after a certain time period. America is supposedly a land full of Christians, but most "Christians" would walk out on Christ completely if they actually had to LIVE under his laws all the time. Most Christians like the idea of Heaven, and they like the ideal of forgiveness of everything they do, by God, but stop cold at the notion of conditional forgiveness - that if you want to be forgiven your debt of sin to God, you have to let the guy who owes you $1000 go if he doesn't have the money to pay. In fact, most "Christians" go non-linear at the very THOUGHT of God's justice. But that's the system I would have, if I had my 'druthers. In the system we have, there are adversaries, armed to the teeth with the law, who go into the arena to fight for their clients. If you hire a lawyer, you do not want him skylarking around seeking "Justice for all". You are paying him to fight for YOU, and that is the condition imposed on him by his law license: to fight for his CLIENT, and NOT to put his own interests, or anybody else's, ahead of his client's. That's the way it is. Most people don't like that - unless they're the ones that need a lawyer. It is not the lawyer's fault that the system is the way it is. And the lawyer is no more a parasite than private security guards are parasites. Rich people do not need to hire private security. They can get concealed carry and take martial arts training and defend themselves...against one or two guys...maybe...and be vigilant all the time...and take the bullet or the kidnapping if they fail. But most of the super rich don't want to dedicate their own lives to be commandoes. They hire people to do it. Does that make private security parasitical? You can always go represent yourself in court, if you want to. You can take on the mortgage company and the seller's agent when you buy a house. If you get into an accident, you can do the negotiations. If you get arrested, fairly or otherwise, you can exercise your right to remain silent and NOT get an attorney, and represent yourself. It will probably not go well for you if you do, but that is not because of ME. I'm not a cop. I'm not the mortgage company who is trying to screw you. I'm not the drunk lunatic who crashed into you. I'm not the warranty-breaker. If you face any of those, you hire me to go and get what you lost BACK. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-12-24   7:08:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 13.         There are no replies to Comment # 13. End Trace Mode for Comment # 13. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com