Fighting Back Against the Lawyers?

[Charles Stucker]

I always laugh at people who think they can represent themselves. They've watched lawyer shows on TV so they have it down.

I always laugh at lawyers who think they can do engineering because they can build a kit car (or whatever). Let them try to build a Microwave oven from parts which has a decent energy efficiency and a reasonable durability. They won't be able to pay themselves minimum wage on what they save by purchasing parts - but hey who needs engineers. Somehow the idea percolates that they know better because they have money.
The lawyers destroyed the small aircraft companies in the USA by pushing frivolous lawsuits, but hey those were just a bunch of dumb ass engineers trying to make a better life for themselves they should have know they couldn't get away with building a plane so unsafe that when the pilot ran into a truck on the airfield that all the passengers died, no those foolish unsafe engineers had to be taught a lesson. That's the reason no one likes lawyers, because the scum are too prevalent and destroy too much. The case showcased is based on actual events from the 70's.

 

[GHook93]

essential? I suppose if your kids' intestines were sucked out through her anus by an improperly designed pool filter, you'd think the lawyer was essential. or if your employer allowed asbestos to destroy your lungs, you'd think your lawyer was essential.

If there were NO lawyers, then I could represent myself in all your spurious examples and do quite well. SO again what do Lawyers actually produce?
Entertainers produce entertainment - that is why they are paid.
Lawyers, as has already been shown, do not produce Law, so what do they produce?

If there were no plumper I could fix my toliet myself, never mind that I would fuck it up!

 

[George Costanza]

If there were NO lawyers, then I could represent myself in all your spurious examples and do quite well. SO again what do Lawyers actually produce?
Entertainers produce entertainment - that is why they are paid.
Lawyers, as has already been shown, do not produce Law, so what do they produce?

Answers to questions like this one: In a California court, the defendant is charged with a felony. A strike prior is alleged. The strike prior involves a conviciton of PC 245(a)(1) - assault by force likely to create great bodily injury. What is the test for deterimining whether or not the strike prior actually is a strike and what document or documents can be examined to make that determination?

I could list several hundred other, equally interesting legal questions, but time and space do not permit.

 

[Charles Stucker]

If there were NO lawyers, then I could represent myself in all your spurious examples and do quite well. SO again what do Lawyers actually produce?
Entertainers produce entertainment - that is why they are paid.
Lawyers, as has already been shown, do not produce Law, so what do they produce?

Answers to questions like this one: In a California court, the defendant is charged with a felony. A strike prior is alleged. The strike prior involves a conviciton of PC 245(a)(1) - assault by force likely to create great bodily injury. What is the test for deterimining whether or not the strike prior actually is a strike and what document or documents can be examined to make that determination?

I could list several hundred other, equally interesting legal questions, but time and space do not permit.

So basically the lawyers make up questions in a jargon only they are supposed to understand so they can answer those questions. How useless.

But to answer your question - a Strike Prior is part of the three strikes law; presumably it is the responsibility of the Prosecution to present court documents showing the guilty verdict or plea from a former case as well as the appropriate legal code (no I don't intend to search through California legal code to get that bit of trivia) to show the documents are valid/applicable.

 

[geauxtohell]

If there were NO lawyers, then I could represent myself in all your spurious examples and do quite well. SO again what do Lawyers actually produce?
Entertainers produce entertainment - that is why they are paid.
Lawyers, as has already been shown, do not produce Law, so what do they produce?

Answers to questions like this one: In a California court, the defendant is charged with a felony. A strike prior is alleged. The strike prior involves a conviciton of PC 245(a)(1) - assault by force likely to create great bodily injury. What is the test for deterimining whether or not the strike prior actually is a strike and what document or documents can be examined to make that determination?

I could list several hundred other, equally interesting legal questions, but time and space do not permit.

So basically the lawyers make up questions in a jargon only they are supposed to understand so they can answer those questions. How useless.

But to answer your question - a Strike Prior is part of the three strikes law; presumably it is the responsibility of the Prosecution to present court documents showing the guilty verdict or plea from a former case as well as the appropriate legal code (no I don't intend to search through California legal code to get that bit of trivia) to show the documents are valid/applicable.

Every profession has "jargon", to include medicine and engineers. It's one of the reasons they are professions. It's not some secret attempt to confuse laypeople, it's just the standard of the profession.

 

[geauxtohell]

The problem is the concentration of lawyers; the USA has far too many.

Do you believe in the free market system? If this statement is true, then it should auto-regulate.

 

[Charles Stucker]

The problem is the concentration of lawyers; the USA has far too many.

Do you believe in the free market system? If this statement is true, then it should auto-regulate.

Except the courts are not a free market system.

 

[geauxtohell]

That sounds like a great idea. In fact the salary of lawyers could be set to equal the salary of teachers.

Why should someone with a doctoral degree be expected to be compensated the same as someone with a bachelor's and a teaching certificate?

What incentive is there to pursue higher education if you are not going to be compensated for it?

No private practice allowed because the lawyers want to have a government enforced monopoly (called the bar) - sounds extremely fair to me.

Absurd. The bar is a means to prove minimal competency to practice law so that the term "lawyer" has some meaning to people who have legal representation.

Would you want a physician who hadn't been required to pass licensure exams to treat your or your family?

You can probably find one in a back ally somewhere (or go seek out a "naturopathic doctor").

 

[geauxtohell]

The problem is the concentration of lawyers; the USA has far too many.

Do you believe in the free market system? If this statement is true, then it should auto-regulate.

Except the courts are not a free market system.

Who said anything about the courts? We are talking about lawyers.

 

[Charles Stucker]

The bar is not about standards, it is about a monopoly.
A law degree is not the same as a PhD, particularly one in Engineering or a hard science. The law degree is FAR easier to obtain. Teachers are required (in Texas) to continually recertify, even after they get their certification. Sounds like Lawyers are not actually that far along the "required" education curve. Ooops another fact against them.

 

[geauxtohell]

The bar is not about standards, it is about a monopoly.
A law degree is not the same as a PhD, particularly one in Engineering or a hard science. The law degree is FAR easier to obtain. Teachers are required (in Texas) to continually recertify, even after they get their certification. Sounds like Lawyers are not actually that far along the "required" education curve. Ooops another fact against them.

LMAO.

A PhD can be hard or easy depending on what you get it in. If a law degree is so simple to obtain, why don't you go get one and watch the money roll right in? If you can't beat them, join them.

Finally, to state that a public school teacher has the same degree of education as a lawyer is absurd.

 

[Charles Stucker]

If a law degree is so simple to obtain, why don't you go get one and watch the money roll right in?

Because I have morals.
More lawyers is part of the problem.
I refuse to be part of the problem.

 

[geauxtohell]

If a law degree is so simple to obtain, why don't you go get one and watch the money roll right in?

Because I have morals.
More lawyers is part of the problem.
I refuse to be part of the problem.

You haven't illustrated that "more lawyers" are the problem. If we have too many lawyers, then we would have many unemployed lawyers.

Nice prattle about your "standards" though.

If you can't hack it, just admit it.

 

[Charles Stucker]

If a law degree is so simple to obtain, why don't you go get one and watch the money roll right in?

Because I have morals.
More lawyers is part of the problem.
I refuse to be part of the problem.

You haven't illustrated that "more lawyers" are the problem. If we have too many lawyers, then we would have many unemployed lawyers.

Nice prattle about your "standards" though.

If you can't hack it, just admit it.

Now you're starting to sound like OldRocks (in the head) when he spouts about knowledge of science.

Too many lawyers IS a problem - if you don't understand that then you are hopelessly oblivious. Again, rather like OldRocks in the head.

 

[geauxtohell]

Because I have morals.
More lawyers is part of the problem.
I refuse to be part of the problem.

You haven't illustrated that "more lawyers" are the problem. If we have too many lawyers, then we would have many unemployed lawyers.

Nice prattle about your "standards" though.

If you can't hack it, just admit it.

Now you're starting to sound like OldRocks (in the head) when he spouts about knowledge of science.

Too many lawyers IS a problem - if you don't understand that then you are hopelessly oblivious. Again, rather like OldRocks in the head.

You mean too many lawyers ARE the problem. I think I can see why you skipped out on a career that requires you to write excessively.

I have no idea what this has to do with science. Are you an expert in that as well?

 

[chanel]

2004 a study conducted by John Hopkins Hospital reported that the number of graduates of U.S. medical schools who enter OB/GYN had dropped 23% since 1996. Malpractice insurance for OB/GYNs is reported to have one of the highest premium for medical malpractice, with some areas reporting premiums of $100,000 per year for OB/GYN coverage. Premiums in major metropolitan areas can be as much as $250,000 per year.

Because of these high premiums, especially on young doctors just starting out in practice, many states are reporting growing shortages of OB/GYN doctors. In some states it has reached a crisis level.. The Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology reported in June, 2005 that there was serious concern that the supply of doctors practicing obstetrics would be far below the number reasonably needed to care for pregnant women.

Do medical malpractice suits contribute to rising health insurance costs?

 

[Charles Stucker]

You mean too many lawyers ARE the problem. I think I can see why you skipped out on a career that requires you to write excessively.

Then you are as stupid as you appear.
The problem is too many lawyers. Correct?
When you reverse the order of the words for effect it does not change that "too many lawyers" is a singular item. In this case the singular problem.
But I don't expect someone like you to actually understand the rules of written English any more than I would expect you to understand thermodynamics.

Finally, in case you missed it - I did penetrate deliberately obscuring jargon and answer the question which was supposed to prove how only a lawyer can understand the law.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Do medical malpractice suits contribute to rising health insurance costs?

Why yes, they do. Because the lawyers want more money and more lawsuits means more money for them.

 

[Vanquish]

Charlie must have gotten fucked up by a lawyer. Fucked up real good.

 

[goldcatt]

I'll bet ten bucks it had to do with a lawyer and a woman, possibly but not necessarily the same person. Just a hunch.