posted on June 20, 2002 07:02:23 PM new
All of you guys are missing the entire point,
your not going to get spence even if you pay for your lawyer.
you will get some self important vicious prick who will happly take your money and at that point will forget you are a client.
The people running the bar association complaint centers are in my experience at best incompetant fools. and I strongly suspect this is the same in most states.
A class action could easily be filed against the michigan state bar atty disciplanry unit
and won for their blatent failure to admonish even the worst of conduct.
The bar assn has by their manipulation of the law taken the freedom to walk the streets of this country away from the average citizen. They will snivel it costs millions to put a crimminal to death. Bull
the fact is is thaT THEY SUCK THE LIFE OUT OF ANYTHING THEY TOUCH LIKE PARASITES. they will say things like some guy in Texas on Death row had an atty who was asleep, well what stopped the goddammed judge from waking the son og a birch up ? Why was this guy not removed from the public defenders dole which is actually welfare for coked out and drunken cant even cut a deal with an insurance compny types. The time has come for a major change. Thes etheiving freaks have taken this country to the point where
some basterd is shooting at our soldiers
and his rights may have been vilated. Maybe the next time bush wants to threaten hussein he offers to send in 10,000 lawyers backed up with 10,000 street scum types they cut a plea bargian for as looters.
posted on June 20, 2002 07:14:41 PM new
Bor- I agree with your ideal, but the complexities of even a simple case would present a travesty in both procedure and outcome.
I think what you're driving for would not be unlike People's Court and all the others now on TV.
If you look closely at those TV courts you'll see peole bringing "witnesses" to testify that have nothing to offer to the case, and not bringing witnesses that would help their case, not to mention all the testimony they offer that is irrelevant.
Knowing the elements of a charge is first and foremost.If you don't know them, you're not in a position to present evidence which supports those elements,nor defend against them.
Providing proper legal access and representation is akin to getting medical care. The level of legal care most people are getting would be malpractice if it were medical care.
I think that just like schools and such, unless we are willing to put the attention and resources into the system, nothing is going to change.
On a related note- I just saw that some employers are now requiring employees to sign an arbitration agreement for employment. The case was a female employee who was demoted after she became pregnant. When she sought legal recourse, too bad, she signed an arbitration agreement. It has now been 3 years and she still hasn't got a decision from the arbitration panel.
posted on June 20, 2002 09:50:24 PM new
REAMOND, you too are clouding the issue with issues about minor difficulties. Of course there is a breaking in of any new system. Yes, not everyone will come prepared. Next time they will. Next time they'll get that loan in writing or that lease in writing or get witnesses to everything. I was not saying that my suggestion was a panacea for all of the poor in society! And certainly it is an educational process, as it must be no matter how you wish to incorporate it into mainstream society. That the schools may help the young, but certainly, everyone else will just have to LEARN HOW! But to depend upon the charity of taxpayers to provide the poor with adequate access to the judicial system JUST WON'T FLY! All that we had 25 years ago along those lines is almost gone! And Why, I ask you? You know why! It's because other ignorant people demand that if the poor get free help, then the Rich must also get free help! (that's the only time the Rich ever see the system as being unfair and make that claim) Then, there are always those who are so stupid that they vote for fascist regimes and fascists to take power, too ignorant to hardly tie their own-dammed shoelaces and an IQ to match and these folks regurgitate their opinions fed to them in political sound bites in the media or in church and rail at the poor for getting advantages not had by the Rich who have every advantage already. You are making a null argument, but there is no such thing of what you propose short of a total Socialist takeover!
posted on June 21, 2002 02:17:20 PM new
I think HALT is just a front that wants to make it harder to file and win lawsuits for things such as medical malpractice and product liability. They were started by I believe the National Chambers of Commerce PAC.
posted on June 22, 2002 06:51:18 AM new
No no not at all - it is just a reason that despite all the best intentions the initiative as outlined might not work real well.
Of course if it works for even some that is an improvement and perhaps the rest seeing it work would be moved to develope the personal resources to use it better.
I am discouraged by how many people with even a university education have such narrow interests. They can't present their case in terms that don't sound like a TV interview with a jock.
Here in MI the TV news had a piece yesterday about the Wayne county prosecuter's office.
They have streamlined the process. They showed a number of agreements where they offered not to pursue charges in exchange for payments of $150,000 or so directly to the prosecutor's office to "offset the cost of investigation" No need of a court they just shake the guy down straight away. If you don't want to pay they do a forfiture of everything your company has - again without the need of a court case. Neat eh?
[ edited by gravid on Jun 22, 2002 08:20 AM ]
posted on June 22, 2002 10:28:30 AM new
What happens to those who can't pay the $150,000 "pay off." I admit that I might pay it if I figured up my costs and I would be saving money by paying the $150,000.
Imagine being accused of an offense, dragged into court, and then being told, "Pay me $150,000 and we won't pursue this case." Except you are innocent and don't have that kind of money? I could buy a home for that amount.
posted on June 22, 2002 11:39:54 AM new
What's to stop the prosecutor's office of getting marketing data and profiling Who is most likely to be able to pay $150,000 to avoid prosecution? What happens then? Does it stop there? Won't they begin to simply target folks to ruin their careers if they fit the profile or to just use trumped-up charges? The idea that one can simply buy their way out of criminal charges or to pay fines directly to the Prosecutor's office is ExReMeLy DANGEROUS to our civil liberites!
posted on June 22, 2002 12:04:26 PM new
They indicated they only were doing that with people who had businesses and faced having the whole shabang seized in forfiture if they didn't poney up the fee. One for example was an auto repair shop that was accused of padding the bills to insurance companies. Want to bet they found out their property values and account balances before acting? Since they don't have to even charge them to move ahead with the forfiture it was a pretty safe bet which they would do - face a long and usually pointless legal battle to prove themselves innocent to reverse the forfiture or pay up front and retain most of their wealth. A lot of times there would not be enough after a forfiture to pay for a legal battle anyway.
They were saying it saves our tax dollars not to get into a big legal case that can go on for years.
Maybe next they will save us money by just shooting suspects instead of arresting them.
Similarly simple.
[ edited by gravid on Jun 22, 2002 12:06 PM ]
[ edited by gravid on Jun 22, 2002 12:08 PM ]
posted on June 22, 2002 04:03:02 PM new
Sounds to me like business as usual for Michigan, they remind me of the ghostbusters movie where they say no fee is to big, The Bar association there is again asleep at the wheel. just another reason to abolish this unAmerican fraternity.
