|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 2, 2004 7:24:16 GMT -5
No problem, I thought that was a pretty good summary. I was mostly interested in the reactions of the PD. I was sort of wondering how deep the deception goes. I mean, at what point in a lawyer's/attorney's career does the fraud become obvious? I have had a prosecutor openly admit what the judge did was wrong. He didn't care, he worships the pecking order. "You're right Marc, but until the judge orders..." I think it is why drug and alcohol abuse is so rampant in that "profession." |
|
-0-
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by -0- on Dec 2, 2004 10:01:46 GMT -5
So you're saying she seemed pretty much unaware that the whole thing was a scam. I wonder if you could have talked her into asking the prosecutor if there was evidence of a complaining party. That woulda been hilarious. She was oblivious. At least she played the part of ignorant bystander pretty well. Thats why it was so rewarding to watch her eyes open. She did ask the persecutor for evidence. More than a few times out of court, and in court at least twice. When the judgelawer asked if.... "are you ready to proceed?" Her reply was... "I still havent seen evidence of a complaining party" while looking at the persecutor. He seemed refuse to acknowledge that he was even in court, and started to stare at his papers. (His head never came up again until we were leaving.) She was then informed by the judgelawyer that those were issues for discovery and she was more than welcome to file a motion. Thats about the time she realized the whole scam. She almost dropped her files on the floor. My brother said, "I just want to plead guilty and get out of here". The PD said (again, looking directly at the persecutor) "Are you sure you want to do that? Because they really dont have a case. I see several proceedural errors, jurisdictional problems, and no damaged party. You cant lose." (paraphrased) Thats when the judglawyers arms went crossed and face went red, and the deputies took up residence behind me. There are issues going on outside this case, and he cant possibly deal with it sitting in a cage. We still have no means to bail him, so the plea was the only way to get him out. He needed to get back to work. But yes, she did ask for evidence, and if it werent so danged serious, it would have been very funny. She's working out how to bring up an appeal right now. Even to the point that she (herself) is going to claim that she was unable to give him an adequate defense, starting from the basis of the 'states' non-responsive behavior. (they refused to present evidence of any kind) |
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 2, 2004 10:04:50 GMT -5
|
|
-0-
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by -0- on Dec 2, 2004 10:17:08 GMT -5
Thanks. She has been here a few times now. And she really didnt appreciate me talking about all of this. (at least this is what my brother told me) I'm sure she'll be back someday. I have made copies of most of the radio interviews for my brother, and I'm going to make her some next. Thanks again for turning me on to this new area of study. I used to have about as much fun in court, as I did in hospitals. Now I want to spend all day everyday in the courtroom tossing water on these rabid animals. |
|
|
|
Post by weis on Dec 2, 2004 10:21:23 GMT -5
congrazzi !
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Dec 2, 2004 12:39:57 GMT -5
No problem, I thought that was a pretty good summary. I was mostly interested in the reactions of the PD. I was sort of wondering how deep the deception goes. I mean, at what point in a lawyer's/attorney's career does the fraud become obvious? Echo KT. and another comment. In my travels at times in my youth I was extrememly angry with "all them in the system"; however, have come to the realization that most, not all, but many of these folks (excluding ones who wear black dresses to work) are as ignorant as some of us once were. In fact they are just trying to put food on the table like everyone else. This does not excuse the wrong, but they must be made aware. If the PD is actually angry and actually sees the flaws as you described, then it would tend to support the observation that some of the workers in the system have have been deceived as well or simply turn a blind eye. |
|
|
|
Post by KaosTheory on Dec 2, 2004 12:40:59 GMT -5
Her reply was... "I still havent seen evidence of a complaining party" while looking at the persecutor. He seemed refuse to acknowledge that he was even in court, and started to stare at his papers. (His head never came up again until we were leaving.) She was then informed by the judgelawyer that those were issues for discovery and she was more than welcome to file a motion. Thats about the time she realized the whole scam. She almost dropped her files on the floor. Mwuahahaha....I love it. Man, I wonder how bad the judge chewed her out after that calamity. Hey Marc, judge to the rescue, right on cue eh? Good save judge! Too bad that's bull. I don't see what the attorney has to be upset about, in re, posting your experience on this site. All the names have been changed to protect privacy. Hey attorney, what is your real objection here. Thanks again Sonargc. |
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 2, 2004 13:40:10 GMT -5
Yeah, the one is the silly robe usually comes to the rescue. It's a rare treat when the black-robed wonder just sits back and let's the lawyer pretending to represent the "state" go for it on his/her own.
Throwing their faces into their books is the cue I write/speak about. That is so the black-robed lawyer can leap to the rescue.
|
|
heidi
Junior Member
first, a peaceful heart
Posts: 82
|
Post by heidi on Dec 2, 2004 14:27:09 GMT -5
sonargc, you and your bro are just having TOO GOOD A TIME! ENJOY IT!! ;D and thanks for sharing the fun with us here. Despite the plea, I chalk this one up as a success story, and another in the making! |
|
-0-
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by -0- on Dec 3, 2004 2:08:06 GMT -5
Looking back on it all, it really was a good time.
But it sure was an agonizing month.
The actual 'trial' only lasted about 5 minutes.
Heck, it took longer to write about it than it actually
lasted.
I never asked for her permission to talk about her behavior,
so I think that would play a part in her being unhappy
with the postings here.
I dont really have a great deal of experience dealing
with lawyers, but in my opinion I'd have to agree that
many (if not most) lawyers cant see the falseness of it
all, until someone convinces them.
That is, actually shows them where the problems exist,
and has them try to refute it.
A "show me where I'm wrong and I'll drop it" kind of thing.
Heck... Throw in an "I dare you" for good measure.
I just hope that when the smoke clears, she'll stick with
it. I know that I have only just begun.
There are a few hundred million people out there that need
a wakeup call. And thanks to Marc, (and two others) I
finally have the basic information I need to get started.
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 3, 2004 9:50:53 GMT -5
I agree with you sonargc. In my experience the power trip or just the regular paycheck keeps those who have found out it's a scam on the job. There is a lawyer here in Arizona, who pretends to represent the "State of Arizona" who knows, without doubt, and without shame, he represents no one. He still goes to work everyday.
I know cops who know there is no "state" and yet they put the uniform on everyday. But where else are they going to be able to get paid for dominating others irresponsibly? Where else can you lie about protecting people with no accountability?
|
|
|
|
Post by Seeker of Truth on Dec 6, 2004 12:10:29 GMT -5
Marc,
Yes, that is the problem. After someone (e.g., the "state" attorney or cop) has been in that position long enough, the lie, even if they're aware of it, becomes their life. It's very difficult for even the best person to acknowledge, "O.K., what I'm doing is wrong, I need to change and get a new job." One of the reasons that it's so difficult is that it takes humility; not the wallowing in self pity, beating oneself with a whip type of humility, but instead a calm certainty and comfort with oneself that few people possess.
|
|
|
|
Post by learnin2 on Dec 6, 2004 23:17:23 GMT -5
Sonargc. It would seem he was still denied his right to discovery, Which you said was requested repeatedly by the PD.
|
|
|
|
Post by s0nargc on Dec 7, 2004 10:09:08 GMT -5
Sonargc. It would seem he was still denied his right to discovery, Which you said was requested repeatedly by the PD. He wasnt exactly denied. Just told that there were "proceedures" |
|
