Can Anyone Explain How Defecation Laws Make Any Sense?

[Andrew D]

Lord Jim claimed that I had asserted that most prosecutors suborn perjury.

He did.

That's just a fact.

I have quoted it over and over again.

He has quoted what I actually wrote over and over again.

And nowhere in it is any claim by me that most prosecutors suborn perjury.

Nowhere.

Can't be found. Because it doesn't exist.

Lord Jim lied about what I wrote.

He lied.

That's a fact.

Anyone can see it.

Don't take my word for it. Look for yourselves.

And when you've finished burrowing through Lord Jim's mountains of crap, you'll find one simple thing:

What he claims that I said, I did not say.

Is there anything more to this discussion?

[Lord Jim]

And he does it again....

I had a feeling that when he came back so quickly that his head still wouldn't be right....

Sad to see my feelings confirmed...

As I said yesterday:

I'd like to see him return after he deals with whatever he's got going on to the point that he's able to get a grip and he realize the central and essential role that his words and behavior played in what unfolded, and how inappropriately, disruptively and wrongly he acted....

if he comes back still believing that he was the fully justified victim of the piece, he'll probably just pick up right where he left off

And that is precisely what has happened. He wasn't here more than a few hours before he decided to start this up again. Pity.

I refuse to continue to wrestle with this unrepentant troll.

[Joe Guy]

Don't take my word for it. Look for yourselves.

My guess is that anyone who cares about this discussion has read and formed their own opinions by now.

Please excuse me if I'm repeating myself... but...

My opinion is that you've contradicted yourself. You've referenced evidence/opinions that misconduct is very common among prosecutors and after making that point you argued that most prosecutors are not guilty of misconduct.

So you're only arguing about whether you meant 'most' or 'quite a lot' of prosecutors being guilty of misconduct.

A logical person might deduce that you presented an argument and evidence to support that you meant 'most,' while another logical person could deduce that you presented an argument and evidence to support that you meant 'quite a lot.'

Would the amount of misconduct among prosecutors be important if we were all to agree that the degree is 'quite a lot'?

Is there anything more to this discussion?

No.

[Andrew D]

Don't take my word for it. Look for yourselves.

My guess is that anyone who cares about this discussion has read and formed their own opinions by now.

I certainly hope so.

Would the amount of misconduct among prosecutors be important if we were all to agree that the degree is 'quite a lot'?

Yes.

Even a small amount of prosecutorial misconduct results in innocent people's being imprisoned.

Would you take such a cavalier attitude toward the whole thing if you were the one whose life was stolen from you?

[Joe Guy]

Would you take such a cavalier attitude toward the whole thing if you were the one whose life was stolen from you?

The point is that you support the idea that there are quite a lot of prosecutors not acting ethically.

If my life 'was stolen' from me by the misconduct of a prosecutor, I'd probably not end up having a good opinion of 'most' of them (justified or not).

The truth is there is no way of us knowing whether most of them or some of them are guilty of misconduct if they are all getting away with it.

[Lord Jim]

My opinion is that you've contradicted yourself. You've referenced evidence/opinions that misconduct is very common among prosecutors and after making that point you argued that most prosecutors are not guilty of misconduct.

Another way (of the numerous ways) in which he dishonestly and deliberately attempted to confuse the issue, was to try and substitute "misconduct" for "suborn perjury" as though they were interchangeable...

He did this when it became apparent even to him that he was never going to be able to provide anything that he could even try to pass off as proof for his original butt yanked claim that most prosecutors are willing to suborn perjury if they need to in order to obtain a conviction.

Of course an honest person would have just admitted that.

And of course, as I pointed out numerous times, he never even pretended to provide any proof regarding his claims about cops.

All in all a shameful performance, which he apparently has returned to reprise.

[Andrew D]

Am I the only one who thinks it weird that someone who keeps claiming to be done with me can't have enough of trying to get at me?

[Joe Guy]

Am I the only one who thinks it weird that someone who keeps claiming to be done with me can't have enough of trying to get at me?

I believe it is the nature of this and other boards, Andrew.

That's why I never say never and will not use the 'ignore' feature.

[Lord Jim]

Am I the only one who thinks it weird that someone who keeps claiming to be done with me can't have enough of trying to get at me?

I believe it is the nature of this and other boards, Andrew.

That's why I never say never and will not use the 'ignore' feature.

Am I the only one who thinks it's weird that a guy who has expressed such a low opinion of me seems to have such a desperate craving for my attention?

Even to the point that he's willing to make himself look like a dishonest fool by constantly repeating that I have been "running away" from something I dealt with over a week ago, no matter how many times the proof that I addressed it is re-posted?

[quaddriver]

Am I the only one who thinks it weird that someone who keeps claiming to be done with me can't have enough of trying to get at me?

Thats what happens when you put someone on ignore - I makes you read them and only them

FWIW, I also think you have shored up your side of the argument. In fact, you shored up the only side of the argument as no one offered evidence to counter your claim, only deciding to tell you your claim is not what you claimed (as you recall I predicted no less)

I think Sue and Guin are in agreement as well. Therefore: Welcome one and all to team troll.

[Joe Guy]

I think Sue and Guin are in agreement as well.

And we all know how good you are at thinking....

[Sean]

I think Sue and Guin are in agreement as well. Therefore: Welcome one and all to team troll.

You think that all it takes to get to your level (team troll as you you put it) is to agree with you? Have you forgotten about the months of work you put in acting like an utter cunt?

[Lord Jim]

You think that all it takes to get to your level (team troll as you you put it) is to agree with you? Have you forgotten about the months of work you put in acting like an utter cunt?

Oh, I think you do Quad an injustice, Sean....

He hasn't had to work at it....

The man has a natural gift; acting like an utter cunt comes effortlessly to him....

[quaddriver]

I think Sue and Guin are in agreement as well. Therefore: Welcome one and all to team troll.

You think that all it takes to get to your level (team troll as you you put it) is to agree with you?

apparently, yes

[BoSoxGal]

Three lawyers, who don't even practice criminal law, hardly a well-reasoned consensus on the status of most prosecution practices makes, quad.

[Andrew D]

One lawyer who has barely begun as a prosecutor, who is a prosecutor in a place that would hardly pass for a suburb in a populated state, and who cannot agree even with herself about how prosecutors behave ....

[BoSoxGal]

Correction: who first practiced criminal law in DC over a decade ago, studied with practicing criminal lawyers with combined over a hundred years' experience at the highest - and lowest - levels of practice in the biggest US cities, and has conversed extensively with law school classmates who've spent the past decade practicing criminal law (prosecution & defense) in Boston, DC, NYC, SF and LA.

[Andrew D]

And who has ended up as a fledgling prosecutor in a backwater and still can't agree even with herself about how prosecutors actually behave.

All this deep and meaningful practice, all this intense study, all this profound conversation ... and she ends up doing what? Where?

Wait, where?

References to Boston, New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. But now she finds herself exiled to ....

Huh? Where?

Because this is the career path of successful criminal lawyers (on either side): It ends up prosecuting, well, what exactly? in, um, where?

[BoSoxGal]

Making nasty insinuations toward a person who has chosen a rural lifestyle, for reasons having nothing to do with work, only serves in my mind to further diminish your credibility. Doubtless others feel the same.

I've practiced and lived in big cities - I don't choose to live in a big city, but that says nothing about my competence or ability to do so if I chose; it so happens I turned down a position with a DAs office in MA to pursue my dream to live in and explore Montana when I moved there in '07.

My point is that I've extensively interacted with criminal lawyers, both urban and rural, with more years at the Bar than you - by far. Your continued attempts to brush off my insights as inconsequential are merely additional evidence of your ego issues, nothing more.

[Andrew D]

And you still can't decide about prosecutors. Or about defense attorneys.

When you're a defense attorney, prosecutors are devoted to fighting for grant money, they overcharge cases, they don't bother to look at the evidence, etc. That's when you're on the defense side.

When you're a prosecutor, defense attorneys -- you, not long before -- are "FUCKING LYING SCUMBAG NO-GOOD PERJURY-SUBORNING BACKSTABBING GAMEPLAYING GREEDY MOTHERFUCKING DON'T EVEN CARE ABOUT THE CLIENTS' BEST INTERESTS ROBBING THEM OR THE TAXPAYER BLIND" etc. That's when you're on the prosecution side.

When you're on one side, the people on that side are angels, and the people on the other side are devils. When you switch sides, so do they.

Do you even have any opinion of your own?