Freedom of billboard rights.

[Andrew D]

There's an interesting little tidbit.

When bigskygal referred to defense attorneys as:

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

did she present any evidence to support that claim?

Was Lord Jim self-righteously demanding that she either present evidence or withdraw her scurrilous accusation?

No, I didn't think so.

[BoSoxGal]

I posted that in a vent thread, and it was based on my own experiences - what I have seen, during my tenure in the criminal law.

I have seen a great deal of misconduct engaged in by defense attorneys. Prosecutors? Not so much - the one I replaced I don't have a very high opinion of, and that individual is now practicing largely in criminal defense.

And anyway, I have not made any assertions that MOST defense attorneys in the system engage in such behavior; nor have I engaged in despicable personal attack of your ethics in the process of asserting my OPINIONS on this issue.

I have already done years of tenancy rights advocacy as a legal aid attorney; as well as benefits advocacy, family law advocacy, advocacy on behalf of victims of domestic violence, and advocacy on behalf of indigenous peoples. And if the future presents an opportunity to represent a landlord, I wouldn't have a problem with that, because I would do THAT ethically - just as I have done everything else. Do you seriously think that landlords are never in the right?!?

It says a lot to me that you can't imagine being able to change sides without compromising principles and ethics. It says a lot about YOU; nothing more.

eta: You go ahead and keep spewing your venomous bile, Andrew D. No doubt you'll find someone else to spew on, with me gone. Don't forget to pat yourself on the back for being so incredibly adept at verbally abusing people.


As to those of you who communicate with me off-board: let me know when he's crawled back under his rock, and I'll come 'round and say hello. Cheers!

[Lord Jim]

So now that's Sue, Joe and I who all have been able to see and acknowledge that Andrew has provided evidence in support of his assertion.

Actually Joe seems to have said things supporting both sides....

You and Sue don't like prosecutors in general; that's obvious. The fact remains that he has in no way shape or form provided any proof that this statement is true:

It is still true that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it.

If you think he has, then you're creating an interpretation to what he has provided so charitable that it doesn't match up with what he has presented. What he done is to use word substitution and creative interpretations of what he actually wrote, to try and fit it into what little he was able to dig up.

He's also using opinions to back up his "facts", which is of course a bassackwards approach. Usually one uses "facts" to back up their opinions. (He's also using the term "misconduct" and "suborn perjury" as though they were interchangeable; just another on the long list of intellectually dishonest tactics he has employed. It would be like finding some "crime" statistics, and substituting in the word "murder", and then claiming they proved your assertions about "murder")

Was Lord Jim self-righteously demanding that she either present evidence or withdraw her scurrilous accusation?

If you can't tell the difference between somebody obviously venting, (BSG) and somebody pulling completely unfounded BS accusations out of their backside, (YOU) I can't help you.

Which is still far more than you have provided, LJ.

Well ya got me there Guin...

I haven't produced on shred of evidence proving "that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors won't do it. "

Nor have I presented that as a fact.

Andrew has provided not one shred of proof "that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it."


But he has repeatedly presented that as a "fact" and continues to do so.

On top of that, if you're going to make an accusation like "that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it." You're the one making the accusation; you have the burden. The person challenging a blanket accusation like that doesn't have any obligation to prove the negative.

[Andrew D]

Notice what Lord Jim is still running away from.

One could hardly have brought it more forcefully to his attention, yet again:

But you are the one who crossed the line. You did that when you claimed that my "assertion is that 'most' prosecutors in this country suborn perjury".

That is a lie.

That was not my assertion. That has never been my assertion. That is still not my assertion.

And still, not a word from him about it.

Nothing.

A whole bunch of denials that evidence is evidence. A whole bunch of yammering about my supposedly being an incarnation of Steve.

But when it comes to his own blatant lie about what I posted?

Not a word.

Nothing.

Which pretty well sums up his entire contribution to this discussion.

[Andrew D]

Well, that clears it all up, bigskygal.

When you spew venom many times more vituperative than what I said, everyone should realize that you never meant it to be taken seriously.

But when I make an assertion nowhere near as scurrilous, I am a raving lunatic.

That works for you?

Hey, whatever helps.

Of course landlords are sometimes in the right. (Probably a lot more often than the slanted law will admit.)

But if I were going to represent a landlord -- if I even thought that representing a landlord were a foreseeable possibility -- I would probably not publicly call landlords "fucking lying scumbag ... backstabbing gameplaying greedy motherfucking don't even care ...."

Maybe that's your idea of client development.

Maybe that's why, in the private sector, you'd last maybe a minute. If that.

[BoSoxGal]

Ahhhh, I see.

When you say a prosecutor is the lowest thing an attorney can become, it should be obvious to all that it's just your opinion, nothing more.

And when I engage in a rant about defense attorneys in a thread where we were specifically invited to let off some steam, a rant which I clarified was based on my recent personal experiences, according to you I'm making blanket assertions about the whole defense bar.

How you do love to twist the truth.



You really are a piece of work, Andrew D. Anyone here can see for themselves the double standards and attempts at deception you engage in to try to win the argument. You'd make a GREAT defense attorney, but a terrible prosecutor - because you are the kind of ego-driven, ultra-competitive ideologue who could not be trusted to fairly utilize the awesome power of prosecutorial discretion.

No wonder you say the things you do; you write here for all the world as someone who can't imagine putting honesty & integrity ahead of winning at all cost.

And thanks much for yet more words of 'wisdom' pulled from out of your anus; as it so happens I turned down an associate position I'd earned at a very prestigious law firm to take up a career in public interest law - and several times over the past decade I have been invited by my colleagues in the Bar to join various other firms & practices - you know, private enterprises? This is because everywhere I have worked I have been recognized for my strong work ethic, diligence & integrity.

Now don't let us all down; quick come up with some new made-up slur against me to post in your obsessive quest to tear me down so you can build yourself up in the process.

Really this would all be a lot more amusing to me if it wasn't just so sad; you are clearly a bright man, but you are also clearly very damaged. What is saddest is that quite obviously anyone with so much ugliness inside can't be cultivating good health by nurturing that ugliness the way that you do. I feel sorry for you.

[Andrew D]

Anyone here can see for themselves ....

Yep.

Well, except for the grade-school grammar part, yep.

[Guinevere]

You and Sue don't like prosecutors in general; that's obvious.

Show me one place on this board where Sue or I said *anything* regarding our opinions about prosecutors. Sue presented facts, which you continue to ignore. I stated that Andrew presented facts, which you continue to ignore. I've not said one word about my own opinion. And in fact, I defy you to find one place on this board, or others where we have posted, where I made any sweeping statements which would indicate "that I don't like prosecutors in general."

Of course you can't, because that's a completely false, unsupported statement, and demonstrates again the lengths you will go to attempt to counter a position you disagree with.

I have been completely clear about cops and "testilying" but again, what I have presented isn't opinion, but evidence, based on years of dealing with them in multiple matters. And based on quick, simple research. Facts which you failed to counter with evidence of your own.

[Guinevere]

if you're going to make an accusation like "that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it." You're the one making the accusation; you have the burden. The person challenging a blanket accusation like that doesn't have any obligation to prove the negative.

I've not asked you to "prove the negative," I've asked you (and Andrew has asked you) to provide factual evidence in support of your position. Maybe in TVland, the "'defense" can get away with simply trying to shoot holes in the "claimant's" case, but that's not how it works in the real world. If you want to counter Andrew's position with something other than your own strongly-held opinion, you have to provide factual evidence of your own, which contradicts his position. You have failed to provide one scintilla of any such evidence.

[Lord Jim]

I've not asked you to "prove the negative,"

I'm sorry but that's precisely what you've done. You're asking me to provide proof that people "won't" do something; that's as clear cut a case of "proving a negative" as one can imagine.

Look, I am as through debating your gross misinterpretations of what Andrew has been doing and saying in this discussion as I am through with him.

It's an utterly pointless merry-go-round. So you can spare me your condescending retorts.

I will say make one observation though...

For someone who has always been ever so sensitive about the importance of civility, you have been notably silent about the truly vicious troll-like things your buddy has been spewing, (not just at me, but also at BSG, LoCa, Sean and others.)

Why is that?

[Andrew D]

Ooh!

Can we place bets?

Lord Jim was through responding to me until he thought he could make a point.

Then he wasn't through responding to me.

Then he got his ass handed to him again.

So now he's through again.

How long this time?

[Andrew D]

Lord Jim lied.

Lord Jim got caught.

Lord Jim wigged out.

That's pretty much it.

[BoSoxGal]

Guinevere doesn't like me, LJ - so I think her adherence to civility takes a backseat when it comes to observing Andrew D's attacks on my character.

As to the claim about defense practice she made; in fact, quite often poking holes in the plaintiff's (State's) case is the only strategy available to the defense - that's a truth I've observed in the big city of DC as well as here in 'Bumfuck' Montana (in his quest to win the argument, Andrew D conveniently avoided the oft-stated truth that I both studied criminal law with those who practiced it at the highest levels, I also practiced it in a big city, against AUSAs).

One of the things that has always annoyed me about Guin's posts is that she takes the position that what she is saying IS how things are; she's flat wrong in making the assertion she just did about how the defense works.

[Andrew D]

Okay. Assume that this:

... quite often poking holes in the plaintiff's (State's) case is the only strategy available to the defense ....

is true.

Well, yeah.

The State bears -- and quite rightly bears -- the burden of proving the accused's guilt.

"Poking holes in the State's case" is pointing out the various ways in which the State has failed to prove the accused's guilt.

There is something wrong with that?

If the State were trying to lock you up, wouldn't you want your attorney to be pointing out the various ways in which the State has failed to prove your guilt? Isn't that exactly what you would expect your attorney to be doing?

[Andrew D]

The fact remains that bigskygal has very little experience being a prosecutor.

She's new at it.

That is not a bad thing; everyone in any line of work was at some point new at that line of work.

But maybe pretending to understand how it all really works is a tad premature.