Fighting Back Against the Lawyers?

[George Costanza]

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.

I was not asking the question because I do not know the answer. I know the answer. Obviously you do not - but that's OK. I wouldn't expect you to know it. You are not a criminal defense attorney.

YOU are the one who was talking about how useless lawyers are and who was pontificating that lawyers really do not provide any type of real service.

The answer to this question would be critical if you had a prosecutor who was insisting on an admission of a strike prior as part of a plea bargain and the strike prior happened to be a 245(a)(1). What would you do if you were acting as your own attorney? What you did could mean the difference between a relatively short period of time in state prison or a very, very long time.

It is an old saying, but a very true one that: "A person who represents himself in court has a fool for a client."

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

Um, you didn't word it that way. You worded it this way:

Too many lawyers IS a problem.

At worst, I corrected poor grammar. At best, I corrected poor syntax.

Oh, I am in medical school. I would put my understanding of thermodynamics on par with anyone else who had to take two semesters of chemistry and two semesters of algebra based physics.

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.

I wouldn't say I missed it, Bob.

I'd say I wasn't paying attention to your inane rants that were directed in my direction.

 

[Charles Stucker]

The answer to this question would be critical if you had a prosecutor who was insisting on an admission of a strike prior as part of a plea bargain and the strike prior happened to be a 245(a)(1).

And IF I was in such a situation I would look up the relevant legal code. Otherwise you are deflecting form the true issue - What do Lawyers as a group provide to SOCIETY that warrants having as many as we do and paying them as well as they are paid?

The best the "go go lawyer" crowd seems to manage is a series of Personal attacks (Some Lawyer must have REALLY messed you up) mindless drivel about their interpretation of Grammar (Too many lawyers as a plural or singular subject) or you with your trivia and descent into jargon.

No compelling evidence has been presented that Society as a whole benefits from having such a concentration of lawyers.

 

[Vanquish]

LOL You've already been proven to be severely lacking in the legal department. We've moved on...try to catch up. The fact that you won't admit it actually makes this more fun so we can keep...how did they say it in Swingers?..."batting the bunny around"?

 

[Charles Stucker]

LOL You've already been proven to be severely lacking in the legal department.

Which part of NO ONE has shown a compelling reason why we as a SOCIETY benefit from so many lawyers do you fail to understand, or are you AGAIN deflecting from that issue with personal attacks because you have nothing more.

 

[George Costanza]

The answer to this question would be critical if you had a prosecutor who was insisting on an admission of a strike prior as part of a plea bargain and the strike prior happened to be a 245(a)(1).

And IF I was in such a situation I would look up the relevant legal code. Otherwise you are deflecting form the true issue - What do Lawyers as a group provide to SOCIETY that warrants having as many as we do and paying them as well as they are paid?

The best the "go go lawyer" crowd seems to manage is a series of Personal attacks (Some Lawyer must have REALLY messed you up) mindless drivel about their interpretation of Grammar (Too many lawyers as a plural or singular subject) or you with your trivia and descent into jargon.

No compelling evidence has been presented that Society as a whole benefits from having such a concentration of lawyers.

Well, I can see that discussing this topic with someone like yourself is pointless.

I hope you are never charged with a serious crime. If you are, give me a call.