R says
> judges in Los Angeles County will throw a person off a jury if they believe that person is simply open to jury nullification.
--I would too.
only if they're open to it? what about that sacrosanct black box you talk about later in this letter?
> they and DAs also attempt to browbeat, intimidate
and badger jurors
into
"following the law" only.
--Heaven forbid! What a ridiculous notion, following the --law! R would apparently rather have people hearing --cases who announce that they will follow the law when --they feel like it and not otherwise. Woj, too, I --notice: he doesn't think the drug laws are real laws, --despite their being enacted by the legislature and --presented to and signed by the executive.
as i said " 'following the law' only."
that means following the law as the judge interprets it. laws are imperfect. the whole point of a jury nullification verdict is not to follow the law as written because the law is unreasonable, unjust, motivated by base political concerns, or being misapplied.
the fact a juror has more insight into a particular legal problem than a lawyer or judge happens often. the legal system operates in a vacuum with it's own particular logic.
> jurors have gotten into serious legal trouble if, after a verdict is renderd, they admit to the judge they used jury nullification.
--Bullshit. There is no law against JN ina ny --jurisdiction in the US, and what happens in the jury --is a black box. Judges are extremely reluctant to even --consider how the jury might have arrived at its --decision.
bullshit (and all those exclamation points you threw in above) is pretty emotional language, no?
it's not bullshit. i know people who've been called into chambers to face an irate judge and DA on the possibility they've said or done something approving of jury nullification, and/or not followed the judge's instructions to the letter. there are judges and attorneys who believe they are above the law. this should not come as a surprise to anyone in the profession.
> jury nullification advocates handing out pro nullification leaflets outside courts, on public property, have been arrested.
--Um, abstract advocacy of illegal conduct is protected --under the 1A. Incitement to violate the law, even if --the violation cannot be punished(as with JN), is not --protected. So yes, I can see busting JN propagandists --who are leafleting courts.
of course you can. that's your bias. that's the bias of the entire legal system. that's why jury nullification verdicts exist. handing out leaflets is not incitement.
> although i'm not current on it, i believe there have
been attempts to
outlaw
jury nullification in various parts of the united
states, some of which
succeeded.
--I don't believe it, and if so, it's unenforceable.
if there was such a thing as law, it would be unenforceable.
> this ain't a democracy, folks.
--Ahh, fascist Amerikkka, an old chant. Sure it's a --democracy. It's nota perfect democracy. But what we --have won with blood and struggle over 200 years is --worthing fighting and dying to keep. It's because it's --a democracy that Ashcroft et al make me so mad.
no, it's simply not a democracy. it's not even a republic. emotional appeals like falsely characterizing a realistic statement as a "chant" -- and then putting misrepresenting the meaning and intent of what you're referring to, don't cut it. the only one to use the term fascist is you.
try to remember, the USA could be better than it is. falsely characterizing constructive criticism turns attempts at communication into pointless, needless, wasteful adversarial battles.
> people opposing the
country's
largest unregulated monopoly should very carefully
consider what they
do and
when they do it; legal professionals know the ins and
outs of the law
and we
don't.
--Evil lawyers, another old chant.
you're doing a fine job of splitting. lawyers = good. those who dare to say lawyers aren't perfect = bad. "evil lawyers" is your bogus characterization. a very defensive one at that.
there are many reasons why lawyers are coming under often hostile scrutiny today. foremost is the fact they don't deliver. can you imagine paying a plumber for not fixing your plumbing? paying a tutor for not teaching your child? lawyers get paid for loosing cases.
clients come and go; your fellow attorneys and the judges stay around for a long time. it's the judge you have to please, otherwise he won't rule fairly in your cases despite the facts. and often he will refuse to hear your cases and, in all ways, make life difficult for you. it's not at all unheard of for attorneys to loose their license to practice based on trumped up, politically motivated charges initiated by judges and legal competitors. yours is a nasty business. the client's interest consistently takes a back seat to the political realities of court.
another reason your profession is under attack is the far right wing of US politics. you've done too good a job representing victims of medical malpractice, victims of corporate malfeasance, victims of HMO murder, and etc. the trial lawyers as a group catch hell for this, as you know.
also, the right wing is responsible for getting large numbers of antediluvian and incompetent judges placed on the bench. i don't know what your values are, but i wonder how any attorney worth a damn can appear before such people. an attorney friend of mine once expressed his utter shock at walking into a courtroom and finding the judge, a political appointee, was the stupidest, most incompetent former fellow attorney he knew.
--We are of course a --regulated monopoly.
define "regulated monopoly" for me, please, as it applies to your profession.
of course you're not. the only group "regulating" legal performance in its half assed way is the bar assn. in california, former governor pete wilson did all he could to destroy the bar assn by denying it absolutely necessary funding. yes, i know the legal profession also funds the bar. but their contributions are insufficient, inadequate and resented by many lawyers.
let me give you an example of how unregulated your profession is. a few years back, when i was more involved with forensic matters than i am now, i subscribed to the Daily Journal, then an excellent newspaper in Los Angeles written for and about the legal profession. it was always interesting to me to read the journal's reports on attorney's who violated the law, violated cannons of legal ethics, stole money from clients, forging client's names on legal documents, were convicted of felonies, and etc. most of these lawyers were allowed to continue practicing law unimpeded. a few where but on probation by the bar assn. probation of a few months for some, of a year for others. the only ones who had their license to practice law pulled were, for example, those convicted of pedophilia. and this was not always a sure thing. in effect, the lax bar "regulation" gave attorneys a license to steal.
rarely was judicial misconduct and ethical violations of judges, sitting or otherwise, mentioned. despite the fact that every attorney dealing with this kind of judge knew full well what they where dealing with. as anyone in your profession knows, if a judge's performance is questioned by those in power, he will often sue. rendering the issue a matter of protracted legal, adversarial dispute, and preventing those responsible for assuring the public that judges are competent professionals from doing their jobs.
--Me, I'd be happy to see the --monopoly disappear -- I believe free markets and --competition. Glad to see you on my side on this one.
i wouldn't say we're taking sides. unlike you, i don't see this as adversarial.
i doubt you and i mean the same thing when we talk about ending the legal monopoly. so i suggest you not be too hasty in jumping to conclusions about whether or not we "agree."
--But if did disappear, I'd be pretty damn careful about --whose advice I took on legal matters. It's bad enough --with the monopoly, where there are tens of thousands --of liscened idiots who somehow got through law school --and passed the bar exam.
the monopoly protects those tens of thousands from exposure and remedy. i quite agree one must be very careful about choosing a lawyer. but the legal monopoly makes this worse instead of better. another result of the fact your profession is not regulated.
I said:
> --I AM a lawyer, though I don't see that that is
> relevant here.
>
R replied:
> that's a shame because your view of the legal system
> is conditioned by your
> professional education and experience. your
> background is very pertinent.
> when you say it's a matter of law rather than of
> justice, that's how a
> lawyer thinks.
--My point is that even if you would expect me to say --that, as I would expect a radical ignorant of the law --who hasn't given much thought to poltical philosophy --either to say what you said, my background is --irrelevant to to the truth of my claims. You have to --answer my argument, not cast ad hominem aspersions on --my background.
thanks for the bogus characterization and the bogus compliment. i expect more from a legal professional. but i'm constantly disappointed.
you're making bogus, defensive assertions. as you know, no one cast any ad hominem aspersions on your background. i didn't say anything critical of your background; i don't even know your background until you tell me. in fact, you've just cast a bogus ad hominem aspersion against me. you're engaging in splitting again. you = good. those who don't agree with you = bad.
>
> we do not have a system of laws rather than people;
> judges make the law, not
> legislators. otherwise the intent of the law would
> be the governing factor
> in US law as it is in British law.
--You lost me here. As a matter of fact, in almost every --state and most federal jusrisdictions (and I only say --"almost" because I haven't reviewed every one, I just --don't know of any exceptions),
i don't expect perfection. hopefully, you don't either. or do you?
--the intent of the --legislature is the key to the interpretation of --statutes. I am not sure what you mean by the intent of --the "law" if taht means something else.
in my experience, the intent of the legislature is ignored. and often that intent is so poorly worded in bills passing the legislature, meanings of terms and intent are left to the courts to determine. besides, in a court of law, just how explicit can the english language be made to be?
what i meant by intent of the law was the intent of those who wrote it. this intent is paid lip service to on some occasions, but it either rarely followed or so obscure it's impossible to interpret. the last time i heard an attorney speak of intent to a judge, he was laughed at. the last time i read about intent in a legal brief, it was ignored.
--And I do not --see how the denial of the promacy of legislative --intent necesasrily means that we have a govt of of --men ratherthan laws, and that law is made by judges.
think it over.
--For example, one might think that the legislature is --not the sort of thing that can have an intent, but the --plain language of the law as enacted by the --legislature should gocern, whatever the judge's --personal view of the matter. This is also the law in --every US jurisdiction (I mean the plain language --rule), and something to which almost every judge would --agree, including the judges for whom I used to clerk.
the pretense
> that our court system is
> anything other than a political arena 99 percent of
> the time is ludicrous.
--Sez you.
right. sez i. and i'm not alone. the fact this comes as news to you is indicative of the isolation of the legal business from the experience, thoughts, and minds of those not in your profession.
--The "pretense" as you call it is the basis of civilized society.
what is the basis of civilized society, in your opinion? i'm missing something here. you've stated that what i call a pretense that the courts aren't 99 percent political is the "basis of civilized society." how can ignoring the fact the courts are 99 percent political be the basis of anything but miscarriage of justice, hypocrisy, and so forth?
--but let me tell you first first --hand experience based on my involvement in helping to --make judicial decisions that in 99% of the time, --politics (understood as the political preferences of --the judge) doesn't enter into the matter.
when i say politics, i mean something which i don't believe you've ever considered. not only do i mean the judges and the clerks politics in the traditional sense. i also include the politics of the court system, and working within it, itself.
it's always there either in the open or sub rosa.
the arrogance of many clerks "helping to make judicial decisions" before the judge ever sees the pleadings has block many a substantive appeal from ever reaching the court. i'm not saying you are, or were, like this. but too many clerks are.
--Based on --clerking in the Chicago federal courts for four years --at the district (trial) and appellate levels, I can --recall very clearly the half dozen times I encountered --politics in the courts; all were shockingly unusual.
perhaps you missed something. i've rarely stepped into a court which wasn't busily engaged in political decisions, masquerading as law and reason. the court system is a political animal, like any work setting, only worse.
--Mostly you just look up the law, figure out how it --applies, and apply it.
nothing political about figuring out is there ....
Political sympathies might give --you more incentive to look to help out a plaintiff or --criminal defendant (if you area liberal)or defenadnt --or the govt (if you are a conservative), but if you --are honest, and most judges try to be, you can't help --someone out if the law's not there.
and there are times when the law isn't there, despite people needing help. another good reason for jury nullification.
>
> your suggestion that people who don't like the law
> try having it changed (i
> assume rather than practicing jury nullification)
> shows no understanding of
> the political system. ever try having a law
> changed youself? you don't
> live in an elementary democracy.
--How long have you been around politics, fella?
try not to be a smart ass, OK? it really doesn't help make your points.
--I been --trying to change the laws for over 30 years. No --understanding of politics, fuck you. You think you're --so goddam knowing. What you are is an ignorant cynic.
nothing ad hominem about this commentary is there, mr charm school. and "fuck you": is that the use of language sophisticates like yourself are reduced to today? your hostility leads me to believe my comments were accurate and hit too close to home for you.
all i asked you to do was tell me what your experience with the political system was. and enlighten me regarding your efforts in and around the political system you so glibly recommended to the readers of this message board. you respond like someone thrust a poll up your ass. your inability to control your feelings is embarrassing. you show no respect for those of this message board who have to read your scurrilous diatribe.
--I am experienced activist, a Guild and ACLU attorney --in Chicago, and (incidentally) a PhD in political --science and former political philosopher by trade. You --want a complete roadmap on the various senses in which --our democracy is deformed and limited and corrupted, --you came to the right place.
if you've got it in you, try me.
--You couldn't even begin --to start to catch up with the amount of bad news that --I could give you. But it hasn't made me give up on our --democracy. It makes me mad and it makes me wanna --fightto keep it strong and make it better.
jks
superficially, i'm impressed with the credentials you've just laid out. i'm not too impressed with your use of language and your uncontrolled, scatter gun anger, or your propensity for blame, labeling and turning matters into hostile, arrogant, adversarial argument.
how about letting me in on your bad news a bit at a time. i'd love to hear it. i'm sure it's copious. from your ad hominem aspersion about my catching up, i'd like to know just how much catching up you think i need to do. and i'd like to get started now. maybe, after all your personal attacks, swearing, and glib assertions, you may have something worthwhile to teach. i'm willing to take a chance on that. try me, mr arrogant and self satisfied. i'd be interested in knowing what's got you so frustrated and mean.
as for your not giving up on what you mistakenly term "our democracy," i'd love to hear how your dealing with a problem that afflicts the huge percentage of our society who are totally alienated and/or completely left out of this "democracy." i can tell you see yourself as a fighter because that's you want to do with me in this message. i'd love to know about your fight "to keep it stronger and make it better" rather than waste my time fighting with you myself.
let's see if you can back up your assertion about all your "bad news" and battles. try writing something meaningful rather than blowing off steam.
R