Feminism

[T. A. Gardner]

The man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client.

Wrong! The man that relies on his lawyer to do all the legal stuff is a fool. Lawyers, for the most part, are morons.

This saying, often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, underscores the challenges and potential pitfalls of self-representation in legal matters.

Here's a breakdown of why this might be considered true:

• Legal Complexity: Law is a complex field with numerous nuances, specific procedures, and jargon. Lawyers are trained to navigate these intricacies, which can be overwhelming for someone without legal education.

The law is complex because lawyers try to make it that way. I can memorize--and have now 4 times--down to damn near the last nut, bolt, and screw the technical details of a nuclear power plant, and do it in under 3 months. Law is simple compared to that. I only need a liar--err, lawyer--to fill out the paperwork. Hell, I have to damn near tell them what to fill in each blank they're so retarded.

• Emotional Involvement: When you represent yourself, you're personally invested in the outcome, which can cloud judgment, lead to emotional responses, or miss strategic opportunities that a dispassionate lawyer might exploit.

That's why I have the liar... err, lawyer. He's a frontman for this, a puppet. Sure, there are lawyers worth their salt but not that many. Most are fucking retards.

• Lack of Objectivity: A professional attorney can provide an objective viewpoint, which is critical in legal strategy. Self-representation might lead to decisions based more on emotion than on legal merit.

I have repeatedly come up with better "legal strategies" than the lawyers I've had to deal with. The last time I had to go to court--as a witness to testify--was for one of the kids in a custody dispute. The judge was laughing at her (his ex-) lawyer as I tore him apart. That fucking idiot asked some of the most retarded questions you could pose.

• Courtroom Procedure: There are specific rules and etiquettes in court that attorneys are familiar with. Missteps in procedure by a layperson can harm their case.

Again, it's not that difficult.

• Preparation and Research: Lawyers have the resources and experience to conduct thorough research, prepare documents, and anticipate the opposition's moves. A layperson might not be as equipped.

@Grok

With the internet these days, anyone with a reasonable level of education, intellect, and drive can manage that. Lawyers are a profession on the out due to things like AI.

 

[Diogenes]

Wrong!

Judges often frown upon defendants who choose to represent themselves, known legally as pro se representation, for several reasons:

1. Legal Complexity: The law is complex and nuanced. Defendants without formal legal training might not fully understand or correctly apply relevant laws, court procedures, or evidence rules, which can lead to procedural errors, ineffective defense, or even unintentional self-incrimination.
2. Court Efficiency: Self-represented defendants can slow down court proceedings because they might not be familiar with courtroom etiquette, legal jargon, or the pace at which legal arguments should be made. This can lead to delays, miscommunications, or the need for the judge to explain basic legal concepts, which can be time-consuming.
3. Fairness and Justice: There's a concern about whether a self-represented defendant can truly receive a fair trial. They might not know how to properly present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or make legal objections, which could compromise the integrity of the judicial process.
4. Emotional and Psychological Factors: Defendants often have an emotional stake in their cases, which can cloud judgment. An attorney can provide an objective perspective, manage emotions, and make strategic decisions that someone personally involved might not.
5. Precedent and Legal Strategy: Experienced attorneys are aware of precedents that might apply to a case and can craft a legal strategy accordingly. Without this knowledge, a defendant might miss opportunities to use case law in their favor or might not recognize the implications of certain legal moves.
6. Burden on the Court: Judges might find themselves in a position where they need to act more as educators than adjudicators, which can be inappropriate for their role. They must maintain impartiality while ensuring the defendant's rights are respected, but this balance can be harder to strike with a self-represented individual.
7. Perceived Disrespect to the Court: Sometimes, defendants representing themselves might be seen as showing disrespect to the legal process by not taking their situation seriously enough to hire or be provided with counsel.

However, the right to self-representation is constitutionally protected in many jurisdictions, including under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which grants defendants the right to represent themselves if they so choose.

Judges must respect this right, but they are also responsible for ensuring that the defendant understands the risks and complexities involved.

In some cases, judges might even try to dissuade defendants from self-representation to ensure a more just and efficient legal process, but ultimately, they must allow it if the defendant persists.



@Grok

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Judges often frown upon defendants who choose to represent themselves, known legally as pro se representation, for several reasons:

1. Legal Complexity: The law is complex and nuanced. Defendants without formal legal training might not fully understand or correctly apply relevant laws, court procedures, or evidence rules, which can lead to procedural errors, ineffective defense, or even unintentional self-incrimination.
2. Court Efficiency: Self-represented defendants can slow down court proceedings because they might not be familiar with courtroom etiquette, legal jargon, or the pace at which legal arguments should be made. This can lead to delays, miscommunications, or the need for the judge to explain basic legal concepts, which can be time-consuming.
3. Fairness and Justice: There's a concern about whether a self-represented defendant can truly receive a fair trial. They might not know how to properly present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or make legal objections, which could compromise the integrity of the judicial process.
4. Emotional and Psychological Factors: Defendants often have an emotional stake in their cases, which can cloud judgment. An attorney can provide an objective perspective, manage emotions, and make strategic decisions that someone personally involved might not.
5. Precedent and Legal Strategy: Experienced attorneys are aware of precedents that might apply to a case and can craft a legal strategy accordingly. Without this knowledge, a defendant might miss opportunities to use case law in their favor or might not recognize the implications of certain legal moves.
6. Burden on the Court: Judges might find themselves in a position where they need to act more as educators than adjudicators, which can be inappropriate for their role. They must maintain impartiality while ensuring the defendant's rights are respected, but this balance can be harder to strike with a self-represented individual.
7. Perceived Disrespect to the Court: Sometimes, defendants representing themselves might be seen as showing disrespect to the legal process by not taking their situation seriously enough to hire or be provided with counsel.

However, the right to self-representation is constitutionally protected in many jurisdictions, including under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which grants defendants the right to represent themselves if they so choose.

Judges must respect this right, but they are also responsible for ensuring that the defendant understands the risks and complexities involved.

In some cases, judges might even try to dissuade defendants from self-representation to ensure a more just and efficient legal process, but ultimately, they must allow it if the defendant persists.



@Grok

Yea, if you are a retard, or not all that sharp, you probably have to rely on a lawyer. If on the other hand, you are sharp and smart, you should use a lawyer as a tool and nothing more. For me, lawyers are tools.

 

[Diogenes]

Yea, if you are a retard, or not all that sharp, you probably have to rely on a lawyer. If on the other hand, you are sharp and smart, you should use a lawyer as a tool and nothing more. For me, lawyers are tools.

Go get yourself charged with a felony and try it your way.

Good luck!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Go get yourself charged with a felony and try it your way.

Good luck!

Not likely to happen. I did get subpoenaed for a federal case involving someone else and was deposed as a witness. I was later, reliably, told the prosecution team refused to use me because they considered me too independently minded and smart as a witness to risk testifying.

As for your scenario: Either I did it or I didn't. I'd weigh the time I was to potentially serve on a plea deal (no need for a liar there) versus going to trial and decide on that basis. Going to trial gives me full appeal rights whereas cutting a plea deal means I'm stuck and screwed to that deal with virtually no way out.

 

[Diogenes]

Not likely to happen.

That's probably what Jake thought, too.

If it does happen to you, give your prefered method a whirl.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That's probably what Jake thought, too.

If it does happen to you, give your prefered method a whirl.

Jake was drunk and thinking with his "little brain."

In that case, posed on the barest of information, she will HAVE to testify. Indirect evidence will be insufficient. Jake and his lawyer should grill her mercilessly over every detail of the tryst and force her to show she didn't knowingly consent and was sober enough to do so.

 

[Diogenes]

Jake was drunk and thinking with his "little brain."

Is that relevant?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Is that relevant?

Not to the legal case. What matters is that Jake has to immediately declare nuclear war on the bitch for taking him to court.

 

[Diogenes]

Not to the legal case. What matters is that Jake has to immediately declare nuclear war on the bitch for taking him to court.

I don't believe you understand how criminal proceedings work.

In Arizona, witness intimidation is addressed under several statutes, primarily ARS § 13-1202 for threatening or intimidating, ARS § 13-2804 for tampering with a witness, and ARS § 13-2802 for influencing a witness. Here's a breakdown based on the available information:

• Tampering with a Witness (ARS § 13-2804):
  • This statute makes it illegal to knowingly communicate with a witness or someone believed to be a witness in an official proceeding to induce them to withhold testimony, testify falsely, or avoid testifying. Violation of this law is considered a Class 6 felony.
  • Influencing a Witness (ARS § 13-2802):
    • This involves threatening a witness or offering them a benefit with the intent to influence their testimony or to dissuade them from testifying. This is a Class 5 felony.
      
      These laws reflect Arizona's commitment to protecting the integrity of the judicial process by ensuring that witnesses can testify without fear of reprisal. The severity of the charge and the corresponding penalties can vary based on the specifics of each case, including the nature of the threat or intimidation, the context (like domestic violence or gang-related activities), and the intent behind the action.
      
      For anyone facing charges or needing to understand the legal implications of these laws, consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney in Arizona would be advisable, as they can provide guidance tailored to the specifics of the case. Remember, these offenses can have significant repercussions, including jail time and fines, particularly if they escalate to felony charges
      

While there aren't direct statistics for Arizona rape cases defended pro se, the overall complexity and emotional weight of rape charges suggest that self-representation is particularly challenging.

It's reasonable to infer from broader data that the success rate might be lower than for represented defendants, likely in the range of 10% to 30%, considering the complexity of rape cases and the general challenges of pro se representation in serious criminal matters.

@Grok

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I don't believe you understand how criminal proceedings work.

In Arizona, witness intimidation is addressed under several statutes, primarily ARS § 13-1202 for threatening or intimidating, ARS § 13-2804 for tampering with a witness, and ARS § 13-2802 for influencing a witness. Here's a breakdown based on the available information:

• Tampering with a Witness (ARS § 13-2804):
  • This statute makes it illegal to knowingly communicate with a witness or someone believed to be a witness in an official proceeding to induce them to withhold testimony, testify falsely, or avoid testifying. Violation of this law is considered a Class 6 felony.
  • Influencing a Witness (ARS § 13-2802):
    • This involves threatening a witness or offering them a benefit with the intent to influence their testimony or to dissuade them from testifying. This is a Class 5 felony.
      
      These laws reflect Arizona's commitment to protecting the integrity of the judicial process by ensuring that witnesses can testify without fear of reprisal. The severity of the charge and the corresponding penalties can vary based on the specifics of each case, including the nature of the threat or intimidation, the context (like domestic violence or gang-related activities), and the intent behind the action.
      
      For anyone facing charges or needing to understand the legal implications of these laws, consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney in Arizona would be advisable, as they can provide guidance tailored to the specifics of the case. Remember, these offenses can have significant repercussions, including jail time and fines, particularly if they escalate to felony charges

While there aren't direct statistics for Arizona rape cases defended pro se, the overall complexity and emotional weight of rape charges suggest that self-representation is particularly challenging.

It's reasonable to infer from broader data that the success rate might be lower than for represented defendants, likely in the range of 10% to 30%, considering the complexity of rape cases and the general challenges of pro se representation in serious criminal matters.

@Grok

This has nothing to do with witness intimidation. It has everything to do with asking tough, honest questions. It has everything to do with spinning the tale in a manner positive to the defendant.

You destroy the emotional angle and force the "victim" to present herself as simply unhappy with the situation and thus claiming rape.

Somewhat unrelated, a co-worker once had his wife--who cheated on him with a law enforcement officer--had him arrested for assault and domestic violence and then filed immediately for divorce, ask me for advice. She was living in the house they owned, he was out on a restraining order. He'd been jailed to arraignment, and she had a lawyer.

I told him to immediately file for bankruptcy and make sure all debt on everything was dumped on her, credit cards, loans, mortgage, you name it. He did that. She lost the house, had her car repossessed, and had to file bankruptcy herself. She didn't see it coming. Her lawyer could do nothing to change that.

She then tried to take his retirement, but her lawyer didn't recognize he also had a TSP (the federal equivalent of a 401K) account. That went badly too. He complained the lawyer was presenting the court his version of how it should be settled. I told him to have the personnel office calculate it, then have OPM do the same. Then in addition have a CPA familiar in federal retirements do the calculation. He did.

I then said, 'Next time you go to court, let her lawyer present whatever the fuck he's going to present. When it's your turn you say exactly this: I had my personnel office at work calculate the dividing of my retirement. I had OPM, the experts at the federal level calculate it too. I then had a CPA who is an expert in federal retirement accounts do the calculations.' He submitted to the judge the three sets of calculations he had.

Then he said (I told him to say this word for word), "Your honor, who are you going to believe here? Three sets of experts on federal retirement funds who all came to almost exactly the same calculations, or a lawyer who isn't an expert and has no experience in accounting and likely has nothing but an undergraduate degree in political science or history? Who are you going to believe?"

He said her lawyer looked like he was going to kill him but the judge agreed and she got shit from his retirement.

This shit isn't magic or some arcane thing written in Latin that is handed down by priests. It's really pretty damn simple on the whole. I'm not suggesting everyone can pull this off, but if you're reasonably intelligent, you don't need a lawyer so much to tell you the law as to just be a front piece, a tool, to accomplish your goal.

I truly pity the traffic cop that gives me a radar ticket...

 

[Diogenes]

 

[Daylight63]

.... the prosecution team refused to use me because they considered me too independently minded and smart as a witness to risk testifying.

I don't know any details about this whatsoever, but I'm going to lay this out there:

I'm willing to bet a huge amount of money that they didn't refuse to use you because you were "too smart". Sorry, dude, you're just stroking your dick on that one.

The lawyers (likely FAR more intelligent than you ever could be) considered you useless to their needs. That's it.

Trust me: you're never as smart as you fancy yourself to be. And anytime you hear the words "I was too smart" crawl out of your mouth just remember who the source was.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I don't know any details about this whatsoever, but I'm going to lay this out there:

I'm willing to bet a huge amount of money that they didn't refuse to use you because you were "too smart". Sorry, dude, you're just stroking your dick on that one.

No, I had no shot because I

1. Didn't fit any particular program by age, rank, time in service, etc.
2. There were no particular billets open I could apply for.

The lawyers (likely FAR more intelligent than you ever could be) considered you useless to their needs. That's it.

No, they're not. The typical lawyer gets an undergraduate degree in a simple liberal art, political "science" being the most common. They then go to law school as their graduate program. Neither is particularly difficult.

Trust me: you're never as smart as you fancy yourself to be. And anytime you hear the words "I was too smart" crawl out of your mouth just remember who the source was.

I wouldn't trust you as far as I could toss the Empire State Building. I never said, "I was too smart." The main reason was I didn't fit in the mold and ticket punching system the Navy had. I didn't bother with law school because that's just a waste of my time in my opinion.

 

[Diogenes]

I guess "women’s life coaching" could be the best industry ever to find job security in, because it appears that if you give women advice, they will consistently do the exact opposite.

You’d have lifelong clients.

Right? @christiefan915?

 

[Diogenes]

Their impossible mission was sorting mail in the mail room. The 6888 were mailroom sorters.​

 

[Daylight63]

No, I had no shot because I

1. Didn't fit any particular program by age, rank, time in service, etc.
2. There were no particular billets open I could apply for.

You claimed you were "too smart" and that's why they didn't want you.

No, they're not. The typical lawyer gets an undergraduate degree in a simple liberal art, political "science" being the most common. They then go to law school as their graduate program. Neither is particularly difficult.

OMG, now you're an expert on the law as well as statistics? Wow. A dual-liar.

I never said, "I was too smart."

Can you tell the truth even once?

Not likely to happen. I did get subpoenaed for a federal case involving someone else and was deposed as a witness. I was later, reliably, told the prosecution team refused to use me because they considered me too independently minded and smart as a witness to risk testifying.

Now change your story! Tell us a new one!

The main reason was I didn't fit in the mold and ticket punching system the Navy had. I didn't bother with law school because that's just a waste of my time in my opinion.

 

[Diogenes]

 

[Diogenes]

 

[Diogenes]