Unconscious? You Know You Wanted It

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here we go, AGAIN. If she was numb or emotionally dead she wouldn't have continued the conversation. People in that state are not noted to be conversationalists.

Do you have any clue about human behavior? Let me clarify. Do you have clue about normal, human behavior?

I can't believe you advocate for anything.

This is complete bullshit. You are projecting the same reaction onto every rape victim. Here is a clue, since you seem to have none on this topic....

She easily could have been looking for confirmation of what he just said. She expanded upon it to make sure he understood what he was saying. Getting him to also admit that there were multiple signs that should have told him to NOT RAPE her.

You are completely off base here.

 

[Damocles]

If the cops hadn't been foolish enough to let her use their equipment and listen in, thus making her a de facto agent of their organization, the guy would have been convicted of this crime. It's a shame that the cops screwed it up so bad.

 

[Socrtease]

what if the attorney thought there was little or no chance of winning?

what about in a civil case....if you thought there was little or no chance of success, but the case is not frivilous, and your client wanted to pay you take the case to court...wouuld you? if not, do you think it is unethical, stupid, incompetent etc.... for an attorney to do so?

In this case, I would actually attempt to steer my client toward a civil suit. The standard for liability is so much lower than that of the criminal case. I would go after him for Battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress. They are all intentional torts so non-dischargable in bankruptcy. I would do every thing I could to dissuade her from forcing the criminal case if it is as weak as it sounds here, but ultimately if she wanted to press forward with the motion to compel I would assist her. If a case is not frivilous then there is no ethical violation. Part of being an attorney is being able to walk up to the line ethically without crossing it. That is the whole point of the MPRE, to test your ability to know where the line is.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

In this case, I would actually attempt to steer my client toward a civil suit. The standard for liability is so much lower than that of the criminal case. I would go after him for Battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress. They are all intentional torts so non-dischargable in bankruptcy. I would do every thing I could to dissuade her from forcing the criminal case if it is as weak as it sounds here, but ultimately if she wanted to press forward with the motion to compel I would assist her. If a case is not frivilous then there is no ethical violation. Part of being an attorney is being able to walk up to the line ethically without crossing it. That is the whole point of the MPRE, to test your ability to know where the line is.

absolutely agree with you

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No moron. An attorney who thinks the client cannot win based on the evidence should refuse to take the case. They should send the client to an unscrupulous attorney who would charge the client regardless of the merits of their case.

My guess is... someone like YOU.

Answer this Yurt... in this case... WHO pays her attorney's fees if she loses?



Again, you are taking things to the extreme yurt.... No, attorneys are not ALWAYS right... but if the client understands the merits of the case and the evidence and the odds of winning better than the attorney, then the attorney is worthless and should not be practicing.

so you obviously think soc is a moron as well since he said virtually the same thing i did....

thanks again for showing how little you know

 

[Minister of Truth]

JPP Lawyers FTW

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

you do realize there is a HUGE difference between a CIVIL case and a CRIMINAL case.... don't you?

soc just said he would assist her with the motion...

are you so stupid that you haven't realized we have been talking about both civil and this case, criminal? apparently, you think defense attorney's can bring a criminal case to court....because i've been talking about taking a case to court and you've been saying 'no, you should't bring a case to court if you think yoiu can't win'....lmao...i can't believe you thoiught an attorney could bring a criminal case to court

wow...and you claim to talk to attorney's and know stuffsss....you really have proven you are an idiot

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

JPP Lawyers FTW

and apparently sf has run away in shame

 

[Onceler]

and apparently sf has run away in shame

You're a real chest-beater.

I'm guessing he hasn't checked in on the board today. Just a guess.

No one is "afraid" of you, Yurt.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're a real chest-beater.

I'm guessing he hasn't checked in on the board today. Just a guess.

No one is "afraid" of you, Yurt.

LMAO.... poor little spaz boy getting worked up is he?

Actually I sidelined the moron with Jarod and Canadian Kid on the IA. His ignorance and constant 'I didn't say that' (even when you quote him directly) was a tad annoying.

That said, let me guess.... Since Soc said he would take the case to court if she didn't listen as he tried everything to talk her out of it... that Yurt sees this as a 'win'?

As Soc stated, there is an ethical line... this pushes up against that line for Soc, but not over. To me, it is unethical to take a case that you know has no chance. The criminal case for her has no chance and her attorney obviously talked her out of it.

As Soc stated, she should file a civil case and not pursue the criminal.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

In this case, I would actually attempt to steer my client toward a civil suit. The standard for liability is so much lower than that of the criminal case. I would go after him for Battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress. They are all intentional torts so non-dischargable in bankruptcy. I would do every thing I could to dissuade her from forcing the criminal case if it is as weak as it sounds here, but ultimately if she wanted to press forward with the motion to compel I would assist her. If a case is not frivilous then there is no ethical violation. Part of being an attorney is being able to walk up to the line ethically without crossing it. That is the whole point of the MPRE, to test your ability to know where the line is.

Just curious... but who would pay your fees if she were to lose that criminal case?

I know you can sit her down and say 'look, I don't think we can win the criminal and here is why.... but if you want to proceed my fees will amount to 'x'... if you are aware of that, I will push the case for you even though it goes against my recommendation. Sign here to acknowledge that you are about to pay for a losing situation.'

That seems to me to be unethical. It would be like taking money to invest for someone who wanted desperately to go into Enron for the long term after the Enron scandal broke. Yeah, I could get them to sign off and I could get them to pay my fees for investing the asset for them. It would be legal, but in my view unethical.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Just curious... but who would pay your fees if she were to lose that criminal case?

I know you can sit her down and say 'look, I don't think we can win the criminal and here is why.... but if you want to proceed my fees will amount to 'x'... if you are aware of that, I will push the case for you even though it goes against my recommendation. Sign here to acknowledge that you are about to pay for a losing situation.'

That seems to me to be unethical. It would be like taking money to invest for someone who wanted desperately to go into Enron for the long term after the Enron scandal broke. Yeah, I could get them to sign off and I could get them to pay my fees for investing the asset for them. It would be legal, but in my view unethical.

lmao...when i say the same thing, i'm stupid, should be disbarred and would make a shitty attorney

tell me...how stupid do you feel now...

she wouldn't "lose" the criminal case...she might lose the motion to compel criminal prosecution, but she cannot win or lose the criminal case...do you know the difference between civil and criminal law?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You're a real chest-beater.

I'm guessing he hasn't checked in on the board today. Just a guess.

No one is "afraid" of you, Yurt.

wow...thats beating my chest? that says alot about YOU onceler

and he has been on the board....another wrong for you

darla is...

 

[Zurt]

Yurtsie, your firm called.

http://www.dewey-cheatham-howe.com/

 

[Onceler]

wow...thats beating my chest? that says alot about YOU onceler

and he has been on the board....another wrong for you

darla is...

Nah - it's one of your things. People are "afraid" to debate you, and "run away."

No one here is afraid of anyone; it's an internet message board.

And he has you, CK & Jarod on ignore. You think that's based on fear of you 3?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Nah - it's one of your things. People are "afraid" to debate you, and "run away."

No one here is afraid of anyone; it's an internet message board.

And he has you, CK & Jarod on ignore. You think that's based on fear of you 3?

poor little yurt.... so eager to appear intelligent, yet it is simply unattainable given his mentally challenged state.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Lorax... of COURSE it is fear... how could one not fear such debating skills as....

Yurt: he is not a rapist until he is proven guilty

Everyone else: yes he is yurt, when he raped her, he became a rapist. Given that they both agree that he raped her... it is a fact

a few pages later

Yurt: I didn't say he wasn't a rapist until proven guilty

Everyone else: Yes yurt you did.... here is your quote....

Yurt: I didn't say that

Everyone else: *sigh*

 

[Canceled1]

poor little yurt.... so eager to appear intelligent, yet it is simply unattainable given his mentally challenged state.

Oh Jesus H. Christ on a Cracker! Enough of this goddamn argument! So you hate yurt, you think he's stupid, you think he's lame. BFD!

Move the fvck on!

Talk about milking a subject dry!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Nah - it's one of your things. People are "afraid" to debate you, and "run away."

No one here is afraid of anyone; it's an internet message board.

And he has you, CK & Jarod on ignore. You think that's based on fear of you 3?

darla is a man...that explains alot

she neg reps me virtually every day, which mean she i can't be on ignore as she has to see my post to rep it...she constantly talks about me everyday...but won't debate me

yeah...he is scared, you don't put people on ignore, rep them because that means you are not on ignore, and then talk about them everyday....he only brave enough to lie about me and insult me

true story

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Lorax... of COURSE it is fear... how could one not fear such debating skills as....

Yurt: he is not a rapist until he is proven guilty

Everyone else: yes he is yurt, when he raped her, he became a rapist. Given that they both agree that he raped her... it is a fact

a few pages later

Yurt: I didn't say he wasn't a rapist until proven guilty

Everyone else: Yes yurt you did.... here is your quote....

Yurt: I didn't say that

Everyone else: *sigh*

not true

great refutation of the whole bring a case to court...i see you've lost that and now all you have are ad homs....boring

this thread has been an embarrassment for you, i used to think you were a pretty cool guy, but you're just nuts and totally uncredible