|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:06 PM EDT |
I think we should throw out this legal system and go back to trial by combat.
I want to see lawyers with swords, in an arena, trying to stab each other to
death. Two lawyers enter, only one leaves.
Not only would it be more humane than the current system (for the rest of us),
but it would be a lot cheaper and quicker.
And probably deliver better justice, too.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
I am glad that PJ wrote ...
"Sometimes the law and logic diverge, as you may have noticed."
It reminds me of the time when either IBM or Novell
had actually won something, but they did NOT appeal
what they had won, and that this later came back to bite them.
There is no way that should make sense .. but there it is.
It happened.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:23 PM EDT |
It must be standard procedure that in a technical case a court appointed expert
is present and allowed to intervene on any factual issues and to answer
questions. We need someone who will ensure nobody will try to bamboozle laymen,
judges and juries, with technical nonsense without risking being called out by a
neutral third party who knows better. We need an officer of the court
permanently present to fulfill this function. When the judge or jury has
technical questions like the ones judge Alsup so often sent, the resident expert
should be allowed to answer along with the parties.
I know, such resident expert is not provided for by the rules of civil
procedure. But they are badly needed.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:23 PM EDT |
Saying that if a witness was not telling the truth on one
issue, the rest of their testimony could be viewed with
suspicion.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:25 PM EDT |
Ginny LaRoe ‏ @GinnyLaRoe
Van Nest's not shy about throwing in a little joke or sarcasm
with Alsup. And Alsup doesn't seem to mind. #BobWillBeBob[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
I could just imagine an "expert" claiming:
The Law of Gravity does Not
Exist!
The defense Lawyer argues:
As the Law of Gravity does not exist,
my client had no reason to believe the person he pushed would fall from the 30
story building!
And because the prosecution thought such an argument was so
totally ridiculous that it didn't deserve to be dignified with a combating
expert....
The Jury rules the defendant guilty and the Law overrules the
Jury!
RAS
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
If that's the rules then Google's Lawyers are paid to know how to play the
game.
But then you never really know if this is a mistake or part of a plan...
Or
They may be moves or strategies that have not been been revealed yet...
Its like a multi level chess game played on boards the size of football fields,
one in which the rules can be changed or reinterpreted and are.
Oh and the result of the game is not final and can be appealed.
A terrible terrible system, but not as bad as all the others ;-)
---
Note: Don’t go there with Poker v Chess stuff.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|