Not. Every. One. Can. Afford. A. Lawyer. Why do you not get this?
You can’t afford NOT to lawyer up. You can place financial limits on what your lawyer can do. I assure you, you can find a lawyer in your price range for some basic legal advice even if you’re a homeless panhandler. 30 minutes with a Legal Aid lawyer will work fucking wonders. You don’t have to pay some asshole $1000 an hour to hold your hand through every moment of the process.
Get a damn lawyer.
3 Likes
Sigh.I give up. You do not want to admit that some people cannot afford lawyers to go down to the courthouse every time they’re being harassed by a defendant in a case. Lawyers are not an infinite resource for most of us. What is supposed to be a bulwark against abusive defendants is the judges and prosecutors and LEOs when it comes to protecting witnesses against intimidation and subornation. It’s great that >you< personally can afford to be lawyered up at all times—the rest of us cannot.
2 Likes
No, because that is entirely ignorant and wrong.
In 20 gauge, a slug or smaller buckshot like #2 or #4 might be a better choice, but 00 definitely works.
The State is correct on this one because the discovery process is pretty broad and a lot of stuff that may come in is irrelevant and prejudicial to either side. There is a lot of chaff and through motion practice before trial all that information gets winnowed down to what is relevant. It appears to me that Bannon wants to 1) throw a bunch of BS into the court record to prejudice the case and affect the potential jury pool and 2) tamper with witnesses.
2 Likes
Appears to be half as many Xmas trees in the hallway, not that anybody should have more than one Christmas tree. Baby Jeebus didn’t get born in every damn window of your house,
1 Like
One more reason they’ve been a great disappointment. Can’t they get anything right?
2 Likes
I’m sure the NYT is on it.
2 Likes
2 Likes
I did not propose making the facts of the trial public after the verdict has been entered.
Again, I was only proposing a gag order during trial. Afterwards, it’s fair game for the media.
I’d go the opposite. All hearings should be fully public and streamed live.
What would people be saying and thinking about the rittenhouse farce if cameras hadn’t been allowed, and all we got was a dry synopsis at the end, no chance for everyone to see the judge putting his thumb on the scale through the whole process.
2 Likes
You make an interesting point. And a lot of the judge’s shenanigans were covered during the trial. Unfortunately, he does not appear to have violated any rules, so he’s off the hook. I’m just remembering what a circus the OJ Simpson trial was.
2 Likes
They were covered, yes, but there’s something much different when you’ve got it on tape vs. just ink coverage in a paper.
Agree that some of the things can turn into shitshows, but overall, I’m one of those who thinks that the Supremes should have been forced to televise their shit eons ago. Most of us regular folks spend our lives trying to stay out of courts, being exposed to what is actually happening in them is a good thing for people to see.
4 Likes
Do you mean among members of the legal profession? Or more generally?
Sunshine is good stuff, from where I sit! (With proper skin and retina protection. )
1 Like
Did the word “vegan” make an appearance?
1 Like
Hahaha. I really don’t recall culinary or dietary opinions. It was quite a long series of horticultural, recipes for production, cross-border arguments (Canada/New England), and cultural perspectives. Any thing having to do with economic botany, I’m in. (Spice trade, coffee, Tulipomania, sugar…) I use a fair amount of maple syrup in cooking, but I have to confess I am not a fan of maple sugar candy. Just too sweet for me.
2 Likes
Both. The professed love of “sunshine” is, in practice, “sunshine for thee and not for me.”
3 Likes
Ah. Of course. Cheers.
1 Like