If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
1999 Arlington crash jury award
"Richard Riley" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:40:42 -0800, Ron Wanttaja wrote: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:18:37 -0600, "wes marso" wrote: EVERYONE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE TOWN Mayor IS A LAWYER. Dubya has a history degree. And an MBA. As I think of it, it was the President who were lawyers that got into trouble GW Bush - History, MBA WJ Clinton - International Affairs, Law (impeached) George Bush - Economics Ronald Reagan - Economics Jimmy Carter - Engineering Gerald Ford - Political Science and Economics Richard Nixon - History, Law (resigned) Lyndon Johnson - History John F. Kennedy - Iinternational affairs Dwight D. Eisenhower - West Point Well, let's flesh this thing out here just a little bit, get the fabric on and the wings rigged. Gerald Ford was indeed a lawyer. Founders Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton were lawyers. Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer. Majorities of the House and Senate are NOT lawyers. Nixon was an accessory and conspirator in major felonies, including burglary, witness tampering, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice; Clinton lied about a blowjob. Nixon would surely have been removed from office if he had been impeached; Clinton was tried on a bill of impeachment by a House and Senate loaded with Republicans and overwhelmingly acquitted. Clinton's problems were political in nature; Nixon's were criminal. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
1999 Arlington crash jury award
"Richard Riley" wrote in message ... [...] Clinton's [problem] stemmed from a sense of entitlement. Pardon. But I think it was a sense of lust. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
1999 Arlington crash jury award
(" jls" wrote)
Pardon. But I think it was a sense of lust. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/riady.htm Interesting read. Stick with it. Clinton is as corrupt as they come - BOTH of them! Montblack |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
1999 Arlington crash jury award
"Montblack" wrote http://www.apfn.org/apfn/riady.htm Interesting read. Stick with it. Clinton is as corrupt as they come - BOTH of them! If you only believe half of it, there is some scary sh*t in there! -- Jim in NC |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
1999 Arlington crash jury award
In article ,
"Morgans" wrote: "Montblack" wrote http://www.apfn.org/apfn/riady.htm Interesting read. Stick with it. Clinton is as corrupt as they come - BOTH of them! If you only believe half of it, there is some scary sh*t in there! A friend used to fly Clinton around when he was Gov. of Ark. When asked why he doesn't write a book about it, he says, "I want to stay alive." |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
1999 Arlington crash jury award
Might be overstating the case a bit, but I've found that the occasional
Repub. is a crook, but I find that many Demos. are absolutely EVIL. I'm beginning to think that members of legislatures should be chosen by a draft and be restricted to only one term. Especially they should not be able to vote raises that took effect during their own terms. Also a death penalty for bribes might prove useful. Such rules would make congress much more effective and less crooked. Fact is though, it's too late, we already have a ruling class in control. HWB "Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message news In article , "Morgans" wrote: "Montblack" wrote http://www.apfn.org/apfn/riady.htm Interesting read. Stick with it. Clinton is as corrupt as they come - BOTH of them! If you only believe half of it, there is some scary sh*t in there! A friend used to fly Clinton around when he was Gov. of Ark. When asked why he doesn't write a book about it, he says, "I want to stay alive." |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
1999 Arlington crash jury award
"kd5sak" wrote in
et: Might be overstating the case a bit, but I've found that the occasional Repub. is a crook, but I find that many Demos. are absolutely EVIL. I'm beginning to think that members of legislatures should be chosen by a draft and be restricted to only one term. Especially they should not be able to vote raises that took effect during their own terms. Also a death penalty for bribes might prove useful. Such rules would make congress much more effective and less crooked. Fact is though, it's too late, we already have a ruling class in control. HWB Personally I'd like to replace elections with a lottery and make the proceeds from the sale of lottery tickets their sole source of funding. If you don't want the office buy tickets for the candidate of your choice How many people would buy a ticket for the oval office if they had a lottery long shot at getting the job? The prime qualification for holding the office now is to win a popularity contest. How could pure chance be any worse? If pure chance is too scary, how about holding a lottery for seats on the electoral college and letting them elect the president without a popular vote? I'm sure if it works for choosing a president we could scale it down to the state level for congress critters and other elected pests. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
1999 Arlington crash jury award
Richard Riley wrote: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:51:20 -0500, " jls" wrote: "Richard Riley" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:40:42 -0800, Ron Wanttaja wrote: On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:18:37 -0600, "wes marso" wrote: EVERYONE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE TOWN Mayor IS A LAWYER. Dubya has a history degree. And an MBA. As I think of it, it was the President who were lawyers that got into trouble GW Bush - History, MBA WJ Clinton - International Affairs, Law (impeached) George Bush - Economics Ronald Reagan - Economics Jimmy Carter - Engineering Gerald Ford - Political Science and Economics Richard Nixon - History, Law (resigned) Lyndon Johnson - History John F. Kennedy - Iinternational affairs Dwight D. Eisenhower - West Point Well, let's flesh this thing out here just a little bit, get the fabric on and the wings rigged. Gerald Ford was indeed a lawyer. Oops, right you are. Was Johnson (impeached) a lawyer? ... Nixon was an accessory and conspirator in major felonies, including burglary, witness tampering, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice; And more, including conspiracies to commit burglary and arson have some out since his tapes have been published. Clinton lied about a blowjob. And suborned purjury, tampered with witnesses, and obstructed justice. There wasn't enough evidence that he did any of those things to even charge him. It isn't even possible to obstruct justice in a lawsuit. That doesn't mean he didn't do the, but if he did, he did them well (practice makes perfect). The chief law enforcement officer of the US should not be doing any of those things, no matter what party he's in. Doh! Nor should anyone else. The President of the untied States is not a law enforcement officer. -- FF |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
1999 Arlington crash jury award
Personally I'd like to replace elections with a lottery and make the proceeds from the sale of lottery tickets their sole source of funding. If you don't want the office buy tickets for the candidate of your choice How many people would buy a ticket for the oval office if they had a lottery long shot at getting the job? The prime qualification for holding the office now is to win a popularity contest. How could pure chance be any worse? If pure chance is too scary, how about holding a lottery for seats on the electoral college and letting them elect the president without a popular vote? I'm sure if it works for choosing a president we could scale it down to the state level for congress critters and other elected pests. Actually, my first thoughts were to fill all offices by a draft, pay no more than expences and make you come home when the term was up. If you couldn't steal yourself rich the lawyer types would definitely lack motivation to seek additional time in D. C. Harold KD5SAK |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
1999 Arlington crash jury award
We don't have a justice system.
We have a legal system. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. (and to the democracy for which it stands?) NOT JimV On Jan 14, 11:18 am, "wes marso" wrote: I have lived for sixty years in this , we call our home land .In that time I have seen much in the ways of chipping at the wall of freedom .knowledge is the first step . Morality is the second .Personal virtues falls . then the rest is easy. Lawyers are the guardian people of the constitution today .Every day people are too busy making a living to take time out of daily life to fight anymore. All the Communist and socialist of the world have converged in America and have changed our legal system to suite them . We as Christians side step these issues because we despise confrontations . We have been eaten by lions for Centuries . We are told from the pulpit to be followers and forgive , turning the other cheek . Lawyers Make the laws , Lawyers change the laws, lawyers make possible the enforcement of the laws, and it starts from the white house on down...EVERYONE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE TOWN Mayor IS A LAWYER . And you still wonder why our justice system is failing??? lookup the national lawyers guild and see under their subsidiaries how many lawyers belong to the socialist movement.. ALL ofthem.."jls" wrote in oglegroups.com... C J Campbell wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:40:10 -0800, jls wrote (in article .com): wrote: A cool thing you might not know: I got an idea you don't know much. The NTSB reports are not admissable (sic) in a brawl like this. Just as the report of a highway patrol officer or city police officer is not admissible in a court of law. Can't cross examine the NTSB, so they are out. Not exactly true. If a witness who contributes to a NTSB report appears and testifies in court, he can be cross-examined just like any other witness. Actually, NTSB reports are inadmissible by statute. This came up in a recent Cessna claim, too, and was reported by both AOPA and the Wall Street Journal. The idea was that keeping the NTSB out of court would make them more 'independent.' However, as you note, although the report is inadmissible, you certainly can introduce evidence used in the report. Thus, if NTSB has witnesses who saw an aircraft buzzing cars, as in the Cessna incident, then you should be able to subpoena those same witnesses. That Cessna's lawyers did not do that I can only attribute to gross incompetence. Leaves the plantiff to make up anything they can sell to the jury. Or someone like you to make up a lot of malarkey. Gotta remember, the goal isn't to find the truth. That's exactly what juries are for, to find the truth. BWAHAHAHA! Right. Tell me another one. Juries do a poor job of finding the truth, and everyone in the legal biz knows it (or should -- but they will not always admit to it to outsiders). Ah, then who is to find the truth, you? A judge? An LDS priest? There are so many spectacular failures of juries that one cannot even begin to catalog them all. Name some. That is some wild ranting if I ever heard it, coming from you even. You get no credit howling sweeping generalizations. You got one bad verdict, but it was cleared a bit by a verdict in Santa Monica. The other one you don't know and weren't there. Give us some more. You won't, of course. So you can't cite but one bum case to sully all the rest. Juries are typically draw from the most gullible and least informed part of society -- deliberately. Cite? Attorneys do not want people who actually know something to serve on a jury. Are you calling the American people stupid? I've seen a few stupid juries, 99% of the ones I've seen are right smart. That works great for Lizzie Borden and OJ Simpson, not so well for aircraft manufacturers and airshow organizers. Being incapable of getting fire-fighting equipment to the crash permits a jury to find whether that constituted a failure to use due care by the fly-in sponsors. *********************************** In Young v. Young, Ann Eliza Webb Young sued Brigham Young for divorce in 1873, claiming neglect, cruel treatment, and desertion (CHC 5:442-43). ...Claiming that Young was worth $8 million and had a monthly income of $40,000, she asked for $1,000 per month pending the trial, a total of $20,000 for counsel fees, and $200,000 for her maintenance. Brigham Young denied her charges and claimed to have a worth of only $600,000 and a monthly income of $6,000. More fundamentally, he pointed out the inconsistency of granting a divorce and alimony for a marriage that was not legally recognized." (Zion in the Courts-A Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900 by Firmage and Mangrum, 1988, Univ. of Ill. Press, p.249) ---- what C. J. is still smarting over, explaining some of his hatred for law and lawyers. Since lawyers came to mormondom, they have been universally hated. BTW, Eliza and a few of Brigham's other *57* wives sued and collected. Ah, the perils of statehood. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
VQ-1's P4M-1Q crash off China - 1956 | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | May 6th 06 11:13 PM |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Yet another A36 crash | H.P. | Piloting | 10 | April 23rd 05 05:58 PM |
WINGS: When do the clocks start ticking? | Andrew Gideon | Piloting | 6 | February 3rd 04 03:01 PM |