Legal Notes: taking stock of the law here and abroad.

[PureX]

the property stuff is worrisome - i don't like it

Welcome to oligarchy.

 

[fzappa13]

See, that's anecdotal and what I meant. Without knowing the jurisdiction and particulars I'd say that civil litigation can be frustrating for any number of reasons and that victories can frequently be reduced to the moral variety...but it ain't necessarily so. Ask O. J. and anyone actively pursued by a diligent claimant

Moral? Try Pyrrhic. Of course, that is to be expected when one is forced to sue their School Board or City Council when the Prosecutor won't do their job. These fine folk see the entirety of their budget as a personal defense fund and, when they lose, there is no criminal penalty and guess who picks up the tab?

... and that's not anecdotal ... at least for me. My experiences and their outcomes have been pretty consistent in these matters. Having spent the better part of 15 years as a self published investigative writer who was intimately involved in getting the last county I lived in moved to two different Judicial Districts presided over by five different D.A.'s I can tell you from experience that not many of them are inclined to do their job and why would they be? The pay is not commensurate with the work involved so the office seldom attracts the top litigators nor does it inspire a robust work ethic.

That said, the unfortunate degree of discretion they have leaves them free to not only routinely ignore criminal activity but to use their office to pursue you should you have the temerity to point out their indiscretions. Even if you do find a Sheriff that will arrest, a Grand Jury that will indict and a Judge ready to adjudicate, if you lack a willing prosecutor you are out of luck. So then you turn to civil litigation and ... well, we just covered that option a couple of paragraphs ago but, to review, OJ is an interesting and I think applicable anecdote in that He was able to afford top criminal defense council and he got what he paid for when confronted with a prosecutor who saw an opportunity to make a little political hay. So the aggrieved headed off to civil court and they got? ...

 

[Town Heretic]

Moral? Try Pyrrhic. Of course, that is to be expected when one is forced to sue their School Board or City Council when the Prosecutor won't do their job. These fine folk see the entirety of their budget as a personal defense fund and, when they lose, there is no criminal penalty and guess who picks up the tab?

Your lawyer should have explained the difficulty in suing a municipality, though people have and will recover against them, depending on the particulars.

... and that's not anecdotal ... at least for me. My experiences and their outcomes have been pretty consistent in these matters. Having spent the better part of 15 years as a self published investigative writer who was intimately involved in getting the last county I lived in moved to two different Judicial Districts presided over by five different D.A.'s I can tell you from experience that not many of them are inclined to do their job and why would they be? The pay is not commensurate with the work involved so the office seldom attracts the top litigators nor does it inspire a robust work ethic.

Actually you can get some of the best litigators from prosecutor's offices, though likely less so in the hinterlands and more so as you move to cities where political careers are in the offering, where reputations are being made to feather nests. You also get a lot of young ADAs who are green and exploitable. As with the police, you get the best and worst, though if you get the latter in a prosecutor's office it will likely mean the DA loses his position at some point.

That said, their conviction rates and success on appeal speak to the rule. The rule is to the good, exceptions notwithstanding.

That said, the unfortunate degree of discretion they have leaves them free to not only routinely ignore criminal activity but to use their office to pursue you should you have the temerity to point out their indiscretions. Even if you do find a Sheriff that will arrest, a Grand Jury that will indict and a Judge ready to adjudicate, if you lack a willing prosecutor you are out of luck.

Then you go to the Bar and file a formal complaint. You go to the news carriers and make a similar complaint. But sure, a DA has discretion as to determining which cases he will proceed with. It's rarely in his best interest to ignore one that he can win. What's the motivation?

So then you turn to civil litigation and ... well, we just covered that option a couple of paragraphs ago but, to review, OJ is an interesting and I think applicable anecdote in that He was able to afford top criminal defense council and he got what he paid for when confronted with a prosecutor who saw an opportunity to make a little political hay. So the aggrieved headed off to civil court and they got?

Everything that wasn't nailed down or exempted. They got to tell the world at least one court took notice of the truth. But the failure in the criminal case was mostly the jury's. Horrible job predicated on their contempt for and suspicion of the police.

 

[fzappa13]

Your lawyer should have explained the difficulty in suing a municipality, though people have and will recover against them, depending on the particulars.

That would be lawyers (plural) ... and yes they explained the pitfalls. But when you've got 70 people ready to be named as plaintiffs and chip in to at least incovinence rouge officials money shall be wasted. The point is we shouldn't have had to. The prosecutor should have done their job ... and that wasn't my first rodeo by any means.

Actually you can get some of the best litigators from prosecutor's offices, though likely less so in the hinterlands and more so as you move to cities where political careers are in the offering, where reputations are being made to feather nests. You also get a lot of young ADAs who are green and exploitable. As with the police, you get the best and worst, though if you get the latter in a prosecutor's office it will likely mean the DA loses his position at some point.

Now THAT is anecdotal. At least in the world I live in. But, I will agree that, when you live in the hinterlands reality can be a bit skewed and the talent pool is not terribly deep (Our County Attorney of the last 25 years has taken a grand total one case to trial and lost it ... and that was a DWI). That said I did have a good experience with a former prosecutor in a 4 year divorce case but I would point out he confessed to me that when he kept seeing the same folks come before him represented by the same lawyers driving cars much better than he could afford it occurred to him he was on the wrong side of the endeavor called the American justice system.

That said, their conviction rates and success on appeal speak to the rule. The rule is to the good, exceptions notwithstanding.

Now we are in Samuel Clements territory as it regards lies. Most cases are resolved without litigation through a process that sees defendants that are advised by substandard representation (because they can't afford better) that they (rightly) would be better off to accept a lesser plea than to risk being found guilty and having a judge put his foot firmly in their keester for having inconvenienced him. As often as not they get probation (revenue generation for the state) and/or differed adjudication that clears their record and they can thereby more easily avoid the rarely applied penalties for recidivism. I'm sure that most involved might look at the efficiency of this process and as a "success" but I would again suggest that the victims might well have a different view ... in fact, I'm sure of it.

Then you go to the Bar and file a formal complaint.

Please review post #34 response # 2.

You go to the news carriers and make a similar complaint.

I was the news carrier. But I did avail myself of some of the others. Another exercise in futility. The idea being that an informed electorate might make a better choice ... silly me.

But sure, a DA has discretion as to determining which cases he will proceed with. It's rarely in his best interest to ignore one that he can win. What's the motivation?

When the power of discretion allows you not to do your job and you don't, who exactly do you work for?

Everything that wasn't nailed down or exempted. They got to tell the world at least one court took notice of the truth.

That and 6 bits will get you a cup of coffee.

But the failure in the criminal case was mostly the jury's. Horrible job predicated on their contempt for and suspicion of the police.

A notion that was fostered by some very talented and expensive Barristers, no?

 

[Town Heretic]

That would be lawyers (plural) ... and yes they explained the pitfalls. But when you've got 70 people ready to be named as plaintiffs and chip in to at least incovinence rouge officials money shall be wasted. The point is we shouldn't have had to. The prosecutor should have done their job ... and that wasn't my first rodeo by any means.

And there are remedies when people violate their oath of office. I think I touched on a few.

Now THAT is anecdotal.

Of course it is, though my experience over a number of years at every level, both state and federal, gives my anecdotal a much greater chance of being closer to the rule. And that's before we get into my background of working for the attorney general handling complaints and ongoing CLE on points that intersect. What I've seen is that your experience tends to be more likely the further away from principle hubs of government and less likely the closer to them you get.

Just so, the rural town won't tend to get the best doctor, the small, overworked rural hospital won't tend to attract the best surgeons, etc. Exceptions for all of it, of course, and most of what people get will be professionally competent, but the more you politicize a thing the more you can get into entrenched, barely qualified and marginally motivated career modes.

At least in the world I live in. But, I will agree that, when you live in the hinterlands reality can be a bit skewed and the talent pool is not terribly deep (Our County Attorney of the last 25 years has taken a grand total one case to trial and lost it ... and that was a DWI).

Sounds like you live in the perfect place to see the worst of complacent politics and incompetence. I grew up near our county seat, so I had a better experience. And I went to work in one of those active hubs, being our state capital, then returned to work around the bustling centers...though as a poverty lawyer I experienced some of what you're speaking to, working for a while within what's referred to as the Black Belt.

That said I did have a good experience with a former prosecutor in a 4 year divorce case but I would point out he confessed to me that when he kept seeing the same folks come before him represented by the same lawyers driving cars much better than he could afford it occurred to him he was on the wrong side of the endeavor called the American justice system.

Divorce can be a lucrative business. I don't think I ever charged more than a few thousand dollars over my expenses, but I know the rule and how lawyers continue themselves right out of their client's pocketbooks often enough.

Now we are in Samuel Clements territory as it regards lies.

No, the statistics are right and supported by the response of courts to the process of appeal.

Most case are resolved without litigation through a process that sees defendants that are advised by substandard representation (because they can't afford better) that they (rightly) would be better off to accept a lesser plea than to risk being found guilty and having a judge put his foot firmly in their keester for having inconvenienced him.

Or, most people told they have the option of fighting or pleaing and, most people being guilty will take the lesser thing than they understand their conduct warrants by law, saving them time and possibly (depending on their status) money.

Given that, ultimately, you're responsible for what you then swear to before a court, my sympathy for anyone who says, "I took the deal, but I was innocent" is right up there with my belief in their veracity.

I'm sure that most involved might look at the efficiency of this process and as a "success" but I would again suggest that the victims might well have a different view ... in fact, I'm sure of it.

Victims of crime need to understand that pleas are weighted and considered within the context of evidence and the likelihood of prevailing at trial. They'd feel much worse if those convicted on lesser charges or with lighter sentence walked free. And if OJ proved anything to anyone it should be that nothing is a given.

I was the news carrier. But I did avail myself of some of the others. Another exercise in futility. The idea being that an informed electorate might make a better choice ... silly me.

Well, if people don't agree then either you're wrong or they're getting the government they ask for, sadly.

When the power of discretion allows you not to do your job and you don't, who exactly do you work for?

The people who elected you. Though thier ethics is subject to the bar and to those in a higher authority.

That and 6 bits will get you a cup of coffee.

And a Heisman trophy or anything of value. What else is there? Literal flesh and blood? In this life you get the next best thing to real equity. The perfect justice would put you in the position you should have been but for the actions of the guilty. You won't find that on this side of the grave.

Which notion was fostered by some very talented and expensive Barristers, no?

Played to, but they walked in with that bias. And a good deal of it was fostered by the police who made the arrests and the history that ran prior to it. OJ's team just capitalized on it.

 

[fzappa13]

And there are remedies when people violate their oath of office. I think I touched on a few.

Not if you don't have prosecution.

Of course it is, though my experience over a number of years at every level, both state and federal, gives my anecdotal a much greater chance of being closer to the rule. And that's before we get into my background of working for the attorney general handling complaints and ongoing CLE on points that intersect. What I've seen is that your experience tends to be more likely the further away from principle hubs of government and less likely the closer to them you get.

Right you are and I understand the logistics. You're in the AG's office and you've got a limited budget and manpower and you're looking at a city of 3 million and another of 1200 ... I know which wheel is going to get greased and why. It places a greater importance and burden on local government to provide solutions to their own problems. That's the price of good air and scenery.

Just so, the rural town won't tend to get the best doctor, the small, overworked rural hospital won't tend to attract the best surgeons, etc. Exceptions for all of it, of course, and most of what people get will be professionally competent, but the more you politicize a thing the more you can get into entrenched, barely qualified and marginally motivated career modes.

... and no where was that ever truer than with the office of a prosecutor.

Sounds like you live in the perfect place to see the worst of complacent politics and incompetence.

I wish it were that benign.

Divorce can be a lucrative business. I don't think I ever charged more than a few thousand dollars over my expenses, but I know the rule and how lawyers continue themselves right out of their client's pocketbooks often enough.

Over time I have come to hold the opinion that this is true of most civil litigation.

No, the statistics are right and supported by the response of courts to the process of appeal.

mmmm ... I would suggest that the process of appeal has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the vast majority of cases which point you have already ceded Councillor. Plea bargain, anyone?

Or, most people told they have the option of fighting or pleaing and, most people being guilty will take the lesser thing than they understand their conduct warrants by law, saving them time and possibly (depending on their status) money.

I would also suggest that, with most defendants pleading indigency, the state is the one being saved time and money in this arraignment.

Given that, ultimately, you're responsible for what you then swear to before a court, my sympathy for anyone who says, "I took the deal, but I was innocent" is right up there with my belief in their veracity.

I concur.

Victims of crime need to understand that pleas are weighted and considered within the context of evidence and the likelihood of prevailing at trial. They'd feel much worse if those convicted on lesser charges or with lighter sentence walked free. And if OJ proved anything to anyone it should be that nothing is a given.

I'm sure that might sound comforting from the vantage point of a lawyer but I would suggest that comfort is somewhat cold to a client ... and as it concerns OJ ... I think that proved the value of celebrity and monetary assets when litigating.

Well, if people don't agree then either you're wrong or they're getting the government they ask for, sadly.

Intellectual honesty demands I note that the two notions are not mutually exclusive but ... I'm going with the latter of the two choices offered. That said I would also note that, when you lack prosecution, your list of candidates, voters and jurors tends to get overrun by unprosecuted criminals and you know what they say about birds of a feather.

The people who elected you. Though thier ethics is subject to the bar and to those in a higher authority.

I've attempted to avail myself of the services of the Texas State Bar on four different occasions ... after they signed off on a judge (in his private practice) threatening a County Democratic Party Chair with legal action if he denied a convicted drug dealer his "right" to run for JP (said chair being a fellow employee of the same small jail said candidate was accused of and plead to drug trafficking in) I ceased to trouble them.

And a Heisman trophy or anything of value. What else is there? Literal flesh and blood? In this life you get the next best thing to real equity. The perfect justice would put you in the position you should have been but for the actions of the guilty. You won't find that on this side of the grave.

"This side of the grave ..." I have come to believe it naive to look for justice in that locale ... not with man being involved and all that.

Played to, but they walked in with that bias. And a good deal of it was fostered by the police who made the arrests and the history that ran prior to it. OJ's team just capitalized on it.

You could have just said, "you're right" but then, where is the art in that?

 

[Town Heretic]

Not if you don't have prosecution.

True. But if a few layers aren't responding the way you think they should then it's reasonable to begin wondering if the problem might not be with your thinking. Not saying it's so, but did you file a complaint with the AG and the state Bar?

Right you are and I understand the logistics. You're in the AG's office and you've got a limited budget and manpower and you're looking at a city of 3 million and another of 1200 ... I know which wheel is going to get greased and why. It places a greater importance and burden on local government to provide solutions to their own problems. That's the price of good air and scenery.

Sure. But no one is invested in seeing incompetence remain unanswered...well, outside of the electorate.

... and no where was that ever truer than with the office of a prosecutor.

Yeah. The perfect confluence of relative power and voter bias can make for a real disappointment. At least until or unless the voters come to see it as a problem.

Over time I have come to hold the opinion that this is true of most civil litigation.

Everyone who pays the freight likely feels that way. Even those who don't can be irked by the recovery fee an attorney charges. But even with lawyers who aren't playing market forces aren't cheap. The process and time for a case that has to be litigated makes it nearly impossible to hold costs down.

mmmm ... I would suggest that the process of appeal has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the vast majority of cases which point you have already ceded Councillor. Plea bargain, anyone?

Appeals go to the validity of the process and the result. Around 98% of civil and criminal cases settle prior to trial in any given year. On the criminal end that speaks to the solid nature of indictments. On the civil end it mostly speaks to people working a deal to make everyone happier and no one happy.

I would also suggest that, with most defendants pleading indigency, the state is the one being saved time and money in this arraignment.

Well, I did qualify and the defendant is mostly saving time.

I concur.

:thumb: Nothing I like less than hearing someone tell me they were innocent after swearing they weren't.

I'm sure that might sound comforting from the vantage point of a lawyer but I would suggest that comfort is somewhat cold to a client ... and as it concerns OJ ... I think that proved the value of celebrity and monetary assets when litigating.

OJ is a hard case to draw a meaningful lesson from given the odd confluence of elements, public disdain and mistrust for the police coupled with an at large good will and desire on the part of the public that OJ not be the monster the prosecution had him pegged as...and the literal presence and charisma of the man sitting there looking on.

I had a friend from my old law school study group who flew and sat in on part of the trial, spoke with OJ's counsel. She said his appeal in person was enormous and he was selling his role really well.

Intellectual honesty demands I note that the two notions are not mutually exclusive

:chuckle:

but ... I'm going with the latter of the two choices offered. That said I would also note that, when you lack prosecution, your list of candidates, voters and jurors tends to get overrun by unprosecuted criminals and you know what they say about birds of a feather.

That would be a good time to find a new home, I think. Though crime has a tendency to stay fairly concentrated and the police don't tend to find allowing it lets them remain in their jobs. Mayors either, comes to that, so maybe you might want to restrain the big picture there a little. I mean, you don't live in New Sodom, likely.

I've attempted to avail myself of the services of the Texas State Bar on four different occasions ... after they signed off on a judge (in his private practice) threatening a County Democratic Party Chair with legal action if he denied a convicted drug dealer his "right" to run for JP (said chair being a fellow employee of the same small jail said candidate was accused of and plead to drug trafficking in) I ceased to trouble them.

What did the Bar say in response?

"This side of the grave ..." I have come to believe it naive to look for justice in that locale ... not with man being involved and all that.

Even where the will exists the point is impossible. You hopefully find the next best thing. That's what there is.

You could have just said, "you're right" but then, where is the art in that?

:chuckle: I'd say it would be less about art than the clearest delineation of the facts, but there's no harm in saying a thing well to boot, is there?

 

[fzappa13]

True. But if a few layers aren't responding the way you think they should then it's reasonable to begin wondering if the problem might not be with your thinking. Not saying it's so, but did you file a complaint with the AG and the state Bar?

I'll go you one better, I was close to getting our D.A. indicted but he was able to buffalo the Grand Jury into believing that because they called themselves into session without him doing it that anything they did would not survive challenge upon appeal. Soooo .. the District Judge suggested that they bundle my offering and present it to the next Grand Jury which was picked by a commission that was selected by our Sheriff who was in bed with the D.A. and the County Judge that included said CJ's sister, BFF, wife's employer and several of his employees who promptly deposited my offering in file 13 and indicted my wife on a spurious charge that was dropped immediately after the first of two Judicial District changes.

Sure. But no one is invested in seeing incompetence remain unanswered...well, outside of the electorate

... and the folks they vote into office. One would think that constitutes a majority.

Yeah. The perfect confluence of relative power and voter bias can make for a real disappointment. At least until or unless the voters come to see it as a problem.

Well, that's how I felt and that's why I started investigating and writing ... I have since recovered from that affliction.

Everyone who pays the freight likely feels that way. Even those who don't can be irked by the recovery fee an attorney charges. But even with lawyers who aren't playing market forces aren't cheap. The process and time for a case that has to be litigated makes it nearly impossible to hold costs down.

Which brings us full circle to a point I've made twice so far ... Justice, such as may be had in our present system, comes at a price which is not merely measured in dollars ... but they sure help.

Appeals go to the validity of the process and the result. Around 98% of civil and criminal cases settle prior to trial in any given year. On the criminal end that speaks to the solid nature of indictments. On the civil end it mostly speaks to people working a deal to make everyone happier and no one happy.

I think that, on the criminal end, it speaks of the penury of most of those in need of defense as well as their plight. That is the difference between the fate met by OJ and those less blessed. On the civil end, well, I'm about ready to do away with civil law at this point. Lucky for those who ply the trade that is not my call.

Well, I did qualify and the defendant is mostly saving time.

Point taken.

OJ is a hard case to draw a meaningful lesson from given the odd confluence of elements, public disdain and mistrust for the police coupled with an at large good will and desire on the part of the public that OJ not be the monster the prosecution had him pegged as...and the literal presence and charisma of the man sitting there looking on.

I think you forgot to mention the agenda of those who paid really good money to buy the major media that offered that up to us on a daily basis at the expense of? ...

I had a friend from my old law school study group who flew and sat in on part of the trial, spoke with OJ's counsel. She said his appeal in person was enormous and he was selling his role really well.

I'm sure his wife would say something similar were she able.

That would be a good time to find a new home, I think.

I did ... about three months ago.

What did the Bar say in response?

lain:

Even where the will exists the point is impossible. You hopefully find the next best thing. That's what there is.

The evil of two lessers?

I'd say it would be less about art than the clearest delineation of the facts, but there's no harm in saying a thing well to boot, is there?

Brevity is the soul of ? ...

 

[Town Heretic]

I'll go you one better, I was close to getting our D.A. indicted but he was able to buffalo the Grand Jury into believing that because they called themselves into session without him doing it that anything they did would not survive challenge upon appeal. Soooo .. the District Judge suggested that they bundle my offering and present it to the next Grand Jury which was picked by a commission that was selected by our Sheriff who was in bed with the D.A. and the County Judge that included said CJ's sister, BFF, wife's employer and several of his employees who promptly deposited my offering in file 13 and indicted my wife on a spurious charge that was dropped immediately after the first of two Judicial District changes.

Sounds like a place in need of a state task force intervention. It certainly puts your perspective in context.

Which brings us full circle to a point I've made twice so far ... Justice, such as may be had in our present system, comes at a price which is not merely measured in dollars ... but they sure help.

But that's true of literally everything related to a service or good in our society. There isn't an inherent want of virtue except the sort found in the exercise of authority or its just withholding.

Can the wealthy buy a better defense and more likely favorable outcome? To some extent, yes. And better healthcare and outcome, etc. The measure should be what in general can the rest of society expect? And the answer is, by and large, a system that presumes their innocence and a system that will get the job right.

I think that, on the criminal end, it speaks of the penury of most of those in need of defense as well as their plight. That is the difference between the fate met by OJ and those less blessed. On the civil end, well, I'm about ready to do away with civil law at this point. Lucky for those who ply the trade that is not my call.

We're on opposite sides of this one. I think your unusual circumstances, the convergence of any number of ills, has left you with an understandbly but mistaken impression that my wider experience dispels.

I think you forgot to mention the agenda of those who paid really good money to buy the major media that offered that up to us on a daily basis at the expense of? ...

Arguable. The process? :idunno: I think it made Court tv a lot of money and CNN, but I don't think it had much to do with the verdict.

I'm sure his wife would say something similar were she able.

I'm sure she did until she got to see what was under the public mask.

I did ... about three months ago.

Sounds like a wise move.

lain:

Now here you get a seriously raised eyebrow. No state Bar is invested in upholding corruption in a backwater. Most AGs would love to clean a house like that for the pure political push it would give them as law and order Brubakers, after a fashion. Part of the problem here is that you're the singular gatekeeper of perspective on the problem and information about it and I don't have anything like the full picture, the counter and larger answers.

I'm not saying you're being misleading, only that you can only give your side and angle on the point. It may be that given a broader understanding I'd still be where I am, but that's almost never the case. I've examined too many victims and witnesses to events to think that any one person will every have the whole truth of a thing, even if they mostly might. So I'm sure something is missing when you tell me the Bar is silent or complicit in a way that doesn't make sense to me or follow what one might reasonably expect given what I do know.

The evil of two lessers?

I'd say more along the lines of what's to be had. You can't undo the damage, the inconvenience or the death of someone. All you can do is provide a measure of solace and protection.

Brevity is the soul of ? ...

Reminds me of the fellow who admired Therou and quoted, "Our life is frittered away by detail... simplify, simplify."

Only to be met with, "Why'd he say it twice?"

Wit and art aren't enemies and frequently, in the midst of the latter you'll find ample evidence of the former.

 

[fzappa13]

Sounds like a place in need of a state task force intervention.

More like an enema.

It certainly puts your perspective in context.

The scarey part is I haven't even scratched the surface yet in telling the tale.

But that's true of literally everything related to a service or good in our society. There isn't an inherent want of virtue except the sort found in the exercise of authority or its just withholding.
Can the wealthy buy a better defense and more likely favorable outcome? To some extent, yes. And better healthcare and outcome, etc. The measure should be what in general can the rest of society expect? And the answer is, by and large, a system that presumes their innocence and a system that will get the job right.

I guess I just never saw justice as a service or a good to be procured. I paid for the privileged of my involvement in the endeavor every step of the way in many more ways than one and seldom, if ever, for myself.

We're on opposite sides of this one. I think your unusual circumstances, the convergence of any number of ills, has left you with an understandbly but mistaken impression that my wider experience dispels.

I think our experiences were obviously different and what either of us knows about the other would render any conclusions about that matter a bit premature.

Arguable. The process? I think it made Court tv a lot of money and CNN, but I don't think it had much to do with the verdict.

There were a number of different themes being highlighted during the process. In the industry they call it "puffing".

Now here you get a seriously raised eyebrow. No state Bar is invested in upholding corruption in a backwater.

http://www.kens5.com/story/news/local/2014/07/08/11147490/

http://www.kens5.com/story/news/inv...onzales-edwards-county-felon-ballot/14343443/

You neglect to consider laziness as a possibility.

Most AGs would love to clean a house like that for the pure political push it would give them as law and order Brubakers, after a fashion.

As you know, AG's seldom involve themselves in such matters until it gets to the OJ level. You deal with investigative staff who then make recommendations. Some nut running around on a bike with his hair on fire (that would be me) seldom garners sufficient attention to create movement on their part. By the time we got an honest Sheriff and Judge in place that began chirping in their ear the statute of limitations had run out on the most eggregeous stuff. Now, belatedly, the AG's office is moving on what's left and are going to lose their shot at the bigger fish until they make their next mistake.

Our new Sheriff has made some serious inroads in disrupting the drug trade because Federal prosecutors will take the cases. Most of the rest of it falls by the wayside for a lack of District or County prosecution.

Part of the problem here is that you're the singular gatekeeper of perspective on the problem and information about it and I don't have anything like the full picture, the counter and larger answers.

I'm not saying you're being misleading, only that you can only give your side and angle on the point. It may be that given a broader understanding I'd still be where I am, but that's almost never the case. I've examined too many victims and witnesses to events to think that any one person will every have the whole truth of a thing, even if they mostly might. So I'm sure something is missing when you tell me the Bar is silent or complicit in a way that doesn't make sense to me or follow what one might reasonably expect given what I do know.

Pam Elliott, Sheriff, Edwards County Texas 830-683-4104
Souli Shanklin, County Judge, Edwards County, Texas 830-683-6122

Tell 'em Matt said "hi".

I'd say more along the lines of what's to be had. You can't undo the damage, the inconvenience or the death of someone. All you can do is provide a measure of solace and protection.

... and precious little of that.

Reminds me of the fellow who admired Therou and quoted, "Our life is frittered away by detail... simplify, simplify."

Only to be met with, "Why'd he say it twice?"

Wit and art aren't enemies and frequently, in the midst of the latter you'll find ample evidence of the former.

Never said they were ... just sayin' that it sometimes looks like lawyers are getting paid by the word to us unwashed.

 

[Town Heretic]

More like an enema.

:chuckle:

I think our experiences were obviously different and what either of us knows about the other would render any conclusions about that matter a bit premature.

Fair enough.

You neglect to consider laziness as a possibility.

Well, I may have skimmed over that part....

As you know, AG's seldom involve themselves in such matters until it gets to the OJ level.

Okay, that helped with my context. :thumb:

Pam Elliott, Sheriff, Edwards County Texas 830-683-4104
Souli Shanklin, County Judge, Edwards County, Texas 830-683-6122

Tell 'em Matt said "hi".

I may have to lean on one of my brethren's services. I don't pay Westlaw unless I have to.

... and precious little of that.

It varies, like everything. I worked as a VAWA lawyer for a number of years and kept the case into divorce or assignment, depending. Most of my clients felt differently about the outcome, but then I didn't lose cases. I had one client lose custody out of every case I fought. And that one was a judge on his way out giving a money family a gift and tripping us up along the way.

I was in one of those backwaters and I said to the lawyer on the other side, going in, "You might want to reconsider. I have the law in my back pocket on this." And he literally said, "You may know the law, but I know the judge."

And the rascal was right. Worse, the court reporter stopped typing the transcript during my cross in a hearing where we'd waved to go straight to what should have been a slam dunk.

No record for appeal to demonstrate the judge's misconduct in verdict.

Now ask me if I ever again failed to keep my eye on the woman at the keys there...just horrible all around. I told the judge later that if he hadn't been retiring I'd have gone after his job anyway. He put a child into the hands of an abusive husband because of the man's parents and their promise to be the de facto primary.

I never wanted to hit a judge until that day.

Never said they were ... just sayin' that it sometimes looks like lawyers are getting paid by the word to us unwashed.

Hell, son, you pay me by the word you better bring a settee, because we're going to be here a while.

 

[fzappa13]

I may have to lean on one of my brethren's services. I don't pay Westlaw unless I have to.

No need, just call the Sheriff and the Judge and toss my name out there. They are both characters out of a Coen bothers movie and well worth your quarter. BTW, it is another of my pet peeves that in a land where you can litigate Pro Se we don't have free access to Westlaw ... or Lexus Nexus ... or whatever. A decided disadvantage when preparing ... come to think of it, you've got better access to the law AFTER you are in jail.

It varies, like everything. I worked as a VAWA lawyer for a number of years and kept the case into divorce or assignment, depending. Most of my clients felt differently about the outcome, but then I didn't lose cases. I had one client lose custody out of every case I fought. And that one was a judge on his way out giving a money family a gift and tripping us up along the way.

I was in one of those backwaters and I said to the lawyer on the other side, going in, "You might want to reconsider. I have the law in my back pocket on this." And he literally said, "You may know the law, but I know the judge."

And the rascal was right. Worse, the court reporter stopped typing the transcript during my cross...

Sounds like your opposing counsel my have known more than just the Judge ...

... in a hearing where we'd waved to go straight to what should have been a slam dunk.

Ah, the promise of Summary Judgement is a sometimes fatal lure for those so foolish as to think that facts alone are at play at all times.

No record for appeal to demonstrate the judge's misconduct in verdict.

Three trips the State Commission for Judicial Misconduct have left me thinking it wouldn't have helped regardless. Well, there's always the White Throne Judgement which is kinda where I was going with all this anyway.

Now ask me if I ever again failed to keep my eye on the woman at the keys there...just horrible all around. I told the judge later that if he hadn't been retiring I'd have gone after his job anyway. He put a child into the hands of an abusive husband because of the man's parents and their promise to be the de facto primary.

The good news is, if you ever find yourself litigating backwater again, ask for a trial and then pay the town gossip to sit next to you in voir dire ... it'll be over before it starts.

I never wanted to hit a judge until that day.

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

Hell, son, you pay me by the word you better bring a settee, because we're going to be here a while.

What? An honest lawyer?

 

[Town Heretic]

No need, just call the Sheriff and the Judge and toss my name out there. They are both characters out of a Coen bothers movie and well worth your quarter. BTW, it is another of my pet peeves that in a land where you can litigate Pro Se we don't have free access to Westlaw ... or Lexus Nexus ... or whatever. A decided disadvantage when preparing ... come to think of it, you've got better access to the law AFTER you are in jail.

What sort of hell hole of a backwater did you live in? We have Westlaw free at the legal library in our courthouse for anyone with a live controversy.

Sounds like your opposing counsel my have known more than just the Judge ...

He knew the judge was a lame duck, that the parents of his scum bag, wife beating client were loaded and "model" citizens of the community and that without a record there wasn't much I could do that would amount to anything.

My client wasn't an absolute winner, having moved in with a fellow in the meantime (a guy who was crazy about her and had a good job, but you don't do that until the ink is dry on a divorce in that neck of the woods). But she still had the presumption, given her ex was still under a restraining order that I demonstrated he'd violated.

Ah, the promise of Summary Judgement is a sometimes fatal lure for those so foolish as to think that facts alone are at play at all times.

If the judge had followed the facts and law it wouldn't have been a problem. If he hadn't waved off the court reporter when my back was to them in cross it wouldn't have been a problem.

Three trips the State Commission for Judicial Misconduct have left me thinking it wouldn't have helped regardless. Well, there's always the White Throne Judgement which is kinda where I was going with all this anyway.

Now that's an appeal.

The good news is, if you ever find yourself litigating backwater again, ask for a trial and then pay the town gossip to sit next to you in voir dire ... it'll be over before it starts.

:chuckle:

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

Debatable.

What? An honest lawyer?

Reminds me of when I was in California visiting an former Marine Gunny friend of mine who was working with Ocean Side PD and he introduced me as his lawyer. The desk sgt. almost fainted when I answered his, "Why'd you go and do that?" with, "I wasn't ready to work for a living".

 

[fzappa13]

What sort of hell hole of a backwater did you live in?

I believe I provided two links and phone numbers ...

We have Westlaw free at the legal library in our courthouse for anyone with a live controversy.

We had maybe 4 or 5 people in the county who knew what Westlaw was ... That's including the County Attorney ... I think.

He knew the judge was a lame duck, that the parents of his scum bag, wife beating client were loaded and "model" citizens of the community and that without a record there wasn't much I could do that would amount to anything.

Had some experience with lame ducks ... what little they do is generally for their own benefit.

My client wasn't an absolute winner,

None of us are ...

having moved in with a fellow in the meantime (a guy who was crazy about her and had a good job, but you don't do that until the ink is dry on a divorce in that neck of the woods). But she still had the presumption, given her ex was still under a restraining order that I demonstrated he'd violated.

Life goes on for most ... some juries and judges don't see it that way.

If the judge had followed the facts and law it wouldn't have been a problem. If he hadn't waved off the court reporter when my back was to them in cross it wouldn't have been a problem.

And if frogs had wings ...

Now that's an appeal.

It's about the only one I am interesting in relying upon these days.

Debatable.

Another summation that might be too close to call at this point.

 

[Town Heretic]

I believe I provided two links and phone numbers ...

Once I got to the Texas part I had to laugh and think, "Well, sure, that makes sense. Something about very large states with enough real estate that lets all sorts of nonsense fall through the cracks. California is another one. I'm rarely surprised by anything that comes out of either.

We had maybe 4 or 5 people in the county who knew what Westlaw was ... That's including the County Attorney ... I think.

Had some experience with lame ducks ... what little they do is generally for their own benefit.

Yep. You put that together with discretion and all you can do is court them and hope for the best, by which I mean generally find local counsel to assist or even lead.

Life goes on for most ... some juries and judges don't see it that way.

I suspect a jury would have nailed us too with her situation in that county.

Another summation that might be too close to call at this point.

Thought you'd appreciate the brevity.

 

[fzappa13]

Once I got to the Texas part I had to laugh and think, "Well, sure, that makes sense. Something about very large states with enough real estate that lets all sorts of nonsense fall through the cracks. California is another one. I'm rarely surprised by anything that comes out of either.

Yes, I came to think of my efforts as a part of the resettling of the American Southwest. The border portion of Texas was ceeded to the La Raza Unida movement to bring them back into the Democratic fold. When Texas went red it caused no small amount of consternation among those ranks.

Rural border Texas is an open door to Canada that is appealing to traffickers in flesh and drugs. It would blow your mind to know how many Minnesota license plates there are in Rocksprings, Tx.

Yep. You put that together with discretion and all you can do is court them and hope for the best, by which I mean generally find local counsel to assist or even lead.

I've come to think maybe some of the folks in South America have the better idea in that their prosecutors have substantially less discretion than their U.S. counterparts.

Thought you'd appreciate the brevity.

Always ... unless you're committing some sort of sin of omission.

 

[Town Heretic]

The Governor of Kansas is taking a precautionary stand in conjunction with recognizing gay marriage within his state. That stand took the form of issuing an executive order protecting/shielding clergy and churches, as well as religious groups from having to provide goods, services or accommodations relating to same sex unions.

Said the Governor of his decision:

"We have a duty to govern and to govern in accordance with the Constitution as it has been determined by the Supreme Court decision. We also recognize that religious liberty is at the heart of who we are as Kansans and Americans, and should be protected."

While on the fact of it the measure may appear to be mostly political currency (the protection already arguably existing) there is a bit more to it than that, a thing recognized by Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who noted the order could be used to deny homosexual unions adoption rights and foster parent status.

Stay tuned.

 

[fzappa13]

I have never understood why folks supplicate the state for permission to marry ... the notion certainly has no biblical basis.

 

[Town Heretic]

I have never understood why folks supplicate the state for permission to marry ... the notion certainly has no biblical basis.

It's not about religion, but about the dissolution of marriage or its potential, mostly. Kids, coins and property have to be disposed of and fault/ratios arrived at, etc. The state is necessarily drawn in by civil suit and so has an interest at that end, as well as having one in stable social constructs.

 

[fzappa13]

It's not about religion, but about the dissolution of marriage or its potential, mostly. Kids, coins and property have to be disposed of and fault/ratios arrived at, etc. The state is necessarily drawn in by civil suit and so has an interest at that end, as well as having one in stable social constructs.

Like I said, it has no biblical basis.