us.legal

Hi Friends, Justia's New Legal SEO Blog is now up and running with enough posts that it might be worth reading :) The URL is http://onward.justia.com The RSS Feed is http://onward.justia.com/index.rdf The Legal SEO Blog focuses on search engin

Big Bill wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:16:10 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > >>At least, unlike you, I know enough about the law to know that there >>is no remedy for the victim of a corrupt judge. And there are lots of >>them in New Yo

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:44:03 -0700, "Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote: >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote >> Cite ANY authority that says we "excuse" the jury for "nullifying." > >Juries enjoy absolute immunity for their actions as jur

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote > Cite ANY authority that says we "excuse" the jury for "nullifying." Juries enjoy absolute immunity for their actions as jurors; same as judges, prosecutors, attorney regulatory counsel and so on. Chas

Big Bill wrote: > On 11 Mar 2005 07:53:31 -0800, "zzbunker@netscape.net" > <zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote: > > > > Murder has never been illegal. Which is > > why Lawyers have words for first, second, and third > > degree murder, cops have words f

On 11 Mar 2005 07:53:31 -0800, "zzbunker@netscape.net" <zzbunker@netscape.net> wrote: > Murder has never been illegal. Which is > why Lawyers have words for first, second, and third > degree murder, cops have words for DUI, judges > have words fo

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:11:01 -0700, "Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote: >"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote >> "Jury nullification," as I define it, is "illegal," as I define it. > >Ah; the Red Queen dialectic. Exactly my point. >

"Jon Beaver" <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote > "Jury nullification," as I define it, is "illegal," as I define it. Ah; the Red Queen dialectic. > As I define it, "jury nullification" always involves "nullification" > of "the law." That, as I define it, is

Jon Beaver wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:18:10 -0800, John David Galt > <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: > > >>>>They are free to disregard the judge's instructions, oath or no oath. >> >>>Are they "free" to convict a person for something

In article <d0rd4i$6kt$1@blue.rahul.net>, John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: >Larry wrote: >> But as an aside, everyone who supports nullification seems to think it's a >> good thing and protects defendants. But a jury in 1950 A

Jon Beaver wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:32:49 -0700, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" > <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote: > > > Glad you took the high road on that, you seem to be arguing the > > contrary in your condemnation of Jury Nullification, and your > > fals

Ray Gordon wrote: > > > > But as internet oriented operations, they may or may not > > > > have the same training, background and ethics held by such known > > > > operations as the New York Times......CBS....... > > > > > > I should hope not! > >

Chas wrote: > "Larry" <x@y.com> wrote > > Defend the rights of a judge to not have her husband or elderly > > mother, who wasn't even a lawyer, assassinated? > > You've got to wonder why all the animosity towards judges- Like any rational objectiv

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:32:49 -0700, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote: >Glad you took the high road on that, you seem to be arguing the >contrary in your condemnation of Jury Nullification, and your >false claim that it is illegal. "J

"Larry" <x@y.com> wrote > "Reasonable to the majority" is a very scary thought. Only if you need an excuse for what you're doing. > It reminds me of the quote "True democracy is two wolves and one sheep > deciding what's for dinner." Not when t

"Larry" <x@y.com> wrote > Jury nullification is voting to acquit EVEN THOUGH you believe the > evidence proves the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, isn't > it? No. Jury nullification is when the jury, as a group, thinks the law itself i

"Larry" <x@y.com> wrote > Defend the rights of a judge to not have her husband or elderly mother, > who wasn't even a lawyer, assassinated? You've got to wonder why all the animosity towards judges- the resentment of their special class of immunity

>> >But as internet oriented operations, they may or may not >> > have the same training, background and ethics held by such known >> > operations as the New York Times......CBS....... >> >> I should hope not! > > I would suppose by how you quoted m

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:53:33 -0700, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote: >Jon Beaver wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:20:01 -0700, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" >> <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote: >> >> > Jon Beaver wrote: >> >> > Do you inform all yo

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:18:10 -0800, John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: >>>They are free to disregard the judge's instructions, oath or no oath. > >> Are they "free" to convict a person for something that isn't a crime, >> but th

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:16:10 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: > At least, unlike you, I know enough about the law to know that there >is no remedy for the victim of a corrupt judge. And there are lots of >them in New York City.... What hap

Larry wrote: > In article <1110137895.369535.226090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, > yando.geo@yahoo.com wrote: > > > Yes, it was *definitely* Florida. > > > >According to the Unruh decision he is entitled to an independent > >blood test so it

Sam Bam wrote: > Larry wrote: > >> Wow, and the bar examiners wanted further investigation into your fitness >> to practice law. the same guy who, in another NG, praised the murder >> of a judge's family, saying it was deserved. > > Which group

Larry wrote: > In article <sl8Yd.4704615$f47.850138@news.easynews.com>, Sam Bam > <sam@bam.slam> wrote: > > >>Larry wrote: >> >> >>>Wow, and the bar examiners wanted further investigation into your fitness >>>to practice law. the same guy who,

In article <4230FF0C.60808@it.com>, Ranger57@concentric.net wrote: > That's always been your problem, Lar: your inability to look beyond >the mere letter of the law, and look for justice. I would cordially >submit to you that the difference betw

In article <sl8Yd.4704615$f47.850138@news.easynews.com>, Sam Bam <sam@bam.slam> wrote: >Larry wrote: > >> Wow, and the bar examiners wanted further investigation into your fitness >> to practice law. the same guy who, in another NG, praised the mu

In article <mi3231d7k7smbteier8a4ihr25can4mau4@4ax.com>, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote: >On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:12:43 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net >(Matthew Russotto) wrote: > >>They are free to disregard the judge's instructions, oath o

Jon Beaver wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:12:43 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > >>They are free to disregard the judge's instructions, oath or no oath. > > Are they "free" to convict a person for something that i

Larry wrote: > Wow, and the bar examiners wanted further investigation into your fitness > to practice law. the same guy who, in another NG, praised the murder of a > judge's family, saying it was deserved. Which group did "counselor" ken do that

\"- Prof. Jonez©\" wrote: > Jon Beaver wrote: >>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:47:37 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote: >> >>> There are laws on the books, but they are dismissed just as easily >>>with a wink and a nod. >> >>Ken, you are too cynical fo

In article <D70Yd.16$YK4.1145@news.uswest.net>, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <!> wrote: > >Or perhaps they weren't either, yet after hearing and sitting through >a @$#*ed up, perverted and corrupt prosecution by the dirty cops >and lying prosecutor, they dec

In article <4230A2EC.4070502@it.com>, Ranger57@concentric.net wrote: >Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: >> Ken Smith wrote: >>>Larry wrote: >> >>>>He'd be prosecuted under federal civil rights laws and subject to civil >>>>lawsuits. Obviously. >> >>>