Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Lowering the BAR

Expand Messages
  • one
    It occurs to me that the change to the multiple choice format enabled the exclusion of non-communists who would not give the desired answer after re-education
    Message 1 of 7 , Aug 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      It occurs to me that the change to the multiple choice format enabled
      the exclusion of non-communists who would not give the desired answer
      after re-education in a law school.
      It's an inquisitorial method, following the example of the catechism,
      with the help of the correct answer being supplied.


      paradoxmagnus wrote:
      >
      > No, it means that there are certain LEGAL REQUIREMENTS one must
      > FUFILL in order to be an ATTORNEY.
      >
      > If they haven't done so, then they cannot LEGALLY ACT as one and you
      > can DISQUALIFY them.
      >
      > Patrick in California
      >
      > -- In tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com
      > <mailto:tips_and_tricks%40yahoogroups.com>, Michael Noonan
      > <mn_chicago@ ...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Wednesday 30 Auguest 2006
      > >
      > > Does this mean that if an attorney does not have an
      > > oath of office on file, s/he cannot practice?
      > >
      > > Challenge the attorney just like challenging the
      > > judge?
      > >
      > >
      > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
      > > Do You Yahoo!?
      > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      > > http://mail. yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>
      > >
      >
      >
    • Frog Farmer
      ... Because without a judge, you will not be prosecuted, and because so many today do not have their papers in order, the odds on disqualifying one are very
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        soc_anon_01 asked:
        >
        > Why on earth would you challenge a judge?

        Because without a judge, you will not be prosecuted, and because so many
        today do not have their papers in order, the odds on disqualifying one
        are very very high, and some people have disqualified all that were
        available. It's a lot easier to prevent hostile rulings if there's
        nobody to make them. And if they eventually do find somebody who can do
        more than just bluff with a black robe on, wouldn't it be nicer to know
        that you at least have a judge who appears to be able to read and obey
        the law, starting with the first one he had to make in his career
        (taking the oath of office)?

        > Is it not better to have Her/Him on your side?

        The last time I saw capital letters being used for a pronoun it was in
        reference to the Deity. Some people think of judges as deities. I
        picture them all with their pants around their ankles. If one fails to
        disqualify a candidate who could be disqualified, in effect one has
        qualified him, and he may turn out to not be on one's side after all.

        > Just ask the questions and state forehand "For the Record" and "I
        > require to be sworn at this time" and if dismissed, I would state "FOR
        > THE RECORD YOUR HONOR, I SWEAR THAT ANYTHING I SAY FROM THIS POINT
        > FORWARD IS THE TRUTH FOR THE RECORD YOUR HONOR"

        All of this "your honor" business! It's a fact that more do not have
        any honor in my state than those who do (going by the number of those
        with their papers in order versus those who don't care to abide by the
        law).
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.