Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Lowering the BAR
- 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.
> 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>
- soc_anon_01 asked:
>Because without a judge, you will not be prosecuted, and because so many
> Why on earth would you challenge a judge?
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 "IAll of this "your honor" business! It's a fact that more do not have
> 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"
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