Posted on 02/09/2006 5:31:44 AM PST by freepatriot32
I haven't bothered to look at your website but I take your word for who you are. I know quite a few like you myself. Your problem is just like that of the "peaceful Muslims", you don't seem able to police your own and the bad ones get all the publicity. It's the old good news is not news story. I also know a few of the ambulance chasers, too.
Some greedy trial lawyers, I don't mean to imply that is what all of them are, are in cahoots with and are used by the Democrats to enforce a political agenda. That is where much of the perception problem arises.
I also used to do some investigation for insurance companies investigating primarily high-dollar disability claims and some workers comp stuff. The bad lawyers I encountered fell into basically two groups. Those who went for the big bucks depending on a sympathetic jury and those who went after lots of small dollar cases that the insurance companies would generally pay rather than contest.
I have seen and experienced both sides. Once again, hooray for you for being who you are.
That doesn't speak well for her character, or her credibility, if true.
Yea, I know Detroit et al keeps outvoting you, just like Philadelphia et al does for PA, Portland et al for OR, Seattle et al for WA, but IL and NY are liberal everywhere!
I do collection work for small businesses. I don't make big dollar pay days. I try to get payment for people who provided services but were not paid.
I am sick of lawyer jokes knowing the work I put in to get some satisfaction for hard working businesspeople who get screwed by deadbeats.
Until the Supreme Court addresses this issue, it is still up in the air, as far as I'm concerned.
Okay, but I wouldn't bet on the court throwing thousands or potentially tens of thousands of sentences onto the pyre.
I used to have a truly nutcase feminist girlfriend who would have loved this. She also believed that consensual sex could later be reinterpreted as rape if the woman decided that she had somehow been emotionally manipulated into having sex. In other words, if the man seduced her, or if the situation was anything other than the woman initiating and driving the process from start to finish, it could be interpreted as rape. The endgame for feminists is that they would like women to be able to have men incarcerated solely on their word, and without the need to provide any evidence whatsoever. I now consider myself fortunate that my ex-girlfriend steadfastly refused to put out.
"I agree entirely. Sometimes I wish hell would open up and suck all the lawyers and judges in especially the ones involved in this case."
IMO, when hell opens up it belches forth new trial lawyers...
"Throw her ass in prison too, and strip her of custody."
His daughters are adults now. It's been twenty years. It's too late for him to ever have a relationship with his kids. The damage is done. Even if he is released now his life has been ruined.
I have no idea how many cases would be affected by retro application. I do know this: if it is unconstitutional for a judge to make the fact finding that enhances a sentence without that fact having been found to be true by agreement of 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt, it casts great doubt on that sentence. What the law would be saying, in effect, is it is alright to deprive someone of his Constitutional right to a jury trial provided that you deprived him of that right long ago and it's ok to let him suffer forever under that unfair and unjust sentence. It just doesn't sit right. But, I must admit, I haven't reviewed the sentencing transcript and I don't know how the Court reached that lengthy sentence. It might comply with all Constitutional guidelines and rules. But, I have seen murderers go free in far less time. I have also seen many guilty never charged or charged less than the crimes warranted. This one seems on the surface to be harsh. One should not forget that the Supreme Court recently upheld a case here in California where a guy got 25 yrs for 3 golf clubs valued at $1100, with two prior strikes for theft, fraud type crimes. But, that did not violate Apprendi, nor the 8th Amendment.
"Wonderful, but this guy's a nobody."
Not if you are a up-and-coming prosecutor trying to impress the local NOW gang. I'll bet he made his bones on this case. Remember, 20 years ago the NAGS were a force to be reckoned with and used to advantage. Not so now, fortunately!
The issue I have here is not with the justice or injustice of the sentence, it's the fact that every time I try to do a little digging on this article, it turns out that the article is blatantly misrepresenting the facts of the case. That makes me real suspicious about the parts that I haven't done any digging on.
Agree wholeheartedly.
This case is an obscenity.
"The issue I have here is not with the justice or injustice of the sentence, it's the fact that every time I try to do a little digging on this article, it turns out that the article is blatantly misrepresenting the facts of the case."
Really? You have examples I presume?
That this can happen in America just underscores the fact of the evil spirit that has crept into our country since God has been legislated out.
Do you really think that positing the idea that a husband is allowed to force himself sexually on his wife because the bible says the man is the head of the household is portraying Christianity in the best of lights?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.