Hi every-body!
Posted on 01/12/2005 7:17:28 AM PST by esryle
HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- Two men have been arrested for trading lawyer jokes while waiting on line to get into First District Court in Hempstead.
The two men, 69-year-old Harvey Kash, of Bethpage, and 65-year-old Carl Lanzisera, of Huntington, were in court Monday as part of their work with Americans for Legal Reform, a group that monitors how the courts serve the public.
While waiting on a long line to get through into court, they began telling each other lawyer jokes such as, "How do you tell if a lawyer is lying? Answer: his lips are moving."
Well, an attorney within earshot got angry and told court officers that the two men were disturbing the public.
They were handcuffed and charged with disorderly conduct.
The two men said their First Amendment free speech rights were violated.
The men were given desk appearance tickets and are due back in court next month.
Somewhere, on this very planet lives the world's worst surgeon and he is scheduled to do surgery this week.
What's the difference between a lawyer and a hooker?
A hooker won't screw you when you are dead.
Either a toxic, environmental disaster, or
A good start!
Speaking as a lawyer, if the two men were going to be arrested it should be for telling old, trite and bad lawyer jokes. The one in referred to in the article meets all of the above criteria. In fact, your post is the first one on this thread that is actually good. It looks like many of the posters merely jumped over to a joke site and cut and pasted the same trite stuff that has been on the net for years.
Two good ones in a row. Things are improving here.
Perhaps they were arrested for practicing humor without a license.
Oldie: A bus full of lawyers went off a cliff.
The good news: they were all killed.
The bad news: there were three empty seats.
This gorgeous woman offered a lawyer who was in the elevator with her to have sex with him for free in her penthouse apartment at the top of the building. The lawyer said, well I can understand what's in it for you, but what's in it for me?
Your mistake was agreeing to the continuance.
Both sides have to agree or there is no continuance. It would have been dismissed for lack of evidence.
Hi every-body!
undue some of this latest public relations disaster for your profession would be to call around and make sure these 2 persons get free representation from quality lawyers to: 1) fight this 2) clear up their record 3) go after this abusive slimeball harassing POS lawyer to insure he is punished and a message sent that such abuse of power is not only wrong but will carry a high price
yeah right. thats like asking a cop to testify that his partner threw down the perps gun after the shooting.
you MUST have missed the earlier jokes re professional courtesy
Words to live by:
Never trust anyone who writes a 10,000-word document and calls it a brief.
Cool joke.
But it would have been funnier if you had left off the last line.
"I've got them all."
The difference between us, as indicated by your comment, is that you have faith in the system overall, believing that there are a few bad judges but most are just, while I have no faith in the system because most judges I've seen are not just, and therefore I belive that the rare judge is the honest judge, and now have no faith whatsoever in the system...
And they called that "Justice"!!!!!! The cop refused to show because he knew he was lying, you proved your innocence (which is wrong, but is now the defacto standard) and you still got a conviction on your record and had to pay the court!!!!!!
Why aren't we rioting in the streets!!!! It blew my mind that in Denver if you sucessfully prove your innocence, you still have to pay the courts fees for the priviledge!!!
Not in that courtroom, the prosecution made the motion, the defence protested (very vocally the second and third and fourth times) and the judge approved the motion.
I guarantee you though, had I made a motion for continuance, it would have been denied flat out...
The incarceration of Eddie Long, while perhaps representing a tiny raft adrift in a sea judicial corruption, is at least that - a small inkling that sometimes, somewhere, justice is sometimes done.
The alternative to working the system and forcing the judges and prosecutors earn their salaries is unpalatable, to say the least.
GREAT joke!
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.