The middle class can't buy justice

[guyser]

Oh stop playing games. You can twist my words any way you wish but I'm not about to debate your own interpretation of them any further.

Twist?

Merely repeated them verbatim. There is but one interpretation. And you know want a different interpretation.

I'll just leave that to stand on its own as I don't think it even needs a response.

Good idea. Glad you agree.

Hmm, yes, the Kern case was overturned, after those involved had spent 11 years in prison. The Berard Beran case was overturned - 22 years later. In fact, though I hadn't intended it, these are also cases where fundamental justice was ignored by the courts. Some of the claims made against the accused were incredible and ridiculous, yet they were convicted regardless and given long sentences.

However, the case I'm referring to was probably the Wenatchee child abuse prosecutions.

Wiki

So what is your point?

The Crown made somewhat credible case, the Judge was perhaps not on the ball, you know he doesnt sit in when the kids are being questioned, so what is your point?

These cases went through the system,they got convicted and then overturned.

Does it suck ofr an innocent man? Sure it does, (which is why the death penalty is stupid) but society , and the law, does not get everything correct all the time.

[bjre]

... Those who had enough money to hire their own criminal defense lawyers were all acquitted. All those who were too poor, and had to rely on public defenders were convicted and got long sentences.

I have heard cops introduce lawyer to arrested that have not his own lawyer. Obviously those lawyers are in the same interest group with cops.

And I have heard that guilty or not guilty are often based on negotiation between lawyers of both side.

So you see, the so called "justices" is just a profitable business.

[guyser]

I have heard cops introduce lawyer to arrested that have not his own lawyer. Obviously those lawyers are in the same interest group with cops.

The only "obvious" thing you know is jack shit , and probably less. You 'heard' the introductions did you ? What, you were arrested and in the back seat too? Maybe you were handcuffed sitting on the bench when someone else got their dime to call a lawyer?

Of course you wouldnt know that if an accused does not have a lawyer, the police hand them a sheet with a bunch of lawyers names and numbers on it.

Well, I guess they are in the same interest group. One makes more clients for the other

And I have heard that guilty or not guilty are often based on negotiation between lawyers of both side.

So you see, the so called "justices" is just a profitable business.

bjre.....school....enrol...you are in serious need of an education.

You are correct, but for the wrong reasons, and you dont knoww why.

Of course the Crown and defense negotiate. It saves money, time and if a Crown has a weak case and can convince a defendants lawyer to present and agree to a plea...win win!

But then again, the CAS probably were the evil doers.

But not China. China good , lawyers...China? We dont need no stinkin' lawyers...

You----> guilty, pay me 2yen for bullet BLAM!!! You----> Dead, Case dismissed !

Edited February 13, 2011 by guyser

[Wilber]

Then you dont have any clue about this I'm afraid.

The rich can buy a better lawyer, but not justice.

What you are saying is Judges are bought.

Still gonna stick to that?

Bet you don't think the Yankee's record has anything to with their payroll either.

[cybercoma]

Just out of curiosity, how many here have read any legal theory?

[Smallc]

Just out of curiosity, how many here have read any legal theory?

Not much, and I'm quite willing to admit that.

[Jack Weber]

Just out of curiosity, how many here have read any legal theory?

I took Canadian Law in Grade 12???

[bjre]

How much difference between middle class and poor?

If you need to pay mortgage, hydro, gas, car insurance and others, how many months can you survive if you lost your job and without EI? How much money can they pay for the legal expense. Even poor can get legal assistance, the time is limited, after half a year, legal aid time out, the court intentionally makes time very long just like the medical system. Waiting is what Canada all about. When China has build 10s of thousands of high speed railways, Canada has still only railway built 100 years ago. It is not surprise that that was build by Chinese people. It looks like Canada people are just not able to build those things, or new subway or even LRT. What they good at is blame others.

Most middle class and poor people are not able to survive from a malicious legal attack. Many families are destroyed in this way to feed the evil legal system.

Edited February 13, 2011 by bjre

[Shwa]

I'm saying it's a dumb idea, either way.

Without qualification, "it's a dumb idea." Riiiight...

In the US Canada, judges do at times make questionable decisions that are later overturned by higher, unelected courts, so yes, it seems to.

There. Fixedit for you.

No, and neither am I.

So you would exclude yourself from the responsibility and process of justice in our society? No wonder concepts like community justice are beyond your reach. "If dem guvments dun do it, nun shuld." Gotchya.

Let me guess: you hear a woman scream on the street and you just close your window and curtains and lock your doors right?

[Scotty]

Twist?

Merely repeated them verbatim.

There are a number of fine dictionary sites online where you can look up the word 'verbatim'. I would suggest doing that.

Good idea. Glad you agree

.

Oh yes, I certainly agree that if you have more money you can pay for justice while if you have less then your chances of getting justice are greatly reduced. Was that your point?

The Crown made somewhat credible case, the Judge was perhaps not on the ball, you know he doesnt sit in when the kids are being questioned, so what is your point?

My point was that in the case I cited those with money were able to hire criminal defense attorneys who got them acquited while those without money were screwed over.

[Scotty]

Just out of curiosity, how many here have read any legal theory?

Had a few courses in college in Business Law, but that was a while ago. Still have the books though.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Scotty

[guyser]

There are a number of fine dictionary sites online where you can look up the word 'verbatim'. I would suggest doing that.

Yes there are....hweres one for you.

"verbatim (not comparable)

1.Word for word; in exactly the same words as were used originally

.

Since I copied the exact words you used.......oh I think you get the point. No sense debating any facts is there?

Oh yes, I certainly agree that if you have more money you can pay for justice while if you have less then your chances of getting justice are greatly reduced. Was that your point?

That justice isnt bought. You thought it was.

My point was that in the case I cited those with money were able to hire criminal defense attorneys who got them acquited while those without money were screwed over.

Oh anecdotes huh....maybe a link to what you are talking about would clear things up.

Edited February 14, 2011 by guyser

[Mr.Canada]

Stop breaking the law and you won't have any legal problems.

[cybercoma]

Stop breaking the law and you won't have any legal problems.

The point is that the prison population does not necessarily increase due to more people breaking the law. You don't seem to get that.

[bjre]

Stop breaking the law and you won't have any legal problems.

There are too many laws that too many behaviors are defined to be breaking the law. Few people know all about laws. Most people just don't know when even they "break" it, they don't know. If any one need to know all laws, he has to be an expert. So the laws are just tools for evils to maliciously legal attack vulnerable people.

The obvious example is: if the shopkeeper knows more laws, he will not try to catch the thief and call cops and bring himself so many troubles.

[Scotty]

Yes there are....hweres one for you.

"verbatim (not comparable)

1.Word for word; in exactly the same words as were used originally

.

Since I copied the exact words you used......

Now you can have a go at looking up the word 'honesty'.

That justice isnt bought. You thought it was.

So you don't mind my saying you can pay for justice, but fulminate when I say you can buy it? Do you always get this upset over minor technical interpretations of words?

Oh anecdotes huh....maybe a link to what you are talking about would clear things up.

This is in response to my statement 'in the case I cited'. Maybe, if you want to see a link you should look at the one I posted.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Scotty

[guyser]

Now you can have a go at looking up the word 'honesty'.

Why, did you make some changes as to your words? Your words , not mine, were posted

So you don't mind my saying you can pay for justice, but fulminate when I say you can buy it? Do you always get this upset over minor technical interpretations of words?

Minor technical details huh?

The whole premise , from the words you chose for the title , are wrong.

No one can buy justice. It aint that hard to figure out.

Almost your entire view of the legal system is skewed.

Here.....

Your post #45

If we had a justice system, then justice would have to ultimately prevail, regardless of what a contract said, for example

Justice prevailing is carrying out the terms of the contract. Any terms that are not applicable in law would not be carried out.

But you want some willy nilly ad-hoc review when you might be on the short end of a contract.

No thanks.

[Scotty]

Justice prevailing is carrying out the terms of the contract. Any terms that are not applicable in law would not be carried out.

But you want some willy nilly ad-hoc review when you might be on the short end of a contract.

No thanks.

So in your opinion, justice prevails as long as the law is followed, regardless of how unjust the law. So in the case I mentioned where fraud artists falsified mortgage loan papers, justice was done when the banks seized the homes of the innocent homeowners, because, after all, that's the law.

It's an interesting concept you have but I doubt many Canadians, aside from lawyers, would agree.

[Mr.Canada]

The point is that the prison population does not necessarily increase due to more people breaking the law. You don't seem to get that.

So the police are arbitrarily imprisoning people? Let's expose these police forces. Which ones are doing it? If people are in prison for not breaking the law, lets hear it. Surely there needs to be a public inquiry.

[cybercoma]

So the police are arbitrarily imprisoning people? Let's expose these police forces. Which ones are doing it? If people are in prison for not breaking the law, lets hear it. Surely there needs to be a public inquiry.

Police imprison people? Do you have the vaguest idea how the criminal justice system works?

[guyser]

So in your opinion, justice prevails as long as the law is followed, regardless of how unjust the law. So in the case I mentioned where fraud artists falsified mortgage loan papers, justice was done when the banks seized the homes of the innocent homeowners, because, after all, that's the law.

It's an interesting concept you have but I doubt many Canadians, aside from lawyers, would agree.

Oh my, so much wrong here.

First off, justice does prevail on the falsified loan papers until of course....the loan papers are shown to be falsified and go through the process.

Your equating of this to illegal (from the outset)provisions of a contract says a lot.

Many Canadians probably dont agree , but thats not new, many Canucks dont have much knowledge of the legal system, and while I dont have a ton of knowledge about it,I know enough to show the errors posted here.

Two examples of ignorance that alsways make me smile are the McDonalds Coffee suit and and Homolka.

Edited February 15, 2011 by guyser

[cybercoma]

I don't think Scotty was off base with his assumption. The main streams of legal thought are legal positivism, legal realism and natural law. Positivism is the the idea that a law is a law because it is coded or written. Natural law theorists believe a law is only a law when it comes, as a rule, from divine authority or nature. Realists claim that a law is not a law until a judge renders a decision. That you called justice, "carrying out the terms of the contract," puts you firmly in the legal positivist camp. You then mix up your theories and claim that justice is done when a court or judge renders a decision, putting you in the realists camp. If the enforcement of the terms of the contract is antithetical to the decision rendered, then one or the other must be unjust.

[Scotty]

Oh my, so much wrong here.

First off, justice does prevail on the falsified loan papers until of course....the loan papers are shown to be falsified and go through the process.

Your equating of this to illegal (from the outset)provisions of a contract says a lot.

I am speaking about the fact that the law, as written, said that even though the mortgages were obtained fraudulently, once registered they became valid. Thus lenders were able to take the houses away from the legitimate homeowners because of their fraudulently obtained mortgages. The law was an ass - yet that constituted justice by your way of thinking.

Justice is a fundamental issue which is not defined by law, nor in fact, taken into account by law, often enough. If one has a tricky enough contract and the other party doesn't understand the references, the other party can get screwed, and you believe that still constitutes justice?

[guyser]

I don't think Scotty was off base with his assumption. The main streams of legal thought are legal positivism, legal realism and natural law. Positivism is the the idea that a law is a law because it is coded or written. Natural law theorists believe a law is only a law when it comes, as a rule, from divine authority or nature. Realists claim that a law is not a law until a judge renders a decision. That you called justice, "carrying out the terms of the contract," puts you firmly in the legal positivist camp. You then mix up your theories and claim that justice is done when a court or judge renders a decision, putting you in the realists camp. If the enforcement of the terms of the contract is antithetical to the decision rendered, then one or the other must be unjust.

Lets make sure we are on the same page here.

Contracts spell out details of an arrangement or agreement. Anything in there that is illegal is not a contractual obligation. For instance , no pets in apartments, one could sign that lease and move in with their dog. Why? Because that is illegal from the outset. Another is signing away the right to sue say at an amusement park or ride. One cannot get someone to sign away rights for negligence.

So in that vein I was understanding that the poster said any contract being enforced when it is not right is a bad thing. I say no, only if it is an illegal thing.My choice of words, ad hoc, was used to display to the poster that contracts are to be enforced except where they do not violate existing law. They may not be entirely right, but thats no reason to piss on the judicial system because some idiot signed a contract.

As for the fraud angle , the entire snafu is only known very late in the game. On the one hand you have documents , signed off and duly noted, presented as original and valid, and the house is re-mortgaged or sold or whatever nafarious BS they are doing.

At no time does anyone suspect (although Lawyers are trained to spot the problems and coached to change things from SOP ) that anything is amiss. The papers look like they are valid, the system in its checks and balances looks like they are valid, and only when the Judge looks at and hears the problem do we get to the bottom of the problem. In many many cases the house gets returned, the owner gets relief.

But there are two victims, the homeowner and the bank/mortgage company. Due to the laws on the books judges have to adjudicate as per those laws. In some cases I know this isnt happening, but overwhelmimgly our system is fantastic and gets favourable results.

Laws on the books as pertains to mortgages, tax payable et al are always favoured to the state or bank. Take for instance the demise of a company.....they have creditors including employees who are owed (for arguments sake) $100,000 , the Govt is owed $50,000 and some others are owed too.

Well , the Govt is owed first, banks second and employees third. By the time we deal with the employees, there is now $1000 left. Divy it up and pay them.

Why should the govt, the last "needy" person in the group get all the funds and the last and likely most needy get the least? Because that is the way the law is set up. A Judge will have to grant the Govt its share.

Its right and legal, and any other way violates law.Its sucks, but that is the way we live.

[Wilber]

Lets make sure we are on the same page here.

Contracts spell out details of an arrangement or agreement. Anything in there that is illegal is not a contractual obligation. For instance , no pets in apartments, one could sign that lease and move in with their dog. Why? Because that is illegal from the outset. Another is signing away the right to sue say at an amusement park or ride. One cannot get someone to sign away rights for negligence.

So in that vein I was understanding that the poster said any contract being enforced when it is not right is a bad thing. I say no, only if it is an illegal thing.My choice of words, ad hoc, was used to display to the poster that contracts are to be enforced except where they do not violate existing law. They may not be entirely right, but thats no reason to piss on the judicial system because some idiot signed a contract.

As for the fraud angle , the entire snafu is only known very late in the game. On the one hand you have documents , signed off and duly noted, presented as original and valid, and the house is re-mortgaged or sold or whatever nafarious BS they are doing.

At no time does anyone suspect (although Lawyers are trained to spot the problems and coached to change things from SOP ) that anything is amiss. The papers look like they are valid, the system in its checks and balances looks like they are valid, and only when the Judge looks at and hears the problem do we get to the bottom of the problem. In many many cases the house gets returned, the owner gets relief.

But there are two victims, the homeowner and the bank/mortgage company. Due to the laws on the books judges have to adjudicate as per those laws. In some cases I know this isnt happening, but overwhelmimgly our system is fantastic and gets favourable results.

Laws on the books as pertains to mortgages, tax payable et al are always favoured to the state or bank. Take for instance the demise of a company.....they have creditors including employees who are owed (for arguments sake) $100,000 , the Govt is owed $50,000 and some others are owed too.

Well , the Govt is owed first, banks second and employees third. By the time we deal with the employees, there is now $1000 left. Divy it up and pay them.

Why should the govt, the last "needy" person in the group get all the funds and the last and likely most needy get the least? Because that is the way the law is set up. A Judge will have to grant the Govt its share.

Its right and legal, and any other way violates law.Its sucks, but that is the way we live.

Unfortunately the incidents referred to are a result of identity theft. The government transfered title without doing due diligence and a bank issued a mortgage on a home it didn't own to a person using a false identity. The legal owner had no part in, or knowledge of the transaction but ends up being the only victim. Why should an owner have to buy title insurance to protect against something that was the fault of other parties? It many be legal but it isn't right or just.