This blog post was interesting. A criminal defense attorney made a journal of a typical day in court.
Count the actual number of hours of trial. 8:30-9:30, 10:30-11:30, 2 hours for lunch(!), 1:30-3:30, 4:00-5:00.
In a full day of work, the judge only actually worked for 5 hours! That's a pretty sweet deal. Is it normal for judges to take a 2 hour break for lunch every day?
The blogger's attitude was "ho-hum boring". My attitude was "WTF? The judge works 5 hours a day?"
Saturday, July 31, 2010
How Lazy Are State Bureaucrats?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It's funny you cite Bennett because he also takes an FSK-esque line on jury nullification. I never thought I'd live to see a lawyer be so honest in what he writes:
http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2007/06/jury-nullification-meme.html
I started reading some defense attorney blogs. The good ones seem to mostly know "The legal system is a sham!", but they aren't full anarchists.
The situation in the UK and Canada is different. In the UK and Canada, I believe that the prosecution can appeal "not guilty" jury verdicts, but I'm not sure.
In the USA, the "double jeopardy" clause prevents overturning a jury verdict. Other loopholes are available, such as separate trials in state and Federal court, and separate trials for essentially the same action.
BTW, if you like Bennett, I have another upcoming post based on something Bennett wrote.
Lawyers are arrogant alpha-males. They feel entitled to steal money from the productive parts of society.
It has gotten so bad in the UK, that the threatening letters they send out in bulk demanding money are hard to distinguish from scams such are payment for entry into a private trademark database (they hope you will mistake their invoice from something from the real UK Patents Office) or getting money from a foreign lottery in return for your bank details..
I read on the Internet with sick humour than one man in the UK received a demand from a solicitor for money and he thought it was a scam letter. He had never heard of the solicitor before or the company they were saying they represented. It was only after his own research that he found out that these letters are really bona fida lawsuit threats. But the fact that people can't tell the difference is shocking.
Most normal people are shocked to be sued by companies they have never heard of before or companies in foreign countries they have never visited.
I believe one firm called Davenport Lyons referenced German law to do with wireless connections that is not valid in the UK. Does the government step in and do them for misrepresentation? No!
Another set of clowns decided to register a new name with the Law Society so they can send out their bulk letters under a new name.
The government needs to step in and do something now. The clowns are laughing at the weak system of regulation.
Post a Comment