Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
BDS wrote:
"Maxwell" wrote

I don't think that is really the case. It does indeed take people
seeking
recovery to start the process. But I have never seen a lawyer get
involved
with a case in the interest of justice. They pick and choose who they
help
base on yeild, not justice.

Both the plaintiff and his or her lawyer share a portion of the blame, no
doubt. But the fact remains that none of it could take place without a
willing plaintiff no matter how many morally corrupt lawyers there are
out
there. I guess it shows how quickly many of us are willing to throw
everything we know about what is right and what is wrong out the window
if
the price is right.

BDS


I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation a
lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
conclusion;
Although it's true that the plaintiff has to want the lawsuit, one has to
consider that in considering the plaintiff side of the equation, one has
the entire population to consider. It's reasonable to assume that within
that population there will be a considerable amount of potential
plaintiffs seeking unreasonable, trivial, and financially inspired
litigation.

Lawyers are, but their very nature of the job, persuasive. Do you think they
can't persuade some grieving or naive party that they have been "harmed" to
a proper extent?

Hell, look at the poverty pimps and similar ner-do-wells.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
BDS wrote:
"Maxwell" wrote

I don't think that is really the case. It does indeed take people
seeking
recovery to start the process. But I have never seen a lawyer get
involved
with a case in the interest of justice. They pick and choose who they
help
base on yeild, not justice.
Both the plaintiff and his or her lawyer share a portion of the blame, no
doubt. But the fact remains that none of it could take place without a
willing plaintiff no matter how many morally corrupt lawyers there are
out
there. I guess it shows how quickly many of us are willing to throw
everything we know about what is right and what is wrong out the window
if
the price is right.

BDS


I went through a long process where I gave the lawyer/plaintif equation a
lot of hard objective thought. In the end I came to the following
conclusion;
Although it's true that the plaintiff has to want the lawsuit, one has to
consider that in considering the plaintiff side of the equation, one has
the entire population to consider. It's reasonable to assume that within
that population there will be a considerable amount of potential
plaintiffs seeking unreasonable, trivial, and financially inspired
litigation.

Lawyers are, but their very nature of the job, persuasive. Do you think they
can't persuade some grieving or naive party that they have been "harmed" to
a proper extent?

Hell, look at the poverty pimps and similar ner-do-wells.



I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can
be shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of
the case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH times!

So much for the justice part of the legal equation! Let's hear it for
SALESMANSHIP!!!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:

Lawyers are, by their very nature of the job, persuasive. Do you think
they can't persuade some grieving or naive party that they have been
"harmed" to a proper extent?

Hell, look at the poverty pimps and similar ner-do-wells.



I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can be
shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of the
case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH times!

So much for the justice part of the legal equation! Let's hear it for
SALESMANSHIP!!!! :-))

And now you know why so many stopped calling it the "Justice System" and now
refer to it as the "Legal System". It's all in "gaming the system".

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:
Lawyers are, by their very nature of the job, persuasive. Do you think
they can't persuade some grieving or naive party that they have been
"harmed" to a proper extent?

Hell, look at the poverty pimps and similar ner-do-wells.



I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can be
shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of the
case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH times!

So much for the justice part of the legal equation! Let's hear it for
SALESMANSHIP!!!! :-))

And now you know why so many stopped calling it the "Justice System" and now
refer to it as the "Legal System". It's all in "gaming the system".



Actually I've known this for a VERY long time :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:
Lawyers are, by their very nature of the job, persuasive. Do you think
they can't persuade some grieving or naive party that they have been
"harmed" to a proper extent?

Hell, look at the poverty pimps and similar ner-do-wells.



I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can
be shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of
the case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH
times!

So much for the justice part of the legal equation! Let's hear it for
SALESMANSHIP!!!! :-))

And now you know why so many stopped calling it the "Justice System" and
now refer to it as the "Legal System". It's all in "gaming the system".



Actually I've known this for a VERY long time :-)))

Quite!
The rest, the sheeple, are a few decades behind.

Dudley Henriques wrote:
Matt W. Barrow wrote:
And now you know why so many stopped calling it the "Justice System"
and now refer to it as the "Legal System". It's all in "gaming the
system".

And I have coined a corollary:

"These days, justics is considered served when the law is satisfied."

I mentioned this to a lawyer; he was not happy about it, but did not
refute me.

Ang. C.

On Dec 9, 2:07 pm, Angelo Campanella
wrote:
And I have coined a corollary:

"These days, justics is considered served when the law is satisfied."

I mentioned this to a lawyer; he was not happy about it, but did not
refute me.

I don't know why he would be unhappy about it. It is actually a
pretty accurate description of what it's all about.

Dudley Henriques wrote:

I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can
be shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of
the case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH times!

And why are you surprised? A lawyer is a mercenary. A hired gun. A tool.
I don't expect my lawyer to base their performance on whether they like me
or believe in me any more than I expect my drill press or my laptop to do
so.

Roy Smith wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can
be shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of
the case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH times!

And why are you surprised? A lawyer is a mercenary. A hired gun. A tool.
I don't expect my lawyer to base their performance on whether they like me
or believe in me any more than I expect my drill press or my laptop to do
so.

You assume surprise. Trust me....there is none! I merely make the
distinction between a lawyer self portrayed as a "protector of the
people" which is the projected ethical intent and the lawyer as he/she
actually exists; a glorified and educated used car salesman par
excellence, selling services to the highest bidder and raping clients
and the public at large by their actions.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Dec 2, 5:27 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I once had a lawyer tell me that the TRUE mark of a lawyers ability can
be shown by that lawyer's ability to argue first the plaintiff's side of
the case, then the defendent's side of the same case....and win BOTH times!

And you believed this. Sounds like machizmo gloating to me. Were you
at a bar? )