All I see is a bunch of no dick power junkies trying to talk tough. I guess they're trying to see who can be crowned douchiest wanna be hard ass tough guy of the year lol.
All I see is a bunch of no dick power junkies trying to talk tough. I guess they're trying to see who can be crowned douchiest wanna be hard ass tough guy of the year lol.
didnt soundlike a deposition sounded more like he was baiting the chemist who appears smarter than lawyer when he was getting out of hand he goes after the other lawyers and refers to physical threats the lawyer representing the chemist was right in removing him judge and should ask judge to review this footage before any continuation of questions
@wafhsecl Not just our justice system... its all over the U.S.A. our nurses, lawyers, teachers, & everyone... America consist of a disappointing amount of 'successful' failures amongst ppl who have true passion, honesty, potential, and intelligence.
It's funny how fat boy restrained the dumb son of a bitch by simply holding his arm out in front of him. It's also funny how pathetic the dumb son of a bitch's attempt is to knock Joe Jamail on his ass. Owned.
this was a great video. it's sad that guys like the ones in the video are no longer around. now all attorneys are pussies. at least in arizona. i should know.....i am one (an attorney that is)
@wolf69a make that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 fuck im out of characters :(
@GarrettWilkins951 That *is* how lawyers fight, dumbass. When lawyers go beyond just arguing the case, it becomes a fight...and then when they take a break they're all friends again.
@PlanetDip asked, "why would an old lawyer get into a physical fight?"
ANSWER: Because an even older piece of shit former Monsanto chemist refuses to answer questions that he's legally obligated to answer and because that same old piece of shit former Monsanto chemist wants to act like a smarmy little asshole on top of it.
Unfortunately, practicing law in this manner has come to be strongly frowned upon by courts in most jurisdictions. So sad.
@ED209ISBACK Well I was brought up American. So, be careful or I'll "help" your sense of humor by forcing my own humor onto you whether you like it or not. I obviously know what's best for your sense of humor more than you and I'll stop at nothing until I find those weapons of mass... I mean, until I correct your humor! We'll call it "Operation Humor Freedom."
joe jamail is the guy on the right off screen. the old dude is answering the questions. he worked for Monsanto, which is a HUGE genetically modified food and chemical company that owns the government...supreme court judges were lawyers for them, people in EPA worked for them, government, etc...own lawmakers, in washington dc, which was until recently illegal; and etc etc...basically,Monsanto sent a big guy to intimidate, not represent the geezer and Jamail wants none of it!
The lawyer Joe Jamail won 11 Billion verdict in the biggest lawsuit in history at that time, it was Pennzoil vs Texaco and he won the verdict for Pennzoil. He is also the reason that you can't buy a three wheeler atv anymore.
, "If you're threatened with a lawsuit and can't afford a lawyer or aren't sure you can trust the lawyer you have, visit Jurisdictionary® to get step-by-step tips and tactics for winning ... with or without a lawyer."
Germany still is working on world Control. They never gave up this idea but they failed to do it openly during the war. Today they are using snitchers to infiltrate foreign countries and manipulate their population and their government. Preferably against each other. And they infiltrate the economy of other states. They are using brainwashing and steering techniques abroad to get rid of people not being pro german. As somebody said: We don´t have nukes so we have to do this.
Vanessa D. Taylor of the Taylor Group of Manlapan New Jersey has been charged with real estate fraud. She is also named in a Judicial Misconduct complaint against Essex County Judge Walter Koprowski. Judge Koprowski has been asked to remove Vanessa D. Taylor as Guardian after she was charged with elderly financial abuse. Adult Protective Services has been charged with acting in concert with the unlawful concealment.
I don't get why lawyers aren't allowed to testify against their clients once their clients admit their guilt to them in confidence? People say this is because then lawyers could be bribed to testify that innocent clients are guilty, well while that's true, people can always bribe the judge and jury as well. We need to trust that most people are good people, which is why i think lawyers should be allowed to testify against their guilty former clients, we'll catch more criminals that way.
@playthefield21 no, its because every lawyer has to sign a form of confidentiality. by doing so, if they say 1 word to anyone or try to testify against their client even though the client admitted to their guilt in confidentiality, then, the client could very well have the lawyer prosecuted for breaking this contract. and that is why lawyers aren't allowed to testify against their clients... it would be like suicide.
@playthefield21 Yeah, he didn't answer your question. Here is why. The American legal system is "adverserial." That means, the logic is, that both sides should fight to the absolute best of their ability, and an impartial judge/jury can decide the truth. Not all systems are like this. In France, for instance, the judge is responsible for doing the investigation, finding the facts to consider, and so on. It's very different from here. Here we think it's best if our lawyer only fights for us.
@playthefield21 So, what goes along with that is that the lawyer should not be judgmental. It's not his job to decide if his client is guilty or not. It is his job to do the best job he possibly can (without breaking the law etc.) to defend his client. What you have to understand is that the lawyer has a _job_ in this system. You can't look at it from the morality of the lawyer; that's unfair. He is doing a difficult but HUGELY important job for all of us. . . .
@playthefield21 If you were accused of doing something, you too would want your lawyer to be intensely on your side.
So, that's where the answer to your question comes from. The actual policy reason for your question is that if clients could not trust that their lawyer would not say something, then they would be afraid to be honest. The result would be that they would not get the best representation possible, because they could not tell their lawyer everything.
@playthefield21 You're assuming that this hypothetical client is "guilty"--but they are not guilty until the jury says so. What you have to understand is that there are subtleties in the law. You might take someone's life. But that's not the end of the question, it's the beginning. Was it self-defense? Were you enraged? Were you protecting someone else? It's only by having an open conversation with your attorney that you can get the best possible representation.
@playthefield21 One more thing, because I want to emphasize this. Lawyers have a very difficult and thankless job. The job they do is not necessarily pleasant. But it is vital to your freedoms as well as anyone's. They are a hugely important part of our system of justice and government and freedoms. If you take away things like attorney client privilege, the entire system of freedom that you enjoy would fall apart.
@greg5566 Thanks, that was a very detailed and direct answer. I don't mean to sound at all ungrateful, but i knew most of that. The point i was trying to make was that if a criminal confesses to his lawyer that he murdered in cold blood (not self defense, protection, or for any other noble cause) is it really moral to ask the lawyer to withhold that information by law? I'd think the only reason a person would be afraid to tell their own lawyer something in that case is if they are guilty.
@playthefield21 But you can't ask questions like that. You don't know what crime the person committed until the jury comes back. The criminal doesn't know the law. A woman who killed his husband may think she did it "in cold blood" because she did it in his sleep, without realizing that "battered wife syndrome" is a defense. You might think you committed a crime by not paying your credit card bill, while a lawyer would realize the bank was illegally raising your rates. . . .
@playthefield21 If you create a situation where the criminal has to edit himself, it will lead to vast injustices. The entire system is already enormously unfair to the defendant. If the defendant can't even be honest with his lawyer, it will just lead to more injustice. You are making an assumption that isn't true: that the person we're talking about is "definitely guilty." The entire point is that YOU don't know that, a trained attorney will determine that; that's his job.
@playthefield21 By the way, this rule is very narrow. It's only for _past_ crimes that the lawyer must remain silent. If someone goes in and says, "I'm going to kill my wife, is that okay?" he has to report that. Likewise he cannot allow his client to lie on the stand, and has a duty to let the court know if he is aware the client lied. (That's one purpose of the fifth amendment as well.) One must think about these rules from the POV of the 99 innocent people they protect, not the one guilty.
@greg5566 I'm not saying we should create a situation in which the criminals have to edit themselves, they can choose what to tell their lawyers. Once they admit their guilt though the lawyer should let that be known and then defend the criminal according to the circumstances.
If a wife murders her husband and thinks she did it cold blood and confesses to her lawyer, he'll make it known, but if he thinks she has a defense as 'battered wife syndrome' he'll make that known as well.
@playthefield21 The problem is the founding fathers disagree with you--the fifth amendment protects us from having to testify against ourselves. And the attorney could never testify to what he was told anyway, that would create obvious insurmountable conflicts of interest. And it would be hearsay so wouldn't be allowed anyway.
@greg5566 The defendants wouldn't be forced to break the 5th amendment though, they'd only tell their lawyers of their guilt if they felt they needed to give the lawyers all the information for an adequate defense, they'd still have the right to plea bargains. The point is not to defend the guilty from receiving a just punishment.
Conflicts of interest for the guilty? I can live with that. Lawyer's testifying against their former clients after hearing admissions of guilt would be testimony.
@playthefield21 The fifth amendment is broader than you understand it to be.
And, it _would_ be hearsay.
You started this conversation asking why we don't let lawyers do that. I told you why: in America we value the freedoms of the innocent above all. It is simply a choice that we as Americans made. You can disagree with it, but it's not "immoral." It's rather sophisticated to insist the state prove one's guilt without one's assistance.
@playthefield21 Most of us, at least we as a country, value our own freedoms above putting the guilty in jail. If I have to give up my own freedoms in order to put the guilty in jail, I say no. I say to the state, prove they are guilty without infringing on my freedoms.
@greg5566 You're misunderstanding what I'm saying though, this has nothing to do with innocents being put in jail without proof. This has to do with one who admits guilt, even in the confidence of a lawyer, having to face up to that guilt in court because it's immoral to defend a guilty person with the illusion that they're innocent.
I'm not sure what the technical law definition of hearsay is, but how would a lawyer testifying against a former client be different from testimony?
@greg5566 Ultimately, you did answer my question though, and I'm thankful to you for that. I just don't think the answer is morally justifiable though, so yes, i disagree.
@playthefield21 But you keep wanting to label the person "guilty" before the court has found them so. That's the problem. The wife can say "I hit him in the head with a hammer." She CAN'T say "I'm guilty," because she is not a legal expert and does not know.
And saying "having to face up to that 'guilt' in court" is EXACTLY what the fifth amendment is there to prevent. Let the state take away your freedom without your help.
Nevermind the hearsay--it's not really relevant to this.
@greg5566 If she hit him in the head with a hammer than she is guilty of hitting him in the head with a hammer. Whether she was justified in doing so or not and should be punished is up to the courts. What i'm against however, is her admitting to her lawyer that she hit him and the laywer not being able to tell the jury that because she confessed to doing so in confidence.
The 5th is not related to this because a defendant would still be able to refuse to answer a question on the stand.
@greg5566 Legal guilt and actual guilt are two different things. If a person is guilty, they are guilty regardless of what the courts say. Ever hear of OJ?
What's really amazing is that someone writing in the comments section here passes judgment on folks with a Texan accent as "rednecks"; instead of the fact that this is obviously a very emotionally charged deposition!
Watch "Population Reduction" by Dr. Rima. Cross reference Keith Olbermann and Habeas Corpus and watch your Bill of Rights thrown out the window. Look into the U.S. Spy Bill -HR6304. Watch HBO's Hacking Democracy and look into the continuous vote fraud through Black Box Voting dot org Watch "National Security Alert" Watch Richard Gage's Presentation at the Manatoba University. Watch "Fall of the Republic" Watch Hyperinflation videos by inflation.us. I'll be at "The Tea Party Truther" Facebook
hell yeah... getting down to buisness. choosing sides ready to fight at the drop of a hat / a matter of seconds before the reaction 1:33 - 1:43. Thats how long it took to turn a civilized American man into a ass whoopin machine whose got your back!!!!
This has been flagged as spam show
All I see is a bunch of no dick power junkies trying to talk tough. I guess they're trying to see who can be crowned douchiest wanna be hard ass tough guy of the year lol.
SuperStrik9 2 days ago
All I see is a bunch of no dick power junkies trying to talk tough. I guess they're trying to see who can be crowned douchiest wanna be hard ass tough guy of the year lol.
SuperStrik9 2 days ago
OBJECTION!!!..... ( Opps wrong vid I think )
shoooshify 1 week ago
didnt soundlike a deposition sounded more like he was baiting the chemist who appears smarter than lawyer when he was getting out of hand he goes after the other lawyers and refers to physical threats the lawyer representing the chemist was right in removing him judge and should ask judge to review this footage before any continuation of questions
jbp1963 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
they just talk as LAWYERS.. i think that's normal.
lovelplants 2 months ago
Fuck Monsanto and anyone that works for them.
knownastig 2 months ago
@knownastig amen!
williegotpwned 1 month ago
I would hate to be that court reporter.
arenaskiez 5 months ago
please add Lutz Mirus in facebook im the most famous lawyer in europe.
Please be sure to check my homepage ramirus.de
sommaa95 5 months ago
Dr. Ettore Montanaro
DrEttoreMontanaro 5 months ago
you have to go to college and get a degree to act like this? another reason our justice system is so screwed up.
wafhsecl 6 months ago
@wafhsecl Not just our justice system... its all over the U.S.A. our nurses, lawyers, teachers, & everyone... America consist of a disappointing amount of 'successful' failures amongst ppl who have true passion, honesty, potential, and intelligence.
wizarda7x 1 month ago
Do lawyers take cases against the federal government when they commit endless crimes against you and your family?
MillionDollarSuit 6 months ago
What a bunch of posers. None of them were going to do anything.
WynnCole 6 months ago
Thats how we do it in texas
handm2411 6 months ago
These very American lawyers ae so funny man. I don't know who is trying to fight who but it is such a shit talk.
UnitedKorean 7 months ago
oldtimers rule
maximus0753 7 months ago
NO you aint tellin me a GOD DAMN THING
webeshaman6 7 months ago
cracker moment
afroninja331 7 months ago
It's funny how fat boy restrained the dumb son of a bitch by simply holding his arm out in front of him. It's also funny how pathetic the dumb son of a bitch's attempt is to knock Joe Jamail on his ass. Owned.
79ep 8 months ago
99.9% is conservative but We will buy it. May I quote you?
harleybunt 8 months ago
Is it any coincidence that Lawyer rhymes with Liar ?
gblueslover2 8 months ago
Comment removed
oiyabastard 8 months ago
@oiyabastard DUH yeah ? And jewel is the 1st 5 letters in jeweler also. Amazing huh ? WTF.
gblueslover2 8 months ago
@gblueslover2 1st 3 letters in jewel is j e w ,
oiyabastard 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oiyabastard R E A L L Y ? W O W ...
gblueslover2 8 months ago
Comment removed
xe1881 8 months ago
i love this video. it's a youtube classic.
SimAlex20000 8 months ago
All these men went home and unmercifully beat their wives over this day...
fraggles666 9 months ago
@fraggles666 LOL. in their wifebeater tanktops no doubt.wifes hair in one hand,cold brewski in the other.
spencermel 8 months ago
this was a great video. it's sad that guys like the ones in the video are no longer around. now all attorneys are pussies. at least in arizona. i should know.....i am one (an attorney that is)
eddysacat 9 months ago
LAWYERS - CRIMINALS I FORGET THE DIFFERENCE
TheMidwestsk8ter 9 months ago
99.9% of the lawyers make the rest look bad
wolf69a 9 months ago 29
@wolf69a make that 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 fuck im out of characters :(
usmc2076 8 months ago 2
@wolf69a lol, you make me laugh cause this answer kind of related to me
sah8000 7 months ago
They don't physically fight, they just talk smack, thumbs up so noone wastes their time
GarrettWilkins951 9 months ago 17
@GarrettWilkins951 That *is* how lawyers fight, dumbass. When lawyers go beyond just arguing the case, it becomes a fight...and then when they take a break they're all friends again.
LordRedXII 6 months ago
@GarrettWilkins951 why would an old lawyer get into a physical fight?
PlanetDip 3 months ago
@PlanetDip asked, "why would an old lawyer get into a physical fight?"
ANSWER: Because an even older piece of shit former Monsanto chemist refuses to answer questions that he's legally obligated to answer and because that same old piece of shit former Monsanto chemist wants to act like a smarmy little asshole on top of it.
Unfortunately, practicing law in this manner has come to be strongly frowned upon by courts in most jurisdictions. So sad.
forthedefence82 1 month ago
@GarrettWilkins951 the smack they talk is funnier then senseless uncivilized fighting if you wanna see fighting go some where else
D4RkxGAMING 1 month ago 2
@D4RkxGAMING Took the words right out of my mouth.
Tralman1965 1 month ago
@jatuab lol
ED209ISBACK 9 months ago
All of the guys in this video need to be shot like the rabid dogs they are.
ED209ISBACK 10 months ago
Who is the faggot to the right of the screen?
ED209ISBACK 10 months ago
@ED209ISBACK Don't talk about your cubicle neighbor like that.
DeleteMeifyoucan 10 months ago
@DeleteMeifyoucan I don't have a cubicle neighbor, or a cubicle.
ED209ISBACK 10 months ago
@ED209ISBACK But surely you have a sense of humor?
DeleteMeifyoucan 10 months ago
@DeleteMeifyoucan absolutely, apparently it is not compatible with yours however especially since I was brought up European :)
ED209ISBACK 10 months ago
@ED209ISBACK Well I was brought up American. So, be careful or I'll "help" your sense of humor by forcing my own humor onto you whether you like it or not. I obviously know what's best for your sense of humor more than you and I'll stop at nothing until I find those weapons of mass... I mean, until I correct your humor! We'll call it "Operation Humor Freedom."
DeleteMeifyoucan 9 months ago
@DeleteMeifyoucan i dont think so :)
ED209ISBACK 9 months ago
@ED209ISBACK They just sit you out in the open? You should ask for a cubicle even if it is just one of those low-wall cubicles.
Rooster1Cogburn 9 months ago
Thats fucking funny!
joe1969812 10 months ago
"Don't tell me to shut my mouth BOY!"
aethiops007 10 months ago
Joe Jamail is a bad ass legal mind. And your right about Monsanto. Jamail ript Texaco a new ass.
bago1994 11 months ago
Joe Jamail is a bad ass legal mind. And your right about Monsanto.
bago1994 11 months ago
joe jamail is the guy on the right off screen. the old dude is answering the questions. he worked for Monsanto, which is a HUGE genetically modified food and chemical company that owns the government...supreme court judges were lawyers for them, people in EPA worked for them, government, etc...own lawmakers, in washington dc, which was until recently illegal; and etc etc...basically,Monsanto sent a big guy to intimidate, not represent the geezer and Jamail wants none of it!
rvz77 11 months ago
who's the little bitch off-screen?
Dirtymofort 11 months ago
@Dirtymofort Tucker!
Pransterrr 11 months ago
which one is joe jamail?
DroppinKnowledge69 11 months ago
hahaha awesome
DroppinKnowledge69 11 months ago
is he a witness?
genjutsugaara 11 months ago
This is fucking hilarious
eragon2121 11 months ago
"Don't tell me to shut mah mouth, boy!"
LazyMan9000 11 months ago
was this real?!!! hahaha
sweetcela1986 11 months ago
rednecks talk shit (new title)
TheKidHimself1994 11 months ago
my names tucker!
zazfilm 11 months ago
"that aint your gawd dammed job, fat boy!' @ 2:15 perfect!
AroundTheWaymon 1 year ago
the dirty south
ThomasLawEdward 1 year ago
Redneck Justice! I love it!
comercuuy 1 year ago
The lawyer Joe Jamail won 11 Billion verdict in the biggest lawsuit in history at that time, it was Pennzoil vs Texaco and he won the verdict for Pennzoil. He is also the reason that you can't buy a three wheeler atv anymore.
wearl1 1 year ago
I have never LMAO so much with this video, it it my daily therapy!!!
wearl1 1 year ago
Classic.
stonekinglaw 1 year ago
Got cancer? Take a lawyer with you!
songczar 1 year ago
LOL
Yzon63 1 year ago
you know why lawyers don't take viagra? ......Because it just makes them taller.
alderaforall 1 year ago
this makes me want to practice in Texas and get away from all these damn hippy public interest types here in Seattle . this is my kinda "lawyerin'"
mystisohorney 1 year ago
this old guy practice autopsy 2pac.robert jordan not?
prodigybull83 1 year ago
Typical example of the worst of this dismal generation. Angry, vulgar, repressed and sick.
MrGrevy 1 year ago
You can make any objections you want to if your representing any side of the matter.
CharlieH4ll 1 year ago
@CharlieH4ll No, you can't you goofy twit.
MrGrevy 1 year ago
@MrGrevy Any side can make objections, dude are you serious? Thats why they asked if he represented any side. DURR
CharlieH4ll 1 year ago
@CharlieH4ll Are you seriously retarded? I can't tell if you're trolling or what.
MrGrevy 1 year ago
The funny thing is the asshole lawyer won 14 Billion from exon haha
Hulshofme 1 year ago
this is so great. later they went outside and had a shootout.
fat boy won
avzeolla 1 year ago
love it
SomeStickyIky 1 year ago
wtf?
SassysOpinion 1 year ago
Mr. Hair Piece!!!!!
jettex30 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Holly shit here Latino Beauties **rockmycity.info**
tommyepaillebvf 1 year ago
, "If you're threatened with a lawsuit and can't afford a lawyer or aren't sure you can trust the lawyer you have, visit Jurisdictionary® to get step-by-step tips and tactics for winning ... with or without a lawyer."
rtirv 1 year ago
wow, thats so funny.lol
twichish 1 year ago
Ray & Pete in the deposition room. "WOULD YOU MIND SHUTTIN' YOUR MOUTH, YOU STUPID SON OF A BITCH?!"
gspendlove 1 year ago
NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE OF TAKKING DEPOSITIONS
SUMMONS/SUBPEONA RETURNED
NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITIONS
NOLLE PROSIQUE AS TO ALL COUNTS ******CASE CLOSED *****
JISINSANE3 1 year ago
ARE YOU THREATENING TO FIGHT? WE'RE GONNA BE OUT NUMBERED ED! LMAO
butternuttt 1 year ago
that guy works for Monsanto. i would have shit on the guy if i was in that court room
djbmx91 1 year ago
Lol!
couchpotato34811 1 year ago
BIG BOY!! lol
MassumoX 1 year ago
"Mister hair piece" lol at the 2:20 mark
RIPmyers 1 year ago
lol , white trash
lolsih101 1 year ago
what does the guy pull out at the end a blunt wrap?
Caladcholg 1 year ago
...it's b*llsh*t!!
jhay928ify 1 year ago
Utterly disgusting unprofessional filth. The ABA has no credibility, since it didn't disbar these bizarre angry weirdos.
MrGrevy 1 year ago
were gonna be out numbered Ed.
JESMinix00 1 year ago
Jamail may be a crook, but he's a fucking badass.
ObiTeninch 1 year ago
the overcast is shady
PaulScala 1 year ago
Are you threatening to fight?
trn5009 1 year ago 2
Incipient verbal diareah... lol!!
tmlafrance 1 year ago
hahaha omg i cant stop watching this!
norcalhozay 1 year ago
Idiots, all.
DougKendall 1 year ago
Germany still is working on world Control. They never gave up this idea but they failed to do it openly during the war. Today they are using snitchers to infiltrate foreign countries and manipulate their population and their government. Preferably against each other. And they infiltrate the economy of other states. They are using brainwashing and steering techniques abroad to get rid of people not being pro german. As somebody said: We don´t have nukes so we have to do this.
wwwtotalitaerde 1 year ago
was that taken in cornfield countie by cousin billy bob and brother Elmer or the McCoy and Hatfield clan
maverick10241 1 year ago
this is awesome, It would be 5x better if we could see their faces.
eastofakron1 1 year ago
joe montana is a saint, he should be saved just as the sloths were.
coldresidesinme 1 year ago
Vanessa D. Taylor of the Taylor Group of Manlapan New Jersey has been charged with real estate fraud. She is also named in a Judicial Misconduct complaint against Essex County Judge Walter Koprowski. Judge Koprowski has been asked to remove Vanessa D. Taylor as Guardian after she was charged with elderly financial abuse. Adult Protective Services has been charged with acting in concert with the unlawful concealment.
legaladvocate71 1 year ago
hi tucker
BrendanIsCool 1 year ago
"...were gonna be outnumbered Ed"
JCVDFan1 1 year ago
I don't get why lawyers aren't allowed to testify against their clients once their clients admit their guilt to them in confidence? People say this is because then lawyers could be bribed to testify that innocent clients are guilty, well while that's true, people can always bribe the judge and jury as well. We need to trust that most people are good people, which is why i think lawyers should be allowed to testify against their guilty former clients, we'll catch more criminals that way.
playthefield21 1 year ago
@playthefield21 no, its because every lawyer has to sign a form of confidentiality. by doing so, if they say 1 word to anyone or try to testify against their client even though the client admitted to their guilt in confidentiality, then, the client could very well have the lawyer prosecuted for breaking this contract. and that is why lawyers aren't allowed to testify against their clients... it would be like suicide.
LordGorgoroth 1 year ago
@LordGorgoroth I know why as in technically, i just don't see how that's moral.
playthefield21 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@playthefield21 because this is America :)
LordGorgoroth 1 year ago
@playthefield21 Yeah, he didn't answer your question. Here is why. The American legal system is "adverserial." That means, the logic is, that both sides should fight to the absolute best of their ability, and an impartial judge/jury can decide the truth. Not all systems are like this. In France, for instance, the judge is responsible for doing the investigation, finding the facts to consider, and so on. It's very different from here. Here we think it's best if our lawyer only fights for us.
greg5566 1 year ago
@playthefield21 So, what goes along with that is that the lawyer should not be judgmental. It's not his job to decide if his client is guilty or not. It is his job to do the best job he possibly can (without breaking the law etc.) to defend his client. What you have to understand is that the lawyer has a _job_ in this system. You can't look at it from the morality of the lawyer; that's unfair. He is doing a difficult but HUGELY important job for all of us. . . .
greg5566 1 year ago
@playthefield21 If you were accused of doing something, you too would want your lawyer to be intensely on your side.
So, that's where the answer to your question comes from. The actual policy reason for your question is that if clients could not trust that their lawyer would not say something, then they would be afraid to be honest. The result would be that they would not get the best representation possible, because they could not tell their lawyer everything.
greg5566 1 year ago
@playthefield21 You're assuming that this hypothetical client is "guilty"--but they are not guilty until the jury says so. What you have to understand is that there are subtleties in the law. You might take someone's life. But that's not the end of the question, it's the beginning. Was it self-defense? Were you enraged? Were you protecting someone else? It's only by having an open conversation with your attorney that you can get the best possible representation.
greg5566 1 year ago
@playthefield21 One more thing, because I want to emphasize this. Lawyers have a very difficult and thankless job. The job they do is not necessarily pleasant. But it is vital to your freedoms as well as anyone's. They are a hugely important part of our system of justice and government and freedoms. If you take away things like attorney client privilege, the entire system of freedom that you enjoy would fall apart.
greg5566 1 year ago
@greg5566 Thanks, that was a very detailed and direct answer. I don't mean to sound at all ungrateful, but i knew most of that. The point i was trying to make was that if a criminal confesses to his lawyer that he murdered in cold blood (not self defense, protection, or for any other noble cause) is it really moral to ask the lawyer to withhold that information by law? I'd think the only reason a person would be afraid to tell their own lawyer something in that case is if they are guilty.
playthefield21 1 year ago
@playthefield21 But you can't ask questions like that. You don't know what crime the person committed until the jury comes back. The criminal doesn't know the law. A woman who killed his husband may think she did it "in cold blood" because she did it in his sleep, without realizing that "battered wife syndrome" is a defense. You might think you committed a crime by not paying your credit card bill, while a lawyer would realize the bank was illegally raising your rates. . . .
greg5566 1 year ago
@playthefield21 If you create a situation where the criminal has to edit himself, it will lead to vast injustices. The entire system is already enormously unfair to the defendant. If the defendant can't even be honest with his lawyer, it will just lead to more injustice. You are making an assumption that isn't true: that the person we're talking about is "definitely guilty." The entire point is that YOU don't know that, a trained attorney will determine that; that's his job.
greg5566 1 year ago
@playthefield21 By the way, this rule is very narrow. It's only for _past_ crimes that the lawyer must remain silent. If someone goes in and says, "I'm going to kill my wife, is that okay?" he has to report that. Likewise he cannot allow his client to lie on the stand, and has a duty to let the court know if he is aware the client lied. (That's one purpose of the fifth amendment as well.) One must think about these rules from the POV of the 99 innocent people they protect, not the one guilty.
greg5566 1 year ago
@greg5566 I'm not saying we should create a situation in which the criminals have to edit themselves, they can choose what to tell their lawyers. Once they admit their guilt though the lawyer should let that be known and then defend the criminal according to the circumstances.
If a wife murders her husband and thinks she did it cold blood and confesses to her lawyer, he'll make it known, but if he thinks she has a defense as 'battered wife syndrome' he'll make that known as well.
playthefield21 1 year ago
@playthefield21 The problem is the founding fathers disagree with you--the fifth amendment protects us from having to testify against ourselves. And the attorney could never testify to what he was told anyway, that would create obvious insurmountable conflicts of interest. And it would be hearsay so wouldn't be allowed anyway.
greg5566 1 year ago
@greg5566 The defendants wouldn't be forced to break the 5th amendment though, they'd only tell their lawyers of their guilt if they felt they needed to give the lawyers all the information for an adequate defense, they'd still have the right to plea bargains. The point is not to defend the guilty from receiving a just punishment.
Conflicts of interest for the guilty? I can live with that. Lawyer's testifying against their former clients after hearing admissions of guilt would be testimony.
playthefield21 1 year ago
@playthefield21 The fifth amendment is broader than you understand it to be.
And, it _would_ be hearsay.
You started this conversation asking why we don't let lawyers do that. I told you why: in America we value the freedoms of the innocent above all. It is simply a choice that we as Americans made. You can disagree with it, but it's not "immoral." It's rather sophisticated to insist the state prove one's guilt without one's assistance.
. . .
greg5566 1 year ago
@playthefield21 Most of us, at least we as a country, value our own freedoms above putting the guilty in jail. If I have to give up my own freedoms in order to put the guilty in jail, I say no. I say to the state, prove they are guilty without infringing on my freedoms.
greg5566 1 year ago
@greg5566 You're misunderstanding what I'm saying though, this has nothing to do with innocents being put in jail without proof. This has to do with one who admits guilt, even in the confidence of a lawyer, having to face up to that guilt in court because it's immoral to defend a guilty person with the illusion that they're innocent.
I'm not sure what the technical law definition of hearsay is, but how would a lawyer testifying against a former client be different from testimony?
playthefield21 1 year ago
@greg5566 Ultimately, you did answer my question though, and I'm thankful to you for that. I just don't think the answer is morally justifiable though, so yes, i disagree.
playthefield21 1 year ago
@playthefield21 But you keep wanting to label the person "guilty" before the court has found them so. That's the problem. The wife can say "I hit him in the head with a hammer." She CAN'T say "I'm guilty," because she is not a legal expert and does not know.
And saying "having to face up to that 'guilt' in court" is EXACTLY what the fifth amendment is there to prevent. Let the state take away your freedom without your help.
Nevermind the hearsay--it's not really relevant to this.
greg5566 1 year ago
@greg5566 If she hit him in the head with a hammer than she is guilty of hitting him in the head with a hammer. Whether she was justified in doing so or not and should be punished is up to the courts. What i'm against however, is her admitting to her lawyer that she hit him and the laywer not being able to tell the jury that because she confessed to doing so in confidence.
The 5th is not related to this because a defendant would still be able to refuse to answer a question on the stand.
playthefield21 1 year ago
@greg5566 Legal guilt and actual guilt are two different things. If a person is guilty, they are guilty regardless of what the courts say. Ever hear of OJ?
MrGrevy 1 year ago 2
@MrGrevy You're utterly quibbling over semantics . . . which is exactly why one needs a lawyer.
greg5566 1 year ago
@greg5566 God that's an idiotic comment. Way to miss the point.
MrGrevy 1 year ago
Don't tell me to shut my mouth boy lol
falco6789 1 year ago
you have a case of incipient verbal diarrhea lmfao
chiptopher1986 1 year ago 2
this makes me <3 Texas
JumpinJesuits 1 year ago
lol@ 1:22 "Thats bullshit"
jesika1984 1 year ago
I didn't understand a word
7rancisco1 1 year ago
lol pmsl were going to be out numberd ed lol that is so funny lol
alleyjumperuk 1 year ago
What's really amazing is that someone writing in the comments section here passes judgment on folks with a Texan accent as "rednecks"; instead of the fact that this is obviously a very emotionally charged deposition!
SunnyForeman 1 year ago
Mr. hair piece lol at 2:24 mark
RIPmyers 1 year ago
Watch "Population Reduction" by Dr. Rima. Cross reference Keith Olbermann and Habeas Corpus and watch your Bill of Rights thrown out the window. Look into the U.S. Spy Bill -HR6304. Watch HBO's Hacking Democracy and look into the continuous vote fraud through Black Box Voting dot org Watch "National Security Alert" Watch Richard Gage's Presentation at the Manatoba University. Watch "Fall of the Republic" Watch Hyperinflation videos by inflation.us. I'll be at "The Tea Party Truther" Facebook
disheartedheart 1 year ago
lolz
fatpurpleturtle 1 year ago
LOL bullshit, this is some jerry springer shit!
elhuero21 1 year ago
Good ole' boys at it again.
It's amazing how some of these rednecks complete four years of highschool, four years of college, and an additional three years of law school.
mpeoples123 1 year ago
no you're not, bullshit.lol
ssmith2115 1 year ago
I'm totally hiring this Texan .
Patrick470 1 year ago
"You have a case of incipient verbal diarrhea."
niamerT024 1 year ago
you dumb son of a bitch,- GIANT WHAT U GONNA DO JUMP AT U IRL EMOTICON- LMFAO!!!
xdrugzbunnex 1 year ago
Who's this "Ed" ass wipe?
mowriter 1 year ago
I love this guys facial expressions, especially when he flinches at him.
namebrandaddikt 1 year ago
I love the old man's build in intensity at the beginning:
(yesterday) but he had Nothing To Do With WHAT YOU ARE CURRENTLY PERPET... SAYIN!
lol
Tuneman1984 1 year ago
hell yeah... getting down to buisness. choosing sides ready to fight at the drop of a hat / a matter of seconds before the reaction 1:33 - 1:43. Thats how long it took to turn a civilized American man into a ass whoopin machine whose got your back!!!!
LordGorgoroth 1 year ago
OLD SCHOOL TEXAS
About to get old testament on some ones ass
GunGemini 1 year ago
monsanto is the scum of the earth. jail his ass.
irishgeal1 1 year ago
classic
robLVturney 1 year ago
Big boy! Fat boy!
puppyjoe69 1 year ago
this old dude is one cantankerus brass baller , and im tellin you joe !
SHEPARDWISPERER 1 year ago
He's about to go Texas Rangers on his ass.
gremlin05 1 year ago
Lawyers. Sigh.
mjn76 1 year ago
Fuck those old cracker rednecks. They all should have shot themselves to death in that room.
Texas style.....lol
MikeTheGreatOne99 1 year ago
@MikeTheGreatOne99 faggot go suck a duck dick.
whyusucksobad 1 year ago
@whyusucksobad .....I think I will go do that. Thanks for the advice.
MikeTheGreatOne99 1 year ago
stupidness
savairaahmed 1 year ago
2:24 - "mr. hair piece" lol
RIPmyers 1 year ago