MOB LAWYER CAUGHT SEXTING

[Fughedaboutit]

Well, everyone is entitled to the right to defend themselves. There are certainly innocent people that are charged with crimes. Do they qualify as "scum of the earth?"

Exactly. What are we supposed to do, just take the cops word...skip jail, screw evidence, close down the court system?

[dack2001]

Wiseguy, next time you get charged with a crime just say your prayers and save the call to a lawyer when the prosecutor asks for 20 years in prison. Happened to many people who didn't expect or deserve it, some guilty, many not. For society's sake, for democracies sake, each person should be thankful someone is willing to take the call and defend without offering dime store morality and pithy judgment. Cripes, we fought a war of independence partly to require a defense and a trial by a jury of your peers. Your posts are wrong and truly ignorant, and betray an lack of simple understanding of history, a sophomoric knowledge of your own fucking legal system and an infantile belief in morality and the hereafter, ugh.

[newera_212]

prosecutors are no better. theres no logical reason for Chapo to be tried in the Southern District, considering places like CA and TX were deeply and directly more effected by his crimes. on top of Chicago being his literal hub and American base of operations

the Southern District obviously wanted the money and press that came with the trial, and Lichtman wanted the money and press that came with the trial. they are both working in tandem to bleed Chapo for everything he has and to keep their names in the paper as long as humanly possible. its a joint effort between both parties

i heard Lichtman was supposed to take the Esposito case, but with Chapo going on and their hopes that it stretches out indefinitely, i think he is having some collegues taking Esposito over...and from what I heard it's going to trial. which will make him the first Genovese guy to not simply take a plea

there are a lot of awesome, amazing defense lawyers out there who help their clients and are driven every day to hold the government accountable and make sure things happen above boards. Litchman is not one of those lawyers. hes the biggest opportunist out there. belive it or not, Joe Corrozo is one of the ones that falls into the awesome category

[newera_212]

sorry, cant edit, i meant **EASTERN district. same difference though. point still stands. no reason for NY to take the case, and I guarantee the southern district battlef eastern over rights to the case

[Pogo The Clown]

That is the equivalent of getting your window broken by a mobster and then having to pay another mobster to keep your window from being broken.The purpose of the judicial system today, apart from keeping our rulers in power, is to amass large sums of money for lawyers. Much like LCN. If it wouldn't be for the millions of laws and regulations they created to trip up normal people or the immense damage they have caused this country they wouldn't be needed. There is a reason that the United States has more lawyers than the rest of the world combined and that virtually all the leaders in this two party dictatorship come from that profession. As Shakespeare said kill all the lawyers.


Pogo

[newera_212]

also LOL at the premise of criminal defense lawyers going to hell. jesus christ. lmao. if saint peter is turning defense lawyers down, i can only imagine who else is not getting in. might as well throw self aggrandizing DAs, Judges, and the prison contractors who make millions chiseling the families of inmates out of money for phone calls, books, toiletries, etc... half of the entire american criminal justice industry should be on line for Hell right behind the lawyers

[Pogo The Clown]

also LOL at the premise of criminal defense lawyers going to hell. jesus christ. lmao. if saint peter is turning defense lawyers down, i can only imagine who else is not getting in. might as well throw self aggrandizing DAs, Judges, and the prison contractors who make millions chiseling the families of inmates out of money for phone calls, books, toiletries, etc... half of the entire american criminal justice industry should be on line for Hell right behind the lawyers

DAs, judges and defense attorneys are all part of the same criminal gang.


Pogo

[Wiseguy]

Wiseguy, next time you get charged with a crime just say your prayers and save the call to a lawyer when the prosecutor asks for 20 years in prison. Happened to many people who didn't expect or deserve it, some guilty, many not. For society's sake, for democracies sake, each person should be thankful someone is willing to take the call and defend without offering dime store morality and pithy judgment. Cripes, we fought a war of independence partly to require a defense and a trial by a jury of your peers. Your posts are wrong and truly ignorant, and betray an lack of simple understanding of history, a sophomoric knowledge of your own fucking legal system and an infantile belief in morality and the hereafter, ugh.

First, people always say that when this subject comes up but I have never needed a defense attorney and, in all likelihood, never will. Some of us actually follow the law.

Second, I wasn't commenting so much on the legal system as a whole as much as criminal defense attorneys individually. They could have chosen any career but they chose to spend their lives defending people they know are guilty and deserve to be in prison.

You and others here can spin it all you want but that's the truth. And it's likely because I have a better understanding of history, the legal system, morality, and the hereafter that I see things the way they really are.

[SonnyBlackstein]

That is the equivalent of getting your window broken by a mobster and then having to pay another mobster to keep your window from being broken.The purpose of the judicial system today, apart from keeping our rulers in power, is to amass large sums of money for lawyers. Much like LCN. If it wouldn't be for the millions of laws and regulations they created to trip up normal people or the immense damage they have caused this country they wouldn't be needed. There is a reason that the United States has more lawyers than the rest of the world combined and that virtually all the leaders in this two party dictatorship come from that profession. As Shakespeare said kill all the lawyers.

I have to say, I did like this post.

[SonnyBlackstein]

First, people always say that when this subject comes up but I have never needed a defense attorney and, in all likelihood, never will. Some of us actually follow the law.

So no one's ever been wrongly charged with a crime?

Or do we put those that are, down to 'collateral damage' or the 'cost of doing business'.


And what are your morals on that?

[Wiseguy]

First, people always say that when this subject comes up but I have never needed a defense attorney and, in all likelihood, never will. Some of us actually follow the law.

So no one's ever been wrongly charged with a crime?

Or do we put those that are, down to 'collateral damage' or the 'cost of doing business'.


And what are your morals on that?

Sure, people have been wrongly charged. And as I said, if defense attorneys only picked clients they truly knew (or believed) were innocent, that would be different.

[SonnyBlackstein]

First, people always say that when this subject comes up but I have never needed a defense attorney and, in all likelihood, never will. Some of us actually follow the law.

So no one's ever been wrongly charged with a crime?

Or do we put those that are, down to 'collateral damage' or the 'cost of doing business'.


And what are your morals on that?

Sure, people have been wrongly charged. And as I said, if defense attorneys only picked clients they truly knew (or believed) were innocent, that would be different.

And the obvious answer is, what if 'your lawyer' didn't believe your innocence? What then?



But their job isn't to defend people who are innocent.

It is to provide legal defense and guidance to those unversed in the law.
So for example: Someone who they know, who are, admittedly guilty, to explain their legal options and their respective consequences clearly.

To rephrase;
Do people who are not of sufficient moral 'character' deserve to have a surgeon operate on them if they get cancer?
And who decides if they're of 'good' moral caliber?
You?
What if someone decides you're not of sufficient moral standing?

These are the problems when we leave the subjective questions of moral 'good' and 'right' to interpretation and to individual judgement.

Everybody deserves the right to their respective best defense. Pointing out the errors in the system isn't saying the system in itself is in error, its simply saying its imperfect. And until you present a replacement which is itself, perfect, or which offers less margin for error, moral or otherwise, then I don't see a preferred option.

[Snakes]

First, people always say that when this subject comes up but I have never needed a defense attorney and, in all likelihood, never will. Some of us actually follow the law.

So no one's ever been wrongly charged with a crime?

Or do we put those that are, down to 'collateral damage' or the 'cost of doing business'.


And what are your morals on that?

Sure, people have been wrongly charged. And as I said, if defense attorneys only picked clients they truly knew (or believed) were innocent, that would be different.

What a pompous post lol.

If there was an easy way to "truly know" someone's innocence or guilt we wouldn't need trials and could just throw people in prison on a whim. Sounds like a dictatorship to me.

"Better understanding of morality and the afterlife"... get over yourself.

[Wiseguy]

And the obvious answer is, what if 'your lawyer' didn't believe your innocence? What then?



But their job isn't to defend people who are innocent.

It is to provide legal defense and guidance to those unversed in the law.
So for example: Someone who they know, who are, admittedly guilty, to explain their legal options and their respective consequences clearly.

To rephrase;
Do people who are not of sufficient moral 'character' deserve to have a surgeon operate on them if they get cancer?
And who decides if they're of 'good' moral caliber?
You?
What if someone decides you're not of sufficient moral standing?

These are the problems when we leave the subjective questions of moral 'good' and 'right' to interpretation and to individual judgement.

Everybody deserves the right to their respective best defense. Pointing out the errors in the system isn't saying the system in itself is in error, its simply saying its imperfect. And until you present a replacement which is itself, perfect, or which offers less margin for error, moral or otherwise, then I don't see a preferred option.

My point is, whatever "their job" is within our system, the fact that its "their job" doesn't excuse them from choosing such a slimy line of work in the first place. Even if our system requires a defense, you can look at each defense attorney one by one, as individuals, and say, "It didn't have to be you. You didn't need to choose to try and get criminals off as your line of work." In the end, a defense being part of our system doesn't remove the moral degeneracy of what they've chosen to do. It's why I say the argument "I was just a part of a system where everyone deserved a defense" won't save them in the end.

What a pompous post lol.

If there was an easy way to "truly know" someone's innocence or guilt we wouldn't need trials and could just throw people in prison on a whim. Sounds like a dictatorship to me.

If you were referring to the jury, you might have a point. But, the majority of the time, a defense attorney has a pretty good idea of whether their client is guilty or not.

"Better understanding of morality and the afterlife"... get over yourself.

You don't need to read many posts by several posters to recognize that having a better understanding of morality or the afterlife is not saying much.

[dack2001]

Both you and Pogo have a staggeringly poor understanding of the history and past and current role of the legal system in our democracy and a perverse interpretation of justice. We've had this discussion before though, neither of you are worth the time on this topic.