MOB LAWYER CAUGHT SEXTING

[dack2001]

I'm glad youre wise enough to look between my words and tell me what I'm ACTUALLY saying. Next time, I'll save the time and just let you post for me and then you can respond to yourself and we will be in agreement.

[Lupara]

Now that we're talking about injustice... I watched that interview of Sonny Franzese that Wiseguy posted.

Talking aside all the other crimes he did commit, what is your opinion of Franzese supposedly being framed by the government for something he allegedly didn't do? Like I say, try to put aside the fact that we all know he's a criminal who deserved to go to jail, is there any evidence to suggest injustice was done to him? I hardly know the details of his case that got him in jail for half his life which is why I'm asking...

[Pete]

That was indeed a great line. Both making money on human misery though the way Omar went about it was more respectable. Levy on The Wire was one of the most accurate depictions of a defense attorney ever in cinema.


Pogo

Absolutely. Levy knew exactly who his clients in the Barksdale and Stansfield organizations were - drug dealers and murderers. And he couldn't have cared less. It was all about the money to him. Classic criminal defense attorney.

Good points Sonny. Your positive points refer mainly to "Public Defenders" who the Court assigns to a Defendant who cannot hire an Attorney in order to explain the law and the defendant's options. I think Wiseguy is mainly talking about a guy like Johnny Cochran who obviously knew the true story about O.J. Simpson's murders and how it actually happened so he could cause reasonable doubt with the Jury and have his Client go free for a lot of money.

Even public defenders could have chosen another route.

And, yes, guys like Shapiro, Cochran, and Bailey all saw the evidence and knew Simpson was guilty of those murders. But that was totally beside the point for them.

So just so I understand your against all criminal defense attorneys and public defenders? So if someone is charged with a crime they should forego representation and throw themselves on the mercy of the court? What about people charged with crimes that are legitimately innocent they don’t deserve to have someone defend them so they aren’t doing time for a crime they didn’t commit? This is one of the more asinine positions you’ve taken over the years

[Wiseguy]

That was indeed a great line. Both making money on human misery though the way Omar went about it was more respectable. Levy on The Wire was one of the most accurate depictions of a defense attorney ever in cinema.


Pogo

Absolutely. Levy knew exactly who his clients in the Barksdale and Stansfield organizations were - drug dealers and murderers. And he couldn't have cared less. It was all about the money to him. Classic criminal defense attorney.

Good points Sonny. Your positive points refer mainly to "Public Defenders" who the Court assigns to a Defendant who cannot hire an Attorney in order to explain the law and the defendant's options. I think Wiseguy is mainly talking about a guy like Johnny Cochran who obviously knew the true story about O.J. Simpson's murders and how it actually happened so he could cause reasonable doubt with the Jury and have his Client go free for a lot of money.

Even public defenders could have chosen another route.

And, yes, guys like Shapiro, Cochran, and Bailey all saw the evidence and knew Simpson was guilty of those murders. But that was totally beside the point for them.

So just so I understand your against all criminal defense attorneys and public defenders? So if someone is charged with a crime they should forego representation and throw themselves on the mercy of the court? What about people charged with crimes that are legitimately innocent they don’t deserve to have someone defend them so they aren’t doing time for a crime they didn’t commit? This is one of the more asinine positions you’ve taken over the years

Once again, I'm not commenting on the legal system and the need for criminal defense attorneys in general. I'm criticizing each one of them, on an individual, one-by-one basis, for choosing just a slimy line of work. And a general, systemic need for a defense doesn't excuse or justify them.

I should also point out that, for the 13 years I've been on these forums, there has always seemed to be posters who all but come to the defense of mobsters, not to mention the scumbags that defend them. These same people are often the first one a to criticize the feds or other law and, saying there's "no difference" or that they're "even worse." It's not difficult to have a better handle on morality than such confused people.

[gohnjotti]

That was indeed a great line. Both making money on human misery though the way Omar went about it was more respectable. Levy on The Wire was one of the most accurate depictions of a defense attorney ever in cinema.


Pogo

Absolutely. Levy knew exactly who his clients in the Barksdale and Stansfield organizations were - drug dealers and murderers. And he couldn't have cared less. It was all about the money to him. Classic criminal defense attorney.

Good points Sonny. Your positive points refer mainly to "Public Defenders" who the Court assigns to a Defendant who cannot hire an Attorney in order to explain the law and the defendant's options. I think Wiseguy is mainly talking about a guy like Johnny Cochran who obviously knew the true story about O.J. Simpson's murders and how it actually happened so he could cause reasonable doubt with the Jury and have his Client go free for a lot of money.

Even public defenders could have chosen another route.

And, yes, guys like Shapiro, Cochran, and Bailey all saw the evidence and knew Simpson was guilty of those murders. But that was totally beside the point for them.

So just so I understand your against all criminal defense attorneys and public defenders? So if someone is charged with a crime they should forego representation and throw themselves on the mercy of the court? What about people charged with crimes that are legitimately innocent they don’t deserve to have someone defend them so they aren’t doing time for a crime they didn’t commit? This is one of the more asinine positions you’ve taken over the years

Once again, I'm not commenting on the legal system and the need for criminal defense attorneys in general. I'm criticizing each one of them, on an individual, one-by-one basis, for choosing just a slimy line of work. And a general, systemic need for a defense doesn't excuse or justify them.

Here's my 2c. It's not generally the lawyer's job to prove that somebody is innocent, but moreover to defend the RIGHTS of the defendant. You live in a nation where each individual is protected by a constitution that Americans hold sacred. It's what makes America the greatest country on Earth (according to most Americans). Defense lawyers sometimes use slimy maneuvers and often defend slimy people, but wouldn't you agree that any American deserves to have their individual rights protected?

Also, most cases end with plea bargains. Both the prosecution and defense alike pull out all the stops to avoid a trial. A trial is, in essence, the result of a failed negotiation between the prosecution and the defense. So it's misleading to suggest that each defense lawyer's goal in each case is to make their guilty client walk free. It's not. But, especially with America's super-harsh three strikes laws and such, it's the defense lawyer's job to make sure a defendant gets a sentence that's fair, and takes into account all the factors.

I'm not a lawyer, but I did take some pre-law classes and that's my take on the situation.

[Wiseguy]

That was indeed a great line. Both making money on human misery though the way Omar went about it was more respectable. Levy on The Wire was one of the most accurate depictions of a defense attorney ever in cinema.


Pogo

Absolutely. Levy knew exactly who his clients in the Barksdale and Stansfield organizations were - drug dealers and murderers. And he couldn't have cared less. It was all about the money to him. Classic criminal defense attorney.

Good points Sonny. Your positive points refer mainly to "Public Defenders" who the Court assigns to a Defendant who cannot hire an Attorney in order to explain the law and the defendant's options. I think Wiseguy is mainly talking about a guy like Johnny Cochran who obviously knew the true story about O.J. Simpson's murders and how it actually happened so he could cause reasonable doubt with the Jury and have his Client go free for a lot of money.

Even public defenders could have chosen another route.

And, yes, guys like Shapiro, Cochran, and Bailey all saw the evidence and knew Simpson was guilty of those murders. But that was totally beside the point for them.

So just so I understand your against all criminal defense attorneys and public defenders? So if someone is charged with a crime they should forego representation and throw themselves on the mercy of the court? What about people charged with crimes that are legitimately innocent they don’t deserve to have someone defend them so they aren’t doing time for a crime they didn’t commit? This is one of the more asinine positions you’ve taken over the years

Once again, I'm not commenting on the legal system and the need for criminal defense attorneys in general. I'm criticizing each one of them, on an individual, one-by-one basis, for choosing just a slimy line of work. And a general, systemic need for a defense doesn't excuse or justify them.

Here's my 2c. It's not generally the lawyer's job to prove that somebody is innocent, but moreover to defend the RIGHTS of the defendant. You live in a nation where each individual is protected by a constitution that Americans hold sacred. It's what makes America the greatest country on Earth (according to most Americans). Defense lawyers sometimes use slimy maneuvers and often defend slimy people, but wouldn't you agree that any American deserves to have their individual rights protected?

Also, most cases end with plea bargains. Both the prosecution and defense alike pull out all the stops to avoid a trial. A trial is, in essence, the result of a failed negotiation between the prosecution and the defense. So it's misleading to suggest that each defense lawyer's goal in each case is to make their guilty client walk free. It's not. But, especially with America's super-harsh three strikes laws and such, it's the defense lawyer's job to make sure a defendant gets a sentence that's fair, and takes into account all the factors.

I'm not a lawyer, but I did take some pre-law classes and that's my take on the situation.

First, most defense attorneys will happily go to trial (more billable hours) if they think they can win. Getting a plea bargain (little time as possible) is a back up to getting their client off scott free.

Second, America's laws against crime are ridiculously lax. Maybe harsh compared to Canada or Western Europe but that's not saying much. We routinely see murderers, rapists, molesters, drug dealers sentenced to time that is much less than what their crimes warrant and they often only do a fraction of it.

Of course, that's something else defense attorneys want. It means repeated offending and more business for them.

[Pogo The Clown]

Of course, that's something else defense attorneys want. It means repeated offending and more business for them.

We saw that some years back when all the defense attorney organizasions fought like hell to prevent the passage of Jessica's Law. Jessica's Law would of course impose a mandatory 20 year minimum (still way too light) for the rape of a child under 12. So these creeps would have no problem with more child rapists walking the streets if it means a for more bucks in their pocket. So yeah burning in hell with their cleint is where they belong.


Pogo

[dack2001]

Ignorant echo chamber. You both don't know what you are talking about.

[JeremyTheJew]

WG r u still a PO? i believe it was adolescent tho right?

[gohnjotti]

That was indeed a great line. Both making money on human misery though the way Omar went about it was more respectable. Levy on The Wire was one of the most accurate depictions of a defense attorney ever in cinema.


Pogo

Absolutely. Levy knew exactly who his clients in the Barksdale and Stansfield organizations were - drug dealers and murderers. And he couldn't have cared less. It was all about the money to him. Classic criminal defense attorney.

Good points Sonny. Your positive points refer mainly to "Public Defenders" who the Court assigns to a Defendant who cannot hire an Attorney in order to explain the law and the defendant's options. I think Wiseguy is mainly talking about a guy like Johnny Cochran who obviously knew the true story about O.J. Simpson's murders and how it actually happened so he could cause reasonable doubt with the Jury and have his Client go free for a lot of money.

Even public defenders could have chosen another route.

And, yes, guys like Shapiro, Cochran, and Bailey all saw the evidence and knew Simpson was guilty of those murders. But that was totally beside the point for them.

So just so I understand your against all criminal defense attorneys and public defenders? So if someone is charged with a crime they should forego representation and throw themselves on the mercy of the court? What about people charged with crimes that are legitimately innocent they don’t deserve to have someone defend them so they aren’t doing time for a crime they didn’t commit? This is one of the more asinine positions you’ve taken over the years

Once again, I'm not commenting on the legal system and the need for criminal defense attorneys in general. I'm criticizing each one of them, on an individual, one-by-one basis, for choosing just a slimy line of work. And a general, systemic need for a defense doesn't excuse or justify them.

Here's my 2c. It's not generally the lawyer's job to prove that somebody is innocent, but moreover to defend the RIGHTS of the defendant. You live in a nation where each individual is protected by a constitution that Americans hold sacred. It's what makes America the greatest country on Earth (according to most Americans). Defense lawyers sometimes use slimy maneuvers and often defend slimy people, but wouldn't you agree that any American deserves to have their individual rights protected?

Also, most cases end with plea bargains. Both the prosecution and defense alike pull out all the stops to avoid a trial. A trial is, in essence, the result of a failed negotiation between the prosecution and the defense. So it's misleading to suggest that each defense lawyer's goal in each case is to make their guilty client walk free. It's not. But, especially with America's super-harsh three strikes laws and such, it's the defense lawyer's job to make sure a defendant gets a sentence that's fair, and takes into account all the factors.

I'm not a lawyer, but I did take some pre-law classes and that's my take on the situation.

First, most defense attorneys will happily go to trial (more billable hours) if they think they can win. Getting a plea bargain (little time as possible) is a back up to getting their client off scott free.

"If they think they can win" usually means when their client is innocent, or the evidence against them is flimsy, or the government has fucked up. So apart from rare cases like the O.J. case, they're morally in the clear. If the client is innocent, or the evidence against them is weak enough that a jury would believe he is innocent, then why is it a bad thing to go to trial?

Second of all, you're still missing my point as to defending the RIGHTS of the client. Making sure the government has not overstepped their boundaries. Making sure a sentencing judge knows all the extenuating circumstances, etc. These rights are what separates America from African & Latin American dictatorships. Wouldn't you agree?

Second, America's laws against crime are ridiculously lax. Maybe harsh compared to Canada or Western Europe but that's not saying much. We routinely see murderers, rapists, molesters, drug dealers sentenced to time that is much less than what their crimes warrant and they often only do a fraction of it.

Of course, that's something else defense attorneys want. It means repeated offending and more business for them.

Ridiculously lax... compared to what? They are comparatively harsh compared to most of the first world. Would you rather America follows the examples of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan & Nigeria?

[Wiseguy]

WG r u still a PO? i believe it was adolescent tho right?

No, not anymore. Yes, juvenile probation.

Ridiculously lax... compared to what? They are comparatively harsh compared to most of the first world. Would you rather America follows the examples of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan & Nigeria?

In some ways, yes. Most of the world doesn't have capital punishment. That alone shows you how "tough on crime" they are.

[newera_212]

WG r u still a PO? i believe it was adolescent tho right?

No, not anymore. Yes, juvenile probation.

Ridiculously lax... compared to what? They are comparatively harsh compared to most of the first world. Would you rather America follows the examples of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan & Nigeria?

In some ways, yes. Most of the world doesn't have capital punishment. That alone shows you how "tough on crime" they are.

apologize if this is out of line or way too off topic, but im just curious. and its nothing personal.

i am assuming you are a proponent of capital punishment from your tone and comments in this convo. how do you feel about abortion (and the right to choose)? from my personal experience, a lot of staunchly pro-life people who value human life above all else, conversely seem to believe in capital punishment, an eye for an eye, and all that...while a lot of religions state the value of human life is equal across the board (the pope came out and publicly condemned capital punishment last summer)

[SonnyBlackstein]

Would you rather America follows the examples of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan & Nigeria?

In some ways, yes.

Your honour, I rest my case.

[SonnyBlackstein]

WG r u still a PO? i believe it was adolescent tho right?

No, not anymore. Yes, juvenile probation.

Ridiculously lax... compared to what? They are comparatively harsh compared to most of the first world. Would you rather America follows the examples of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan & Nigeria?

In some ways, yes. Most of the world doesn't have capital punishment. That alone shows you how "tough on crime" they are.

apologize if this is out of line or way too off topic, but im just curious. and its nothing personal.

i am assuming you are a proponent of capital punishment from your tone and comments in this convo. how do you feel about abortion (and the right to choose)? from my personal experience, a lot of staunchly pro-life people who value human life above all else, conversely seem to believe in capital punishment, an eye for an eye, and all that...while a lot of religions state the value of human life is equal across the board (the pope came out and publicly condemned capital punishment last summer)

It’s one of the benefits of moral superiority.

[Wiseguy]

apologize if this is out of line or way too off topic, but im just curious. and its nothing personal.

i am assuming you are a proponent of capital punishment from your tone and comments in this convo. how do you feel about abortion (and the right to choose)? from my personal experience, a lot of staunchly pro-life people who value human life above all else, conversely seem to believe in capital punishment, an eye for an eye, and all that...while a lot of religions state the value of human life is equal across the board (the pope came out and publicly condemned capital punishment last summer)

First, I'm not Catholic and take the position of my religion, i.e. abortion is evil and only permissible in the very rare cases of pregnancy resulting from rape, incest, where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or where a doctor determines the baby can't live outside the womb. But even then, it's not a given.

Second, I always found it ironic, not to mention the perfect example of liberalism being so twisted and morally bankrupt, that so many on the Left don't believe a murderer should be put to death but are just peachy with babies being killed.

Third, speaking of liberals, I do have to give them credit for playing the word game to perfection. "Right to choose." Gotta love the insidious brilliance there. "It's not bad because we're killing a child. It's good because we're exercising our rights. Therefore, anything that would take away out rights must be bad."

Would you rather America follows the examples of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan & Nigeria?

In some ways, yes.

Your honour, I rest my case.

You know what they say. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Those countries, for all their problems, at least got the issue of capital punishment right.