[Vision2020] Lawyers' duty
Donovan Arnold
donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 23 19:01:20 PDT 2008
Joe,
It can be both. There are defense lawyers that don't give two licks for justice and only serve because they are required to do so. There are also private defense lawyers that do not have the same ethics as the rest of the public. It is also possible to have prosecutors and lawyers that harm people out of their own selfish interests and greed.
I don't pretend to have the answers to fix all that is broken in our legal system. I just know it clearly is broken.
I would suggest, however, average citizens be setting the ethical standards that lawyers must follow, not other lawyers. I would also suggest that the skill level and expertise of lawyers and resources be roughly equal available on both sides in each case and sufficient for a fair trial. I would also suggest limiting the number of lawyers we have and increase the number of paralegals. Allow paralegals to try cases on the lower level. Regulate what lawyers can charge for criminal cases for their criminal defense. Make tax and other laws more simple so we don't need as many lawyers.
Best Regards,
Donovan
--- On Tue, 9/23/08, joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com> wrote:
From: joekc at roadrunner.com <joekc at roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Lawyers' duty
To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Cc: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>, "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 7:42 AM
Donovan,
In some of your posts you suggest that the legal system is faulty because of
the defense lawyers
who let genuine criminals go free. Below you suggest it is faulty because the
defense lawyers
aren't good enough ("both sides of a court case are not equal")
and innocent people are sent to
prison. Which is it? It can't be both, can it? And if it is both, how can
we fix the system?
Either way, it strikes me that you should praise those defense lawyers like
Sunil who are both
ethical and good! Unless we encourage more like him to serve it is hard to see
how it will change.
--
Joe Campbell
---- Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sunil,
>
> I don't need to prove anything. This isn't a court of law. But, I
think the proof is in the pudding. Hundreds of people have been found to be
innocent on death row. I would image they are not the only ones behind bars
falsely. Only until recently, it was legal to execute children over 14 and the
mentally delayed. Ever hear of the "Twinkies Defense"?
>
> I don't think our forefathers intended so many lawyers and for our
society to be so litigious. It didn't intend on 90% of the world's
lawyers residing in the United States. It didn't intend for so many free
people to go arrested. It didn't intend for so many guilty to go free. If it
did, it would not have created the Bill of Rights.
>
> You know, as well as I do, that both sides of a court case are not equal.
One side usually has more resources than the other. This is the biggest flaw in
our legal system.
>
> I will grant you this, more trial lawyers and public defenders in major
cases, are ethical. But for every ethical trial lawyer, there are ten more
lawyers sitting behind a desk trying to use the law in a dishonest manner
to take money from someone else.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Donovan
>
> --- On Mon, 9/22/08, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> From: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Lawyers' duty
> To:
> Cc: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Date: Monday, September 22, 2008, 6:46 AM
>
>
>
>
> #yiv493121504 .hmmessage P
> {
> margin:0px;padding:0px;}
> #yiv493121504 {
> FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;}
>
>
>
> #yiv493121504 .hmmessage P
> {
> margin:0px;padding:0px;}
> #yiv493121504 {
> FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;}
>
> Donovan,
>
> You have been saying two different things. You have been saying that
lawyers only care about winning, and that is wrong. You are also saying that
the system 'has been corrupted enough that it now justifies guilt
or innocent, and the right to murder based on who can afford the
best deceiver to represent them.'
>
> First, we always want to win when we go to trial. I think it's true
for both public defenders as well as private practitioners that we always want
to win when we first take a case and when we go to trial. That's how it
should be. No rational person wants a lawyer who isn't trying to do
that. But most cases settle, and when that happens we try to get the best
possible deal we can. Again, that's how it should be.
>
> You say everyone has the right to a defense. Yet you want that right to
be meaningless, because you don't want us to try to win for our clients.
>
> Now do people with more money get better representation than people with
little or no money? If they get a good lawyer, most likely. They're
going to be able to pay someone to devote more time to their case than I'm
going to be able to do as a public defender. A private lawyer can stop taking
new cases, in order to devote more time to that case; the pd is going to have
new cases coming in all the time.
>
> I think our founders expected lawyers to work hard for their clients'
interests, and to do nothing else. You keep saying it was not always this
way. You are completely wrong on this point. There is a lawyer on the other
side charged with representing society. That lawyer is to work equally hard on
society's side, and in my cases, that side has far more resources.
>
> If you believe that our founders wanted something different, you should
prove it.
>
> Sunil
>
>
>
> Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:31:07 -0700
> From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Lawyers' dooty
> To: ophite at gmail.com
> CC: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sunil,
>
> That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that we have a legal
system that has been corrupted enough that it now justifies guilt or innocent,
and the right to murder based on who can afford the best deceiver to
represent them.
>
> Legal cases are not about doing what is right for the people involved and
the community, they are about the lawyers representing them.
>
> Do you think this legal system, based on winning and $$$$, not what
is right or wrong, is the best we can come up with, or the intention of our
founders?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Donovan
>
>
> --- On Sun, 9/21/08, Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Lawyers' duty
> To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> Cc: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>,
"vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Date: Sunday, September 21, 2008, 5:40 PM
>
> Donovan --
>
> What you're telling me is that the defense, prosecution, and judge
> should collude in order to determine whether the accused is guilty,
> then (together) work out what the penalty should be? Really? You
> think this is the best legal system possible?
>
> -- ACS
>
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Donovan Arnold
> <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Sunil,
> >
> > I think you make my case for me better than I can. Many lawyers
aren't
> > interested in justice, just winning and money.
> >
> > Our legal system is broken, not just for the innocent, but also
criminals.
> > As you said, innocent people are losing their rights every year.
While
> real
> > criminals and terrorists are gaining more.
> >
> > I disagree with you that the US has historically been so greedy and
more
> > about winning over doing what was is right and just. Never has there
been
> > such a nation as judicious and greedy as the US in the modern era. We
have
> > 90% of the world's lawyers and only 5% of the population. Most of
the
> > lawyers I have encountered, don't care about justice, what is
good for
> > society, or what is just plain right. They only care for their goals
and
> > interests.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Donovan
> >
> > --- On Sat, 9/20/08, Sunil Ramalingam
<sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > From: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Lawyers' duty
> > To:
> > Cc: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > Date: Saturday, September 20, 2008, 6:47 PM
> >
> > You are describing the legal system you wish we had, not the one we
> actually
> > have. The values you are saying we should have as lawyers are not
the
> > values we have or have ever had in our society. The system you wish
we
> had
> > would harm my clients.
> >
> > My only duty is to my client, not to society. There is another
lawyer on
> > the other side, and that lawyer has a duty to society. You are
stating
> your
> > views, but they do not accurately state my duty at all.
> >
> > I've had lots of clients plead guilty, far, far more than
I've
> ever taken to
> > trial. Most defendants plead guilty, and do so because it's in
their
> best
> > interest. Of course we try to make the decision that's in the
> client's best
> > interest, and to get them the best sentence we can. Not the sentence
in
> > proportion to the offense, but the best sentence we can. Any duty
> regarding
> > proportionality resides with the judge. I don't want something
> > disproportionately harsh, but if I can get a lighter sentence for my
> client
> > than what would be proportional, my duty is to strive for that.
> >
> > My clients' rights shrivel each year. That means yours do too.
> >
> > Finally, I don't know anyone around here charging $250/hr in
criminal
> cases.
> >
> > Sunil
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:55:42 -0700
> > From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Lawyers' duty
> > To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> > CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> >
> > Sunil,
> >
> > You write,
> >
> > "Of course defense lawyers want to win when they go to trial.
> That's our
> > job."
> >
> > That's my point. It doesn't matter to too many lawyers if
they are
> right or
> > wrong, or if they do harm to the overall community, or an innocent
> > individual, they just want to win. That is what it is about for them.
> >
> > "Our only job is to represent the client regardless of our
views of
> his or
> > her guilt or innocence."
> >
> > I disagree. Your first job is to be a responsible member of the
community.
> > Not to destroy it or bring harm to its innocents.
> >
> > "We are to represent them within the bounds of our ethical
> obligations and
> > all applicable rules. "
> >
> > That is another problem. Many lawyers don't have ethical
obligations
> and
> > rules are subject to the interpretation of the lawyer to fit his/her
> desired
> > outcome.
> >
> >
> > " I have not yet had a client who wanted me to to lose the case
for
> his or
> > her benefit."
> >
> > You have never had someone plead guilty? Try to get help. Just want a
fair
> > sentence in proportion to the offense?
> >
> > "As to moral corruption, I'm not sure what you mean. I
would be
> corrupt if
> > I did not try to win for my client."
> >
> > I think a lawyer should do what is in the best interests of the
client and
> > the community. Work with the prosecutor and judge. Get the person
fair
> > sentence and treatment. Instead, we seem to often have a prosecutor
that
> > wants the death penalty for jaywalking or a defense attorney that
wants
> the
> > person free to commit crimes against the community with impunity if
they
> had
> > their way.
> >
> > We have too many rights for the criminals, and little for the
innocent. I
> am
> > not aware of this type of behavior in our nation's past where
> criminals go
> > free when it is so obvious to layman they are guilty and continue to
do
> harm
> > after they are released.
> >
> > Look at Mark Foley, Micheal Jackson, OJ Simpson, Bill Ayers, and many
> other
> > people go free that are clearly guilty of crimes against other
humans.
> Many
> > others get off with incredibly light sentences for the crimes they
commit.
> >
> > Further, if most lawyers really believed their clients right to a
fair
> > defense, they would not be charging $250 an hour, which clearly
states,
> only
> > the upper classes have the right to quality representation. What many
> > lawyers really believe in is getting rich off the misfortune of
others,
> with
> > deception, and manipulation of the lawyers. Our legal system is about
> $$$$$.
> > Not justice.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Donovan
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Sat, 9/20/08, Sunil Ramalingam
<sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > From: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> > Subject: [Vision2020] Lawyers' duty
> > To:
> > Cc: "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > Date: Saturday, September 20, 2008, 9:02 AM
> >
> > Donovan,
> >
> > I hope I can say this without the usual disintegration that often
follows
> my
> > attempts to communicate with you.
> >
> > Of course defense lawyers want to win when they go to trial.
That's
> our
> > job. Our only job is to represent the client regardless of our views
of
> his
> > or her guilt or innocence. We are to represent them within the
bounds of
> > our ethical obligations and all applicable rules. I have not yet had
a
> > client who wanted me to to lose the case for his or her benefit.
> >
> > As to moral corruption, I'm not sure what you mean. I would be
> corrupt if I
> > did not try to win for my client.
> >
> > I don't know why you think this is something new. Can you point
to
> > something in our legal history that suggests lawyers did not owe
their
> sole
> > duty to their clients in the past?
> >
> > Sunil
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:06:07 -0700
> > From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> > To: lfalen at turbonet.com; ophite at gmail.com
> > CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bill Ayers & Barack Obama
> >
> > Andreas,
> >
> > Good people work to find the truth and to bring justice. Our legal
system
> > doesn't do that much of the time. Often because we have bad
lawyers
> that
> > want to "WIN" more than they want to do what is right for
the
> community and
> > their client.
> >
> > People are entitled to fair and appropriate counsel. They should not
be
> > allowed to harm others and their community because they can buy
lawyers
> with
> > no morals only interested in winning at any cost to get them off from
a
> > crime.
> >
> > A lawyer that punishes someone beyond their crime is doing society
harm. A
> > lawyers that gets a criminal off scott free from a crime is doing
harm to
> > their client and to the community. They do because they want to win,
not
> > because of any other reason.
> >
> > The idea of "the right to fair defense" should not, not
has it
> ever until
> > recently, meant, a right to put yourself above the law if you can
afford a
> > morally corrupted lawyer.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Donovan
> >
> >
> > --- On Fri, 9/19/08, Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Bill Ayers & Barack Obama
> > To: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > Cc: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com, "Chuck Kovis"
> <ckovis at turbonet.com>,
> > "vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>, "g.
> crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> > Date: Friday, September 19, 2008, 10:44 AM
> >
> >>> A good lawyer should be one that brings justice to society,
not
> one who
> > can free criminals to victimize others again with impunity.
> >
> > "A good lawyer works for the prosecution, not for the
defense,"
> is
> > what you mean, right? Because no one would ever defend an accused
> > criminal other than scum?
> >
> > -- ACS
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made
> > available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080923/1cc2e64f/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list