[Vision2020] BACK to the Original Question

Sat Apr 18 09:38:32 PDT 2009

On the issue in question, I made no assumptions about social context.  I commented about the plain, literal, unambiguous, black-and-white meaning of your words. 

You have tried to inject social context to explain what is an erroneous statement.

And let's be clear: I have not lied about you or broken any promises.

Sunil

Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:45:19 -0700
From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] BACK to the Original Question
To: vision2020 at moscow.com; sunilramalingam at hotmail.com

What Sunil doesn't realize, is that I am awful with the use of everyday language because I am unable to clearly see the social context of my words. When my writing comes across as awkward, disjointed, socially cruel, and/or nonsensical, he assumes my words where written with clarity of the understanding of the social contextual meaning in them. Which most of the time I am not, because I don't see social context and meaning of words, as others do. 

Words have social and literal meaning both. Kind of like clothes, have fashion and color both. If someone doesn't see the same colors as others, they might think they have a well put together outfit, or in my case, paragraph. But others really see something different, because they have a different eye that sees colors different.

So when I attempt to clarify, it changes the meaning completely, from his perceptive, because my original intention of communication was not understood and taken differently then intended. So he thinks, in his head, I am changing what I said, because I am changing the words, which I am, but only to eliminate the social context of what the person is saying. 

Then he calls me a liar, and so I call him a lawyer right back. It doesn't help that I really do dislike lawyers and that he is one. 

I don't have a problem with ethical representation of people accused of crimes. I just don't like lawyers because they lack ethics, the legal system lacks ethics, and it has been so corrupted I don't think it is a justice system anymore, but rather just a seriously flawed complicated legal system to benefit lawyers. But I also say that as someone that has won 4 out 5 five of his legal cases, with and without lawyers. So I have a history and understanding of the system.

Sunil, makes the absurd assertion that I would "choose" to go to a lawyer if I was accused of a crime. Of course I would go to a lawyer and pay their criminal prices of $200 an hour. But only because I am forced to do so. Lawyers have made it impossible and illegal to go to anyone else to resolve a dispute or accusation for you. It isn't a justice system when people must mortgage and even lose their homes to pay for a lawyer. This has never happened in the History of the United States, was never intended by the forefathers, and is caused solely by the unethical greed and behavior of lawyers. 

Must I also point out that the prosecutors are also lawyers making all the false accusations as well. Lawyers create their own industry to suck the public dry, by forcing us to purchase their services at criminally high rates. They keep cases going when they could end them to keep billing their clients. Debt collection lawyers sign affidavits swearing things they have no idea are true or not as being true. 

Could you image if the police all got together and demanded that every police officer get $150 an hour if we wanted protection? And had the ability as well to decide who got to be a police officer, and what the regulations would be? And nobody could hire anyone but one of them for personal protection? We wouldn't tolerate such corruptness. But we do in lawyers, that decide the laws that which govern them, and set the price of their wages to higher than a surgeon that spent 8 years in medical school as opposed to 3 years in law school.  

And just so you know, I in fact do have a lawyer. She is a very friendly person. She also thinks poorly of many men in her profession as well, and even tells me lawyer jokes. 

Best Regards,

Donovan 

--- On Fri, 4/17/09, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] BACK to the Original Question
To: "vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Date: Friday, April 17, 2009, 4:06 PM

Wayne,

That's what he does.  He's too dishonest to argue with any integrity.  This happens every time someone calls him on a specious comment.

First he changes terms and definitions, then he changes what you have said and argues against positions you never took. Finally he launches into personal attacks. In my case he accuses me of defending terrorists and child molesters; this because I do in fact defend people charged with those crimes, and because I believe that people accused of terrorism are entitled, under our Constitution, to being charged with crimes and being able to defend themselves.

In the last few months he seemed to concede that the accused are entitled to representation. However, I should not be providing that representation. I don't know what qualifies him to be my guidance counselor. It's not having spent a minute in my company, at least not as far as I can remember.

He often tells us of his work
 with vulnerable people, adults, I believe. I wonder how he would like it if he were falsely accused of a sex crime against one of them? Would he say, 'I've been accused so it must be true? Take me away now. And please, no lawyers, I hate them.'

Or would he waddle his ass to a lawyer and hope to be vigorously defended? And would he understand it's not the lawyer's place to try to decide who is actually innocent, and thus entitled to a defense? It's our place to defend all our clients, regardless of our personal opinions as to their innocence or guilt.

Sunil

> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
> From: bear at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] BACK to the Original Question
> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:05:13 +0000
> 
> Sunil,
> 
> I guess what bothers me the most about it becoming a personal attack against you as
> opposed 
> to a vigorous argument
 against what the issue at hand is.
> 
> He seems to think that defense lawyers should not defend clients with vigor or use all of
> the 
> tools that are provided by law, which WOULD make them snakes! Why don't people realize
> that 
> the most vile offenders are the ones that need a zealous defense the most, and that's the
> way 
> the system is designed to work! Just because you defend a client, doesn't mean you condone
> 
> what they are alleged to have done, nor do you share the same beliefs! 
> 
> AND, it seems based on the last election here in Latah County, that the People of Latah
> County 
> have no problem with the results of the prosecution of the child molester case that he is
> so 
> upset about. We just had an election back in November and there was a choice between a new
> 
> county prosecutor or the same one that was involved in
 the child molester case. The
> People 
> spoke and are happy with the ability of a child molester to walk the streets, or they
> would have 
> changed the elected officer that enabled that.
> 
> And as far as the sun rising in the east is concerned, it shouldn't! Doesn't God know that
> means 
> the sun comes up over the slave owning, wife beating, 8 year old bride marrying Moslems 
> first? They should be denied sun until they change their evil ways! *S*
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

=======================================================
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/20090418/2651984d/attachment-0001.html 