3rdnlng Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 No he has read all the information regarding this investigation and has said what was in it which says Christie had nothing to do with the lane closure. Anyone against Christie can, and most likely has read the same investigation and can come to a conclusion that Christie was involved. Why has that not yet happened? Quit hijacking the thread with common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 No dude, defense attorney's present arguments that make the case that their clients are innocent. That's what this dude did. I don't care how many of you idiots can't see that, but if you think it makes me look bad, more power to you. I can't even believe I had to explain that ridiculously simple and common sense fact. But he wasn't charged with a crime. No prosecutor brought charges. No Defense attorney needed. No if they found he stole State funds, then yes, hire a Defense attroney. You're just !@#$ing with us, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) But he wasn't charged with a crime. No prosecutor brought charges. No Defense attorney needed. No if they found he stole State funds, then yes, hire a Defense attroney. You're just !@#$ing with us, right? Gator spends his days watching Perry Mason re-runs so he thinks all lawyers are involved in litigation and defend or prosecute people. I'd say gator is as dumb as a bag of hammers but that would he an insult the the bag of hammers. Edited March 28, 2014 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 I don't want it to bow out until it answers my question in post #241. Do you have some sort of link for this or is it just pure speculation? Don't hold your breath... lol.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Gatorman, you magnificent freak, you've outdone yourself this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 But he wasn't charged with a crime. No prosecutor brought charges. No Defense attorney needed. No if they found he stole State funds, then yes, hire a Defense attroney. You're just !@#$ing with us, right? Ok, what was the guys job then when Christie hired him? Why do you think Christie put this guy out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Gatorman, you magnificent freak, you've outdone yourself this time. If he's trolling he's making Crayonz look like a piker. Crayonz was down to only fooling the newbees. If this guy is for real though, how do we keep him from reproducing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 No he has read all the information regarding this investigation and has said what was in it which says Christie had nothing to do with the lane closure. Anyone against Christie can, and most likely has read the same investigation and can come to a conclusion that Christie was involved. Why has that not yet happened? If I killed my wife and then hired an attorney to defend myself my attorney would go through all the evidence and argue I didn't do it. You see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 If he's trolling he's making Crayonz look like a piker. Crayonz was down to only fooling the newbees. If this guy is for real though, how do we keep him from reproducing? Personally...I abuse him, and keep him coming back for more. I figure if I can keep him on the internet, he won't have time to get laid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 So he was a Reputation Attorney? Come on, man, stop- you are making yourself look bad. Sometimes its best to bow out before one embarasses themselves. Had to come back to this because it is so stupid it hurts to read. A guy that wants to be President isn't worried about seriously protecting his reputation? Hello? You should take your own advice. Who here thinks this guy was independent and looking for the truth? Personally...I abuse him, and keep him coming back for more. I figure if I can keep him on the internet, he won't have time to get laid. Oh...is that why you are on here 24/7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 You're just !@#$ing with us, right? No. He is genuinely and purely this stupid. I have equally stupid progressive friends in my FB timeline making the same stupid kinds of discussions. They're being spoon-fed stuff to put out there by the hard left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 But he wasn't charged with a crime. No prosecutor brought charges. No Defense attorney needed. No if they found he stole State funds, then yes, hire a Defense attroney. You're just !@#$ing with us, right? Formally? No. But you can't be so dense to have missed the oh so subtle implications that he might have had something to do with this mess?? That's the whole reason he hired this guy! Why was the guy hired again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 If I killed my wife and then hired an attorney to defend myself my attorney would go through all the evidence and argue I didn't do it. You see? You mean like Howard Weitzman did for OJ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Formally? No. But you can't be so dense to have missed the oh so subtle implications that he might have had something to do with this mess?? That's the whole reason he hired this guy! Why was the guy hired again? Demonstrate that any of the attorneys hired are defense attorneys. Some help: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=defense+attorney defense attorney n. 1) the attorney representing the defendant in a lawsuit or criminal prosecution. 2) a lawyer who regularly represents defendants who have insurance and who is chosen by the insurance company. 3) a lawyer who regularly represents criminal defendants. Attorneys who regularly represent clients in actions for damages are often called "plaintiff's attorneys." (See: defendant, plaintiff's attorney) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 If I killed my wife and then hired an attorney to defend myself my attorney would go through all the evidence and argue I didn't do it. You see? if you killed your wife, you'd only need a defense attorney if you were charged with her murder. if however you were president of your neighborhood home owner's association, and you heard that some of the members were questioning your possible involvement in missing dues from the association's fund, you could either wait and be charged with the crime and hire a defense attorney to represent you, or you could hire an investigative attorney in advance of any potential charges in order to clear your name before any charges were actually levelled at you. is there any chance that you can see a difference between the two scenarios? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Demonstrate that any of the attorneys hired are defense attorneys. Some help: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=defense+attorney defense attorney n. 1) the attorney representing the defendant in a lawsuit or criminal prosecution. 2) a lawyer who regularly represents defendants who have insurance and who is chosen by the insurance company. 3) a lawyer who regularly represents criminal defendants. Attorneys who regularly represent clients in actions for damages are often called "plaintiff's attorneys." (See: defendant, plaintiff's attorney) no, technically you are right, he wasn't in court. But I was obviously talking about the only court that matters in this case, the court of public opinion and this guy was arguing Christies defense. Do you disagree with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 no, technically you are right, he wasn't in court. But I was obviously talking about the only court that matters in this case, the court of public opinion and this guy was arguing Christies defense. Do you disagree with that? there is no such thing as a 'court of public opinion defense attorney'. no law degrees are offered for that, and no instructional courses are available for it. 'court of public opinion' is a cliche. it is not part of the legal system. the people involved in representation in the court of public opinion are known as spokespeople, press agents, publicists, and spin doctors. not attorneys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 if you killed your wife, you'd only need a defense attorney if you were charged with her murder. if however you were president of your neighborhood home owner's association, and you heard that some of the members were questioning your possible involvement in missing dues from the association's fund, you could either wait and be charged with the crime and hire a defense attorney to represent you, or you could hire an investigative attorney in advance of any potential charges in order to clear your name before any charges were actually levelled at you. is there any chance that you can see a difference between the two scenarios? I do see the difference and it's a good point, BUT, that investigative attorney is there to defend my interest just like the defense attorney, correct? No difference. So for all the "He's a Democrat" or to te original post on this "That settles the matter," I say phooy! This report is bunk, and I don't know and even would think Christie didn't do anything, but this report settles nothing at all except to make the governor look stupid. there is no such thing as a 'court of public opinion defense attorney'. no law degrees are offered for that, and no instructional courses are available for it. 'court of public opinion' is a cliche. it is not part of the legal system. the people involved in representation in the court of public opinion are known as spokespeople, press agents, publicists, and spin doctors. not attorneys. Oh good, then why did Christie hire this guy? Seriously, all you guys are there talking it up but won't answer that one little question for poor gatorman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 If I killed my wife and then hired an attorney to defend myself my attorney would go through all the evidence and argue I didn't do it. You see? No. See if you killed your wife you would be charged with murder and would have hired a DEFENSE attorney to defend against those charges. Christied hired an attorney it interpret all the data regarding the information. You see. By what you're saying he hired a PR attorney. Dude you are in so deep here. You !@#$ed up calling him a defense attorney. All you have to do is admit that. Oh good, then why did Christie hire this guy? Seriously, all you guys are there talking it up but won't answer that one little question for poor gatorman? I've answered it twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 no, technically you are right, he wasn't in court. But I was obviously talking about the only court that matters in this case, the court of public opinion and this guy was arguing Christies defense. Do you disagree with that? Oh, good Lord, this is one of the most retarded things I've ever seen on this site. This is up there with the "true expected value" of a die roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts