I just wanted to add my name to the list of "people other than Briar Lee" who responded to this thread.
Question For Briar Lee
- Thread starter Buzz Saw
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
I think it is a relevant question given what we are know learning about the thinking of the jury members in the Florida case. Deliberation and how it unfolds is an interesting bit of conversation. I am not sure why the OPs question was phrased the way it was, but forums are not the best place to always decipher the intent of what is being written.
My guess is that he thought Lee might provide some homespun tales that might have bred entertaining.
One things for certain, Mr. Lee is a absent from Court.
I'm betting he is reading each response and is smart enough to not become embroiled in the discussion. He is on-line.
wait are you saying a lawyer would understand things like legal culpability especially around confidentiality? Weird thing to think. Like finding a doctor that knows what a scalpel is.
You can only summon @Briar Lee by talking about Briar Lees
So true.
Here we go. It turns out that Lee was once called into court on a patent violation. True story. I wonder what the lawyer told him about putting other people’s patents on his pipes back when he was just getting started? @Briar Lee doesn’t own any of those earlier pipes.
Given he had already answered the OP’s question in a thread 12 hours earlier that was closed up he is being the smart one!
Lawyers, not being gods, can only make the case that they have accepted or been assigned. Their work is not to transcendently know guilt or innocence, only to make the case for the client in the best lawyerly way they can, setting their personal opinion aside.
Being a mere mortal myself, I admit i have distaste for lawyers who specialize in unsavory people who are obviously engaged in unending violence and corruption. Some of these lawyers would argue that they are challenged by the most difficult cases where the most rigorous lawyering is required. In some cases, this might be seen as a cover for seeking fame and ambition for wealth.
But without a legitimate defense for each person charged with a crime, the justice system would mean nothing. Even as it is, some innocent people spend much or all of their lives in jail, and undoubtedly some are put to death.
Being a mere mortal myself, I admit i have distaste for lawyers who specialize in unsavory people who are obviously engaged in unending violence and corruption. Some of these lawyers would argue that they are challenged by the most difficult cases where the most rigorous lawyering is required. In some cases, this might be seen as a cover for seeking fame and ambition for wealth.
But without a legitimate defense for each person charged with a crime, the justice system would mean nothing. Even as it is, some innocent people spend much or all of their lives in jail, and undoubtedly some are put to death.
We're supposed to have due process...but it has been egregiously denied and violated way too often...past and present.
Unfortunately most people are only informed by the big corporate media cabal, so are blissfully ignorant of how badly broken and corrupt our so-called justice system is...in many ways at many levels.
And when I say broken, that works both ways...not only are there numerous accounts of rights and due process being violated but there are just as many instances of violent, repeat offenders getting off with little to no consequences.
The fish rots from the head down.
Unfortunately most people are only informed by the big corporate media cabal, so are blissfully ignorant of how badly broken and corrupt our so-called justice system is...in many ways at many levels.
And when I say broken, that works both ways...not only are there numerous accounts of rights and due process being violated but there are just as many instances of violent, repeat offenders getting off with little to no consequences.
The fish rots from the head down.
You just proved how it's loaded. There are no definites on either side and that could easily devolve into mud slinging war here. Not the forum for that kind of discussion.
Not sure how that proves it is loaded. No one has suggested that substantive due process be thrown out. All attorneys accept a license that clearly spells out their constitutional obligations. As for as the nature of the type of question for this forum, we are pipe smokers. Pipe smokers who come here because they enjoy not just the forum, but are interested in what other pipe smokers think. Not that we agree with each other, but over time, we do get to know each other. I suppose it is only natural to ask questions of each other. This thread has been very civil. Yes, the question was best for a PM. But, what has come of it? We see that our posters are committed to the idea that our system requires an honest defense for everyone. That gives me hope.
Legal discussions often cross political lines and pipe smokers are no different than anyone else.
- Status