Toggle sidebar

Ghislaine Maxwell Receives 20 Years for Aiding Epstein in Sex Trafficking

  • HELLO AGAIN, Guest! We are back, live! We're still doing some troubleshooting and maintenance to fix a few remaining issues but everything looks stable now (except front page which we're working on over next day or two)

    Thanks for your patience and support! MUCH appreciated! --Brett (BamaNation)

    if you see any problems - please post them in the Troubleshooting board!

519429095_1303221415139397_4096498988806263047_n.jpg
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: some_al_fan, selmaborntidefan, Huckleberry and 2 others
TIDE-HSV said:
Yes, and if it interferes with the job you do for your client, then you should get out of the relationship, probably out of the profession...
Click to expand...
Yep, which is why I never even considered law school. A man has to know his limitations.
 
CrimsonJazz said:
Yep, which is why I never even considered law school. A man has to know his limitations.
Click to expand...
There is no requirement that you love your clients. Or your patients, for that matter. It's only required that you not let your personal feelings interfere with the job you do. I'll give you an example. I once had a young doctor come to me, just a year or so in practice. He told me that he wanted to bankrupt out of his student loans. (I've never handled bankruptcies, BTW.) I told him Congress had outlawed that the previous year. His mouth dropped open and he said, as if he'd been cheated, that that had been the mantra all the way through med school - "load up, load up and then bankrupt." Now, he was looking at someone who'd paid back every cent of his student loans. Did I feel contempt for him then? Yes, that's fair to say. Would I have continued to represent him? (I never saw him again.) Yes, because I can put my personal feelings aside. As it happened, he died a few years later, very young. I guess he cheated the government after all...
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimsonaudio
TIDE-HSV said:
There is no requirement that you love your clients. Or your patients, for that matter. It's only required that you not let your personal feelings interfere with the job you do. I'll give you an example. I once had a young doctor come to me, just a year or so in practice. He told me that he wanted to bankrupt out of his student loans. (I've never handled bankruptcies, BTW.) I told him Congress had outlawed that the previous year. His mouth dropped open and he said, as if he'd been cheated, that that had been the mantra all the way through med school - "load up, load up and then bankrupt." Now, he was looking at someone who'd paid back every cent of his student loans. Did I feel contempt for him then? Yes, that's fair to say. Would I have continued to represent him? (I never saw him again.) Yes, because I can put my personal feelings aside. As it happened, he died a few years later, very young. I guess he cheated the government after all...
Click to expand...
Yes and I have been in similar situations. I absolutely adore most of my clients (which is easy because I represent elderly and disabled folks.) Their families can sometimes be a bit.....much. I don't allow this sort of thing to compromise my ability to make sure that proper care is being provided, though. But this is a far cry from representing some serial killer and trying to get him loose on a technicality. I would probably kill myself the first time it happened. Thankfully such things are rare which is precisely what makes them noteworthy, but I just don't know if I could bring myself to do it. Criminal law is just a fraction of the different types of law one can practice, but I imagine in all of them the potential is there to have to do one's job regardless of personal feelings.
 
I think Maxwell will name some names and avoid naming other names...that benefit the current ruling party and she gets pardoned.
 
CrimsonJazz said:
Yes and I have been in similar situations. I absolutely adore most of my clients (which is easy because I represent elderly and disabled folks.) Their families can sometimes be a bit.....much. I don't allow this sort of thing to compromise my ability to make sure that proper care is being provided, though. But this is a far cry from representing some serial killer and trying to get him loose on a technicality. I would probably kill myself the first time it happened. Thankfully such things are rare which is precisely what makes them noteworthy, but I just don't know if I could bring myself to do it. Criminal law is just a fraction of the different types of law one can practice, but I imagine in all of them the potential is there to have to do one's job regardless of personal feelings.
Click to expand...
The very first matter I handled out of law school was to appeal, and get reversed, a murder conviction. And it was on what a lay person would probably consider a "technicality." In my first few years, the bar handled indigent cases by involuntary assignment. It was supposed to be the whole bar, but it seemed to fall mostly on the younger guys. So, for several years, I was an involuntary criminal defense lawyer. I never, ever asked "did you do it?" Not my job. In the murder case, she was, after all, already convicted. Now, TBF, with recent trends, she would probably be acquitted today. It was a case of extreme physical abuse. Juries have changed and there's a much more lenient attitude now, reflecting changing societal mores. An interesting aside was that one of the justices called me to the bench after it was over for a private conversation. He asked me my plans and I told him that this was temporary, that I was accepted into NYU for a graduate law degree in taxation. He tried to talk me out of it, told me that my true talent lay in trial law. It was very flattering, but, again honestly, I would already be dead, if I'd pursued that kind of practice. The truth of the matter is that I'm really too empathetic. I'd need more psychopathy in my makeup... :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Padreruf and CrimsonJazz
Bamaro said:
They could be fishing
Click to expand...
If they didn't think it would be productive, DOJ would never have allowed the meeting. After four investigations, including Durham's, which was very much favorable to Trump, it's hard to see what more they can get from her. It's hard to imagine a witness whose credibility is more threadbare than hers...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Padreruf
TIDE-HSV said:
There is no requirement that you love your clients. Or your patients, for that matter. It's only required that you not let your personal feelings interfere with the job you do. I'll give you an example. I once had a young doctor come to me, just a year or so in practice. He told me that he wanted to bankrupt out of his student loans. (I've never handled bankruptcies, BTW.) I told him Congress had outlawed that the previous year. His mouth dropped open and he said, as if he'd been cheated, that that had been the mantra all the way through med school - "load up, load up and then bankrupt." Now, he was looking at someone who'd paid back every cent of his student loans. Did I feel contempt for him then? Yes, that's fair to say. Would I have continued to represent him? (I never saw him again.) Yes, because I can put my personal feelings aside. As it happened, he died a few years later, very young. I guess he cheated the government after all...
Click to expand...

See, he could’ve been born now and just parroted what he read on social media as if he was an infectious disease specialist, and he wouldn’t have any student loans at all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back