Printable View
all he did was say if you two lawyers can't determine what room to interview a witness in then you will play rock paper scissors and whoever wins gets to pick the room. He didn't make any legal decision by chance. He was just trying to resolve a petty dispute in an impartial manner while simultaneously showing his irritation at the lawyers who couldn't even agree on a neutral site.
I imagine they had been arguing for more than a minute already, and what was the judge to do if a decision couldn't be reached? He couldn't throw the case out, because the defendant's lawyer would just have to dick around until that happened. He couldn't order it in a particular room (I don't know why, TBH, that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for a judge to do, but apparently they can't do this). So he did something to show how petty the lawyer's disputes were, and try to resolve it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
But it is still a game. :rolleyes2Quote:
Justice is not a game of chance. Its a game of liying, cheating, stealing, and whatever it takes to get an acceptable and presentable truth.
What's the betting it becomes "Best two out of three"?
Point standing, if they cannot agree on somthing - nothing should happen. The judge can't even simply say, "You are going here, and you are going here" and that room. There had to be a reason that one wanted this and the other wanted that. A judge will give each side equal and fair treatment. That is his responsability. Nothing is fair about making decisions based on chance.
And yes, it is a game metephorically speaking:rolleyes2
one more thing. This is the argument:BipperQuote:
The argument was over a location to take the sworn statement of a witness in an insurance lawsuit.
Nothing... is meant to happen? So he just sits there for hours, days, weeks, while the lawyers argue over some pathetic and trivial point, using up his time which could be spent adjudicating something worthwhile, and using up the courtroom which could be used to investigate a matter of more importance than which room a witness is interviewed in?Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
The case moves on as it normally would. Been in a very similar situation while I was waiting for my friend's round on a driving after revocation. One gentelman's representation was unable to decide exactly how to present certain information, so the judge gave him 5 minutes, then 1 more. He then told the lawyer if he could not wrap it up, the judge would have to move along with the rest of the trial. In this case; the representation began speaking and stuttered his way through the case. Needless to say, the defence (which we was representing) lost that one.
I am also wondering why it mattered... where they took the sworn statement. Is that usually not part of standard procedure?
bipper
why to Mexico???Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Thats how I solve everything, Rock papers scissors.
Kind of a satirical irony on my view of legalizing illegal immigrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathKnight
My thoughts exactly. I find it very amusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
It doesn't matter. That's why this stupid way of choosing also doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Yeah, but you know what's funny, I'd like to see the majority of americans which happen to be caucasians driving taxis, cleaning bathrooms, working their asses off in farms, etc. Legalizing immigrants is the only happy way. Though, I do believe the border NEEDS to be sealed off.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
And how do you know it did not matter? The room could have a lot to do with the out come of the case. Mabey it affects the witness in some questionable way and requires stepping out of certain boundries to do so. There could be a legitimate debate on whether it IS relevant or not, as we ARE talking about takeing swarn statements and not the entire interview as stated. If it matters or not, this is no way for a judge to act. I am generally glad that he scolded the lawyers; but mocking them in such away is equally as unprofessional.Quote:
Originally Posted by roto13-ness
haha. Lets keep it to topic though :) that is why I just left a bit of a hiddenist bit in my message.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathKnight
Bipper
Seems like someone was in a rush to watch the footie....
nobody in the US watches "footie"
Quoted for truth. Now if you say American Idol, THAT'S a different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc