ForumGarden

Here is Britain's most famous lawyer who uses his skill of the law to put drunk celebs back on the road.

Celebrity's flock to this man when they fall foul of the law.

Is he a saviour of the celebs or a danger?

I'd be interested to hear your views!!!

Celebrity lawyer Mr Loophole’s Top Ten most infamous cases - mirror.co.uk

Maybe Gordon needs his advice??

Celebrity lawyer Nick 'Mr Loophole' Freeman offers to help the Government - mirror.co.uk

Well, we'll see what happens to celeb (Basketball player) Charles Barkley.

He received a DUI on 12/31/08..

Here in AZ DUI Laws are one of the toughest

no license for a year - could be longer

Tent City jail - outside jail, which is tents in AZ heat of 100 degrees +

and you wear issued pink underwear. 2weeks minimum

A ignition machine hooked to your vehicle - before starting your vehicle, you have to blow into this machine.

This machine - you rent monthly for a year...

Community services for @ 6 months to a yr.

$$$$$$$$$ alot out of pocket money - attorney - machine - fines -State assigned probation Officer,( monthly cost).

$$$ most people loose their jobs...$$$$$$

Barkley already had special treatment - he refused to take tests at the time of being pulled over. Blood was drawn

He was allowed to call for a Cab to go home

instead of a trip to JAIL as normal routine..

We'll see what Special Treatment he receives..?

Patsy

didn't O.J.'s?;)



and he murdered!:-5:-5

Odie;1098471 wrote: didn't O.J.'s?;)



and he murdered!:-5:-5


There is a lot of critisim in this country for this lawyer. The arguement is that he is putting drunk celebs who can afford the fast cars that kill, back on the road, only for them to often re-offend.

Patsy Warnick;1098426 wrote: Well, we'll see what happens to celeb (Basketball player) Charles Barkley.

He received a DUI on 12/31/08..



Here in AZ DUI Laws are one of the toughest

no license for a year - could be longer

Tent City jail - outside jail, which is tents in AZ heat of 100 degrees +

and you wear issued pink underwear. 2weeks minimum

A ignition machine hooked to your vehicle - before starting your vehicle, you have to blow into this machine.

This machine - you rent monthly for a year...

Community services for @ 6 months to a yr.

$$$$$$$$$ alot out of pocket money - attorney - machine - fines -State assigned probation Officer,( monthly cost).

$$$ most people loose their jobs...$$$$$$



Barkley already had special treatment - he refused to take tests at the time of being pulled over. Blood was drawn

He was allowed to call for a Cab to go home

instead of a trip to JAIL as normal routine..



We'll see what Special Treatment he receives..?

Patsy


If the courts were not so fouled up he would get to meet my hero....

Joe Arpaio









Wouldn't he look good in pink undies and stripes?



Oh PS:

the former Phoenix Suns player and NBA star, told police he was in a hurry to receive oral sex from a female passenger when he ran through a stop sign drunk early Wednesday, a police report states

BTS;1098481 wrote: If the courts were not so fouled up he would get to meet my hero....

Joe Arpaio









Wouldn't he look good in pink undies and stripes?



Oh PS:

the former Phoenix Suns player and NBA star, told police he was in a hurry to receive oral sex from a female passenger when he ran through a stop sign drunk early Wednesday, a police report states


I have no idea who your talking about but the black dude looks scarey!!!

That's Barkley............

chonsigirl;1098579 wrote: that's barkley............


what did he do???????

JAB;1098614 wrote: He got caught with a DUI (Driving Under the Influence) on Weds. and was arrested, processed and then released. The police say he was treated just like any other person in the same situation; at least that's what I read on CNN.
Processed but not charged is code for 'He's famous, we'll let him go'.

oscar;1098639 wrote: Processed but not charged is code for 'He's famous, we'll let him go'.


Yippers, it is not always the lawyers but crooked officials that let slimeballs slide..

BTS;1098647 wrote: Yippers, it is not always the lawyers but crooked officials that let slimeballs slide..


Every country has crroked cops don't they??

Oscar - read my reply

he looks scary:wah:

He's a big man - with special conditions with his DUI..

BTS - I forgot the explanation Barkley gave for running the red light...:yh_rotfl

Barkley also had Donuts in the trunk of his car..?

Probably for a Basketball game ? of the lady around the corner's pay...:yh_rotfl

We'll see what happens..?

Patsy

Patsy Warnick;1098776 wrote: Oscar - read my reply

he looks scary:wah:

He's a big man - with special conditions with his DUI..

BTS - I forgot the explanation Barkley gave for running the red light...:yh_rotfl

Barkley also had Donuts in the trunk of his car..?

Probably for a Basketball game ? of the lady around the corner's pay...:yh_rotfl

We'll see what happens..?

Patsy


:yh_rotfl Read it now!!! I got you. let me know what happens to him won't you?

Courtrooms are a game to defense attorney's!

Nothing less!

K.Snyder;1098918 wrote: Courtrooms are a game to defense attorney's!

Nothing less!


Not always

oscar;1098944 wrote: Not always


I'm not here to step on anyone's toes but I cannot get over the ideologies of defense lawyers and their blatant immoral virtues be it logic or greed!

The fact remains that I cannot ever,..ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be convinced that a lawyer, knowing full well a person is guilty of a heinious crime(s), finds it to be "understandable" to defend to their bloody knuckles to assure their client's(') freedom!

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the "ethical" alignment having been taken pertaining to the logic of any given defense attorney!

Keeping in mind such has to be plausible in association with blatantly obvious moral truth of course! In this case we'll consider any bit of "good" pertaining to any given situation concerning human lives, empathy, and foresighted reasoning to be acceptable!

K.Snyder;1101068 wrote: I'm not here to step on anyone's toes but I cannot get over the ideologies of defense lawyers and their blatant immoral virtues be it logic or greed!

The fact remains that I cannot ever,..ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be convinced that a lawyer, knowing full well a person is guilty of a heinious crime(s), finds it to be "understandable" to defend to their bloody knuckles to assure their client's(') freedom!

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the "ethical" alignment having been taken pertaining to the logic of any given defense attorney!

Keeping in mind such has to be plausible in association with blatantly obvious moral truth of course! In this case we'll consider any bit of "good" pertaining to any given situation concerning human lives, empathy, and foresighted reasoning to be acceptable!


Lawyers such as the one highlighted in the article i posted often get a defendent off due to sloppy police work. If the police did their jobs properly, the case would be so water-tight the defence Lawyer could not take advantage of loopholes in the law. Until governments close these loopholes, defence lawyers will anturally take advantage of them. If sloppy police were more accountable, again, they would not be taken advantage of.

Without getting all mired up in the morality of it all - smart lawyers are just doing their job.

What it really boils down to is crappy prosecutors. If a smart prosecutor presents a good case to the jury, with enough evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt, then more criminals would go to jail.

LilacDragon;1101248 wrote: Without getting all mired up in the morality of it all - smart lawyers are just doing their job.

What it really boils down to is crappy prosecutors. If a smart prosecutor presents a good case to the jury, with enough evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt, then more criminals would go to jail.


Exactly right. Defence lawyers who target sloppy police work and sloppy prosecutors are quite right to do so.

oscar;1101190 wrote: Lawyers such as the one highlighted in the article i posted often get a defendent off due to sloppy police work. If the police did their jobs properly, the case would be so water-tight the defence Lawyer could not take advantage of loopholes in the law. Until governments close these loopholes, defence lawyers will anturally take advantage of them. If sloppy police were more accountable, again, they would not be taken advantage of.


Which proves that a defense(:yh_wink) attorney's primary stance throughout any given courtroom is that one molded around the art of cat and mouse tactics! I don't know how it could have been said any better! :wah: I'm not trying to imply that all defense(:yh_wink) attorneys are "immoral" I'm just saying that all defense attorneys have to take a much different approach than that of the prosecution! It's what defines the very meaning of the word "defense(:yh_wink :wah:)"! They have to play a game with the prosecution!

I just so happen to personally feel that a significant majority of defense attorney's are immoral! I wouldn't be sitting here saying what I've just said if my country presently sees a 100% flawless incarceration rate! I do however feel that the majority of police precincts do arrest the correct criminal which only goes to show you the logic I've just presented you with and the logic I will continue to uphold so long as I do believe the majority of people arrested, within said structure, remains above the 50% mark(50% mark being divinely guilty)!

(And I'm not yelling at you I'm yelling at THEM!! :wah: :yh_tong2)

:yh_kiss

LilacDragon;1101248 wrote: Without getting all mired up in the morality of it all - smart lawyers are just doing their job.

What it really boils down to is crappy prosecutors. If a smart prosecutor presents a good case to the jury, with enough evidence to eliminate reasonable doubt, then more criminals would go to jail.


This is irrelevant to "immorality" or "morality"!

Just because someone is smart doesn't make them moral!

Are you suggesting if you knew someone was guilty of rape you would defend them to the utmost of your ability to try and free them? (Obviously the guilt of the person to whom:yh_wink you are defending primarily being divinely known to the likes of you, the rapists attorney!)

(And I'm not yelling at you I'm yelling at them!! :yh_rotfl :yh_tong2)

:yh_kiss

K.Snyder;1107952 wrote: Which proves that a defense(:yh_wink) attorney's primary stance throughout any given courtroom is that one molded around the art of cat and mouse tactics! I don't know how it could have been said any better! :wah: I'm not trying to imply that all defense(:yh_wink) attorneys are "immoral" I'm just saying that all defense attorneys have to take a much different approach than that of the prosecution! It's what defines the very meaning of the word "defense(:yh_wink :wah:)"! They have to play a game with the prosecution!

I just so happen to personally feel that a significant majority of defense attorney's are immoral! I wouldn't be sitting here saying what I've just said if my country presently sees a 100% flawless incarceration rate! I do however feel that the majority of police precincts do arrest the correct criminal which only goes to show you the logic I've just presented you with and the logic I will continue to uphold so long as I do believe the majority of people arrested, within said structure, remains above the 50% mark!

(And I'm not yelling at you I'm yelling at THEM!! :wah: :yh_tong2)

:yh_kiss


What about the time's prosecution and police bury vital witnesses and evidence?

oscar;1101250 wrote: Exactly right. Defence lawyers who target sloppy police work and sloppy prosecutors are quite right to do so.


Of course they are!

I'm after the ones that defend to their bloody knuckles people that have so much evidence against them the defense attorneys are defined as being immoral equal to it!

They make me sick to tell you the truth!

K.Snyder;1107963 wrote: Of course they are!

I'm after the ones that defend to their bloody knuckles people that have so much evidence against them the defense attorneys are defined as being immoral equal to it!

They make me sick to tell you the truth!


Naturally, we have the same here. When all evidence such as forensics and DNA rule out any possibility of doubt, they still defend to the last. That's what they are paid to do.

oscar;1107959 wrote: What about the time's prosecution and police bury vital witnesses and evidence?


I'm assuming you're not speaking about the prosecution and police killing witnesses! :wah:

But equally so, any prosecution or police that target defendants knowing full well they are innocent is equally as immoral!

Quite simply people cannot be held accountable without substantial evidence proving, what would then be the defendant, and their potential "threat" to said society!

What you'd have to do is present the amount of evidence against any individual and whether or not any judicial system sought to imprison said person!

I'd hardly try anyone for burglary because I found a pack of Marlboros on John Doe, the same exact brand as I'd seen floating next to the unGodliness in the toilet two feet from a running show footprint that had sold only *97 shoes, only two pairs from which were not purchased with a credit card and one of those two having a concrete solid alibi!

*See the case of Mathew Hardmann - Brutal freak is what he is and should never be released!

*Oh and I cannot remember the precise number of shoes that were made but I do believe the number I'd given is significantly close! :yh_kiss



AND THAT FREAK SHOULD NEVER BE RELEASED! - Just thought I'd throw that in there again in the hopes someone that were responsible for it's release and knew of their own worth were reading this!

oscar;1107968 wrote: Naturally, we have the same here. When all evidence such as forensics and DNA rule out any possibility of doubt, they still defend to the last. That's what they are paid to do.


Yes it is and it makes me sick to my stomach!

I don't know of any more guilt different from that derived from the people nor the crimes they defend!

I couldn't despise anyone more!

Again not all defense attorneys! Just most! :yh_rotfl :wah:

(And I'm not yelling at you! I'm yelling at them!! :yh_rotfl :wah: :yh_wink)

:yh_kiss

oscar;1098352 wrote: Here is Britain's most famous lawyer who uses his skill of the law to put drunk celebs back on the road.

Celebrity's flock to this man when they fall foul of the law.

Is he a saviour of the celebs or a danger?

I'd be interested to hear your views!!!

Celebrity lawyer Mr Loophole’s Top Ten most infamous cases - mirror.co.uk


Why would he possibly be a danger when he is doing nothing illegal, in fact, he is using the law as written, to free his clients. One could very well say that he is a most accomplished lawyer and utilizes his skills to better serve his clients.

Lon;1107990 wrote: Why would he possibly be a danger when he is doing nothing illegal, in fact, he is using the law as written, to free his clients. One could very well say that he is a most accomplished lawyer and utilizes his skills to better serve his clients.


The question being to what we as society define as "reasonable doubt"!

Lon;1107990 wrote: Why would he possibly be a danger when he is doing nothing illegal, in fact, he is using the law as written, to free his clients. One could very well say that he is a most accomplished lawyer and utilizes his skills to better serve his clients.


Even if he puts celebs who drink and drive back on the road when a ban on their license could possibly save a life?

K.Snyder;1107979 wrote: -

AND THAT FREAK SHOULD NEVER BE RELEASED! - Just thought I'd throw that in there again in the hopes someone that were responsible for it's release and knew of their own worth were reading this!


A bit of an OJ is he?

oscar;1108042 wrote: A bit of an OJ is he?


I don't know all of the details about OJ's case so I'm afraid I cannot make the comparison!

Or should I say I haven't been around OJ or seen OJ long enough to look in the mans eyes and know he's damn well guilty!

Saying the word "guilty" even can be superlative at times! Maybe most!

Say it over and over again!

"Guilty"













"Guilty"

















"Guilty"























"Guilty"

























"Guilty"





























"Guilty"



























"Guilty"





















Is OJ "Guilty"?

O.J. was guilty, no doubt about it!:-5:-5

I'm not going to go around accusing people of being immoral just because they'd kept someone out of prison! That would be stupid!

I sincerely feel sorry for anyone that believes no defense attorney throughout history ever knew their client was guilty and still proceeded to do everything in their power to free said criminal!

What's left is for in what percentage you feel this happens!

I'm more than convinced that at some point within said trial the percentage of defense attorneys that blatantly know of their client's' guilt yet still molds their virtue around freeing them is well over 50%! Or at least the remaining percentage of defense attorneys does everything in their power to lesson their sentence which is inches from identical garbage!

And is utterly and unmistakably immoral!

oscar;1108041 wrote: Even if he puts celebs who drink and drive back on the road when a ban on their license could possibly save a life?


Find fault with the law then that allows this to happen, not with the lawyer that is able to find out how to do it legally.

Lon;1108106 wrote: Find fault with the law then that allows this to happen, not with the lawyer that is able to find out how to do it legally.


This celeb Lawyer has offered his services to the Government to close the loopholes in the law that allows him to get them off their charges.

Lon;1108106 wrote: Find fault with the law then that allows this to happen, not with the lawyer that is able to find out how to do it legally.


By logic they're equally to blame Lon.

Give it a good think. If the law aloud them to go free because of a "fault" how is that different than the law having no "fault" only for a defense attorney to free their known guilty client?

This blatantly illustrates the "faulty" law serving in the same manner in allowing the guilty party to commit another crime in the same way his/her release attributes. this isn't true then logically there would be no definition of "fault" in this context at all. In the same exact way "fault", in this context, would be void of existence had the guilty party never committed another crime. I couldn't think of anything more obvious.

Both serve to result in the same potential occurrence. Knowing this, if one were to observe no law at all what type of society would be defined by it? I'll tell you. The type of society would be defined by the actions of every individual which could only be observed had their been a law to judge each action rendering absolutely no need to prosecute. What this says is that immorality isn't defined by the offenses of all, rather the response of those inclined. Without a response to amoral actions you define immorality. The very same immorality those defense attorney's do not object to and it's sickening.

Judge not and ye sha'll not be judged fits well with this allowing for the appropriate incarcerations of those defined as immoral by the responses of the majority. If the majority is immoral then so is their law.