[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place? "Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil" "New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris" "Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony" Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX) Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’ ‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist' Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away. No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say ! "Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ " "Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate" "The Teleprompter Campaign" Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh "Pagans in Paris" "Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election". "Enter Harris, Stage Lef"t Official describes the moment a Butler officer confronted the Trump shooter Jesse Watters: Don’t buy this excuse from the Secret Service Video shows Trump shooter crawling into position while folks point him out to law enforcement Eyewitness believes there was a 'noticeable' difference in security at Trump's rally Trump Assassination Attempt We screamed for 3 minutes at police and Secret Service. They couldn’t see him, so they did nothing. EYEWITNESS SPEAKS OUT — I SAW THE ASSASSIN CRAWLING ACROSS THE ROOF. Video showing the Trump Rally shooter dead on the rooftop Court Just Nailed Hillary in $6 Million FEC Violation Case, 45x Bigger Than Trump's $130k So-Called Violation 2024 Republican Platform Drops Gun-Rights Promises Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution. If you need a Good Opening for black, use this. "Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now" How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK. South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel Today I turned 50! San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport! Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next' Will it ever end? Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar? Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception. Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten Status: Not Logged In; Sign In LEFT WING LOONS See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles Title: Reality TV ... judge judy --- fake - real ! Source: lf.com URL Source: http://hereherehere Published: Dec 16, 2015 Author: mememe Post Date: 2015-12-16 19:58:28 by BorisY Keywords: fake justice news politics tv, fake justice news politics tv, fake justice news politics tv Views: 5297 Comments: 15 She ruled against a guy ... who couldn't avoid hitting a stopped car in an accident --- ahead of him ! I believe a blind turn was involved ! She so much as said anyone hitting another car from behind is always in the wrong ! I know there is law about ... illegal change of lanes - interfering in the right of the way --- of another ! Also the man was middle age - older ... the woman suing for damages --- was much younger - teenagerish ! Sorry for taking this tv joke show so seriously ! Poster Comment: She makes more money than the ussc ... can't she pay --- for some legal advice ! Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: BorisY (#0) It's not a law court, it's an arbitration tribunal before a sole arbitrator: Judge Judy. But the basic rule is that you have to drive at a distance and speed behind somebody that you can stop without hitting him, no matter what. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-12-16   20:00:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: Vicomte13 (#1) (Edited) no matter what. wrong wrong wrong These people go on there are paid for it ! Even the damages are paid for ! They have to suffer her abuse - shame ! You are no help whatsoever ! Is the Rear Driver in a Rear-End Collision Always Liable for the Car Accident? Matthew Noyes, Personal Injury Attorney Profile Image Clearwater, FL You are rear-ended in Florida-- is that driver behind you automatically at fault? The short answer is "Most likely, but not always!" In Florida, there is a rebuttable presumption that the negligence of the rear driver in a rear-end collision was the sole proximate cause of the accident. However, this presumption may be rebutted “when the defendant produces evidence which fairly and reasonably tends to show that the rear fact is not presumed,” that the rear-end collision was not result of the rear driver’s negligence. The Courts have recognized three specific fact patterns which may rebut this presumption: 1.Affirmative testimony regarding a mechanical failure; 2.Affirmative testimony of a sudden and unexpected stop or unexpected lane change by the car in front; and 3.When a vehicle has been illegally and, therefore, unexpectedly stopped. The purpose of the rule is to create a rebuttable presumption which shifts the burden to the rear driver in a rear-end collision to come forward with evidence which “fairly and reasonably tends to show” that the presumption of negligence in the rear driver is misplaced. If the rear-driver presents evidence at trial that fairly and reasonably rebuts the presumption of negligence, the issue of the defendant’s negligence must then be presented to the jury for determination without the aid of the presumption. If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys ! BorisY  posted on  2015-12-16   20:03:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: Vicomte13 (#1) It is impossible to know what is around a corner. Say it says 25 MPH, you follow the law but there is a car broken down halfway around the hairpin corner, you it them. How is there any fault but on those who stopped depending on why? If they stopped because someone stopped in front of them, no fault to anyone. If they stopped to stretch their legs, their fault. jeremiad  posted on  2015-12-16   23:49:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: BorisY (#0) She so much as said anyone hitting another car from behind is always in the wrong ! According to state law and legal precedent, she was correct. But the basic rule is that you have to drive at a distance and speed behind somebody that you can stop without hitting him. In the case of a blind turn, slow down. rlk  posted on  2015-12-16   23:51:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: rlk (#4) According to state law and legal precedent, she was correct. But the basic rule is that you have to drive at a distance and speed behind somebody that you can stop without hitting him. In the case of a blind turn, slow down. Yep. Pretty basic, isn't it? Vicomte13  posted on  2015-12-17   6:31:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: Vicomte13 (#5) Yep. Pretty basic, isn't it? The Courts have recognized three specific fact patterns which may rebut this presumption: 1.Affirmative testimony regarding a mechanical failure; 2.Affirmative testimony of a sudden and unexpected stop or unexpected lane change by the car in front; and 3.When a vehicle has been illegally and, therefore, unexpectedly stopped. If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys ! BorisY  posted on  2015-12-23   22:59:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: BorisY (#6) (Edited) Yep. Pretty basic, isn't it? The Courts have recognized three specific fact patterns which may rebut this presumption: 1.Affirmative testimony regarding a mechanical failure; 3.When a vehicle has been illegally and, therefore, unexpectedly stopped. And therefor because of bad legal precedent established by some slick lawyers in front of dumb juries one is not required to use cautionaly intelligent forsight in driving a car. rlk  posted on  2015-12-23   23:23:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: rlk (#7) The lawyers didn't establish the bad legal precedent. They just argued their cases. 'Twas the judges - the agents of government - that set the precedent by deciding in favor of the lawyers' arguments. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-12-23   23:31:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: rlk (#7) When was the last time ... you learned anything --- new ! If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys ! BorisY  posted on  2015-12-23   23:34:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: BorisY (#9) When was the last time ... you learned anything --- new ! I learned something today. If I were a lawyer having to defend an incompetent and obliviously impulsive client, I'd want you on the jury. rlk  posted on  2015-12-23   23:44:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Vicomte13 (#8) The lawyers didn't establish the bad legal precedent. They just argued their cases. 'Twas the judges - the agents of government - that set the precedent by deciding in favor of the lawyers' arguments. It would be nice to be able to blame it all on agents of government, but that is not reality. People pay tens of thousands of dollars to good lawyers because they have a history of putting arguments together that will convice juries, and even judges, of unreality in favor of their clients. Those arguments are out of the judge's hands unless opposing legal counsel wishs to make a good objection to them. The outcome of the trial becomes legal precedent. rlk  posted on  2015-12-24   1:05:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: rlk (#10) (Edited) Judge Judy with all of her billions ... is a hack - jerk - incompetent --- you agree with her ! The producers then threatened to fine me 5,000 dollars stating that I already signed the contract that I would appear on the show, so I signed it under distress. Once again the producers denied saying this in the courtroom, stating that they do this so you won't attempt to go on another show, yet that is not mentioned in the contract, which they also lied about. What the producers do is send you a letter saying you will appear on the show before sending you the arbitration agreement letting you believe that this is the only agreement that you have to sign then slams you with terms and conditions when you actually appear. It's a trap. The show claims to be real justice and that's why people go on the show for justice, but what they are really creating is injustice for ratings. As another man had mentioned in a previous complaint, there needs to be a class action suit against this show. Judge Judy makes 300+ million dollars a year to get away with not having to go by any state laws and creating her own by stating these four words "This is my world". How is that justice? My case was also similar to another case involving a white lady who too was illegally kicked out her home, making her homeless like me yet she won. I wonder if that is because I'm black and she is white, because honestly it doesn't add up. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/misc/judge_judy.html If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys ! BorisY  posted on  2015-12-24   1:38:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: rlk (#11) That's right. I'm a lawyer. I get paid by clients to represent them in their cases. I am not an agent of the government. I am not an agent of the public. The public does not pay me. My client does. When I argue a case, I am not paid by the other side to take their viewpoint into account. I do consider the other side's viewpoint, so that I can anticipate it and refute it at every turn. I don't take the government's viewpoint into account, other than for the same reason. There is precedent, and I have to argue within the bounds of that, but with the understanding that new precedent can always be established. Before I was a lawyer, I was a naval officer, of the line, a ship-driver and then a pilot. My job then was not to take the enemy's viewpoint into account or to try to find a fair and reasonable solution with him. It was to win, to defeat him and bring complete victory to my own side. As a lawyer, it is very much the same thing, except that there is a negotiation phase in lawsuit where you are trying to come to a reasonable workout rather than having to fight. The caveat, though, is that I don't get to determine what is reasonable - in either case. In the military, it is the role of the President and the State Department to try to negotiate a solution to a crisis. I hope they do, but if they don't, my job was to go and destroy the other side, not to be "fair". Similarly, once things pass out of negotiations and mediation into a full-fledged legal battle, it is a zero-sum game. My client wins, or the other side wins. And MY job is to get as much for my client as I can. He is the only person who is paying me. The other side is trying to get me off the case, if I am effective. And the government is just taxing away my success. Our legal system is adversarial, not collegial. Each side hires a champion to go and fight for him. The public is not paying me - and pretty much detests me and my profession (until they need a lawyer). And the public always COULD change our system. Give me a hand in legal reform and I could produce a much better legal system than the one we have. But it is not my role when I am hired for a job to pretend that we live under a different system than the one we have. The judges are not paying me. The government is not paying me. The only person paying me is my client. I fight for HIM, not for the public, not for the judge, not for the adversary, and not for the little old lady next door. It would be grand if we had a grand system of conciliation based on Christian principles, whereby disputes taken into court were always resolved according to the principles God spelled out. But we do not have that system, and we're not likely to - because God's system would mean simply letting people get away from many offenses unpunished, or immediately physically punishing other criminals and them letting them go, or pressing criminals into service to the people they harmed. Under God's system, there is no protection or privilege for agents of government, and there is no right to remain silent - everybody must testify. Also, under God's system, debt are forgiven, wiped clean, after a certain time period. America is supposedly a land full of Christians, but most "Christians" would walk out on Christ completely if they actually had to LIVE under his laws all the time. Most Christians like the idea of Heaven, and they like the ideal of forgiveness of everything they do, by God, but stop cold at the notion of conditional forgiveness - that if you want to be forgiven your debt of sin to God, you have to let the guy who owes you $1000 go if he doesn't have the money to pay. In fact, most "Christians" go non-linear at the very THOUGHT of God's justice. But that's the system I would have, if I had my 'druthers. In the system we have, there are adversaries, armed to the teeth with the law, who go into the arena to fight for their clients. If you hire a lawyer, you do not want him skylarking around seeking "Justice for all". You are paying him to fight for YOU, and that is the condition imposed on him by his law license: to fight for his CLIENT, and NOT to put his own interests, or anybody else's, ahead of his client's. That's the way it is. Most people don't like that - unless they're the ones that need a lawyer. It is not the lawyer's fault that the system is the way it is. And the lawyer is no more a parasite than private security guards are parasites. Rich people do not need to hire private security. They can get concealed carry and take martial arts training and defend themselves...against one or two guys...maybe...and be vigilant all the time...and take the bullet or the kidnapping if they fail. But most of the super rich don't want to dedicate their own lives to be commandoes. They hire people to do it. Does that make private security parasitical? You can always go represent yourself in court, if you want to. You can take on the mortgage company and the seller's agent when you buy a house. If you get into an accident, you can do the negotiations. If you get arrested, fairly or otherwise, you can exercise your right to remain silent and NOT get an attorney, and represent yourself. It will probably not go well for you if you do, but that is not because of ME. I'm not a cop. I'm not the mortgage company who is trying to screw you. I'm not the drunk lunatic who crashed into you. I'm not the warranty-breaker. If you face any of those, you hire me to go and get what you lost BACK. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-12-24   7:08:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: BorisY (#12) My case was also similar to another case involving a white lady who too was illegally kicked out her home, making her homeless like me yet she won. I wonder if that is because I'm black and she is white, because honestly it doesn't add up. Let me get this strait. You're angry because Judge Judy took your house? rlk  posted on  2015-12-24   14:57:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: rlk (#14) (Edited) This is the world wide web ... here's the link --- get with it - up to speed ! http://www.consumeraffairs.com/misc/judge_judy.html ​ kymberly of Summerfield, FL on May 1, 2015 The whole thing was a joke - she's a joke, a fake and a phony. She knew darn well she was going to belittle me before I flew all the way out to Cal. from Fl. I was devastate that I lost that money. I desperately needed it back. I am Disabled and I only make so much a month. And I never thought that this person was a liar and a scammer. I also did not know that Judge Judy was fake. This situation hurt not only me but my family as well. There's so much more to the story but the bottom line is no one should ever go on that crazy fake court and crazy fake judge. What a joke! If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys ! BorisY  posted on  2015-12-24   15:40:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com