--:-- / --:--
Lying is not a job
352 Views | 21 Replies
Check current mood, cool music!
At 12/27/22 05:37 PM, poopypeter wrote:Politicians and lawyers
For them, lying isn't a job. Its their life.
we chillin
Love what you do and you won't work a day in your life. Or something like that.
This post was artificially generated
Us: Lying is not a job.
Telemarketers: Am I a joke to you?
I'm just one of those people still on the path of getting themselves out there in the world. If you're confused by my mug below you haven't read my profile. I point you to it.
At 12/27/22 05:37 PM, poopypeter wrote:Politicians and lawyers
Also scammers
Artist please check out my art, and musician please check out my music.
At 12/28/22 12:17 AM, HalfDemureOfficial wrote:At 12/27/22 05:37 PM, poopypeter wrote:Politicians and lawyers
Also scammers
What's the difference?
PU PI PI PU PI PIII
PU PI PI PU PI PIII
yes it is source: I actually created this website so I would know
made with sugar, spice and bath salts!
Stretching the interpretation of the law in and giving ad hoc arguments favour of a client would be a more proper job description of a lawyer.
At most, they hide the facts from the court by not disclosing them. This is not really lying.
At 12/28/22 12:40 AM, ChiralAnomaly wrote:At most, they hide the facts from the court by not disclosing them. This is not really lying.
omission or concealment is a type of lying
it is 100% legally lying (in u.s. courts, anyways)
At 12/28/22 07:58 AM, AllasAndWailaway wrote:At 12/28/22 12:40 AM, ChiralAnomaly wrote:At most, they hide the facts from the court by not disclosing them. This is not really lying.
omission or concealment is a type of lying
it is 100% legally lying (in u.s. courts, anyways)
Here is an example in common law:
Lawyer knows his client has committed murder. But he does not have the duty to show his evidence to the court because it is the prosecution who has the burden to prove that he is guilty. The defendant is protected from self-incrimination.
At 12/28/22 08:02 AM, ChiralAnomaly wrote:Here is an example in common law:
Lawyer knows his client has committed murder. But he does not have the duty to show his evidence to the court because it is the prosecution who has the burden to prove that he is guilty.
if a lawyer knows (100% certainty) that his client has committed murder, he must persuade the client to plead guilty or no longer continue to represent the client
he can only continue to represent the client if he has a reasonable belief that his client his telling the truth
here's the relevant ABA rules
At 12/28/22 08:13 AM, AllasAndWailaway wrote:At 12/28/22 08:02 AM, ChiralAnomaly wrote:Here is an example in common law:
Lawyer knows his client has committed murder. But he does not have the duty to show his evidence to the court because it is the prosecution who has the burden to prove that he is guilty.
if a lawyer knows (100% certainty) that his client has committed murder, he must persuade the client to plead guilty or no longer continue to represent the client
he can only continue to represent the client if he has a reasonable belief that his client his telling the truth
here's the relevant ABA rules
For criminal trials, I believe that the defense is only legally obliged to turn in certain evidence only and this is to prevent surprises at trial.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-defense-s-duty-turn-over-discovery.html
Otherwise, requiring the defense to present every piece of self-incriminating evidence is at odds with the Fifth Amendment.
Of course in civil cases the Fifth Amendment does not apply and it could be that lawyers from both parties are at least ethically required to present all evidence. A tribunal is not a criminal court and the codes you linked to apply to civil disputes.
At 12/28/22 10:01 AM, ChiralAnomaly wrote:For criminal trials, I believe that the defense is only legally obliged to turn in certain evidence only and this is to prevent surprises at trial.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-defense-s-duty-turn-over-discovery.html
Otherwise, requiring the defense to present every piece of self-incriminating evidence is at odds with the Fifth Amendment.
Of course in civil cases the Fifth Amendment does not apply and it could be that lawyers from both parties are at least ethically required to present all evidence. A tribunal is not a criminal court and the codes you linked to apply to civil disputes.
none of it matters if civil or criminal in the u.s. (trial courts or courts of general jurisdiction are considered tribunals under u.s. law, anyways), a lawyer's obligation remains the same
here's a discussion by a state bar if you need more info
a lawyer is not required to disclose a reason for withdrawing himself from a case or to turn over the evidence, but cannot knowingly allow a client to commit perjury
At 12/28/22 10:47 AM, AllasAndWailaway wrote:At 12/28/22 10:01 AM, ChiralAnomaly wrote:For criminal trials, I believe that the defense is only legally obliged to turn in certain evidence only and this is to prevent surprises at trial.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-defense-s-duty-turn-over-discovery.html
Otherwise, requiring the defense to present every piece of self-incriminating evidence is at odds with the Fifth Amendment.
Of course in civil cases the Fifth Amendment does not apply and it could be that lawyers from both parties are at least ethically required to present all evidence. A tribunal is not a criminal court and the codes you linked to apply to civil disputes.
none of it matters if civil or criminal in the u.s. (trial courts or courts of general jurisdiction are considered tribunals under u.s. law, anyways), a lawyer's obligation remains the same
here's a discussion by a state bar if you need more info
a lawyer is not required to disclose a reason for withdrawing himself from a case or to turn over the evidence, but cannot knowingly allow a client to commit perjury
I think the general position is it is ok not to reveal everything you know that could jeopardize your case provided you don't tampering with evidence actively.
At 12/28/22 12:00 AM, art-dude wrote:Us: Lying is not a job.
Telemarketers: Am I a joke to you?
Once they get my mom on the phone, they find out this answer real fuckin fast. She's driven at least one to the point of cussing her out.
At 12/28/22 11:14 AM, ChiralAnomaly wrote:https://www.quora.com/If-a-lawyer-has-evidence-against-his-client-to-prove-the-client-guilty-of-a-crime-is-it-morally-right-to-not-submit-the-evidence-to-the-court
sure, they're under no requirement to submit the evidence or disclose what they know to the court, but they cannot knowingly let a client commit perjury (and therefore, must withdraw or have their client submit a guilty plea in the case of knowing their client committed a murder)
Developing perpetual demos
At 12/28/22 11:24 AM, mewbirb wrote:At 12/28/22 12:00 AM, art-dude wrote:Us: Lying is not a job.
Telemarketers: Am I a joke to you?
Once they get my mom on the phone, they find out this answer real fuckin fast. She's driven at least one to the point of cussing her out.
Same with my mom; she can speak Hindi and surprises them every time with that, they react like they just discovered they dialed their boss.
I'm just one of those people still on the path of getting themselves out there in the world. If you're confused by my mug below you haven't read my profile. I point you to it.
At 12/28/22 10:47 AM, AllasAndWailaway wrote:but cannot knowingly allow a client to commit perjury
Yeah that's why we don't ask our clients certain questions.
can we fire them? if not, then it's not a job. it's their birthright and we never really had a choice.
