pwcc (part two)

[tschock]

Originally Posted by calvindog

No, Gary, what I'm saying is that when the issue arises which calls for an analysis of the law or for anecdotal information about how a practice of law occurs, the idiots with no training or education in the field (except from watching TV) should STFU and not say that we're wrong and insist upon flaunting their ignorance. It's a waste of sound information and it's only being challenged in order to protect a fraudster (or prevent someone's loved one from being raped or something).

Leon, can we have a passive-aggressive asshole subforum?

Hey Jeff, I have no formal training in the field, but even I know that you can't be "proven innocent" in court, as some have insisted in other threads. And that if you are found "not guilty", that has nothing to do with whether or not you are actually "innocent".

Other than that, I tend to usually defer to the "experts" in their respective fields.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by tschock

Hey Jeff, I have no formal training in the field, but even I know that you can't be "proven innocent" in court, as some have insisted in other threads. And that if you are found "not guilty", that has nothing to do with whether or not you are actually "innocent".

Other than that, I tend to usually defer to the "experts" in their respective fields.

Well said and the PERFECT example of your common sense is when Judge Landis banned the "Black Sox Eight" the day after they were found "not guilty" in a court of law!

Joe T.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Well said and the PERFECT example of your common sense is when Judge Landis banned the "Black Sox Eight" the day after they were found "not guilty" in a court of law!

Joe T.

OJ

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

OJ

++++1!!!!!!!!

[autograf]

I'm pretty sure this could be the problem........someone slept here.....