You have no right to a tax payer funded attorney

[Nick M]

So says the left. They are actually right. You have the right to one, you can not be denied it. But that doesn't mean we are going to give you one.

 

[quip]

Bee in your bonnet....again?

 

[republicanchick]

So says the left. They are actually right. You have the right to one, you can not be denied it. But that doesn't mean we are going to give you one.

this was decided many yrs ago.

maybe they should throw out the "free attorney" thing (just saying MAYBE here) and go with this idea: let the poor bring their cases to court and a court clerk can show them the proper format to put their paperwork into and etc...

most court appointed attorneys aren't worth trusting in



++

 

[Nick M]

:dunce:

So you like it when a criminal that has employed a tax payer attorney can drop him because he doesn't like him? I don't know how the several states set up their systems. I am sure TH would have some insight.

 

[republicanchick]

So you like it when a criminal that has employed a tax payer attorney can drop him because he doesn't like him? I don't know how the several states set up their systems. I am sure TH would have some insight.

what if you were accused of something you didn't do?

many people are. And... amazing but true, most of them are poor...

hard to believe, i know..



++

 

[quip]

So you like it when a criminal that has employed a tax payer attorney can drop him because he doesn't like him? I don't know how the several states set up their systems. I am sure TH would have some insight.

"repent" :chuckle:

 

[rexlunae]

So you like it when a criminal that has employed a tax payer attorney can drop him because he doesn't like him? I don't know how the several states set up their systems. I am sure TH would have some insight.

When the court assigns a public defender, you pretty much get whoever they choose. And treating the defendant as a criminal (as opposed to a criminal defendant) prior to conviction would pretty much obviate the trial, don't you think?

 

[This Charming Manc]

A good point well made but I'm unsure whats Nicks arguing here.

He could be arguing against state paid lawyers or he is arguing that the left are undermining state aided lawyers.

Im unsure which.

When the court assigns a public defender, you pretty much get whoever they choose. And treating the defendant as a criminal (as opposed to a criminal defendant) prior to conviction would pretty much obviate the trial, don't you think?

 

[shagster01]

So you like it when a criminal that has employed a tax payer attorney can drop him because he doesn't like him? I don't know how the several states set up their systems. I am sure TH would have some insight.

How do you know he's a criminal if he hasn't been found guilty yet?

 

[PureX]

So says the left. They are actually right. You have the right to one, you can not be denied it. But that doesn't mean we are going to give you one.

Are you in charge of handing out attorneys, now?

 

[Nick M]

Should a criminal be able to drop his appointed attorney and get a different one? What if the violent giant didn't grab Wilson's fire arm, discharge it in the car and beat Wilson, but instead surrendered after being told? And Missouri appoints Mark Furman for his counsel. Should he have been able to ask for a new attorney?

Of course that situation is fiction, it is just an example of replacement.

 

[quip]

Should a criminal be able to drop his appointed attorney and get a different one? What if the violent giant didn't grab Wilson's fire arm, discharge it in the car and beat Wilson, but instead surrendered after being told? And Missouri appoints Mark Furman for his counsel. Should he have been able to ask for a new attorney?

Of course that situation is fiction, it is just an example of replacement.

Easy....ask yourself if you'd enjoy the liberty of assigning yourself new, adequate counsel ....as deemed necessary.

Issue solved.

 

[Daniel1611]

Should a criminal be able to drop his appointed attorney and get a different one? What if the violent giant didn't grab Wilson's fire arm, discharge it in the car and beat Wilson, but instead surrendered after being told? And Missouri appoints Mark Furman for his counsel. Should he have been able to ask for a new attorney?

Of course that situation is fiction, it is just an example of replacement.

So, if you are ever accused of anything, we will assume you are guilty until you can prove that you're innocent?

 

[Nazaroo]

You have no right to a tax payer funded attorney

You have no right to a tax payer funded homosexual Freemason.

There. Fixed that for ya.

Should a criminal be able to drop his appointed attorney and get a different one?

Should a defendant be able to drop his appointed criminal and get a different one?

Short answer: No.

The judge should be fired and forced to get a real job,
and the criminal lawyer should be charged with fraud over $5000.

A pastor from Westboro Baptist Church should be appointed judge,
and a physicist or some other scientist who understands 'proof'
should be appointed legal representative.

 

[rexlunae]

Should a criminal be able to drop his appointed attorney and get a different one? What if the violent giant didn't grab Wilson's fire arm, discharge it in the car and beat Wilson, but instead surrendered after being told? And Missouri appoints Mark Furman for his counsel. Should he have been able to ask for a new attorney?

Of course that situation is fiction, it is just an example of replacement.

If you have a serious point to make, I honestly can't tell what it is. Is there a reason a defendant shouldn't have any particular lawyer? Or have a choice of lawyers if they can afford to pay for one?

 

[elohiym]

what if you were accused of something you didn't do?

many people are. And... amazing but true, most of them are poor...

hard to believe, i know..

I know of a man who has been locked up in a county jail for over three years waiting for a trial. He's been through several public defenders, who, judging from the court papers I've read, were doing a terrible job. The accusations against him are false, made by known liars with a history of fabricating stories in order to falsely accuse others. It shocks and saddens me that in the United States a person can spend over three years in jail without a trial, without having been convicted of anything.

 

[Daniel1611]

I know of a man who has been locked up in a county jail for over three years waiting for a trial. He's been through several public defenders, who, judging from the court papers I've read, were doing a terrible job. The accusations against him are false, made by known liars with a history of fabricating stories in order to falsely accuse others. It shocks and saddens me that in the United States a person can spend over three years in jail without a trial, without having been convicted of anything.

I agree. This is a big deal. We have the right to a "speedy" trial, Not to sit in jail till the bureaucrats get around to it.

 

[republicanchick]

I know of a man who has been locked up in a county jail for over three years waiting for a trial. He's been through several public defenders, who, judging from the court papers I've read, were doing a terrible job. The accusations against him are false, made by known liars with a history of fabricating stories in order to falsely accuse others. It shocks and saddens me that in the United States a person can spend over three years in jail without a trial, without having been convicted of anything.

I know of some read sad stories myself, of the government abusing people. And of course, it is always the poor or lower middle class people who are targeted by idiots working for the gov...


++

 

[republicanchick]

I agree. This is a big deal. We have the right to a "speedy" trial, Not to sit in jail till the bureaucrats get around to it.

yeh, the guy ought to sue for not getting a speedy trial... unless he himself asked for al l .the delays?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The whole 'presumed innocent until proven guilty' thing was never taken for it what it supposed to be for- it was supposed to ensure that courts didn't try to treat the accused in an inquisitorial manner (having to rather prove your innocence), but you see how far that went- even the most obvious of those who are innocent are taking a risk walking into a courtroom without a lawyer.