Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

no name joe

Ignorance or what?

Recommended Posts




We are the "ruling class." :icon_smile:


My hubby says I should have written that everything on the planet would not need a lawyer if everything on the planet was not regulated by laws. :icon_mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



My hubby says I should have written that everything on the planet would not need a lawyer if everything on the planet was not regulated by laws. :icon_mrgreen:


:thumb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



We are the "ruling class." :icon_smile:


Here's what Jesus himself said about lawyers. "Ruling class"........Jesus didn't think so. In turn, I know this age we're living in, we need good Christian lawyers and I appreciate men that will help those in times of need.........Jesus said that Christians should be able to settle disputes between themselves. I'd like to think we could do that. What's a lawyer here for?.......to settle disputes between the government the people? Could you enlighten me, your duties as a Christian attorney?

"And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers"

Luke 11:46 KJB AV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Here's what Jesus himself said about lawyers. "Ruling class"........Jesus didn't think so. In turn, I know this age we're living in, we need good Christian lawyers and I appreciate men that will help those in times of need.........Jesus said that Christians should be able to settle disputes between themselves. I'd like to think we could do that. What's a lawyer here for?.......to settle disputes between the government the people? Could you enlighten me, your duties as a Christian attorney?

"And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers"

Luke 11:46 KJB AV


My duties are codified in a code of professional conduct. Said code requires that I zealously represent the best interest of my client. So I guess that would be my main duty as a lawyer. And lawyers do settle disputes. Sometimes it just takes a lawsuit to do so.

bzmom: Tell your husband that in this country, where we are ruled by the common law, hardly does any lawyer ever deal with any issue that is governed by a legislated law. You need lawyers, whether you like it or not, just like you need air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



My duties are codified in a code of professional conduct. Said code requires that I zealously represent the best interest of my client. So I guess that would be my main duty as a lawyer. And lawyers do settle disputes. Sometimes it just takes a lawsuit to do so.

bzmom: Tell your husband that in this country, where we are ruled by the common law, hardly does any lawyer ever deal with any issue that is governed by a legislated law. You need lawyers, whether you like it or not, just like you need air.


Pt, this is nothing person against you, ok, but I'm not necessarily impressed with with the invention of "common law" (providing I understand it correctly) our gov't system as it stands today, or with lawyers (I think laws should be straight forward enough--coming directly from guidance in God's Word that we ought to be able to represent ourselves in front of a judge) Saying we need lawyers like we need air is as arrogant as a realtor saying we need them like we need air. We can sell a house without a realtor, just as we can represent ourselves without a lawyer, but in both cases it is difficult at times, and possibly risky in some cases if you don't know what you are doing. I know for sure we could get along a whole lot better in this world with fewer laws and regulations...........and a smaller, less powerful and intrusive gov't!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Pt, this is nothing person against you, ok, but I'm not necessarily impressed with with the invention of "common law" (providing I understand it correctly) our gov't system as it stands today, or with lawyers (I think laws should be straight forward enough--coming directly from guidance in God's Word that we ought to be able to represent ourselves in front of a judge) Saying we need lawyers like we need air is as arrogant as a realtor saying we need them like we need air. We can sell a house without a realtor, just as we can represent ourselves without a lawyer, but in both cases it is difficult at times, and possibly risky in some cases if you don't know what you are doing. I know for sure we could get along a whole lot better in this world with fewer laws and regulations...........and a smaller, less powerful and intrusive gov't!!!


I disagree with you on a lot of fronts. First of all, it is never wise to represent oneself because you are so biased in favor of your own position that you can't be relied upon to adequately carry out the representation. You need someone who can tell you when your cause is a loser and its time to fold. Another thing is that we didn't invent "common law." Common law is a natural creature born out of fairness and equity.

If you have a house for sale, and you know that it has a leaky roof, but you represent to me that the roof doesn't leak with the intent that I believe you and will therefore buy the house, you've committed common law fraud. We don't need a law written by the government to tells us that. It's common law. It's not fair and equitable and you shouldn't be able to get away with it.

The law and the government are not the same thing. Even without the government you would have law and those who study and become proficient in the law. And I wasn't intending to be arrogant with my statement, which I fully believe is true. The way our world has evolved, we cannot get a long without lawyers without totally changing the way we live. From the moment you are born (from the patent lawyer that developed the tools and medicine to carry out a successful birth) to your death (the estate attorney who wrote your will and/or probated your estate) you will need lawyers. There is no getting around it. And everything needs lawyers: dogs, cows, houses, skyscrapers, businesses, cars . . . all need lawyers. We have woven ourselves into every fabric of society.

From what you've described, it sounds like you are looking for a theocracy (where the laws are based on a particular religion, or the majority's interpretation of that religion), which you will never find in this country. That is, in fact, one of the exact reasons our country was founded in the first place, to escape those that though man should be governed by a particular religious idea of governance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while some people can defend themselves, I don't think they can defend themselves in front of a judge who have many years of training and experiences. Lawyers can speak in their language (or had the same type of training).

For instant, A doctor told you to give youself a shot at certain bodyparts in some latin name with some kind of medicine, you wouldn't know where. Therefore you need a nurse who had training to understand these terms.

I personally need a lawyer because I am deaf since birth, and deaf people act differently than hearing people. A judge is used to hearing people, but not deaf people. So If I try to defend myself in a language (both body and spoken) in a way I know how, he could misinterpret me (and probably think I need an institution or something) and thinks I am guilty. All because I come from a different culture than he is used to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is never wise to represent oneself because you are so biased in favor of your own position that you can't be relied upon to adequately carry out the representation. <<< I certainly hope my lawyer is biased of my position too! (otherwise what is the point of a lawyer)???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is never wise to represent oneself because you are so biased in favor of your own position that you can't be relied upon to adequately carry out the representation. <<< I certainly hope my lawyer is biased of my position too! (otherwise what is the point of a lawyer)???


Actually, that isn't always the case. I've known folks who represented themselves and won!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, that isn't always the case. I've known folks who represented themselves and won! >>>> in most car accidents, people have to represent themselves especially if it is too expensive to get a lawyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, that isn't always the case. I've known folks who represented themselves and won! >>>> in most car accidents, people have to represent themselves especially if it is too expensive to get a lawyer


True! We have had so many accidents (believe it or not, they haven't been our fault - except for one and it was my hubby's fault because he had parked the car to get out for a minute, and it slipped from park). There was one that was pretty bad for me (I have bone problems anyway, and every wreck I'm in hurts me pretty badly - even a slight bang on the back bumper!) and we got a lawyer. Well, suffice it to say that the lawyer and the doctor made out great!

I don't begrudge them the money they got - but since we were the victims, I think the lawyer (who had promised to do so!) could have done better for us.

The last wreck we were in, we didn't get a lawyer. I dealt with the insurance company myself (because I was the one injured, they had to talk to me, not my hubby). And we were pleased with the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



True! We have had so many accidents (believe it or not, they haven't been our fault - except for one and it was my hubby's fault because he had parked the car to get out for a minute, and it slipped from park). There was one that was pretty bad for me (I have bone problems anyway, and every wreck I'm in hurts me pretty badly - even a slight bang on the back bumper!) and we got a lawyer. Well, suffice it to say that the lawyer and the doctor made out great!

I don't begrudge them the money they got - but since we were the victims, I think the lawyer (who had promised to do so!) could have done better for us.

The last wreck we were in, we didn't get a lawyer. I dealt with the insurance company myself (because I was the one injured, they had to talk to me, not my hubby). And we were pleased with the results.


This is how it should be. You shouldn't get a lawyer until it is obvious that the insurance company is not going to treat you fairly and pay for your injuries. However, I would always caution people to have a lawyer review the release the insurance company will ask you to sign and to inform you on any statute of limitations (time limits) that may apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



This is how it should be. You shouldn't get a lawyer until it is obvious that the insurance company is not going to treat you fairly and pay for your injuries. However, I would always caution people to have a lawyer review the release the insurance company will ask you to sign and to inform you on any statute of limitations (time limits) that may apply.


I agree that a lawyer isn't needed unless the insurance company isn't going to do right. Problem is - a good many lawyers won't touch a case if they aren't sure they aren't going to make a big amount of money. We've been personally told by lawyers (more than once) that there wouldn't be a big enough settlement for it to be worth it for them...

The case I mentioned where the lawyer and the doc made out: the lawyer promised this and that, and backed out towards the end. We would most likely have been better off without him - don't know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I agree that a lawyer isn't needed unless the insurance company isn't going to do right. Problem is - a good many lawyers won't touch a case if they aren't sure they aren't going to make a big amount of money. We've been personally told by lawyers (more than once) that there wouldn't be a big enough settlement for it to be worth it for them...

The case I mentioned where the lawyer and the doc made out: the lawyer promised this and that, and backed out towards the end. We would most likely have been better off without him - don't know for sure.


The practice of law is not a charity. There is a costs benefit analysis involved just like with everything else. Most lawyers to car accidents on a contingency fee basis where the client doesn't owe anything unless the lawyer gets a settlement or verdict. If a case is only worth, say, $2K, and it will costs the lawyer $5K just to prosecute, then its not worth it. Why should he or she lose money just so a client can make money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said a lawyer should lose money...but the fees they charge for mere paperwork is absolutely ridiculous. I realize you won't agree, and that's fine. But it's true, nevertheless. It's a little bit different if the case actually goes to court.

And if it weren't for the client, the lawyer wouldn't make any money. Lawyers should be a little more aware of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I disagree with you on a lot of fronts. First of all, it is never wise to represent oneself because you are so biased in favor of your own position that you can't be relied upon to adequately carry out the representation. You need someone who can tell you when your cause is a loser and its time to fold. Another thing is that we didn't invent "common law." Common law is a natural creature born out of fairness and equity.

If you have a house for sale, and you know that it has a leaky roof, but you represent to me that the roof doesn't leak with the intent that I believe you and will therefore buy the house, you've committed common law fraud. We don't need a law written by the government to tells us that. It's common law. It's not fair and equitable and you shouldn't be able to get away with it.

The law and the government are not the same thing. Even without the government you would have law and those who study and become proficient in the law. And I wasn't intending to be arrogant with my statement, which I fully believe is true. The way our world has evolved, we cannot get a long without lawyers without totally changing the way we live. From the moment you are born (from the patent lawyer that developed the tools and medicine to carry out a successful birth) to your death (the estate attorney who wrote your will and/or probated your estate) you will need lawyers. There is no getting around it. And everything needs lawyers: dogs, cows, houses, skyscrapers, businesses, cars . . . all need lawyers. We have woven ourselves into every fabric of society.

From what you've described, it sounds like you are looking for a theocracy (where the laws are based on a particular religion, or the majority's interpretation of that religion), which you will never find in this country. That is, in fact, one of the exact reasons our country was founded in the first place, to escape those that though man should be governed by a particular religious idea of governance.


I know that we disagree on many fronts, pt, and there will be many, many others who will disagree with me as well, I'm sure. (I could even change my mind, but I doubt it. We'll just have to agree to disagree :wink) I understand that we have a gov't set up here in the U.S. and I understand the way it works, but what I am saying that it is not ideal. Am I looking for a Theocracy, you betcha, and it is on the horizon..........the Bible says the Lord is going to return and he will rule with rod of iron. That is the best form of gov't I could ever imagine! I can see your point when you say that our country was founded to "escape" a religious idea of governance, but if you get right down to it....when we refuse to start from the Biblical laws over right and wrong, all you have left is someone else's opinion based on a false religion or man's own cooked up opinion coming from sinful flesh. Anything coming from man is biased toward sin no matter how good of a person they are because they are not perfect in every area. God is perfect! His laws are perfect! Which is why our forefathers of this nation based our Constitution and the rights thereof on Biblical beliefs. That is why the 10 Commandments have been prominently displayed in our nation's courtrooms until recent years. Our country has been turning away from God's perfect Word and that is why our nation is in shambles. People "need" lawyers to solve disputes because they refuse to obey God's Word. Don't worry, you certainly have job security as a lawyer, not because as you've said lawyers have "woven ourselves into every fabric of society", but because people are just sinful, and it is only going to get worse. One last thing, you said that "we didn't invent common law..." Well, on at least one website I saw the word "invent" and on a few others it implied it with different wording. For instance:

"The system of laws originated and developed in England and based on court decisions, on the doctrines implicit in those decisions, and on customs and usages rather than on codified written laws."

"Common law has no statutory basis; judges establish common law through written opinions that are binding on future decisions of lower courts in the same jurisdiction."

The last underlined part in quotation marks is what bothers me about "common law". Again, I'm certainly no student of law, but it would seem to me that if you have a few bad judges, with bad opinions, making bad decisions, setting bad precedent, then you have bad things happening...........even if that bad judge is removed, I'm assuming his past decisions are not? That is dangerous, and that was my point. You see, I try (though I don't always succeed) to always start with the Bible as my foundation, and I try and view everything through it. By our society's standard, I could not be a judge, because I would be "bringing my own opinions" to the bench (an arguement that I heard concerning the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor.....that she could separate herself from her personal opinions about abortion--right!) I find it hard to believe anyone does that on a regular basis, after all, our opinions are formed by our beliefs and directly influence our actions....if they didn't, we would be betraying ourselves. In my case, I would be betraying God...........and that is not an option. I hope that you understand better what I meant now. :icon_mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I know that we disagree on many fronts, pt, and there will be many, many others who will disagree with me as well, I'm sure. (I could even change my mind, but I doubt it. We'll just have to agree to disagree :wink) I understand that we have a gov't set up here in the U.S. and I understand the way it works, but what I am saying that it is not ideal. Am I looking for a Theocracy, you betcha, and it is on the horizon..........the Bible says the Lord is going to return and he will rule with rod of iron. That is the best form of gov't I could ever imagine! I can see your point when you say that our country was founded to "escape" a religious idea of governance, but if you get right down to it....when we refuse to start from the Biblical laws over right and wrong, all you have left is someone else's opinion based on a false religion or man's own cooked up opinion coming from sinful flesh. Anything coming from man is biased toward sin no matter how good of a person they are because they are not perfect in every area. God is perfect! His laws are perfect! Which is why our forefathers of this nation based our Constitution and the rights thereof on Biblical beliefs. That is why the 10 Commandments have been prominently displayed in our nation's courtrooms until recent years. Our country has been turning away from God's perfect Word and that is why our nation is in shambles. People "need" lawyers to solve disputes because they refuse to obey God's Word. Don't worry, you certainly have job security as a lawyer, not because as you've said lawyers have "woven ourselves into every fabric of society", but because people are just sinful, and it is only going to get worse. One last thing, you said that "we didn't invent common law..." Well, on at least one website I saw the word "invent" and on a few others it implied it with different wording. For instance:

"The system of laws originated and developed in England and based on court decisions, on the doctrines implicit in those decisions, and on customs and usages rather than on codified written laws."

"Common law has no statutory basis; judges establish common law through written opinions that are binding on future decisions of lower courts in the same jurisdiction."

The last underlined part in quotation marks is what bothers me about "common law". Again, I'm certainly no student of law, but it would seem to me that if you have a few bad judges, with bad opinions, making bad decisions, setting bad precedent, then you have bad things happening...........even if that bad judge is removed, I'm assuming his past decisions are not? That is dangerous, and that was my point. You see, I try (though I don't always succeed) to always start with the Bible as my foundation, and I try and view everything through it. By our society's standard, I could not be a judge, because I would be "bringing my own opinions" to the bench (an arguement that I heard concerning the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor.....that she could separate herself from her personal opinions about abortion--right!) I find it hard to believe anyone does that on a regular basis, after all, our opinions are formed by our beliefs and directly influence our actions....if they didn't, we would be betraying ourselves. In my case, I would be betraying God...........and that is not an option. I hope that you understand better what I meant now. :icon_mrgreen:


Your first mistake is using lay dictionaries to define words. Dictionaries are irrelevant now. Context is everything. Although we can be said to have "established" the common law in that we have developed precedent, we cannot be said to have invented common law any more than we can be said to have created "honesty" or "equity" or "fairness." Another problem with your "definitions" (let's just call them "unsubstantiated opinions") is that in England you don't have juries, so a judge will be setting the precedent. However, here in the U.S., we are still so immature and foolish that we leave important decisions to uneducated biased people. Now, even these decisions end up being made by judges in the end, but only after appeal upon appeal. Our legal system will remain inferior until there is a designated group, or class, that becomes the sole arbitors of all things legal. Lawyer, judge and jury all in one, without any influence from the laity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I really want a set of juries to a group of snobs either (high class people with alot of education)

our system force higher class to lower themselves and work with people who are inferior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I really want a set of juries to a group of snobs either (high class people with alot of education)

our system force higher class to lower themselves and work with people who are inferior.


So everyone with a lot of education and from a supposedly higher class are now automatically "snobs." This is a prime example of a biased opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, here in the U.S., we are still so immature and foolish that we leave important decisions to uneducated biased people. Now, even these decisions end up being made by judges in the end, but only after appeal upon appeal. Our legal system will remain inferior until there is a designated group, or class, that becomes the sole arbitors of all things legal. Lawyer, judge and jury all in one, without any influence from the laity.


pt, that is absolutely one of the most arrogant things I've ever heard, and I really am surprised that it's coming from you!

The system we have now works when it is done right: our forefathers set up the system of trial by a jury of peers - did it ever occur to you that possibly they did that BECAUSE they didn't want judges making law? Hmmmm - could that even be why they created the separation of powers on the federal level?

Our legal system had become inferior because judges have adopted the idea that they can legislate from the bench. And because too many people on the jury don't understand that they can actually follow the constitution while they are in the jury.

It's a real shame, pt, that our forefathers were so off the mark to create an inferior justice system. Not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 33 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...