Joe: Is O.J. guilty? Prove it, legally. Courts do not abide by scientific proofs, they abide by "proving" (i.e. convincing) jurors that something is true. Courts are sometimes right. Courts are sometimes wrong. A logical proof is always right. Therefore, courts are not logical proofs. You are equivocating to support an ipse dixit argument without actual evidence. If you aren't going to give any evidence, then what is the point?
Jason: No. O.J. is not guilty. He was acquitted. That doesn't mean he didn't murder two people. He probably did. Personally, I believe he did. Clark and Darden didn't prove it to the satisfaction of the jurors.
Just because you don't agree with what happens in court doesn't mean logic is not used. We have to craft a logical argument in order to persuade a judge or a jury. Now, the difference you might find objectionable is that judges and juries are human and can be persuaded by passion or whim. Personally, I think it adds excitement and challenge. I can sometimes finesse things. Sometimes things can be finessed against me. You never really can predict how things will come out. It's logic with double secret special sauce. Sometimes the sauce is bitter, but sometimes it can be so so sweet.
Believe me, one of my voir dire questions will now be, "Does anyone here post as Jason on the Front Row Crew Forum?"
Both of the above posts are non sequitors. I don't know what frivolous lawsuit you're talking about and I don't remember being involved in any challenge.
My statements about frivolous lawsuits is in regards to your looking at this oil issue as a lawsuit. You are coming off much as SCO has with it's "We own Linux 'cause people put our code in there and if we can get enough discovery we will eventually prove it!"
What you are charging needs to have more than suspicion to get off the ground, you need FACTS. Which is something you are lacking. Because of this it comes off as a conspiracy theory, "they have money and I don't... they must have stolen it!"
As a lawyer (you sound lawyerly, not meant as an insult) you must know that you do not go forward with a case unless you know something. Look at what is happening with that horrible leaky Duke Lacrosse case! Now the school is inviting the players back, the same people they were ready to throw under a bus a few months ago...
Let me put it this way. If you were a government lawyer and some member of congress came up to you with this same information and told you that they just "knew" something shady was going on and the whole Iraq war was about oil from the get-go, how would you advise that person?
With all the billions we have spent dealing with the Iraq "conflict" wouldn't it have been cheaper to just give the money to the oil cronies?
So they got the Iraqi government over a barrel (couldn't resist the pun) what's the big deal?
How much will a house sell for in South Central LA as opposed to a few neighborhoods over? How much risk is involved in setting up the equipment in Iraq? There is another equation in business besides supply and demand, it's called Risk vs. Reward. Iraq is currently a high risk venture so the reward should also be high.
Would you cry for the oil company if after getting setup to drill for oil something went very wrong and that company lost it's investment?
Lots of fish. Stinking fish. Lots of suspicions. But not about the same thing you believe. It simply wasn't blood for oil. There are too many mitigating factors involved that would serve to red-flag investors. I still say it was a bungled power grab by good ol' George II, not a corporate conspiracy to pull his strings.
HMTKSteve: Soooooo - do you mean to tell me you think this is a stand-up deal? Nothing fishy whatsoever? No suspicions? No questions?
What I will say is "consider the source" of your information.
Does your news source have a vested interest in what is going on over there? If so, what?
There were a few companies that negotiated oil deals before the coalition invaded Iraq. Those deals became null and void after Saddam fell from power. Might some of those people be behind what is in these news articles?
Every media source is biased in one way or another. The key is to figure out which way they are biased so you will know how to read their statements.
Jason: I don't understand where "conspiracy" came in. I have never, ever claimed a conspiracy. I said this was a resource war. If that's so, then awesome. I like war just as much as anyone. I don't like being lied to. If, at the start, GWB said, "I want to invade Iraq to take its oil", I would've said, "Awesome."
Oh yes. Consider the source. The Independent is so obviously biased. Waitaminnit . . . Looking on FOX and turning on Limbaugh. . . Oh, I see now!
Challenge? Victory? Look at the posts. I don't make a claim that there is any sort of conspiracy. I don't claim that anything is true but that I believe that I could convince a grand jury there's probable cause of shenanigans. I make this claim based on the definition of probable cause and twelve years experience as an attorney. If you don't buy my argument - fine. I only have to convince 12 out of 16 or 23 members.
Note: If I make a claim anywhere at all in the thread it is the claim that I can convince a grand jury. Not that there is a conspiracy. Not that any particular statement is true.
Comments
Just because you don't agree with what happens in court doesn't mean logic is not used. We have to craft a logical argument in order to persuade a judge or a jury. Now, the difference you might find objectionable is that judges and juries are human and can be persuaded by passion or whim. Personally, I think it adds excitement and challenge. I can sometimes finesse things. Sometimes things can be finessed against me. You never really can predict how things will come out. It's logic with double secret special sauce. Sometimes the sauce is bitter, but sometimes it can be so so sweet.
Believe me, one of my voir dire questions will now be, "Does anyone here post as Jason on the Front Row Crew Forum?"
OK, read and tell me this is business as usual: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece
What you are charging needs to have more than suspicion to get off the ground, you need FACTS. Which is something you are lacking. Because of this it comes off as a conspiracy theory, "they have money and I don't... they must have stolen it!"
As a lawyer (you sound lawyerly, not meant as an insult) you must know that you do not go forward with a case unless you know something. Look at what is happening with that horrible leaky Duke Lacrosse case! Now the school is inviting the players back, the same people they were ready to throw under a bus a few months ago...
Let me put it this way. If you were a government lawyer and some member of congress came up to you with this same information and told you that they just "knew" something shady was going on and the whole Iraq war was about oil from the get-go, how would you advise that person?
With all the billions we have spent dealing with the Iraq "conflict" wouldn't it have been cheaper to just give the money to the oil cronies?
Believe what you want I guess.
How much will a house sell for in South Central LA as opposed to a few neighborhoods over? How much risk is involved in setting up the equipment in Iraq? There is another equation in business besides supply and demand, it's called Risk vs. Reward. Iraq is currently a high risk venture so the reward should also be high.
Would you cry for the oil company if after getting setup to drill for oil something went very wrong and that company lost it's investment?
Does your news source have a vested interest in what is going on over there? If so, what?
There were a few companies that negotiated oil deals before the coalition invaded Iraq. Those deals became null and void after Saddam fell from power. Might some of those people be behind what is in these news articles?
Every media source is biased in one way or another. The key is to figure out which way they are biased so you will know how to read their statements.
Challenge? Victory? Look at the posts. I don't make a claim that there is any sort of conspiracy. I don't claim that anything is true but that I believe that I could convince a grand jury there's probable cause of shenanigans. I make this claim based on the definition of probable cause and twelve years experience as an attorney. If you don't buy my argument - fine. I only have to convince 12 out of 16 or 23 members.
Note: If I make a claim anywhere at all in the thread it is the claim that I can convince a grand jury. Not that there is a conspiracy. Not that any particular statement is true.