Quote from Raymond Dougherty

As a lawyer, I can assure you it does not feel comfortable to be the cosnstant brunt of evil lawyer jokes nor comfortable to listen to the stereotyping of lawyers as sharkish, unfeeling, uncaring, bottom feeding, selfish beings with nary a nerve to feel or a brain capable of emotion.

As a citizen, I can assure you it does not feel comfortable to know that my right to a fair trial is only guaranteed if I can afford to pay exorbitant amounts of money to a lawyer.

Contrary to your characterization as sniveling and pathetic, I found this attorney to make convincing arguments, a strong presentation and conviction in her sense of injustice.

You call those convincing arguments? She presumes that the legislature never intended for someone like her client to be "even tried or convicted" without offering any supporting arguments. I guess she forgot to get back to it. You think comparing her case to one in another state is a convincing argument? Perhaps you're referring to her arguments that because her client has a history of abuse, she is not subject to the same sanctions as everyone else. While I feel for people who have undergone abuse, my conscience doesn't allow me to think the victim in any case deserves to be denied protection because of crimes they had nothing to do with. Do you think the boy she sexually assaulted cares if she was abused in the past?

A lawyer's job is to make the arguments that benefit the client and not worry about the equality or lack thereof between men and women.

I think you just proved why so many of us dislike lawyers. Many of you care about one thing only, making arguments to benefit the client that is paying you, not about fairness.

And if you were part of the criminal (in)justice system and saw what goes on with the police, district attorneys, enactment of special interest laws and the related "meting out of justice', it really does shock the conscience. indeed, the very term "justice system' becomes a "term of sarcasm' or oxymoron.

It's funny we never see any mass organization on the part of lawyers to protest the practices you just brought up. Since you all, as part of the criminal (in)justice system, see these things regularly, why aren't you all more vocal. There are of course organizations like the Innocence Project, but after interviewing the director of my state's branch, I can tell you that they can't even get enough lawyers to work a small fraction of their cases. It seems to me like 90% of lawyers are happy with things the way they are, if I had to judge by their silence.

To atttack this attorney and characterize her as pathetic for demonstrating her strong advocation and her obvious sense of injustice when one in the legal profession finally can be assuaged as to her humanity, choice of profession and ability to feel rather than emote is simply not fair. And, for all you know, her true thoughts may be that a fondling by either sex should not be handled with the meting out of these severe sentences for men or women and not that somehow men should be punished more severely. Afterall, this attorney did not create the two-tiered system due to special interest laws and has to do whatever she can to protect her clients from it.

But she very much wants to perpetuate the two-tiered system. This is clear in her arguments. We all know what she meant in her arguments. She meant that the law was never meant to be used against a woman.

Outranged minds can make for outranged thoughts. I think the important think is to learn from the progression, or perhaps regression may be more fitting, of the femminist movement and the creation of misandrics and try and handle ourselves with a bit more of finesse and not make similar mistakes (unless of course one's objective is to swing the pendulum of inequality back for purposes of retribution rather than acheiving a true equality between the sexes). Yes it is nice to see a respect for equality under and equal application of the law, something that seemed to be occurring less and less.

We're in no position to make similar mistakes. It would be more than just nice to see a respect for equality under and equal protection of the law, a just society demands it.

Interestingly many people do not know that the Equal Rights Amendment had never been actually ratified to be added to the Constitution since drafted approximately 90 years ago.

Perhaps many people outside of the MRM. Most of us are well versed in these matters.

The language was simple and fair:

Equal Rights Amendment

Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

The Equal Rights Amendment was written in 1921 by suffragist Alice Paul. It has been introduced in Congress every session since 1923. It passed Congress in the above form in 1972, but was not ratified by the necessary thirty-eight states by the July 1982 deadline. It was ratified by thirty-five states.

Interestingly, one of the persistent criticisms that prevented ratification was complaints it did not do enough for women, perhaps something that helped turn the Allice Paul's of the femminist movement into rabid, misandric dogs seemingly now hell bent on special interest language and setting up a two-tiered system to create sepearate classes of citizens.

The goal of the feminist movement has never been equality. It was feminism itself, not the fact that the ERA wasn't ratified, that turned their likes into misandrists.

Of course if the ERA were the law of the land, any attorney to make an argument for unequal punishment based upon sex would be acting so contrary to and violative of this amendment and thus the Constitution that per the Professional Rules of Conduct in the legal profession, potentially face disbarment. I would bet to venture the prospect of the Equal Rights Amendment ever being passed probably firghtens the bejeebers out of many in the domestic violence industry and any misandric woman. Men, men's groups and women should be supporting this law as originally written.

I think the Equal Protection Clause, appropriately applied, provides sufficient protection in cases like these. The victim is guaranteed equal protection of the laws. To say that because the victim was a boy being assaulted by a woman he is not entitled to have his assailant subject to the same sanctions is denying him equal protection and violating his constitutional rights.

Look. While I don't agree with your post, I still would like to welcome you to the forum. I'm sure there's already a lawyer or two here, but it's always nice to have another person positioned within the system.

Quote from omegaflux

You call those convincing arguments

Yes. Injustice is always a convincing argument as is cruel and unusual punishment.

She presumes that the legislature never intended for someone like her client to be "even tried or convicted" without offering any supporting arguments.

I think that she, as you and I, knows what the legislative intent was and what kind of groups lobbied for it.

You think comparing her case to one in another state is a convincing argument?

The statement that 'she makes convincing arguments' does not eqaul 'all of her arguments were convincing'. However, her comparison was used for persuasive reasoning purposes rather than binding law.

Perhaps you're referring to her arguments that because her client has a history of abuse, she is not subject to the same sanctions as everyone else.

I believe she referred to the pre-sentencing reports that require such to be disclosed for sentencing purposes and she pointed out that it was an exercise in futility as the sentences are mandatory and a point to raise in argument as the court requires these reports. And mitigating circumstances often are required to consider in sentencing guidelines even though there was a mandate here.

"While I feel for people who have undergone abuse, my conscience doesn't allow me to think the victim in any case deserves to be denied protection because of crimes they had nothing to do with. Do you think the boy she sexually assaulted cares if she was abused in the past?"

He is a witness for the state. This sounds like a women's group against domestic violence argument. You also refer to your conscience which is your opinion and unfortunately some women rights' advocates have managed to get "their conscence and opinions" into the laws and now look what has happened to many, many men.

I think you just proved why so many of us dislike lawyers. Many of you care about one thing only, making arguments to benefit the client that is paying you, not about fairness.

No i think you prove my argument that people prejudge lawyers. Your second sentence is an example of how you do that. It also shows that you like most people do not understand the role of an attorney in representation. We are not paid by clients to move our agenda and get on a soap box but to zealously defend or advocate for the client WHO YES IS PAYING US TO PERFORM SERVICES FOR THEM NOT US.

It's funny we never see any mass organization on the part of lawyers to protest the practices you just brought up. Since you all, as part of the criminal (in)justice system, see these things regularly, why aren't you all more vocal. There are of course organizations like the Innocence Project, but after interviewing the director of my state's branch, I can tell you that they can't even get enough lawyers to work a small fraction of their cases. It seems to me like 90% of lawyers are happy with things the way they are, if I had to judge by their silence.

I cannot speak of other lawyers but thanks for recognizing this lawyer is speaking out. And I can assure you that many others are. But why should we have to get together and organize more than other professions. I did not see accountants organizing agaisnt the practices that led to the recent finanical disasters. And we ALL are not part of the criminal (in)justice system either. As for the "seems" and "90%: your opinion and not fact. When people arbitraily throw out numbers, it gives others the chance to quote and start the disinformation process. I am an individual lawyer representing my own beleif and not that of a group which is why name is in the username category.

But she very much wants to perpetuate the two-tiered system. This is clear in her arguments. We all know what she meant in her arguments. She meant that the law was never meant to be used against a woman.

That is your guess. You guess that her position as advocate is that of hers. I have to represent people all the time in ways i don't like. I have to advise clients to settle because i do not like the law. not my job. As lawyers we are not supposed to speak about our own beleifs, and your position demands that she violate that rule. And again, if that was the legislature's intent, then no matter how wrong the legislature would be, she would be appropriately representing her client under the rules and the law. And if the legislature did not intend that she be convicted under that law, then she would be a victim of the legal system in addition to a perpetrator.

We're in no position to make similar mistakes.

Everyone is by virtue of presumption, prejudism, and seeing things as black and white where exceptions rule and reality nearly always runs gray.

It would be more than just nice to see a respect for equality under and equal protection of the law, a just society demands it.

i stated it was good to see equal application of the law albeit the cruel and unusual punishment.

The goal of the feminist movement has never been equality. It was feminism itself, not the fact that the ERA wasn't ratified, that turned their likes into misandrists.

Not all feminists are created equal. Alice Paul's ERA law seemed to be as about as just and equal as I ever saw and would have prevented VAWA and some of these protection order and PFA schemes from ever being enacted in present form. And again, blanket statements that do not apply equally are false and injurious and no different than the very likes of those you complain of.

I think the Equal Protection Clause, appropriately applied, provides sufficient protection in cases like these.

Completely agreed if you are referring to the rights of the accused as it emanates form state law.

The victim is guaranteed equal protection of the laws. To say that because the victim was a boy being assaulted by a woman he is not entitled to have his assailant subject to the same sanctions is denying him equal protection and violating his constitutional rights.

You are misinformed. In the crimianal setting, it is the State vs. Alleged, not the Victim vs. the Alleged. Victims have no rights whatsoever in the criminal setting but to be a witness. If they wish to enforce their rights, they must engage in civil process. Victim's rights advocation leads to gender based, race based and other protected class based laws that create two classes of citizens and in my opinion sets up inherent violations of the equal protection clause and the very reason that this woman and men see such outrageous sentencing which came from someone who legislated it to get special interests votes in reelections.

Look. While I don't agree with your post, I still would like to welcome you to the forum. I'm sure there's already a lawyer or two here, but it's always nice to have another person positioned within the system.

I did in fact see agreement with the post albeit much more disagreement. Thanks very much. Enjoyed the exchange.

An injustice set upon another because an inustice is done to womeone else is a greater injustice. Justification is just that...justification. Would it not be better to use her example as reason to educate the feminists that you speak of. This approach leads to perpetuation of and expansion of special interests. Right result for the same wrong reasons men suffer the same result.

This statement i made: "An injustice set upon another because an inustice is done to womeone else is a greater injustice. Justification is just that...justification. Would it not be better to use her example as reason to educate the feminists that you speak of. This approach leads to perpetuation of and expansion of special interests. Right result for the same wrong reasons men suffer the same result." was in response to Zuberi's statement" "Okay, that video is just more proof that feminists in general are pathological liars and hypocrites. First they demonize the entire male sex then they relentlessly cram slut culture down the throats of little girls. Now one female pervert gets a life sentence for fooling around with a boy an suddenly Armageddon is upon us?"

Yes. Injustice is always a convincing argument as is cruel and unusual punishment.

Except the argument is that it is cruel and unusual simply because she is a woman.

I think that she, as you and I, knows what the legislative intent was and what kind of groups lobbied for it.

Exactly. The whole point of the thread was to show that "equality bites woman on the ass-hard." The thread is to show that insane laws pushed for by feminist lobbying groups are now being used against women and all of a sudden the laws are unjust and cruel and unusual.

I believe she referred to the pre-sentencing reports that require such to be disclosed for sentencing purposes and she pointed out that it was an exercise in futility as the sentences are mandatory and a point to raise in argument as the court requires these reports. And mitigating circumstances often are required to consider in sentencing guidelines even though there was a mandate here.

I agree with that. If there is a mandatory sentence for the crime in question it seems silly/futile to compile a pre-sentencing report.

He is a witness for the state. This sounds like a women's group against domestic violence argument. You also refer to your conscience which is your opinion and unfortunately some women rights' advocates have managed to get "their conscence and opinions" into the laws and now look what has happened to many, many men.

You lost me in how that sound like an argument used by women's groups. I argue that this women's past, while unfortunate, does not excuse her from her actions. How is that "a women's group against domestic violence argument?" All law is based on opinion. A sound conscience demands equality and doesn't forgive a crime against a child because of someone's past. If a lawyer ever tried to argue that his male defendent was less guilty of a rape because of his childhood and a judge bought it, the judge would be forced to resign by pwerful women's groups. We see all the time in cases how a woman's past can be used to justify everyting, including murder. We see how women are never responsible for their actions. We rarely, if ever, see these arguments used in defense of men. Can you imagine if a man that murdered his wife had the defense that he was abused in a past relationship by a woman? The jury would laugh and he'd be sentenced to death. We have seen the same argument used by women and seen how it works with them.

No i think you prove my argument that people prejudge lawyers. Your second sentence is an example of how you do that. It also shows that you like most people do not understand the role of an attorney in representation. We are not paid by clients to move our agenda and get on a soap box but to zealously defend or advocate for the client WHO YES IS PAYING US TO PERFORM SERVICES FOR THEM NOT US.

Prejudge nothing. I, like many on this forum, have had multiple encounters with the justice system and lawyers. I said many lawyers, not all. I've seen some lawyers that were actually invested in cases, I just could never afford them. When lawyers care about fairness, all those who enter the system will have a better chance. Society will be better for it.

I cannot speak of other lawyers but thanks for recognizing this lawyer is speaking out. And I can assure you that many others are. But why should we have to get together and organize more than other professions. I did not see accountants organizing agaisnt the practices that led to the recent finanical disasters. And we ALL are not part of the criminal (in)justice system either. As for the "seems" and "90%: your opinion and not fact. When people arbitraily throw out numbers, it gives others the chance to quote and start the disinformation process. I am an individual lawyer representing my own beleif and not that of a group which is why name is in the username category.

Exactly. Accountants aren't speaking out because as long as they were/are making the big bucks off of the practices that got us to this disaster, they were/are happy. This is the way I see it with lawyers. I blast those in the financial industry just as much as I do those in law. I know that not all lawyers work in the criminal justice system. I was referring to those that are. You seem to keep trying to make the distinction that I am speaking based only from opinion and you from fact. As no one here has provided any links to studies, laws, research, etc., we are both speaking from opinions. When I said "it seems," of course that was an opinion. The number wasn't arbitrary. It was based off the experience that I, my family, and friends have had with the system. I also have relatives who are lawyers. This was a post on a forum, not a mass-circulated flyer on domestic violence. No one is going to pick up the 90% and use it to prove an argument.

That is your guess. You guess that her position as advocate is that of hers. I have to represent people all the time in ways i don't like. I have to advise clients to settle because i do not like the law. not my job. As lawyers we are not supposed to speak about our own beleifs, and your position demands that she violate that rule. And again, if that was the legislature's intent, then no matter how wrong the legislature would be, she would be appropriately representing her client under the rules and the law. And if the legislature did not intend that she be convicted under that law, then she would be a victim of the legal system in addition to a perpetrator.

Of course it's a guess. The whole point is that it was amusing/sickening to see a lawyer argue that a law is only intended to be applied against one sex. She provided no evidence that the legislature didn't intend the law to be applied to her client. The judge even asked her about it and she said she'd get back to it but never did. Since she offered no supporting evidence, SHE is the one that was speaking from her own beliefs.

i stated it was good to see equal application of the law albeit the cruel and unusual punishment.

But why did this law only suddenly become cruel and unusual when it is applied to women?

Not all feminists are created equal. Alice Paul's ERA law seemed to be as about as just and equal as I ever saw and would have prevented VAWA and some of these protection order and PFA schemes from ever being enacted in present form. And again, blanket statements that do not apply equally are false and injurious and no different than the very likes of those you complain of.

Because those of us who use this forum have an understanding of which feminists we are referring to, we are free to speak generally and save time typing since we don't have to, with each post, say
"feminists (excluding equity feminists, individual feminists, etc..)"
We generally know whic groups we are referring to when we simply say 'feminists.'

You are misinformed. In the crimianal setting, it is the State vs. Alleged, not the Victim vs. the Alleged. Victims have no rights whatsoever in the criminal setting but to be a witness. If they wish to enforce their rights, they must engage in civil process. Victim's rights advocation leads to gender based, race based and other protected class based laws that create two classes of citizens and in my opinion sets up inherent violations of the equal protection clause and the very reason that this woman and men see such outrageous sentencing which came from someone who legislated it to get special interests votes in reelections.

I'm not misinformed, you're playing semantics. It makes no difference whether it is the victim or state vs the alleged. The victims right to equal protection are supposed to be manifested in the state's making a case against the alleged. If the state decides to set up different prosecution and sentencing standards based off the sex of the victim, his rights are being violated. The state is denying him/her equal protection. If there is a state law against sexually assaulting ANY juvenile under 14, and the state doesn't prosecute female perpetrators of this violence against a boy the same as they would against a male perpetrator, there has been a de facto denial of equal protection. I am not advocating for any specific group of victims. I advocate for equal protection for all victims, regardless of sex, race, or class. When you advocate for equal protection, you are not setting up a tiered system.

I agree that the sentence is ridiculous. I am appalled by it. I am also appalled by the argument that it is an injustice because she is a woman, which is basically the lawyer was skirting around the whole time.

An injustice set upon another because an injustice is done to someone else is a greater injustice.

I totally agree, but this, minus the "is a greater injustice," seems to be the basis for many policies pushed by left. Affirmative action comes to mind. Is affirmative action not an injustice (denying a space to a qualified applicant over a not as qualified one that happens to be a minority or woman)? Is its whole justification not that we have these policies to address injustices of the past (to someone else)?

Quote from Raymond Dougherty

As a lawyer, I can assure you it does not feel comfortable to be the cosnstant brunt of evil lawyer jokes nor comfortable to listen to the stereotyping of lawyers as sharkish, unfeeling, uncaring, bottom feeding, selfish beings with nary a nerve to feel or a brain capable of emotion. Contrary to your characterization as sniveling and pathetic, I found this attorney to make convincing arguments, a strong presentation and conviction in her sense of injustice.

A lawyer's job is to make the arguments that benefit the client and not worry about the equality or lack thereof between men and women. And if you were part of the criminal (in)justice system and saw what goes on with the police, district attorneys, enactment of special interest laws and the related "meting out of justice', it really does shock the conscience. indeed, the very term "justice system' becomes a "term of sarcasm' or oxymoron.

To atttack this attorney and characterize her as pathetic for demonstrating her strong advocation and her obvious sense of injustice when one in the legal profession finally can be assuaged as to her humanity, choice of profession and ability to feel rather than emote is simply not fair. And, for all you know, her true thoughts may be that a fondling by either sex should not be handled with the meting out of these severe sentences for men or women and not that somehow men should be punished more severely. Afterall, this attorney did not create the two-tiered system due to special interest laws and has to do whatever she can to protect her clients from it.

Ah yes Raymond, but I have no sympathy for the legal profession as it sits in the stocks being pelted with rotten fruit. It has gotten itself into that position. As you say yourself, "a lawyer's job is to make the arguments that benefit the client and not worry about the equality or lack thereof between men and women". But can't you see what a massive indictment of the profession those words represent? The truth, be damned. Justice, be damned. Equality, be damned. Morality, be damned. All we want is to win our case regardless and collect our fee, even if it means the innocent get hurt and the guilty go unpunished. And the more successful we are at this perversion, the more we get paid.

Are you really proud of that?

It is for this reason that I believe the rest of us, watching from outside with an ever increasing sense of anger and frustration at the inhumane antics of people who behave like baboons in wigs, are fully entitled to put a very big question mark against the character and motivation of people who enter the legal profession.

In my view, the purpose of a court of law is to establish the truth. But if the people operating in that court have a completely different, and in some cases utterly contradictory purpose, then the truth will not be established and justice will not be done. Just because courts have developed in that way and now have well-established procedures and practices that everyone taking part in the circus accepts as normal behaviour, does not make it right.

Lawyers have created the gulf between themselves and what much of the rest of the population believe to be fair practice. Most of us would be thoroughly ashamed to say that we do not worry about equality or the lack thereof. Most of us would not choose a profession where that attitude is apparently enshrined as a fundamental principle of the job.

You have not told me anything that changes my view of lawyers as unprincipled, immoral and enemies of the truth. In fact you have just reinforced it.

There is a thing called the Law; and there is a thing called Justice. Any resemblance between the two is entirely coincidental.

Great thread. This is one sick, pedo woman who just didn't happen to get a "pussy pass" and it becomes big news on how "unfair" it's to women.

Lastly, anyone with a young daughter or sister, who is about to enter a world where it is much harder for all but the most beautiful women to marry, where the costs of crazed 'feminism' are soon going to be transferred away from men and onto women, even if she had no interest in this doctrine of hate. As stated in the Executive Summary at the start, 'feminists' are leading average women into the abyss.

The Futurist: The Misandry Bubble

OK, Justthefacts, here are the facts of the case.

The lady, previously convicted of felony theft, invited the 13 yr old and his 8yr old brother to her home with the promise of playing video games on a PS3. Their Mom (a co-worker) dropped them off, and the lady sat them down to watch TV and then went to her bedroom. The 13 came looking for her to see where the PS3 was. She told him to come in and shut the door, and so he did. Then she pushed him on the bed. straddled him, and removed some of her clothes. She started kissin him and asked him to have sex with her. He said no. She then grabbed his hands and directed him to fondle her. At some point, the 8 yr old cracked the door open to figure out where his brother was, and witnessed the accused straddling his brother in a state of partial undress. The Mom returned for her kids and caught the lady on top of her son, where she promptly removed her children.

You could argue that the Mom should have known better. But that's not the point. I agree that it may seem a little harsh to sentence her to life...but sexual assault on a 13 yr old is a heinous crime. And it's mandatory. Don't blame the DA. Don't blame the prosecutor. Blame whomever wrote the law. Also, the defense attorney is only partially correct when she says that they never offered her a deal. The prosecution told her that they wanted her to register as a sex offender. The defense said, "absolutely not", so the prosecution never offered anything. Why make an offer that will just be refused?

Discussion : T.F. woman sentenced to life for lewdness charge

I'm glad to see her get the life sentence. While it is harsh, it is a necesarry evil.

As for that lawyer, I wouldn't mind seeing her with a life sentence one bit.

Quote from Raymond Dougherty

As a lawyer, I can assure you it does not feel comfortable to be the cosnstant brunt of evil lawyer jokes nor comfortable to listen to the stereotyping of lawyers as sharkish, unfeeling, uncaring, bottom feeding, selfish beings with nary a nerve to feel or a brain capable of emotion. Lawyers are one profession that has thoroughly deserved the reputation they have. In a recent poll, they came in last, behind prostitutes. Any man who has gone through a divorce knows the stereotype is well deserved. Having gone to court pro per on more than one occasion, I can tell you sir that the fees lawyers charge is all out of proportion to their services. Lawyers are one of the few protected guilds left in America and they cloak their undeserved rates in procedure that everyone knows is unnecessarily complicated - and often not even followed as this video shows when the prosecution said objections are to be made 10 days in advance in the interest of fairness so the other side can research the validity of the objection.

Contrary to your characterization as sniveling and pathetic, I found this attorney to make convincing arguments, a strong presentation and conviction in her sense of injustice. Putting aside the fact her argument goes against the statutes on motions, you mean? In other words, putting aside the lawyer acted illegally, her arguments were persuasive to you? What was it, specifically, that was persuasive, her "sense of injustice?" In other words, her ability to act outraged? That sir is not good law (legal argument), merely pure Appeal to Emotion.

If you are so outraged at the reputation lawyers have, why don't lawyers change that by working to repeal the prohibitions of "practicing law without a license?" It is an abomination of a responsive government that We, The People, have to hire a 3rd party - fucking low-life lawyers, to even talk in a formal way to our own 3rd branch of government!!! This is so prejudicial that I cannot contain my outrage, my sense of injustice. We, The People, can talk directly to our legislatures - as part of their job. We, The People, can talk directly to the executive branch - as part of their job. But the system is rigged so We, The People cannot talk directly to the judiciary as part of their job without us hiring a 3rd party cloaked in procedure and good 'ol boy networks?

A lawyer's job is to make the arguments that benefit the client There has hardly been a profession so unnecessary - and destructive to the rights of man - as those officers of the court who claim to represent their clients when all know they represent themselves. This is demonstrated by all the lives destroyed by the income tax when there is no law that makes one subject to or liable for such a tax - and every attorney ought to know that! And every attorney ought to fight our tyrannical government over this rather than process innocent people through the system as they do with divorced Dad's in being forced into contract (in abdicating physical custody of their children) and slavery/involuntary servitude (via child support payments).

I think the important think is to learn from the progression, or perhaps regression may be more fitting, of the femminist movement and the creation of misandrics and try and handle ourselves with a bit more of finesse and not make similar mistakes (unless of course one's objective is to swing the pendulum of inequality back for purposes of retribution rather than acheiving a true equality between the sexes). Yes it is nice to see a respect for equality under and equal application of the law, something that seemed to be occurring less and less. These two sentences are at odds with each other. Do you mean to tell us that we, members of an anti-misandry website ought to watch this video in awe at the female attorney's arguing irrelevent facts, her blatant misandric mentioning of another women in another State rather than the many men convicted under this law in the State the law was passed?

Do you mean to tell us that we, members of an anti-misandry website ought to watch this video in awe at the female attorney's arguing: (1). the law was NOT meant to apply to 'someone like her client' BUT ALSO (2). the law ought to be void for vagueness as "lewdness" was not defined? Which is it? Does she know the law was not meant for 'someone like her client' or does she believe the law makes it unclear who the law applies to?

It is odd that she claims the law was not meant for 'someone like her client' but never mentioned what her client is like that makes the law inapplicable - even though the judge specifically asked her that! You call that a good presentation? I suspect you are easily impressed by passion and less with facts I'm sorry to say (specifically, relevant facts).

Of course if the ERA were the law of the land

ERA is duplicative of the 14th Amendments "equal protection clause." Since you are so concerned about lawyers reputations, I got an idea, why not have lawyers fight father's losing custody of their children - and their subsequent property in a transfer of wealth scheme known as "child support payments" - as such a travesty is undeniably against the 5th Amendment's due process provision.

The idea that men every day are deprived of physical custody of their children and future property (child support) without being even being accused of a crime, without even the protection of due process but under the guise of "best interest of the children" proves lawyers deserve to rot in hell!!!

Animal Farm's (& unratified addendum): "All animals are equal ... some animals are more equal than others."

5th Amendment to US Constitution (feminazi'd/communized unratified addendum):" "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ... unless it is in the best interest of the children."

While I am loathe to defend a lawyer I think in this case we may be judging him too harshly. I can see his point of view. Many of us here have been on the losing end of legal decisions and one of the easiest people to blame is the lawyer {I still feel mine just took me for as much money as he could get and gave me a poor return for my money}.

I think we would be better off perhaps in blaming the governing bodies that pass these laws to begin with. Lawyers are kinda like potters I guess and have to work with what they have. If the law provides poor clay to work with then what are they to do really but work with it.


Now it is my opinion that the lawyer for the defendant was indeed angry that this law was applied to a woman when it was clearly intended to be used for men.

When feminists pushed for laws like this that are intended to punish men they forgot that women commit these crimes too.

I think this woman was punished too severly for the crime as are men who are convicted of the same crime. But I am happy that this law was applied fairly for a change. Instead of the woman being given a pass for ceating or relaying a sob story that somehow makes her a victim that should not be punished as severly as a man.

This is what I call true equality.

Quote from haute macabre

This is what I call true equality.

Unfortunately it requires more such cases to make transparent the gender apartheid injustices manifested within the judicial system.

For instance, the injustices dealt upon a thousand men within a corrupt system receive no 'due' attention until the very first woman becomes similarly entangled.

Quote from Celtic Druid

Unfortunately it requires more such cases to make transparent the gender apartheid injustices manifested within the judicial system.

For instance, the injustices dealt upon a thousand men within a corrupt system receive no 'due' attention until the very first woman becomes similarly entangled.

I know we still have a lot of work left to be done but I am just glad that there is true justice left in the world.

We must keep supporting such justice.

We should all be held accountable to our actions, despite our gender.

Quote from haute macabre

I know we still have a lot of work left to be done but I am just glad that there is true justice left in the world.

The only true arbiters of justice remains within the people, as mercenary politicians/lawyers routinely unfold their smoke and mirrors scam to beguile yet more unwitting subscribers to their greedy agenda.

We the people are justice (Ian Tomlinson anyone), we don't need state approval of this or anything.

Quote from Celtic Druid

We the people are justice (Ian Tomlinson anyone), we don't need state approval of this or anything.

We don't need state approval but the feminists and liberal retards would beg to differ.

what ever bit that wimyn it wern't equality ! wimyn have equality shot on sight