Geohot needing donations for lawyers

Before the papers are issued both sides have an equal chance, though sometimes it can be easier to defend than attack.

After papers are issued both have access to the exact same laws for their perusal and both have the opportunity to analyse and interpret them. Both also have access to former case precedents to back up their claim.

Once they are inside the courtroom a laywer may have the illusion of superiority, but quite often the Judge may lean towards a litigant in person as they are not expected to know any better. If there is an obvious bias that the laywer is favoured irrelevant of legal argument you apply for copies of transcripts and lodge a complaint/appeal.

I had my first few applications thrown out due to bureacratic nonsense. I had the right to make as many applications as I desired though so I kept getting thrown out, getting better each time, until I got the answer I wanted, or at least somwhere half decent So yeah I got a good idea. It is all a matter of perception and you just have to see through the smoke and mirrors to make it work.

The justice system is mostly injustice and bullshit, but that doesn't mean you can't make a small chance work for you.

 

It is not a contest to see who hired the smarters lawyers. It is a contest to see who is smartest, regardless of fee. Some of the smartest people in the world are flipping burgers for a living and no that is not intended to be a reference to Good Will Hunting, which is of course hollywood fiction or corruption of the truth. You can be smart at law without needing to be a lawyer. I actually reccomended the other side's legal team hand me their law degrees to wipe my arse with as it is really is about all they are good for. Naturally the comment didn't go down well but I had the last laugh!

As I already said the law degree teaches you everything you need to know, except for everything you need to know. It is only when you get off your arse and have a go things fall into place as you learn significantly more by doing.

The one thing I will say though is in some instances the legal argument is completely irrelevant as the whole thing can become a popularity contest. Even being detested though I'm still not homeless and I still haven't paid a penny and I would still consider the entire local government's legal team to be outnumbered and outclassed by me. Maybe I am just delusional but thus far I have become increasingly successful. Perhaps it is because I think more like a machine than a man so I am better suited to this line of work or because as if often the case with public office they have employed a bunch of incompetent dipshits but whatever.

The Judge doesn't know they will get hung out to dry. The Judge is supposed to remain impartial so they cannot really offer advice but they do have to at least be seen to offfer equality of justice for all hence they are obliged to make such a reccomendation. That doesn't mean thy're not really morally bankrupt or corrupt in other ways. There are County Court Judges in my circuit who discriminate against foriegners or dole dossers etc. yet they still remain in office. Why? Because no one dares or cares enough to do anything other than bitch about them to their friends. Sure if they try they may fail but they should at least try to make a difference.

I'm not so naive as to think the courtroom isn't really just a gentlemans club or popularity contest, but even when the odds are stacked aganst you, you can still win and I have and will continue to do so. Give it a couple of years and you may see me win my case vs. the banks or even other government departments too!

 

Nonetheless, they are probably not. When your in court with your livelihood on the line, if you truly are the smartest, you will hire someone that knows the law better than you. Chances are, they do, and the other side will also be hiring them. As per before, they didn't make a saying out of it b/c it's bullshit.

The judges aren't idiots. That's why they recommend them.

It's not a question of can. It's a question of probability. Then again, I work in an industry where buckets of cash are spent to prevent a few percent chances of loss. Hate to break it to you, but it's how the world operates.

 

Lets say you nothing about law, you could pay somone who already knows it, or read up then become on possibly equal to or superior to them. Then who has the fool for the lawyer? You only become the fool if you fail and thus far I've not failed.

You're entitled to your opinion but I'm guessing it is based more on observation than experience. It is not completely invalid but still off the mark too so.

One man can win. Forget the brains, forget the law, it takes balls/guts/whatever. I did it, he can too. End of.

 

You trivialize the law as a piece of education. I mean... any diplomat or politician could learn Japanese/Chinese/what have you instead of being a sucker and hiring translators, and then have much less risk of losing anything in translation. For some reason, they don't.

Very far from probable. I will admit, it's possible, though.

Not really. I've been to court a few times myself. I contested once w/o a lawyer and it was eventually dropped. My mother also sponsors people who need help for a myriad of reasons, and I'm involved in that at some level. And as per before, I can introduce you to someone who had your mind site and successfully got his whole cock up his ass.

I appreciate your little engine that could story. It's just the exception, not the rule. By any stretch. You'll probably think I'm a sucker for hiring a CPA as well.

 

Well I think if you go it alone or with assistance you should always be prepared to lose. No one should be so self righteous or arrogant that they should win just by entering the room.

If you do your homework and have a valid legal argument you should win, but it isn't all about the facts of the case sadly, it is about how well you sell them. I almost lost with the other side having a weak argument simply because they had a silver tongue and I didn't, but I bounced back, sort of

I never dropped a case yet though. I fight to the bitter end, even if I'm told to quit I fight and find a way to win!

I guess if you want to be successful you have to be a cunt and allegedly I am one so

EDIT: And as I typed this I got a call with an all expenses paid trip to lobby parliament on a separate issue lol!

 

This is why you hire someone who has made a living out of selling bullshit. No offense to Barc0de.

 

You know what they say..
Make crime pay!! Become a lawyer. ;-)

 

WOULD YOU GUYS STOP FIGHTING

YOU'RE
TEARING
THIS
FAMILY
APART

 

i keep wondering how this is all gonna go as far as sonys solution console wise if things get out of hand. there next console could be straight forward booting with no os, shish what with bluray i take it you could just fit the whole os on a disc...*shrugs* just suck to see ps4 being nothing but a 3d bluray player with a hdd and no ports or os.....i still <3 my dreamcast though and havent made the leap as it were to next gen at all XD...far as i go is ps2.

 

You know, I would prefer that my game console didn't have an OS to do anything more than play games on.

 

I have a question. If you represent you self, how do you cross examine your self? You can't ask your self questions and answer them. Of course he doesn't need to take the stand. But Sony will most likely want to examine him, then they are going to tare him apart. With questions in there favor, they might even twist some questions that might expose him to say something that he shouldn't.

Just food for thought.

=Hugh

 

He has the right to not stand.
Self Incrimination Wikipedia

Best pleading the 5th scene in a movie was "The Town" when the FBI agent walks in. The guy looks up, raises his hand, and says, "Lawyer". Agent just walked out and didn't say a word.

That's known in judicial circles as "being a laywer".

 

GP, as always, I love you man.

 

LeGit,

The issues with your argument are that you're assuming someone has an infnite amount of time to study the laws pertaining to their case and that everyone has an equal capacity to not only understand the law, but also win an argument in court.

Sure, this GeoHot guy is a capable programmer. But just because he is a good programmer does not mean he would be a good lawyer.

The reason people spend money on lawyers is because they already know how to study the laws and they already have some training in the courtroom environment beyond watching re-runs of Law & Order. They also probably have the capacity to understand and interpret the laws, find loopholes, and make solid arguments (one would hope).

Occassionally people do win representing themselves, I would imagine this happens (more times than not) when they are very very very very much in the right. This is not such a case. This is more fuzzy grey area, and this is an instance in which a lawyer would be suitable.

I think you're underestimating the abilities of lawyers, especially good ones, so let me end this on this note: O.J. Simpson got away with obvious murder.

Edit: I know this trial will likely not involve a jury (as per the aforementioned one), however, the ability to find loophopes and be the best presenter of one's interpretation of the law is still a non-trivial asset in any court case.

 

You are soo right. The issues here span both contractual as well as statues. This then gets convoluted on technology were courts need to look at both sides weigh the issues and determine what is really meant. With the money sony has this gives them and advantage to hire many lawyers and get many ideas to win their case.

 

Meh can't believe the necro - I had given up caring to reply long before alec-jahn posted lol but alas now the thread is back... more people doesn't always equal more ideas nor dos it mean they will be good ideas. Plus lets not forget too many cooks spoil the broth and you will end up with something on par with art by comittee and anything revolutionary would typically end up largly ignored because of the risks, or the dullness of the majority vote