Diamonds: A True Promise Will Never Be Broken

[Epigonos]

I have never had a bad experience at Tiffany's If I'm looking for a really nice wedding or anniversary gift I always start and usually finish at Tiffany's.

Now when it comes to jewelry for myself it is ALWAYS a large turquoise stone in a ring set by a Navajo (Dene) artists. I particularly like shadow box settings and the bigger the stone the better - usually 30 to 40 carats.

[Guest]

Jury trials for civil matters are common in the US and Canada. In some other Common Law countries they are used on an extremely limited basis.

 

If one can believe Wikipedia, Rudynate is right. Jury trials are used in a significant share of serious criminal cases in almost all common law legal systems, and juries or lay judges have been incorporated into the legal systems of many civil law countries for criminal cases. Only the United States and Canada make routine use of jury trials in a wide variety of non-criminal cases. Other common law legal jurisdictions use jury trials only in a very select class of cases that make up a tiny share of the overall civil docket (e.g. defamation suits in England and Wales), while true civil jury trials are almost entirely absent elsewhere in the world. Some civil law jurisdictions do, however, have arbitration panels where non-legally trained members decide cases in select subject-matter areas relevant to the arbitration panel members' areas of expertise.

 

Which means, Unicorn, if you haven't already deduced it, other countries use juries in civil cases.

I don't know enough to say that's true of all countries with common law-based legal systems, but I believe that to be the case. If it's not, those countries that don't use it are in a decided minority.

 

So "other countries" I guess really means "other country." It's interesting that part of law school training in the US doesn't seem to include much of any discussion of how things are done elsewhere. I personally think that juries for civil cases are a very bad idea. Why should 12 innocent citizens have to suffer financially in slave labor just because two blockheads apparently don't want to hire mediators or arbitrators do resolve the dispute? Because you don't have to pay for the jurors? Because jurors have no expertise in these matters, and maybe one side can pull the wool over their eyes? A number of years ago, my homeowners' association was trying to bullshit me. I threatened them with arbitration, and the association lawyer told them they didn't have a case, and they backed down completely. Civil cases should be decided by arbitrators who are experienced and knowledgeable in the matter at hand. I think the usual method is each side picks one arbitrator, and the two pick a third. Well, that's my opinion. And apparently only 2 countries on the planet disagree with me (and I happen to live in one of them). Interestingly, during our voire dire, two potential jurors expressed anger that the litigants needed 12 jurors to settle their dispute. The judge just had to say that it was their right.

 

Oh well, here's some Navajo turquoise bling for Epigonos...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz0g13BtmE1r6rdxqo1_500.jpg

[jimboivyo]

Diamonds. That'll shut her up.

[Rudynate]

law school training in the US doesn't seem to include much of any discussion of how things are done elsewhere.

Oh well, here's some Navajo turquoise bling for Epigonos...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz0g13BtmE1r6rdxqo1_500.jpg

 

 

Who said? Many law schools have various comparative law courses. Even in the core curriculum there is a fair amount of discussion of choice-of-law issues and comparison of the US legal system with those in civil law countries. And there is fair amount of cross-fertilization among attorneys in different countries. I can tell you that I deal with attorneys all over the world on a nearly daily basis.

 

But really, how useful is it to compare the US judicial system with that in other countries when the aspect of it that you find problematic is constitutionally-mandated? I suppose it's not completely unthinkable, but doing away with jury trial in civil matters in the US involves amending the original Bill of Rights. Could it happen? In your dreams maybe.

[Guest]

Who said? But really, how useful is it to compare the US judicial system with that in other countries when the aspect of it that you find problematic is constitutionally-mandated? I suppose it's not completely unthinkable, but doing away with jury trial in civil matters in the US involves amending the original Bill of Rights. Could it happen? In your dreams maybe.

 

Unlike most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, the Seventh Amendment has never been applied to the states. The Supreme Court stated in Walker v. Sauvinet (1875), Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Bombolis (1916) and Hardware Dealers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. Glidden Co. (1931) that states were not required to provide jury trials in civil cases. Nonetheless, most states voluntarily guarantee the right to a civil jury trial, and they must do so in certain state court cases that are decided under federal law.

 

I would venture to guess that the vast majority of civil trials in the United States take place in state courts. The case in which I was a prospective juror certainly was. According to SCOTUS, California is under no Constitutional obligation to provide juries for civil trials. I'm surprised they don't teach that in law school.

You see, this is exactly why I told the judge that I wouldn't be satisfied to limit my fact-finding to whatever the BS lawyers spewed out at trial. If you want to get at the truth, don't listen to lawyers' arguments. Look up the facts for yourself.

 

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/32953001.jpg

[Rudynate]

Unlike most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, the Seventh Amendment has never been applied to the states. The Supreme Court stated in Walker v. Sauvinet (1875), Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Bombolis (1916) and Hardware Dealers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. Glidden Co. (1931) that states were not required to provide jury trials in civil cases. Nonetheless, most states voluntarily guarantee the right to a civil jury trial, and they must do so in certain state court cases that are decided under federal law.

 

I would venture to guess that the vast majority of civil trials in the United States take place in state courts. The case in which I was a prospective juror certainly was. According to SCOTUS, California is under no Constitutional obligation to provide juries for civil trials. I'm surprised they don't teach that in law school.

You see, this is exactly why I told the judge that I wouldn't be satisfied to limit my fact-finding to whatever the BS lawyers spewed out at trial. If you want to get at the truth, don't listen to lawyers' arguments. Look up the facts for yourself.

 

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/32953001.jpg

 

 

Well done. Nonetheless, the mere fact of the 7th Amendment, even if it isn't applicable to the states, shows you how fundamental to our system of justice civil jury trials are. As I said, they aren't going away any time soon.

 

The doctrine that certain of the Bill of Rights don't apply to the states is called the doctrine of non-incorporation. More recent case law is beginning to chip away at non-incorporation. In fact, a recent case in the First Circuit found that the 7th amendment does, indeed apply to the states.

[+ quoththeraven]

If one can believe Wikipedia, Rudynate is right. Jury trials are used in a significant share of serious criminal cases in almost all common law legal systems, and juries or lay judges have been incorporated into the legal systems of many civil law countries for criminal cases. Only the United States and Canada make routine use of jury trials in a wide variety of non-criminal cases. Other common law legal jurisdictions use jury trials only in a very select class of cases that make up a tiny share of the overall civil docket (e.g. defamation suits in England and Wales), while true civil jury trials are almost entirely absent elsewhere in the world. Some civil law jurisdictions do, however, have arbitration panels where non-legally trained members decide cases in select subject-matter areas relevant to the arbitration panel members' areas of expertise.

 

 

 

So "other countries" I guess really means "other country." It's interesting that part of law school training in the US doesn't seem to include much of any discussion of how things are done elsewhere. I personally think that juries for civil cases are a very bad idea. Why should 12 innocent citizens have to suffer financially in slave labor just because two blockheads apparently don't want to hire mediators or arbitrators do resolve the dispute? Because you don't have to pay for the jurors? Because jurors have no expertise in these matters, and maybe one side can pull the wool over their eyes? A number of years ago, my homeowners' association was trying to bullshit me. I threatened them with arbitration, and the association lawyer told them they didn't have a case, and they backed down completely. Civil cases should be decided by arbitrators who are experienced and knowledgeable in the matter at hand. I think the usual method is each side picks one arbitrator, and the two pick a third. Well, that's my opinion. And apparently only 2 countries on the planet disagree with me (and I happen to live in one of them). Interestingly, during our voire dire, two potential jurors expressed anger that the litigants needed 12 jurors to settle their dispute. The judge just had to say that it was their right.

 

Oh well, here's some Navajo turquoise bling for Epigonos...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz0g13BtmE1r6rdxqo1_500.jpg

 

You got me. I guessed wrong, and I didn't consult Wikipedia first. But neither did you.

 

Your fundamental ignorance about why the US legal system is the way it is and how it got that way is astounding. Please move to continental Europe. A civil law regime, in which investigation and prosecution are run by the same person, might be more to your taste. As horribly as it works sometimes, our system is set up to keep those functions separate from each other and from fact-finding.

 

Also, I cannot possibly conceptualize you admitting error over anything. So of the two of us, who is the bigger man?

[Rudynate]

Unlike most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, the Seventh Amendment has never been applied to the states. The Supreme Court stated in Walker v. Sauvinet (1875), Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Bombolis (1916) and Hardware Dealers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. Glidden Co. (1931) that states were not required to provide jury trials in civil cases. Nonetheless, most states voluntarily guarantee the right to a civil jury trial, and they must do so in certain state court cases that are decided under federal law.

 

I would venture to guess that the vast majority of civil trials in the United States take place in state courts. The case in which I was a prospective juror certainly was. According to SCOTUS, California is under no Constitutional obligation to provide juries for civil trials. I'm surprised they don't teach that in law school.

You see, this is exactly why I told the judge that I wouldn't be satisfied to limit my fact-finding to whatever the BS lawyers spewed out at trial. If you want to get at the truth, don't listen to lawyers' arguments. Look up the facts for yourself.

 

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/32953001.jpg

 

 

 

But I'm surprised that you don't feel capable of discerning fact from argument.

[Guest]

But I'm surprised that you don't feel capable of discerning fact from argument.

 

Boy, and I was just about to compliment you and give you a gold star for fessing up to the facts. I was just thinking, after reading post #31 "Rudynate's a class act for admitting he made a mistake." And then this post (#33). I'm sorry, but in post #29, you stated "I suppose it's not completely unthinkable, but doing away with jury trial in civil matters in the US involves amending the original Bill of Rights." You presented that statement as a fact, not as a matter of opinion. I consider that an error in facts. Now it seems as if you're saying it's OK to present factually incorrect statements as long as you say "Well, I was just arguing."

I will say that what you are right about is your statement that jury trials for civil matters are probably going to be around as long as I'm alive. It's highly unfortunate in my opinion, but it certainly is a true statement.

[Rudynate]

Boy, and I was just about to compliment you and give you a gold star for fessing up to the facts. I was just thinking, after reading post #31 "Rudynate's a class act for admitting he made a mistake." And then this post (#33). I'm sorry, but in post #29, you stated "I suppose it's not completely unthinkable, but doing away with jury trial in civil matters in the US involves amending the original Bill of Rights." You presented that statement as a fact, not as a matter of opinion. I consider that an error in facts. Now it seems as if you're saying it's OK to present factually incorrect statements as long as you say "Well, I was just arguing."

I will say that what you are right about is your statement that jury trials for civil matters are probably going to be around as long as I'm alive. It's highly unfortunate in my opinion, but it certainly is a true statement.

 

I guess I'm lucky I have a thick hide.

 

 

I would think that not being able to trust anything as fact that you haven't personally verified would be extremely burdensome.

[Guest]

You got me. I guessed wrong, and I didn't consult Wikipedia first. But neither did you.

 

Your fundamental ignorance about why the US legal system is the way it is and how it got that way is astounding. Please move to continental Europe. A civil law regime, in which investigation and prosecution are run by the same person, might be more to your taste. As horribly as it works sometimes, our system is set up to keep those functions separate from each other and from fact-finding.

 

Also, I cannot possibly conceptualize you admitting error over anything. So of the two of us, who is the bigger man?

 

Well, what I originally said was I do believe that the US is the only country in the world which uses juries in civil cases. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.... So what I can admit to is that my belief was wrong--although only by one country. That being said, I didn't state that as a fact. But there you go again, trying to confound the issue by muddling civil cases with criminal cases. That's pretty typical of lawyers. If they're caught saying something untruthful, they divert attention to something else. As for me, when new facts become available, I readily change my opinion and admit to it. This has happened multiple times in my career as a physician. I tell my patients that new studies have come out, so my previous recommendations are no longer valid, so I'm changing the way I practice. I'm personally more surprised that a lawyer wouldn't know about how and why our legal system works the way it does than how a physician wouldn't know about legal history. Surprised, but certainly not astounded. You're easily astounded!

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/185266296-astounded-schoolboy-sees-something-on-laptop-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=g72791YGXLq4BHs9K99cUkhB3CZAYL4s3obExBuqFrqqjV4M6N9DbB3p5ZB5Dc7a

 

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/expression-woman-winning-something-big-13497315.jpg

 

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/astounded-3910314.jpg

[sincitymix]

how did this go from diamonds and pretty stones to juries and courts?

I need more shinies!! talk about the shinies!

[Rudynate]

I tell my patients that new studies have come out, so my previous recommendations are no longer valid, so I'm changing the way I practice. I'm personally more surprised that a lawyer wouldn't know about how and why our legal system works the way it does than how a physician wouldn't know about legal history. Surprised, but certainly not astounded. You're easily astounded!

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/185266296-astounded-schoolboy-sees-something-on-laptop-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=g72791YGXLq4BHs9K99cUkhB3CZAYL4s3obExBuqFrqqjV4M6N9DbB3p5ZB5Dc7a

 

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/expression-woman-winning-something-big-13497315.jpg

 

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/astounded-3910314.jpg

 

Lawyers do the same. The Supreme Court or one of the Circuit courts can invalidate years of jurisprudence with a single case.

 

Such a high degree of animus toward the legal profession is often indicative of someone who was on the wrong end of a lawyer's zealousness.

[+ FreshFluff]

I need more shinies!!

 

All right, sincitymix, if you insist..

http://everythinggl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Girl-gives-guy-ring.jpg

[Guest]

Such a high degree of animus toward the legal profession is often indicative of someone who was on the wrong end of a lawyer's zealousness.

 

Thank God I've never had any major legal problems. Probably one reason I would probably never get married. I can't imagine going through a divorce. I remember seeing a 60 Minutes show about an unscrupulous disability lawyer who was suing small business to extort money out of them with false claims that the business wasn't friendly enough to the disabled. I think that if I were one of those businessmen who'd been sued, I'd go in there pretending to hand him a check then strangle him with my bare hands. Even if I had to spend the rest of my life in prison, it would have been worth it. That being said, there are some nice lawyers. I don't hold a grudge against all lawyers, just the crooks. And there are plenty of them. Of course, there are bad doctors, too. A fellow consultant and I were discussing a particularly bad physician (now retired) one day, and he told me how he fantasized going out to the parking lot and shooting the man. Lying and deceit are things that get me riled up and almost kookie. Seeing incompetence was as bad for my colleague.

 

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/hannibal/images/f/f6/Str.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130822195216