law and lawyers [Theme] Page 2

The boy was accused that together with a friend broke the lock in the shed and stole the old mats in the amount of three rubles and sixty-seven cents.
It is obvious that the boy is not a good villain, and the most common - see it all - the man and what he became what is, only because it was in such conditions that create such people. Because it seems clear that, in order to avoid such boys, you should try to destroy the conditions in which the formation of such unhappy creatures.
What are we doing? We grab this one accidentally caught the boy, knowing very well that thousands of them remain uncaught, and put him in prison, in conditions of perfect idleness, or the unhealthy and pointless work, in the community the same as he, weakened and lost people, and then referenced it at public expense in a community of the most corrupt people of Moscow province, in Irkutsk.
In order to destroy those conditions in which arise such people not only do nothing but only encourage those institutions in which they are produced. These establishments are well known: factories, factories, workshops, restaurants, taverns, houses of prostitution. And not only do we not destroy these places, but, considering them necessary, we support and regulate them.

The law need to experience for yourself to understand its real meaning.

A good lawyer knows the Law. A great lawyer knows the Judge.
A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge.

Law - whore policy.

The University will not tell you that the most important part of the law is the ability to suffer fools.

From honors come the Professor, a b - judges, but also of the Trinitarian partners.

The main asset of a lawyer is the ability to always be confident.

The time will come when all these clerks, lawyers, managers - class service providing - will start a social-personalistic movement for the development of the stocks of large companies.

Everybody wants Atticus Finch, until their tub will die a prostitute.

Personally, I think a law degree is a license of the thief.

Never, never, never on cross-examination do not ask a witness a question if you do not know in advance what the answer would be. is a rule I learned from the cradle. And the answer may not be as necessary, and will ruin the whole thing.

You know, lawyers have an old adage that the consciousness of innocence gives a person peace of mind.

How I would like to answer: "I'm the doctor" - anyone who asked what I was doing, because the doctors are now in favor - that's who works wonders. But here and to the fortuneteller do not go: if our bus to roll over on a steep bend, all at once rush to me, and go and prove - among cries of moans that even though you are a doctor, but a lawyer; and then, wsbradio them in the head to sue for injury to the government and to hire me consultants have to confess that actually I'm a bachelor, though philosophy; then, in response to cries, and that this punishment will have to confess that I barely overcame Kierkegaard, and all that jazz. In short, as it is regrettable, no matter how demeaning, I decided after all not to sin against the truth.

Arguing with a lawyer is to throw mud at a pig: after a while you realize the pig really enjoys it.