Posted by Man of Reason on August 22, 1998 at 17:43:12:
In Reply to: Re: Blah, blah, blah! posted by Patrick Henry on August 20, 1998 at 17:30:41:
: So? What's your point? That Mr. Mitchell isn't any more competent than the vast majority of trial lawyers? Wasn't it our previous Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that told a graduating class at Harvard Law School that more than 70% of all trial lawyers are incompetent? And he was probably feeling magnanimous towards lawyers that day, because I'd wager that 70% is a critically low evaluation. If Mr. Gilbertson chooses to "buck the system" then he has just as good a chance winning with any "man off the street" as he does with a lawyer.
Mr. Gilbertson is free to 'buck the system' as he chooses, provided he knows the stakes ahead of time, which I'm guessing he didn't. My point is that just because the person calling himself Paul Andrew Mitchell (pch-PAM) hosts a website such as this one and responds to a majority of posts with so-called cites, then pats himself on the back, doesn't make him right. I don't consider cites from his own briefs in an appeal from a lost case to be a very convincing legal argument, especially when the majority of the material is a rehash of the argument that lost in the first place.
Do you mean to imply that since most lawyers are 'incompetent' it's OK for the pch-PAM to distribute more of the same without the bother of any legal training at all? And we all wonder why the courts take such a dim view of those who follow with the same or similarly twisted 'legal' theories. Trial and error is not an effective way to discover 'the answer' in a courtroom.
I'd just like to point anyone out there who is unsure of what to believe to read and think about the other material Tom and I have posted in response to Shane's original posting. It's not terribly hard to figure out the extent of the pchPAM's lack of legal capability, if you put in a little bit of effort.
Post a Followup