"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:24:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Quite right, Bruce. But you must understand that Neal's perception
of
what
lawyers do is more than a little myopic. It seems to derive almost
entirely
from watching a great deal of Perry Mason and from some rather
pathetic
attempts to act as his own lawyer in traffic court.


And, if my "pathetic" attempts in traffic court resulted in a
dismissed
case against the chief of police of a local burg then how pathetic was
the chief? One could tell the judge was on the chief's side from the
very beginning of the proceedings (in traffic court you are presumed
guilty and will be judged guilty unless and until you can prove your
innocence) but I proved, using state law itself and legal definitions
within the body of the law, that the statute the chief cited me for
violating [316.2065(6)] did not even apply - could not apply, for that
matter. I proved it so convincingly that the judge had to reluctantly
find in my favor. I gave him no outs, no wiggle room, no place to run
and no place to hide. It all revolved around the definition of
"roadway." Apparently, in all his long years of law enforcement, the
chief did not even know the legal definition of "roadway."

Q.E.D.

You had a case? Coulda fooled me, boy!


I suspect Neal (Wilbur) has never known a lawyer who doesn't try cases
in court.

One of my Nephews is a lawyer - a patent lawyer and copyright, I think.
That kinda legal stuff.

Wilbur Hubbard