So indeed I was watching a story on television about a real murder investigation and a court case.
And it occurred to me that when they found the murderer guilty that the dependent lawyers defense was a conviction of being a lie too. In other words you couldn't find the murderer guilty without finding that the lawyers defense if him was filled with lies?
Does that make the lawyer party to the criminal act? Some sort of sense would have you say no, how could it be, that is his job.
This might be something we need to rethink.
As businesses and people often seek the advice of their lawyer before "action.". To the point a lawyer helps map out a crime?
There are some very sophisticated crimes that are being pulled off. Are lawyers asked how can we structure a defacto crime it won't be a crime? Yes.
But what about when a jury could not have found the murderer guilty without the lawyers defense being culpable...of guilt..
Are they under oath to tell the truth? Hence s conviction means and assertion they are lying under oath?
Anybody get the idea here?
****'
Attorney client priveledge?
****'
The lawyer weasels out by saying that is only the testimony the dependent have him that he relayed? But if that is always the truth the dependent wouldn't need the lawyer?
And we could say it has been proven the dependent lied and also lied to the defense lawyer? But then the argument is shouldn't the defense lawyer have been smart enough to know the dependent lied to him?
In which case we say the lawyer is guilty because he should have known his elaborate and greatly embellished defense was a lie?
*****'
When we get an influx of a wealthy foreign element in our country that can buy their way out? Possibly even bankrolled veto do so buy a foreign government?
******"
And how could you be a judge and sit through this interplay of deceit day after day and not become participant jaded by it?
******'
And with regard to the above being true. And whereby the Defense Lawyer can be said to be being paid with proceeds of criminal activity and ongoing criminal activity that he is defending. Is he not sharing profits from the crime?
© 2026 Thomas Paul Murphy
And what happens when it all just seems to function like one big prostitution and genocide ring?
*******'
At the very least argument. So indeed lets say the defendant is found guilty. Which under certain stipulations (Set amounts to be established in code) means the Lawyer is being paid from proceeds from criminal activity. So the lawyer would have to force the surrender of those proceeds or other consideration to the State. If it doesn't get to the point the lawyer doesn't go to jail too!
You know, honest to God if a parent can go to jail for their child shooting people up then a lawyer can go to jail for lying and profiting from what is deemed criminal activity proceeds.
*******'
Front and center in todays politics.
So how much of the money that a pimp has in his net work can be said to come from pimping activities if not all of it? Do you understand what I am implying? Bad to the bone is bad to the bone! Why should the pimps wife even be allowed to keep it. And the concept should be expanded to all forms of organized crime.
Again, how much of the lawyers net worth can be deemed to come from pimping activity if not all of it? The bad to the bone concept again.
Tell me how everything else someone like that does in their life isn't just a complete front? Does that prove the point more?
© 2026 Thomas Paul Murphy
No comments:
Post a Comment