[Samseau]

(06-11-2013 10:26 AM)sylo Wrote:  

A lot of us talk on here about personal freedom and how you can not/should not legislate morality. If I want to have a ton of sex and not get married, who is anyone to tell me differently. Most of us reject the hypocrasy of organized religion. Some of the posters defending the judge are completely puzzling. Fuck the church, the status quo...but not the sacred courtroom! It demands respect!

WTF?

If someone has power over you, then you should give respect. It's not about "right" or "wrong," it's about self-interest.

[Pacesetter20]

(06-11-2013 11:28 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 10:26 AM)sylo Wrote:  

A lot of us talk on here about personal freedom and how you can not/should not legislate morality. If I want to have a ton of sex and not get married, who is anyone to tell me differently. Most of us reject the hypocrasy of organized religion. Some of the posters defending the judge are completely puzzling. Fuck the church, the status quo...but not the sacred courtroom! It demands respect!

WTF?

If someone has power over you, then you should give respect. It's not about "right" or "wrong," it's about self-interest.

Whatever. This bitch was looking for a reason to slam Chad, probably to show how "tough" she is on crime, celebrities, athletes or whatever other bullsh*t reason.

He was nothing but respectful ("Yes, Ma'am/No Ma'am") the entire clip and when he thinks it is finally over and this burden/stress relieved from him, he makes a silly innocent gesture that gets blown way out of proportion from some cunt looking to make a name for herself by sticking it to some "famous athlete."

Here's a question, what would of happened if the courtroom had chuckled when Chad said "Yes, Ma'am." when asked if he had a good attorney, an almost equally comical statement in my opinion. Would she have thrown herself in jail?

[samsamsam]

(06-11-2013 11:43 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

Whatever. This bitch was looking for a reason to slam Chad, probably to show how "tough" she is on crime, celebrities, athletes or whatever other bullsh*t reason.

He was nothing but respectful ("Yes, Ma'am/No Ma'am") the entire clip and when he thinks it is finally over and this burden/stress relieved from him, he makes a silly innocent gesture that gets blown way out of proportion from some cunt looking to make a name for herself by sticking it to some "famous athlete."

Here's a question, what would of happened if the courtroom had chuckled when Chad said "Yes, Ma'am." when asked if he had a good attorney, an almost equally comical statement in my opinion. Would she have thrown herself in jail?

Whatever is one of the shittiest things you can say to someone. I understand we are supposed to be beta and all on this board. But fuck it.

Whatever is just another way of blowing someone of, it is like saying fuck you. It basically, means I don't value your opinion/I don't give a shit. It is a child's way of handling a problem. At its lowest level it means you just won't agree or listen to anyone else's opinion. The "I'll take my toys home because my feelings got hurt" equivalent.

I am on board with Samseau. Keep your eyes on the goal, the lack of emotional control gets people in trouble in the first place. Chad seems like a nice guy but can never stfu. It gets him trouble. Winners are strategic, they focus on the long game.

It is totally possible the judge felt like she got played by Chad, that he was gaming her with the politeness and felt slapped in the face that he destroyed order in her courtroom. We have no idea what was going through her head. We never will unless she shares her thinking.

She got disrespected and that didn't sit well. Who here in this forum enjoys being disrespected?

I have no issue with you Pacesetter, but that word is pretty disrespectful.

Edit: The reason that word annoys is when I was younger I used it at work and my boss brought me into his office and gave me thumping telling me what I am telling you. And you know what, he was right, I was being an asshole and disrespectful. I didn't like the feedback he was giving me about my work quality so I acted like a bitch. That is why that word sets me off.I couldn't think of anything to say back to him and I was still in the "I need to have the last word" mode, which I hope I have grown out of.

[sylo]

It was idiotic of him to do it (for the sake of an argument, there really is nothing wrong with what he did)

But does that mean all idiots should be locked up? Who decides what it is to be an idiot?

I have left my wallet in a cab in a foriegn country. I have locked my keys in my car. I have spent 7 hours drooling of laughter on the floor after some great LSD...should I go to jail?

I understand the argument about respecting the fact that somone with power could fuck you over...but I have a viceral hatred for that premis. Plus IMO he really was not disrespecting her.

[kosko]

(06-11-2013 10:26 AM)sylo Wrote:  

A lot of us talk on here about personal freedom and how you can not/should not legislate morality. If I want to have a ton of sex and not get married, who is anyone to tell me differently. Most of us reject the hypocrasy of organized religion. Some of the posters defending the judge are completely puzzling. Fuck the church, the status quo...but not the sacred courtroom! It demands respect!

WTF?

Because your a dupe if you ACCEPT to ditch your freedoms and enter that court room. Research the history of it all because you literally have basic rights if any at all once you ACCEPT to be tried in a court room. If you do accept then there is a new chess game you have to factor in with a whole new strategy.

These low level courts is where you can flex the most. Stuff like asking to be represented in French (Canada), or simply shooting down the requirement to accept what ever charge is in front of you as it is a Mis-representation of a false person whom is not present. These are little tidbits they all skipped over in law school when thinking about that big paycheck. But when you throw it in their they look like fools and there is nothing they can do to save face.

Google history on Admiral and maritime law and it's formalities. Basically what all Anglo and Western courts are modeled after it unless they run on a strictly Civil system. Your literally a bitch with no rights once you "agree" and "enter in" but it's being smart beforehand to either not accept or know how to counter things to tip the "balance" and "scale" in your favor.

90% of folks don't know this but the lesson is that authority is not real unless you give it power. Chad gave this cunt the opportunity to exercise her power over him vs him coming correct to extract power from her and get his plea granted.

[sylo]

Kosko, nice post but how many people know that? I mean us here on this board get down and dirty and really think about shit. But a dude who made millions of dollars playing a sport? I am strickly comming at this at its core principle, I really do not have any more respect for a court room than I do a mosque or church. I just dont.

You have a different perspective and thats what makes these threads/this forum so refreshing. You are making me think!

[samsamsam]

(06-11-2013 12:05 PM)sylo Wrote:  

It was idiotic of him to do it (for the sake of an argument, there really is nothing wrong with what he did)

But does that mean all idiots should be locked up? Who decides what it is to be an idiot?

I have left my wallet in a cab in a foriegn country. I have locked my keys in my car. I have spent 7 hours drooling of laughter on the floor after some great LSD...should I go to jail?

I understand the argument about respecting the fact that somone with power could fuck you over...but I have a viceral hatred for that premis. Plus IMO he really was not disrespecting her.

My opinion, is just an opinion, and it has no bearing on what happened to him. None of our opinions matter as it relates to his matter. What we can gain is maybe some things to think about and apply it to our everyday lives. Yes, I hate having people having control over me which is why I work on my own now.

But when confronted with power (and especially with highly unreasonable power) it is to play the game and get it over with. I had to deal with SAG recently on a short, at one point I said, "are you going to tell me when I can take a shit?" I had developed a relationship with the person - so she took it jokingly, but each time I thought I had completed all I needed to do another thing came up that I had to deal with.

But, I realized this was a sort of hero's journey and each time I wanted to quit dealing with the short, the more I realized I needed this win, to break a series of things moving against me. So I sucked it up, paid the price and got the win.

I think people need to focus on what needs to be done to achieve a task (even a court trial). Our egos get in the way, we say we ant x but won't pay the price for it. Chad wanted freedom, but didn't want to chill out. I know it is an extreme example, but it can be educating.

We all want stuff/achieve in our life but often what stops us is we are not willing to pay the price to achieve those things. We all want it without pain/struggle.

But back to the case, can't he appeal?

[kosko]

(06-11-2013 12:13 PM)sylo Wrote:  

Kosko, nice post but how many people know that? I mean us here on this board get down and dirty and really think about shit. But a dude who made millions of dollars playing a sport? I am strickly comming at this at its core principle, I really do not have any more respect for a court room than I do a mosque or church. I just dont.

You have a different perspective and thats what makes these threads/this forum so refreshing. You are making me think!

The system sucks but know how to game it.

A Church and Court are both institutions but the court has the power to strip away your freedoms once you choose to enter it.

If i were Chad Johnson I would of requested that my motion be closed to cameras. I think the extra atmosphere and attention made it a circus like atmosphere from the start. If people were reacting to the reaction of his antics it was beside of the circus tone that was already present.

After the decision make a joke, throw her a line, chat it up. Give positive re-enforcement to why you requested the special accommodations in the first place but after getting what you want from them.

Maybe most people don't think that deep but they really should. Life is all about power plays and evrey situation somebody has to get more out of situation then somebody else. This used to be a skill - being savvy and strategic - but it's been lost on folks over time. People are still strategic but only in purely self-serving ways - Y
you always have to give a little bit of something to get. People ain't about that now and expect it all for a price of nothing - both Chad and the Judge represented this.

[Timoteo]

Honestly, the most disrespectful individual in the courtroom was the court officer that busted out laughing. He, more than anyone, should be responsible for maintaining decorum. That's who your Honor should have been bitching out (though not in front of the court).

[Pacesetter20]

(06-11-2013 11:54 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 11:43 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

Whatever. This bitch was looking for a reason to slam Chad, probably to show how "tough" she is on crime, celebrities, athletes or whatever other bullsh*t reason.

He was nothing but respectful ("Yes, Ma'am/No Ma'am") the entire clip and when he thinks it is finally over and this burden/stress relieved from him, he makes a silly innocent gesture that gets blown way out of proportion from some cunt looking to make a name for herself by sticking it to some "famous athlete."

Here's a question, what would of happened if the courtroom had chuckled when Chad said "Yes, Ma'am." when asked if he had a good attorney, an almost equally comical statement in my opinion. Would she have thrown herself in jail?

I am on board with Samseau. Keep your eyes on the goal, the lack of emotional control gets people in trouble in the first place. Chad seems like a nice guy but can never stfu. It gets him trouble. Winners are strategic, they focus on the long game.

It is totally possible the judge felt like she got played by Chad, that he was gaming her with the politeness and felt slapped in the face that he destroyed order in her courtroom. We have no idea what was going through her head. We never will unless she shares her thinking.

She got disrespected and that didn't sit well. Who here in this forum enjoys being disrespected?

The judge has no moral authority in this case to feel disrespected.

She opened the door when she made the comment about him being glad he has such a good lawyer.

I can't stand it when people in authority positions do this. One minute they are all buddy-buddy shooting-the-shit cracking jokes on people, but the second something slightly "offends" them they get all mad and act all butt-hurt, even though they were doing the same thing to one of their subordinates 10 seconds earlier. It stinks of a weak individual.

Again what did he do? Show affection to his legal counsel? What a crime! What disrespect!

What is the difference between someone hugging their counsel vs. giving them a "good game" (especially considering his culture/background, aka pro athlete)?

If Chad had hugged his attorney and the courtroom busts into applause/laughter/awwwwws, is that disrespect?

Its not like he pulled out a cell phone and called someone and said "Haha this bitch judge is so dumb, my boy tony got me off again"

[Divorco]

(06-11-2013 03:16 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

8/10 WB.

[eradicator]

OK, i just watched the clip, I had assumed that his attorney was a woman and that was why the judge was upset.

I really don't understand why the judge was upset.

[Samseau]

The judge's blindness clearly influenced her decision, however. She felt insecure when everyone was laughing because she probably did not understand the full context of the situation, especially since the court officer cracked up first.

And how was Chad Johnson supposed to know she was blind? If I was Chad's lawyer I would harp on the blindness issue all day long.

The blindness issue clearly complicates things.

[DarkTriad]

(06-10-2013 06:49 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 06:41 PM)kosko Wrote:  

Chads a dumb ass. I have no sympathy for a man that can see clear power structures. Chads a fool, he gets what he deserves.

Well kudos to you that you know the shuck and jive routine but with the additional twist of appealing the woman (white) as opposed to the (man).

some of us still have our balls. The man is entitled to simple justice in a court paid for by his tax dollars.

I would have blasted that bitch right the and there knowing full well that the story would have been news.

The real story here is that Chad doesn't know anything about the law and neither does his lawyer apparently - because if I were he - she would have been read the riot act right then and there.

The best thing to do when faced with tyranny - especially judges/cops/ etc. is to face it head on - obviously not physically but with knowledge.

This is the kind of advice that sounds cool, and get you slaps on the back from your ideological friends, but it's just terrible advice. Terrible. Don't fall into this trap or this mindset.

[DarkTriad]

(06-11-2013 12:07 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 10:26 AM)sylo Wrote:  

A lot of us talk on here about personal freedom and how you can not/should not legislate morality. If I want to have a ton of sex and not get married, who is anyone to tell me differently. Most of us reject the hypocrasy of organized religion. Some of the posters defending the judge are completely puzzling. Fuck the church, the status quo...but not the sacred courtroom! It demands respect!

WTF?

Because your a dupe if you ACCEPT to ditch your freedoms and enter that court room. Research the history of it all because you literally have basic rights if any at all once you ACCEPT to be tried in a court room. If you do accept then there is a new chess game you have to factor in with a whole new strategy.

These low level courts is where you can flex the most. Stuff like asking to be represented in French (Canada), or simply shooting down the requirement to accept what ever charge is in front of you as it is a Mis-representation of a false person whom is not present. These are little tidbits they all skipped over in law school when thinking about that big paycheck. But when you throw it in their they look like fools and there is nothing they can do to save face.

Google history on Admiral and maritime law and it's formalities. Basically what all Anglo and Western courts are modeled after it unless they run on a strictly Civil system. Your literally a bitch with no rights once you "agree" and "enter in" but it's being smart beforehand to either not accept or know how to counter things to tip the "balance" and "scale" in your favor.

90% of folks don't know this but the lesson is that authority is not real unless you give it power. Chad gave this cunt the opportunity to exercise her power over him vs him coming correct to extract power from her and get his plea granted.

This is more stuff I'm going to call out as terrible, terrible advice. Pretty much the exact opposite of what will get you optimum results.

[DarkTriad]

(06-11-2013 05:28 PM)master_thespian Wrote:  

OK, i just watched the clip, I had assumed that his attorney was a woman and that was why the judge was upset.

I really don't understand why the judge was upset.

Everyone started laughing, and she couldn't figure out what was going on, and didn't appreciate the common male bonding stuff of the "attaboy". Ocho already beat the actual case they bringing, all he had to do was keep his head down and his mouth shut till he was out the door.

[Bolthouse]

(06-11-2013 05:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The blindness issue clearly complicates things.

Absolutely. It's clear in the video that she didn't even notice the tap when Chad did it. The bailiff is the one who had the uncontrollable outburst, and that's what got the audience going.


Perhaps this is a reason why the judge has no control over her bailiff, and in effect, her courtroom:

Quote:

McHugh, just elected last August to her first term on the bench, seemed poised to approve the plea deal until Johnson's backside pat of Swickle triggered a wave of laughter in the court.

[DarkTriad]

(06-11-2013 11:28 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 10:26 AM)sylo Wrote:  

A lot of us talk on here about personal freedom and how you can not/should not legislate morality. If I want to have a ton of sex and not get married, who is anyone to tell me differently. Most of us reject the hypocrasy of organized religion. Some of the posters defending the judge are completely puzzling. Fuck the church, the status quo...but not the sacred courtroom! It demands respect!

WTF?

If someone has power over you, then you should give respect. It's not about "right" or "wrong," it's about self-interest.

Samseau gets it. Winning is going home and fucking the prom queen while the judge/cops whoever goes back to a life/wife not as good as yours. The system is designed to hammer guys with far more resources than you in frontal confrontations. Don't generate one. There is a certain dance that lets you go scott free against a whole lot of bullshit, your lawyer will teach you the steps, you dance them, say the right things at the right time and walk out a free man.

[DarkTriad]

(06-11-2013 10:26 AM)sylo Wrote:  

A lot of us talk on here about personal freedom and how you can not/should not legislate morality. If I want to have a ton of sex and not get married, who is anyone to tell me differently. Most of us reject the hypocrasy of organized religion. Some of the posters defending the judge are completely puzzling. Fuck the church, the status quo...but not the sacred courtroom! It demands respect!

WTF?

It's a game dude. Winning is walking out the door a free man after committing years of wild alpha mayhem on the streets.

You measure victory the same way you do at the club...results. Did you go home with the hottie while the other guys went home and jerked off into their kleenex? Congrats, you won.

Did you walk out of the courtroom a free man after committing the same crime the ignorant gangbanger went to jail for? You won, and you stride out in your custom "not guilty" suit, and have a victory party with your friends while the gangbanger tries to plan how to avoid getting raped for the next two years.

He was "too smart" and "too cool" to do your dance, wear a suit, say please and thank you, and act respectful for a few minutes.

[lurker]

(06-11-2013 12:07 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 10:26 AM)sylo Wrote:  

A lot of us talk on here about personal freedom and how you can not/should not legislate morality. If I want to have a ton of sex and not get married, who is anyone to tell me differently. Most of us reject the hypocrasy of organized religion. Some of the posters defending the judge are completely puzzling. Fuck the church, the status quo...but not the sacred courtroom! It demands respect!

WTF?

Because your a dupe if you ACCEPT to ditch your freedoms and enter that court room. Research the history of it all because you literally have basic rights if any at all once you ACCEPT to be tried in a court room. If you do accept then there is a new chess game you have to factor in with a whole new strategy.

These low level courts is where you can flex the most. Stuff like asking to be represented in French (Canada), or simply shooting down the requirement to accept what ever charge is in front of you as it is a Mis-representation of a false person whom is not present. These are little tidbits they all skipped over in law school when thinking about that big paycheck. But when you throw it in their they look like fools and there is nothing they can do to save face.

Google history on Admiral and maritime law and it's formalities. Basically what all Anglo and Western courts are modeled after it unless they run on a strictly Civil system. Your literally a bitch with no rights once you "agree" and "enter in" but it's being smart beforehand to either not accept or know how to counter things to tip the "balance" and "scale" in your favor.

90% of folks don't know this but the lesson is that authority is not real unless you give it power. Chad gave this cunt the opportunity to exercise her power over him vs him coming correct to extract power from her and get his plea granted.

First off, we don't skip over crap like this in every law school class. We spend an enlightening and hilarious day in Individual Income Tax learning all about Sovereign Citizens, Freemen on the Land, 16th Amendment protesters, and other nonsensical bullshit that tends to land its adherents in federal prison.

If I'm ever litigating a case against you and you decide to "keep your freedom" and not accept the court's authority to try you, I'm going to "save face" by filing for a default judgment - which takes me approximately six seconds of checking a box on a form - then attaching that judgment against any assets you might own, or will ever own, or any income you earn.

OK, there is one way to "keep your freedom" and not allow the court to maintain authority over you - that's filing a demurrer or 12(b) motion for lack of personal jurisdiction - but that ain't gonna fly in the state or federal district you live in, work in, travel through, have business contacts with, et cetera.

Second point. I know this forum wants to blow Chad's case up into an Example Of How Females Shouldn't Have Power. However, the stark reality of the situation is that male judges pull this exact same knee-jerk bullshit regularly as well. This isn't a case of Woman Unable To Control Her Sphere, it's a case of Judge Feeling Disrespected - which is not as sex-based as you'd think.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[Screwston]

(06-11-2013 10:26 AM)sylo Wrote:  

A lot of us talk on here about personal freedom and how you can not/should not legislate morality. If I want to have a ton of sex and not get married, who is anyone to tell me differently. Most of us reject the hypocrasy of organized religion. Some of the posters defending the judge are completely puzzling. Fuck the church, the status quo...but not the sacred courtroom! It demands respect!

Nobody is sticking up for the court or judge. We just know how to play the game and follow the rules when necessary. It would be like spitting on a cop and being surprised and trying to get sympathy from the public when he brakes your nose. Even guys in prison will tell you to be on your best behavior in court and act as innocent as possible. It's common sense.

[Wadsworth]

(06-11-2013 09:42 PM)houston Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 10:26 AM)sylo Wrote:  

A lot of us talk on here about personal freedom and how you can not/should not legislate morality. If I want to have a ton of sex and not get married, who is anyone to tell me differently. Most of us reject the hypocrasy of organized religion. Some of the posters defending the judge are completely puzzling. Fuck the church, the status quo...but not the sacred courtroom! It demands respect!

Nobody is sticking up for the court or judge. We just know how to play the game and follow the rules when necessary. It would be like spitting on a cop and being surprised and trying to get sympathy from the public when he brakes your nose. Even guys in prison will tell you to be on your best behavior in court and act as innocent as possible. It's common sense.

There is some wisdom in this but on the whole don't you think it's kind of nihilistic? By your own reasoning it would have been common sense for America's founding fathers to keep their heads down and go along with Britain's rule.

[sylo]

I am not defending him nor was I saying you should blatantly disrespect the law. I was calling HER actions rediculous and I was mentioning HE did not disrespect her personally; she just took it that way.

Was it right that guy should have gotten fired bc Adria Richards took offense to something that did not even involve her?

I dont go around disrespecting anyone, including cops or judges. But I dont walk up to them and suck their dick either. The judge was out of line and it has nothing to do with respecting the court. It has to do with an over reaction.

[rudebwoy]

If you listen or watch the tape, the case was over and Chad did a small gesture of slapping his lawyer on the butt. The crowd laughed and the judge lost a gasket.
If he wasn't Chad Johnson he would probably have been taken straight to jail for missing probation and being black of course.

[Kingsley Davis]

A woman got emotional and a man is off to jail.