Originally Posted by Fountain4402 (Post 3426013)

But this is the same profession that successfully sued McDonalds because a coffee cup didnt say hot on it.

Originally Posted by Fountain4402 (Post 3426013)

love lawyers they get people off who were clearly guilty due to Technicalities in the law. But this is the same profession that successfully sued McDonalds because a coffee cup didnt say hot on it.

Originally Posted by Fountain4402 (Post 3426013)

love lawyers they get people off who were clearly guilty due to Technicalities in the law. But this is the same profession that successfully sued McDonalds because a coffee cup didnt say hot on it.

Originally Posted by Smarty (Post 3426301)

When the sh*t hits the fan, you will call a lawyer to minimize damage, or get you out of trouble.

Originally Posted by Smarty (Post 3426301)

When your 185F degree coffee spills on you because the fast food restaurant employee fails to properly put on the lid, who will call after the doctor/ambulance/burn center? That's right, the lawyer.

I do not do PI work, only criminal and traffic. Technicalities? It is called being a smart lawyer and knowing what to do and not a dumb ass lawyer who is unaware of what technicalities to raise (legal argument).

Technicalities, a word I never use. I call it knowing the law.

Clearly guilty, you never know the whole story, just what makes the headlines (sensationalism).

When the sh*t hits the fan, you will call a lawyer to minimize damage, or get you out of trouble.

Originally Posted by scarab63 (Post 3426124)

Your honor we the OSO jury find fountan4402 guilty on count A of being uptight. As well as count B of being a argumentative dueche bag.

Originally Posted by X-Rated30 (Post 3426306)

Why would he ever need a lawyer? He is perfect. And if he ever made a mistake, he would welcome the consequences as justice served. And of course, he would never take advantage of a technicality. You know, like when a cop testifies he pulled him over for crossing the center line (on a road you later learn had no center line) and when he searched the vehicle, he found a marijuana seed his kid dropped on the floor months earlier.:drink:

Originally Posted by Dean Ferry (Post 3426311)

Smarty,
I agree 100%. I have an Excellent attorney here in Orlando, that is there for me, 24/7 for anything I have a issue with. He is worth his weight in gold, (and he played football @ Vanderbilt, Middle Linebacker, 6'3' 285) so that is alot of GOLD!:drink: Same old crap, no one likes lawyers, until they need a one!
Have a great weekend.
Dean

Originally Posted by Smarty (Post 3426353)

6'3" 285lb, that is one intimadating attorney! Good to be big and smart. I am only 5'10 210 lbs, not as athletic as your guy, far less intimadating. But to some clients I am a life saver, which is true.

Originally Posted by Tigeman (Post 3420827)

So a few months ago OK passed our new BUI law. We had always been .1 on the water and .08 on the road. I have zero problem with boating regulations being on par with vehicle limits. While I may not like the .08 opposed to the .1, I see the merits and won't raise hell about it. That said it's what they snuck in with the law that's totally F'd up!

You can now receive a BUI even if anchored. So if your in a house boat, or a boat w/ a cabin and planning on staying the night you can receive a BUI. If your anchored up, and playing hanky panky w/ the misses down below, and your both liquored up.... yep BUI. In addition, your passengers can now receive one as well. The passenger stipulation was wrote to keep people from saying, well, I'm not driving, he is....then that guy saying no, he is. Etc. etc. But it's so open ended that if you get a prick lake patrol (and we all know that guy).... then even your passengers are screwed.

Well the anchored up provision got a friend of mine this weekend. We were anchored up in a cove at Grand this weekend on a houseboat. We had been there since Friday and had 2 other boats tied up for runabout purposes. Well sat afternoon water patrol came up and tells us he's coming aboard for a safety check. Everything is good there but he asks the capt of the houseboat to submit to a sobriety test. Of course he says what for? We're not driving and we're anchored up and inside not outside. He says that doesn't matter now. Doc refuses and patrolman tells him he's under arrest for suspicion of BUI. So I began to question the patrolman about the validity since we're anchored and obviously staying the night there. His backup who recently arrived tells me to sit "my ass down" and shut up before I get a BUI too. Of course I'm kind of offended as my boats tied up outside and I'm going nowhere. I mention that, he tells us it no longer matters. So I sit down and shut up while we try and keep the kids calm as they're crying as dad gets hauled off for drinking a few beers on his "residence" for the weekend. I had seen the details of this law a while back and tried to fight it, but none of our legislators would fight it for fear of the backlash. I never thought the lake patrol here would push the passenger and anchored up issues, as most the guys I've met are pretty cool. Well apparently I was wrong.

The same person who wrote this legislation is now pushing through a 55mph speed limit on all state lakes. So batten down the hatches boys, as there's a **** storm coming our way!

Originally Posted by articfriends (Post 3427303)

We went thru something similar around here a few years ago, the local county sheriffs department decided to start interpreting the law to allow them to enter local bars, walk up to each patron and demand that they submit to breathelizers, if legally drunk they were citing people for public intoxication, and the bar was cited for serving a intoxicated patron. If they refused they were arrested for disorderly conduct or obstruction of justice. The bar owners very quickly were in a big uproar and it ended but it still itimidated people into not going to the bar. Smitty

Originally Posted by articfriends (Post 3427303)

NOBODY LIKES A LAWYER TILL THEY NEED ONE!!! Wise words, I don't know what is up your azz mr fountain 4402 but maybe this forum is a little different then what you are used to, lifelong friendships on here cross state lines and go back along ways !
As far as boarding peoples boats with no due cause just to harass someone at anchor looking for a dui bust is com plete bull*hit. We went thru something similar around here a few years ago, the local county sheriffs department decided to start interpreting the law to allow them to enter local bars, walk up to each patron and demand that they submit to breathelizers, if legally drunk they were citing people for public intoxication, and the bar was cited for serving a intoxicated patron. If they refused they were arrested for disorderly conduct or obstruction of justice. The bar owners very quickly were in a big uproar and it ended but it still itimidated people into not going to the bar. I like to have a drink once in a while but rarely frequent bars but I still think it was total bs. Now I could be all high and mighty like mr founttain 4402 and say they are getting what they deserved, after all why should anyone be out having a good time????? Smitty

Originally Posted by articfriends (Post 3427303)

NOBODY LIKES A LAWYER TILL THEY NEED ONE!!! Wise words, I don't know what is up your azz mr fountain 4402 but maybe this forum is a little different then what you are used to, lifelong friendships on here cross state lines and go back along ways !
As far as boarding peoples boats with no due cause just to harass someone at anchor looking for a dui bust is com plete bull*hit. We went thru something similar around here a few years ago, the local county sheriffs department decided to start interpreting the law to allow them to enter local bars, walk up to each patron and demand that they submit to breathelizers, if legally drunk they were citing people for public intoxication, and the bar was cited for serving a intoxicated patron. If they refused they were arrested for disorderly conduct or obstruction of justice. The bar owners very quickly were in a big uproar and it ended but it still itimidated people into not going to the bar. I like to have a drink once in a while but rarely frequent bars but I still think it was total bs. Now I could be all high and mighty like mr founttain 4402 and say they are getting what they deserved, after all why should anyone be out having a good time????? Smitty

Originally Posted by Fountain4402 (Post 3427797)

The problem is you have the law, then you have how the police interpret the law and then how the citizens interpret the law. Are some laws BS, sure. Are some cops bad cops, sure. Are there people out there doing the right and wrong thing YUP!! All the stories you mentioned above are always the type that somebody heard it from a friend. In all my years I have never been pestered by the police not once. I have never seen somebody hauled away just for having a fun time. More times than not I have seen people work themselves into an arrest, which if they would have stayed normal would have been fine. Problem is a lot of people dont like to be questioned by the police as soon as they do they get defensive. I'll go back to what I have said before, if you do the right thing 99.9 out of 100 you will have no issues. I have lived in MI, NY, OK, and VA, and have had performance cars and a boat just about in every state and have drank in every state, and have never had an issue, but then again I dont push it, if I drink I dont drive its simple. And the people that are getting into trouble probably deserve it majority of the time, theyre the ones with loud music, people doing dumb things around and in the boat, of course there going to get checked out.

I firmly beleive this law in OK is to avoid the officers pulling up to a boat where everybody is drunk and everybody says they arent the driver. And yes you can say the cops cant prove they arent staying there for the night. But you dang well know those people are going to drive home later. It's wrong to arrest somebody before the act of crime occurs, but yet why wait till that person crashes into somebody and damages property or kills somebody? Personally the law is probably overboard, but I can see why its there. Personally if I was a cop I would just watch you wait till you fired it up then hammer your ace hard.

Originally Posted by wesmax (Post 3426702)

This is to the originator of this post. Please feel free to contact Josh Lee at [email protected] . He would like to speak to you aout representation. He handles mostly DUI cases. This law doesnt come into effect until August. I'm with a few others here thinking there is more to the story than what were hearing. Irregardless, if you need representation, HES YOUR MAN!!!!

Originally Posted by Fountain4402 (Post 3427808)

Good quote, and lawyers are useful, and just like anything there are good and bad ones out there. They can be worth their weight in gold. The problem with our legal system is it has turned into a money based one. The DA's and public defenders of the world are concerned with getting as many convictions as they can without going to court with plea bargaining, which don't get me wrong is not a bad thing all the time. Then private attorneys want to hit every since technicality they can to get off you, which then they can charge you big bucks. Funny this is that lawyer plays golf with the DA and already knows that what kind of deal he can get for that crime. The biggest problem with society is lawyers have created a sue happy society. People sue just to sue, it's rediculous, it ends up clogging our legal system up and costing tax payers money.

Originally Posted by X-Rated30 (Post 3428236)

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of how the system works, yet again. Your first two sentences are correct. After that you go back to praddling on about things of which you are completely clueless.

I don't play golf. I don't hang out with prosecutors. And, you might look into those "technicalities" you keep mentioning. You can start by looking here: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html If I don't make the government(s) observe your rights, who will? Yes, I am privately retained, and I am paid very well, but that is because I do my job well.

Originally Posted by Smarty (Post 3428256)

Golfing with the Prosecutor, that cracks me up. If I ever get jammed up in Louisiana I am calling you for help.

I like your choice of boat too, knew we more in common that being lawyers. I would drink beer with a Prosecutor (if invited), but that never has happened, so golf is definitely out of the question. Funny how the general public perceives what lawyers do and how we get it done.

Originally Posted by Smarty (Post 3428256)

Golfing with the Prosecutor, that cracks me up.

Originally Posted by X-Rated30 (Post 3428236)

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of how the system works, yet again. Your first two sentences are correct. After that you go back to praddling on about things of which you are completely clueless.

I don't play golf. I don't hang out with prosecutors. And, you might look into those "technicalities" you keep mentioning. You can start by looking here: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html If I don't make the government(s) observe your rights, who will? Yes, I am privately retained, and I am paid very well, but that is because I do my job well.

Originally Posted by Fountain4402 (Post 3428682)

And if you are lawyer and are not at least aquaintences with the your DA, then your not a very good one.

Originally Posted by Fountain4402 (Post 3428687)

In the state of OK you just better be careful and hope the police aren't bastards.

Originally Posted by scarab63 (Post 3429009)

I looooove me some fount0442 posts! I really am addicted and it's kinda sad! Dude your on the beware threads popping off stolen & insurance stats. Every time you open your mouth its verbal diahrea and it's great. Start your own thread called fount0442s silly theories please!!!!

Originally Posted by Fountain4402 (Post 3429066)

...its a well known fact in the CJ world...

Originally Posted by DucBoy (Post 3428985)

I have to admit that I didn't read the entire thread, but I think the OP's buddy has a good chance of beating this if he fights. Generally speaking, there are several layers of discretion in the criminal system - the officer, the prosecutor, and the judge or jury. It seems the officer failed to exercise good discretion and determined that your friend was in actual control of an anchored boat. A good attorney will discuss the facts with the prosecutor in an effort to get the prosecutor to exercise his or her discretion to not prosecute (hey, they are people too and hate losing in court). If the prosecutor won't exercise his or her discretion to not take this forward, it is then up to your friend to convince a judge to exercise his or her discretion to interpret the law and facts and reach the conclusion that your friend, while legally intoxicated, was not in control of the anchored houseboat. Of course, if the judge sides with the prosecution or the prosecution appeals, there are higher courts (which usually have more common sense).

Good luck and keep us posted.

db

Originally Posted by hotjava66 (Post 3429183)

. That is what pisses me off, now its on YOU to prove your innocence, and the gov. sure as hell isnt going to reimburse you for your time/lawyer if you win and prove them wrong.

Originally Posted by Smarty (Post 3429199)

You are correct, money, money, money. And sometimes a loss of freedom, one of clients today was sentenced for three flat (three years New Jersey State Penitentiary). And that is after the damage was minimized, and it cost alot of money to get that result.

Now for the wrongly accused, like my DUI client(s) with a BAC of .04, which can happen, that type of client spends the money to fight for what is right, and keep his or her driving privileges. Money to prove your innocence. Money, Money, money. You are correct.

My boss's ring tone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll3uipTO-4A

Originally Posted by hotjava66 (Post 3429183)

All fine and good, but once you have been issued a citation etc. and go through all of the above it is costing you time and money. That is what pisses me off, now its on YOU to prove your innocence, and the gov. sure as hell isnt going to reimburse you for your time/lawyer if you win and prove them wrong.

Originally Posted by X-Rated30 (Post 3429129)

You wouldn't by chance be in the MP's, would you?