California Legal System

I write this as an opinion… I am in no way versed in the California legal system, and do not represent myself as an expert on anything legal… except that I like to take notes on legal paper, which is 8.5 by 14 inches. I know that with certainty.

I also cringe as I write this, as I have recently met up with a person that I fell out of touch with some years ago, who happens to be an attorney. I will not hold that against him, but if he reads this, I hope he will accept my point.

When did it happen? I missed it, and I think many of us did. Somewhere over the years the election system became a joke and minority rule took over.

I am referring, of course, to this habit that seems to have come up in California of the people voting a law into effect, only to have it shot down by the people that voted against it in the first place. Tell me… If the proposition was illegal or infringed on people’s rights that much, then how did it ever get to the ballot?

I would think that there are people out there whose job is to review these things before they ever see the light of day, to verify that they are not what others would call into question as being illegal or improper. Worse yet, there are attorneys that sit in wait for these minority special interest groups to show there faces, and then come crawling out of the woodwork to capitalize on them for their own interest. I say this because I cannot think that all of them actually believe what they are defending. I more so believe that they are probably defending themselves a nice retainer and a payment on a new house or boat.

It may not seem like it, but I really do not have a problem with lawyers. They are working for a paycheck. What I have a problem with is the fact that there are many of them that hold the appearance of manipulating the system to their own needs or desires. It is, in some cases as far I am concerned, as if they are showing up for a play, and putting on the best show they can. I already know that there are a few lawyers I have met that would agree with that assessment as well.

Many years ago, I heard a little joke. Lawyers should have a piece of their fingers clipped off for every case they lose. That way when you are looking for an attorney, all you have to do is look at their hands to see how good they are. If you meet one with no fingers left, get out… and run like hell if you meet one with no fingers or toes!

If you are a lawyer, please take no offense to this. I am venting. I know that if you look at California with an open mind, then you know that there is a certain amount of truth to what I say. But the question stands… what are we going to do about it?

When can a be myself at work and not worry about offending a person and getting sued or fired?

When can I tell a person I work with that she looks nice, without having to worry about sexual harassment?

Why can a person defending their home, shoot someone breaking into their home, and then be sued for it?

Why are certain inexcusable crimes even tried, if the evidence is overwhelming or there are enough witnesses to prove that a person did something? In cases like that, the person should just flat out be put in jail for a predetermined period of time… no trial… no jury… nothing.

The California Legal System can be summed up in the immortal word of Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood, from “Paint Your Wagon”:
“…Where am I going? I don’t know… When will I get there? I ain’t certain… all that I know is I am on my way.”

Latest posts by Samuel Wright (see all)

4 thoughts on “California Legal System”

  1. After perusing your blog about the California Legal System it is apparent that you are very truthful when you state that you are not an expert on the legal system. First let me address some of your questions:
    1.If someone is breaking into your home you can defend it and the occupants within all you like, but you can’t use deadly force on someone who is not threatening you with great bodily harm or death. I think I’d dial 911. Ergo, you can’t just shoot someone who happens to intentionally or accidentally wanders into your house. This isn’t the wild west…
    2. In your blog on workplace behavior, you first say that telling someone they look nice is not appropriate, and now you say it is, but you’re afraid of getting sued. These contradictions are
    hard to address, but I don’t think the law ever makes someone liable for common courtesy or courteous remarks. It’s pretty much based on the “intent” of the individual who says inappropriate things to others. So, bottom line, don’t worry about kind comments you make at work.
    At least not as much as you worry about the correct response that is due to those who give you gifts.
    3. And I believe we give everyone a jury trial no matter what the charge because it is guaranteed as a fundamental right under our Constitution. I might also add that DNA testing has been responsible for the release of many innocent citizens being released from prison and death row because of their rights are still being guarded by attornies.
    I think you’d appreciate the concept of democracy more if you read up on the legal system that protects everyone, even those incarcarated for the most heinous crimes.
    If I was ever to be arrested I would want the Constitutional right to be “presumed innocent” until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of my peers. Thank goodness you are not in a position to take that away from anyone, but if you ever go on Jury Duty you should inform the court of your belief that everyone arrested is guilty as long as someone will be a witness against them, even the possible guilty person who wants to have an innocent person take the fall.
    And if the people vote in a new law we have democracy with it’s checks and balances to keep each part of the system within it’s boundries. So if the legislature passes a law that we don’t like we can go to court to test it’s Constitutionality, or the executive can veto a bill he/she doesn’t like which can then be overridden by the legislature or they can reword the bill. All this is called “Democracy” and it may not be perfect but throwing people into prison forever without a trial or other constitutional guarantees would be like….let me think….Communism…Despotism….Dictatorship…
    and when you get in an accident (I hope never) or your loved ones do….since the law is written for lawyers by lawyers who also are the majority in state and federal legislatures who pass those laws….you’ll be looking for an attorney who went to school for 7 long years after you quit going to school….yes, those people you mock will be the ones who protect your rights…

  2. 1… OK… So if someone breaks in, and say I have no access to the phone (Maybe the cordless died, or I left the cell phone in another room.) do I wait to see what they are going to do before I do anything? How am I supposed to know if they are planning bodily harm or just there to see what I have to steal?

    2… I am pretty sure I said “When can I..” and not that it was right. The only reason I do not tell people that anymore is because of a SH claim against me, many years ago, for complementing a fellow employee. I am more than willing to complement others about things… unless it is a taboo, as this now is.

    3… The law I am talking about specifically was the law that would prevent illegal aliens from qualifying for welfare and unemployment compensation. Democracy is when the people vote for a law to be put into place, and it wins. Then a minority group (minority meaning a smaller group than the ones that voted for the law, not meaning the Hispanic or Black type minority… wanted to qualify that before you go off on that.) takes that law or proposition to court stating that it is not constitutional. Do you seriously think that it is right that you (assuming you are a US citizen) and I are paying into a system that is paying the medical bills of those that are not naturalized US citizens?

  3. Law Abiding Citizens of California: July 26, 2010

    I am shocked about our Court System, Judges, Attorney’s & Divorce Laws that are designed to make them money. The action of the attorneys in this case were not acceptable. I filed a complaint with The Bar Association of California response was: “Nothing was done that justified action of any kind.”

    Here are just a few incidences: (Ms. Debra Pricola & Mr. Terry Viele)
    1. At a settlement conference Mr. Viele had two clients same time, court rooms next door. My settlement could not be discussed he was with other client. My case was called I had to wait. Paid my attorney $325 an hour to wait. She told me it was acceptable for attorneys, to have two cases at one time.

    2. Wells Fargo was issued 3 subpoenas and never replied. I got the document send straight to my attorney. The Judge would not accept, we needed original sealed send to the court. The bank records on micro fish no originals. I had another original document notarized and signed by my x-husband, didn’t hold up in court. Had original bank statements to prove money wasn't ever in a joint account. The Judge said: “not acceptable”. This was inheritance before marriage.

    3. Outside the court room is a small conference room; where Mr. Viele thru a chair at my attorney. It was so loud we heard it in the court room. She would not report Mr. Viele and told me I couldn’t. I was informed by her: “Either settle this case or find a new attorney; she would not deal with Mr. Viele anymore”. She agreed with Mr. Viele on his decisions of division; even on unfair issues I proved otherwise. I was thrown into a state confusion and shock this was happening; she would not listen to me and he was rude and demanding.

    I am speaking up to stop this from happening to others; including the outrageous fee of $30,000 plus just for my attorney. Does anyone out there care enough to help me stop this unfairness to all of us California Average Citizens?


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Bad Behavior has blocked 1036 access attempts in the last 7 days.