Skip to main content
Topic: Lawyer X - Police (Read 598 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Lawyer X - Police

Reply #15
It reminds me of accounts which suggest as much as 10% of some civil rights and other groups in the 60s were paid FBI informants (who may have influenced events) and illegal wiretaps were commonplace.
10%!

We can't even keep 10% from escaping trivial quarantine, yet the FBI was able to keep 10% of civil rights and other groups quite possibly numbering in the many thousands on the QT! :o

We miss the good old days, phone book diplomacy and brown paper bags! ;D
The Force Awakens!

Re: Lawyer X - Police

Reply #16
The idea Lawyer X was horrified by the criminality of her clients and decided to put morality above legal rules might be a bit of a self-serving fantasy. It seems the genesis of all this was when she was arrested by police for drug offending when she was a law student. The police seem to have used this “kompromat” to turn her à la the KGB. I haven’t bothered to stay on top of her story but IIRC she was a CI before the Purana taskforce was a gleam in the Police Commissioner’s eye.

Looked at in this way, would it be okay for the police to send in a spy to manipulate legal proceedings and feed information to the police? It reminds me of accounts which suggest as much as 10% of some civil rights and other groups in the 60s were paid FBI informants (who may have influenced events) and illegal wiretaps were commonplace.

Not sure what you mean by 'manipulate legal proceedings'. A spy sent in to feed information to police seems sneaky, yet it may well be the difference between a crook continuing to harm people and sent to jail. Moral dilemma.

Illegal wiretaps may also deliver evidence of serious crime and hence bring the perpetrators to justice yet it, too, is sneaky and seemingly dishonest - as suggested by the name 'illegal wiretap.' Another moral dilemma.

An extreme example. I hear of a neighbour being a pedo... but he's a pillar of the community and is untouchable. All attempts to bring him to justice has resulted in the kid being shamed and accused of lying, so no more families come forward. So, I break the law by trespassing and put him under surveillance and see him violating a child so I film it.

How many moral dilemmas in that scenario? If I just film it and show the authorities, how many violations may occur in the interim - ruining a life or lives? Yet I obtained the evidence illegally. Would it be inadmissible? What if I smashed in the door and beat the crap out of him then reported it along with the film evidence? Illegally obtained film, breaking and entering, assault... I should end up in jail, but I stopped the crime, but it may well continue and I end up with a police record!!! Another moral dilemma.

Within the law we have dilemmas it would seem. Perhaps it's the letter-of-the-law, vs, the spirit of the law, vs equity? And when they clash? Holy mackerel! As Kermit said (as a metaphor), "It aint easy being green."
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Lawyer X - Police

Reply #17
Not 10% of the total number. But some groups of greater interest were thoroughly infiltrated. Hoover had a massive hard on when it came to anti-war protestors and civil rights activists and together they may well have been half of the FBI’s work.

The program was known as COINTELPRO.

Re: Lawyer X - Police

Reply #18
Lets be clear, we are talking about drug dealers, murderers and violent offenders with total disregard for the law. I for one am comfortable that they have been locked away by any means the police had. Fargum.
2017 - 16th
2018 - Wooden Spoon
2019 - 16th
2020 - dare to dream?
2021 - Pi$$ or get off the pot

Re: Lawyer X - Police

Reply #19
We could perhaps have a system where the police commissioners can declare the guilt of guilty people and then refer them to a judge for sentencing. That would be a very efficient system and there could hardly be any complaints about it. After all, everyone wants to see the guilty punished. And the police commissioners wouldn’t have the power to declare innocent people to be guilty.

Re: Lawyer X - Police

Reply #20
Shades of "Mississippi Burning" :)


Re: Lawyer X - Police

Reply #22
Not sure what you mean by 'manipulate legal proceedings'. A spy sent in to feed information to police seems sneaky, yet it may well be the difference between a crook continuing to harm people and sent to jail. Moral dilemma.

Illegal wiretaps may also deliver evidence of serious crime and hence bring the perpetrators to justice yet it, too, is sneaky and seemingly dishonest - as suggested by the name 'illegal wiretap.' Another moral dilemma.

An extreme example. I hear of a neighbour being a pedo... but he's a pillar of the community and is untouchable. All attempts to bring him to justice has resulted in the kid being shamed and accused of lying, so no more families come forward. So, I break the law by trespassing and put him under surveillance and see him violating a child so I film it.

How many moral dilemmas in that scenario? If I just film it and show the authorities, how many violations may occur in the interim - ruining a life or lives? Yet I obtained the evidence illegally. Would it be inadmissible? What if I smashed in the door and beat the crap out of him then reported it along with the film evidence? Illegally obtained film, breaking and entering, assault... I should end up in jail, but I stopped the crime, but it may well continue and I end up with a police record!!! Another moral dilemma.

Within the law we have dilemmas it would seem. Perhaps it's the letter-of-the-law, vs, the spirit of the law, vs equity? And when they clash? Holy mackerel! As Kermit said (as a metaphor), "It aint easy being green."
Baggers I'd like to say you handled your "scenario" very poorly. If I caught my neighbour in the act of violating a child, I would have strung him up to to a tree and called it in as a suicide. I find it abhorrent.
2017 - 16th
2018 - Wooden Spoon
2019 - 16th
2020 - dare to dream?
2021 - Pi$$ or get off the pot

Re: Lawyer X - Police

Reply #23
I see the Police and Lawyers as Yin and Yang, one cannot function without the other and therefore it is ridiculous to expect zero overlap. So there is irony when each portrays the other as a mortal enemy!
 Does it function that way though?

Could you argue that a lawyer dropping a case is a tell, a defacto concession of client guilt!

@Thryleon  What is "Good" as in "Good vs Bad" Is bad the police leveraging a greedy and narcissistic lawyer to put a career "child killing drug peddler" off the streets? Some will no doubt claim the high ground, and advise us to turn the other cheek. Tell that to the parents who have watched a child die from a drug overdose!

Lawyers and socialists will argue against those actions and infer an anarchy of no limits is the ultimate destination, but I seriously doubt our democracy crumbles when a bad lawyer goes bad and the police leverage that event!

Removing access to lawyers by instilling paranoia might be the best thing to happen to the crooks, from a public perspective!

Maybe the public anger needs to be directed at those who award the appeals? A mighty deep and dark pit!

I dont worry about good vs bad when it comes to legality.

I trust the cops do everything within the law or the spirit of the law rather.

If not then we are screwed.

Likewise I expect legal counsel to act in my best interests.

If I can have faith in either then we have no legal system and we are left with a kangaroo court.

Let me put it to you differently.  The law is there to protect society.  Where people operate outside those laws they actually damage our society's frameworks, values, morals and ethics irrespective of the intention.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

They are asking questions they already know the answer to in order to prove someone is a thief, murderer and a criminal not the other way around.  The polices job is to gather evidence and then convict not to pervert the course of that investigation and therefore justice in the process.

Reading up on gobbos case she was getting crims off for finding errors in their cases built against people and that is entirely the point.  Who polices the policemen otherwise?

Note they are people and are fallible.   In gobbos case she needed them and in the first conversation with them she was recorded illegally despite her telling them not to and asking if it were being recorded.



Unacceptable.

This article summarizes the issues well i think.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-nicola-gobbo-lawyer-x-scandal-explained-20201124-p56hh9.html
Come on you Blue FLAGGERS!!

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Lawyer X - Police

Reply #24
Note they are people and are fallible.  In gobbos case she needed them and in the first conversation with them she was recorded illegally despite her telling them not to and asking if it were being recorded.

Unacceptable
Sort of like a lawyer who continues to defend a crook they know is guilty!

Personally, I've never understood the defence of trivial legal technicalities, and they are often quite trivial like the guy who use to get people off speeding offences by exposing police cars were using the wrong brand of tyre. It seems to start with this premise. "There is this dodgy lawyer". Then the client of the dodgy lawyer who discloses that technical loophole is sometimes rewarded with eternal immunity via double jeopardy!
The Force Awakens!

Re: Lawyer X - Police

Reply #25
Don’t confuse the US system for ours. We’ve all seen shows where whole prosecutions fail because 1 breach of the suspect’s rights leads to all other evidence being thrown out as fruit of the poisoned tree.

In Australia, very few types of evidence are excluded automatically. Some examples are illegal telephone intercepts and confessions that were given involuntarily. And their exclusion usually doesn’t flow down the line to other evidence.

Then you have cases where evidence needs to be gathered according to strict guidelines; for example, the prosecution needs to prove the chain of custody of drugs seized or a DNA lab needs to show they took appropriate steps to prevent cross-contamination. Do you really think these are just “technicalities”? Particularly in the latter case, innocent people have been jailed because of sloppy work.

Re: Lawyer X - Police

Reply #26
Barticularly in the latter case, innocent people have been jailed because of sloppy work.
No doubt, but in those cases I wonder how many "good lawyers" knew about the real culprit and stayed mum while some innocent went to jail, if it happens just once it is once too many, and the penalty should be the heaviest available to the law. But would they prosecute their own?

In that case, if the police step over the line to find the dodgy lawyer, why penalise the police. It's the lawyer who has done the dodgy isn't it, how do police obtain justice for a victim in this instance?

The problem is the lawyer is too skilled at hiding the evidence in structures that can only be open illegally, something that in itself should be made illegal.

Should Gobbo be lauded for exposing the legal filth that protects hardened criminals?

I can't help but feel this is somewhat like the Trump prosecution debate, politicians in the US won't pursue Trump because they know in the future they could be exposed to the same prosecution risk, they want to reserve that escape route for their own future use!
The Force Awakens!

Re: Lawyer X - Police

Reply #27
No doubt, but in those cases I wonder how many "good lawyers" knew about the real culprit and stayed mum while some innocent went to jail, if it happens just once it is once too many, and the penalty should be the heaviest available to the law. But would they prosecute their own?

In that case, if the police step over the line to find the dodgy lawyer, why penalise the police. It's the lawyer who has done the dodgy isn't it, how do police obtain justice for a victim in this instance?

The problem is the lawyer is too skilled at hiding the evidence in structures that can only be open illegally, something that in itself should be made illegal.

Should Gobbo be lauded for exposing the legal filth that protects hardened criminals?

I can't help but feel this is somewhat like the Trump prosecution debate, politicians in the US won't pursue Trump because they know in the future they could be exposed to the same prosecution risk, they want to reserve that escape route for their own future use!
Whats really going to make your head spin is whether or not Gobbo acted knowing that she was perverting the course of justice.

Was her testimony that crucial to putting lots of these guys away?

They might have been able to lock them up anyway and all she has done is provide the key to get them out sooner.  After all she did voluntarily pervert the course of justice sighting stress as the reason.

Come on you Blue FLAGGERS!!

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Lawyer X - Police

Reply #28
Whats really going to make your head spin is whether or not Gobbo acted knowing that she was perverting the course of justice.

Was her testimony that crucial to putting lots of these guys away?

They might have been able to lock them up anyway and all she has done is provide the key to get them out sooner.  After all she did voluntarily pervert the course of justice sighting stress as the reason.
This is sort of the point I'm creeping around, it's partially why I don't get the angst directed towards the police.

The media paint it as a police bungle that Gobbo just by "luck" finds herself in a situation in which the crooks get out and she is exempt from prosecution. When in reality those lucky structures are most likely there by design, as such she and the crooks are rewarded despite guilt!
The Force Awakens!