Ever Wonder What A F*cking S.O.B. Looks Like? With Video
P.S. … I hope you didn’t just eat a meal … Consider yourselves warned.
Excuse me … I should have … heeded my own … warning …
Debate Over Jessica’s Law Reveals Lack of Morality
While it is true that it is wrong to stereotype people, there are those moments where individuals remind us how the stereotypes came to be in the first place. It is not only racial classes or religions that are stereotyped however, as I am sure we can all think of a lawyer joke or politician joke which will inevitable classify that group as heartless, corrupt, and only interested in their own self interests.
Democratic Representative James Fagan was in the Massachusetts State House yesterday railing against Jessica’s Law, which would mandate 20-year sentence for rape of a child under 12. As a defense attorney he took offense to the idea that someone convicted or raping a young child should have a mandatory sentence imposed on them, arguing it would force him to attack the little girl in order to defend his client:
“Let me tell you why it’s so wrong, It’s so wrong because in these situations . . . that 6-year-old is going to sit in front of me, or somebody far worse than me and I’m going to rip them apart. I’m going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined. That when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep. When they’re 19 years old they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody. And that’s not because I’m a nice guy. That’s because when you’re in court, and you’re defending somebody’s liberty, and you’re facing a mandatory sentence of those draconian proportions, you have to do every single thing you can do on behalf of your client. That is your obligation as a trial lawyer.”
While it is true that it is a defense attorney’s obligation to defend his or her client to the best of his of her ability, that is true in all cases. Mr. Fagan would have you believe that he would be harsher in his cross examination of the victim if his client is facing 20 years then if he was only facing 5 years. His illogical, and downright offense argument is that by mandating a sentence of 20 years, the State legislature will be victimizing the child by forcing him and his peers to traumatize the little girl on the witness stand. In essence, he argues that the only way to prevent him from “ruining” her life, is by offering leniency to the child rapist in the hopes he does not attack another young girl.
After watching this video I was reminded of the old joke, “What do you call 100 lawyers (or politicians) at the bottom of the ocean?…. A good start”.
Me: And what would you do, sir, as a defense lawyer if Jessica’s Law called for the fucking Death Penalty … which it SHOULD!?!?
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Just finished the article and about to watch the Video…I just gotta ask…
Does this guy actually expect to get reelected?
Or is Massachusetts that screwed-up?
June 24th, 2008 at 4:51 pmThe video…YIKES
June 24th, 2008 at 4:54 pmYes.
Yes.
And he will be … It’s Mass.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:54 pmYes, Massachusetts is that screwed up. It kills me to say that having been born in Cambridge, the town that General Washingtoon first took command of the American Army exactly one-day and one-year before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, not the People’s Republic of Cambridge that it is today.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:14 pmBut it certainly is not the great state that it once was in our nation’s history. It was the first colony to stand up against the British in our War of Independence. The first state to abolish slavery and the coutless great people from the state can fill a book; everybody from John Adams to Johnny Appleseed.
But it has been hijacked by blind, secular hypocrites (who know how to run ruf-shod over the sheeple population) that if allowed to spread their screwed up views of how American society should be, we will not recognise our country in a few years. Yes, in just a few years. And that is why I and I know all of you fight against this abomination everyday.
God Bless The United States.
Whoever is admitted as an attorney shall, in open court, take and subscribe the oaths to support the
Constitution of the United States {except for the innocent} and of the Commonwealth; and the following oath of office shall be administered to and subscribed by him:
I James Fagan solemnly swear that I will do no falsehood {except for child molesters}, nor consent to the doing of any in court {except when I can get away with it};
I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless, or unlawful suit, or give aid or consent
June 24th, 2008 at 5:38 pmto the same {unless profitable}; I will delay no man for lucre or malice {especially child molesters}; but I will {not} conduct myself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity as well {as my pocketbook} to the courts as my clients. So help me {Allah or Gaia for there is no other} God.
Sickening.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:56 pmthats why GOD made hell, to put theses low life lawyers. if there is a revolution, eliminate all politicians ,lawyers and judges!
June 24th, 2008 at 6:06 pmI just FUCKING PUKED.Funny ,it looks just like this SORRY ASS PEDOPHILE.Time is short for these kinds of FUCKS
June 24th, 2008 at 6:53 pmI just remembered one of my favorite lawyer jokes…
A man who recently lost alot of money in a lawsuit goes to a bar, sits down and says. “Lawyers are assholes.”
The man next to him turns and says. “I resent that.”
The man who sat down said. “Why, are you a lawyer?”
The man next to him said. “No, I’m an asshole.”
June 24th, 2008 at 7:02 pmI don’t think I could have been in the same room as he said that and not beaten him to death.
And people get upset when I say, “Fuck Boston!”
They never seem to get that I’m not just talking about sports.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:06 pmWhat’s the difference between a lawyer and a rooster?
June 24th, 2008 at 7:29 pmA rooster clucks defiance
June 24th, 2008 at 7:32 pmHe’s a lawmaker. He’s a trial lawyer. If he sees a problem with lawyers abusing a witness’ dignity through abusive cross examination, perhaps he should make a law. Modify the evidence code so that assholes like him cannot try to ruin the witness’ life. He could also suggest the state supreme court adopt tougher ethical rules for attorneys who are confused about the duty of zealous advocacy by thinking it justifies abusive behavior toward witnesses. Or maybe he could try more effective cross examination - the type that jurors actually respect - gently getting the witness to recognize his mistake. FYI, there are really only two types of lawyers. The first tries to resolve problems and takes pride in doing so with professional dignity. The second takes pride in what he can get away with under the rules. A good lawyer spots the second type right off and engages the case around the other attorney’s tactics because those tactics are predictable. Then, when the time is right, exposes the tactic for what it is - an attempt to manipulate the outcome through deceit. Once your opponent is shown to be dishonest and manipulative, the jury believes nothing else they say. The lawyer jokes are great, keep ‘em coming. Our profession deserves it. But don’t forget that the jury system we have in this country is the greatest in the history of the world. A jury of your peers decides. There is no better system.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:36 pmI’m not saying it’s right … I’m just about to point something out …
THIS has been done for years to adult female rape victims … (I believe the prosecution CANNOT bring up the accused’s past … but it’s okay for the defense to bring up the victim’s past … especially sexual … in an effort to discredit her?? … lawyers, correct me if I’m wrong …)
Anyhow, even so … We are talking about the MAJOR difference between cross-examining an adult witness/victim and an child witness/victim …
So, using this fucker’s logic and reasoning, it’s perfectly okay for the defense lawyer to insinuate that the child either went along with the rape, instigated the rape, seduced the rapist (and you can replace rape with ’sex act/intercourse’ because THAT is what the defense would be making it sound like) and may have had a history of being promiscuous or a sexual tease???? And I vaguely recall a rape case of I think a 2 yr old little girl years ago where the defendant claims she was trying to seduce him by crawling around on the floor like a dog …
Is THAT what he is getting at?
I mean, what the fuck else would he mean by the manner and degree by which he would put a child witness/victim through on the witness stand in cross that would be so gutting and bloody???
June 24th, 2008 at 8:01 pmdrill, Wow…very well said, I think you may have just ended this comment thread, there’s nothing left to say.
If there is I haven’t a clue what it could be.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:36 pmI’m taking a Law & Ethics class right now and one of the surprising things I learned is that in a criminal case it is up to the plaintiff to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not up to the defendant or his lawyer to prove the defendant’s innocence. The only thing they have to do is to attack the plaintiff’s proof to make any sure that the plaintiff has proven its case at a high level of certainty.
Yet Rep Fagan still needs a book of ethics shoved down his throat. He has no business attacking a victim of his defendant or threatening to attack ferociously and vorciferously. The only thing this level of threat does is take back decades of progress in getting rape victims to come forward to put rapists, especially serial ones, behind bars.
Makes me wonder if this PoS is covering for having raped a child.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:17 pmI have always believed, and this moron is exhibit “A” as to why, that lawyers should be barred from serving as legislators. It is the supreme case of conflict of interest. They legislate in order to generate themselves more business. If I had a daughter who had been sexually abused, bastards like this would be in my crosshairs.
June 25th, 2008 at 3:24 amOne of the great things of our country is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Yes, we need to proof guilt, but when there is DNA evidence, medical evidence, defense lawyers that try to shred the last bit of safety a child may feel need a blindfold, final cigarette, and let them stand against the wall…
As alluded to earlier, defense lawyers too many times do not really care about the law, and protecting the innocent, they care about winning, beating the others, and finding loop holes to get their clients off the hook.
It is getting too difficult to protect out children in today’s country, because the decadent liberals have infiltrated the halls of justice, turning them into a mockery and sham of justice.
Attorneys are supposed to be moral, licenses need to get revoked more often. More attorney filth need to do time as well, hard time.
As many other posters have stated on other threads over the months, the revolution may be coming again. vigilante justice may start taking place more often, and in many cases I feel the general populace will support it, because too many people are sick and tired of the injustice that goes on.
We do not need kangaroo courts, but when known felons are set free due to a technicality, those people may not survive long. Attorneys that help those scum get free will be in the same boat.
Child molesters need stricter punishment. It is wrong, end of statement. pre-pubescent girls know nothing about sexuality, even early-pubescent ones don’t. We are not a country based on Isalam where it is okay to have sex with a 9-year old girl.
This country was founded on the principals of Christianity. Not enough people in the justice system or political office voice that or support it, because they don’t want to be portrayed by the liberal MSM and so called civil rights groups as prudes, backwards or what have you. It is time to start removing from office those who cannot protect the people of the country.
We have too much money being dumped into groups such as ACORN, ACLU, NAACP, nad other liberal organizations by non- citizens. Felons such as Soros should not be able to have any influence. Foreigners should not be able to donate to any political candidate, whether conservative or liberal.
We need to get back to this country having it’s decisions made by it’s citizens, not those from other countries or ideologies.
Yes, we are going to have the communist party, the libertarians, the independants, democrats, Republicans.
That is part of what made this country great. What is helping to tear it down is the influence of those who are NOT Americans on our system. We need to do something about it. The fact that Germany, France and others are becoming more supportive of the conservative agenda is good.
What we need is a news syndicate that reports the truth, but the only way we will have that is if some wealthy individuals start a new paper, or buy one of those faltering, and enforce fair accurate reporting. Fox is there for TV, we also need print media in the battle.
I am waiting for a paper that starts printing stories like those we see here and other sites that are telling the truth. Amercians like good news, they are sick of hearing about nothing but the bad.
And I am not talking about the dumbass stories about a puppy or kitten being rescued that local stations run now and then. I am talking about the success stories in Iraq and Afghanistan. The American press was a huge success in WWI and WWII, even Korea about battles won, enemy killed, civilians becoming safe.
I would be willing to bet that a newspaper that started doing that again would actually have a hige growth in subscribers, and be profitable. the question is, of the many wealthy conservative, who has the brass to do this???
June 25th, 2008 at 5:02 amThe biggest problem I have today with many attorneys, in fact our judicial system, is that somewhere along the lines of communication in our defacto coastal Hitler Youth Law schools, the phrase “winning at any cost” has been substituted for the word justice.
:gun: 
June 25th, 2008 at 8:28 am617-722-2575
June 25th, 2008 at 8:41 amThis is asshole fagan’s office telephone number. Call this prick and give him hell. He is a disgrace to the United States. He fits in real nicely with Massachustts.
Give him the grief he deserves.
fagan sucks.