EVIL CONSIDERED

It’s root causes time in the Victorian Supreme Court:

The jury in Australia’s largest terrorism case has been asked to consider the “evil” America has done, as a court judges 12 Melbourne men accused of plotting to commit “violent jihad”.

Opening the defence case today, lawyer Remy van de Wiel, QC, told the jury America had suffered an enormous blow to its pride as a result of the September 11 World Trade Center attack.

Mr Van de Wiel described the attacks as “evil and shocking”.

“But don’t forget, America has done many evil things too,” Mr van de Wiel told the court.

He also told the Victorian Supreme Court jury to be cautious about forming the opinion that Osama bin Laden, who it has heard was a hero to the leader of the Melbourne group, was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

“To say this was all orchestrated by Osama bin Laden is also very silly,” he said.

“He has never claimed responsibility.”

We’ll be hearing about “controlled demolitions” and Jews being warned to stay away from the WTC before this case is done. Further from van de Weasel’s address:

If you think about movies and how many of them have an Arab hero, very few portray them in a positive light, the media, commentators, documentaries. I’m not saying they are all deliberately biased but they come from a particular standpoint.

Yes. Yes, they do.

History and the concurrence of events that were happening in the background of those conversations are relevant. There was the conflict in Iraq, the conflict in Chechnya, the conflict in Afghanistan, the Sudan and Ethiopia, all involve Muslims. The media is very rarely sympathetic to them.

This guy’s a riot.

We all know 4,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq but do you ever say to yourself, how many Iraqis have died? Does the media ever tell us?

Better than that – via repetition of bogus bodycounts, the media even tells us about dead Iraqis who aren’t dead.

What we are interested in is what a person who lives in a Muslim ghetto in Melbourne says as a reaction to what’s happening to people he regards as his people.

His people, eh? The chap van de Wipe refers to has lived in Australia for nearly twenty years. Here’s a novel legal angle:

The leader of an alleged Melbourne terrorist cell could not organise a booze-up in a brewery, a defence lawyer told the Supreme Court today.

Posted by Tim B. on 02/28/2008 at 12:46 AM
    1. Lionel Hutz was busy…

      Posted by anthony_r on 2008 02 28 at 01:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. “But don’t forget, America has done many evil things too,” Mr van de Wiel told the court.

      Even accepting this statement is true (just for the sake of argument), how does this excuse alleged armed jihad?

      Even jurors in the Peoples Republic of Victoria should be able to see through this sophistry.

      Posted by The Mongrel on 2008 02 28 at 01:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. A novel defence, using both root cause and black ops conspiracy theory to explain criminal acts, thereby apparently admitting the offence. Looks like the Remster got his silk from the same on-line provider as Burnside QC, who I wouldn’t have represent me in a traffic meter matter.

      Given the nymber of babbling imbeciles who warm benches in Brackistan however I’d say the defence will be successful.

      Posted by Habib on 2008 02 28 at 01:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. “But don’t forget, America has done many evil things too,” Mr van de Wiel told the court.

      Later, in a neighbouring court, Mr van de Wiel argued that if the victim didn’t want to be raped, she shouldn’t have worn such a short skirt. Then in his next trial, he berated the owners of a burgled house for leaving their curtains open, thus taunting his client with a clear view of their new 50 inch plasma.

      Posted by blandwagon on 2008 02 28 at 01:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. What we are interested in is what a person who lives in a Muslim ghetto in Melbourne says as a reaction to what’s happening to people he regards as his people.

      Well, what I am interested in is what the hell does that sentence mean?

      Posted by paco on 2008 02 28 at 01:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. WTC levelled was an ‘an enormous blow to’ someone’s pride.  Yeah, I like that.  Ha!

      Van de Wiel’s comments are hideous things, but what’s with this reporter’s angle?

      Posted by reese on 2008 02 28 at 01:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. Mr van de Wiel described the event as a “little puff of smoke”.

      He said Benbrika only accompanied the agent known as SIO 39 because he was naive and ignorant.

      “Like any silly male, he wants to see it, so he goes with 39,” he said.

      I guess there aren’t many men on the jury.

      Posted by We apologise for the inconvenience. on 2008 02 28 at 01:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. Thank God for people who can do the math.

      Posted by paco on 2008 02 28 at 01:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. “The leader of an alleged Melbourne terrorist cell could not organise a booze-up in a brewery, a defence lawyer told the Supreme Court today.”

      Of course not – he’s a bloody Muslim!

      Posted by DocMike on 2008 02 28 at 01:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. What we are interested in is what a person who lives in a Muslim ghetto in Melbourne says as a reaction to what’s happening to people he regards as his people.

      Let’s go out and gang rape some white slut and then burn some cars??? (But that’s only a guess on my part.)

      Posted by andycanuck on 2008 02 28 at 01:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. The judge needs to shut this down immediately. If it continues, the courtroom will become a soapbox and an opportunity to preach Anti-Western terrorist ideology.
      It would be equivalent to a murderer smearing the character of the victim in court, and then arguing that murder was the only reasonable course of action.

      Posted by daddy dave on 2008 02 28 at 01:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. ’Tis a noble profession this lawyering shenanigans. If my first born son isn’t able to reach the heights of Glory Hole Boy at the local steamworks, I’d proudly wish this vocation upon him.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 02 28 at 01:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. #5 What we are interested in is what a person who lives in a Muslim ghetto in Melbourne says as a reaction to what’s happening to people he regards as his people.

      Well, what I am interested in is what the hell does that sentence mean?

      Paco, that governments at all levels have failed us by letting pricks like this in to the country. Come to think if it, they probably shouldn’t have let the terrorist in either.

      Posted by rob w on 2008 02 28 at 01:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. Piss ups in breweries are actually quite difficult to organise under current OH&S guidelines.

      “He was so incompetent he couldn’t organise a ‘Death To Israel’ chant at a peace rally”

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 02 28 at 01:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. He stopped paying his subs to the terrorist organisation therefore he’s not a terrorist and he’s too disorganised to be a terrorist.
      Yeah.

      Why was he paying subs to the terrorist organisation in the first place?

      Just wondering.

      Posted by kae on 2008 02 28 at 01:44 AM • permalink

 

    1. The leader of an alleged Melbourne terrorist cell could not organise a booze-up in a brewery

      Alcohol is haram (forbidden) so I am not at all surprised.

      A beheading in a brewery, or a bombing in a brewery? That’s a different story…

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2008 02 28 at 01:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. What the hell else would one expect from Victoria. Stacked with a Rob Hull’s lefty progressive Western Society hating judiciary. This spiv will probably end up being a judge someday. Along with a NSW Labor import as Police Commissioner (jobs for mates, sounds familiar) it is a wonder they were not sat down and given a cup of tea and a little counselling.

      Posted by BJM on 2008 02 28 at 01:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. Good question Kae. My jaw was dropping so low at this whole “defence” that I couldn’t frame a coherent response, except possibly for this one:

      Defence lawyers are there to provide a voice for the defence, not to provide millions of excuses so as to get them off the offence.

      Or am I out-of-date or naive on this one??

      Posted by carpefraise on 2008 02 28 at 01:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. From the HeraldSun:

      Ms Karapanagiotidis, appearing for accused Fadl Sayadi, said there was a cultural, political and religious context in which the conversations took place ..

      Yup. M-hm. Absolutely.

      That’s the whole point!!!

      Posted by carpefraise on 2008 02 28 at 01:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. Van der Weasel is admitting his clients’ guilt. If they were innocent why raise mitigating circumstances to justify the actions they weren’t undertaking.

      But it will work. Fighting the Great Satan is a legitimate defence in the People’s Democratic Republic of Victoria since rabid leftie Rob Hulls got control of the legal system and the judiciary.

      Posted by Contrail on 2008 02 28 at 02:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. Sorry about all these posts, but THIS statement takes the cake – from a defence lawyer no less…Shane Kent’s lawyer John O’ Sullivan…

      “The principal issue is not about the truth of the alleged facts. The key issue is about the meaning of those facts.”

      I learn something everyday, I do.

      Posted by carpefraise on 2008 02 28 at 02:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. Important update

      Today, 28 February, is High-Five a Muslim Day.

      I wonder if the Jury knew?

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2008 02 28 at 02:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. What the honourable QC is doing is spinning shit. What more can one expect from someone whose surname means “from the Wheel”.

      Posted by lingus4 on 2008 02 28 at 02:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. I wonder if ever in the history of American jurisprudence, anyone has ever used the Australia is evildefense?

      Posted by Shaky Barnes on 2008 02 28 at 02:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. So the defence says they are innocent.
      So let them go.
      Maybe then they would like to travel overseas.
      There are probably people in other countries who would like to talk to them about a few things.

      Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 02 28 at 02:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. There are no ghettos in Melbourne.

      This lawyer brings shame to the profession.

      sigh

      Posted by peter m on 2008 02 28 at 02:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. …the media even tells us about dead Iraqis who aren’t dead.

      That’s known as “fake but accurate”, methinks.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 02 28 at 02:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. That “ghetto” was a suburb just a few years ago, what could be the “root cause” of its degeneration into a Ghetto full of Islamists?

      I blame George Bush!

      “..There was the conflict in Iraq, the conflict in Chechnya, the conflict in Afghanistan, the Sudan and Ethiopia, all involve Muslims..”
      If the magistrate had a sense of humour at this point hed put on his little black cap and declare them guilty.
      After all what is the common factor in all these conflicts?

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 02 28 at 02:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. Does anyone know who the judge is in this case and what that judge’s career reputation is?

      I’m keen to find out if this geek is appealing to the judge’s reputation, or if he is well grounded in defending losers.

      Like they say

      He’s a dutchman born and bred
      thick in the arm and thick in the head

      Posted by mehaul on 2008 02 28 at 03:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. lawyers are sluts; they will represent anyone, and please, noone from the honourable profession writing that lawyers are obligated to represent whoever drags themselves into their premises; as to muslims; do any of them do anything other than breed and/or bomb?

      Posted by cohenite on 2008 02 28 at 03:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. a person who lives in a Muslim ghetto in Melbourne

      As Peter M observes there are no ghettoes in Melbourne, but if there were whose fault would it be? After all the rest of us wouldn’t have forced them to live in a ghetto – and wouldn’t have thought it was a good idea if someone suggested it. So if they are living in a “muslim ghetto” it is entirely by their own choice. (There is some irony in the choice of this word in that ghettoes originally referred to neighbourhoods in which the jews were forced to live – do you reckon the muslims know this?)

      #13 Rob W. Yeah. It was a really good idea letting them all in wasn’t it?

      Posted by Burbank on 2008 02 28 at 03:47 AM • permalink

 

 

    1. # 4, no! The TV was Japanese. It was appropriated as justifyable reparation for what happened during the Second World War.

      Posted by Nic on 2008 02 28 at 03:55 AM • permalink

 

    1. Ghetto blasters.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 02 28 at 04:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. I don’t wish to be a wet blanket here, but these matters may be sub judice which may be interpreted as an interference with due process.

      Posted by chrisgo on 2008 02 28 at 04:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. ”…….and comment may be interpreted…….”

      Posted by chrisgo on 2008 02 28 at 04:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. Habib: A novel defence, using both root cause and black ops conspiracy theory to explain criminal acts, thereby apparently admitting the offence.

      That’s what I thought when I read it. I’d sack this guy as incompetent if I was the client. What a plonker.

      Posted by Abu Chowdah on 2008 02 28 at 04:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. #28

      That “ghetto” was a suburb just a few years ago, what could be the “root cause” of its degeneration into a Ghetto full of Islamists?

      Gee, frollicking, can you give us a hint, it’s a hard one.

      Posted by kae on 2008 02 28 at 04:33 AM • permalink

 

    1. #28

      That “ghetto” was a suburb just a few years ago, what could be the “root cause” of its degeneration into a Ghetto full of Islamists?

      Lakemba was also just a suburb prior to the 1980s when the Keating Government allowed in planeloads of Lebanese Muslims. The rest is history.

      Lakemba is now the electorate of the NSW Premier.

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2008 02 28 at 04:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. People. PEOPLE! Your outrage is that of people who have not spent much time in court. He is a l.a.w.y.e.r. He is paid, sometimes by people just like you and me, to get a jury, (sometimes people just like you an me but more often old or unemployed people) to find someone “not guilty”. He has an audience of 12, and a single client. He is not there to make sense/comment on morality or ethics/contribute to philosophy/be agreeable/analyse world events, anything, in fact to engage in any other sort of activity would be highly unethical, and nothing he says at work has anything to do with what he as a person actuallly thinks. He is simply there to get a result for his client and that’s all.
      Latching onto a barrister’s summing up as an example of how we are going to the dogs is aiming very low indeed.

      Posted by ooh honey honey on 2008 02 28 at 05:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. Anywhere this type of Muslim congregates becomes a ghetto, a barren wasteland devoid of logic.  Van de wipe is right, thcrew of Islamists are full of Bullshit, evil Bullshit.  Van de wipe is one of these scum felchers, who is scraping the barrel with his defence and the type of client he will act for.

      Posted by Howzat on 2008 02 28 at 05:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. chrisgo

      Yes, they would be subjudice if they were published within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria. But as the Underbelly injunction showed, the Supreme Court was unable to stop Underbelly appearing on the web.

      Posted by Contrail on 2008 02 28 at 05:30 AM • permalink

 

    1. 42,
      I have no legal training, Contrail.
      I thought it would be prudent, in the interest of justice, to be restrained in commenting.

      Posted by chrisgo on 2008 02 28 at 05:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. Prudence and Chastity,
      Virginia and Charity,
      All signed a petition
      In the interest of parity;
      Belligerence, Anger,
      Envy and Avarice,
      Apprehended them,
      Upended them,
      And were gone in a trice.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2008 02 28 at 06:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. He’s a dutchman born and bred
      thick in the arm and thick in the head.

      Steady on. Andrew Bolt is Dutchman; or at least his parents are.

      Posted by walterplinge on 2008 02 28 at 06:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. #45 Walter,

      That explains a lot.

      Posted by Pogria on 2008 02 28 at 06:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. Bringing up the reasons for an alleged crime is approoriate in mitigating the punishment.  But what this barrister appears to be seeking is “jury nullification”.  It’s improper.

      Posted by wronwright on 2008 02 28 at 06:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. ooh honey honey

      I don’t think this is evidence, per se, that Australia is going to the dogs.  However, there was a time in the not too distant past when a silk in an Australian court would not dare utter such bullshit.

      Secondly, the man is a cunt and deserves to be called out as one.

      Posted by murph on 2008 02 28 at 06:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. #48 murph,

      you are absolutely correct.

      #40 ohh,

      if you were trying to crack a funny, it was crap.

      If you were for real, fuck off.

      And yes, I know, we’ve had our run ins before.

      Like I said then, stay OFF the Fruity Lexia.

      Posted by Pogria on 2008 02 28 at 07:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. Er check out the LAWYER Richard ? -ex Guest ABC radio presenter, escorting Mr Bropho, (aboriginal activist and convicted paedophile) from court today..

      Posted by crash on 2008 02 28 at 07:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. Q.  Why don’t sharks eat lawyers?

      A.  Professional courtesy.

      Posted by surfmaster on 2008 02 28 at 07:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. #40 Didn’t he “think” …ooh I think I’ll be a defence lawyer.

      Posted by crash on 2008 02 28 at 07:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. #51 Surfie,

      Lawyers have no concept of courtesy.

      You were talking about the shark, right? 😉

      Posted by Pogria on 2008 02 28 at 07:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. OT

      Congratulations to PACO corp and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/default.stm

      E-Day(Eco-twaddle)

      Actual Consumption
      75709.8 Mw
      Usual Consumption
      74980.3 Mw

      729.5 EXTRA Megawatts of Airborne Plantfood Created.

      Posted by Rob Read on 2008 02 28 at 08:11 AM • permalink

 

    1. Apart from that, bin Laden did claim responsibility.  He must know that.
      He’s misleading the jury deliberately.

      Posted by murph on 2008 02 28 at 08:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. OT. Gangs threaten hotel staff:

      GANGS of Middle Eastern youths have threatened to bash staff in popular city and suburban nightclubs.

      Adelaide hoteliers say the notorious “Middle East Boys” – or MEB – have said they’d find staff members’ homes to exact a violent revenge after being refused entry to bars and pubs.

      Posted by We apologise for the inconvenience. on 2008 02 28 at 08:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. If this works, Mr. Van de Weasel can give Ron Kanoski a run for his money.

      Posted by chunt31854 on 2008 02 28 at 08:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. 40. ooh honey honey

      “..He is not there to make sense/comment on morality or ethics/contribute to philosophy/be agreeable/analyze world events, anything, in fact to engage in any other sort of activity would be highly unethical, and nothing he says at work has anything to do with what he as a person actually thinks..”

      Um he DID in actual fact make commentary on morality, and pretty well all the other issues you raised.
      And he’s doing it in order to obtain a mistrial by way of the jury being unduly prejudiced against the defendants. A couple of nods at the wrong time from a juror listening to him will pretty quickly see a retreat to chambers and a new jury formed.
      Repeat tactics then obtain the release of the clients due to “undue suffering as they await their finding of innocent..”

      He’s not being a lawyer defending his client, he’s gaming the system to make it unworkable.
      That is unethical behavior.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 02 28 at 08:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. OBL has taken gleeful responsibility for 9/11 in both written and video recorded form on several occasions.

      So, question, is perjury a crime in Australia?

      Posted by Grimmy on 2008 02 28 at 09:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. Oh, and for those who haven’t managed to keep up over the last year or so…

      The reason for the Sunni Awakening in Al Anbar and other places is because major Iraqi insurgent groups such as the 1920 Brigade got tired of being horror struck by the abomination that is Al Qeda in Iraq.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2008 02 28 at 09:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. You know, it’s comments like these by Andrew Bolt that remind me, “Spot, you’re not in Kansas North Carolina anymore…”

      I repeat: don’t read Tim Blair

      I couldn’t possibly comment on some of the stuff on Tim Blair’s blog yesterday, not even with a “hear hear”, and I won’t be running any comments on it, either. I’d better not even link to it for safety’s sake.

      What we in Australia call “free speech” is really a pretty pale imitation of America’s version, isn’t it.

      Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 28 at 09:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. So, question, is perjury a crime in Australia?

      Yes.  I hope someone like Peter Faris reports the treacherous little turd to the Victorian Bar Council.

      Posted by murph on 2008 02 28 at 09:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. This is completely off topic but relevant to readers and commenters of this blog.  Paco, any comments?

      Posted by Not My Problem on 2008 02 28 at 10:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. #61 Spot: What’s the context of Bolt’s remark? Is he being ironic, or what?

      Signed,

      Baffled in Virginia

      Posted by paco on 2008 02 28 at 10:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. #64 Bolt has already had one run-in with the judge in this case.  (There’s more elsewhere, but I don’t have links handy).

      I’d say he’s being cautious.

      Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 28 at 10:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. #64 I’m constantly confused by Australia’s laws regarding what you can and can’t say.  Bolt does have a tendency to <snip> bits of comments which have to do with current court cases or which could be construed as “defamatory.” I’ve always assumed maybe it was a “once bitten” kind of thing.

      Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 28 at 10:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. #64 He was sued by a magistrate over one of his articles, and the judge in the matter Tim’s writing about was the same judge who heard Popovic v Bolt (not the actual citation, but we’re amongst friends here so I don’t care).

      According to our friend the Frollicking Mole on this thread (which went slightly off topic), the judge actually overturned the part of the verdict which found Bolt not to be guilty of defamation.

      Personally, I don’t think Popovic was entitled to anything more than an apology, if Bolt did indeed get his facts slightly wrong, which is something that would be quite rare for him.

      Posted by Ash_ on 2008 02 28 at 10:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. Q. Why don’t sharks eat lawyers?

      A. Nausea.

      Posted by mythusmage on 2008 02 28 at 10:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. #68: I thought it was because of “professional courtesy”.

      #63: Sigh. Looks like the Argentinians are never going to forgive me for selling them those leaky surplus WWI dreadnaughts during the Falklands War. They’ve named this terrible drug after me out of spite. Well, I’ll show ‘em! I’m preparing a letter to be sent to the Argentine Embassy in Washington in which I threaten to flood Argentina with Paco products. Watch their economy tank! Again!

      Posted by paco on 2008 02 28 at 10:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. #69 Make sure to suck them in totally by having the first lot be products which actually work. Then bring in the real ones!

      Posted by Ash_ on 2008 02 28 at 11:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. I’d say it’s almost worth it for this “defense” to be successful, just so that there’s official recognition of the notion that Muslims are so weak of character that they simply can’t control themselves in the face of unfavourable events and circumstances. I presume it would be okay to push for racial profiling and the like, afterwards?

      Posted by PW on 2008 02 28 at 11:04 AM • permalink

 

    1. #70: Make sure to suck them in totally by having the first lot be products which actually work.

      Hmm. Kinda goes against my principles, but I see the shrewdness of the idea. Thanks.

      Posted by paco on 2008 02 28 at 11:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. Today’s neologism (again, not original):

      Dopeler effect (n):  The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.

      That’s why a lot of lawyers talk so fast.  And it’s 99% of the lawyers who give the rest of us a bad name.  (Yes, I are one.)

      Posted by SSG Pooh on 2008 02 28 at 11:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. Well, if this defense doesn’t work out for them, can they claim Bush Derangement Syndrome as a mitigating factor?

      Posted by spot_the_dog on 2008 02 28 at 11:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. #73: Dopeler effect (n):  The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.

      Absolutely first-rate!

      I am reminded, incidentally, of something H.L. Mencken said about judges: “A judge is a law student who gets to mark his own examination papers.”

      Posted by paco on 2008 02 28 at 11:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. Van de Weil’s brewery line was lame. It’s hard to believe that he had too much delicacy to say, “couldn’t organize a piss up at a brewery.” That line was cited by Google as having been used over 1,050 times. Google gives other examples of shortcomings in organizational ability:

      …couldn’t organize a two-car funeral

      …couldn’t organize a game of solitaire

      …couldn’t organize a trip to Denny’s

      …couldn’t organize a party in a phone booth

      …couldn’t organize a free kegger

      …couldn’t organize a car wash if you spotted them varsity cheerleading, two Hooters franchises, and the statutory version of Traci Lords

      …couldn’t organize a sex party in a whorehouse

      …couldn’t organize a lemonade stand

      …couldn’t organize a broom closet

      Posted by ErnieG on 2008 02 28 at 11:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. Aurora Barackialis.

      Posted by paco on 2008 02 28 at 11:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. #76

      A positive variant, favored by my Drill Sergeant:

      — could screw up a wet dream

      Posted by SSG Pooh on 2008 02 28 at 11:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. A jury-pool full of judicial humor.

      Posted by paco on 2008 02 28 at 11:21 AM • permalink

 

    1. #73

      Primary suspect?  The internet.

      Posted by murph on 2008 02 28 at 11:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. Stories like this make me angry enough to want to go to law school–just so I can become a judge and sit there on the bench, listening to these people piss and moan about America. Then I’ll look him in the eye, say “You’re admitting he did it.” And when he starts squawking, I’ll repeat the statement, and then throw his pissant client in jail until the Second Coming.

      We don’t have nearly enough hanging judges any more. Court has become a sympathy ploy instead of a whodunnit arena, and it’s absolutely ridiculous.

      Posted by Tungsten Monk on 2008 02 28 at 11:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. I wonder if Mr. van de Wiel was one of those celebrating on 9/11?  Y’know, because of all the evil we do.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2008 02 28 at 12:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. What’s black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?

      A dobermann

      Posted by jlc on 2008 02 28 at 12:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. paco –

      What’s the context of Bolt’s remark? Is he being ironic, or what?

      I think he’s being pickwickian, engaging in the same type of fake feud as Jack Benny and Fred Allen.

      Posted by wronwright on 2008 02 28 at 12:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. “But don’t forget, America has done many evil things too,” Mr van de Wiel told the court.

      Mr. van de Weasel must mean all those evil things such as the aid we send, especially in time of disaster. He must mean all the times that we’ve pulled someone’s bacon out of the fire. Yeah, it must be evil things like that.

      Posted by Deborah Leigh on 2008 02 28 at 01:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. #84 Upon further reflection, I actually think he’s being sneaky and congratulating Tim on his post, and using reverse psychology to get others to read it. After all, what’s the first thing people do after being told not to do something?

      Posted by Ash_ on 2008 02 28 at 01:33 PM • permalink

 

    1. #69,

      Before professional courtesy can play a role, lawyers must first become professionals.

      Posted by mythusmage on 2008 02 28 at 01:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. “To say this was all orchestrated by Osama bin Laden is also very silly,” he said. “He has never claimed responsibility.”

      It’s too bad Mr. van de Weasel can’t pull his Lefty head out of his ass long enough to view the tape bin Laden takes responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Isn’t Mr. Weasel one of the “see no evil…” monkeys?

      Posted by Deborah Leigh on 2008 02 28 at 01:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. #84 Wronwright: Ha! So that’s it. Well, they’ve got a way to go before they reach that level of faux rivalry.

      #88 Deborah: I was thinking the same thing. There was a video circulating shortly after the attack showing bin Laden sitting around with his fellow goat molesters, laughing about the whole thing.

      #86 Ash: I think you’re right.

      Posted by paco on 2008 02 28 at 01:56 PM • permalink

 

    1. #4 Just like a Liberal, blaming the victim and defending the criminal. It’s like the “pro-choice” people who object to war because babies get killed.

      Posted by Deborah Leigh on 2008 02 28 at 02:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. “But don’t forget, America has done many evil things too,” Mr van de Wiel told the court.

      And just what are those evil things?  Could it be things like fighting wars to prevent greater evils from occurring?  Like Communism.  Fascism.  Imperial conquest.  Islamist fundamentalism.

      Idiot.

      Posted by wronwright on 2008 02 28 at 02:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. Y’all gotta admit, from the socialist utopianists point of view, we have been pretty dang dastardly.

      We stopped their fascism, their nazism, their communism, and now we’re picking on their multiculti surrenderism.

      From the perspective of the exclusively enemy friendly sorts such as that scumbag running his suck in support of those who want to cut his head off, we have been a pain in their ass for awhile now.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2008 02 28 at 02:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. America has done many evil things too

      Good grief, how many times to we have to apologise for Punky Brewster and Ewoks: The Battle For Endor? I’m sorry, World! Now get over it.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2008 02 28 at 03:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. Research laboratories have replaced rats with lawyers.  There are three reasons:

      1.  There are more lawyers than rats;
      2.  Lab assistants learn to care about the rats;
      3.  And there are some things that rats won’t do.

      Elizabeth
      Imperial Keeper

      Posted by Elizabeth Imperial Keeper on 2008 02 28 at 04:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. #76 – my personal favorite:

      Couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

      Posted by Neeniebug on 2008 02 28 at 04:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. Good grief, how many times to we have to apologise for Punky Brewster…

      I used to think poorly of Punky Brewster, too. Then I saw Paget Brewster all grown up on “Criminal Minds”. I have forgiven her for her start in show business.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2008 02 28 at 04:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. ’could not organise a booze-up in a brewery’

      As distinct a bomb-up in a brewery.

      Posted by Barrie on 2008 02 28 at 05:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. It’s only a matter of time before the lawyer blames it all on the jooooz.

      After all, that’s what’s *really* at the heart of it, isn’t it?

      Posted by wanglese on 2008 02 28 at 06:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. Rob Crawford –

      I used to think poorly of Punky Brewster, too. Then I saw Paget Brewster all grown up on “Criminal Minds”. I have forgiven her for her start in show business.

      wikipedia –

      Frye had breast reduction surgery at age 15, reducing the size of her breasts from 38DD to 36C.

      I can understand why.

      Posted by wronwright on 2008 02 28 at 06:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. #40 Agreed, this lawyer’s argument is indeed devoid of morality and ethics. It is also devoid of credibility. Pointing it out does not make the commenters on this site low indeed.

      Posted by larrikin on 2008 02 28 at 09:05 PM • permalink

 

  1. Must be really easy to be a QC these days

    Posted by Old school on 2008 02 28 at 09:27 PM • permalink