Ask a Judge anything:

What do you see to be the biggest differences and similarities between your country's laws (or EUs) and the US'?

How would you handle someone that you are 100% certain has done a serious crime i.e. murder but you don't have enough evidence?

If you're a witness, answer the questions honestly, objectively and fairly. Collaborate. If you're accused of a crime, just keep your mouth shut.

I don't know US laws so I can't say. Plus likewise in the US, laws vary a lot from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

I've had dozens of those cases. Acquit him. No evidence, no conviction. As simple as that.

do u cum on the criminalz?

Shame, I'd go judge from "and then there were none" mode

rofl "RINDER"

Attached: 1385854051677.png (560x407, 13K)

What type of system of law do you work in? Common Law? Civil Code? How does probate work in your country?

Judge Rinder can get you any kind of rind you need from pork to lemon, if it's a rind, Judge Rinder's got it. If Rinder doesn't have it you don't want it

Define justice.
Has the justice you uphold been influenced by the philosophy of John Rawls?

Since it's in continental Europe, it's a civil law jurisdiction.

There is no »probate« since wills have to be made by a public notary and they are kept by them. I do have a lot of processes though concerning the distribution of the estate by the heirs.

I am not versed enough in John Rawls in order to answer that question. Although I have books by him and I have read some of this writing.

Your opinion on the loli/shota, furry, trap community that exists on Cred Forums?

Qualifications? Years in upper education, degrees held, previous work experience?

Also, fucking why? You can make so much more litigating.

Knocking a gavel, wearing a wig and yelling "Order" sounds really fun though, I don't see why he shouldn't have that as his job???

just fetishes. no opinion. As long as they don't hurt themselves or anyone, it's none of my business.

what memberships / rites / ranks do you hold in fraternal societies?

Think about it. Always have to be at work earlier than the lawyers, who make more money than you. Also, you have to compete for your job every few years.
The appearance of power is cool, I guess. And it’s probably fun to be called ”judge” but unless you’re using it as a stepping stone to a higher court, politics, or a private practice job, it kinda sucks.

The above applies to the US, so results may vary.

I am an unusual judge since I had a University career before and I have a PhD. So I was a research assistant, I lectured and now I'ma judge. Most of my colleagues were former attorneys.

The money I make is enough for me to live. Also this profession provides me with stability, which is very important for me. I'd rather know when the paycheck is coming than be dependent on the flow of clients. Besides it is quite more interesting in my perspective because I an independent in my decisions.

Views on full (vulnerability) disclosure after researcher tried contacting company for 8+ months with no response?

None. Plus I hate them. They are dominated by an elite which uses others to get up in life. I'm a lonely bird.

That’s what I was wondering, if you were in a country where you didn’t need to be a licensed attorney first.

Have you ever been pressured to go lenient on someone simply because they had either massive wealth or overwhelming political influence? If so, what did you do?

In my country we are civil servants, which means that I have a job for life unless you fuck up hard. I just have to compete for positions with my colleagues like a normal internal competition in the civil service.

Plus we have our own healthcare system, in addition to the public system, which is quite generous in Europe as you know. I pay a monthly fee for it but it covers me and my family and the coverage is quite extensive, including dental services. Just to give you an idea, if I go to a GP, I just pay €3,00 because our insurance covers the rest. I'm a fucking welfare queen.

No because I only deal with minor cases. Those cases go to judges with more experience. Never faced any pressure.

How much are your bribes?

Looking for answer on still.

Need some background?

Age?
How’d you get the job?

If Continental Europe, I assume you use an Inquisitorial system. How do you feel about the system? To an American, it sounds awful, with all power held by too small a group of people and subject to extreme biases within the system. It seems like it would lead to lots of false convictions and make defending yourself in many cases utterly pointless.

But that's my own American bias, raised to revere our adversarial system. I'd be very interested to hear your feelings on it, as someone with actual intimate knowledge.

Look you little shit. You cant say ask anything then lulz except this and this. That's not anything. You say almost anything fuck face.

What are your thoughts on the illegal use of copyrighted images on Cred Forums and similar sites?

Illegal is subject to the laws of individual countries. Same thing with copyright.

Site can dictate its own rules or choice of law.

Re read thread, am dumbass. You said civil court. Still, I'd be interested in your opinion.

Also, how does civil court work in your system? It sounds very odd for civil court to not be adversarial to me.

i cant understand the question

38.
there is a public competition every year. you can apply for the positions available. you go to a special school, do a certain training and then you have a job for life

In my country, the criminal system is adversarial. there is no jury though.

Interesting! We do have trials like that here, I didn't realize that was a thing in civil code countries though. Thanks.

>choice of law
If you really are a judge, you should get fired.

no opinion.

theProssecution service does the investigation and then it ends in an accusation. The defendant has to defend himself in a trial. I have no intervention in the process before. There are a lot of myths concerning Europe (and the criminal systems in Europe vary widely acccording to the country).

I have no knowledge of the american system to make a comparison.

>never heard of a choice of law provision.
>is fucking retarded.

Does not apply, projecting little bitch.

Have you ever gave someone a lesser sentance due to personal issues

Have you ever fucked a goat?

The civil court is very simple: someone brings a claim, the person who gets served can defend himself.

There is usually a preliminary hearing to see what the dispute is all about and what needs to be proved.

We then proceed to the trial and in the end I make a sentence.

it could, you uneducated retard.

Not consciously but I tend to be more lenient in criminal cases, essentially with people without a criminal record.

Cool, thanks

Are you ever tempted to give niggers harsher sentences

No. In my country black people are usually not a source of trouble, the worst ones are the gypsies. But I am uncapable to give a gypsy a harsher sentence just because he's a gypsy, it's because they are normally marginals.

Have you ever presided over a case where you did legally the right thing, but you still felt regret over it. And I don't mean releasing someone because of a lack of evidence. Rather, for example, a case where you have had to hand over cuatody of children to the clearly worse parent ?

Why come to Cred Forums out of all places

Do you like your job?

A case comes to you where two guys have thrown eggs at each other. One of them is gay and the other one is a 37 year old virgin.
One of the eggs was rotten but neither of them would tell you who got hit with it.
One of them have six fingers on a hand and other one has four. One always lies and the other lies every second Saturday. Today is a Friday.
What would you ask them and why? How would you solve this dispute?

No because nowadays laws give a lot of power to judges to take the most appropriate decision to a case. I always decide in conscience that I did the right thing. But that does not mean that I don't make mistakes or misjudgments.

I've been lurking here since 2007. It's a secret vice.

Love it!! Besides that I'd only do teaching. I can't see myself doing anything else.

I wouldn't. It's mutual aggression and it's insignificant. The other facts are irrelevant to the case.

Okay so one of them was raped and the other one is afraid to tell you.
Talking about this.

Alright, you win. I got trolled. Have a frog pic.

Attached: tsu.jpg (1334x1579, 208K)

greentext the funniest event you've ever seen whilst siting on the bench

Attached: 1507910973680.jpg (673x892, 84K)

Ever made a judgement you regret?

>girl has a boyfriend
>another girl has an affair with that boyfriend
>they start bitching;
>the first girl then publishes an add with her name, photo, phone number and address in a prostitution website. Promises discount to the John if he provides her with pot.
>second girl receives literally 100 calls in one day.
>second girl has to be hospitalised due to nervous breakdown.
>second girl then creates fake FB profile and posts naked photos of first girl which her BF had given her.
>second girl is brought to trial, brings a mini-skirt and tries the fatal attraction leg-crossing.

!. You have still not defined justice.
2. What percentage of prosecutions end in a guilty verdict?
3. Since all tax is theft [see Auberon Herbert if in any doubt ] do you feel any guilt for being a part of an illegal outfit?
4. Many members of the Mafia & Third Reich justify their participation in criminal regimes on the basis of some notion of collective good. What excuse do you use to salve your conscience?
5. Do you ever question your delusion of yourself as a good person?

Yes! I've acquited some guys I should have condemned but I stretched the presumption of innocence a bit too far.

1. Philosophy of Law has been trying to do that for almost 2000 years. I'm hardly qualified for that.

2. The Ministry of Justice has those figures but I don't know them. I'd say that >50% because many cases are settled by means of an agreement of the parties in the trial stage. But sincerely I don't know. In my personal case, it's way over 90% condemnations but I may not be representative. I may have guys guilty has hell.

3. Tax is not theft. You sound like those teenagers with Che Guevara shirts. Grow over that.

4. It's a good question. My country is a stabilised democracy, part of the EU and a subscriber of many international treaties for the protection of human rights. Those treaties are implemented in laws. Of course that shit happens like in all countries but overall my country's law respect established international standards.

5. I question myself everyday who I really am. I often find myself by dealing with people are are not like me and who try to turn me someone else. I make an effort not to harm anyone though.

I apologise for asking a question based on an assumption, but, have you ever had a case when the evidence is essentially one word against the other, believed the prosecution witness unreservedly but still acquitted?

If it's one word against another, if there is no more evidence to corraborate one version, then the rules of burden of proof apply.

Me again my brother is studying law and says can you please define the thin skull rule

1. Does it not seem odd to you that someone should call himself a judge without defining his purpose and standard of judgement?
3. You need to read Auberon Herbert and get over your love of Hegelian statecraft.
4. Who sets the "international" LOL standards?
5. But you harm people all the time. Say I work all week,arrive home and someone stops me on my doorstep and says "Your money or your life!" Has he earned my money? Does he deserve my wage? Say I work all week, arrive home and a bunch of people stop me on my doorstep and say "We had a vote - hand us your money or else!" Does an immoral principle become a moral one just because people vote for it? Would killing Jews be OK if a majority of people favored it?

I have no idea. It must be an american thing.

I just looked it up and it appears to be a type pf causation of damage. The tortfeasor is not liable for the damage it the damage is not the normal and expected consequence of his action but it occurred due to some unforeseen circumstance.

>1. Does it not seem odd to you that someone should call himself a judge without defining his purpose and standard of judgement?
My purpose and standard of judgement are defined in the constitution and laws of my country. It is a democratic constitution.

>3. You need to read Auberon Herbert and get over your love of Hegelian statecraft.
I have no love affair with Hegel but I very much prefer an established thinker to an obscure delusional.

>4. Who sets the "international" LOL standards?
International organisations such as the UN, EU, the Council of Europe, the WTO.

>5. But you harm people all the time. Say I work all week,arrive home and someone stops me on my doorstep and says "Your money or your life!" Has he earned my money? Does he deserve my wage? Say I work all week, arrive home and a bunch of people stop me on my doorstep and say "We had a vote - hand us your money or else!" Does an immoral principle become a moral one just because people vote for it? Would killing Jews be OK if a majority of people favored it?
The majority argument is simply moronic and it has been examined to the utmost extent. The majority has its limits: it cannot eliminate the minority and it cannot undermine the very democratic principles which allowed it to exist in the first place. Lawmakers make laws limited by constitutions, international treaties and the such. They are given a space of discrecionarity, free will which has its natural limits. Human rights and democracy are constantly in a state of evolution.

Is there a judgement that you've made that you now regret?

Was your mother abusive? Did she slap your thighs with cold cuts and stick umbrellas up your ass?

You are judging over a case where a foreign Muslim who can't speak English rapes a white girl. How many years in jail do you give him when he's found guilty?

"The more this question of taxation is considered, the more clearly I believe will the mischief of the present system come to light. So long as the political faction in power can decree the levying of what taxes it likes, it is unreasonable to hope that either the organized or the unorganized oppression of men by each other can ever be brought to an end." fee.org/resources/the-right-and-wrong-of-compulsion-by-the-state/
Auberon Herbert is neither obscure nor delusional.
4. The UN should not exist. Nor the EU nor the WTO.
5. What are the limits and why? Who is to decide what "undermining democracy" means? Does it mean sacrificing 30% or 90% of your earnings?

I like you man, you seem like a fair dude.

How can my friend kick his ex of the tenency agreement

Why do you imprison people simply for questioning the so-called Holocaust?

What kind of legal sistem does your country have common law or roman style law ?

Do you dispense royal justice?