Harley Breite - Appreciation thread

[Grape Ape]

From what we've seen from this guy,  I don't think random criticism from the internet is going to scare him away.


I'm guessing he's just busy.

[Simple Simon]

Since when do lawyers do the moral and right thing?

If that were the case, few cases would be won. Lawyers go in with the intent to get the best outcome for their client. The best outcome is to get them off without any form of repercussions. Anything less and they're settling.

"1"

a lawyers first duty is to the court.
If a lawyer knows his client is guilty then he shouldn't allow him to go to court and commit perjury on the stand.
Also, if a lawyer is a private lawyer he can pick and choose cases.
Public defenders are there for the pieces of shit who are guilty beyond a shadow of doubt.

[Simple Simon]

Where is Harley?

"1"

He didnt like being put on the spot, and it wasnt just me, a few picked him up on a few issues.

[chaos]

From what we've seen from this guy,  I don't think random criticism from the internet is going to scare him away.


I'm guessing he's just busy.

Hey Guys,
  Well so much for bodybuilding, MMA, cars, diet, nutrition, bodybuilder gossip and even hot chicks.
  Some of these child abuse questions seem to be quite similar so let me bring this short but volatile chapter to a final conclusion on my part:
  1)  I am not my job.
  2)  I am proud of what I have achieved, from nothing, with no help from the politicos or anyone else but a few close friends and parents.
  3)  I am much more proud of several other things I have achieved in life than anything I've ever done as an attorney.
  4)  I was a part time Municipal Prosecutor in 4 towns for 2 years and hated it!!!  I didn't want to "judge" anyone.  Defendant walks into my office
and has a ticket for No Insurance which is a $1,000 fine and mandatory 1 year loss of license.  The following conversation takes place with he and I:
      Me: "Did you have insurance?"
      Him: "No"
      Me:  "Why not?"
      Him:  "I can't afford it" (NJ is the HIGHEST paying state in the country for car insurance)
      Me:  "What do you do for work?"
      Him:  "I work in a factory"
      Me:  "Do you have a family?"
      Him:  "Yes, I am married and have 2 kids."
      Me:  "So if you have no license, you can't work.  I am going to downgrade (change) your ticket to Failure to Produce the Insurance Card.  No suspension and a $32.00 fine.
 5)  Given that my grandfather was shot through the head with a rifle by a 19 year old SS Officer (Josef Wurst- later hanged at trial) and survived
and my Dad went through the camps as well and saw Hitler live 2 times, I could not defend someone at Nuremburg.  
       Now go ahead and scream "hypocrite."  I have told you over and over again that my personal ethics don't have to make sense to anyone else.
My moral barometer does not have to be identical to yours.  I can't represent someone charged with abusing an animal and I can't tell you why that
is different to me than an alleged child abuser.  I do NOT condone either.  If I don't have the nerve to do something, I don't do it.  It does NOT have to
make sense to anyone else.  Do your ethics, justifications and peccadillos make perfect sense to me, to Las Vegas, to Pellius?  Probably not but it doesn't
matter.  They don't have to.  I am not operating outside the law and the argument that I am not hurting anyone can be debated ONLY if you first find
the judicial system at fault.  I am a terribly flawed human being (don't tell my girlfriend) but my job is the same job as hundreds of thousands of others so
perhaps there has been a societal acceptance way before I went to law school that what I do for a JOB has some purpose or place despite it being terribly
unpopular.
  6)  I fully understand how people despise child abusers.  I even gave you the name of a client whose case was so repulsive that I still have nightmares when
I think about the photos in the Discovery.  I actually removed myself from the case.  Yet no one ever asked me about that case.  Again, strange.  
Perhaps the best way to help diminish (not able to abolish) child abuse is to have the public view trials of the accused and watch as most are convicted and those who
aren't are forever embarrassed anyway.  Perhaps if more abusers saw the trial and that evidence is presented in an overwhelming and expertise manner, they might think twice before acting.
  7)  I ask you to find ONE example of me criticizing anyone else's job or profession.  I even supported Vince G when he was attacked for some type of job he held.  The
job does not necessarily make the man, neither does the suit or flannel shirt or car he drives.  I, along with almost all of you, am much more than simply my job.  We
are all an amalgam of different emotions, frustrations, desires, talents, attributes, interest, etc.  I am sure my postman has much more going on in his life than just his job.
  I think I will wait for a new topic here to emerge as I've pretty much exhausted all my answers as to why I represent the reprehensible.
  Nevertheless, I remain on GetBig knowing the consequences because in the end, you guys are very smart, fun and thought provoking.
Harley

[OneMoreRep]

Nice quote Chaos. It gives us a clear sense of where he is coming from.

I don't think any of us (although you have every right to) should be casting any sort of ethical stones in his direction. He does his job and does it well.

All of the criminal defense lawyers I know make up stories in order to get their clients off. It's a corrupt system from every angle.

I hope he returns. I will reach out to him sometime this week.

"1"

[chaos]

Another one where he's starting to react to people not kissing his ass constantly.

Hey Guys,
  While I had hoped to use today to catch up on all of your recent questions, I find myself too spent and
feeling negative about this whole thing.
  I came to GetBig for thought provoking, interesting and fun discussion.
  I get enough death threats, hate mail and negativity from the rest of the world.
  I don't need to solicit it here.
  And before Be There starts cheering, this is not a "meltdown" as I think you call it.
  It's an honest statement that I am tired of the recent personal attacks and will come back when I feel
more positive.
  It does strike me that the majority of the topics here are about my job, which I NEVER mind nor have any
trouble responding to.  It's odd that few questions are asked about bodybuilding and its related topics.  Again, I
am just happy to be here and a part of a neat thread but pretty much all topics are open for discussion just in case
someone gets bored with all this lawyer stuff.
Harley

This post reveals a bit of a darker attitude about how he really feels about his job.

Dear Pellius,
  Your first question works on two different planes so I will do my best to explain my honest answer:
  It is more important that my client received a fair trial if there were a Guilty Verdict.  That would mean, to me, that the system is working
as is designed.  I don't ever second guess myself in terms of "Did I do my utmost best in representing this person at trial?"  I always give my
best.
  However, if my client received an unfair trial yet despite this, there were a verdict of "Not Guilty" then I would be happy.  I do all I can to make a judge
give me a fair trial but much of that is out of the attorneys' hands.  Winning is important to me.  If I have a stupid judge and win despite his ludicrous
rulings, then more power to me and less power to a government that permits politics not merit, to decide who becomes a judge.
  I represented a young Jamaican fellow named Ruel Powell who was indicted on First Degree Aggravated Assault charges for both anally and vaginally
penetrating his 5 year old sister.  The young girl immediately after the alleged incident told family members and gave a video taped interview and
demonstrated with dolls just what she believed occurred. 
  At the trial, the Judge, through out the entire case made ridiculous rulings in favor of the State in a clear attempt to crucify my client.
  The alleged victim came in and testified.
  My client did NOT receive a fair trial.
  The verdict came back Not Guilty.  Was I happy?  Of course, who wouldn't be if they did my job?  When the government has a judge assisting them the
whole way and they still lose, you bet I take pride in shoving it down their bureaucratic necks.

  Your second question simply seeks my own personal opinion:
  If I were to get "someone off on a technicality" I would view that as a win.  I found the technicality, I told the State and they still couldn't stop me.
  The role of a Defense Attorney is not to "seek justice" but rather, ensure that an INJUSTICE in terms of the legality of the investigation, charge and trial
does not occur.  I am making the "world a better place" by keeping the government from jumping to conclusions and not proving their case according to the
rules.  To prevent them from cheating and cutting corners is to ensure that racism, corruption and ego do not destroy the integrity of the trial.
  As far as being on my death bed, I will be thinking of all the "Perfect Moments" I have experienced (especially lately).  I already know I did the right thing in
the courtroom so I won't waste any time on my death bed thinking about my career, but rather, the great family, friends, pets and loves I have experienced.
Harley

[SF1900]

You're not sure what his work involves, other than that he makes a lot of money from it, you mean?

Well, I know he specializes in white collar crime and has some defended some wealthy clients. But I don't know specifics.

[Las Vegas]

Well, I know he specializes in white collar crime and has some defended some wealthy clients. But I don't know specifics.

When you said this:

I actually stumbled upon that paragraph because I was trying to find any peer reviewed studies about the personality constellation of criminal defense lawyers, but came up with zilch.

May I ask why you were looking?  Was it for use in this thread?

[NelsonMuntz]

Another one where he's starting to react to people not kissing his ass constantly.


This post reveals a bit of a darker attitude about how he really feels about his job.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=profile;u=31977

[SF1900]

When you said this:

May I ask why you were looking?  Was it for use in this thread?

yes.

[Las Vegas]

yes.

Had you found something which may have lent itself to making Harley look good, would you have presented it on here?  Or would you have only used something which might do the opposite of that?

[SF1900]

Had you found something which may have lent itself to making Harley look good, would you have presented it on here?  Or would you have only used something which might do the opposite of that?

Youre asking too many questions. I don't feel like answering you any more.

[Las Vegas]

Youre asking too many questions. I don't feel like answering you any more.

You're a troublemaker, SF.

 

[SF1900]

So, Harley won't defend animal abusers, but he will defend a child molester.

That is a moral decision. As such, his morals are directly intertwined into his profession.

I am still wondering why Harley will defend a child molester, but not an animal abuser.   I am sorry, but that is a screwed up moral compass. I guess he can make more money off of child molesters.

To be honest, if I was a criminal defense lawyer, the absolute last people I would defend are people who harm children. Id rather defend someone who murders 50 adults, then defend someone who harms one child.

[Las Vegas]

So, Harley won't defend nazis and animal abusers, but he will defend a child molester.

That is a moral decision. As such, his morals are directly intertwined into his profession.

I am still wondering why Harley will defend a child molester, but not an animal abuser. 

You wonder why he can find the nerve to do one, but not the other.  That's all you're asking.

But you want to make him look bad, above all else, and that's why you were scrounging around for that information.  You like to rock the boat, but you're too scared to find out exactly what your own cousin is up to.

[TuHolmes]

So, Harley won't defend animal abusers, but he will defend a child molester.

That is a moral decision. As such, his morals are directly intertwined into his profession.

I am still wondering why Harley will defend a child molester, but not an animal abuser.   I am sorry, but that is a screwed up moral compass. I guess he can make more money off of child molesters.

To be honest, if I was a criminal defense lawyer, the absolute last people I would defend are people who harm children. Id rather defend someone who murders 50 adults, then defend someone who harms one child.

I must have missed that part.

[chaos]

I must have missed that part.

Bottom quote on the last page.

[SF1900]

I must have missed that part.

Obviously, there is something about Harley that does not allow himself to defend an animal abuser, yet, he does not feel the same repulsion for child abusers.

I am wondering what his rationale is.

[TuHolmes]

Obviously, there is something about Harley that does not allow himself to defend an animal abuser, yet, he does not feel the same repulsion for child abusers.

I am wondering what his rationale is.

Bottom quote on the last page.

I wouldn't know.

I don't agree with that myself. A good defense should be given to all.

Cornerstone of our country and all that.

[SF1900]

I wouldn't know.

I don't agree with that myself. A good defense should be given to all.

Cornerstone of our country and all that.

If he defended ALL criminals, then Id better understand. But I dont get how he draws such a division between animal abusers and child abusers.

[Simple Simon]

Another one where he's starting to react to people not kissing his ass constantly.


This post reveals a bit of a darker attitude about how he really feels about his job.

the guy is an overly sensitive cry baby.

[hazbin]

Obviously, there is something about Harley that does not allow himself to defend an animal abuser, yet, he does not feel the same repulsion for child abusers.

I am wondering what his rationale is.

the logical (but not necessarily the correct) answer is that he had pets at one point or another but has no children of his own. 

that situation would allow him more empathy towards pets than to kids because he has a personal history of attachment to one and not the other.

I don't know about Harley, but regardless of who we are talking, this would make sense.

[SF1900]

the logical (but not necessarily the correct) answer is that he had pets at one point or another but has no children of his own.  

that situation would allow him more empathy towards pets than to kids because he has a personal history of attachment to one and not the other.

I don't know about Harley, but regardless of who we are talking, this would make sense.

Too simplistic of an answer to rationalize such a divergence.

[NelsonMuntz]

Until reading this thread I would have thought that the Nevada desert chapped Las Vegas's lips.

What killed this thread was not the hard questions some ppl asked on here, but the incessant ass kissing and dick sucking that went on for 100 pages between the discussions

[Sokolsky]

a lawyers first duty is to the court.
If a lawyer knows his client is guilty then he shouldn't allow him to go to court and commit perjury on the stand.
Also, if a lawyer is a private lawyer he can pick and choose cases.
Public defenders are there for the pieces of shit who are guilty beyond a shadow of doubt.

A lawyers first duty is to the court. Ensuring it's proper functioning. As they are an institution empowered by the people.
And have a moral responsibility to ensure the best possible outcomes, following proper protocols and procedurs as best they can.

The justice system still acts on the premise of innocent until proven guilty. As it should. To shield the system from people such as yourself, who; are only satisfied if a person they think is guilty, receives a punishment they deem appropriate. Which has more to do with vengeance than with punishment.

If a client is guilty, then the prosecutors will have no problem providing overwhelming proof within the set-boundaries of the law.
If they cannot, then they should strive to be more meticulous in their investigation and prosecution.

Harley is there to ensure the system works. Not just to protect innocent people, but also to make sure that in the future the system does not allow for mistakes which could favor actual offenders. It's about much more than a single-case, or a single-person.

Obviously, there is something about Harley that does not allow himself to defend an animal abuser, yet, he does not feel the same repulsion for child abusers.

I am wondering what his rationale is.

Well, given that I have been cheated on in the past, and quite frankly cannot understand why people would cheat in the first place. You'd assume I wouldn't associate with such people. However, a good friend of mine, and frequent drinking buddy, has a wife and kid at home (and quite frankly a good position in life). Yet whenever we go out, it's free-range. To the point where I'm surprised it hasn't caught up with him yet, given we're in a rather small community. While the thought of cheating is repulsive to me, and I cannot relate at all. I still find him a likeable guy.

Now what rationale is there in this? Or hell, what's the rationale in anything of anyone?
We are all emotional beings, with sometimes (ir)rational thoughts. Our ability to switch off to certain impulses is greater to one thing than another. Without a necessary direct correlation, although probably all can be traced back to encounters, upbringing or just basically the whole nature vs nurture shazam.