[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
i no more called you a racist than you 'asked' me to change your title, mr fancy lawyer

of course you are in favor of these ridiculous proceedings, it's extraneous and unnecessary crap like this that pays your bills. letting lawyers argue for the sanctity of the legal process is like listening to prostitutes argue about the virtues of extramarital affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never decided one way or another. If you read my posts, I merely explain how perjury proceedings become a necessary, collateral matter to the main case. I specifically said that if you rail against the perjury aspect of the case, you have to disagree with the entire case. I even (effectively) stated that it would be reasonable to disagree with the entire BALCO inquiry.

Personally, I am in no position to know whether it did any good, or not. I don't really care if professional atheletes take PED's, or not. I do care about the fundamental values of our justice system (as I pointed out ad naseum) and not lying to a grand jury is one of them.

As far as your additional ad hominem attack on me and how I make a living: I am the first to admit that other people's misfortune (or miss deeds) pays most of my bills. Before you stoke your fire with that admission, please understand that I am quite up front with my clients about this. I always try to steer them away from expensive proceedings and try to get them to negotiate with the other side so that they can make a business decision about their case. Failing that, I let them know that it cost a lot of money to fight, and if they fight, I make sure that its either their choice, or that its completely necessary to protect their rights and/or property.

Anything else you need to know?