Dissent

CAMPBELL, aka SKYYWALKER, et al. v. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, INC.

Dissent – if the case wasn’t decided 9-0, what did the justices who ruled against the majority think about their case?

The Courts ruling was a unanimous decision. Both Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter from the Supreme Court agreed with one another that the song was a parody and it claimed as Fair Use. The case was also ruled reversed and remand. It was sent back for the District Courts to rule on the case. The source found on page 56 can be found here.

Your Own Argument

CAMPBELL, aka SKYYWALKER, et al. v. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, INC.

Did you agree or disagree with the ruling. Provide some authority for your argument

I definitely was skeptacle about the argument. I mean, 2 Live Crew pratically copied their whole song. I listened to the song myself and I didn't think it was funny. I didn't think it was a parody of the original. The 2 Live Crew Version sounded like it was directed towards a particular person. It didn't sound like it was trying to make fun of the original in anyway. "Judge Nelson, dissenting below, came to the same conclusion, that the 2 Live Crew song "was clearly intended to ridicule the white bread original" source I disagree, I think that the song was intended for a remix, or maybe for filler space on 2 Live Crew's album. I don't think they inteded to have a parody at all. As stated by Justice Kennedy:

"On July 5, 1989, 2 Live Crew's manager informed Acuff Rose that 2 Live Crew had written a parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman," that they would afford all credit for ownership and authorship of the original song to Acuff Rose, Dees, and Orbison, and that they were willing to pay a fee for the use they wished to make of it. Enclosed with the letter were a copy of the lyrics and a recording of 2 Live Crew's song. See Appendix B, infra, at 27. Acuff Rose's agent refused permission,"

Originally they asked Acuff-Rose for permission to use the song but they had said no. But yet they still published the song on their records anyways?

"Nonetheless, in June or July 1989, [n.2] 2 Live Crew released records, cassette tapes, and compact discs of "Pretty Woman" in a collection of songs entitled "As Clean As They Wanna Be.""stating that "I am aware of the success enjoyed by `The 2 Live Crews', but I must inform you that we cannot permit the use of a parody of `Oh, Pretty Woman.' " App. to Pet. for Cert. 85a." source

And sold it as well? I think there should be some repercussions for that. I think they just claimed "Parody" or "Fair Use" to save them from the courts. They copied someone's hard earned work. In my eyes, I don't find that morally right. The supreme court ruled that it was Fair Use and that it qualified as a parody. I think Roy Orbison and Acuff-Rose deserve more dignity for their music. I don't think its right for them to be infringed upon and their culprit let free.

Rule of Law

CAMPBELL, aka SKYYWALKER, et al. v. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, INC.

Rule of law -- a concise summary of the main precedent established.

To base their decisions they refered the U.S. Copyright Acts.

"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

source

"The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. 972 F. 2d 1429, 1439 (1992). Although it assumed for the purpose of its opinion that 2 Live Crew's song was a parody of the Orbison original, the Court of Appeals thought the District Court had put too little emphasis on the fact that "every commercial use . . . is presumptively . . . unfair," Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 451 (1984), and it held that "the admittedly commercial nature" of the parody "requires the conclusion" that the first of four factors relevant under the statute weighs against a finding of fair use." source

Reasoning of the Court

CAMPBELL, aka SKYYWALKER, et al. v. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, INC.

Analysis of the thinking process and logic used by previous judges.

The judges of this supreme court case were Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter. Both Justices concurred with one another. Justice Kennedy found reason that a parody qualifies as Fair Use. "..parody may qualify as fair use regardless of whether it is published or performed for profit. " "..parody may qualify as fair use only if it draws upon the original composition to make humorous or ironic commentary about that same composition." What Kennedy basically said is that a parody is considered Fair Use if it is humorous. In order for a song to have been a parody it would have used some of the orginal song to comment upon. A parody may also sound similar if it is specifally targeting a particular genre of style of music. "The parody must target the original, and not just its general style, the genre of art to which it belongs, or society as a whole (although if it targets the original, it may target those features as well)." source Some of Justice Kennedy's reasoning was refered to Rogers v. Koons. That case can be found here.

Justice Souter had commentary as well. In a parody, a song has taken the heart from another song to create the new one. All parody's created from an original song comment on the author's work. "For the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, and the heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works. See, e. g., Fisher v. Dees, supra, at 437; MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F. 2d 180, 185 (CA2 1981)." source

What I think of Illicit Trade

source

I think the whole process of illicit trade is sickening. It's hard for me to fathom the idea that people take these businesses to the next level. What's even more unimaginable is that ordinary people like me and you would actually purchase a fake bag, shoes, sunglasses or medicine -knowingly. How hard is it to save up money and buy that purse you've been wanting? In my personal opinion it means more to me, that I busted my ass to buy a genuine product. It has more value to know it's real and I earned it. The seller's of these products should be ashamed of themselves. To use the excuse, "I'm doing this for my family" is a load of bull. That is no excuse whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, people gotta do what they gotta do to put food on the table; but I don't wanna hear any crying when they get caught. They knew what they were getting themselves into. How long do people really think they can get away with this kind of stuff? It's so immoral, for you to copy or steal a company's original idea and mass market it for a fraction of the cost. The buyers of these products are just as bad; trying to cheat life and get a good deal. People shoudl have pride for themselves and never settle for less than the best. The karma is going to catch up to these people. It's just not good mojo.

Decision of the Court

CAMPBELL, aka SKYYWALKER, et al. v. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, INC.

Decision of the court – how was the case decided, including an analysis of any concurring or dissenting opinions in previous case precedent

The case was originally decided by The District Court that 2 Live Crew was a parody and was Fair Use. The case was then taken to the Court of Appeals where it was said it was an infringement on Acuff-Rose. The Court of Appeals believed they had taken the heart of the song. It was then taken further to the Supreme Court where it's final decision was made. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals had made a mistake. The "heart" of the song is was makes a parody, an parody.

(e) The Court of Appeals erred in holding that, as a matter of law, 2 Live Crew copied excessively from the Orbison original under the third §107 factor, which asks whether "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" are reasonable in relation to the copying's purpose. Even if 2 Live Crew's copying of the original's first line of lyrics and characteristic opening bass riff may be said to go to the original's "heart," that heart is what most readily conjures up the song for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim. Source

The Court of Appeals had also made a mistake in how the song effected the market. The two songs were intended for different markets. 2 Live Crew's version would not infringe on the market of Acuff-Rose.

"As to parody pure and simple, it is unlikely that the work will act as a substitute for the original, since the two works usually serve different market functions. The fourth factor requires courts also to consider the potential market for derivative works." Source

It was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of 2 Live Crew's parody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" rendered it presumptively unfair. No such evidentiary presumption is available to address either the first factor, the character and purpose of the use, or the fourth, market harm, in determining whether a transformative use, such as parody, is a fair one. The court also erred in holding that 2 Live Crew had necessarily copied excessively from the Orbison original, considering the parodic purpose of the use. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the court. A concurrence was made by Justice Kennedy. The Supreme Court later reversed and remanded further hearings of the court.

Issues of the Case

CAMPBELL, aka SKYYWALKER, et al. v. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, INC.

Issue of the case -- what specific concepts and terms were involved – in other words, why is the case before the Court

The case is before the Court because a Tort was committed against Acuff Rose Music, Inc. Some of the terms used in the case were "Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use" and "Parodies". This case has become an issue becuase Acuff Rose Music, Inc. believes 2 Live Crew infringend upon their copyrights. This is an issue becuase Roy Orbison worked hard on his music. Acuff Rose Music, Inc is defending his legacy by saying it wasn't okay to sample his music without permission. This infraction violates the moral honor of Roy Orbison. They believed 2 Live Crew's version defiled the song and it meaning. The lyrics and rythym sound similar but have very different meanings. The version shown here is the original by Roy Orbison

"Pretty woman, walking down the street
Pretty woman, the kind I like to meet
Pretty womanI don't believe you,
you're not the truth
No one could look as good as you
Mercy

Pretty woman, won't you pardon me
Pretty
woman, I couldn't help see
Pretty womanThat you look lovely as can be
Are you lonely just like me

Pretty woman, stop a while
Pretty
woman, talk a while
Pretty woman, give your smile to me
Pretty woman,
yeah yeah yeah
Pretty woman, look my way
Pretty woman, say you'll stay
with me'

Cause I need you,
I'll trear you right
Come with me
baby,
be mine tonight

Pretty woman, don't walk on by
Pretty
woman, make me cry
Pretty woman, don't walk away, hey...
okay

If
that's the way it must be, okay
I guess I'll go on home, it's late
There'll be tomorrow nigh,
but waitWhat do I see
Is she walking back
to me
Yeah, she's walking back to me
Oh, oh,
Pretty woman" Source

Roy Orbison's original work was created with good intentions. It was creativity at its finest. Unfortunately another version was replicated by 2 Live Crew. It was almost as if 2 Live Crew was stealing Orbison's creative content and claiming it as their own. The lyrics are similar but for someone who has never heard Orbison's original it could have been believed that this was 2 Live's creation. The lyrics shown here are 2 Live Crew's Version:

"Verse 1: [Luke]
Pretty Woman, walking down the street,
Pretty Woman, girl, girl you look so sweet,
Pretty Woman, you, you bring me down to that knee,
Pretty Woman, you make me wanna beg please,
Oh, Pretty Woman.

Verse 2: [Fresh Kid Ice]
Big hairy woman, you need to shave that stuff,
Big hairy woman, you know I bet it's tough.
Big hairy woman, all that hair ain't legit,
'Cause you look like Cousin It.
Big hairy woman

Verse 3: [Brother Marquis]
Bald headed woman, girl your hair won't grow,
Bald headed woman, you got a teeny weeny afro.
Bald headed woman, you know your hair could look nice,
Bald headed woman, first you got to roll it with rice.
Bald headed woman, here let me get this uncle bens for ya,
Ya know what I'm saying, its' better than Rice a Roni
Oh, Bald headed woman

Bridge: [Mr. Mixx]
Big hairy woman, come on in,
[Brother Marquis]
And don't forget your bald headed friend
[Luke]
Hey Pretty Woman, let the boys jump in.

Verse 4: [Mr. Mixx]
Two timin' woman, girl you know you ain't right,
Two timin' woman, you's out with my boy last night
Two timin' woman, that takes a load off my mind,
Two timin' woman, now I know the baby ain't mine
Oh, Two timin' woman

[All]
Oh, Pretty Woman. " Source

As you can see the lyrics are quite similar. The meaning of the two are very differenet. That is the main issue of this case.

Progress on My Case

I chose the Supreme Court Case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. This Supreme Court Case involves utilizing the Fair Use Doctrine to allow parodies of copyrighted works. Luther Campbell a recording artist from the band 2 Live Crew had sampled a bass line riff from the song "Oh, Pretty Woman" by Roy Orbison. Acuff-Rose the publishing firm with the rights to the original song filed a lawsuit saying that they didn't recieve a request for permission to use the recording. 2 Live Crew claimed that it was okay due to the Fair use Doctrine. I have researched numerous websites about this court case case. One of the predominant websites that has given me the most information has been Cornell University University Law School. A link to this website can be found here. Another website that has the most useful information pertaining to copyright is the United States Copyright Service. A link to that website can be found here. I plan to use these 2 websites as well as others, hand-in-hand to present the data of the court case as thourougly as possible. I personally think the case is a kind of foul. Roy Orbison put a lot of work into the original "Oh Pretty Woman". I think the someone shoudl have gotten a percentage of the royalties. Whether it be Acuff-Rose Music, or the family members of Roy Orbision, somone should've recieved reparations.

Facts of the Case

CAMPBELL, aka SKYYWALKER, et al. v. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, INC.

Here are some of the facts of the case. 2 Live Crew's song "Pretty Woman" was said to have infringed upon the rights of Roy Orbison's recording, "Oh Pretty Woman". Roy Orbison's original song was recorded in 1964 while 2 Live Crew's version was made decades later in 1990. The 2 Live Version samples the same bass line riff used in Roy Orbison's "Oh Pretty Woman". The titles are very similar as well as the lyrical content. 2 Live Crew claims that the song is a parody of the original. Acuff- Rose Music Incorporated is suing becuase they didn't recieve a request for permission of a parody for profits. They also claim that this is allowed due to the Fair Use Doctrine which enables them to use parts of the copyrighted song without permission. In order for a copy of a song to be Fair Use it must meet these specific requirements as according to the United States Copyright Law. The specific requirements in the determing factor can be found here:
"In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; "
The first factor asks if the intended work was for a commercial nature such as sales and profits or for nonprofit purposes such as educational or recreational uses.
"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;"
This next factor clarifies to see what the intended purpose of the work was.
"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and"
This factor checks to see how much of the original work was actually taken to create the second piece of work. How much was used compared to the original.
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. " (Source)
This last part checks how the piece of work effects the market. It compares to see if the secondary work is effecting the sales of the original piece.

The other concern is if it really qualifies as a parody. Acuff-Rose believed that 2 Live Crew stole the heart of the music; that they diminished the integrity of the original artwork. They also fear that the parody could potentially ruin their profits and destroy their work. The purpose of this case is to check if Acuff Rose has been infringed upon. To determine this the judges will have to observe the two songs and decipher whether an infringement has taken place or not.

"The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use. The heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's work." In order for there to have been any kind of newer work called a parody, an artist had to have copied an idea from another artist's original work. "But that tells courts little about where to draw the line. Thus, like other uses, parody has to work its way through the relevant factors. Pp. 8-12." This may be true in stating that an artist copied one another but it need to be reviewed by the courts to determine if it is legal.(Source)

My Rights as a Property Owner

My rights as a property owner should be pretty apparent. I own the property. I'm responsible and entitled to everything on the lot. All laws that allow me to own property are effective in my state.I feel horrible for the guy in the movie we watched in class. He was trying to live the "American Dream" and own a nice house to support a family. Unfortunately, he meant well but I know the way he did business led him to his struggle. Owning property is a big responsibility that demands a back bone. He had a random Joe Schmo living in his apartment. He could have done business better by making sure the guy had a down payment or reviewing his credentials. If it was my house I was renting out I would make sure the credit check was looked through thoroughly and knew what I could be getting myself into. I also realized that he was renting out the apartments with his wife. I don't really trust operating a business with another person. Many "he said/ she said" feuds can arise. The tenant was able to take advantage of this knowledge and turn the two owners against each other. The guy claimed it was given permission to move in. No one gave him any approval. I, as a property owner would have called the police from the very beginning. You never know who you can trust, and this guy just swindled his way in. I have the right to boot this guy off of my property if he doesn't belong there. As far as I see it he was trespassing, and even breaking and entering when he changed the locks. I learned a great deal from this movie clip. I'll know for sure if I ever rent out any property I'll take the proper precautions to prevent situations such as these.

Instant Extra Credit

Three Names I have been called:
Kevin
Babe
Kev

Three Jobs I have had in my life (include unpaid if you have to):
Stock Associate
Chairlift Operator
Vehicle Detailer

Three Places I Have Lived:
Summerlin
Las Vegas
North Las Vegas

Three TV Shows that I watch:
Family Guy
South Park
Dexter's Labratory

Three places I have been:
Hawaii
Bryan Head, Utah
Hoover Dam, Nevada

People that e-mail me regularly
Aunty Jenny
apple.com
fastwebs.com

Three of my favorite foods
pizza
steak
cheeseburgers

Three cars I have driven:
Acura Integra
Toyota Supra
Ferrari 360 Modena

Three things I am looking forward to:
Taking Back Sunday Concert
July 4th
Christmas

Greed is Good!

(image)
(article)

Wall Street along with corporate business owners are horribly cut throat. It’s as if all morals have been lost and it’s explicitly about the money. “For example, America has enjoyed a bonus it didn't deserve in its free-wheeling participation in the housing market, before it became a bubble. Despite great efforts by regulators to manage systemic risk, there have been market failures. The causes of the current market failure, which is the real object of the public anger, go well beyond the Wall Street compensation system -- but compensation has been one of them.” High executive status people are being paid for bonuses of immoral or little work. “But the basic point is that, despite the dreadful year that Wall Street experienced insome questionable bonuses were paid to already well-off employees, and that set off the outrage.” Employees of these billion dollar businesses are making extraordinary amounts of money by passing REETS to companies who cannot even support them. The purpose of the REIT was to balance and even out the risks. The companies that accepted these REIT’s were fooled by thinking they had a batch of people who were mostly good borrowers as opposed to bad borrowers. The truth was that the REIT’s they bought landed up having many bad debtors that would default their loans. Too many people would default their loans causing the lender to go bankrupt. The company that sold the REIT’s would then run away with their money. Due to approving almost any borrower, the REIT’s were very corrupt. The fact that these companies can even get away with this is just wrong. I think the government should get a good grip on the housing and business markets and regulate them harshly. If we would have seen this coming sooner we could have prevented an economic downfall and an American crisis.

BONG HITS 4 JESUS!

(Source Image)

I do not agree with the Supreme Court case's ruling. Due to the circumstances of the child being underage, it was a tough matter to address. I think Frederick should have been allowed to freely demonstrate his Constitutional Amendments. "Accepting that Frederick had acted during a school-authorized activity and that the banner expressed a positive sentiment about marijuana use, the court nonetheless found a First Amendment violation because the school had punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption." The school never addressed that these actions were a problem. He didn’t hurt or offend anyone. Whatever his project may have been, the rules of the assignment should have explained what was acceptable and what was inappropriate. I personally think what happened to the child was wrong because it limited his creative freedom. Even so, "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" doesn't necessarily promote drug use or even specific paraphernalia for that matter. Bongs are sold everywhere for the manufacturer’s purpose of tobacco. Maybe Frederick imagined that Jesus likes to smoke tobacco, grass, or maybe even something silly like pop rocks. It shouldn’t have been assumed that the usages of bongs are solely for the purposes of marijuana use. If the school found that there was a problem with Frederick’s behavior they should have had a Required Parent Teacher Conference and brought it to his parents’ attention. The Court explained that these cases demonstrated that "the constitutional rights of students in public school were not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings." Had the student in the assembly delivered the same speech in a public forum outside the school context, he would have been protected. In school, however, his First Amendment rights were circumscribed "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." I don’t understand why the court ruled this not okay. In other circumstances where children to something wrong they can be tried as an adult. Well in this circumstance, why can’t the child protect themselves by holding rights like an adult? Does the place of the event really matter? Does being in school really make a difference as opposed to being in public? Either way his rights were obstructed.

Crimes and Torts from Video

Source Image

EOC WEEK 4
1. False advertisement- crime
2. Assault- tort and crime
3. Destruction of Personal Property-Tort
4. Breaking and Entering-Tort and Crime
5. Bribery-Crime
6. Perjury-Crime
7. Jaywalking-Crime
8. Underage Driving-Crime
9. Unlicensed Driving- crime
10. Fraud-Crime
11. No seatbelts-Crime
12. Wreck less Driving-Crime
13. No license plates-Crime
14. No insurance-Crime
15. Driving on the wrong side of the ride-Crime
16. Speeding-Crime
17. Stolen Property-Tort
18. Ignoring Construction Zone-Crime
19. Jury tampering-Crime
20. Sexual Assault -Crime
21. Smoking Illegal Drugs-Crime
22. Concealed Weaponry-Crime
23. Public Indecency-Crime
24. Insider trading-Tort and Crime
25. Trespassing-Tort
26. Fleeing a crime scene-Crime
27. Emissions-Crime and Tort
28. Hit and Run-Crime
29. Gambling-Crime
30. Attempted Murder-Crime

Kevin Lum

Chris Manning

Melody Meade

Classmate Blog Evaluations

(Source Image)

Chris Manning

I can definitely agree with your statements. "Legislator passes laws all the time right under the general public noses, then "bam" a new law of the land needs to be enforced, and if you don’t comply off to the house of justice to answer for your crimes, oddly enough us as civilians have the power to change this, but usually find it to tedious to be part of the law making process, and trust the Politian’s we’ve elected to represent us." With people's daily lives taking advantage of them, it is indeed a balancing act to maintain current events on our country. We rely on officials to represent us as a people and behind our back we are betrayed. For the safety of the people, and the laws that govern us; it would be in our most highest interests to stay up to date and realize who exactly we are electing. Most officials that are elected are no better than me or you. In my personal opinion, it's all a money game.

Lauren Pastor

I can understand your views, I watched this same video last quarter. "Just the other day I was in my communications class watching a clip from 60 minutes on how 2 lawyers had information about a man wrongly accused of a crime, who was sentenced to 30 years behind bars, yet couldn’t speak up because it conflicted with their current clients protection." How fair is our justice system really? Was it really necessary for that man to be imprisoned? How could a government so stable as ours let a criminal slip between the laws, and an innocent man suffer? It's pitiful to think that this could even happen. The government is just corrupt. There are so many rules and laws that contradict themselves. The lawyers in this incident should have had a little bit more moral character regardless of their job title.

My views of today’s justice system

Source Image

I think today’s justice system trys to play fair. It’s kind of crazy when so many people have different views about things; everyone wants to be protected. This is where torts come into play. Today’s justice system does a great job of protecting peoples’ personal rights. Unfortunately most people are unaware of their rights, or where they can stand against another American. By this, I mean people could unknowingly libel or slander someone. Growing up as a kid you just say whatever you want about someone and there’s no consequence except for riling up the old school bully. Saying “anything” you want about “someone” as an adult can bring you trouble like lawsuits. The people who have to worry about this the most are news reporters. Reporters always have to watch how they word things. Sometimes the information is correct, sometimes it’s not. They often stray away from the truth and provide false information to the public. Such reports can cause drops in sales or just bash advertisements for people or companies. Slandering someone directly can have a serious negative effect. Slandering someone indirectly can be even scarier. Sometimes people can have a lot of sarcasm that can get them in trouble. They can even be slandering someone and not even know it! Fortunately for victims of slandering; today’s justice system trys its best to protect them from defamation.

America’s justice system also does a great job protecting businesses. It helps protect them from white-collar crimes such as: bribery, extortion, perjury, embezzlement, and other crimes like credit card fraud and identity theft. Many of the laws set forth are protect businesses from collapsing. It also gives small companies a chance to rise in today’s economy by setting the grounds so that everyone can play fair.

What I think About Lawyers

(Source Image)

Personally I think lawyers are sneaky scum. Just like an M&M shell they look nice and enticing on the outside but are detrimental to you on the inside. When you get hurt, or need legal help you’re seeking for someone who is a professional but in reality you’re really seeking a thief to steal from you. They may seem like their doing you a whole lot of good at first, but in the end their ripping you off. They make you big promises that they will win you a case and bring you extraordinary amounts of income. Can you trust them? Hiring a lawyer is like gambling, you’re taking a huge risk. You don’t know if your hard earned money is safe. If you could defend yourself in a courtroom, I’m pretty sure you would. I guess that’s the price you have to pay when you don’t have the legal knowledge or know-how. Lawyers go to school and pay enough money for their education. They have their own financial worries they have to worry about. They’re out for the money; they don’t care about you or your morals. They’ll charge you the highest prices if they can. It all comes down to trust, any lawyer you choose is going to have a fancy sticker price. In the end if you choose a lawyer wisely, the fruits of your labor can bring you a substantial amount of money.

Finding a lawyer isn’t always about how much money you’re getting either. Sometimes it’s about saving your ass from jail time. Look at O.J. Simpson for example, he has money out his ears. He doesn’t need any more cash, he’s set for life. So then why did he need a lawyer? He killed his wife and didn’t want to deal with the consequences like a real man. The only reason he needed a lawyer was to be saved from life in prison. So what does this have to deal with lawyers you ask? It means that lawyers are money hungry and they’ll do anything, even defend criminals if the price is right. Don’t be fooled, lawyers may seem successful but ask yourself how did they get there; at whose toll?