查看完整版本 : 有沒有發覺香港律師很廢

expoliceman 2016-9-6 05:13 PM

有沒有發覺香港律師很廢

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

UKpostgrad 2016-9-6 05:22 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]expoliceman[/i] 於 2016-9-6 05:13 PM 發表 [url=http://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=447591846&ptid=26072513][img]http://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]

阿貓阿狗都能當律師,給的意見又沒有半點常識,只會賣弄文筆,吹噓自己,學馬恩國說我是澳洲大律師
梁美芬,馬恩國這種人也配當律師,主張什麼港獨是犯法,連香港基本法要保證人權也不知道,梁竟然主張立法規定可以剝 ... [/quote]

我唔係法律系畢業,但建議樓主返去温返一下Constitution Law.

expoliceman 2016-9-6 05:36 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

stepbystep1314 2016-9-6 06:35 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]expoliceman[/i] 於 2016-9-6 05:13 PM 發表 [url=http://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=447591846&ptid=26072513][img]http://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
阿貓阿狗都能當律師,給的意見又沒有半點常識,只會賣弄文筆,吹噓自己,學馬恩國說我是澳洲大律師
梁美芬,馬恩國這種人也配當律師,主張什麼港獨是犯法,連香港基本法要保證人權也不知道,梁竟然主張立法規定可以剝 ... [/quote]


佢地係又未必廢只不過認錢認阿爺, 明知唔make sense 都照講.

UKpostgrad 2016-9-6 11:32 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]stepbystep1314[/i] 於 2016-9-6 06:35 PM 發表 [url=http://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=447595949&ptid=26072513][img]http://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]



佢地係又未必廢只不過認錢認阿爺, 明知唔make sense 都照講. [/quote]


真心唔明點解唔 Make sense.

stepbystep1314 2016-9-7 01:18 AM

建議返去睇下rule of law 個chapter先

expoliceman 2016-9-7 02:21 AM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

didimaymay 2016-9-23 06:19 PM

since when US law binding Hong kong?

jespo890 2016-9-24 11:21 AM

HK court binds by Common Law principle throughout globe so much so the legal judgement is handed down from a common law jurisdiction. I guess majority of professionals in this field has no argument that USA applies Common Law principle, through statute law play its substantial importance in litigation in USA proceedings. The issue raised before us is the extension of US Supreme Court judgement binds HK court. I must add " NO " !

HK court is a distinct jurisdiction apart from US, that is to say, HK is not under US, UK or any other countries, but only under China in accordance with BASIC LAW. As such, in this sense, HK court shall not follow US judgement.



It is argued that law stipulates that HK court shall be free from Chinese Law, rather survive the Common Law principle it is used to be. So US binds HK. But, as to the previous analysis, non sequitur, US does not bind HK, but i concur that to certain extent that US judgement is persuasive that HK may follow it subject to the different surrounding circumstances. No two litigations are identical. What is the definition of freedom is always up for contention everywhere. This debate left it open still.

台風紫色的核心 2016-10-2 01:29 PM

To hand on an essay on hk discuss?

Rexlik 2016-11-10 10:18 AM

[quote]原帖由 [i]expoliceman[/i] 於 2016-9-6 05:13 PM 發表 [url=http://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=447591846&ptid=26072513][img]http://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
阿貓阿狗都能當律師,給的意見又沒有半點常識,只會賣弄文筆,吹噓自己,學馬恩國說我是澳洲大律師
梁美芬,馬恩國這種人也配當律師,主張什麼港獨是犯法,連香港基本法要保證人權也不知道,梁竟然主張立法規定可以剝 ... [/quote]

你學藝不精。:smile_o10:
HK is one of part of territories as a completed sovereignty of China. This ordinance is shown the constitutional law in China

Rexlik 2016-11-10 10:35 AM

[quote]原帖由 [i]expoliceman[/i] 於 2016-9-7 02:21 AM 發表 [url=http://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=447623814&ptid=26072513][img]http://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]


Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it po ... [/quote]

The judicial system of US and UK adopt the common law, but the civil law in China.
The constitution law is the norm as regulations of national framework including sovereignty.

You shouldn't cite another countries' regulations to explain the civil law of China, especially the common law.

eric_cartman 2016-11-10 05:44 PM

I think expoliceman's concern is that Hong Kong's interpretation of the law on human rights issues no longer attain the basic standard as prescribed by international law, and the PRC was the one that allowed us to continue to be protected by the ICCPR. For example, the Occupy Injunction and flag burning cases would have a hard time holding up to international jurisprudence. Hong Kong can become a distinct part of China with a strong rule-of-law and respect for the judiciary. Instead, it is becoming another Chinese city where the judges decide cases with self-restraint. I am sure - even without the interpretation, our judges are already too chicken to play with the CCP and would have ruled against Yau and Leung. It's like this for human rights cases now, but watch 10 years later, the elites will get away with murder in commercial and criminal cases within our judicial system because it would be so corrupt or our judges so weak. It's sad that people rather hate on 2 kids who were stupid but genuinely love and protect Hong Kong than to realize the grave dangers.

expoliceman 2016-11-10 05:51 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

Rexlik 2016-11-11 05:56 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]expoliceman[/i] 於 2016-11-10 05:51 PM 發表 [url=http://www.discuss.com.hk/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=451355898&ptid=26072513][img]http://www.discuss.com.hk/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
Taiwan is a civil law country but Taiwan 司法院大法官會議 which is reponsible for interpreting the constitution of Taiwan cites principles from Common Law countries such as US and even Hong Kong to ex ... [/quote]

All of these you mentioned, you had already violated a main principle which is "internal affairs of a country" especially sovereignty, but not an interpretation through the jurisdiction.

日落武士 2016-11-11 11:42 PM

whatever they say may not be right. Sometimes, they may intentionally say it wrongly to show their political stance. this is not a matter of law, they are not inside the court and have to testify for it, they got no burden for saying something not obeying the law, this is a matter of politics, they are saying these to pledge loyalty to PRC.

this is what happening in HK when we don't have true demoncracy. the whole election is corrupted and controlled by PRC, you have to follow their mind if you want to be one of them. clearly, Leung and Ma wants to be one of them.

finally, don't judge chinese matter in a western mind. Independence may be common in western, (but even Spain not allow Gata to have the independence vote), preventing the raise of independence of HK is important, since China has many cities trying to be independent, like xizang and taiwan.

and to the point of possibilities, do you think a government will only stop/attack independence mind when it is going to happen? No. Of coz, she will attack it at the beginning.

Mer哥 2016-12-17 08:16 PM

香港跟基本法喎:smile_14:
頁: [1]
查看完整版本: 有沒有發覺香港律師很廢