Attorneys: Necessary evil?

The bar association. Loving, hating, or indifferent, lawyers seem to be part of the political and social landscape. The bar association was conceived in an effort to attempt to hold lawyers accountable, and to increase the quality of practice of law.

While the original goals may have been noble, I must question if the implementation actually accomplishes the original goals of accountability and safety, or if the practicing attorneys have established a system far beyond the original intent.

We've all heard the jokes, we've all heard the descriptions of lawyers. Multiple movies have been made about the unscrupulous attorney. It would seem that the attempt to police attorneys by those with a vested interest in preserving the respectability of that practice would be a good thing.

But is it, or has it given rise to new consequences and behaviors?The original stated goal was to attempt to self-police attorneys, and prevent those unscrupulous attorneys from practice, to protect the consumer, and to preserve the quality of representation. However, across the past seventy years, rules have been established that, in general, leave the layperson out in the cold.

These rules of civil procedure, rather than simplifying the law, often complicate it, requiring attorneys both for the interpretation of the law, as well as for the arguments of what law is appropriate, and the interpretation of simple things, right down to the famous 'meaning of the word 'is''.

Rules lawyering became famous in games, even to the point of parody.

Is the American Bar association accomplishing its goals, however, or has it created new problems which actually preserve the problems, while furthering its own ends?

There have been many instances of attorneys doing things against the best interests of the clients, up to and including failing to represent them, and choosing means of argument that are either not in the best interests of the client, or tangential to the case.

The argument by the court remains that attorneys take an oath, and have a vested interest in preserving the practice of law. However, in several instances, the prosecutor has engaged in practices of falsifying evidence, blocking exonerating evidence, and in most cases, is considered immune from prosecution for such actions.

Further, defense attorneys are generally considered immune from the consequences of failure to bring up points, even to the point of inaction or drunkenness, and are rarely held to account for their actions.

At least, prior to the foundation of the American Bar Association, any person could be heard in a court of law. Often, admittedly, there was some contention over who was human, but any 'freeman' could speak before the court, argue the law, and even make presentations of fact and law.

In many civil cases, the attorney is not paid for completing the action. In cases of probate, the attorney is paid for his time, rather than timely completion, or proper argument of the will or contract. In many cases, this can result in actions taken to prolong the trials, to the point of the attorneys fees consuming all the contents of the estate. It is sometimes in the attorney's best monetary interests to extend the suit, and thus their time involved, as long as possible. Often, as well, by contract, the persons hiring the attorney are left without recourse should the attorneys do so.

It is further to the benefit of attorneys to make the laws as confusing as possible, with as many deceptive or alternative meanings as can be raised, in order to preserve their effective practice.

This can be compared to promoting a 'lay language' which sounds good to the people, but keeping the benefits of a clerical education among the enlightened.

A good portion of the purpose of the constitution, and the republic for which our ancestors fought, was to provide means of recourse, both within and from the law. It was to provide for law that was clearly intelligible to all persons, and which had its meaning plain and straight out. Exceptions and vagueness were to be avoided, as in any case of exception, persons were under different burdens of law.

But what does it mean when the effective means of recourse is monopolized by those to whom it is most effective to preserve the most complicated means of law possible? When the laws in most (nearly all) jurisdictions require the bar association to approve your license before even quoting the most appropriate and applicable court case, where is your recourse when your attorney refuses to bring the case up?

Do you have the means, and right to effective recourse when nearly all attorneys and judges belong to the same association, an association that also simultaneously educates those same attorneys and judges into the 'art' of legalism?

What effective means of recourse might you have when those judges and lawyers make statements directly contrary to historic fact? How do you call a judge and attorney on errors in fact... when they have been educated to believe such is true, even when absolutely verifiable historical data contradicts it?

How do you hold judges, and attorneys, accountable when the only means by which they may be brought to account is by disbarment... by the same persons profiting from their continued practice?

And when judges and politicians willfully align, how can you hold the politicians, officers, or judges accountable, when the judges preserve the interests of the other parties.. who are often bar association members themselves?

It is foolishness to believe in neutrality in those who bear a vested interest in the preservation of the status quo, to do anything but to preserve that status, without outside force being involved.

When no matter how correct your argument, no matter how accurate your data, no matter how well-cited, referenced, and truthful your sources, they can dismiss the points without viewing them, or dismiss them and reject your application for relief as a vexatious litigant, where, then, is your recourse?

When they can, out of hand, reject your appeals, even with an attorney, where is your recourse and correction?

And should they have the power to arbitrarily deny you that right of recourse?

When the right of recourse itself is monopolized, does that not create a far greater trust violation and national security issue than any possible terrorist attack? When the interpretation of the constitution is left to lawyers, and not to the common people, when the meaning of terms wanders all over the map to become not just contrary to the initial idea, but absolutely abhorrent to it, where is your recourse then?

And how may you grasp it?

When the attorneys themselves break the law, and those sworn to uphold and protect the law break the law, and those sworn to uphold and protect the constitution in the making of law break the law... where is your recourse?

In matters related to civil rights, should not the refusal of the prosecutor or defense or judge or any other officer to prosecute a violation of the law, be a violation in its own right? When the prosecutor has 'discretion' to arbitrarily drop any case, or charge for different crimes in the same circumstances due to the 'class' of the violator, is that fair, just, or equal law?

And when the people themselves are denied the benefit of argument of the law before the jury, where is your recourse?

Should not you be capable of taking that recourse into your own hands, to argue both the facts and the law in controversy, as that law itself is part of the facts in the case?

Or are you stuck.. fighting a battle with attorneys who have driven the prices of that recourse out of the hands of the largest part of the American People?

I may, indeed, be a total idiot... but a necessary evil can never be aught but evil, nor can evil be done that is necessary.. only convenient.

If we mean to preserve our rights, and our liberty, we must perform our duty in keeping the law accessible to all, rich and poor, from the least to the greatest.

Otherwise.. liberty itself is damned and dead.

Read more!

The real reason for racism.

We stand in a crossroads, a crux point, where every move has consequences that trip us further down paths out of our control, yet we must move. We see hatred and intolerance everywhere we look, and there seems no end to it. We talk about how we must control x, y, or z, then complain about how our lives grow emptier of value, bereft of purpose, and how we've lost our way in an uncaring world.

We talk about how this group or that group ought to be restrained in the interests of the greater good, but too often we mean 'because they aren't like me'. We talk about limiting people's rights to speak about religion, about politics, because it offends us, but it really boils down to 'because they aren't like me'. But each time we limit a class of persons, we're actually accomplishing nothing toward the works of preserving our own ideals, our own liberties, and the perceived threat of others voting away our rights, our powers, our liberties, becomes far more possible.

For liberty is a living being. When we weaken her, abuse her, she becomes more vulnerable to abuse. When we cut her, she grows weaker, when we sever one part from another, eventually unrecognizeable.

The tools to weaken liberty were set out in many works... from the 'more equal than others' part in Animal Farm, to the discussions of the ubermensch of Hitler. Any time any portion is judged wiser, more capable, more knowing, better, the other will be viewed as less capable, less knowing, more foolish, and worse.

I am a 'conservative', but in the old form. I hope for days that no laws are built on race or separation. But I must ask, however, if it is not equally racist to base ideals that any race is better or more capable in one sphere than another?

Does this not add to separation rather than combination? When we say 'a black man is more capable of empathy than a white', is it not simply another subtle form of racism? It is based entirely upon race, and therefore highly suspect. Those subtle divisions are what leads us down the road we find ourselves upon; the idea that some people are less worthy than others, less capable, lesser and worse due to an arbitrary status that has no meaning.

There will always be racists, but we equally must look at ourselves. I continually hear people talking about how 'x' is more qualified... due to nothing less than the race, or the gender, or both. How they would make a better decision than 'y' of 'z' gender. My question is why it matters? Is it not another excuse to continue racism and gender issues in the guise of equality? Is it not racism to judge, for or against, on the issue of race?

If it is not... then we are no further along than when we started. It is equally racism to look for offense due to race as to give offense due to race. We've become, via the help of others who believe us incapable of decisions about racism, overly sensitive to the subject. We find more and more that we are set up, to try and fail without the 'help' of those who have appointed themselves to help us, and benefit from the positions.

Has racism become an issue that the nation cannot allow to die? Have we implemented policies that continue the segregation, even as we claim to seek to end it? Do our policies encourage weakness and dependency upon outside sources, upon laws, rather than upon self-control, self-actualization, and self-realization? Does anyone tell us that we are too weak to continue the fight? If so, then certainly they are using racism to control you. The truth is, we are all human beings, regardless of race, regardless of gender, without regard for sexuality, for religious preference. We all have our frailties, our failings, and we all have a great deal of power over ourselves and our world.

And we all have the ability to fight those who would keep us down, those who would say to you; “Don't be like the other side. Don't get an education, that's their way. Don't better yourselves. We'll take care of you.” What hubris! What gall! Why should any people be subjugated by their own, held helpless in their circumstances then told it's the 'other side' that keeps them there? We keep getting told that it's a democracy, and that we fight to preserve democracy or institute it overseas. It was, however, never intended to be a true democracy, but a republic of limited powers, with checks and balances, including checks and balances to prevent one part of the people from enslaving the others with 'good intentions'.
And yet today, racism still lives, and slavery still thrives. Not the slavery of the plantation, or the whips and chains, but slavery of the heart, subjugation of the will, and education, and reality. And it is accomplished, not by masters of the plantation, but those who seek to 'protect', without ever allowing us to realize that there is more to protection than allowing someone else to be your champion. The true champion teaches you to protect yourselves, teaches you to channel that moral outrage into building bridges, not tearing them down. The true champion teaches you to become more than you are, and be a power in the world not because of your race, but because of who you are inside.

Judged by the content of your character, not the color of your skin. Judged by your actions, your mind, your spirit, not by the melatonin or lack thereof. We are not blind to race... but only blind to the powers within ourselves, and those who seek to maintain us as a willing electorate by trying to ensure that the 'other side' has no foothold.

How often does crime become a racial issue? How often do we see juries selected not for their knowledge or discernment, but because of their race, and cases challenged not because of the facts or procedure, but the race of the prosecutor, jury, and judge? Does it not make more sense, if a judge or prosecutor are influenced by issues of race to ensure that they do not retain the office? Are there not recourses to misdirection and malfeasance?

But yet politicians would have us believe that the only route is new laws to protect one class of citizen from another. We already have laws dealing with 'racial issues'. Perhaps a better route would be allowing us, and our 'other side' to come to grips with our differences, and to recognize our similarities. But something in us cries out after all the hatred, “We have nothing in common with them!” “Why should we embrace them when they have done this to us?” Us versus them. To use an old term 'black vs white', and absolutism. So long as either side clings to the paradigm that the other side is bad, evil, and attacking them, there can be no peace. So long as there are sides, there will be war. And so long as we embrace stereotypes, they will continue to exist, as badges of honor, or badges of shame, and those with power will continue using it for the ends of power.

Even a total idiot can see that.
Read more!