Attourney's or Lawyers ?

If our forefathers knew their writing of the declaration of independence would lead to such extenuating circumstances that it would cause certain society members to be treated differently and unfairly in the court of law than others in society due solely to their lack of finances. Those forefathers would have written a law that would put a judge at risk of "TREASON" for letting an upstanding member of society suffer because of his or her lack of money to provide such information that a judge should be responsible for knowing without being told such from a representative.

Instead we have become a society that requires the working citizens to represent themselves at a court house on three separate occasions to take care of a minor traffic violation. All because those laws that should be written for the people must be exercised before a judge, rather than a judge knowing and understanding those laws that were put in place to protect such citizens in the first place. Our forefathers would have also went on to put in the constitution that lawyers, attorney, and so forth should be outlawed as it only creates UNEQUAL opportunity for those who cannot afford the best lawyers in certain situations.

Let me ask you all one question that should open up all eyes and shut all mouths of even the lawyers that will inevitably have much to say concerning this post because they have went through so much schooling to become who they are today.

What one good thing has any lawyer done in the history of lawyers in the court room representing a case or person that a judge should have not already been aware of and benefitted the case at hand? (We should either have Judges or Attorney’s, but why we have both is beyond me.)

The judicial system has become a game of who you know and while business is and always has been a game of who you know for contracts and bids. People’s lives should have never been put in the situation that it is currently in!!!!

reply to post by Deus_Brandon


I have been in numerous courtrooms, and every judge I have come across has been extremely fair in their rulings, and have exercised common sense in every situation. I understand completely what you are saying, and agree that the law has become a confabulated mess of jargon, and back scratching. The thing is that most judges are completely aware of this, and in my experience have not let it cloud their judgments.

The real issue I think is over-complication of the law, not lawyers or judges.

reply to post by Deus_Brandon

If you have been to a courthouse THREE times for a MINOR traffic ticket then YOU must have made some kind of mistake. Just sayin.

reply to post by Deus_Brandon


The notion that judges enjoy absolute immunity is a deceptive immunity. No government official who operates outside of their jurisdictional boundary enjoys any kind of immunity. If a judge has overreached their jurisdiction, that overreaching was done by a private person acting on their own private beliefs and is subject to the law as anyone else, regardless of their government position.

The problem is not the priest class lawyer sect, it is their adherents. Those who buy into the mystical incantations of priest class lawyers and judges, instead of simply just knowing the law. It does not take an attorney to know the law, and these days few attorneys do know the law as they are mired in the muck of legalese, all it takes to know the law is understanding it.

All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. When it comes to the laws of civilization, that simple, true, universal and absoluteness is founded in individual unalienable rights.

As a member just stated above me, most judges are fair, and do understand the law, in spite of their legal environment, and are usually quite pleased when they are confronted with a person who knows the law. I have been before a judge several times for bogus citations. I have never once plead to those charges, each time challenging the jurisdiction, and each time the judge agreed there was no subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case. Twice, two different judges humiliated the police officers in the court room, ripping them a new one for attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a misguided attempt to use legislation as a blunt object to destroy those they do not like.

The problem with lawyers is that they are licensed, and in order to obtain that license they must swear a fealty to the court. This creates a profound conflict of interest for that attorney, and usually their interest lies in keeping their license instead of the zealous defense of their clients.

reply to post by Deus_Brandon


I live in Canada, and about 25 years ago, I saw a man called in court more than 3 times, each time declaring himself guilty of the accusations, and each time, the judge turned him back because he didn't have a lawyer.

The judge got tired and appointed a lawyer to his case and forced him to have a trial. The judge was nice enough to give him the choice: before a jury, or not.

And they wonder why things don't work...

reply to post by DrunkNinja


You are exactly right .. however ... it is the Attourneys and Lawyers that cause this distortion of the law .... if it were up to just the judge to decide .... on the "LAW" ... it would be a better system.

Originally posted by AllUrChips
reply to post by Deus_Brandon

 

If you have been to a courthouse THREE times for a MINOR traffic ticket then YOU must have made some kind of mistake. Just sayin.

Actually nope .... ,went the first time ... to set the date .. had to come ... and show my Financial responsibility .. coudnt set the date over the phone ...

Secondly ... I had to enter my plea ... o yeah ... thenn ... thirdly .... the cop had to be available 6 months from then ... and then he didnt show up ... good for me I get off right ... as is the case ... however just shows me how stupid the system is ... rediculous ... lousy ...

One thing that would help would to bar lawyers from becoming judges and politician.

Originally posted by Bullcookies
One thing that would help would to bar lawyers from becoming judges and politician.

Or maybe we take the advice of Dick from Shakespeare's Henry VI (Part II):

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Act IV, Scene II).

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Bullcookies
One thing that would help would to bar lawyers from becoming judges and politician.

Or maybe we take the advice of Dick from Shakespeare's Henry VI (Part II):

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Act IV, Scene II).

Maybe a little extreme, But Lawyer tend to over reach passed what is common sense. A common man with decent sense and education can read a decision and could be a good and fair judge. If politicians weren't lawyers the laws would be written in such language that the common man could and would understand them.

This is true thaT the verbage of contracts and laws have got way out of hand and complicated. Although it has to be this way because they scrutinize it so much and lawyers have cashed the law so hard that they have to make the law "sticky" to be able to uphold it ... in other words if it doesn't say the earth has to be spinning that day then the law won't be upheld ... oh yeah and all other common sense things must be listed as well nothing should or can be assumed.

The problem isn't the law its the people and trying to rationalize things that shouldn't be explained they just are thatg way ... the same way I treat my 2 year old kids ... they can't understand why not to play in the road ..and guess what I don't have to tell them why I just have to teach them NOT TO PLAY IN THE ROAD.

Is there seriously noone with any advice further on why there are Judges and Attorneys???