HOME

' They do tricks even I can't figure out.' - Harry Houdini

The rise of new breed of gods .

Historically the lawyers are the descendants of ' smarties ' who always devised ways of taking the advantage of others by inventing some ' magic ' , ' rules ' , ' practises ' , rituals ' and ' customs ' which meaning only they were able to explain . The aim was to put themselves a bit up in the food chain . All those shamans , witchdoctors , healers , sages , magicians , spiritualists , healers , soothsayers , druids . Since any moral scruples would hinder the effectiveness of their efforts they adopted new
' morality ' - NO MORAL RESTRAINTS , EVERYTHING IS ALLOWED .

~ ~

The first thing you discover when dealing with lawyers is that they seem to not understand English when you start asking them specific questions or they use a method of answering a question with another question , not to clarify the issue but to muddle it beyond comprehension .

As all con artists they distract victims by bringing excessive attention to irrelevant issues and disproportionately stressing the alleged importance of something called ' legal points ' which evidently only they can understand .

The real concerns are confused or ignored .There is almost no discussion about the truth or the need to discover it .The facts are converted to 'evidence 'which importance and the means of presentation are known only to the 'initiated “.

In the case of any doubt they overwhelm you with the claim of possessing the magical substance which they call  ' INTEGRITY ' - and who you are to question the person possessing that mysterious , invisible stuff ?

The system is made confusing on purpose so to baffle and irritate victims in its clutches .
You need to hire someone claiming to know how it operates to avoid threats and lies thrown at you and there is no difference between an extortion racket and the necessity to engage a lawyer .

That person is the child of the system , his loyalty is to the system , he is dependent on maintaining the system as it is - the paying client is just a fool who has to be squeezed as much as possible , fed with lies and discarded . Since a client ends up so often in prison , with very limited means of protest and often bankrupted , it is safe for the lawyer to do it again and again .

You actually pay the lawyer to help to achieve and legitimise the conviction because once you authorised him to ' represent ' you he plays by the rules of the system and not by looking at your best interests .
~ ~
Sometimes you hear propaganda crying about a ' courageous ' lawyer defending a person unjustly persecuted , implying that the defence of client`s rights is a rule and not an exception .

But such occurrence is a rare occasion ( sometimes even staged ) , looking at the fact that over half of people going through courts have more than one lawyer involved in their case .

Disappointed with the general lack of care they ditch one lawyer for another lawyer with the hope that the next one will be better . It is not , and like the first one he makes promises or implies that something positive will happen when you pay him money ( upfront - of course ).

In the situation when a person is familiar with some details of the procedures , he is being bamboozled into belief that he is wrong because he is not a lawyer , issues are presented purposefully confusing not only for an average person but also for a reasonably educated and intelligent person .

When all is confusing enough you are faced with several options which are not pleasant at all .
That adds another factor to the whole state of affairs - desperation to clarify the situation , to end it all up as quickly as possible because you are tired , exhausted , utterly confused and not knowing what to do and how to react .

~ ~
Forger  about ' Nigerian letters ' as the king of tricks to rip off people .
An average lawyer is by necessity awarded trust without doing anything to earn it - and that trust is used to con people into paying them voluntarily , UPFRONT , huge amounts of money just for making vague promises , providing intangible service of implied hope and no responsibility for their conduct , their actions and the results of their ' work '.

People outside of  ' profession ' are treated with utmost contempt and disrespect , it is like a hotbed of peculiar form of racism .
Like in a good mafia organisation one gang member is protecting the interests and the ' authority ' of the other gang member ; covering each other lies , dishonesty and incompetence and shielding the blunders and sustaining those whose ' authority ' is threatened  by ' outside interference '.
~ ~

Unmasking of the unmasked

Legal services are described ( like medicine ) as ' not the exact science ' – however paying money to lawyers is ' rigorous science ' .

A lawyer is supposed to be a person making obligation to do a certain job in return for the payment of the fee . There are several sources dispelling the common believe ( assumption ) that if you pay money to a lawyer he ' owns you ' .
That assumption about lawyers supposed ' loyalty ' is based on ' common sense ' and dealings with other people in our society , tradesmen , ' proper ' professionals etc .

It does not end there - lawyers ' loyalty ' is actually not only to the system but also to his colleagues - other lawyers - in protecting them from mishaps ; to people in police and departments of public prosecutions ( brothers in arms ) and you are just an unlucky fool who has to be parted with your hard earned or borrowed money .

It is done ' legally ' , ' lawfully ' , ' ethically ' - often only after you have been deceived you start to wonder - and then comes great discovery - so this is the ' fairness ' and ' justness ' of the system .

~ ~

I am including the relevant article from legal encyclopaedia - Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) - the book every lawyer is aware of but most people in the ' public ' are not .

~ ~

A few quotes from the book written by Australian lawyers about Australian lawyers –
' Lawyers ' – The Law Book Company – Sydney , ISBN 0 455 20654 6 .

P77. professional colleagues must support each other vis-à-vis clientele and the community . The professional must refrain from acts which jeopardise the authority of colleagues and must sustain those whose authority is threatened .

P77( notes ) . since a disproportionate number of those in the dominant occupation are from the families with members already in or associated with them , it would appear that whoever is doing the calling , is doing it in a highly biased and self-protected fashion .

P79. the profession`s vested interest in a given legal order renders its service irrelevant to those in the society who seek radical change in the existing order .

P83 . one of the most striking features of the four professions discussed is the absence of effective machinery and the apparent lack of concern for the surveillance if professional conduct and the enforcements of ethical codes ….When the association do take notice of breach and act to correct them , they are more commonly breaches of ' intrinsic ' obligations such as advertising .

P84 . any thoroughgoing attempt to enforce ( professional ethics ) would be immediately challengeable both on strictly legal grounds and on the grounds of who defines ' fairness ' ,
' responsibility ' , ' proper duty ' , ' misconduct ' , and so on outside of law

P642 . any real expression of conflict between the prosecution and the defence in terms of emotionally charged heated exchanges are carefully prohibited by common agreement and the defendants are left on their own .

P643 . lawyers argue about remote legal technicalities and procedures and around points of law , and the real concerns of defendants are either hopelessly confused or ignored . Every trial is a conspiracy to silence the real life interest of the people in the dock .

~ ~
Some interesting quotes about the various issues associated with the legal system in this last English colony .

How did that happen? After a conference in Rome in November 1215 , European courts adopted a truth-driven and judge-controlled system but it was rejected by a dozen or so almost certainly corrupt judges and lawyers in London .
Barristers got control of civil litigation by 1550 and effectively made it a get-the-money game via interminable pleadings , discovery , negligence , class actions , libel etc.

Barristers got control of criminal trials by 1800, and then, in the sacred name of fairness (!) , began to invent truth-defeating ( and hence unfair ) rules which conceal relevant and probative evidence. Along with cross-examination designed to hide the truth , the rules effectively make it a get-the-guilty-off system .

In France, the presiding judge is obliged to find out the truth for himself ; he questions witnesses and allows them to give the whole truth in a narrative , rather than the artificial YES or NO .Prosecution and defence lawyers can ask questions through the judge and make submissions, but they are not allowed to cross-examine lest they ' pollute ' the truth with the usual psychopathic devices : ' destroying ' witnesses by brutal questioning , lying to them , making them agree that black is white , shifting the goal-posts , putting the victim on trial etc .

 On Monday 28 May 2001, the French Prime Minister, M. Lionel Jospin, called for a common legal system throughout the European community based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. England may thus have a choice: either to dismantle the corrupt adversary system and accept the European system it rejected nearly 800 years ago, or to become a theme park .

If British justice at last begins to seek truth, fairness and justice, can the colonies be far behind ? For the media, it would mean that trained judges would seek the truth behind alleged libels and sub-judice contempt law would not exist .

Some barristers may not like it, but they can be safely ignored: they make up 1/25th of one per cent of the population. And surely some barristers will be relieved that they can stop all that dreadful serial lying and acting like psychopaths .etc

The adversary system is defined as a system controlled by lawyers.
The judge controls the court but lawyers control the process. They decide who will give evidence , what they will say, and how long the process will  last, with the meter running .
Since lawyers are in charge of a major legal system, the 1600 million people affected by it
can expect , and rightly expect , them to run it responsibly , with anxious care for fairness ,
truth and justice .
Geoffrey Roberston QC says the adversary system is a game and shouldn't be.

Judges are barristers one day and untrained judges the next. We can be sure they
instantly stop serial lying ; that they have been desperately racking their giant legal brains
to find a way to stop their former colleagues' serial lies ; and that after five centuries
we can expect a solution any day now .

Legal ethics appear to be one of those oxymorons, like military intelligence and
criminal justice
Fox QC says the ethics hold that lawyers are not morally responsible for what they do
for clients .
A Sydney psychiatrist, Dr Elizabeth O'Brien , says that sounds like psychopathy .
Psychopaths have no conscience . Professor Monroe Freedman, a US legal ethicist,
says if a rapist privately tells his lawyer he is actually guilty, the adversary system
still demands that he cross-examine the victim to suggest she is promiscuous .
Perhaps we can redefine the adversary system as a corrupt game controlled
lawyers some of whom are trained to act as if they are serial liars and psychopaths.

And if the adversary system actually demands that the people who run it must
pervert justice , it should be the tiniest of steps for judges and lawyers to say there
must be something wrong with the system , and that we need a better one .
Some are doing that .

The term-get-the-guilty-off system comes from former lawyer Brett
Dawson's The Evil Deeds of the Ratbag Profession in the Criminal Justice System .
Evidence should be weighed, not suppressed; none of the rules for concealing it
can survive rational analysis. The rules include one which prevents the judge and
prosecution from commenting on the accused's refusal to give an explanation, although
an explanation from an innocent person could reasonably be expected. There are rules
against hearsay, patterns of criminal behaviour, and evidence said to have been
improperly obtained.
And there is a discretion to conceal virtually all relevant and probative evidence.
Dawson says a criminal defence lawyer requires little intelligence; all  he has to do
is object to all evidence on the ground that it might prejudice his client.

The investigative system is cheaper and more effective than the adversary system,
and the 1988 ICAC Act specifically said ICAC was to be non-adversarial where possible .
In 1990 former Justice Michael Helsham told ICAC's parliamentary oversight committee
that he had no idea how the inquisitorial system works and advised the committee
to find out .
In 1991 the committee asked ICAC Commissioner Ian Temby to investigate and report .

ICAC sought guidance from an authority on European systems , Bron McKillop, of Sydney
University Law School, and he supplied background information in 1991.
Commissioner Ian Temby QC and other ICAC staff spent $77,290 March 1994 without
a report ; McKillop was asked to write the final report .

By contrast, the code of conduct for lawyers in the European Union, adopted unanimously
in 1998 , says : 'A lawyer must serve the interests of justice as well as those [of his clients] ,
' and that a lawyer has ' legal and moral obligations . towards : the client ,
the courts [and] the public ' ; this requires ' absolute independence ' .

GO BACK TO THE MAIN PAGE