|
DISINGENUOUS, adj.
not
candor or frank, not straightforward; crafty
LIAR
"All the extravagance and incompetence of our present government
is due, in the main, to lawyers, and, in part at least, to good ones. They are responsible for nine-tenths of the useless
and vicious laws that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce them.
Every Federal judge is a lawyer. So are most Congressmen. Every invasion of the plain rights of citizens has a lawyer behind
it. If all lawyers were hanged tomorrow, and their bones sold to a mah jong factory, we'd be freer and safer, and our taxes
would be reduced by almost half."
H.L. Mencken, "Breathing Space," The Baltimore Evening Sun (Aug. 4, 1924)
The Butchered
Law
Few professions are based upon the skill of becoming a wordsmith. Even less are adept at using
logic, analysis and reasoning. And fewer still are able to pursue the cause of noble purpose. Our view of the legal calling
has been shaded with visions of esteem and respect since childhood. We have been taught that honor and duty were tenants that
advocates of the civil law took to heart and aspired to follow in their occupation. But at some point in our lives, we are
brought into direct contact with the reality of the legal trade and are left with a foul taste from the experience.
Just ask Dick the Butcher, his endorse tell the tale
A man we may not know, but he surely knew his foe
They call him a killer and part of the plot
Joining another more famous than not
That pretender to the throne who toils at his trade
Banding together those rabble rousers he made
Most think he was the one who spoke those words
But Dick was the man who said no more lords
Even though another wears the coat, it was but a fad
Is the Butcher really the one who is the Cade?
What is the cause for this disappointment? When the allusion is uncovered and the image is
unveiled, we are confronted with the compromise of values. The standard of right from wrong adopts a secondary position to
precedent. Upholding what can be done from what should be rendered constitutes a path that all too often abandons the purpose
of the 'Law'.
Advocacy for the sheer reason that the precedent allows, is a perversion of the noble purpose
for law. When 'Truth' is abandoned, 'Justice' is denied. Civilization is created and maintained through an arbitration of
disputes that respects the 'Rights' of ALL Individuals. The 'Law' is the guide to settle and judge adherence to criterion
of conduct. But it is left to the realm of morals, ethics and values to establish those principles. 'Equity' suffers not a
right without a remedy, is based upon moral standards of conduct and ethical codes. The 'Law' is NOT meant to make those mores,
but to apply them. Judges are the umpires of the rules. Lawyers are the presenters of the evidence. And the Jury is the determiner
of guilt.
When the parts of this drama fail to conform to their proper role, the system deserts its
legitimacy. At the core of administering 'Justice' is the TRUTH . . . When lawyers forsake veracity for victory, they destroy
the ideal. And the 'Ideal' is the only force that unleashes willful consent of each citizen. Without 'belief in the fairness'
of the process, only force remains for compliance. The Law is not complicated by its nature. Certainly, not any more difficult
to understand than knowing 'right from wrong'. The mystique that the legal profession attempts to attribute to its practice,
is meant only to serve the interests of that occupation. There is no intrinsic superiority for this 'so called' esquire class.
The position of excessive influence, that they have assumed, has been achieved because the citizens of the Republic have abdicated
their correct role as sovereign citizens. The result of this renunciation has been the rise of repression and injustice.
The conduct and behavior of the barrister abandons their counselor function. They refrain
from the documentary role of a solicitor, and seek to alter the outcome or verdict. The first causality, is usually the truthfulness
of the presentation. The result of these actions destroys the process. And the final consequence ultimately, reduces the 'Rights'
and options of the individual, who is called the 'client'. More properly, he or she should be addressed as the person in charge,
and the attorney as the hired hand to file the papers and relate their understanding of procedure. When these roles are distorted
or become non existent, the public is led down the path to second class status. Put the attorney in charge of legislating
the passage of laws, and you enter the domain of the plantation. And slavery is the real commodity that is produced within
the province of this arrangement.
William Shakespeare introduced Dick to us in Henry VI, part 2 and told what can be done.
Cade: Be brave, then; for your captain is brave and vows reformation. There shall be in England
seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny. (Cheap bread) the three hooped pot shall have ten hoops, (Pots will hold much more
liquor) and I will make it felony to drink small beer. All the realm shall be common; (the same) and when I am King there
shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; (at his expense) and I will apparel them all in one livery; (all dress
alike) that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.
Dick the Butcher: THE FIRST THING WE DO, LET'S KILL ALL THE LAWYERS.
Cade: Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent
lamb should be made parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man: Some say the bee stings; but I say, "tis the bee's
wax: for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since."
When the Law is stripped away from the control of the populace, and conferred through the
offices of an elite; the dispensing of 'Justice' becomes rare. The significance and respect for the process is diminished.
And when perceived righteousness is lost, Society vacates their support for the execution of its practice. So when the question
is posed, where did the law go wrong? The answer is, it went the way of all other tyranny. It was surrendered without much
of a fight, by the people who were blessed to receive it as a gift, through the suffering and sacrifices of all prior generations.
And all the time, that capitulation was rendered nice and legal, and certified by a judge . . . Just ask Dick, he knows what
to do, when the slaughter reaches close to home, his trade might well yield relief.
SARTRE - July 11, 2003
The right to be let alone is the underlying principle of the Constitution's Bill of Rights. - Erwin N. Griswold
James Madison - Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and
the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion
then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise
it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men,
depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable
also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the
Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and
in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he
must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of
his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by
the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists,
by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also
true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
Complete Text of Speech - James Madison: His Legacy
"You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine
indeed, and one, which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
- Thomas Jefferson
|
