Who Thinks Lawyers Are Unscrupulous Bloodsuckers?

[tinybear]

And why?

I raise this topic because I get the impression that many Americans have a very low opinion of lawyers. This is interesting because lawyers are held in high regard in other countries (such as those in Europe and many parts of Asia). Is this because only American lawyers are bad? Or does the problem lie with Americans themselves? What do you think folks?

[Waychel]

I think the problem is the way that attorneys are portrayed by the American media and depicted in movies. So many people are exposed to high-profile cases on the news, where a big name attorney represents a person for exposure, such as with Mark Geragos and the Scott Peterson case. Another factor is that people cannot fathom how attorneys can defend serial rapists or murders, seemingly unaware of the fact that in America, EVERYONE is deserving of representation. "Somebody has to do it." Some people also hate attorneys for how much they charge, unaware of the fact that most of what is paid goes to the upkeep of the attorney's practice, employees/paralegals, books and research material, among other things.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is ignorance.

[tinybear]

And prejudice. And I blame the media (Yes that includes Jurassic Park!!).

You know what this means? Americans are more biased and ignorant than most other people on this planet.

[Korgmeister]

It depends. Lawyers, along with doctors occupy the top of the "prestige professions" bracket. As in, ask someone to name respectable occupations off the top of their head and those two will be right at the top of the list. This makes them a conspicuous target.

However, there's a difference. When you see a doctor and you're really sick, there's a feeling he's helping you through it. And when you get better from an illness, there's generally some feeling of euphoria at feeling healthy again which is normal because a body likes being healthy.

Being involved in any sort of legal action, however is generally comparable with being buggered with a large dildo, sans lubricant. And your lawyer, rather than seeming like the remedy, just seems like part of the process. This is made worse by the fact that there's always some lawyer in the employ of someone else (or the state) who is making your life difficult.

And at the end of it, it's not so much euphoria as relief that it's over, while you then go about the bitter business of salvaging what's left of your life. Few people come out of a legal action better for it. At best you get a restitution for being wronged in the first place.

As a result, lawyers are always associated with profoundly negative life experiences. Add to that the whole "tall poppy syndrome" and the stereotype of lawyers being obscenely rich (which is a fallacy because it's normally only contract lawyers who make huge amounts of dosh) and the green eyed monster raises it's ugly head.

I won't confess any great fondness for lawyers. Admittedly I can sympathise somewhat because it's certainly a career path I've pondered (I decided against it because there's too much competition and it's too 'Nation Specific'). However, I just have a big problem with people who hate others for no reason other than they're being more successful than them.

[Korgmeister]

Quote by: tinybear Americans are more biased and ignorant than most other people on this planet.

I reckon Europeans give Americans a good run for their money in that department. But that's a matter for another thread.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Korgmeister It depends. Lawyers, along with doctors occupy the top of the "prestige professions" bracket. As in, ask someone to name respectable occupations off the top of their head and those two will be right at the top of the list. This makes them a conspicuous target. However, there's a difference. When you see a doctor and you're really sick, there's a feeling he's helping you through it. And when you get better from an illness, there's generally some feeling of euphoria at feeling healthy again which is normal because a body likes being healthy. Being involved in any sort of legal action, however is generally comparable with being buggered with a large dildo, sans lubricant. And your lawyer, rather than seeming like the remedy, just seems like part of the process. This is made worse by the fact that there's always some lawyer in the employ of someone else (or the state) who is making your life difficult. And at the end of it, it's not so much euphoria as relief that it's over, while you then go about the bitter business of salvaging what's left of your life. Few people come out of a legal action better for it. At best you get a restitution for being wronged in the first place. As a result, lawyers are always associated with profoundly negative life experiences. Add to that the whole "tall poppy syndrome" and the stereotype of lawyers being obscenely rich (which is a fallacy because it's normally only contract lawyers who make huge amounts of dosh) and the green eyed monster raises it's ugly head. I won't confess any great fondness for lawyers. Admittedly I can sympathise somewhat because it's certainly a career path I've pondered (I decided against it because there's too much competition and it's too 'Nation Specific'). However, I just have a big problem with people who hate others for no reason other than they're being more successful than them.

Korgmeister> Good analysis! I agree. :)

[castille]

Lawyers are generally perceived as successful, therefor they are a good target for abuse.

Why do you think Bill Gates and Richard Branson cop so much crap? I'll admit Microsoft is a bit crap and Virgin is a bit "bleh", but part of the criticism is because of their success.

I think its called the "tall poppy syndrome"?

Of course, businesses can argue they're giving jobs and benefiting the economy. Lawyers can't

[tinybear]

Why not? Lawyers employ staff too don't they?

[castille]

Yes, but I can't imagine many lawyers employing 100,000 staff.

[Milton Bradley]

The American Bar Association was founded by the Rothschild banking family in 1870, in Indiana. All members of the Judiciary and 71% of all legislatures, federal, state and local, are Bar Association members. This places at least two branches of our government under their control. This is a conflict of interest. Lawyers have a stake in writing bad laws, because good laws don't make them much money, for the simple reason that good laws tend to be obeyed. Bad laws are not.

Where lawyers go, crime follows

The very first law passed by the Indiana legislature, after its takeover by the Bar Association, was to prohibit private citizens (laymen) from practicing law. This was an unconstitutional ruling designed to create a monopoly over the interpretation of law and the manner of its practice.

Even before the founding of the American Bar Association, lawyers were granted a title of nobility, "Esquire", by the Rothschild family. This was so scandalous in the early 1800's that an amendment was ratified to make it a felony for anyone in government to hold a title of nobility. Efforts were promptly made, however, to bury the new amendment and destroy all traces of it from the law books and history books. Evidence has since surfaced on this, but lawyers continue to deny its existence. Proof that this amendment had, in fact been ratified, have surfaced in a sufficient number of states, but lawyers continue to deny it, for the reason that it threatens to expose every single lawyer in the United States, as a traitor to the United States. Every lawyer bears a title of nobility. Every lawyer is party to imposing a foreign jurisdiction in almost every courtroom in the country, making the United States Constitution unavailable, and our Constitutional Rights inaccessible to americans. This is treason against the people and Constitution of the United States. There is no longer any room for doubt:


ALL LAWYERS ARE TRAITORS!

All Lawyers are beholden to, and are licensed to operate under, the same jurisdiction complained about in the Declaration of Independence, that King George was imposing a "jurisdiction foreign to our soil".

All Lawyers are in the business of taking away Constitutional Rights from sovereign citizens and giving their power to a foreign banking family.

Now, before you think to go out and shoot lawyers, realize that the vast majority of them wear heavy blinders. They have been brainwashed in law school to think they are performing a public service. They no more think themselves traitors than do Fundamentalists think themselves unChristian when they justify violations of Christ's commandments on quotes from the Old Testament or Paul's Epistles. Both groups are unconscious of their crimes. Persecuting either misses the point and would only create worse crimes. What is needed is to expose these blinders and the hidden agendas of those who seek to impose them.

Violence only begets violence.

Ends cannot justify Means, because Ends always reflect their Means.


Terms and examples:

Interpretation of law means many real laws, like 18 USC 241-242, which are supposed to protect us from violations of our Constitutional Rights, are made unenforcable. You can't find lawyers who will prosecute such cases, even though they pay well, IF you can fight it to a high enough court where the Constitution actually means something. At the local and state level, civil rights cases are usually thrown out as "frivilous". Usually, that's because the state's case is frivilous, but they can't afford to let anyone know that. At the Supreme Court level, you are lucky if it gets heard. The Supreme Court can chose not to look at it. Consequently, even in areas where the state or local governments have already been shown to be in violation, as with professional licensing, and with licensing and registration for passenger cars and drivers, no charges get enforced and the responsible agencies continue violating the law with impunity.

The manner of practice, means that we no longer have access to true Common-law trials. The Bill-of-Rights was not new; it largely codified rights traditionally covered under Common Law. Common Law also included an approach to court procedure which put the jury, and not the judge, in charge. The jury could ask the questions. The jury could decide what evidence was admissible. The jury was supposed to judge BOTH the law and the defendant. The judge was merely a referee and legal consultant. This had the advantage that the first priority in the proceedings was to find the truth. No longer. The Bar Association has corrupted it, substituting more and more elements of Law in Equity, Merchantile Law, Admiralty, Maritime Law, Law Merchant, Military Law, but usually known as Civil Law. This system places the judge in the position of being a dictator in the court. The judge is still technically bound by the decision of the jury, if you can get one, but they can now dictate what evidence may or may not be admissible, and may even lie to jurors about their responsibilities. The result is an adversarial system, a gladiatorial contest in which champions of the two sides fight with words, writs, and procedures. The defendants are completely at the mercy of lawyers whose competence they are allowed little or no foreknowledge of. In most types of cases, like traffic courts, the jurisdiction and manner of practice are wholly Civil/Equity/Maritime. As such, you do not have any rights; you have no power over your circumstances; you are reduced to a mere pawn in the hand of petty tyrants.

Examples:


Driver's licensing and Auto registration
Marriage Licensing and Children's Services
Gun Licensing and Registration



Non-Law:
Then there is the non-laws. Many which admit not having been
passed, like Aliens and Nationality (title 8), Internal Revenue Code (title 26), Food and Drugs (title 21), and more, are enforced at the point of a gun. Less than half of the titles of United States Code have been passed into positive law. Many are enforced anyway. Others, which have been enacted (like parts of title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure), are only enforced when it is convenient, if at all.

In addition to the laws never passed into positive law, there are also innumerable agencies writing codes and regulations for every imaginable aspect of our lives. Few, if any, of these agencies submit their regulations to proper legislative procedure (Voting-in and enactment by voters or the proper elected officials). Instead, they are simply written by committees of appointed bureaucrats, who then proceed to enforce them, like petty dictators, often with criminal penalties. Since these are not usually subject to enactment by proper legislative procedure, they are, by the Bar Association's own definitions, non-laws and enforcement of them is a crime. Lawyers, however, having conspired to create these non-laws and the incomes they generate, likewise also conspire to prevent enforcement against them.

In every instance, when the enforcement of non-law involves the collection of money, involuntarily, such enforcement fits precisely the definition of extortion, as given by federal law.

The Bar Association is also charged with generating laws and codes which serve Rothschild interests, which include a number of large corporations and whole industries, in which the Rothschilds and their associate bankers have invested. These include drug companies, oil companies, insurance companies, auto and munitions manufacturers, and the mass media.

Professional Licensing:
Many of the laws they create set up licensing systems, ostensibly to protect the public, but in practice only protect the licensed professionals, reducing their liability, making them less accountable in case of misconduct. Such accountability is usually better served by Common Law torts, than by a system that places it primarily in the hands of peers who stand to lose if misdeeds are publicized. Licensing can also make it harder to get into a field you feel qualified for, in violation of the Constitutional protection of Right to Work (1). It also places whole professions under foreign jurisdiction, allowing lawyers to impose regulations prohibited under the Constitution, reducing our Rights to privileges. Privileges are easily revocable.

Examples:


Architectural licensing
Builder's licensing
Physician's licensing
Psychologist and Psychiatrist licensing



Regulatory Agencies:
Still other laws, and non-laws, create regulatory agencies, ostensibly to protect the public, but in practice only protect the industries they are supposed to regulate. These agencies tend to get staffed by lawyers who know little about the industry they are charged with regulating, so they go to the very industry which they have been charged with. The industrialists tell the regulators what they want to hear, and hold out prospects of juicy retirement positions for regulators who serve their profits. If a regulatory director does not cow-tow to the suggestions of industry, then the industry can lobby to Congress to have him replaced. Hence, congressmen, to maximize campaign contributions, place directors who cheerfully sell out every principle the agency was ostensibly built on.

Examples:

[Milton Bradley]

Examples:


Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
City Planning
Government Employment Practices
Com'on, how many do you need? If you are in denial, no number of examples will be enough.


Lawyers have subsequently taken every measure to obfuscate the law, creating a whole new language, which although it sounds, superficially, like english, the definitions of words may differ tremendously. They have created non-laws outside the scope of the Constitution, and often enforced with more vigor and stiffer penalties than legitimate law. They have even conspired to change laws by changing existing legal definitions, without legislation. For this reason, old editions of Black's Law Dictionary from prior to 1930, have become extremely valuable. Words like "income", which previously excluded wages ("compensation") now include wages, thereby expanding the scope of tax codes without benefit of legislation.

We are left with a real dilemma. Because the Bar Association has established a total monopoly over the interpretation and manner of practice of law, they can, as an organization, commit any crimes, perpetuate any scams, upon the american public with total impunity. They need only put a plausible face on it. If anyone sees through it, they are impotent to act, as all avenues of redress and correction are sealed or removed. Is this not high treason against the people and Constitution of the United States? Can It possibly be anything but?

(1) ref: Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, 1943

source:
http://www.soveriegn.freeservers.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That should leave you with a pretty clear understanding of why people hate lawyers.

[The Dunedan]

MB:
Ya beat me to it regarding the Title Of Nobility "Esquire." Well done.

[tinybear]

I thought it was Congress who signed those bills into law and the Court which interprets them. The lawyers are just advocates and messengers. Don't shoot the messenger.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: The Dunedan MB: Ya beat me to it regarding the Title Of Nobility "Esquire." Well done.

Thank you Sir.


I believe that to be one of the better reads surrounding the missing 13th ammendment, and a generally scathing article about law, and lawyers in general.


Not to mention the fact that nobody has ever been able to disprove anything in that article to me, yet... I am still waiting for any evidence to the contrary.

[The Dunedan]

I just love watching as original copies of 13A keep popping up all over the country, usually either printed in old textbooks, or attatched to Gov't-issued copies of the Constitution.

[Osborn F Enready]

Great posts Milton, and I know where you got that information. Great site.

[Spartacus]

Well, I don't think lawyers, as a whole, are unscrupulous bloodsuckers. Giving people the best representation possible means trying to bend the law to cover their defendant. It is the nature of a free society. It is the duty of the judge in the case to see that the law is followed as it is written and applied fairly. There are always new interpretations to old laws but it seems like people don't get too worked up about it until the law comes down on them or someone they love.

I did legal research for a while (self-employed) and ran into a whole bunch of great folks. I also ran into some jerkwads. They exist in every profession.

My greatest delight was refusing to work for one of the jerkwads that wanted to hire me. I had done research on a case that whipped his ass and did not even go to trial because after discovery he knew he was toast. He was a total ass all the way thru the whole thing and lashed out at everybody. He came to me because I did the research that beat him and he wanted to win. He took me to lunch at a pretty fancy place, laid out the case he was working on and wanted me to work on it. I told him my price and he tried to negotiate it down and cut out my expenses. I told him thanks for the lunch but I'll pass. I walked out of the place leaving him sitting at the table in astonishment. I still smile thinking about it.

[Lou Minotti]

Milton, I'm impressed. I've seen these arguments before (they seem to make a lot of sense) but have never seen it articulated so well. I think this concept and The Fed are two of the main roots of this criminal system that seems to be seeking more and more control over us. The more people like you start to learn this stuff, the more and more I see the systems foundation begin to crack a wee bit. People will only stay locked in a box for so long before they either die, or break out of it.

[Milton Bradley]

I wish I could take credit for writing that Lou, but that is the work of another author. However, I don't think that makes the points any less valid.


I do what I can to wake people up, but most people are reluctant to change their minds, particularly if they have to (gasp) read something, or even worse, (cringe) research something.


The quote "Why was I born with such contemporaries" by Oscar Wilde seems to fit this situation uncharacteristcally well.

[Waychel]

Addressing the first point of your right-wing drivel:

Lawyers have subsequently taken every measure to obfuscate the law, creating a whole new language, which although it sounds, superficially, like english, the definitions of words may differ tremendously.

In order to be precise, words are frequently defined for particular purposes. Concrete is concrete, but seven bag concrete is stronger than four bag concrete. The word "income" can have many definitions. Restricting it to exclude wages would be as much of a perversion of the common sense meaning as anything.

They have created non-laws outside the scope of the Constitution, and often enforced with more vigor and stiffer penalties than legitimate law.

The law is written by elected legislative bodies or by propositions (such as Proposition 13) which are first approved by the voters. There is no requirement that elected officials be lawyers and many are not lawyers.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "legitimate" or "illegitimate" law. If the law is unconstitutional, it can be declared void by the courts. Exactly what unconstitutional laws are you referring to? Those that you don't particularly like or that may cost you money?

They have even conspired to change laws by changing existing legal definitions, without legislation. For this reason, old editions of Black's Law Dictionary from prior to 1930, have become extremely valuable.

Definitions in Black's Law Dictionary from 1930 are hopelessly antiquated and of little practical use. Since the 1930's, nearly every field of activity has undergone radical changes. For example, there were no government welfare programs such as social security, Medicare, un-employment insurance before the Roosevelt administration. There was no federal reserve system and government regulation of the economy was completely non-existent. That is the chaos that brought the Great Depression.

Words like "income", which previously excluded wages ("compensation") now include wages, thereby expanding the scope of tax codes without benefit of legislation.

Why do you think that wages are not income?

We are left with a real dilemma. Because the Bar Association has established a total monopoly over the interpretation and manner of practice of law, they can, as an organization, commit any crimes, perpetuate any scams, upon the american public with total impunity. They need only put a plausible face on it. If anyone sees through it, they are impotent to act, as all avenues of redress and correction are sealed or removed. Is this not high treason against the people and Constitution of the United States? Can It possibly be anything but?

If that is the case, why is it that so many lawyers are disbarred and sent to jail every year? How come malpractice insurance is prohibitibly expensive? Why is it malpractice insurance even necessary, if what you say is true? What would be treasonous is to have two sets of laws: those that you approve of, and all the others.

The fundamental point that you've overlooked is that the court system works on an adversary basis. Each side has it's own lawyers. Very few lawyers are in court representing themselves or even as parties to any kind of litigation. If each side has it's own attorney, how is it that ANYONE has a monopoly on the interpretation of law or control over the outcome of litigation. The fundamental point about legal interpretation is that decisions are published and control subsequent litigation. Once you have written down an interpretation of the law you can't change it by whim. The influence of the courts depends on the quality of the legal analysis that supports a particular decision. If a decision is illogical, grossly unfair or based on prejudice, that fact is glaringly apparent.