J.A.I.L. News
Journal
______________________________________________________
Los
Angeles,
California
September 15, 2022
We Must Focus On
SPECIFIC Lawyers, i.e., On JUDGES
The below article sent to our Legal
Discussions Group by [email protected] is excellent--
except for one vital factor: IT LACKS FOCUS! We quote in our J.A.I.L.
signature: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one
who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau. The entire
profession of "Lawyers" represents many BRANCHES of evil. Every aspect of life
involves lawyers as advisors and/or legal representatives. While there are
many BRANCHES of evil, there is only one ROOT from which all
branches
flourish. That one ROOT consists of
one specific sect of lawyers, and that is the judiciary.
Folks, that is where the People must set their focus
if we are to accomplish any control over our tyrannical, unconstitutional
form of government as it currently operates.
Taking on all lawyers is like taking on
government itself. It's too broad a field to challenge and in attempting to do
so, our resources become diffused and depleted with no
resolution accomplished. Rather, we have to limit our focus on the
source of evil in government-- not on the entire scope
of it. Track every aspect of government corruption (wrongdoing) to its ultimate
source of authority. Where does the buck (pardon the pun) stop? Where does
everything in controversy-- you name it-- end
up? Think, People, THINK! Where is the end of the
line-- the final backstop-- as far as redress of grievances goes?
What do people say whenever they run into an unsolvable predicament--
whatever it is? Yes, "We'll have to take it to
court!" --as if court were the ultimate
resolution to all controversies! Well, IS IT??
Picture a funnel, where all government
alleged wrongdoing is dumped into. The top of the funnel is a wide, gaping
opening to take in all claims and allegations of wrongdoing, all of which
allegations and defenses are mixed in with lawyers of all kinds. They are all
eventually sucked into the narrow bottom of the funnel leading to the ultimate
destination-- yes, the courts where only one sect of lawyer controls-- JUDGES
(including hearing officers, commissioners, magistrates, arbitrators, referees,
etc. --anyone sitting in judgment of a case). And that destination includes the
entire judicial system, from administrative hearings, to supposed courts "of
law," to courts "in equity," to appellate courts, to state supreme courts, and
to the U.S. supreme court-- whatever they may be called: admiralty courts, law
merchant courts, Article I courts, Article III courts --the whole enchilada.
That's where they all end up. The judicial process churns and chews it all up
until the case finally, after often many years and much expense (yes-- to the
various and sundry scope of lawyers), the final level of JUDGE control is
reached, exhausting the process. After all the JUDGES have had their chance at
chewing, where does the case go after that when it is
still left without a lawful conclusion, without due
process?
Well, under our present system of "dispute
resolution," THAT'S IT! The "Final Judgment Rule" says that a final
decision is eventually reached, and after that it's "res judicata" --the subject
matter cannot be adjudicated further. That would make sense in an honest
judicial system. However, in our system, whenever judges don't want to be
bothered with a case, any ruling they make at that point
is considered a "decision" --whether or not due process is given, material facts
of the case addressed, the applicable law to those facts addressed, proper
court rules applied, proper procedures allowed and followed, etc. The
merits (substance) of the case need not be reached under the
current system for there to be a "decision" as appellate and federal courts now
rule. Judges call judicial rulings of lower courts "decisions" in order to
fraudulently place the taint of "finality" to the case-- such as the common
judicial abuse of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine which states that a litigant may
not bring a state court DECISION to federal court for further adjudication. Then
the appellate JUDGES simply rubber-stamp that closeout, regardless of the fact
that the merits of the case were never reached due to lack of due process. But
that's the end of the line! What lawyers are responsible for that?
--only the JUDGES-- they make the final
ruling and bang the gavel, "Case Dismissed! -- Next..." You're left
high and dry, without redress! That's it!
According to the Declaration of
Independence, the "end of the line" is the People, not
government. However, we failed to include in the Constitution an enforcement
provision to specifically allow the following: "But when a long train of abuses
and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce
[People's rights] under absolute despotism, it is [the People's] right, it is
their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their
future security. ..." No provision was spelled out in the Constitution for
the People to exercise that DUTY. J.A.I.L. is now here to offer that
provision-- to enforce the Constitution!
With that as an "introduction," read the
following article which, by and large, is a good article-- but understand, IT
LACKS FOCUS. That lack is a vital flaw when considering how to resolve the
problem of government corruption.
-Barbie-
Yale Law Professor on Lawyers
and Law
With our huge collective personal experience of the
similarly situated, we all know that something's rotten in Denmark, big
time.
Some of us are beginning to see a clear picture, at least in part,
of exactly what is rotten... I'd like to offer just a handful of quotations from
Fred Rodell's book Woe Unto You, Lawyers! (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock,
1939) (New York: Pageant Press, 1939) (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1940)
(New York: Pageant-Poseidon 1972) (New York: Berkley Pub. Corp.,
1980)
Fred Rodell (1907-1980) was a Yale Law Professor for 41 years, and
authored many books and articles, among them "55 Men: The Story of the
Constitution: Based on the day-by-day notes of James Madison"
(Harrisburg, New York: The Telegraph Press,1936)
(Harrisburg, New York: The Telegraph Press, 1975) (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
Stackpole Books, 1986) (Costa Mesa, California: Noontide Press,
1986)
Here are the quotations. I hope you'd give them some thought,
at your leisure:
-------------------------------------
In TRIBAL
TIMES, there were the medicine-men. In the Middle Ages, there were the priests.
Today there are the lawyers. For every age, a group of bright boys, learned in
their trade and jealous of their learning, who blend technical competence with
plain and fancy hocus-pocus to make themselves masters of their fellow men. For
every age, a pseudo-intellectual autocracy, guarding the tricks of its trade
from the uninitiated, and running, after its own pattern, the civilization of
its day.
It is the lawyers who run our civilization for us - our
governments, our business, our private lives. Most legislators are lawyers; they
make our laws. Most presidents, governors, commissioners, along with their
advisers and brain-trusters are lawyers; they administer our laws. All the
judges are lawyers; they interpret and enforce our laws. There is no separation
of powers where the lawyers are concerned. There is only a concentration of all
government power - in the lawyers. As the schoolboy put it, ours is "a
government of lawyers, not of men."
It is not the businessmen, no matter
how big, who run our economic world. Again it is the lawyers, the lawyers who
"advise" and direct every time a company is formed, every time a bond or a share
of stock is issued, almost every time material is to be bought or goods to be
sold, every time a deal is made. The whole elaborate structure of industry and
finance is a lawyer-made house. We all live in it, but the lawyers run
it.
And in our private lives, we cannot buy a home or rent an apartment,
we cannot get married or try to get divorced, we cannot die and leave our
property to our children without calling on the lawyers to guide us. To guide
us, incidentally, through a maze of confusing gestures and formalities that
lawyers have created.
The legal trade, in short, is nothing but a
high-class racket. It is a racket far more lucrative and more powerful and hence
more dangerous than any of those minor and much-publicized rackets, such as
ambulance-chasing or the regular defense of known criminals, which make up only
a tiny part of the law business and against which the respectable members of the
bar are always making speeches and taking action.
The legal racket knows
no political or social limitations.
Furthermore, the lawyers - or at
least 99 44/100 per cent of them - are not even aware that they are indulging in
a racket, and would be shocked at the very mention of the idea. Once bitten by
the legal bug, they lose all sense of perspective about what they are doing and
how they are doing it. Like the medicine men of tribal times and the priests of
the Middle Ages they actually believe in their own nonsense. This fact, of
course, makes their racket all the more insidious. Consecrated fanatics are
always more dangerous than conscious villains. And lawyers are fanatics indeed
about the sacredness of the word-magic they call The Law.
Yet the saddest
and most insidious fact about the legal racket is that the general public
doesn't realize it's a racket either. Scared, befuddled, impressed and ignorant,
they take what is fed them, or rather what is sold them. Only once an age do the
non-lawyers get, not wise, but disgusted, and rebel. As Harold Laski is fond of
putting it, in every revolution the lawyers lead the way to the guillotine or
the firing squad.
It should not, however, require a revolution to rid
society of lawyer-control. Nor is riddance by revolution ever likely to be a
permanent solution. The American colonists had scarcely freed themselves from
the nuisances of The Law by practically ostracizing the pre-Revolutionary
lawyers out of their communities - a fact which is little appreciated - when a
new and home-made crop of lawyers sprang up to take over the affairs of the baby
nation. That crop, 150 years later, is still growing in numbers and in
power.
What is really needed to put the lawyers in their places and out
of the seats of the mighty is no more than a slashing of the veil of dignified
mystery that now surrounds and protects The Law. If people could be made to
realize how much of the vaunted majesty of The Law is a hoax and how many of the
mighty processes of The Law are merely logical legerdemain, they would not long
let the lawyers lead them around by the nose. And people have recently begun,
bit by bit, to catch on. The great illusion of The Law has been leaking a little
at the edges.
Yet it will take a great deal more than a collection of
happenings like these to break down, effectively, the superstition of the
grandeur of The Law and the hold which that superstition has on the minds of
most men. It will take some understanding of the wordy emptiness and irrelevance
of the legal process itself. It will take some cold realization that the
inconsistencies and absurdities of The Law that occasionally come into the open
are not just accidents but commonplaces. It will take some awakening to the fact
that training in The Law does not make lawyers wiser than other men, but only
smarter.
Perhaps an examination of the lawyers and their Law, set down in
ordinary English, might help achieve these ends. For, despite what the lawyers
say, it is possible to talk about legal principles and legal reasoning in
everyday non-legal language. The point is that, so discussed, the principles and
the reasoning and the whole solemn business of The Law come to look downright
silly. And perhaps if the ordinary man could see in black and white how silly
and irrelevant and unnecessary it all is, he might be persuaded, in a peaceful
way, to take the control of his civilization out of the hands of those modern
purveyors of streamlined voodoo and chromium-plated theology, the
lawyers.
As we point out, this article proposes a lot of
theories, but no practical solution. J.A.I.L. is that
solution!
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who
is
striking at the
root."
-- Henry David Thoreau
<><