Then what were you getting at? I'm genuinely confused.
All lawyers are shysters. That's a 'legal' word actually found in Black's Law Dictionary. This is the de facto legal dictionary of lawyers. One could equate the words - "barrator" and "shyster" to accurately describe the profession of lawyers in general. As I will show, this manifests itself from the very core of the profession. First, I will state the behavioral traits of fraud, deceit, and lying has never been characteristics of having a high IQ. There is little correlation. If lawyers collectively lie about being "licensed" attorneys, which they do, there's probably more deceit and fraud going on in the profession. This gets to be very interesting and telling of everyone's "justice" before any court in the land. In fact, the entire practice can be shown to be a conflict of interest with the very clients lawyers retain. It's all really an act; a drama, in which the client is the willing dupe that is taken for a ride. Think of it as a consequential "Candid Camera" where lives are destroyed all for the sake of taking their life's savings. No one gets to laugh, but the layers themselves. Did you know one of the first things law schools teach their students is that there is "no such thing as Justice"? There is only the "appearance of Justice". Think about what this actually means. To get someone to believe there is "justice served" is by an act; a staged drama.
Ask your lawyer if he/she has a license to practice law. Your lawyer will most likely say yes, but its a lie. There are no licensed lawyers in America. There is no license to practice law. Any lawyer claiming this a liar. Hence, the clue is the name. Lawyers pass the bar exam and then receive a bar card, which is essentially a union or gild membership card to practice law. Look this up. The deceit is so wide and deep, it is breathtaking. And you want justice? Government does not issue a license to practice law.
See Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4, Attorney & client: The attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. What this is stating is that the lawyers are not independent and work directly for the judge. Clients are also called "wards" of the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys. After you have read the foregoing, ask your attorney to see a copy of "regarding Lawyer Discipline & other rules" Also Canons 1 through 9.
Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed., 1991) defines "wards-of-the-court" as "infants" or "persons of unsound mind". You could "look it up", but your lawyer didn't explain this to you when he took your money? Wonder why?
Then there is the 'quality' of the lawyer. Is he or she a convincing actor in court? How well does the lawyer know the law and court decorum? Is the lawyer smart? Chances are that the lawyer is not. The profession overall produces overall low scoring professionals. They're good at taking your money, but lack the intelligence to represent you.
Lawyers actually score in the same GRE (Graduate Record Examination) range as home economic and social worker majors, which is 300 GRE points lower than many math, science, and engineering majors. Acknowledging this, paints a different picture of intelligence for the trade. The myth that lawyers are high IQ students doesn't show in the data. This is yet another public deception.
Well you asked and I answered. Of course there is much more.....
If you go in pro se and the judge and prosecutor or defense are both part of the same private guild, isnt that a conflict of intrest?
Granted you have a librarian make a certified copy of cjs and have it admitted as evidence along with the certified copies of their bar cards?
Yes, fair-minded people would agree with your premise. Not only is the attorney an officer of the Judge's court (the lawyer works for the judge), but he bound to acknowledge public policy, the attorney's law firm, and the statutory law ALL before even serving the client. The client is at the very bottom of the pecking order. So, when a lawyer tells you his/her priority is to serve his/her clients with the best defense, the lawyer is failing to tell you that priority is after all the things I just mentioned.
If a lawyer says they have a license to practice law, and then represent you in a case.
Can you sue him after for fraud, or have him charged?
It's all a club, including the sitting judge. It serves to provide the 'appearance' of justice and not justice. I've known individuals bringing the licensed attorney bit up after the opposing attorney made claim to the judge the pro se defense was practicing law without a license. The defense then demanded to the judge that the opposing attorney prove to the court he is licensed. The judge quickly quashed the argument to proceed with the case.
I'm letting you know I read every word of that. But, to be honest, that was a lot of words just to say, " Lawyers are only lawyers because they've studied law."
When it comes to the law license/bar exam part; I've never heard anything like that so I will look it up. If I end up going down the rabbit hole you're describing, so be it.
To be clear, I'm not calling you a liar. I've just never looked into this myself.
Ive heard most of that before and looked some of it up in the past. He is spot on with the ward of the state and their allegiance to the bar over the client. Dont take my word for it, You should look it up to really know it.
Got it. It's good. I could delve much deeper but won't waste your time.
(post is archived)