see Lawyer Fire
Probably, the most disliked class of
citizens in this country are lawyers. (I should add
this is really TRIAL LAWYERS)
Everybody complains about them - - but
nobody does anything, and lawyers frankly
don't care what you think because they
are so entrenched nobody can touch them
except judges - - who are, of
course, fellow lawyers.
FREE CRIME COUPONS
The "legal" mind has foisted some incredible
inequities upon us and even convinced
most of the population these inequities
are "constitutional". Consider the "Free Crime
Syndrome"
A Police officer
stops a known felon driving down the highway with a load of
stuff he has just
ripped off someone's home. He is arrested with the evidence
that proves he is
guilty. However, when he gets to court, his lawyer and the judge
play the lawyer
game. The judge decides that the proof of his guilt cannot be
presented to the
jury because the officer didn't have what the judge decides is
"probable cause"
to arrest him. Joe citizen is commanded to sit on a jury where
the evidence needed
to decide the case is WITHHELD from him so, he is judicially
required to render
a NOT GUILTY decision.
The legal theory behind this chicanery
is not anywhere codified in law. It is simply
a practice invented by judges and defended
as "the only way to keep the police honest".
If one is to follow this theory to
it's logical conclusion, when innocent Joe Citizen is
improperly stopped, searched, interrogated
and humilliated by police, he should
receive a "FREE CRIME" coupon which
allows him to commit one crime without
being subject to prosecution.
This idea is, of course, ludicrous - - but no more so
than the present judicial practice.
We need it codified in law that an officer
can be held personally liable if he blatently
and knowingly violates
a citizen's rights. I certainly believe in cutting a police officer
some slack when he is working under
pressure and must make, sometimes split-
second decisions and will make some
honest mistakes. He certainly should not be
harrassed and penalized for minor or
obscure infractions. But, the law should provide
for personal penalties when police
burst into an honest citizen's home in the middle
of the night and terrorize, insult
(and even kill or maim) a family -- all because they are
too stupid or too lazy to recheck an
address and too stupid (or having too much fun
to recognize a mistake and apologize.
CASE IN POINT:
A few years
ago, in Snohomish County, Washington, police broke down a door in
the middle of the
night without knocking. The mother, hearing the commotion,
instinctively jumped
out of bed and ran to her children. In the hallway, she bumped
into a cop who summarily
shot her, then cuffed her and left her bleeding on the
floor. Sometime
later, (the actual time is disputed, but apparently was more than
an hour) the police
realized their error and called an ambulance. But, by the time
they got her to
a hospital, she was dead. The "raid" had been triggered by a creep
who had a grudge
against the family, so told the police they were drug dealers. The
police acted on
his statement without any corroboration.
In this case, some of the police officers
should have to pay. The cop who shot the
woman was certainly guilty of manslaughter.
The grieving husband, in fear of his own
life moved his family to another county
and sued Snohomish County. He collected a
substantial sum of money, which came
from the taxpayers - - not from any of the cops.
When cops make a "No knock" entry,
they should be held responsible for any such
unfortunate results.
My Buddy, The Judge:
Then, there is the matter of lawyers
picking the judge to try their case. Lawyers keep
careful records on judges and know
the judge's personal prejedices (and often times
have personal relationships with judges)
If they can pick the judge who will handle
their case, it often guarantees they
will win it.
Some years ago, I attended a business
seminar at which the main speaker was a lawyer
who specialized in the particular issue
that was the subject of the seminar. He acted as
a consultant for other lawyers all
over the country when they had a case involving the
issue. This gave him a nation-wide
view of many legal cases and lawyers and judicial
practice in different jurisdictions.
One statement he made has always stuck in my mind:
"Your attorney must
be well connected enough that he can pick his judge. I have
never tried a case
in this county, but I can tell you that in any of the many counties in
which I have personal
knowledge, top lawyers pick their judges. IF YOURS CAN'T,
GET RID OF HIM,
HE's INCOMPETENT"
I believe he knew what he was talking
about. This means if you go into court with just
a run-of-the-mill attorney -
or representing yourself, which is your right -- You may
very well be up against an attorney
who plays poker with the judge every Saturday
night and loses.
Picking a judge should be a crime in
which everyone involved (including court clerks)
should be jailed and/or disbarred.
But, very clearly it isn't. It's just SOP.
LAWYERS LYING TO THE COURT
If you or I testifying in court after
being sworn and your testimony is proven to be a lie,
we may be charged with perjury and
do jail time therefore. But, if you are a lawyer (an
officer of the court), you can
lie all day and nothing will be done. A Case in Point:
A seven-year-old
girl was abducted from her bed in San Diego, raped and them
murdered, by a neighbor.
Two trial lawyers were hired by the state to defend the
murderer.
After he had signed over his home to them as compensation, the state
paid these two scum-balls
$750,000 more to defend him. They proceded to put the
grieving parents
on trial with all kinds of false accusations, EVEN THOUGH THEY
KNEW THEIR CLIENT
WAS GUILTY BECAUSE HE HAD OFFERED TO SHOW THE
LOCATION OF THE
BODY IN EXCHANGE FOR NO DEATH PENALTY. This fact was
also known to the
prosecutors but "legal ethics" (an Oxymoron) prevented them from
presenting that
fact to the jury.
When complaints were made to the bar
association and the state attorney general, they
were dismissed as "It happens all the
time". It sure does.
HELP FROM THE FEDS?
There are laws on the books which are
designed to allow federal judges and the FBI to
intervene when local officials are
violating the law and/or taking bribes --- and sometimes
they do. But, federal judges
are politically appointed from the district in which they have
been practicing. So, very often
when a politician gets caught with his "hand in the cookie
jar", the federal judge he appears
before is a political pal, so he gets off. The system which
allows local politicians to recommend
(or block) appointments of federal judges should
be changed. Federal judgeships
should always be in jurisdictions in which the appointee
is not and has not practiced.
Case in Point:
Some years ago, a
friend of mine got himself unpopular with a politically connected
lawyer who was involved
in a bitter child custody fight. The lawyer got his buddy the
judge to issue an
arrest warrent for my friend (I believe he mistakenly thought my
friend was his ex-wife's
lover). The judge held my friend in the King County jail for
27 days for "contempt"
even though he was not a party to the lawyer's personal case.
No charge was ever
placed against my friend nor did he have any kind of hearing in
open court and it
took about 15 days before he was even assigned a lawyer. I
crafted
up a writ of habeas
corpus (which is simply a motion to the court to have an incarcerated
person brought before
a judge to determine if he is being held legally ) - - this is a
right
guaranteed by the
US Constitution. The King County presiding judge read it and simply
stated, "I won't
hear it". I went to the Washington state appeals court in Olympia
and
was told by the
court commisioner that Washington State no longer recognizes "habeas
corpus". -
- - So much for the constitution.
I then went to the
US Courthouse in Seattle where a clerk helped me put together a
federal suit against
the judge [She would no doubt have been fired if her boss had ever
found out what she
did] When served with that suit, the judge released my friend.
However, when the
case finally found it's way into federal court, the local prosecutor
represented the
judge and the federal judge (Coughenour - former King County bar
assn. president)
dismissed the case as "frivolous". I wonder if he would have thought
his carcass
being held 27 days in the slammer was frivolous?
SO WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS LOCK THE LAWYERS HAVE ON THE COUNTRY?
For starters we need to STOP ELECTING
LAWYERS TO LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS.
As "officers of the court", lawyers
are already members of the judicial branch of
government. The framers
of our constitution constructed a government in which
there were three separate branches,
each intended to act as a brake on the other
two. With lawyers dominating
all three branches now, there is no such brake. Before
voting for any candidate for congress
or state legislature we should find out if he or
she is a member of the bar. If
so, we should arbitrarily vote against him/her.
We need people in our legislative branch
of government who have experience in the
real world - - not those who have made
a pile of dough by ripping off the public. Next
time a lawyer asks for your vote, ask
him if he is going to turn in his law license and
bar association membership if elected.
JMC