"Corruption, Collusion &
Cronyism - America's Judicial System"
from "In Defense of Rural
America"
By Ron
Ewart, President
National Association of Rural
Landowners
and
nationally recognized author and speaker on freedom and property rights
issues.
© Copyright Sunday, January
11, 2015 - All Rights Reserved
As published on
Newswithviews, January 7, 2015
This article is also
available on our website at:
"Loyalty in the legal world is distorting its own
peculiar sense of reality. Loyalty is the legal world's gravity: it holds that
world together; it is omnipotent; it cannot be seen but its effects are
observable; it can be a powerful force of destruction. As it grows
stronger and more powerful, one can only hope such a strange world will be
ultimately crushed by its own weight." TheKeyAuthor
The American judicial system is made
up of local, state and federal grand juries, prosecutors, courts, judges,
attorneys, clerks and thousands of general and local rules. This is where
the poor hapless dolt finds him or her self when thrust into the judicial trap
where he or she will be manipulated, cajoled and herded like sheep on the way to
slaughter.
The system is a "restricted" club of
very loyal and secretive individuals (lawyers) that have been trained
(brainwashed and steeped) in the legal cesspool that is known today as
American law. American law, or perhaps better defined as case law, has
absolutely nothing to do with the U. S. Constitution, common law, or
constitutional law. It has been said that you can prove any case in your
favor just by using the history of case law, either on the defendant's side, or
the plaintiff's side, depending on how skillful your lawyer is at presenting his
side of the case to the jury ….. or the judge. This makes the American
legal system nothing more than a giant crap game where the judges, lawyers and
court clerks hold all the Aces and Royal Flushes.
You pay your attorney for his
legal services all the while believing that he is representing you and your
interests. But your attorney's allegiance isn't to you, it is to the court
system where his bread is buttered and his loyal club cronies reside. To
confirm this, you need to read Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section
4, Attorney & client: wherein it states that: "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."
Clients are also called "wards" of
the court in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.
If you find yourself in this
uncomfortable position of being represented by a loyal member of the bar, be
sure to ask your attorney for a copy of "Lawyer Discipline & other
rules" and Canons 1
through 9.
When the judge pulls the two
attorneys from either side into his chambers, they aren't talking about your
interests. They are talking about what the judge is demanding in relation
to how the system works and how the rules or court precedents apply in your
case. Your interests or your constitutional individual rights are the
farthest things from their minds. That's not justice ladies and gentlemen,
that's collusion by loyal parties to each other and the system. You as the
plaintiff, the defendant and justice are, at best, an afterthought. The
"system" is God and judges and attorneys are its loyal subjects that bow to no
other God, man, or principle.
In a treatise comparing case law to
statute law, the authors relayed how case law evolved in the courts. (see: http://crei.cat/people/
Case law and judge-made-law through
legal precedents is far superior, in their minds, to the all-too rigid statute
law made by the people's representatives through legislation. Here is an
excerpt of how the authors to this treatise analyze the evolution, efficiency
and social benefits of case law. You won't believe it.
"The law, or, more specifically, the rule
governing a given legal issue, is represented by a point x. Every member i of
the population has individual preferences that are additively separable and
depend on this legal rule according to single-peaked preferences. We specify a
quadratic loss function l (x)p(xx )2; the bliss points x are independent and i i
I identically distributed with continuous distribution F on with mean x and
variance 2. j Social welfare resulting from the law is then described by the
aggregate loss function:
l(x)p l
(x)dF(x )pj2(xx✻)2. i i"
While the first term captures an
intuitive effect the heterogeneity is costly since a single rule has to be
adopted for all society we take the variance 384 / T H E J O U R N A L O F L E G
A L S T U D I E S / V O LU ME 3 7 ( 2 ) / J U N E 2 0 0 8 of preferences in the
population as exogenous and therefore normalize the aggregate loss function to l
(x)p(xx)2, where x characterizes the social optimum. In a stochastic dynamic
setting, the loss function takes the standard form of inter-temporally separable
expected utility. Hence, social welfare is described by the
following:"
L(t)pE bsl(x ) pbs[(E (x
)x✻)2Var (x )], (1) t ts t ts t ts [ ] sp0
sp0
where x is the law implemented in
period t and b (0, 1) is the social t discount factor. This loss function
captures two fundamental concerns of society: the tendency of legal rules to
conform to the optimum every period and their ex ante predictability. In
statistical terms, these are, respectively, the accuracy and the precision of
the process; from the point of view of legal intuition, they capture the equity
and the certainty of the law."
"In a case law system, the rule evolves
through the decisions of appellate courts. The fundamental source of law is
precedent, by which previous decisions of the high court have normative value
for subsequent adjudication. However, judges are not expected merely to apply a
preexisting law to a particular case, but they must also create or discover, in
the language preferred by Leoni (1961) and Hayek (1973) on their own the
appropriate law, tailored to the case at hand. As is consistent with the
insights of legal realism and the findings of the political science literature,
we adopt an attitudinal model, in which judicial decision-making is driven by
judges attempts to shape legal rules in accordance with their individual
preferences (Stone 1985; Posner 2005a; Gennaioli 2006). Judges are
heterogeneous, and their individual preferences xˆ J have a
distribution Fˆ J on , with mean x and
variance."
"This heterogeneity captures scholarly
disagreement about different 2 ˆj J theories of justice,
partisan ideology, the influence of rent-seeking litigants, lobbying, and
conceivably bribing by special-interest groups. We show one possible micro
foundation for this assumption through a simple special-interest model in
Section 3.1."
"Heterogeneity!" "Social Welfare!"
"Political Science!" "Bliss Points!" "Legal Realism!"
"Legal Intuition!" "Quadratic Loss Functions!" Good
Lord! How a sane mind can
create so many paragraphs of pure, unadulterated gibberish to explain the
evolution of case law is beyond comprehension? If you can believe it, the
treatise went even more berserk from there.
Lawyers and judges camouflage and
shield themselves in Latin words and phrases and the kind of mathematical
hogwash we have highlighted above, with the overt and purposeful intent to
"snow" the rest of the population. That is corruption, collusion,
cronyism, fraud and entrenchment at its worst. It is just another way for
the restricted club of loyalists in the American judicial system to command
exorbitant fees and salaries. That is why the American judicial system is
so bloody expensive ….. and corrupt.
The overly complicated nature
(made complicated by lawyers, judges and law schools) of this evolving law can only lead to more corruption, collusion,
cronyism and entrenchment by those in the judicial system that are only loyal to
the system and not to justice. It will definitely NOT evolve into
better justice!
The authors end their treatise with the
following:
"Our theoretical analysis
thus accounts for the modern history of common law, in which statutes have
increasingly come to complement, but not substitute for, judge-made law.
Moreover, the finding that pure statute law is never optimal explains the
cross-country evidence showing that common-law countries tend to have more
efficient institutions and superior financial and economic development than
those belonging to the civil-law tradition."
(This paragraph contradicts itself. Case law is not common law.
America is no longer governed by common law and has evolved into a combination
of case law and the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC]. See http://www.narlo.org/ucc.pdf.)
"To the extent that societies
naturally tend to develop more efficient institutions, our model predicts the
gradual convergence of traditionally disparate legal families toward an optimal
system recognizing the complementary roles of legislation and judicial
precedents as sources of law. There are signs of the emergence of such a
mixed system in most developed countries. More broadly, establishing and
securing the lawmaking role of judges and the ongoing judicial interpretation of
statutes should be a priority of legal reform."
First, societies do not "naturally"
tend to develop more efficient institutions. On the contrary, they just
get less efficient, more complicated and corrupt. Second, judges are not
supposed to "make" law in America. Under Article 1, Section 1 of the U. S.
Constitution, only the legislative branch has that power.
Did you ever wonder why complex
legislation coming out of Washington DC is several thousand pages long and why
the rules generated in the bureaucracy that follow the legislation, are 10 times
larger than the legislation itself? That is because the legislation and
the rules are drafted and edited by attorneys, using the same kind of
mathematical tortured illogic shown above. Unfortunately, most
politicians, who very seldom read the legislation they pass, are attorneys that
are forever immersed in and blinded by this legal mumbo jumbo.
So ladies and gentlemen, if you
wonder why justice is blind in the American judicial system and why it is wholly
corrupt and horrendously expensive, this short description of what is really
going on should curl your hair and make you very angry. This system, if
you can call it that, is just another way to enslave the general population by
making law so extremely complicated and expensive, only high-paid lawyers and
judges can sort it all out. It is just another hidden tax that Americans
are being forced to pay to live in America in the flawed belief that they are
free. In deference to the quote at the beginning of this article, it is
highly unlikely that this "system" will be "crushed under its own
weight", without intervention by
the people.
If the people do not hold their
politicians, judges and bureaucrats accountable, they will own you. Right
now, they do own you. If there were a way to break this legal stranglehold on
the American people by the judicial system, expose the corruption and cut judges
and attorneys down to size, what are you prepared to give ….. or give
up?
For those who care about government
corruption, judicial or otherwise, we have a tremendous amount of information on
our website (NARLO) about protecting yourself, including how to fight government
without hiring a lawyer and other useful tools. You could spend a couple
of days exploring all the valuable material and relevant articles contained on
this website.
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and
speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column,
"In Defense of Rural America", is the president of the National
Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org),
an advocate and consultant for urban and rural
landowners and a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington
State. He can be reached for comment at info@narlo.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment