Consider the undeniable systemic problem with the law. Attorney’s police themselves and are not accountable
to the public. That’s exactly how lawyers want it. The concept of a Bar Association, comprised of members from the genuine
oldest profession, having the dubious distinction of being “officers of the court”, is the height of
arrogance. In its most bare and simplistic constitution, to become part of the pretender class, one must swear ultimate allegiance
to the State and the Brotherhood. In order to sit at the table, the solicitor agrees to protect his own kind for the privilege
of compromising the holy of holies - The Law.
If you think this is a harsh assessment, just read the Bill of Rights and explain and defend why the predominance
of current case law and court decisions so evidently violates the clear meaning of the U.S. Constitution? Surely, only those
who derive a vested interest or suffer from acute brainless functionality, would conclude and argue that ninety-nine percent
of statutes are consistent with our fundamental and supreme declaration of principles.
The reason for this tragedy is obvious. Legislation is enacted predominately by lawyers, and laws are adjudicated
by judges, most of who are attorneys-at-law. Now add to this prim and bogus scheme, the function of the Bar Association -
a nice and neat way to deflect and ignore any complaints or changes against brethren members. How sweet! Only lawyers have
the franchise for judge, jury and arbitrator - with immunity from accountability for the shyster fraternity.
Imagine how often you can expect that accountability for the barrister, will be dispensed by a league of fellow
conspirators? Awe, only in the world of the legal eagle will such absurdity soar to the heights of justice! But wait, there
is an answer to this scam that never sees a real trial by jury . . .
In a rare moment of populous equity, let’s ponder a real solution.
Attorneys are assigned their license to practice law after passing the bar exam. Their permit for misrepresentation
is granted on the state level. Normally complaints against a particular counsel would be filed with the Bar Association in
the county were the lawyer has their primary office. Since the present arrangement is a closed shop, run by the esquire class,
why not break the monopoly of this presumptuous cartel and let the public administer the process.
Here is how a true disciplinary formula would work in the real world.
1) Actions against attorneys for violation of professional conduct would be filed in the county of record
for the lawyer.
2) Complaints would be heard before a public body of citizens, selected by lot from the current registered
voters in that community and chaired by a citizen in the same manner.
3) Similar to a grand jury, a set rotating term for such a panel, would conduct reviews on all complaints
4) Open proceedings with full access to the press and the public.
5) Much like arbitration, citizens would hear the complaint, examine evidence and pass judgment on the alleged
6) There would be NO appeal to the courts, since individual constitutional rights are not litigated. Only
actions, stemming from professional misconduct, applies.
7) The franchise license to practice law for profit and as a business, resides and retains jurisdiction approval
by the country board of citizens.
8) Remedy and penalty for infractions would impact the status of the attorney to practice law in that jurisdiction,
with restitution judgments and relief discipline alternatives - determined by appropriate community standards.
9) For those instances where criminal conduct is determined, referrals are made directly to the sitting grand
jury in the district. Since county prosecutors are government attorneys, their role is to abide by the legitimate authority
of grand jury decisions.
10) Conditions for conduct community review applies to ALL members of the ratified BAR gang, whether in the
public or private sector.
Before you critique such an outline as quixotic, unsound or lacking pragmatism, ask who controls the legislation
process that would enact such elements of reform and accountability? Yes, the lawyers would fight like hell to keep their
special exemptions and protect their nefarious syndicate. However; that only validates how extreme the abuses have become,
how entrenched the actual organized criminals have succeeded and how institutionalized our society is to accepting this fraud.
You don’t need to harness a bull to drag the plow, when all the asses are ready to do the pulling.
Does the herd nurture leaders or is the pack but a swarm of worker bees, serving queens? Drones to a sealed
system of privileged gatekeepers; who create, administer and decide the law is certainly not due process - let alone a society
of free citizens. Transforming the Bar Association from a select ‘boys club’ safekeeping habitual and serial abusers,
would require even more profound legal reforms.
The latest perversion of our Constitution - the DemocRAT’s Senate filibuster to obstruct an up or down
vote on federal judgeship appointments - demonstrates why internal regeneration is impossible. Lawyers becoming legislators
is akin to opening the hen house to the fox. Attorneys serving as judges is like giving the keys of the prison cell to the
chronic lawbreakers. Who are more culpable to charges of criminal conduct than the culprits of the BAR? Their outlaw club
is immune from conviction. RICO will never apply to these gangsters! What a dream system for the tyrant. Just look for the
esquire, and you will find the despot, all tied in legal terms and certified by rigged courts.
SARTRE - May 11, 2003