Just like with many things in our world, there are some people that have more expertise in specific areas of knowledge, then you or I do. We must, therefore, rely on them to provide us with their knowledge when we need them or want them.
Lawyers are one of these groups that provide us with a highly specialized knowledge and skill set. We have a conflict of interest problem with them though. Not only do they provide Citizens with legal expertise and representation, they also belong to a group, the American and State BAR Associations that have to dominate control over the Government run Justice system. They may be appointed at times by the politicians, but they control all aspects of our legal system.
No one wants to admit it, but they also dominate the legislative branches at especially the State and Federal Government, because Attorneys are oftentimes, the controlling majority. FYI: The term lawyer is a more general term, but in the U.S. all lawyers by law, are also Attorneys because they must be members of the BAR Association to legally operate within our legal system. You cannot defend someone else for money without the Attorneys filing suit against you for practicing law without a license or the Judges prohibited your actions in court.
Also, this usurps one of our fundamental inalienable rights, the right to work because all individuals but Attorneys are prohibited by law from practicing law as a profession. Even if you are a college educated lawyer and have passed the BAR, unless you belong to their club, the BAR, you cannot practice law. Basically, the lawyers have made themselves Attorneys by legislation and case law and have legally prohibited others from practicing law, no matter how much knowledge and expertise you have. Attorneys today earn 10 to 20 times more than the average profession, such as an auto mechanic or welder. They basically created their own membership club that has allowed them to charge whatever they think they can get away with. This, however, is not the greatest problem we have with them.
It’s the conflict of interest, as I will describe, that is our greatest problem. Essentially, all Attorneys work for the government either directly or indirectly. That’s because they all must be a member of the State BARs and thus the American BAR Association. Of course, all the Judges work for the Government and all attorneys are at the beck and call to a high degree to the Judges because much of the outcomes of the legal cases Attorneys are involved in, depending on the Judge’s ruling and opinions.
If you don’t think that this has caused grave ramifications, in a recent foreclosure case I personally was involved in, the Judge set a trial without making the banks Attorney answer our discovery. We weren’t even given the opportunity to provide the court a witness list, even though there was a known fraud involving a transfer of the Deed back to the original lender and despite knowing the note had been transferred up the line through FNMA to Bank of New York Mellon, we were disallowed from finding out if it has been legally transferred back to the lender. This is not even the worst of it. The Judge than refused to allow any discussions on standing so we allegedly had a trial, but we really didn’t. There was no trial, no witnesses allowed to testify, no evidence presented or anything else except a ruling in favor of the Bank and a discussion on when to auction the property off. It’s gotten so bad here in Palm Beach County, Florida that all the local attorneys and media have started calling it the “Rocket Docket”. The docket being the cases currently on a Judge’s schedule for hearing.
Do you think my Attorney said anything that would make waves; heck no. She might have to go in front of that Judge again on a future case. I got hosed for $3,500.00 and she did very little except file a couple of initial boilerplate responses and appear late to the alleged trial. I have absolutely no recourse except to file an appeal and most likely I would be treated the same way, even though I think I’m right and have the law on my side. That’s just one story and I’ve heard 100s of similar ones. The famous attorney Gerry Spence’s book “And Justice For None; Destroying an American Myth” is just one of hundreds of books noting the various problems and even corruption within our existing Judiciary.
I’ve written a very well supported essay that easily proves that our rule of law has been unlawfully “abrogated”, (meaning altered) like it was in the case noted above, that our Constitution is literally worthless. The Judiciary, with the acquiescence by the Attorneys, out of fear of disbarment and/or ostracism, manipulate Justice to protect the same special interests the politicians are receiving the lion’s share of their campaign contributions from. The special interests like the banks in my case above are not only utilizing the political system to get the legislation they want to be passed, they are obviously using the courts to manipulate the cases to their advantage when challenged. How do we know this in my case? The Florida Judges and their Pension Fund where large purchasers of the Mortgage Backed Securities, (MBS’s) as they are called. The same mortgaged properties being foreclosed on by our Rocket Docket judiciary. Do you wonder why large commercial interests like Big Sugar here in Florida, are getting away with polluting the Everglades and many of our rivers and estuaries? Do you wonder why the five-year statute of limitations to foreclose, was recently set aside by the Florida Supreme Court in favor of the banks, even though the Statute has been on the books for decades?
The conflict of interest is just too great for even those honest Attorneys to fight against. Years and thousands of dollars for college and law school is a lot to lose. There is one Attorney here in Palm Beach County who got disbarred because he ran against one of the powerful Judges and won his Judicial seat in the election. To this day, it is my understanding, he has yet to have one day in court as a Judge, even though he won the election. Many of the disciplinary actions are very arbitrary in their determinations and enforcement and hence the fear by the Attorneys to buck the system. One person will get disbarred while another gets their hand slapped with a one-month penalty like one Attorneys who worked for the banks got even though she participated in voluminous amounts of fraud. Needless-to-say, it’s a grave problem and one that the pollical system itself will never cure. Too much power is in the hands of too few individuals and under the current government-run system, there are not enough financial or political interests to change it.
For some reason, I have always ended up being a problem solver. Even when I first started appraising, despite my lack of experience I was soon given the problem/harder assignments. At first, I thought they were picking on me as the newbie, but I soon found out because of the financial incentives I received, I was getting the assignments because of my intellect and analytical abilities. I was eventually told this by the head of Florida Division of Savings of America who I worked for.
I point this out because I truly believe there is always a solution to problems and believe it or not, it’s was the power of the internet and computer technology that gave me the concept I am presenting.
As I mentioned before, we have too much Judicial power in the hands of too few people. Just nine people, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) essentially helps determine and decide all the enforcement of our laws. You’ve even heard the political opposition claiming they are legislating from the bench and to a high degree they are. As an example, by simply not hearing a case, as they often do, they determine the constitutionality of law being challenged. I could give you one really good example I have elaborated on in my book, The Achilles Heel; the IRS Notice of Federal Tax Lien but it too long to do.
So, just nine people decide the rule of law for some 325 million Americans, but we don’t want mob rule either. We want people with the expertise and skill set to make such determinations. So, how do we accomplish this without going through the judicial system itself because it’s obvious and almost self-evident, the government-run judicial system is highly controlled and has a huge conflict of interest problem. Not only that, any implementation of a system displacing their power, would not be taken lightly by those in current political or judicial power and you should expect a great deal of pushback, i.e. those in existing positions of power fighting against any change to the existing power structure.
So, forget the political or Judicial system to be supportive, especially by those higher up in the power structure and it is a very powerful structure.
The major obstacles thus offer these three major questions: 1. Can we develop an electoral system to choose the best people, outside the control and influence of the government-controlled political and judicial system? 2. And, how do we get a system to be recognized by the people, through the very government system that will oppose its implementation? 3. How do we entice people to get involved and make it fair and just for all participants?
So, we know the major obstacles. The answer to the first question is yes. We currently can belong to groups on a voluntary basis, outside of government and be involved in electing representatives. A number of groups like Unions, Home Owner Associations, Corporations, Churches and philanthropic organizations like the Kiwanis Club operate like this. Let’s call these “voluntary associations” as some economist call them. You can be a member of a voluntary association if you want, but you don’t have to. If you care about your society and want to improve it you can and if you don’t give a crap, so watch your favorite sport.
The second question, in my humble opinion, is the one that is the most interesting. It reminds me of explaining to young people today, just how the anti-war movement of America in the late 1960s and early 1970s got the U.S. government to pull out of Vietnam in early 1974, allowing South Vietnam to fall to the communist North, despite the fears of the Domino Effect. The answer is really pretty simple. Enough people just stood up, wrote songs, passive protesting, boycotted, wrote articles and their Congressmen, even getting angry at the returning military personnel for participating in an unjust war, forcing the government to get out and bring the troops home. Some people even dodged the draft by going to Canada and others used all sort of tricky methods to get out of the draft like taking some form of medication that would result in short-term high blood pressure. The boxing legend Mohamed Ali refused to allow himself to be drafted, under his religious belief as the rationale and ended up winning the case at the Supreme Court.
The third issue, in today’s world, is surely the greatest challenge. I think some people are just overwhelmed by the system, some don’t think anything can be done, others are surely falling into the normalcy syndrome; thinking everything will eventually work out, some think we need to alter our overall ideology to a more Marxist strategy, some are surely working the system, like many politicians, for themselves and other special interests caring little about others and of course there are those like myself who believe we need a more free-market approach to push the existing system to a more democratic one. As consumers and taxpayers, we have a lot of power if we join together and exercise the will of the majority, as we did during the Vietnam War era.
As you can see Questions 2 and 3 are related to a degree. So, let’s look at the basic ideas so
everyone knows the objectives and see how and what we have to do to improve or more even more desired replacement of the current Judicial system.
- A voluntary organization made up of educated people in the law who will review and if necessary overturn all supreme court cases, providing the necessary concurring or dissenting opinions. Because of the total number of individuals involved, even cases currently denied from being heard by the SCOTUS, can be reviewed and if necessary overturned or concurred with.
So how do we do this? Rather than electing representation, we appoint the most qualified people to represent us. Each Citizen may appoint anyone they believe will represent their views and can withdraw their appointment at any time except during the actual time when that jurist has already been selected to review a case. The appointment process will be done by an affidavit attesting to their decision to choose _________ as their Jurist. However, it’s not one man one vote. Each Jurist will have to obtain a specific number (to be determined by the organization) of Citizens, let say 30 people as a starting point, to quality on being a Jurist on the Supreme Court Review Board. We may require that each jurist have 50 people sign affidavits to secure his status as a Jurist. Think of it much like a jury but with a much larger number of people making the decision with a 50%+1 plurality vote. So, each jurist would have to go out in our society and find 30 people who would provide an affidavit saying they choose that person as their Jurist. The affidavits would be kept by the organization with total transparency. The list of jurists and those who have appointed them will be kept on the website. A hard copy back up will be maintained on all operations, even the computerized voting of the Jurists once they have made their final concurring or dissenting determination on a case, will send in an affidavit attesting to their vote.
The Jurists on a specific case will be randomly selected using a computer algorithm that will take into considerations their expertise, experience, and education. The program will allow the collaboration of ideas and research done by the Jurist during individual cases. It will allow them to see and vote on the various opinions as they are being created and written. We may have 500 to 1,000 people working on each case. If you take the total number of voting age Citizens, 235,248,000 and divide this number by say 30, that’s 7,841,600 potential jurists. Obviously, not all potential people are going to participate. Jurists will be fighting over the Citizens to meet the number required and the Citizens will be fighting over the best Jurists to represent them. You can only be represented by one Jurist, so Citizens will want to choose wisely who they want to represent them. Of course, a Citizen can withdraw their support for a Jurist via affidavit, at any time except during the time the jurist has been selected and is working on a case. Too bad we can’t do that with the politicians we elect. This would then force the jurists to go out and find another Citizen to support him. The organization would be noticed by the withdrawal affidavit and his name taken off the list as a just until he retained the required number of Affidavits from Citizens.
At this point, I would like to provide a couple of thoughts. One, the rules of the Supreme Court Review Board (SCRB) most likely will be determined by the Jurists so the ideas I’m offering are only that. There suggestions that need to be determined by the organization. Perhaps there are much more creative ideas to pull this off. I just thought it was an interesting concept as I tried to come up with ideas to fix the current system. So, I would like to give you now, some of the things I considered while formulating my concept that I think will help you in both understanding the concept and how it will work.
- The system must be Citizens controlled from the grassroots up and not politically controlled from the top down, as it is now.
- A totally voluntarily run non-profit organization that promotes democratic decision making via plurality rule.
- Obtain the highest number of jurists possible per case. The more people, both Citizens and Jurists involved the less workload per individual. We don’t want anybody to have to work full time at this, except the administrators and employees responsible for the operations of the organization itself. They would have to be paid and we could raise the required amount of money through a small membership fee of say, $5.00 or $10.00 annually from both the Citizens and Jurists. A small price to pay per person for restoring our system of justice.
- There should be minimal limitations for participation other than Citizenship, age and current incarceration for both the Citizens and Jurists. We don’t want to deny or discourage participation in our current system does today.
- We want to have a system the promotes quality Jurists. We may even want to start an online University/School to teach the Citizens law, such as how to research prior cases and legal principles.
- To promote participation, we may be able to create incentives to Jurists such as political Judgeships for doing the best job both in effort and results with such things as authoring the winning opinion or having voted on the prevailing side in SCRB cases.
- I wanted a system that could be blended with the current system, yet have significant power over it. Those in the existing system are not going to like it, but that’s expected when you start taking such power form a relatively small number of people. The SCOTUS will continue to hear the cases, the Citizens are just going to attempt to overrule them when we feel their opinions are not in the best interest of the majority.
- A system that displaces the power of just 9 people (the SCOTUS) and gives it back to the Citizens with as many participants in each case as we can garner.
- A system that garners the full power of the world’s technological prowess in regard to such issues as encryption and security, social collaboration, transparency and social activism, just to name a few.
- A system that will move us to a better century than was the 20th. In the 20th century alone, approximately 200 million+/- people were killed by their own governments called democide around the world and the killing has continued on a similar pace in the 21st Perhaps if we can prosecute some of the murderers, the deaths from wars and conflict will diminish. Warfare is a huge contributor to pollution just from the manufacturing of weapons much less the damage was done by them.
- Especially initially, I believe we would want a system that protects the participants from the retaliatory nature of government by keeping their identities private. I know we want transparency, but we can wait till the system is totally accepted by our society before with going totally transparent. The operational program has to be created, set up and tested that will allow us to institute our objectives. While this is being done, those involved, especially Attorneys and Judges will most like want anonymity. I know I would if I were them.
- I thought a lot about the actual implementation. Current social and alternative media websites are having a profound effect on our society as to how we get truthful news and information and I knew this would slowly occur because of the internet and social media. I think that if enough people stand up and fight for a new system, we could force the governments of the world, like we did during the Vietnam War, to accept the people’s will and adopt the SCRB as part of the existing Judicial system. It may even eventually replace the existing system, as true justice starts to prevail more and more. I have placed my ideas and concept, as best I can on the website, Repairing the Scales of Justice, to start both disseminating the concept but also to start gathering those who wish to participate and begin creating the system. http://betweentheheadlines.net/rsj/repairing-the-scales-of-justice/
- It’s going to cost a lot of money to put all the elements of the website and programming applications together, so I’m putting a fundraiser together along with a small membership fee on the website. I will also be creating a crowdfunding page but it’s hard to give the objectives and final product justice in such a small venue. Any help along these lines is appreciated.
I have focused on the Judiciary in later years as I discovered its significant relevance as compared to say the Legislative branch. Now I understand why the ruling oligarchy has always tried to maintain a small concentrated group to be the final arbiter and enforcement of the rule of law. The pounding of a gavel has had grave consequences to those that challenge our system and those in power. You should think of Justice as the spinal cord and backbone of our society. Thinking that the elected politicians are the primary powers is naïve. One person can do nothing without getting permission from the Judiciary.