Will It Work

  1. If you speak with any honest practitioner of law, from a legal researcher to the Attorneys and Judges themselves, they will tell you the system has broken with some major problems but that it is something that has always existed throughout history. Ah, but there are unaware of two times in history. 1. The Celtics from about 650 AD to 1650 AD, when no nation-state existed, thus no government controlled Court that could be corrupted, giving way to privately controlled competing for legal systems to mitigate the people differences and crimes and 2. The Law Merchant, a private count system created hundreds of years ago by international merchants to thwart the jurisdictions of nation-states who were both biased, corruptable and innefficent. Many of the Countries around the world have adopted the Law Merchant as part of their codes. In the U.S. we have called it the Universal Commerical Code (UCC) and is used in both interstate and intrastate law. So the idea of a privately controlled legal system is not only possible but it has already been accomplished, just not in the way we can today with the technological innovations available to us.
  2. As the internet continues to transform the news and information industry, a project like this would surely create a vast amount of both positive and negative input and media.  When the SCRB publishes their concurring and dissenting opinions, not only would the opinions most likely show improvement over the Supreme Court or the Lower Appeals Courts opinions, but in the event the SCRB disagreed with the winning (depending on which side your on) opinion of the Court, the controversy would be very positive for this project.  It would be like 300-500 (test group) highly knowledgeable people going up intellectually against 5 or 6 “politically influenced” Justices.  Remember we are going to highly scrutinize the credentials and references of the testing participants.  People cannot discount as easily, democratic rule when the participants are proven to be knowledgeable in the area at issue.
  3. Would not the opinions written by a group of 300 to  1200 people provide better written and more easily understood opinions than what we have gotten out of the scalawags throughout history. Many agree that many important opinions are downright nonsense or the are unable to be understood by an above average intelligent person and therefore provide little precedent to evaluate similar issues in dispute.  Many believe the poor quality opinions are done purposely because they do not want the Citizens to be able to use their opinions against them on other issues.
  4. We can of course choose what cases we want to test the system on to make the differences in the opinions more obvious to a greater number of people. By intellectually challenging the current appeals system we would also be challenging the various legislation as well, which would get us press.  As the system becomes more known to more people, the number of people and quality of the testing participants should increase.  If people know they have a private an improved way of intellectually affecting the rule of law they good will surely come to the forefront of the confrontation.
  5. Repairing the scales of justice is surely the first and most important change that must be effected, if we are to have any positive transformations to our society.  Injustice can and has wreaked havoc on just about every issue that I’ve paid attention to over the years. It is very easy for the Justice system to thwart opposition to any issue-at- large and until such time as justice is obtained, most other issues are literally subject to judicial influence.
  6. It will allow for many more cases to be heard. Nine Justices can only read and hear so many cases whereas 1200 to 2500 people could hear many more cases per year therefore it would expedite the overall workings of the system of justice. With some cases taking a decade or longer, the desire to prosecute or defend is surely diminished and therefore expedition would promote the speedy trial doctrine.
  7. I believe that if would encourage, and rightfully so, a greater level of social interest in the system of justice. Once people start understanding the overall relevance of the issues at hand, many will join as the see true and significant improvements in the protection of individual rights.
  8. Perhaps than we will be forever be able to distinguish between an individual right and when we should relinquish those rights for the public good, as this is the formidable question that each government official and each private citizen attempts to answer in any judicial conflict.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s