There is no crueller tyranny than that which is perpetuated
under the shield of law and in the name of justice .
CHARLES DE MONTESQUIEU -
French politician and philosopher, 1689-1755
King has no clothes
If the methods used in anglo ' legal ' system were adopted in other areas of human endeavours we , as humanity , would be still in the stone age .
No search for truth , no discovery process , no logical analysis of facts , no reasoning , no rationality , no sensibility . Instead - lies , pretentions , deceptions , hypocrisy , play acting , faking , falsifying , rigging , doctoring , concocting .
Enormous amount of power is put into hands of some publically unknown, un-elected but secretly selected,
' trusted ' people .
They are 'chosen' to the most exclusive club (in large extent ‘hereditary‘) in conspiratorial/mafioso style arrangements and not ‘ democratic ‘ .
Who really selects them , who trusts them and WHY ?
They do not have any qualification , training , competency test or any sort of exams or assessments for the position they are given ! No scrutiny of their characters , no verification of their suitability to play effectively‘ top dog ‘ in the community .
BUT they are given absolute dominance in the society ( to both make and invalidate laws , and to control other people`s lives ) - over legislatures , the executive branch , and the people who elected these representatives.
They are given ‘ discretionary powers ‘ !
For an observer from the outer space they would look like a bunch of hereditary dictators and cruel sadists in the sea of ‘ democracy ‘ .
The power of judges ( lawyers ) is not compatible with democracy !
( Most men are blissfully unaware that the biggest risk
to their lives
are the power of ' judges '.
At some point in their life's almost all men
face the consequences of
courts and laws ,devised by freemasons within
legal system , to destroy men who are not part
of their creepy satanic cult. )
It is a structural problem with something what was designed to perform different functions than
those which are presented for public consumption - and that appears to be unmendable problem at least to those who are involved with that system one way or the other.
Other possible explanation is that this is the system devised in the Middle Ages , an archaic and feudal system with supposedly a benevolent master knowing the best what and how to do everything - and the flunky`s irrevocably had to accept the masters decision. Regardless how idiotic and illogical it was they were obliged to praise the master for his wisdom .
That anachronic system survived in spite of the change of the society from masters and slaves into the equal citizens ( well , almost 'equal' ).
With the external theatrics in appearance which is described as 'respect for tradition' comes internal theatrics presented as 'fairness for all' and 'respect for procedures'.
'Begging', 'pleading' - are overused expressions designed to reinforce the idea that the final deal is the result not of reasoning and impartiality but the graciousness and 'favour' of the master
who has to be pleased before uttering some phrases which usually have to be translated by
the 'initiated' before can be understood .
A system that allows such culture of perfidious manipulations to continue , in spite of claimed existence of checks and balances , is basically fatally flawed system .
It is made on purpose to remain stagnant , locked in time through the structural set up intended to paralyse any attempts to change it , to paralyse any sensible critique , to paralyse disclosure of abuse and cruelty .
It is openly 2 tier system - one set of laws and rules for THEM and another one for US .
Who is choosing the ' chosen ones ' ?
It is one of the more insidious aspects of ‘democracy‘ that people ( voters , citizens ) do not have absolutely any say in the selection of ‘judges‘ . All those ‘judges‘ , are ( technically ) chosen by ‘governments‘, the administrative clique from the ‘ruling‘ party .
They have to make pretences that they follow the law ( constitution ) by seemingly sharing a part of their power with the ‘independent body‘ - judiciary .
They are faced with 2 options -
(a) to select people truly honest , fair , knowledgeable , who have high moral and ethical values and are respected as such BUT who likely will speak their minds when seeing injustice , dishonesty , unfairness,
(b) to select people who proved themselves useful puppets , deprived of any scruples when pursuing the ‘ career ' and privileges and who , without much prompting , will know what is expected of them .
Since ‘ democracy ‘ is based on lies , dishonesty and pretences - people in power would be idiots if they selected someone from group (a) .
It is not about demonstrating righteousness , intellectual or philosophical proves but about shrewdness , cunning , slyness and deception .
Therefore , someone from group (b) is chosen and heavily promoted as belonging to group (a) - from time to time playacting the differences of opinion , which is arranged behind closed door .
( today lets make it look as you are winning , tomorrow it will be my turn ) .
Another visible tendency is to promote women, who call themselves 'ambitious' to positions of power ( judges ). Many of them do not exhibit intellectual capacities but by nature are more cowardly, resentful, malicious, vicious, vengeful and cruel. So the worst in womanhood is brought up and encouraged as the reward for servilism.
As the result of selection of unsuitable people as our ' judges ' :
- tradition of ' kangaroo courts ' is maintained instead of fair and just court proceedings
criminally minded mafia members interests are protected instead of interests of the society on which behalf those ' judges ' are supposed to operate
- corruption and rottenness of the ' legal system ' is deepened due to arbitrary 'discretion'
They are giving themselves ' titles ' - ' learned ' , ' his/her honour ' , ' justice ' .
Cynical , ironic , sarcastic , undeserved - mocking positive moral and ethical ideas .
Keep dreaming about the ultimate one - Ms. Windsor bestowing 'The Order of the Brutish Empire'.
They are deluding themselves that it is still 16 century England when they live in 21 century Australia .
The system is terminally ill.....no matter what ' drugs' are used , it does not hide the disease .
The so called rule of law can be defined as the rule of liars , a corrupt and evil legal system and a culture of hypocrisy , pretences , deception and corruption of all involved including judges ( a lawyer who was useful to a politician ).
The courtroom oath - ' to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ' - is applicable only to the defendant and witnesses . Lawyers , prosecutors , and judges don’t take the oath .
They developed methods of openly passing in courts signals between lawyers and judges which cannot be easily identified (or proven as such) by observers and are even less obvious in transcripts.
One of the strangest peculiarities of this ' legal system ' is the fact that once a judge makes
a decision he/she cannot change it himself in order to maintain the illusion of own infallibility . His/her decisions can be only changed very reluctantly by a higher court .
Disallowing the judge to admit and amend own mistakes and errors leads to the increase of the fictionality of
' infallibility ' .
Such attitude spreaded from judges to barristers and the fiction of ' infallibility ' and always doing the right thing is foolishly guarded by all elements of the legal industry leading to the degeneration
of the noble principles which the legal industry claims to be protecting .
Why this is happening ? - Aim could be to irritate people with obvious idiocy with the hope that they will act in irrational way out of frustration and if out of desperation they do something silly then they can be
` justifiably ` branded ` criminals ` , ` antisocial elements ` and similar epithets .
During Stalin`s times in Russia there was a ' troyka ' system maintaining the illusion of the existence
of some kind of judicial system , where all 3 members of the ' troyka ' were acting in collusion against the accused person .
Such ' troyka ' is well and alive in Queensland where judge , prosecutor and ' defence ' lawyer cooperate in facilitating achieving the conviction in the orderly way , making pretences of fairness
and independence and seemingly obeying rules created to confuse the observers and the unfortunate unfamiliar participant(s) .
Court hearing in anglo ' legal ' system is a choreographed event where all accomplices know their roles and the limits
of their acting .
In this ' legal system ' a herring can be ` legally ` , ` lawfully ` proven as being a type of horse if judge
` accepts ` the evidence that a herring has eyes just like a horse , rejects every other piece of evidence to the contrary and dresses up his/her decision in crafty , meaningless phrases which cannot be challenged by lawyers because they are ' officers of the court ' bound to ` loyalty `
by the enforced discipline .
Since they are dependent on the goodwill of licence givers , the Queensland lawyers eagerly participate in the role designated to them - pacification of human anger at the injustices and orderly handling subjects into submission .
Therefore you cannot even dream that those people will attempt to improve the system ,
their fortunes are tied up to being obedient and maintaining the status quo .
( If you think that this is exaggeration please do recall the ' legal ' battle to have the game played using ' foot ' 90% of the time forbidden to be called ' football ' ( 'soccer' - was meant to be deriding ) and a game played using ' foot ' 10% of the time to be called ' football ' .)
How can we ever forget about another pearl of the system . Some mongrels called 'lords' invented the ' legal ' rule that - ' The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof ...' ( The Nuremberg Trials - Charter of the International Military Tribunal - article 21 ) .
What can be considered to be ' facts of common knowledge ' ? -- anything what you desire , eg.
' pedal-driven brain bashing machine ' or soap from jewish dead bodies or lampshades from human skins or ' millions' who died in ' gas chambers ' - all became facts not needing to be proven !
An obvious question comes to mind ( ancients and temporaries ) - who is judging the judges ?
Propagated is a ridiculous assumption that by getting a title ‘ judge ‘ one becomes automatically an intellectual and moral giant . However in practice , being a career ‘ apparatchik ‘ does not make one a good candidate for a judge since such person does nothing to test his/her judicial capacities .
Judges are immune and isolated from community judgement and any criticism of them is balanced by the claim of possessing alleged expertise in the field which is made purposefully vague , therefore even complete dishonesty and incompetency in that field is shrouded in legal mystique of procedural fiction .
Since there are no effective checks and balances of judiciary and their performance the community members easily can be subjected to tyranny and hegemony of the ‘ bench ‘ in the name of ‘justice‘.
( You need the proof of possession of competency even when you apply for a job as a street cleaner BUT NOT
when one is given the job as the ' judge ' !!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
So , when you hear an Australian lawyer or judge making noises about ‘ justice ‘ ,‘ rule of law ‘ ,
‘ fairness ‘ , ‘ human rights ‘ etc in other countries please kindly remind them that - instead of patronising , preaching and lecturing - they should firstly do in their jurisdiction , in own country what they want others to do.
That rotten , corrupted , perfidious ' legal ' system cannot be ' reformed ' - it has to be destroyed completely so on its ruins a NEW fair , just , uncorrupted , moral , humane legal system can be built .
Quotes from the book by Evan Whitton
Taxpayers who fund the adversary system used in England and its onetime colonies suspect that they pay too much for too little justice.
An Australian poll in 2011 found that judges are less trusted than bus drivers, police, hairdressers and chefs.
A US poll in 2012 found that 92% want change, and 41% want fundamental change.
Comparing an inquisitorial system, as in France and elsewhere, with ours may confirm taxpayers’ suspicions. It may even explain why:
- Dickens said: “ The one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself ”, i. e. trial lawyers.
- Harvard ethics professor Arthur Applbaum said trial lawyers are serial liars.
- Yale law professor Fred Rodell said the system “ is nothing but a high class racket ”.
Paying too much
In France, trained judges are in charge of evidence.
On a fixed wage, they have no incentive
to prolong the process ; most hearings take no more than a day or so.
In the adversary system, trial lawyers are in charge of evidence and have an incentive
to spint he process out: $300+ an hour. One case ran for 117 years.
Untrained but quite well-paid judges do the decent thing : they try to stay awake.
Too little justice
Justice Russell Fox researched the law for 11 years after he retired. In Justice in the 21st Century, he said justice means fairness; fairness and morality require a search for the truth, otherwise the wrong side may win; truth means reality.
The French system seeks the truth. Relevant evidence is not concealed, and lawyers are not allowed to question witnesses directly lest they pollute the truth with sophistry, i. e. false arguments, trick questions etc. The innocent are rarely charged, let alone convicted; 95% of guilty defendants are convicted. Public confidence in the system is high.
The adversary system does not seek the truth. Significant evidence is concealed, and trial lawyers are allowed to use sophistry to confuse witnesses. Criminal law is unfair to police and victims of crime. At least 1% (4%+ in the US) of people in prison are innocent, but more than 50% of guilty defendants escape justice; India’s conviction rate is 16%. Civil law is unfair to doctors, people in commerce and (outside the US) the media, and others. Litigation is a lottery; appeal courts a casino.
Despite all that, most common lawyers, including judges and academics, insist that their system is the greatest ever devised by the mind of man.
But how would they know? Universities are supposed to be truth-seeking institutions, but law schools generally teach only what the law IS, not what ails it, or the cure (let alone its origins, or how the inquisitorial system works). If vet and med schools did that, a lot of cats, dogs and people would be seriously unwell, or worse.
Voters will support change
Justice Russell Fox also said the public knows that “justice marches with the truth”.
- Common lawyers are the only people on the planet who believe you can dispense justice without knowing all the facts.
- The humblest citizen instinctively has a better sense of justice than any judge.
- Informed voters will support change to a truth-seeking system.
As thing stand, change is not possible; lawyer-politicians have been the “dominant influence” in English-speaking legislatures since the middle of the 14th century, and effectively remain an oligarchy. In the US Congress, for example, lawyers (0.2% of the population) are 37.2% of the House and 60% of the Senate.
The solution: vote the oligarchs out
Trial lawyers have had a good innings; their chums in legislatures have looked after their interests for more than 650 years. They can hardly complain if those looking after the interests of victims (taxpayers etc) do no more than seek to redress the balance.
That is, to make lawyers’ percentage of the legislature more in line with their percentage of the population, i. e. by disseminating how to vote material placing lawyers last, regardless of party. Organs of the media should lend a hand. After all, journalism, unlike the common law, is a truth-seeking occupation.