Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A wonderful Essay

Expand Messages
  • Karl-Alan
    ... FIRST - Lets be very, very serious. We must look to the era for definitions of words used by the framers to declare their rites: http://www.onelook.com/
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 15 11:41 AM
    • 0 Attachment

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      FIRST - Lets be very, very serious. We must look to the era for definitions of words used by the framers to declare their rites: http://www.onelook.com/ LIB'ERTY, n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.] Webster's 1828

      1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.

      2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

      10. To take the liberty to do or say any thing, to use freedom not specially granted.

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
      George Barnard Shaw

      I first learned about a book entitled: Woe Unto You Lawyers by Fred Rodell
      when I read a quotation from it in some other article I was reading. Lucky
      me, I was able to find a copy of this unusual book in a used book store.
      It was published in 1939.

      Mr. Rodell, who was a Professor of Law at Yale University for many years,
      presents a lusty, gusty attack on what he calls THE LAW, from tribal times to the present.

      He writes in his preface: No lawyer will like this book, because it was
      not written for lawyers. He relates also to his realization early on of
      the phoniness of the whole legal process.

      It is the lawyers who run our civilization for us--- he says. All the
      judges (a judge is a lawyer who knew a governor, the author relates) are
      lawyers; they interpret and enforce our laws, he continues. There is no
      separation of powers where the lawyers are concerned..... only a
      concentration of all governmental power --- in the lawyers.

      All around us in our daily lives, the author explains, that lawyers guide
      us through a maze of confusing gestures and formalities that the lawyers
      have created. But the amazing thing about all this is, THE LAW is carried
      on in a foreign language..... the law deals almost exclusively with the
      ordinary facts and occurrence of everyday business.... But it deals with
      them in a Jargon which completely baffles and befoozles the ordinary
      literate man....

      Unfortunately this happens to be so and the lawyers want to keep it this
      way because, the lawyers' trade is a trade built entirely on words.
      Furthermore, lawyers, like the medicine men of tribal times, actually
      believe in their own nonsense, and the general public doesn't even realize
      that it is merely a racket. If the people could just be made to understand
      how much THE LAW is a hoax, they would not let the lawyers lead them
      around by the nose.

      THE LAW, relates Mr. Rodell, is all things to all lawyers simply because
      the principles on which it is built are so vague, abstract and irrelevant
      that it is possible to find in those principles both a justification and a
      prohibition of every human action of activity under the sun.

      Mr. Rodell continues to explain that actually we have brought all this
      upon ourselves. In our daily actions and goings-on, if man just could be
      trusted to act decently, in general there would be little need for a law
      of any kind. It is a rather disconcerting fact to learn that mankind has
      stooped so low, that no one can trust anyone else anymore.

      In the chapter titled THE LAW AT ITS SUPREMEST the distinguished law
      professor touches on constitutional law and its fundamental concepts.

      -1- He states, what all informed already know, that if Congress, any
      state, city or village enacts a law that is forbidden by the Constitution,
      that law might just as well never have been enacted. In order to get around some of the wording of the Constitution the Supreme Court has
      evolved a batch of principles, sub-principles and hocus-pocus of solemn
      words spoken with a straight face, meaning intrinsically nothing.

      The author also points out, as we all know, that one man, one judge, holds
      the meaning of the Constitution in his hands. Lawyers and Judges are
      merely trained mechanics in the manipulation of that machine known as THE LAW.

      They take a problem, translate it into the appropriate legal symbols, push
      the buttons on the big machine (perhaps the author referred to to days
      computers already?) that corresponds to those symbols, and the right
      answer automatically pops out at the bottom.

      Mr. Rodell states: the lawyers know it would woe unto them, if the
      non-lawyers ever got wise to the fact that their lives were run by a
      comparatively small group of men, smart, smooth and smug, the lawyers. It
      is the lawyers, and not THE LAW that run the show, and it is the lawyers
      and the lawyer-judges who decide which buttons to push.

      Have you ever wondered about all the legal language in a contract or any
      document that was drafted or prepared by a lawyer? If your lawyer ever
      told you that they were drawn up for your protection and to keep you out
      of court, don't you ever believe a word of it. Legal papers are phrased
      the way they are, NOT to keep you out of court, but in order to give you a
      better chance of winning should the affair ever end up in a court room.

      In fact, lawyers, with their strange language, no doubt increase the
      number of transactions that end up in dispute. If they would let men carry
      on their affairs and make agreements in simple and specific terms, in
      words intelligible to those involved, there would be fewer
      mis-understandings and less causes for grievance. Almost all legal
      sentences have a way of reading as though they had been translated from
      German by some-one with a rather meager knowledge of English. The
      sentences are usually too long, awkward with the use of abstract, fuzzy
      and clumsy words, which are so essential to the solemn hocus-pocus of THE
      LAW. No segment of the English language in use today is so muddy, so
      confusing, so hard to pin down to its supposed meaning, as is the language
      of THE LAW. (the meaning of the "IS" word as was demonstrated by the
      former president may be cited as such an example)

      To the non-lawyer, the legal language is, for all intents and purposes a
      foreign tongue. Why should people not be privileged to understand
      precisely and completely any written laws that directly affects them?
      Since law deals with the ordinary affairs of ordinary human beings, then
      why should a language be used which they cannot hope to understand? The fact of the matter is, it is for the lawyers' benefit and not the ordinary
      person.

      The various principles and rules that lawyers often use in presenting
      their language have nothing to do with the solution of the problem. They
      are called pleading and procedure which encompass the rules as to how the
      legal game is played. In fact the decisional outcome of a case is very
      often hung up on some procedural rule. Justice is simply thrown out the
      window because a lawyer violated some rule. Thus, a man with a legal claim
      may end up with nothing, except a bill for the lawyer's fees, simply
      because his lawyer has been caught using the wrong words. Please
      understand, this is all part of the tricks of the trade.

      However, one of the most startling revelations the author made is, that
      THE LAW not only can be bought --- but most of the time, it must be
      bought. Since it has to be bought its results tend to favor those who can
      afford to hire the services of the smartest lawyers.

      This fact coincides with the fact that THE LAW as a whole is a fraud. THE
      LAW simply could not be bought, if it was the protector of justice, which
      the lawyers claim it to be.

      Most of the business that lawyers handle and live on is made up of matters
      that never get near a courtroom --- of what is called "Legal Advise". This
      amounts to casting spells of legal language over the working of business
      documents so that the documents, if they ever should be dragged into
      court, will show that regardless of where non-legal justice may seem to
      lie, THE LAW is pretty clearly on the side that bought the legal advice.
      The hitch is that as soon as one side resorts to legal advice, the other
      side has to use it too in self-defense. Thus every-one loses EXCEPT THE
      LAWYERS, who go merrily on selling THE LAW.

      But when a lawyer becomes a judge, he no longer has a direct financial
      incentive to manipulate THE LAW in favor of the rich people and the big
      corporations. However, he will usually have spent most of his professional
      career, before becoming a judge, doing just that. And when he becomes a
      judge he cannot easily shake off this slant towards THE LAW .

      Conditioned by his own past habits of legal speech and thought, the judge
      will unconsciously lean, in laying down THE LAW, towards the side that
      talks his own brand of legal dialect. "What is to be done about the fact
      that we all are slaves to the hocus-pocus of THE LAW --- and to those who
      practice this hocus-pocus, the lawyers, the author ponders.

      There is only one answer --- which is get rid of the lawyers and throw their THE LAW out of the our system of law. And this is not a plea for
      anarchy. It would only be necessary to do away with the present manner of
      phrasing and later interpreting the written laws and with the present
      manner of settling disputes and solving problems. It would only be
      necessary to do away with all the legal language and all the legal
      principles which confuse instead of clarifying the real issues that arise
      between men. Again, this is not a plea for anarchy; it is merely a plea
      for common sense.

      The LAW, in reaching for certainty with one hand and justice with the
      other, has fallen between the two into a morass of meaningless and useless
      language. The sensible thing to do would seem to be by going straight
      after justice in the settlement of any specific question that comes up for
      solution. When the written laws cannot or so not contain the answer,
      SOMEBODY has to make a decision. That decision might better be made on the
      grounds of plain, unvarnished justice, fairness and humanitarianism than
      any others.

      Today it is the Lawyer-Judges who make such decisions, but the ordinary
      man knows as much about justice as does the ordinary judge. As a matter of
      fact, he usually knows more. Training in law does not make a man a better
      judge of justices. It is likely to make him a worse one. What kind of man
      should sit in judgement of others? Why not one with common sense knowledge,
      instead of one with the adeptness in the abracadabra of THE LAW, have the
      right to sit in judgement of other men's affairs?

      Mr. Rodell goes on to say: "Why should we keep on sacrificing both justice
      and common sense on the altar of legal principles? Why not just get rid of
      the Lawyers and their Laws?" He sees no reason why this should not be
      done. Of course, Constitutions and laws would have to be re-written
      without the benefit of Lawyers. Any law that means something definite and
      tangible in relation to human affairs can be written so that its meaning
      is plain for all to read and understand.

      He gives as an example of the phrase, "First Degree Murder". ---- It makes
      no sense except in relation to the abstract legal principles which are
      said to define it. --- "When a court finds that one person has killed
      another person and believes that the killer deserves to be electrocuted"
      is much more accurate. Why not phrase the statue that way, so that
      everyone would immediately know what it means?

      Of course, there would still have to be courts, even though written laws
      were made intelligible to all. There would have to be decision-makers to
      determine the true facts behind any dispute, and to settle any disputes
      which are not covered by written laws.
      Getting rid of the lawyers would mean people who got involved in disputes
      or got hauled up for alleged violation of some written law would have to
      tell their own stories and produce their own proof. Why not let the people
      really involved in any squabble tell and try to prove to the satisfaction
      of the decision-makers, their own lies?

      The abolition of the lawyers and their LAW might eventually lead to the
      virtual disappearance of courts as we see/know them today. Written law
      might even be entrusted to a body of experts, to administer it, i.e.
      doctors, engineers, accountants, etc. Arbitration might be used as a means
      of settling disputes. Arbitration means nothing more than a voluntary
      turning over of a dispute for fair settlement to a man or group of men
      trusted by both sides and equipped to understand the question at issue.
      All this sounds too good to ever be accomplished.

      But Mr. Rodell has presented a picture that many can certainly identify
      with in having had a situational experience before and many of us are
      probably aware of what this unusual book says.

      However, it is a consoling fact when this comes from of all people --- a
      lawyer.

    • Dave Toney
      Woe Unto You Lawyers by Fred Rodell This book is still in print, you can find it at Amazon.com Dave ... From: Karl-Alan To: Dr. Ron
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 16 5:36 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Woe Unto You Lawyers by Fred Rodell
        This book is still in print, you can find it at Amazon.com
        Dave
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Karl-Alan" <karl-alan@...>
        To: "Dr. Ron Paul" <rep.paul@...>; "Ombudsman Office"
        <GAO.info@...>; "Judicial Fitness Commission" <judfit@...>
        Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 2:41 PM
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] A wonderful Essay


        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

        FIRST - Lets be very, very serious. We must look to the era for definitions of
        words used by the framers to declare their rites: http://www.onelook.com/
        LIB'ERTY, n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.] Webster's 1828

        1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to
        the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is
        at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no
        physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.

        2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without
        any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of
        exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the
        institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of
        government.

        10. To take the liberty to do or say any thing, to use freedom not specially
        granted.

        >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

        Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
        George Barnard Shaw

        I first learned about a book entitled: Woe Unto You Lawyers by Fred Rodell
        when I read a quotation from it in some other article I was reading. Lucky
        me, I was able to find a copy of this unusual book in a used book store.
        It was published in 1939.

        Mr. Rodell, who was a Professor of Law at Yale University for many years,
        presents a lusty, gusty attack on what he calls THE LAW, from tribal times to
        the present.

        He writes in his preface: No lawyer will like this book, because it was
        not written for lawyers. He relates also to his realization early on of
        the phoniness of the whole legal process.

        It is the lawyers who run our civilization for us--- he says. All the
        judges (a judge is a lawyer who knew a governor, the author relates) are
        lawyers; they interpret and enforce our laws, he continues. There is no
        separation of powers where the lawyers are concerned..... only a
        concentration of all governmental power --- in the lawyers.

        All around us in our daily lives, the author explains, that lawyers guide
        us through a maze of confusing gestures and formalities that the lawyers
        have created. But the amazing thing about all this is, THE LAW is carried
        on in a foreign language..... the law deals almost exclusively with the
        ordinary facts and occurrence of everyday business.... But it deals with
        them in a Jargon which completely baffles and befoozles the ordinary
        literate man....

        Unfortunately this happens to be so and the lawyers want to keep it this
        way because, the lawyers' trade is a trade built entirely on words.
        Furthermore, lawyers, like the medicine men of tribal times, actually
        believe in their own nonsense, and the general public doesn't even realize
        that it is merely a racket. If the people could just be made to understand
        how much THE LAW is a hoax, they would not let the lawyers lead them
        around by the nose.

        THE LAW, relates Mr. Rodell, is all things to all lawyers simply because
        the principles on which it is built are so vague, abstract and irrelevant
        that it is possible to find in those principles both a justification and a
        prohibition of every human action of activity under the sun.

        Mr. Rodell continues to explain that actually we have brought all this
        upon ourselves. In our daily actions and goings-on, if man just could be
        trusted to act decently, in general there would be little need for a law
        of any kind. It is a rather disconcerting fact to learn that mankind has
        stooped so low, that no one can trust anyone else anymore.

        In the chapter titled THE LAW AT ITS SUPREMEST the distinguished law
        professor touches on constitutional law and its fundamental concepts.

        -1- He states, what all informed already know, that if Congress, any
        state, city or village enacts a law that is forbidden by the Constitution,
        that law might just as well never have been enacted. In order to get around some
        of the wording of the Constitution the Supreme Court has
        evolved a batch of principles, sub-principles and hocus-pocus of solemn
        words spoken with a straight face, meaning intrinsically nothing.

        The author also points out, as we all know, that one man, one judge, holds
        the meaning of the Constitution in his hands. Lawyers and Judges are
        merely trained mechanics in the manipulation of that machine known as THE LAW.

        They take a problem, translate it into the appropriate legal symbols, push
        the buttons on the big machine (perhaps the author referred to to days
        computers already?) that corresponds to those symbols, and the right
        answer automatically pops out at the bottom.

        Mr. Rodell states: the lawyers know it would woe unto them, if the
        non-lawyers ever got wise to the fact that their lives were run by a
        comparatively small group of men, smart, smooth and smug, the lawyers. It
        is the lawyers, and not THE LAW that run the show, and it is the lawyers
        and the lawyer-judges who decide which buttons to push.

        Have you ever wondered about all the legal language in a contract or any
        document that was drafted or prepared by a lawyer? If your lawyer ever
        told you that they were drawn up for your protection and to keep you out
        of court, don't you ever believe a word of it. Legal papers are phrased
        the way they are, NOT to keep you out of court, but in order to give you a
        better chance of winning should the affair ever end up in a court room.

        In fact, lawyers, with their strange language, no doubt increase the
        number of transactions that end up in dispute. If they would let men carry
        on their affairs and make agreements in simple and specific terms, in
        words intelligible to those involved, there would be fewer
        mis-understandings and less causes for grievance. Almost all legal
        sentences have a way of reading as though they had been translated from
        German by some-one with a rather meager knowledge of English. The
        sentences are usually too long, awkward with the use of abstract, fuzzy
        and clumsy words, which are so essential to the solemn hocus-pocus of THE
        LAW. No segment of the English language in use today is so muddy, so
        confusing, so hard to pin down to its supposed meaning, as is the language
        of THE LAW. (the meaning of the "IS" word as was demonstrated by the
        former president may be cited as such an example)

        To the non-lawyer, the legal language is, for all intents and purposes a
        foreign tongue. Why should people not be privileged to understand
        precisely and completely any written laws that directly affects them?
        Since law deals with the ordinary affairs of ordinary human beings, then
        why should a language be used which they cannot hope to understand? The fact of
        the matter is, it is for the lawyers' benefit and not the ordinary
        person.

        The various principles and rules that lawyers often use in presenting
        their language have nothing to do with the solution of the problem. They
        are called pleading and procedure which encompass the rules as to how the
        legal game is played. In fact the decisional outcome of a case is very
        often hung up on some procedural rule. Justice is simply thrown out the
        window because a lawyer violated some rule. Thus, a man with a legal claim
        may end up with nothing, except a bill for the lawyer's fees, simply
        because his lawyer has been caught using the wrong words. Please
        understand, this is all part of the tricks of the trade.

        However, one of the most startling revelations the author made is, that
        THE LAW not only can be bought --- but most of the time, it must be
        bought. Since it has to be bought its results tend to favor those who can
        afford to hire the services of the smartest lawyers.

        This fact coincides with the fact that THE LAW as a whole is a fraud. THE
        LAW simply could not be bought, if it was the protector of justice, which
        the lawyers claim it to be.

        Most of the business that lawyers handle and live on is made up of matters
        that never get near a courtroom --- of what is called "Legal Advise". This
        amounts to casting spells of legal language over the working of business
        documents so that the documents, if they ever should be dragged into
        court, will show that regardless of where non-legal justice may seem to
        lie, THE LAW is pretty clearly on the side that bought the legal advice.
        The hitch is that as soon as one side resorts to legal advice, the other
        side has to use it too in self-defense. Thus every-one loses EXCEPT THE
        LAWYERS, who go merrily on selling THE LAW.

        But when a lawyer becomes a judge, he no longer has a direct financial
        incentive to manipulate THE LAW in favor of the rich people and the big
        corporations. However, he will usually have spent most of his professional
        career, before becoming a judge, doing just that. And when he becomes a
        judge he cannot easily shake off this slant towards THE LAW .

        Conditioned by his own past habits of legal speech and thought, the judge
        will unconsciously lean, in laying down THE LAW, towards the side that
        talks his own brand of legal dialect. "What is to be done about the fact
        that we all are slaves to the hocus-pocus of THE LAW --- and to those who
        practice this hocus-pocus, the lawyers, the author ponders.

        There is only one answer --- which is get rid of the lawyers and throw their THE
        LAW out of the our system of law. And this is not a plea for
        anarchy. It would only be necessary to do away with the present manner of
        phrasing and later interpreting the written laws and with the present
        manner of settling disputes and solving problems. It would only be
        necessary to do away with all the legal language and all the legal
        principles which confuse instead of clarifying the real issues that arise
        between men. Again, this is not a plea for anarchy; it is merely a plea
        for common sense.

        The LAW, in reaching for certainty with one hand and justice with the
        other, has fallen between the two into a morass of meaningless and useless
        language. The sensible thing to do would seem to be by going straight
        after justice in the settlement of any specific question that comes up for
        solution. When the written laws cannot or so not contain the answer,
        SOMEBODY has to make a decision. That decision might better be made on the
        grounds of plain, unvarnished justice, fairness and humanitarianism than
        any others.

        Today it is the Lawyer-Judges who make such decisions, but the ordinary
        man knows as much about justice as does the ordinary judge. As a matter of
        fact, he usually knows more. Training in law does not make a man a better
        judge of justices. It is likely to make him a worse one. What kind of man
        should sit in judgement of others? Why not one with common sense knowledge,
        instead of one with the adeptness in the abracadabra of THE LAW, have the
        right to sit in judgement of other men's affairs?

        Mr. Rodell goes on to say: "Why should we keep on sacrificing both justice
        and common sense on the altar of legal principles? Why not just get rid of
        the Lawyers and their Laws?" He sees no reason why this should not be
        done. Of course, Constitutions and laws would have to be re-written
        without the benefit of Lawyers. Any law that means something definite and
        tangible in relation to human affairs can be written so that its meaning
        is plain for all to read and understand.

        He gives as an example of the phrase, "First Degree Murder". ---- It makes
        no sense except in relation to the abstract legal principles which are
        said to define it. --- "When a court finds that one person has killed
        another person and believes that the killer deserves to be electrocuted"
        is much more accurate. Why not phrase the statue that way, so that
        everyone would immediately know what it means?

        Of course, there would still have to be courts, even though written laws
        were made intelligible to all. There would have to be decision-makers to
        determine the true facts behind any dispute, and to settle any disputes
        which are not covered by written laws.
        Getting rid of the lawyers would mean people who got involved in disputes
        or got hauled up for alleged violation of some written law would have to
        tell their own stories and produce their own proof. Why not let the people
        really involved in any squabble tell and try to prove to the satisfaction
        of the decision-makers, their own lies?

        The abolition of the lawyers and their LAW might eventually lead to the
        virtual disappearance of courts as we see/know them today. Written law
        might even be entrusted to a body of experts, to administer it, i.e.
        doctors, engineers, accountants, etc. Arbitration might be used as a means
        of settling disputes. Arbitration means nothing more than a voluntary
        turning over of a dispute for fair settlement to a man or group of men
        trusted by both sides and equipped to understand the question at issue.
        All this sounds too good to ever be accomplished.

        But Mr. Rodell has presented a picture that many can certainly identify
        with in having had a situational experience before and many of us are
        probably aware of what this unusual book says.

        However, it is a consoling fact when this comes from of all people --- a
        lawyer.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.