Subject: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion

[iamfreeru2]

Got this in an email and thought I would share it here. It shows one of the biggest problems we have in this great country and that is "attorneys and judges." It comes from a man that knows what he is talking about.

The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion Law loses its way
By Chief Justice John F. Molloy
(Author Miranda Decision, AZ.)

When I began practicing law in 1946, justice was much simpler. I
joined a small Tucson practice at a salary of $250 a month, excellent
compensation for a beginning lawyer. There was no paralegal staff or
expensive artwork on the walls.

In those days, the judicial system was straightforward and efficient.
Decisions were handed down by judges who applied the law as outlined
by the Constitution and state legislatures. Cases went to trial in a
month or two, not years. In the courtroom, the focus was on uncovering and
determining truth and fact.

I charged clients by what I was able to accomplish for them. The
clock did not start ticking the minute they walked through the door.

Looking back

The legal profession has evolved dramatically during my 87 years. I
am a second-generation lawyer from an Irish immigrant family that
settled in Yuma. My father, who passed the Bar with a fifth-grade
education, ended up arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court
during his career.

The law changed dramatically during my years in the profession. For
example, when I accepted my first appointment as a Pima County judge
in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee than
a judge. The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator
arena, with dueling lawyers jockeying for points and one-upping each
other with calculated and ingenuous briefs.


That was just the beginning.

By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and
president of southern Arizona's largest law firm, I no longer had
confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes,
profited from.

I was the ultimate insider, but as I looked back, I felt I had to
write a book about serious issues in the legal profession and the
implications for clients and society as a whole. The Fraternity:
Lawyers and Judges in Collusion was 10 years in the making and has
become my call to action for legal reform.


Disturbing evolution

Our Constitution intended that only elected lawmakers be permitted to
create law.

Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their
own opinions and rulings. It's called case law, and it is churned out
daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling
and that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then
becomes case law, or legal precedent. This now happens so
consistently that we've become more subject to the case rulings of
judges rather than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in
our Constitution.

This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it
continuously modifies Constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it
creates endless business opportunities. That's because case law is
technically complicated and requires a lawyer's expertise to guide
and move you through the system. The judicial system may begin with
enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge's
application of case law all too often change the ultimate meaning.

Lawyer domination

When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called
a judge. But in reality, when judges look down from the bench they
are lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In any
other area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a
conflict of interest.

When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling
class of lawyers and judges. First of all, in Maricopa and Pima
counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of
lawyers, along with concerned citizens.How can they be expected not to
be beholden to those who elevated them to the bench?

When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law
firms that leverage their names and relationships.

Business of law

The concept of "time" has been converted into enormous revenue for
lawyers. The profession has adopted elaborate systems where clients
are billed for a lawyer's time in six-minute increments. The
paralegal profession is another brainchild of the fraternity, created
as an additional tracking and revenue center. High-powered firms have
departmentalized their services into separate profit centers for
probate and trusts, trial, commercial, and so forth.

The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-
line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth,
even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected
Congress and state legislatures.

Bureaucratic design

Today the skill and gamesmanship of lawyers, not the truth, often
determine the outcome of a case. And we lawyers love it. All the
tools are there to obscure and confound. The system's process of
discovery and the exclusionary rule often work to keep vital
information off-limits to jurors and make cases so convoluted and
complex that only lawyers and judges understand them.

The net effect has been to increase our need for lawyers, create more
work for them, clog the courts and ensure that most cases never go to
trial and are, instead, plea-bargained and compromised. All the while
the clock is ticking, and the monster is being fed.

The sullying of American law has resulted in a fountain of money for
law professionals while the common people, who are increasingly
affected by lawyer-driven changes and an expensive, self-serving
bureaucracy, are left confused and ill-served.

Today, it is estimated that 70 percent of low- to middle-income
citizens can no longer afford the cost of justice in America. What
would our Founding Fathers think?

This devolution of lawmaking by the judiciary has been subtle, taking
place incrementally over decades. But today, it's engrained in our
legal system, and few even question it. But the result is clear.
Individuals can no longer participate in the legal system.

It has become too complex and too expensive, all the while feeding our
dependency on lawyers.

By complicating the law, lawyers have achieved the ultimate job
security. Gone are the days when American courts functioned to serve
justice simply and swiftly.

It is estimated that 95 million legal actions now pass through the
courts annually, and the time and expense for a plaintiff or defendant
in our legal system can be absolutely overwhelming.

Surely it's time to question what has happened to our justice system
and to wonder if it is possible to return to a system that truly does
protect us from wrongs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John F. Molloy was elected to the Arizona Court of Appeals, where he
served as chief justice and authored more than 300 appellate opinions.
Molloy wrote the final Miranda decision for the Arizona Supreme Court.

[Freedomless]

As I was researching, I ran across this article a while back and was impressed.

"I charged clients by what I was able to accomplish for them. The
clock did not start ticking the minute they walked through the door."

This is the reason I have I problem with the system. In business, in general, you pay for what you get usually spelled out in contracts. Attorneys would take your case and do not achieve the results that you hired them to achieve. Today the attorneys get very little for the client and charge more per hour than any other profession. They shaft you by taking your money and then shaft you again by providing no favorable result.

It is refreshing to hear an attorney tell the truth about what is going on in the legal system. Our town had a judge asked to retire, fired, because he would not back big business and do what was not in the best interest of the people.

John F. Molloy was elected to the Arizona Court of Appeals, where he
served as chief justice and authored more than 300 appellate opinions.
Molloy wrote the final Miranda decision for the Arizona Supreme Court.

[EnSabahNur]

Hmmmmmmmm let me see:

Lawyers..........become judges.
Lawyers and judges are both members of the bar.
Am I expected to believe that they would collude together? Especially in light of the fact that they are both paid by the same Employer and it is their jobs to railroad people. That is just crazy talk.