American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard Law School

MassNews.com ^ | March 7 2003 | Geraldine Hawkins

[Brian Allen]

God save Our Beloved FRaternal Republic!

[Diogenesis]

Stop whining. The problem is Americans see that the courts
tolerate lying by lawyers, destruction of documents with the court looking away,
a near total lack of accountability for government officials,
and that the courts have some corrupt judges who are in bed with one side or the lawyers of one side.

If this changed, American's would raise respect of the courts to where it belongs.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Excellent report and speech. Thanks. No, there is no Great Awakening in America's law schools. Or on American campuses. Not yet. But the fires of affliction are likely to burn more intensely as our nation's foundations crumble, perhaps removing some of the dross and purifying some souls along the way.

God is at work. And NOTHING the lost lawyers can do or say will change that.

[the crow]

V

[Mamzelle]

We could start by enforcing a basic, standard legal ethic--do not allow a lawyer to become a party to his own suit (case). At present, lawyers bring class actions that deliver pennies to the mass plaintiffs, but through "volume" make millions for the lawyers. You could start by making this illegal--the recent CD class action comes to mind. This is just one example in the civil courts.

Flamboyant criminal lawyers are harder to regulate. Perhaps they should not be allowed to make profits on exploiting the media value of their clients...

[Bigun]

Lawyers Now Have Control of Nation Once Ruled by Law

[Lady Eileen]

......bump.......thanks for the post.

[theartfuldodger]

May we be a nation under rule of law! Thanks for the post.

[galt-jw]

The judge quoted George Washington who asked in his Farewell Address, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths ? in courts of justice?"

Today, there is no security for property. The state at the local or federal level can seize it. The other two left long ago as well. I hope people start waking up, and i do mean ALL people, to the fact that we are not free. the founders warned about the very place we are in today. cheering for your side and blaming the other guys is only going to keep people from seeing it all. both parties are to blame.

[bvw]

Dear May18,

The British have given us our Blackstone, with his good and humble expressions that understood the true Roots of Man's Laws.

Whilst we remember them and hold onto them we both -- American and Brit -- will be friends and companions to Israel. Should we set them aside, bastardize and corrupt them, we will -- both nations -- be destroyed. That is the cycle of Providence we are now in.

[Ben Ficklin]

It is important to point out that essentially all of the Bush judicial nominees oppossed by the dems are members of the Federalist Society.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Bump.

[Hobsonphile]

Bump to read later.

[tahiti]

The judge makes some good points about the corruption of "tort" law and laying a lot of blame on trial lawyers, but she conveniently ignores the corruption of federal judges concerning "constitutional" law.

For examples,

--does she support the 2nd amendment as an individual right? --does she believe that search and seizures by "federalized" security personnel at airports violates the 4th amendment? --does she believe that unfunded federal regulations imposed on business violates the 5th amendment? --does she believe that Art I Section 8, Clause 3, the "commerce clause" does not have jurisdiction within state boundaries? --does she believe in the sanctity of Art I, Section 8, Clause 17, jurisdiction of federal legislation within the boundaries of a state? --does she believe in plethora of individual rights protected by the 9th amendment?

I would say she probably does not.

She probably believes in the dictum of "compelling state interest" which is the dictum that has inverted our constitutional republic from a republic of limited government from the consent of the governed, to virtually unlimited government without the consent of the governed.

Other than a few "free speech" constitutional challenges from time to time, will we ever see a federal judge rule from the point of few of a "presumption of liberty" versus "the balancing between private rights and public needs?" No.

That my friends is the true corruption of our legal system.

[jude24]

She's right....

[cynicom]

After years of trying to operate within the system, it became apparent, that achieved nothing. It came down to finding the "right" judge and or the right manipulation of the system.

Basically, the need is to stop appointing lawyers as judges. Some say that is ridiculous. One of the foremost noted supreme court justices was not a lawyer.

[Bluntpoint]

If accountants had the same mentality as lawyers, they could hire themselves out to the highest bidder and argue all day for their client that 2 + 2 = 3.

[Bluntpoint]

If obstetricians had the same mentality as lawyers, they would offer to deliver your child for 1/3 of his/her future earnings.

[Cicero]

It's a miracle that Harvard invited this judge to speak.

Harvard is one of the homes of "critical legal theory," which is a fashionable leftist-nihilist term that can be translated: "The law is whatever we say it is." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was the man first responsible for bringing this viewpoint into American jurisprudence. An evil man.

[Kevin Curry]

If accountants had the same mentality as lawyers, they could hire themselves out to the highest bidder and argue all day for their client that 2 + 2 = 3.

How about the Enron accountants who argued 2+2=$111 million?

I believe your criticism of lawyers is well-placed, but I wouldn't hold accountants up as paragons of objectivity either.