"It's difficult to admit the obvious"
political world

IS THE CURRENT LEGAL SYSTEM GOOD FOR OUR SOCIAL AND PERSONAL INTEREST?

Saturday, July 18, 2009

The Media Reports on case as Terri Schiavo’s death by starvation imposed   carried in the name of the laws, allowing her to die at the hands of the justice system, and then the murder of the wife of actor Robert Blake, Michael Jackson’s trial of alleged sexual misconduct, renown trial attorney Johnnie Cochran funeral, 4 millions people taking part in the papal funerals my own experiences have given me a lot to think about the Justice System (famous saying “justice system worked”), and how the law is defined, applied, executed, respected governed our everyday activities.  We add a recent hiring about the candidates to the Supreme Court we have a little better grasp of understanding workings of the laws in the society If we add recent augments in ABU Grab scandals, or extremely weak explanations of the Presidents conduct about ear droppings. We can feel an emotional baggage and endowment of the reason in the political and human conduct.

It is well known that American Justice System is an employer of the largest number of people on this planet, “lawyers, clerks, different type of paralegals, judges, policing networks etc” and all are linked together under very large umbrella “the System”.
This System as a bureaucratic machine needs more and more money, as an administrative body creates more and more quasi challenges, problems to solve by him. On his way to so called perfection creates more and more so called problem citizens, more prisons and more quasi remedies to correct behavior without correcting abuse waste, inefficiency of itself.

The laws, which were established, to protect and safeguard the rights as an unwanted effect are creating more problems in his mitts, if they are not applied according to the intentions of the legislators, interpreted accccording to the political correctness, current social climate, or used as a tool to achieve particular goals of certain groups holding actually power in the society.

This Judicial System instead protect all, it protect a few, who have power and control over the rest. Political will and political convictions become essential in passing, executing, interpreting, or applying the laws, as we see at the present time in legislative branch.

This system has biggest budget in the whole world, it feeds itself as a bureaucracy and uses such a huge amount of human resources, often it is so wasteful in time abused and so poorly managed, despite precise and well-established procedures. For all practical purpose, the system is overwhelmed and “clacked”, with the cases.

If we just look into the use of so much paper used for this process of filing pleadings, copies, letters, faxes we can say that this system uses the most paper comparing to the other human organizations.

This system in order to justify its usefulness, enormous expenses and cost in human and monetary resources at any and every occasion underlies its necessity in the present form. In order to sustain itself as a bureaucracy it creates constantly new laws, new procedures and tries to control every step of our lives from the beginning to the end and after.

Unfortunately to perpetuate its actions forever you can sue and be sued for anything, and everything by anybody without any consequences. (This is the reason; between others we don’t have laws indicating

Punishments for baseless suits.)  There is so many different laws, so many conflicting ones, so many new legislated, so many old ones, so many different judicial opinions that in this jungle everybody can be lost including the best brains in the field.

Up to now, we have very disturbing picture, if we add expression “law is the law”, we grasp more relevancy in is almost absurd, irrational action.

This supposes to justify the rightfulness of the law, or its verdict.  Unfortunately for the system there are the researches showing that over 60% of the judgments are wrong, and some people think that the percentage is higher, as lawyers say no matter what you say or present you have 50% to win. The members of the system are aware of self-explanatory inconsistencies. Going further,

If we examine so called evidence presented at trials it turns out to be simply fabricated for the case, falsified, full of legal tricks, unethical, maneuvers, bended to the case. Or just innuendos, gossips, plain lies disconnected from the facts. Mostly unverified. Back to when we analyze some legal decisions in particular, The Terry Schaivo case indicates an interesting trend. The politicians wanted to gain, the lawyers showed the system worked, but in the name of the law Mrs. Schavio was deprived of the basic human needs for food and water. This was performed in the name of her rights, and executed by the law-obeying citizens, approved by the judge’s order. And we have wanted or unwanted death of the member of our society, who was without any guilt, put to death. Her only so called guilt was, that she was still alive, and had to be feed by somebody. This was possible to achieve in the jungle of conflicting laws, of different hierarchy of decision making centers, superimposed unclear society accepted sometimes conflicting law, supposently protecting the individual’s rights.

This system is so complicated. Time consuming. So costly. Victories seam to be for lawyers. These people often create, provoke, prepare legal basis for litigation by not fulfilling their jobs, they are hired for, Often if you pay more attention t o the lawyers work you find it to be sloppy, lacking attention to the detail, poor knowledge of the law, lack of reading their own documents or even ‘nolens volens”their work is being directed against the interest of their own clients, for not to offend the opposing lawyer, or make his live more difficult. Finally they all are from this same circles, and part of this same branch.

It’s known in the legal circles that neither the lawyers, nor the judges can read, or want to read all legal papers produced for each case. This became a wishful thinking never fulfill to the end. It should be recognized that Under the circumstances, the system still try to do its best showing its necessity to exist and govern human affaires. If we take into account the contradictory laws and complicated procedures, precedence, behind the scene maneuvers, not to mention the vengeful, mad, unrealistic, unreasonable sometimes-psychotic nature of some litigants, we have better picture of the mass. This is some of the reasons, if we want to find justice in this system we are off the mark. It is regrettable and unfortunate that in such complicated and many different layers of the society, the judge becomes an expert in almost every subject. He expresses his view in seconds as an expert, without sufficient knowledge of the subject, and acts like an other bureaucratic employee from 9 to 5 of the most burocratic institution in the word.

In the judges mind intuition, prejudice, preconceive   notions; actual preferences, current ways of approaching the question evidence could be one of the factors, but not the most important one. Legal theories, reacting to the problems, social climate, connections, precedence, party affiliation are the factors taken in to consideration in passing the judgment.  The judgment itself is a

Combination of all these factors, not necessarily the evidence presented in the case. The powerful lobbies of the lawyers and their empty promises, or they don’t want at list to show, expose, and make public urgent situations where the justice is so unjust, or can be so, as tip of the iceberg shown but some reporters.

It seams many of us feel that way when we listen some talks justified clear violations of the laws, if we don’t talk about it, are complacent, discouraged by the magnanimity of the problem, complexity, or in surmountable nature of tasks before us.

Are we overwhelmed, damned if we expose it? Nevertheless status quo cannot satisfy us.

If we don’t talk about it, we will not have a personal and psychological comfort. Suppression of the problem doesn’t solve it, or to put these questions under the table either.

Can be a source of the bigger discontent we can imagine, as we see in the recent political and economical events. If we don’t correct on time later can be too late or we will

Pay much more greater price that we address the problem on the beginning and at the source of discontent.

Naturally some of political and legal circles are aware of these questions, and they try to address on the political level. Recent findings of the “scope goats” seam to address

To the social discontent. Recent senate hiring supposes to fill the void. Unfortunately, the void is much deeper than public officials want to admit as recent and previous pools show. Unfortunately, different politicians, mostly lawyers, I may add,

For the public consumption we have some facts incorrectly shown, some policies misrepresented, some facts denied, or hidden from the public eyes. The propaganda correct political image is not always working; to feed the public with slogans can work in rural.  Uneducated society, but it is doubtful if this can be accepted in the modern society.knowledgable to put the facts together with good, or better education, an conclusion of the evidence. Unfortunately, this is a case here. Politician can say; judges have to interpret the law, not to legislate from the branch. Its easer said that done.   For public consumption

We can talk about sometimes misleading concepts we are feeding by the legal or political circles like “lust ice is blind”. In the reality it has a color, and it’s origin sensitive. You don’t have to be a scholar to see prison population, or fallow some statistics to that effect, or analyze the sixties court decisions, not to prejudge modern times. In so-called “lawyers States”, we have the biggest pro capita prison population in the whole world. We house in our prison system over 500.000 mentally ill persons. By this it time we a re not happy if somebody calls us, a “police state”, or “prison” state.

From our personal experiences we can tell that you are treated differently if you go in front of the judge with   good humor, knowledge of the lawyers presenting the case, better round of golf, can be decisive in the legal judgment of the case. There is no wonder sometimes laws can destroy

social values, despite that it were conceived to save garde it. AS a by-product of its function it becomes destructive of its own goals set by the society, or founding fathers of the constitution. They never envisioned

The judicial system as a bureaucratic machine, or as we are all subject to can be destructive of our lives, finally our well-being.

The checks and balances of the judicial system are not sufficiently in place, more and more people seam to be defenseless against the system, more and more people seam to be trapped in the system without the way out. . This is not a coincidence the biggest prison populations in the word we can find in the United States of America.25 % of whole population of inmates of the whole world we find in this country.

This is not coincidence that we have the biggest psychologically unfed

Population in the prison instead in the closed institutions for mentally unstable,

Do we create more prisoners, that necessary? Or our society as a whole, we are unfit to function in the highly developed industrial world of ours. Maybe morally we are so degraded that legal system can’t be efficient to cure our discussed, inhuman, or simply alleged criminal, and unfit for the conditions we live in behavior

In any way this overgrown system. As we know at the present time and we re subject to, seams to be sometimes dangerous to our interest in our own business, proceedings in every day of live decisions. We temporally be calm down by the passed judgments, but when we analyze it closer, often we arrive to the conclusion that there in “no justice here”. Our legal profession is aware of these conclusions, and up front, we are told that this is other site fault. Or under the circumstances, it was the best judges decision, or to pass the “right” decision was so difficult, there was not enough time for the judge to think about the case. In other cases, the lawyers wanted to justify their legal work so they say other slogans. In legal circles they  

Repeat you are innocent until proven guilty. This is plotting to justify inability of the treatment of the system.  If you are sued frivolously, you have to defend yourself with more vigor, present more facts, prove more your innocence indicating you are first guilty to become second innocent. To prove your innocence, you have to defend your self with more vigor, that the other site, you have to have more aggressive lawyer, pay more money that the others to prove your innocence. We should maybe change the saying to “guilty until proven innocent”, if you are lucky when the judge is willing to listen and take into consideration your story. On other commercial and advertising approach to justify and to express a social comfort, and self-satisfaction the lawyers say, “you can have

Your day in the court”, just to underling self-satisfaction and to give impression that we live in the country with the rule of law. This is probably most used and abused slogan for public consumption, apparently justifying existence so many courts, so many judgments, and unfortunately their inability to conform to the law written to protect the innocent. This is unfortunate, that most of the officials have their days in court, Yes, you can have your day in court if you have money; thousands, teen of thousands, or even more to prove your innocence If you don’t have money, you can be found guilty even you are totally innocent. Unfortunately innocence has its own price, for some is priceless, for some means nothing when they are crashed by the system. Most of the “guilty’ judgments go to the people without money. They can be proven as mentioned 60%wrong a These people when exonerated, they don’t talk about a faith in the system, they are resigned from the opinion and try to go on with their lives.

Maybe public debate should shed some more light, expose strongly so many injustices, so many legal mishaps, so many worthless, unfounded causes, or legal actions damaging untolerated   and we could arrive at the better explanation about the strange, by socially accepted, all thou unacceptable conduct of certain individuals from so called legal profession, or social pressure groups with legalistic mentality.

Unfortunately most of our decision makes belong to the legal circles, and want to have legal receipt for each and every occasion   and action in our lives.

Do we have to expose it? Where do we complain about it? 40% public trust in the executive branch of the government is not an amusing figure. .30% to this same trust in the legislative branch is even worst. What about our trust in the judicial branch? What about our 4-th branch of power? Should we consider the media than? Do we complain about the lawyers to the lawyers? Do we complaint about the judges to the judges? Is efficiency can be attained in the same system?

In the judicial system we have institution like ARDC, run by the lawyers. Are they efficient? The most common answer to the complaint is “not enough evidence, or conflicting evidence”.

There is a kind of last resort of sort; different type of prosecutors. Prosecutors usually don’t take “small’ cases. So we are “stocked” with our problems so small for others to persecute, but for us personally there is sometimes matters of life or death, or matter of financial ruin, or matter of personal, business, psychological destruction.

Fortunately we can go to the Legislative Branch for some solutions EXECUTIVE BRANCH? Maybe. Sometimes the best bet can be 4-th power- Media – if the case we are involved is newsworthy. This can be misapplied law in the particular case, stupidity of it, outgrown power of “small” people showed to the unsuspected subjects of the government, crooked human nature, or flagrant violations of the common lie accepted rules and plain disrespect to the “common’ sense. Negligence of the [people supposed to know who is responsible in interpreting and applied the laws in concert cases. to expose the legal conduct, where the money played essential, or even indirect role in the outcome of the action.

 The events worth to be mentioned should be not only the famous ones, but also those, which in the eyes of the participating   people are the big ones for them. IF we wish, or not these ones are essential part have out daily activities and give us the biggest haddocks. We have plenty of these cases. By not reporting them we are loosing the impression of the reality as it is. When the media report, there is a little place for error, due tot he fact news organizations are extra careful, for the stories they report, continuously scrutinizing their sources. Perception of the reality shown by news media is so closed to “as it is”, and then other power centers can’t even dream about it. As in human action the mistakes happen, but on one site they are so rare and carefully corrected when discovered. We can get impression that media want to correct their mistakes immediately, and have the” zero” tolerance to the reporting. It seams that the media are one of the places to expose other powers, branches of government misfits and abuses. By making public we can influence these branches of gouvermenent and push them for self-regulations, examining its conduct, correct its actions, even the laws, and establish better responsibility towards the elector at. Do we have to start somewhere, and in timely fashion, our social and often personal well being depends on it.

P.S. In reference to these thoughts, I can supply many judicial judgments showing flagrant negligence to the events existent, evidence and documents totally denied or never takes in evidence despite their authenticity, presentation in the court system fabricated documents for the occasion, incomprehensible lawyers conduct and action, their inability to research the documents, their unwillingness to present the documents essential to the case. The complaints to the ARDC were never considered seriously, or even locked up. Despite shown facts, documents the response from ARDC was  “not enough evidence, conflicting evidence, lawyers way of presenting the case…” Some of the

Judgments issued by the court were total against the documents, or even common sense like “changing the gender on April fools day” Accepting as evidence the documents never existed in the banks, or some statements so unbelievable impossible to take place in the real life, like bogus loan $360.000.00 in cash lent from some people who never could have this sum of money. I can go with the examples on and on…

Unfortunately this is showing the inability to render the judgment according to the evidence or, the facts, but just according to the lawyers way presenting some fabricated evidence.
Copyright © 2009 www.internationalresearchcenter.org
Strony Internetowe webweave.pl