e-commentary

. . .

K          “Courts have failed.  Courts exist to make life easy and lucrative for judges and to make money for obliging and cooperative lawyers.”

J          “Just another racket.”

K          “The lawyer’s unwitting role is to lead the public to believe that we live under a system of laws with neutral judges who listen to all arguments and discern the law and facts objectively.”

J          “A lawyer goes on the bench so that he or she can go home early with full and guaranteed pay.”

. . .

K          “We need to create courts that find some truth and do some justice.  Hundreds of years ago in England, the courts of ‘law’ dispensed very little truth or justice and applied a ruthless version of the law.  The market responded and a new court system and court house was established across the street – the court of ‘equity’.  If you fell behind on your house payment, the ‘law’ court would toss you out in the street.  However, go across the street and the ‘equity’ court would give you credit for what you invested in the house and even prevent the law court from tossing you out in the street.”

J          “Isn’t that why they call what you invest in the home – dollars and sweat – the ‘equity’ in your house.  The thing called ‘equity’ in your home was created to address that personal investment in and commitment to the home.”

K          “Exactly.  There are still equitable causes of action and equitable remedies.  Dozens of years ago, all the big legal players decided to merge the ‘law’ court and the ‘equity’ court into one court.  That created a monopoly.  And the courts quickly began to act like monopolists.  They could and do whatever they want to do which is typically to dismiss a case and go home.”

J          “With full and guaranteed pay.  Sounds like the merger of the National Football League and the American Football League into the National Football League in 1970.  Monopoly is bad.”

K          “Monopoly is very bad.  We need to return to our roots and create a new court of ‘equity’ that could be called . . . the ‘Court of Truth and Justice’ to address the genuine legal needs of the populace.”

J          “What you are talking about is what I call restoring the rule of law in America.”

. . .

K          “We need a test case.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “Assigning Blame: The Lawyers: 50 Percent; The Non-Lawyer Public: 50 Percent; The Judges: 100 Percent (December 3, 2012).”]

Bumper sticker of the week:

Why not try the rule of law for a week or two?

This entry was posted on August 29, 2016 at 9:57 am and is filed under Courts, Judges, Judicial Arrogance, Judiciary, Justice, Monopoly, Rackets, Rule of Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.