Lawyers and Lawyers
Shysters & Lawyers -- The American Legal AIDS
*****************************************************
Lawyers &
Shysters
Honorable lawyers are probably a great majority, like the percentage of
honorable workers in a union, but their influence is impaired by the clout of
the influential unworthy. The
lawyers union (A.B.A) and the workers union need as many members as possible, and that
means votes plus votes..., and more money... and power...
Since the power is developed more with the number of members than with
their quality, the majority rule of democracy may become an "ochlocracy"
(= mob or mediocrity rule).
What level of competence can cope with that?
Premise: I am tempted to
say that most of those who didn't study Latin and classic history miss
many cultural tools to help understand the foundation of jurisprudence [from "juris" (of
the law) "prudentia" (wise prudence)].
Starting at tender age, I was gradually introduced to the apolitical "analisi logica" (analysis of logics), without which I
could not start the
serious study
of Latin, as fundamental to broaden understanding our cultural Roman roots, including our legal system,
reaching from ca. 2500 years ago.
Latin became the structurally coordinated (rather than usage-conditioned)
international language, because of a centrally standardized structure needed throughout the
immense Roman Empire, and its provinces, in which everyone was a Roman citiaen.
The backbone of its vigorous survival
for at least 7 centuries b.c. plus 15 centuries a.d., as a ubiquitous "lingua franca" (official
common international language to divers cultures, much more than English in India), as well as "lingua viva" (or living language) was a grammar based on centralized rules, syntax and
paradigms.
All of it was guided by a linguistic and reasoned logic that could not be distorted by semantic
manipulators, second rate sophists who were first known, but later
imitated in all nations as philosophical and political shysters.
The classic "logical analysis" is not a philosophy, but it induces us to adopt a
linguistic or semantic style that cannot be corrupted by mercenary, legal, commercial,
and political purposes.
Beside improving any language for itself and facilitating communication among
divers idioms,
it gave permanent validity to Latin, longer
than to other langua
ges.
Lawyers with a
Latin idiom education background agreed with the above.
In the "Italian Factor" chapter, I wrote:
"It [jurisprudence] started in about 450 b. c. with the Roman condensed Law code
carved in the Twelve Tables in the "Forum
Romanum" (Roman main city square) and was continuously developed through the the
centuries into the "Corpus Juris Civilis" (reorganized in 534 a.d.), in many thousands of treatises and "digests' (cfr.
the Roman Bizantine emperor Justinian, (reigning 527-565 a.d.), including the civil,
criminal, commercial, international, and all known aspects of life.
The Roman colonies were gradually transformed into Roman provinces, (where every resident
became a
Roman citizen, all over the then inown civilized world : Europe, North Africa, the sountries in the whole Mediterranean Sea area, from the Atlantic
Ocean and the now known as British Islands to the Middle East...).
This cultural-juridical evolution never stopped and became the foundation of the
resulting social and legislative culture of the Western World (to put it in these few
words...).
The Pilgtims (English Puritans emigrated to America in the 17th century a.d., first landed in 1620 a. d.. in Portsmouth) added a discording and limiting nfluence dictated by absolute faith rarher than historic evolution and reason.
That imposed the intransigent abolition of anyrhing with Latin, Roman, Catholic and Italian (and Spanish, commoin from Catholic-vItalian and Latin derivation) influence.
The resulting crude transformations of theological interpretation of sin rituals to Semitic circumcision, and a week calendar, starting on Sunday and ending with Saturday (combined pre-Christiian and Roman pre-Christian roots),
That explains, just for instance, the countless Latin and "Italianated" words in our
legal, commercial, political, banking, accounting, financial, military, religious and other
fields ..for which there were no Anglo Saxon or German roots or cultural past (shysters -not jurists - may want to change history)
These matters are so little known and ethnically
unpopular, that probably some hesitate to accept them.
An unspoken fundamental
reason has been the original Protestant endeavor, from 1517 on, to distance the Anglosaxon history as much as possible from Catholic, Roman and Italian history.
This produced oddly undesirable results that cannot be described here...
IT SHOULD SUFFICE TO MENTION THE AMERCAN SELF INFLICTED CURSES FROM DEVASTATING THE FAMILY UNITY AND REJECTING THE INTERNATIONAL METRIC SYSTEM AND OTHER CULTURAL FACTORS THAT ARE ALREA DY BECOMING VITAL FOR OUR NATION.
Many say: America is not a democracy.
It is a REPUBLIC, from
the Latin Res (thing or matter) Publica (public), which results in LAW,
as founded and initially codified by the Romans about the time they deposed the hated Etruscan king Tarquin
the Proud in the sixth century b.c..
That is:" law's rule". not "people's rule"
(loosely from the Greek: "demos kratia", as in "DEMOCRACY"),
which
would degenerate from majority rule into mob rule ("ochlocracy").
Fine, that resolves the problem of freeing the minorities from majorityoppression.
But it can slide into the present "law despotism".
Which tends to derail "jurisprudence" into rationalization for Socialist dictatorship.
Many lawyers, politicians, judges, legislators, law enforcers are so homogenized toward the left, that too many of them have contaminated each
other almost beyond comprehension.
It takes a solid cultural basis to perceive it.
Lack of cultural sophistication also prevents us from perceiving that "law" is
taking the place of "morality".
In fact, any serious question raised about it acts like a fox in a chicken coop..
Only some theologians raise a parallel observation by comparing a "legal REA/ITY love"
with a "pseudo theological love"...
But it is now futile...
25 centuries of "progress", since the fall of Tarquin
the Proud, have not improved the world basic law "philosophical" environment.
A cogent example of just around 1985 a.d. is the complaint of the Persian (Iranian)
Islamic high priest Ayatollah Khomeini (1902-1989 a.d.):
"What is the good of us {i.e., the mullahs (Muslim priests)} asking for the hand of a thief to be
severed or an adulteress to be stoned to death, when all we can do is recommend
such punishments, having no power to implement them?"
Yes: what is law without enforcement?
In an ochlocratic theocracy?...
Well, the Ayatollah Khomeini got his way, and his followers went back to the ancient Muslim custom of happily cutting
a burglar's hands and, feet alternatively, and stoning innocent raped women to death for "adultery"...
The conclusion is, obviously, the inevitable killing or enslaving of the
Christian "infidels".In such case, the "due process of law" consists
in the finding that the "infidel" refused to convert to Islam.
In the case of the Western democracy, the obvious necessity of enforcement to make law reasonably useful proved
convenient to make a bad law ineffective....
Again: what is law without enforcement?
Even our bad laws are said to be worth enforcing, "because they are civilized".
That is,
they can afford to be questionable because they are slowly and inefficiently enforced.
What about WHO entforces WHAT LAW to punish stealint a alice or a truckload of bread, or a teide and raped womwn or an adulteress?There are millions of shysters who give instant hollow explanations
for tearing from me a business that I created in 1959 out of nothing,, laulessly, successfully, honorabky, producing my created and compounded chemcal and polymeric producte nationwid and abroad, wurhout a single irregularity or fault,,, with 24 emplotees abe abriad... ,
What about the shysters I have met?
They have transformed the civil rights into a legal Las Vegas Pandora box.
In Las Vegas?
Well, virtually everywhere in the USA.
Let's not forget that USA has 80% of the world's lawyers, and Washington D.C. has
more lawyers than all of Japan.
The law artisans not only frustrate jurisprudence to their
labyrinthic sophistry, but they spin law into absurdity.
They mostly pontificate that one must respect and follow the rules, but in
a manner that works like a game in which the rules are revealed only
after playing the game...
By lawyers, for the lawyers.
Consider the following cases from my personal experience:
[I must change or avoid names, figures, dates and
locations to avoid legal troubles.]
CASE (1) .
Around 1990, when I was attempting to create and fixate an electric conductive path
between two electrodes immersed in a dielectric molten mass I had compounded
(probably it should be explained better, but this is only "for the record"). I was motivated
primarily by scientific curiosity rather than by a working competence that was outside of my
professional specialization.
When another scientist , (here I call him "Dr. Sciento"), heard of it , he contacted me with
the mind-boggling
project that we could work
together on the idea of creating "room-temperature superconductivity" (a highest--tech
dream of producing electric conductivity with virtually zero resistivity at room temperature;
in other words:
a hearth-shaking discovery even more valuable and useful than nuclear energy).
I thought the man was deluded and I hinted it. [Probably I should not even write
about it here...]
Yet, he flew undaunted over 1000 miles to my plant and
..."demonstrated " in my laboratory that he could produce a
room-temperature superconductive path
inside my dielectric material...
Impossible. I could not believe it on the basis of my experience, but the "evidence" was apparently there,
like a magic trick, and I became interested in finding out
what the "trick" was.
It just... happened that he was connected with an investment tycoon (let's call him "Tyco") interested in
financing the project, if conducted in all secrecy in my plant.
I accepted,
provided that they recognized that I considered the project against my
working experience and outside of my specialization in polymer chemistry.
I hoped that something unexpected would result by
serendipity (the condition of reaching an unexpected finding while working for
another).
I had to fly with Dr. Sciento to Tyco's office, about 2000 miles away, to sign a contract and
receive an advance payment for initial expenses.
I flew there in the early morning in order to fly back in the evening of the
same day.
I met him and his lawyer at the lawyer's office.
We signed to implement a program of our research work.
Then, a peculiar procedure unfolded:
We drove at extremely high speed to another
office across town, and then to another , to conduct apparently meaningless but
presumably very important sounding
conversations with some local employees in each office.
Then.., I was driven rush-rush to the airport to fly back home, to run my usual business and the new
research project with Dr. Sciento in my plant's laboratory.
A few days passed, and Sciento had to return to his home town
(about 1000 miles away) for family matters.
A few days later, I received a citation from Tyco's lawyer to pay undisclosed damages
for an unspecified deception and other vague crimes to be handled in the federal court in his home town.
I went (a long flight), and was faced with one court "continuance" after
another, to make me fly back and forth as many times as the opposing lawyer could
contrive,
It was clear that Tyco's lawyer wanted to cause unbearable expenses that could
be avoided only if I agreed to deliver my corporation for a ridiculous amount or just
nothing.
Simultaneously, a lawyer in my county sued me for 1 million dollar damage for
having "deceived" Sciento in my plant..
Only then I understood that all had been set up by
both Sciento and Tyco to
build an unbearably expensive legal case against me, and force me to give up my corporation.
How many lawyers would take such sewer cases?
They say there are more rats (=shysters) in the sewers than people (attorneys) above ground.
I found out that the "crazy drive" in Tyco's city (or county) to his
three
buildings was to establish his county as court of venue for having transacted
(or "solicited") business with his firm there...
That would have forced me to fly and be detained
there as many times as Tyco's lawyer could manage, in order to force me into capitulation...
The same was being done by Sciento in my county. and dovetailed with the other
suit....
So, they squeezed me from both sides.
Everything died out almost suddenly when I unexpectedly countersued in federal
court in my jurisdiction, to force Tyco to come to my town and get the
same treatment...
My lawyer simply turned their weapon against them.
Sciento's and Tyco's cases vanished back into the sewer they came from.
The lawyers are deconstructing ethics, legislation, morality, jurisprudence, law enforcement... and/or the politicians are converging to the same goal from the other direction.
CASE (2).
When one of my plants was built, I discovered a construction fraud totaling about $120.000 in
fraudulently changed specifications, missing items, defective materials, inferior roofing,
downgraded electrical installation, inferior carpeting, wrong components etc.
This was made to happen especially when I was away in one of my longer business trips to
Europe.
Both lawyers (mine and the opponent's) agreed to settle for about half, and
convinced me that I could not get more... Unfortunately -(and "logically"), they were primarily interested in
pleasing each other (for their daily professional encounters, whereas I was just a
"one-shot customer")."
I had to sign that I would never comment
against the builder, but I could not obtain a statement by him that nothing else in the
building was fraudulent or defective.
No explanation sounded plausible, but I had to go on with the awareness that
being immersed in such a legal environment, pursuing the case would cost me more
than absorbing the loss.
"Those are the rules of the game".
A few weeks later, a contractor refused to work for me because the builder in
question had told him I was unable to pay what I owed him. It was obviously totally false,
but where could I prove my point, and with what witness?...
The builder was fraudulently trying to ruin my reputation...
I called my lawyer to correct the situation, and I found out that I would have
to pay incredible fees for a court action that would only add to the damage.
"My lawyer"?
He and others convinced me that pursuing the matter further was going to cost me
much more than accepting the status quo.
Again...
CASE (3).
I had to tolerate many legal abuses in my long business life,
including those connected with a chemical manufacturing business I started
in 1959, which is still successfully active nationwide and abroad, of which I am still
the sole owner, in spite of several attempts by lawyers bent on creating situations
that would cost me exorbitant expenses of time ad money just to be left alone (I
don't even have that civil right, unless a lawyer helps me to prove
that I am innocent) and then parrying deceiving lures of a more... "convenient out of court settlement"
in which I would sell out miserably or relinquish control.
I won merely by persisting, without necessity to fight.
Recently, I called a lawyer to discuss
designing export contracts that would fit a new situation.
I went to his office and he immediately started to unnecessarily denigrating my
way of handling marketing in Rotterdam, as if it were in Belgium, (it is
in Netherland, with different laws). When I told him that I was
talking of Amsterdam, Holland, rather than Rotterdam, he switched to pontificating about the Baltic Sea
history (yet Holland is on the North Sea), where he was no better informed.
II could not resist asking where he got a third foot, because he had ended up
with three feet in his mouth...
I hope I will find the time to write about other legal shyster encounters...
***********************************************************************************
AT RANDOM:
One is asked to prove his/her innocence even when the
prosecuting lawyer knowingly has a counterfeit case.
Everyone talks of the IRS abuses; but big cases are intentionally
brought against small businesses
without sufficient money to defend themselves indefinitely against big
government or private legal vultures.
Then, even if they find some
additional money to fight with, many remain permanently crippled even when they win..
Apparently, it is easy to start a contrived trouble
against us.
No matter how
correct and gentlemanlike our conduct is, some shyster can always think of
some
preposterous accusation with fabricated evidence, in spite of the rule that one
is innocent until proven guilty.
One of the most loathsome ruses is the extortion of menacing
court action for sexual (hetero- or homo-) harassment, especially against
innocent persons with high morality.
The intended victim has to pay just to avoid some vicious methods of depositions
with diabolic twists and relentlessly harassing questions.
I witnessed a case where an innocent victim was mesmerized into saying (they said he did,
but he did not), in a deposition, that he was guilty.
The right to sue should be countered with the duty
of avoiding frivolous law suits.
Politicians (most of them lawyers) promise to fight for their voters' rights to
attract their votes..
For the same reason, a politician avoids reminding his voters of their duties
and commitments,,,
Such a pattern cannot persist without promoting our civilization's decay
***/
They can contrive legal evidence that simply lies.
For instance, just assume the hypothesis that
the prosecuting lawyer, the defense lawyer and the court recorder were
conspiring against the victim by means of a rigged deposition...
Such assumption may be unlikely, but not impossible.
The unlikely diabolic shyster
could say: "suppose, just suppose, that they are crazy and somehow committed to
each other in crime, could you imagine such a dastardly conspiracy and
build a case on it?" . "Well.. yes... ".
"Then, let's put together, as if it were the truth, this story...."
Go further on the many possible variations of this path, and incredible things become legally real.
Especially
if you play "by the rules".
Is then
Law a game?
The winning card is like the faster gun of the Western
movies: the faster gun is the justice.
This faster gun, and the consequent improvised law, have virtually replaced
Morality.
Period.
Untrue?
We assume it is most likely untrue, but the law is the law, even if based on a
lie: just make the lie into a legally asserted justice.... and -again- Morality.
Don't we have truly unreal and imaginary numbers in mathematics to build
something that is mathematically real? You cannot go further in mathematics
without them.
Just go by the rules...
In real life, however, there is morality.
In mathematics, you cannot say that 1236784 is moral and "1-i" is immoral.
But legally just.
Take "Math 101" in college, and beyond, and you will find out.
Dishonesty, malpractice, stupidity?
All that. Honestly and proudly.
Anything, and the worst with it, becomes acceptable if "played by the rules".
But what about integrity, morality, righteousness?
Check the political scenario...
Where and how can we separate corrupt lawyers (ultimately LAW)
from corrupted politicians (ultimately POLITICS) and vice versa?
But about honor and morality?
There you have it, whether you understand it or not.
There goes the majesty of the law temple, its minor
priests and sycophants..
One wonders whether there are enough good jurists to clean up the morass.
I am only trying to be the "hundredth monkey" who is finally heard,
after the
previous 99 have been ignored...
There are competent and honorable lawyers and judges in my town.
They are presumed to outnumber the unworthy ones.
Unfortunately, the worst of the unworthy make an unforgettable impression that casts a
dark shadow on the honorable majority.
(continued)
*********************************************************************************
The American Legal AIDS
Some day in December 2003,
I (designated as 04583197, account No. 4492280100471480) received the following check from:
"Citibank (south Dakota), N.A. Schwartz
Refund
December 1, 2003
1600227351:
Pay to the order of John Caporaso
**$0.27**
Only valid for $0.27
**********Zero dollars and .27 cents********************
please cash promptly, this check is void
if not cashed by july 31, 2004
Dear John J. Caporaso,
You have been identified as a member of the class of Citibank and AT&T Universal
Card customers who are eligible for a refund under the terms of a settlement
agreement reached in a class action lawsuit titled Schwartz v. Citibank (South
Dakota), N.A. and Universal Financial Corp. The accompanying check is your
refund.
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Which lawyer I (and probably one or more million plaintiffs)
never ever hired to obtain the above "Zero dollars and .27 cents (by the way,
".27 cents" is 27 hundreds of one cent. Try to get 27% of one cent...)
Of course, it may be just a misprint, but it can cause a class litigation lawyer
to salivate and dream of a suit...., because rules are rules...?
And those
rules are especially enforced when they appear after the game has been played.
The law does not admit ignorance: you ought to know IT, before it hits you by
surprise.
That lawyer must have worked very hard for who knows how many of us
beneficiaries ("clients" or "plaintiffs") .
With today's prices, each of us should have paid at least 5-6 thousand dollars
to the valiant lawyer (such lawyers get at least $300 per hour).
Suppose
we are about one million clients (mind you, it is an American class suit), the
lawyer could have collected 5-6 billions... Instead, I bet the poor fellow got
only 200 or 300 millions dollars...
This sacrifice for the Res Publica (elaborated in Rome almost 2500 years ago).
However, I deny that I ever hired or authorized anyone for whatever the above is
all about.
I don't even care to know what it was and for what.
If you reader want to know, ask them.
They dutifully (I presume) and obligingly
gave their address:
Schwartz Refund, P.O. Box 44123, Jacksonville, FL, 32231-4123.
I did not ask, nor do I want you to tell me what you found out.
I am sure, they have contrived a perfectly satisfactory explanation that makes
even a first degree super-murder legal, because
they know the law and the rules.
I am serious. Do not let me know:
If I know, it
might make me responsible to play by their rigged rules.
[under construction]
040522
===========================================
Please click here to send a comment or suggestion