Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Who Governs Attorneys?

Some argue that attorneys are not to be trusted because they are officers of the court; therefore, an attorney's first loyalty is to the court and not to his client. Such complaints, however, bely misunderstanding.

An American attorney's ultimate oath and loyalty is to the first principles of the law as set forth in the Constitution, not to any court. It is the duty of every attorney - whether he sits on the bench or argues before the court - to insure that the court upholds the Constitution by insisting that the court observe due process and that any articulation of the law and its application remains within the law's first principles.

That the common-law tradition makes attorneys accountable to courts does not lessen their ultimate duty of loyalty to the law, where the courts hold contrary. Further, the courts are to be independent of the executive and legislative branches. The greater danger is not that attorneys are officers of the courts; but rather, that the judges, and therefore the courts, will become dependent upon the executive or legislative branches for their jobs and pay.
Such controlled courts will hold undue power over the attorneys practicing before them by destroying attorneys' independent judgment and bringing attorneys under uniform and central control of the state.

If the executive or legislative branch holds sway over the courts, these branches will also hold sway over the lawyers through the courts: in short, the courts will become the state's tool to silence the lawyers and limit lawyers' defense of those of whom the state merely disapproves.

A court obstructs justice when it hinders an attorney's freedom of argument and ability to present relevant evidence in defense of his client.

The larger government becomes, the more attorneys the government will employ in disproportion to the sum of attorneys in private practice and government. As a result, the total attorney pool will increasingly consist of government attorneys, increasing the probability that government attorneys will be chosen as judges, as opposed to drawing judges from private practice.

Experience has shown that former government attorneys sitting as judges are less likely to apperciate the problems of private-sector relationships and the rights of the accused: former government attorneys will likely be predisposed toward the will of the government and to the detriment of private relationships.

Copyright © 2008 by Brent Winters


2 comments:

Oscar Taylor said...

We a hire an attorney from New Jersey and I can say that they are fabulous and intelligent.
NJ Attorneys

imma freedman said...

The problem i see is that there is a conspiracy to completely control justice and the pursuit of justice when the BAR is allowed to completely control the Courts and use an unlawful contempt of court (criminal) siezure of a man who is trying to aid an accussed or Claimant as "assistance of counsel" when not a BAR member. I am a researcher of the law and routinely get threatened with violence by judges when challenging the authority (jurisdiction) of the Court and the Charges in court.
The system is so corrupt that the Agents of Government violate the Constitutions, their own Codes, and public policy and never suffer any consequences for their acts of rebellion (18 U.S.C. 2383 a felony)againt the Constitutions.
Property is siezed under admiralty laws (which are not allowed on land), due process is violated when no sworn statement of a first hand witness is ever made stating the witnessing of a crime, when the party charged is siezed and jailed (a kidnapping) and then extortion is made (bail) for cases where no danger to the community is sworn to (misdemeanors especially).
So... The fact that the BAR here in California was a registered corporation in 1901 and then all the BAR members (assembly and judicial) got the Contstitution to be altered to publicly recognize the BAR as a "public corporation" yet, when asking for their corporate charter and since they have "trustees" they must be a trust, so a copy of the trust indenture and to receive a refusal to show those documents, all one can say is....FRAUD, FRUAD, FRUAD...
I am not saying this is common knowledge and all attorneys are out to get rich off of their exclusive right to use the justice system as their personal playground, just saying....