It always makes sense to analyze any messing with balance and separation of power. In this case (see below), I don't find myself agreeing with Harrington or Garfield.
To begin with, a judicial oligarchy now runs Florida, making it impossible to get reliably fair treatment in courts because government provides no tool for the people to hold judges and others accountable to their loyalty oaths.
In 1949 the Supreme Court absorbed (integrated) the Florida Bar, making it an official arm of the Court. Now bar/judiciary members infest and infect every branch of government. The Supreme Court repeatedly rules that it does not have to abide by laws the Legislature enacts and the Governor signs, but only by the Constitution and the rules they themselves make. They give themselves license to change the common law as it suits them, under the guise of benefiting the evolving social need. In fact, they don't even require appointed judges to swear the candidate's oath which the law requires of all candidates. They enjoy judicial immunity, extending it to ministerial and administrative remedy, and now even lawyers enjoy qualified immunity. The public has no way to hold them accountable to the constitution or laws. Impeachment has become virtually impossible. Now 35 attorneys serve as Legislators. The Judicial Qualifications Commission has become virtually worthless for holding judges accountable to oaths.
The Florida Constitution (FCON) requires a 2/3 majority of the Legislature (both houses) to override a Rule of Court. The Supreme Court, over vehement objection by well-educated attorneys, has just prepared a rule that strips from the people the right to make recordings of court proceedings - bailiffs can take away people's recording devices away if a judge so orders. This insanely violates FCON Article I Section 24 (public records). Why insane? Because the courts will continue to use it to commit all kinds of judicial atrocities with impunity because the public cannot know them with certainty. The public never buys expensive transcripts, and Courtsmart recordings often sound muddled and unintelligible because judges conspire to mess up or neglect the volume and mike controls.
The Supremes commit one outrage like this after another. The time has come to bring it to a screeching halt. The Legislature should make the court rules because those rules operate like laws and affect people's rights. Therefore, this proposed change to the FCON makes sense, and Neil Garfield doesn't.
The IDEAL solution has a more Draconian nature, from the Judiciary's perspective. It requires more changes to the FCON:
Item 4 needs explanation. UPL creates a legal services monopoly that drives up attorney fees because State Attorneys use it to prosecute and win convictions against citizens who help one another with legal problems. Furthermore, the Supreme Court likes to define "practice of law," when it has no constitutional authority to do so. This might not cause such problems if attorneys guaranteed results. But when half the adversaries in court cases lose (the system guarantees it), and when judges rule by whim, flouting rules, laws, and constitutions in so doing, no attorney can guarantee anything except that clients will spend a fortune on court costs and attorney fees. Furthermore, many attorneys specialize, so they have virtually zero value in certain areas of law practice. Bottom line, a 50% guarantee of losing constitutes the primary reason EVERYONE has the right to practice law without any kind of license.
On the other hand, an attorney, having graduated from law school, passed the bar exam, shown good character, and sworn the bar oath, DOES have excellent credentials and should give a better legal service than a person without training. So, adversing "I am an attorney" lets people know they have a better than average chance of getting a competent advocacy, certainly better than with an unschooled lay person as assistance of counsel. So a litigant who wants an attorney's help should rely upon the counsel of an attorney with credentials, and one who doesn't, obviously faces a much larger risk of loss with a layperson as counsel.
Furthermore, citizens have no clue whether one lawyer can serve more skillfully than another, except by reputation. And the bar's lawyer referral service guarantees the consumer will never learn of that reputation. Thus, the attorney "system" removes much of the advantage to consumers that such a system could and should provide. All the more reason that the law should mandate both court watching and maintenance of records of jurist performance
Final analysis: the people cannot fix what they cannot monitor or see. Judicial performance lies hidden behind a mantle of lofty supremacy, making judges seem as untouchable as the meanest mafia. The Legislature must fix this with changes to the FCON.
To begin with, a judicial oligarchy now runs Florida, making it impossible to get reliably fair treatment in courts because government provides no tool for the people to hold judges and others accountable to their loyalty oaths.
In 1949 the Supreme Court absorbed (integrated) the Florida Bar, making it an official arm of the Court. Now bar/judiciary members infest and infect every branch of government. The Supreme Court repeatedly rules that it does not have to abide by laws the Legislature enacts and the Governor signs, but only by the Constitution and the rules they themselves make. They give themselves license to change the common law as it suits them, under the guise of benefiting the evolving social need. In fact, they don't even require appointed judges to swear the candidate's oath which the law requires of all candidates. They enjoy judicial immunity, extending it to ministerial and administrative remedy, and now even lawyers enjoy qualified immunity. The public has no way to hold them accountable to the constitution or laws. Impeachment has become virtually impossible. Now 35 attorneys serve as Legislators. The Judicial Qualifications Commission has become virtually worthless for holding judges accountable to oaths.
The Florida Constitution (FCON) requires a 2/3 majority of the Legislature (both houses) to override a Rule of Court. The Supreme Court, over vehement objection by well-educated attorneys, has just prepared a rule that strips from the people the right to make recordings of court proceedings - bailiffs can take away people's recording devices away if a judge so orders. This insanely violates FCON Article I Section 24 (public records). Why insane? Because the courts will continue to use it to commit all kinds of judicial atrocities with impunity because the public cannot know them with certainty. The public never buys expensive transcripts, and Courtsmart recordings often sound muddled and unintelligible because judges conspire to mess up or neglect the volume and mike controls.
The Supremes commit one outrage like this after another. The time has come to bring it to a screeching halt. The Legislature should make the court rules because those rules operate like laws and affect people's rights. Therefore, this proposed change to the FCON makes sense, and Neil Garfield doesn't.
The IDEAL solution has a more Draconian nature, from the Judiciary's perspective. It requires more changes to the FCON:
- Excise the bar from government altogether.
- Excise bar members from government altogether.
- Hand licensing and regulation of attorneys (not the "practice of law") to the Executive Branch.
- Rewrite 454.23 Unauthorized Practice of Law statute so it only applies to people who claim to have an attorney's license or other authority to function as an attorney, but don't.
- Require all public officers to pass exams on the national and state constitutions, and know by heart the bill of rights and declaration of rights, and their obligations to enforce the constitutions guarantees of those rights.
- Eliminate government-paid bonds and require all public officers to purchase from their salaries bonds guaranteeing adherence to their loyalty oaths to the constitutions, and their personal obligation to enforce the constitutions' guarantees of rights and government structure, and making it simple and easy for citizens to file complaints against the bonds. All bond complaints should go to the grand jury for deliberation. All bond complaint investigations that result in a finding of probable cause should increase the bond fee for the targeted public officer. Prohibit public employment when bond fee exceeds one third of salary.
- Repair grand juries by disconnecting them from the control and influence of government employees, requiring jurors to have college degrees or the equivalent and to pass an exam on state and national constitutions, specifically the declaration of rights, guaranteeing unfettered public access to grand jurors for the presentation of evidence packages and complaints against public employees, and requiring grand jury investigations of all felonies, not just capitol crimes.
- Require the Legislature to act on all demands for impeachment, and to rely on grand jury and bond complaint investigator findings.
- Mandate courtwatching run by citizen groups, and observer surveys by other court observers, with training supervised by the legislature, and database maintenance run by citizens and paid by the Legislature. Mandate courts, commissions, legislature, and other government groups to allow personal audio and video recording of all public proceedings, and to provide a means of responding meaningfully, investigating, and if appropriate, correcting the official record when it conflicts with personal recordings.
Item 4 needs explanation. UPL creates a legal services monopoly that drives up attorney fees because State Attorneys use it to prosecute and win convictions against citizens who help one another with legal problems. Furthermore, the Supreme Court likes to define "practice of law," when it has no constitutional authority to do so. This might not cause such problems if attorneys guaranteed results. But when half the adversaries in court cases lose (the system guarantees it), and when judges rule by whim, flouting rules, laws, and constitutions in so doing, no attorney can guarantee anything except that clients will spend a fortune on court costs and attorney fees. Furthermore, many attorneys specialize, so they have virtually zero value in certain areas of law practice. Bottom line, a 50% guarantee of losing constitutes the primary reason EVERYONE has the right to practice law without any kind of license.
On the other hand, an attorney, having graduated from law school, passed the bar exam, shown good character, and sworn the bar oath, DOES have excellent credentials and should give a better legal service than a person without training. So, adversing "I am an attorney" lets people know they have a better than average chance of getting a competent advocacy, certainly better than with an unschooled lay person as assistance of counsel. So a litigant who wants an attorney's help should rely upon the counsel of an attorney with credentials, and one who doesn't, obviously faces a much larger risk of loss with a layperson as counsel.
Furthermore, citizens have no clue whether one lawyer can serve more skillfully than another, except by reputation. And the bar's lawyer referral service guarantees the consumer will never learn of that reputation. Thus, the attorney "system" removes much of the advantage to consumers that such a system could and should provide. All the more reason that the law should mandate both court watching and maintenance of records of jurist performance
Final analysis: the people cannot fix what they cannot monitor or see. Judicial performance lies hidden behind a mantle of lofty supremacy, making judges seem as untouchable as the meanest mafia. The Legislature must fix this with changes to the FCON.
| Bob Hurt My Blog 2460 Persian Drive #70 Clearwater, FL 33763 Email; Call: (727) 669-5511 Law Studies: Donate Subscribe Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary |
-------- Original Message --------
| Return-path: | <mail@wgroup.ning.com> |
|---|---|
| Envelope-to: | bobhurt |
| Date: | Sun, 27 Mar 2011 12:59:15 +0000 (GMT) |
| From: | The NATIONAL WAMU HOMEOWNERS SUPPORT GROUP <mail@wgroup.ning.com> |
| Subject: | You can't understand Sheeple language? Baaaaa, baaaaa... (Stupid sheeple!?) |
A message to all members of The NATIONAL WAMU HOMEOWNERS SUPPORT GROUP
|
2 comments:
"requiring jurors to have college degrees or the equivalent"
No! Passing a test to demonstrate their knowledge of the constitution etc, Yes!
Should we be institutionalizing systems of nobility based upon education? No!..... Should we be protecting our systems form the ignorant? Yes!
The USA has 75 million stupid people (IQ below 85) and many if not most of them can vote and serve on juries.
THAT is insane. When investigating allegations of crimes by public officers, EDUCATED and RESPONSIBLE voters should populate grand juries so that they can deal with the complexities of the investigation and interactions with other smart people on the grand jury. Typical juries have a lawyer or other educated person as foreperson who lords it over the ignorant and mentally challenged members. State and US attorneys constantly interfere with grand juries, lording it over the members and making them feel dumb. That explains why a federal prosecutor said he could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
You have obviously NOT thought this issue through. Think about it some more and answer this question: How can we get better quality grand juries that will INDICT crooked judges and other crooked public officers?
Post a Comment