The 1% know the way to win cases in the american empire’s adversarial system of justice is to eliminate their opponent’s advocate. By doing so the 1% assure themselves that a judge will rely solely on the presentations of their well paid attorneys in resolving cases in their favor.
There are numerous reasons America’s adversarial system is now dead for most of us. The primary one is the disparity of wealth between the 1% and the rest of us.
For the most part only the wealthy can afford lawyers. And most lawyers (many of whom who have spent a fortune on their education and are struggling with large amounts of student debt) cannot afford or are not interested in representing clients who do not have the ability pay the exorbitant costs of litigation, along with lawyers’ sky high hourly fees.
The courts have exacerbated the problem by requiring that only lawyers can appear before them as advocates. This judicially created monopoly, like all monopolies, starves competition and promotes only the interests who benefit when the people are not ably represented.
The party line is that limiting advocacy only to lawyers, who have gone to law school or apprenticed for years, assures the competent representation essential for the adversary system to work. But there is little proof to back up this assertion. I know from my own experience as a lawyer that I have seen plenty of lay people who know more about specific areas of law than do most lawyers.
I am convinced the real reason the empire restricts advocacy to only lawyers is because this requirement prevents most people from ever being represented and allows those who can afford lawyers to trample over those people who cannot.
Of course, the acid test for determining the empire’s motivation is to watch how it treats those advocates who successfully represent a class of clients, which would otherwise not be represented at all.
For those of you who are interested you can watch Part 4 of my series on gardening and government by clicking here.