| The Hoax Of Equality Before The Law |
Although not the most obvious, but certainly one of the most effective ploys handed down through the centuries is the use of an unnecessary specialized legal language that ensures that any one who is brought before the courts is more or less compelled to not only employ, but put himself or herself at the mercy of a member of the predominantly pro-elite legal fraternity.
Because previous monarchs saw the wisdom of making the legal system at least appear to be independent from the power of the ruling elite, the legal fraternity has been able to carry out their mandate basically unchallenged. Those who attempt to challenge the authority or wisdom of the Courts can be immediately silenced, and when necessary, jailed for "Contempt of Court". Of course this weapon is brought out, when required, and serves effectively to enforce the "Divine Right of The Elite".
Because the legal society has, since Feudal times, been carrying
on a public relations show to justify and sell their role in society,
let's take a moment to blow aside the smoke screen and see the
legal system in a more realistic light. In that regard, a couple
of perspectives may be helpful.
Whether lawyers are defending the criminal or the victim, they are out to win. Justice becomes irrelevant.
Losing a case detracts from a lawyer's record of successes.
And to their peers, employers, and clients, it can reflect a lack
of expertise. Making sure the good guy wins, and justice prevails,
has got nothing to do with making a law practice turn a profit.
It is precisely because they have little allegiance to "justice",
that makes them ideal candidates to represent the elite in politics.
Contrary to the generally believed precept, it is not the responsibility of either judges or lawyers to make sure that justice prevails. Whether a law is "just", or not, is quite irrelevant to both judges and lawyers. Their job is simply to interpret and enforce "the law". Normally they interpret the law in a manner most favorable to those in power. This latitude, with respect to interpretations, helps to bring about what amounts to "the divine right of the elite". Over time, conservative judgments will actually alter the course of a nation, especially through judgments handed down by the Supreme Court.
Therefore, the difference between "law" and "justice", while being subtle, is the key to a proper perspective of the legal system. While the general public has been encouraged to believe that the justice system "dispenses justice", it does no such thing.
If the tax laws are unjust to the bottom 90%, then it must be recognized that the justice system enforces "injustice" in that case!! Don't forget, it is our justice system that enforces Feudalism.
We must not get taken in by psychological word tricks. Words with positive connotations are often purposely used to market things with very bad connotations, ...like when George Bush named his aerial assassination attempt on Manuel Noreiga as: "Operation Just Cause". "Just Causes" are as related to "assassination attempts" as "true justice" is to the Justice System". Remember too that every dictator runs his country with a "Justice Department".
Those who persist in believing that the justice system is there to "dispense justice" are doomed to be horrified every time they observe the justice system giving better treatment to the criminal than to the victim. Mind you, it is only fair to acknowledge that the elite have gone out of their way to persuade the general public to perceive the justice system in this light. In reality, the legal community have traditionally given their loyalties to the highest bidders, and that has been and continues to be the rule, rather than the exception.
When Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., was facing racketeering charges in connection with its extensive involvement with LBOs and junk bonds, Drexel had little trouble hiring the legal services of the former White House Chief of Staff Howard H. Baker. Mr Baker was a logical choice to help launder Drexel's public image and help fend off the racketeering charges since he was so successful in pulling the White House through the Iran-Contras minefield. It was alleged that Baker would not be involved in any matter which was under scrutiny by the government. {B161}
As long as we are trying to proceed with as few illusions
as possible, let's clarify the functions of the legal society.
Nowhere is the ultimate nature of American society decided more than by the nine U.S. Supreme Court judges in Washington who have ultimate power with regard to the interpretation and intent of American law. Although judgments are most often based on existing precedents, members of the U.S. Supreme Court can sometimes bring about virtual reversals to previous precedents, as recent judgments with regard to civil rights and abortion have clearly shown. Consequently, the judges' personal philosophies and political leanings become extremely relevant, mainly because the nature of the American social fabric hinges on their judgments. Needless to say, the elite are critically aware of the role played by these key judges in maintaining the status quo.
Hence, it is not by accident that their appointments are for life, and that they are personally nominated by the president. It is no