This is to address the point made by Tom Cryer that "People need to be informed of what the law demands of them and to what the law entitles them, but that does not mean they all need to be able to do what lawyers do."
I have argued that as a minimum everyone should graduate from high school with the equivalent of the first two years of law school as it is being taught today. That would not be enough to do everything that lawyers do, but a large part of it. There are many reasons why people need that knowledge, beyond "what the law demands of them and to what the law entitles them": 1. To be able to save money on legal fees by doing as much of the paralegal work in their own cases as possible. 2. To choose the right lawyer, supervise his work, and catch errors. 3. To avoid legal mistakes that lead to litigation, and the loss of cases in court. 4. To develop the kind of personal contacts with members of the legal community that can be more important than knowledge of the law. 5. To know how to participate effectively in civic affairs, including voting, testifying on issues, lobbying, drafting legislation, and public debate. 6. To handle simple cases /pro se/ that if done by a paid lawyer would price remedies beyond the value of the injustice or out of reach of ones resources. 7. To make better decisions in all the areas of life that are impacted by law. 8. To avoid the mistakes many laypersons make about law that leads them into unwise actions or advice to others. 9. To enable persons to make the strategic decision to lose a case rather than allow the opposition to get a precedent they could use to oppress others. 10. To be able to better separate good from bad legal reform proposals and to support the good ones effectively. 11. To know when and how to cooperate with public officials and when and how to resist them when they are acting unlawfully. 12. To know how to construe the law, and especially the Constitution, in legal matters that may come before oneself for decision. I could go on, but these have been some of the ways I have used my knowledge of the law. Without that knowledge events in my life would have turned out so much worse that the effort to educate myself has been well worth it, even if I am not to a point where I could responsibly advise or represent others in court. With permission, I would like to post parts of these messages on my blog. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:38:47 -0500 > Subject: Re: regarding Teknosis article "Larry Becraft analyzes the > legal bases of Mer... > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Bob, > > I wish I had time to teach everyone how to find the law and when to > rely on and when to question authorities, but that would be about a > five to ten year course, at a minimum. Why not ask a medical doctor > to educate the public on how to discover a cure for cancer? Believe > it or not, that would be more attainable a task. > > The law is not like learning math. Math, physics, chemistry, etc., > all work on laws that are rigid, unchanging and without exceptions. > With the law there are different layers, every "rule" having > exceptions and every exception having others. When an attorney > graduates and passes the bar he knows more law than he ever will > again, having just crammed three years of study up front for the bar > exams. But even then he doesn't have a working knowledge of it. > > It takes years of experience, research, trial and error for him to > understand the human, political, sociological and psychological > components in the system that administers that law. Although I don't > necessarily advertise the fact, I make greater use of my education in > psychology, sociology and political science than I do of my legal > training. > > Cases don't present a clear picture of the law any more than a car or > a toaster presents a clear picture of steel or plastics. The law is > only one of the raw materials that go into the processor we call our > judicial system. > > People need to be informed of what the law demands of them and to what > the law entitles them, but that does not mean they all need to be able > to do what lawyers do. We need to know when to go to the doctor and > when time for a procedure comes we need to be informed of benefits and > risks before deciding to consent to the procedure. But we do not need > to understand all of the medical considerations to the point of being > able to perform the procedure ourselves. We have doctors to evaluate > our situation and to make recommendations for remedies, inform us of > the risks and benefits and to then administer the treatment or conduct > the operation. > > The same goes for the law, maybe even more so. Although medicine, > like law, makes no guarantee of a favorable outcome, it is more > predictable than the legal process because the laws that apply are not > as flexible and are not acted upon by as many outside dynamics. > Lawyers do not operate in a sterile environment. > > This may sound patrician, but people need to leave lawyering to > lawyers just as they leave medical treatment to doctors. If they have > doubts as to their rights and duties they should consult a competent > and reputable (getting harder to find, I'll grant you) attorney to > research the issue and explain his findings. His recommendations will > not be limited to the law alone, which is what a layman doing his own > research may conclude. An attorney's advice will take into account > the law, how it is interpreted and applied (and how it is > misinterpreted and misapplied) by the courts, procedural obstacles, > the weight and admissibility of evidence, the risks and a host of > other forces at play in the real world. While a layman may act upon > reliance on the raw material the attorney will advise on the basis of > the finished product. > > I try to educate people on the substance of the law but to advise them > on the realities of the legal environment. For example, I once had a > client come to me wanting to sue a judge for mishandling his case. In > my opinion letter I pointed out and verified the many excesses and > abuses that had been committed by the judge. I also pointed out > that Louisiana's judicial immunity statute did not protect the judge > because he had exceeded his authority, placing himself outside the > "umbrella" of the statute. > > However, my research also showed that the Louisiana courts, including > the Supreme Court, totally ignored the limited state immunity statute > and, instead, applied the inapplicable federal blanket immunity > statute. While the law provided for one thing, other factors led me > to advise him to take his complaint to the Judicial Commission because > a law suit would have been unsuccessful. The client followed that > advice (unfortunately, attaching my letter which was forwarded to the > judge with the complaint). The judge ended up being forced to resign > (and still refuses to speak to me--so what?). A failed law > suit, based solely on the letter of the law, would have only > reinforced the judge's perception of himself as above the law. > > Another example you know about is that while I endeavor to inform > people that the IRS is lying to them about the law and to explain the > law to them, I also advise them to avoid singular legal combat by > complying, for now, with the IRS's demands. I do that because I know > there is a bridge out on the road to court, something you won't find > in the law books. I also know that the solution is going to be > political, so I urge them to, instead, devote their energy to > informing their neighbors and friends and recruiting them to > apply political pressure to force a rebuilding of the bridge. > > If people want to understand the law, then have them get that > understanding from those who not only know the law, but understand it > and the process it undergoes between client decision to initiate and > court decision to adjudicate. I know we tell them to rely only on > primary authorities, but those authorities need translation and they > need to be understood in the context of the system that applies them. > > We don't need for people to go out and read law, draw erroneous > conclusions and then confuse and mislead others. "Lay lawyers", as > Pete Hendrickson likes to call himself, are just as dangerous and > counterproductive as "lay surgeons". Look at how many people have > been fined thousands of dollars or, worse, prosecuted and > imprisoned for following his "lay advice". Look at what happened to > him for drinking his own "lay kool-aid". Not only did he get the law > wrong with his inclusio ab exclusio misapplication, he got the advice > wrong, telling people to put themselves in harm's way, pushing them > under the bus. How many of those people would still be working for > the cause if it weren't for the adverse results of a lawyer wannabe's > bad advice? > > What lawyer would tell people the UCC, state commercial transactions > law, trumps federal tax law? What lawyer would tell people that there > is a secret body of law hiding a Straw Man? What lawyer would mistake > a "reorganization" for a bankruptcy? What lawyer would fabricate a > non-existent use for a > for-use-by-corporations-issuing-original-issue-discount-bonds-only > interest reporting form as a draft or some kind of financial weapon? > > These people remind me of the Japanese propaganda machine that had the > Saipan natives so convinced that Americans would rape, torture and > murder them that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of them leapt from > cliffs, many after throwing their children and babies over. Senseless > waste, senseless destruction of humanity, all for the sake of > manipulating and maintaining control of others. At least the Japs did > it for their "god", the emperor. These people are doing it for > profit, self-aggrandizement, the government or all three. > > What we need is more lawyers who are aware of the schism between the > IRS myths and the law itself. If your people want to make a > difference they can do far more good in far less time and with > virtually no effort by submitting the six challenges I sent your lying > friend to every lawyer they can find and doing the same with every IRS > agent they come into contact with. > > If and when the legal community wakes up and becomes aware of the > fraud it will be over. > > I've copied this to my list of attorneys in the movement in hopes they > might chime in pro or con on my comments. I know you're going to ask, > so will go ahead and let you know that you are welcome to forward it > to your people, as well. > > Tom -- Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322, Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [email protected] ------------------------------------------------------------------- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
