WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS!

Recommendations

Info

Absurd? Preposterous? Think it over for a minute. Suppose the nation were suddenly to wake up to the fact that all its affairs were being supervised and controlled according to the language and principles of astrology, by a smart bunch of astrologers. Would making the practice of astrology a crime seem absurd? Go back and read over again the solemn judgment of the Supreme Court of lawyers in the case of Senior v. Braden – or pick some other court opinion at random – and see where the absurdity lies. Or are we just to go quietly and unquestioningly and stupidly on, submitting the management of our entire civilization to the modern medicine men? The immediate answer is undoubtedly yes, but it need not be a permanent answer. And if any popular movement to get rid of the lawyers and their Law, and to put our system of social control on a common-sense basis, should ever make enough headway for the lawyers to have to face it instead of scoffing at it, their chief arguments against it – other than those already considered – would probably boil down to two. They would argue, in the first place, that even if the time-tested legal system, with all its principles and its precedents, were scrapped and another sort of system set up in its place, the new system would soon develop its principles and its precedents too, and even its special language. Now if the new system were put in the hands of lawyers, or of men trained and skilled principally in abstract logic, that would unquestionably be so. But it would not be so if the new system were entrusted – as it would be entrusted – to men trained and skilled in coping with practical human problems. And it would particularly not be so if those in charge of the new system were aware – as they would be aware – that there need be no pretense of preordained certainty and consistency about their decisions, taken in the mass, but rather a direct effort to deal intelligently and justly with each problem or dispute as it came along. Finally, the lawyers would argue that if The Law were scrapped and it became generally known that fallible men rather than infallible and impersonal abstract principles were dictating decisions which other men had to obey, then all respect for law-and-order would vanish, and revolution or anarchy or both would ensue. But in this argument – a typical magician’s argument in its conjuring up of frightful imaginary hobgoblins – is displayed a strange and contemptuous mistrust of the civilized tendencies of the nation. It implies that the whole structure of our society would automatically go to pieces if it were put on a practical rather than a mystical basis – an unwarranted assumption at best. Moreover, in this argument lies the crux of the whole fraud of The Law. For the average man’s respect, such as it is, for our present system of Law, and his consequent willingness to let his life be run in mysterious fashion by the 114
lawyers, are indeed founded on the carefully nurtured legend that legal principles are just about infallible and that they produce, in the judges’ hands, something very close to certain justice. Which – to sum it all up in four words – they aren’t and don’t. It is a blind respect, born not of understanding but of fear. And the fear is built on ignorance. If only the average man could be led to see and know the cold truth about the lawyers and their Law. With the ignorance would go the fear. With the fear would go the respect. Then indeed – and doubtless in orderly fashion too – it would be: -- Woe unto you, lawyers! 115
Page 1 and 2:
WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS! FRED RODELL
Page 3 and 4:
Preface No lawyer will like this bo
Page 5 and 6:
good and which are bad, which are a
Page 7 and 8:
average man can find out what is go
Page 9 and 10:
matters-of-factness, once they have
Page 11 and 12:
was suddenly thrown out of court on
Page 13 and 14:
or problem. Of course the truths ar
Page 15 and 16:
Supreme Court might do with part of
Page 17 and 18:
Law to a specific dispute. Whereas
Page 19 and 20:
CHAPTER III THE WAY IT WORKS “…
Page 21 and 22:
involving an Implied Rejection of t
Page 23 and 24:
question of whether there was or wa
Page 25 and 26:
Consideration. It will also, inevit
Page 27 and 28:
though, in any case, any abstract l
Page 29 and 30:
get into a fight over the terms. Or
Page 31 and 32:
Not at all, said the Supreme Court,
Page 33 and 34:
much more cautious when it came to
Page 35 and 36:
should be slow to construe the clau
Page 37 and 38:
practically all Constitutional Law,
Page 39 and 40:
federal government the power to col
Page 41 and 42:
But the Supreme Court, as might be
Page 43 and 44:
Thus it can happen - and has often
Page 45 and 46:
productive investments a tax amount
Page 47 and 48:
declaration the trustee undertakes
Page 49 and 50:
the statute. The opinon accepted an
Page 51 and 52:
(Judges and others have from time t
Page 53 and 54:
property tax. And indeed the Court
Page 55 and 56:
Thus, the reasoning of the Court in
Page 57 and 58:
“jurisdiction” to tax involves
Page 59 and 60:
CHAPTER VI THE LAW AND THE LADY “
Page 61 and 62:
The lady’s next two problems are
Page 63 and 64: Finally, after dinner, the question
Page 65 and 66: principles of The Law are phrased i
Page 67 and 68: CHAPTER VII FAIRY TALES AND FACTS
Page 69 and 70: is no such thing as a legal problem
Page 71 and 72: of criminal law. And “Waste not,
Page 73 and 74: and wide-open a choice as if the la
Page 75 and 76: drawn up and phrased by lawyers in
Page 77 and 78: CHAPTER VIII MORE ABOUT LEGAL LANGU
Page 79 and 80: He will just trust his lawyer - or
Page 81 and 82: No wonder, then, that the lawyers c
Page 83 and 84: The kind of lawyer who is never los
Page 85 and 86: “justice” for granted than you
Page 87 and 88: Constitutional Law and Criminal Law
Page 89 and 90: Perhaps all this discussion of the
Page 91 and 92: The “casebook method” of teachi
Page 93 and 94: vast majority of law schools still
Page 95 and 96: and justice which the lawyers claim
Page 97 and 98: arrangements and like almost every
Page 99 and 100: with, that The Law is regularly bou
Page 101 and 102: The Law, toward the side that talks
Page 103 and 104: that she is a villain too, whereas
Page 105 and 106: problem or squabble that may arise.
Page 107 and 108: themselves have often done it with
Page 109 and 110: knowledge to an examination of the
Page 111 and 112: practical problems, be better able
Page 113: the lawyers’ rule; arbitrators ha
show all

WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS!

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?