Legal system

Legal system



USA.. 4




USA.. 13







centuries, the legal profession constituted an exclusive club of white, middle-class
men. Although the last few decades have seen a dramatic increase in female and
ethnic minority entrants, research shows that a successful legal career is far
from being equally open to all. This raises the question whether affirmative
action should be introduced by the legal profession.

positive answer has implications extending beyond legal practice. This is because
the advanced educational qualifications, and the intellectual and other skills
required of entrants, which are thought to guarantee high quality services to
clients, mean that appointing and promoting on merit is regarded as
particularly important in professional and other skilled occupations.

it can be argued that legal academics have a special duty to ensure that those
they purport to admit to law school on merit and prepare for practice do not
later find their career prospects hampered by their social background. In
addition, for those wishing to ensure a more general acceptance of affirmative
action, persuading the legal profession that it is just and practicable is a
useful starting place, since lawyers are better placed than most occupational
groups to secure an end to the current legal prohibition on `strong’1 forms of
affirmative action.

The legal profession is morally and, as far as gender
and race are concerned, legally
obliged not to discriminate in distributing jobs and promotions. Currently the legal profession does so
discriminate. Existing
measures are unlikely to eradicate such discrimination even in the medium term. If appropriately designed and
implemented, quotas and decision-making preferences can reverse patterns of exclusion. Consequently, unless there are strong
countervailing considerations or insurmountable practical problems, they should be
introduced into legal practice.

the rest of this article we will speak about current situation and the existing
problems in the legal profession and legal system in the USA.



legal profession is regulated at state level (and not at federal level) by the
highest court of each state. A US attorney can practise and appear in the
courts of the jurisdiction/state in which he/she was admitted.  Attorneys may
have rights of practice and audience in other States by virtue of rules which
allow for admission pro hace vice. In addition, the rules of a number of State
Bars in the US allow for "Admission on Motion", i.e. admission to
another state without examination in the case of attorneys already qualified in
other US states. The criteria for such admission differ from state to state,
but usually involve minimum periods spent in practice.

interim report, which was presented to the House of Delegates some years ago,
makes recommendations easing the practice of law by US lawyers in states other
than their state of admission. It also eases the position on the temporary
practice of home law in the U.S. by Foreign Lawyers with a proposed amendment
to its Model Rule for the Licensing of Legal Consultants. US State Bars fall
into 2 categories:

1. Unified
State Bars: membership is compulsory in order for an attorney to be able to
practise; membership, therefore, serves the purpose of a practising

2. Non-Unified
State Bars: membership is voluntary and as such, these bars have no regulatory

On a
national level, the profession is represented by the American Bar Association
(ABA). Membership of the ABA is not compulsory, although it does have
approximately 400,000 members. The ABA holds an annual meeting, which is the
largest annual gathering of lawyers in the world, and is attended by
approximately 12,500 international lawyers. The Law Society organises a
programme of events at the ABA’s annual meeting in order to raise awareness of
the solicitors’ profession and to facilitate contacts between English and Welsh
solicitors and American attorneys.

states require a three year American law degree (Juris Doctor) in order to sit
the State Bar examination. Some states recognise equivalent foreign legal
qualifications or admittance to a foreign bar in an English common law
jurisdiction but may require the applicant to take further courses in U.S. law
at an ABA approved law school.

some US States it is possible to practise as a Foreign Legal Consultant under
home title (for instance as a solicitor). As a Foreign Legal Consultant, it is
possible to advise on home country law and international law, but not to appear
in court. The ABA commission on Multijurisdictional Practice referred to above
has recently strongly encouraged those US States without a foreign Legal Consultants
regime to introduce one.

more type of regulation of the legal profession is self-regulation. Often
self-regulation is seen as arising from the social institution of trust: a
social contract between society and the profession mitigates the moral hazard
problem arising from the information asymmetry. However, they recognize that
safeguards are required, particularly to ensure that the profession does not
operate as a cartel. They also feel that the various professions will act as
watchdogs on each other.

may reduce the cost of the regulator acquiring information and makes
adjustments to regulations easier. These benefits need to be compared to the
potential efficiency losses due to the potential for cartel-like behavior. Even
where regulation by a professional body is deemed an appropriate solution it has
been argued that the public interest would be protected best by having a number
of professional bodies in competition with each other.

may not be the only solution to the information asymmetry problem. Independent
rating agencies have been suggested as a solution or the use of repeat
purchasers to perform the agency function on behalf of infrequent purchasers. Competition
can also generate its own quality signals.

current state of the discussion in the conceptual literature is such that although
some authors recognize the potential problem arising from the asymmetry of
information between client and professional, considerable skepticism remains on
whether traditional self-regulation is a solution to the problem or a source of
even greater welfare loss.

have identified a number of instruments typically used by self-regulators of
the legal profession which may work against the public interest:

restrictions on

(ii) restrictions
on advertising and other means of promoting a competitive process within the

restrictions on
fee competition;

restrictions on organizational

A separate
although connected literature has developed on restrictions on the nature of
fee contracts between lawyers and clients.


critics accuse lawyers of making legal services an expensive luxury, and they
challenged lawyers to re-think the way their services are provided and priced.
In particular, there is an idea to stop billing by the hour and start charging
by the case. Another initiative is that there is a need for ceilings, instead
of an open-sky practice.

of lawyers’ fees is almost as old as the profession itself and the present
situation is no worse than before. But public tolerance has changed. Imagine if
airlines charged on the same basis as lawyers: an hourly fee, with no
guarantees of any limit and the price escalating as delays, bad weather and
mechanical failures occurred.

What is to be done? Can the profession set its own house in
order? The problem is not so much high fees in themselves; there’s nothing
wrong with charging a rich tariff to those who can afford it. After all, it is
said, lawyers are selling a valuable commodity and are entitled to expect
top-dollar remuneration.

But lawyers, unlike bankers, are not just another sector of
the business world. They have sway over a legal system supposedly committed to
social justice. And it is one of that system’s virtues that justice is not for
sale to the highest bidder. As long as lawyers are beyond the pocket of most
citizens, it means social injustice.

Sadly, the legal profession too easily mistakes its own
interests for those of the public. Allowing paralegals and others to offer more
legal services might be a good start. A more practical, effective solution
would be to let lawyers retain their monopoly, but only on the condition that
they truly serve the public. This means that there must be more citizens and
clients involved in running the profession, that lawyers must be answerable to
someone other than themselves, that they pay for their monopolistic privilege
by contributing a share of their fees to funding legal services for poorer
litigants, and that fees are regulated for price as well as quality.

As long as access to justice depends on access to lawyers,
society must oblige the legal profession to meet its public responsibilities –
the leading one being that legal services must be genuinely available to all.

It is evident that the legal profession enjoys a special
status because those who practice law and those who make the law are often the
same people, The legal business has been turned into some kind of mystical
hocus pocus over the years, and has been purposely made obscure, complicated,
and difficult to understand, in order to force the public to consult lawyers.
Entry into the profession has also been made more difficult than necessary so
that there won’t be too many people competing for the work.

The law belongs to the people is not a trade secret of
lawyers and judges. The courts exist for the sole purpose of serving the people
and for no other reason. They work for people. They do not rule them. But now lawyers
become judges and judges are lawyers. They take care of themselves. Judges in
America are above the law. Who’s going to convict a judge? Another judge? Not
hardly! Judges have immunity and generally can’t be sued. They can get away
with anything and they know it. Therefore if they decide to break the law or
break the rules of court, they just do it. No one is there to stop them.

As with any other profession there is a possibility that
there will be a few solicitors willing to turn a blind eye to suspicious
activities where they will personally benefit, be it by additional fee income
or an increased client base. But, this would not be the case for the vast
majority of solicitors. And Law Society itself cannot dissolve the problem of
“dirty hands”.

The system is supposed to be built on the idea of checks and
balances where each branch of government has it’s finger on the other two
branches, so if one branch gets out of line the other two reel them back in.
However, the judiciary is self regulating and only two of the three branches of
government are part of the balance of power. Other than impeachment, the other
branches have no control over the judiciary.

Judges are people’s servants, not rulers. And this concept
is supported in the Rules of the Supreme Court which states as follows:
"The legal profession’s relative autonomy carries with it special
responsibilities of self government. The profession has a responsibility to
assure that its regulations are conceived in the public interest and not in
furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar."[1]

We must always remember that the name says it all. When they
cry like a stuck pig about what a great burden it will be on the legal
community to have ethics imposed on judges and lawyers, we must never forget
that the rights of the public take precedents over the profits of attorneys. The
courts are not here to suck the wealth from society and give it to lawyers.

Having mentioned negative sides of the profession, we must
admit positive ones. The Constitution establishes the fundamental right of
access to the judicial system. The courts, as guardians of every person’s
individual rights, have a special responsibility to protect and enforce the
right of equal access to the judicial system. If the courts have this special
responsibility but no judicial police force to enforce their rulings, why is
there general compliance? Two important reasons stand out: (1) public trust and
confidence in the system overall, and (2) a strong commitment by the organized
bar to work with the judiciary to establish and demand compliance of judicial

The organized bar has long recognized that it must speak out
for the judiciary when it cannot speak out for itself. This is especially true
during ongoing litigations, for example, when the press criticizes a judge’s
ruling, and because of the confidentiality of an ongoing case, the judge cannot
explain his or her actions personally. The press may react by questioning not
only the actions of the judge but his or her apparent unwillingness to respond.
The organized bar is also in a position to help the public better understand
the proceedings and the reasoning behind judges’ rulings in an effort to
inspire public confidence and generate thoughtful public debate.

The bar also works hard to provide trained advocates or
counsel in civil matters. Though the right to counsel has been established in
criminal cases, it is not guaranteed in civil matters.

An eminent writer has said: "It requires two workmen to
make a lawyer, the Almighty and the man himself. The legal mind is the
workmanship of God, and no power beneath His can create it. Not possessing it,
no one ever became a successful lawyer; with it, no one ever failed if he
earnestly tried." So we can see that such a gift is worth of paying money
for it.


The Constitution of the United States is to woman as an
Emancipation Proclamation, in that it erects no barriers, imposes no
limitations, sanctions no discriminations on account of sex. Tacitly implying
the perfect equality of man and woman as citizens, alike entitled to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness, its very silence concerning the status of
woman is an eloquent pleading in her behalf.

Woman has ever been one of the knottiest points of the law.
At first, jurists thought to evade the issue by attempting to reduce woman to a
ghostly nonentity; but, like Banquo’s ghost, she would not "down" at
the command of her Macbeth. Next she was concealed beneath the garb of legal
fictions, and under the guise of vested rights smuggled through the departments
of the blind goddess.

One link after another in the myriad chains which fettered
her freedom and independence has been broken, until she is now not only recognized
in legal procedure, but admitted into the very halls of justice, as an officer
of the court, and permitted to participate in its proceedings. She may not only
advocate her own rights, but may plead the rights of others. She has left in
the rear her former colleagues–infants, idiots and the insane–and almost
overtaken her rivals of the fifteenth amendment.

Such has been the breaking of dawn to woman, after her long
civil night. The present century recognizes that the sphere of women is no
longer a mooted question. Merit has no sex; and the meritorious lawyer, man or
woman, who deserves success, who can both work and wait to win, is sure to
achieve both recognition and reward.

Of the three so-called "learned professions" which
are necessities of civilization, the legal profession has been perhaps the most
reluctant to swing open its portals to admit in fellowship the former
"pariahs" of legal procedure: nevertheless these majestic gates have
in hundreds of cases responded to the reiterated taps of a woman’s hand. The
proportion of women engaged in the law is less than in the other professions
is, in a measure, due to the peculiar requirements of the law. Woman may be the
weakest in this profession, but in it she lifts with the longest lever the
social and legal status of her sex.

Also it is no trifling education that is needed for
successful competition in this profession. The ramifications of the law are
infinite, and the successful lawyer must be versed in all subjects. The law is
not a mere conglomeration of decisions and statutes; otherwise "Pretty
Poll" might pose as an able advocate. A mind unadapted to investigation,
unable to see the reasons for legal decisions, is as unreliable at the bar as
is a color-blind person in the employ of a signal corps. The woman lawyer who
demands an indemnity against failure must offer as collateral security not only
the ordinary school education, but also a knowledge of the world and an
acquaintance with that most abstruse of all philosophies–human nature. She must
needs cultivate all the common sense and tact with which nature has endowed
her, that she may adjust herself to all conditions. She must possess courage to
assert her position and maintain her place in the presence of braggadocio and
aggressiveness, with patience, firmness, order and absolute good nature; a
combativeness which fears no Rubicon; a retentiveness of memory which
classifies and keeps on file minutest details; a self-reliance which is the sin
qua non of success; a tenacity of purpose and stubbornness of perseverance
which gains ground, not by leaps, but by closely contested hair breadths; a
fertility of resource which can meet the "variety and
instantaneousness" of all occasions; an originality and clearness of
intellect like that of Portia, prompt to recognize the value of a single drop
of blood; a critical acumen to understand and discriminate between the subtle
technicalities of law and an aptness to judge rightly of the interpretation of

While America’s sons sit at the feet of this divine Law, let
not the daughters be unmindful of the peculiar position which they occupy. Woman
has both felt the "power" and participates in the "care" of
that law; therefore, her homage is due, and her voice needed with that of man
to complete the harmony of the world.



In a democratic society where the governed relinquish a
portion of their autonomy, the legal system is the guardian against abuses by
those in positions of power. Citizens agree to limitations on their freedom in
exchange for peaceful coexistence, and they expect that when conflicts between
citizens or between the state and citizens arise, there is a place that is
independent from undue influence, that is trustworthy, and that has authority
over all the parties to solve the disputes peacefully. The courts in any
democratic system are that place of refuge. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice
William Howard Taft stated in 1926 that "the real practical blessing of
our Bill of Rights is in its provision for fixed procedure securing a fair
hearing by independent courts to each individual."

A fundamental value in the American system of justice is
that the stability of the society depends upon the ability of the people to
readily obtain access to the courts, because the court system is the mechanism
recognized and accepted by all to peacefully resolve disputes. Denying access
to the courts forces dispute resolution into other arenas and results in
vigilantism and violence.

The judicial systems of the United States are structured to
ensure access to the courts and equal justice under law for all citizens. The
U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of all 50 states contain specific
articles on the judicial branch. The judicial systems of the United States are
separate, coequal branches of government that maintain autonomy through their
own structures, authorities, and rules. The principle of judicial independence,
reflected in the federal and state constitutions and in American legal and
political history, allows judges to make decisions based on the law and the
facts of each case, rather than on popular opinion or political considerations.

The judicial systems of the United States include the
federal courts and separate court systems for all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and five territories. These different court systems handle
approximately 100 million cases per year, with the vast majority being heard in
state courts. At the federal level, approximately 2,200 judges serve across the
United States in the following capacities: justices of the Supreme Court,
judges of the courts of appeals, judges of the district courts, bankruptcy
judges, and magistrate judges. At the state level, approximately 31,000 judges
serve on the bench, from the highest court down to local courts of limited

Each state and territory has the authority to establish and
operate its own court system. The structure of state court systems varies from
state to state. Some states have "unified," or simplified, systems of
only two or three levels, while others have multiple levels of court for
different types of cases. Judges are selected by a variety of different methods
in the states, including appointment by governors, popular election, and
selection by the legislature. Terms of office for state judges range from four
years to lifetime tenure.

When discussing the idea of access to the courts, mere
access in the theoretical or legal sense is not enough; rather, it is the
results that flow from the decisions made by the courts that give it meaning.
For example, the value of "access" is evident when the courts decide
that no one, especially those in positions of power, is above the law, or when
access requires the right to counsel in cases where one’s liberty is in

Perhaps the importance of open access to the courts is best
recognized in the criminal justice sector in cases involving the right to
counsel. In the United States it has been established that, at least in
criminal matters involving the loss of liberty, a person cannot be considered
to have adequate access to justice unless the person is provided with legal

An impartial, independent judiciary is the guardian of
individual rights in a democratic society. In order for citizens to have faith
in their court system, all people must have access to the courts when

Real and meaningful access to the courts is fundamental to
the health and vitality of any democracy. It is the shield used by citizens to
protect themselves against tyranny, abuses, and simple errors in judgment.
Access to the courts is the lifeblood of the system because from it flow all
other rights. It helps preserve order when conflict arises and keeps citizens
actively participating in the proper use of their collective power.


The American system of justice long has guaranteed citizens the right to
have their legal disputes heard and resolved by an impartial judge or jury. The
dispute resolution system now firmly established in the United States is an
adversarial one—that is, the parties to a lawsuit take opposing sides when they
appear before the neutral finder of fact. Usually vigorously represented by
lawyers, the litigants—the parties to a lawsuit—present their evidence to the
judge or jury for a determination of liability or guilt. Traditionally it has
been thought that such an approach to the resolution of legal disputes is
the most effective way for the judge or jury to arrive at the truth and to
reach a fair finding.

recent years, the use of alternative dispute resolution, including mediation
and arbitration, has become increasingly popular and accepted as a means for
parties to resolve their legal disputes.

United States has one integral court system divided into two components. One
set of courts exists at the federal government level and another set of courts
is set up in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. While such a
system may seem duplicative, the courts have different responsibilities, and
access to the two court systems provides citizens with the greatest potential
to have their legal disputes resolved quickly and justly.

federal judiciary, created under the authority of Article III of the U.S.
Constitution, has jurisdiction over “cases or controversies” arising from
federal questions and “diversity of citizenship” jurisdiction. In general, that
means that federal courts decide cases involving the U.S. government, the U.S.
Constitution, acts of Congress or treaties, or controversies between the states
or between the U.S. and a foreign government. They also hear disputes between
citizens of different states.

and state courts have concurrent—or co-existent—jurisdiction over certain
matters, such as crimes involving drugs, which means litigants can choose
whether to litigate their dispute in federal or state court. Some legal
matters, however, can be litigated only in either federal or state court.
Bankruptcies and admiralty cases, for example, are handled exclusively in the
federal courts.

Viewed as a pyramid, the federal court system has
as its top level the U.S. Supreme Court. On the next level are 13 U.S. Courts
of Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Armed Forces. On the next level are 94 U.S. district courts and such
specialized courts as the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the U.S. Tax Court, the
U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals and the U.S. Court of International Trade.

The Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in
the country and the court of last resort for appeals from cases heard in the
other federal and state courts. The Supreme Court has what is known as both
original and appellate jurisdiction. Its original jurisdiction—which means no
other court hears the case before it comes to the Supreme Court—is over
disputes between two or more states and in cases where ambassadors or public
ministers are parties to a suit. Its appellate jurisdiction—which
means its authority to review cases that already have been decided by a lower
court—permits the Court to hear appeals from federal circuit courts and from
state courts of last resort.

Under authority granted it by Congress, the Supreme
Court determines its own caseload. The Court decides about
100 or fewer of some 5,000 or more cases that it is asked to review each year.
It usually accepts only those cases that involve important interpretations of
the Constitution, acts of legislative bodies and treaties. Most of its
decisions in those cases are announced in published opinions.

The Court usually disposes of the other
cases that it has been asked to consider by issuing a short decision rejecting
the matter either because the subject matter is not proper or the case is not
sufficiently important to justify review by the Court. In these cases, the
decision of the last court that considered the matter is the final judgment.

When the Supreme Court decides to hear
a case, the parties are required to file written briefs and the Court generally
hears oral argument. Justices sit en banc for oral arguments, which means they
all sit together in open court.

Surprisingly, there are no constitutional or statutory
qualifications for judges nominated to serve on any federal court—from the U.S.
Supreme Court to federal district courts. Judges don’t have to pass any
examination or meet any age requirement, nor are they required to have been
born in the U.S. or be legal residents. They don’t even have to have a law

Those who are nominated and confirmed to the federal bench,
however, typically are well-regarded private or government attorneys, state
court judges, magistrate judges or bankruptcy judges, or law professors.

court in the federal system has a chief judge who, in addition to hearing
cases, assumes administrative duties relating to the operation of the court.
The judge who has served on the court the longest and who is under 65 years of
age is designated chief judge. Chief district and courts of appeals judges may
serve for a maximum of seven years. They may not serve as chief judge beyond
the age of 70.

circuit has a judicial council, consisting of the chief judge and an equal
number of court of appeals and district judges. One of the council’s main jobs
is caseload management. They also act on complaints about a judge’s misconduct
or disability.

The Judicial Conference of the United States is the chief
policymaking body for the federal courts. The Chief Justice of the United
States is the presiding officer of the Judicial Conference. Twenty-six other
judges serve on the Judicial Conference—the chief judge of each of the federal
circuits, one district judge from each of the 12 regional circuits, and the
chief judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade. The conference meets
semiannually for two-day sessions. Besides establishing policy, the Judicial
Conference also identifies legislative requirements, recommends revisions to
the federal rules of practice and procedure, and has other administrative

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts manages
administration of the federal judicial system. Charged with implementing the
policies of the Judicial Conference, it also works in program management and
policy development. It is this office that handles public affairs for the
federal judiciary.

The vast majority of legal disputes in the U.S. are
handled at the state court level. State courts have the power to decide nearly
every type of case, subject only to the limits of the U.S. Constitution, their
own state constitutions and statutes. Most of state court precedent comes from
common law, a legal system that originated in England and depends upon the
articulation and acceptance of legal principles in judicial decisions over a long
period of time.

State and local courts are the judicial
forums with which citizens are most likely to have contact. Such courts are
found in nearly every city and many towns in the country. They handle criminal
matters, legal business concerning probate of estates, juvenile, traffic and
family matters, real estate and business contracts, and personal injury claims. In
many states, special courts are set up to deal exclusively with such subjects
as probate, juvenile, and domestic relations. And some “small claims” or “pro
se” courts specifically are set up to hear claims under a certain dollar

Most states require that judges, except for judges
of the peace, be lawyers admitted to practice for a certain number of years,
and have residency and state citizenship requirements.


recent patterns of American violations of international law are ultimately
based in the corruption of the USA domestic legal system. Phony USA courts are
very dangerous even for travelers and visitors to America, who can easily wind
up among the USA’s more than 2 million prisoners, or lose all their family’s
possessions to corrupt American lawyers.

reality is that the United States of America, which proclaims itself the
"land of freedom", has the most dishonest, dangerous and crooked
legal system of any developed nation. Legal corruption is covering America like
a blanket.

corruption of the USA legal system is well-known, but also well-hidden, by the
news services of America’s corporate-owned media. The US media companies are
afraid both of reprisal, and of the social revolution that would come from
exposing the truth. Here is what the US media companies know, but are afraid to
tell you about American "justice".

has the largest prison gulag in the entire world — yes, right there in the USA,
the self-proclaimed "land of freedom". The starting point for
understanding anything about the USA, is to digest the fact that just this one
country, the United States of America, has twenty-five percent of all of the
prisoners in the entire world.

than 2 million prisoners — more than 1 out of every 150 people in America — are
behind bars in the American gulag. This is now the world’s biggest system of
what are effectively concentration camps, though most of these prisoners are
behind masonry walls and inside prison buildings. For minorities, the
statistics are even more brutal. For example, the USA is now imprisoning about
1 out of every 36 people in its black population. American "justice"
is especially focused on jailing young black males.

amazingly, Americans and the American government, continually criticize the
legal systems and so-called "political" legal proceedings in other
countries such as China, Russia, and even Belgium among many other places. Yet,
for example, the proportion of prisoners is 30 times higher in the USA than in
China, even though China is a country regularly criticized and denounced by the
USA government.

Constitution and Bill of Rights are nearly dead, not just because the judges
will no longer enforce them, but even more because America’s lawyers will not
even fight for them. The two American "political parties" are not
fighting for them, either, and America’s news media are also very passive. If
you look at America in depth, you can see there has been a widespread moral
collapse in America’s legal and political structures. This means that America’s
legal system has become largely a tool of government terror, and of bribery for
the rich and the powerful. The average person is just fodder for the
meat-grinder of America’s courts.

some very special aspects about the way American lawyers are controlled by
American judges, which is central to why America’s legal corruption is so much
worse than any other advanced nation. Even if you are paying an American lawyer
huge amounts of money, he or she doesn’t really work for you, and in fact may
sell you down the river to the jailhouse.

lawyers are directly under the thumb of the judges and the government, and must
submit to the culture of bribery and perversion of justice, or else face
terrifying revenge. Lawyers, just like you, can be instantly jailed by an
American judge on flimsy pretexts, and American lawyers can be quickly stripped
of their right to practice law, and personally and financially destroyed, if
they dare to criticize legal corruption. Lawyers who try to fight the system
can find themselves not only dis-barred, but also criminally charged and
jailed, and no other lawyer will help them. It is a horribly crooked system in

the past century, the American lawyers lost the right to regulate themselves,
and instead fell under the power of the judges. So American lawyers are afraid
to do things in court, that the judges don’t want them to do. America’s army of
nearly 1 million lawyers, is almost totally under the control of a few thousand
judges, with their entrenched culture of bribery and fraud and miscarriage of

USA lawyers don’t like this, but they are helpless and can’t fight it. Most
lawyers in America have, to one degree or another, signed up with the devil, to
do things the way the devil wants them done.

means that any time you hire an American lawyer, he already is in a conflict of
interest. He has to make the judge happy first. And if the judge wants to make
the government happy, or make somebody else happy who is paying a big bribe,
then guess what? You are destroyed. It doesn’t matter what you paid the lawyer.
He works for the judge, first and foremost.

So a
totally unique factor in USA legal corruption is the amazingly dishonest
profession of American lawyers, these lawyers who "play the game"
with America’s judges and politicians and police. It is a savage culture of
legal fraud, where lawyers work with judges to rob and terrify people,
especially minorities, but also foreigners, and above all those who dare to
question the system.

accused of serious crimes have the "right" to a lawyer, but this may
mean only a crooked lawyer who is stage-managing the victim to help the
government and prosecutors. If the lawyer does not help the government, he can
be put out of work and not "assigned" to any more cases, or treated
badly the next time he is in a courtroom. This legal fraud is the core of the
danger to those who visit America. A lawyer, who is "representing"
you in the USA, whether the government is paying him, or even if you are paying
him yourself, may just be a stooge who is helping the prosecutors to put you in

American court cases never go to trial, never see a jury; it is the job of the
victim’s lawyer to "sell the deal" that the judge has decided will
happen, or else. This is how people accept a "plea bargain" so they
accept going to jail for 3 years even though they are innocent, instead of
going to trial before a jury.

of the corruption of lawyers under the thumb of the judges, there’s a very fake
and phony aspect of court proceedings in America. They are really fake
"show trials" in many cases, sometimes very obviously so, where both
purported "sides" of lawyers are actually working together for the
government, or for the big corporation or rich person that is bribing the

will also find, in the American legal system, that you essentially have no
recourse whatsoever against wrongdoing by your own lawyer. A lawyer can sell
you out, betray you, steal your money, engage in malpractice, help out the
other side, hide the evidence that proved you were right, or commit felony
crime against you, and there is nothing you can do about it, so long as the
lawyer made the judge happy, and the judge got his cut of any money the lawyer
stole from you.

is a huge amount of bribery in America, perhaps even more than in the courts of
any other country in the world. Even some American ex-judges have admitted the
near-universality of bribery there. Nearly all bribes are given to the judges
by lawyers; this is considered the safe way to bribe a judge. Bribery is rarely
spoken about, just understood. Rich people pay huge amounts of money to law
firms with connections, the lawyers walk around with a certain amount of cash
in their jacket, and they pass it to the judges in their quiet moments
together. It is mostly all cash of course. Sometimes the bribery is blatantly
obvious, because of the other crimes that lawyers and judges commit in broad
daylight together. In the courtrooms you can see the judges being extremely
friendly to their rich lawyer friends who pay big bribes.

trials are actually very rare in America, unlike what you see in the movies. Most
cases are settled through some deal or extortion or intimidation, before there
is an actual trial. If there is a jury trial, they tend to stack the jury with
un-educated idiots who will tend to believe whatever lies they are told by the
judge and the government. If you are trying to fight a rich person in court,
the judge might let the fancy lawyers for the rich person say anything they
want, while he tells you to shut up as soon as you start talking. The judges
have a thousand ways to rig a legal proceeding, to benefit rich people or the

there are appeals courts, but these are just more judges, who are often friends
with the lower court judge who originally sold you out. The appeals judges tend
to go along with the lower court judge, unless you have suddenly acquired some
politically powerful backing on your side.

love to talk about "taking it all the way to the Supreme Court!", but
this is a nearly empty hope. The U.S. Supreme Court simply refuses to consider
most cases that are presented to it.

the USA President talks about "advancing the cause of freedom", he
basically means freedom for big corporations to do business. He’s not really
talking about actual personal freedom for real people. But he grins when he
talks about "freedom" because it’s a good word of salesmanship,
people hear him and some of them can be duped into believing that America cares
about personal or political freedom.

movies and American television are a major element of political myth-making.
Around the world, people derive an image of America, and its legal system, from
these fictional creations on film. America’s propaganda about having "the
greatest legal system in the world" is one of those phony stories that
Hollywood is helping to sell.

It is
also a myth sustained by the few trials about which there is a lot of
publicity, like with the celebrity trials of Martha Stewart or Michael Jackson.
Judges behave very differently when the cameras are rolling, or the media is
reporting everything that goes on, and millions of dollars are being spent on
lawyers. But in the 98 percent of court activity that does not have big media
coverage, the judges of America provide a bizarre sideshow of horror.

the Hollywood version, the judges in American courts are like kind uncles,
smiling and being wise and calmly dispensing justice. But in reality, American
judges sometimes scream at people like disturbed perverts, and show off their
bribed corruption right there in the courtroom. Sometimes judges engage in
flagrant extortion, where you have to agree to pay money to the judge’s lawyer
friends as the price to stay out of jail. It is really that bad. You can find
no end of documented horror about American judges behaving like criminal
lunatics, and it is getting worse all the time.

It is
just getting worse and worse in America’s legal system. For some years now, the
USA judges and lawyers have gotten used to denying people justice, to the great
flow of bribery money, and even to committing felony crimes in broad daylight
and getting away with it. It just keeps on escalating. Though a social
explosion is lurking beneath the surface — with judges starting to get
murdered, and people lighting courthouses ablaze — the people who run America
are letting the current system chug along as it is, justice be damned, and to
hell with the people who seem to have no way to fight back..

can’t go on like this forever, but it may get a lot worse first, despite the
fair internet visibility on documented American legal corruption. One should
note a brave and promising grass-roots attempt at judicial reform in the USA
called, which attempts to place onto American ballots, a referendum for a new
procedure to give citizens a real right of redress against corrupt judges. It
is a wonderful and beautiful idea that deserves success, and will help
transform America if it moves forward.

indeed, does not have the rule of law at all. Instead, it is just the rule of
lawyers, lawyers who crave money and power.


was a time, long ago, in the USA when lawyers were illegal. All persons in
court had to represent themselves and have a decent grasp of the law.

had several effects:

1. It
kept legal action short. You could only keep a case going as long as you could
afford to be gone.

2. It
kept the law simple. When everyone is forced to know the law you don’t end up
with the million page monster that USA current laws are. This is, I think, the
biggest bonus. How can you keep the law when you don’t even know the law? It
became a big problem currently in the USA, and corrupted or greed lawyers and
judges make money on it.

at the same time if you
kill the lawyers then the criminalities will be in an even better place than
before. One problem with the current legal system is that it’s believed that
two lawyers, both fighting hard for their clients, can after much muckraking
and slander finally uncover the truth and find justice. And I come back to the
same question: what defines justice? How can a lawyer knowingly fight on behalf
of guilty man and demand for his client what is not justice? What defines
justice? Is it money?

one can notice there are a lot of problems in the modern American legal system:
corruption, untruly revenues and often unequal access of citizens to the
judgment. The system is sophisticated and uncontrolled.

all the previous information I can state with very much confidence that
American legal system needs reforms in the area of organization.


1. Acheson, Patricia C., Our Federal
Government, How It Works, Dodd, Mead & Co., New York, 1984.

2. Burke, Thomas F. Lawyers, Lawsuits
and Legal Rights. California, 2002

3. Carp, Robert A., Stidham, Ronald,
Judicial Process in America, Congressional Quarterly Inc., Washington, D.C.,

4. Curran, Christopher (1993), ‘The
American Experience with Self-Regulation in the Medical and Legal Professions’.
Regulation of Professions, Antwerpen, Maklu, 47-87

5. Gillers, Stephen; Simon, Roy D.
Regulation of Lawyers: Statutes and Standards. New York, 2001

6. Hazard, Geoffrey C. Jr.; Rhode,
Deborah L. The Legal Profession: Responsibility And Regulation Westbury, 1994

7. Lee, Katherine J., Courts &
Judges, How They Work, Halt, Inc., 1987.

8. M. Thornton, Dissonance and Distrust
Women in the Legal Profession (1996)

9. Morgan, Thomas D.; Rotunda, Ronald D.
Problems and Materials on Professional Responsibility New York, 1995

11. Vago, Steven Law and Society.
St.Louis, 2000

12. Wasby, Stephen L., The Supreme Court
in the Federal Judicial System, Nelson-Hall Publishers, Chicago, 4th ed. 1996.

[1] from the preamble to Supreme
Court Rule 4

Добавить комментарий

Ваш адрес email не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *