Good Systems Have Good Roots-November 2021

It is all about the system. Good and bad people come and go but systems endure. That is why the debate of whether an attorney is good or bad should not be the centrally focused question. The sole question is "Why are they even in existence?"

The U.S. Constitution clearly bans any member of any government branch from serving as counsel. This ban is also consistent with the ideals of a Representative Democratic Republic. When the U.S. Constitution was written, the term attorney was only assigned to judicial officers who prosecuted people on behalf of the State/People for alleged criminal acts. It was their job as attorney(prosecutor) to not serve the State/People but rather punish individual(s) who violate its constitutional and statutory laws by injuring other individual(s).

The U.S. Constitution also made it very clear that citizens, if not all individual(s), are only entitled to assistance of counsel, who are not to be members of any government branch, in all cases of criminal prosecutions. This nation's charter also made it very clear that defendants in criminal prosecution cases are only entitled to assistance of counsel and not representation of counsel. This means a defendant would still have the responsibility to present his/her case and provide his/her narrative in a court of law. Finally, that document did not limit counsel to any members of a specific group. It clearly implied that other than an age or state citizenship requirement, anyone who is also not a member of any government branch  should be allowed to provide assistance of counsel to any defendant who is being criminally prosecuted.

This again is also consistent with the ideals of a Representative Democratic Republic. The Founding Fathers simply did not want counsel, who are not members of any government branch, to be involved the resolution of disputes/conflict. They knew this third party involvement would make the civil justice totally standardless, law-defying, subjective, and argumentative due to their constant presence in the judiciary. That is the case now.

The Founding Fathers were wary of  the "Officialdom Of Counsel" dominating all judicial court activities. They knew that if an individual were compelled to present his/her case in a court of law, the amount of manipulation, posturing, one upmanship, personal attacks, subjectivity, and other prejudicial activities would be kept to a minimum. They also knew that if individual(s) were compelled to present his/her case, they would be much more objective, focused, and in adherence to basic and elementary standards due to his/her lack of experience in the judicial courts.

What the President does, even in a Top-Down system of governance, really does not have that much of a direct impact on individual(s). The "Attorney Profession", an unconstitutional private ruling class of people, has instead an enormous influence over the lives of individual(s). Yet Americans and people in other nations are too far gone with this illicit social revolution to advocate its abolition and dissolution.

They have been so indoctrinated that they do not realize that they have been "attornied" to abject submission. Good or bad, a ruling class can never exist if the rights and liberties of individual(s) exist. It is that simple. There never has been, is, or will be something known as benevolent tyranny.

A BAR attorney can only ply his trade in an admiralty/maritime court of law. A constitutional setting, based on the ideals of a Representative Democratic Republic, would not allow its existence. Rather than embracing the current "legal profession" as normal, all Americans must instead reject it as abnormal and abhorrent to the ideals of functional governance.