Strictly Constructed Natural Law Jurisprudence.

When you go to law school you do not learn what we teach here: strictly constructed natural law jurisprudence. Most of what you learn is procedure, statute (legislation), and case law (examples). Or “How to work the process”. That’s why P makes sense to you. Because its internally consistent.

Now, once you learn ENOUGH case law, you realize that the court does a pretty good job most of the time. The problem is the lack of jurisprudence (rules of law) in the constitution, and the ‘legislation’ that violates the natural law on top of it.

Most of the ‘bad stuff’ is procedural manipulation somewhere between the police, the prosecution, the court staff.

There are very good lawyers and not so good lawyers. And you can tell when reading the arguments put before the court which one you’re dealing with.

Mostly there are waaaaaaayyyyy too many lawyers. And that’s why I prefer the british two stage system. So that a lawyer(customer service representative) and a barrister(presents to the court) are separated. This allows you to get customer service from a lawyer, but a barrister may refuse your case. This savse the judge and jury from legal clown world. That’s the ONLY thing I really prefer about the british system other than the wigs. I really like the wigs.