Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

THE SET OF LEGAL STRATEGIES IN CIVIL COURT

There are at least the following legal strategies in court:

1. Do the right thing. Seek reciprocity. And stay on that message. This is the John Adams strategy for winning cases. Do the right thing, and the jury will generally weigh in your favor. (This is always and everywhere the right strategy)

2. Rely on the law – and that morality aside you relied upon either the text of the law or the spirit of the law to the best of your ability. (This is because the law is somehow an impediment or barrier to reciprocal and moral resolution.)

3. Rely on mutual error by both parties and seek a mutually beneficial (or mutually harmful) solution to the conflict. (This is seeking reciprocity on fault rather than wining by virtue)

4. Rely on proceduralism (and abuse of procedure)- in an attempt to avoid all three of the above. This is ‘clouding the issue’.

5. Rely on on delay, deceive, hyperbole, narrative construction, and undermining in an attempt to avoid all four of the above. (This is obscuring the issue)

I always use the first. In one case I have had to rely on the second. In the one case that was judged by the third, I argued the first knowing that it would result in the third. In other words, the law is not necessarily moral, nor are the laws, nor are the procedures, nor are people.

But a jury will generally, if not always reward the party that tried to do the right thing, and if the judge instructs them otherwise, then you have reason for appeal.

My work on legal reform will repair most of the immorality in law, legislation, regulation and procedure.

I know that the public would prefer I work on moral argument and scientific argument, instead of the content and method of the law – but it is the law that institutionalizes whatever ideas we put forward: whether moral in fact or immoral in fact, regardless of whether it appears or is claimed as moral.