Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

LAWYER COMPETENCY PLUS CLIENT COMPETENCY
Any of us who are extremely competent in matters of the law are often better tacticians than the law firms we employ.
There is a simple reason for it: we have more knowledge of self and opposition than the lawyers do; we know how the opposition can deceive better than the lawyers do; we know the subtleties of our industries better than the lawyers do and therefore the ‘schemes’ that both sides can employ; the constraint on lawyers is greater than plaintiff or defendant; the lawyers have reputations in court and are often known by the judge, so they are more cautious in relation to the judge – though most lawyers are better at defending against this than others.
In my experience, in matters of responsibility and blame (guilt) we are often better than our lawyers. As a matter of court procedure, and knowledge of the legislation, regulation, and prior findings of the court (much of what lawyers do), they are usually far superior. So the combination of client and lawyer competency plays out in court.
I’ve had to resist blurting out that something a judge, opposing counsel, or prosecutor has said that’s profoundly illogical, stupid, or ignorant more times than I can count. And sometimes you wonder how the entire system works at all below the appellate level.
And so, this is one of the best reasons for juries. Juries are surprisingly good at detection of dishonesty and incompetence. And this is why it is always best in business to ‘do the right thing’ because if you explain that to the jury, even if the outcome wasn’t expected, you’ll have an advantage.
The continued deprivation of the people from juries and even from juridical defense, in addition to the ‘privileges’ the court has granted itself through procedure, or via the legislature, combined with the total failure of positive law (divorce, education, involuntary association) is the reason for the decline in public respect for the court, the legislature, and the law.
Citizens can only do the right thing as long as legislatures and judges do. This is why rule of law and only rule of law by the natural law (what we had) is the means of providing the optimum political order of cooperation.

LAWYER COMPETENCY PLUS CLIENT COMPETENCY
Any of us who are extremely competent in matters of the law are often better tacticians than the law firms we employ.
There is a simple reason for it: we have more knowledge of self and opposition than the lawyers do; we know how the opposition can deceive better than the lawyers do; we know the subtleties of our industries better than the lawyers do and therefore the ‘schemes’ that both sides can employ; the constraint on lawyers is greater than plaintiff or defendant; the lawyers have reputations in court and are often known by the judge, so they are more cautious in relation to the judge – though most lawyers are better at defending against this than others.
In my experience, in matters of responsibility and blame (guilt) we are often better than our lawyers. As a matter of court procedure, and knowledge of the legislation, regulation, and prior findings of the court (much of what lawyers do), they are usually far superior. So the combination of client and lawyer competency plays out in court.
I’ve had to resist blurting out that something a judge, opposing counsel, or prosecutor has said that’s profoundly illogical, stupid, or ignorant more times than I can count. And sometimes you wonder how the entire system works at all below the appellate level.
And so, this is one of the best reasons for juries. Juries are surprisingly good at detection of dishonesty and incompetence. And this is why it is always best in business to ‘do the right thing’ because if you explain that to the jury, even if the outcome wasn’t expected, you’ll have an advantage.
The continued deprivation of the people from juries and even from juridical defense, in addition to the ‘privileges’ the court has granted itself through procedure, or via the legislature, combined with the total failure of positive law (divorce, education, involuntary association) is the reason for the decline in public respect for the court, the legislature, and the law.
Citizens can only do the right thing as long as legislatures and judges do. This is why rule of law and only rule of law by the natural law (what we had) is the means of providing the optimum political order of cooperation.

Reply addressees: @tom_steely @DWeiss36 @lawofruby