Why Do We Allow Ouselves to Be Duped Into Believing That Only Lawyers Can Understand Laws?

Understanding laws and the legal process is not that difficult. It is extremely insulting to be continuously told that only lawyers can be trusted to understand and explain them.

Especially when most law is up for interpretation given whatever the situational context is.

Wrong lawyers are taught tips and tricks your faggot

Because arguing pro se against a lawyer is not easy. I've done this before. They know all kinds of tricks and it's likely that the lawyer and the judge are both freemasons anyway.

The Bar is named after the Temple Bar in the City of London, which was the old Templar Preceptory until that order was disbanded whereupon the Inns of Court was established on those grounds. Lawfags are intrinsic Masonic bullshit

Yup, there's even more than one such temple in the City of London Corporation.

I guess the Temple Bar itself is the threshold between the preceptory ground and not the grounds itself but that's not the point

Non-lawyers are too stupid to learn tips and tricks?

The language of law is codified and written in a way such as to make it difficult to penetrate by plebian wojacks like OP.

>implying they will let people outside the club learn them

The same people who own the lawyers, own the judges, they write the laws. They know every loophole, all the bullshit legalese vocabulary, every trick in the book that they wrote for this entire purpose. If you understand sailor admiralty law then you are a step ahead. Their so-called laws, technically, do not apply to you.

It’s so that people who don’t know the law can be assured they are getting good legal advice from someone who does, and if that advice is bad they can sue the lawyer for the damages the lawyer’s bad advice caused, and get paid by that lawyer’s practice insurance.

If you want to wing it yourself with no recourse for your own stupidity, by all means go ahead.

There's actually a law in my state that requires state law to be written in such a way as to be understandable by average people, and the lowest level of civil courts are designed to operate without lawyers so that petty shit can get sorted out without clogging up real courts.

p. neat

A good place to learn the inner workings o& the legal system is the Erwin Rommel School of Law. Their catch-phrase is “The law is the weapon; the courtroom is the battlefield; the judge is your enemy; and your lawyer is an enemy spy.”

Because most of you retards are walking Dunning-Kruger object lessons, and can't differentiate your impotent, raging emotions from reason and logic. Understanding precedent, procedural history, rules of evidence, etc. is so far beyond most of you, it might as well be magic. You see the working of law through a glass darkly, at best.
>hurr durr lawyers are dum jews durr hurr
You don't assume playing guitar or speaking french are innate abilities accessible to all, without training. Why would the law be any different.
t. lawyer

Criminal law is a racket. Most defendants have “Dump Truck” lawyers who railroad them right into the poorhouse AND into prison!

There was a really cool program on RBN for a while called Jurisdictionary with a lawyer who hand-held the audience through the basics of being able to use the judicial system on their own.

Too bad it didn't stick around for long. Interesting just to get a glimpse of how things work from the inside, just for background knowledge and to figure out how to get orientated.

I learned to play a guitar by picking one up and figuring it out. Of course going back and studying some music theory was insightful. I wouldn't equate that with law.

Kind of like how I learned to speak English without the same kind study you get in law school.

Mike Brown of the Erwin Rommel School of Law is the King.

>supposed lawyer
>ever getting fucked in court, despite evidence
It doesn't matter who you or what you've done, you are the feudal peasant. Guilty first, innocent for a price.

then be a professional guitar player. not good enough? maybe you get some training. of course, if people are going to trust you with their livelihood, they might expect some credentials... thank you for agreeing with me.

Then fire your lawyer or don’t hire one. Nobody forcing you to.

Why is it up for interpretation? Is it written in a foreign language?

One of the problems is that judges don’t rule based upon the plain text of the law. They rule based upon how previous judges have ruled, i.e., Case Law.

Plenty of people make a living playing instruments with no professional training. I'm explicitly disagreeing with you.

I'm a professional programmer and research scientist, self-taught in both fields. Only my boss and people who do their homework know I don't have a PhD.

Tfw you wish you could rake in half the shekels of a shit-tier ambulance chaser

evidence supports factors in an algorithmic decision tree. competing evidence must be weighed and applied to the algorithm. if I had a dollar for every bit of worthless "evidence" a client tried to show me, I wouldn't be taking clients any more...

Why are laws written in such a way in the first place to allow so many loopholes to exist that lawyers can exploit them? Almost like you are creating your own job market and at the same time perverting justice.

Hey everyone it’s that guy who dropped out of high school and calls himself a self-taught full stack developer but struggles with CSS

you studied to learn. you presented some kind of credentials to get and keep your job. if your job was important enough, people would demand a governing body to certify your competence. no one is an innate programmer, so why assume "the school of life" or some other horseshit qualifies you to practice law?

CSS is neat but I hate everything to do with HTTP and try to avoid it as much as possible.

No, you need a lawyer. The difficulty comes not just in reading the text and arguing about it, but in (1) procedure and (2) the history of judicial rulings on the text. Sad as it may be, judges have carved out many "muh feels" exceptions to law and many laws are abrogated in whole or in part by other laws primarily concerned with largely unrelated subject matter.

IF you do not have a lawyer to consult on the nuances of other laws that interfere with the plain law that concerns your conduct or on the rules of procedure for the court you're litigating before, you can easily make unforced errors that result in you losing a case in which you were in the right.

What is your actual point? Did you miss the part where I indicated that being a lawyer is fundamentally different from the rest of your examples?

loopholes are pretty uncommon in my experience. often, the actual facts of a case differ greatly from the public or even one side's perception. it is always more complicated once you're in the weeds.

I mean a price in terms of you're relinquishment from the courts grasp, ie the cost of your freedom. It's a for-profit business.

go take the bar exam, let us know how it turns out.

loopholes are easily fixable and genuine loopholes are extremely rare, case law is the giant shambling zombie that fucks up politics for everyone

>missing OP's point this hard

Fair procedural hurdles that help prevent innocent people from being unjustly railroaded are the common amerimutt’s “loopholes”

If I was not behind the bar
Something else I'd like to be.
If I was not behind the bar
An engine driver, me!
With a chugga chug chug and a chugga chug chug
I'd roll on down the track.
With a chugga chug chug and a chugga chug chug
I'd leave and not look back.

>Because arguing pro se against a lawyer is not easy. I've done this before.

Yes it is. . as long as you don't argue law.

I understand the laws, but have no idea how to operate within the courts, nor can I afford to do so. If I did/could, I'd be suing everyone.

>Understanding laws and the legal process is not that difficult.

Yes it is. You have to know how to use a law library and find case law. Just reading the statue itself does very little for you. You have to know how it's been applied since it was written.

Basic lawsuit procedure is easy and the rules for your jurisdiction are probably readily available for free online. Bringing a real case that doesn’t get tossed immediately, and actually winning it are where you’ll find yourself badly lacking.

Just today, a convicted paedophile (Michael McFadden) got released from a 300 year meme sentence due to a technicality because his trial was delayed beyond statutory requirements. Didn't have to register as a sex offender as well due to the date of his conviction. How is this justice? So many cases like this in Australia as well criminals getting off on bullshit technicalities like dates being slightly off on trials.

>Understanding precedent, procedural history, rules of evidence, etc. is so far beyond most of you, it might as well be magic.


Bullshit. anyone with a 100 IQ could understand that gibberish. It's the separation from reason from morality that people have a problem with. It takes some serious brainwashing in addition to severe personal defects to understand that right and wrong and the law are two different things and still think it's right to live under the rule of law.

Depends on the area. Generally it isn’t that difficult with the caveat that most people are too stupid to understand the simplest parts of their day, let alone case law, and have no idea how idiotic they appear to a court when representing themselves, and how easily they lose strong cases simply because they are too stupid to make any worthwhile arguments.

Just knowing that much is very useful, though. The one time I did hire a lawyer, I had to just about pull teeth to get him to walk me through the game tree of processes and possibilities so I could adequately plan ahead.

It suggested to me that most clients just treat layers as magicians or something, and have little interest in where life takes them.

>that logo
Who wore it better?

Then elect people who will make the police and justice system work harder so that people don’t get off on “technicalities” which actually exist to protect innocent people at the cost of guilty people occasionally getting away with crimes

>then be a professional guitar player. not good enough?

a huge percentage of professional guitar players never had any training. Hendrix? Stevie Ray? Yngwie Malmsteen? All self taught.

The majority of lawyers will be unnecessary soon.
'Lawyer Robots' like donotpay coupled with clarification of legalese like this .

that usually happens because the prosection is a) lazy, b) stupid, c) arrogant or d) all 3. It isnt the judge's job to wipe baby's ass. failure to convict is 100% prosecutorial fault. most places, the head prosecutor is elected. if the results are shit, vote him out.
second, there have to be timeframes. protects from indefinite detention, especially if bail isn't available.
third, that rarely happens "with prejudice", meaning, they can start the process over again and get it right next time.

yes, because morality is consistent, universal and equally understood by all. got it.

Members of the bar receive the term of nobility esquire, which upon acceptance renounces U.S citizenship....The more you know

when it comes right down to it, if you tried to represent yourself, you would not only have to have the knowledge of a lawyer, you'd have to have the knowledge and skill of the greatest lawyer to ever live just to overcome how offended the judge is by a client in his court thinking they are competent enough to practice law in his courtroom without a license and education.

Sometimes it's the deliberate result of lobbyist lawyers who draft laws on behalf of their industry clients and in consultation with the experts they employ to best advantage the industry client.

When this happens, politicians often have a full-time job fundraising and do not have personal knowledge of the subject matter or industry or access to others with said knowledge who do not also have a vested interest in lying to them. Thus, ignorance leads to deference to bad actors on the premise that it takes an industry insider to inform legislation/ regulation on the industry - government salaries are excessive for make-work jobs and underwhelming for professionals, exacerbating the issue.

Other times, text is open to interpretation because the language is vague - and this can be deliberate for good reasons, bad reasons, or political necessity. Bad reasons may be to try sneaking something in under others' noses or because you believe that another branch of government is ready and willing to stretch the law well beyond what the legislature would have been willing to pass. Good reasons might be recognition of limited knowledge of a scientific subject matter that requires more research - providing language that sets out "our values" to guide expedient judgment once the data is in before there's a chance for polarization to set in based on facts on the ground. In addition, there may be limited information and a need for courts to figure it out as they go along. Political necessity might be when you haggle most of a law through but cannot agree on one part and so you punt - you put vague language that both sides can agree on and set the question aside for another day - often an unfortunate necessity.

shush you. next you'll point out that most legislators are lawyers!

>3 examples
>huge percentage
gr8 b8 m8.

Operating in the courts is easy. Just read the rules. There are Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Criminal Procedure. And each court has its own Court Rules.

omg let me off this ride. did you read that on your sovereign citizen facebook group. holy shit

All I’m saying is that most self-reps are a mixed bag for a lawyer. On the one hand it’s an easy win because they tend to be pompous, narcissistic idiots whose incompetence is laid bare in a courtroom. On the other hand the incompetence tends to make court procedure take forever which is painful for everyone. Sort of like a really great 30 second gangbang clip being preceded by a two hour interview with the porn stars that you have to sit through to get to the action.

Are you seriously suggesting that most guitar players outside of studio musicians went to school to be professional guitar players? It was a dumb counterexample. Deal with it.

Lawyers are so defensive when you catch them on something lol

>yes, because morality is consistent, universal and equally understood by all.


Oh, but law is. Got it. . .why is there a judge in the 9th that thinks he has more right to enforce executive orders than the executive, btw?

everything is masonic.
the shit you wear on your head in HS and univeristy when you graduate aswell as the tassel turning is masonic.

paying tuition? intuition? this is the shit they do to fuck with you.

Bringing and winning isn't that hard if you do the research. Battling the opposing lawyer and the chummy long term economically mutually beneficial relationships - you can never overcome that disadvantage

No doubt. Kind of like no professional auto mechanic likes it when somebody brings in the car they fucked royally trying to DIY with their own parts.

>omg let me off this ride.

not gonna happen buddy. you're on pol for life and you know it

I hope one day all those faggots will be replaced by machines. You just type your case in and ruling shows up!

And you would get shutdown the second you tried to argue anything outside the law. But keep watching judge Judy.

this is 100% true. the law is a super complex algorithmic decision tree. all lawyers do is argue the factors affecting decisions within a set of rules. it is not irreducibly complex. but at the moment, they're still needed to navigate it. AI will solve all that in less than 100 years.

Sup Forumsack lawyer here. If you go on your own it's very likely that you're gonna have a bad time. If you have trouble with the law your best bet it to find a lawyer who's on your side.

Lawyers get taught the specific interpretation of law that the court has accepted through prior precedent. You don't get to interpret laws the way you do the bible, as a vehicle for your preconceived prejudice.

Free man on the land here! Guys, don’t punish him, laws don’t apply to him because he doesn’t agree to be bound by the social compact the rest of us suckers joined.

WTF?

Sounds like the Talmud amirite

have you even read the constitution? checks? balances? 3 branches of government? it infuriates me that people like you get to vote.

You need to use Westlaw to write legal briefs. Your motion papers have to include prior court cases that support your argument. And you need to make sure the precedents haven’t been overturned from other cases.

*mic drop*

Don’t waste too much time on this. I recommend keeping comments short if you want these guys to read the whole thing.

Why doesn't the government provide the same service as Westlaw and make it free to the public? That might be a nice gesture.

You seem to think there hasn't been a tradition of biblical interpretation for biblical scholars to answer to. In fact that's been happening for millenia.

>Why can't anyone just do [profession] without training?
You're welcome to try, user.

What type of law you practice? I’m on the litigation side

unironically: are you suprised (((they))) are so good at law?

I've spent years arguing with a law professor that was a brilliant guy, and i could wipe the floor with him when he strayed from the law. Lawyers logical blindside is reinforced in their venue. they are just as prone to cognitive dissonance where their opinions are concerned as everyone else.

Depends how you define "good" but it doesn't miss my attention that (((they))) are disproportionately over-represented in the legal system.

checked. digits show it's good advice.

I'm specifically talking about evangelical christians. They and SovCits take the same zeal to independent interpretation. Evangelicals just never have to face a judge.

Pretty much. And then when the mechanic asks them for money they fire the mechanic, call the mechanic corrupt, and blame the car company for making a lemon.

It's mostly that most laws are extraordinarily length these days, so that the average person can't possibly read and parse through them without dedicating an equally extraordinary amount of time.

Jews Jewing Jews.

it's not a concidence, even not coming from a Sup Forums perspective. legalistic debate over the rules is a huge part of judaism.

>No doubt. Kind of like no professional auto mechanic likes it when somebody brings in the car they fucked royally trying to DIY with their own parts.
There's selection bias there. They never see the cars that people successfully DIY'd.

you just showed you aren't a lawyer. why do idiots pose as lawyers on line? executives aren't bound by the executive orders of their predecessors, and given that withdrawing that order would not be unconstitutional (since it just results in the enforcement of already existing law), the court in this instance is clearly overstepping their bounds and acting outside their jurisdiction.

This is middle school level civics and you failed asshole. You can quit larping as a lawyer now.

Sweet quads of truth

Lawyers are middlemen that drive up the cost of litigation, court, etc. Unfortunately, it's the rich that use middlemen such as lawyers and insurance to have power over poor people who can't afford it. If there was no such thing as lawyers, both poor and rich would have an equal ground in court assuming logical abilities were the same.

The question is why would you pretend that
a) Courts care about actual laws and not just typical jewish verbal diarrhea resulting in endless ""debates""
b) Laws themselves are a result of the ZOG, and should not be blindly trusted

You need a timeless value system, that's what you need. Apart from that it's all about knowing what and when to say it when socializing. If you get yourself in trouble with the law it's about verbal IQ, not actual justice. Those who can see where the law fails to reach and are the better sophists win.

Sounds like you're talking about a straw man.

I DIY mine and have on a few occasions to tuck my tail between my legs and ask my shop to fix it for me. But we have a good relationship and don't jerk each other around, so they've always been happy for the additional business.

I’ll take your word for it.