This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Lawyer Or Thug?

I noticed an interesting behavior. People say "I'm friends with a lawyer!" in the same tone of voice as "I'm friends with a mafia hitman!" The presumption is that the lawyer will "take care of things" if there's a problem.

One lawyer blogger wrote "The actual merits of your argument are irrelevant. It's the political connections of the lawyer that really matter." State judges have a policy of "Verdict first, trial afterwards." They decide about the outcome they want, and then come up with a legal excuse to justify it.

If you try to represent yourself in court, the judge will automatically be biased against you. You're usurping the lawyers' authority, when you represent yourself. There's no reason the legal system has to be so complicated that you need a lawyer to get a fair outcome. The legal system was set up that way on purpose, by lawyers.

Some people learn martial arts, so they can defend themselves. At one time, I considered getting a State law license, so I could defend myself. Once I realized that the State legal system is a sham, I realized that was pointless. Even with a law degree, I wouldn't get fair outcomes as a non-insider.

If a lawyer represents non-insiders in a dispute with insiders, that may be a bad career move. Insiders can commit perjury and get away with it. Insiders can pursue false perjury or professional misconduct charges against any non-insider.

I hung out with a lawyer once. He was a jerk. I had a valid dispute with someone, and he was completely useless. I settled for less than what was stolen from me.

The actual issue was interesting. I did a 401(k) rollover, and my ex-employer stole money from my account! They only admitted it after I questioned them, claiming it was a mistaken contribution. I had even asked them about it while working there, and they said it was correct.

I wound up settling for part of what they stole. My lawyer "friend" was no help at all.

Lawyers are a way of settling disputes without overt violence. There still is violence, if you disobey the judge's ruling. The lawyers and legal system merely provide an illusion of legitimacy to State corruption.

If you and your lawyer are well-connected, then judges will bend over backwards to rule in your favor. If you are a non-insider, then you will probably not get a fair verdict in a corrupt State court. It's irrelevant if the arguments you make are correct.

Lawyers are treated like a type of mafia hitman. Lawyers advocate for the use non-use of State violence. Lawyers help provide the illusion of legitimacy to the scam of the State.


Anonymous said...

My definition of a lawyer: Lawyer is somebody who passes bribe from a client to a judge.

fritz said...

The objective when you go to court is to not represent yourself. Have you ever heard the old saying " The lawyer who represents himself in court has a fool for a client"

The object in court is to be yourself. Its a far different thing then representing ones self. Think about it. if you represent your self you are not your self but a representation there of.

Its called (Sui Juris) meaning of ones own right. They will try to have you be pro se but never do it. If you appear in court as a representation of your self you are not you and your leverage is significantly decreased.

Anonymous said...

Does FSK avoid the use of fluoride toothpaste and mouthwashes?

I'm lucky and I'm pretty sure I'm not in an area where the thugs and clowns fluoridate the water.

Anonymous said...

"Even with a law degree, I wouldn't get fair outcomes as a non-insider."

Don't agree from personal experience, but you are probably talking about something serious like tax evasion. I have done pro per myself in a civil case and it worked out ok. Used the nolo press books. If you follow the law and write your case up correctly you can win.

Court procedures are too difficult for an outsider to figure out in a reasonable amount of time. I have wondered why someone doesn't flowchart the steps for various types of cases. I've asked lawyers about this and they don't seem to have a clue what I am talking about. If you could flowchart all the steps, you could run a case through from a computer program.

dionysusal said...


FSK lives in NYC, awhere I think they put in extra flouride for their "citizens" because it's so delicious and nutritious. Yum.

FSK said...

I didn't address the fluoride comment because I have another post on that.

"Fluoride is beneficial!" and "Fluoride is harmful!" is on my list of "Not proven either way!" statements. It's at worst, slightly harmful.

Fluoride may be poisonous for the same reason that lithium has psychiatric effect.

There's fluoride in my drinking water, and I'm still mostly unplugged from the Matrix. I object that I don't have a choice, but I don't have an alternative.

Fluoride is, at worst, slightly harmful.

Anonymous said...

Although this is off-topic, it is inline with the FSK theme of the problems of government.

Governments make war possible.

What part of God's commandment "Thou shall not kill" is not understood?

Perhaps they don't believe in God.

But how can you explain how animated dirt knows the difference between right and wrong and can create so much?

In fact man can't even give the answers to the following questions.

Where do we come from?
What are we?
Where are we going?

(Apologies to Gauguin.)

Wouldn't it be good if Man woke up one day and decided to tell The Man to f*** off and there will be no more killing!

Non-cooperation is the answer. With such a large population that requires coordination. The Internet has the potential for mass co-ordination.

Maybe that is why your Chief Clown wants an Internet kill switch.

Your clowns are dancing. Dance little clowns dance some more.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at