Copyright © 1997 Constitutional Guardians. All Rights Reserved. Intro-Fed Papers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay (an historical note) February 18, 1995 In 1776 the founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence which declared that the 13 British Colonies in North America were joining in a Union of Independent States, to be known as the United States of America. The document by which the new nation proposed to govern itself was known as The Articles of Confederation. The purpose of any document that proposes to constitute the law by which a society freely governs itself, is to insure that the document simultaniously provides the government with sufficient power to govern, but insufficient to oppress. By 1785 it became clear that the Articles of Confederation had only half succeeded. The government had insufficient power to oppress which was desired, but did not have sufficient power to govern. So in 1787 the individual States mandated their delegates to meet in order to review and amend the Articles of Confederation, to correct the perceived problem. However instead of simply amending the Articles the delegates decided there was a need to replace the entire Articles of Confederation with a new and better approach, which they incorporated in a new document called the US Constitution. The approach they took went far beyond the mandate they were given. In addition the State of New York was opposed to the new Constitution. For the Constitution to become law each of the 13 States would have to vote for ratification. In order to persuade the voters of the State of New York to ratify the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804), James Madison (1751-1836), the father of the Constitution, and John Jay (1745-1829), who became the first chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, wrote a series of 85 newspaper articles under the Federalist banner which they signed under the shared pseudonym "PUBLIUS". The efforts of these men resulted in The Federalist Papers which is an authoritative analysis of the Constitution of the United States and an enduring classic of political philosophy ranking in historical importance behind only the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself. Some 25 times longer than the Constitution itself, The Federalist Papers takes the reader through the logical thought process that explained and justified the specific details of the US Constitution. When questions arise as to any aspect, interpretation or meaning of the Constitution, it is to the Federalist Papers, even today, that we first turn for guidance. Becoming a Constitutional Guardian. C-1 The Process: All that is required is that each individual review the issues, make a determination that he or she wishes to make a difference and take on the full responsibility of citizenship in a free society. The Pledge can then be made privately as a commitment to oneself to act, or publicly by signing the pledge and mailing a copy to this writer at the address on the HOME PAGE, or email it to bibace@netdor.com C-2 The Cost: Zero in dollars. There is no payment of any kind required at any time in order to become a Constitutional Guardian. Nor will any public commitment to become a Guardian lead to solicitation of funds by this organization. Individual Guardians may make individual decisions to spend their own funds to advance Guardian goals in their own way. The decision as to whether, when, where and how much to spend remains theirs at all times. C-3 The Commitment level: Commitment levels will always be a matter of personal choice for each Guardian. That level will vary in accordance with the desire and concern of each individual Guardian. That commitment can remain at a minimum level, limited to never voting for a lawyer oneself, rise to a maximum level of devoting substantial amounts of one’s time, money and energy to saving the Nation from tyrannical oppression, or settle anywhere in between. (Constitutional Guardian opening page) April 17, 1998 Constitutional Guardian web site opening page MENU A. MISSION STATEMENT The need and purpose for the mission statement B. CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIAN PLEDGE C. BECOMING A CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIAN Cost: zero in dollars Commitment level: Personal choice. D . UPSIDE/DOWNSIDE OF REMOVAL OF LAWYERS FROM ELECTIVE OFFICE. E. CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIAN ACTION PLAN Information distribution Private advocacy Public advocacy Group organization Assertion of legal rights Public endorsement. F. FEDERALIST PAPERS 86 t0 107 OUTLINE (see: Feds Outline 86 to 107 July 1, 1997) G. FEDERALIST PAPERS BY SUBJECT Cognitive dissonance in the legal profession- Federalist 95 Corruption in the legal profession - Federalists 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101 Decei t by the legal profession - Federalist 103 Defenses by the legal profession - Federalist 87, Federalist 88 and Federalist 89 Ethical abandonment by the legal profession - Federalists 104, 105, 106 and 107 Overview - Federalist 86 Public support - Federalist 96 Treason by some members of the legal profession. - Federalists 92, 93 and 94 Tyrannical instruments of the legal profession - Federalist 102 Tyranny by the legal profession. - Federalists 90 and 91 . H. CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIANS VERSUS OTHER SOLUTIONS TO JUDICIAL/LEGAL ABUSE AND/OR TYRANNY. Overview Fully Informed Jury Association Tort Reform ‘Judicial activism’ ‘Divorce Wars’ ‘Pro se litigation’ Fathers rights I. LINKS J. LETTERS FROM RONALD BIBACE K. LETTERS TO RONALD BIBACE Constitutional Guardians Mission Statement April 18, 1998 The following is the Constitutional Guardian Mission Statement to be included on the Internet Web Site: A. Mission Statement: Constitutional Guardians of America is a grass roots movement that was established to create a permanent guard of Americans to guard the Republic from the ‘elected guardians themselves’. At this time that requires that the Constitutional Guardians seek to rescue the Republic from the legal profession’s unconstitutional tyrannical control. We propose to do so by educating the American people to use the ballot box to remove lawyers from elective office in the legislative and executive branches of Government. To achieve that end the Constitutional Guardians will use this web site to provide conclusive arguments about the constitutional violations, abuse of power and massive deceit used by the legal profession to achieve its current tyrannical power. Information will also be provided as to the enormous harm in treasure and kind that this tyrannical control has cost the Nation. Harm that has already adversely materially impacted Social Security, Medicare, Healthcare, the Nation’s education programs and Crime, to name only a few key areas. ________________________________________________________________________ The Need and Purpose for the mission statement. The principles and documents that protect freedom 1. The United States Constitution was the first ever written by a truly free people to provide ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ for itself and its heirs. The means to this end was created by the establishment of a Republic to be governed as a representative democracy by men and women, elected in free elections offering voters meaningful choices. It is those elected who then bear the responsibility to govern the Nation and guard the Constitution as trustees for the people. That makes them the primary guardians of the Constitution. 2. However in ancient Roman times a wise Senator called Juventus had raised a question to which he gave no answer. That question was: Quid custodit ipsos custodes? Which is Latin for: Who shall guard the guardians themselves? The concern Juventus raised was that of finding someone to guard the elected Guardians of the Constitution themselves, in order to prevent them from violating and undermining the Constitution in their own interest. 3. Edmunde Burke, a famous British statesman, said: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. 4. Lord Acton, another British statesman, said: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 5. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, said: The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and traitors every ten years. These are the principles the Nation must recognize if it wishes to restore the freedom and constitutional government to this Nation that the legal profession has stolen from it. Here are the reasons why: At this time and for the last several decades, the United States of America has not enjoyed Constitutional government. Instead it is the legal profession that has taken unconstitutional, effective control of all State and Federal governments ( see Federalist 86). It has done so through a combination of the power of the purse and the mastery of deceit. (see Federalist 103). Thus it is the legal profession alone rather than a government derived from the great body of society, ( see Federalist 39 by Madison) that has effectively made itself sole ‘Guardian of the Constitution’. The Constitution was written to make sure, that each of the three branches of government exercise a form of restraint over the other two. It did so through the establishment of the principle of the separation of powers. That principle was intended to make certain that that no ‘same hands’ faction control all government.(See Federalist 86) However that principle was nullified when the ‘same hands’ legal profession took over effective control of all government. (See Federalist 86). By doing so the legal profession has effectively undermined and violated the Constitution to achieve its own selfish ends. It is cognitive dissonance, self deceit and denial that blinds the profession to this truth. (See Federalist 95) It is the legal profession that has effectively achieved the near ‘absolute power’ that corrupts absolutely which Lord Acton feared. As a result it has become the most corrupt legal profession ever. It is we the people who have failed to exercise eternal vigilance which is the price of liberty, which Edmunde Burke preached. That is why the legal profession has succeeded in establishing the ‘tyranny’ under which we live. (For James Madison, principal author of the US Constitution correctly stated in several Federalist Papers, that control of all three branches of government, the legislative, the executive and the judiciary, by any ‘same hands faction’ is the very definition of tyranny). It is the failure until now of anyone to properly answer Juventus’ question about Who shall guard the guardians themselves, that has allowed the legal profession to perpetrate its tyrannical control. Finally it is to correct the problem without the bloodshed that Jefferson tells us is necessary every ten years for ‘watering of the tree of liberty’ that this initiative has been taken. This initiative seeks to achieve the following: First for a free people wishing to remain free, it provides the following answer to Juventus’ question: We the people shall guard the guardians themselves! Second : In response to Edmunde Burke assertion that: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, it asserts that we the people must commit to eternal vigilance. Today that vigilance must be directed towards the removal from elective office in the legislative and executive branches of all members of the legal profession. Tomorrow that vigilance may be required to thwart the ambitions of another ‘same hands’ faction or group. That is why the people’s responsibility to exercise eternal vigilance must remain a permanent commitment . Third: In response to Jefferson’s observation that every ten years the blood of traitors is needed to water the tree of liberty, this initiative hopes to keep the tree of liberty watered by the non violent activities of the Constitutional Guardians of America: with the sweat of patriots rather than the blood of traitors. The information to achieve a peaceful solution for the removal of the legal profession’s tyrannical oppression is the following: On this web site will be found the fully researched and unrebutted information needed to provide the logical, legal and constitutional foundation for the removal of all lawyers from elected office in the legislative and executive branches of government. This web site will also provide the instructions for the use of that information. It is expected that those who are prepared to take on the full responsibility of free citizens, in a society they wish to be free, will act on those instructions. They will become Constitutional Guardians committed to guarding the ‘guardians themselves’. They will do so in their own self interest, that of their families, that of the Nation, and perhaps even that of the World. For if and when this Nation loses its freedom completely it is very unlikely that any other Nation will succeed in retaining its own. Constitutional Guardians Pledge. April 17, 1998 The following is the Constitutional Guardian Pledge to be included on the Internet Web Site B. Constitutional Guardian Pledge. As a citizen of the United States committed to ensure the fruits of liberty and freedom for myself, my family and the people of America, I pledge to become a Guardian of the Constitution of the United States of America and a guardian of those the Nation has elected to public office who have sworn to support and defend the Constitution, and to actively seek the removal from public office of those who fail to do so. Constitutional Guardians v othert solutions to abuse-tyranny April 17, 1998 The following is the Constitutional Guardians versus other solutions to Judicial/legal abuse and/or tyranny. CONSTITUTIONAL GUARDIANS VERSUS OTHER SOLUTIONS TO JUDICIAL/LEGAL ABUSE AND/OR TYRANNY H-1 Overview. Correcting problems can be done on a temporary short term basis, or a permanent long term basis. Thus a leaky roof needs an immediate patch to stop the rain temporarily, but requires a proper repair or replacement for the long term. Similarly a person falsely incarcerated and suffering further abuse in prison may seek immediate relief from abuse from the warden , but can only seek permanent relief by his release from the courts. Most problems can be addressed on a temporary or permanent basis. What is essential first is to identify the true nature of the problem. Then one can bring to bear the appropriate permanent solution.. Without that identification, temporary ‘solutions’ are often believed to be permanent. Thus prior to the identification of AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) as the underlying cause of death (and thus the true nature of the problem) when other diseases seemed to be the apparent cause, no permanent solution could even be contemplated. All the evidence supports the conclusion that the ‘problem’ underlying a large number of the Nation’s very serious concerns is the ‘mother-cancer’ of the unconstitutional control by lawyers of all government. That mother-cancer is the political equivalent of the medical HIV virus which destroys the body’s immune system. The separation of powers concept is the immune system of the body politic. Destroy that, as the legal profession has succeeded in doing, and ‘cancers’ of the body politic surface everywhere disguised as something else. Thus the legal profession’s unconstitutional control of government is at the heart of all of the following problems, each of which has given rise to the formation of various groups seeking to remedy their particularly perceived problem. Here are some of these problems and groups: The inability of many defendants to get justice in our courts gave rise to the organization called the FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION or FIJA; The inability of manufacturers and other to be treated justly by the tort laws gave rise to THE AMERICAN TORT REFORM ASSOCIATION; the proclivity of some judges to improperly legislate from the bench, the injustice inflicted daily on divorcing couples and their children; the inability of individuals to be fairly treated in ‘pro se’ litigation; the inadequacy of the justice system in dealing with crime; the absence of an acceptable quality of public education; the inability of the people to meaningfully control their own government through non violent means; the exposure to frivolous lawsuits by all; the inability doctors to provide the best medical care at fair prices, the monopolistic and self serving illegal activities of the State Bars, to name only a few of the areas of public concern. None of the activities of the various groups has produced permanent solutions. Very few have even achieved a modicum of progress on a temporary basis! Nor is it possible that they ever will. The reason is simple. You can’t cure cancer by making the patient more comfortable as he is dying. You can’t ‘cure’ tyranny by negotiating with tyrants. We tried that with King George III prior to the Revolution in 1776. It didn’t work with that tyrant then and it won’t work with the legal profession now. Medicine teaches us that you cure cancer permanently by cutting it all out surgically. History teaches us that you cure tyranny by removing all tyrants. Peacefully if you can and by revolution if you can’t! The same people (lawyers) who make the laws, also interpret and enforce the laws. They do so first and foremost in their own self-interest. If sufficient pressure is brought to bear the lawyers will yield a little ground in one branch of government, only to nullify or recover it later in another. Thus attempting meaningful change that benefits the people not lawyers, through any means previously available, (short of the threat of violence that was needed in the United Kingdom in 1832 to pass the Great Reform Act of 1832), seems doomed either to failure or minor temporary relief. Only the complete removal of lawyers from elected power in the Legislative and Executive branches can hope to achieve the ends of all the concerned groups without bloodshed. This means, that while all groups will do well to continue in whatever efforts they are making, they must recognize that at best the solutions they may achieve will be both inadequate and temporary. Therefore, in their own best interests, they should also join in the efforts of the Constitutional Guardians of America to remove lawyers from elected office. For that is the only way they can hope to substantially resolve their problems on a permanent basis. Upside/downside of removal of lawyers from elective office April 17, 1998 The following is the information to be included in the opening page MENU of the www.constitutionalguardians.com web site under: UPSIDE/DOWNSIDE OF REMOVAL OF LAWYERS FROM ELECTIVE OFFICE D-1 Preamble: The purpose for writing the Federalist Papers (86 to 107) and the establishment of the Constitutional Guardians is the removal of lawyers from elective office in the executive or legislative branches, in order to restore constitutional government, liberty and justice in the land. Persuading the American people that this course is the only right and proper one is dependent on the logical, legal, and constitutional validity of the arguments made, and an analysis of the Upside/Downside potential of the implementation of the idea. The first task has been accomplished to the overwhelming satisfaction of the vast majority of those who are familiar with the position. Along with the conclusive arguments founded in logic and constitutional law the Federalist Papers (86 to 107) discuss the enormous advantages that are reasonably certain to flow from such action. Some of these advantages, known as the upside are: The Upside : Savings to the Nation in the order of one trillion dollars a year, or 15% of GNP, or over $2.7 Billion a day; restoration of ethical government; restoration of an effective Bill of Rights, (the enforceability of which is now financially unattainable for the vast majority of Americans); divorce without wars; saving Social security and Medicare as part of the trillion dollar a year savings; the reduction of crime and the criminalization of the police; accessibility to the Courts for all; meaningful educational reforms that would eliminate the scourge of illiteracy; tort reform that would favor victims over lawyers, and much else. We now address the second question: What would the cost to the Nation and/or lawyers be if it turns out that it was error to remove lawyers from public office? That ‘cost’, known as the downside, would be: The Downside. There are 435 Congressmen, 100 Senators, One President and One Vice President, elected to the United States Federal Government. That is a total of 537 elected officials. The States have, on average, less than one third as many elected officials. (Florida, the fourth largest State has less than one third as many). Therefore the total of all elected officials in the Nation can be said to be no more than a total of about 10,000 people. If control of over 50% constitutes absolute control, it would suffice that no more than some 5000 lawyers hold public office for that control to exist. Effective control can be achieved with a strong plurality of as few as say 3000 lawyers. So all that is being called for is the removal from elective office, through the ballot box, of a mere 3000 to 5000 lawyers. They are the only one’s directly affected. They constitute about one third to one half per cent of all lawyers in America. Or about one in 200 lawyers, and only about one in 50,000 Americans. All these lawyers are skilled politicians or they would not have been elected. All have excellent networks and connections. In general all the evidence supports the conclusion that career paths for lawyers who leave public office today is a) more lucrative employment, b) retirement or c) prison. (Even those who go to prison seem to do all right when they get out). There is therefore absolutely no reason to believe that lawyers who would otherwise be elected to public office are losing out on gainful employment or legitimate income potential. If they have a burning desire ‘to serve their country’ there are many other ways besides being elected to public office that will serve as well. Whatever skills lawyers bring to the Legislative and Executive Branches they can still bring as advisers not decision makers. Therefore no argument can be made that their particular ‘skills at the law’ would be lost or that lawyers alone are equipped to govern. To assert that is to argue that the other 259, 995,000 people in this land who are non-lawyers are too stupid to either govern on their own or listen to the advice of others. That is nonsense. Therefore neither the lawyers in question who might otherwise have served in elective office, stand to suffer materially in any way, nor does the Nation. Therefore it is evident that the enormous upside combined with such an insignificant downside should be enough logically to recommend the proposed solution even absent any other legal or constitutional argument. How much more so then when both logical and constitutional arguments favor the action? Federalist Papers Table of Contents The overall picture of the Nation under a failed Constitution . Federalist 86. An explanation of how the US Constitution has failed to provide the people with a government with sufficient power to govern but insufficient to oppress. An outline of the constitutional foundation and legal reasons for the charge that members of the American legal profession constitute (1) a same hands faction, and (2) are in effective unconstitutional control of all government in the United States. Rebuttals to the legal profession's defenses. Federalists 87, 88, and 89. A detailed rebuttal of all the known arguments that the legal profession has brought forward to defend the charges brought in Federalist 86. Tyranny by the legal profession. Federalists 90 and 91. A detailed examination of the nature and manifestation of the tyranny exercised by the legal profession over this Nation, a diagnosis, a suggested treatment and cure. Treason by the legal profession. Federalists 92. 93 and 94. An outline of the probability that any lawyer occupying elective office outside the Judiciary is guilty of treason. A rebuttal to the profession's arguments that their presence in elective office outside the Judiciary is not treason. The presentation of the conclusive legal case against the legal profession on the issue of treason. Cognitive dissonance as the source of self deceit. Federalist 95. An outline of the psychological dysfunction of cognitive and extreme cognitive dissonance also known as self-deceit, and the widespread existence of this condition among members of the legal profession. The need for public support to effect change. Federalist 96. A discussion of the need and nature in a democratic society for public support in addition to conclusive legal arguments, in order to effect change. Evidence that the American legal profession is very corrupt. Federalists 97, 98, 99 and 100. A conclusive presentation demonstrating that the American legal profession is the most corrupt in the land and their members unfit to hold public office. A rebuttal to the cure of corruption by education. Federalist 101. A rebuttal to the legal profession's proposals that corruption can be cured by 'education' alone. The four instruments of tyranny. The natural evolution of legal professionals as tyrants. Federalist 102. An analysis of the four instruments of tyranny and of the natural evolution of the legal profession as tyrannical. Deceit - the main instrument of the profession. Federalist 103. An analysis of the legal profession's main instrument of tyranny - deceit. Ethical abandonment by the legal profession. Federalists 104, 105, 106 and 107. An analysis of the legal profession's formal abandonment of ethics. The Federalist (Number 86) February 8, 1995 The State of the Union under a failed Constitution. The time has come when it is necessary for someone to take upon himself the task of bringing to the attention of his fellow citizens that those who are sworn to uphold the Constitution are not doing so. That as a result the Nation is embarked on a very dangerous course, the ill effects in terms of financial cost,1 emotional cost and loss of constitutional rights, can be seen everywhere. This writer proposes to make his case to his fellow Citizens by writing a series of articles under the banner of the Federalist, numbered in sequence after those written by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. They signed: "PUBLIUS." This writer will sign: "PUBLIUS II." THE PROBLEM: The nation does not now and has not for some years experienced constitutional or representative government. That is because notwithstanding that the US Constitution was specifically written to prevent any single "same hands" group from accumulating all powers of government, one particular group has succeeded in doing precisely that. James Madison, author of the US Constitution, wrote :2 "No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that ... the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." For then the laws are made not to serve justice, but rather to serve the personal profit of those who make them. To avoid the "same hands" accumulation of power, the Constitution incorporated a system of "separation of powers" and "checks and balances". This system created three separate branches of government. The Legislative (Congress), which makes the laws, the Judiciary (the Courts), which interprets the laws and the Executive (the Presidency), which enforces the laws. By separating the powers of government in this manner it was intended that each branch would serve as a "check" and "balance" to the powers of the other two. This was done in order to make certain that the government would never possess sufficient power to oppress the people. However for many years now, all three branches of government and the powers they command to control all government,3 legislative,4 executive5 and judiciary have effectively "accumulated in the same hands". Those "same hands" belong to the legal profession. As a result the "same hands" lawyer/judges now make the laws, interpret the laws and enforce the laws, thus defeating the spirit, intent and purpose of the Constitution. Such control by this or any other group, is unconstitutional because it violates both the separation of powers/checks and balances principles of the Constitution and the principle of representative government. These constitutional violations strike at the very heart and soul of the US Constitution. These violations emasculate the Bill of Rights, create an elitist class similar to the European aristocracy of the eighteenth century, unaccountable to anyone but themselves. These violations enable both the Government and the elitist class, under color of law, to oppress the people, in ways too numerous to catalogue in a single article. The control acquired has also seriously undermined the integrity of the legal profession. Fortunately the profession still contains a substantial number of very honest individuals upon whom the nation can rely for the furthering of this just cause. The solution: The solution lies in returning constitutional government to the United States by ascertaining that members of the legal profession not be permitted to exercise control over either the Executive or the Legislative branches of government. The solution can be achieved through the ballot box by voting lawyers out of office, or through the courts, by constitutionally challenging their election to the non-judiciary branches of government. Lawyers would continue to function in all other areas as before. In other words constitutional government requires the people to control the legal profession, not the legal profession to control the people. The reader is asked to remember that space limitations control the writer's ability to fully document arguments made. Let us begin with an examination of our rights as citizens under our Declaration of Independence : The Declaration of Independence holds certain truths to be self evident, " that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying it's foundations on such principles, and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." 6 It is clear at the present time that the nation's government has become destructive of the ends intended in the Declaration of Independence. The people are more distrustful of their elected officials than ever before, and deeply disturbed with government's inability to provide them with many of their rights under the Constitution. Among which are: Honest government, moral leadership, security, freedom from oppression, proper education, affordable access to the nation's system of justice, and affordable health care. It is therefore the right of the people to alter the government.7 (In this case only to enforce the Constitution as written). What is unclear to the people is what to do or how to do it. The fundamental source of the nation's problems is not easily apparent. That source does not principally lie in the flawed nature of particular individuals who are elected to government office, for all human beings lack perfection. Rather the "flaw" lies with the way in which the "system" itself is being made to function by those responsible for its functioning. The "systemic flaw" is that the nation, although generally unaware of it, has elected to effective control of the Legislative and Executive branches of government, a plurality or majority of the "same hands" legal profession, as have already acquired absolute control of the Judiciary Branch of government. It is the members of the legal profession who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.8 It is to them that the nation looks for protection from the oppression of government. It is they who bear the full responsibility of bringing to the nation's attention that the Constitution prohibits single group "same hands" control and that such control has occurred. They have done neither. Instead they have both acquired unconstitutional control for themselves and concealed the fact from the nation. Yet it is probable that many in the profession are not even aware of what has occurred. For many years the legal profession has proceeded, unchallenged and unchecked, knowingly or not, with a history of constitutional violations and abuses against the people of the United States. These activities escalated in the last half century with the establishing of the so-called "Integrated Bars" in the individual States,9 to which all practicing lawyers were required by law to belong, thus making every lawyer and judge "a part" of the judiciary. "Integrated Bars" were unconstitutionally10 created by the Judiciary Branches of the States as an "arm" of the State Supreme Courts. After which State Constitutions were amended to transfer the admission and disciplining of lawyers and judges to the Judiciary Branch of Government of the individual States.11 Thus the legal profession became accountable to none but it's own peer group, unlike any other profession in the land. These and similar activities, whether by design or otherwise, produced a consolidation of all government power in the hands of the legal profession resulting in the following: 1.The profession has acquired virtually unlimited political power in the land, and with that the ability to make laws to serve its personal profit rather than justice. 2.The profession has maximized its ability to acquire the highest possible share of the nation's wealth for itself. 3.The profession has collectively though not individually, become the most corrupt, least respected and according to it's own surveys, least trusted profession in the land.12 4.The profession has (perhaps unwittingly), imposed on the nation enormous secondary costs essential for protection from the predatory nature of the profession.13 5.Members of the profession, sworn to uphold the Constitution and the concepts of representative government and separation of powers, have (perhaps unwittingly for many) violated their oath by creating and operating a government, substantially without either. The pursuit of power and control of government by the legal profession is the natural expression of any group's attempt to maximize its own members power and financial rewards. That is human nature. That is why the Constitution is opposed to any "single interest group" acquiring such control, whether tinker , tailor, soldier, sailor, lawyer, doctor or native American chief. What has occurred though not a "conspiracy", does have precisely the same effects. In law that is known as a "constructive conspiracy." These matters raise a number of critical questions: I. How and when did the profession acquire control? II. What are the abuses that allowed such control and the abuses that now afflict the nation? III. Why is the nation still generally unaware of the existence of the problem or how serious it is? IV. Who specifically is responsible? V. What can and should be done about it? Subsequent articles will address these questions. Most important at this point is for the nation to become aware that as a direct result of the legal profession's unconstitutional control of all government an abundance of laws have been enacted, interpreted and enforced, for the personal profit of the profession, not justice. This imposes on the people of this nation a very high financial and emotional cost, as well as substantially depriving the people of their ability to exercise their full constitutional rights in any of the following areas: 1. Access constitutional remedies under the Bill of Rights, or 2. Gain reasonable access to the nation's courts, or 3. Exercise their first amendment right of free speech, or 4. Be free from a corrupt judiciary, or 5. Be free from the oppression of meritless lawsuits, or 6. Receive a fair trial, or 7. Live reasonably free from crime, or 8. Enjoy the right of self-determination through State constitutional amendments, or 9. Access affordable health care, or 10. Access safe and meaningful universal education, or 11. Access divorce without war, or 12. Receive fair treatment in bankruptcies, or 13. Receive fair treatment in the adoption of children, or 14. Be free from the criminalization of activities not criminal anywhere else in the civilized world, or 15. Be free from oppressive and unreasonable regulation imposed by bureaucrats immune from accountability and the democratic process 16. Have the President pick his judges and Supreme Court Justices free of unwarranted influence, as well as many other areas too numerous to mention. Excluding lawyers, and any other "same hands" group that may emerge, from the Executive and Legislative branches will correct the problem. A similar problem existed in Britain in 1832.14 There the British Lords (called Peers), controlled both the House of Lords and the House of Commons until they were excluded by Law and/or practice. The solutions called for here will do the same for this nation as excluding Peers from the Commons did for the British. This writer is merely calling for action tried and true and the application of sound and well established historical legal precedent. The first step and purpose of these articles in achieving either solution, requires informing and educating the people about the nature and extent of the problem, and how to resolve it. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) About the author. This writer became aware of the problem in 1985. The views presented here were first developed and articulated by this writer in 1989. This writer has become a constitutional scholar in pursuit of the justice of this cause. Sufficiently so that Professor Albert Blaustein,15 a world renowned constitutional lawyer, international consultant, and prolific author of numerous books on the law, having never before heard the proposals articulated here, was persuaded that this writer's views are sound and should prevail in a court of Law , and has said so in writing. This writer is President and co-founder of a national organization dedicated to the restoring of constitutional and representative government. This writer like James Madison, loves the law but is not a lawyer. This writer, like Alexander Hamilton, is an immigrant and a naturalized American citizen. Estimates of financial costs to the nation vary between $300 billion and $1 trillion per year. Federalist # 47, Jan 30,1788 The US Senate has had an absolute majority of lawyers for years. The House of Representatives has had an overwhelming plurality and a near majority for just as long. Both the President and Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet are lawyers. The Judiciary consists 100% of lawyers. Declaration of Independence, 1776 Declaration of Independence, 1776 All lawyers and judges are required to swear an oath upholding the Constitution. In Florida the State integrated Bar was created in 1949. The Supreme Courts of the individual States created these entities in which the Court alone makes the law, interprets the law and enforces the law, affecting all citizens in the State in violation of the separation of powers principle of the Constitution. Many legal scholars have said so. No case has yet been brought to test the issue in federal court. In Florida it was done by constitutional amendment to Article V of the Florida Constitution. American Bar Association survey 1994. Occupational crime by Dr. Gary Green. (Nelson Hall 1990). Professor Steve Magee, University of Texas at Austin. Economist, White House, Nixon era. The Great Reform Act of 1832 by E.J.Evans 1983 (Methuen & Co. N.Y.,N.Y.). Albert Blaustein (1922-1994) Professor Emeritus, Rutger's University, Constitutional Consultant and counsel to Russia, Bolivia, Canada, Poland, Nepal, Uganda, Niger, Peru, Brazil, and many more. Author of more than 25 books, among which "Constitutions of the World" 22 volumes, updated annually. The Federalist (Number 87) March 31, 1995 The State of the Union under a failed Constitution Rebuttal to the legal profession's arguments against exclusion from elective office in the legislative and executive branches of government. Part 1 The Federalist 86 (February 8, 1995), identified the underlying cause of a substantial number of the nation's problems1 as the failure of the US Constitution, resulting from the unconstitutional control of all government by members of the legal profession. To restore the constitution, Federalist 86 called for the removal from elective office in the legislative and executive branches of all states and the federal government, of all persons who are members of the legal profession, on the basis of the following argument: The effective control by members of the legal profession2 of all government violates the principles of representative government and separation of powers of the US Constitution. Therefore, the necessary remedy to restore constitutional government requires the exclusion, through the courts or the ballot box, of members of the legal profession from elective office in both the legislative and executive branches of government. That position affirms the principle that: The constitutional rights of the people to representative government free from single interest "same hands" control, or from control by the members of a favored class, supersedes the rights of the members of any single profession or favored class, to collectively acquire that control Opponents deny the validity of this constitutional interpretation. If they are right, the underlying problem caused by the harm of single interest control would remain in place. That would indicate that the Constitution as written was defective. The remedy would then lie with the ballot box, a constitutional amendment, or if all else failed, another revolution. It is fortunate for all that the legal profession's opposing position is without merit. Let us examine it carefully. In general, an argument is either valid or invalid. A valid argument has a premise that provides conclusive evidence for the conclusion. An invalid argument fails in one of three ways: 1. Through a misstatement of facts; 2. Incorrect use of terms; or 3. In its defective "form," through the use of an improper process of inference.3 "Defective form" arguments are invalid because they are based on "fallacies" also known as sophistry. These false or fallacious "arguments" were first developed by the Sophists and classified by Aristotle, the father of logical thought, as "Sophistical Refutations".4 All arguments that have surfaced so far, are invalid for one or other of the aforementioned reasons. Here are the profession's arguments: (1) Members of the legal profession do not control government; (2) nor do they constitute a Madisonian "same hands" control group; (3) nor should they be prohibited from running for any public office for that would be unfair, discriminatory and unconstitutional; (4) it is in the nation's best interest that lawyers control government because government is about laws and that is their training; (5) lawyers have historically been disproportionately represented in government and yet have served the nation well; (6) constitutional interpretations by non-lawyers are invalid on their face; (7) proponents of excluding lawyers from any elective office are "lawyer bashers" and/or are otherwise flawed human beings whose views are unworthy of consideration. Here are the rebuttal arguments: 1. Members of the legal profession do not control government. (A false argument based on a misstatement of fact.) The fact that members of the legal profession are either a majority or significant plurality of virtually every legislative body in the land, is not disputed. Neither is the fact that a large number of state executive branches are headed by lawyers. Occasionally however, a semantic argument is made, that the word "control" is applicable only where the actual number of seats occupied by lawyers in a particular elected body exceeds 50%. However the language of Federalist 86 is "effective control." Effective control in a democracy is achieved by the largest substantial plurality if no majority exists, and if the next largest plurality is significantly smaller than the first. Since those conditions prevail virtually everywhere in the nation the argument is without merit, for it misstates fact. It is true that where the executive branch is headed by a non lawyer the "control" may be less effective, but remains nevertheless. 2. Members of the legal profession do not constitute a Madisonian "same hands" control group. (A false argument based on a misstatement of fact). Some lawyers argue that members of the legal profession are not the "same hands" identified in Madison's statement whereby: '..the accumulation of all powers ... in the same hands.., may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.'5 They argue that because lawyers will often differ in gender, ethnicity, race, religion, political views and other ways, characterizing them as "same hands" is inaccurate. However, it was not the differences between elected officials that concerned Madison when he spoke of "same hands", it was the possibility of the existence of a particular "same hands" similarity of interest that might serve to unite elected officials against the public interest. Thus the test is whether or not there exists among the elected members, the sharing of such a "same hands" interest. The answer is that the members of the legal profession, just like the members of every other organized profession, constitute "same hands" special interest groups. This is because every organized profession's purpose is to advance the interests of its members above the interests of all others. Conclusive evidence is supplied by Madison's definition of what is and what is not republican government under the US Constitution: 'It is essential to such a (republican) government that it be derived from the great body of society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it." (Emphasis original).6 Since the legal profession is "an inconsiderable proportion" of society (less than 1 in 300 people), and constitutes "a favored class," it is twice barred from being in control of what Madison defined as: "republican government." That definition confirms that Madison meant to include groups such as members of the legal profession in his "same hands" statement. 3. Members of the legal profession should not be prohibited from running for any public office because to do so would be unfair, discriminatory and unconstitutional. (A false argument classified by Aristotle as "secundum quid"7). This is an argument against the concept of "unconstitutional exclusion." We are a democratic society forever seeking to be "inclusive". How then do we justify excluding lawyers from public office at all? The justification is found in the following reasons: Except for jury service, the legal profession has already used its power to exclude 259,000,000 citizens, or 99.7% of the nation, from any position of power in the judiciary, though the Constitution does not require it. Since the profession has entirely taken over one of three branches of government, without constitutional requirement or discernible authority, it is certainly fair and reasonable to require that their representation be limited to the judiciary only. Such representation alone, would be equivalent to 100 times their proportion in the population. The good of society sometimes requires that a choice be made by individuals. As one example, judges are not permitted to speak publicly on political matters or endorse candidates for certain public offices. While that is a limitation of their free speech first amendment rights, it does serve society's best interests. Thus it is fair and reasonable that a person choosing to enter the legal profession, which enjoys 100% control of one branch of government should, in exchange, give up the right to run for public office in the other two branches. Excluding lawyers from elective office outside the judiciary involves the balancing of the rights of the people to constitutional government free of any "same hands," and/or "favored class" control, against the rights of lawyers to be freely elected to effective control of all government. If the Declaration of Independence was right in affirming that the rights of the people to: "institute a new government laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness",8 then it follows that the right of the people to exclude lawyers from both the executive and legislative branches supersedes the rights of lawyers to control all government. Prior to 1832, the British faced a similar problem. The nobility,9 which by law exclusively controlled one of their three branches of government, the House of Lords, also controlled the second branch, the House of Commons. (The monarchy being the third.) The Great Reform Act of 1832, passed to prevent violent revolution against the nobility, stripped them of their control of the House of Commons. The historical legal precedent was thus created where our own law originates, for restoring constitutional government, without the necessity for doing violence to an elitist group unconstitutionally exercising power under color of law. 4. Lawyers are the proper people to control government because that is their training. (A false argument classified by Aristotle as secundum quid10). Lawyers argue that government is about laws and that is their training. Therefore they say, it is right and proper that they should be running things because "those who are trained for the task, should make the decisions." That is a false argument known as secundum quid. Thus, while it is true that as a rule decisions are made by the people best trained to do so, that is not true in all cases. This is one such exception to the rule, because constitutional prohibitions exist to make certain those decisions are NOT made by any single "same hands," and/or favored class group. In such cases the technically trained are limited to advising and recommending For example, the US Constitution designates the President of the United States, Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, regardless of any previous military experience. The most experienced and knowledgeable military minds are constitutionally limited to the power of advising. The Constitution makes representatives drawn from all walks of life, not the technical experts, collectively responsible for all public policy decision making. 5. Members of the legal profession have historically been disproportionately represented in government and yet have served the country well. (A false argument classified by Aristotle as non sequitur11). It does not follow that what may have once been historically true is therefore true now. These are the days of Watergate, "Operation Court Broom" in Miami and Greylord in Chicago, not the days of Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Abraham Lincoln. The nature of the practice of law and the integrity of lawyers has changed dramatically for the worse commencing after the Civil War.12 Before that time the law was a highly respected profession, attracting individuals of integrity who sought first to do justice, not make money. The opposite is often true today. The presumption of integrity once granted to lawyers as to all professionals, is no longer applicable. All too often the opposite presumption is the rule. The American Bar Association's own surveys indicate that lawyers are viewed as the most dishonest of all professional groups. To make matters worse, the survey indicates that those who know lawyers best, trust them least, and vice versa. In this context the attempt by the profession to cover itself with a cloak of honor earned by noble predecessors long gone, has no logical validity. 6. Constitutional interpretations by non lawyers are invalid on their face. (A false argument classified by Aristotle as ad verecundiam13). This position ignores the issues completely. It argues that one lacks the qualifications to speak at all, absent the advantage of a formal legal education. A sort of "father knows best" argument, logically invalid except against little children. James Madison, a non lawyer, wrote the Constitution. It is therefore not logical to assert that lawyers alone are qualified to interpret it. 7. Proponents of excluding lawyers from any elected office are flawed human beings unworthy of consideration. (A false argument classified by Aristotle as ad hominem14). This argument is totally unrelated to the issues. It consists of personal attacks against proponents of views with which lawyers disagree. However, personal attacks do not constitute a substitute for logical argument. Instead they are persuasive evidence that little or none exists. Subsequent articles will address the consequences of the unconstitutional control by lawyers in detail, outlining the connective links between that control and the harm to the nation. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) The problems identified include problems in health care, education, crime, access to the courts, the moral decline of the nation, and the loss of essential liberties. The estimated cost to the nation in dollars ranges between $300 billion and $1 trillion per year. Control by any single interest "same hands" group, such as the members of any profession and/or professional organization is unconstitutional. Encyclopedia Britannica, (page 280, Vol. 23, 15th edition, 1988), Logic, The history and Kinds of, The critique of forms of reasoning, Correct and defective arguments. See footnote 3. Federalist 51, (1788) by James Madison. Federalist 39, (1788) by James Madison Secundum quid: according to it's truth as holding only under special provisos. "applying a general proposition as a premise without attention to the tacit restrictions and qualifications that govern and invalidate its application in the matter at issue." See footnote 3. Declaration of Independence 1776. The British example of the "same hands", "favored class", "inconsiderable proportion" minority in effective control of all government at that time. See footnote 7. non sequitur: It does not follow. See footnote 3. The American Lawyer by John R. Dos Passos, 1907, Rothman & Co. publishers (1986) ad verecundiam: an appeal "to awe" on the grounds that seeks to secure acceptance of the conclusion on the grounds of its endorsement by persons whose views are held in general respect. See footnote 3. ad hominem: speaking "against the man" rather than to the issue, in which the premises may only make a personal attack on a person who holds some thesis, instead of offering grounds showing why what he says is false. See footnote 3. The Federalist (Number 88) May 6, 1995 The State of the Union under a failed Constitution Rebuttal to the legal profession's arguments against exclusion from elective office in the legislative and executive branches of government. Part 2. Federalists 86 and 87 identified the cause of the failure of the Constitution by asserting and proving that: Members of the legal profession unconstitutionally control all government.1 Additional evidence of the constitutional violation by members of the legal profession will be provided by answering the following questions: Was the Constitution written to make certain that no single 'same hands' group controls all government?2 And if so: Does Madison's concept of 'same hands'3 include the members of the legal profession, as one potential 'same hands' group? Affirmative answers to both questions would require evidence in the Constitution and/or the Federalist Papers respecting: a) a concern by Madison, (who wrote the Constitution) about the danger of 'same hands' control; b) the existence of language sufficient to identify members of the legal profession as one 'same hands' group; c) an outline of proposed corrective measures; and d) proof that the Constitution was written to implement the proposed corrective measures. All of the necessary evidence is there, stated as clearly as the English language and the genius of man's mind allow. I. A historical overview of the fear of a 'same hands' control group. An examination of the political context of the times will serve to give the modern reader a better sense of the concerns and motivations that led to the writing of the Constitution, and of the great fear, prevalent at the time, of granting government the power to oppress. The historical facts are undisputed. The Nation declared its independence in 1776 from a despotic British monarchy. It agreed to be governed by a document called The Articles of Confederation, ratified a few years later. However the fear of even a popularly elected government oppressing the people caused the Articles to be written granting the government insufficient power to govern.4 In 1787 delegates from the several States gathered in Philadelphia to correct the problem. They believed that the essence of good government over a free people required the proper balance between: individual freedom and security for all.5 To achieve that end, government had to be granted sufficient power to govern but insufficient to oppress. There had never before been a government of the people, for the people and by the people. If free men were to agree to grant more power to their own government over them, they wanted to make as sure as the power of the human mind and the clarity of the English language could guarantee,6 that the additional power granted would still be insufficient to oppress. The general fear of government oppression translated into a specific fear that a single 'same hands' group would acquire control of government, and whether elected, appointed or otherwise empowered, would become corrupt and oppressive.7 History teaches us that, prior to 1776,8 only four 'groups' had, from time to time, successfully usurped enough power from the people to control government and become oppressive. These 'groups' were: 1. The monarchy;9 2. The aristocracy; 3. The military; and 4. The State sanctioned religion, (the Church). The Constitution neutralized the four 'groups' identified as potential oppressors as follows: 1. The nation was organized as a republic, so there could be no threat from a monarch. 2. Planned constitutional prohibitions against titles of nobility would protect the nation from a potential aristocracy.10 3. The Constitution would make the elected civilian President also Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, thus neutralizing any potential threat from the military.11 4. The planned first amendment to the Bill of Rights12 would prohibit Congress from passing any law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus protecting the nation from oppression by any State sanctioned religion. Still the fear persisted that any group united by a common interest, in control of all government and however acquiring power, would become corrupt and oppressive. The nation believed what Lord Acton, the British statesman, had said: 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' It was thus necessary to protect against that danger above all other considerations. The first step in doing so required a clear and comprehensive definition of the specific nature of the danger. The next step required writing a constitution and structuring a system of government that provided maximum protection against that danger. II. Defining the danger of 'same hands' control. Madison explained his specific concerns in the Federalist Papers. He first defined the problem as the need for a 'well constructed Union... to break and control the violence of faction.'13 He then defined 'faction' as 'a number of citizens, ... who are united and actuated by some common ... interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.'14 Madison repeated the same concept many times and in many different ways. He condemned the result of a 'same hands' control by declaring that:... the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.'15 He reaffirmed the danger of 'same hands' control by quoting the French philosopher Montesquieu, who said: 'There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body of magistrates.'16 In which respect he was echoed by Hamilton who said: '... there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.'17 Madison also quoted Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, as follows: 'All the powers of government, legislative, executive and judiciary result to the legislative body. The concentrating (of) these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government.'18 To make certain he was understood, he restated the concept from a different perspective, by defining the government of a republic as one in which: 'It is essential ... that it be derived from the great body of society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it.' 19 Recognizing the danger of even duly elected individuals becoming corrupt, Madison articulated the case for the separation of powers concept.: 'An elective despotism, was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.'20 (Emphasis original). III. The steps taken to prevent the danger of 'same hands' control. Madison first made the case against any 'same hands' control. He then outlined the necessary steps for making sure that such control never occur, by writing a constitution implementing the concept of the separation of powers on several levels. First there was to be a union of independent states. Each State would have its own republican government. That would institute the first level of the separation of powers, between the individual states on the one hand and the federal government on the other. That means that any 'same hands' group would need to control both the individual state's government and the federal government. Second, there was to be a second level of separation of powers in the federal and in each individual state government. Every government would be divided into three separate branches, the legislative, the executive and the judiciary branches, with the necessary prohibitions against any single individual holding power in more than one branch at a time. Third, within the legislative branch, a bi-cameral system would be set up. This would implement a third level of separation of powers. Each chamber would have different powers. Both chambers would have to agree on all laws passed by the legislative branch. Thus any 'same hands' group would need to control both chambers of all legislative branches of the nation. Fourth, the right to vote would be granted to as numerous an electorate as the times allowed21 to insure that as many different interests/factions as possible would be represented in government, to reduce the potential danger of the formation of any 'same hands' group. Fifth, a Bill of Rights would be passed as soon as possible after the Constitution's ratification. It would outline particular rights that the people, (as original owners of all rights), would specifically retain, from and against, their government, Madison had thus set up what seemed like a fool proof system against any 'same hands' group ever acquiring effective control of all government. To overcome these obstacles a 'same hands' group would have to accomplish most, or a very substantial part of, all of the following: 1. Acquire control of both legislative houses in the federal and every state government, 2. Acquire control of the judiciary branch in the federal and every state government, 3. Acquire control of the executive branch in the federal and every state government, 4. Acquire control through the elective process in violation of the Constitution, 5. Do so with the people being generally unaware of what was happening, 6. Do so in violation of the oath of office mandatory for every elected official. A most unlikely scenario indeed! Yet that is precisely what has happened. IV. Defining members of the legal profession as a 'same hands' group. The Federalist Papers informs us that Madison feared all of the following: a) any 'same hands, whether of one, a few or many;' b) 'factions' defined as 'a number of citizens,... united and actuated by a common interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens;' and c) a government 'drawn from an inconsiderable proportion of society or a favored class.' Did he mean to include members of the legal profession as a 'same hands' group? Let us examine his statements. A. Any 'same hands, whether of one, a few or many,' The word 'hands' is unambiguous, as are the words 'a few or many.'22 The word 'same' means: 'Similar in kind or quality.' The word 'kind' is defined as: 'a number of persons or things of the same character; a class.' The word 'character' is defined as: 'the combination of qualities distinguishing any class of persons.' The word 'quality' is defined as: 'a distinguishing characteristic.' So 'same hands' means 'hands of a class of persons similar in characteristics that distinguish them.' Certainly membership in the legal profession is a similar distinguishing characteristic of a class of persons. Therefore Madison's definition includes all such members. B. Citizens united by a common interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens. Members of every professional organization are united by a common interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens. That is the reason that individuals band together and organize on the basis of their profession. They do so first and foremost in pursuit of their own financial interests. Thus, regardless of any other activities they might pursue of general interest to the public, the members of the legal profession qualify under Madison's concept of 'same hands'. C. A government composed of citizens drawn from an inconsiderable proportion of society or a favored class. The legal profession exercises complete control over the judiciary branch of government, and effective control over all others. Alone among the professions, it controls its own discipline. That is enough evidence to characterize the members of the legal profession as a 'favored class.' The profession represents less than one third of one per cent of the population which is certainly an 'inconsiderable proportion' of society. Thus a government controlled by members of the legal profession fails on both counts to meet Madison's definition of 'republican government'. That brings members of the legal profession within the meaning of the 'same hands' definition and constitutes an independent violation of the constitution on the additional count of failing to meet the definition of republican government. V. Thus all the evidence supports the conclusions that the Constitution was written to ensure that no 'same hands' group control all government, and that the members of the legal profession qualify many time over as a 'same hands' group. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar. He has written Federalist numbers 86 and 87 in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non-lawyer who loves the law, and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. The constitutional principles are discoverable through the text of the written constitution itself, and the Federalist Papers. The Constitution is a short document that mandates but does not explain. The intent of the Constitution is discoverable through the 85 articles written to defend the Constitution and promote its ratification, known as the Federalist Papers. Although every high school graduate should know that the answer is yes, asking the question in the present context provides the opportunity for a more thorough review of the issue. In which statement Madison declares that: '..the accumulation of all powers ... in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.' Federalist # 47, (1787) For example, Congress had the power to borrow money, but no source of revenue to repay. Congress had no power to enforce payment from the States for its needs. It could do nothing to prevent the States from 'trespassing on each other'. It could do nothing to compel delegates to attend and thus frequently lacked a quorum to conduct its business. Walter Berns, Taking the Constitution Seriously, (1992) Madison Books, ISBN 0-8191-7970-1 Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the United States, 1969-1986, Foreword to the US Constitution ' ... no language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea, or so correct as not to include many equivocally denoting different ideas...' James Madison, Federalist # 37. ( January 11, 1788) Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws. Between 1776 and the modern era a fifth group arose, so far in the US only. That group consists of the members of the legal profession. Or its national equivalent: The Russian Czar, the German Kaiser, the Roman Emperors, etc. US Constitution, Article I, Section 9. US Constitution Article II, Section 2. Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States, ratified effective December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten Amendments (Bill of Rights). James Madison, Federalist # 10, November 22, 1787 Ibid. James Madison, Federalist # 47, Jan 30, 1788. Ibid. Alexander Hamilton, Federalist # 78, May 28,1788. James Madison, Federalist # 48, February 1, 1788. James Madison, Federalist # 39, January 16, 1788. Ibid. The nation had not implemented the universal right to vote. Women and slaves had no vote. All dictionary definitions are from Funk & Wagnalls, New Comprehensive International Dictionary of the English Language. The Publishers Guild Press, New York (1975) The Federalist (Number 89) September 23, 1995 The State of the Union under a failed Constitution Rebuttal to the legal profession's arguments against exclusion from elective office in the legislative and executive branches of government. Part 3 (Outline of the formal argument before a Court of Law.) Federalist 87 and 88 provided conclusive evidence1 confirming the assertion that: Members of the legal profession unconstitutionally control all government. The evidence was drawn from the Federalist Papers and the Constitution. Some individual members of the legal profession agree with this position.2 However seeking a resolution of this issue through the Courts means appealing to the very members of the legal profession who sit as judges,3 to find 'against' their own colleagues and their entire profession. It is therefore necessary, before making a case before a Court of Law, to establish the most complete, persuasive and technically sound legal evidence and arguments possible. Such a case will require the forging of a steel chain of connective legal links between the control of government by the members of the legal profession and the constitutional prohibition of doing so. That is what this article will endeavor to do in outline form. An overview of the legal system. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Branch of Government, (the Supreme Court) bears the responsibility for interpreting the Constitution. In that capacity the Judiciary Branch has the power to overrule both other branches. Nine Justices sit on the Supreme Court. Decisions are made by majority vote. Five votes constitute a majority. Thus the Constitution means, at any particular point in time, whatever a majority of the Court says it means. Consistency in decision making is important to the Court's activities. However, Justices serve on the Court for a period of time and then pass away or otherwise leave the bench. New Justices who may have different interpretations of the Constitution are appointed. The passage of time sometimes causes the political and social climate of the land to change dramatically. Justices may develop different perspectives that lead to different legal interpretations of the Constitution. Decisions once thought accurate constitutional interpretations may later be reversed.4 That is the nature and manner in which the Constitution is interpreted. The Supreme Court accepts only a tiny number of the 'discretionary'5 cases submitted. Thus the probability of accessing the Supreme Court at all is very slight at best. The chances are even less on this issue. That is because this issue constitutes a very real threat to the enormous power wielded by the 'same hands' group, of which the judges themselves are an integral part.6 1. The Issue: Does the Constitution contain an implied constitutional provision concerning the principle of separation of powers that prohibits members of the legal profession7 from effectively controlling government? The main issue submitted contains the following sub-issues: 1.1 Does the Constitution contain an implied principle of separation of powers? 1.2 If so, would the effective control by members of the legal profession constitute a violation of that principle? 1.3 If so, are members of the legal profession in effective control of government? 1.4 If so, does this court have the duty and power to act on an implied, not express constitutional provision? 1.5 If so, is the remedy of prohibiting all members of the legal profession from elective office outside the judiciary a proper and appropriate remedy? (The sub- issue raised in 1.3 is one of fact. All other sub-issues are issues of law.) Argument by sub-issues.8 1.1 Argument on Constitutional inclusion of implied separation of power principle. Black's law dictionary distinguishes 'implied' from 'express' as follows: 'where the intention with respect to the subject matter is not manifested by explicit and direct words, but is gathered by implication or necessary deduction from the circumstances, the general language or the conduct of the parties.' Thus the first legal requirement before us is to show that the intention of the writers of the Constitution was to prohibit any single 'same hands' group from acquiring control of government. The Constitution was written in 1787 to grant the government of the day sufficient power to govern because it was without such power. It lacked power because the nation feared that any 'same hands' group, even elected by the people, would become corrupt9 and use its power to oppress the people. Therefore the Constitution was written and structured to make certain that no single 'same hands' group could ever succeed in controlling all government. The cornerstone of that structure and thus implicit in it, is the principle of the separation of powers that separates the powers of government at three levels.10 It was recognized that such separation would result in a loss of both government accountability and efficiency. That is because divided power diminishes responsibility for results and speed of action. That trade-off was deemed acceptable and considered the only way to gain constitutional ratification. Madison was seemingly convinced that the separation of powers structure provided by the Constitution would make it impossible for any 'same hands' group to ever acquire control. Thus he did not deem it necessary to explicitly provide a constitutional clause addressing the matter. Not so most of the individual States, 40 of which address it explicitly in their own State Constitutions.11 Some States, presumably for maximum emphasis, include it as part of their 'Declaration of Rights.' That is the State equivalent of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. The language of the separation of powers clause differs somewhat from one state constitution to another. The principle and intent as expressed by Madison in the Federalist Papers are however, clear in all. For example the Texas Constitution addresses the point as follows: Under Article 2, Section 1, under the heading: 'THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT' The Powers of the Government of the State of Texas shall be divided into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a separate body of magistracy, to wit: Those which are Legislative to one; those which are Executive to another, and those which are Judicial to another; and no person or collection of persons, being of one of these departments shall exercise any power properly attached to either of the others, except in the instances herein expressly permitted.12 Thus it is very clear that the Constitution does contain an implied provision concerning the principle of the Separation of Powers. 1.2 Argument on effective control by lawyers constituting a violation of the principle of separation of powers. Effective control of all government by any 'single same hands' group is what Madison characterized as 'the very definition of tyranny.'13 Madison defined a 'same hands group' or 'faction' as: 'a number of citizens ... who are united and actuated by some common ... interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens.'14 Every professional association as well as every trade and business association represents just such a single 'same hands' group or 'faction'. For the members of that group unite for the purpose of advancing their own common interests first and foremost, some of which are necessarily adverse to the rights of other citizens.15 Thus it is very clear that control of government by the members of the legal profession violates the implied principle of separation of powers of the Constitution. 1.3 Argument on proposition that members of the legal profession do effectively control government. At the present time the federal judiciary is controlled virtually 100% by members of the legal profession. President Clinton and Vice President Gore, of the executive branch as well as 14 of 18 members of the cabinet (at last count) are lawyers. In the legislative branch some 50% of the US Senate and almost 40% of the House are lawyers.16 No other 'same hands' group has better than a very small proportion of those numbers. All elected non lawyers combined would constitute a voice only in the legislative branch. The same numbers, to a greater or lesser degree, prevail everywhere in the individual States and have for some 30 years at least. These numbers prove that members of the legal profession do have effective control of government. Thus it is very clear that members of the legal profession do effectively control government. 1.4 Argument on the question of whether the Court has the Power to act on an implied not express constitutional provision. On constitutional issues the US Supreme Court has the absolute power to decide what it has the power to decide. It's justices have life tenure. It answers to no-one. It is bound by no rules that it cannot change as it sees fit. It is not bound by the principle of 'stare decisis'.17 It is not even bound by its own previous rulings on the very same question it has before it. Certainly it attempts to be generally consistent in its rulings. However it does not have to be. It can be said with the greatest respect, that the Supreme Court can be described as the only American real life equivalent of the Queen of Hearts out of Alice in Wonderland.18 Like her it is free to have anything mean: 'whatever a majority of the members of the Court say it means.' Nevertheless legal precedent exists if the Court has need of it. In McCulloch v. Maryland (17 US (4Wheat.) 316, 4 L.Ed. 579(1819) Chief Justice Marshall concerning a similar issue on implied versus express power, stated: 'Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist (sic) with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.' It is thus clear that the Court not only has the power absent precedent, to decide on the issue of implied versus express constitutional provisions, but has precedent to rely on as well. 1.5 Argument on the remedy proposed of prohibiting members of the legal profession from elective office outside the judiciary. The best and most effective remedy is the one sought. It would still allow one third of one percent of the population, (or 1 in 300 people), to control one third of all government. That represents 100 times the level of proportional representation the Constitution sought to provide. It is therefore proportionately one hundred times more than fair to the legal profession. It is therefore necessarily that much less than fair to all others. However it will at least remove the tyranny from government immediately. No other remedy appears capable of such a result. Thus, clearly removing lawyers from elective office outside the judiciary is the best and only appropriate remedy. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 Internet address: robace@ix.netcom.com About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar. He has written Federalist numbers 86, 87 & 88 in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer who loves the law, and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. More than one conclusive affirmative answer was provided. Arguably, only one is needed. Perhaps the greatest benefit to the profession that will result, will be a restoration of a much higher level of integrity than presently exists. As power is reduced, corruption diminishes. The issue of having to appear before any judge on a matter in which every judge can reasonably be regarded as having a vested interest in denying relief, is itself a major problem. A judge is a particularly honored member of the very system whose constitutionality would be under attack. To rule in favor of the position taken by these Federalist articles would require a test of character to which perhaps no person should be subjected. The judge would need to overcome a conflict of interest, the problem of cognitive dissonance, and the fear of the potential wrath of many of his colleagues. In addition the judge's decision might result in limiting any career advancements on the Bench. Every judge would also in a very real way be: 'a judge in his own cause'. A state of affairs that Madison feared and against which he warned. The Brown v Board of Education (1954) outlawing segregated schools is an example. cases it must accept as a matter of law. This case as most cases, it does not. It is important to remember that the members of the legal profession in taking over unconstitutional control of all government, did no more than any other group might have done, if given the opportunity. Such is the regrettable nature of man. Furthermore since eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, we must all share in the blame, for allowing it to happen. While the issue raised here only addresses the members of the legal profession, the question is valid as to the members of any profession, or Madisonian 'faction', or 'same hands' group. The Argument is to the issue presented to the Court. However the reader may not be aware of the following established law, all of which is a pre-requisite to a favorable review and finding of the court: 1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. United States v Butler et al, 297 US 1, 2. The Supreme Court is the only branch of government that has the right and duty to interpret the Constitution. Marbury v Madison, 1 Cr. 137; 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). 3. In interpreting the Constitution it is right and proper to examine the purpose and intent of the writers. That purpose and intent are found in the Federalist papers. 4. The Constitution as written includes by implication, whatever powers are needed to implement any legitimate end within its scope. McCulloch v The State of Maryland et al, (1819). Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely'. Lord Acton. Beteen each State and the Federal government. By splitting government entities into three branches and by splitting the legislative branch into two chambers, the House and the Senate. The10 that address it by implication are: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Michigan, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington. Some argue that lawyers, being 'officers of the court', are part of the judiciary and therefore automatically prohibited under the separation of powers concept, from elective office outside it. While this argument has merit, opponents could easily work around it by simply changing the designation 'officer of the court' to something else. Furthermore the US Constitution does not require any member of the Judiciary to be a lawyer. Thus were members of the legal profession not in de facto total control of the judiciary branches of government, the designation of 'officer of the court' would not have the same significance in terms of the separation of powers principle. Federralist 51, (1788) by James Madison Federralist 10, (1787) by James Madison Federalist 88, May 1995 by this author The numbers fluctuate from time to time, but never sufficiently in the last 30 years at least, to make any material difference to the effective control at issue. Stare decisis: Lat. To abide by, or adhere to, decided cases. Black's Law Dictionary. The example is not meant to be in any way disrespectful of the Court. It is simply the best way this author knows of making clear to lay people what the Court is empowered to do. The Federalist (Number 90) September 30, 1995 The State of the Union under a failed Constitution The nature and manifestation of the legal profession's tyranny over the nation.1 Federalists 86, 87, 88 and 89, by this author identified the unconstitutional effective control of all government by members of the legal profession, as the most important single problem the nation faces today. That is because control by a single 'same hands' group, is a violation of the separation of powers principle of the US Constitution. That control was characterized by James Madison, author of the Constitution, as 'the very definition of tyranny.' That constitutional violation disqualifies lawyers from running for elective office outside the judiciary as a matter of law. Disqualification is independent of whether or not the control results in tyrannical behavior. The identification of specific areas of tyrannical harm is brought to the public's attention as a tool to assist its understanding and encourage action. It is neither needed nor offered as evidence in the case against the legal profession. The nation's unawareness of tyranny in government. Few in the nation seem aware of the tyrannical nature of our government, or are able to identify its source. Thus the nation perpetually replenishes the source of tyranny, by continuing to elect lawyers in large numbers to the legislative and executive branches of government. That provides members of the legal profession with the continuing effective control needed to sustain the tyranny they exercise. How is that possible? To understand what is happening, we must carefully examine the precise nature and manifestation of the form of tyranny to which we have been subjected, and how it has remained concealed for so long.2 Definition of tyranny. The dictionary3 defines 'tyranny' as: Absolute power arbitrarily or unjustly administered.4 The word 'absolute' is defined as: unlimited, unconditional. Thus tyranny is: Unlimited power unjustly administered. Effective control of government provides 'unlimited power'. Such power in government is always unjustly administered. The first problem that we face is that the public perceives tyranny in government as connected to a tyrant or dictator abusing his own people in the most visible and egregious way. The public easily recognizes tyrants on the extreme left or right of the political spectrum, but not in the center. Much less so, when the appearance of freedom continues to pertain. It is true that so far most citizens are not aware of anyone being seized by 'jackbooted thugs' and taken away in the middle of the night. Nor of widespread torture of innocent people to extract false confessions. Nor of concentration camps or the more obvious trappings of known tyrants. Yet tyranny is what it is and it can destroy the Nation. The government's job as intended under the Constitution. Our nation is a Republic governed by a constitutional democracy. A government's job in such a nation is to make, interpret and enforce laws in a manner that is fair and just to all. The reason most5 laws are needed in the first place, is that every society is faced with a large number of compelling and conflicting, legitimate state interests. These conflicting interests require decisions resolving them through the making, interpreting and enforcing of laws, that balance the rights and obligations of all the conflicting parties as well as the interests of society, in a just manner. There is only one way to ensure that the resolution of conflicts is fair to the great body of society. That is to ensure that the representatives charged with the decision making process are 'derived from the great body of society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it'.6 For it is only by the interaction of the many factions thus represented, that the final results of resolving conflicts can hope to be fair to all.7 The existing government under the tyrannical control of the legal profession. We have established that effective control of government is in the hands of the legal profession. That the makers, interpreters, enforcers, advocates and adjudicators in virtually all material, government decision making situations, belong to that particular 'same hands' group. Thus that group exercises absolute power. It is axiomatic that such power will be and has been, administered unjustly. That is tyranny. Defenders of the system point to some specific instances of seemingly just results, as justification for the whole system. This is an Aristotelian false argument known as non sequitur.8 That is because the fairness of a system is not shown by proving that some derive benefits from it, but rather that all are treated in a just and equitable manner under it. All systems of government, no matter how tyrannical, can show the former. Only a system of government by, of and for the people, can hope to show the latter. A society's laws arise from conflicts between competing interests. Our legal system is an adversarial one, in which the truth is expected to arise from the clash of advocates advancing conflicting positions. That is what makes it so easy for this unconstitutional control group to tyrannize the nation without seeming to. Since every material decision made by the control group is made to resolve conflicting interests, it is almost always possible on a case by case basis to make a strong case for whatever decision is reached. It is only by viewing the accumulated result of the decision making process that the truth emerges. That is the process we are involved with here. We can see now how the legal profession succeeded in tyrannizing the nation. Here are some of the more egregious examples of its tyranny: It has unconstitutionally monopolized the practice of law and rendered it exorbitantly expensive and thus inaccessible to most. It has then criminalized attempts by non-lawyers to defend their own corporate interests in court, or the interests of others, in any way. It has de-criminalized activities practiced by its own members and considered criminal in other nations, granting special interests favored access to government. It has unconstitutionally established so-called 'Unified Bars' in many of the several states. Each of which is a body elected by nobody making laws impacting everybody. It has used the Unified Bars as instruments of alleged 'self discipline' to avoid real discipline. It has established a system of legalized extortion that allows its members to sue anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any reason, with sufficient impunity that it forces defendants to pay a high price to settle a case , because that is still cheaper than winning it. It continually invents legal justification for new alleged 'wrongs' upon which to sue. It does so in order to expand even further, its well established system of legalized extortion. It has successfully insinuated itself into every aspect of the people's lives, so that little of importance can occur without some form of legally extortionary participation by its members. It has, by making access to the courts prohibitively expensive, stripped almost all of the people of all of the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights. It has created a nation with a massive illiteracy problem by allegedly, protecting the constitutional rights of students, while ignoring their right to either learn or be safe in school. It has made divorce a war where no prisoners are taken, and where many participants suffer major lifelong adverse effects, financially, emotionally and psychologically. It has re-established the oldest instrument of tyrants, the tyrannical principle of punishment without cause, and named it 'strict liability'. 9 The specific impact of the legal profession's tyranny on the nation. The advancing through tyrannical control, of a particular group's agenda is always detrimental to the general society it is impacting.10 However the different parts of the agenda do not necessarily carry the same degree of adverse consequences for the nation. Sometimes the worst damage to others brings the profession the fewest rewards. That is the nature of tyranny. Here are some of the forms that impact can take: An unjust direct transfer of wealth from those who earned it to the profession. Here the gain to the profession and the loss to society are equal. (E.g., Excessive probate fees) An imposition of unjust law resulting in expensive defensive action taken by society. Here the gain to the profession is very much smaller than the enormous loss to society. (E.g., The threat of frivolous malpractice suits on the cost of healthcare.) An imposition of unjust law directly benefiting the profession. Here the profession's gain is a much greater proportion of society's loss. (E.g., The laws on class actions.) An unjust imposition of the profession's philosophical views on the nation. Here the profession's financial gain may be very small, while the devastation to the nation is so great and so varied, that it is almost impossible to measure. (E.g., The devastation of our system of public education through the exaltation of student's constitutional rights, while ignoring their competing, conflicting and at least equally compelling, right to learn.) The total cost of the legal profession's tyranny of the nation. The total cost is varied and very high, but difficult to either identify completely or calculate precisely. The measurement of total cost includes the financial cost, the cost in quality of life and the cost of the loss of integrity in government. Other costs are measured in terms of: the decline of public education; the inability for most of us to access our courts; the emotional distress felt by divorcing couples and their children; and the rising distrust in elected representatives by an alarming and increasing large majority of the Nation. The ultimate cost, perhaps imminent, is the complete destruction of our nation and a turning to violence, as the only solution to a government perceived as oppressive and non-responsive to its people. The financial cost: That cost has been estimated by Professor Steve McGee of the University of Texas, a former White House economist, at about one trillion dollars a year. That is about 15% of our Gross Domestic Product. The emotional cost: That cost is first felt by the emotional devastation imposed on tens of millions of divorced individuals and their children. The profession has created a system in which lawyers, are empowered to strip both the client and the client's spouse of as much of the family fortune as possible. Which lawyers do, while arguing that their actions are merely the fulfillment of their obligation to zealously represent their client. The former spouses and their children, often bereft of assets, and left emotionally shell-shocked by the experience, become the lifelong victims of the process. While the children then often become the pawns in continuing child custody problems, false accusations of sexual abuse and domestic violence. The loss of self esteem and the breeding of hatred and distrust among divorcing family members is another byproduct of the system. Resulting greatly from unjust accusations of wrongdoing by lawyers against opposing spouses, it contributes to the production of dysfunctional children and parents who often hate each other. Many others suffer great unnecessary emotional distress as a result of the society that lawyers have created. Few suffer as much as families in divorce. The educational cost to the nation: The nation's public schools suffer from devastating problems created by lawyers. Lawyers have successfully challenged the right of schools to adequately discipline children, to keep disruptive children out of classes, to search children for weapons and drugs and to exercise control over violence in schools. They have compromised safety in schools and made the most effective teaching impossible. They then succeeded in imposing a legal obligation and financial liability for educational results on the schools and individual teachers. Schools responded by lowering standards to avoid legal liability for failing students, allowing students to graduate without the basic skills graduation implies. As a result the nation now has some 100 million illiterate adults. The devastating consequences of an illiterate population trying to compete in an increasingly educated world market, cannot be overstated. The Nation's future is at stake. The political cost to the nation: The latest surveys report that 75% of the nation does not trust its own government. That is a remarkable condemnation of the system. It is normal for many, even a majority to disagree with their government. Such is the nature of the democratic process. Distrust however goes much farther and deeper. It indicates that we are in very serious danger of losing confidence in our political process. Beyond that total chaos may lie. Juventus, a senator in ancient Rome once asked: Who shall guard the guardians themselves? He spoke of the elected representatives who were charged with guarding and protecting the laws that protected the people. He gave no answer. One answer he could have given is: We the people shall guard the guardians. That is what we can do. That is what we must do. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 Internet address: robace@ix.netcom.com About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar. He has written Federalists 86, 87, 88, & 89, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer who loves the law, and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. The legal profession, as a whole, bears responsibility for having tyrannized the nation and some believe, brought it to the brink of destruction. It does not however, bear that responsibility alone. Since the price of liberty is eternal vigilance we must all share in the responsibility for having failed to be vigilant. These articles are written to help the nation rectify its problems not seek retribution against anyone. Therefore it is best for the nation to approach the resolution of the situation as Abraham Lincoln did the end of the Civil War. Thus with 'malice towards none and charity for all' the nation should forgive those who have trespassed against it and forget their past transgressions. It is vital to the long term well being of the nation that the members of the judiciary branch recover the honor and prestige that should accompany honest and faithful service in that branch. We all need to work towards that end, remembering that what happened to the legal profession could have happened to any other group given a similar opportunity. Federalist #10, by James Madison warned that: Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices or of sinister designs, may by intrigue, by corruption or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people. Funk & Wagnalls New Comprehensive International Dictionary of the English language (1978) Since Lord Acton's belief that: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely has achieved universal acknowledgment as true, it is hard to conceive of any 'Absolute power' in the context of government, being administered otherwise than arbitrarily or unjustly. A certain number of laws, like naming a national holiday for Washington's birthday, may not address any conflicting interests. James Madison in Federalist # 51 (1788). Madison was addressing the fear of MAJORITY abuse of MINORITY rights, let alone minority abuse of majority rights. It is clear from this that Madison felt completely secure that what has happened could never have happened. Ibid. non sequitur: It does not follow. Encyclopedia Britannica, Logic, Aristotelian false arguments. strict liability: Liability without fault. Black's Law dictionary. In lay terms that is punishment without cause. However it sometimes provides benefits to some non lawyers that they might not otherwise have obtained, such as the windfalls that benefit a few in the present tyrannical tort system. The extreme example of this kind of thinking is found in what apologists for Adolf Hitler say: 'Yes he was a very bad man , but he did build the Autobahn.' The Federalist (Number 91) October 17, 1995 The State of the Union under a failed Constitution The legal profession's tyranny over the nation.1 The examination, diagnosis, treatment and cure. Earlier Federalist articles2 by this writer, identified the unconstitutional effective control of all government by members of the legal profession, as the most important single problem the nation faces today. That is because control by a single 'same hands' group or 'faction' is a violation of the principle of separation of powers of the US Constitution. That was considered 'the very definition of tyranny' by James Madison,3 who wrote the Constitution. Federalist # 90 characterized the nature and manifestation of the legal profession's tyranny. Its nature lies in the ability of the legal profession to work its will on the nation, in a virtually unlimited manner. It does so through the effective control it has acquired of all government. Its tyranny is first manifested by the loss of precious liberties4 guaranteed by the Constitution. It is further manifested by other very substantial, unnecessary costs. These costs occur in the financial, emotional, educational and countless other areas. Such a state of affairs is precisely what the Constitution was written to prevent. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that either the Constitution is flawed or that it is not being enforced. To determine which it is we must do the following: 1. Examine the Constitution's purpose and accomplishments; (The examination); 2. Determine why the Constitution failed in its purpose of protecting us from the tyranny of the legal profession. (The diagnosis); And 3. Determine what the necessary remedies are. (The treatment and cure). 1. The examination. The Constitution was written in 1787. The need arose because the Articles of Confederation did not provide the federal government with sufficient power to govern. That insufficiency was deliberate. It was born of the fear that more government power would lead to oppression. Correcting that insufficiency without allowing the new government to have sufficient power to oppress the people,5 became the principal purpose of the Constitution. Madison observed that tyranny and oppression historically arose from four identifiable sources: 1. The monarchy (or its equivalent); 2. The aristocracy; 3. The Church, (or organized religion of whatever persuasion); And 4. The military. He observed two things. First that the monarchy constituted tyranny in the hands of a single individual. Second that all other sources of tyranny arose, from what he termed, a single 'same hands' group or 'faction.' Which he defined as: 'a number of citizens who are ruled and actuated by some common... interest adverse to the rights of other citizens,... or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.'6 So Madison wrote the Constitution, first to prevent all specifically known sources of tyranny from the possibility of acquiring power. Second, to prevent any other potential 'same hands' group that might arise later, from acquiring power. He addressed the first part of his problem as follows: 1. To prevent the potential tyranny of a monarchy, the Nation was organized as a constitutional democracy; 2. To prevent the potential tyranny of the aristocracy, the Constitution prohibits the United States from granting and anyone from accepting, 'Titles of nobility';7 3. To prevent the potential tyranny of the Church, the Constitution's Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from passing any law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,8 (the separation of Church and State); 4. Finally, to prevent the potential tyranny of the military, the Constitution appoints the President of the United States, a civilian, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.9 That took care of any then known, potential 'same hands,' source of tyranny. Addressing the second part of the problem was much more difficult. This is because Madison had to protect against any number of future same hands factions, then unknown. His solution consisted of providing a very elaborate system of representative government and separation of powers. That system became the cornerstone of the Constitution.10 That system made it theoretically impossible for any single same hands group to ever acquire control of all government. The solution came at a high cost. That cost was the loss of both efficiency and consistent accountability in government.11 The Constitution has always succeeded in protecting the Nation against historical sources of tyranny.12 Until fairly recent times, the Constitution even accomplished the same purpose, respecting sources of tyranny then not specifically identified. However we now know that the legal profession has been tyrannizing the nation for some considerable time. Thus we now have the worst of all possible worlds. We have lost efficiency and consistent accountability in government, yet we have not avoided the tyranny that the Constitution was specifically written to prevent.13 2. The Diagnosis. The Constitution is a written document. It is dependent, for its interpretation and enforcement, upon men and women subject to human weaknesses. The Constitution was written to account for and overcome those weaknesses. That is why the cornerstone of the Constitution is the principle of the separation of powers and representative government. But the behavior of human beings is not easily or completely foreseeable. Man's behavior, in pursuit of greed and the lust for power, can and will change to successfully adjust to changing circumstances. Preventive measures must keep pace to ensure a free society.14 The medical analogy. The analogy best suited to a discussion about the disease of tyranny and its cure, is found in the field of medicine. The human body is subject to diseases in many forms. It is protected by a system known as the 'immune system'. The body politic of the Nation is subject to the disease of tyranny in many forms. It is protected from tyranny by its own 'immune system'. That system is the constitutional provision for representative government and separation of powers. If the body's immune system is insufficient to fully protect against specific diseases, like polio, diphtheria and tetanus, medical science develops vaccines for additional specific protection. Similarly, the body politic of nations have historically suffered from tyranny from certain specific sources. So the Constitution provides 'vaccines', in the form of particular provisions, for additional specific protection against the four known sources of tyranny.15 The human body's immune system acts automatically to defend against any intruder entering the body, to cause harm. The body cannot long survive without it. The immune system cannot however, protect against the HIV virus that causes AIDS.16 That is because the HIV virus destroys the immune system. That leaves the body vulnerable to deadly diseases, which then kill it. The body politic also, cannot long survive the destruction of its 'immune system'. That system is presently being completely destroyed by the legal profession, in the same way that the HIV virus destroys the body's immune system. Let us examine how and why. Over 200 years the legal profession, responsible for the enforcement of the Constitution, seeking its own best interests against that of the community, 'mutated' into the new tyranny. It changed from the defender and guardian of the Constitution to the principal source of tyranny in the Nation. In pursuit of the profession's own interests it acquired tyrannical control of the Nation's government.17 It did so by first creating a national Bar association, known as the American Bar Association (ABA), then state bar associations. It then created a de jure18 State judicial system controlled completely by lawyers/judges. And a de facto19 federal system on the same basis. More power led to greater dominance in all elective offices. As its power increased, so did the corruption of many of its members and their activities. The members of the legal profession are charged with guarding our Constitution. None know it better. That is why none other could have succeeded in corrupting it so completely. Lawyers ostensibly run for elective office as 'representatives of the people'. However whether consciously or not, they run first, last and always, for themselves and their own 'same hands' control group. Such activity by individual lawyers is unconstitutional. It may even be an act of treason.20 However those charged by the nation to identify and remedy the situation, are themselves the cause of it. They are therefore far more likely to fight to preserve, than to correct it. The few who may be tempted to try to correct it, risk severe retribution from their colleagues.21 That is how and why the 'immune system' of the Nation's body politic has been destroyed by the legal profession, as effectively as the HIV virus destroys the human body's 'immune system'. By taking over the effective control of all government for its own 'same hands' faction or group, the legal profession has stripped the people of this nation of the protective system of representative government and separation of powers intended to immunize the nation against tyranny. The HIV virus eventually and inexorably causes AIDS. That results in certain death for the body. So does the virus of the legal profession's control of all government. It will quickly and inexorably cause the death of what is left of freedom and constitutional government.22 The Nation is fast sinking into chaos. The disease called AIDS strips the body of its immune system. That allows a multitude of deadly diseases to flourish. Similarly the virus of the legal profession strips the body politic of its 'immune system'. That allows a multitude of tyrannical activities to flourish. The HIV virus can lie dormant in the body for years before symptoms appear or are recognized. Similarly the virus of the legal profession within the Nation's body politic, can sometimes exist in a dormant state for years, without immediate symptoms of tyranny surfacing, let alone being recognized. The legal profession has become the metaphorical AIDS carrier of the American body politic. It exists virtually everywhere and in all the Nation's activities. It is doing fundamental and often irrevocable harm to the people.23 It is replacing freedom with tyranny. Fortunately the problem can be solved. 3. The treatment and cure. In the medical field there are occasionally very simple treatments that can produce remarkable results. In 1848 Ignaz Semmelweiss24 made an amazing discovery. It was that simply washing one's hands after dissecting cadavers and before touching a patient's open wounds, would save lives. So it is with the Nation's body politic. The treatment that is called for requires only that the Nation recognize that lawyers are constitutionally barred from serving outside the judiciary branch of government. It would be nice but not even necessary that the Courts say so. Only that the nation understand it. After which the treatment calls for the nation to never again vote for any lawyer outside the judiciary branch. When that occurs the virus of tyranny will be destroyed and the nation will be cured. The matter is urgent. Time is very much of the essence. The Nation has at best, only a very few years left, to correct the situation and avoid civil strife of a very serious nature. The danger at hand may even include the permanent, total collapse of the system of government provided by the Constitution, and intended by the Founding Fathers. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 Internet address: robace@ix.netcom.com About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar. He has written Federalists 86, 87, 88, 89 & 90 in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer who loves the law, and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. The legal profession, as a whole, must bear responsibility for tyrannizing the nation. It does not however bear that responsibility alone. Since the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, we must all share in the responsibility for having failed to be vigilant. Federalists #'s 86, 87, 88, 89, & 90, written in 1995. Federalist # 47, (1788) by James Madison. The same sentiments were echoed by Hamilton, Jefferson, and the French philosopher, Montesquieu. The loss of the protection of the Bill of Rights, of accessibility to the courts, of reasonable freedom from crime, of the right to a decent public education, and of affordable healthcare, to name only a few. Granting the government 'sufficient power to govern, but insufficient to oppress' was the fundamental goal of the founding fathers. It is another way of saying the purpose of a Constitution is to achieve the delicate balance between 'freedom and security'. James Madison, Federalist # 10, (1787) US Constitution, Article I, Section 9. Amendment I to the Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. US Constitution, Article II, Section 2. See Federalist # 88, page 3, by this writer. Consistent accountability exists only if the Executive and the Legislative branches are controlled by the same party at all times. That has not been the case in most of the last 15 years. Otherwise each branch takes credit for the good, and blames the other for the bad. Although some people feel that the word Esquire after a lawyer's name, does constitute a 'title of nobility'. Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect any constitutional democracy to survive without serious internal challenge for over 200 years. Perhaps that is what is meant by the phrase: 'eternal vigilance is the price of liberty'. Perhaps it is necessary to review the workings of the Constitution every so often to make certain all is as it should be. Perhaps it is most fitting that this writer, the person to raise the alarm, like James Madison who wrote the Constitution, is not a lawyer. Either by enforcing the Constitution as written, as in this case, or by amending it if necessary. See page 2, paragraph 1. AIDS: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. There is no suggestion that the profession was seeking tyrannical control, nor that an actual conspiracy ever existed to that end. Nevertheless, that is what ensued. In law that is called a 'constructive conspiracy'. de jure: in law, de facto: in fact The intentional nullification of the principal of representative government and separation of powers, a cornerstone principal of the US Constitution, constitutes a material undermining of the Constitution. That constitutes the giving of aid and comfort to and adhering to the enemies of the United States. That is treason under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution. There are many lawyers and judges aware of the situation and in support of the position advanced here. The legal profession contains large numbers of people, still untainted by the corruption that afflicts the profession. We call upon those people, above all others, to assist us in our task by speaking out , and not to withdraw from practice. We are aware of the risks we are asking them to take and remind them that the founding fathers, mostly lawyers, risked their lives for the good of the Nation not personal gain, when they signed the Declaration of Independence. Already perceived by many, as on its deathbed now. As one who loves the law, this writer makes this statement with deep sadness. Semmelweiss, Ignaz Phillip, (1818-1865) Hungarian physician who introduced antisepsis into medical practice. Encyclopedia Britannica. . The Federalist (Number 91) October 17, 1995 The State of the Union under a failed Constitution The legal profession's tyranny over the nation.1 The examination, diagnosis, treatment and cure. Earlier Federalist articles2 by this writer, identified the unconstitutional effective control of all government by members of the legal profession, as the most important single problem the nation faces today. That is because control by a single 'same hands' group or 'faction' is a violation of the principle of separation of powers of the US Constitution. That was considered 'the very definition of tyranny' by James Madison,3 who wrote the Constitution. Federalist # 90 characterized the nature and manifestation of the legal profession's tyranny. Its nature lies in the ability of the legal profession to work its will on the nation, in a virtually unlimited manner. It does so through the effective control it has acquired of all government. Its tyranny is first manifested by the loss of precious liberties4 guaranteed by the Constitution. It is further manifested by other very substantial, unnecessary costs. These costs occur in the financial, emotional, educational and countless other areas. Such a state of affairs is precisely what the Constitution was written to prevent. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that either the Constitution is flawed or that it is not being enforced. To determine which it is we must do the following: 1. Examine the Constitution's purpose and accomplishments; (The examination); 2. Determine why the Constitution failed in its purpose of protecting us from the tyranny of the legal profession. (The diagnosis); And 3. Determine what the necessary remedies are. (The treatment and cure). 1. The examination. The Constitution was written in 1787. The need arose because the Articles of Confederation did not provide the federal government with sufficient power to govern. That insufficiency was deliberate. It was born of the fear that more government power would lead to oppression. Correcting that insufficiency without allowing the new government to have sufficient power to oppress the people,5 became the principal purpose of the Constitution. Madison observed that tyranny and oppression historically arose from four identifiable sources: 1. The monarchy (or its equivalent); 2. The aristocracy; 3. The Church, (or organized religion of whatever persuasion); And 4. The military. He observed two things. First that the monarchy constituted tyranny in the hands of a single individual. Second that all other sources of tyranny arose, from what he termed, a single 'same hands' group or 'faction.' Which he defined as: 'a number of citizens who are ruled and actuated by some common... interest adverse to the rights of other citizens,... or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.'6 So Madison wrote the Constitution, first to prevent all specifically known sources of tyranny from the possibility of acquiring power. Second, to prevent any other potential 'same hands' group that might arise later, from acquiring power. He addressed the first part of his problem as follows: 1. To prevent the potential tyranny of a monarchy, the Nation was organized as a constitutional democracy; 2. To prevent the potential tyranny of the aristocracy, the Constitution prohibits the United States from granting and anyone from accepting, 'Titles of nobility';7 3. To prevent the potential tyranny of the Church, the Constitution's Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from passing any law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,8 (the separation of Church and State); 4. Finally, to prevent the potential tyranny of the military, the Constitution appoints the President of the United States, a civilian, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.9 That took care of any then known, potential 'same hands,' source of tyranny. Addressing the second part of the problem was much more difficult. This is because Madison had to protect against any number of future same hands factions, then unknown. His solution consisted of providing a very elaborate system of representative government and separation of powers. That system became the cornerstone of the Constitution.10 That system made it theoretically impossible for any single same hands group to ever acquire control of all government. The solution came at a high cost. That cost was the loss of both efficiency and consistent accountability in government.11 The Constitution has always succeeded in protecting the Nation against historical sources of tyranny.12 Until fairly recent times, the Constitution even accomplished the same purpose, respecting sources of tyranny then not specifically identified. However we now know that the legal profession has been tyrannizing the nation for some considerable time. Thus we now have the worst of all possible worlds. We have lost efficiency and consistent accountability in government, yet we have not avoided the tyranny that the Constitution was specifically written to prevent.13 2. The Diagnosis. The Constitution is a written document. It is dependent, for its interpretation and enforcement, upon men and women subject to human weaknesses. The Constitution was written to account for and overcome those weaknesses. That is why the cornerstone of the Constitution is the principle of the separation of powers and representative government. But the behavior of human beings is not easily or completely foreseeable. Man's behavior, in pursuit of greed and the lust for power, can and will change to successfully adjust to changing circumstances. Preventive measures must keep pace to ensure a free society.14 The medical analogy. The analogy best suited to a discussion about the disease of tyranny and its cure, is found in the field of medicine. The human body is subject to diseases in many forms. It is protected by a system known as the 'immune system'. The body politic of the Nation is subject to the disease of tyranny in many forms. It is protected from tyranny by its own 'immune system'. That system is the constitutional provision for representative government and separation of powers. If the body's immune system is insufficient to fully protect against specific diseases, like polio, diphtheria and tetanus, medical science develops vaccines for additional specific protection. Similarly, the body politic of nations have historically suffered from tyranny from certain specific sources. So the Constitution provides 'vaccines', in the form of particular provisions, for additional specific protection against the four known sources of tyranny.15 The human body's immune system acts automatically to defend against any intruder entering the body, to cause harm. The body cannot long survive without it. The immune system cannot however, protect against the HIV virus that causes AIDS.16 That is because the HIV virus destroys the immune system. That leaves the body vulnerable to deadly diseases, which then kill it. The body politic also, cannot long survive the destruction of its 'immune system'. That system is presently being completely destroyed by the legal profession, in the same way that the HIV virus destroys the body's immune system. Let us examine how and why. Over 200 years the legal profession, responsible for the enforcement of the Constitution, seeking its own best interests against that of the community, 'mutated' into the new tyranny. It changed from the defender and guardian of the Constitution to the principal source of tyranny in the Nation. In pursuit of the profession's own interests it acquired tyrannical control of the Nation's government.17 It did so by first creating a national Bar association, known as the American Bar Association (ABA), then state bar associations. It then created a de jure18 State judicial system controlled completely by lawyers/judges. And a de facto19 federal system on the same basis. More power led to greater dominance in all elective offices. As its power increased, so did the corruption of many of its members and their activities. The members of the legal profession are charged with guarding our Constitution. None know it better. That is why none other could have succeeded in corrupting it so completely. Lawyers ostensibly run for elective office as 'representatives of the people'. However whether consciously or not, they run first, last and always, for themselves and their own 'same hands' control group. Such activity by individual lawyers is unconstitutional. It may even be an act of treason.20 However those charged by the nation to identify and remedy the situation, are themselves the cause of it. They are therefore far more likely to fight to preserve, than to correct it. The few who may be tempted to try to correct it, risk severe retribution from their colleagues.21 That is how and why the 'immune system' of the Nation's body politic has been destroyed by the legal profession, as effectively as the HIV virus destroys the human body's 'immune system'. By taking over the effective control of all government for its own 'same hands' faction or group, the legal profession has stripped the people of this nation of the protective system of representative government and separation of powers intended to immunize the nation against tyranny. The HIV virus eventually and inexorably causes AIDS. That results in certain death for the body. So does the virus of the legal profession's control of all government. It will quickly and inexorably cause the death of what is left of freedom and constitutional government.22 The Nation is fast sinking into chaos. The disease called AIDS strips the body of its immune system. That allows a multitude of deadly diseases to flourish. Similarly the virus of the legal profession strips the body politic of its 'immune system'. That allows a multitude of tyrannical activities to flourish. The HIV virus can lie dormant in the body for years before symptoms appear or are recognized. Similarly the virus of the legal profession within the Nation's body politic, can sometimes exist in a dormant state for years, without immediate symptoms of tyranny surfacing, let alone being recognized. The legal profession has become the metaphorical AIDS carrier of the American body politic. It exists virtually everywhere and in all the Nation's activities. It is doing fundamental and often irrevocable harm to the people.23 It is replacing freedom with tyranny. Fortunately the problem can be solved. 3. The treatment and cure. In the medical field there are occasionally very simple treatments that can produce remarkable results. In 1848 Ignaz Semmelweiss24 made an amazing discovery. It was that simply washing one's hands after dissecting cadavers and before touching a patient's open wounds, would save lives. So it is with the Nation's body politic. The treatment that is called for requires only that the Nation recognize that lawyers are constitutionally barred from serving outside the judiciary branch of government. It would be nice but not even necessary that the Courts say so. Only that the nation understand it. After which the treatment calls for the nation to never again vote for any lawyer outside the judiciary branch. When that occurs the virus of tyranny will be destroyed and the nation will be cured. The matter is urgent. Time is very much of the essence. The Nation has at best, only a very few years left, to correct the situation and avoid civil strife of a very serious nature. The danger at hand may even include the permanent, total collapse of the system of government provided by the Constitution, and intended by the Founding Fathers. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 Internet address: robace@ix.netcom.com About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar. He has written Federalists 86, 87, 88, 89 & 90 in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer who loves the law, and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. The legal profession, as a whole, must bear responsibility for tyrannizing the nation. It does not however bear that responsibility alone. Since the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, we must all share in the responsibility for having failed to be vigilant. Federalists #'s 86, 87, 88, 89, & 90, written in 1995. Federalist # 47, (1788) by James Madison. The same sentiments were echoed by Hamilton, Jefferson, and the French philosopher, Montesquieu. The loss of the protection of the Bill of Rights, of accessibility to the courts, of reasonable freedom from crime, of the right to a decent public education, and of affordable healthcare, to name only a few. Granting the government 'sufficient power to govern, but insufficient to oppress' was the fundamental goal of the founding fathers. It is another way of saying the purpose of a Constitution is to achieve the delicate balance between 'freedom and security'. James Madison, Federalist # 10, (1787) US Constitution, Article I, Section 9. Amendment I to the Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. US Constitution, Article II, Section 2. See Federalist # 88, page 3, by this writer. Consistent accountability exists only if the Executive and the Legislative branches are controlled by the same party at all times. That has not been the case in most of the last 15 years. Otherwise each branch takes credit for the good, and blames the other for the bad. Although some people feel that the word Esquire after a lawyer's name, does constitute a 'title of nobility'. Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect any constitutional democracy to survive without serious internal challenge for over 200 years. Perhaps that is what is meant by the phrase: 'eternal vigilance is the price of liberty'. Perhaps it is necessary to review the workings of the Constitution every so often to make certain all is as it should be. Perhaps it is most fitting that this writer, the person to raise the alarm, like James Madison who wrote the Constitution, is not a lawyer. Either by enforcing the Constitution as written, as in this case, or by amending it if necessary. See page 2, paragraph 1. AIDS: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. There is no suggestion that the profession was seeking tyrannical control, nor that an actual conspiracy ever existed to that end. Nevertheless, that is what ensued. In law that is called a 'constructive conspiracy'. de jure: in law, de facto: in fact The intentional nullification of the principal of representative government and separation of powers, a cornerstone principal of the US Constitution, constitutes a material undermining of the Constitution. That constitutes the giving of aid and comfort to and adhering to the enemies of the United States. That is treason under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution. There are many lawyers and judges aware of the situation and in support of the position advanced here. The legal profession contains large numbers of people, still untainted by the corruption that afflicts the profession. We call upon those people, above all others, to assist us in our task by speaking out , and not to withdraw from practice. We are aware of the risks we are asking them to take and remind them that the founding fathers, mostly lawyers, risked their lives for the good of the Nation not personal gain, when they signed the Declaration of Independence. Already perceived by many, as on its deathbed now. As one who loves the law, this writer makes this statement with deep sadness. Semmelweiss, Ignaz Phillip, (1818-1865) Hungarian physician who introduced antisepsis into medical practice. Encyclopedia Britannica. . The Federalist (Number 92) April 2, 1996 The State of the Union under a failed Constitution The legal profession's tyrannical control over the Nation and the federal crime of Treason.1 Earlier Federalist articles2 by this writer identified the unconstitutional effective control of all government by members of the legal profession as the greatest problem the Nation faces today. From that control by a same hands faction arose the tyranny that Madison3 feared. That tyranny has given rise to a multitude of very serious problems, sufficient in scope to threaten the complete destruction from within, of what remains of our Republic's constitutional democracy. Unacceptable levels of crime, ineffective public education, unaffordable justice, unaffordable healthcare, divorce/custody wars and domestic violence are some of the major problems that have resulted. The criminalization of the police attempting to hold the line against criminals protected by lawyers abusing constitutional protections is another.4 We have here what they had in Rome when Juventus asked rhetorically Quis custodit ipsos custodis.5 In this context many people cry out that those responsible are guilty of treason. Treason is the greatest crime in the nation. It carries the death penalty and as a capital crime it is not subject to any statute of limitations.6 Prosecution of this crime shields the nation against traitors, but also has a historic background as an instrument of abuse.7 Yet it has never before been used by the people as a sword of freedom, to protect against the tyranny of their own government. That would be an application in the noblest cause of all. The accusation of treason should never be made without 'reasonable ground for belief in the existence of facts warranting the proceedings complained of.'8 Yet failure to report treason is itself a crime, known as Misprision of treason.9 The examination here will be limited to whether or not probable cause10 exists for finding that members of the legal profession occupying elected office in the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, are guilty of treason. If probable cause exists, perhaps the Nation should grant amnesty to those potentialy guilty in exchange for their resignation from public office, rather than prosecute them to the full extent of the law. This is suggested notwithstanding the fact that this particular form of treason would be the most egregious form of all. For every person guilty of treason would have betrayed a threefold trust. First because he is a citizen of this country and owes it allegiance. Second, because he is specifically trained by his country as a lawyer who, as an officer of the Court and a part of the Judiciary, swore an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. Third, because he occupies a fiduciary position as an elected representative of the people who, when he took office, swore a second oath to uphold the Constitution. What is treason? Treason is a crime by a person owing allegiance to the United States which threatens the security of the Nation. The offense is covered under Federal Statutes, Title 18, USCS, (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) Section 238111 which defines treason as follows: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned for not less than five years, and fined not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (Emphasis added) The concept of 'adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort' was further defined by the Supreme Court as: 'Strengthening or tending to strengthen the ability of the enemies of the United States, or which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies.'12 (Emphasis added) Acts that are treasonable may consist of a criminal act already more generally covered and more easily prosecutable under other statutes. Treason is very broad in scope since there are a multitude of acts that can produce the proscribed result. The act can be as egregious as sabotage in time of war. It can also consist of an act, seemingly innocent in itself, if such an act was intentionally done to advance a treasonous intent.13 The elements of the crime. The two elements of the crime of treason are defined by Supreme Court Justice Douglas as the 'overt act and the intent with which it is done.'14 Thus a person guilty of treason must commit: 1. An overt act, with 2. Treasonous intent,15 which 3. Adheres to and gives aid and comfort to the country's enemies, or 4. Strengthens this country's enemies, or 5. Weakens this country. Thus the legal issue is : Is it treason for a member of the legal profession, whose 'same hands' faction possesses absolute control of the Judiciary branch of the federal government, to hold elected office in either the Legislative or Executive branch of the Federal Government on the grounds that such an act constitutes a contribution to the nullification of the separation of powers clause implicit in the US Constitution, which materially undermines the Constitution, and thereby adheres to and gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, or tends to strengthen the ability of the enemies of the United States, or tends to weaken the power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies ? ARGUMENT: The unconstitutional effective control of government by members of the legal profession commenced with the takeover by lawyers and judges on a de facto basis of the federal judiciary, one of the three branches of government, absent any such requirement in the Constitution. For purposes of the issue at hand the assumption will be made that the said de facto control taken alone, does not rise to the level of threatening the Nation's constitutional democracy. That situation leaves the Nation's non lawyers with only two of three branches still excluded from absolute permanent control by members of the legal profession. It is only in these two branches that the 99.7% of the Nation who are non-lawyers, may attempt to exercise their constitutional right to representative government as originally protected by the cornerstone principle of the Constitution known as the Separation of Powers. Thus if any member of the legal profession,16 a 'same hands' faction already in total control of one branch of government, takes any action that contributes to or results in, the acquisition of effective control of either or both of the other two branches, by the members of their profession, such an act could be construable as treason. This is because such an act would either result, or tend to result, in the tyranny of a same hands faction effectively controlling all government.17 All available evidence supports the conclusion,18 that it is unconstitutional for members of the legal profession to occupy elected office in either the legislative or executive branches of the federal government, on the grounds that such an act would constitute a violation of the separation of powers clause implicit in the Constitution. For the same act by a particular lawyer to rise to the level of the crime of treason it would be necessary that the act also: 1. Result in the 'adhering to, giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States', or 'strengthening or tending to strengthen the enemies of the United States, or weakening or tending to weaken the power of the United States to resist or attack its enemies,' and 2. Be done with treasonous intent, (unless the Park doctrine19 is applicable). 1. The adhering to, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or weakening or tending to weaken the power of the United States to resist or attack such enemies requirement. The Constitution is the single greatest document ever written by a society of people who wish to govern themselves in a manner that provides their government with sufficient power to govern but insufficient to oppress. That document has kept this Nation reasonably free for over 200 years. It created a delicate balance between freedom and security. It is the very fabric that ties our society together. The maintenance of this great document's integrity is an essential element of the well-being, freedom and security of the people of this Nation. Any act which materially compromises that integrity would constitute a material undermining of the Constitution, which would adhere to and give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, for such an act could and would materially weaken the people's faith in their own government.20 The act of either succeeding, or tending to succeed, in materially reducing or nullifying the checks and balances established by the Constitution for the protection of the people from their own government through the principle of the Separation of Powers, would qualify as an act which materially undermines the Constitution. After the members of the legal profession established absolute de facto control of the federal Judiciary, the act of holding elective public office by any member of that 'same hands' faction or group, in either the Legislative or Executive branches of government constitutes an act which would result in the aforementioned undermining of the Constitution and would therefore qualify as probable cause for an 'overt act' of treason. 2. The treasonous intent requirement. In Cramer v United States21 Justice Jackson addressed the issue of treasonous intent in the following manner: Intent in the crime of treason is 'never susceptible of proof by direct testimony' ... 'Since intent must be inferred from conduct of some sort, we think it is permissible to draw usual reasonable inferences as to intent from the overt acts.' Thus with respect to treason the law permits that 'intent may be inferred from all circumstances surrounding the act.'22 The law further states that: 'In matters of treason the accused is presumed to have intended the natural consequences which one standing in his circumstances and possessing his knowledge would reasonably expect to result from his acts.'23 In the case at Bar all the evidence supports the legal inference of treasonous intent. This is because every lawyer has been specifically trained in the law, and can therefore legally be inferred to stand in circumstances and possessing knowledge that permits him to reasonably expect that the result of the act of holding elective public office, in either the legislative or executive branch of government, would tend to contribute to or result in, the unconstitutional control by his 'same hands' faction or group, of all government and hence constitute treasonous intent. The law makes the legal inference of presumed treasonous intent the standard to be met for the finding of actual treasonous intent.24 That standard has been met here. In addition an abundance of factual evidence exists to support the same conclusion. The legal profession is known to continually seek as much power in both the legislative and executive branches as it can. It does so to advance its own interests. Those interests like the interests of any other similar 'same hands' faction or group, naturally favor that faction first and foremost and are therefore opposed to the general interests of the Nation.25 Any member of the legal profession who succeeds in increasing the profession's political power by occupying elective public office in the legislative or executive branches of the federal government, can by inference, reasonably be charged with that knowledge and therefore probable cause for treasonous intent. Conclusion: All the available evidence supports the general conclusion that probable cause does exist for believing that it is an act of treason for any individual member of the legal profession to occupy elective office in the legislative or executive branches of government.26 PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 Internet address: robace@ix.netcom.com About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 & 91 in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer who loves the law, and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. Treason can also be a crime at the State level. Federalists #'s 86, 87, 88, 89, & 90, & 91 written in 1995. James Madison, the author of the Constitution and co-author of the 1787 Federalist Papers. A system designed to protect the presumed innocent has become one that frees the factual perpetrator of the criminal deed on technical grounds, primarily for the financial benefit of the defense Bar. Latin for: Who shall guard the guardians themselves? He provided no answer. Title 18, USCS, Section 3281, Limitations of prosecutions, Capital Offenses, Despotic governments oppressed their own people by falsely accusing them of treason. Black's Law Dictionary : A definition of Probable cause. Misprision of treason: United States Statutes 18, Section 2382. Black's Law Dictionary: Another definition of Probable cause: An apparent state of facts found to exist upon reasonable inquiry which would induce a reasonably intelligent and prudent man to believe that the accused person had committed the crime charged. The Federal statute implements Article III., Section 3, of the US Constitution, which defines treason. See United States v Haupt, D.C.III., 47 F.Supp. 836,839. See Haupt v United States 330 US 631 (1947). See Cramer v United States (1945) 325 US 1, 89 L Ed 1441, 65 S Ct 918. Providing the Park doctrine (footnote 19) does not apply. There are different levels of egregiousness to the crime of treason in this context. A president who is also a lawyer, would be in total effective control of the executive branch. Thus by his overt act that person would be responsible for adding an entire branch of government to the unconstitutional control of his 'same hands' faction . That is far more egregious than the overt act of a single member of Congress who is a lawyer. Both acts can qualify as probable cause for treason. Only the degree is different. Which is precisely the situation that exists today. See Federalist 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, & 91 written by this writer in 1995. The Park doctrine was established in United States v Park (1974), 421 US 658, 668, in a case involving a corporate officer criminally prosecuted for failure of subordinates to remedy violations of law. The Park doctrine applied the civil law concept of 'strict liability' (liability without fault), to criminal law. That was done in the belief that in some cases at least, public welfare supersedes individual due process rights. That doctrine, logically applied here, could eliminate the need to prove 'treasonous intent'. Current surveys repeatedly report a significant majority (76%) of this Nation's people do not trust their own government. Cramer v United States, (1945) 325 US1, L Ed 1459, 1460 See Haupt case, supra. Cramer v United States, (1945) 325 US 1, L Ed 1441, 65 S Ct 918. Assuming the Park doctrine does not apply, for if it does there is no need to prove intent. That is true regardless of the legal profession's allegation that what they do as a professional group is in the best interests of the Nation. All professional groups and associations make that claim. However much truth there may be in these allegations, every such group or association retains enough special interests opposed to the interests of the Nation, to qualify for Madison's definition of 'same hands faction' that the Constitution was written to oppose. However, the best interests of the Nation and the legal profession would be served if lawyers were voted out of office rather than prosecuted for treason. The Constitution, representative government, the Separation of Powers and the system of checks and balances would be restored through the ballot box. The Nation would be saved and could forgive and forget. The lawyers will have been saved from themselves andserved from any risk of ending their careers convicted of treason. The Federalist (Number 93) July 31, 1996 The State of the Union under a failed Constitution Rebuttal to the legal profession's Defenses to the allegation that probable cause exists for stating that by occupying public office in either the legislative or executive branches of the federal government, members of the legal profession are guilty of the federal crime of treason.1 Federalist # 92, presented the argument that the legal profession unconstitutionally controls all government generally and the federal government in particular. That control began with the de facto control by the legal profession of the federal judiciary without constitutional authority. As a consequence, probable cause exists to conclude that any single member of that profession who occupies elective public office in either the executive or legislative branches of the federal government is guilty of having committed the crime of treason. That argument was intended to address the question in the most general way. This article will respond to the defenses already articulated by those who do not agree with that general position. The legal issue was presented as follows: Is there probable cause to believe that: It is treason for any member of the legal profession, whose 'same hands' faction possesses absolute control of the Judiciary branch of government, to hold elective public office in either the legislative or the executive branches of that government on the grounds that such an act constitutes a contribution to the nullification of the principle of the separation of powers implicit in the Constitution , which materially undermines the Constitution, and thereby adheres to and gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, or tends to strengthen the ability of the enemies of the United States, or tends to weaken the power of the United States to resist and attack such enemies. For a person to be guilty of treason the law requires that person to commit : 1. An overt act, with 2. Treasonous intent, which either, 3. Gives aid and comfort to the country's enemies, or 4. Strengthens this countries enemies, or 5. Weakens this country.2 Let us examine the facts, the defenses3 and the rebuttals to the proposition that probable cause does exist. Question 1. Did the accused commit the overt act ?4 The 'overt act' at issue is the act of occupying elective public office in either the legislative or the executive branch of government by a member of the legal profession. Every such act is a matter of public record. There is therefore no dispute on this point. Question 2. Was the overt act committed with treasonous intent? The legal profession's answer is no, for the following reasons: 2.1 The act of occupying public office is an innocent act done under color of law that does not carry with it the presumption of treason. Innocent acts are capable of being committed with treasonous intent. It is therefore no defense to argue that the overt act is itself innocent. 5 2.2 The individuals accused of treason are generally men and women of excellent reputation as patriotic citizens, some of whom are decorated war heroes. Such individuals cannot be guilty of treason. Neither the individuals' war record nor their past is at issue. Reputation and previous good deeds are not a defense to the issue of treasonous intent. 2.3 Evidence of treasonous intent is essential to the crime of treason and therefore must be shown to exist 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Implied treasonous intent, even if it exists in theory, cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.6 When deemed present by the Court, implied treasonous intent is the legal equivalent of actual treasonous intent and does meet the necessary standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'7 Question 3. Did the overt act adhere to and give aid and comfort to our enemies or weaken or tend to weaken the power of the United States to resist such enemies? The legal profession's answer is no, for the following reasons: 3.01 Members of the legal profession do not control all government, since they do not have a clear majority at this time in the House of Representatives. Absent that control there can be no nullification of the principle of Separation of Powers and hence no undermining of the Constitution or adhering to, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Neither absolute nor effective control of all government needs to exist for an act to 'contribute to the nullification of the principle of separation of powers.' It is sufficient that a member of the 'same hands' faction which possesses either effective or absolute control of a single branch of government, acquire elective power in another. The members of the legal profession do possess absolute control of the judiciary branch. That is sufficient for the acts in question to be deemed treason.8 3.02 Even if lawyers do 'control' all government they do not qualify as the kind of 'same hands' faction against whom Madison intended to protect the people by the creation of the Separation of Powers principle. That is because lawyers, although members of the same profession sharing a common interest adverse to the general interest, differ in a great many respects from each other in significant ways. All 'same hands' factions differ from each other in significant ways. If that were a disqualifying criterion, Madison's statement about the very meaning of tyranny would be meaningless.9 The issue is whether or not any faction or group of people possesses any interest that is common to it and adverse to the general society. The legal profession's desire to advance its own best interests is an 'interest' common to it and adverse to society as a whole. The same is true of every professional group or association in the Nation. Thus it is clear that members of the legal profession are a 'same hands' faction within the meaning of Madison's language. 3.03 The word 'enemy' in the treason statute can only mean another nation with which this Nation is at war. Absent war there can be no enemy and hence no treason. The dictionary defines the word 'enemy' in many ways, to wit: One who cherishes resentment or malicious purpose towards another; an adversary; foe. One of a hostile army or nation.10 Every Nation is at all times faced with enemies who cherish resentment or malicious purpose towards it. Drug lords and other criminal elements are often referred to as 'enemies' of the Nation. Newspaper reports indicate the existence of counterfeiting of this Nation's currency on a scale so extensive as to necessarily suggest the participation of unfriendly nations viewed as 'enemies' of this Nation.11 To argue that the only interpretation of the word enemy is limited to a nation at war with this country is wrong. That is because the plain meaning of the word enemy is more inclusive. Furthermore such an interpretation would lead to the most ludicrous results. According to this argument individual members of the legal profession who were constitutionally elected in time of peace, would become guilty of the crime of treason at the very moment of the outbreak of war with any nation. That is logically absurd. 3.04 The words 'member of the legal profession' or 'lawyer' are too vague. Many members of the government are 'nonpracticing lawyers'. Some are not even active members of State Bars. At worst only active members of State Bars should qualify for 'same hands' faction definition and potential probable cause for treason. Every person who graduates from law school has earned the right to be called a lawyer and thus share important common interests with other lawyers/judges who are members of his 'same hands' faction, which are adverse to the rest of society. A lawyer may or may not choose to sit for the Bar exam. He then may or may not choose to practice law. Nevertheless he retains a common interest with other members of his 'same hands' faction or group, which he may choose to take advantage of at any time. That is sufficient to include all lawyers within the meaning of the 'same hands' faction targeted by Madison to protect the Nation from tyranny. 3.05 The idea that is advanced is an interpretation of law that is both new and esoteric. It would be unfair to seek harsh immediate enforcement. Therefore all existing potential violators should be grandfathered. 12 The concept of 'grandfathering' those already doing something that a new law will no longer permit is not valid here. First, because this is not a matter of a new law. It is merely the application of existing Constitutional law. Second, because treason is not a matter to be 'grandfathered' in, like a property use right that has become illegal after the fact. It is the most serious crime in the Nation. 3.06 Even if totally true there is something inherently unfair, wrong and unconstitutional, in singling out a particular profession and disqualifying it from public office outside the Judiciary branch. 13 The particular profession allegedly 'singled out' is the one that has already taken over absolute control of the federal Judiciary absent any constitutional authority. The issue is therefore whether the 99.7% of the people of this Nation who are not lawyers, have a constitutional right to representative government protected by the principle of separation of powers, that supersedes the right of the legal profession to control all government. The answer is obviously yes. 3.07 No single individual, except the President of the United States, can by himself impact the separation of powers structure sufficiently to 'adhere to and give aid and comfort to the enemies' or weaken or tend to weaken the United States. Therefore all but the President are immune from the potential charge of treason. The charge of treason involves overt acts that adversely impact this Nation sufficiently to adhere to and give aid and comfort to the Nation's enemies, or tend to 'weaken' this Nation. Any member of the legal profession holding office in either the legislative or executive branch represents the creation of a sufficient such tendency. 3.08 The charge of treason potentially leveled against elected members of the legal profession implies a conspiracy which simply does not exist and absent which no lawyer may be guilty of the crime of treason. The crime of treason does not require conspiracy. It is enough that one individual commit an unassisted, even secret, intentional act of treason for the crime of treason to exist.14 3.09 Lawyers have always been over-represented in government and have served the country well and are still doing so. This argument is irrelevant to the issue.15 If the law considers the presence of lawyers in the legislative or executive branches to be treason, there is no need to further justify their removal. 3.10 Although many other nations of the world are not dominated by lawyers in government they are having major problems, therefore it is not right to blame control by lawyers of our federal government for major problems that we are facing here. This argument is also irrelevant to the issue for the same reason the previous one was.16 Conclusion: Analysis of the legal profession's defenses to the charge that probable cause exists for the charge of treason against lawyers occupying public office in the legislative and executive branches of the federal judiciary, indicate that those defenses are without merit. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 Internet address: robace@ix.netcom.com About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86 - 92, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. Treason can also be a State crime. See Cramer v United States, (1945) infra & Haupt v United States (1947) infra. The standard defenses to treason are found in 18 USCS Section 2381, V DEFENSES. They are: Duress, Entrapment, First Amendment privilege, Immunity from Prosecution, Governmental Action and Miscellaneous. Only Government Action, addressed in 2.1 infra, is appropriate here. The legal profession's arguments will be presented in bold italicized print and the rebuttal in italics. Haupt v United States 330 US 631 (1947). If the Park doctrine of 'strict liability' or criminal liability without fault established in United States v Park (1974) 421 US 658,668, is reasonably applicable here there is no further need to prove intent under the law. As a matter of pure legal theory, there appears to be little reason why it should not apply. Cramer v United States, (1945) 325 US 1, L Ed 1459, 1460 The record shows that the legal profession has 'effective' control of all government at this time. The profession controls 100% of the Judiciary and the Executive branch, over 50% of the Senate and about 40% of the House of Representatives. That constitutes total 'effective' control. James Madison, Federalist 47, (1788): No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value ... than that the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, ... may be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Funk & Wagnall's International Dictionary of the English language. Sun Sentinel editorial, Fort Lauderdale, Feb. 15, 1996. To 'grandfather' means to allow as an exception to a new law those who were previously doing that which the new law prohibits. This issue was addressed in Federalist 87 by this writer in 1995. Conspiracy is a separate crime. It is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as the association, combination or confederacy of or between, two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act. It is not a requirement of treason but it could be present as an additional crime. It is also innacurate. Lawyers have been overrepresented in government for years. However although they may have once served their country well , all available evidence supports the general conclusion that such has not been the case for a very long time. Furthermore a careful examination of the problems of other nations indicates that few are suffering as much as we are in the areas of crime, the justice system in general, public education, healthcare, divorce/child custody wars, lack of confidence in government, to name only some of our major problems. Our constitutional system of government should be giving us the finest results in all of these areas because we have also been the richest nation in the world for a long time. It is the problems identified and addressed here that have caused the Nation's steady decline and that will if not corrected, bring the Nation down. The Federalist (Number 94) April 2, 1996 The State of the Union under a failed Constitution The logical analysis and legal reasoning governing the Federalist 92 proposition on the legal profession's unconstitutional control of all government and the federal crime of treason. Federalist 92 asserted the proposition that probable cause exists that lawyers occupying public office in either the legislative or executive branches of the federal government are guilty of the crime of treason. The position was developed as an extension of the constitutional prohibition against a single 'same hands' faction or group controlling all government. The same hands group in question consists of the members of the legal profession.1 That position is being asserted because the unconstitutional power being exercised by the 'same hands' faction in question, is the source of many of the Nation's most serious problems, and that situation is in urgent need of correction lest the Nation go down. The assertion is being made for two reasons. The first is that it is required by law.2 The second is in the hope that the legal profession will finally overcome the cognitive dissonance and self delusion so far extensively exhibited and finally come to grips with the grievous harm it is doing to this Nation. Notwithstanding the egregiousness of the crime involved it is hoped and respectfully recommended, that the Nation limit itself to requiring the resignation from public office of those deemed guilty in exchange for amnesty.3 This commentary is written to aid the understanding of those seriously interested in the issue. It is intended to make clear the sequence of legal arguments that led to the conclusions reached. It should also serve to identify the particular links in the chain of logical reasoning which fail to persuade those who may disagree with the conclusions. To arrive at the conclusion asserted one must do the the following: 1. Define the crime of treason. 2. Determine what the legal requirements are for a court of law to convict an individual of the crime of treason. 3. Establish why the presence of members of the legal profession in elective office in the legislative and executive branches of the federal government may be deemed an act of treason. 4. Establish that probable cause exists for the general assertion that the presence of members of the legal profession in elective office in the legislative and/or executive branches is treason. These matters will be addressed one by one. 1. Define the crime of treason. There are certain 'links' in the causal chain that are facts and others that are opinions. The following are facts: 1.1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Supreme Court is the sole entity with the Constitutional right, responsibility and authority to interpret the Constitution. 1.2. Article III, Section 3. of the United States Constitution defines the crime of treason. Title 18, USCS, (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) Section 2381 of the Federal Statutes which is the Federal Statute implementing Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, further defines treason as follows: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or be imprisoned for not less than five years, and fined not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding office under the United States. 1.3. The case of United States v Haupt, D.C.III., 47 Supp. 836, 839 expanded the definition of treason to mean any act which 'strengthens or tends to strengthen the ability of the enemies of the United States or which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the United States to resist such enemies.' 2. Determine what the legal requirements are for a court of law to convict an individual of the crime of treason. The following are statements of fact: 2.1. Supreme Court Justice Douglas in Cramer v United States (1945) 325 US 1, 65 S Ct 918, stated that the crime of treason consists of two elements, which are: the overt act and the treasonous intent. (Thus unless the Park doctrine applies {see footnote 7} an individual can only be convicted of the crime of treason if he commits an overt act with treasonous intent). 3. Establish why the presence of members of the legal profession in elective office in the legislative and executive branches of the federal government may be deemed an act of treason. The following are statements of fact: 3.01. The Constitution was written in 1787 by James Madison. 3.02. The motivation for writing the Constitution was that the United States Federal Government operating under the Articles of Confederation, did not have sufficient power to govern.4 3.03. To make certain that the Federal government was given sufficient power to govern but insufficient to oppress, the Constitution incorporated a system of 'Separation of Powers' and checks and balances into the government's structure. The government was divided into three separate branches, the judiciary, the executive and the legislative. The system was designed to provide each branch of government with sufficient power to check and balance the powers of the other two branches. 3.04. The principle of Separation of Powers is an essential cornerstone principle of the Constitution because it protects the people of the United States from their own government. 3.05. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires any person to be a lawyer in order to serve as a judge or in order to represent others, in a federal court of law. Thus non lawyers may constitutionally serve in any and all offices of the federal Judiciary. Nevertheless the federal Judiciary is de facto under the absolute control of members of the legal profession. 3.06. The Constitution required ratification by the individual States in order to become law. 3.07. In 1787 the State of New York had expressed opposition to the Constitution and appeared unwilling to ratify. 3.08. To persuade the people of the State of New York to ratify the Constitution, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, wrote a series of 85 newspaper articles which became known as The Federalist Papers. 3.09. The Federalist Papers outlined in the fullest detail the intentions of the founding fathers and the author of the Constitution as to why the Constitution was written, what it was intended to accomplish, why the principle of separation of powers was essential to freedom and how its implementation would protect the people against their own government. 3.10. The Federalist Papers are recognized by the Supreme Court as the source of interpretation of the Constitution, second only to the Constitution itself. 3.11. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and the great French philosopher Montesquieu were unanimous in believing the principle expressed by Madison in Federalist 47 concerning tyranny arising from any single hands faction or group controlling all government. Madison wrote: No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value.... than that the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, may be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. (Emphasis added) 3.12. James Madison defined the term 'same hands' or 'faction' in Federalist 10 as follows: By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole , who are united and actuated by some common impulse or passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. Henceforth the causal links represent opinions and conclusions arrived at by this writer: 3.13. Any action which would materially undermine the Constitution, would adhere to and give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, as well as weaken the United States and strengthen its enemies. 3.14. Any tendency which could result in the nullification of the principle of Separation of Powers, which is an essential cornerstone principle of the Constitution and which is the source of both representative government and protection of the people from their own government, would materially undermine the Constitution . 3.15. Because Madison wrote the Constitution to include a Separation of Powers principle to make sure that no 'same hands' faction could ever control all government, control or tendency to control all government by any 'same hands' faction would constitute either nullification or the tendency towards nullification, of the principle of Separation of Powers, and therefore a material undermining of the Constitution. 3.16. Madison's definition of a 'faction' consisting of 'same hands' applies to all professional groups as well as many other kinds of groups. The legal profession like all other professional associations or groups, is a same hands faction or group within the meaning of Madison's definition. Therefore all members of the legal profession be they lawyers or judges, are a part of and belong to, that which Madison defined as a 'same hands' faction or group. 3.17. When the members of the legal profession acquired absolute control of the Judiciary Branch of the Federal government they became a 'same hands' faction or group in control of one third of all government. From that moment forward any member of the legal profession who occupied elective public office in either the legislative or executive branch of government would by his presence constitute a 'tendency to nullify the principle of separation of powers of the Constitution which would result in the material undermining of the Constitution, which would adhere to and give aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, etc.,' which action, by a person owing allegiance to the United States, constitutes treason. 3.18. At the present time the 'tendency' to nullify the principle of separation of powers has become a total 'nullification of the Separation of Powers.' That is because the effective control of all government is and has been in the hands of the legal profession for some time.5 4. Establish that probable cause exists for the general assertion that the presence of members of the legal profession in elective office in the legislative and/or executive branches is treason. 4.1. It is the duty of every person who owes allegiance to the United States and who has knowledge of treason to report it to the proper authorities under penalty of law. It is also the right of every person, in the eyes of the law, to be innocent until proven guilty. Thus the words 'knowledge of treason' in the law can only mean 'probable cause' that treason exists. That means to have 'reasonable ground for belief in the existence of facts warranting the proceedings complained of.'6 4.2. The crime of treason requires a person to commit an overt act with a treasonous intent.7 The overt act, for a member of the legal profession, is the act of occupying elective public office in either the executive or legislative branch of the Federal Government and is a matter of undisputed public record. 4.3. The treasonous intent aspect is covered by the law under Cramer.8 In that case actual treasonous intent was determined to be legally inferable from the circumstances and knowledge of the individual. Lawyers specifically trained in the law are required to know the Constitution. That knowledge and the circumstance of occupying elective office in either the executive or legislative branches, requires the law to infer that they legally intend to nullify or tend to nullify the separation of powers principle of the Constitution and that such action constitutes treason. 4.4. The above establishes 'reasonable grounds for belief in the existence of facts warranting the proceedings complained of,' which is probable cause for asserting that members of the legal profession who occupy the aforementioned elective offices are guilty of treason. Conclusion: It is evident from the legal argument presented that the assertion made is fully supported by the evidence. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 Internet address: robace@ix.netcom.com About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86 - 93, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. See Federalists 87,88,89,90,91, 92 & 93 by this writer. Failure to report knowledge of treason is a crime known as Misprision of treason. United States Title 18, Section 2382. The purpose is to remedy a very serious problem not to punish or place blame. See Federalist Papers 1787. The Judiciary Branch of government has been under their absolute control for a very long time. The Executive Branch is 100% controlled by members of the profession because at this time, both the President and Vice President are lawyers. The United States Senate includes 50% lawyers and the House of Representatives about 40%. No other 'same hands faction' has more than a few members in either Chamber. Thus the legal profession is in total effective control of all of the federal government. Effective control remains in the hands of the legal profession even when the President is a non lawyer. Black's Law Dictionary: A definition of probable cause. That assertion makes the unproved assumption that the Park doctrine does not apply. That doctrine in Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668, established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in criminal cases. If applicable here the doctrine eliminates the need for proof of intent. Cramer v United States, (1945) 325 US 1, L Ed 1459, 1460 The Federalist (Number 95) July 31, 1996 The State of the Union under a failed Constitution The legal profession's tyranny over the Nation, the self delusion that keeps it in denial of that truth, and the phenomenon of 'cognitive dissonance' which causes it. (Part 1) The legal profession appears incapable of recognizing that it has taken over effective control of government in this country. Or that such control is unconstitutional and constitutes tyranny. On this issue the profession remains impervious to logical argument or conclusive evidence. This 'mental block' transcends human reason. It is self delusion that results from cognitive dissonance. The condition is also called denial. This paper should provide the reader with a better understanding of what that is and how it affects the legal profession. In 1492 Spaniards began 'legally' murdering other Spaniards by torturing them to death for not believing in Catholicism. Spain had just reconquered the southern part of the country from the Muslim Moors, after 800 years of Arab rule. Forced conversion to Catholicism of all non-Catholics in a unified Spain was viewed as vital to consolidating the conquest. The victimizers who tortured their victims to conversion or death perceived themselves as good. They asserted that what they did was in the best interests of their victims. They explained that death by torture was a necessary process to ensuring the salvation of their victims' eternal souls. These activities were known as the Inquisition.1 During World War II ordinary Germans under Nazi rule, brutalized and murdered large numbers of people because they happened to be Jews. Scapegoating Jews for their own problems was the excuse Germans used to murder and rob them. Many genocidal German victimizers regarded themselves as men of honor serving their country's laws and their conscience.2 Six million Jewish victims were murdered in the Holocaust. From 1776 to the Civil War, slavery was legal in all or part of the United States. Slavery provided substantial economic benefits to Slaveowners who perceived themselves as good people. The victimizers believed that in exchange for enslavement they provided their victims with the opportunity to become Christians and their only chance to get to Heaven. Millions of black slaves suffered the worst misery and death. Millions of their descendants regard themselves as continuing to suffer grievously from the legacy of slavery. Around the middle of this Century the legal profession took over effective control of all government in America. That resulted in the kind of tyranny that the Constitution was specifically written to prevent. Now this 'same hands' victimizer group makes the laws, interprets the laws and enforces the laws. It does so not to achieve justice for all, but primarily for its own benefit. Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and Montesquieu called this tyranny.3 All non members of the legal profession became its victims. Most of the victimizers deny that they are in control. A few admit it, but falsely assert that it is a good thing. In all of the above examples what was done by the victimizers to their victims was horribly wrong. One of the most shocking and frightening aspects of these evil oppressions is that the victimizers perceived themselves as righteous. This tells us that the human mind has a substantial propensity to render itself blind to truth and justice. The cause is a phenomenon of self delusion that results from 'Cognitive dissonance,' known in psychiatry as 'denial'. 1. What is cognitive dissonance and how does it give rise to self delusion ? 2. What are the consequences to the victimizer and the victim? 3. Can this kind of self delusion be conclusively identified ? 4. Can it be proven to apply to the legal profession? and 5. Can its effects on the Nation be countered in time to avert disaster? 1. What is cognitive dissonance and how does it give rise to self delusion? Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term defined as: Anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs or the like.4 The theory of cognitive dissonance was proposed by psychologist Leon Festinger in 1957.5 The theory states, among other things, that a person cannot act in a manner that is good for himself but bad for others, without suffering psychological discomfort (or anxiety in lay terms). The greater the difference between the good for himself and the harm to others, the greater the discomfort and the need to do something about it. Our concern is with the most severe kind of dissonance which Festinger identified as forced compliance dissonance. It occurs when one is subjected to pressure sufficient to make one do something wrong, but insufficient to overcome the belief that it is wrong. It can be resolved through the process of changing one's beliefs.6 Thus under sufficient pressure the perceiver changes his 'belief' from the truth he knows is evil into a 'perceived good'. That is self delusion. Eventually the perceiver can no longer recognize as 'true' anything but his false perception. This allows the perceiver to 'believe' in false statements he makes to the effect that his evil acts are good.7 For example: Slavery is wrong. The inducement of economic benefits to the slaveowner was sufficient to own slaves, but insufficient to overcome the knowledge that slavery was wrong. The slaveowner resolved his problem of 'cognitive dissonance' by changing his 'beliefs' from the reality that his act was evil, to a self deluding 'belief' that his act was good. He did so by 'deciding' that slaves who were black were 'heathen savages' doomed after death to rot in hell for eternity. Slavery brought blacks the Bible and Christianity. That brought opportunity for Heaven and eternal salvation. Thus slavery was a good thing for blacks. Thus 'forced compliance cognitive dissonance' is a means of relief from severe discomfort. Thus self delusion is born of self interest. It is a self serving, specific mind dysfunction, that permanently distorts the victimizer/perceiver's opinion respecting certain specific acts of his, by reversing his reality perception of good and evil. It does so while allowing all other functions of the mind to operate normally. The Inquisitors in Spain, the German people in World War II, Slaveowners and members of the American legal profession today, were or are, by and large all victimizers under its influence and control. 2. What are the consequences of cognitive dissonance/self delusion to the victimizer and the victim? The consequences are devastating for both the victimizer and his victim, but in very different ways. The victimizer loses his 'soul', his reputation, his integrity and sometimes his peace of mind.8 The victim is at risk of losing everything else. The victimizer unknowingly loses his 'soul' by trading it for power and material advantage.9 That power corrupts his profession above all others. He loses the ability to tell right from wrong on the matter at issue. His mind creates a false 'anchor belief justification'10 for the most oppressive acts against innocent victims. This kind of cognitive dissonance creates a wall in the mind impervious to truth and justice.11 It confounds logical argument. It is as arrogant as it is wrong. The victim suffers consequences that include the greatest evils known to man. The Holocaust, the Inquisition, and Slavery are at the top of the list. History is full of horrible examples of man's cruelty to man that is 'explainable' as the result of 'cognitive dissonance'. There are many historical examples of evils arising from this phenomenon. The American people who are victims of the legal profession have suffered enormous harm, albeit less obvious and less dramatically graphic.12 The severe adverse effects are felt everywhere but more so in the following areas: 1. Crime; 2. Healthcare; 3. Public education; 4. Divorce and child custody; 5. Access to the Courts; 6. Frivolous law suits; 7. Integrity in government; 8. Representative government; and 9. Human rights.13 3. Can this kind of self delusion be conclusively identified? Yes it can. Self delusion arising from forced compliance cognitive dissonance is a function of the relationships that exist between the victimizer, the victim and three critical factors: A false belief, power and truth. When self delusion is present the relationships are as follows: 1. The belief can be proved false because it is either unaccepted internationally and/or it is logically unsound;14 2. The victimizers share the belief but the victims do not; 3. The victimizers benefit from the belief while the victims suffer from it; 4. The victimizers exercise power over the victims; and 5. The truth hurts the victimizers and tends to help the victims.15 Applying the test to the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust and slavery in the United States, we find that in all cases the false beliefs, the attributable relationships and therefore the phenomenon of self delusion, are present.16 4. Can it be proven that the American legal profession suffers from self delusion/denial arising from cognitive dissonance? Yes it can. To do so we must establish that all the attributes that are present when this situation prevails are also present in the case at issue. We need to answer the following questions: 1. What is the belief and is it false? 2. Who believes it and who does not? 3. Who benefits and who suffers from it? 4. Who exercises power over whom? 5. Whom does the truth immediately17 help and whom does it hurt? Here are the answers 1. The belief at issue is that the effective control of government by members of the legal profession either does not exist or is not unconstitutional but a good thing if it does. That belief is false. It is neither accepted by the civilized world nor logically sound. 2. The legal profession believes the false belief but its victims do not. 3. The legal profession reaps enormous financial and other benefits from the control it has acquired that the false belief justifies. The victims suffer grievous harm from the same thing. 4. The legal profession has effectively acquired total power over its victims through its control of government. 5. The truth will harm the profession's image, psyche, prestige, power base and financial standing. It could also result in some individual members going to prison. The truth will deliver the victims from victimization and tyranny. Thus here too all the attributes are present. As a result it is conclusively established that the members of the profession suffer from self delusion/denial caused by cognitive dissonance on the issue of the aforementioned false belief. The inevitable conclusion is that members of the legal profession are by and large disqualified by this phenomenon from intelligently discussing the issue at all.18 5. Can its effects on the Nation be countered in time to avert disaster? Yes, by educating the victims to the truth of what is happening.19 Then the victims will stop voting for any member of the legal profession to any office outside the Judiciary Branch of Government. That will break the stranglehold the profession has on the Nation's throat and save the Nation from the present tyranny. Time is short however. The victims must act quickly. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 Internet address: robace@ix.netcom.com About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86 - 94, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. The purpose of the Inquisition was primarily to protect Spain from the perceived threat of a very large Muslim population. The Jews were included because like Muslims they were non Catholics. Not as in Germany specifically because they were Jews. Hitler's Willing Executioners, by David Goldhagen (1996). Federalist # 47, Jan 30, 1788 by James Madison, echoing the French philosopher Montesquieu's dissertation in The Spirit of Laws. Endorsed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers & Jefferson. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, (1993) Encyclopedia of Psychology, Second Edition, Volume I, edited by R. Corsini, (1994) John Wilson & Sons, Publisher. ISBN 0 - 471-55819 - 2 . This entire section is based on this reference. Implicit in the change is that the 'beliefs' are transformed from truth to falsehood, from reality to fantasy. Were the beliefs false they would have been disposed of , with the dissonance, in a 'reality' context. Thus the original beliefs are real and the new ones false. Thus allowing him to speak a lie that Dr. Johnson called an individual's 'Moral truth' or perceived truth not in accordance with reality, as opposed to 'physical truth' which is in accordance with reality. The unfortunate use by Dr. Johnson of the words 'moral truth' instead of say 'perceived truth' confers on the victimizer an implication of 'moral standing' that is not deserved. Encyclopedia Britannica, The Great Ideas, A Syntopicon, Vol. II, Chapter 94, Truth p.915 (1952). Self delusion is not always absolute. Subconscious awareness of harming others does rob some victimizers of their peace of mind. The victimizer remains unaware of what is happening to him, for awareness of self delusion is a contradiction in terms. A belief, similar to the concept of blind faith, that is so anchored in the perceiver's mind that all information received is processed on the premise that the belief is true. Unless and until he experiences a moment of great insight that overcomes the effects of cognitive dissonance. It seems to occur in some members close to retirement age. Those who experience it at a younger age tend to change careers. That may explain why so many lawyers leave their profession. These are the very lawyers who should be encouraged to stay and fight. (See Running from the Law by Deborah L. Arron, [1991] Ten Speed Press, subtitle: Why good lawyers are getting out of the legal profession). In dollar terms the harm has been reliably estimated at one trillion dollars annually. In terms of human suffering the harm though enormous, defies specific quantification. See Federalists 86 through 94 by this writer. Sometimes ideas that are believed true by all are false. The lives of Copernicus, Galileo and Columbus testify to beliefs once taken for gospel by all before being challenged and disproved by these men. However none of the beliefs disproved could stand the scrutiny of objective analytical logical argument. Some situations, such as the legal tyranny in this land, could produce severe criminal penalties to those now victimizing the Nation. The test has been applied to many other similar historical events and found valid. The test has also been applied to similar but invalid instances and has worked there too. In the long run the truth will help the victimizers too by restoring their soul and integrity. It is frightening to contemplate that we live in a Society in which irrefutable logical argument on this issue is unlikely to prevail. Even in a Court of law and even if Aristotle himself were making it. More and more of the victimizers in the legal profession are becoming conscious of the truth and breaking ranks with their colleagues, even when they remain in the profession. The growth of the Alternative Bar Association that seeks the abolition of the Florida Bar in that state and the growth of Holistic Lawyering is evidence of that fact. These lawyers should be commended for their courage and given all the public support possible. The Federalist (Number 96) June 14, 1997 The State of the Union under a failed Constitution. The need for public opinion to recognize that control by lawyers of all government does grievous harm to the Nation, in addition to being unconstitutional.1 The legal case on the unconstitutional control by lawyers of government. Federalists 86 through 95 by this writer, conclusively established that as a matter of law the legal profession exercises unconstitutional, tyrannical control over the government and the people of the United States. The papers identified the areas of the life of the Nation where the most harmful effects of that tyranny are felt. Most people who have read the Papers agree with the conclusions presented.2 That information is sufficiently widespread that legal proceedings against lawyers in elected office should have been started by the appropriate government authorities.3 However, that has not happened. One reason is that effective legal action in a democracy often awaits the support of public opinion. The need for public opinion to agree that lawyer control of government is harmful. In a democracy, majority public opinion is by definition 'right'.4 Earlier Federalists by this writer identified many areas of the Nation's life harmed by the legal profession's tyrannical rule. However on major national issues, success in the courts or at the ballot box, is often dependent on agreement by public opinion that there is a need for change.5 To that end evidence must be provided that material harm flows from lawyer control of government, in addition to having shown that such control is unconstitutional. For public opinion to recognize that harm is being done, there is a need to show that: 1. A case on harm can be made to a standard of proof acceptable to the Nation, and 2. The action called for will provide good results for the Nation. 1. The availability of evidence and the appropriate standard of proof. Evidence of harm will be less absolute than the evidence provided on the legal issue of the unconstitutional control by lawyers of government. Much of the evidence is anecdotal, and becomes persuasive as a result of its quantity, consistency and the absence of any material rebuttal evidence. The standard of proof must be appropriate to the circumstances. In any case the profession as a whole6 can be expected to attack both the evidence offered and the adequacy of the standard of proof. Thus the following questions are appropriate: Is proof of harm necessary to make the legal case against the profession? If not, what standard of proof is reasonable for public opinion to agree on the issue of harm to the Nation? In how many areas of the Nation's life is evidence of harm required for public opinion to achieve agreement? Is proof of harm necessary to make the legal case against the profession? Societies make laws to control behavior. Before specific concepts become laws they are debated and discussed. After they become laws no proof of harm is necessary on the issue of violation. For example, a motorist who drives in excess of the speed limit is guilty of violating the speed laws, regardless of whether or not any harm occurred. Thus the legal case on the issue of the unconstitutionality of the legal profession as a 'same hands' faction controlling all government, does not require any evidence of harm.7 However such evidence seems necessary in order for public opinion to achieve agreement on enforcement of the law. What standard of proof is reasonable for public opinion to agree on harm? B-1 General Standards of proof in law. There are five standards of proof in use in law. They are in order of decreasing degrees of difficulty: 1. Beyond a reasonable doubt; 2. Clear and convincing evidence; 3. Preponderance of the evidence; 4. Probable cause; and 5. Reasonable suspicion. 1. Beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the standard of proof required in criminal trials and is the highest burden of all. The quantification of standards of proof into 'percentages of certainty' is somewhat arbitrary , but still useful for purposes of comparison between standards. This particular standard is viewed as a requiring a level of certainty of 75% to 95% or more. 2. Clear and convincing evidence. This standard of proof is sought in cases in which the law requires proof that is higher than preponderance of the evidence (over 50%), but not as high as beyond a reasonable doubt. Many people consider this to require a level of certainty of about 75%. 3. Preponderance of the evidence. This is the standard of proof in civil cases. Here the law requires only that over 50% of the evidence favor one party, thus requiring a level of certainty of anything over 50%. 4. Probable cause. This is the standard of proof required to make a preliminary determination only. For example it is applied to policemen to inquire into their justification for arresting or detaining a suspect. This level of certainty is often considered to be between 25% and 30%. 5. Reasonable suspicion. This is the standard of proof required to determine whether a policeman acted reasonably or arbitrarily when stopping someone for questioning. It is lower than probable cause. It requires only that an individual appear to the policeman as suspicious by some reasonable, objective standard. The level of certainty required is less than 25% and perhaps as low as 10%. Standards of proof in law are a function of the severity of the potential penalty to the defendant, whether civil or criminal, and of whether the decision is final in nature. In a criminal trial where a defendant's life or liberty may be at stake, the law requires a very high standard of proof. In civil matters where lesser issues are involved, the law requires lesser standards for final determinations. Where the decision is not of a final nature standards of proof are lower still, dropping to probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Thus the law's intent is that the lower the potential harm to the defendant, the lower is the standard of proof required to make the case . B-2. Standards of proof in the Court of Public Opinion. In the Court of Public Opinion minimum standards of proof tend to prevail. Other factors such as expediency and minimum harm to the party affected sometimes play a part. Expediency, or the ease with which the Nation can make a decision, is a factor here. For example, even a mere rumor of a problem with a consumer product may be enough to hurt sales substantially, if the public can easily replace the product with another. Since the people can easily vote competent non-lawyers into office, expediency is applicable in this matter. Minimum harm to the party affected requires scrutiny into two matters: A. The potential harm to the legitimate interests of the impacted party, and B. Any potential benefits to the affected party. A. What harm to the legitimate8 interests of the legal profession might occur? There are almost one million lawyers in the land. At this time lawyers constitute about 50% of the US Senate, 35% of the US House of Representatives and 100% of the elected members of the Executive Branch. (Both President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore are lawyers). That is a total of less than 200 people. State governments are smaller in size. Extrapolating to the whole country would result quantitatively, in a maximum of ten thousand lawyers excluded at any one time from senior elective offices9 they might have occupied. What then qualitatively is the nature of the impact? Some lawyers will lose the opportunity to earn an elected official's salary, to enjoy a position of power and perhaps to fulfill a sincere desire to serve their country. But these lawyers should suffer no loss of income, because elected officials are usually able to earn more in the private sector than in government. Lawyers who have a sincere desire to serve their country can be provided with unlimited opportunities to do so outside elected office. Job satisfaction, prestige, public respect and honor for lawyers will increase materially. Even the profession's power base will only be diminished, not eliminated. Because the profession's total control over the Judiciary, regarded by many as the most powerful of the three branches of government10 will remain. B. The potential benefits to the affected party. If the action taken will provide benefits to the affected party, the public is more likely to require a lower standard of proof. It is well known that Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (Lord Acton). Power has corrupted the legal profession as a result of its unconstitutional control of government. Abundant literature exists, written by lawyers, expressing grave concerns about the ethics of the profession. This distress arises in part from peer pressure forcing lawyers to systematically 'overbill'11 their clients, and which then results in an enormous discomfort some lawyers feel about belonging to so corrupt a profession. So much so that many honest lawyers leave the profession. The removal of the power that has caused the profession to become so corrupt will result in restoring the legal profession's integrity and 'soul', thus providing it with significant benefits. Therefore the general legal considerations, as well as the people's ability to act expediently with minimal harm to the profession, all support the adoption of minimum standards of proof, which are either reasonable suspicion or probable cause. C. In how many areas of the Nation's life is evidence of harm necessary? It has been established that the loss of absolute political power will have very little effect on the profession's legitimate interests and that simultaneously benefits will accrue to the profession. That should produce a net effect favorable to the profession's legitimate interests. Therefore evidence of material harm to any single area of the Nation's life should be sufficient to provide public opinion agreement. That is the goal.12 2. The potential effects of the action on the Nation. A final consideration affecting Public Opinion on the decision to act, is the potential effect of the proposed action on the Nation. In the matter at hand, the effect would be the substantial reduction of the harm inflicted on the Nation by the legal profession, and the moral certainty that the Republic would be saved from its present slide into chaos and the loss of its democratic form of government. Yet all of the Nation's legal talent would remain available to Government on an advisory basis, as paid consultants or staff members. Therefore, except for the dubious proposition that the Nation would lose the services of one or more particularly brilliant lawyers who might refuse to serve except in elective office,13 it is virtually impossible to identify any disadvantage at all. Conclusion Public agreement on the need for the removal of lawyers from elective office is required to provide the context for change. Political consensus through public opinion agreement involves the realm of Opinion not Knowledge. A majority Opinion on political issues is by definition 'right' in a democracy.14 To that end evidence will be presented showing that material harm has been done by the profession to the Nation to a standard of proof of reasonable suspicion or probable cause, even though no evidence of harm is necessary to prove the case at law. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 Internet address: robace@ix.netcom.com About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86 - 95, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. The people are the rightful masters of both congresses and courts - not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln, notes for speeches in Ohio, Sep 16, 1859. The instinct of the people is right. Ralph Waldo Emerson. Power, Conduct of Life, 1860. Although a substantial majority of those who have read the Papers agree, absolute numbers at this time are small. Private citizens may start legal proceedings also. The late well known constitutional lawyer and scholar, Professor Albert Blaustein, had agreed to prosecute the case at a reduced hourly fee. However, even at the reduced rate, he estimated it would cost $300,000 over 5 years to reach the Supreme Court on the issue. Thus cost considerations make it impossible for all but the rich to act. The philosophers Aristotle, Plato and Hume distinguish between the objects of knowledge and opinion, as the difference between science and belief, and as belonging to altogether distinct realms. Thus scientific controversy is viewed as occurring in the realm of knowledge, and political controversy in the realm of opinion. In a republican form of government however, since political action requires that decisions be taken, consensus by majority opinion is the only democratic solution. The change in segregation laws in 1954, (Brown v Board of Education), and the end of slavery (by the Civil War) are examples of unconstitutional laws, erroneous interpretations and bad laws surviving until the Nation reached a consensus to that effect. References to 'the profession as a whole' indicate the position, attitude and actions of the leadership of the profession, as publicly perceived. It is the application of constitutional law. One may dispute the constitutional interpretation that such a statement represents, but not dispute the issue that no evidence of harm is needed. The Nation can only concern itself with the legitimate impact on the profession, not with any adverse illegitimate impact. The loss by the profession of its illegitimate ability to enrich itself under color of law, and its ability to create and encourage conflict where none exists, will also be materially reduced. i.e. Elective office as State or Federal Legislators, or as State or Federal Chief Executive or other elected Cabinet officer, except Attorney General. The Judiciary branch retains the ultimate power to control the other two branches through its interpretation of the Constitution. A euphemism for stealing. 'Overbilling' through the mail is a federal crime. Evidence will be provided that far exceeds this goal. That should not obscure the fact that such additional evidence is not reasonably required to achieve a national consensus. It could be argued that such a refusal alone would constitute disqualification of any individual. For it would mean that the individual in question would be placing personal pride above his sense of duty to the Nation. Occasionally a democratic majority may be proved ultimately wrong. That is what happened on the issues of slavery and segregation. However since the choice is always between a democratic majority opinion, mistaken or not, and an elitist minority's self proclaiming, often self serving, allegedly 'superior knowledge', the lesser of the two evils will always be to rely on democratic opinion. It is interesting to note that with respect to slavery and segregation, the members of the legal profession were originally the most responsible for creating and maintaining both oppressive practices. It was lawyers who argued the legality of slavery and segregation , and justices who ruled in their favor. The Federalist (Number 97) June 14, 1997 The State of the Union under a failed Constitution. The need for public opinion to support the removal of lawyers from elective office.1 The issue of unfitness of lawyers for elective office. The corruption of the legal profession as a whole. The Rational2 Approach. (Part 1 of 4).3 Federalist 96 discussed the need to provide evidence of the harm being done by the legal profession to the Nation, as a catalyst for change. The search for that evidence commences with the nature of man and government. Plato in The Republic conceived of a philosopher king as the ideal head of state. Montesquieu asserted in The Spirit of Laws that only government by virtuous men could provide a free, just and democratic society. But the nature of man falls short of that ideal. However the people do have a right to expect that their government will not be materially less honest than themselves. For it is axiomatic that such a government would harm the people. Thus, if it can be established to a standard of proof of reasonable suspicion or probable cause, that the legal profession is materially less honest than the population as a whole, public opinion should support the principle that all members4 of that profession should be excluded from elected office. The nature of man is such that no group is likely to be found in which all of the members are completely honest. The 'honesty scale' for legitimate groups or professions is a continuum possessing no bright lines of demarcation. What must be determined is whether or not the legal profession is materially more dishonest than the population as a whole. To make such a case both the rational and the empirical5 approaches will be used. The rational approach will examine what is known of man's nature as a means of determining which professions are logically and statistically most likely to become corrupt. The empirical approach will examine available factual evidence in an attempt to confirm that determination. The Rational approach. Man's behavior is governed by heredity and environment. Heredity constitutes the genetic makeup each of us is born with and remains unchanged through life. Environment is everything else. No studies are available that provide information on the influence that heredity or environment may have had on particular individuals, by the time they arrive at the threshold of their professional lives. Thus the only reasonable assumption is that at that point in time, on average, there is no material difference in integrity between groups. The influence of a lawyer's professional environment begins when he enters law school and continues throughout his career. Therefore it is the causal effect of that environment which we must examine. What environmental causes corrupt a profession? How is integrity measured and corruption identified? It is said that while opportunity knocks only once, temptation keeps banging on the door for years. The results of the struggle between temptation and conscience demonstrates the level of integrity of an individual. It is the cumulative result of that struggle by the members of a particular profession, that determine its overall integrity. Measuring Integrity and identifying Corruption. For an individual: A single dishonest act constitutes the temporary victory of temptation over conscience. Several dishonest acts constitute the increasing power of temptation over conscience. A continual pattern of dishonest acts constitutes the complete dominance of temptation over conscience. That kind of victory for temptation constitutes corruption of the individual. When that corruption taints a sufficient number of individual members of a particular group, the entire group will be publicly perceived as corrupt. Temptation: the mother of all corruption. All men are subject to some degree of temptation. It is axiomatic that the greater the temptation the more likely the fall. The degree of temptation to which professionals in America are subject is a function of: a) The temptation to which all men are subject; plus b) the particular increase in temptation one's profession creates anywhere; plus c) any additional temptation created by one's profession in America. The four things that materially impact temptation are: 1. Opportunity, 2. Risk of discovery, 3. Probability, speed and severity of punishment, and 4. Peer Pressure.6 Let us examine the impact of these factors. First on everyone, then on lawyers worldwide, and finally on members of the American legal profession. 1. Opportunity Temptation is increased by opportunity. A janitor in a bank may be tempted to steal the millions he knows lie in the bank vault. However absent any opportunity to get near the vault when it is open, temptation is reduced. On the other hand a senior bank teller who is trusted to operate inside the vault with ample opportunity to steal, will be subject to increased temptation. 2. Risk of discovery Temptation is increased by a low risk of discovery. The risk involves both whether and when the wrongdoing will be discovered. The bank teller who has the opportunity to steal will be far less tempted to do so if discovery will be imminent. However if he believes that the theft will not be discovered for a long time, if at all, his degree of temptation will increase. 3. Probability, speed and severity of punishment The less probable, slower and milder the potential punishment, the greater the increase in temptation. If the bank teller knows that being caught will result in swift, certain and severe punishment, temptation diminishes. Should he believe that if caught, punishment is improbable, mild and will be much delayed, temptation increases. 4. Peer pressure Temptation is greatly increased by peer pressure. When an individual discovers that his peers are routinely involved in corrupt practices and he is urged to do the same, he either conforms or risks the status of a pariah for his honesty. Peer pressure also serves to provide the false rationalization that since 'everybody does it' it is somehow alright. Consequently the greatest degree of temptation to become corrupt occurs when a) a high degree of opportunity, combines with b) a low risk of discovery, c) a low probability of severe or speedy punishment, and d) a high degree of peer pressure. Let us examine how temptation impacts lawyers worldwide and United States lawyers in particular. Lawyers' degree of temptation.7 Some lawyers handle large sums of money for others. Lawyers are part of the social elite. They see better than most how the rich live. To these lawyers the level of temptation that their profession provides worldwide is among the very highest of any profession. In America, the power achieved by the legal profession's control of government has enormously increased all of those temptations for all lawyers. Every opportunity that can bring income to the members of the profession under color of law, has been developed more completely here than anywhere else. So has the temptation to be dishonest in the United States. 1. Lawyers' degree of professional opportunity. As fiduciaries, lawyers play a role which combines high levels of temptation with high levels of opportunity. Lawyers often give investment advice to their clients or invest funds for their clients. They represent their clients in disputes with others. Lawyers thus have immense opportunity to do wrong. It is fair to say that no other professional group worldwide has as much opportunity. As with temptation and in the same manner, the American legal profession's control of government has dramatically increased its opportunity for wrongdoing. 2. Lawyers' risk of discovery. Consumers can tell whether they are receiving their money's worth for most goods and services. A man pays to fix his car. If the car is not fixed he knows it. But when a man goes to a lawyer things are different. Often he has no idea what the lawyer should be doing, or how much is a fair price for the job. Afterwards he may be unsure of whether adequate service was provided. A client may lose a fortune in a lawsuit due to his lawyer's wrongdoing and never realize it. That tends to make the probability of discovery of wrongdoing slight or negligible, anywhere in the world. The tyrannical power of lawyers in the United States makes things far worse here. The complexity of the law, serving lawyers to the detriment of their clients and the ever present threat of retaliation through frivolous countersuits is much greater in the United States. These and other factors lowering the risk of discovery and raising the level of temptation have been dramatically increased for lawyers in the United States. 3. Lawyers' probability, speed and severity of punishment. Professionals everywhere who are not lawyers and who do wrong, face civil and criminal proceedings, as well as the imposition of licensing penalties that can be very severe. This may be true for lawyers outside the USA, but not for American lawyers. Civil proceedings: Clients who have been cheated by their lawyers must spend more time and money consulting other lawyers, if they wish to discover how and of how much they were cheated. They are not generally inclined to do so, having been burned once. An additional obstacle is that lawyers are often reluctant to sue other lawyers. As a result clients are much less able or likely to sue their lawyers, even if they know that they have been cheated. Criminal Proceedings: If the aggrieved non lawyer wishes to pursue criminal charges, he must again appeal to a lawyer who is a prosecutor to bring charges. He will find that prosecutors are very reluctant, except in the most egregious cases that include a substantial paper trial, to do anything. Licensing/State Bar Proceedings: Non lawyers who hold professional licenses are licensed by the State and supervised by the Executive branch of the State. However that is not true of lawyers in the United States. As a profession they unconstitutionally control their own 'licensing' or their 'legal right to practice', through State Bars that are arms of the State Supreme Courts. These State Bars write rules that favor their own and make it almost impossible for complainants to receive justice.8 Thus fear of punishment from the State Bars does not materially discourage lawyer wrongdoing. 4. Lawyers exposure to peer pressure. American lawyers are the only professional group in which many new members are routinely pressured by their peers to conform to corrupt practices. This pressure comes from lawyers at their own level and from those above them in the hierarchy. Routine 'overbilling' is the only way young lawyers can keep up with the expectations of many employers. Thus the temptation to become corrupt is reinforced by the threat of being fired! 9 The criminogenic occupational structure of the legal profession.10 The legal profession all over the world operates in a context that includes a number of the aforementioned factors that increase temptation. In this country all the factors are present at the highest levels. So much so that the profession's 'occupational structure' is defined by the eminent criminologist Dr. Gary S. Green, as being 'criminogenic', meaning that it tends to create criminals. That means that the American legal profession has achieved the epitome of both temptation and corruption. Conclusion. The examination on a rational basis of the factors that impact corruption indicates that all factors operate to make temptation as strong as it can get for the American legal profession. That therefore a materially increased level of corruption is statistically highly probable.11 Although precise statistical evidence is unavailable due to the nature of the problem, it is reasonable to regard the result of the rational analysis as sufficient to exceed statistical legal requirements for proving a case.12 That is why rational analysis supports the conclusion that the most corrupt 'legitimate' professional group13 in the Nation is the American legal profession.14 PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 Internet address: robace@ix.netcom.com About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86 through 96, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. See Federalist 96 by this writer. Philosophically there are two possible approaches to truth. They are Rationalism, or the rational approach, which is the theory that truth and knowledge are attainable through reason rather than through experience', and Empiricism, or the empirical approach, which is the belief that all knowledge is derived from experience through the senses. Funk & Wagnall's International Dictionary, 1973. This paper and Federalists 98, 99, and 100, should be read as four parts of a single unit. The argument that the Nation should not disqualify all members of a profession, if it is shown that the profession as a whole is materially less honest than most people, is invalid. It is a false argument identified by Aristotle as secundum quid, in his Sophistical Refutations. The issue is not the right of any individual to be viewed as 'innocent' until proven guilty, as if he were on trial for liberty or life. Rather the issue is whether the people of this land have a right to reduce the substantial risk of electing a corrupt government, by excluding from that government those who belong to a group or profession, demonstrably more corrupt than any other. Because it is a given that in addition to the increased probability that a particular individual from that particular group is corrupt in the first place, the continuing pressure to become corrupt is far greater for individuals in that group, than for members of all other groups. See Footnote 2. Peer pressure in this context is the pressure by one's colleagues or peers to conform to prevailing corrupt practices. Although extremely rare in legitimate groups it is highly prevalent in the legal profession. Temptation levels are not uniform for all members of the legal profession. Temptation, though always high, will vary somewhat depending on a lawyer's particular career choice within the law. Private practice for example, offers more opportunities and increased temptation than does public defender work. This is true notwithstanding the State Bars' mandates and declared intention of protecting the public. The best available evidence indicates that only about 4% of the complaints against lawyers are not dismissed, whereas the average for all other professions is 25%, which is a rate of acceptance of the validity of complaints over six times greater than those against lawyers. See How lawyers screw their clients by Donald E. de Kieffer Esq., Barricade Books (1995) See Professional Occupational Crime by Dr. Gary S. Green, Published by Nelson-Hall (1991) A rough unscientific attempt at quantifying the element of 'temptation' is useful for comparison purposes. If all individuals start out at a factor of say 1, on a 1 to 10 scale of temptation, and if the four factors of Opportunity, Risk of Discovery, Punishment and Peer Pressure are each given a maximum value of 2.5, with the higher value representing the greatest increase in temptation, American lawyers would be at a 10. Lawyers worldwide would rank about a 5, while other professionals might rank between 1 and 3. See Griggs v Duke Power Co. 401 US 424,432(1971). Obviously there are illegitimate 'professional groups' like some organized crime groups or youth gangs whose very existence is for criminal purposes. Even though there may be many lawyers within the profession who have succeeded in retaining their integrity in spite of all temptation. The Federalist (Number 98) June 14, 1997 The State of the Union under a failed Constitution. The need for public opinion to support the removal of lawyers from elective office.1 The issue of unfitness of lawyers for elective office. The corruption of the legal profession as a whole. (Part 2 of 4),2 The Empirical3 Approach. Federalist 97 concluded, by the use of the rational approach to logical argument, that the American legal profession is materially more corrupt than the Nation, and that therefore all members of that profession should be excluded from elective office. The next step involves examining the available factual evidence to confirm that conclusion on an empirical basis. The empirical approach - the unavailable evidence. Let us first identify the kind of evidence that will not be found, and why. There will be no evidence of widespread criminal convictions of dishonest lawyers. The main reason is that the legal and criminal justice system created by the legal profession,4 makes it difficult or impossible to convict the rich and the powerful even if they are not lawyers, let alone those who are. One has only to consider the recent criminal trials of O.J. Simpson (1995) and John Gotti (1992) to see the truth of that statement.5 Simpson was acquitted of two murders most people are convinced he committed.6 He succeeded by assembling a 'defense team' capable of 'beating the system' but at a cost only a tiny minority in the Nation could afford. John Gotti was only convicted of criminal wrongdoing on the third try.7 A successful prosecution resulted only after the removal of Gotti's regular defense counsel from the trial, and the enlisting of the help and support of Sammy 'the Bull' Gravano as a key witness. Gravano is a confessed Cosa Nostra murderer of 19 people. His 'price' for testifying was immunity from prosecution on all murders. If the 'system' had so much trouble convicting a known Cosa Nostra family head, about whom the FBI had so much information, what hope is there that the authorities can successfully prosecute large numbers of wrongdoers in the legal profession? A profession far more powerful, and one estimated to have harmed the Nation far more than all of organized crime.8 One whose crimes are often all but invisible to anything but the closest scrutiny. The empirical approach - the available evidence. Notwithstanding the absence of the aforementioned kind of evidence, substantial empirical evidence does exist. For example: Evidence in a book written by John Dos Passos, an American lawyer, in 1907, describing the decline in ethical and moral standards of the profession commencing with the Civil War. Evidence in the Bible and international literature confirming that lawyers as a group, have generally been perceived as corrupt. Evidence in American literature by lawyers describing the particular methods by which lawyers cheat their clients, as well as other wrongdoing by lawyers. Evidence of the acknowledgment by the legal profession itself, that very serious problems exist concerning the lack of integrity of the profession, and the potential disastrous effects on the Nation. Anecdotal evidence showing specific instances where the levels of corruption in the courts and of lawyers in elected office, have reached alarming proportions. The absence of any material evidence contesting the conclusions reached by the profession's critics, or suggesting that any other profession is corrupt. 1. The American Lawyer by John Dos Passos of the New York Bar.9 This book written in 1907 by John Dos Passos, a New York lawyer, is exceptionally insightful. The author, a man of the highest moral standing and an accomplished legal scholar, recognized in 1907 the grievous harm that the legal profession was inflicting upon the Nation. The philosophy he espouses, his concept of the proper ethos10 of the profession, is in keeping with the very highest moral approach to the law. This writer agrees with Dos Passos agree as to the existence and seriousness of the problem, but not as to the cause or the solutions. Here are a few of the most significant passages from The American Lawyer, (Emphasis added): "While it is said (America) is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, it is not, perhaps going too far to add, -- subject to the lawyers (p.2) The lawyers swarm in all of the Departments of the National and State Government (p.2) When a lawyer undertakes an honest introspection of his profession...he must then say some ugly things about himself. (p.3) Fundamentally (lawyers) believe that .. they should serve their clients at all sacrifices, sometimes even of truth and justice. (By holding up to the lawyer a faithful picture of his real mission)... (it) then will be seen, that a large number of the lawyers are delinquents to society, not with malice prepense (sic), but from a failure to appreciate the real and full nature of their professional duties. (p.6)" "(Lawyers).. have been led to excesses in advocacy -- often to gross exaggeration of facts -- and sometimes to crime. Inordinate zeal for clients, and ambition to win...often sweep away moral and legal barriers. (p.10) The abuse of power and opportunities, and of unlimited confidence is the primary sin for which lawyers are answerable. (p.11)" "In the ordinary judgments of men, it is the law and lawyers that suffer most (when non meritorious suit are filed); as to the latter it brings a shallow reputation for cleverness, largely and sincerely blended with contempt; to the former a sense of its inadequacy to fulfill its ordained purpose. Law is a 'humbug' - a mere game of chicane (sic); the lawyer a cunning scamp, not essentially different from other scamps, except that he is better protected and more to be feared. Sheltered in the garb of his office, the lawyer can always insidiously and secretly, deflect the course of justice and defraud the law. (P.70)" "Picture the lawyers training themselves in a school of dishonesty, trickery, and chicanery, diverting and stopping the machinery of the law, prostituting the forms of justice for gain, selling their knowledge, ability, experience, and such talent as they may possess, to the client who pays most for the service, and resorting to every device of cunning and deceit to gain their end... In (all ranks) of the profession can be found many lawyers whose services are sought only to enable guilty men to escape punishment; only to open the door for others to avoid consequences of the civil law, and of their contracts; only to defeat and evade the legislative will and public policy; only to show their clients how to cheat, defraud, vilify, and defame, without penalty or damage. (p.76)" "There is no arbiter (over the lawyer) but his conscience. In a very extensive search into the subject, I have found that there has always been a recognized temptation, or tendency, on the part of lawyers, to overleap the bounds of conscience,11 and that these acts have frequently called for very stringent measures against them.12 (p.125)" "The duty of a lawyer is threefold: to the State, as an officer and a citizen; to the court, as an officer and adviser; and to his client, as a fiduciary. He owes loyalty to the State, both as a citizen and as a sworn officer of justice; he owes respect and dignity in his deportment, to the courts, and candor or honesty in his statements and dealings with them; to his client he owes his talents, his knowledge, his time and his fidelity. In every employment which the lawyer receives, his primary duty is to the State.13 In performing this duty, he can fulfill all his obligations to his clients and courts with fidelity and honor. If he attempts to go beyond this, he strikes a blow to Society. If a conflict arises between his duty to the Government and his client he must decide in favor of the former, for the interest of that client is subordinate to the interests of all other citizens constituting the State -- who are interested in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system. Salus populi suprema lex.14 (p.127-128)" "To bribe a policeman... to corrupt a magistrate... to pay a lawyer to use his knowledge to defeat the law; what difference is there in these acts? Is the lawyer's conduct less serious because it is hidden and secret? The law is defeated... The difference is not in the degree of the act but in the difficulty of detection... (p.129) (The lawyer) insidiously fills (the client) with false pleas and defenses, and he appears merely as the representative, whereas in fact he is often the principal actor. Is not the... lawyer as corrupt as any other officer who takes a direct bribe. (p.130)" "It is the common belief, inside and outside the profession, that the most brilliant and learned of the lawyers are employed to defeat or strangle justice. (p. 131) The lawyer's duty to society and the law must be constantly kept before him, for... the combined acts of a body of lawyers oft repeated,.. silently and secretly gnawing at the foundation of a great and magnificent structure, will gradually but surely cause it to... tumble into ruins. (p. 136-137) Let anyone consider the effect of forty or fifty thousand legal agents15 spending their lives in distorting and prostituting the forms of justice, misapplying and perverting its principles, undermining the constitution and its laws, and he can make fairly accurate calculations as to the longevity, of the system of government, under which they exist and thrive. ( p.137)" "The profession of the law holds out a perpetual temptation to human weakness.16 (p139) Upon what principle can (the lawyer) use the machinery of justice in knowingly aiding and abetting unfounded and dishonest suits? Upon what principle can he use the machinery of the law to accomplish results contrary to justice, truth right? How can the law be efficacious, if it is slaughtered in the temple of justice, by its own chosen guards?17... A lawyer, with knowledge of the facts, is 'morally responsible' for the act of a party in maintaining an unjust cause... If anything can be more distinctly immoral, I cannot conceive it. (p.145)" Dos Passos' book The American Lawyer, is exceptionally insightful and revealing. He saw with great accuracy and foresight most of the ills that the legal profession had already brought upon the Nation, and many of the further disasters that would follow. Dos Passos (1844-1917), was a lawyer possessed of great moral commitment, who was not afraid to speak out concerning the 'ugly truth' about his profession. Dos Passos acknowledged the continuing powerful temptation to which lawyers are subject, thus confirming the conclusion provided by the rational analysis (Federalist 97). Dos Passos also confirmed that as early as 1907, lawyers controlled all government; that the ethics and behavior of a substantial plurality of lawyers were distinctly immoral and often illegal; and that a large number of lawyers were delinquents to society. He condemned lawyers and held the profession liable for the potential fall of this democracy. Since 1907 things have become substantially worse. Although Dos Passos failed to understand the constitutional violation at the heart of the problem, he makes this writer's case for the removal of lawyers from elected office because they are corrupt, as well as anyone. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 Internet address: robace@ix.netcom.com About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86 through 97, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. See Federalist 96 by this writer. This paper and Federalists 97, 99 and 100, should be read as four parts of a single unit. The empirical approach, Empiricism, is the belief that all knowledge is derived from experience through the senses. The alternative, Rationalism, is the theory that knowledge is attainable through reason alone. Primarily for its own financial gain. O.J.Simpson was a very famous, wealthy, football player and part time actor, who was accused of murdering his ex-wife and her friend, Ronald Goldman. John Gotti, known as The Dapper Don, was the accused head of one of the Cosa Nostra New York 'families', who ordered the murders of many people. Including a unanimous jury in the 'wrongful death' civil suit, where Simpson did not have the benefit of his 'dream team'. Most jurors in that trial who spoke out, declared themselves convinced of Simpson's guilt to the criminal standard of proof of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (see Federalist 96), not merely to the civil case standard of proof of 'preponderance of the evidence'. He was given a sentence of life in jail without the possibility of parole. The Nation's losses attributed to the corruption of the legal profession and its unconstitutional control of government was estimated at $1 trillion annually in 1989. The cost in human lives either ended by suicide, born of despair created by lawyer's activities, or destroyed in other ways, is impossible to measure but believed to be substantial. Original publisher: The Banks Law Publishing Co. New York, 1907, Current Publisher: Fred B. Rothman & Co. , Littleton Colorado, 1986. ISBN 0-8377-0524-X Ethos is the characteristic spirit, disposition, or tendency of the profession as expressed in their actions. Dos Passos' extensive research specifically confirms the conclusion reached in the rational approach, that temptation 'the mother of corruption' is forever 'banging on the lawyers' door'. Stringent measures against lawyers are impossible when lawyers control all government. That is probably the main reason why the legal profession has sinned so grievously against the Nation. All available evidence indicates there is probable cause to charge all lawyers in elective office with treason. So far not a single one has been charged with any unconstitutional violation of any kind. This view of the lawyer's primary responsibility is identical to the rule of law established in Florida by the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Petition of FLORIDA STATE BAR ASS'N et al. 40 So.2d 902 at 908, where the opinion states: On the theory that it is such an important factor in the administration of justice this Court has held that a lawyer's responsibility to the public rises above his responsibility to his client. The very nature of our democratic process imposes on him the responsibility to uphold democratic concepts regardless of how they affect the case at hand. (Emphasis added). In spite of the law this writer has not found a single Florida lawyer who was even aware that this is the law, or practices the law this way. Furthermore several Florida lawyers have expressed the opinion that to place their duty to Society above that to their client could result in a malpractice lawsuit against them. This false perception that the client's interests should prevail above all others appears to have been institutionalized by the Nation's Law Schools as part of their courses on Ethics. The welfare of the people is the supreme law. That comes to about one third of approximately 130,000 lawyers in the USA in 1907. There are almost one million lawyers in the USA today. It is reasonable to assume that the proportion of 'corrupt lawyers' is even higher now than it was then. That means that at this time either a substantial plurality or a majority of lawyers are corrupt, if as the evidence indicates Dos Passos' views were accurate both then and now. See Footnote 11. Juventus, a senator in ancient Rome, raised the same issue by asking: Who shall guard the guardians themselves? He supplied no answer. This writer believes the answer must always be: We the people! The Federalist (Number 99) June 14, 1997 The State of the Union under a failed Constitution. The need for public opinion to support the removal of lawyers from elective office.1 The issue of unfitness of lawyers for elective office. The corruption of the legal profession as a whole. (Part 3 of 4)2 The Empirical Approach.3 (cont'd) 2. The worldwide condemnation of lawyers as corrupt. The New Testament: A substantial majority of the people of the United States call themselves Christians. To them the New Testament is the Gospel and Jesus Christ is the son of God. The words spoken in the New Testament by Jesus are believed to be the word of God. St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John were the four Apostles who authored the New Testament and recorded the words of Jesus Christ. Let us see what the St. James version of the New Testament tells us that Jesus said about lawyers, scribes and Pharisees almost 2000 years ago: But woe unto you scribes (lawyers) and Pharisees,4 hypocrites, for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in! For you devour widow's houses, and for a pretence (sic) make long prayer; therefore you shall receive the greater damnation. .. For you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves... -- Matthew 23:13-15 Beware of the scribes... which devour widow's houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive the greater damnation... -- Mark 12:38-41 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are filled with extortion and excess. -- Matthew 23:25 In these comments Jesus Christ condemns lawyers as fit for hell, not heaven; as corrupt men who spread their corruption to others; as hypocrites who say one thing and do another; and as robbers. International condemnation: The world is full of literary references to lawyers as hypocritical, dishonest and corrupt. Here are a few examples: The lawyer... has become keen and shrewd... but his soul is small and dangerous. Plato - Theatetus at 172-173. First, my Lawyer being practiced almost from his cradle in defending falsehoods is quite out of his element when he would be an advocate for Justice... Jonathan Swift -Gulliver's Travels, Part IV. A Voyage to the Houyhnhms. Suffer any wrong that can be done you, rather than come here. (Referring to the English High Court of Chancery Bar) - Charles Dickens - Bleak House, Chapter 1, (1853) The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. William Shakespeare - The Second Part of King Henry the Sixth. Act IV, Scene 2.5 I think we may class the lawyer in the natural history of monsters. John Keats There are derogatory jokes about lawyers in many of the world's languages. Everywhere the legal profession has left a trial of tears.6 Lawyers and painters can soon change white to black. Danish proverb. Win your lawsuit, lose your money. Spanish proverb. 'One thing I supplicate, your majesty; that you will give orders, under a great penalty, that no bachelors of law should be allowed to come here (to the New World); for not only are they bad themselves, but they also make and contrive a thousand iniquities.' Vasco Nunez de Balboa to King Ferdinand V of Spain, 1513. I don't think you can make a lawyer honest by an act of the legislature. You've got to work on his conscience. And his lack of conscience is what makes him a lawyer. Will Rogers 3. Evidence by American lawyers showing how lawyers cheat their clients and other wrongdoing. There is an abundance of evidence in the form of books written by American lawyers about the dishonesty of their brethren. Here are a few examples: How lawyers screw their clients. by Donald E. de Kieffer.7 Barricade Books Inc. 1995 Mr. Kieffer describes in detail the manner in which lawyers 'overbill' (a euphemism for stealing) their clients. He explains that the pressure to 'overbill' is so unrelenting and the penalties for not doing so are so severe, that moral rot is inevitable. No Contest. (Corporate lawyers and the perversion of justice in America) by Ralph Nader8 and Wesley J. Smith, Random House, 1996, ISBN 0-679-42972-7 The authors describe in detail the 'evil' of corporate lawyers unethically and illegally using the law to advance corporate interests and their own. They call the sinners, the corporate legal establishment. Yet the condemnation of trial lawyers who prey on corporations and individuals under color of law, is very widespread. There is truth to both views. Nader's book is a case of the pot calling the kettle black . Lawyers and thieves by Roy Grutman9 and Bill Thomas, Simon & Schuster, 1990, ISBN 0-671-66960-5, traces the growth of American legal greed. Running from the law by Deborah L. Arron,10 Ten Speed Press, 1989, ISBN 0-89815-413-8, describes the reaction of those in the profession who can least stand its absence of ethics. They tend to leave the profession, even though that often means a substantial reduction in income. Arron quotes Schaef and Fasel in the Addictive Organization as saying that a closed system which uses denial as its major defense mechanism will 'lose its best people'. The Soul of the Law by Benjamin Sells11, Element Books Inc. 1994, ISBN 1-85230-796-X, writes of the severe distress caused by the pressure on lawyers of the prevalent ethos in the profession. In areas of dissatisfaction and stress, lawyers generally rank higher than all other professions. A full third of lawyers suffer from either clinical depression or substance abuse or both, highest in a survey of 105 professions. 28% of male lawyers and 41% of female lawyers said they were dissatisfied with their work. That is double the 1984 figures and shows that things are getting steadily worse. Many other books have been written recently criticizing prevalent practices of American lawyers. Here are the titles to a few: The American Moralist: On Law, Ethics and Government (1992), George Anastaplo, A Nation under Lawyers, (1994) by Mary Ann Glendon, The Death of Common Sense by Philip K. Howard, The Lost Lawyer, (1993), by Anthony Kronman, The Betrayed Profession, (1994), by Sol M. Linowitz. 4. Acknowledgment by the leadership of the legal profession of its corruption. There have always been men of integrity in the legal profession among whom the most likely critics of the profession will be found. Of late the increased awareness by the world and the profession that something is drastically wrong has led to a particular theory. That theory seems to find its clearest expression in the work of Harrison J. Sheppard, a lawyer practicing in San Francisco. He is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, and a member of the State Bar of California. His views are the closest the profession has come to publicly acknowledging its problems.12 Mr. Sheppard presents his perception of the problem and potential solutions. His view of the existence of the problem is understated but accurate. Unfortunately his perception of the cause and therefore the solutions is not.13 Of the problem Mr. Sheppard says the following: My experience as a lawyer,... have led me to conclude that our typical professional practices do not serve our clients or the general public nearly as well as they should, that commonly expressed criticisms of lawyers have a sound basis in fact; and that the every day pressures of the practice of law have led many lawyers to forget the significance of their oath to support the Constitution and the law of the United States and this State, with potentially serious consequences for our democratic society. (Emphasis added) 5. Anecdotal evidence of the widespread corruption of the legal profession. A 1993 survey of the State Bar of California showed that Americans rate members of the American profession last in honesty and integrity among all the honored professions. A 1993 survey by the American Bar Association indicated that the more contact people have with lawyers the less they trust them. In other words those who know them don't trust them and those who trust them don't know them. The Watergate scandal that disgraced the Nixon administration involved criminal wrongdoing by many people at the top levels of government. It is reported that 21 out of the 23 men convicted of criminal behavior were lawyers! Among them were John Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States, John Dean , counsel to the President, Ehrlichman, Colson, and many others. Nixon's vice-president, Spiro Agnew, was also convicted of criminal behavior on a separate matter. Dan Rostenkowski, a lawyer and former Speaker of the House, is in prison at this writing for criminal behavior while in office. Mr. Jim Wright, a lawyer and formerly Speaker of the House, had to resign in disgrace to avoid criminal prosecution. The President of the United States, Mr. Bill Clinton, a lawyer and a former university professor of constitutional law, is being sued by one Paula Jones, for sexual misconduct while Governor of the State of Arkansas. He is also facing potential criminal charges on unresolved Whitewater allegations, as well as potential illegal campaign funds solicitations. There are citizen's organizations arising all over the United States attempting to cope with the perceived corruption of lawyers in many different fields.14 This writer submitted a study to the Florida Supreme Court in 1989, which provided conclusive statistical evidence that Florida Bar dismissal of citizens' complaints could not have resulted by chance, but had to have resulted from wrongdoing.15 Operations Courtbroom in Miami, and Greylord in Chicago are two examples of corruption reaching into the very courtrooms of the Nation.16 Random acts of violence against lawyers, in apparent retaliation for their perceived corruption, is growing in this land. 6. The absence of any material rebuttal by the legal profession. To all of the above accusations and the abundance of evidence that the legal profession is corrupt, the profession offers rebuttals without merit. These are: The unsupported assertion that 'the American legal system' is the best in the free world, notwithstanding all the evidence that suggests it is much closer to being the worst. The assertion that 'there are rotten apples in every barrel' and the false implication that the legal profession's rotten apples are no more numerous than those in other professional barrels. Unsuccessful attempts to discredit critics by ad hominem and other Aristotelean false argument attacks. What the profession has never done is either specifically rebut in writing any of the many volumes of work done by its own people condemning the integrity of the profession, or agree to publicly debate the issues with its principal critics. The evidence suggests that the legal profession cannot do the former and will not do the latter.17 PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 Internet address: robace@ix.netcom.com About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86 through 98, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. See Federalist 96 by this writer. This paper and Federalists 97, 98 and 100, should be read as four parts of a single unit. See Federalists 97/98 on the question of rationalism versus empiricism. Lawyers, scribes and Pharisees are the Biblical words used for the lawyers of those days. Lawyers: Luke's words for scribes, (Luke 11:45), who gave themselves to meticulous and dedicated study of the law. Many were Pharisees, but membership was not essential to the professional legal qualifications. Scribes were students and expositors of the law , whereas Pharisees were concerned with people's performance of the law. Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-211691-6 These words are spoken by a participant in Jack Cade's revolt in the year 1450, against tyranny in England. Cade is a historical figure who achieved some temporary success in the reduction of tyranny in England. The extreme words: 'Kill all the lawyers', expresses a common frustration felt by the average Englishman with the corruption of lawyers and the legal system at that time. Obviously there are some good things that lawyers have done as well as many honest lawyers. However, when the overwhelming public impression is that lawyers are corrupt, the only conclusion that is supported by that evidence, is that the lawyer activities are all too often detrimental to the Nations they inhabit. Mr. Kieffer is a partner in the Washington D.C., firm of de Kieffer, Dibble and Horgan, and has authored more than 200 articles and written 5 books. He served as general counsel to the Office of the United States Trade Representative in the Reagan Administration. Ralph Nader is a nationally known consumer advocate attorney and Presidential candidate in 1996. Roy Grutman is a well known trial lawyer who has represented Bob Guccione, Jerry Falwell, and Jackie Collins, among other celebrity clients. Deborah Arron graduated from UCLA school of law in 1975 and practiced law as a civil litigator until 1985. She has since 'run from the law' herself, having closed her practice and turned to helping other lawyers to also 'run from the law.' Benjamin Sells is a Chicago psychotherapist, lawyer and syndicated newspaper columnist. Privately there are a great many lawyers who will confirm their experiences with corrupt colleagues. The problem as presented does not identify constitutional violations as the cause. The solutions presented call for the teaching of civility and non adversarial problem resolution to the profession. That will not work. This writer will address these issues in Federalist 101. Mr. Sheppard's analysis is well intentioned but misguided. This writer is aware of no other free world country where such activity exists at all. The Court never responded. These names refer to the uncovering and conviction of criminal wrongdoing by a cabal of judges in both cities. It is probable that such criminal behavior is only the tip of the iceberg. For it is said that it is better to say nothing and be thought corrupt, than to debate the issue and remove all doubt. The Federalist (Number 100) June 14, 1997 The need for public opinion to support the removal of lawyers from elective office.1 The issue of the unfitness of lawyers for elective office. The corruption of the legal profession as a whole. ( Part 4 of 4).2 Conclusions. In Federalist 96 this writer set himself the task of establishing to a standard of proof of reasonable suspicion or probable cause, that the legal profession was materially more corrupt than the population as a whole. That therefore the legal profession should be excluded from elective office to avoid the inevitable harm to the whole Nation that would flow from control of government being in the hands of its most corrupt profession. To make the case both the rationalist (Federalist 97) and the empirical approach (Federalists 98 & 99) were used. Here is a summary of the evidence and the conclusions that evidence supports. The evidence The rational approach concluded that all the factors that tend to create corruption in a profession are present in the legal profession in as powerful a mode as they ever get for any profession. Thus the legal profession can rationally be expected to be the most corrupt in the land, and materially more so than the average citizen. The empirical approach provided the following evidence: Jesus Christ is quoted in the New Testament as condemning the profession and calling it corrupt. The Philosopher Plato called the profession corrupt. International literature, proverbs and sayings, all speak of the profession as being corrupt. The criminologist Dr. Gary Green, states that lawyers operate in an environment that is criminogenic, i.e. that creates criminals. Books written by American lawyers describe in detail just how extremely corrupt the profession is. The record indicates that in all three branches of government, the corruption of the legal profession has reached alarming proportions and very egregiously harms the Nation. The American Bar Association 1993 survey indicates that Americans who know lawyers best trust them least. The corruption of the legal profession is at such a high level, that it is adversely affecting the psyche and well being of large numbers of lawyers in practice. So much so, that many honest lawyers leave the profession in disgust, at considerable financial sacrifice. The corruption is so severe that it is blamed for both random and specific acts of violence against lawyers. The profession's leadership recognizes to a significant degree, how severe the corruption is. The significance of the absence of a specific kind of evidence. Proof of a proposition can sometimes be provided by the absence of a particular kind of evidence. Thus it is significant that there is no material evidence of the widespread corruption of any other legitimate profession. That reinforces the concept that the legal profession is materially more corrupt than any other. There is not even evidence from other countries that their legal profession is nearly as corrupt as that in the United States. The foregoing is demonstrated by the following absence of evidence: In his book 'Occupational Crime', Dr. Gary Green found it necessary to address only two of the 'respected professions', the legal and the medical profession. He found only the legal profession 'criminogenic', and had no general condemnation of the medical profession. This writer is unaware of a single work by members of any other profession, generally condemning their own profession for widespread corrupt practices. This writer is unaware of any other free world nation which perceives its legal profession as even approaching the level of corruption attained by their colleagues in the United States. This writer is unaware of any other free world nation in which citizen organizations spring up spontaneously to attempt to counter legal corruption. This writer is unaware of any free world European nation, with as shameful a history of corruption among its lawyers legislators as has this one. The legal profession has provided no material response to these accusations. General conclusions as to the corruption of the legal profession. The evidence that both the legal profession as a whole, and a substantial number of its members, are corrupt is overwhelming. That conclusion is directly supported by affirmative evidence and indirectly supported by the absence of any material contrary evidence. The original purpose of Federalists 97,98,99 and 100, was to discover whether there was enough evidence to prove that the legal profession was corrupt, to a standard of proof of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The evidence supports the conclusion that the case has been made to standards of proof exceeding those goals. The evidence is reasonably sufficient to have proved the case to the standard of proof of preponderance of the evidence to most readers, and even to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to some. Further conclusions as to the corruption of the leadership of the legal profession and of lawyer legislators. Although the corruption of the legal profession as a whole is now well established, it remains true that the profession still contains many individual members who have retained a high measure of integrity. So the question now of interest becomes: Is the legal profession's leadership3 likely to be more or less corrupt than the general membership? Cream rises to the top of the milk, but regrettably so does scum to the top of the cesspool. Every group tends to promote to positions of power within its own organizational structure, those best able to advance its selfish interests. In the army4 for example, those who do well must show a host of universally admired qualities. These qualities are: integrity, intelligence, courage, daring, technical proficiency, loyalty, calm under fire, leadership, flexibility, physical prowess, good health, a stable personality, an ability to work well with others, and an ability to treat all according to the content of their character not the color of their skin. Those who rose to the top of their profession had to have these qualities. The army gave us General Marshal, General Bradley, General Douglas Mac Arthur, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Colin Powell, and General Schwartzkoff. All men of the highest moral standing as well as men of extreme competence. At the other extreme are the criminal organizations. There, advancement to the top also requires particular qualities, many of which are universally condemned. Organized crime groups 'qualities' include blind loyalty with violations punishable by death; a willingness to do criminal acts without question and to commit murder when asked. Further 'qualities' required are a complete absence of conscience and a ruthless willingness to spread evil, misery and grief to all and sundry in order to make a criminal profit. Here too it is those who best exhibit the 'qualities' prized by the group who rise to the top. Organized crime gave us Al Capone, Bugsy Malone, Lucky Luciano, Albert Anastasia, the Gambino family and 'Dapper' Don Gotti. The legal profession like other organizations, seeks to achieve the highest benefits for its members. Its criminogenic occupational structure tends to bring it closer in organizational objectives to criminal rather than legitimate organizations. When the battle for the hearts and minds of the members is between ethics and greed, greed often wins. Particularly in a profession that has achieved almost absolute power over the Nation. To keep and expand that power for the profit of the profession, no matter what evil befalls others is what will help candidates for power to reach the top. Thus those who show the greatest willingness to do what is necessary to further the profession's greed, are likely to rise to its leadership. That is best done by keeping the Nation under the legal profession's tyrannical rule, while vehemently denying that tyranny exists. We can thus thank the legal profession for Mr. Nixon, Mr. Spiro Agnew, Mr. John Mitchell, Mr. Ehrichman, Mr. Kliendienst, Mr. Colson, Mr. Dan Rostenkowski, Mr. John Wright, and now Mr. Bill Clinton and Mr. Al Gore to name only a few. The last two may or may not face criminal charges. For the moment there are investigations pending on matters potentially implicating Mr. Clinton criminally on the Whitewater matter, as well as potential new allegations of soliciting campaign funds illegally against both the President and the Vice president. The evidence shows that it is all but certain that those who rise to the highest power in the legal profession, are more likely to be corrupt than are their own rank and file.5 Since the levers of power are greatest in the federal government in Washington D.C. the evidence indicates that those lawyers able to reach elected office are also probably the most corrupt.6 The latest campaign finance scandals apparently tarring virtually all politicians7 is a prime example of the corruption of lawyers8 spreading to non-lawyers as a survival mechanism. The effect of the corruption of lawyers on the judiciary. The Nation is already unconstitutionally forced by the legal profession to limit its choice of judges to their own ranks. It is fortunate that the judges, once chosen, are generally less subject to the levels of temptation that existed when they were lawyers. So at least the Nation sees some relief there. It is also true that even corrupt lawyers prefer honest judges. So the judges chosen may well be more honest than those who chose them. Sometimes dishonest lawyer politicians will seek to cloak themselves with the good reputation of honest lawyers by nominating them for judgeships. These factors mitigate some of the harm to the Nation. The harm to the Nation of electing corrupt representatives. The usual consequences of having dishonest men in power is known. They will enrich themselves illegally at the Nation's expense. However the impact on the Nation of having its entire government dominated by the single most corrupt group in the land is mind boggling in its implications. Here are some of the natural consequences: The moral decline of the Nation starts with the leadership. Thus the consistent presence of the most corrupt group in the land as the Nation's leaders cannot fail to cause the general decline in the moral and ethical standards of the Nation. That has happened. The spread of corruption to non members of the legal profession as a survival mechanism sometimes perceived as the only way to get just results from an unjust system.9 The United States is the most powerful Nation in the World, and the cutting edge of democracy. It is a Nation which needs to lead by example. Instead its world image is one of a corrupt government and Nation. That diminishes this Nation's ability to exercise the moral authority that it's position of power and its history should command. When the leaders of the Nation are corrupt, the message to those who work for them is that it is OK to be corrupt. All parents know that authority figures cannot successfully teach children or subordinates to 'Do as I say, not as I do!' So corruption spreads to otherwise honest people. Man's nature is selfish. Man needs to constantly fight his nature to achieve his best. Every time a man does something wrong it becomes a little easier to do wrong again. Thus with corrupt leadership in power the decline of the Nation's moral values and ethical standards can be expected to continue apace. That has been happening. Conclusion. The legal profession is unquestionably corrupt. The evidence indicates lawyer legislators are probably even more corrupt than are their colleagues. Their presence in elective office is unconstitutional, morally destructive and harmful to the Nation to the point where it will soon bring the Nation down.10 Their presence appears to force their non-lawyer colleagues into corrupt practices merely to stay in government. The continual flow of information on the corruption of the Nation's leaders undermines confidence in government, leads to the disaffection of most of the population and causes fringe groups to seek revolutionary remedies. It is also the reason why the most misguided believe in the use of domestic terrorism as an instrument of change.11 Is there in the Nation any person with a soul so bereft of decency as to knowingly condemn his country to be governed by men and women selected from the most corrupt group in the land? The answer for a free people must be a resounding NO. Thus on the issue of corruption alone the evidence is so strong that the Nation should see fit to remove all lawyers from elective office at once. Of course the fact that those lawyers are also unconstitutionally in office, makes the decision easier still. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86 through 99, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. See Federalist 96 by this writer. This paper and Federalists 97, 98 and 99, should be read as a single unit . The leadership of the profession consists of those within the profession who exercise the most power whether in one of the branches of government, in academia, in financial circles, or anywhere else power is exercised. In this country the army's goals do not differ materially from the Nation's. The evidence even suggests a direct correlation between lawyers in power and their personal level of corruption. The higher the level of power the greater the probability of corruption. As in all things there are undoubtedly exceptions to this rule. This blanket statement of probability of corruption cannot be used to condemn any particular individual. When the rules of the game are made, interpreted and enforced by corrupt lawyers, it may not be too far to say that even non lawyers wishing to run for public office will be forced to accept corruption as the price for getting elected, pay their own way like billionaire Ross Perot, or stay home. A potential defense for very corrupt lawyers is that the psychological dysfunction arising from extreme cognitive dissonance (See Federalist 95) renders them incapable of distinguishing right from wrong when the law clashes with their financial interests. Some say that this defense is too close to the much discredited 'insanity defense' and should not serve as a defense at all. This writer believes the argument is at least a factor favoring mitigation of punishment. The apparent acceptance by all members of the justice system that policemen routinely lie under oath to avoid the consequences of having their case thrown out under the exclusionary rule, is one example. It is in the face of overwhelming evidence and with a heavy heart that this writer asserts these facts. Every American has an emotional investment in the integrity of his government and his leaders. That is why all citizens are diminished when they realize the kind of leadership they themselves have put in place! Of which misguided number Timothy McVeigh, convicted of bombing the Federal Building in Oklahoma which killed 168 people in April 1995, is certainly the worst offender to date. The Federalist (Number 101) June 22, 1997 The state of the Union under a failed Constitution A review of Federalists 86 to 100. An explanation of how the legal profession became so corrupt and why it continues to tyrannize the Nation with 'a clear conscience'. A rebuttal to the proposition that the profession's solution of 'educating lawyers' will resolve the problems created by the Nation's legal profession. In 1995 this writer undertook to continue the writing of the original 1787 Federalist Papers. That was done to bring the following to the attention of the American people: 1. An analysis of why the Constitution was written; 2. An explanation of how the Constitution's separation of powers principle was designed to protect the people from tyranny arising from any 'same hands faction'; and 3. An explanation of why the Constitution failed to protect the people from the 'same hands' faction known as the legal profession. To that end 15 Federalist Papers (Numbers 86 to 100) have been written. Summary of Conclusions of Federalists 86 to 100. Federalists 86 to 100 argued and concluded the following: That the legal profession is the most corrupt profession in the land and unconstitutionally controls all government. That there is probable cause to believe that any member of the legal profession who holds elective office in either the legislative or executive branch of government is guilty of treason. That as a result of this control and probably treasonous behavior, the Nation has been and continues to be very seriously harmed in virtually all areas of its life, That unless the members of the legal profession are removed from this unconstitutional control of the Nation's government it will not be long before the Nation will go down, and its democratic form of government lost. It is not surprising that such assertions may be regarded with skepticism by many well intentioned and even highly intelligent people.1 An explanation is required for the seemingly incredible proposition that the men and women who are sworn to protect the people from tyranny by upholding the Constitution, are themselves responsible for tyrannizing the Nation. Enormous power, unfettered ambition and psychological dysfunction as explanations for the legal profession's corrupt and tyrannical behavior. Most men are susceptible to the blind pursuit of unfettered ambition. It is primarily Society, acting in its own collective best interests, which provides brakes to each individual's pursuit of this vice. A just Society also expects each individual's conscience to provide some obstacle to anti-social acts. When an individual or a group attain sufficient power to destroy Society's obstacles to their unfettered ambition, all that remains is each individual's conscience. When the psychological dysfunction of extreme cognitive dissonance2 in a particular individual is added to unfettered ambition, the obstacle of conscience disappears. Then there is nothing left to prevent that person from giving in to the worst of his nature. That is what has happened to many members of the legal profession. Their effective control of all government has provided them with enormous power. That is what began the insidious process. Later, extreme cognitive dissonance surfaced in many lawyers and destroyed in them the last obstacle to corruption. These lawyers became incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong on issues relevant to either justice or their professional obligations to the Nation. Many of these lawyers hold high office. They assert that the disastrous legal system they impose on the Nation is good. Due to their psychological dysfunction they feel neither remorse nor guilt, nor do they see any need for change. At the other end of the spectrum are the more honest lawyers. These lawyers still have functioning consciences. They are not afflicted by extreme cognitive dissonance which quiets the soul by transforming the perception of evil into good. They are afflicted with a sufficient level of cognitive dissonance and the discomfort that brings to cause many to leave the profession. These are the lawyers who 'run from the law', often at considerable financial sacrifice. Others stay, but pay a heavy price for remaining in the form of higher levels of depression, drug and alcohol abuse, than the members of any other profession. The above explanation shows how a once learned profession has sunk so low. Nevertheless, it is always important to remember that within that profession there remain many honest men and women trying their best to correct the problems they perceive. They are the most likely to come to the aid of the Nation. They need to do so very soon for there comes a time when as Dr. Martin Luther King put it: Silence becomes betrayal. Rebuttal to the legal profession's latest 'solution' to the problems it creates. Even among the most honorable of those in the profession there remains a need to accurately perceive the problem. Otherwise the proposed solutions will not work. There are three types of 'solutions' that can be proposed for any problem. Useful solutions, useless solutions3 and worse than useless solutions. A useful solution works. It resolves the problem. A useless solution does not work. It fails to resolve the problem. But at least it fails quickly. A worse than useless solution not only fails to resolve the problem, but its failure is slowly perceived. Thus while it is being tried, it provides the false sense of security that a problem is being resolved. Meanwhile the problem continues to fester, sometimes beyond the ability of any solution to resolve. For example a woman suffering from breast cancer is told that a mastectomy is essential to save her life. That is the only useful solution. The offer of a liquid 'concoction' that will allegedly cure her cancer in 48 hours if she drinks it is a useless solution. But at least she will know within 48 hours4 that the 'solution' failed. Her condition will not yet have materially deteriorated. She can still be saved. On the other hand if she is told that the 'concoction' will cure her cancer, but only over an extended period of time, that is a worse than useless solution. Because by the time it is clear that the solution is useless, she will either be dead or her condition will have deteriorated beyond the ability of any useful solution to save her life. The legal profession's worse than useless 'solution' to the problem of tyranny. 5 Problem resolution involves several distinct aspects. These are: 1. Recognition that a problem exists; 2. Identification of the source of that problem; 3. Identification of a useful solution and 4. Implementation of the solution. 1. Recognition that a problem exists. John Dos Passos in The American Lawyer6 recognized as early 1907, that government was controlled by lawyers, that lawyers were corrupt and that they used their office primarily for personal gain, that they did not exhibit a sense of duty, that many practiced law only to defeat and evade the legislative intent and public policy, and that if this activity continued the Nation faced grave danger. Harrison J. Sheppard7 is an attorney and Fellow of the American Bar Association. In 1997 he expressed a view that appears to be shared by many honorable members of his profession which says much the same thing. So it appears that there is consensus on the fact that a major problem exists. 2. Identification of the 'source' of the problem.8 Dos Passos identified the following as the 'sources' of the problems. 1. Deficiencies in education and instruction for lawyers; 2. The emphasis in law of form over substance; 3. The excessive numbers of lawyers; 4. Lack of manners among lawyers; 5. The advent of wealth over intellectuality, refinement and literary culture as the sole criterion of social position; 6. The change of law into business; 7. Increased litigation; 8. The lack of impartiality of judges; 9. The creation of contingency fees; 10. The absence of two classes of lawyers, solicitors and barristers; and 11. The absence of gowns or appropriate badges in court. Sheppard identified the source of the problem as a lack of education by lawyers on the need for non adversarial problem solving techniques. 3. Identification of a 'useful' solution. Dos Passos gave up totally on 'reforming' his own generation of lawyers. He said: An old and pernicious system cannot be extirpated, as one would raze a house, and build a new one in its place. Therefore it would be useless to attempt to reform the present generation of lawyers, as a whole As a long term solution to correct the problems that he identified, he recommended the following: Specific reforms in the education of lawyers and the greater use of civility; a limitation on the number of lawyers; reform of the contingency fee laws; making law a profession of refinement and culture and not a business; a decrease in litigation; two classes of lawyers; gowns for lawyers in court; and greater scrutiny of judges. Sheppard's suggested recommendations involve: 1. Promotion within law firms and government agencies of a problem solving model of legal practice; 2. Continuing legal education in negotiation, civility and conciliation skills; and 3. Reform of legal education emphasizing problem solving non adversarial techniques. Analysis of the legal profession's problem solving approach. It is clear from Dos Passos' book that all of the problems perceived by the honorable members of the legal profession today were in existence in 1907. The problems have become much more severe since then. Dos Passos' solutions were in his own view at best not going to work for at least a generation. It is reasonable to assume that some parts of the solution were at least proposed or tried by the more honorable among the profession. What is clear is that whether or not they were tried, things have become materially worse. Thus the solutions if they were tried, have not worked and may even have delayed effective reform. Sheppard's position appears to be addressing the same problems and proposing essentially the same solutions. The results will be no better. Let us see why. The proper identification of the source of the problem is essential to discovering its solution. Confusing the symptom with the source will lead to a useless or worse than useless solution. Thus for all the years that AIDS was unidentified, doctors mistook other diseases for the sources of illness of patients who had AIDS. Prevention of AIDS only began occurring after the medical profession became aware of the existence of AIDS. So it is with the problems created by the legal profession. Neither Dos Passos nor Sheppard nor any other published views of the legal profession, correctly identify the problem as tyranny. Tyranny specifically identified by James Madison in Federalist # 51 as: Control by a same hands group of the powers of the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary Branches of government. Tyranny that is only resolvable through the removal of all lawyers holding elective office outside the Judiciary. Either through the Courts on a Constitutional basis or by the people through the ballot box. The profession suggests education as a solution. Yet the legal profession is arguably the best educated, the smartest and the most erudite of all the professions. Is more education likely to make them more honorable? And if it is, why hasn't that happened in the last 90 years since Dos Passos identified the same problems and suggested many of the same solutions? Why have things become dramatically worse? History teaches us that no group that acquired power ever gave it up voluntarily. Yet that is what is being proposed. For the power of the purse possessed by the legal profession is visible to all. Even to those who deny that it was acquired through the unconstitutional control of government. The legal profession's power and its ability to extort enormous wealth from the Nation under color of law is based on its ability to do all the things that Dos Passos and Sheppard would 'educate' it away from. If the 'education' succeeded, demand for legal services would drop materially.9 So would aggregate lawyer income and in many cases, individual lawyer income. It is Utopian to suggest that may happen voluntarily. There is therefore no possibility that any of these reforms will ever come to pass as a result of 'education'. Disastrous Implications of the legal profession's views. As an exercise in logic it is interesting to note the disastrous implications for all free people of the possibility that the legal profession's views may be correct. For the profession recognizes the possibility that the legal profession's activities may well lead to the loss of this Nation's freedoms and Republican form of constitutional democracy. Yet the profession is steadfast in it's views that the profession has not violated the Constitution in any way.10 It further asserts that the Constitution is unflawed in its text, its interpretation by the Courts and its enforcement by the Executive. That means that a Constitution as perfectly written, interpreted and enforced as the mind of man is capable of conceiving, cannot protect the people from the whim, abuse or pleasure of its own legal profession! That means that no constitution can be written that will perform that function.11 That means that the dream of a people being able to write a Constitution to govern themselves which provides the government with sufficient power to govern but insufficient to oppress is gone from the Planet forever! That means the eventual loss of freedom for all the people of the Planet. Conclusion: The American legal profession's high degree of corruption is explained by the acquisition of unbridled power which created the blossoming of unfettered ambition and eventually resulted in the psychological dysfunction of extreme cognitive dissonance. Serious thinkers in the profession recognize that the Nation is in potentially mortal danger from its activities. Yet the profession's proposed solutions through education are worse than useless. For not only will they not work but for as long as these solutions appear to offer hope, that hope will serve only to delay useful solutions. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86 through 99, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. This is true notwithstanding that many Americans display a strong distrust of lawyers and a powerful sense that lawyers must be responsible for many of the Nation's problems. It is the level of corruption these Papers establish that is so hard to comprehend. Cognitive dissonance is the psychological dysfunction that, when taken to extremes, will cause the mind to reverse its perception of good and evil on certain specific issues. On those issues it becomes impossible for the mind to distinguish between right and wrong. (See Federalist 95). Obviously solutions that don't work are not solutions at all. They merely appear to be until they fail. Or as long thereafter as it takes to test her condition. Tyranny is this writer's definition of the problem. The profession defines the same problem in an understated and different manner. However the essential concept that the legal profession is causing the Nation grievous harm now and may potentially bring it down is the common theme. Current publisher: Fred B. Rothman & Co. Littleton, Colorado, 1986 ISBN 0-8377-0524-X American Principles and the Evolving Ethos of American Legal Practice, an Article by Harrison J. Sheppard to be published in the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Winter 1997 issue. In fact only a symptom and not the source. Sheppard suggests that a good part of the drop in legal activity would be replaced by the new 'problem solving' and negotiating activities he recommends lawyers be taught. There is an enormous disproporation of American lawyers to population (1 in about 300) compared to the average for the rest of the world (1 in about 4000). That disproportion arises from the very activities Mr. Sheppard proposed to 'educate' them to avoid. The resulting prospective drop in legal activity and aggregate income will sink the proposal. Primarily because it denies that it is a 'same hands group' within Madison's meaning of the term. For if it could that would mean our Constitution is somehow flawed, which concept is rejected by the legal profession. The Federalist (Number 102) June 22, 1997 The state of the Union under a failed Constitution A review of the four ‘instruments’ of tyranny: (1) The power of the sword; (2) the power of the word; (3) the power of the word of the Lord; and (4) the power of the purse. The ‘natural evolution’ of the American legal profession as tyrannical. When James Madison wrote his Constitution in 1787 he identified and sought to neutralize five known sources of tyranny. The four specific sources of tyranny were: the monarchy, the aristocracy, the military and the Church. The one non specific source of tyranny was identified by Madison as any same hands faction that might acquire control of all three branches of government. He succeeded in neutralizing the monarchy by creating a Republic, the aristocracy by prohibiting titles of nobility, the military by making the head of the military an elected civilian, (the President) and the Church by separating Church and State. He expected to neutralize any potential ‘same hands faction’ by creating a system of separation of powers. Madison however, failed either to identify or deal with the four instruments of tyranny.1 The instruments of tyranny. The history of the world until the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 is very much a history of tyranny. Even after 1776 most of the world continued to be subjected to the tyranny of its conquerors or its own rulers. They were often absolute rulers and they ruled by ‘violence and guile’.2 Almost everywhere they were joined by ‘priests’ whose business it was to interpret the equally absolute and despotic will of the gods, to keep the people in submission.3 Implicit in these attributes of absolute power was economic power or the power of the purse. Thus we have four ‘instruments’ of tyranny. The first is ‘violence’ which is the power of the sword. The second is ‘guile’ which is defined as: the act of deceiving, or the disposition to deceive.4 That is the power of the word. The third is the ‘endorsement’ or support by ‘priests’ of the power of the temporal ruler. That is the power of the word used to invoke the power of the word of the Lord. The fourth is implicit and is economic power or the power of the purse. The neutral nature of both the ‘sources’ and the ‘instruments’ of tyranny. Both ‘sources’ and ‘instruments’ of tyranny may be used for good or evil. Let us look at the sources of tyranny. History tells us that there have been good monarchs and/or other heads of state, such as King Solomon in ancient Israel, and Emperors Marcus Aurelius and Claudius in Rome. There have been some aristocrats concerned with the people’s welfare, and some military leaders like Napoleon, much loved and admired by their people. The Church has been responsible for much good in the world, even though it can also be charged with having caused grievous oppression. Finally a form of ‘same hands’ faction controls parliamentary governments fairly satisfactorily in Great Britain and elsewhere, without the kind of separation of powers the Constitution intended to provide for us here. The same is true of the ‘instruments’ of tyranny. For example the power of the sword can enslave or free people. The American sword freed Europe enslaved by the German sword in two World Wars. The power of the founding fathers’ ‘word’ led this Nation to Independence. Hitler’s word led his people to death and destruction. The power of the word of Lord was misused by the Spanish Inquisition to torture people to death in the name of the Lord. Jesus’ ‘word’ preached love and charity to all. Finally the power of the purse has been used to support evil ends like Naziism or fascism or to do great good like endowing great Universities, as was done in the United States. Potential for tyranny was the criterion for constitutional exclusion from power. Madison’s Constitution permanently excluded all known specific potential sources of tyranny from power without making exclusion subject to evidence of wrongdoing. Because protection from tyranny can exist only by absolutely excluding from power all those who possess control of the potential sources of power. To determine who to exclude from power Madison examined the ‘sources’ of power and identified those individuals or groups who controlled that power. These can be designated as the masters of the particular power. The unchecked masters of the remaining ‘instruments’ of tyranny. By protecting us from the three known specific sources of tyranny Madison’s constitution simultaneously protected us from their use of the sword as an instrument of tyranny. His Constitution also protected us from that instrument of tyranny known as the power of the word of the Lord (at least as interpreted by man), by separating Church and State. However that still left the Nation vulnerable to tyranny from two of the four masters of the ‘instruments’ of tyranny. To wit: the masters of the power of the purse and the masters of the power of the word. The masters of the power of the purse are those who hold the levers of public or private economic power. In general the masters of the purse, when united, have habitually also been the sources of tyranny. For it is their power to tyrannize in the first place that allowed them to acquire wealth5 and wealth that allowed them to perpetuate their tyranny. The issue of so called ‘special interests’ and the undue influence of wealth in the political arena is one current manifestation of the abuse of the power of the purse.6 The masters of the power of the word are the media and the members of the legal profession. The instrument of the law and communication is language. The experts in the use of language are the members of the legal profession and the journalists of the media. Language is an imperfect instrument. It is used to express the mind’s intention into communicable information. It is also used through the art of persuasion, to translate the communicated word into desired action. The members of the media are trained in the use of language for the purpose of becoming objective fact finders to seek out and report the truth.7 The interest they share in common and with the Nation is the principle of freedom of the press. However like any other business or professional group they do possess an interest in their own financial power and well being adverse to the Nation’s interest. They are therefore a Madisonian ‘same hands faction’ and like any other such faction a potential threat to the Nation if they were to achieve control of all government. However they exercise no control over the judiciary and very few of their numbers occupy elective office. Thus the mainstream media, although a Madisonian same hands faction, are not now and may perhaps never be a threat to the Nation. The members of the legal profession are a different matter They are trained in the art and science of persuasion which is Aristotelian logic. They are also trained to recognize and use false arguments that make the weaker argument look the stronger. Society has charged members of the legal profession with the duty to learn the language and its subtleties as well as Aristotelean logic and to use that knowledge righteously.8 They have a common interest in advancing their own power and finances not shared by the Nation. They have already used that power to take over total control of all state and the federal judiciary branches of government. The evidence indicates that they have abandoned any moral role in their profession and no longer recognize any obligation to instruct their clients to conform with existing law.9 The power of the word like all of the other ‘instruments’ of tyranny can be used or misused. For the power of the word is also the power to deceive. The members of the legal profession have developed the power of the word to deceive to new heights. That power is effectively theirs on a virtually exclusive basis. However the power of the word differs from the other instruments of tyranny because it can only survive as long as the deception continues. The natural evolution of lawyers as tyrants. It is fascinating to observe that the tyranny of the legal profession represents a kind of Darwinian natural evolution.10 The original four specific sources of tyranny were well known and neutralized by Madison. That process simultaneously neutralized two of the four masters of the ‘instruments’ of tyranny. Therefore any new sources of tyranny could only arise from the last two masters of the ‘instruments’ of tyranny ( the masters of the power of the word and the masters of the power of the purse). Either would still need to overcome the obstacle of the separation of powers doctrine prohibiting any ‘same hands faction’ from acquiring control of government. That means that the only unified same hands group left that could foreseeably tyrannize the Nation was the legal profession. Because it was master of the power of the word with the full knowledge and virtually exclusive power to misuse the word. It could acquire political power and through that power, acquire the power of the purse. It was the only same hands group or faction that could ‘legitimize' the acquisition of full control of the Judiciary Branches of Government. It alone through guile could overcome the Constitutional obstacle of the separation of powers doctrine. No other group is now, ever was, or may foreseeably ever be qualified by specialized knowledge to do so. That is because the only other possible source of tyranny left would be those who possessed great economic power in the land. But economic power alone would not be enough. There would also have to be a central organization uniting the wealthy for the purpose of tyranny. That has never existed. There would also have to be an alliance with the masters of the power to deceive, the members of the legal profession, to control the Judiciary. Otherwise the Judiciary would raise the separation of powers doctrine as an obstacle to power. History of the evolution of lawyers as tyrants. The legal profession is regarded by many as one of the ‘learned professions’. Yet lawyers have always been regarded as having a tendency to be corrupt. That is because in all societies the power of the word possessed by lawyers is particularly susceptible to abuse. To counter the temptation to become corrupt Society has always attempted to instill in the hearts and minds of the members of the legal profession, a sense of justice and righteousness. To be sure there would always be some rotten apples in the barrel. But at least every effort would be made to control the situation. In the United States lawyers were considered as honorable as their colleagues elsewhere, at least until the end of the Civil War. After the Civil War there occurred a transformation of the law from a profession into a business. A new race of lawyers sprang up lacking the dignity, learning and influence which prior lawyers possessed.11 That was the end of the concept of the lawyer as a righteous man. This ‘new race of lawyers’, now in business for itself and not practicing law for the public good, began expanding its power, influence and corrupt practices. The American Bar Association was founded in the late 19th Century. It brought together lawyers in an effort to define and advance their common financial interests. Subsequently, commencing around the middle of the 20th Century the American Bar Association was instrumental in organizing State Bars in every State. These State Bars monopolized the practice of law in the hands of lawyers. They became bodies elected by nobody, making laws for everybody.12 The State Bars also acquired full de jure or de facto control over all the judiciary branches of government. Through the power of monopoly and the power of the State Bars lawyers began to acquire the power of the purse and run for public office in greater and greater numbers. Experts at rhetoric and the powers to obfuscate and deceive, they became very successful at acquiring and retaining elective public office. They redefined ethics in a form of Orwellian Newspeak. They called it the Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role.13 As if any righteous person’s ethics could ever be consistent with the concept of amorality. Seeking relief from extreme anxiety caused by the evil ways of their profession, many members developed the psychological dysfunction known as cognitive dissonance, which transforms the perception of the evil they do into the good they would like to think they are doing. Conclusion. There are 5 internationally recognized potential sources of tyranny. They are: the monarchy, the aristocracy, the military , the Church and any ‘same hands faction’ in control of government. There are 4 ‘instruments’ of tyranny, The power of the sword, the power of the word, the power of the word of the Lord and the power of the purse. The Constitution protects us adequately from 4 out of 5 sources of tyranny but only 2 out of 4 ‘instruments’ of tyranny. The Constitution has failed to protect us from a same hands legal profession14 source of tyranny. We are also totally unprotected from the two instruments of tyranny which are the deceitful power of the word and the power of the purse. The legal profession’s tyranny of the Nation is a ‘natural evolution’ of its exclusive possession of the power to misuse the word, of its power to completely control the judiciary, and of its substantial possession of the power of the purse. To tyrannize the Nation it has developed deceit and self deceit to the highest level ever known to man. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86 through 99, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. As specialized tools, mechanism or means peculiar to certain individuals or groups. A history of knowledge, page 3, by Charles Van Doren (1992) ISBN: 0-345-37316-2 lbid. See Funk and Wagnall's New Comprehensive Dictionary of the English language. (1978) Which principle continues to be true with respect to the legal profession in the United States, but not others who have acquired wealth legitimately. Correcting abuses by non lawyers who may also be masters of the power of the purse will probably have to await the removal of the present tyrannical control of government by lawyers. Albeit they may sometimes report truth through the prisms of their own political bias. It is this wirter's opnion, apparently not shared by the legal profession, that a lawyer's knowledge should be used as that of all professionals with a concern for the publc interest and a sense of righteousness. The position of the legal profession is that lawyers must adopt an 'amoral' role in counseling their clients. See prize winning article The Lawyer's Amoral Ethical Role by Professor Stephen I. Pepper, College of Law, Denver, page 613 of The Ethics of Lawyers edited by Stephen Luban, New York University Press. The very title of the article Amoral Ethical Role is an oxymoron. Ethics is the study of moral law. Amorality is the absense of concern with moral law! The evidence shows that there were only 5 possible 'candidates' for tyranny in America. When the first four were neutralized by the Constitution the only 'candidate' left standing was the legal profession! See The American Lawyer, pages 32-34, by John Dos Passos ISBN: 0-8377-0524-X The laws are reffered to as Bar Rules and impact every citizen in the State which they are enacted. See footnote 11. The legal profession would undoubtedly protect us from any other same hands faction. The Federalist (Number 103) June 22, 1997 The state of the Union under a failed Constitution The American legal profession’s exercise of deceit to tyrannize the American people. Federalist 102 outlined the natural evolution of the legal profession as tyrants. It possesses the power of the word and is one of the two possessors of the power of the purse. It is also the only ‘same hands’ faction which is now or is ever likely to be, in complete control of the Judiciary branch of government. That makes the legal profession the last and only ‘same hands’ faction capable of controlling all government and establishing tyranny. But the members of the legal profession do not possess the power of the sword or the power of the word of the Lord. So the instruments of their tyranny are limited to economic power, abuse of the power of the Judiciary and the misuse of the power of the ‘word’, which is deceit . Deceit evil and benign. What precisely is deceit? The dictionary tells us that deceit is: The act of deceiving, deception, lying; a lie or other dishonest action; trick. But deceit is not always bad. For example a person may tell a dying loved one that he will not die. That is deceit. But it is well intentioned or benign deceit, for its purpose is to ease anxiety. The magician’s craft is also based on deceit and trickery. But it is also benign and well intentioned, for its purpose is to entertain. So the question of whether deceit is good or evil is dependent on the intent of the deceiver. So we distinguish between evil and benign deceit. The legal profession deceives with evil intent. To advance that evil intent the legal profession has raised the ‘art’ of deceit to new levels. To fully understand the depth and extent of that deceit will require the establishing of new expressions for different levels of deceit. Deceit with evil intent: simple, double, triple, poly deceit and color of law deceit. The power of the members of the legal profession is rooted in deceit. Deceit more devious in quality, quantity and kind than the world has ever beheld before. Deceit even of themselves, which is called self-deceit and arises from cognitive dissonance.1 To undo the harm done by the legal profession the Nation will have to strip from its members the mask of deceit. To do so it will be necessary to carefully examine the legal profession’s unique ability to deceive the public and its attempts to ‘redefine the truth’. The ordinary concept of deceit involves a person deceived who is aware of the deception. We shall refer to this kind of deception as simple deceit. The next level of deception is one in which the deceit is concealed indefinitely. That kind of deceit we shall call double deceit, because there are two deceptions, the original deceit and the concealment of the deceit. The next level of deception we shall call triple deceit. It consists of the two deceptions called double deceit, plus yet a third deception. This third deception consists of falsely portraying the first dishonest act as one that benefits its victim. Even higher levels of deceit we shall call poly deceit or multiple deceit. That deceit involves some combination of simple, double and/or triple deceit to achieve a given result. There is one more level of deceit. We shall refer to it as color of law deceit, which is the abuse of the power of the judiciary. It occurs when laws, rules or other mandated behavior are deliberately given a false interpretation. It is the misuse of the power of law, the alleged ambiguity of language and the unscientific nature of opinion to deceive the people. It is constantly used by the legal profession to enact unconstitutional laws, and enforce and falsely interpret constitutional issues for its own benefit. It is the kind of deceit that former Justice Robert Jackson, our Nation’s chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi War Criminals referred to in the role of judges and law in legitimizing tyranny as: ‘the most odious of all oppressions are those which mask justice.’ 2 The legal profession’s specific uses of various forms of deceit. Simple deceit is the tool of pickpockets, con men, and various other professional scam artists. In simple deceit the victim is deceived long enough for the dishonest act to be perpetrated upon him. The criminal then expects to make his getaway before his victim becomes aware of the crime. But the criminal has no hope or expectation that the crime itself will remain concealed. Usually the legal profession will avoid such rudimentary techniques.3 That is because the legal profession is seeking to conceal its crimes from its victims so that the victimization can continue indefinitely. Double deceit is the minimum level normally practiced by the profession. The best example is the well documented and widely exposed standard practice in the profession of overbilling.4 The client is overbilled and never realizes it. So deception can continue indefinitely. Triple deceit occurs if a client’s overbilling is ‘adjusted’. If the client complains, the lawyer may give him a ‘courtesy reduction’ adjustment on the bill. He will still be overbilled but not as much. In which case the lawyer will generally explain that the bill was right originally and that the reduction is a good will gesture to keep the ‘unreasonable client’ happy. When that happens, the false framing of the action as benefiting the victim raises deceit to the level of triple deceit. Poly deceit occurs when deceit is raised to a more complex level, such as concealing tyranny from the Nation, falsely asserting that lawyers are not members of any ‘same hands’ faction, establishing and maintaining State Bars, etc. Color of law deceit is the abuse of the power of the judiciary and occurs all the time. It involves ‘misinterpretation’ of law by the judiciary. It escapes sanction even when uncovered, because the judiciary will not sanction itself for deliberate misconduct in its own general interest, and no-one else is empowered to do so. It is the blatant and disgraceful application of a double standard! Let us see how and why. Ignorance of the law is no excuse under the law. To ‘ignore’ the law may either mean to be ‘unacquainted with’ or to ‘willfully disregard’ the law.5 Neither excuse is acceptable from nonlawyers. When Judges make unconstitutional rulings nothing happens to them. Even when every logical argument is clearly against their ruling and other equal dignity Courts have determined the unconstitutionality of the issue.6 Their position when forced to retreat is effectively: Sorry, we erred! But it is the job of judges to know constitutional law. So we are left with three choices. Either they are horribly incompetent, but only when it comes to issues that help the legal profession. Or they willfully disregard the law. Or they suffer from severe cognitive dissonance and can no longer tell right from wrong on these kinds of issues.7 Detecting deceit in general. Deceit whether for good or evil, involves certain tools, techniques, means and methods that are similar. It is therefore useful to analyze the well documented methods used by magicians, those well known entertainment masters of deceit! How do magicians fool us? According to Dr. Barbara L. Thaw, author of The Armchair Magician,8 the plain truth is this: ‘The smarter the man, the easier he is to fool.’ That is because the smarter we become, the less likely we are to attribute obvious causes to mystifying effects. Human nature is predictable and magicians take advantage of human nature to work their magic! All illusions (deceit) take place in the minds of the perceiver. They result from the interpretation or misinterpretation of clues received from the five senses. A magician’s art is dependent on a number of principles. These are false assumption, misdirection, concealment, and the magician’s choice or forcing, (which we shall refer to as the illusion of choice). All of the ‘tricks’ of the magician’s trade are used by the members of the legal profession. The members of the legal profession are primarily involved in the intellectual field of persuasion or logical argument. Let us examine how deceit is practiced there. Detecting deceit in ‘logical argument’ as practiced by the legal profession. Aristotle, the father of logical argument, informs us that : Some reasonings are genuine, while others seem to be but are not...9 Aristotle tells us that the study of a class of false arguments he refers to in his Sophistical Refutations will make a man seem to be wise when he is not. That was the purpose of the Sophists of his day and as we shall discover, the purpose of the legal profession of our day. Let us first examine the principles of logical argument established by Aristotle and then the nature and kinds of ‘Sophistical false arguments’ refuted by Aristotle. In general an argument is valid or invalid. A valid argument has a premise that provides conclusive evidence for the conclusion. An invalid argument fails in one of three ways: (1) Through a misstatement of fact; (2) Incorrect use of terms; or (3) In its defective ‘form’, through the use of an improper process of inference.10 A quick summary of an invalid argument would be the use of either: False statement, false language, or false logic. Therefore along with the magician’s tools of deceit the legal profession can falsely persuade by the use of invalid arguments. So the seven combined main instruments of deceit are: (1) False assumptions, (2) Misdirection, (3) Concealment, (4) Illusion of Choice, (5) False statements, (6) False language, and (7) False logic. Aristotle identified a number of false or fallacious sophistical arguments. These arguments are based on false logic, defective form or an improper process of inference. Here are a few false arguments selected for their popularity with the American legal profession. Secundum quid: (according to its truth as holding only under special provisos). Which means a general rule does not always apply to every case. Ad hominem: (speaking against the man) Arguments that speak against the man not the issues. Ad populem: (an appeal ‘to the people’) Arguments that avoid logical reasons and appeal to popular attitudes. Ad misericordiam: (an appeal ‘to pity’) Arguments that argue for sympathy not justice. Ad verecundiam: (an appeal ‘to awe’) Arguments that seek acceptance of a conclusion based on endorsement of that view by people held in general respect. Non sequitur: (it does not follow) Arguments that have a complete lack of connection between the given premise and the conclusion drawn.11 With this information we can begin to identify the legal profession’s deceit on a case by case basis. Tools of deceit used by the legal profession. In addition to all of the above tools the legal profession’s color of law deceit tool can be exercised in many ways. Here are a few of those ways. The Big Lie;12 Deliberate misinterpretation of law; Procedural abuse; Abuse of process; Judicial intimidation; Frivolous lawsuits; The analysis of the tyranny of the legal profession will be made on a case by case basis in future Federalist papers. In each case we will seek to pinpoint the specific application by the profession of the tools of deceit. Here are a small number of examples of tools of deceit as practiced by the legal profession. (1) False assumptions:13 The following are only a few of the false assumptions created by the profession: (1) That the profession is ethical, (2) That a lawyer’s primary concern is his client, (3) That if a lawyer continues to represent a client, it is because he does not have a conflict of interest with that client (4) That lawyers are trained in law and therefore make the best lawmakers, (5) That it is best for the people that lawyers monopolize the practice of law, (6)That lawyer’s are not tyrannizing the Nation, (7) That the American legal system is the best in the world. (2) Misdirection: This involves directing attention away from the real issue. Here are two of the misdirection activities of the profession. (1) Directing the public’s attention to the differences in positions on public issues between two men who are lawyers, when the real issue is that as lawyers they will improperly benefit regardless of whose position prevails.(2) Doing the same in civil litigation. (3) Concealment: This covers a large number of possible criminal activity and is essential to the profession’s ability to continue to deceive. Here are a few examples of concealment; (1) Concealing real time worked on a case to be able to overbill. (2) Concealing conflicts of interest of various kinds, (3) Concealing the billing practices of charging expenses in contingency cases lost, to the accounts of clients whose cases are won. (4) Concealing wrongdoing in the handling of trust accounts unless and until wrongdoing can no longer be concealed. (4) Illusion of choice: Making voters believe they have a real choice when the most if not all the candidates in particular races are lawyers, and a part of the tyranny. (5) False statements: The numbers of false statements made by lawyers are legion. The specifics of these false statements will be raised on an issue by issue basis. (6) False language: The misuse of the words ethics, morality, amorality and justice are at the top of the list. (7) False logic: Here too a case by case application of the above mentioned examples of Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations will best serve our purpose. Conclusion. The American legal profession uses deceit and economic power to tyrannize the Nation. The forms of deceit used are: simple, double, triple, poly deceit and color of law deceit.14 The profession uses all of the tools of the magician’s art of deceit as well as the false arguments developed by the Sophists in the days of Aristotle, to confuse the unwary. The Nation must examine and expose this deceit and the tyranny that it conceals before the Nation goes down. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86 through 99, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. See Federalist #95. See Contrary to Popular Opion, page 35 by Alan M. Dershowitz (1992) ISBN 0-86687-701-6 The only members of the legal profession who make use of simple deciet are the few who are either to desparate, too stupid or too arrogant to curb their excesses. It is these lawyers who supply the State Bar with the few cases they have absolutely no chouce but to discipline in some manner. It is not uncommon for depression, alcholism and/or drug abuse to have played a role in their fall. See Federalist #99 for a list of current books by American lawyers detailing these crimes. See Black's Law Dictionary, 1968 by West Publishing. As when the Florida Supreme Court first enacted and then consistently maintained the unconstitutional 'gag rule' or confidentiality rule concerning complainant right to speak about complaints to the Florida Bar. The Rule was unconstitutional. The Bar's own Special Commission said so three times over a decade. The Federal Courts at the Appellate level on a 12-0 decision said so and still the Florida Supreme Court did nothing until this writer pressed the case as a non lawyer before the court. To suggest that judges make these kinds of decisions unimpaired by cognitive dissonance is to suggest an unacceptable degree of stupidity. See The Armchair Magician by Dr. Barbara L. Thaw and Stephen J. Ronson. (1994) ISBN 0-440-50671-9 See Sophistical Refutations, page 227 by Aristotle, Great Books of the Western World, Volume 8, Aristotle: 1, (1952) Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. See Logic Encyclopedia Britannica (Volume 23, page 280) 15th edition 1988. The history and kinds of, The critique of forms of reasoning, Correct and defective arguments. lbid The Big Lie is the repetition by 'sources of authority' of a lie so often that it finally becomes 'the truth.' The Nazi's did it in Germany in the 1930's when they said the Jews were responsible for Germany lising World War I and that Germans were a 'master race.' All of the following false assumptions are employed in the use of the Big Lie. This is by no means an exhaustive list. It is only the most obvious forms of deceit observed by this writer over the years. The Federalist (Number 104) July 15, 1997 The state of the Union under a failed Constitution The abandonment of ethics by the American legal profession through the adoption of the ‘Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role’. The resulting material decline in the Nation’s moral standards. (Part 1 of 4)1 Previous Federalists have outlined the corruption of the legal profession, the instruments of its tyranny and the general methods used by the profession to advance and maintain its tyrannical control over the Nation. Let us now turn our attention to the first obstacle faced by the legal profession in acquiring and maintaining its unconstitutional control of government. That obstacle is the profession’s ethics. All professions have ethical rules. Let us see why. The importance of ethics. Ethics is defined as: The basic principles of right action. These basic principles can be defined as honesty, virtue, righteousness, honor and fair dealing. All good people aspire to achieve such standards for their own conduct. All people hope to find those principles present in the conduct of those with whom they interact. Professional groups recognize that ethical principles cannot be legislated by the State. So they adopt a set of ethical rules and then publicly assert enforcement upon their members.2 For the most part, excluding the glaring example of the legal profession, the assertions may be viewed as valid and a public good. The abandonment of ethics by the legal profession. No-one can conquer militarily with an army of conscientious objectors or tyrannize a nation with an army of conscientious, ethical lawyers. Therefore to overcome the ‘ethical obstacle’ and as a result of ‘absolute corruption corrupting absolutely’, there evolved within the American legal profession an abandonment of all ethical standards. There then came a time when the profession had to ‘justify’ to itself and the world this new ‘role’. To do so it decided to sponsor a competition calling for scholarly papers to address this problem. Accordingly in 1985 a competition was organized by the Association of American Law Schools. The winner was Professor Stephen L. Pepper whose essay was entitled: The Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role.3 The first sentence of which essay reads: This essay presents a moral justification4 for the current generally accepted amoral ethical role of the lawyer.5 This ‘prize winning essay’ acknowledges the so called amoral role as the standard ‘ethical role’ for the practice of law in America. The result of this official acknowledgment is that lawyers are instructed to set aside any moral values or formal code of professionally approved ethics when advising their clients. Since that is the opposite of what ethics is about, logic dictates that only deceit and/or self deceit can explain the retention of the word ethical in the definition of this new ‘role’. Let us now examine the meaning of A Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role in terms of (1) its application in practice and (2) its true moral status. (1) The practical application of the Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role.6 The legal profession tells us that, when applied in practice, the phrase means the ‘suspension’ by the lawyer of any moral or ethical standards, when advising his client. To that end we are told that: (1) The Law as written, or as potentially subject to challenge, must be viewed only in terms of its practical consequences and not as a desirable societal end; and (2) The Law should be viewed as subject to the widest and most advantageous possible interpretation for the client and not in the best interests of society as a whole. For example negligence law must be viewed not as a question of what is right or wrong but merely as: a non consensual taking from the injured party on the part of the tort-feasor, subject … to the cost of damages.7 Thus an industrial concern assessing and planning conduct which poses risk of personal injury or death to third parties will be guided by a lawyer following this view away from perceiving the imposition of unreasonable risk as a ‘wrong’ and toward perceiving it as a potential cost.8 That means that a lawyer following this new ‘amoral role’ will guide his client to action that could kill! The only concern being the dollar cost of the victims’ death to the client! (2) The legal profession’s moral ‘justification’ for the ‘amoral ethical’ role. The legal profession tells us that the desirable social goal of providing ‘equal access’ to the law for all is a moral good. That ‘moral good’ mandates access to the law uninhibited by moral obstacles which may not reflect the particular moral view of the client. That is what the ‘amoral ethical’ role accomplishes. The profession’s ‘justification’ for this position as ‘morally right’ is asserted by invoking values of individual autonomy, equality and diversity. It says the lawyer remains a ‘moral man’ temporarily suspending his own sense of morality in the interests of his clients! Most readers will recognize that these arguments are false and pure sophistry. A detailed rebuttal will be made in Federalist 105. For the time being let us examine the real meaning of the word amoral in the context in question. The real meaning of Amoral in the phrase: A Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role9 A full understanding of the meaning of the word ‘amoral’ and the implications of ‘amoral’ decisions on the decision maker (the actor) requires a step by step analysis. Step 1. Distinction between decisions with and without moral implications. In the field of human behavior we distinguish between acts which carry moral implications and consequences, and acts which do not.10 Decisions with moral implications are called moral decisions. Decisions without moral implications are called non-moral and sometimes amoral decisions. Step 2. Distinction between clear and unclear moral decisions. Acts which carry moral implications involve moral issues which are sometimes clear and sometimes not. When the moral implications are clear the decision is either a moral or an immoral one. When the moral implications are unclear or contradictory a decision is sometimes made to ignore the moral issue. A conscious decision to ignore a debatable moral issue is sometimes called ‘amoral’, non-moral or non-judgmental.11 Step 3. Effect of the decision making process on the decision maker. In general it can be said that the nature of the act defines the actor. Thus in general moral acts define the actor as moral and immoral acts define the actor as immoral. Thus if a decision involves clear moral issues and/or consequences the decision maker must make either a moral or an immoral decision. That decision defines the actor. Step 4. Responsibility and accountability of the decision maker (the actor). Most human beings in civilized societies are required by law and expected by Society to take responsibility for their actions. That responsibility leads to legal and moral accountability for actions taken. Step 5. The ‘amoral’ actor. The moral imbecile and the wild animal. Some human beings are incapable of being legally or morally responsible for their actions. They suffer from amoralia,12 a psychiatric disorder, also known as ‘moral imbecility’. They have psychopathic personalities. Human beings suffering from this disorder are said to make ‘amoral’ decisions. Wild animals who kill prey for food are regarded by men as incapable of knowing the difference between right and wrong. That condition is defined as ‘amoral’ also. Therefore we can see that ‘amorality’ is an appropriate term for moral imbeciles, non judgmental approaches to generally recognized debatable or conflicting moral views, and wild animals. Otherwise on actions that have clear moral issues and/or consequences moral men have only two choices. They can either act morally or immorally. Neither theology, psychiatry, philosophy or civilized societies recognize any other choice. The concept of characterizing a conscious choice to set aside one’s morality in order to make a decision with immoral consequences and to call that an ‘amoral’ decision is a logical absurdity. Where moral issues are clear, an amoral decision can only be the result of an involuntary disorder of the mind, but never a conscious choice. Therefore the attempt to characterize an immoral decision as amoral is an attempt to employ sophistical false arguments to avoid responsibility and accountability for immoral actions. Is a coerced immoral decision amoral? Is an immoral decision made under duress or life threatening circumstances and thus coerced, amoral? The Nazi War crimes trials gave us that answer. An immoral decision remains immoral even if coerced under life threatening circumstances. The claim by Nazi defendants that they lacked responsibility for immoral, criminal acts was thrown out of court at the Nazi War Crimes trials in Nuremberg. They tried to separate their ‘immoral’ army actions from what they claimed was a ‘moral’ private life by arguing that they were coerced and thus acting ‘amorally’.13 The Court rejected their argument as a defense. Coerced evil is still evil.14 Nor does evil have to be all encompassing of an actor’s decision making process for him to qualify as evil. Even Hitler is said to have loved his dog, little children and art. The ‘Amoral Ethical Lawyer’: Moral or immoral? There is no conflict between this writer and the profession as to what lawyers are instructed to do. We agree that in counseling their clients lawyers are instructed to act as if they are either indifferent to morals or lack morals completely. The only issue is whether that behavior means that they in fact have no morals. The evidence strongly supports that conclusion. Even the profession admits the possibility exists that lawyers may be doing evil. Professor Peppers states: If one cannot rely on the client or an alternative social institution to provide that (moral) guide to suggest a moral restraint on that which is legally available, then what the lawyer does may be evil: Lawyers in the aggregate may consistently guide clients away from moral conduct and restraint.15 It is undisputed that American society has suffered a major decline in moral standards over the last 30 years. The evidence supports the conclusion that the legal profession bears the greatest responsibility for this state of affairs. However whether one agrees or not with this conclusion it is reasonable to assert that neither the client nor any other institution can be relied on to provide the moral restraint Professor Pepper’s hopes exists. That means that what the lawyers are doing is in fact, not just may be evil. In which case this writer’s conclusion that the profession as a whole is immoral not amoral is confirmed even by Dr. Pepper’s own analysis. Does ‘part time immorality’ exist? People are not good who decide they will be good and moral ‘outside office hours’ but that during office hours they will ‘suspend’ their morality, regardless of the reason. Anyone who acts in a consistently immoral manner is immoral. Anyone who is not a mental defective and who claims to be acting amorally not immorally when he commits what would otherwise be immoral acts is either deceiving himself or trying to deceive others.16 Willful ‘amorality’ absent real moral conflict is therefore logically immorality. So the concept of an ‘amoral ethical role’ like the concepts of a ‘loving genocide’ or a ‘virtuous murder’ is nonsense and without meaning. Where there is genocide there cannot be love. Where there is murder virtue cannot lie. Where there is amorality there are no ethics. For amorality is indifference to ethics. The Nation expects all professions to adhere to ethical standards and perhaps lawyers more so than all others. It is now clear that the legal profession has officially abandoned all ethical standards, at least in the providing of advice. It has embraced the role of facilitating evil. We will examine its attempt at justifying this action in Federalist 105. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86 through 99, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. This paper and the next three Federalists #105-107 should be read as a single unit. Indeed professional groups are able to obtain State recognition and a degree of monopoly power by agruing that their Professional Association is better equipped to enforce ethical standards than the State could. That was one of the 'arguments' used by the legal profession when it sought total self regulation through the creation of monopolistic so called United State Bars. This writer has had more experience than most with the deplorable prevailing ethics of the legal profession. Nevertheless the profession's formal attempt at a moral justification of the so called 'amoral ethical role' sent a chill of fear coursing through his veins. The words of the great Canadian poet Robert Service from the ballad The Shooting of Dan McGrew came to mind: Then on a sudden the music changed, so soft that you scarce could hear/ But you felt that your life had been looted clean of all that it once held dear;/ That someone had stolen the woman you loved; that her love was a devil's lie; That your guts were gone, and the best for you was to crawl away and die. Published by Dodd, Mead, Inc. There is not now nor can there ever be any moral justification for 'consciously amoral' behavior, for such behavior is inherently immoral. See The Ethics of Lawyers, page 613, edited by David Luban, New York University Press by Stephen L. Pepper, College of Law, University of Denver. This prize winning essay by Professor Pepper is the main source for the profession's position as defined in this paper and the next. Calabresi, Torts - The Law of the Mixed Society, in B. Schwartz, ed., American Law: The Third Century 103, (1976) as quoted in Professor Pepper's Article on page 69/625. See footnote 5, page 69/625. In analyzing the real meaning of the phrase A Lawyer's Ethical Rule we must examine the operative word: Amoral. The complete listing of the Random House Dictionary of the English Lange 2nd Ed. Unabridged (1987) definition of Amoral is: 1. Not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral; 2. Having no moral standards, restraints or principles; unaware or indifferent to questions of right and wrong; a completely amoral person. Not all acts have moral implications. One may eat dinner or not eat dinner as one chooses. Such an act has no moral implications. But refusing to feed one's hungry child, without good reason, is an act that does have moral implications. Historians and others sometimes prefer to avoid the moral dilemma of 'choosing between conflicting moral views'. They do so by writing in a non judgmental or 'amoral' manner. Amoralia: Moral imbecility, psychopathic personality, see Psychiatric Dictionary by Robert J. Campbell, (1996-7 7th ed.) ISBN 0-19-510259-2 Though they did not use the precise language in their defense, the essence of their argument invoked the issue of 'amorality' vs immorality. Although it could concievably be used as an argument for mitigating punishment. Professor Pepper's article page 71/627. Self deception arising from extreme cognitive dissonance has permeated and perhaps even dominated the legal profession for decades. Persons most likely to suffer from self deception are the legal profession's leaders, including the staff and leaders of the Nation's Law Schools. It is therefore not surprising to observe Aristotelean false arguments originating from these sources. The Federalist (Number 105) July 15, 1997 The state of the Union under a failed Constitution The abandonment of ethics by the American legal profession through the adoption of the ‘Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role’. The resulting material decline in the Nation’s moral standards. (Part 2 of 4)1 We will now rebut in detail the legal profession’s attempt to justify its abandonment of ethics, referred to as the adoption of the ‘Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role’. Let us begin by examining the profession’s arguments as presented by Professor Stephen L. Pepper in his 1985 ‘prize winning essay’: The Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role.2 The legal profession’s moral ‘justification’ of its abandonment of ethics. The full title of Professor Pepper’s paper is: The Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role: A Defense, A Problem, and Some Possibilities. The moral ‘justification’ for the new amoral role is ‘premised primarily upon the values of individual autonomy, equality and diversity’. The basic theory is that morality is viewed as an obstacle to a client’s access to the law. Let us examine these alleged ‘justifications’. Like all false sophistical arguments this argument has the initial appearance of logic, but it is the appearance only. The generally desirable values asserted as being served are: (1) avoidance of conflict of interest, (2) autonomy, which is independence, (3) equality, which is synonymous with equity and justice, and (4) diversity, which is a code word for equality of treatment for all members of our diverse multi-ethnic society. The legal profession rests its case on those four points. Here are the details of its position: The ‘conflict of interest’ and ‘autonomy’ arguments. The law is a public good available to all and society is committed to individual autonomy. Autonomy or first class citizenship is often dependent upon access to the law, which means access to a lawyer. Thus if the lawyer facilitates any action that is not ‘unlawful’3 the lawyer does a ‘social good’. Therefore neither the lawyer’s personal morality nor the guidelines spelled out in a professional code of ethics should interfere with the client’s autonomy. In fact such interference would constitute a conflict of interest between the lawyer’s desire to impose his moral standards on the client and the client’s right to access to information unobstructed by such ‘improper’ hurdles. The ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ arguments. Lawyer’s do not share equal moral values. Equality of access to the law dictates that a client not be subjected to the obstacle of one particular lawyer’s moral values that other lawyers may not possess. Clients have diverse moral views. Therefore diversity requires allowing each client to do right and wrong in accordance with his own moral views. The legal profession says it is concerned that the inequality of levels of morality or ethics in the legal profession would serve to create an unequal delivery of legal services. Thus the client receiving services from an ethical lawyer will have a lesser and not equal access to the law as compared to the client seeing a less ethical lawyer. So the less ethical the adviser, the better off the client. Therefore, since clients cannot be certain that the lawyer they are seeing is the least moral in his profession,4 the profession’s view is that it will create a ‘level playing field’ by making sure that all its members advise their clients as if they themselves had no morals, i.e. ‘amorally’. That means advice from a crooked lawyer will be the same as advice from any lawyer following his profession’s ‘amoral ethical’ guidelines. Rebuttals to the moral ‘justification’ of the legal profession’s abandonment of ethics. In general- the false argument of allegedly promoting a ‘social good’. The moral justification for the lawyer’s ‘amoral’ role is allegedly premised on promoting the ‘social good’ of providing a client with the highest possible level of autonomy, equality and diversity. That argument is a false sophistical argument classified by Aristotle as ‘secundum quid’. Which is defined as: according to its truth as holding only under special provisos, ‘applying a general proposition as a premise without attention to the tacit restrictions and qualifications that govern and invalidate its application in the matter at issue'.5 What that means is that although the promotion of certain values is generally regarded as a ‘social good’, the promotion of these values in this way is not a social good. Because in this case the promotion of these values is used to simultaneously promote a recognized evil which is the facilitation of the client’s evil intent. The fallacy of the argument is founded on the fact that the alleged ‘good’ is greatly outweighed by the concurrent evil. Virtually every crime or heinous act can be presented as arguably promoting a ‘social good’. For example: (1) Reducing crime is a ‘social good’. Therefore every gangland murder by one gang of another gang’s members is a reduction of the criminals left alive and therefore a reduction of crime and a ‘social good’. (2) Getting people off welfare is a ‘social good’. Therefore a career criminal who avoids welfare through crime is in at least in one respect performing a ‘social good’. (3) Reducing government costs is a ‘social good’. The cost to the State of keeping prisoners in prison is over $20,000/year. Every prisoner who escapes saves the State the cost of his keep and is thereby performing a ‘social good’. The argument that promoting and facilitating evil by providing access to specialized information on an immoral or ‘amoral’ basis is a promotion of the social goods of autonomy, equality and diversity is in the same category of false arguments as the above examples. Because no value is desirable when it is used or aids in the facilitation of evil or undesirable ends. It is also true that values generally regarded as good in themselves may result in highly undesirable consequences. For example our society has no desire to provide ‘autonomy’ to crooks by making them independent of the police. Or provide ‘equality’ to crooks by allowing them to ‘share equally’ with working members of society in the fruits of their labor. Or in the name of ‘diversity’ to allow unlimited immigration from those areas ‘less represented’ in our society. Therefore invoking the promotion of a ‘noble’ value as the achieving of a ‘social good’ is not necessarily true. Let us now examine the specifics of the legal profession’s arguments. The conflict of interest argument. This argument asserts that a lawyer’s concern with his ethics may place him in conflict with the ‘immoral’ intentions of his client. This is the least persuasive argument of all. Lawyers are known world wide for their general lack of ethics. The members of the American legal profession lead the world in the absence of ethics. Therefore to suggest that lawyers will regard their own morality as inhibiting anyone else’s is a proposition devoid of logic. What is logical to conclude is that it is the unscrupulous lawyer who will make the most money in a corrupt legal profession.6 A lawyer preventing his client from acting by withholding legal advice he deems unethical will simply lose his client to his less ethical colleagues. Thus he will make no money at all! Whereas the unethical lawyer who counsels his client in an unethical/amoral manner has two major money making advantages. First he can bill his client for his ‘information/advice’.7 Then the more unethical and improper the information/advice used by the client, the greater trouble the client is either likely to get into, or seek to avoid and the greater the potential risks and rewards to the client! That is a win/win situation for the lawyer. For in either case the client will have great need for his legal services. It is also well known that the clients well served by the most unscrupulous lawyers are the least likely to argue over routine overbilling. These are clients who cannot afford to get into arguments with their own lawyer! For the lawyer knows too much about their business and they need him too much. The autonomy argument. The problem of control of access to the law which lawyers tell us they are seeking to correct was unconstitutionally created by lawyers themselves, for their own profit. It is true that some degree of similar control by other professions exists in other fields. But no other profession comes close to the degree of oppressive control that lawyers have acquired. Therefore if they have any real desire to allow greater access to the legal system the best way to do so is for them to give up the unconstitutional monopolistic control they now possess. All other ‘accesses’ to specialized services needed by Society such as medical, dental, pharmaceutical, accounting, architectural, engineering, electrical, plumbing, air conditioning, etc., are also limited. Yet most, if not all of these goods and/or service suppliers, have ethical codes to which they generally adhere. No-one has suggested that the need felt by consumers to ‘freely access’ services provided by other professionals is a good reason to throw out all ethical standards. If the legal profession truly believed this argument why has it not called for the need for the adoption of ‘amoral’ ethics for even a single other supplier of services? Living in a civilized Society involves making some personal sacrifices for the general good. The best way for each of us to act in the best interests of the whole society is on the basis of strong ethical standards. That which we may give up as individuals in the short term is more than made up by the advantages that accrue to us all collectively, when we all live by moral standards. All professional groups (except lawyers) seem to understand that.8 The equality argument The same arguments that invalidate the ‘autonomy’ argument are valid here. No other profession regards potential differences in the morals of its members as a problem in the delivery of goods or services. Even if it did , the emphasis should be on establishing and maintaining the highest possible values, not the lowest. Suggesting the removal of all moral values from everyone to achieve equality makes no sense whatever. That worse than useless ‘solution’ hurts society immeasurably. It takes from the client far more on a collective basis than he can hope to gain on an individual basis. It also tends to ‘legitimize’ corruption and immorality. It destroys the souls of the practitioners and primarily benefits the worst scoundrels in the profession. It certainly does not help the public that the profession is sworn to serve. The diversity argument. ‘Diversity’ is served we are told, by ensuring that that the ‘diverse’ levels of potential immorality of clients are not inhibited in their expression by the obstacle of a lawyer’s moral standards. This misuse of the word ‘diversity’ is appalling. No public good is served by facilitating the evil intentions of immoral clients by calling that facilitation an effort to create as many ‘diverse’ possibilities for action as a client’s absence of morality may desire to implement. Consequences of legal profession’s ‘ethics’ spreading to other professions. Let us examine the impact on Society if the ‘amoral’/immoral ethical role of lawyers spreads to other professions. In principle the same arguments asserted by the legal profession can be made by many other professions as justification for them to abandon their ethics. If that happened, doctors for example, might become obligated to provide medical information on a so called ‘amoral’ basis to patients wishing to harm themselves or others. Accountants would be obligated to provide specialized information to clients wishing to evade taxes. Architects would be obligated to provide information necessary to avoid building inspections. As a result people would die, taxes would be evaded and buildings might collapse. If non lawyers tried that sort of behavior there is little doubt that the law would characterize such action as ‘aiding and abetting’. The definition of which in Black’s Law Dictionary is: Help, assist, facilitate, encourage, counsel or incite the commission of a crime. It comprehends all assistance rendered by words, acts, encouragement, support, actual or constructive, to render assistance if necessary. When a lawyer explains to a client that he must look at the law as flexible and only in terms of its consequences and not as an obligation to obey , it is reasonable for the client to perceive that advice as: helping, assisting, encouraging, and supporting (at least morally), as well as facilitating the object of the client, including breaking the law as written, even when that means the commission of a crime. Furthermore the ‘amoral/immoral’ lawyer stands ready to render assistance if necessary to hide the truth from authorities on the basis of basis of the ‘lawyer/client’ privilege. How the legal profession can perceive that as anything other than ‘aiding and abetting’ must be regarded as a continuing tribute to its infinite capacity for self deceit. Abandonment of ethical standards: Conspiracy or not? The following is a recurring question that arises regarding these issues: Is what happened the result of a conspiracy or just the natural evolution of unbridled power? The evidence does not support any conclusions with certainty. There are almost one million lawyers in this Nation, most of whom had little to do with consciously adopting a ‘policy of abandonment of ethics’. However the law regards results that occur from action that are the same as results that would result from a conspiracy as a constructive conspiracy. To that extent the results suffered by the Nation make the action taken by the legal profession a constructive conspiracy. The law defines a conspiracy as: An agreement between two or more persons for accomplishing an unlawful end, or a lawful end by unlawful means.9 It is certain that at least two people agreed to accomplish the end intended . Was the end ‘unlawful’, or was it a ‘lawful end by unlawful means’? If put to a jury of non lawyers there is little doubt that both the means and the ends would be deemed unlawful. That would make it a conspiracy under the law. However as long as the legal profession unconstitutionally controls all government it will probably prevent that question from ever reaching a jury. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86 through 99, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. This Paper and Federalists 104, 106-107 should be read as a single unit. We must remember that Professor Pepper is not necessarily advocating this position. In light of the professor's current amoral standards he may have viewed his own role as that of 'the devil's advocate', required to put the best face on an indefensible situation. The fact that his essay won the contest with arguments that are utterly without merit, merely confirms that there are no better arguments. The definition of 'unlawful' is then made flexible enough to include the justification for providing advise that may result in killing innocent people. This is done by indicating and even emphasizing to the client on an 'amoral' basis that a risk analysis on the cost of damages for the unlawful death of potential victims versus the cost of compliance with the law can result in substantial bottom line profits. The difference between the 'least moral lawyer overall' and the 'least moral lawyer in giving advice' is too fine a distinction for most clients. It is also true that the very best indication of a lawyer's readiness to give the 'least moral' advice is that he is a crook himself! Encyclopedia Britannica, (page 280, Vol 23 15th ed. 1988), Logic. The History and Kinds of, The critique of forms of reasoning, correct and defective arguments. As will in the short term, the members of any other group who compete with each other. It is the long term adverse effect on the unscrupulous, when conduct enforcement is feared and occurring, that keeps them from pursuing this policy at the time. When, as in the case of the legal profession there is not only no enforcement but official encouragement, unscrupulous behavior and profitability soars. Judging from the income levels and current indictments of some drug lord defense lawyers in the Miami area, the more unethical the advice asked for and received, the higher the fee to the lawyer. Although it must be said that so long as they maintain their unconstitutional control of all government this statement is true for all of society except them! See Black's Law Dictionary, West Publishing, Revised Fourth Edition (1968) The Federalist (Number 106) July 15, 1997 The state of the Union under a failed Constitution The abandonment of ethics by the American legal profession through the adoption of the ‘Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role’. The resulting material decline in the Nation’s moral standards. (Part 3 of 4)1 Federalist 104 described the abandonment of ethics by the legal profession and their attempts to morally justify the unjustifiable. Federalist 105 provided the rebuttal to the alleged moral justification. We now need to turn our attention to the consequences of the adoption of the so-called ‘Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role’2 on our Society. These consequences are the material undermining of both the Rule of Law and of the moral standards of the Nation. The Rule of Law and a just Society. The four pillars of a just society. Decent societies strive to be just and righteous. There are four pillars that constitute the supports for the foundation of a righteous society. These are: Government, the Church, the School and the Family.3 Of these Government in general and the Judiciary branch in particular are expected to lead by example in righteousness, fairness and justice. The ‘Church’ does so by invoking its moral authority and the power of the word of the Lord to encourage, or sometimes frighten people, into staying on the straight and narrow. The School does so by teaching moral codes and honor systems in class. The Family does so by teaching the same at home. The path of virtue and righteousness is a straight and narrow uphill road that is full of rocks and pitfalls. The road to hell is a downhill slippery slope, wide, comfortable and paved with good intentions. It runs parallel and ever beckoning to the path of virtue. The nature of man makes it easy to shift from virtue to sin, from the hard uphill road to the easy downhill slide. At the present time it is obvious that the legal profession has not chosen to travel the hard road. The principle of the Rule of Law The Bible tells us that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments as the Rule of Law to be obeyed by the people of Israel, not as laws to be subjected to self serving ‘interpretation’. From that day until the days of the advent of the American legal profession’s new concept of the ‘lawyer’s amoral ethical role’, the law has been regarded as the law, made to be obeyed. Laws are not suggestions, advisory opinions, or guides to facilitate calculations of the cost effectiveness of non compliance. Obedience and respect by all of laws as written is the meaning of the Rule of Law. To be sure man’s laws are not perfect. They represent the opinion of the enactors not knowledge. Laws can never provide the kind of certainty that science provides. In a democracy it is hoped that laws reflect justice and the majority views of the people. However not all laws are good. Sometimes good men promote civil disobedience to protest bad laws. Sometimes they succeed in changing bad laws.4 However the general principle for democratic civilized societies is that the Rule of Law is the cornerstone of their system of justice and their civilizations. There is no room in civilized societies for members of the Judiciary to consistently counsel clients to question compliance with laws from a personal advantage and cost analysis point of view. That practice has always been known to prevail with gangsters, criminals, moral imbeciles, and other moral and social misfits, but never with members of the legal profession of any civilized society before this one. The consequences of the ‘Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role’ on the Rule of Law and moral conduct. The first and most dramatic consequence of the so called ‘Lawyer’s amoral Ethical Role’ is the material undermining of the Rule of Law and of ethical conduct in Society. That result came about, whether intentionally or not, by the material undermining of the ability of all four pillars of the Rule of Law to promote ethical behavior.5 Let us examine how this was done. (1) The Judiciary. The Judiciary is the heart and soul of the problem. It is primarily responsible for the decline of morals and the Rule of Law, in large part as a result of the evolution of the ‘Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role’. For the following reasons: It has become the main proponent for facilitating and/or counseling disobedience to the Rule of Law as a direct result of the evolution of the so called Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role. And as a further consequence: It has failed to act against the unconstitutional control by lawyers of all government. It has acquiesced in the creating of so called Unified State Bars which are bodies elected by nobody making laws that affect everybody. It has permitted lawyers to control their own discipline and rules in direct contradiction of the general principle that none shall be judge in their own cause. It has been responsible for the dramatic and continuing decline in the provision of legal services to the people without acting to effectively resolve that problem. It has profited dramatically from its activities out of all proportion to the services it renders. It has allowed its members to exercise tyrannical power over all through the use, among other things, of the power of frivolous lawsuits and the power to abuse procedural rules. It has allowed the profession to become an enormous financial and emotional burden to the Nation. The cost of that burden in dollars alone is so high that its removal would suffice to wipe out the National debt, now over five trillions dollars, over a 5 year period. (2) The Church. The power and authority of the ‘Church’ has been materially undermined by the legal profession on the basis of the constitutional principle of ‘separation of church and state’. The principle is sound but the envelope has been pushed to extremes. To the point where the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has challenged the right of a judge to display the Ten Commandments in his courtroom.6 The founding fathers believed in God and invoked rights that they asserted came to man directly from God. To many in the Nation the separation of Church and State was not intended to go as far as the Judiciary has seen fit to push it. One may agree or disagree with that position. However the fact remains that the authority of the Church and therefore the Church’s ability to effectively influence ‘moral’ behavior has been dramatically reduced as a result. The Church7 has increasingly become the target of lawsuits intended to try and attach responsibility to it regardless of fault. That kind of activity undermines the ability of the Church to recruit good people to serve and to do the work for which it exists. The result is that the Church’s ability to influence behavior in a positive way has been materially reduced by the actions of the Judiciary. (3) The Schools The authority of the schools to run their institutions in the best interests of their students in particular and Society in general has been materially undermined by the legal profession. In an excess of zeal propelled in part by the new ‘amoral’ role, the legal profession and the Judiciary have succeeded in doing the following: Materially undermining the ability of public schools to discipline unruly students, often resulting in classes where it becomes very difficult for any students to learn properly. Materially undermining the ability of public schools to control the introduction of weapons on to school premises, resulting in teachers as well as students being injured or sometimes killed, as well as often resulting in a prevailing atmosphere of fear not conducive to learning. Materially increasing the costs of running public schools by enforcing alleged constitutional ‘student rights’. As a result the cost of compliance with ‘laws’ prompted by a fear of potential lawsuits resulting from failure to do so, consumes a substantial part of school budgets.8 Materially increasing the dangers to life and limb from ‘juvenile’ criminals by establishing a system that gives so called ‘juveniles’ virtual immunity under the law. Materially undermining the ability of public schools to teach and enforce proper language and respect between students and others, by sanctioning in the name of ‘freedom of speech’ the right of individuals arrested to address the worst profanities to the arresting officers. Materially undermining the ability of public schools to establish adequate educational standards for their students by suing the schools for failing to meet any standards set. Materially undermining the ability of the public Schools to exercise sufficient control over their students to enforce moral codes and properly instruct students to respect the law. (4) The family The family where it is still strong and united continues to be the main promoter of ‘moral’ behavior. But it does not exist in a vacuum. The entire Society, infected with the immoral role that lawyers play every day, assaults it. The authority of the Church which once gave great moral direction and support to the family has been dramatically weakened by the legal profession. The public Schools have been similarly weakened. So the battle continues, but it is being lost not won. The Lawyer’s ‘amoral’ ethical role has successfully undermined the Rule of Law and moral conduct in the land. It has done so directly by officially adopting an attitude that encourages disobedience of the law. It has also done so by undermining directly and indirectly the three other main sources of respect for moral principles and the Rule of Law: The Church, The Schools and the Family. The result in practice of the Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role. How does this new role change what goes on every day in the practice of law and how does it affect the Nation? Let us see what happens to the client. Effect on the client Let us imagine almost one million lawyers trained to view the law as ‘flexible’, changeable, interpretable in however far fetched way in the best interests of the client, and at worst viewed as a guide to the cost of non compliance. If each lawyer transmits this message to a single client a day, over a period of one year the message has been transmitted to over two hundred million people. Many clients will discuss the message with partners, friends, family and others. So the message is repeated loudly, clearly and often to the whole Nation in a very short time. Let us examine the result on the client’s behavior pattern. The client learns that he can never trust the written word, let alone the spoken word. The client learns that his own lawyer will help facilitate that which he thought was ‘wrong’. Therefore if the ‘lawyer goes along’ it can’t ‘really be all that wrong’. The client learns that his competition will be listening to similar advice. Therefore if he decides to act ‘ethically’ he may be accepting a potentially fatal competitive disadvantage. The client learns that his own lawyer has adopted this new idea called ‘amoral’ ethics. He perceives that this idea seems to be bringing his lawyer a lot of money. Perhaps he may decide to go along himself with the same ‘amoral’ ethics in his own business. The client perhaps learns that all government is in the hands of lawyers or at least that lawyers are very well represented in government. He understands that the same ‘amoral’ lawyer counseling him now may run for and achieve public office. He then realizes that those in public office who are lawyers are probably as ‘amorally corrupt’ as his own lawyer! Perhaps he decides that they are all therefore crooks and stops bothering to vote at all. The client begins to recognize that if it is ‘all right’ to listen to and follow advice on how to be dishonest and get away with it at the cheapest dollar cost, then the ‘best lawyer’ is the least honest. His criterion for choosing a lawyer changes from the candidate who is most competent to the lawyer with the highest disregard for ethics and the law. The client learns that the best lawyer in this country is the one best able to show him how to violate the law with impunity. Effect on the lawyer. Lawyers start out as honest as other people. Some make the transition to outright dishonesty very comfortably. They either have very weak moral compasses or suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance. What happens to the others? Some cannot live with the moral problem. They ‘run from the law’ and leave the profession. Some can live with the moral problem but not without some level of discomfort. That discomfort often manifests itself in depression, alcoholism and drug abuse. What other effects occur? One cannot spend all day facilitating evil and return home to the role of a ‘moral person’. That is because the ‘habit’ of facilitating evil blurs moral distinctions everywhere. Thus lawyers will not long remain ‘moral’ men, even if it were possible to separate the actor’s ‘moral’ personal life from his ‘amoral/immoral professional’ life. The ‘amoral’ approach also blurs the distinction between advising and participating in illegal activities. Thus many lawyers become de facto accomplices of their client’s evil intentions. This would seem particularly true in the field of drugs. Newspapers have reported stories of drug lawyers ‘standing by’ for enormous ‘retainer fees’ to provide immediate assistance on occasions when drugs are being illegally shipped into the USA. The fees are deemed ‘earned’ even if the criminal act succeeds without attracting the attention of the authorities. To most people that sounds like a partnership between the lawyer and the drug lords. Conclusion The French say that which is not moving forward is moving backwards. No Nation stands still in its attempts to seek justice and righteousness for all. It moves forward or slides backward. The slippery slope to hell creates increased momentum for evil with the passage of time. Hitler’s path to genocide began with the Nuremberg laws in 1933. It took 8 to 10 years for his momentum to reach its genocidal zenith. The legal profession’s so-called ‘amoral ethical role’ is often a ‘facilitation of evil’ by the profession’s own admission. It is immoral and an affront to civilized societies. It has undermined the ability of all four pillars of our ‘just society’ to do their job. Its evil momentum is increasing and it will destroy the Nation if it is not stopped. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86 through 99, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. This Paper and Federalists 104, 105, and 107, shcould be read as a single unit. The Lawyer's Amoral Ethical Role is merely the most visible and dramatically egregious result of the tryannical control by lawyers of all government. This official 'Role' exacerbated an existing bad situation by supplying 'moral justification' for the facilitation of evil to those left with some moral standards. The word: 'Chruch' is used here generically as a term for any organized religion. Those who practice civil disobedience are usually prepared to face the civil and criminal penalities that the then current law provides. This occurred as an evolution over time, not as a dramatic change. That is why, like the frog which quickly jumps out of hot water into which it is dropped, but allows itselt to be boiled to death if the water temperature is increased very slowly. The American people are being destroyed by the gradually perceptible ethical decline of the legal profession from a level similiar to that of their international colleagues to the present level of 'amoral/immoral' leaders of the world. A legal challenge to such a display was reported recently. The matter has not yet been resolved. Like everyone else in society. Access to private schools is controlled by contract not by the 'entitlement' right of all to public schools. As a result it is known that private schools that do not have to comply with the same set of rules that public schools do, provide far better educational results at a lower cost. The Federalist (Number 107) July 17, 1997 The state of the Union under a failed Constitution The abandonment of ethics by the American legal profession through the adoption of the ‘Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role’. The resulting material decline in the Nation’s moral standards. (Part 4 of 4)1 We have seen how the American Legal Profession’s ‘ethics’ evolved from the ethics of righteousness and virtue to the current abandonment of ethics, euphemistically described as the ‘Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role’. Knowledge about the ‘official acknowledgment’ of this new ‘Role’ is not widespread, nor does the media report in outrage about it. The reason is that concealing the reality of the abandonment of ethics is a deliberate policy which helps the profession maintain its tyrannical control over the Nation. One of the purposes of these papers is to show the Nation just how that is done. Federalist 103 described the various forms of deceit used by the profession on a day to day basis. Let us examine the particular forms used to (1) conceal the truth from the Nation, and (2) ‘justify’ the truth to itself and those who discover it. To achieve these ends the profession makes use of the following instruments of ‘poly’ deceit and ‘color of law’ deceit: (a) False assumptions, (b) Misdirection, (c ) False statements (d) False language, (e) False logic, (f) The Big Lie, (g) Deliberate misinterpretation of the law, and (h) Aristotelean false argument. Misguided believers or intentional deceivers? As we review the overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, deceit and tyranny against the legal profession we are again forced to inquire: How can this be? Are we dealing with monsters who are willing to destroy their own Nation for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver, or is it something else?2 There are only two possibilities. Either the members of the legal profession know exactly what they are doing and are therefore intentional deceivers, or as a function of extreme cognitive dissonance (which is perhaps some ‘profession specific’ form of amoralia3) they have lost their ability to distinguish between right and wrong. If so they are misguided believers. The evidence supports both points of view for different groups of lawyers. It appears that those closest to the top of the leadership have become misguided believers. While many of those least in control of the profession’s destiny who know the truth have become whether they like it or not, intentional deceivers.4 The first level of deceit: Publicly professed morality versus immoral reality. The professed public morality Every legitimate profession purports to maintain a commitment to the highest ethical standards. Doctors have a simple motto: First do no harm. The Army established an honor system at West Point which teaches and adheres to the highest possible ethical standards.5 Other professions establish ‘mandatory’ rules of ethical conduct for their members. But none publicly state the same high level of need for ethical standards as do the members of the legal profession. In Florida they do this in three ways:6 (1) By The Florida Supreme Court mandate which proscribes ethical standards as a matter of law in the original Supreme Court decision that created the State Bar; (2) By the Oath of admission which requires all lawyers to swear to an oath of office in order to belong to the Bar; and (3) By The Florida Bar Rules enacted and mandated by the Florida Supreme Court to regulate the ethical conduct of lawyers. Let us examine these ways. (1) The Florida Supreme Court mandate. On June 7, 1949 in a case entitled Petition of Florida State Bar et al; 40 So. 2d 902, the Florida Supreme Court created the State agency/private agency7 known as the Florida Bar, granting lawyers monopolistic control of what lawyers call ‘the practice of law’.8 It declared attorneys ‘officers of the Court’ and declared the Florida Bar ‘an arm of the Florida Supreme Court’. Conscious of the criticism that this decision would be perceived as an attempt to enrich its members at the public’s expense, it set forth some standards as a matter of law. These standards require: ‘that on the theory the he (the lawyer) is such an important factor in the administration of justice this Court has held that a lawyer’s responsibility to the public rises above his responsibility to his client. The very nature of our democratic process imposes on him the responsibility to uphold democratic concepts regardless of how they affect the case at hand.’ [40 So. 2d @ 908] (Emphasis added). In the same opinion the Court went on to say that ‘If he [the lawyer] does not approach the law as an avenue to perform a fine public service, work hard, live by faith and die poor, he should turn to some other business for food and shelter and raiment. (2) The oath of admission to the Florida Bar.9 The oath is mandatory and non-compliance is allegedly discouraged by the threat of potential disbarment for willful violation. It sets forth a list of sworn affirmations consisting of the highest possible moral goals. Among which the following are of particular interest: I will support the Constitution of the Unites States and the State of Florida. I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceedings which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land. I will employ for the purposes of maintaining causes that are confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law. I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed, or delay anyone’s cause for lucre or malice. So Help me God. (3) The Florida Bar Rules. Chapter 4 of the RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR IS entitled Rules of Professional conduct. The Bar establishes in 40 pages of small print what it regards as the high moral level of conduct required for lawyers to remain in good standing with the Bar. The immoral reality The legal profession has since 1985 already officially acknowledged its ‘amoral/immoral ethical role’. We therefore know that all of the above public assertions of high standards are meant for public consumption not actual practice. Let us look at specific situations. (1) The Florida Supreme Court mandate. Notwithstanding the law, lawyers seem to regard themselves as owing 100% of their responsibility to their client and zero responsibility to ‘society’. Every single lawyer who was questioned by this writer on the issue declared himself both unaware of the law and unwilling to follow it, even after agreeing that it was indeed the law! Lawyers also unanimously stated that they were far more concerned with the potential exposure to a malpractice suit if they obeyed the law, than with any consequences from their own disciplinary authorities if they did not. The record indicates that since the 1949 mandate that created the Florida Bar there has never been a single case adjudicated10 under Florida law in which anyone was ever prosecuted for regarding his responsibility to his client as exceeding his responsibility to society. (2) The Oath of admission to the Florida Bar. The evidence is clear that in practice the Oath of admission means little or nothing. The Florida Bar exercises an unconstitutional control over the disciplining of lawyers. It consistently stacks the cards against all complainants. It promulgates unconstitutional Rules. It does not even recommend changing those Rules when its own Special Commissions on Rules tells it to. When the Florida Supreme Court does make changes in the Rules, the Florida Bar Staff ignores changes with which it does not agree. That is precisely what the Florida Bar did on the matter of the 1989 Florida Supreme Court order striking the unconstitutional Bar Rule allowing Lawyers to be represented by other lawyers and conduct a mini-trial at probable cause hearings on complaints against them.11 In this context about 97% of all complaints are consistently dismissed by the Bar for ‘absence of probable cause’. Half the other 3% result in a slap on the wrist. So 1.5% or about one complaint in 70 may result in some appropriate punishment. These numbers are outrageously out of proportion with the result of complaints against all other professions. So much so that the statistical evidence is over ten trillion times more than sufficient in a court of law, to make a case for Florida Bar wrongdoing in the administration of disciplinary procedures. That evidence was presented to the Supreme Court by this writer in 1989. The Court did nothing. Thus though they swear to do so, the evidence is overwhelming that lawyers: Do not support either their State or the US Constitutions. If they did they would not be unconstitutionally in control of all government or holding public office outside the judiciary. Do not refuse to counsel suits and proceedings that are unjust, or refuse to employ unjust defenses. The ‘lawyer’s amoral ethical role’ mandates the opposite action. Do not employ means ‘consistent with truth and honor’ or refuse to ‘mislead the judge or jury’ by artifice or false facts or law’ for the purpose of maintaining causes. That too is in conflict with the reality of the ‘amoral’/immoral role they have chosen to play. Do not refuse to reject from ‘consideration personal to themselves’ the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or refuse to delay causes for lucre or malice. That is their stock in trade. They have made the access to the law impossible for the vast majority of the Nation by unconstitutionally monopolizing the practice of law on pain of prison, for the sole purpose of financial ‘considerations personal to themselves’. They have themselves created enormous populations of ‘defenseless and oppressed’ who are that way because the profession has shut off their access to justice. (3)The Florida Bar Rules. The evidence is also clear that the Florida Bar Rules, like the Oath of Office and the Supreme Court’s mandated behavior, do not represent a compelling reason for conforming behavior or a source of sanctions for failure to obey.12 Bar Rules may even be interpretable as condoning or even sanctioning lies by lawyers in defense of their clients. For example Bar rules call for ‘zealous representation’ of a client. This writer has not been able to find any specific definition of the words ‘zealous representation’ or ‘zealous advocate’. However the words ‘zealous witness’ are defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as: An untechnical term denoting a witness, on the trial of a cause, who manifests a partiality for the side calling him, and an eager readiness to tell anything which he thinks may be of advantage to that side. In lay person’s words: a willing, ready and able liar. The ‘plain meaning’ of the word zealous in the term ‘zealous representation’ is the same as its meaning in the term ‘zealous witness’. Thus the Bar rule requiring this behavior appears to be the quasi-official sanctioning by the Bar of lying and unethical behavior by lawyers. The legal profession’s use of particular tools of deceit to conceal the truth of their tyranny and to ‘justify’ their unethical behavior. It is important for the Nation to learn how to recognize the false arguments consistently made by the profession to conceal and maintain its tyrannical control over the people of this land and to ‘justify’ the unethical behavior of its members. Here is an incomplete list of the particular tools of deceit used by the profession for these purposes. The Big Lie. The consistent false assertions from ‘authoritative sources’, such as the judiciary, the law schools, television programs sponsored by the profession, etc., that the profession is ethical constitutes the big lie. It works best when the people hearing it are not also constantly suffering a reality that enlightens them. The big lie includes within it other tools of deceit such as the false statement, for it is merely the ‘false statement’ repeated continuously. Secundum quid. That is the Aristotelean false argument identified by the use of an argument generally true but not in the specific case at Bar. All arguments by Professor Pepper to the effect that autonomy, equality and diversity are ‘social goods’ are secundum quid false arguments since the ‘social good’ they may do is outweighed by the evil they certainly do. False Premise. The argument by Professor Pepper that a ‘conflict of interest’ may exist between a lawyer and his client is based on the false premise that the lawyer may be more ethical than his client. That premise is false in the overwhelming majority of cases. Non sequitur. The argument that a potential ‘conflict of interest’ between the client’s ethics and the ethics of his lawyer should be resolved by the process of having the lawyer abandon all ethics is a non sequitur, for it does not follow logically. There are many other solutions to this problem (such as withdrawing), that do follow logically but not this one. Both secundum quid and non sequiturs are examples of false logic, another tool of deceit. Conclusion Federalists 104, 105, 106,and 107 have demonstrated that the legal profession has formally abandoned all ethical standards but continues to assert it is ethical. The evidence is conclusive that these assertions, as well as the arguments that allegedly support them, are tools of deceit of one kind or another, and that as a result of the policy of abandonment of ethics the legal profession must take most of the responsibility for the material decline of the Nation’s moral standards and the evil consequences that development has inflicted on the Nation. PUBLIUS II (Ronald Bibace) 4720 NW 2 Ave, Suite D-107 Boca Raton, Fl 33431 About the author: This writer is a constitutional scholar who wrote Federalists 86 through 99, in defense of the Constitution. He is like Madison, a non lawyer and like Hamilton an immigrant and naturalized American. This Paper and Federalist #104-106, should be read as a single unit. The evidence is so overwhelming that most people will agree with the conclusions established concerning the wrong doing involved. That is therefore not the issue. Amoralia is defined in Campbell's Psychiatric Dictionary (ISBN 0-19-510259-2 7th ed.) as a psychiatric disorder resulting in moral imbecility. When you are aware of the truth it is either that or leave the profession, as in fact may do. Obviously subject to the limitations of the imperfections of man's nature. The Army code recognized but does not tolerate these imperfections. Punishment is meted out to those who fail to respect the Honor Code. The specifics of the example come from the State of Florida. In general the same standards apply everywhere in all other States that have 'Unified Bars'. This State agency raises money by 'taxing' Banks under the IOTA (Interest on trust Accounts) through its alleged powers. It also makes rules for all Floridians. It lobbies the Legislature unconstitutionally to push its agenda favoring lawyers. It acts as both a State agency and a private agency, putting on whatever hat suits it purpose and its ad hoc need. An expression which defies accurate definition other than the vague circular definition of 'what lawyers do'. Legal scholars have often expressed the opnion that the vagueness of the definition alone renders the 'monopoly' of the 'practice of law' unconstitutional. The Florida Bar has established a policy of printing the oath in every issue of its monthly Bar Journal magazine. Perhaps it hopes to remind its members that the oath exists since the profession's acknowledged policy is directly contradictory to that oath. It is extremely unlikely that the issue has ever been raised at all. The Bar facetously argues that the striking of an unconstitutional Rule only means that the stricken Rule is no longer mandatory and that it still has the right to exercise it on a discretionary basis. Except for the most utterly egregious behavior. The approximate equivalent in the criminal field would be the refusal by prosecutors to diligently pursue any matters except murder cases supported by overwhelming evidence.