Additional Legal Reference on Lawyers

1 post / 0 new
Additional Legal Reference on Lawyers

IN CASE YOU DID NOT KNOW. One tends to forget the following and 90 percent of the people have no idea this exists. That is why the judge can tell the attorney to shut up and he has to follow the tyrant on the bench. That's why attorney's fear contempt charges when in all actuality there can be no contempt charge. But the judge is the boss in HIS court and his bar buddy, to whom he issued a certificate to practice, has to abide by whatever the judge decides is best for the employer, the State or the United States, because they pay his salary and god-forbid if he allows the bar buddy to present enough evidence to clear the man of, say a tax crime. They all know this to the last man. That's why a attorney can only represent you and will not argue wht you want him to argue and loves to plea bargain because that is a procedure that takes them off the hook because they can't argue law. Just think back for a moment and tell me what law was argued in the Simpson case or the Montana freemen case by the attorney.

Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 7, Attorney and Client, Page 707;

First duty not to clients, "Counsel must remember that they, too, are officers of the courts, administrators of justice, oath-bound servants of society: that their first duty is not to their clients, as many suppose, but is to the administration of justice: that to this their clients' success is wholly subordinate; that their conduct ought to and must be scrupulously observant of law and ethics: and to the extent that they fall therein, they injure themselves, wrong their brothers at the bar, bring reproach upon an honorable profession, betray the courts, and defeat justice." US v. Frank 63 F.(2d) 123,129. reversed on other grounds Loughlin v. US 67 F.(2d) 1080. reversed on other grounds Pearse v. US 59 F.(2d) 518 In Re Kelly 243 F. 696, 705

Conflict of Duties "In case of conflict between attorneys duty to client and that to court, his duty to the court must prevail. State v. Barto 232 N.W. 553, 202 Wis. 329"