Aussie wrote on Jan 27
th, 2014 at 4:20pm:
Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27
th, 2014 at 4:03pm:
Aussie wrote on Jan 27
th, 2014 at 3:45pm:
Quote:If a lawyer's primary responsibility isn't to exposing the TRUTH - the only way true justice can be served - then who are these people? What do they represent? Who do they work for?
That's easy.
Their client and the client's interests.....there are professional and ethical constraints.....but none of them direct that Lawyers must be seekers of the 'truth.'
The 'truth' as an absolute is a slippery beast ~ almost impossible to nail down in any legal contest. Almost always, my client's truth is the complete opposite of the truth according to the client of my opponent yet we are each in Court to maximise the likelihood the Court will conclude that
our client's truth is more believable.
So we can PAY lawyers to lie, spin and omit the truth and evidence.
You do realise what that makes the legal profession don't you?
Lawyers do not enter the witness box and give evidence. Nothing we say in Court is evidence......so there is no lie by the Lawyer.
Quote:.....spin and omit the truth and evidence.
If by 'spin,' you mean we make submissions, comments, pose questions consistent with evidence to enhance our client's interests ~ yes, we do that. We are unable to 'omit the truth' as it is not our job to determine it. Not even Courts will make the claim that they get to the 'truth.' They make judgements based on the evidence they found credible and apply the Law to those facts. As for 'omit evidence'.....this is a trickier beast to explain in this environment. Obviously, we are not going to present evidence to the Court which is inconsistent with the client's case. But, leading up to any Hearing is a process called 'discovery' and what used to be called 'interrogatories" and through that, we have professional obligations to ensure that the client makes proper disclosure, even of material which is not helpful.
But if a member of the public did the same thing, they would be considered accomplices, or at least accessories after the fact, would they not?
Tell me, what sort of system provides indemnity and protection to legal professionals in court as they gallop in there with their pathetic costumes and wigs and proceed to distort the truth and partake in omission of evidence and facts???
Sounds like a crime syndicate to me.
Is it any wonder how certain crimes are ignored - like those of the rich and powerful?
Reminds me of the Robert Zimmerman song
"....steal a little and they throw you in Jail, steal a lot and they make you king"this is what you defend - a system of moral and legal corruption - right to very core
I can only assume that you are personally embedded in this corrupt system