In law school they told us that they were going to train us to think like lawyers. While in law school they reminded us of many great philosophers who had stated that you could never have too many people trained in the law. Once we left law school and joined private practice ethical considerations told us that we should not take advantage of those untrained in the law. When Courts interact with lay persons the Court will often describe the language of lawyers as legalese. To recap;we are being trained to think in a noble profession but once we are educated we are apparently too well educated to speak in plain English for the common person to understand it.
As a result we end up in highly academic discussions regarding void versus voidable; jurisdiction over the person, subject matter jurisdiction, and original jurisdiction. Combining these concepts we end up with academic discusions relating to whether a void judgment, which is a nullity and "of no force and effect", but cannot be challenged after an appeal as the trial court has been divested of jurisdiction.
Scholarly trained professionals with contempt for common persons having intellectual discussions about complex issues without any regard for the everyday lives that foreclosures rip apart. This is what it feels like we have become. Then you start asking how did we become this.
At a continuing legal education seminar the answer was given. A panel of four highly esteemed professors were discussing the value of understanding the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution. They all agreed that whatever value derived from the original intent given by the interpretor, the original intent could be derived from other contemporary writings. Those who wrote the Declaration of Independence also wrote the Constitution, as well as, letters and speeches and sermons for and against the ratification of the Constitution. The esteemed professors had various opininions as to the manner of determining the original intent and the importance to place on the original intent. After giving their presentations on the way to practice Constitutional Law, the emphasis to be placed on the original intent, and how to determine the original intent, they opened the floor for questions. I asked: are you are of the concept that the Declaration of Independence was a prayer, and did you consider the concept in your analysis of original intent. Two of the esteemed professors ignored me like I was an an uneducated lay person who had no concept of what we were discussing being that of legalese and such. One professor stated that he has aware of the concept but had rejected it in his analysis. The remaining professor asked me what I meant by prayer. Without a great deal of thought I neverously stated a solemn personal discussion with the Creator of the Universe, God. He responded that the founding fathers were certainly not speaking to a single all powerful being. At most the use of the word creator would refer to nature or the spirit of the trees.. NO THEY WERE NOT PRAYING TO GOD!!
We have entrusted these four men with the training of our future lawyers. Future lawyers are being told that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were in no way interested in God. Not only is this shameful, but it also explains how plainly understood concepts are contorted to reach intended results for specific clients without any thought of what is right, fair or required. Instead we have legally trained advocates attempting to win each issue at all costs regardless of what might happen to the greater good.