"All lawyers are trained in semantics, which makes us all liars. Your skill in semantics will determine how successful you will be."
(A statement a "Christian" lawyer made in a class I took on the Constitution).
I shared that statement, along with his other one that caught my attention in the class he taught, "If your client is loosing on principle, talk him out of principle." at a conference I hosted and spoke at in Denver, Colorado. An international lawyer, an uncle of a friend of mine, came up on stage after my presentation, got in my face and told me he resented me "slandering" his profession. My response to him was "Give me the name of an honest lawyer." He gave me no response. He died several years later but I never got a name from him. I have a name thought. His name is Jesus Christ.
Lawyers are not trained to represent (re-present) their "client" (as they call you). They are instead trained (conditioned) to "mediate," that is cut a deal, i.e. find "common ground." Principle is sacrificed (along with liberty) in the cutting of deals. Laws become relative to the 'changing' whims of time, according to the dialectic ideology of the lawyers and judges in the court (not from the jury, in their conscience, where the principles of right and wrong reside―that is changing as more citizens are re-educated to think dialectic, i.e. determining guilty or not guilty according to a persons social worth, i.e. according to their feelings and opinions of the 'moment,' rather than according to right and wrong, engendered from a strong conscience, subject to established truth from above). As Karl Marx said: "Laws must not fetter human life; but yield to it; they must change as the needs and capacities of the people change." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) Thus man's carnal nature ("human nature") becomes law, with man no longer recognizing laws which restraining it (other than laws which engender social 'change,' i.e. laws which initiate and sustain socialist cause).
Having studied the soviet and fascist legal systems (both dialectic in structure, as was the legal system of the French Revolution) it is quite concerning to see where our legal system is taking us. It was the lawyers of the parishes who "represented" the citizens (the third estate), being well versed in communication skills the citizens choosing to send them to Paris with their petitions (which never got there, those of dialectic 'reasoning' are not interested in the peoples ideology, singularly). It was the lawyers who met on the famous tennis court and swore an oath of consensus to overthrow the "old" world order and bring in a "new" world order, that is replacing the "top-down," i.e. patriarchal paradigm of "establishment," with the "equality," i.e. heresiarchal paradigm of 'change.'
I attended a platform committee in Tulsa, Oklahoma, many years ago. The chairman wanted to 'change' the procedure for dealing with the citizens petitions. A friend of mine, Joe Esposito, rejected their request, insisting that we not do the round table consensus process but instead stay with the "old" way of doing things. Each table then was representative of a platform, i.e. education, state budget, etc. I attended the education table. I noticed a group took the state table. After they met for a short time they broke up and tried to join in on the other tables to "help" them make decisions. Joe refused to allow them to join in.
It was interesting to read the citizens petitions on education. Almost every petition included putting the ten commandments, prayer, the bible, and chastening back in the classroom. You would think that ideology would be reflected in all the other platforms. It was except for the state platform, which was Godless. Were the citizens Godly in all areas and Godless when it came to the state or did some people do the consensus process of the French, Russian, Chinese, Cuba revolutions and reflect the ideology of "the people" instead of the ideology of the people, if you get what I mean.
There is NO representation in the consensus process (man finding and uniting upon that which he has in common with himself). Whether in the Legislature, the Executive, or the Judiciary branches of government, dialectic 'thinkers' are speaking for "the people," representing "human rights" over and against inalienable rights, negating the individual rights of the citizens, under God. Without God, all you have are "human rights," the consensus process, and tyranny which leads to abomination. You can even do it "in the name of Jesus," to deceive the innocent.
The lawyer at one time represented the principles of the "client." Today, to do so would put the lawyer's carrier in peril, his loyalty being to his success, i.e. his home, his profession, the brotherhood, and the language of the court, only after this the principles of he who he is to represent (if he dare do so). The statutory duty of the citizen is to remove from office, throw into jail, and fine any government agent who does not represent the constitution for which he swore to defend and uphold, against all enemies, foreign and domestic (sic.) The dialectic court, as in the French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, etc. revolutions, would not hear of it. In a court of dialectic 'thinkers' the problem is, the constitution, according to them, is a "living document", subject to the interpretation of those who are in office, determining how to define its words according to their intended 'purpose' of 'change.'
Rejecting sin and righteousness as the issue of life, lawyers are subject to the "whims" of the carnal nature of man, what works best for him and others in the 'moment,' according to his and their carnal needs. God demands a higher calling. That we walk right before him (in Christ) in this world of sin. Not being deceived by the opinions of men. Trusting in the Lord (our advocate) alone. Loving all men but trusting none. Including your local lawyer.
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:1, 2
"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 1 Thessalonians 2:3-12
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015