The legal profession
The legal profession is looked at here only from the viewpoint of families in trouble needing help from a State which appears hell-bent on taking their children. It is also orientated towards the UK and Ireland.
Families with experience of how the legal profession fails to protect them from child protection agencies or Social Services, known as the 'SS' in the UK, see solicitors and lawyers as 'lazy, indifferent and greedy'. Ian Josephs, the creator of the help network for families in trouble, calls the legal people 'professional losers' because they get paid whether they win or lose for a family.
The indifference towards families is manifested over and over by the number of solicitors who when approached by parents for advice in dealing with hostile social workers say, "Cooperate with them." Those with experience of helping such families are aware that this is the worst possible advice as it opens the way for the social workers to build the case for taking the children.
The indifference and bad advice are boosted by the real possibility of a conflict of interest, often not obvious. Social Services and their local authority or health services employers are big users of the legal profession and if individual legal people are not already on panels they may want to be, so it is not in their interest to assist parents in hostile action against potential future customers.
However there is a bigger problem facing parents who have had their children seized by the State or are in danger of this happening. The system itself, the legal profession and the judiciary, is stacked against them.
Many of the families who flee to Ireland to prevent their children being seized by British social workers can find justice in the courts, but before achieving it may be broken by the cost and time that the process requires.
History may judge our legal profession to have been the most predatory and malignant social development of our age. Its comparisons with the Church of the medieval inquisitions are striking. The medieval Church represented God, both as his agent and manifested presence in this life, and acted as the mediator in disputes or transgressions between God and humans. The legal profession represents the law and by implication justice and acts as the mediator in disputes or transgressions between individuals with each other or society. Thus, at least in the perceived sense, one is the face of God and virtue while the other is the face of law and justice. If neither is true then each must have achieved deceptions of the grandest historical proportions.
The medieval Church, as the face of God and divine goodness, created, codified and managed the first inquisitions, which were an expression of hellish evil, more the face of a devil rather than that of a benign god. The legal profession, as the face of the law and justice, creates and maintains injustice. Both maintained their power and codified their practices through large documented codes of practice, from the time of the invention of printing in published volumes.
The Malleus Maleficarum, also known as The Witch Hammer, written by Dominican monks, Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger and published probably in 1486, was the official manual for the persecution, torture and execution of mainly women under the excuse of witchcraft. While the Malleus reigned supreme for centuries and was used to justify death and torture, it was eventually seen as spurious and discarded.
The Malleus Maleficarums, of today, employed by the judiciary, the legal profession and its agents are comprised by thousands of laws which we call 'legislation' and a manual with an uncanny similarity with the original Malleus. This is the DSM IV, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, the manual physicians, psychiatrist, psychologists, therapists, and social workers use in order to diagnose mental illness. Where medical science draws upon scientific laboratory testing, Malleus is decided by committees of self-interested psychology 'professionals' in a manner very similar to the academic committees that supported the mechanisms of the Inquisition. For heretic one can easily substitute inappropriate or deviant behaviour, behaviour that can sometimes also be non-conformist or aggressive or simply greedy and anti-social. A devastating criticism of the DSM is that it had only a handful of so-called mental or social diseases half a century ago but a list of thousands today.
Significantly, the DSM is used by psychiatrists to advise the military on the interrogation of suspect in detention camps. The DSM is also used by psychiatrists to diagnose what were formerly seen as social variations in adults and children as expressions of mental illness and to prescribe drugs to manage them.
The difficulty in obtaining an adequate defence
The remarks which follow apply also to the judiciary as it is at the head of, or central to, the legal profession. It is also based on what is happening in the US as this author has experience of trying to find justice for a lifer there.
One of the extreme instruments for denying the right to defence in the US is the state's practice of removing all means of finance from defendants before their trial. This ensures both speedy plea bargains and convictions. A raid or an arrest can be accompanied by the seizure of all one's bank accounts and the freezing of all other assets. Parents, if alive and wealthy, may have to re-mortgage their own home in an attempt to raise enough money for a defence. A second instrument for removing the right to defence is to ensure that defence lawyers work in the first instance for the judge and prosecution, not for the defendant - that is, except in show trials that will be seen by millions around the world on television. If a defendant can raise the finance, he must go 'lawyer-shopping'.
A first one may be upbeat and confident that the situation will soon be sorted out, because 'justice will prevail'. This is a great illusion which will soon be shattered, because it is very difficult to find a lawyer more interested in justice and defending his client than in maximising his revenue and deferring to the court.
The prosecution can demand and obtain court approval to deny the admission of vital evidence and incompetent or lazy defence attorneys can simply not bother to demand it. Overwhelmingly, however, both prosecution and defence will pressurize that defendant into plea bargaining - that is accepting the demand for an early plea of guilt for a lesser crime whether committed or not under the threat that to refuse will result in a more draconian sentence. One can end up believing that all defence attorneys in fact work for the court and for the prosecution and judge. Finally, most judges are promoted prosecutors, so it has become a prosecutorial system.
Hard on the heels of incompetent defence lawyers come the corrupt expert witnesses.
Corrupt expert witnesses
In the early inquisitions, learned scholars, who were often from universities, testified against heretics and those accused of witchcraft on behalf of the state. These were 'expert witnesses', but the idea of an 'expert witness' for the defence did not exist. Today, this is either not known to, or forgotten by, those who find assurance in the belief that 'qualified' experts will speak up for a defendant with accuracy and honesty. This is often far from the case.
Expert witnesses are commonly found in cases where damages are sought for injury suffered either in accidents or in the use of purchased products or services. Typical cases involve road accidents, trips and falls caused by poor footpaths or slippery floors and other areas of public use. In these cases, experts may be employed by the injured party for both analyses of the technical defect that caused the alleged accident and for a medical or psychiatrist assessment of the physical or mental damage suffered. In such cases it is virtually certain that the expert will give evidence that supports the case being brought by the plaintiff.
Expert witnesses are central to all class actions where a large group of people are claiming to have suffered damages because of their use of a product, which they are claiming to be faulty or the cause of alleged damage. As with the experts who work for individuals in cases where compensation is sought, the experts' findings will invariably be beneficial to the claimant. There may be few if any cases on record where an expert thus employed found in favour of the defendant accused of causing the damage.
In criminal cases, with rare exceptions, such as medical or psychiatric experts being used to help claims of diminished responsibility, virtually all experts who are central to the examination of the main evidence work for the prosecution and police. This situation is at its most extreme in the United States and in most totalitarian regimes.
A defendant may not have access to an expert witness nor the means to pay for one, whereas the prosecution can afford the best including all the forensics laboratories. Indeed, from a European point of view, it is interesting to read the accounts of a celebrity arrest and trial and to see the absence both of expert witnesses for the defence and the lack of interest in them. The experts are the state, the FBI, the prosecutors and the judges. When even defence attorneys bow to the authority of prosecutors and judges in the US, what expert witness would dare offer an opposing view? Not only would all future business from the state be withdrawn, but retribution from the police and prosecution itself could follow.
Areas where expert witnesses tend to work only for the prosecution are computer forensic investigators and drugs testing. On the psychiatric front, one may find psychiatrists working only for the military in cases of suspected terrorism and even advising on 'interrogation methods' - that is, torture.
From the above one can see that there is a serious new threat to justice in the emergence of our technological society. As technology spawns both more opportunities for new crimes and even more new opportunities for falsely accusing innocent individuals, the need for honest and independent expert witnesses grows, but we find that in a number of instances that most, if not all, so-called 'expert witnesses' work only for the police and prosecution in criminal cases. So to summarise, except in a minority of issues, such as claims of diminished responsibility, expert witnesses tend to work for those seeking compensation in civil cases and for the police and prosecution in criminal cases.
The UK uses what is known as an adversarial legal system, which means that experts will be appointed by the prosecution or the defence whose theories best fit the slant being followed by either party. In the earlier inquisitions, the expert supposedly investigated the matter impartially and then reported to the court directly. In a criminal trial, this results in a 'hanging judge' scenario. This, however, is more and more the case in the use of experts in British courts today, where in criminal trials the expert's duty appears to be to assist the court, not the defendant, and seldom the truth.
When the crime involves computers, and particularly whether or not the accused is guilty of knowingly viewing illegal images, computer forensics evidence is of critical importance, however, even in the UK, virtually all computer forensics experts work only for the police and prosecution. Few experts want to work for a defendant as the big money is in working either for the police or compensation claimants. There is little money to be earned from those accused of crimes, in particular those designated as 'sexual perverts', and if you do take on such a case out of altruism or human rights, you can probably say good bye to any more lucrative work from the police. Even worse, however, can happen to you should you dare give expert witness for the defence in criminal cases, and especially in the face of the prevailing moral ideology. It will not please your local police force.
The independence of forensics laboratories
Both expert witnesses and independent laboratories have been called 'hired guns' because of bias in the work they do for the police and prosecution service.
As this is being written, the integrity and independence of forensics laboratories are being questioned in the UK because the closure of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) means a wider distribution of testing, including vital police and court tests, to different laboratories, many operated by the police, which do not meet the relevant requirements of ISO standards.
A survey of forensic scientists carried out by the New Scientist found that 78% of them believed that miscarriages of justice will increase. Seventy per cent felt that there will be a reduction in the impartiality of the interpretation of evidence; 65% of them felt that it would make it harder for defence teams to challenge the interpretation of evidence and a similar number felt that there will be a lessening of openness and transparency. Nearly a third of respondents admitting they sometimes feel pressured to produce a particular result, while three-quarters say they sometimes have insufficient time to evaluate cases.
Imagine your life depending upon such experts.
Most commentators on the survey, however, missed the real point
The Forensic Science Service, now replaced was a UK government-owned company, so virtually all of the forensic laboratories were and are:
private but getting most of their business from the police and prosecution service
All are an extension of the already corrupted expert witness industry, which submits reports skewed towards its paying client wants to see and, in the case of the laboratories, biased towards giving results that their paying masters want to see. Doctor Frank Skuse, the forensic scientist for the North West Forensic Laboratories based in Chorley in Lancashire, 'doctored' the test results which resulted in the great miscarriage of justice of the Birmingham Six. 'Skuse' could have become synonymous with 'skew', but he has been conveniently air-brushed out of history, together with North West Forensic Laboratories.
This situation creates a major breach of several of the articles in the European Convention on Human Rights, which demands a level playing field for defendants. One can go so far as to say that independent forensics expert witness can be virtually impossible for a defendant to obtain.
The issue, relating to the UK, is a major element in a petition currently before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
See the New Scientist report here.
For how much longer will Western societies tolerate the disgusting practice of solicitors trawling for 'victims' to claim compensation for perceived or invented 'abuses' or accidents? This practice has contributed to the destruction of good neighbourliness and volunteering and trust between women and men and between adults and children. It has also damaged clubs and venture sports and supported the dominant narrative that all adults require criminal record vetting if they are to be in contact with children.
The disgusting practice is supported by equally disgusting solicitors advertising for 'victims' over television. This malevolent process needs to be seen for what it is and countered.
Back to index page.
Contact us by email at