Fact-centered arguments and the letter of the lawless

Question: According to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer/advocate “zealously asserts the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system” (Preamble § 2). How can a lawyer/advocate can zealously represent the client using fact-centered arguments in legal writing?

An answer:

Oliver Wendell Holmes, that monolithic maven of United States jurisprudence, famously surmised that “[t]he life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience,” Common law 1; moreover, that “[t]he felt necessities of the time . . . avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed.” Ibidem. By his paralleled equivocation of “logic,” confining it merely to deductive syllogism while denying the inherent morality surviving therefrom, Holmes well-exposed that same lame mind which waxed sanctimonious in a rant about the benefits of abortion — of doctors who could “tell beforehand . . . whether [an unborn child] had better live at all, or [instead] remain [an] unrealized possibilit[y], as belonging to a stock not worth being perpetuated.” Medical essays, The young practitioner ¶19. By these seethings and others, Holmes’ legacy is surely solidified as among that fact-laden, fear-lacking loathsome “ninety-nine percent of lawyers who give the rest a bad name.”

Yet in the ever-burgeoning, ever-self-important death-sport that is professional Law, to think like a blood-thirsty Holmes is to “win,” however pyrrhically, while to humble oneself to the logic of morality is to risk; so to speak, using Roe v. Wade as an example; talking of the procedural novelty of codifying infanticide (ie. that abortion rights would be an invention, not an extension of any precedent of gavel or statute), even as one’s adversary applies the logically persuasive, effective, destructive special-pleading anti-logic of “women’s privacy rights,” as the concocted justification for enacting a veritable federal ban on states’ respective restrictions upon the murder of pre-natal children.

Thus to “zealously assert[] [a] client’s position under the rules of the adversary system,” in accordance with the pre-ramble (§ 2) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, as set out by the American Bar Association — whose officials routinely laud abortion and homosexuality, while enjoying a nearly-unanimous (save California) states’-sanctioned stranglehold on the accreditation of universities that are the uncircumventable gatekeepers who, at their lax leisure, anoint else discard any citizen who begs to dive into an unnecessary swamp of personal debt in order to engage professionally in Law without being caged for “practicing law without a license” — one needs simply to string together, with requisite pedantry, a series of previous opinions, regardless of their merit, more effectively than one’s adversary; which often enough has amounted to cuing up “plausible deniability” for vain, vapid, venal judges to inflict their prejudice upon an already-wavering jurisprudence.

Stare decisis thus, for example, now allows for a loud and proud lawyer to cite safely even serenely the rules, facts, and holdings of a cornucopia of corruption descending from the judicial legislation enacted by the Burger court of 1973, whose fanciful facade reasonably extended — from negation to legislation — the dreamt-up judicial review corruption from Marbury v. Madison; thereby, with a wealth of “fact-centered arguments,” such a lawyer can then fit well within the echo chamber of circular logic, echoed already millions of times since its inception, which perpetuates the pallid pretense that “freedom of infanticide” is a constitutional mandate.

Further reading

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
-The 14th amendment

“Women can kill kids … it’s like PRIVACY bro! Don’t be a nigger fag republican!”
-The 14th amendment, as pretended but murderous frauds

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s