JURISTS MUST HAVE IT SO HARD, BUT WHATS THE VICTIM COUNT OF THE JUDICIARY, HOW MANY VICTIMS DOES THE JUDGE HAVE?

[AN ANGRY ROUGH DRAFT, BUT YOU WOULD BE TOO IF YOU CARED ABOUT YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS.. REALLY CARED, IT WILL BE REWORKED SOON AND MADE CONCISE AND FILLED WITH PROPER LEGAL CITATIONS AND AUTHORITIES AS SOON AS I FIND THE TIME OR RESEARCH FUNDS]

This article is self explanatory, the jury takes all the heat for the verdict, for $50 a day.. and then the judges only decision is; what do the rules say about the judgement I can give them.. Of course there are laws of the nation we can all find unamerican... But the real question is do these judges uphold law or withhold justice....

Consider this: How many people do you know who can spend $3500 or more for the right to perform the acts of litigation to get compensated for their injury? arent injured people (especially physically injured people) short on funds and financially unstable and unsure.. So if the cost of getting 10 or 20 or 50 k cost you 3

YOUR FAVORITE AI CAN GIVE YOU SORCED DATA TELLING YOU HOW PLAINTIFFS IN INQUISITIVE JUDICIAL SYSTEMS USE CIVIL COURTS IN NORTHERN AND EASTERN EUROPE AT SELF REPRESENTED RATES OF %50 OR HIGHER AND HAVE A SATISFACTION RATE OF %65-%80 WITH THEIR EXPERINCE, THEY KEEP %95-100 AND WIN AT A RATE OF %30-60.

IN THE USA THE LAND OF JUSTICE FOR ALL HOWEVER THE COURTS

WHERE WE HAVE AN ADVESARIAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT REQUIRE A PLAINTIFF TO SPEND SEVERAL THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON DISCOVERY COSTS (EVEN WHEN THEIR FILING FEES ARE COVERED) AND THOSE DEPOSITIONS AND EXPERT FEES ARE ON MORE THAN AN ODD OCCASION MORE THAN THE AWARD THE PLAINTIFF RECIEVES. JUDGES CREATED STRICT BARRIERS TO OBTAINING COMPENSATION BY CREATING THE RULES AND PROCEDURES OF THE COURTS IN NEW YORK RIGHT AROUND THE TIME THE NAZIS WERE WEARING BROWN SKIRTS (1938) AND ELIMINIATED ALL THE PROTECTIONS OF AMENDING AND CORRECTION THE FOUNDERS COURTS HAD IN PLACE TO ENSURE.. WE DID HAVE JUSTICE FOR ALL...

NOW TODAY THE WIN RATE OF SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANTS IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS IS %3-5 COMPARED TO THE %30-60 OF INQUISITORIAL SYSTEMS. WHEN LAWYERS DO TAKE THE CASES AMERICANS WIN AT A RATE OF %50-70 AND WALK AWAY WITH %60 -40 AFTER LAWYER FEES AND EXPERT FEES.

AND WHILE THE INQUISITORIAL SYSTEMS PAY A RATE SLIGHTLY %20-5 LOWER THAN AMERICAN ADVERSARIAL.... THE BURDENS OF MEETINGS WITH LAWYERS AND ALL THEIR BULLSHIT... THE BURDENS OF SELF REPRESENTATION AND SPENDING SAVINGS ON FILING FEES, DEPOSITIONS, EXPERTS, AND OTHER DISCOVERY AND LITIGATION COSTS (THE COURTS DONT COVER THESE WITH THEIR FEE WAIVER AND THE LAW EVOLVED BY THEIR PRECEDENT TO MAKE AND ENFORCE THESE BARRIERS TO JUSTICE..)...

THE LIKELY HOOD OF AN AMERICAN WINNING IS SO SLIM IN OUR MODERN WORLD AND JURY OF PEERS THAT THE SLIGHTLY HIGHER AWARD RATE ISNT ENJOYED BY ANYONE YOU KNOW IF THEY ARE SELF REPRESENTED..

%3-5 WIN RATE VERSUS A %50-70 WIN RATE WHEN REPRESENTED OR IN AN INQUISITORIAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM...

AND YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED, THEY BELIEVED THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM WOULD PREVENT THE RULING MONARCHY AND TYRANY FROM PREVAILING...

BUT NOW INSTEAD OF THE TYRANTS ONLY BEING THOSE WHO OPPRESS AND INJURY THE AMERICAN MIDDLE AND LOWERCLASS THE ELDERLY AND YOUNG AND UNESTABLISHED IN LIFE...

THE TYRANY IS THE ENTIRE JUDICIARY BODY, EVERY JUDGE SITTING THE BENCH FROM THE STATE SMALL CLAIMS COURTS (THOUGH THESE ARE NOT HUGE AREAS OF ISSUE) AND THE FAMILY COURTS AND THE CIVIL COURTS OF THE STATE AND THE CIVIL COURTS OF THE FEDERAL CIRCUITS... EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS ALLOWING VICTIMIZATION TO FLOURISH, THEY DISMISS CASES FOR FAILURE TO STATE CLAIM, DISMISS ON SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FOR FAILURES TO PRODUCE ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE (THE EXPERTS AND EDUCATION ISSUE) AND

PROCEDURAL ISSUES WHERE JUDGES ARE LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE TO CLEAR THEIR DOCKETS AND A SINGLE ERROR GIVES THEM REASON TO AVOID HAVING A PERSON WHO HAS THE MONEY TO MAKE SUING THEM WORTH IT BEING MAD AT THE JUDGE. (THE SAME REASON THEY CREATED THE RULES AND PROCEDURES WHEN THE BROWN SKIRTS SHOWED UP, TO "RELIEVE JUDICIAL BURDEN").

WHEN THE JUDICAIRY SAID ITS TO BURDENSOME TO STOP THE THE VICTIMIZATION AND MADE IT SO IMPOSIBLE TO WIN THAT THE FORMER MONARCHIES WIN RATE IS 20X HIGHER THAN OURS.. THAT WHEN THE JUDICIARY SOLD OUT AMERICA AND CREATED THE NEW OPPRESSION OF THE USA.. WE FREED THE SLAVES, WE GOT WOMENS RIGHTS (AFTER New Zealand – 1893   Australia – 1902   Finland – 1906   Norway – 1913   Denmark – 1915   Iceland – 1915   Russia – 1917   Canada – 1918   Germany – 1918   Austria – 1918   Poland – 1918   Netherlands – 1919   Luxembourg – 1919 ...  United States – 1920 )...WE ENDED VAGRANCY LAWS AFTER MUCH FORCED LABOR AND LIKELY LESS THAN A BUNCH OF SUCCESS STORIES, WE GRANTED EQUAL RIGHTS AFTER THE COURTS MADE OBTAINING JUSTICE BY THE MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASS IMPOSSIBLE...

AND WHAT WOULD THE FOUNDERS SAY TO US, SAY TO THE JUDICIARY AND THE LEGISLATIVE BODY WHO STILL REFUSES TO AKNOWLEDGE THE INJUSTICE AND OPPRESSION OUR NATION HAS SWITCHED ITS AUTHORITARIAN RED AND BLUE MITTENED HAND TO...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

...

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

...

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

...

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice...

AND YOU KNOW HOW THAT ENDED..

WHAT THEY DONT TEACH IN SCHOOL WHEN THEY TELL YOU ABOUT HOW GREAT AMERICA THE LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE IS...

.. IS HOW THE JUDICIARY USURPED THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO OBTAIN JUSTICE, TO HAVE EQUALITY AND WHAT THE COURTS USED TO DO FOR THE PEOPLE...

HERES WHAT THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS USED TO DO, AND WHILE THINKING IT MUST HAVE BEEN GREAT, REMEMBER THAT THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN PRESENT A LARGE AND EVER CHANGING GROUP OF PEOPLES IN THIS NATION WHO HAVE DIRECTED THE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND PLACED MORAL AND RELIGIOUS CONSTRAINTS ON THEIR FELLOW AMERICANS WITHOUT CONSIDERATION THAT WERE THEY SUBJECTED TO THE SAME DEPRIVATION THEY WOULD NOT LIKE IT... A CONSTANT FAILURE BY THE PEOPLES TO RECOGNIZE INJUSTICE IS INJUSTICE AND IT DOES NOT CREATE RESOLUTION EXCEPT IN CASES OF COMPENSATION OR SEVERMENT...

1. Judges Actively Helped Shape the Case (Not Passive Referees)

Early American courts did not follow the modern “neutral umpire” model. Judges:

• Guided the parties in framing issues

• Allowed amendment of pleadings at any time (EVEN AFTER A VERDICT, IF YOU REALIZED YOU ERRORED IN PRESENTATION, YOU COULD FIX IT)

• Asked questions directly

• Ensured the real dispute was reached, not blocked by technicalities

This is documented in Kessler’s history of early American procedure, which shows that more judge‑driven, quasi‑inquisitorial practices coexisted with adversarial trials until the mid‑1800s.

Why this mattered:   People without lawyers could still get justice because the judge ensured the case was decided on the merits.

2. Pleadings Were Simple and Amendable — Not Technical Traps

Before the rise of code pleading and later the Federal Rules, American courts (DONT LET THEM HIDE BEHIND THE COURTS... IT WAS EARLY AMERICAN JUDGES WHO):

• Allowed pleadings to be corrected freely

• Ignored technical defects

• Focused on the underlying wrong, not the form of the complaint

This is exactly the opposite of the later 19th‑century system, where hyper‑technical pleading rules became a weapon used by lawyers to defeat claims.

Kessler shows that technical, lawyer‑dominated adversarialism only became dominant in the decades before the Civil War, displacing earlier, more flexible practices.

Inventing American Exceptionalism: The Origins of American Adversarial Legal Culture 1800-1877 | Global Studies [THIS SOURCE HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY ME, BUT I CANT FIND AND CITE YOU ALL THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL ACTS I HAVE SEEN OVER THE YEARS OF HISTORICAL REVEIW, AND I CANT AFFORD THIS BOOK... BUT I CAN ALMOST ASSUREDLY TELL YOU ITS NOT THE DIRECT BOLD ASSERTIONS I HAVE PROVIDED YOU IN THIS WEBSITE, WHAT LOOKS INTERESTING IS THE HISTORY AND A QUESTION OF IF A DIRECT LINE OF PROCESSION OF THE TYRANY AND CONTROLLING POWERS EXISTS CLEARLY OR EVEN ABMIGIOUSLY SHOWN... LET ME KNOW IF YOU CAN FIND A FREE COPY OR WANT TO OFFER A CITATION FROM YOUR STATES EARLY COURTS AND LEGISLATIVE ACTS.]

3. Juries Played a Central Role in Fact‑Finding and Fairness

Early American courts relied heavily on juries as the core protection against government power.

Juries:

• Evaluated facts

• Checked judicial or governmental overreach

• Reflected community standards

• Made the system accessible to ordinary people

This was a deliberate choice of the Founders, who saw juries as the heart of natural justice.

4. The System Was Not Yet Captured by Lawyers

Kessler’s central thesis: American adversarialism became lawyer‑dominated only in the 1800–1877 period. 

Before that:

• Lawyers were fewer

• Judges had more control

• Trials were shorter

• Procedure was simpler

• Costs were lower

The system was adversarial, but not yet professionalized into a technical battlefield.

5. Trials Were Fast, Cheap, and Focused on Truth

Early American trials:

• Happened quickly

• Involved minimal discovery

• Relied on direct testimony

• Avoided procedural gamesmanship

Landsman’s description of the adversary system emphasizes that its original design was structured but not hyper‑technical, with judges ensuring fairness.

[A SHORT READ OF 50X PAGES THE LAST IS THE 70S VERSION OF WHAT BOLD STATEMENTS THAT THE COURTS CLEARLY OPPRESS THE POOR LOOKED LIKE, AS COMPARED TO KESSLERS MODERN DAY ASSERTIONS, ID BET THAT NEITHER DIRECTLY CONFRONTS THE ISSUE AND IT SEEMS TO OFTEN PEOPLE ARE PAID TO SHOW US WHATS WRONG EVEN WHILE THEY DO NOTHING MORE THAN ASK US TO PONDER ON WHAT IS GOING ON.. NEVER TO CALL FOR REAL CHANGE TO EMPOWER THE PEOPLE ALWAYS A PUPPY ASKING THE MASTER IF IT WANTS THEM TO MAKE THIS FOR THEM, NEVER STATING THE OBVIOUS, THAT THIS IS BOTH INHUMANE TREATMENT, UNAMERICAN AND SHAMEFULL FOR OUR COUNTRY TO PLEDGE JUSTICE FOR ALL WHILE THE JUDICIARY PRACTICES SELECTIVE VICTIMIZATION APROVAL OF THE WORKING CLASS AND THE LEGISLATIVE TWO PARTY SYSTEM SAYS FOCUS ON TRIVIAL ISSUES THAT DONT BOTHER THE PEOPLE WHO REALLY MATTER.. HERES THE BOOK... The adversary system : a description and defense : Landsman, Stephan : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive]

 Why the Old System Worked Better Than Today’s

Putting it all together:

Feature	Early American System	Modern Adversarial System
Judicial role	Active, guiding, corrective	Passive, hands‑off
Pleadings	Flexible, amendable	Technical, dismissive
Access without lawyers	Realistic	Nearly impossible
Costs	Low	Extremely high
Speed	Fast	Slow
Focus	Substantive justice	Procedural compliance
Equity safety valve	Strong	Largely merged/limited
Jury centrality	High	Declining