If you’ve ever been to court you also know that the judge seems to “ignore” your evidence.
If evidence plays a role how can they ignore it? It’s not FAIR!
Well, if you are in a court of law then its not fair. But what if you were NOT in a court of law, so rules of evidence don’t apply?
What if you are in an administrative hearing and you are guilty just for showing up and whatever evidence gets paraded through the court is just part of the act to make you believe you are in a court of law?
Shocker. There is a game on and you “know” it without knowing about it..
You’ve been invited to play the legal game, without being told the rules or that YOU are the patsy about to take the fall “VOLUNTARILY”.
Apparently, many law schools don’t even require evidence courses for their lawyers in training anymore. If evidence is what EVERYTHING in any legal dispute turns on, why don’t lawyers need to know anything about it to become a lawyer?
Maybe because its not really part of the game anymore.
Check out this article for more info about law schools not requiring it anymore. The write a lawyer raises some very good points:
“The problem that Scott Greenfield identifies applies equally to Canadian law schools. If a law student can through three years of professional legal education without taking a basic course of the law of evidence, how can this fledgling lawyer provide competent legal advice to his or her clients? Yes, I know that not every law student goes into criminal law, civil litigation or administrative law. Yet, as Greenfield astutely points out, the knowledge of evidentiary rules is fundamental to the practice of law. As in-house corporate counsel, if you cannot distinguish legal relevancy, how can you advise a client to produce relevant documents? If you do not understand the basics of privilege, how can you advise a client how to not waive that privilege?”
Trained incompetence, or no longer a need because most everything is administrative and decided before the “trial” plays out?