Note (08DEC2025): A little-noticed item of news, as reported recently in The Wall Street Journal, described how Artificial Intelligence (AI) finally could put an end to the larcenous practice of hourly billing by the merchants of misery, lawyers. Billable hours? One lawyer, for example, said, “If I sit on the toilet and happen to think of a client, that’s an hour billable to the client.” These so-called clients are not really clients but victims of larcenous greed among vicious and vile parasites feeding off the creative and productive. Clients? Remember, the difference between a client (a term now commonly misused) and a customer.
Caught in an adversarial case? When you hire a lawyer, don’t believe that you have an ally. You now have another adversary. Do physicians charge patients for “research” about their cases? No. Yet, lawyers charge “clients”. Who monitors these vermin? Nobody but they themselves.
“Oh, law is different from medicine,” the shysters will say.
Well, in charges, AI essentially will make the law similar. The AI-revolution in law complements the reforms in the legal system described in the hybrid-novel, Retribution Fever. Flat fees! The book? For those who give gifts, a great one during this holiday-season for the intellectually curious.
-End-
Lawyerism? Too many laws. Too many lawyers. Too little law. Control of the legal system by lawyers for lawyers. Control of Congress and other legislative bodies by lawyers for lawyers.
More than 40% of members of Congress (50% of Senators, 30% of Representatives) are lawyers. These United States harbor too many lawyers, 10-times too many. “Merchants of Misery”.
Ninety-five percent of lawyers gives the other 5% a bad name.” -Traditional Saying
A recent exposé in Washington Examiner (05NOV2025) revealed how lawsuits have become big business with third-party investors financially speculating on verdicts. Avaricious, predatory lawyers eagerly participate in this scam, rightly banned until recently, to undermine the legal system. We must end this destruction of our legal system and, thereby, the decline of our country.
Excerpts from the novel, Retribution Fever:
Prior to the Furies (plague, economic collapse, and international terrorism), the legal profession in these United States had become too large and too powerful. Per capita, it hosted ten times as many lawyers as Japan.
Furthermore, it had become largely corrupt. The consequence of that corruption was one factor in the decline of the nation.
Common sense through experience bears witness that those who directly profit from the law should not create the law. Prior to the plague of infection had been the plague of “lawyerism”.
Prior to the plague of Retribution Fever, lawyers, for example, had comprised 40% of Congress. These United States became a nation for lawyers by lawyers.
Consequence? Strengthening lawyerism killing the weakening Republic. American industry, for example, had been spending more on parasitic lawyers undermining the nation than it had been spending on creative researchers uplifting the nation and the rest of the world.
The first and foremost challenge for the TMG (Temporary Military Government) in this matter is to diminish control of the legal profession over the federal government. The intent of the Constitution as written in 1787 had been to allow every State as much latitude to govern its own affairs as practicable within a federal system. That intent was codified in the subsequent but largely-ignored Tenth Amendment.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” -Amendment X
Pursuant to that Amendment, we members of the TMG confirm that the States are free to elect whomever they chose to their respective legislatures. Accordingly, if Californians or New Yorkers elect to fill their legislatures with lawyers, doing so will be their prerogatives.
The same, however, does not apply to Congress. Reason? The power of a central government is ubiquitous. It is national not local or regional. The essential principle is that those directly profiting from the law — lawyers — should not be creating the law. Conflict-of-interest is obvious, inherent, and pernicious.
Long before the Furies, the electorate should have demanded a new constitutional Amendment to the effect that any member of the Bar of any State would be ineligible to hold a seat in Congress. Such an Amendment would have gone a long way towards leveling the legal playing-field that had favored the parasitizing lawyers against a parasitized citizenry over which lawyers had ruled oppressively and upon which they had fed voraciously.
A constitutional lawyer, nevertheless, might continue arguing, as lawyers are wont to do, “Look, lawyers’ knowledge of legal theory aids them in making good legislators.”
Nonsense! Lawyers tend to think in terms of technicalities. They emphasize minute detail over broad concept. Their points of view tend to be narrow.
“You blind guides who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” -Matthew 23:24
That which was said of Pharisees applies equally to lawyers. Their narrowness might be adaptive for practicing law, but it is maladaptive for governing a nation.
A constitutional lawyer still might continue arguing, “Perhaps, but from the point of view of the rights of the citizenry, such a prohibition violates the basic right that any law-abiding American citizen can represent his or her community . . . as President or Congressperson . . . regardless of occupation.”
Untrue. Firstly, where had such a so-called basic right been written? Nowhere. The original Constitution set basic requirements for election but nothing more. Besides, is there not an overriding social issue — that of the system giving one small segment of society overwhelming power over the rest? Was the nation meant to be a nation of laws or a nation by lawyers for lawyers? Sadly, it became the latter.
As the latter, Americans had been living under a system unfair and unjust. Unfair because the system created a privileged social class — a legal aristocracy that could devise and administer laws and rulings favorable to itself at the expense of the rest of society. Unjust because it flagrantly disregarded its stated duty to protect not defraud its clientele. Worse, it allowed little redress to those whom it abused. Paradoxically, Americans had burdened themselves with too many laws and too many lawyers but not enough even-handed enforcement of the law.
Abuse of clients by lawyers had become rampant. Admittedly, an abused client could have filed a complaint with the Bar of his State — at his own risk. Yes, the client received limited immunity during the proceedings, provided that he adhered strictly to every rule pertaining thereto without exception. Typical of lawyers, they allowed others no room for human error but plenty of room for themselves.
Unfortunately, the client received no immunity after the proceedings. Exacting revenge against the abused client for filing the complaint, his abusive lawyer could become even more abusive by filing a subsequent, spiteful lawsuit; especially if the lawyers reviewing the complaint had found in favor of their colleague. What unfavorable contingency was there to stop the lawyer? The cost to the spiteful, abusive lawyer-turned-plaintiff was nil; whereas, even when winning the lawsuit, the abused client-turned-defendant could face costs amounting to a proverbial king’s ransom — and lawyers viewed themselves, if not as kings, at the very least as self-anointed princes.
Criminally, lawyerism had hobbled rightful enforcement of the law. It prosecuted that which, by their nature, clearly were not crimes against persons or property — acts such as intentional misuse of drugs. Meanwhile, it refused to investigate acts that clearly were criminal, let alone to prosecute them — acts such as extortion, especially within families; or mail-fraud unless exceeding a loss greater than $100,000.
Civilly, lawyerism had damaged or destroyed whole industries — general aviation but one example. Furthermore, it cowered many innocent defendants commercial and individual into settling baseless, vexatious lawsuits rather than suffering the enormous expense, effort, and aggravation of going through overly broad discovery — unlike in Japan where discovery essentially is prohibited — then suffering an overly long trial with lawyers billing outrageous, unaccountable fees by the self-clocked hour.
For lawyers, others’ time had no value, only theirs. Too often, trials and hearings both criminal and civil became contests of endurance with juries imprisoned on panels for weeks on end, if not months. Subjecting jurors to such abuse constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
One had not needed a cause of action to file a lawsuit. All one needed was an avaricious lawyer, of whom there was an extreme abundance.
It seems commonsensical to put a stop to this parasitic damage to society by an aristocratic class that granted itself tyrannical privileges. In order to separate those who profit by practicing law from those who profit by making laws, a provision will be enshrined in the revised Constitution that no person who has been a member of any Bar in any State, Territory, or possession of these United States or in any foreign nation within the previous three years may serve in Congress. We expect the Trial Lawyers Association, previously the largest contributor to members of Congress, to object.
We shall respond to their objection with “Over-ruled!”
-End-