You know the real problem here?
That you need a license to argue in a legal situation on someone else's behalf.
Lincoln and many others didn't need a law license.
Licensing by the state to perform any task or express any opinion is a constitutional violation that we have all just gotten used to. It is a person's reputation which should be the thing that determines whether they get any clients. Yet the licensing apparatus usually ends up hiding reputation from the public as professional rebukes are rare and usually relatively hidden in unpublicized hearings and licenses are routinely given to those who are unskilled by simply pay the education and time tolls.
No one should need a license to practice anything. Individual reputationsnand successes should be publicly available on the internet.
They even give themselves exceptions in monopoly law. The (((AMA))) shabbos goys passed legislation making them the sole source of physicians. If politicians think that White men need a decade of affirmative action education to be able to get the knowledge to prescribe basic antibiotic medication, the politicians do not seek the best interests of the people.
The real problem is that most people don't argue on their own behalf. Anyone who hires a lawyer to argue for him is a fool who will soon be convicted.
Pretty hard to be your own lawyer. It's doesn't work well for almost any who try
It SHOULD be easy but it isn't.
The thing you're missing is that hiring a (((lawyer))) has and even lower success rate.
(post is archived)