A tale of two massacre lawyers PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 01 December 2010 11:03

A stunned nation revisited a gruesome event exactly a year ago last November 23, while everyone continues the never-ending search for meaning, and struggles to understand the sense of it all.

For one whole year, many stories behind the story kept evolving as time wore on, in part as a way to console, to comfort the afflicted, and in part to afflict those too comfortable for comfort.

And on the anniversary of the worst crime of the century, while trial of the case is already ongoing in a competent judicial Court, one story stands out, concerning the lawyers of both sides.
* * * * *

Here now, is the rest of the story.

In the side of the defense, all he could say is that he doesn't care to be vilified for accepting this high-profile case, for without him, the case will not move.

Strange, to say the least, for if I remember correctly my Law 101, the government is duty-bound to provide a competent Counsel for an accused if no lawyer represents the defense just so the case can move -- meaning the case can move on with or without this top-caliber barrister.

He said this was not the first time he accepted such challenging tasks, but this is the first time a task like this was so challenging, simply because the people has made up their minds, and it's a whole lot of wonder how an attorney could be so acute and cute as to be able to win this legal war but lost the battle.
* * * * *
Speaking of being vilified, one wonders how vilified he was, given that his clients are perceived to be good at this, and much more.

Well, if John Grisham's "The Street Lawyer", Chapter One is to be the basis, where he would be one of nine lawyers tide and made hostage at gunpoint, that is pure vilification.

But Grisham's is pure fiction, and this one is pure reality.
* * * * *

Comes now one of the lawyers of the prosecution.

For sure he would not pre-empt the final findings of the Court, he professed, but the progress so far in presenting what needs to be presented in Court cannot be underestimated, much less taken for granted.

This man certainly has guts -- he even questioned the Supreme Court for coddling one of its own in a serious copying case; no, it was not plagiarism plain and simple, it was perverted plagiarism, because the one who penned the decision on the comfort women case twisted what was intended as an original meaning of the original authors, who have since cried foul - anyway this is an aside story.
* * * **

So on the basis of his guts, will the prosecution lawyer convince lady Justice, an icon pictured as carrying a weighing scale with blindfolded eyes, that he has a convincingly solid, air-tight case that cannot be disregarded?

Can Justice be served in a judicial manner and in consideration of all due process at hand?

We do not know the answer yet, and so we have no way to tell what will be the ending in this tale of two lawyers.

* * * * *
Compounding our story is the image that Lawyers are given to lying, both in the interest of truth and in the pursuit of truth.

But Lawyers are also respected officers of the Court, first and foremost, and representatives of their clients, second.

On the basis of the first assumption we can have a clue on the possible ending of our tale, and on the basis of the second assumption the more we can have a probable clue on the ending of our tale.

* * * * *

ODDLY YOURS: If prostitution is considered the world's oldest profession, then lawyering may be the second most oldest. When the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian (527-565) rose to the throne in 527 his most impressive and lasting accomplishment was the codification of the Roman Law. He produced a textbook of legal principles in the "Corpus Juris Civilis", or the body of the civil law, said to be "the most remarkable and important lawbook that the world has ever seen."