legal-costs is a j0ke..because the whole of the law rests on an implied deception..of constituted social contract..

see there is civil-law..[contract law
which must be used only under a valid contract
made between equalparties with full disclosure..further that there be a dispute..of contracted terms

[present..in court..in its original condition
the other type of law is criminal law..[where a LIVING being..sues for injury]..the dead[ie state corporations ploice force etc arnt 'living entities' ..thus cant be injured..thus cant sue under criminal law

there are ways to strip..our free born standing..eg by becoming a ward[the legal term is imbecile..or a ward of the court..via previous ruling for injury

reghardlesss legalaid is agreat scam
the lawyer is regarded as a servant of tre court..![his/her..jopb is tosee the courts time isnt wasted..if he does it right6he can become a judge..or a politition[60 percent of our polies are or were lawyers

yet alllaws are writtenby lawyers
judged by lawyers..[irecallthe aborigonallegal aid was set up..togain guilty plesse[see once yopuplead..you loose standing[become a ward of the court

anyhowe legal aid is a great little earner
pk onl;yua few hundred per guiltyplea..but 10 or twenty of them..is still thousands for a morning of getting guilty please

just the drug law[in1999]..alone raised 65 million in fines
how muchlegal aid?..20 out off 21 plead guil;ty..of owing..lol

possesing a plant
that under law..is regarded as a fixture..[belonging to 'the land'
[not a fungible..ie a tradeable commodity..able to be possed

if your 'in court'..remember the court ONLY has control over the stuff it created under the act..ie [licence/marriage certificate..contracts..butbiff you swallow the lie that they are you

[thats your problem

i seek no remedy from.the court your honour
but if you have an injured party..or a valid contract..i will listen to your OFFER*

its all bluff..no informmed concent
[yet silence signifies concent..do not stay silent..
no crime..no contract..no injured party..please go away..
or i begin charging you..for wasting my time..[1 oz gold perhour..or part there-of]

have a nice day*..eh?

Of course a couple of the usual suspects would, given the opportunity, replace legal aid with legal torture. The rack and the thumb screws would be very busy under their regime. They would extract the "truth" from those gatecrashers and undesirables.
Indy, my slant is justice for all.

See I was having these same thoughts, the whole cost-benefit, guilty-innocent arguments.

My idea to improve legal aid, is to privatise it as an insurance.

Consider:

For basic coverage of $5 a week to this legal insurance firm you can be freely protected against actions brought against you and also receive legal advice (conveyancing, etc) included.

For comprehensive coverage of $15 a week you have all the benefits of the above plus free actions that you initiate (negligence, etc).

The idea of the process in my mind provides everyone with affordable legal aid but can still have freedom from paying for something they dont want (called a tax)

My thoughs are that for every Australian having a basic coverage it is reasonable to think 20000000*5= a business turnover of $100,000,000 a week, or $5.2billion a year. Just on basic.
Ideas?

good point ..re the tax..for defending the criminal..[how about another levy on smokers]

of course only the smokers..will pay for it
as smoking is a crime

but it will only be
yet another cash grab..for making lawyers richer
[heck next thing we will need to pay a top up
or go to..jail for fraud..simply
by PLEADING..not guilty

[when..we refuse the lawyer
the/his ..promised guilty plea deal*..and insist upon a jury of peers..that may be informed..of the right*..PLUS DUTY..
to judge the law as well as the 'crime'

[see jury-nullification]
[just dont ever admit knowing about that..if selected for jury..'service'

[see that the judge cedes
his statuted right..to revenue raise..as remedy]

by rights..the judgment order alone..is the value
just like a money bond..its payable..by simply signing the order
[but its then become subject to the contracted terms of the bond[any signature creates a joinder with contract..it gives life to]

if forced to sign..sign it in a box
recall..jury sits in a box..[in a box means
technically..its not there]..just as a cross refuses/cancels..the contract

but sans[without]..INFORMED consent..its all fraud
recall..this anytime your required..to make..your MARK*

*your signature..is the mark/of the beast..as it takes the living..into..the realm of paper..[con-tract]..get it

the dead..corporation./.lord it over the living beings
using deceit..to drain ever more..life blood[cash].. from stoners /smokers/and the imbeciles..

*signing unilateral license..to..make legal
..that otherwise would be criminal..[unlawful]..they arnt the same thing

what is being done is legal[for those informed]
but otherwise ..s totally fraud..[un-lawful]

any..offer..must be signed..FIRST
any judgment order..you sign first is merely you making your offer

is that what you signed..your offer
or their offer..the imbecile accepted..unlawfully..[plus under duress]

Family law is an example of where what was originally designed as a low cost, self-represented solution for dissolving a marriage has become a complex and expensive legal process, where the court itself expects legal representation.

How many separating and divorcing couples have lost their assets of a lifetime and ended up with a legal bill still owing because it is now the lawyers and court that family law serves and the public are victimised twice?

You can get divorced for about $300 and you don't need a lawyer thanks to Labor's Lionel Murphy back in the 1970's. If the conservatives had their way you would still have to prove adultery or some such guff, plus $50,000 later, that is the conservative way.