yes, like they got the youngsters' social security bucks!!! -- j
.

and what do you call a busload of lawyers going
over a cliff with two empty seats? -- j

p.s. judicial watch is currently gaining
ground on the Clinton crime family.......
.

yes, but I get really pissed about the rule of regulating
bureaucrats in the executive branch ... many of whom
are lawyers! -- j
.

Plus the looters will seize the funds under specious asset forfeiture.

Well, that rule is in large part BECAUSE of regulations, so if the good-guy lawyers get rid of them, the sharks won't have as many jobs. I have seen the amazingly good jobs those institutes have done defending individual rights. check them out if you haven't. (btw - you heard the one about why sharks don't eat lawyers? Professional courtesy!)

"don't you fear that the lawyer route will just continue the rule of lawyers"
I would rather have rule by the rules of lawyers than the rule by individual people.

don't you fear that the lawyer route will just continue
the rule of lawyers who aren't really revolutionaries? -- j
.

I think it's something to look into and consider. I'd want the careful thoughts of pro-freedom lawyers who understand the ins-and-outs of these things, e.g. people from the Institute for Justice, Timothy Sandefur from the Pacific Legal Foundation, Judicial Watch, etc.

The devil will be in the details.

yes -- downward spiral. . awshucks. -- j
.

Putting money into a fund to defend folks in litigation over refusal to obey regulations from the executive branch is not worthwhile. It encourages them to make more laws that have no basis in an Objective society. This idea reminds me of what Floyd Ferris said to Rearden about the purpose of regulations.