I've had to go up against lawyers alone, without any legal help. For the most part I've found that if they can't get by with a half-truth, twisted into innuendo to suit their narrative, they will out-right lie. Not matter what you say or do that supports your case, they will inevitably claim that you didn't say or do it. And then wail about unfairness that you only present your side of the story, as does Holden and Carr for example, who tout themselves as, "we play to win" with an "aggressive onslaught" .
Over the last several decades, the Supreme Court of the United States has been consistently hostile to people with disabilities of all kinds, and those cases are hard to win. Unless a client with disabilities is rich enough to pay them no matter what, as under- or unemployed people with disabilities rarely are, lawyers will typically avoid disabled clients like the plague. All lawyers have a recognized duty to do pro bono work. But they generally satisfy it with only the easiest cases, old or poor people with simple problems, or with criminal cases where at least the courts must pay them a standard fee. But when it comes to disability cases, lawyers have no Noblesse Oblige, just an "aggressive onslaught" from the other side, depicting such essays as this as "irrelevant" and "long diatribes".
So we have no one to fight for us against abuses of parens patriae, the parental power and alleged duty of the State to look after and manage the lives of those who allegedly can't do so for themselves. We are forced onto the dole because many don't want to work with or next to us. Or want to relegate us to the jobs that no one else wants to do, far below both our abilities to contribute and our need to make life meaningful and worthwhile. So when we feel and speak out the hopelessness of our situations, the State conflates (a favorite word of the High Court) this with an inability to manager our own lives, and steps in with a heavy and ham-fisted hand to suppress it.
Parens patriae, is more than just the exercise of humane compassion; it is the excuse of parental tyrants. Witness sweet old Uncle Joe Stalin, who killed more of his own people than Hitler. The Supreme Court has justified it repeatedly with the "overriding interest" and fears of the State in allegedly protecting the public from the likes of us. Not unlike that of Stalinists protecting the People's State from the dangers of anti-State thought and action. Or Oklahoma's laws making it a near-crime merely to be accused of being threatening while mentally ill, with some of the harshest and most permanent and demeaning kinds of civil penalties.
In demanding that judges and lawyers step aside in the face of this power, as unqualified to dispute it, the High Court has made the courts and lawyers complicit in all its abuses. Turning the alleged protections of due process into mere pretense.
With only the very few exceptions that prove the rule,
the lawyers and law schools protesteth not. "