By T.J. Monson

“26 For behold, have I testified against your law? Ye do not understand; ye say that I have spoken against your law; but I have not, but I have spoken in favor of your law, to your condemnation.

 27 And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges.” (Book of Mormon)

A Trust is basically a monopoly that conspires against the marketplace. Lawyers in Utah have, in effect, created a monopoly that protects its own from prosecution and following the laws of the state.

In a feeble attempt to shield itself from anti-trust cases, the State if Utah and the Bar permit pro-se representation in the Courts, but the man or woman who represents himself in a Utah Court soon finds out how powerless they are going up against Utah’s most powerful monopoly.

Lawyers are part of the Utah Bar Monopoly. Judges and Lawmakers were part of the Bar. To be a Utah Lawyer you have to pass the Bar Exam. In other words, when you challenge a corrupt lawyer or judge in Utah, the success of your case is totally dependent on whether or not the Attorney or Judge is in favor with the Utah Monopoly.

This Monopoly needs to be challenged and dismantled. The State of Utah needs to separate itself from the Bar and the General public need to demand citizen oversight of the Utah Bar.

Justice shouldn’t be dependent on the whims of a Cartel of Utah Lawyers. Justice should be available to all, both lawyers and those they victimize. Here is the Federal Anti-Trust Law in a nutshell.

Private civil suits may be brought, in both state and federal court, against violators of state and federal antitrust law. Federal antitrust laws, as well as most state laws, provide for triple damages against antitrust violators in order to encourage private lawsuit enforcement of antitrust law. Thus, if a company is sued for monopolizing a market and the jury concludes the conduct resulted in consumers’ being overcharged $200,000, that amount will automatically be tripled, so the injured consumers will receive $600,000. The United States Supreme Court summarized why Congress authorized private antitrust lawsuits in the case Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 405 U.S. 251, 262 (1972):

Every violation of the antitrust laws is a blow to the free-enterprise system envisaged by Congress. This system depends on strong competition for its health and vigor, and strong competition depends, in turn, on compliance with antitrust legislation. In enacting these laws, Congress had many means at its disposal to penalize violators. It could have, for example, required violators to compensate federal, state, and local governments for the estimated damage to their respective economies caused by the violations. But, this remedy was not selected. Instead, Congress chose to permit all persons to sue to recover three times their actual damages every time they were injured in their business or property by an antitrust violation. By offering potential litigants the prospect of a recovery in three times the amount of their damages, Congress encouraged these persons to serve as “private attorneys general”.