In Defense of Truth: by Emory Caudill

 The Devil's Advocate 

&

The American Pursuit of Justice

In an era of polarized discourse and fragile public trust, few concepts offer more relevance than the ancient and often misunderstood role of the "Devil's Advocate." To many, the phrase evokes someone who argues for the sake of argument, perhaps even mischievously or cynically to defend evil. But its true origin—and its profound application to American justice—reveals a sacred commitment to truth.

The Origin: Advocatus Diaboli

The term "Devil's Advocate" originates from the Catholic Church's formal canonization process. Established under Pope Sixtus V in 1587, the office of the "Promoter of the Faith"—popularly known as advocatus diaboli—was tasked with arguing against the canonization of a proposed saint. The purpose? To rigorously test the evidence for sainthood, uncover any inconsistencies or exaggerations, and ensure that truth—not emotion or popular sentiment—prevailed.

This adversarial method was not an act of cynicism. It was reverence. The Church understood that truth, particularly when it serves the public good, must be tested to be trusted. Only when the cause for sainthood withstood such scrutiny was it considered worthy of official recognition.

Yet, history reminds us that even noble ideals can be twisted into injustice. The fervor to expose falsehood sometimes became a torch in the hands of zealotry. In later centuries, this thirst for "proof" of moral failing devolved into hysteria, culminating in witch trials where innocents were drowned or burned under the guise of testing their virtue. The pendulum had swung too far—justice had become theater, and truth a casualty of fear.

American Justice: A Theological Inheritance

Centuries later, the American legal system adopted a similar model. The adversarial nature of our courts, with its plaintiff and defendant, prosecutor and defense attorney, mirrors the same logic. We do not assume guilt. We test it. We do not presume truth. We prove it.

When witnesses take the stand and swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God," they invoke a sacred standard. The invocation of God is not symbolic—it is aspirational. It binds the pursuit of justice to a higher moral law, one that demands truth be revealed through process, argument, and evidence.

Justice for All: Not a Fantasy

But what happens when this process is short-circuited? When partisanship, prejudice, or power imbalance prevents scrutiny? Justice becomes performance. Verdicts become theater. And the phrase "justice for all" starts to sound like fantasy.

This is where the true spirit of the Devil's Advocate must be revived. Not to deny truth, but to demand it. Not to obstruct justice, but to protect it from complacency and bias. Every time we argue the hard side of a case, every time we challenge popular assumptions or test sacred cows, we are participating in a tradition that spans from the Vatican to the Constitution.

The Sacred Duty of Dissent

True advocates of justice—be they lawyers, journalists, whistleblowers, or citizen plaintiffs—must embrace the role of sacred skeptic. The one who says: "Let’s run this through the fire. If it’s real, it will survive. If it’s not, we’ve just prevented injustice from prevailing."

To be a Devil’s Advocate in this original sense is not to side with evil. It is to stand guard against illusion. It is to believe so deeply in truth that we are willing to interrogate it. Because truth, like gold, shines brighter when refined by flame.

A Verdict Worth Believing In

Our society must not fear adversarial discourse—we must cherish it. Only through open challenge can we approach anything resembling truth. Only through truth can we administer justice. And only through justice can we fulfill the American promise of liberty and equity for all.

Let us then honor the Devil’s Advocate—not as a contrarian, but as a patriot of truth. So help us God.

Beyond the Flame: Addressing Modern Misuse and the Future Role of AI

However, the modern misuse of the Devil’s Advocate role deserves scrutiny. Too often, it has been hijacked not to clarify truth, but to obscure it—used by high-dollar corporate law firms as a delay tactic to consume court resources and derail timely settlements that could have been reached through common sense and good faith.

This distortion burdens the justice system, turning the adversarial process into a theater of attrition. Courtroom theater, where strategy often replaces substance, reveals how far the pendulum can swing. It becomes less about truth and more about which law firm is most skilled at tying the hands of truth and blowing enough smoke to sway jurors. Justice, in such settings, is not delivered but dramatized.

This is precisely where emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence can play a redemptive role. AI, when transparently trained and ethically deployed, holds the potential to cut through obfuscation, analyze complex evidence without bias, and assist in narrowing the gap between legal theory and moral truth. It can elevate transparency, flag patterns of legal manipulation, and help judges and juries reach fact-based, expedited conclusions—serving as a new kind of Devil’s Advocate that seeks not to win, but to reveal.

Let us ensure that in both tradition and innovation, our devotion remains not to victory—but to truth.

In this light, AI may become the child who finally declares the emperor has no clothes. It has the potential to pierce through the institutional illusions that many have accepted as normal—revealing a corporate justice system that functions less as a protector of rights and more as a business enterprise. Like frogs lulled into a slow boil, we’ve been conditioned to tolerate injustice cloaked in legal process.

Corporations, with their superhuman lifespans and resources, often resemble legal vampires—able to drain plaintiffs dry while dancing through loopholes with impunity. This system, navigated and perpetuated by attorneys who climb into political power or onto the bench, leaves the common man as a beggar at the gates of power. The ideal of 'justice for all' fades into a backdrop for their pursuit of wealth and prestige.
Corporations are not inherently evil; many provide immense value and innovation. However, the Citizens United decision expanded their influence to a degree our founders never envisioned, effectively unlocking constraints that were meant to mirror those placed upon government—namely, that individual rights are the zenith of any constitutional structure.

Left unchecked, corporate fiduciary responsibility becomes the guiding star, often overriding the ethical or civic good. When money is equated to speech and protected as such, the only remaining corrective force becomes economic consequence: public exposure, loss of consumer trust, falling stock prices. Only then, under market pressure, do corporate boards tend to correct course toward what is fair and proper.

AI, if unshackled from these same systems of influence, may offer the impartiality and integrity that human institutions have struggled to maintain. But only if we remain vigilant in shaping it to serve justice—not just efficiency.

Yet even as we look to reform, we cannot ignore the tensions boiling over in our streets today. Violent protests erupting in physical harm are not mere outbursts—they are symptoms of a deep societal wound, one rooted in the perception that justice is out of reach. History shows us this is not new. When people feel unheard, when power seems immune to accountability, they have historically come with torches, just as villagers once did when faced with institutions that ignored their cries.

But we must rise above this. We, as peaceful advocates, must reject the path of destruction and instead demand equality and justice for all through methods that reflect the very ideals we seek to restore. The true revolution will not come through chaos, but through clarity—by exposing injustice, uplifting truth, and transforming protest into purpose.

 AdvocateWriter.com—a platform committed to restoring truth, empowering voices, and reforming justice for all.

example of corporations to aplaud, who did what is right and just:

A Taxpayer Denial Led to a Heavier Price to Pay

 By Emory Caudill — AdvocateWriter.com

There are moments in life when you don’t choose to become an advocate.
Circumstances force your hand.
This is one of the true stories that happened to me with an outcome to be praised

It was around 2006 I suppose when I was riding my Harley onto an Arizona freeway onramp inside lane. A car drifted over into my lane just into the turn without warning. Arizona law requires motorcyclists to avoid a collision if at all possible, and that’s exactly what I did.

I moved left into the shoulder debris, I dodged instead of parried, my back tire got squirrely and luckily the lady moved over.  My left foot hit the curb or concrete footer- still not sure- but I knew instantly my left ankle and leg went radial in an instant, but, hey I stayed on the hog and survived the surrounding traffic with screams into the wind and it wasn’t hallelujah at that moment.

 Engine was chugging, adrenaline pumping, I did what riders I rode with would do without ability to down shift, throttle up to keep from going down — I kept it upright, throttled forward, and exited at the next off-ramp from the freeway with a broken leg pointing to exit left while I was flashing exit right. I called the sheriff from the side of the road holding the bike up with my right foot just the right height of the curb.  Trying to breathe through the pain and throbbing kicking in with the sun beading down on me, feeling faint, I told the dispatcher I was going to pass out. Grabbed my pant leg set my boot on the jiffy stand and pushed down with a scream then slid off the right side.  I could hear the dispatcher saying what is doing on.  Hit the ground phone went sliding. 

Emergency crews found me finally after the dispatcher got some clues to where I was at.

Surgery followed.

Then came the part that shouldn’t hurt — but often hurts worse:

Dealing with the insurance company.

My First Request: Not for Me — but for the Taxpayers

Lying in a hospital bed, leg and ancle freshly operated on, I called my insurance company. I had full coverage. I had done everything right. Medicare had stepped in to cover the emergency care, but Medicare isn’t a free ride — it’s taxpayer-funded aside from my 20%.

So my request was simple, ethical, and completely justified: “Please reimburse Medicare, that’s it”

That was it.
No demand for pain and suffering.
No demand for a payout for myself.
Just a call to do the right thing.

I spoke clearly. I gave a full statement. I provided everything they needed.

Their answer?

Denied.

No contact with the other vehicle, they said.
Therefore, no comprehensive coverage.
Therefore, not their problem. Well they did say it nicely.

It was a dismissal not just of my claim — but of me.
And that part matters, because I wasn’t a novice. Talked to a rider buddy Daniel Boon about my accident and the insurance company response and he to told me of another fella that got denied and there was an Arizona law about that if no contact is made because we riders have a duty to try and avoid an accident. I checked it out and he was right. So decided to call them bask this time with a recorder.

I Wasn’t Just a Claimant — I Was a Proven Pro Per Advocate

I had already handled multiple matters myself as a successful pro per advocate. I understood how to present a claim. I knew how to cite statutes. I knew how to reason through liability.

And I knew, with absolute clarity, that their denial wasn’t just wrong — it was unfair.

But they didn’t care in a polite manner, despite the evidence was clear, law was on my side.

Still, the answer was no.

They refused to reimburse the taxpayers, they refused to acknowledge that evasive action was legally required, they refused to treat me — or the public — fairly.

 That was the moment the advocate in me kicked into high gear.

A One-Page Letter That Cost Them $100,000 - on the first round

 Once I healed enough, I hired a law firm.
I played them the recorded call.
They reviewed the 911 logs and the facts.

Then they wrote a one-page demand letter only now it would cost them more.

The content?  The same words I had said.
The same legal reasoning. The same request — but this time, instead of saying:

“Reimburse the taxpayers,” they reasonably demanded:

“Pay the full policy amount of $100,000.”  The insurance company agreed immediately.

No fight.
No hesitation.
No argument.

The exact reasoning they denied from me was approved the moment it came from an attorney.

Is how many people lose valid claims simply because they don’t have representation — not because their case lacks merit. But it shouldn’t be that way.

The Settlement — and What Came After

 The settlement process moved quickly:  My attorney negotiated down Medicare’s reimbursement.

• Medicare was paid.

• I paid my law firm their one-third fee of $33,333. and 33 cents.

• The remainder — compensation for pain and suffering after a disabling injury — was substantial and deserved.  

But for me, something was unresolved.  They had denied the taxpayers before they ever denied me, I felt Medicare was like some sort of an insurance company medical slush fund, an incentive to deny those disabled their just pain and suffering compensation, heck they been through enough pain and suffering most don’t realize.

And I could not let that go.

Reopening What They Said Was “Closed Forever” 

After all the checks were cashed and paperwork finalized, I sent the insurer notice: 

“I’m reopening the claim.” Their response was predictable: “You can’t do that. The case is closed.”

But I reminded them:

• I was forced to hire legal counsel only because they dismissed my legitimate claim. 

• I was capable of handling my own case. 

• The attorney simply restated, basically, what I had already told them. 

• The only difference was the dollar amount which was way more and that I was a pro per. 

• They denied taxpayers the reimbursement I sought — then paid far more than what Medicare ever asked for.  As the matter climbed the internal corporate ladder, I provided them with the recorded call.

I let them know, clearly:

“If needed, I will make case law that impacts the entire industry.”

 A little while later before Chrismas they called and the lady on the phone so nicely stated:

“We agree to pay you the “additional moneys requested: $33,333.33”

No nondisclosure agreement.
No restrictions.
Just a quiet acknowledgment their lower level employees were in the wrong. What a great company.

Justice, Integrity, and the Price of Dismissal

In the end, the company paid:

• $100,000.00

• plus $33,333.33 more

All because lower level agents ignored a valid, ethical, taxpayer-centered request when it came from a pro per advocate — but honored it when a lawyer repeated the same thing.

They denied the smaller amount.
They paid the bigger one.

The taxpayer denial cost them a heavier price.

Why I Advocate

I still insure with Geico today, and who I suggest to all who would ask my suggestion of insurance.  Because ultimately, they corrected their mistake before it became a discussion in the public fora. I tell people they’re fair — because when given the chance to avoid responsibility, they chose instead to do the right thing and despite feeling angry at first, dialogue proved superior.

.

Author’s Note

This story is part of the foundation of AdvocateWriter.com — a place where experience, integrity, and real-world advocacy come together. If you’ve ever felt dismissed, ignored, or overpowered by a system built to outlast you, know this:

You’re not alone.
And you don’t have to be silent.