Our Legal System is Broken

Kyleman93

Contributor
Messages
14
Likes
0
#1
I have several Instances in a current legal battle where the Federal Government is knowingly falsifying reports and destroying evidence to win their case. The two Attorneys representing myself in these cases have expressed that this is a repeated issue with the prosecution and all you can do is try and use their lies against them. I have it documented straight from the horses mouth where they are alleging events that are impossible at a molecular level are indeed possible despite numerous 3rd party experts and many pages of research and documentation to the contrary.

Two times in this battle I have won motions to suppress because of documented illegal search and seizure and I have to wonder if this has happened to me twice how far and wide does it go. I'm very aware that because I am in a legal battle my credibility falls below face value and I can not and will not disclose details pertaining to my active defense. Now because I am fighting these people at their own game they have filed Criminal Complaints in other districts(that I have never been to before) VIA Affidavit. How can this go unchecked? The government really is getting too big for their britches. This has the realistic possibility to drag on for several years because I am fighting tooth and nail the unjust justice system. How can you play the game if you don't have the same rules?
 

nomadjoanne

Est. Contributor
Messages
34
Likes
0
#2
This is very true. In fact, the larger problem is that most ex-British colonies (that is, Common Law countries) use what's called an adversarial system when it comes to prosecution. Here in continental Europe, the system is "inquisitorial." The differences is that in an inquisitorial system the prosecutor (that's not the job name but it's the closest Anglo correlate) has the job of inquiring into a case and seeing what action, if any, is legally required of the state. In some cases the state will even step to your defense if you are on trail criminally. Their promotions do not hang upon you being convicted or losing, nor are the police under the false impression that they somehow work for the prosecutor.

This is not the case elsewhere. If there is any evidence against you, you are the opponent of the state, which seeks to prove your guilt, as simple as that. This, coupled with a jury system (I'm sorry, but even mediocre judges are more qualified than average Joes and Janes) and a population that spends a lot of time watching unrealistic cop shows has created the modern US/UK prosecutorial state.

Best of luck in your legal battles!
 

Traemo

Est. Contributor
Messages
947
Likes
10
#3
The point of the jury isn't legal knowledge or qualifications. The point of a jury is that it IS made up of common, everyday people - who are expected to rule based on community values as codified into law. Dirty secret: at least in the US, a jury is under no obligation to return a guilty verdict even if there's no doubt the defendant did in fact commit the charged offense(s). In such a case, a judge cannot legally overrule the jury to make a guilty verdict. The inverse is not true, in particularly egregious cases a judge can set aside a guilty verdict, ruling the defendant innocent.
 

Azie

Poofhoof Princess!
Est. Contributor
Messages
368
Likes
5
#4
The point of the jury isn't legal knowledge or qualifications. The point of a jury is that it IS made up of common, everyday people - who are expected to rule based on community values as codified into law. Dirty secret: at least in the US, a jury is under no obligation to return a guilty verdict even if there's no doubt the defendant did in fact commit the charged offense(s). In such a case, a judge cannot legally overrule the jury to make a guilty verdict. The inverse is not true, in particularly egregious cases a judge can set aside a guilty verdict, ruling the defendant innocent.
Yes, Juries can even legally give a non-guilty verdict based on the caveat that they do not agree with the current law. Too bad if the prosecutor even catches wind about this, they will dismiss the juror faster than one could bat an eye. Its actually a great check in a legal system that is so secreted away it scary.

On that note, back to the OP. From reading your post, I get the feeling your are being blind sided by the evidence brought against you. Under only certain circumstances this is legally and morally wrong if its the case. And if it is, and it hasn't been done with a court order, or sensitive government data, then you should probably talk to your attorney (if you aren't resprenting yourself).
 

nomadjoanne

Est. Contributor
Messages
34
Likes
0
#5
@Traemo: Yes, but the jury isn't impartial. For God's sake, more attractive defendants get off more, more attractive prosecutors win a higher percentage of cases, even adjusting to other factors. We aren't all equally smart and I certainly believe that very few of us should be qualified to put someone behind bars for years. A tribunal isn't by any means bereft of bias (algorithms often perform better), but it does have less bias.
 

Slomo

Est. Contributor
Messages
6,557
Likes
16
#6
Not just our government, but businesses too. Our legal system is so bent towards the favor of orginazations with deep pockets that yes it is broken. Only the rich are innocent, and the quilty often have to go into debt to prove they aren't quilty.

I too can't go into much detail, but it's regarding solar system installs in florida. I'm already well past $10,000 in the hole for proving I was wronged by a company. And my case has yet to even be reviewed by a judge. If this had happened to an average paid person then there would be no justice for them, that's for sure.
 

Kyleman93

Contributor
Messages
14
Likes
0
#7
I have more than one Attorney on this case, I believe what you're referring to is called "Jinks Evidence."

I can't explain my case on here as it can be used against me, but it's the fabrication/destruction of evidence and deliberate misinterpretation/sidestepping of legal definitions that concerns me the most. The courts tendency to believe the guys with the shiny badge even when there is solid evidence to the contrary. The attorneys have in no uncertain terms said that they have seen the prosecution bring forth evidence or conveniently loose incriminating evidence and wouldn't be surprised if it happens in my case. I'm not so much as blindsided as disgusted at the behavior of the government
 

sallyanne

Est. Contributor
Messages
72
Likes
0
#8
This is very true. In fact, the larger problem is that most ex-British colonies (that is, Common Law countries) use what's called an adversarial system when it comes to prosecution. Here in continental Europe, the system is "inquisitorial." The differences is that in an inquisitorial system the prosecutor (that's not the job name but it's the closest Anglo correlate) has the job of inquiring into a case and seeing what action, if any, is legally required of the state. In some cases the state will even step to your defense if you are on trail criminally. Their promotions do not hang upon you being convicted or losing, nor are the police under the false impression that they somehow work for the prosecutor.

This is not the case elsewhere. If there is any evidence against you, you are the opponent of the state, which seeks to prove your guilt, as simple as that. This, coupled with a jury system (I'm sorry, but even mediocre judges are more qualified than average Joes and Janes) and a population that spends a lot of time watching unrealistic cop shows has created the modern US/UK prosecutorial state.

Best of luck in your legal battles!
Just asking... because this doesnt seem correct. AS far as my admittedly limited understanding goes, adversarial court systems are the standard pretty much everywhere. What you are saying sounds very different from the idea of a prosecutor, defendant/defence and judge/jury that we all know. The point of a jury tho is to assess the case put forward by both sides and to decide and it works pretty well.
 

SisterSister

doggy-doggy
Est. Contributor
Messages
61
Likes
0
#9
I have more than one Attorney on this case, I believe what you're referring to is called "Jinks Evidence."

I can't explain my case on here as it can be used against me, but it's the fabrication/destruction of evidence and deliberate misinterpretation/sidestepping of legal definitions that concerns me the most. The courts tendency to believe the guys with the shiny badge even when there is solid evidence to the contrary. The attorneys have in no uncertain terms said that they have seen the prosecution bring forth evidence or conveniently loose incriminating evidence and wouldn't be surprised if it happens in my case. I'm not so much as blindsided as disgusted at the behavior of the government
in your post, your use of the term "government" is in reference to which particular local, state, or federal authority?
 

AddyShadows

Est. Contributor
Messages
879
Likes
4
#10
The statement "Our legal system is broken" is an understatement. Thats all I have to say about that without probably stepping on some toes and bunching up some people's diapers :p lol
 

sallyanne

Est. Contributor
Messages
72
Likes
0
#11
The statement "Our legal system is broken" is an understatement. Thats all I have to say about that without probably stepping on some toes and bunching up some people's diapers :p lol
I think most people would agree there are major problems with it, but the real issue is that how would you fix it? One way of course is to have way more money for judges, courts and investigators to do a thorough and speedy process. I have problems with the Appeals process. When a convicted felon literally has DNA evidence that can prove their innocence, how is that not something that is 'done tomorrow' instead of having to jump thru multiple hoops and courts only to be deied for 'procedural reasons'?

But I ask again, what legal system would you have that is better? One of the major problems is that the law itself is often arcane and is 30 years out of date in so many things, but that is a political question, not a legal one.

so... thoughts?
 

nomadjoanne

Est. Contributor
Messages
34
Likes
0
#12
I think most people would agree there are major problems with it, but the real issue is that how would you fix it? One way of course is to have way more money for judges, courts and investigators to do a thorough and speedy process. I have problems with the Appeals process. When a convicted felon literally has DNA evidence that can prove their innocence, how is that not something that is 'done tomorrow' instead of having to jump thru multiple hoops and courts only to be deied for 'procedural reasons'?

But I ask again, what legal system would you have that is better? One of the major problems is that the law itself is often arcane and is 30 years out of date in so many things, but that is a political question, not a legal one.

so... thoughts?
Part of the problem is that the US puts people behind bars a lot, and for a lot longer time than elsewhere. This already overburdens the system. Lightening up penalties and not stripping felons of many of their rights as citizens would at least somewhat improve it. But you are certainly right about the appeals process. 100% agree.

Another part, however, is cultural. Elsewhere, a job inquiring about someone's criminal history would be a scandal. The idea that employers do this and make it incredibly difficult for felons in the US to get jobs after getting out of prison is absolutely ridiculous. We shouldn't be surprised that so many people end up right back where they were... behind bars.
 

Slomo

Est. Contributor
Messages
6,557
Likes
16
#13
I think most people would agree there are major problems with it, but the real issue is that how would you fix it? One way of course is to have way more money for judges, courts and investigators to do a thorough and speedy process. I have problems with the Appeals process. When a convicted felon literally has DNA evidence that can prove their innocence, how is that not something that is 'done tomorrow' instead of having to jump thru multiple hoops and courts only to be deied for 'procedural reasons'?

But I ask again, what legal system would you have that is better? One of the major problems is that the law itself is often arcane and is 30 years out of date in so many things, but that is a political question, not a legal one.

so... thoughts?
Well. I've seen some proposals along the lines of where you can't pick your own lawyer, and both sides get an indepent lawyer appointed no matter what. I've also seen one proposal where any money either side wants to spend must go into a pot and split equally by both parties involved. Another one was to have streamlined requirements and time frames for following the process.

Now I can see right away how any one of these would have problems with implimenting. They may be good starting points though.
 

PaddedStag

Contributor
Messages
4
Likes
0
#14
My experiences with the judicial/criminal system is this-
Whoever has the most $$$, wins (or exhausts the entire process the other party throws-in the towel)
 

Kyleman93

Contributor
Messages
14
Likes
0
#15
I say sharper penalties and stricter enforcement of the truth. As it stands, A officer of the law can testify to one fact then "remember" it another way further down the line no questions asked. The prosecution only has to release enough in the discovery to "reasonably" defend the case leaving lots of stones left unturned.
 
Last edited:

Traemo

Est. Contributor
Messages
947
Likes
10
#16
The standard isn't "reasonable" it's "relevant" - failure on the part of the prosecution to provide, during discovery, all evidence, affidavits, and related materials intended for use during the prosecution often results in dismissal with prejudice. There are a few, very narrow, exceptions to Full Disclosure during discovery, mostly related to the utterly unexpected or improbable.
 

LittleManAlex

Est. Contributor
Messages
417
Likes
1
#17
I know here in NZ, the system is not so much broken as it is Illegal. Constitutional Law is a hobby of mine, not just in terms of what a constitution allows, but also what a constitution requires and issues of sovereignty. I could get really really in depth, but I'm not too sure how many could be bothered to read it all, so I'll explain as simple as possible.

The New Zealand Government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches) have no lawful authority to exist, let alone operate within the borders of New Zealand. When New Zealand gained Full Independence in 1920 it was governed by the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, a law passed by the Parliament in the UK. Upon Independence this Act ceased to have lawful authority with NZ but was still used until 1986 when it was replaced with the New Zealand Constitution Act 1986, this time passed in NZ, by a parliament that had no lawful authority to pass it. The New Zealand Constitutional system, draws it's entire authority from a foreign nation, making the government an Illegal offshoot of the UK one. There is alot more to it... but that is the basics.
 
Top