 |
Uncensored Justice System Discussion
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:22 pm Post subject: Do American citizens need more law centers? |
 |
|
Do we need more law centers like the Southern Poverty Law Center, or for that matter, the Innocence Project?
Given the state of our current "criminal justice" system, and the way the state tends to stack the deck as high as it can against any accused person charged with a crime, I've come to believe that the answer is an emphatic YES. Because right now, I don't think we have nearly enough of them. I also think it should be a network of non-profit law centers, under one name.
The way I see it, such a center would be considerably larger than the ones we now have. I've been doing a lot of thinking and listing over the last two weeks, of what such a network of law centers would offer to citizens, and this is what I've come up with so far, including a name:
Civics And Law Centers Of America
(C.A.L.C.O.A.)
Project Objectives (as of 3/24/09)
Item and Description (what project needs to achieve)
1. Inform and educate all citizens who want to know more about civics, law and government.
2. Inform all citizens, whether lawyers or not, what their legal rights are if they are ever accused of a crime.
3. Provide knowledge of civics, law and government to all citizens in the form of books, magazines, and internet articles or websites.
4. Provide quick access to local attorneys if they need legal information or advice.
5. Provide access to free and low-cost ($5-$25) civics and law classes for anyone who wants to have class instruction with an informal approach.
6. Provide easy access to food and restrooms to patrons of the Center.
Project Design
Item and Description (what project needs to build)
1. Full-service law library for everyone, both lawyers and non-lawyers.
2. Separate general library for non-fiction books and magazines on civics, law and government.
3. Separate reading room within the general library for studying, plus use of computers for internet access and research work.
4. Conference rooms, large, medium and small, to hold classes and large meetings. Small conference rooms to hold meetings between lawyers and potential clients.
5. Comfortably-sized cafeteria that provides room for expansion to include more services. Restrooms for patrons.
Such a network of law centers could, with enough personnel and educational resources, achieve the goal of giving ALL citizens, whether they're lawyers or not, more knowledge of their city, state's and federal government's laws, and even more importantly, what their legal rights are as well.
Right now, of course, this is only a dream, but that doesn't mean it couldn't become a reality one day. Which I personally think would benefit everyone. My question is, what would YOU add that could make it even better? We need as many new ideas as we can come up with. 
J1 
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954
Last edited by JUSTICE1st on Wed May 06, 2009 4:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
That would be a resounding YES from me!
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SaberGal wrote: | | That would be a resounding YES from me! |
With the violations of the law during criminal trials committed by officials who should know better, such as in the Jude LaCour case you just presented, I hope a lot more people will agree!
I know that it's not a good idea for a person to try and represent him/herself in court, especially for a criminal case, but there are so many who don't know what the rules of law are to begin with. And who's going to educate the average citizen? Law enforcement officials? I don't think so!
J
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JUSTICE1st wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | That would be a resounding YES from me! |
With the violations of the law during criminal trials committed by officials who should know better, such as in the Jude LaCour case you just presented, I hope a lot more people will agree!
I know that it's not a good idea for a person to try and represent him/herself in court, especially for a criminal case, but there are so many who don't know what the rules of law are to begin with. And who's going to educate the average citizen? Law enforcement officials? I don't think so!
J |
You are absolutely right! In the LaCour case, he was basically forced to go pro se. I will go into further detail about that situation in his forum. In spite of the odds against him, the jury was hung until the judge basically forced them to come to a verdict.
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SaberGal wrote: | | JUSTICE1st wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | That would be a resounding YES from me! |
With the violations of the law during criminal trials committed by officials who should know better, such as in the Jude LaCour case you just presented, I hope a lot more people will agree!
I know that it's not a good idea for a person to try and represent him/herself in court, especially for a criminal case, but there are so many who don't know what the rules of law are to begin with. And who's going to educate the average citizen? Law enforcement officials? I don't think so!
J |
You are absolutely right! In the LaCour case, he was basically forced to go pro se. I will go into further detail about that situation in his forum. In spite of the odds against him, the jury was hung until the judge basically forced them to come to a verdict. |
I read in one state's criminal procedures statutes book that "Contact between the judge and jury is prohibited." There's no wiggle room here, no exceptions. I find it appalling, to say the least, that a judge who is supposed to be THE authority when a criminal case gets to trial would deliberately bend or break the rules of law he/she is supposed to uphold!
I can't help but think that such a blatant violation would bring the judge a charge of Obstruction of Justice against him or her. At the very least, a judge who does that should be yanked OFF the bench while awaiting the result of an investigation into his/her conduct.
J
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JUSTICE1st wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | JUSTICE1st wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | That would be a resounding YES from me! |
With the violations of the law during criminal trials committed by officials who should know better, such as in the Jude LaCour case you just presented, I hope a lot more people will agree!
I know that it's not a good idea for a person to try and represent him/herself in court, especially for a criminal case, but there are so many who don't know what the rules of law are to begin with. And who's going to educate the average citizen? Law enforcement officials? I don't think so!
J |
You are absolutely right! In the LaCour case, he was basically forced to go pro se. I will go into further detail about that situation in his forum. In spite of the odds against him, the jury was hung until the judge basically forced them to come to a verdict. |
I read in one state's criminal procedures statutes book that "Contact between the judge and jury is prohibited." There's no wiggle room here, no exceptions. I find it appalling, to say the least, that a judge who is supposed to be THE authority when a criminal case gets to trial would deliberately bend or break the rules of law he/she is supposed to uphold!
I can't help but think that such a blatant violation would bring the judge a charge of Obstruction of Justice against him or her. At the very least, a judge who does that should be yanked OFF the bench while awaiting the result of an investigation into his/her conduct.
J |
I could not agree more. This judge is 80 years old and has not been concerned about appellate issues at all since he took over the case. One can't help but draw the conclusion that is specifically why he was hand-picked (yet another law broken in this case) by the prosecution. According to the filings, he inserted himself into the case at least a full month before he ever had approval from Chief Justice Roberts to do so.
From what I have been able to find, in federal court, whenever the judge holds ex parte proceedings with a jury, especially during deliberations, an evidentiary hearing (at the very least) needs to be conducted to determine what went on and if the jurors felt coerced in any way.
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUSTICE1st
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Posts: 715
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SaberGal wrote: | | JUSTICE1st wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | JUSTICE1st wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | That would be a resounding YES from me! |
With the violations of the law during criminal trials committed by officials who should know better, such as in the Jude LaCour case you just presented, I hope a lot more people will agree!
I know that it's not a good idea for a person to try and represent him/herself in court, especially for a criminal case, but there are so many who don't know what the rules of law are to begin with. And who's going to educate the average citizen? Law enforcement officials? I don't think so!
J |
You are absolutely right! In the LaCour case, he was basically forced to go pro se. I will go into further detail about that situation in his forum. In spite of the odds against him, the jury was hung until the judge basically forced them to come to a verdict. |
I read in one state's criminal procedures statutes book that "Contact between the judge and jury is prohibited." There's no wiggle room here, no exceptions. I find it appalling, to say the least, that a judge who is supposed to be THE authority when a criminal case gets to trial would deliberately bend or break the rules of law he/she is supposed to uphold!
I can't help but think that such a blatant violation would bring the judge a charge of Obstruction of Justice against him or her. At the very least, a judge who does that should be yanked OFF the bench while awaiting the result of an investigation into his/her conduct.
J |
I could not agree more. This judge is 80 years old and has not been concerned about appellate issues at all since he took over the case. One can't help but draw the conclusion that is specifically why he was hand-picked (yet another law broken in this case) by the prosecution. According to the filings, he inserted himself into the case at least a full month before he ever had approval from Chief Justice Roberts to do so.
From what I have been able to find, in federal court, whenever the judge holds ex parte proceedings with a jury, especially during deliberations, an evidentiary hearing (at the very least) needs to be conducted to determine what went on and if the jurors felt coerced in any way. |
I definitely agree, and I'm not sure if the judge should be in the hearing room, as the jurors being questioned might feel a bit intimidated by the judge's presence there. They should be free to divulge exactly what the judge said during the time he was with them, without worrying what the judge might do in retaliation against the jurors in that case for speaking out against him.
I also think that this requirement, if it IS a requirement, should apply to state criminal cases too, if a judge goes into a jury room during deliberations, out of the hearing of everyone else. Why should a judge be allowed to get away with bending or breaking the rules of law simply because one is the judge? Answer; NO judge should!
J
_________________
"We must remember, always, that accusation is not proof, and conviction depends on evidence and due process of law."
EDWARD R. MURROW, 1954 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SaberGal
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 349
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JUSTICE1st wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | JUSTICE1st wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | JUSTICE1st wrote: | | SaberGal wrote: | | That would be a resounding YES from me! |
With the violations of the law during criminal trials committed by officials who should know better, such as in the Jude LaCour case you just presented, I hope a lot more people will agree!
I know that it's not a good idea for a person to try and represent him/herself in court, especially for a criminal case, but there are so many who don't know what the rules of law are to begin with. And who's going to educate the average citizen? Law enforcement officials? I don't think so!
J |
You are absolutely right! In the LaCour case, he was basically forced to go pro se. I will go into further detail about that situation in his forum. In spite of the odds against him, the jury was hung until the judge basically forced them to come to a verdict. |
I read in one state's criminal procedures statutes book that "Contact between the judge and jury is prohibited." There's no wiggle room here, no exceptions. I find it appalling, to say the least, that a judge who is supposed to be THE authority when a criminal case gets to trial would deliberately bend or break the rules of law he/she is supposed to uphold!
I can't help but think that such a blatant violation would bring the judge a charge of Obstruction of Justice against him or her. At the very least, a judge who does that should be yanked OFF the bench while awaiting the result of an investigation into his/her conduct.
J |
I could not agree more. This judge is 80 years old and has not been concerned about appellate issues at all since he took over the case. One can't help but draw the conclusion that is specifically why he was hand-picked (yet another law broken in this case) by the prosecution. According to the filings, he inserted himself into the case at least a full month before he ever had approval from Chief Justice Roberts to do so.
From what I have been able to find, in federal court, whenever the judge holds ex parte proceedings with a jury, especially during deliberations, an evidentiary hearing (at the very least) needs to be conducted to determine what went on and if the jurors felt coerced in any way. |
I definitely agree, and I'm not sure if the judge should be in the hearing room, as the jurors being questioned might feel a bit intimidated by the judge's presence there. They should be free to divulge exactly what the judge said during the time he was with them, without worrying what the judge might do in retaliation against the jurors in that case for speaking out against him.
I also think that this requirement, if it IS a requirement, should apply to state criminal cases too, if a judge goes into a jury room during deliberations, out of the hearing of everyone else. Why should a judge be allowed to get away with bending or breaking the rules of law simply because one is the judge? Answer; NO judge should!
J |
From what I have been able to find out, an evidentiary hearing seems to be the next step in similar cases. But everything that has gone on in this case is not normal....so who knows. I do agree that the jurors should have the utmost assurance to be able to speak freely in any hearing that results from this.
In my opinion, the jury tampering alone should have resulted in a mistrial - this is not a situation where jury tampering is simply alleged - there is no doubt that it occurred. However, the judge just brushed it off and allowed the trial to proceed. Unreal and absolutely outrageous!
_________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
- E. Burke
__________________________________________
That's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway. (Insert rolly eye emoticon here) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
