Posted on 02/14/2018 6:05:53 AM PST by reaganaut1
The silver lining is that more and more of the American public is becoming aware of this.
With all of the corruption in our legal system I suspect that within a decade it will become nearly impossible to get a jury to convict on any charge.
I am retired now, but in my previous life I was a litigation analyst in the insurance industry. So, I handled literally thousands of civil cases during my career.
Without exaggeration, it was my experience that many civil court judges tried to avoid hearing cases; they sought to avoid that responsibility like the plague. Oh, they loved being judges, but mainly for the perks; they did NOT want to do what they were elected or appointed to do.
There were many times when a judge refused to rule on dispositive motions until the case went to mediation, if necessary, several times; and the judge kept refusing to hear the motions until the case settled. And, if the case did not settle, the judge would come down hard on the party he or she felt was responsible for the case not settling, and that party was generally the defendant.
Plaintiff attorneys know this and play it for all its worth. They could bring the most bullsh1t cases you’ve ever seen, where clearly there was no liability against the defendant, because they knew they’d get at least some degree of monetary settlement because of what — really — was a shakedown, a shakedown in which the judge was eagerly willing to play a role.
I’ve seen judges threaten insurance representatives with contempt of court and a few nights in the local pokey if they did not settle a case (the judges would screech about arbitrariness and capriciousness and not acting in good faith, etc.). In small towns, or very political towns where the local sheriff and the local judge are nothing short of deities, they could get away with it.
Now, there certainly are some very good and very conscientious judges, who do take their jobs seriously and do try to apply the law fairly and equitably; however, there are enough who don’t that it makes the judicial system something other than a level paying field, where Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold.
I grew up believing that the law was the great equalizer, the great arbiter of fair and equitable justice. I loved that, because without it we’d become anarchists and savages. I loved the law as it was supposed to be, as I was taught it WAS; but that is not the law that we have today. I weep for what might have been.
The up side is that if you are white without any previous arrest, you can probably get away with most anything short of killing someone.
So we have that going for us.
Maybe get legal insurance, just like medical insurance?
“Flynn’s attorney should have demanded the 302s from the very beginning.”
The problem is the FBI allegedly altered them. His attorney likely does have copies - that show his client was guilty!
So, institute a “loser pays” system. If falsely accused and acquitted the state pays your legal fees. If guilty and convicted, your fines go towards the cost of prosecution.
Another way to look at this is that the defendant can threaten to ask for a jury trial in hopes of being able to plea to a lesser charge with less time.
Some years back I was summoned for jury duty in Las Vegas. A DA came in and thanked us for showing up. He said that many cases were resolved at the last minute when the defendant saw that a jury was actually empaneled and he was going up before them.
[Sidebar] I wasn't picked in the first round and was told to come back the second day. Those who had problems with that were told to see the clerk. I did, telling him that I had to drive 160 miles round trip to Vegas, The guy before me told him that he lost one days wages already and couldn't afford to lose another. The clerk let both of us off, reminding us that we get travel money. Mine was something like $25 because of the distance.
The FBI altered the 302s in the Hillary investigation, not the Flynn investigation.
You’re right, their negligence stinks!
Try suing a big insurance company for failure to act in good faith. Not easy and you pretty much can’t find an attorney to do it unless it is super huge money involved.
The “super huge money involved” is in punitive damages. Plaintiff attorneys love cases where the possibility of punitive damages are available.
I read a report where it was saying that 302s are altered on a far more regular basis than just Hillary’s case.
TTBOMK, there isn't one. I seem to recall the Supreme Court basically said the right doesn't exist because (a) backlogged courts can't move quickly, and (b) because there's no telling how long a case might last there's no way to tell whether or not the trial wasn't speedy.
Would not be surprised.
generally good.
That would not come near to being justice. It is far too little for someone who was never guilty of a crime.
I have only served on one jury, it was a civil matter and I was made foreman. That experience convinced me that no woman should ever sit on a jury.
True, but politics is the art of the possible. I think it’s possible to get a prevailing wage payout.
I can’t imagine a state legislature going for a truly just payout.
At least at first, before it becomes an entitlement...
Bkmk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.