Challenging and Revealing Concealed Evidence in the Trial of the Century

Did O.J. do it? The more I learn, the more I think he is innocent of the crime of murder.

Read more...

Earning the Right to Divorce

...or she does
I am not an attorney nor do I have in depth knowledge of the law, but after observing a few friends and family members going through divorce, the laws and rules of evidence and civil procedure regarding divorce confused me to say the least. After discussing this with many people, I discovered I was not the only one confused by "divorce court".

I believe my confusion stems from the establishment of no-fault grounds laws where neither party is considered at fault. I am not referring to childless couples, as I believe, in most instances; divorcing couples without children do not carry the same burden of responsibility as married couples with children. There are no innocent victims involved when a childless couple divorce.

This lack of a clearly defined "defendant" leads to what I would call a more casual atmosphere where the outcome of each case can partially result from the bond the attorneys have with the judges and/or the bond attorneys have with each other. More "off the record" discussions between attorneys and judges (I witnessed this first-hand) occur making impartiality practically impossible. In addition, the judge may be focused on adhering to the "no fault" aspect of the law, at the expense of true justice where the truly innocent (children) are protected. It's not the fault of the individual attorneys or judges, rather the "fault" of the "no fault" laws governing divorce that try so hard not to condemn either party that it overlooks the real victims, the children.

I understand the reason behind no fault divorce and agree that prior to the "divorce revolution" in the 1970s; divorce court did compromise the integrity of the American justice system by making perjury a likely occurrence. Anyone living in a marriage from hell will find a way to end their misery any way they can. The courts realized this and amended divorce legislation allowing spouses to initiate divorce proceedings without any proof of marital wrongdoing, therefore eliminating the need to fabricate situations to get out of one's commitment.

Yet, it seems this issue was solved at the peril of many other issues the most profound being the injustice to children. Children have financial and psychological advantages when both parents are married and fully supporting them. They lose these advantages when one or both parents decide to divorce because of the lack of adequate laws in place governing divorce. Therefore, unless the divorcing parents are diligent about putting the children first, the children become the victims through no fault of their own.

Non-adversarial divorce is not the problem in and of itself, rather there needs to be reform to the existing laws requiring both parents to be more responsible to their children. Currently, the children and/or the spouse without the career or the financial means usually suffer the most because "justice" is so expensive. If the parent retaining primary custody can afford to pay $300/hr to an attorney for countless hours, sometimes until that child is 18-years old, the child's rights will be protected. Most Americans do not have that kind of money, especially the parent normally left to care for the children. He or she, and the children are left at the mercy of the other spouse who makes the money and therefore wields the power.

Parents should be required to "earn" a divorce instead of having the divorce granted, just because one or both parents want it. An agreement in writing, providing specific details about how both parents intend to support their children in much the same way as when they were married, should be mandatory before the divorce decree is granted. In other words, the divorce decree comes after settlement takes place, not before, as it is now. Of course, this only applies if both spouses do not pose a danger to the children.

Marriage is a contract between two people and the government agreeing that each spouse is obliged to support the other and any offspring that should result of their marriage. The government, in return, will provide certain rights and protections -- over 1500 federal and approx. 500 state, depending on the state --to the married couple and their offspring. If the couple decides to end the contract, they should be obliged to support each other in the manner of which they grew accustomed when there are children involved, no matter what the socioeconomic status of the couple.

"We the People" end up paying for the "deadbeat dad" or mom who might make six-figures but just does not feel like living up to his or her responsibly any more. Currently, without the money and resources it's extremely difficult for the custodial parent to make the irresponsible parent face up to his or her responsibility, because the irresponsible parent has to turn into "Jack the Ripper" for the courts to aggressively pursue him or her and by the time the court finally does pin that parent down the child is usually married with kids of his or her own.

Instead of "No Fault" divorce, we should have "No Fault of the Children" divorce, putting the focus on children's rights first and taking the focus off making sure the ones truly at fault, the divorcing couple, remain faultless.

It seems another "divorce revolution" is needed to correct the injustices of the last one.

Read more...

Bush Saying "Fair Trial" Doesn't Make it True.

Saddam Hussein had barely stopped dangling when George W. Bush revved up the lie machine.

His idea of justice is “rough justice” or “frontier justice” or “the King’s justice,” whereby if he calls it justice, it is justice. If he deems it a fair trial, it is a fair trial.

“Today, Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial,” he said in the very first sentence of his rushed statement, a claim Bush repeated, in case you missed it, in his second sentence and then again in his third.

But Bush, as powerful as he is, does not make a trial fair by declaring it fair.

The world’s two leading human rights organizations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, both came to a different conclusion from Bush.

Amnesty International called the trial “deeply flawed and unfair.” It was “a shabby affair,” said Malcolm Smart, director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Program.

Amnesty International cited “the grave nature of the flaws,” which included the following:

“The court failed to take adequate measures to ensure the protection of witnesses and defense lawyers, three of whom were assassinated during the course of the trial,” it said. “Saddam Hussein was also denied access to legal counsel for the first year after his arrest, and complaints by his lawyers throughout the trial relating to the proceedings do not appear to have been adequately answered by the tribunal.”

Nor were they adequately answered by the appeals court.

“The execution appeared a foregone conclusion, once the original verdict was pronounced, with the Appeals Court providing little more than a veneer of legitimacy for what was, in fact, a fundamentally flawed process,” said Smart.

Human Rights Watch concurred.

It called Saddam’s trial “deeply flawed,” and termed his execution “a significant step away from respect for human rights and the rule of law in Iraq.”

Among the “serious flaws” that Human Rights Watch noted: “failures to disclose key evidence to the defense, violations of the defendants’ right to question prosecution witnesses, and the presiding judge’s demonstrations of bias.”

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer on a colossal scale. But even he deserved a fair trial.

The flaws didn’t bother Bush, though, who crowed about “bringing Saddam Hussein to justice.”

This is one of Bush’s favorite constructions. Whenever the United States kills someone Bush believes is a terrorist, he says that person has been “brought to justice,” whether that person was killed by a bomb, by an extrajudicial killing, or by a kangaroo court, as in the case of Saddam.

In his 2002 State of the Union address, Bush vowed to “bring terrorists to justice.”

In his 2003 State of the Union address, he said, “One by one, the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice.”

When U.S. troops killed Saddam’s sons Uday and Qusay, Bush said they were “brought to justice.”

But is this truly “the meaning of American justice”?

What Bush reveres is not our great system of jurisprudence, which guarantees due process and habeas corpus. He’s proven that with his insistence on the right to torture and with his Military Commissions Act, which allows the use of evidence that was beaten out of the defendant and which deprives any noncitizen whom Bush deems an enemy combatant of the right even to see a judge.

Bush has no appreciation of “the meaning of American justice.”

His idea of justice is “rough justice” or “frontier justice” or “the King’s justice,” whereby if he calls it justice, it is justice. If he deems it a fair trial, it is a fair trial.

Read more...