I have a problem with certain aspects of the legal system. To begin with, I am a firm believer in the rule of law. I also believe it should be every citizen’s right to have recourse to the law in order to clarify a difficult and possibly injurious situation which affects them. This access to law is available not only to individual citizen’s but to groups, corporations large or small and the state itself. There are proceedings brought forth by the state. Criminal activity is an instance in point. It is part of the state’s duty to legislate for the health and safety of the nation, hence anti-social and criminal activity is, on the whole, prosecuted by the state. If the state itself falls short of its duty or makes serious mistakes in the performance of that duty, then it too is held to account in a court of law.
There are certain rules and regulations which the state must follow in order to proceed with a criminal or any state prosecution. It has a duty of care to observe the laws relating to the enforcement of the law itself. It must be seen to be fair, reasonable and accurate in the discharge of its duty. So if someone has a grievance and believes that the state is wrong in law, and is being unfair, unreasonable and inaccurate, then they can call upon the court to adjudicate as to the actions of the state, and decide whether the state is indeed wrong in law and being unfair, unreasonable or inaccurate. To that end there must be evidence that the state is wrong in law.
The personalities of the individuals involved, employed by the state, whose job it is to administer the law on behalf of the state, have nothing whatever to do with the law. For a complainant to state that they do not like a particular individual involved in the process is neither here nor there, if it has nothing to do with the law on the case in question. Some people are nice. Some are more efficient than others. Unless the individual is corrupting the evidence and manufacturing a case where there is no case, then the complainant has no case.
Therefore, to manufacture a complaint based on “I don’t like the way you have behave” is a complete sham and should be slapped down as soon as it arises. To even allow such a complaint is an abuse of the court. To allow it on the pretext of ‘being fair to all parties’ is an insult to the integrity of the court. A sham is always a sham and pandering to such duplicity demeans the court. A court of law is too important a place for such puerile debate. Any law officer who participates in such scheming and dishonesty should be ashamed and disbarred. Mendacity has no place in a room which relies upon individuals who are compelled to take an oath to tell the truth.
I realise that individuals do not always adhere to an oath in a courtroom, but for an officer of the court to violate their professional duty of care and participate in machinations which have no validity or scintilla of integrity whatsoever is beyond the pale. Therein lies my problem with certain aspect of the legal system as displayed in the United States and in particular the State of Georgia. Did someone say frivolous?
A flagrant attempt at obfuscation by attacking the character of a prosecutor, to divert the gaze of the public from gross criminal activity for which they seem to have no answer, is actually being allowed to take place. I find it incredible that behaviour of the kind so widely deployed during the prohibition era by the likes of Al Capone and other such gangsters is now being repeated by Donald Trump and associates, who have clearly modelled themselves on that gang.
Indeed they both have home retreats on the Florida coast. Mar -a-Lago and Palm Island are but 70 miles apart. I would not be surprised if Mr Trump suffered from the same disease as Mr Capone, apart from psychotic narcissism.
No comments:
Post a Comment