Right to a Fair Trial Fact or

Fiction
By Stanley Green

Right to a Fair Trial Fact or Fiction

This article seeks to delve into the tenet of whether Right to a fair trial is either fact or fiction. On the surface it may appear that if the court has upheld the defendants right to an attorney and/or jury, then he or she has received a fair trial. Before we make a rush to judgment lets examine the whole picture not just a fragment. The bigger picture is has the court unfairly discriminated between the plaintiff and the defendant? If such were true, then it would tarnish the ethics and integrity of our American judiciary process.

A trial by jury is a legal contest

A trial by jury is a legal contest between two or more parties. In legal contest parties are obligated to submit complaints to a magistrate or judicial officer. He or she may issue a summons and convene a trial by jury to hear and/or adjudicate the complaints of either party. Congress has enacted a specific set of rules for litigants to file his or her complaints. If the court were to apply these set of rules differently towards either party then the contest is deemed unfair. The latter would infer the court has applied double standards placing either party at a legal disadvantage.

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 3: The Complaint

The complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. Except as provided in Rule 4.1, it must be made under oath before a magistrate judge or, if none is reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer. Under the amended rule, the complaint and supporting material may be submitted by telephone or reliable electronic means; however, the rule requires that the judicial officer administer the oath or affirmation in person or by telephone.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 3: Commencing an action

This rule provides that the first step in an action is the filing of the complaint. Under Rule 4(a) this is to be followed forthwith by issuance of a summons and its delivery to an officer for service. Other rules providing for dismissal for failure to prosecute suggest a method available to attack unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action after it has been commenced. When a Federal or State statute of limitations is pleaded as a defense, a question may arise under this rule whether the mere filing of the complaint stops the running of the statute, or whether any further step is required.

FRCP Rule 3: The Complaint

The key to have a fair trial is exercising the legal benefits of FRCP Rule 3. Filing the complaint is the first step to commencing either civil or criminal procedures. The party that has exercised his or her legal right to file an official complaint is placed on the courtrooms docket. The party that has acquiesced to exercise his or her legal right to file a counter complaint cant voice his or her complaints. Judges may only hear complaints the courtroom clerk has assigned to the docket roster. This means judges and/or juries may only adjudicate the charges written in the official complaint. As a result, civil defense lawyers have receive professional training of how to file complaints and/or counter complaints to represent their legal clients. Prosecutors have received professional training how to file complaints to represent their clients. Criminal defense lawyers havent received any professional training of how to file counter criminal complaints to represent their legal clients. The lack of criminal defense lawyers professional training has led to the demise of criminal defendants. Four years in law school havent taught criminal defense attorneys that the complaint ultimately determines the outcome of the trial. The defendant is the party standing trial answering the charges of the plaintiff. To turn-the-table around the defendant must file counter complaints to put the plaintiff on trial. The roles are legally reversed whereby the plaintiff becomes the defendant and vice versus. As a result, the court may refer to each party as the litigant due to the fact that their roles may flip flop.

Double Standards
The Federal Judiciary has double standards in upholding FRCP Rule 3 in respect to civil vs. criminal litigations. For example: In civil litigations judges have upheld the legal rights of both plaintiffs and defendants to file their complaints and counter complaints without any impartiality. Conversely, in criminal litigations criminal court judges have upheld the legal right of plaintiffs to file complaints, yet has not upheld the legal rights of criminal defendants to file counter complaints. The latter is unfair and impartial treatments. It places defendants at greater disadvantage. The courtroom docket will avail the bench details about the plaintiffs criminal complaint. Yet, the docket will not entail the defendants counter criminal complaints against plaintiffs. The repercussion is criminal trials have been one-sided. The defendants have stood trial answering complaints of the plaintiff. Yet, not a single plaintiff has ever stood trial to answer the complaints of the defendants. As a result, all criminal trials have been unfair.

Class Action Lawsuit

Criminal defendants should join together to file a class action civil rights lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) for denying criminal defendants legal rights to a fair trial by breaching FRCP Rule 3. The lawsuit will put a halt to double standards of our judiciary. The latter will have a trickle-down effect for state or local courts to uphold FRCP Rule 3 without partiality of treatment.

NCDBA & NACDL

National Criminal Defense Bar Association (NCDBA) and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) are the two principle criminal defense associations in operation. Bar Associations are responsible for establishing the code of ethics for attorneys who practice law. The representative role of each criminal defense attorney is to file motions and/or objections to the court if and/or when any rule of the FRCP has been breached to place criminal defense clients at legal disadvantage. Prosecutors have exercised Rule 3 in behalf of the plaintiff to file complaints. Criminal defense attorneys have neglected to exercise Rule 3 to file counter criminal complaints. As a result, criminal trials have been one-sided. The criminal defendants have equal legal rights to bring counter criminal charges against the plaintiffs. In essence, there are men and women convicted of felony offenses, because their criminal defense lawyers have neglected to counsel him or her to exercise FRCP Rule 3. When a criminal defendant pleads innocent to charges levied by the prosecution and/or is acquitted, then he or she is automatically accusing the plaintiff of filing a false police report or committing perjury under oath. Yet, criminal plaintiffs have walked away Scott-free never standing criminal trial to answer the complaints that defendants may have.

Muhammad Ali
Muhammad Ali has coined the saying that the best defense is a good offense. FRCP Rule 3 is an offensive assault. If legal parties neglect to exercise his or her right to file complaints with the court, then he or she is at the mercy of opponents. Entering a courtroom battle is identical to a boxing match. The party has the right to mix counter punches or the party can weave and bob trying to duck and dodge opponents. Ali had the grace to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. He defended his championship title as a professional prize boxer. Criminal defense lawyers should learn a lesson that defend dosent necessarily mean to become a punching bag. Rather, defend means to exercise all the rules of the contest to avoid defeat. If the best way to win a criminal defense trial is to wage an assault, then by all means exercise FRCP Rule 3.

Fact or Fiction
I hope I have settled the issue whether right to a fair trial is fact or fiction. The answer is contingent upon whether were talking about civil or criminal cases. In civil cases it may be fact. Yet, in criminal cases it is a fiction. This means that the ethics and integrity of our judiciary process has been tarnished. Criminal defense attorneys have committed flagrant violation withholding legal counsel that may have won their clients acquittal. Legal malpractice is the only way to construe criminal defense attorneys keeping privy FRCP Rule 3. Professional attorneys have a duty to advise clients the law.

Right to a fair trial knockout punch

Right to a Fair trial knockout punch occurs whenever criminal defense attorneys learn to exercise FRCP Rule 3. The Attorney Generals Office would be compelled to prosecute counter criminal charges. If the Attorney General were to refuse to prosecute the defendants counter criminal complaints, then the criminal defense attorneys must file motions to compel with sanctions to enforce FRCP Rule 3. The court would be obligated to sanction the Attorney General to prosecute the defendants counter criminal complaints. The judge must summon special prosecutors to represent defendants allegations. In respect to discovery, the criminal investigations may uncover evidences and/or testimonies that will benefit the defendants defense. The criminal defense attorneys may capitalize on the prosecutors discoveries to negotiate dismissal for their legal clients. The court may be more inclined to dismiss defendants criminal charges if the prosecutors were able to prove that defendants have suffered criminal offenses that have been overlooked or ignored. It would be unfair for the court to punish defendants without punishing his or her offenders too. The right to a fair trial in the criminal justice system will be upgraded from fiction to manifest as fact of law. To assign case titles such as plaintiff vs. defendant is actually a misnomer. It depends upon which complaint the court clerk has posted to the docket. The proper title for either party is litigant. Either party is litigating his or her complaint. Judgment favors the litigant that is able to prove his or her complaint. If both litigants were to prove his or her case, the court must adjudicate damages accordingly without favor.

Icon of American Jurisprudence

The icon of American jurisprudence is a blindfold woman holding a scale in her left hand, sword in her right hand standing on top of a laurel leaf plant. My interpretation is the blindfold is a covering over her eyes that represents she carries out her judgment without partiality or prejudice. The scale is a type of measurement that represents her aim is to preserve equity. The sword is a type of weapon she uses to defend our freedoms or secure our liberty. The laurel leaf is a type of medical plant. Her foundation is to relieve our pain and suffering. As we reflect upon our criminal justice system we may attest to the fact that its sole aim has been to inflict pain and suffering upon criminal defendants in order to relieve pain and suffering of victims and/or loved ones. Yet, impartiality means to judge without prejudice. In other words, the aim of American jurisprudence is to preserve equity so none may feel he or she has been unfairly mistreated. The right to a fair trial is purposed to defend our American freedoms and to secure our liberty. Congress has enacted FRCP as official guidelines for all judges to abide in administering criminal or civil trials.

Right to a fair trial reparation settlement

Right to a fair trial reparation settlement is based upon the legal premise that criminal court judges have unethically deprived each criminal defendant his or her legal right to exercise FRCP Rule 3. The court has owned a legal duty to advise criminal defendants of their legal rights to a fair trial. Two examples: 1) You have the right to an attorney. If you cant afford one the court may appoint one to represent you. 2) You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. The legal atrocity is all criminal court judges have willingly and knowingly refrained from exercising ethical integrity to advise criminal defendants concerning FRCP Rule 3. The latter has wrongfully deprived criminal defendants right to a fair trial. Consequently, it is legally impossible to adjudicate the innocence or guilt of defendants who have been deprived his or her legal rights. As a result, all criminal defendants are entitled to remuneration for damages. The final dollar figure of the Right to a fair trial reparation settlement should be sufficient amount to recover from damages suffered for felony convictions gained by unethical trial procedures. The Judiciary Branch should make amends for its wrongdoing by remunerating criminal defendants for pain and suffering.

Right to a fair trial reparation settlement

https://www.change.org/petitions/eric-holder-us-attorney-general-right-to-fair-trial-reparation-settlement

Petition Drive
Directed to U.S. Attorney Eric Holder We the People of the United States petition our United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) to remunerate each criminal defendant, who has been deprived of his or her legal right to exercise Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP) Rule 3, with a Right to fair trial reparation settlement. If you and/or family members have been convicted for felony offenses, but have never been advised by officers of the court (criminal court judges, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys or public defenders) concerning your legal rights to file counter criminal complaints, then you and/or your family members may be entitled to join our class action lawsuit Right to a fair trial reparation settlement. This may help you and/or your family members recoup financial damages for unfair convictions. The Judiciary Branch owns a legal obligation to warrant each criminal defendants right to a fair trial no matter what the criminal indictments may have been. In order for a trial to be deemed fair, the court must honor the legal rights of the defendants to file counter criminal charges against the plaintiffs.