Fixing An Injust Justice System - Purpose to HOPE

UPDATE FROM THE 2/2 COURT APPEARANCE

- THE DEFENDANT'S POOL ATTORNEY DID NOT SHOW UP. HE SENT A CO-WORKER TO REPRESENT IN HIS PLACE.

- THE PROSECUTOR WAS VERY ADAMANT THAT SHE WAS UNWILLING TO BUDGE FROM HER PLEA OFFER OF 6 YEARS WITH NO EARLY RELEASE OPTION.

- AGAIN, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT THE JUDGE'S SECRETARY HAD ADVISED, ON BEHALF OF THE JUDGE, WOULD BE ADDRESSED IN OPEN COURT.

- I CANNOT MAKE AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE ISSUES WOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED HAD THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY BEEN PRESENT BECAUSE THE PROSECUTOR MADE HER POSITION CLEAR- 6 YEAR PLEA DEAL.

- I HAD SPOKEN WITH THE ATTORNEY THAT WAS SENT TO STAND IN FOR THE DEFENDANT AND HE APPEARED TO BE SURPRISED WHEN I MENTIONED SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ADDRESSED IN OPEN COURT. THE MOST OBVIOUS REACTION OF SURPRISE THAT I WITNESSED WAS WHEN I MENTIONED THE LOST DISCOVERY. HE STATED THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING WORTH DISCUSSING WITH THE POOL ATTORNEY. I ADVISED THAT I HAD ALREADY DISCUSSED IT WITH HIM AS WELL AS THE 2 PUBLIC DEFENDERS THAT WERE ASSIGNED PREVIOUSLY AND CLEARLY, IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE OF CONCERN TO THEM. IT DEFINITELY MAKES ME WONDER HOW OFTEN IS THE DEFINITION OF "COMPLETE DISCOVERY" ALTERED OR DISREGARDED IN AN EFFORT TO PROCEED WITH THE PROSECUTOR'S AGENDA TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION.

- THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA DEAL AND THE ATTORNEY ADVISED THE JUDGE THAT NEGATIONS WERE STILL TAKING PLACE WHICH RESULTED IN THE NEXT COURT APPEARANCE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR 3/11, AND THE EXCLUDABLE TIME ORDER WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE DEFENDANT.

AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THAT HAS OCCURRED AFTER I WAS ADVISED THAT THE ISSUES I HAD EMAILED THE JUDGE ABOUT WOULD BE DISCUSSED IN OPEN COURT, I AM INCLINED TO ASSUME THAT THESE ISSUES WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED IN OPEN COURT AT ALL UNLESS IT IS ORDERED BY SOMEONE THAT HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION. ITS NOT AN ISSUE FOR THE APPELLATE COURT TO HANDLE AND THAT REALLY DOESNT LEAVE ME MANY OPTIONS.

HERE IS MY POSITION AS A RESULT OF BEING CLOSELY INVOLVED WITH THIS CASE FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS, AS WELL AS BEING ADVISED OF THE ISSUES SURROUNDING OTHER CASES DURING THIS TIME:
I CANNOT TRUST ANY OFFICERS OF THE COURT, ON ANY LEVEL, THAT HAVE THE OBLIGATION OF UPHOLDING THE LAW AND ENSURING JUSTICE IS SERVED. IN FACT, ANY EMPLOYEES OR OFFICERS OF THE COURT THAT ARE TO ADHERE TO THE "RULES THAT GOVERN THE COURTS IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY" ARE EITHER CLAIMING IGNORANCE OF WHAT'S WRITTEN OR THEY ARE WILLINGLY SERVING ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF JUSTICE. SINCE IGNORANCE IS NOT A VALID DEFENSE, IT ONLY SHOWS THAT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT. THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO FIGHT AGAINST THAT.

Send a message to learn more