The Biggest Law Joke of All Time

[Anonymous]

In law school they teach the Rule against Hearsay, which simply means something is Unverified information heard or received from another, and are generally not admissible.

One day the Police came to the Accused showing him a piece of paper and then more pieces of paper in their possession. The Accused understanding the Hearsay Rule dismisses them as hearsay and replied: "So?" What's the big deal?

"Where is it? Where is it!" the Police demanded, but the Accused replied "Don't know."

The Police and the Prosecution insisted on charging him in public audience, so that more people will see and hear the pieces of paper. Under pressure, the Accused had no choice but to plead "guilty", because if he didn't more people will see and hear those pieces of paper.

The Accused had thus far not consulted any lawyer nor has any lawyer offered help. After many years of harm, distress, discomfort, loss and damage, the Accused finally went to see a lawyer.

He told her (the lawyer) how he suffered harm, distress, discomfort, loss and damage whereas she told him where to get those pieces of paper. On realizing that the Accused wasn't at the relevant place at the relevant time she insistently insulted: "You are guilty! You are guilty!"

Those pieces of paper, if presumed guilty, shows that the culprits include the judges, the lawyers (including the Prosecution lawyers), the police, the court staff and those with access to classified information.

 

[Anonymous]

The Abandoned Baby Joke. No, not to be confused with the rare reversal pattern of the previous candle.

In law, so it seems, when someone is accused of a crime the Prosecution has to prove the elements of the offence, and the judge then decides who's right who's wrong. That's the law, so it seems.

Here's the Baby thrown down the rubbish chute joke. A real big joke of the law. But that's the law, and that's the real big joke. A real big joke of the legal and judicial actors and actresses.

A girl threw a baby down the rubbish chute from a tall building, the girl got prosecuted in court, but then was ACQUITTED because of a technicality in the definition of the foetus, the foetus had died, so they claimed, before time to make the girl liable for murder. A baby, a human being, not a piece of paper, not a piece of diskette, but a human life.

Yes, there is the actus reus, throwing the baby down the rubbish chute, the MENS REA may or may not have been made out. Who else knew about the baby? How was the baby delivered? Did it come out by itself? No nurses whosoever knew about the pregnancy? How did foetus die? Did the girl take poison?

But anyhow, the girl was acquitted, she had her case heard in open court, thrashed out the law from one section of whatever law code, whatever procedure, and proved her innocence, even when there is the ACTUS REUS.

Contrast this case with someone who is the victim of blackmail but the Prosecution and the Police so conveniently shut him up with an unscrupulous silencing tactic, courtesy of those who taught them the law, twist the facts till the victim becomes the culprit and vice versa.

I take my hat off to you, you sure can sell ice to eskimo.

 

[Anonymous]

What gave the game away?

The Accused told the lawyer how he suffered loss and damage, the lawyer told him the appeal against his conviction can be done by such and such. But then, on realizing that the Accused wasn't at the relevant place at the relevant time, and after the lawyer had disclosed a missing element of the trial against the Accused, an element which can add to his innocence, she insisted: "You are guilty! You are guilty!" and that if he is allowed to appeal the Police, the Prosecution etc will be liable for malicious prosecution.

Because the Police, the Prosecution etc will be liable for malicious prosecution therefore the Accused should not be allowed to appeal? Because the Police, the Prosecution etc will be liable for malicious prosecution therefore the Accused does not have to be compensated as a victim of Police harassment?

As the victim of police harassment, continued defamation in the form of official record circulating in the police computers and other official document, therefore the Accused does not have to be compensated? Because if the Accused is proved innocent the Police, the Prosecution, the lawyers, most probably even at least some judges will be guilty, if the alleged papers are presumed "criminal".

But, who will ever know the difference between "evidence deleted" presented as evidence in court, and what does the "evidence" look like before it was "deleted"? Was there no evidence or was there "evidence deleted" presented as "evidence"?

 

[Anonymous]

In a criminal prosecution, if the Police and the Prosecution accuse the Accused of a crime, the Judge has to decide who's right who's wrong: the Police, the Prosecution lawyers or the Accused.

In a case of an alleged crime in which the suspects include:

the Judges
the Police
the Prosecution lawyers
the Defence lawyers (all lawyers in this case)
the Accused

The evidence alleged by the Police and the Prosecution, if presumed criminal, shows that the culprits include the Judges, the Prosecution lawyers, the Defence lawyers (all lawyers in this case).

If the Police insists on charging the Accused in court, the Prosecution lawyers act under the orders of the Police and the judge basing his decision on a one-sided allegation of the Prosecution convicts the Accused, instead of proving the guilt of the Accused, they proved their mens rea and their actus reus of their conspiracy against the Accused.

If only the Police and the Accused knew what was the "evidence" if any, and the trial was held "in camera" not in public audience, there was no defence lawyer involved in that case, no one other than those people in that court room during trial, but at a later time any lawyer, knowing or should know the meaning of the Hearsay Rule, insults the Accused: "You are guilty! You are guilty!" that lawyer proves himself or herself to be a part of that conspiracy against the Accused.

 

[Anonymous]

Conspiracy Re-enacted

Event happened in Jurisdiction A.

Blackmailer 1 and gang continually harassed Accused and family. As a result of the Blackmailers' persistent harassment Accused got angry, shouted, yelled etc. Blackmailer 1 filed police report, that police report could be evidence that those policemen received bribe from Blackmailer 1 and gang and twisted the facts.

Blackmailer 2 wanted Accused to be involved in a crime of fraud against the authority. Accused refused. Blackmailer 2 filed fraudulent police report against Accused.

The facts of the police reports were later twisted by the Police and/or the Prosecution as bad character evidence against Accused.

In the Police station the Police told Accused he committed offence by using alleged pieces of paper against group G at locations 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. But they refused to tell him who complained, who was the victim and what was the weapon, but that there are many complaints against him: complaints by whom?

- The Blackmailers?
- The people at locations 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ? Are they sure they saw him? - No. How or did they get the pieces of paper? Did they steal them? Did they file police reports against the Accused? When?
or
- G? Are they sure they saw him? Was G at location 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 at the alleged time? - No.

The Police insisted on charging the Accused, the Judge convicted the Accused based on one-sided allegation of the Prosecution.

The "evidence", as they claimed, was destroyed after the trial according to the law.

The Accused left Jurisdiction A and went to Jurisdiction B. While he was in Jurisdiction B the Police and other officials in Jurisdiction A sent or caused to be sent allegations in writing to the Police in Jurisdiction B, writing which amount to defamation and Police misconduct.

They sent or transmitted writing which they claim was written or distributed or published by the Accused.

The original alleged pieces of paper at all times were in the possession of the Police. Did they write them? Were those alleged pieces of paper the same as those in location 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ?

If the evidence was already destroyed after the trial according to the law, where did they get the writing to send to Jurisdiction B?

Is there a previous case similar to the Accused's by which the evidence was destroyed after the trial but was in fact not? Who have access to those writing? Did they access, copy, write, edit, amend, or otherwise and send them out? If they are the culprits will they admit?

 

[DaveJB]

Am I missing something here, or are you simply using T2W as a soapbox to complain about something on the legal side you object to? If so, then aren't there better places to do it than a place people hang out to discuss trading? I'm just a bit confused - I really don't see why you're doing this here...

 

[Mr. Charts]

I have friends who are police officers and lawyers. In fact our younger daughter is a lawyer and I assure you, Anonymous, very few members of those professions are the awful people you make them out to be.
Most have an interest in justice and fairness, but obviously there are some bad apples as in all professions.