The weekend was spent producing a site for the purpose of compiling information about the Dr. Conrad Murray Trial. We launched the site called “Murray’s Tribulations” last night but had to take it off-line within an hour after discovering some links were mysteriously being directed to the wrong site or were not working properly (disruptive technologies galore). We’ll launch that site before the end of this week.
I’ve gotten quite fascinated by the Murray case that I now see it as an effective way to learn about the subtleties of litigation work. One of the questions that I was trying to answer was whether or not a system could be created so the same level of advocacy could be advanced by a person in a trial setting even if they do not have a background in the law. In other words, if a person had to bring an action to court as the litigator because he or she does not have money, could that person produce the same level of work as an experienced litigator? The jury is out on that one, but the idea of a wannabe litigator walking in a trial court and winning a complex case is a long shot. Apart from the technical aspects of litigation, such as knowing the local rules of court and evidence rules, a person must have a particular set of traits and skill-sets unique to trial lawyers. Unfortunately, that does not bode well for the majority of Americans as it means that the system is stacked in favor of those who have the financial means.
An important realization came to me several months ago that I wasn’t going to be able to go to law school. If I want to become a litigator, I’ll have to find an alternative way to become a lawyer in a short amount of time. Thus, I spend hours upon hours watching the Conrad Murray Trials, trying to dissect the case and discover the formula for winning cases. It has renewed my purpose and focused my efforts towards pursuits that are consistent with our goals. We'll just have to refine our approach so we can get more done with less.
Accordingly, the success of ROBERTS|JUSTICE will depend on being able to do two things very well. First, we must be able to do exceptional litigation work. Second, we must become a great provider of news and information. So, our mission is evolving into a hybrid that includes the following elements:
I am very much familiar with the considerable armada used by the government to suppress potentially embarrassing information. That’s precisely where I find myself today. Until recently, I had in my possession information about the FBI and their corrupt relationship with judges and the judicial system. Now, all my possessions are gone, all I have are two bags of belongings. Gone were all the case files and information that the government does not want the public to see. Using government assets, they have sabotaged just about every opportunity that came my way, throwing me a bone here and there so I can have barely enough, so I do not starve.
So, to Wikileaks, I say this: You are most definitely making the framers of the Constitution proud. Keep at it. Keep hammering. Keep embarrassing the hell out of the government. They derive their powers from those who give them consent. It isn’t the other way around.
I’ve gotten quite fascinated by the Murray case that I now see it as an effective way to learn about the subtleties of litigation work. One of the questions that I was trying to answer was whether or not a system could be created so the same level of advocacy could be advanced by a person in a trial setting even if they do not have a background in the law. In other words, if a person had to bring an action to court as the litigator because he or she does not have money, could that person produce the same level of work as an experienced litigator? The jury is out on that one, but the idea of a wannabe litigator walking in a trial court and winning a complex case is a long shot. Apart from the technical aspects of litigation, such as knowing the local rules of court and evidence rules, a person must have a particular set of traits and skill-sets unique to trial lawyers. Unfortunately, that does not bode well for the majority of Americans as it means that the system is stacked in favor of those who have the financial means.
An important realization came to me several months ago that I wasn’t going to be able to go to law school. If I want to become a litigator, I’ll have to find an alternative way to become a lawyer in a short amount of time. Thus, I spend hours upon hours watching the Conrad Murray Trials, trying to dissect the case and discover the formula for winning cases. It has renewed my purpose and focused my efforts towards pursuits that are consistent with our goals. We'll just have to refine our approach so we can get more done with less.
Accordingly, the success of ROBERTS|JUSTICE will depend on being able to do two things very well. First, we must be able to do exceptional litigation work. Second, we must become a great provider of news and information. So, our mission is evolving into a hybrid that includes the following elements:
- To be the most trusted source of news and information about the US criminal-justice system.
- To uncover and expose abuses in the criminal-justice system and in government.
- To reform the US criminal-justice system.
- To serve as advocates for those who are aggrieved and could not afford.
- To ensure the government's adherence to the US Constitution.
I am very much familiar with the considerable armada used by the government to suppress potentially embarrassing information. That’s precisely where I find myself today. Until recently, I had in my possession information about the FBI and their corrupt relationship with judges and the judicial system. Now, all my possessions are gone, all I have are two bags of belongings. Gone were all the case files and information that the government does not want the public to see. Using government assets, they have sabotaged just about every opportunity that came my way, throwing me a bone here and there so I can have barely enough, so I do not starve.
So, to Wikileaks, I say this: You are most definitely making the framers of the Constitution proud. Keep at it. Keep hammering. Keep embarrassing the hell out of the government. They derive their powers from those who give them consent. It isn’t the other way around.
