The truth hurts.
Sometimes, the truth really hurts.
Who decides what the truth is? Who decides what the entire truth is? Are those in obligation to find out going to follow the law and sworn duty while they seek?
What is sworn duty for a cop? What’s different in that oath than the sworn duty of a prosecutor, a defender, a civil attorney? What’s different in the oath between a public defender and a private defender? One would think they are all the same. In the eyes of the folks served, the law says they are the same.
Think again.
Read Colorado rules, ethics, procedures from the perspective of trying to find the common path between all three.
Then go read what they are all bound to, which are the statutes of state and federal law.
Even there in that holy writ of law, read from the perspective of an average citizen trying to find out ‘who’s on first’ and ‘what’s on second’ when it comes to finding the path to holding all three to their sworn duty when there is a simultaneous problem with all three.
Are you aware that in the State of Colorado, in a very similar manner as the bowels of Pitkin and Garfield county’s building, planning and zoning departments, where codes, rules and procedures twist, turn and mate for life while sealing the fate of so many in the construction, development and business industry; that there is a huge and gaping hole that has nobody in charge when there’s a problem with sworn duty in our judicial system?
Oh, there’s an agency that governs ethics and licenses and a commission that governs oversight of judges. There are bar organizations and ethics watch groups. There are definitely laws, rules and procedures that are very strict yet also tempered with the latitude for the personal discretion of the attorneys involved. In the case of cops, they have far less latitude in making judgment calls. Then there is the obligation they all share that if they see a peer or misconduct of any kind they are to report to the court or agency that governs.
Yet,
in all this, the State of
Colorado has
not a single procedural rule or law that connects the dots between the commissions and boards, the regulatory agencies and the
law.
Not a one. How in the world can that be?
How can it be that our courts and judges are unaware that there is this gaping loophole in
Colorado rules, procedures and law?
In
Colorado, the only way to connect the dots, should an average citizen find themselves in a problem with both sides of prosecutor and public/private attorneys, is to force your way in front of a cop or a judge to get your problem on record.
With the unfortunate 98% or better chance of
being told throughout the entire path of getting that
done; to go through the attorneys involved to do so.
Most discretion used by persons in positions of trust is honorable and trustworthy. Why worry then if you are an average citizen? Surely, someone along the line will do their duty. Is the problem one then, of relying on individual values or perceptions/interpretations of law? For certain, the former statement is absolute. Most, if not all to some extent, of our service people are honorable and trustworthy. For certain, the latter question is reality.
The way
Colorado law is written now, the average citizen must turn to the cop if they cannot trust their attorney and crime or protective concerns are involved.
The cop stands in front of the judge, according to law. But, we are no longer dealing with law or sworn duty within law in this hypothetical scenario.
We are dealing with individual values, perceptions/interpretations of law and the convoluted weaving of both into an individual’s belief of what their sworn duty is.
We are dealing with the latitude of individual discretion.
In our judicial system, the judge has
no access to the problem, the details and the evidence until the attorneys service the law.
And then, the court is relying heavily on the trust placed in sworn officers of the court.
How many judges in the State of
Colorado are even aware that their system doesn’t have law mechanisms to protect the citizens in connecting
the
dots if the courts officers are
the problem?
Sounds like it’s time for the lawmakers, elected by the folks in the State of Colorado, to have a similar ‘reckoning’ with our statutes, rules and procedures as Pitkin and Garfield counties are doing with their land use codes. Doesn’t it? Sure does. The scope of that thought swells when one realizes that just like county and city codes overlap; we have federal and state overlap in our legal system. The medical marijuana and illegal immigration laws come to mind as examples.
Are you a liberal? A conservative? Doesn’t matter in the least because the law is absolute. However, your political leanings do matter a great deal when you’re unknowingly electing the free will discretion of an attorney or a cop to office or electing to a position that does the hiring and appointing. What do you think of all the heat currently on presidential candidates Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich for their hard stance on cleaning up our judicial system? What do you think of presidential candidate Barack Obama asking for more leniency and discretion of sworn officials?
The truth is not complicated. It is not a lot of media flap or even a personal manifesto or open declaration of war with your peers.
The truth is that the law and sworn duty are absolute. Service of both comes first and prior to discretion.
The truth, is that we are a country that has allowed the greatest, most fair and honorable justice system in the world to be tainted by the twists and turns of human beings that have forgotten that the law and oaths to duty are absolute and that they have only their own job to do within the system. Their scope and focus does not overlap into their fellows duties. That is the law and the law is absolute. It is also what our constitution and Bill of Rights mandates.
Cops should never act in a capacity where they are concerned in any way with what a lawyer might need in court. There is no need in any way if they would simply follow their training and their oath to enforce not serve the law. They do not work as an agent for anyone, especially prosecution. One of the most wise comments ‘SandBox Nanny’ has heard on this forum likely came in from a cop: “Old cops know that the best they can do in duty is to prove innocence.”
Attorneys, both prosecution and defense, hold only one job. To serve the law. In our adversarial system, justice is usually found when that creed, that oath is held to the highest standards. The law is absolute. The courtroom is not where we go to find answers or the truth. That was supposed to have been done by law enforcement and prosecution before charging. The law is absolute and that is the law.
It is the job of attorneys, after the burden is fully met and an accusation becomes a charge and the charge becomes a case; to place the integrity of the court into both sides hands, serve that integrity fully and then offer up the end result to the hands of the judge and jury. That is the law and the law is absolute.
We need cops, prosecutors, defenders and civil attorneys who do all they can to ignore the plethora of strategies, loopholes and reliance on those who came before them that laid the “it’s OK” groundwork to distort the lines.
Where the truth really hurts is when the distortion becomes the norm and discretion on any side can no longer be fully trusted as a result.
What an absolutely ridiculous bordering on the absurd, stall technique used by public defender Elise Myer in the case of ‘alleged cop-spitter’ Mark Brown. Good lord, determine whether or not they got that 20-minute taped rant legally and within Brown’s constitutional rights and if so, then defend the man with what you have within law to use. Where is it written that something very much tied to his alleged act against this cop is going to be “prejudicial” enough to be tossed? Give jurors some credit for having brains, your duty is obligated to protect the integrity of the court and you have an obligation to taxpayers to not waste time and money in stall tactics. Not to mention theatrics. If it is not “third-degree assault” to spit at a cop, then leave the theatrics and stall behind and go after the core root of that problem in over-reach. Give the folks some credit for brains and uphold the integrity of your duty to the court not the prosecutor.
What an absolutely ridiculous bordering on the absurd, grand-standing effort on the part of prosecutor Nedlin. Here is a drunk out of his head man, ranting at a cop in a police car for 20 minutes. Maybe the guy deserves the death penalty. To listen to Mr. Nedlin, one becomes ready to leap up and throw the switch. Strap him down! Give jurors some credit for having brains, your duty is obligated to protect the integrity of the court and you have an obligation to taxpayers to not waste time and money in over-reach, zealous prosecution. Not to mention theatrics. It does matter a great deal with the power you hold on whether or not you are over-reaching against an ‘alleged cop-spitter’.
The act of spitting on a cop is not only pure stupidity, it’s worthy of being prosecuted. Is it worth the ‘death penalty’? How come the folks aren’t hearing from the cop in this article, Mr. Travers? From the way it sounds from prosecutor Nedlin, he went ‘running’ into the prosecutor’s office ‘sobbing hysterically’ that he had been treated rudely in a ‘life-threatening manner’ by Mark Brown and waving this tape around as proof. From the way it sounds from defender Myer, Brown was tarred and feathered the minute the tape kicked on in the cop car. Who’s kidding here??! Cops, every day, are shouted at, spit upon, their units thrown up in, arrestees crying and pleading. They also have the latitude to audio or video their focus of interest. If he really did run to prosecutor Nedlin like this, then is this cop a rookie? Or is he simply at the mercy of prosecutor, defense and media discretion, did his job, put Mr. Brown in jail to sober up, wrote a report and walked away only to have DA investigators dig around in what he left behind and subsequently craft prosecutor Nedlin’s script? How does he feel about national coverage over the incident and the protection of the integrity of the judge he stands in front of having to sort out the ‘alleged cop-spitter’ incident?
Or is what we really have here a simple case of the DA’s office using their version of discretion and defender Myer using her version of discretion?
What is it that Judge Fernandez-Ely is now needing to fully rely on her discretion to sort out when reality is that she is stumbling a bit in the dark on the winding path of her court officers? When reality is that her only job is supposed to be upholding the law that is absolute.
With all of the above said, SandBoxBlogs sincerely thanks all our men and women of service to public duty. You are appreciated. It’s just that sometimes, the full truth hurts.
(Read the article? Follow the story? Click title. Comment to discuss)
