Amjur’s Commentary on prosecutorial misconduct (Am Jur, among lawyers, is a contraction of AMerican JURisprudence. “Jurisprudence,” in turn, means the theory and philosophy, the logic, if you will, of law). Amjur demonstrates how, if prosecutors and cops want to generate some headlines, it’s easy to pick on a “pornographer” who hasn’t broken the law, hasn’t filmed or discussed a thing with anyone who wasn’t an enthusiastic or willing participant – just by ignoring evidence that the women (in this case) were in fact adults, and using evidence little more reliable than phrenology to prove that women in photographs were, in fact, underage. (And ignoring the fact that the women were available as witnesses and had signed affidavits).Read Amjur’s account of prosecutorial misconduct here. If that link is too long for your browser (no jokes, please) TinyUrl here.
The title above – if you’re 50 or over – you may remember the television commercial meme of “Brand X.” An advertisers would claim to have conducted blind tests against a “leading competitor” – and display a container entirely blank but for the words “Brand X.” This is a way of saying – this is an attorney with chops. For those of you still having problems with idioms – J.D. Obenberger is a very smart free speech lawyer.And he’s published some very good advice which minimizes the chances and effect of the ethical misconduct described above.
See also J.D. Obenberger’s excellent “Primer on 2257 compliance” and also
Along the same lines as the Amjur post, and connected to Mr. Obenberger’s specialty, maybe he can explain the conspiracy detailed at: trewthe.wordpress.com
Can he also explain how Free Speech Coalition missed the fact the DOJ filed a false declaration in their most recent litigation? These are deep conspiracies that have long roots stretching from Washington to Europe.