The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to disclose material, exculpatory information in the government's possession to the defense.

THIS IS NOT TRUE AT ALL - IT IS AN ILLEGAL LOOPHOLE CASE BY MARYLAND DEMOCRATS

MEANING: that was already law before the case. "making a new law" claims there was no law so that Maryland was innocent in that case

BUT IT ALREADY WAS THE LAW - MEANING MARYLAND DEMOCRATS WERE GUILTY AS HELL

legally the judge must do this:

1) hear a complaint and verify the complaint might be prove-able BEFORE bothering the accused. also insure the accuers tried to settle the case. (mediation preceeds court is mandatory for civil cases: court COSTS MONEY)

also insuring case is within that judges jurisdiction

2) if proceeding, immediately get a deposition from the accused beofore that individual is instructed by lawyers

3) allow the defense time to lawyer up and do paper work, which OF COURSE INCLUDES mailing notice of case against the accused

4) the trials only allow defense to answer questions against them that are both

a) illegal


b) un-answered

only then the judge asks the defendant to answer

5) the judge allows cross-litigation - endangering the prosecution of legal accusations

6) evidence is prsented, but when is not set in stone

7) the judge must allow either party time to respond to "surprises"

it's the case Fairfax County will "accuse a person with accusations not related to the defendant" and the defendant's lawyer (a democrat aparatus on democrat pay) will claim his client guilty and the client is "not allowed to speak" (all of this is highly illegal but how democrats run courts)

the judge himself must consider anything "new introduced in trial" as a new part of the complaint - that is - the whole process of verifying the complaint MIGHT BE PROVABLE and asking defense IN PRIVATE immediately for an explicantion WITHOUT LEGAL SPIN is supposed to be required.


IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY - for 2,000 of Univeristy Law (roman law written in all languages "the same, universally")

"the Brady Law" is a false argument created by false logic conclusions

"that since corrupt maryland said/did that, it must have been that way"

if i could count the number of illegal things Maryland did in court!!!!

our Chief Council of Fairfax is A MARYLAND POLITICAL APARATUS to put this all into perspective

9) the judge instructs the jury: nobody else. lawyers are NOT ALLOWED to access the jury - especially nazzi attorney's "of the government"

10) "the judge decides law, the jury fact". (if only they did that - they've been fucking that up)

the jury is there to decide matters that aren't strictly in the realm of a judge to rule from the bench

11) if a CRIMINAL CASE FAILS - THERE CAN BE NO RE-TRAIL, this is why it's USED TO BE better to prosecute a weak case in CIVIL court, because criminal court is harder to prove in. this is another old law which democrats have liberally been ignoring - prosecuting those they wish to harass repeatedly

12) sentencing: this apparently is in the realm of the judge to mediate

HOWEVER THERE ARE STRICT RULES

a) THE SENTENCE MUST NOT BE MORE HARSH against one person than to other similar cases in the past.

b) a much lighter sentence IS ALSO NOT ALLOWED; it means all past cases awarded more heavily WOULD GAIN LEGAL COMPENSATION - which most judges have no intent of furnishing.

13) both sides are allowed comment after trial for the record. there should be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the trial the judge adjudicated on that was important which IS NOT IN COURT RECORD and public (except for rape cases of young women who wish to keep their reputation intact)

14) THE JUDGE SHOULD OFFER REASONING when expected: ie, a trial the public has claimed is political or went astray. they don't always have to offer written essay reasons for simple cases.

also a reason can expose something which legitimately should not be made public - that neither party wants exposed and was not wholey part of the main case. let's given an example: "how much inheritance money was involved" might be a fact avoided to be released that would effect a ruling

0) the judge must insure the case is not political bullshit or designed to harass or even steal from the defendant

a) all trials are public. gag orders are ILLEGAL. both sides are LEGALLY LIABLE for news they release outside of court. this is true even before a case is file anyhow. the only thing not public is a prosecution's attempt to open a case and being denied

little red riding hood

4) the trials only allow defense to answer questions against them that are both
a) illegal
b) un-answered

the defense can for prosecution to answer questions also

HOWEVER: pre-trail hearings ARE REQUIRED before trial to decide what questions are legally allowed (each one is basically a new case, you can say). one reason is to PREVENT THE JURY FROM HEARING nazzi PROPAGANDA ffrom a very slick thieving lawyer

EVIDENCE IS ALSO SCREENED BY THE JUDGE BEFORE IT IS PRESENTED, that the judge believes it to be relevant to the case and plausible to prove

---------------------------

POLITICAL SPEECH IN COURT, AND OTHER BABBLE, ARE NEVER ALLOWED. TRIALS WOULD LAST DECADES INSTEAD OF A DAY IF THEY WERE

China May Try to Evade U.S. Tariffs by Routing Production through Mexico

ANOTHER DEMOCRAT LOGICAL FALLICY

CHINA HAS ALREADY BEEN CAUGHT MANY TIMES doing the same. the lie here would be they haven't been yet