We all know about the history of the Hippocratic oath, you know the one physicians take that state they are sworn to “save lives and administer healing to the best of their ability and judgment;” but, how does that play ethically in the law sciences?
In 2017, two members of a political party, a police officer and district attorney participated in a courtroom attack on an innocent man and his family in defense of an illegal immigrant that entered the country under Visa Sponsorship of Marriage, left her new husband and then claimed “domestic violence.” The woman they defended had only been in the country for three months, had absolutely nothing but a character evidence sheet in her case file when the case went to trial and had missed trial court hearing three times when called via subpoena.
The police officer was shown on video,” leading the woman termed as the “complainant” to press charges using the “no habla inglés” method. In other words, the court case was issued purely on hearsay; built on the conversation of others who spoke English i.e., a woman termed to be a “victim’s advocate” and the police officer.
In the video, the alleged “victim’s advocate” defends the complainant’s rights to visa amnesty by stating, “VAWA was made for women like the complainant” and then proceeded to make unverifiable statements about the defendant’s ex-wife, children and grandchildren; stating the ex-wife, a woman who raised three children to adulthood with a respect for education and employment, and was gainfully employed throughout most of her marriage to the defendant; had lived a bad home life.
The complainant that the alleged “victim’s advocate” defended was thirty-eight years old, had been arranged in marriage at least three times previously, never held a job or education, and never bore children.
Translation of the complainant’s statements, which were deliberately made in another language, show the complainant randomly stated, “the defendant asked the complainant to help him take care of his three and five year old granddaughters on one weekend occasion and found this to be abusive behavior on the part of the defendant.”
“The woman was never thrown out of any home or battered, and had ample time to leave the home while the defendant was at work if she was in danger; the nearest neighbor was three feet away from the front door of the home,” stated the witness that took the side of the defendant.
The witness herself held a 1995 protective order which was violated for many years; thus, she was not an advocate of the new domestic violence laws as her 1995 case had evidence of physical violence committed against her which had been shown in photographs in the case file. Further stating that her own protective order was issued using her legal name; “the complainant’s side of the case, both in divorce and criminal proceedings, showed absolutely no legal maiden name usage and no protective order hearing.”
The witness felt she had been specifically targeted by local area prosecutors at the time of the district court proceedings, as she was called in to attend Federal Jury duty on another more high profile case; the state court called her around the same time for attendance, placing the witness for the defendant at high risk through her appearance in courtrooms.
In 2018, the police officer and district attorney involved in the case lost their seats during the national mid-term elections. It was found that the initial district attorney that participated in the 2017 attack on the defendant was diagnosed with a mental illness in 2016. Nevertheless, the attack by the local area police never stopped on the defendant’s family; five women and a man that were a part of the defendant’s family which were either deceased, children, retired or gainfully employed who refused to believe the defendant was portrayed fairly were slandered via the courtroom proceeding by the police officer and the alleged “victim’s advocate.”
The defendant’s case was slightly reduced shortly after appeal petitions were completed via another district court proceeding. However, during appeals, the nursing board would attempt to remove the defendant’s licensing, altering judgment through its interference based on a police report that had been modified more than five times by prosecutors since the report had been filed in 2013. The nursing board threw away the US citizen termed “defendant,” his education and employment based on a mentally unstable district attorney, non-licensed victim’s advocate and police officer who built their case through the enjoyment of cruelty.