Media In Criminal Cases

0 Shares

America’s current criminal justice system (CJS) is a labyrinth of procedures, favoritism, incompetence, hypocrisy, theft of rights, speculation and abuse. It is an albatross to many innocent people. While there are ethical people within our CJS, the US~Observer deals only with the corrupt ones; when a prosecutor or police officer serves justice, we make every attempt to praise him.

Dealing With Abusive, Unethical Prosecutors

When an innocent person is charged with a crime today, the prosecutor or the police conduct very little, if any, meaningful investigation. The first course of action for the CJS is to charge that person with a crime and then contact the local media so they can inform an extremely naïve public of the charged person’s guilt. In other words, the CJS starts its public assault of the falsely charged person to that person’s future jury pool. In many instances, the mainstream media publish as facts absolute lies for police and/or oppressive prosecutors.

The US~Observer does things quite differently. We complete an in-depth investigation. When we find conclusive evidence of a person’s innocence, we go to the prosecutor or other public official responsible and inform him of the conclusive evidence. If he ignores us, he does so at his own peril, because we then take the case outside of the corrupted CJS and into the court of public opinion. We inform the responsible person’s friends, neighbors, families and members of his community of his abusive actions on the front page of the US~Observer newspaper; and it works, just like the presses of long ago worked. In the cases where the prosecutor or public official continues to refuse to serve justice, we ruin his reputation publicly, along with his career, and then begin to work our way up the political ladder until we get results.

In the few instances where our clients are required to go through a trial, we make sure the “conclusive proof” that we obtained is made public and used in court. The bad prosecutor and other guilty parties are exposed in a courtroom in front of a jury. One such case is that of Stan Strange and two fellow biker friends of his. Strange’s case, his not guilty verdict, proves that honest and factual media works. The public knew every fact about Strange’s case before his trial occurred.

While the Internet is a definite benefit to our efforts to vindicate the innocent, our hard-copy newspaper is what makes for sure success. Without our physical newspaper, we would not have won more than 4,200 cases to date.

–Edward Snook
US~Observer publisher

Personal Liberty

Edward Snook

has been the publisher of the US~Observer newspaper for over 20 years, however his efforts to vindicate innocent people began over 25 years ago. He has also been a successful investigator, dog trainer and entrepreneur.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Grandpa Frog

    In our household, we call it “trial by media”.

  • johnd

    What is not fair is that an innocent man has to spend an enormous amount of money to prove his innocence. The wealthy can afford a higher class attorney and therefore receive a different sort of justice. The lawyers should be put in a pool and the defendant picks the one he likes. The state pays the lawyer the same as the D.A. This would end the frivolous lawsuits and lengthy decisions. Lawyers would be paid a reasonable salary and the poorer ones would never get picked so they’d have to go get another job.

  • identitee

    “When we find conclusive evidence of a person’s innocence, we go to the prosecutor or other public official responsible and inform him of the conclusive evidence.”

    How can you get conclusive evidence that someone DIDN’T do something? It’s impossible to prove a negative.

    “In the few instances where our clients are required to go through a trial, we make sure the ‘conclusive proof’ that we obtained is made public and used in court.”

    How can you do this? In many cases, evidence cannot be introduced in court if it has previously been released to the media.

    “Without our physical newspaper, we would not have won more than 4,200 cases to date.”
    What is your physical newspaper’s circulation? Are you attorneys also, to have won 4,200 court cases?