Isaac Wright, Jr. was wrongfully jailed for 10 years. He studied law In prison. He proved he was innocent. Became an attorney. Sent the judge who imprisoned him to prison. He was arrested in 1989 convicted in 1991 and sentenced to life in prison for charges he didn't commit. When he was released in 1996 he had served about 7 years. After release, Issac earned a bachelor's degree in 2002 and a law degree in 2007, then passed the New Jersey bar exam on his first try, but faced a nine-year character review before admission in 2017. Issac is the first person in U.S. history to secure his own exoneration from a life sentence and then become a licensed attorney in the same jurisdiction. Here’s the thing….All court cases are similar to a tennis match, but with criminals. They are criminals, it’s what they do. So instead of focusing on criminals acting like criminals, focus on what you can control. They are criminals but they are also grownups and you can’t tell grownups what to do. Don’t worry about them. Let them manage their case and you do the same. Here’s a broad stoke on how to manage your case… Learn the rules and procedures of the court and the law of your case. That’s it. Literally. By law, the court must provide the rules and procedures of the court to everyone, either through calling their employees or visiting their website. Either way, everybody has to follow them. Remember when you were younger and you wanted to play a new game, but you had to learn the rules of the game so you’ll know how to play? And remember how some people thought they were too special to follow the rules so they would lie, cheat, and finesse? Just doing everything and anything just to win. Court is the same way. It is ran by a bunch of childish and immature people with titles doing the most. It would actually be funny if it wasn’t so harmful. Next, find the law of your case….Meaning, support your position. How? Find cases that are similar to your case that had a favorable outcome. Why? Because they’ve already done the heavy lifting. They already did the research. They have the references and laws to back it up. And if you find a Supreme Court case, that’s even better.

Detrimental reliance happens when you rely on someone in authority to act fairly and follow the rules — and you get harmed because they didn’t. In law, it means: 👉 You reasonably believed the judge (or authority) would behave according to law, fairness, and due process… 👉 You relied on that belief during your case… 👉 And because the judge violated those standards, you suffered harm, loss, or prejudice. It is rooted in equity — meaning the court must act honorably if it expects YOU to honor its rulings. 🧠 Why It Matters in Judicial Misconduct Cases Most people walk into court believing: - The judge will be neutral - The judge will follow procedure - The judge will listen to evidence - The judge will not insult, bully, or shame them That expectation is reasonable. Judges swear an oath to do exactly that. So when a judge behaves like a wayward, rude, biased, or hostile authority figure, you can argue: “I relied on the court’s duty of fairness and that reliance led to harm because the judge abandoned neutrality.” This is detrimental reliance. ⚖️ How to Use Detrimental Reliance in Your Case...You can raise detrimental reliance in: 1. Judicial Misconduct Complaints Point out that you relied on the judge’s oath and legal duty to conduct themselves with fairness and impartiality — and that the misconduct caused: - Loss of rights - Skewed rulings - Financial harm - Reputation damage - Emotional/psychological injury - Procedural injustice 2. Motions to Vacate or Reconsider Show that the entire ruling is tainted because you relied on a “fair tribunal” that didn’t exist. A biased judge = constitutional defect. 3. Appeals Appeals LOVE this argument.Judges cannot violate your reliance on fundamental fairness. If they do, the ruling is often reversible error. 4. Civil Rights Lawsuits (42 USC § 1983) If the misconduct rises to a constitutional violation, detrimental reliance strengthens your argument that: - You expected due process - You were denied due process - You suffered actual harm because of that denial

Peaceful Gladiators, Please click the link to read the article. https://www.einpresswire.com/article/866389473/dr-anelia-sutton-calls-on-community-political-and-faith-leaders-to-recognize-law-education-as-a-human-right Then vote Yes or No: Should law education be a human rights issue? Remember to hit the like button for your community engagement points! 🤗

Preponderance of Evidence means the greater weight of the evidence — enough to show that something is more likely true than not true. In civil cases, this is the standard of proof that decides who wins: the side with the stronger, more convincing evidence, even if just by 51%. Homework Assignment: Watch a real court case on TV or YouTube Then describe: 1️⃣ The facts of the case (what happened) 2️⃣ The verdict (the outcome) Listen carefully to what each side presents as evidence. Notice which facts persuaded the judge or jury and why. This exercise will train you to become obsessed with evidence. Because in law, what you believe doesn’t matter. It is all about what you can prove does. Let’s go!

Today, court isn’t about justice, it’s about control. And the one thing they fear most is exposure. I’ve seen cases end in 7 days and others drag for 7 years. The difference? How much they fear you shining a light on their corruption. They silence the uninformed, but they can’t silence the educated. Because once you know your rights you become unstoppable. Yes, it can be an uphill battle, and it's easy. But, hang in there to see it through. Don't give. Because it's going to be worth in the end. They have the numbers. But we have the truth. Soon, we will have the numbers too. And when we do, it's over for them.