Obfuscation of Justice
This is a continuation of a previous series of articles entitled "Obstruction of Justice". The previous series dealt with Obstruction of Justice charges, by the government, against a number of defendants, which proceedings were fraught with far more obstruction of justice than the defendants were accused of perpetrating.
Obstruction of justice is the act of preventing the police or law courts from doing their job. [Cambridge Dictionary of American English]. Though this definition is broadened by Federal Statute, it is also broadened when it becomes a means of obstructing the administration of "justice", by whatever means, and by whoever applies those means.
Assuming that the obstruction of justice can be identified and overcome, it, in and of itself, is not, necessarily, a bar to the eventual administration of justice. Justice, you might say, will prevail.
But, what happens when justice is not allowed to prevail – when the facts, the law and the actions that were taken to obstruct justice are laid, very clearly and concisely on the table – yet, they are prevented, by other means, from being recognized and overcome – so that justice might prevail?
To obfuscate is to make (something) less clear and harder to understand, esp. intentionally [from Cambridge International Dictionary of English].
Now, if we were to take a situation and respond to that situation, but, in so doing, we were to ignore the facts, the words, the law, and, instead, provide new words, unrelated facts and ignore the wording of the law, we will have achieved a new high ground which can, properly, be described as "Obfuscation of Justice".
This series is intended to demonstrate exactly those circumstances – as they apply to the same case which was the subject of the previous series.
The Appelate Court Decision - October 29, 2001
Obfuscation of Justice #1 - The Appellate Court's continuation of a charade
Two Important Facts
Return to Florida Common Law Court