If you do not stand up for yourself and assert your rights, you may end up with the short end of the stick of a judicial proceeding because most people are essentially impacted by the belief that their discretion is more important than your liberty.

Consequently, if you listen very carefully and practice the enforcement of your own rights, the following information may very well save your life.

First and foremost, the core principle of every legitimate judicial proceeding is that we are all equal under the law even though the system is rigged by people who routinely act like they are above the law.

Consequently, every single miscarriage of justice is predictable and avoidable because those who simply manipulate the system to obtain the outcome which confirms their own prejudices can and should be exposed. Unfortunately, time is in short supply.

Justice is frequently difficult to obtain because the opportunity to get it wrong far exceeds the ability to articulate and to consider material facts which are frequently overwhelmed by the routine tendency and capacity to misrepresent. Needless to say, the effort to expose the truth is consequently an uphill battle.

One of the red flags which generally betrays the fact that people generally confirm their own biases instead of seeking out the truth is the routine abuse of discretion. The test which needs to be applied to minimize the consequence of abusing discretion is rather straightforward. Authorities should not exercise discretion in a manner which violates individual rights because that invariably produces a miscarriage of justice.

It is clear when people are more concerned about dictating an outcome rather than the more arduous task of thouroughly investigating a particular circumstance, the opportunity to produce a miscarriage of justice is more common than not.

Without discretion or jurisprudence, the courtroom becomes a battleground where the name of the game is not justice but the opportunity to manipulate the process to create the appearance of justice.

Like a bad statute or law which should not even be enforceable because it violates a fundamental principle of justice, bad discretion is all about veneer, appearance and the fundamental perversion of justice.

Under the rule of law, an authoritative remedy demands insight that is sharp and deep enough to illuminate the problem, not legal gimmicks and tactics which block the opportunity to review the evidence that is necessary to make an informed judgment.

It is even possible for a well rehearsed, crafty perjurer to create the false impression that he or she is more reliable than a nervous or impatient truth-teller, and it is therefore vital to be perceptive and to exercise the extraordinary scrutiny to secure a rather elusive but just outcome.

Justice Learned Hand believed that the accuracy of a judge's evidentiary rulings should be assessed by the standards not of "a learned lawyer but of a sensible man" adding "much of the delay and bickering which does more than deface a court room would be avoided by a recognition that the rules of evidence are practical and discretionary."

Clearly, when falsehood is packaged in a manner that is designed to simply secure a desired outcome, justice becomes a fickle game where the biggest fraud artist wins and it is therefore necessary to apply the recognition that Justice Learned Hand acknowledged.

The bottom line is discretion that illuminates a problem is appropriate. Discretion which blocks disclosure and misrepresents an issue produces a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, providing access to justice is as much about securing a just outcome as justice blocked or delayed is about the denial of justice.

Next: The cowards who cause wars do not fight them.