The time gap in a false charge lawsuit

legal caseWhen a false charge lawsuit is brought to the law court too early, versus a libel case is sued without any necessary legal elements consisting the libel crime, mind the time gap inherent in the false charge sued against the plaintiff of the faked libel case is of crucial importance for the libel defendant not to lose the false charge case in the law court investigating and trial process. The libel plaintiff might maneuver a libel case with none of the necessary legal elements existed to be in favor of the plaintiff and at the same time also make use of a kind of time gap inherent in the false charge against the libel accuser in the lawsuit process, which in this case the cause of time gap is the libel defendant too early to file a false charge against the plaintiff of the faked libel case. The plaintiff take advantage of the inexperienced defendant and his lawyer for too early to sue the faked libel case against the plaintiff but the defendant could only claim an immature false charge case against the plaintiff of the faked libel case in the law court. The time gap inherent in the false charge against the accused libel case plaintiff is resulting from the libel defendant and lawyer too early to sue an immature false charge case, and the gap will be between the limited time period to appeal to the higher court after the filed request for trial false charge case loses in the lower court and the duration which the prosecuted libel trial will be lasting in the lower court after the libel case being prosecuted. The immature false charge case could be dismissed by the lower court which is currently proceeding the accused libel case, in seven days the libel defendant has to appeal the false charge for reconsideration to the high court, if the reconsideration rejected, then in ten days the libel defendant has to file the false charge case with a request for trial with lawyer in the lower court. But no matter to appeal for the reconsideration of the dismissed false charge case or to file a request for the false charge case to trial, it probably would be totally blocked by the prosecuted libel case in the lower court to be rejected by the lower court or to lose the case, and then even further to be rejected and lose in the appeal court. Then the false charge case against the libel plaintiff would be settled by the law court forever.

The prosecuted libel case which would last for a sufficient period of time, enough to surpass the duration of legal process of the rejected false charge lawsuit, filing a request for trial after the false charge being dismissed and rejected, the ongoing of the false charge trial, and even plus the duration of the appeal to the higher court by the libel defendant for a lost false charge in the lower court. Meanwhile, the appeal court and the prosecutor of the false charge case in the lower court would probably favor the legal process which is currently progressing in the lower court by the libel plaintiff together with the prosecutor who has decided the libel case to be prosecuted and trialed, and the lower court judge would hold a libel trial. While as both a libel case defendant and a false charge case plaintiff, if it were to lose the false charge lawsuit out of the inherent time gap ensued, and were to miss the timing to negotiate with the privies in the law court right before the faked libel case being prosecuted, it is an inferior situation and position and the defendant of the faked libel case would be assumed guilty for the alleged libel crime brought to trial in court to be taken as the committed suspect in the lower court. It is deemed to be right both in logic thinking and in the legal system process because the faked libel case has been prosecuted in the lower court and the defendant of the faked libel case who files the false charge lawsuit is deemed to be without any judicial proof of his innocence of that faked libel case against him in the lower court. This outcome would carry out a guilty presumption in the lower court to cause the defendant of the faked libel case to lose his false charge lawsuit against the faked libel case accuser.

Therefore, when a libel case without any necessary legal elements consisting the crime versus the false charge brought to court too early by the defendant, it is seriously biased for the law court to overemphasize the due process of justice to be in favor of the well-trained lawyer to take advantage of a time gap to invalidate the false charge against the libel case plaintiff.

DB, November 30, 2012

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s