Introduction
The United States legal system is lauded as a beacon of justice, a system where truth and fairness should prevail. However, beneath this veneer lies a legal structure built to protect itself, perpetuate injustices, and violate the rights of individuals on technicalities rather than address meritorious claims. This system is carefully designed by attorneys for attorneys, ensuring that legal hurdles are nearly insurmountable for everyday citizens seeking justice. One glaring example of this system’s inherent injustice is the manipulation of the Statute of Limitations—a legal mechanism that deliberately injures countless lives and facilitates human rights abuses.
The Statute of Limitations: A Tool for Injustice
The Statute of Limitations, while presented as a reasonable boundary for bringing legal actions, is in reality a tool designed to protect defendants and shield the legal system from addressing the full scope of wrongful conduct. Established by attorneys and lawmakers, it sets a timeframe within which claims must be brought, regardless of the circumstances of the case. The original intent, ostensibly, was to encourage timely pursuit of justice and ensure fairness. However, what this statute does in practice is ensure that those who have been wronged but are unable to file within this arbitrary window are barred from ever obtaining redress.
These statutes disproportionately harm victims of systemic abuses. For instance, when a wrongful conviction is exposed decades later, evidence of police misconduct or prosecutorial malfeasance may be clear as day, but the courts routinely block these claims due to expiration of the statutory period. This effectively renders the courts complicit in covering up wrongdoing, protecting state actors, and ensuring that justice is denied.
The Statute of Limitations wasn’t created to serve the interests of justice; it was developed to limit the state’s liability and reduce the workload of courts and legal practitioners. The result is a two-tiered system where victims of government misconduct are left without recourse. This manipulation of the legal framework leads to widespread human rights abuses, as defined under international law. When states fail to provide avenues for redress of legitimate grievances and choose instead to protect their own, they violate fundamental human rights and freedoms.
State of Arizona:
1. Example Court Rule:
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6):
- Description: This rule allows a defendant to file a motion to dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In essence, even if everything the plaintiff alleges is true, the law does not provide a remedy for the complaint. This is often used as a technicality to dismiss cases without a full trial on the merits, focusing more on the legal sufficiency of the claim rather than the facts of the case.
2. Statute of Limitations (Arizona):
Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-542(1):
- Description: This statute provides a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. For example, if someone is injured in an accident, they have two years from the date of the injury to file a lawsuit. If the claim is not filed within that period, the case will likely be dismissed, regardless of its merits.
Federal Government:
1. Example Court Rule:
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6):
- Description: Similar to Arizona’s Rule 12(b)(6), this federal rule allows defendants to move to dismiss a claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This is a procedural rule that can be used to dismiss cases on technical legal grounds without addressing the underlying facts of the case.
2. Statute of Limitations (Federal):
28 U.S. Code § 1658 – Time Limit for Commencing Civil Actions Arising Under Acts of Congress:
- Description: This statute sets a four-year statute of limitations for civil actions that arise under federal statutes enacted after December 1, 1990. This means that if a person has a claim based on federal law, they typically have four years from the date the cause of action accrues to file a lawsuit in federal court.
Technicalities Over Merits
The tragedy of the legal system goes far beyond just the Statute of Limitations. Across the United States, courts dismiss meritorious claims not because they lack validity but because of legal technicalities—hyper-technical rules crafted by lawyers to favor the system over the individual. These rules are designed to protect the system itself, ensuring that procedural missteps often outweigh substantive justice.
My case is a prime example of this legal sham. Rather than addressing the overwhelming evidence that would have exonerated me, the courts focused on technicalities to uphold my conviction. On appeal, they failed to consider key facts that pointed to witness credibility issues. One of the state’s witnesses, for example, was under investigation for a murder that he appeared to be directly involved in. Yet, rather than scrutinize the integrity of this witness or acknowledge the state’s misconduct in suppressing evidence, the court turned a blind eye, opting to uphold the conviction based on legal technicalities rather than the truth.
The hurdles I faced were not unique. Countless individuals across the country find their meritorious claims ignored because of technical rules that allow the system to bypass substantive justice. These technicalities—whether they be arbitrary deadlines, procedural missteps, or the overemphasis on form rather than substance—were designed by attorneys to protect themselves and their institutions rather than protect the rights of individuals.
Systematic Design by Attorneys, for Attorneys
The American legal system is crafted in such a way that it serves attorneys and judges more than the people it is supposed to protect. Lawyers create these rules not with justice in mind, but with efficiency, protection, and self-interest at the forefront. This structural bias is evident in nearly every area of the law. Whether it be civil cases, criminal defense, or appeals, the focus is more on procedure than justice.
In criminal cases, for example, state courts routinely block defendants from presenting evidence of innocence simply because it wasn’t filed within the proper window. Rather than seeking to correct injustices, courts hide behind procedural barriers. Judges, who often ascend from the ranks of practicing attorneys, have no incentive to disrupt this system as it perpetuates their authority and protects their peers from scrutiny.
What this creates is a closed system—one that guards itself against meaningful reform and accountability. The failure to address meritorious claims on appeal, as seen in my own case, reflects a broader pattern of protecting the system over addressing wrongful convictions and state misconduct.
“The American legal system is crafted in such a way that it serves attorneys and judges more than the people it is supposed to protect.” – Ewing Redmond Samuels III
Proof and Evidence of Human Rights Abuses
The failure of the legal system to correct injustices on technical grounds isn’t just a flaw of the United States; it is a violation of human rights as defined by international law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) explicitly states that every person has the right to a fair hearing and an effective remedy for violations of their rights (Article 2). When state actors—including courts—block claims based on arbitrary statutes or technicalities, they deprive individuals of these rights.
In my case, the courts not only ignored the credible issues with a state’s witness but actively facilitated the state’s efforts to suppress these facts. This type of conduct is a violation of the right to a fair trial, which is protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 10). Furthermore, the courts’ refusal to address my claims on their merits, instead focusing on technicalities, constitutes a denial of the right to an effective remedy as outlined in Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The legal system’s reliance on technicalities rather than addressing the merits of cases ensures that the government remains unaccountable for its actions. It allows human rights abuses to continue unchecked and leaves countless individuals without recourse for the wrongs they’ve suffered.
Seek Justice for Human Rights, Not Civil Rights
When domestic legal systems use statutes of limitations or other technicalities to deny justice, international human rights courts offer a crucial avenue for redress. Although these petitions require time, detailed evidence, and exhaustion of domestic remedies, they can provide a path toward justice when national courts fail. The legal system’s reliance on technicalities must be challenged, not only for individual justice but to ensure that human rights abuses are not shielded by procedural barriers designed to protect the state rather than the people.
There are several international and regional human rights courts and commissions that address human rights violations. The most commonly used bodies include:
- Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and Inter-American Court of Human Rights: For citizens of the Americas, including Belize and the U.S., these bodies handle human rights petitions related to violations of the American Convention on Human Rights and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.
- European Court of Human Rights (ECHR): For violations within European countries that are members of the Council of Europe.
- United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC): This body hears petitions regarding violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the U.S. and many other countries are signatories.
- African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Handles human rights violations in African Union member states.
Conclusion
The United States legal system, as it currently stands, is not a system of justice—it is a system of legal technicalities designed by and for attorneys. It protects itself at the expense of individuals seeking justice, and in doing so, it facilitates human rights abuses. The Statute of Limitations is just one example of how the system is designed to prevent accountability. My case, and the cases of countless others, demonstrates that the courts will always protect themselves and the state rather than address meritorious claims. It is time for the system to be held accountable and for true justice to prevail.
Human rights are not optional, and justice should never be secondary to legal technicalities.
Until Next Time…
I Am,
Ewing Redmond Samuels III
