Judges are part of the legislative process, and they are not the justice process. I found Judges typically have no idea how someone becomes part of the justice process (or branch). Judges typically are lawyers, duly elected, or previous commissioners. Yes, Judges are more about the money than they are about the truth. Judges may ask themselves, “what does this case cost the State,” and determine the outcome mainly by that. Because of that, we commonly find Civil Judges contradict themselves over the same issue in two or more cases. Criminal Judges have stated their preconceptions of the outcome, with reasons, before the trial continues (past start). We also found Justices only review cases from Civil Judges as only paperweight with no further consideration of arguments over evidence, unlike other cases with merit for further review.
Recently, the news has exploited the pepper-spray cases, where they showed video evidence of one uniformed man spray students. Note that there was quite some debate over the already sealed portion of the case. Judges may seal cases and it takes Judges to unseal cases, as we found by those news reports. In Civil Court, however, we find people, like Mediators, have unsealed cases without permission. There could be any reason why the cases were sealed, most likely because the case wasn't fair as-is, so if they unseal without permission, you know the affect on the next case is unfair. I wonder if those that were pepper-sprayed were scientists that needed actual facts of law as part of their science.
The scientists that do not conflict with law are not scientists in regards to evidence of concern in law. Instead of some leap of faith, we found scientists typically try substances, and other processes, said illegal, so they can sustain what is actually illegal, or not, about such law. Scientists want the truth, not someone that just says such-and-such is against the law. With some laws, we found that such scientific process is the only way for the truth, and that anybody that hasn't done such scientific process does not know any truth about why said law exists. For example, most people admit their guilty of illegal substance usage before any actual scientific test ran on such substance. In science, the term “substance” confirms an unknown, so the people contradicted themselves when they somehow knew anything more it. In school, I opened one packet of Equal™ (sugar) and poured it out on the desktop. Then I used the school's razor blade and chopped it up into white powder. After two-minutes, I asked nearby students about “it,” and they all said it was some [street-slang]. It made me realize that “Equal™” was some pun on math-classes. After that, I knew real science wasn't easy based on that percentage of assumptions.
The scientists that finds himself or herself often in Criminal Court is either the criminal or on the accelerated-scientific study. The truth, there, the Judges have and can seal. In Civil Court, curiosity killed the cat, and so does it affect on only fairness when they take such cases and exploit them. The State puts its best and brightest minds up against the scientists, yet that is not enough obvious merit in the eyes of Civil Court (and participants) who discriminate against scientists, especially as some bible versus science war. Real scientists are religious, as they know the knowledge in the bible is beyond the normal human years; that is faith where the scientists must agree, and where there shouldn't be any such war. Real scientists also rise above Judges, and that conflicts in some people's faith in Judges when they think anybody above Judges are above the law. Maybe they have not realized the truth, that maybe it took some jury of twelve scientists, before they rule the use of pepper-spray as within the law under such circumstances. We know criminologists that have not affected themselves with such actual exposure, of known evidence or unknown substances, do not know the truth, so they need scientists that know.
In simple conclusion, there are other sections of law beside Civil and Criminal. These other ones reveal more about the Civil and Criminal process. For Example, California Penal Code 3535 is about contemporaneous exposition, yet Civil Court considered that some demeanor. For the wise that didn't think of “it” as some demeanor, they probably quickly moved on into Education Code “a la carte.” As for computer scientists and the metaverse, I doubt you'll find any J.D. of Ag-Biotech anytime soon.
P.S. In the case of the author of KONY 2012, where said he yelled many things while naked at some street corner, consider how people reacted and said he was bipolar or something worse rather than just use of freedom-of-speech? How many said he was drunk in public rather than just naked in public? Does that relate to the case of “blood diamonds”? Maybe that exemplifies how years of mistreatment starts when medical practitioners “kony” (funnel) their income from insurance companies, much like how “blood diamonds” have affected us all. Apropos above, note how many “cases” disregarded “the source” of such... [street-slang].
“I'm a stallion.”
“No, you're a pony.”