As a heads up, there is a lot of quoting here - so this post is ridiculously long.
For those of you who do not know, KJV-Onlyism (KJVO) is the belief that the King James Version is the only accurate English translation and that other modern translations are perversions of this. Often times this belief includes the thought that the KJV is a divinely inspired document (and thus an infallible translation) and that other translations undermine the God-ordained translation in many places. For many, this undermining is an intentional, Satanic assault on the Word of God. For others, this undermining is simply the natural result of tampering with God's word, even if the undermining itself is unintentional.
Over the past week on Reddit I've had several instances of seeing posts or having conversations that brought up KJVO. One of these was actually about the doctrine, the others came later in the discussion/post, which is what put it in my mind to make this one. There are a ton of issues with KJVO, but I won't go into all of them, instead I will let the translators of the KJV do the speaking for me.
When the KJV was first released in 1611, it came with a preface titled The Translators to the Reader/Preface). The preface written by the translators goes through the the reasons that they felt this translation was necessary. It also goes through and responds to many of the challenges brought against them in the making of the translation (many of these challenges are ironically echoed by KJV-Onlyists) as well as communicates the limitations of the translators.

Emphasis on a Common Tongue.

This is the point that will likely get the least traction with KJV-Onlyists, but I think it is worth bringing up. A huge emphasis in this preface is that the Bible should be readily understandable by the readers. This certainly means it should be in the right language, but it also means that it should be in the common iteration of that language.

5.27 Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night.
6.1 But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian to me. [1Cor.14] 6.2 The Apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not L.atin the finest. 6.3 Nature taught a natural man to confess, that all of us in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them. 6.4 The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous; so the Roman did the Syrian, and the Jew (even S.Hierome himself called the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many:) 6.5 So the Emperor of Constantinople calleth the Latin tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storm at it: 6.6 [2. Tom. Concil. ex edit. Petri Crab.] so the Jews long before Christ called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better than barbarous. 6.7 Therefore as one complaineth, that always in the Senate of Rome, [Cicero 5° de finibus.] there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readiness. 6.8 Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen.29:10]. 6.9 Indeed, without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, Read this, I pray thee, he was fain ((compelled by circumstances)) to make this answer, I cannot, for it is sealed. [Isa.29:11]

The reason this point may be the weakest is that the translators here are contrasting different languages. However, following the spirit of what they've written, it seems the logical conclusion that they intend a translation that is easy to understand. The fact is that we don't talk and write in KJV English anymore. It is still English, but many of the words mean different things now or are completely obsolete in every instance except for reading material from this era. For those that are "unlearned," this creates a stumbling block that the translators are obviously attempting to clear.

12.4 Now what can be more available thereto than to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue which they understand?

Acknowledgement of the validity of previous translations as God's Word & acceptance of future translations

15.16 neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps, as it is written of Origen, that he was the first, [πρωτοπειροι] in a manner, that put his hand to write commentaries upon the Scriptures, and therefore no marvel if he overshot himself many times.
12.1 And to the same effect say we, that we are so far off from condemning any of their labours that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queen Elizabeth's of ever-renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance.

The translators continuously praise the past work of translators and lean on them for help in their own work. They may be critical at times of certain aspects of a translation, but still regard it as faithful and God's Word.

12.9 Aquila, of whom we spake before ((§ 7:12)), translated the Bible as carefully and as skilfully as he could; and yet he thought good to go over it again, and then it got the credit with the Jews, to be called κατα ακριβειαν, that is, accurately done, as Saint Hierome witnesseth. 12.10 How many books of profane learning have been gone over again and again, by the same translators, by others? Of one and the same book of Aristotle's Ethics, there are extant not so few as six or seven several translations. 12.11 Now, if this cost may be bestowed upon the gourd, which affordeth us a little shade, and which to-day flourisheth but to-morrow is cut down, what may we bestow, nay, what ought we not to bestow, upon the vine, the fruit whereof maketh glad the conscience of man, and the stem whereof abideth for ever? 12.12 And this is the Word of God, which we translate.
12.15 Therefore let no man's eye be evil, because his Majesty's is good; neither let any be grieved that we have a Prince that seeketh the increase of the spiritual wealth of Israel, (let Sanballats and Tobiahs do so, which therefore do bear their just reproof but let us rather bless God from the ground of our heart, for working this religious care in him to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. 12.16 For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.

One of the most striking affirmations of other translations is:

13.1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.

Even the meanest translation is the Word of God. And they continue:

13.2 As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. 13.3 For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all [James 3:2]) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. 13.4 No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. 13.5 For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? 13.6 The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express.

In 13.6, we have another example of KJV critics echoing the mentality of KJV-Onlyism.

Acknowledgement of the limitation of translators

The translator's take a moment to touch on the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint or LXX (though they refer to it as the Seventy). About this translation they say:

7.8 It is certain, that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or apostolic men? 7.9 Yet it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to take that which they found (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations as though they made a translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded.

The translators seem content to accept a translation as helpful and useful, but still be imperfect and used by the Holy Spirit. However, they address people that believed that the LXX was infallible. That the translators of the LXX were prophets used by God to create and infallble translation, and to this, the KJV translators fervently disagree:

7.15 Yea, Epiphanius above-named doth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the authors thereof not only for interpreters, but also for prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperor, enjoining the Jews his subjects to use specially the translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were, as it were, enlightened with prophetical grace.
7.16 Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet [Isa.31:3] to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit: so it is evident, (and Saint Hierome affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were interpreters, they were not prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The KJV translators acknowledge that the LXX translators were not inspired prophets but merely very learned men who did there best and stumbled at times. Nowhere in this document do we see the translators implying they are of a different status.

16.6 There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. 16.7 Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, etc., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S.Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.

We'll get into this more below, but these are given as reasons that the KJV authors used marginal notes. They recognize that some of these things are difficult to translate and could have several legitimate translations. They include marginal notes because they may have gotten it wrong and want the reader to be aware of the different possibilities.

Defense of margins (footnotes) that contain textual variants/translator notes

One criticism brought against modern translations are their use of footnotes. One KJV-Onlyist website claims that the fact that the KJV doesn't have footnotes is one of its benefits saying:

Footnotes are one of the most confusing aspects of the modern versions. The modern version editors remove verses from the text and place it in the footnotes. The readers do not know whether to treat the footnotes as Scripture or man’s words.

But this displays an ignorance of the KJV's origins because the KJV did include footnotes (though, in the margins, hence margins or margin notes). Sometimes these include verse references to help the reader notice when the Bible is referencing another passage, other times its noting a different translation option or textual variant. Example
The above quote is just one example of the KJV's critics sounding like KJV-Onlyists. The translators spend a section remarking on this exact same criticism of their decision to include marginal notes.

16.1 Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken.

They respond with:

16.2 But we hold their judgement not to be so sound in this point. 16.3 For though whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S.Chrysostome saith, [παντα τα αναγκαια δηλα. S.Chrysost. in 2.Thess. cap. 2.] and as S.Augustine, in those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity; [S.Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.] 16.4 yet for all that it cannot be dissembled ((disguised)), that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their everywhere plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, 16.5 it hath pleased God in His divine providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem ((be suitable to)) us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to revolve upon modesty with S.Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis: [S.August. li. 8. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. 16.6 There be many words in the Scriptures [απαξ λεγομενα.] which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. 16.7 Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, etc., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S.Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. 16.8 Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? 16.9 For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. 16.10 Therefore as S.Augustine saith, [S.Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. 16.11 We know that Sixtus Quintus [Sixtus V. præf. Bibliæ.] expressly forbiddeth that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favourers for this conceit. 16.12 They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. 16.13 If they were sure that their high priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, [Plat. in Paulo secundo.] and that he were as free from error by special privilege as the dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an oracle, his opinion a decision. 16.14 But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while: they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable; and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

The KJV's translators included notes and they defend that decision. The reasons they give for these things are the reasons that modern translators give for their inclusion of footnotes.
Defense against the accusation of changing God's Word.

4.2 For he that meddleth with men's religion in any part meddleth with their custom, nay, with their freehold; and though they find no content in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering.

The KJV translators note accusations against modern (in their days) translations because often times a verse in their translation disagrees with a verse in a previous translations that had been used for a significant period of time, hundreds of years in some instances.

11.1 Many men's mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment. 11.2 Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while? 11.3 Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime? (Lacte gypsum malè misceture, saith S.Ireney.) [S.Iren. 3. lib. cap. 19.] 11.4 We hoped that we had been in the right way, that we had had the oracles of God delivered unto us, and that though all the world had cause to be offended and to complain, yet that we had none. 11.5 Hath the nurse holden out the breast, and nothing but wind in it? 11.6 Hath the bread been delivered by the fathers of the Church, and the same proved to be lapidosus, as Seneca speaketh? 11.7 What is it to handle the word of God deceitfully, if this be not? Thus certain brethren. 11.8 Also the adversaries of Judah and Jerusalem, like Sanballat in Nehemiah, mock, as we hear, both at the work and the workmen, saying: What do these weak Jews, etc.? will they make the stones whole again out of the heaps of dust which are burnt? although they build, yet if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stony wall. [Neh.4:3] 11.9 Was their translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to ((forced upon)) the people? Yea, why did the Catholics (meaning Popish Romanists) always go in jeopardy, for refusing to go to hear it? Nay, if it must be translated into English, Catholics are fittest to do it. They have learning, and they know when a thing is well, they can manum de tabulâ. 11.10 We will answer them both briefly: and the former, being brethren, thus, with S.Hierome, Damnamus veteres? [S.Hieron. Apolog. advers. Ruffin.] Minimè, sed post priorum studia in domo Domini quod possumus laboramus. That is, Do we condemn the ancient? In no case: but after the endeavours of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God.

These are the same kind's of accusations the KJV-Onlyists will bring up when discussing variants between translations. We see the translator's acceptance to change standard translations where they are seen to be faulty.

14.1 Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil ((a false or mocking argument)) and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. 14.2 For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?

For the KJV translators, it is a given that a translation will have faults and when those faults are found out, it is right to correct them. They even grant alterations as a given in the rest of section 14 by giving a brief history of both past and present (for them) alterations and corrections. For space, I will not quote the whole section, but feel free to look for yourself.

Conclusion

The KJV is a wonderful translation for its time. Its influence cannot be overstated and, like the KJV's approach to translations that come before it, I believe that it was used by God for the furthering of his kingdom. It is not an infallible translation. Like all translations, it has its pros and cons. It is indeed God's Word. But so too are today's translations, and this is precisely what the authors of the KJV would have believed, and did believe when discussing "even the meanest" translation.

EDIT: This post is in an article format with pictures and graphs here
I can't be silent anymore. In 2018, out of 1076 abortions in Poland, 1 was because of rape, 25 because it was dangerous for the woman's life and 1050 because of an unhealthy fetus. It means that PIS just totally banned abortion in Poland
Too few Europeans are aware of the depth of this crisis. The current Polish government is destroying the country from inside-out with its nepotism, religious zeal, communistic tactics, social programs and funding verge organizations (or trolls). It breaks every single law, making unconstitutional laws since 2015 and destroying the court of law. How Poland is pushing EU into crisis - rise of populism. The video is 2 years old and now it's worst
PIS staffed every single judicial court with its own people (ending the impartiality of judges). The very aggressive social 500+ program increased the job inactivity of Poles to 48% (48% of 15+ Polish citizens are NEET. Unemployment is at 5-6%). The Job vacancies in Poland are at the lowest level in EU. The corruption and nepotism is rampant, more than 1000 family members and friends are in public companies or in different Ministries. Polish PIS high ranking politicians are also making money together with pimps and mafia (see scandals down there). They are also giving millions of euros from public money to the Catholic Church. They are paying trolls to spew hate on Facebook, via Whatsapp and on the web. Some of them are hiding and not prosecuting pedophiles in the Catholic Church. Poland has almost the lowest innovation in EU. In 15 indexes tracking freedom and democracy in Europe Poland went from an average position of 12 out of 28 in 2010 to 23 out of 28 in 2019. I mean, not to diminish Trump’s “awesomeness” but imagine if the WHOLE republican party in the US was Trump-like. Shady deals, family in the govt, creating discord, staffing courts with their own judges. I’m just mortified.
For further reading I recommend: Sadurski, Wojciech. "Poland's Constitutional Breakdown", Oxford University Press, 2019.
Acronyms and main characters:

• PIS- current govt, Law and Justice, a fringe party with populist programs. Majority in Parliament. President is also from PIS. Opposition has the Senate.
• J. Kaczynski, PIS leader, Twin brother of the dead Polish president
• Z. Ziobro, General Prosecutor and Minister of Justice. PIS
• A. Duda, President. PIS
• M. Banas, Head of the Supreme Audit office. PIS
• M. Morawiecki, Prime minister. PIS
• T. Rydzyk Catholic priest, founder of the conservative Radio Maryja station and tv TRWAM
• J. Kurski, chairman of the Polish national state broadcaster TVP. PIS
• M. Kuchcinski, ex-Marshal of the lower house. PIS
• B. Szydlo, ex-prime minister. PIS

PiS changes electoral rules in an unconstitutional move. Presidential "elections" 2020 are the Biggest legal blunder of the year

Poland Is Showing the World How Not to Run a Pandemic Election. The upcoming Polish election is shaping up to be a farce. Washington should learn from Warsaw’s mistakes before November.
Why Poland’s “ghost election” sends a warning about its democracy
Wikipedia about this blunder

• Pis doesn't want to declare a constitutional state of emergence or state of natural disaster because it would postpone the elections. So they declared a state of epidemic that doesn't allow to limit the freedom of movement or other liberties Ombudsman opinion
• At first, PiS decided to hold the presidential elections on 10 May despite the public outcry at holding elections at the height of a pandemic. The adoption of generalised voting by post by the Polish parliament, about one month before the planned elections, violates several constitutional standards. It breaches a prohibition on making changes to the electoral law less than six months before an election and a ban on hiding new laws under the guise of amendments to an existing draft.
• Then PiS has excluded a key institution from the process of preparing the elections: the National Electoral Commission (PKW), which can no longer print the voting cards. On the 17th of April president Andrzej Duda signed a bill depriving the PKW of the powers to organise elections
• So in a particularly Kafkaesque twist, the ministry appointed J. Sasin, one of the MP, to organize the elections and he printed 30M ballots before the special election legislation was even signed into law. For months there was a ballot hunt to know where the ballots are stored. 70 million zloty bill for Poland’s abandoned presidential election
• At 02:26 am on 23 April, every Polish mayor and city council president received an anonymous, unsigned e-mail from Polish Post saying that they were required to deliver the private data of 30 million Polish citizens including their PESEL (national identification number), date of birth, address, and other private data in a .txt file format lacking any passwords or security. But local governments, which hold that data, are refusing to hand it over, arguing that the postal service has no legal right to get the files.
• On 29 April 2020, 11 days before the planned election date, election candidate Żółtek presented a copy of an "unlawful" electoral ballot at a press conference. It had NO securities to prevent counterfeit copies (reminder: As of 2 May 2020, Polish law did not authorise Poczta Polska to organise postal voting nor printing of ballots) . Poczta Polska notified the Internal Security Agency about the leak. But how to prove something that shouldn't exist? So many trolls just printed the copy and put it in mailboxes and on the street Picture of police trying to see if this is a copy or not of an illegal ballot
• 4 days before the election, “Simply put, in a democratic country, the government decided — consciously — not to organise the election of the head of state.” Collapse of Polish democracy “What happened with this agreement is truly unprecedented: the presidential election in Poland was not postponed, it was just cancelled,”. As the leaders reached their agreement, no constitutional institution was involved in the process, including the electoral commission, the president, the Sejm and the Supreme Court – the latter was meant to cancel the election according to the letter of the document. However, the two politicians could be certain that their agreement, although un-constitutional, would prove effective because of the complete take-over of the Supreme Court by the Law and Justice nominees since the beginning of May following the expiry of the term of the former President of the Supreme Court Małgorzata Gersdorf. Still, it is highly unusual for the leaders of political parties to openly state what the Supreme Court would decide. Source
• 3 days before the election, the National Electoral Commission (PKW) - controlled by PIS since a month- declared that the election would not be able to take place on 10 May 2020 because there were no candidates???!!! Source So the candidates will need to ONCE again collect 100k signatures to be eligible to be candidates.
• On 3 June 2020, the Marshal of the Sejm ordered the first round of the election to be held on 28 June 2020.
• And now the cherry on top. Elections on 28 june 2020 are UNCONSTITUTIONAL why? art 128.2 of the constitution: "The election of the President of the Republic shall be ordered by the Marshal of the Sejm to be held on a day no sooner than 100 days and no later than 75 days before expiry of the term of office of the serving President of the Republic, and in the event of the office of President of the Republic falling vacant - no later than the 14th day thereafter(...)". June 28 was 70 days before the expiry. So the next election must be announced within 14 days after the office of president is vacated. So the Speaker of the Sejm can announce new elections AT THE EARLIEST after 6th of August. source
• The whipped cream on top of the cherry? These elections are not free, not secret and not for everyone. They are not free because the electoral commission is controlled by PIS, they are not secret because if you vote via post you need to sign the ballot with your name + the attached envelope is see-trough. 14 sins of ballot elections Voter suppression: Old, pregnant and people with kids on their arms can vote first Part 2/5

Destruction of the rule of law.

Some of the passages below are taken from this pdf
No member state in the history of the EU has ever gone as far in subjugating its courts to executive control as the current Polish government. The Polish case has become a test whether it is possible to create a Soviet-style justice system in an EU member state; a system where the control of courts, prosecutors and judges lies with the executive and a single party.
Across Europe, national courts recognise the judgements of courts in other member states, whether these involve commercial law, the European arrest warrant or child custody. Judges must assume that courts across the EU operate according to common values and principles set out in the European Union Treaty and in its Charter of Fundamental Rights. Once judges across the EU have reason to doubt whether courts in any member state provide effective judicial protection, the legal order on which the EU rests collapses.
Freedom house - How PIS captured Poland’s Courts

Constitutional Tribunal changes

It all began with the constitutional crisis four years ago. Constitutional crisis and the destruction of the rule of law In 2015, parliament changed the law on the Constitutional Tribunal, which rules on the constitutionality of legislation. The changes allowed them to annul the nominations of three judges made by the previous parliament and appoint their own. It shortened the terms of the tribunal's president and vice-president from nine to three years. The tribunal ruled the move unconstitutional in an open rebellion, but the dispute remains unresolved. Julia Przylebska - was illegally named the president of the Tribunal court by the president. And now Kaczynski, the PM have meetings at her house. Nice separation of power
There's too much to describe. For further info please visit the link. It is an amazing summary of the whole ordeal. timeline

Supreme Court changes

The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, said one of the most controversial reforms was to do with the Supreme court, which, among other duties, is responsible for confirming election results. The idea was to lower the age of retirement for Supreme Court justices from 70 to 65, but allow the Polish president to grant a five-year extension to whomever they deemed worthy. In 2019, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) — the EU's highest court —ruled this was illegal, after an interim decision ordered 20 already-sacked judges be reinstated. Of course, PIS chose 2 new Constitutional judges, A politician Pawlowicz with communistic past and Piotrowicz, also a politician and a prosecutor that was an active communist during the 80 that prosecuted Solidarnosc. Both of them are above 65 years old.

Ordinary court judges

There were also moves to try a similar tactic in the general court system for judges and public prosecutors, lowering the age of retirement for women to 60 and for men to 65, down from the current 67. Under the reforms the justice minister, who is appointed by the ruling party, would have the power to extend a judge's term. The laws were somewhat adjusted after pressure from the European Commission, but in November 2019 the ECJ shot down these laws, too, citing gender discrimination and political influence over the judiciary.

Disciplinary measures for judges

Another PiS addition allowed judges to be investigated and sanctioned for their court rulings. The disciplinary hearings and procedures were to be carried out by judges selected via parliament. These reforms were criticized by the European Commission because "judges are not insulated from political control and thus judicial independence is violated." The commission brought legal action against Poland on this matter in October 2019.

National Council of the judiciary takeover

In 2017 PiS remodeled the National Council of the Judiciary, which selects candidates for appointment as judges by the President of the Republic. This allowed it, in the short term, to control appointments to the Supreme Court – including to a newly created Disciplinary Chamber, which hears disciplinary cases against judges, and to a new Extraordinary Appeals Chamber, which adjudicates on electoral issues. Over time PiS’ take-over of the National Judicial Council allows it to reshape the entirety of the judiciary. Fifteen of the 25 members of the National Council of the Judiciary were previously elected by judges themselves, as is common practice across Europe for such bodies. These fifteen judges are now elected by the majority in the Sejm, the lower chamber of the Polish parliament. The other ten members of the National Council of the Judiciary are: four members from the Sejm itself (all four members of PiS), two members from the Senate, one representative of the President of the Republic, the Minister of Justice, the president of the Supreme Court and the president of the Supreme Administrative Court. In total 23 of the 25 positions are directly appointed by political authorities.
After the election of the new KRS, a publication of the list with the names of judges declaring their support for specific candidates was refused. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that those names must be disclosed. However, the Chancellery of the Sejm has yet to carry out the NSA’s ruling. The Constitutional Tribunal (TK) and the President of the Personal Data Protection Office have been roped into guarding the secret. KRS destruction

Muzzle bill

The muzzle bill passed Dec 2019, victimize judges questioning the legitimacy of the government’s legal appointments, saying it is unlawful to “show hostility to other authorities of the Republic of Poland and its constitutional organs or to critisize the basic principles of the Republic of Poland.”The bill also delegalise the preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). The bill also allows to fire judges ( which is unconstitutional according to the Constitution). In average Ziobro dismissed a judge every day and a half from its position of president of court source

One of the worse Covid19 laws in EU.

Trampling Fundamental freedoms using a single ordnance and Critiquing the President will land you a year in jail. report.
In the latest special Covid19 law (already 4th lol) PIS smuggled an article straight from a communistic playbook about prosecuting people that critique the president. The sentence can be up to a year. They also smuggled a harsher law for abortions. Can someone tell me HOW it is related to Covid19? source
More Ruleoflaw

Political scandals

Illegal presidential pardon

Illegal presidential pardon for CBA chief Kaminski In 2013, Law and Justice (PiS) MP Mariusz Kamiński – who served as head of the anti-corruption agency from 2006 and 2009 – was found guilty of overstepping his powers. He was sentenced to three years in prison and was banned from holding public office for ten years. Polish President Andrzej Duda pardoned Kamiński even though he was still appealing his sentence at the time. The case against Kamiński was then discontinued. A supreme court judge said that the president interfered in the legal process because Kamiński was proven neither innocent nor guilty when he was pardoned, making a future ruling redundant. The judge said that the president can pardon someone after any final appeal has been heard “because then he is not interfering with the judiciary”.

Merging the General Prosecutor with the political Minister of Justice

The general prosecutor role was merged with the minister of justice Ziobro. source. This handed Ziobro and his subordinates greatly expanded power to politically interfere with rank-and-file prosecutors, their decisions, and their freedoms of speech and association. Poland Is Purging Its Prosecutors
200+ public prosecutors that are loyal to the Minister of Justice Ziobro (from PIS) All of them got promotions (or someone from their family) or pay raises. another list

Destroying the military

The creation of a territorial defense unit- a civilian army led by the ministry of defense to control “the situation inside Poland”. In addition, there was a purge of generals. and killing multibillion deals with France. About 37 generals and 47 colonels left. Why? Because they had to answer to a 27-year old assistant to the Defense Minister, former pharmacy assistant without a university degree. The Rzeczpospolita daily newspaper reported that Misiewicz was given a top communications job with PGZ ( largest defense consortiums in Central Europe) that pays $12,500 a month, huge sum in a country where the average pre-tax wage is about $1,150 a month. source
PIS decides to overhaul 40-years old t-72 instead of investing in German tanks. Not enough ammunition, uniforms NVG and other gadget went to the above unit,
In 2015, the Defence minister Macierewicz raided the Nato center in Warsaw at 1am to take control of documents and place their man at the helm

The ministry of Justice is funding trolls to destroy judges

Ziobro-Piebiak paid Troll scandal The Onet news portal published a report alleging that Deputy Justice Minister Łukasz Piebiak “arranged and controlled” an online campaign against Judge Krystian Markiewicz, the head of Iustitia, a judicial organization critical of the government’s efforts to restructure the judicial system, as well as against other inconvenient judges. According to the Onet report, Piebiak operated and financed an online campaign by a woman called Emilia who allegedly sent over 2,000 letters and emails about Markiewicz to other judges as well as to pro-government right-wing media. The messages contained fabricated, semi-confirmed and gossipy details of the judge’s personal life. According to Onet, Emilia obtained Markiewicz’s personal address from Piebiak so she could send him one of the letters.

Taking over the state media

State media was taken over by PIS and is using mass propaganda and here Not only they are a propaganda tube but they also offend polish citizens ie – translation: defenders of pedophiles and alimonies-takers are the ones against judiciary reforms. They call every peaceful protest as a coup
The same can be said about the GUS – general statistical bureau. It is controlled by PIS and it is known to “change” metrics so every Inflation or unemployment metrics can’t be trusted.

LBGT-free zones and Xenophobia.

Fear against refugees and calls for xenophobia. A leaked draft of a new Polish migration policy discriminates against Muslims, ranks foreigners according to ethnicity and breaches human rights
My article Why the Polish government is against LGBT?
PIS is supporting LGBT free zones where a thrid of Poland is declared as LGBT-free. During the presidential elections in 2020 Gay “ideology” is worse than communism, says Duda - PIS president.

Destroying education and HealthCare.

PIS cancels the in vitro program Polish government program that covered most of the in vitro costs was immediately cut by the Law and Justice Party when it came to power in late 2015, even though Poland has one of the lowest birth rates in the EU. Catholic Church opposition to IVF is widely seen as one factor in the Polish government's decision.
PIS also increased the minimum wage at the beginning of 2020. It created a weird paradox where a teacher and a starting MD is earning less than the minimal wage because they get paid from public money and the minimal wage change is for the private sector. And PIS wants to ban sex ed by labeling teachers as gay activists and pedophiles. Critics say Poland’s governing Law and Justice Party is wrecking the education system for political gain — and students are suffering.

Environment?

Destruction of the oldest European forest in Poland by Minister of Environment Szyszko The Bialowieza Forest is a UNESCO World Heritage site that sprawls across the border between Poland and Belarus, occupying almost 580 square miles of woodland and providing home to rare European wood bison among others. At least 10,000 trees are thought to have been felled in Białowieża, since the Polish environment minister, Jan Szyzko tripled logging limits there in 2016. The EU’s highest court has ruled that Poland’s logging in the Unesco-protected Białowieża forest is illegal, potentially opening the door to multi-million euro fines.
“Our (water) resources are comparable to those of Egypt,” it said in the report bearing the ominous title: “Poland, European Desert”

Nepotism and colleagues in state-owned companies

PIS won the elections by wanting to fight nepotism. The most famous was “24yo Misiewicz, a former pharmacy assistant without a university degree was in the defense industry under Macierewicz. The apparent favoritism has raised ethics concerns in a party that won office promising to fight corruption.” source There is even a webpage listing more than 1000 cases of nepotism under PIS Pisiewicze
Latest data show 162M PLN to 84 PIS oligarchs and Colleagues

Illegal budget for 2017

The 2017 budget "was adopted" not in the Sejm assembly hall, but in a smaller room where the so-called parliamentary session was held immediately as a follow-up to the meeting of the parliamentary causus of PIS, where no reliable counting of vates was possible, and with many allegations taht the opposition MPs were not allowed in. [Constitutional Democracy in Crisis?, Oxfoord, 2018, p.268]

Ex-communists in PIS ranks. And PIS is very anti-left and anti-PRL.

They are accusing the opposition – PO - to consist mostly of ex-communists or communistic party members or collaborators. The issue is that most members of PO fought against the communism and spent months/years in prison in the ’80. On the other hand, the PIS party members scarcely fought for polish liberty and some of its party members are former communistic party members or communistic prosecutors like Piotrowicz! Some Polish TC judge are also ex-PRL members. Here is a list in polish of all current PIS party members who served as PRL members during the communistic era. So, PIS is fighting against itself. Another list with 20 names of ex-party members now in PIS

Funding the Catholic church with public money

PIS is very Pro-Catholic, most of their voters are devout Catholics. So it is no surprise that PIS is funding religious orgs from public money. Since Law and Justice came to power in 2015, Father Rydzyk’s businesses have received at least $55 million in subsidies from at least 10 ministries and state companies. His Radio Maryja station, which reaches millions and is often the sole source of information for many older voters in rural Poland, offers a daily diet of horror stories about a world without faith, where gay people control the political agenda, universities are corrupted by “neo-Marxists,” and the Roman Catholic Church is under mortal threat. Rydzyk Embroiled in Corruption Allegations
Hiding Pedophilia. Map of 259 victims of catholic pedophilia. When a documentary was released before recent local elections revealing devastating examples of how priests sexually abused children and how church officials covered it up, many in PIS saw it not as evidence of an institution that lost its way, but one that needed to be defended. Piotrowicz, the above communist prosecutor, dismissed in 2001 a case against a priest accused of raping six girls.
Polish PIS president Duda pardons a paedophile that raped his own daughter. He makes the pardon a week before elections

Smolensk commission

The so-called assassination of Kaczynski's twin president brother in Smolensk created 90M PLN of costs. PIS created a "cult" around his death and even created a special commission that would prove it was an assassination. Kaczynski was using it on every occasion Don't wipe your treacherous mugs with .... Ofc they didn’t prove anything and they buried the topic. Every 10th of every month for 3 years, PIS party leader Kaczynski was making a "show" commemorating his dead twin brother. He was using the police to secure his demonstration even if he has no lawful power (he is neither a president, neither the prime minister). New law expanding police surveillance and the police is getting raises after raises to keep them happy. The commemorations, the commission and the damages (paid only to the politicians’ families, not to the crew) amounted to 91M PLN.

The welfare revolution

PIS is also very pro-family. The party is giving away 500zl per month for every kid. In short, it has “bought” the elections. The polish economy is unable to sustain such an endeavor roots of populism. And it costs the economy 80B PLN between 2016 and 2019. The best part? Rate of births is negative for the last couple of years and inflation is still growing. According to the PIS Stats bureau it is 3.5% and growing. However, many journalists made their own baskets of normal good and services and the inflation is closer to 10%. Additionally there is a growing debt that PIS tries to hide by shifting some debt into other Funds. One of them is the “Solidarity fund” that is not counted in the overall polish GDP, that is to support people with disabilities will pay for the 13th and 14th pension of people 65+.

Funding propaganda and trolls

Computational Propaganda in Poland: Russian troll factories
PIS bought the Pegasus spyware to spy on its citizens In September 2018, private broadcaster TVN24 reported that Poland’s state audit body, NIK, was questioning an outlay of over 33 million zloty (€7.6 million euro) by the Justice Fund, a government fund to help victims of crime. According to TVN, the money went toward the purchase of a “new system to spy on telephones and computers, the most expensive system in the history of Polish secret services.” Reports that the covertly purchased system could be Pegasus — a top-performing spyware that is impossible to track — surfaced last week.
Polish troll farms promoting Duda and Kaczynski

Funding public TV stations

Polish public TV stations should be impartial and public. Not favoring any party nor government and give the same screen time to every party equally. Unfortunately, there was a purge of journalists the moment PIS won the election and the propaganda is stalin-like. Look at this graph how it changed. Polish TVP is the mouthpiece of the govt. In 2020 PIS voted to give an additional 2B pln per year for 5 years to public tv.
Public Main TV making fun of US ambassador by reading the tweet with a derogatory accent

Scandals

PIS has hundreds of scandals that each would destroy a modern government. They defrauded billions of PLN over the years, put 1000’s of family members in different state-owned companies. Below are listed the main sexual and financial scandals.

1. Sex hotel of the head of the Audit office Marian Banaś , a Law and Justice (PiS) politician and recently appointed chief of Poland’s Supreme Audit Office has been heavily embroiled in a corruption scandal, another to hit the ruling party just weeks before the country votes in a parliamentary election. Mr Banaś served as finance minister from June to August this year, and is a key figure in the party. Mr Banaś concealed his possession of a tenement house in Krakow from his financial disclosures. This property was then revealed to have deep running connections with a local, criminally-run escort agency. He claimed that the house was given to him by an old friend whom he met in the Home Army, which he then renovated. In his disclosures, he claimed he would sell the house, which never happened. Banaś claims that this was due to the buyer’s inability to get a loan. Investigations have further revealed that Mr Banaś agreed to rent the property for 5000 zloty a month, 10,000 zloty lower than its estimated market value, according to Gazeta Wyborcza. Just as the scandal could not apparently get any worse for Mr Banaś, further investigation by journalist Bertold Kittel revealed criminal links. When Mr Kittel entered the property he found at the reception an infamous Krakow criminal known as one of the brothers K – Wiesław or Janusz, who control escort agencies in the region. While still under investigation, there have been suggestions of contact between the two.
2. "Alleged" Pedophila and Sex trafficking scandal of House speaker Wirtualna Polska learned the contents of the message of CBA officer Wojciech J. to the prosecutor's office about the failure of the head of the CBA, Ernest Bejda. In the background is a lost record with a recording of one of the leading PiS politicians who should have sex with a minor Ukrainian girl lost. His name falls on the document. In the message, Wojciech J. refers to several reports that he was the head of the office in connection with the "unauthorized access to his armored cabinet during his absence" submitted. From this vault, a record should be lost in escort agencies from the Podkarpacie region. One of the leading PiS politicians should have sex with a young Ukrainian in the recording. The statement signed by lawyer Beata Bosak-Kruczek mentions the name of Sejm spokesman Marek Kuchciński.
3. Health minister Szumowski alleged to have bought £1m of PPE from ski instructor friend during pandemic. And givng away £65m grants to companies run by brother public anger has exploded after Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza reported that Szumowski bought masks with fake certificates from a skiing instructor who is friends with his businessman brother, Marcin. Poland’s Health Ministry reportedly spent five million zloty (£1m) on 120,000 FFP-2 type face masks and 20,000 surgical masks that were later found not to meet safety standards, Politico says. The company that sold the masks was registered on the 30 of March and won the govt. contract on the same day. Critics have also questioned Szumowski’s previous dealings in government. Polish news network tvn24 reports that while serving as deputy science minister in 2016-17, he gave 300 million zloty (£60m) in grants from Poland’s National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR) to OncoArendi Therapeutics, a research company run by his brother. Another company in which Szumowski was a shareholder, Life Science Innovation (LSI), was reportedly given a 24 million zloty (£5m) NCBR grant just days after he took up the ministerial post.
4. Same Health minister Szumowski bought 1.2 thousand ventilators for PLN 200 million from a company owned by an arms dealer, not a single device was delivered

contd.

UN GRAND MERCI À TOUS ET TOUTES ! Pour rendre ce texte plus facilement partageable aux non-francophones, les informations relatives au message lui-même ont été mises en fin de texte.
EDIT : ajout de segments sur la stigmatisation des musulmans et Dieudonné, n'hésitez pas à apporter corrections et précisions si besoin.
HOW DOES FREE SPEECH WORK IN FRENCH LAW ?
French law is simple: people have rights, ideas don't have any.
What that means is that:

• French law forbids hate and defamation speech (or hate/defamation drawings...) when it's directed at people, or groups. For instance, if I say "Muslims are all barbaric", or "Jews are all hateful", or "Christians are all perverts", it's against the law.
  
• French law allows "hate" speech, or any speech (and therefore any drawing) when it's directed at ideas - whether ideologies (communism, capitalism...), philosophies (existentialism...), religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism...), or any others. For instance, if I say "the Quran is a barbaric book", or "Judaism is a hateful religion", or "Christianity has a perverse philosophy", it is not against the law.
  

You can satirize, criticize, mock, do anything to ideas, symbols, etc. Only people are protected by the law. There are a very few exceptions to that principle, but religion is not one of them.
WHAT ARE THOSE EXCEPTIONS?
Three main exceptions:

• Denial of crimes against humanity that have been sentenced as such by a french or international court (this, obviously, includes the holocaust). This law has been and is still discussed: some argue that the political power should not interfere in history discussions.
• Glorifying terrorism (it's a very old law: 1881).
• Insulting the national flag. This one is a very recent (2003) and controversial law - and its pretty limited: the Conseil d'État ruled that this law applies only to "disturbing the peace" ; insulting the french flag is allowed for those who "want to communicate, by doing this, political or philosophical ideas, or who do it as an artistic or creative act".

WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO WHAT IS NOT OFFENSIVE FOR OTHERS?
It would be a bad idea.
First, free speech doesn't make sense if it only works to please everyone. If a dictator forbids free speech, it's because he usually doesn't want people to say bad things about him, not because he's afraid of receiving compliments...
But most of all, in a society in which free speech should bow to your feelings, a LOT of things would be forbidden... including religions. For a lot of people in modern society, some principles are sacred: for instance the idea that apostates, women who have sex before marriage, or same sex couples aren't guilty of anything. The holy books of the three religion are therefore deeply offensive to them: they could just as well ask to forbid those writings...
There is no logical reason for which, in a society, some citizens should be considered more "holy" than others, or their feelings more important than those of others.
The limitations in free speech laws are only made to protect people - their safety, or their reputation. Not their ideas, nor their feelings.
SO WHY DID SINÉ GET FIRED AFTER MAKING FUN OF JUDAISM?
Siné was fired from Charlie Hebdo after making, in a text, a remark on the marriage of Sarkozy's son with a jewish girl, suggesting he was choosing to convert to Judaism to marry a rich heiress. The chain of events is complicated (see the wiki page), and the Charlie Hebdo director from those years (Phillipe Val) who fired him is still very controversial.
The LICRA (association against racism and antisemitism) filed a complaint against him after this. Siné was acquitted of all charges.
To sum this up:

• Siné was accused of stigmatization against Jews (people), not their religion (idea).
• His being fired from Charlie Hebdo is the sole responsibility of the director of that period, not french laws.
• France, through its judicial system, confirmed that Sine was free to say what he said.

AND WHY DIEUDONNÉ WAS FORCED TO STOP HIS SHOW WHEN HE MADE FUN OF JEWS?
Dieudonné is a talented stand-up comedian, which gradually made attacks on Jews his specialty - and as time went by, he became close to the far right (Soral, Lepen). There are two very different affairs about him.
Note that, in those two affairs, he was never accused of mocking the Jewish religion (idea), but of hate speech, racist insults and defemation against Jews (people), of glorifying terrorism, and of denial of crime against humanity.

• The first affair is the one everybody heard of: the cancelling of his show. In 2013-2014, Dieudonné is presenting a new one-man-show, and some parts of it are considered borderline antisemitic. But wait for a trial to confirm that would have been long, and the politic power at that time (french minister Manuel Valls) didn't want to let the show still publicly attack Jews every night without doing nothing. So, through his departmental prefects (which obey to political power), he asked to stop the show for "trouble à l'ordre public" ("disturbing public order"). That's not really what "trouble à l'ordre public" is usually used for (it's mainly made for meetings judged dangerous), but it's still possible to do it for a show, through an unique case law of 1995 (case law, aka "jurisprudence", is decisive in french law). This decision opened a huge and violent debate in France, including between its different institutions (the administrative court of the city of Nantes canceled the canceling of the show, then the State Council canceled the cancel of the canceling of the show...). This decision is still debated today, and judged illegitimate by many.
  
• That said, there is another affair, or several in fact, which are not known at all abroad: the fact that, on the same matter, Dieudonné was found guilty several times after proper trials. Between 2007 and 2020, he was convicted 11 times (for "call to hate", for "racist defamation", for "racial insult", for "apology of terrorism"...). Those convictions have been confirmed on appeal, and are not a french obsession: he has been also condemned for the same things in Belgium, in Quebec, and one of his french sentences has been confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights.
  

To sum this up:

• Dieudonné was never convicted for attacks on Jewish religion, but for attacks on Jews, denial of crime against humanity, and glorifying terrorism.
• He has been found guilty of this 11 times by french justice, but also by the judicial system of Belgium, of Quebec, and by the European Court of Human Rights.
• Nevertheless, the political power of 2014 hasn't waited for a trial to stop one of his shows with antisemitic parts, and cancelled it in a way which, while still legal, was jugged abusive and problematic by a big part of french society, including some of its institutions.

BUT WHY DOES CHARLIE HEBDO ONLY TARGET ISLAM?
Note, before anything else, that Charlie Hebdo is an independent newspaper: the French government doesn't decide what is published in it. They're read by only a very small part of the population. It only represents itself. And anyone is free to file a complaint against them.
That said, Charlie Hebdo, which is a critical and satirical left-wing newspaper (anti-far-right, antimilitarist, anticlerical, propalestinian...), and the heir of an anarchist-libertarian french press, has a long history in making fun (and even being plain rude/disrespectful) of anything and anyone. This includes all religions, and Islam is far from being the main focus, as shown by this statistic of the front covers of Charlie hebdo during the ten years that preceded the killings: https://i.imgur.com/1CeIQwU.png
For those who think they are harsher on Islam, here is an example of a recent cover they made about Christianity: https://p1.storage.canalblog.com/28/07/177230/82450171.jpg
The three main religions are in fact often targeted together: https://jewpop.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/charliehebdoproces.Jewpopjpg.jpg
And for those who think they are nicer to the jewish community, here is one of their drawing on Isreal killing children in Palestine: https://p6.storage.canalblog.com/62/81/177230/100527364_o.jpg
The main target of Charlie Hebdo, that said, is mainly far right politicians like Le Pen, not religion.
BUT SOME CHARLIE HEBDO CARTOONS COULD BE CONSIDERED RACIST!
On decades and thousands of drawings, there are very few cartoons that have been considered racist. Their idea to be "bête et méchant" ("stupid and nasty") with everyone (the main equivalent, in the US, would not be The Onion, but more something like South Park) lead them to sometimes cross the line.
For instance with this drawing (which is not a cover) : https://www.actuabd.com/local/cache-vignettes/L450xH536/riss-aylan-382e8.jpg?1580041384
Don't think it got a free pass: this drawing, as well as some others, was heavily discussed at that time in French society. But no one filed a complaint: you still can, if you want to.
IF FREE SPEECH IS SO IMPORTANT, WHY DOESN'T FRANCE LET COUNTRIES BOYCOTT ITS PRODUCTS, OR ERDOGAN QUESTION THE MENTAL HEALTH OF MACRON?
As far as France didn't forbid anything (just reacted to it), the French statement demanding the immediate stop of boycotts in an authoritarian tone was indeed clumsy, to say the least. That said, the statement was also highlighting the fact that those boycotts were a reaction to lies and distortions of words. This would not contradict free speech laws in France: defamation, in France like in any other country, is a limit of free speech.
The reaction to Erdogan words were only due to the fact that a president literally insulted another one, a thing which never happens in diplomatic relationships even between unallied countries. The last political leader to do so was Duterte, who insulted Obama. Obama reacted by cancelling their meeting - at that time, nobody thought it was an abusive reaction.
IF FRANCE DOESN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ISLAM, WHY DOES IT FORBID THE HIJAB?
The Hijab in general is not forbidden in France: you can wear it in the streets, in a concert hall, at your job on certain conditions (see below), etc.
But there are two exceptions. Note that those exceptions concern ALL ostensible religious signs (hijab, cross, kipas):

• State-run school (primary school, middle-school, and highscool - college is not concerned). The school is considered a neutral ground, in which children must forge their own opinion, without outside pressure, without religious influence or influence from their parents. This doesn't only concern religion, it's a global principle of neutrality (religious, commercial, and political neutrality, which concerns teachers, but also students depending of the context : during an election time, a child woudln't be allowed to come in class with a t-shirt promoting his favorite presidential candidate, for instance). While the definitive law on the subject is recent, it has its roots deeper in french history: public education in France was born in a pretty harsh fight against religious catholic schools, more than a century ago.
  
• State workers. In France, regarding religion, the State is totally neutral (there is no State religion or official religion). Therefore, all its workers (teachers, cops...) must be neutral too, as they represent the State in their interactions with its citizens.
  

As for jobs, it can only be forbidden in two cases: 1) a clause in the internal regulations of the company can demand than employees in contact with clients (and only them) do not show any personal convictions signs (whatever they are: religious, political, etc.), 2) it can be forbidden for safety, hygiene, or security reasons. But an employer can not ask a employee to not wear it just because he doesn't like it.
FRANCE STILL FORBIDS NIQAB AND BURQA EVERYWHERE!
Yes. And as much as all the other laws were designed for ALL religions, this one (which is very recent) is not. In concrete terms, this law forbids an individual to hide their face outside of certain contexts (for instance, it's allowed for sanitary reasons - the COVID mask is therefore not against the law).
This law was a reaction to niqab and burqa not as religious signs, but as political ones (the signs of a political/fundamentalist islam, associated with the Salafi movement). It was a huge debate here in France, and a lot of people, while being not very supportive of niqab, still think it was a bad move.
Note that France is not, by far, the only country to have forbidden these: Senagal, the Netherlands, Chad, Gabon, Austria, Cameroun and others have also forbidden them.
NEVERTHELESS, AREN'T MUSLIMS STIGMATIZED IN FRANCE?
We have to be more cautious here, as the answer that follows isn't based on something as factual as law. The short answer is "yes": they are stigmatized. But not by caricatures...
Muslims in France are for most or them Arabs, children or grandchildren of North Africans immigrants from the sixties and after. Like all immigrant waves before them (Italians, Portugueses...), they experienced racism, but there are several differences. Due to the time of their arrival in France, they settled in brand new suburbs buildings, in places in which they were not mixed with other frenchs: those places became with decades deserted by the State (regarding public services), and have now to deal with high unemployment, drug traffic, and the criminality which results from it. This led to very harsh confrontation with the Police, which took bad habits: a black or arab frenchman as 20 more chances to be controlled than a white one, as a national 2017 study shows. In addition to that, the colonial past of France, and especially all that concerns Algeria (its colonization, the Algerian war), took a long time to be recognized as such by the State - and as much as Macron recently qualified Algerian colonization as "crime against humanity" and a "barbaric act", this national work is still in process.
All that explains the easiness with which a more radical Islam took roots in some of those places, when salafi movements expanded in Europe: for a lot of young people living there, who feel hated by the State and the rest of society, "being Muslim" is the only identity and pride left. Therefore any attack on it (or law lived as an attack) is extremely badly experienced. This come-back of the religion in public spaces and of its demands, in a country which just finished to deal with his century fight against Catholic Church claims, provoked a vivid reaction on the other side.
This defiance against Islam became a tool for the far right in order to gain votes, then from the right politicians (including some current ministers) wanting to keep those votes. Religious extremists and racist people in France now take profit of the same kind of ambiguity: religious extremists say any limitation of their religious expression (due to the limitations of french free speech laws) are in fact an attack on Islam and Muslims ("Islamophobia") ; and the Far Right implies that every Muslims is an extremist who doesn't accept the french laïcité (an idea which is sadly encouraged by recent polls - even if pools, and the ambiguity of their questions, should always be read with caution). This confusion is helped by the fact that the political left, which in France is historically the keepewatcher of laïcité (a true laïcité, not a preference for Catholic church), is sometimes awkward with the subject concerning Islam, as it doesn't want to attack a religion whom believers already live discriminations as Arabs. And all that confusion is of course not helped by the 20 terrorist attacks made in the name of Islam that France lived in the last 8 years...
To sum this up: yes, it's not exaggerate to say there is a stigmatization of Muslims in France. But it has not a lot to do with the free speech law, or with the caricatures of the prophet, and favoring that confusion is playing the game of religious extremists on french soil. Left newspapers like Charlie Hebdo want to continue to fight racism AND to attack religions: to treat Muslims as equals (to attack their religion as any other one), not to patronize them. That's up to each person to decide if they're doing it right...
AND WHY DOES FRANCE HAVE BUSINESS DEALING IN WEAPONS OR OIL WITH EXTREMIST ISLAMIC STATES?
For cynical economic reasons. But as much as it is not a matter of pride, nor logical in a war against terrorism, it can not be used as an argument to invalidate french version of secularism, which is only about the separation of church and State. The same way we cannot invalidate the secularism legislations of all the countries which presently deal with China just because China locks Muslims into camps (among other niceties)...
SOME LINKS
Macron's speech for the national tribute to the beheaded teacher. This speech is the reason a part of the muslim world started boycotting France, and asked for apologies, pretending he attacked Islam in it. There is no such things in his speech (he only talks about radical Islam, and the liberty to caricature):

• The speech in english (transcript)
• The speech in french (transcript)
• The speech in french (video)

Al Jazeera interview with Macron :

• Interview in english (video):
• Interview in english (transcript)
• Interview in arab (video)
• Interview in french (video)
• Interview in french (transcript)

SOURCES

• Une explication simplifiée sur l'incitation à la haine, à la violence ou à la discrimination raciale, et la diffamation raciste : https://www.service-public.fparticuliers/vosdroits/F32575
• Loi sur le negationnisme mise à jour en 2017 : https://www.legifrance.gouv.floda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000033975356/2017-01-29/
• Un résumé sur le port du voile en entreprise : https://www.service-public.fparticuliers/vosdroits/F20367
• Un résumé sur la neutralité de l'école publique : https://cache.media.eduscol.education.ffile/guide_pratique_directeurs_d_ecole/76/7/Guide_direction_ecole_1_principes_fondamentaux_service_public_education_462767.pdf
• L'article d'où vient le graphique comptant les unes des Charlie Hebdo : https://www.lemonde.fidees/article/2015/02/24/non-charlie-hebdo-n-est-pas-obsede-par-l-islam_4582419_3232.html

POURQUOI CE MESSAGE, MISES À JOUR, ETC.
Hello tout le monde,
Comme pas mal ici, depuis une semaine, je passe mon temps à répondre aux mêmes questions, aux mêmes attaques mal informées ou fake news, aux mêmes comparaisons foireuses... Et quand je vais voir sur les subs étrangers, ce n'est pas mieux.
Je me demande du coup si ce ne serait pas utile de se faire un petit bilan, en anglais, auquel on puisse renvoyer, ou dont on puisse copiecoller des bouts pour répondre aux questions les plus habituelles. Même si au fond c'est une initiative qu'on aurait du prendre la semaine dernière, là c'est limite trop tard...
Le faire ensemble ici permettrait en tout cas de le corriger, de le sourcer, de peaufiner l'anglais, de le rendre plus objectif et froid, de vérifier les affirmations auprès des juristes s'il y en a parmi nous, etc. (EDIT : j'ai eu plein de retours pour la reformulation que j'ai appliqués, merci à tous, restons-en à présent à ce qui pourrait être factuellement faux (questions de droits, affirmations) ou fautes d'anglais objectives !).
Il y aurait encore d'autres choses, sur des objections que j'ai aussi pu croiser : le fait que l'antisonisme ait intégré la loi sur l'antisémitisme, par exemple, ou encore sur la fermeture d'Hara Kiri, une explication de la pensée du modèle laïque français et de pourquoi il diffère tant des autres pays (y compris les raisons historiques), un petit bilan de la stigmatisation dont peuvent souffrir les musulmans en France pour bien faire le tri entre les attaques à la religion et les attaques racistes (mais à documenter sérieusement)...
D'autres questions ont été proposées en réaction à ce post, comme ici et ici : si vous voulez vous y atteler et soumettre vos textes au jugement des autres: attention à rester court et factuel, et à ne pas chercher à "défendre" le pays, mais à simplement refroidir le truc en coupant court aux ambiguïtés possibles, y compris si ça met en lumière des failles et problèmes du côté français.
J'ai bien conscience que c'est délicat au sens où on a nous-mêmes des avis différents sur ces questions. Ça peut être aussi l'occasion d'en discuter.
Voilà ce qui me vient pour l'instant, par rapport aux questions qui nous sont le plus posées... (j'édite le texte ci-dessous en fonction de vos remarques).
EDIT: questions en suspend : toujours une hésitation sur la prise en compte de l'esclavage ou non dans la loi contre le négationnisme (qui est un beau bordel), un redditeur travaille dessus.

This piece was written specifically for this sub, but was keyed in a fit of inspiration. Although I tried to be as lucid as possible, I admit that the whole thing would be better if I had outlined it, prepared my individual points, and connected them all in a flowing, ascending manner, building to a crescendo of robust conclusions. Instead, it's this.
In my defense, I have gone over it once to correct mispellings misspellings and typographical errors. So really, you should be thanking me.
. . .

I used to arrogantly dislike literary fiction.

I now respectfully dislike it.
It started with a little essay written by one B. R. Myer entitled "A Reader's Manifesto," which sought to illuminate the confused pretense of modern literary fiction, stories by the likes of Cormac McCarthy (a literary author who bore perhaps the brunt of Mr. Meyers's scathing apology of classic literary fiction) lauded vehemently by those whose words ostensibly matter but which, Meyers purports, use a litany of lyrical prose to obscure ideas so simple or self-evident as to be absurd.
So entertained was I by this article that I actually purchased his book in soft-cover, an extended version of the same article, this version including more takedowns, more examples of "good" literary fiction, and rebuttals to some of his detractor's critiques.
Meanwhile, a member of my writing Discord server, a fan of literary fiction, was trying to convince me that literary fiction is good because it forces you to think, rather than just giving you all the answers in plain English. He never truly managed to get through to me; however, in the end I seem to have gotten through to myself, albeit with his words somewhere in the back of my consciousness undoubtedly assisting.
So to put this in perspective, I'll quote a little bit of B. R. Meyers's manifesto, as it were:

Nothing gives me the feeling of having been born several decades too late quite like the modern "literary" best seller. Give me a time-tested masterpiece or what critics patronizingly call a fun read—Sister Carrie or just plain Carrie. Give me anything, in fact, as long as it doesn't have a recent prize jury's seal of approval on the front and a clutch of precious raves on the back. In the bookstore I'll sometimes sample what all the fuss is about, but one glance at the affected prose—"furious dabs of tulips stuttering," say, or "in the dark before the day yet was"—and I'm hightailing it to the friendly black spines of the Penguin Classics.

As you can see, it's easy to get caught up in Meyers's emotional tirade. He shows a couple of examples, especially the latter--"in the dark before the day yet was"-- and you find yourself thinking, "Is this 'Baby's First Literary Fiction'?" I won't claim that either of these phrases are especially good, nor will I say that all or any of the literary fiction that Mr. Meyers's criticizes so scathingly are undeserving of it. What I will say is that when it comes to, as I've heard called "impenetrable prose," I have had a somewhat contradictory experience. Despite my distaste for literary fiction, I've had an enduring love for classic fiction: Mark Twain, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Charles Dickens, Mary Shelley, and even more recent vintage, such as Roderick Thorpe, whose novel Nothing Lasts Forever, (published 1979) a sequel to the Detective, (published 1966) was eventually made into the Hollywood blockbuster Die Hard. Thorp's work was uniquely complexly written, among the books I've ever read or owned. I recall being at first interested, and then losing interest in the story, but finding a renewed interest not for the story, for the most part, but for the prose: Roderick Thorp had a keen perception of interpersonal interactions which, bolstered by his dense writing style, laden with atypical vocabulary, long sentences and striking observations, tended to make the writing both difficult to read much of in a single sitting, but also had me each day eagerly awaiting the evening when I would again tackle the story.
The difference between Thorp's writing and what might pass for literary fiction today, and the reason that Thorp's writing is not considered literary, is likely, as best I can tell, that the story affects nothing in either its meaning or the writing style itself. There are no complicated, elaborate turns of phrase meant to be read and reread through squinted, pensive eyes to peek into the message lying beneath; likewise, there is no "rugged simplicity" to his work. He does not go out of his way to remove adornments, such as commas or quotation marks, from his sentences, or to write in short, clipped phrases or to cast about abstract metaphors--who themselves have no special relationship with anything occurring--in a muscular but cavalier manner, like a competent cowboy with platinum spurs and a diamond-studded leather belt. Thorp's writing is that of a storyteller spinning a yarn. Poetry comes when it feels right, but is just as easily set aside for straightforwardness if the story requires it. There's no pretension, just the page and the words and the narrator's best attempt to express what happened. To entertain.
That might sound like a preamble in preparation to lambaste modern literary fiction, but alas, I've hardly the experience in either writing or reading to take a crack at that, a task which, if possible, undoubtedly requires a more experienced person than I to do effectively. Instead, I'm going to say something that surprised even me when I first admitted it.
I read a bit of Cormac McCarthy today, and I actually got what was happening. Not only did I get it--that is to say, I understood why the writing was the way it was, or perhaps to put it more accurately, why people who appreciate it do, indeed, appreciate it--but I realized that people like it for similar reasons to why I like classic fiction. It's difficult to understand at times, but when you do understand it, when you put in the effort to comprehend, you become much more immersed than if you immediately understood everything without a thought.
Here' s the passage I read:

The blackness he woke to on those nights was sightless and impenetrable. A blackness to hurt your ears with listening. Often he had to get up. No sound but the wind in the bare blackened trees. He rose and stood tottering in that cold autistic dark with his arms outheld for balance while the vestibular calculations in his skull cranked out their reckonings. An old chronicle. To seek out the upright. No fall but preceded by a declination. He took great marching steps into the nothingness, counting them against his return. Eyes closed, arms oaring. Upright to what? Something nameless in the night, lode or matrix. To which he and the stars were common satellite. Like the great pendulum in its rotunda scribing through the long day movements of the universe of which you may say it knows nothing an yet know it must.

^{- Cormac McCarthy, The Road, 2006.}
To be fair, even I got lost on the read-through toward the end there. I can't figure out ". . .lode or matrix. . ." or "To which he and the stars were common sattelite." Yet the parts I do understand I take great pleasure in. He mixes, at times, simplistic and easily understandable turns of phrase ("a blackness to hurt your ears with listening"; "He took great marching steps into nothingness, counting them against his return.") with the more difficult musings and phrasings (". . . vestibular calculations in his skull cranked out their reckonings"; "An old chronicle"; "Upright to what?") so that even when you don't understand something, you can kind of just keep reading until you reach again a section with some comprehensible writing and you're back on track.
The effect is a somber, musing scene that takes its time but is steeped in the atmosphere the author wants to convey and which the characters must also be experiencing. Admittedly, even as I write this I feel I'm giving the book too much credit, yet I must, for I too managed to get swept up in its blackened prose and murky tone. If that be what the author intended, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then he accomplished what he was attempting.
That said, the upshot is this: I believe that it's not necessarily the cleverness of Cormac McCarthy that is making this excerpt enrapture me, but rather it's the result of the technique, either intended or unintended, of using a unique vocabulary, unique similes or metaphors, or otherwise lightly obscuring from the reader the obvious meaning. It lets atmosphere catch up the text and carry it, at times, wherever it desires. Sometimes it leads to concise, clever phrases, and sometimes it leads to seemingly ridiculous cosmic musings, but always retains the feeling.
In classic fiction by famous authors, or even less famous ones, I have gotten the same feeling of strong atmosphere and immersion, but instead of sitting with my chin against my chest, pondering what a pendulum in its rotunda has to do with a guy getting up in the middle of the night to presumably urinate, or in what way the dark is "autistic," I instead kept a dictionary close so as to quickly research the meanings of the numerous words therein that I'd never before heard. Contrary to the nearly incomprehensible musings in Cormac McCarthy's writing, I often marveled at classic fiction's ability to write long, complex sentences without for an instant confusing me. In fact, that's what those authors seemed to excel at, creating winding sentences with multiple commas that seemed to snag my imagination and stuff into it detail after detail until I could smell the lilac wafting from inside a flower shop, or feel the grit of dirt through the soles of my moccasins.
Rather than hold out the atmosphere and force me to scoop and scrape at it until my clothes are caked and matted, classic fiction inundates, over and over, with lofty descriptions of sensation that seep into the clothes to cling to the flesh, or slip up into the nostrils, stinging or tantalizing with heady aromas, or snap raucously at the ears, ringing sounds filled with timbre and texture.
I think I've taken a lesson from modern literary fiction. If I want my writing to be evocative, I must give the reader something understandable, but different. He must get what I mean, but never have seen it put in quite this way. It must be familiar, yet novel. It must be challenging, but never seem insurmountable.
Thus, while I now respect literary fiction, I nevertheless maintain some level of agreement with the man who started it all, B. R. Meyers. What I feel I want is lofty fiction, but full of plot; expert word-craft, but not necessarily recondite, save in judicious moments in which there is little alternative, or when the muse's demands cannot be otherwise sated.
I apologize for lapsing into faux-poetic blathering, and as my gift to you, I'll end on this sentence.

Introduction
Stanislaus County, located in California’s Central Valley, is perhaps best known for the 2002 disappearance and murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn child. Laci’s bright smile and tragic death captivated millions in endless news stories: a wholly sympathetic victim of a cheating, murderous husband.
Ten years later Korey Kauffman was a 26 year old Turlock resident who made his living as a metal scrapper. Turlock is just south of where Laci Peterson lived and died in Modesto. Korey’s disappearance in late March of that year was not mentioned in even local newspapers, in sharp contrast to the media firestorm that descended on the county in the days following Laci’s disappearance. The criminal proceedings that followed, however, received extensive regional news coverage - though since the case never caught the attention of national media most have still never heard of Korey Kauffman. I thank everyone who takes the time to read this lengthy write-up; I believe this case is fascinating and wish it had gotten the national attention it deserved.
Note from the author: I have included details relating to a) the evidence offered by prosecutors and defense that I (objectively) found most relevant and b) some anecdotes from the proceedings that I felt (objectively) illustrated the sometimes circus-like atmosphere in the courtroom. More details can be found in the linked sources at the bottom of this write up. Though I have developed an opinion on the outcome of this case I have done my best to put my own bias aside and include both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence fairly.
The Victim
Korey Alan Kauffman was born July 10, 1985 to parents Anthony Kauffman and Trena Richardson. He had a brother, sister, and four stepbrothers. Korey struggled with substance abuse and had a string of arrests for minor offenses dating back to 2005. Korey kept in regular contact with family members and at the time of his disappearance lived with his stepfather.
“My brother wasn’t perfect; he got into trouble and made mistakes...He had a huge heart and a lot of people who loved him...if we needed him, he would be there for us,” his sister Amber wrote to reporters in an email shortly after Korey’s body was discovered. Korey’s father Tony released a public plea for information shortly thereafter, reading in part, “My son Korey was a good kid. He had a kind and gentle soul, not an angel by any means, but a good person. Someone who a lot of people knew and loved. Korey was a giving individual who with[out] question would help anyone in need.”
The Disappearance
Korey Kauffman was last seen alive the evening of March 30, 2012 at his friend Michael Cooley’s Lander Avenue home in Turlock. At least one witness said that Korey left with the intention of stealing irrigation pipe from a neighboring property owned by prominent local attorney Frank Carson.
Korey’s family soon grew concerned when they hadn’t heard from him. “He wouldn’t have just not contacted anyone” his sister Amber later said. They hung flyers with his picture around town, and as the months passed they began to fear the worst.
The Body
On August 19, 2013 hunters found human remains in the Stanislaus National Forest in nearby Mariposa County, approximately 90 minutes away from Turlock. Investigators processing the scene located a bullet slug, leading them to deem the death “suspicious”. Further evidence recovered at the scene indicated that the remains were that of Korey Kauffman; his identity was later confirmed the following October. Due to the condition of the remains, Kauffman’s exact cause of death could never be conclusively determined.
First Arrest
On March 6, 2014 Turlock resident Robert Lee Woody was arrested for the murder of Korey Kauffman. Woody was charged the following week with murder, conspiracy, and a special enhancement for lying in wait. Documents filed by the District Attorney’s office alleged that Woody had three unnamed co-conspirators. Two weeks after Woody’s arrest the presiding judge announced he would recuse himself from Woody’s case if the three other people identified in the criminal complaint were charged. Intriguingly, he also said he believed all of his judicial colleagues would also recuse themselves.
For over a year Woody gave varying accounts to authorities and others. At times he denied his involvement altogether. At times he admitted to killing Kauffman alone. He even told his then-girlfriend, who was secretly recording him at the behest of investigators, that he not only killed Kauffman but also dismembered him and fed his remains to pigs. It wasn’t until over three years after Korey’s death, and more than a year after Woody’s arrest, that he began implicating others in Kauffman’s murder.
Additional Arrests
On August 13, 2015 eight people were arrested for their alleged roles in the circumstances that led to Korey Kauffman’s death.
The following individuals were arrested for murder and conspiracy charges:

• Frank Carson (Carson, a criminal defense attorney, had represented his now co-defendant Robert Lee Woody in criminal proceedings related to a charge of receiving stolen property in January 2012. As mentioned above, he owned a property neighboring Michael Cooley’s home, where Kauffman was last seen alive)
  
• Georgia Geanette DeFilippo (Frank Carson’s wife)
  
• Baljit Athwal (who with his brother owned the liquor store where co-defendant Robert Woody worked. Athwal and his brother had made friends with many law enforcement officers, and had converted a room at the back of their store into a bar area where they held parties attended by law enforcement officers. Athwal had also been represented by Frank Carson in criminal and civil cases in 2008).
  
• Daljit Atwal (Baljit Athwal’s brother and co-owner or the aforementioned liquor store. The brothers spell their surnames differently. Note from the author: for the remainder of the write up I will sometimes refer to Daljit and Baljit as “the At(h)wal brothers”.)
  
• Walter Wells (a former California Highway Patrol officer who had lost his job at the department a few months before his arrest for what CHP officials said was “unrelated misconduct”; Wells was also a friend of the At(h)wal brothers and had invested in their business)
  

The following individuals were arrested for conspiracy to commit a crime and accessory:

• Christina Anne DeFilippo (Carson’s stepdaughter, who lived on the property where prosecutors alleged Kauffman was killed)
  
• Scott J. McFarlane (a California Highway Patrol Officer and Kauffman’s next door neighbor; he was acquainted with the At(h)wal brothers, Woody, and Quintanar)
  
• Eduardo Quintanar Jr. (also a California Highway Patrol Officer who was acquainted with McFarlane, Woody, and the At(h)wal brothers)
  

All eight suspects denied any involvement and entered not guilty pleas at their arraignments. Carson and the At(h)wal brothers were not granted bail and Wells was unable to make his $10 million bail. All four remained jailed for almost the entire preliminary hearing. The remaining defendants were released on bail.
Within weeks of the arrest of Carson and the others Robert Lee Woody decided to cooperate with authorities. Aside from admitting his own role in Kauffman’s death, Woody implicated several of his co-defendants.
Preliminary Hearings
On October 13, 2015 testimony began in the preliminary hearing for Frank Carson and five of his co-defendants accused in the Korey Kauffman murder case. Barbara Zuniga, a judge from Contra Costa County in the east Bay Area, presided due to the recusal of all Stanislaus County judges.
Prosecutors asserted Frank Carson had been upset over repeated burglaries at his 5-acre Ninth Street property. They sought to prove Carson had been the ringleader in a conspiracy to stop the burglaries by “making an example” of anyone caught trespassing. Carson believed (and witnesses testified that) burglars were accessing his property through a hole in a fence he shared with Michael Cooley; it was at Cooley’s house that Korey Kauffman was last seen alive. Text messages between Carson’s wife and his stepdaughter, the prosecutor argued, showed Carson was intent on dealing with the thieves on his own, rather than calling police.
“The idea of Frank being involved in something like this is absolutely absurd. This is a man who makes $250 an hour and he’s going to whack some clown behind some stolen pipe. I don’t think so,” one of Carson’s attorneys told reporters shortly after his arrest. Both inside the courtroom and in statements to local reporters, Carson’s attorneys blasted the prosecution against him as politically motivated, noting that in the years leading up to his arrest he had filed a civil lawsuit against the county alleging District Attorney Investigator Steve Jacobson had accosted him in a courthouse hallway, brought charges of jury tampering against the same investigator along with a chief prosecutor (the contempt of court charges both faced for the allegations were ultimately dismissed) and unsuccessfully ran for District Attorney in an acrimonious campaign against DA Birgit Fladager.
Early in the proceedings one of Carson’s attorneys was briefly removed from the courtroom by bailiffs when he tried to apprehend District Attorney Investigator Steve Jacobson (the investigator Carson had sued) in a citizens arrest. The attorney argued that since Carson was suing him it was illegal for Jacobson to carry a firearm in the courtroom. California Penal Code prohibits law enforcement officers from carrying a firearm in a courthouse when they are party to a case (in California, District Attorney Investigators are sworn peace officers). After the attorney was removed Carson’s chief defense counsel asked the judge to delay proceedings, saying their legal team was unprepared to move forward with the case without all attorneys present. Since the civil lawsuit Carson filed was a separate case and the investigator was not a party to the criminal matter at hand, the investigator was not barred from being armed in the courtroom, Judge Zuniga ruled. She then allowed Carson’s chief defense counsel to bring the ejected attorney back in the courtroom, where he politely greeted her before quietly sitting down next to the other defense attorneys. The hearing continued as planned.
The remainder of the preliminary hearing dragged on for a total of 18 months, one of the longest in state history. During that record setting hearing prosecutors were repeatedly admonished by Judge Zuniga for a series of admitted failures to disclose exculpatory evidence, which the District Attorney’s office described as attributable largely to being understaffed. Walter Wells was released in mid-December 2016 when his bail was drastically reduced after prosecutors dropped the murder charge against him, telling reporters they were no longer pursuing a murder conviction due to a recent ruling made on “certain evidence”. Wells still faced felony charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice and acting as an accessory after the alleged murder was committed. Days later a visibly angry Judge Zuniga ordered the remaining defendants (Frank Carson, Daljit Atwal, and Baljit Athwal) released on their own recognizance after prosecutors admitted that they had found further potentially exculpatory evidence that may not have been disclosed to the defense. “I don’t get it,” Judge Zuniga told prosecutors. “I have never seen a case of this magnitude...where the District Attorney’s Office has made so many mistakes with respect to discovery.” Judge Zuniga further said that the District Attorney should have been in court herself that day to answer for the repeated failures of her office to produce potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense.
After closing arguments Judge Zuniga issued her decision for each defendant, noting this had “not been an easy case to decide”. Her ruling saw charges dropped against Frank Carson’s wife, Georgia DeFillipo and stepdaughter, Christina DeFilippo. The judge noted there was no evidence either woman was involved in Kauffman’s death “even with the low standard of proof in a preliminary hearing....there’s just nothing there,” Zuniga said of the mostly text message evidence prosecutors introduced - which dated as many as four years before Kauffman disappeared - that implicated either woman in the conspiracy. Frank Carson, Walter Wells, and the At(h)wal brothers were all ordered to stand trial.
Preliminary hearings for the other defendants were held separately, though Judge Zuniga also presided. Within months of Kaufman’s disappearance investigators had recorded a conversation between Eduardo Quintanar and Daljit Atwal. In the conversation Atwal expressed concern someone may put trackers on his car; Quintanar told him to vary his route to and from work and to have Woody check his car every day, using a mirror to check underneath. When Quintanar was later questioned by investigators about the conversation he told them it was a joke.
Witnesses told investigators that Scott McFarlane (who was Kaufman’s neighbor) described Kauffman as a thief and said that “he had to go.” McFarlane had also told investigators he specifically recalled seeing Kauffman “pedaling” home at 6 a.m. Sunday, April 1, 2012. According to investigators, however, Kauffman’s bike had been left at Michael Cooley’s house on March 30th, and remained there until law enforcement retrieved it during their investigation. Prosecutors alleged that this statement was made in an effort to “muddy the timeline” of Kauffman’s murder.
On October 24, 2017 Judge Zuniga dismissed all charges against Quintanar due to lack of evidence. The following year another judge dropped the charges against McFarlane, whom Zuniga had initially ordered to stand trial. The day after McFarlane’s charges were dismissed the District Attorney’s Office refiled the same obstruction charge, essentially starting the entire case over for him. All charges against McFarlane were eventually dismissed in October 2019.
The Trial
Frank Carson, Daljit Atwal and Baljit Athwal were ordered to stand trial together. Walter Wells, who was no longer charged with murder, would stand trial separately. Opening statements in the murder trial began April 19, 2018.
Prosecutors sought to prove that Frank Carson was criminally responsible for the death of Korey Kauffman, though they did not argue that he had been at the scene. Under California law, a conviction for first degree murder only required the prosecution to prove the defendants did something to “facilitate, promote, encourage, or instigate” a victims death. A series of witnesses testified to a variation of two stories: that Frank Carson had threatened them, sometimes with death, when he suspected them of burglarizing his property; or he attempted to recruit them to watch his property with the directive that they were to operate outside the law to catch any trespassers. These witnesses, however, were subject to credibility attacks on cross examination as they were almost all convicted criminals, and some had made deals with the DA for leniency in their own criminal charges in exchange for their testimony.
Prosecutors hired DNA expert Gary Clayton Harmor to analyze the bullet found with Kauffman’s body. Harmor testified that upon analysis of the bullet he found DNA traces from Kauffman as well as two other contributors: a “minor contributor”, for which there was insufficient DNA to make a comparison, as well as a “major contributor”. Harmor was able to exclude all of the defendants when he compared their DNA to that of the major contributor. He further testified that even after Stanislaus County investigators were notified that all of the defendants had been excluded they never requested he submit the sample to the national DNA database maintained by the FBI (CODIS, or the Combined Offender DNA Indexing System) for comparison. Absent that request, he testified, he could not begin the process of submitting the DNA, though he believed the sample contained sufficient information to meet CODIS criteria.
When Robert Woody took the stand he testified that he had been with Daljit Atwal the day Kauffman was murdered; they had checked in to a local gym together that day and were at the liquor store the brothers owned the night Kauffman was killed. Late in the evening they left the store for Frank Carson’s property, where they found Baljit Athwal in the midst of a struggle with Kauffman. Daljit Atwal then joined the skirmish, and the two brothers began violently assaulting Kauffman with both their hands and feet as he tried in vain to shield himself in the ground. Woody claimed that while the skirmish was still in process he turned away to leave when he heard a gunshot. He further testified that the only one of the three armed with a gun was Daljit Atwal.
Woody alleged that he and the At(h)wal brothers then brought Kauffman’s remains to a lot next to the convenience store, where Woody cut off Kauffman’s fingers and toes before wrapping his body in a tarp and burying him with his severed fingers and toes in a shallow grave while Baljit Athwal stood watch. While they buried Kauffman, Daljit Atwal reopened to store to avoid rousing the suspicion of patrons.
Woody recalled that about three weeks after the murder Baljit Athwal told him that they had to move Kaufman’s body. After excavating Kaufman’s remains they drove in Athwals truck to the Stanislaus National Forest, where they reburied Kauffman, once again with his severed fingers and toes. Woody testified he then burned Athwals truck to conceal any evidence.
Though the defense attacked Woody’s credibility due to his criminal history, admitted drug use, inconsistent statements to investigators, and the leniency offered by prosecutors in exchange for his testimony, some elements of his account could be corroborated. Athwal’s truck was found burned in an orchard approximately one month after Kauffman disappeared (Athwal had reported the truck stolen from his residence that morning; Woody had admitted to burning the truck long before he implicated any of his co-defendants in Kauffman’s murder, though he originally told investigators he had done so at Athwal’s behest in an effort to collect the insurance money). Moreover, Baljit Athwal’s cell phone data showed his phone had pinged off a tower within 8 miles of where Kauffman’s body was located in Mariposa County, though this data was captured June 26, 2012 - two months after Athwal’s truck was indisputably burned and Kauffman’s remains had allegedly been reburied. Though the cell data didn’t correspond with the date of either the arson or the reburial, the day Athwal’s phone pinged in Mariposa county was just one day after he, his brother, and Woody were contacted for the first time by law enforcement regarding Kauffman’s disappearance.
In exchange for his testimony, Robert Woody received a plea deal and was sentenced to seven years and four months in prison for his role in the murder of Korey Kauffman.
The defense held that the prosecutors theory relied on the testimony of a series of thieves and drug addicts. In addition, the defense argued, Woody’s testimony that he only heard one shot fired and that Kauffman was not wearing a coat when he was killed was inconsistent with forensic evidence. Kauffman’s remains were found with both a coat and a T-shirt, and the coat had two holes that appeared to be from gunshots and one hole that raised the possibility that Kauffman had been stabbed in the armpit. Furthermore, the defense argued, Woody’s testimony that Kauffman lay in a shallow grave near the At(h)wal brothers liquor store for nearly a month was problematic - no one reported smelling anything that would indicate the presence of decomposing remains, including the many law enforcement officers not charged in the case that used the store as a “hangout” off duty.
The case went to the jury 14 months after the trial began. Jurors deliberated for two days before coming to a verdict on June 28, 2019. The jury of 10 women and 2 men found all three murder defendants not guilty of all charges.
The Final Defendant
When ordering ex-CHP officer Walter Wells to stand trial for his alleged involvement in the murder of Korey Kaufman, Judge Zuniga said she had thought more about the evidence against him than any of the other defendants. Ultimately, she said, she ordered him to stand trial in part because of Wells’ friendship with the At(h)wal brothers, and - more importantly - Wells’ and Kauffman’s cell phone data showed both phones were in the vicinity of one another at least three times in the days after Kauffman’s disappearance, lending credence to the prosecutors theory that Wells had Kauffman’s cell phone in his possession after Kauffman disappeared.
Proceedings against Carson and the At(h)wal brothers concluded even as Walter Wells’ case was still delayed by pretrial motions. Increasingly frustrated with prosecutorial delays, Judge Zuniga commented at a hearing “I have never seen a case plagued with so many problems. A lot of them caused by your office, ma’am,” addressing the Chief District Attorney prosecuting the case.
After his own acquittal Frank Carson joined Walter Wells’ legal team in November 2019. The following month the District Attorney’s office filed a motion to dismiss all charges against Walter Wells “in the interest of justice.” When asked by reporters why the charges were abruptly dropped against Wells the District Attorney’s office had no comment.
Epilogue
Korey Kauffman’s family was emotional after Carson and the At(h)wal brothers were acquitted; though they largely avoided comments to reporters several family members were observed screaming obscenities as they left the court. In all the years they waited for justice for Korey the one person held responsible for any role in his death was sentenced to just over seven years in prison.
All of the defendants who faced charges related to Korey Kauffman’s murder (with the exception of Robert Woody) have filed multimillion dollar lawsuits against the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s office. As of this writing all of the lawsuits are still pending.
Eduardo Quintanar and Scott McFarlane were initially placed on administrative leave from their jobs as California Highway Patrol officers after their arrests; both were later fired. In May 2019 the State Personnel Board, (which oversees California government human resources) concluded a review of the California Highway Patrol’s decision to fire Eduardo Quintanar. According to Quintanar’s attorney the review stated “the CHP’s discipline was far too heavy-handed... Officer Quintanar should return as an officer with the CHP.” Quintanar’s attorney said CHP was refusing the Personnel Board order; representatives from both agencies declined to publicly comment. It is unknown if the firings of Scott McFarlane and Walter Wells are under Personnel Board review. Though CHP representatives stated Walter Wells’ termination was due to unrelated misconduct, Wells’ federal lawsuit alleges his firing was related to the case (CHP opened an internal investigation against Wells in April 2015, the month after investigators had first served a search warrant at Wells’ home).
Frank Carson died in August 2020 at the age of 66, just 14 months after his acquittal. Carson’s own lawsuit alleged that local officials violated his civil rights in the prosecution and cited health problems that developed during the 17 months he spent in county jail. Carson died after suffering a medical emergency while receiving dialysis; he had gone into kidney failure while incarcerated. In the days after his death Carson’s attorneys told reporters the case will become a wrongful-death action because the prosecution damaged Carson’s health.
Prosecutors have never disclosed how much it cost California taxpayers to pursue charges against the nine defendants, eight of whom were never convicted.
Questions For Discussion

• Did the jury get it wrong when finding any or all of the three defendants who stood trial not guilty?
  
• Did the jury get it right because there wasn’t enough evidence to convict the defendants?
  
• Should some or all of the defendants prevail in their lawsuits against the DA?
  

Sources
Timeline: A look back through the years in the murder case of Korey Kauffman
A breakdown of the evidence against 9 defendants
Detectives seek clues after remains of missing Turlock man are found in Stanislaus forest
Obituary for Korey Kauffman
Father makes plea for information in sons death
Suspect arrested in homicide of long-missing Turlock man
Potential links to Stanislaus County courthouse grow in Kauffman homicide case
Prosecutors formally charge Modesto defense attorney and 7 others in Turlock man’s death
Affidavit lays out theory of Korey Kauffman killing
Investigators say friendships led to CHP involvement in Kauffman murder
Judge denies bail for Modesto attorney, two Turlock liquor store owners accused of murder
Defendant speaks of Turlock man’s slaying, provides gruesome details in recent ‘revelation’
Preliminary hearing scheduled for 8 defendants in Korey Kauffman murder case
Numerous bizarre twists in murder case against Modesto defense attorney
Judge reduces bail for attorney’s wife in Kauffman murder case
Judge drops contempt-of-court complaints against Stanislaus prosecution investigator, chief prosecutor
Witness: Kauffman was going to Carson property on night he vanished
Judge warns prosecution about evidence in Korey Kauffman murder case
Former CHP officer, co-defendant to Frank Carson in murder case, released on bail
Judge slams DA’s Office mistakes in Carson case as ‘totally unacceptable’
Record-setting murder prelim concludes with Carson, 3 others held for trial
Carson’s wife says she, daughter were wronged. Now, they want county, cities to pay.
Cleared ex-CHP officer says District Attorney's 'witch hunt' ruined his career
DNA expert finds no match between defendants, fired bullet in Kauffman murder case
Prosecutor details testimony of witness who says man died on Frank Carson’s property
Defense: Alleged murder motive against Frank Carson based on career criminal’s lies
Not guilty: Jury returns verdict in trial for Frank Carson, 2 others in Kauffman murder
‘They took these officers’ careers’: CHP veteran tied to murder plot ordered back on force
Ex-CHP officer accused in murder case has a new lawyer: his former co-defendant
Acquitted Modesto attorney Frank Carson seeks millions of dollars in damages
DA drops charges against ex-CHP officer Walter Wells, last defendant in murder plot
Former CHP officers, defense lawyer sue, saying prosecution left them in financial ruin
Longtime Modesto defense attorney and onetime defendant Frank Carson dies at 66
Edit: link formatting

https://np.reddit.com/storyandstyle/comments/k3jfk7/musings_on_the_purpose_value_or_merits_of/
too lazy to add quote markup:
This piece was written specifically for this sub, but was keyed in a fit of inspiration. Although I tried to be as lucid as possible, I admit that the whole thing would be better if I had outlined it, prepared my individual points, and connected them all in a flowing, ascending manner, building to a crescendo of robust conclusions. Instead, it's this.
In my defense, I have gone over it once to correct mispellings misspellings and typographical errors. So really, you should be thanking me.
. . .
I now respectfully dislike it.
It started with a little essay written by one B. R. Myer entitled "A Reader's Manifesto," which sought to illuminate the confused pretense of modern literary fiction, stories by the likes of Cormac McCarthy (a literary author who bore perhaps the brunt of Mr. Meyer's scathing apology of classic literary fiction) lauded vehemently by those whose words ostensibly matter but which, Meyer purports, use a litany of lyrical prose to obscure ideas so simple or self-evident as to be absurd.
So entertained was I by this article that I actually purchased his book in soft-cover, an extended version of the same article, this version including more takedowns, more examples of "good" literary fiction, and rebuttals to some of his detractor's critiques.
Meanwhile, a member of my writing Discord server, a fan of literary fiction, was trying to convince me that literary fiction is good because it forces you to think, rather than just giving you all the answers in plain English. He never truly managed to get through to me; however, in the end I seem to have gotten through to myself, albeit with his words somewhere in the back of my consciousness undoubtedly assisting.
So to put this in perspective, I'll quote a little bit of B. R. Meyer's manifesto, as it were:
Nothing gives me the feeling of having been born several decades too late quite like the modern "literary" best seller. Give me a time-tested masterpiece or what critics patronizingly call a fun read—Sister Carrie or just plain Carrie. Give me anything, in fact, as long as it doesn't have a recent prize jury's seal of approval on the front and a clutch of precious raves on the back. In the bookstore I'll sometimes sample what all the fuss is about, but one glance at the affected prose—"furious dabs of tulips stuttering," say, or "in the dark before the day yet was"—and I'm hightailing it to the friendly black spines of the Penguin Classics.
As you can see, it's easy to get caught up in Meyer's emotional tirade. He shows a couple of examples, especially the latter--"in the dark before the day yet was"-- and you find yourself thinking, "Is this 'Baby's First Literary Fiction'?" I won't claim that either of these phrases are especially good, nor will I say that all or any of the literary fiction that Mr. Meyer's criticizes so scathingly are undeserving of it. What I will say is that when it comes to, as I've heard called "impenetrable prose," I have had a somewhat contradictory experience. Despite my distaste for literary fiction, I've had an enduring love for classic fiction: Mark Twain, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Charles Dickens, Mary Shelley, and even more recent vintage, such as Roderick Thorpe, whose novel Nothing Lasts Forever, (published 1979) a sequel to the Detective, (published 1966) was eventually made into the Hollywood blockbuster Die Hard. Thorp's work was uniquely complexly written, among the books I've ever read or owned. I recall being at first interested, and then losing interest in the story, but finding a renewed interest not for the story, for the most part, but for the prose: Roderick Thorp had a keen perception of interpersonal interactions which, bolstered by his dense writing style, laden with atypical vocabulary, long sentences and striking observations, tended to make the writing both difficult to read much of in a single sitting, but also had me each day eagerly awaiting the evening when I would again tackle the story.
The difference between Thorp's writing and what might pass for literary fiction today, and the reason that Thorp's writing is not considered literary, is likely, as best I can tell, that the story affects nothing in either its meaning or the writing style itself. There are no complicated, elaborate turns of phrase meant to be read and reread through squinted, pensive eyes to peek into the message lying beneath; likewise, there is no "rugged simplicity" to his work. He does not go out of his way to remove adornments, such as commas or quotation marks, from his sentences, or to write in short, clipped phrases or to cast about abstract metaphors--who themselves have no special relationship with anything occurring--in a muscular but cavalier manner, like a competent cowboy with platinum spurs and a diamond-studded leather belt. Thorp's writing is that of a storyteller spinning a yarn. Poetry comes when it feels right, but is just as easily set aside for straightforwardness if the story requires it. There's no pretension, just the page and the words and the narrator's best attempt to express what happened. To entertain.
That might sound like a preamble in preparation to lambaste modern literary fiction, but alas, I've hardly the experience in either writing or reading to take a crack at that, a task which, if possible, undoubtedly requires a more experienced person than I to do effectively. Instead, I'm going to say something that surprised even me when I first admitted it.
I read a bit of Cormac McCarthy today, and I actually got what was happening. Not only did I get it--that is to say, I understood why the writing was the way it was, or perhaps to put it more accurately, why people who appreciate it do, indeed, appreciate it--but I realized that people like it for similar reasons to why I like classic fiction. It's difficult to understand at times, but when you do understand it, when you put in the effort to comprehend, you become much more immersed than if you immediately understood everything without a thought.
Here' s the passage I read:
The blackness he woke to on those nights was sightless and impenetrable. A blackness to hurt your ears with listening. Often he had to get up. No sound but the wind in the bare blackened trees. He rose and stood tottering in that cold autistic dark with his arms outheld for balance while the vestibular calculations in his skull cranked out their reckonings. An old chronicle. To seek out the upright. No fall but preceded by a declination. He took great marching steps into the nothingness, counting them against his return. Eyes closed, arms oaring. Upright to what? Something nameless in the night, lode or matrix. To which he and the stars were common satellite. Like the great pendulum in its rotunda scribing through the long day movements of the universe of which you may say it knows nothing an yet know it must.

• Cormac McCarthy, The Road, 2006.

To be fair, even I got lost on the read-through toward the end there. I can't figure out ". . .lode or matrix. . ." or "To which he and the stars were common sattelite." Yet the parts I do understand I take great pleasure in. He mixes, at times, simplistic and easily understandable turns of phrase ("a blackness to hurt your ears with listening"; "He took great marching steps into nothingness, counting them against his return.") with the more difficult musings and phrasings (". . . vestibular calculations in his skull cranked out their reckonings"; "An old chronicle"; "Upright to what?") so that even when you don't understand something, you can kind of just keep reading until you reach again a section with some comprehensible writing and you're back on track.
The effect is a somber, musing scene that takes its time but is steeped in the atmosphere the author wants to convey and which the characters must also be experiencing. Admittedly, even as I write this I feel I'm giving the book too much credit, yet I must, for I too managed to get swept up in its blackened prose and murky tone. If that be what the author intended, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then he accomplished what he was attempting.
That said, the upshot is this: I believe that it's not necessarily the cleverness of Cormac McCarthy that is making this excerpt enrapture me, but rather it's the result of the technique, either intended or unintended, of using a unique vocabulary, unique similes or metaphors, or otherwise lightly obscuring from the reader the obvious meaning. It lets atmosphere catch up the text and carry it, at times, wherever it desires. Sometimes it leads to concise, clever phrases, and sometimes it leads to seemingly ridiculous cosmic musings, but always retains the feeling.
In classic fiction by famous authors, or even less famous ones, I have gotten the same feeling of strong atmosphere and immersion, but instead of sitting with my chin against my chest, pondering what a pendulum in its rotunda has to do with a guy getting up in the middle of the night to presumably urinate, or in what way the dark is "autistic," I instead kept a dictionary close so as to quickly research the meanings of the numerous words therein that I'd never before heard. Contrary to the nearly incomprehensible musings in Cormac McCarthy's writing, I often marveled at classic fiction's ability to write long, complex sentences without for an instant confusing me. In fact, that's what those authors seemed to excel at, creating winding sentences with multiple commas that seemed to snag my imagination and stuff into it detail after detail until I could smell the lilac wafting from inside a flower shop, or feel the grit of dirt through the soles of my moccasins.
Rather than hold out the atmosphere and force me to scoop and scrape at it until my clothes are caked and matted, classic fiction inundates, over and over, with lofty descriptions of sensation that seep into the clothes to cling to the flesh, or slip up into the nostrils, stinging or tantalizing with heady aromas, or snap raucously at the ears, ringing sounds filled with timbre and texture.
I think I've taken a lesson from modern literary fiction. If I want my writing to be evocative, I must give the reader something understandable, but different. He must get what I mean, but never have seen it put in quite this way. It must be familiar, yet novel. It must be challenging, but never seem insurmountable.
Thus, while I now respect literary fiction, I nevertheless maintain some level of agreement with the man who started it all, B. R. Meyer. What I feel I want is lofty fiction, but full of plot; expert word-craft, but not necessarily recondite, save in judicious moments in which there is little alternative, or when the muse's demands cannot be otherwise sated.
I apologize for lapsing into faux-poetic blathering, and as my gift to you, I'll end on this sentence

I've only been at it for a little over 24 hours, and it's already getting to a point there is just too much information here. I own a short domain, and may end up creating individual pages for each entry, that way the linked material will be germane only to the case information it's being referenced to. It could just be something I link to, like all the entries starting with the letter "A," or when a lot of commentary about why the decision/case law is what it is, requires a bit of explaining. Thankfully, I paid attention in court, and do a lot of reading on cases from appellate courts. I welcome anyone to review and suggest changes to the entries. I'll create an email account to have them sent to. Don't bother sending hate, as it'll just be tossed aside as the trash it is. I don't get paid any more than you do to do this.
I am going to start using this to keep a running list of legal and Latin phrases, as well as historic cases from the courts that have been monumental in how the law is applied in the United States. If you have a suggestion, reply here. I will review it and then remove the response, so this doesn't become a tangled mess.
Ad Hoc - For one purpose only. This could be a committee or just a single individual created or assigned to investigate on situation only. For more information, See Ad Hoc at LII/Wex Law.
Ad Litem - (pronounced "adh lyh-temh") For the case. Most commonly used in cases involving juveniles and disabled or senior adults as a "Guardian ad Litem," meaning they are appointed as the legal guardian or attorney is specificly limited to representing the child and disabled or senior adult for the duration of the present case. See Ad Litem at LII/Wex Law.
Affidavit - A written sworn statement, often written under oath or in the presence of a Notary Public, usually attached as part of a case, in either civil or criminal court. See Affidavit on LII/Wex Law.
Affirmative Defense - A special defense, such as "not guilty by means of mental disease or defect," entered by the defense in a criminal trial. When an affirmative defense is entered, the onus is shifted from the state/prosecutor having to prove a case against the defendant, to the defendant having to prove they should be held not guilty for the circumstance they insert as their defense of the case. This is a two edged sword, as in order to enter the plea, they are actually admitting to the case of the prosecution against them. If their case is not enough to rise to the level of what they are seeking, the court can simply find them guilty and sentence them accordingly. See Affirmative Defense at LII/Wex Law.
Alford Plea - A substitute plea option for states which do not have "no contest/nolo contendere" options. The plea refers to the landmark SCOTUS decision from the case of "North Carolina v Alford" in which the defendant wanted to take a plea deal for a negotiated lower sentence, but was not allowed to since he maintained his innocence. Unfortunately, in order to enter the deal, he had to admit guilt, but instead he asserted innocence so the judge rejected the plea agreement. At trial, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to a much harsher sentence than what the state offered via the original plea deal. This was a landmark case, as the SCOTUS determined the trial court erred in allowing a longer sentence than was agreed to by the state, and would have been given had the judge accepted the plea deal. The judge created the crisis by setting aside the plea deal, especially the length of sentence agreed to by the state. See North Carolina v Alford at Nolo.com. See Alford Plea at LII/Wex Law.
Certiorari - See "Writ of Certiorari."
Civil Law - Cases in which the sole remedy or punishment is financial. This can mean goods, services, supplies and of course money. These are cases brought against a person or entity in a non-criminal court. See Civil Law at LII/Wex Law.
Corpus Delicti - (pronounced "cohr-pus deh-lekh-ty") The body of the crime. Some proof there exists enough evidence to show a crime was committed before you can actually sue or try someone for the crime. See Corpus Delicti at LII/Wex Law.
De Facto - (pronounced "dayh fahk-toh") Taken as fact, without needing documentation. For example, if a person appears in court without an attorney, it is de facto they are appearing pro se, even if they decide to procure an attorney later.
De Jure - (pronounced "dayh jurh-ayh") By the right of law. Not to be mistaking with "du jour," meaning "of the day," as in "soup du jour" in a restaurant. See De Jure at Nolo.com.
De Novo - See "Trial de Novo."
Discovery - A type of motion in limine requesting a copy of the evidence one side has against the other. This includes both evidence that points to the guilt of the person charged (inculpatory), or that may suggest the innocence of the person charged (exculpatory).
En Banc - Full bench. In appeals hearings where there may be 5 to 7 judges/justices on a state or federal Appeals or Supreme Court, if the case is heard "en banc," it means all of the justices were present for the case and final decision, instead of just a partial hearing by 3 judges/justices. See En Banc at /Wex Law.
Et Al - And others. Usually used in civil and probate cases to substitute a long list of people, or to act as a substitute for unknown people. Any time you see the word "Et" as a standalone word, it always means "and." The other substitute for unknown people involved are Jon or Jane Doe. See Et Al.
Ex Parte - (pronounced "ekhs pahr-tay") One sided; from one party or on behalf of. Normally ex parte information would be prohibited from presentation from a judge, as they will only be getting one side of the story. This does not apply to petitions for emergency orders, like an Order of Protection, Writ of Prohibition, or motion to stay some kind of sentence (usually to stay a death sentence from being executed). See Ex Parte at LII/Wex Law.
Ex Post Facto - (pronounced "ekhs pohst fakh-toh") After the fact/Done afterward. This usually refers to a law or case law which is applied retroactively. See Ex Post Facto at LII/Wex Law.
Ex Rel. - Ex relatione/Relator. A case filed based on 3rd party statements. While criminal courts do not allow hearsay evidence, but there are times when the courts can accept such testimony, like in the case of a whistleblower. This information may still be thrown out on appeal, but with whistleblower protection laws, the first party whose statements were used to base a case on, my feel more comfortable coming forth. See Ex Rel. on LII/Wex Law.
Exculpatory Evidence - (pronounced "ekhs-cohl-pah-toh-rhee") Evidence which may show or point to the possible innocence of the defendant. Prosecutors are required by law to provide all evidence to the defense upon the entry of a motion for discory. If the prosecutor fails to disclose exculpatory evidence, whether negligently or purposefully, could cause the case to be overturned on appeal for prosecutorial misconduct. See Exculpatory Evidence at LII/Wex Law.
Guardian ad Litem - See "Ad Litem."
Habeas Corpus - See "Writ of Habeas Corpus."
In Camera - In chambers, or otherwise a meeting of the judge and the attorneys for all parties in private. The opposite of "In Curia."
In Curia - In court. In the open. The opposite of "In Camera."
Indigence - See "Indigent."
Indigent - Very financially poor.
In Forma Pauperis - (pronounced "ehn fohr-mah paw-pehr-uhs") The finding of "pauper" or "indogent" status for the purposes of receiving attorney representation and/or reduced financial penalties relating to their case. Not all states provide an attorney for free. Missouri is one of them. You must still fall within the guidelines issued by the state regarding income limits, and are given a set fee which must be paid after the conclusion of the case, with a plea deal on a misdemeanor being the least expensive, and a jury trial on capital charges are the most expensive.
In Loco Parentis - (pronounced "ehn loh-coh pah-rehn-tuhs") Acting in the place of a parent. This could be the court judge, a temporary guardian, the custodial guardian, or some other 3rd party who is not an actual parent of the minor. See In Loco Parentis on LII/Wex Law.
Inculpatory Evidence - (pronounced "ehn-cohl-pah-toh-rhee") Evidence which points directly to the defendant as the most likely person to have committed the offense(s) for which they are charged. See the entry for Inculpatory Evidence in the glossary at https://www.uscourts.gov.
Indicia - (pronounced "ehn-dish-ee-uh") An indicator, sign or signal. A good example would be the clues/cues recorded and reported in a field sobriety test. See Indicia at LII/Wex Law.
Ipso Facto - (pronounced "ihp-soh fakh-toh") By the fact. Most properly known as "therefore."
Legal Information Institute - (herein after "LII/Wex Law") The website hosted by Cornell University which collects and maintains a database/encyclopedia of legal terms and cases, as well as maintaining another legal database/encyclopedia known as Wex Law. See https://www.law.cornell.edu/ and/or https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/.
LII/Wex Law - See "Legal Information Institute."
Mandamus - See "Writ of Mandamus."
Mens Rea - (pronounced "mehns ray-uh") Criminal intent. This deals with the state of mind of the accused at the time of the incident. Sometimes an action is physically tied to a mental decision whether purposely, negligently, to commit the act (culpability). Then there are cases in which mental state is irrelevant to the case at hand. See Mens Rea at LII/Wex Law.
Miranda Rights - See "Miranda Warnings."
Miranda Warnings - A list of rights provided any citizen of the United States as per the Constitution and as mandated in the landmark SCOTUS case of Miranda v Arizona (see below). The wording varies slightly in some states, but for the most part they are largely identical. You can find a list of each state's mandated wording at MirandaWarning.org.
Miranda v Arizona - A landmark SCOTUS decision requiring law enforcement to inform people of their constitutional rights under questioning and during specific circumstances, in violation of the defendant's 5th Amendment of the US Constitution right against making self-incriminating statements and 6th Amendment of the US Constitution right to an attorney, better known as the "Miranda Warning(s)." See Miranda v Arizona on LII/Wex Law.
Modus Operandi - (pronounced "moh-duhs ah-pehr-ahn-dy") Mode of operation. This is also used to determine if a serial offender is at work. This is found when a series of cases follow the same patterns, whether it's a single clue or a full series of which are seen repeatedly. See Modus Operandi at LII/Wex Law.
Mortis - (pronounced "mohr-tehs") A state of body after death. There are several types of "mortis" steps a body goes through after death. This includes:

• pallor mortis - The paleness of the body and lips due to the lack of blood flow. The onset of pallor mortis can be as few as minutes (think of a person choking on food).
• algor mortis - The reduction in body tempurature after death.
• rigor mortis - The stiffening of the body starting a few hours after death, usually ending within six hours or 5-7 days post onset.
• livor mortis - The accumulation of the blood at the part of the body closest to the ground due to gravity. The common medical term for this is "dependant lividity."

Motion - A request, whether made orally or in writing, for some kind of action. One of the most common motions is to have a piece of evidence admitted to the record. See Motion on LII/Wex Law.
Motion for Directed Verdict - A type of motion, typically made and heard in limine (outside of the earshot of the jury) asking the judge to determine if the prosecution has met its burdon of proof to even support the case moving on to the jury. There are generally two times the defense will make this motion. The first is at the end of the state's case in chief, before the defense begins its case. The attorney for the defendant (if one exists), or the defendant will provide written motions detailing the reasons why the defendant may believe the prosecutor has failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts. The judge has 3 options at this point. 1) To make a ruling for the directed verdict; 2) To make a ruling against the directed verdict; or 3) Take the matter under advisement, but continue with the case in the mean time.
Motion in Limine - (pronounced "leh-meh-nee") Motion made up front. Standard motions made during the pre-trial phase (and occasionally during a trial) seeking to have certain evidence excluded from the case. If made during a trial, these are always handled outside of the presence of the jury. See Motions in Limine at LII/Wex Law.
Motions - See "Motion."
Nolle Prosequi ad Prosequendum - (pronounced "nah-lee proh-sekh-wee adh proh-sekh-cue-wehn-dum") Refusal to prosecute/abandon prosecution. Sometimes referred to as nolle prosequi, or simply nolle pros or nol pros, this is the term which basically means the prosecution has opted not to pursue charges against the defendant. This can be dismissed by the trial court with or without prejudice. Cases dismissed as nolle pros without prejudice allows the prosecution to file the original charge again, provided the original statute of limitations has not been exceeded (See "Statute of Limitations" below). See Nolle Prosequi on LII/Wex Law.
Nolo Contendere - (pronounced "noh-loh cahn-tehn-durh-ay") No contest; no dispute. A type of plea available in some states where a defendant acknowledges enough evidence exists to return a finding of guilt, without actually admitting to guilt. This is usually a plea entered as part of a pre-arranged plea deal for a reduced fine/sentence. Not every state has or accepts pleas of no contest. In these states, the only real option available to a defendant who wishes to benefit from a reduced fine/sentence of a no contest plea, named "Alford Pleas (see "Alford Plea")." See Nolo Contendere See on LII/Wex Law.
Non Obstante Verdicto - (pronounced "nahn ohb-stahn-tay vehr-dikh-tow") Notwithstanding the verdict. A situation in which a judge overrules the verdict of the jury, sets it aside, and enters a different verdict. This is done when a jury returns a verdict of guilt on a charge the judge does not believe the state has actually proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's say the defendant was charged with armed robbery, attempted murder and illegal use of a firearm. If the prosecutor fails to lay the proper foundation for the firearm to be entered into evidence, by establishing the defendant actually possessed it at some point, the judge could overturn the verdict for attempted murder and illegal use of a firearm, but still maintain the armed robbery verdict, since all the prosecution has to do to keep that conviction, is show the defendant threatened the use of a firearm during the commission of a robbery. The phrase "non obstante verdicto" is rarely seen in court, as such cases usually just hear the judge use the phrase of "entering a judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the jury." Except in very few cases, the verdicts the judge overrules and overturns have jeopardy attached, so the prosecutor cannot file the charge again.
It is important to note, the judge could have taken a step to prevent the jury from even considering the verdict for the two charges either sua sponte or through a motion in limine to set aside the case for lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain the charges. The judge could have made a summary ruling before the jury ever received instructions on what they were ultimately going to be making a decision on. See Non Obstante Verdicto at LII/Wex Law).
Pauper - See "Indigent."
Post Mortem - After death. Most commonly used in conjunction with an investigation or physical examination, like an Autopsy. [See Post Mortem at LII/Wex Law]().
Quo Warranto - (pronounced "kwoh wah-rahn-toh") Order to challenge and/or remove someone from a seat of authority. An example could be a County Commissioner who is facing charges locally for embezzling tax dollars. In conjunction with a criminal case, the county or the state may seek a quo warranto to challenge the authority of the commissioner to remain in their position. If the motion/filing is granted, the subject is effectively removed from office by the court, whether it's a court in the county, one that has been assigned the case to hear it by the supreme court of the state, or one directly heard on appeal by an appellate court. See Quo Warranto at LII/Wex Law.
Reasonable Suspicion - The minimum amount of legal standard which must be met before a traffic or pedestrian stop and/or a frisk (See "Terry v Ohio" below) can be made. See Reasonable Suspicion on LII/Wex Law.
Per Curium - (pronounced "purh curh-ee-uhm") By unanimous consent. When every judge/justic votes and finds unimously for the same reason(s), and issues a written opinion as a group, instead of as an individual. See Per Curium at LII/Wex Law.
POTUS - The President of the United States. Designated as the highest authority in the Executive Branch of Government and as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, as per Article II of the US Constitution.
Prima Facie - (pronounced "pree-mah" or "pry-mah fay-shah") Upon first understanding. Think about someone violating a posted speed limit. Upon first understanding, the sign clearly designates the legal speed a vehicle may travel through the specific section of roadway so marked. In most states, this requires a white sign with black lettering; however some states also allow yellow signs as evidence of a zone with prohibited actions (like no passing zones with solid yellow lines on the driver's side of the roadway). This is not limited to traffic. An officer can make an arrest on what is clearly a prima facie case of probable cause of any crime. See Prima Facie on LII/Wex Law.
SCOTUS - The Supreme Court of the United States. Designated as the highest body of the Judicial Branch of Government as per Article III of the US Constitution.
Stare Decisis - (pronounced "stah-ree dee-cy-sihs") To follow precedent. The doctrine where judges are generally restricted in freedom based on case law set by other or higher courts. For example, a judge could not decide to throw out the requirement for a defendant to have been Mirandized prior to questioning while in custody. This is because there is case law from the SCOTUS in the landmark 1960's case of Miranda v Arizona (see "Miranda v Arizona" below). Judges do not like setting a precedent, as it means their decision will be held up to scrutiny by every judge above them. This is also why SCOTUS rulings are usually seen as the law of the land, unless Congress and the President create laws to overrule the SCOTUS as a form of checks and balances. See Stare Decisis at LII/Wex Law.
Statute of Limitations - The amount of time people or the state have to file a case against in court (civil or criminal) following the moment of the event. Generally for misdemeanors, the limitation is one year from the date of the action/offense. For some felonies, such as murder or some sex crimes, there is no statute of limitations. See Statute of Limitations at LII/Wex Law.
Sua Sponte - (pronounced "sue-ah spahn-tay") Of their own volition. This term usually involves a judge taking an action without being asked to. See Sua Sponte on LII/Wex Law.
Subpoena - (pronounced "suh-pee-nah") A written order requiring a person to be presented to the person or authority from which the order was issued to provide testimony. See Subpoena at LII/Wex Law.
Subpoena Duces Tecum - (pronounced "suh-pee-nah doo-sehs tee-kehm) To bring with. A written order requiring the presentation of documents to the person or authority from which the order was issued either by the custodian of records, or whoever printed, distributed, copied, etc., to establish whether or not the document is an original being provided to the court or investigating authority. See Subpoena Duces Tecum at LII/Wex Law.
Terry Frisk - See "Terry v Ohio."
Terry Search - See "Terry v Ohio."
Terry Stop - See "Terry v Ohio."
Terry v Ohio - A landmark SCOTUS decision in which the court issued limits on how far an officer may go in searching someone based on reasonable suspicion, whether the search is of their person, property, vehicle, etc. without a warrant. See Terry v Ohio at LII/Wex Law
Trial - The stage at which a case and evidence is heard and a judgment or verdict is rendered either by a judge or jury. If a jury cannot come to a unanimous consensus, the court may have to declare a mistrial, and the prosecutor will have to decide whether or not to try the case again. See Trial at LII/Wex Law.
Trial de Novo - (pronounced "dayh" or "dee noh-voh") Afresh; anew. This is a kind of trial on appeal, in which the judge decides to completely disregard the lower court or commission/committee decision and supporting written opinion, and to hear the case as if it had never been heard before, requiring a full trial of the evidence. See Trial de Novo at LII/Wex Law.
Trial in Absentia - (pronounced "ahb-sinh-shee-ah") In the absence of. A trial in which the defendant either chooses not to appear at all, either with their attorney or pro se at trial. The defendant is afforded the right to appear in court and face their accuser(s) as per the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution. Courts have ruled this right is absolute unless the defendant chooses to either not attend or to be so disruptive, their presence is not such which would equate to active participation in the defense of their case(s). See In Absentia at LII/Wex Law.
Voir Dire - (pronounced "vwah deer" or "vwah dy-er") A french term which translates "To tell the truth." This is the process during attorneys question potential jurers before a final selection for the regular jury panel, and possibly one or two alternates, in case any one should be unable to continue. See Voir Dire at LII/Wex Law.
Warrant - A writ issued against a person or property upon presentation of probable cause for the seizure and subsequent search of said person or property. The need of "probable cause" is required by the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. Warrants for the arrest of a person will include an initial bond amount as required by the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution. See Warrant at LII/Wex Law.
Wex Law - See "Legal Information Institute."
Writ - A type of written order issued by a court or administrative body. See Writ at LII/Wex Law.
Writ of Certiorari - (pronounced "Sihr-shee-oh-rare-ee") An order issued from a court of appeal to a lower court to supply them with all available information on file about a case. Most Supreme Court cases involve Certiorari, as they would need all of the evidence in a case in order to make a fair an sound legal judgment. This is especially important when it comes to the Supreme Court, as their rulings often takes over as the "Law of the Land." See Writ of Certiorari at LII/Wex Law.
Writ of Error Conam Nobis - (pronounced "Ehr-ohr coh-nahm noh-bihs") An order made by a court of appeals to a trial or other lower court, demanding the materials, records, evidence, reports, etc., used in the court proceeding which ultimately has been appealed, for the purpose of finding if the trial or other lower court made any errors in allowing evidence which should not have been, or which excluded evidence which shouldn't have been. See Writ of Error Conam Nobis at NII/Wex Law.
Writ of Habeas Corpus - (pronounced "hay-bee-uhs cohr-puhs") An order requiring a judge to bring someone held in jail or prison, usually in seeking relief from their sentence; or to allow the person to be extradited to face charges in another jurisdiction, without removing the original sentence from the court. See Writ of Habeas Corpus on LII/Wex Law.
Writ of Mandamus - (pronounced "mahn-day-muhs") We command. A type of writ issued by an authoritative body, usually a court, requiring a person of lesser authority to carry out the required tasks assigned to the person by law. Think of the 2015 federal court order telling Kimberly Jean Davis, the former county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, to issue marriage licenses to gay couples wanting to get married. She defied the order stating religious beliefs, and had forbidden any of her deputy clerks from issuing licenses as well. She was jailed for violation of the order. The SCOTUS denied her appeal, which effectively gave more legal standing for gay marriages in every state. See Writ of Mandamus on LII/Wex Law.
NOTICE: The information provided here is not to be construed as legal advice, it is only being displayed for educational purposes. By reading, you agree to hold harmless the author, contributors, moderators or anybody affiliated with reddit for any inaccuracies in the details.
LAST EDITED: 01-JAN-2021