“The without prejudice privilege rule enables a party to proceedings to claim privilege from disclosure to the court of documents covered by the privilege. The privilege rests first, upon the express or implied agreement of the parties themselves that communications in the course of the negotiations should not be admissible in evidence. Second, it derives from a public policy that rests upon the desirability of preventing statements or offers made in the course of negotiations being brought before the court on trial as admissions of liability.”
When the President of the United States makes statement regarding a pending case or the Attorney General of the United States does likewise is the case then tainted in any regard? Further, if a case is dismissed with prejudice your right to refile the case has been removed by the court. A final and binding decision by a judge about a legal matter that prevents further pursuit of the same matter in any court. When judges make such a decision, they dismiss the matter “with prejudice.” The parties may also agree to dismiss a claim with prejudice. Therefore, in cases involving criminal matters coming before the legal process and when preliminary statements of an ethnicity prejudice are offered in advance of the findings does this not become something outside due process and is this not a racial prejudice intermingled with the type of prejudice above defined and does this potentially deny equal justice under the law to both the claimant and defendant?
Why would important people outside a case make leading and unfounded statements while the legal processes are pending especially when they are knowledgeable of how the legal process works unless they held a position and were attempting to place a shadow upon the case which also is exhibiting a prejudice of how they wish the case be adjudicated. Equal justice under the law should have no contingencies based upon race, color or creed and should be judged on its merits and not someone’s opinion that is not party to the immediate pending case.
So when the completion of a duly appointed legal process has been completed and the findings were not in compliance with another’s wishes and they proclaim further action will be taken, can it be said justice is no longer blind or that it never has been. And could it be said that when the Attorney General announces that further investigation and possible legal action is to be continued. Is this prejudice of a different color and is it Justice with prejudice?