Average rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 5.0 stars
Based on 129 reviews
Place your cursor on the ‘green screen’ to see the hidden text.
Openjustice.net (aka OJNET) is a consortium of legal and forensic experts from every jurisdiction; the three major legal systems in the world today being common law, civil law and Islamic law. Members of OJNET have the highest qualifications and lots of experience working in all of these systems. Only public cases are published on this website. Others may not be published or may require paid or privileged access.
An eye emoji (👁️) indicates that a post is visible to guests of OJNET1. A credit card emoji (💳) indicates that a post requires paid access. Finally, a lock emoji (🔒) indicates that a post requires privileged access.
OJNET answers queries, reviews and publishes cases and collects information about them for individual and corporate clients. It also pays for client referrals, case reviews and tips2 and offers jobs and partnerships to contributors.
So, why choose OJNET? Think of it this way. You can either spend years and hundreds of thousands of dollars on a PR or law firm to publish an “article” or a “judgment” that has no scientific merit3. Or, OJNET can review or publish your case in a much shorter time, at a much lesser price, which people everywhere—especially public authorities—must acknowledge.
A judicial decision or press release is a piece of creative writing by a judge or journalist that cannot be verified or modified. Judges are politically appointed4 strangers on armchairs who are almost all less educated than the average young Canadian, who has a bachelor of arts5, and cannot help with you anything that requires more than basic literacy6.
Cases on OJNET, on the other hand, are endorsed by many experts, can be endorsed by many more and are always subject to correction and improvement. An OJNET report can not only save you lots of money and time, protect your privacy and reputation and expose the guilty parties, but it can also be used to shortcut useless procedures7 and immediately protect your person and property with the help of public authorities or private enforcement.
If you want to have a case reviewed or published, you must first consult with us. We may ask you appropriate questions to determine your needs and ours, what we can do for you, how long it will take and what it will cost.
OJNET uses original tools and methods of analysis. For instance, questions are formulated and answered scientifically. Cases are concluded by a monotonic inference8 and posted on this website (if public) to collect support or feedback from other experts and members of the public in parallel with the peer review process. We call this open, mass and parallel peer review. Cases usually appear one at a time and are modified to simplify or correct them.
‘Green screens’ protect hidden information from parties who try to steal, change or destroy it.
Lynne Weathered et al.
[S]tatistics presented in the courtroom may not be easily understood by non-scientists. [. . .] Recent research by Cronin found that how a statistical phrase was presented to 124 potential jury members, significantly affected their ability to correctly understand what the statistic actually meant. DNA evidence presented using RMPs was correctly interpreted nearly twice as often as the same DNA evidence presented as LRs (83% versus 42%). [. . .] incorrectly interpreting the evidence when using LRs occurred 58% of the time in Cronin’s study [. . .]. [. . .] misunderstanding the statistics is prevalent among key players within a criminal justice trial[.]9
Jordan Peterson
“Lawyers are disappearing like mad; and the reason for that is [. . .] increasingly you can do things yourself if you’re smart.”10
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
“For the rational study of the law the blackletter man may be the man of the present, but the man of the future is the man of statistics”11
Neil DeGrasse Tyson
“The fact that an Innocence Project even has to exist in this world is itself a tragedy.”12
“Why not have jurors that are really good at data analysis? How about that?”13
“Law [. . .] doesn’t go to what’s right. [. . .] The practice is bred in debating teams [. . .]. The act of arguing and not agreeing seems to be fundamental to that profession.”14
William Twining
“Evidence, Proof and Factfinding [. . .] does not seem to be generally accepted as an integral [. . .] part of the core curriculum nor of legal discourse generally”14
“In 1980, I delivered a paper called “Taking Facts Seriously” which is quite well known but has made almost no impact.”15
Beverley McLachlin
“Finding the truth is more and more a matter of understanding technical and scientific evidence.”16
Stephen Breyer
“Our decisions should reflect a proper scientific and technical understanding”17
Warren Burger
[T]oday’s law graduate [. . .] has little, if any, training in dealing with facts [. . .] the stuff of which cases are really made.18
Juror 10 in “12 Angry Men”
“I’ll tell you something. The crime is being committed right in this room!”19
Jed Rakoff
“[T]he law resolves everyday disputes [. . .] by applying general principles to specific facts. Identifying the general principles is often not that hard, but finding the facts can be very difficult.”20