BLUEPRINT

Following 8 years as a defense attorney, Lindquist served as a federal prosecutor for almost 28 years. In 1994 he was asked by the U.S. Department of Justice to go to Colombia and assist that government in implementing its new criminal procedure code, by which Colombia claimed to have made successful transition from its antiquated inquisitorial form to a modern accusatory system.

Risheim started his career in the government as a criminal investigator and also served as a senior investigator for Philip Morris International, Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett Packard Corporation, investigating transnational counterfeiting, digital crimes and piracy. During this time, Risheim also worked with the U.S. Department of Justice as an international police advisor. In 1994, Risheim was assigned to Colombia to assist with the development of the Colombian National Police and Prosecutors Office.

There Risheim joined Lindquist, in the criminal justice system implementation endeavor. They soon learned that the transition was artificial – an attempt to superimpose modern accusatory principles and mechanisms on the same archaic inquisitory form. Colombia had, in effect, retained the archaic past, while trying to move toward the modern future with its “mixed” system. Since then, the incongruence has been confirmed in Colombia’s continuing case congestion and crime impunity.

Colombia’s experience is typical of numerous other countries of the inquisitorial legacy around the world, with similar results. The comparative law expertise gained by Lindquist and Risheim in Colombia has taken them to many of those countries, as they strive to advise governments in the modernization of criminal justice systems. Over the course of almost four decades, they have identified those criteria against which legal systems can and must be measured in the enhancement of efficiency in time, efficacy in finding truth, justice in application, and in confidence among citizen and functionary alike. That endeavor has also resulted in the identification and practical application of significant methodologies and mechanisms of systemic improvement and reform.

KL International, Inc. focuses on advancing criminal investigations and their associated prosecution, defense, and judicial processes through its BLUEPRINT consulting services, specializing in the development of criminal justice systems in the context of international comparative law. The application of the Relevance Blueprint. algorithmic methodology, implemented electronically via Suscriptor e-Evidence, plays a pivotal role in identifying relevant facts and serves as an essential component in the broader development of modern criminal justice systems.

Every legitimate criminal justice system in all of its functional components is founded in the identification of those facts that demonstrate or signal the commission of a particular crime, without which there is legally no crime commission in spite of its occurrence and very real social effect. Such facts must demonstrate directly and convincingly such commission; that is, a particular fact must be relevant as to the crime committed in order to constitute proof or evidence of the same.

Moreover, its identification necessarily involves its filtration or separation from those facts that do not bear on the criminal behavior; those facts that are not relevant. Such relevance is determined according to the nature or legal composition of the particular crime involved as the same is promulgated or defined textually in a criminal code or legislation otherwise.

From the nature or definition of the particular crime are born the analytical criteria by which the facts that demonstrate or substantiate the commission of a crime are revealed; by means of which a fact is revealed as relevant proof.

Such analytical criteria can be characterized analogously as a “blueprint” or that which is required to build a house or structure. The development of the criminal investigation and its related prosecution, defense, and judgement constitute an integral aspect of the BLUEPRINT construction of a criminal justice system—not of wood or brick, but of relevant facts or proof. In turn,  the Relevance Blueprint methodology as the ideal mechanism of relevant fact identification constitutes an integral aspect of that overall criminal justice developmment BLUEPRINT.

 

Every legitimate criminal justice system in all of its functional components is founded on the identification of those facts that prove the commission of a particular crime as officially defined—proof that the words or language happened in reality—without which there is legally no crime commission in spite of the occurrence of the event and its very real social impact. Such facts must demonstrate clearly and convincingly such commission; that is, a particular fact must be relevant as to the crime committed in order to constitute proof or evidence of that crime.

Moreover, that identification necessarily involves the filtration or separation of the relevant fact from those facts that do not bear on the criminal behavior; those facts that are not relevant. Such relevance as opposed to irrelevance is determined according to the linguistic composition of the particular crime involved as the same is defined textually in a criminal code, jurisprudence, or legislation otherwise.

The identification of the relevant evidence requires a tool dedicated exclusively to that task. Without such a tool:

  • The criminal justice functionary tasked with investigating the commission of that particular crime does not have the means of identifying the relevant evidence needed to prove that conduct. “What exactly am I looking for?”
  • The criminal justice functionary tasked with charging and proving that particular crime lacks the basis or technique for duly notifying the suspect or defendant of the exact criminal behavior with which he or she is accused and the associated relevant evidence. “Exactly what do I charge and what is the relevant proof?”
  • The criminal justice functionary tasked with defending the accused lacks the basis or technique for properly evaluating the charges in relation to the discovered evidence in formulating a defense. “What exactly are the charges and what exactly is the relevant evidence?” 
  • The criminal justice functionary tasked with evaluating the sufficiency of the crime charge notice to the defendant or ultimately judging the associated relevant evidence, lacks the means by which the charge and associated evidence are properly evaluated in determining guilt or innocence. “Has the crime been exactly charged and has the crime been exactly proven with relevant evidence?”

Suscriptor e-Evidence powered by the Blueprint provides that tool.

  1. Provides a tool to organize and focus the Investigation and prosecution to identify relevant facts.

  2. Reduces time for investigation and judicial process.

  3. Answers the question “Do I Have Enough?” for the investigators and prosecutors with confidence and precision.
  1. Assists the Defense Attorney in formulating a viable defense strategy and addressing the question “Do They have enough?”

  2. Provides a Judge, with a definitive tool to determine relevancy, and guilt versus innocence.
  1. Identifies deficiencies in the language used in the code definition.

  2. Provides civil society with an understanding if justice was reached.

  3. Reveals criminal justice defects and how they impact society at large.

  4. Assists citizenry to understand the deficiencies of the judicial system.