by Andrew Watters & Cynthia Clark
A treatment of corruption and hypocrisy in the American legal system.
PETE is an associate attorney at a small law firm in Fort Collins, Colorado. He has a large civil case in Federal court against a dishonest and corrupt Assistant United States Attorney, GRAHM.
The case is a 1983 case involving the shooting of an innocent man by the FBI. The Feds know they messed up, but they’re aggressively defending the case anyway, to the point of violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Grahm enables this fraud on the court by being
dishonest with witnesses and their preparation.
The jury is totally hoodwinked by Grahm et al. There is a defense verdict. Pete unsuccessfully moves for JNOV. He appeals.
Grahm celebrates with his yes-men, colleagues, and spouse.
Pete is left alone, shunned, and dejected.
The appeals court sanctions Pete in a scathing ruling excoriating him for questioning the integrity of a AUSA who was just doing his job.
Pete goes a little crazy and plots revenge.
He kills Grahm in a revenge fantasy reminiscent of Charles Bronson in “Death Wish.”
Pete gets away with it and feels happy, not guilty. He celebrates with his family and friends, although they don’t know why.
Pete ends the film with the lesson that revenge is acceptable if a person is abused by society to the breaking point like Pete was.