[
Anecdotal Evidence of Judicial Extremism [& Corruption]
Anecdotal Evidence of Judicial Extremism [& Corruption]
Series: Most Recent
|
Leo v Thomas & Stacey (TX District Court of Cameron County)
Leo v Thomas (NYS Supreme Court of Jefferson County)
Leo v Thomas & Stacey (Texas 13th Court of Appeals)
Leo v Thomas (NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Division)
Leo v Thomas (NYS Supreme Court of Jefferson County)
Leo v Thomas & Stacey (Texas 13th Court of Appeals)
Leo v Thomas (NYS Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Division)
Pleadings:
Inappropriate remand to the trial court allowing the opposing party to object to Appellant's Affidavit of Indigency which had already been filed by her on two separate occasions and deemed true by the trial court.
1. Appellate Court's Order to Remand
2. Appellant's Written Reaction to Appellate Court's decision to remand in the name of "protecting everybody's rights."
Below is email communication between the the parties, including the threats made by opposing counsel. The trial court staff were likely colluding with the defense attorney since I had filed a request for a hearing for sanctions against the defendants for the defense attorney's threats and his using the threat of filing an objection to the indignancy affidavit if I did not agree to a settlement.
3. Email thread
4. Plaintiff's Request for Hearing for Plaintiff's Motion for sanctions against defense for misconduct
5. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions against defense
Defendant's appellate brief was poorly written and clearly donned the goal of expressing hostility against the plaintiff. Again, the appellate court played oblivious proving further the extreme favoritism of attorneys in legal matters and denying pro se litigants their rights and respectful treatment as indicated in the Attorney's Code of Professional Conduct.
6. Appellant's Initial Brief
7. Appellees' Response Brief
8. Appellant's Reply Brief
9. Appellate Memorandum Opinion
An Attorney's Reaction After Reading the Appellate Court's Judgment and Memorandum Opinion
"We read the appellate court's decision. Whoa.! It is so 1-sided. How can you have given the trial court permission to forego any legal standard, no particulars, and no grounds that would address the Court's reasoning.. To say that you knowingly waived this trial court deficit, cuts and works against the mountain of case law that places the onus on the trial court to do the job it must do to render an order of sanctions. Since when is it fair or reasonable to believe that a Pro Se litigant would know the duties, requirements, and the job of sanctioning a party? " This opinion was given on March 16, 2022.
I suspect the defense attorney of working with court staff to communicate with the appellate panel of judges in fixing the result of the appeal. The case law and clear mandate issued by the laws of Texas are clearly in favor of the appellant; not the appellees. The appellate court knows this but feels violating the rights of a pro se litigant is okay to prevent am embarrassing loss by the defense attorney. When losing a bid for Title 13 sanctions against the other litigant, attorneys typically look very bad., even when the winning side is represented by counsel. Now, think about how it would look if defense counsel lost to a pro se litigant and how he would look to his colleagues. The appellate panel could not allow that to happen even if it meant totally disregarding the law and precedence. I learned almost all I needed to know from a CLE video given to me by another attorney licensed in Texas so I know how the court was supposed to treat the appeal. It's not hard to figure out. Check out the CLE presentation and listen for yourself.
It's important to note that the appellate panel of judges made the arguments for the defense counsel since none of them were included in his Response Brief. Although the Appellant is considered to have waived her right to appeal since the appellate court claims appellant never objected to the final order., the defense failed to make any of the arguments stated by the appellate court in its order and opinion.
The defense attorney needed the appellate court to fight for him against a pro se litigant AND he needed the appeal rigged IN ORDER TO WIN! Although it's not really a win for the defense since he needed the appellate court to rule irrationally and treat the appellant differently than those in similar situations in the past. Hence, he lost. He cannot change "the mountain of case law", as my advising attorney calls it, clearly in favor of the appellant.
So, clearly there is prejudice against the appellant as a self-represented and indigent litigant and favor towards the defense counsel simply because he is an attorney.. It ranks up there with another case of mine pending around the same time in which the judge dismissed that case because, according to him on the record, I did not deserve to continue onto discovery because my pleadings were too good. I suppose the implication is that because he thought my pleadings were "sophisticated" and good, I should have had all discovery done by then by way of a miraculous power to circumvent the pandemic's significant affect on the efficiency of the court and be able to manage a full case load having never represented myself in court until now..
Is it like the late George Carlin exclaimed in one of his later performances in his career: "The game is rigged . . . You and I are not part of the big plan.."
Donald Best, a former self-represented litigant and former police officer for the Royal Canadian Police, also summed it up when he stated: "The justice system is rigged to favor the legal profession over regular ordinary citizens; always has been. Lawyers and former lawyers (called judges) establish and run the justice system in a manner that favors, protects, and profits members of the legal profession and you are not a member of their club. If you try to gain justice without hiring a member of their club to represent you, the court will have systemic barriers in place that will ensure you will likely lose - usually over procedures and rules. You probably won't even make it to trial because opposing lawyers will overwhelm you with procedural motions designed to delay and dishearten and the judges will likely allow this.. The system doesn't like to see lawyers defeated by ordinary people representing themselves in court."
Last, ever so often a political leader publicly acknowledges the inappropriate lack of limits of the judiciary. Such can be noticed when former president Donald Trump made many comments about the quality of the judicial system to which Ms. Newberg, subsequently exclaimed "President Trump makes the judiciary sound like it's nothing more than a political party." Yes, Ms. Newberg.. That's because it is.
The fight goes on requesting the courts to stop making biased decisions against pro se litigants in favor of the opposing attorneys undeservingly.
10. Request to Extend Deadline to file Motion for Rehearing filed on 3/18/2022.
11. Appellees' Objection to Appellant's Motion for Rehearing Extension;
12. Motion for Rehearing
How does a pro se litigant act when confronted with nothing but a corrupt system and attorneys which serve to protect unlawful actions by agency helpers, such as the theft of animals belonging to other individuals and levying false accusations of animal cruelty?
Since these abuses of the system are so egregious and one-sided, it appears the [in]justice system isn't even trying to respect the access to justice as a right to all litigants, including those who are representing themselves. It doesn't seem to matter whether it's the state level courts and their appellate circuits or the same on the federal level. The first order of business of any court is to make sure the pro se litigant gets absolutely nothing from his or her efforts in achieving justice - even if that means violating a plethora of rules, regulations, laws, and precedence to maintain prejudice against the pro se litigant. Thus, the advocates of indigent and self-represented litigants need to aggressively address the problem of access to justice for pro se litigants, especially if they are indigent. Access to the courts, unfortunately, does not mean access to justice, although the implication that it does is more recognizable to the public than even the mere possibility that it isn't at the clear intention of the courts.
'Not Recognizing Unlawful Orders
It is law in Texas that no court can make an indigent litigant pay for court costs and fees. Since Appellant was given indigent status three times by the trial court, Texas rules also provide for the automatic status of indigent given to the appellant for the appeal. The appellate court failed to decide otherwise until the judgment. Texas law dictates that if an indigent litigant has indigent status in the trial court proceeding, such is to be assumed at the appellate level, unless stated otherwise by the court. The court never stated otherwise throughout the appeal, even after the appellant filed her affidavit of indigence along with her Notice of Appeal. Likewise, a second appeal was on the records, but the appellant was specifically excused from paying court costs since she could not afford them. This is a very irrational treatment of indigent status by the appellate court.
Civilian Disobedience
Since the appellees have been conducting themselves above the law, such privilege must be extended to all others. Hence, we can intentionally misinterpret regulations, make up our own laws, bribe court officials, fabricate evidence, hire crooked attorneys, and just take whatever we want from another person who may own property we want. False accusations of animal cruelty and destroying the reputation of other businesses is always an option if those who we ruin speak up and challenge us. Vive l'anarchie!
Inappropriate remand to the trial court allowing the opposing party to object to Appellant's Affidavit of Indigency which had already been filed by her on two separate occasions and deemed true by the trial court.
1. Appellate Court's Order to Remand
2. Appellant's Written Reaction to Appellate Court's decision to remand in the name of "protecting everybody's rights."
Below is email communication between the the parties, including the threats made by opposing counsel. The trial court staff were likely colluding with the defense attorney since I had filed a request for a hearing for sanctions against the defendants for the defense attorney's threats and his using the threat of filing an objection to the indignancy affidavit if I did not agree to a settlement.
3. Email thread
4. Plaintiff's Request for Hearing for Plaintiff's Motion for sanctions against defense for misconduct
5. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions against defense
Defendant's appellate brief was poorly written and clearly donned the goal of expressing hostility against the plaintiff. Again, the appellate court played oblivious proving further the extreme favoritism of attorneys in legal matters and denying pro se litigants their rights and respectful treatment as indicated in the Attorney's Code of Professional Conduct.
6. Appellant's Initial Brief
7. Appellees' Response Brief
8. Appellant's Reply Brief
9. Appellate Memorandum Opinion
An Attorney's Reaction After Reading the Appellate Court's Judgment and Memorandum Opinion
"We read the appellate court's decision. Whoa.! It is so 1-sided. How can you have given the trial court permission to forego any legal standard, no particulars, and no grounds that would address the Court's reasoning.. To say that you knowingly waived this trial court deficit, cuts and works against the mountain of case law that places the onus on the trial court to do the job it must do to render an order of sanctions. Since when is it fair or reasonable to believe that a Pro Se litigant would know the duties, requirements, and the job of sanctioning a party? " This opinion was given on March 16, 2022.
I suspect the defense attorney of working with court staff to communicate with the appellate panel of judges in fixing the result of the appeal. The case law and clear mandate issued by the laws of Texas are clearly in favor of the appellant; not the appellees. The appellate court knows this but feels violating the rights of a pro se litigant is okay to prevent am embarrassing loss by the defense attorney. When losing a bid for Title 13 sanctions against the other litigant, attorneys typically look very bad., even when the winning side is represented by counsel. Now, think about how it would look if defense counsel lost to a pro se litigant and how he would look to his colleagues. The appellate panel could not allow that to happen even if it meant totally disregarding the law and precedence. I learned almost all I needed to know from a CLE video given to me by another attorney licensed in Texas so I know how the court was supposed to treat the appeal. It's not hard to figure out. Check out the CLE presentation and listen for yourself.
It's important to note that the appellate panel of judges made the arguments for the defense counsel since none of them were included in his Response Brief. Although the Appellant is considered to have waived her right to appeal since the appellate court claims appellant never objected to the final order., the defense failed to make any of the arguments stated by the appellate court in its order and opinion.
The defense attorney needed the appellate court to fight for him against a pro se litigant AND he needed the appeal rigged IN ORDER TO WIN! Although it's not really a win for the defense since he needed the appellate court to rule irrationally and treat the appellant differently than those in similar situations in the past. Hence, he lost. He cannot change "the mountain of case law", as my advising attorney calls it, clearly in favor of the appellant.
So, clearly there is prejudice against the appellant as a self-represented and indigent litigant and favor towards the defense counsel simply because he is an attorney.. It ranks up there with another case of mine pending around the same time in which the judge dismissed that case because, according to him on the record, I did not deserve to continue onto discovery because my pleadings were too good. I suppose the implication is that because he thought my pleadings were "sophisticated" and good, I should have had all discovery done by then by way of a miraculous power to circumvent the pandemic's significant affect on the efficiency of the court and be able to manage a full case load having never represented myself in court until now..
Is it like the late George Carlin exclaimed in one of his later performances in his career: "The game is rigged . . . You and I are not part of the big plan.."
Donald Best, a former self-represented litigant and former police officer for the Royal Canadian Police, also summed it up when he stated: "The justice system is rigged to favor the legal profession over regular ordinary citizens; always has been. Lawyers and former lawyers (called judges) establish and run the justice system in a manner that favors, protects, and profits members of the legal profession and you are not a member of their club. If you try to gain justice without hiring a member of their club to represent you, the court will have systemic barriers in place that will ensure you will likely lose - usually over procedures and rules. You probably won't even make it to trial because opposing lawyers will overwhelm you with procedural motions designed to delay and dishearten and the judges will likely allow this.. The system doesn't like to see lawyers defeated by ordinary people representing themselves in court."
Last, ever so often a political leader publicly acknowledges the inappropriate lack of limits of the judiciary. Such can be noticed when former president Donald Trump made many comments about the quality of the judicial system to which Ms. Newberg, subsequently exclaimed "President Trump makes the judiciary sound like it's nothing more than a political party." Yes, Ms. Newberg.. That's because it is.
The fight goes on requesting the courts to stop making biased decisions against pro se litigants in favor of the opposing attorneys undeservingly.
10. Request to Extend Deadline to file Motion for Rehearing filed on 3/18/2022.
11. Appellees' Objection to Appellant's Motion for Rehearing Extension;
12. Motion for Rehearing
How does a pro se litigant act when confronted with nothing but a corrupt system and attorneys which serve to protect unlawful actions by agency helpers, such as the theft of animals belonging to other individuals and levying false accusations of animal cruelty?
Since these abuses of the system are so egregious and one-sided, it appears the [in]justice system isn't even trying to respect the access to justice as a right to all litigants, including those who are representing themselves. It doesn't seem to matter whether it's the state level courts and their appellate circuits or the same on the federal level. The first order of business of any court is to make sure the pro se litigant gets absolutely nothing from his or her efforts in achieving justice - even if that means violating a plethora of rules, regulations, laws, and precedence to maintain prejudice against the pro se litigant. Thus, the advocates of indigent and self-represented litigants need to aggressively address the problem of access to justice for pro se litigants, especially if they are indigent. Access to the courts, unfortunately, does not mean access to justice, although the implication that it does is more recognizable to the public than even the mere possibility that it isn't at the clear intention of the courts.
'Not Recognizing Unlawful Orders
It is law in Texas that no court can make an indigent litigant pay for court costs and fees. Since Appellant was given indigent status three times by the trial court, Texas rules also provide for the automatic status of indigent given to the appellant for the appeal. The appellate court failed to decide otherwise until the judgment. Texas law dictates that if an indigent litigant has indigent status in the trial court proceeding, such is to be assumed at the appellate level, unless stated otherwise by the court. The court never stated otherwise throughout the appeal, even after the appellant filed her affidavit of indigence along with her Notice of Appeal. Likewise, a second appeal was on the records, but the appellant was specifically excused from paying court costs since she could not afford them. This is a very irrational treatment of indigent status by the appellate court.
Civilian Disobedience
Since the appellees have been conducting themselves above the law, such privilege must be extended to all others. Hence, we can intentionally misinterpret regulations, make up our own laws, bribe court officials, fabricate evidence, hire crooked attorneys, and just take whatever we want from another person who may own property we want. False accusations of animal cruelty and destroying the reputation of other businesses is always an option if those who we ruin speak up and challenge us. Vive l'anarchie!
