FORM FOR REQUESTING HELP ON YOUR CASE ON TIPS & TRICKS FOR COURT:
If you would like help on your case in order for your request to be approved you
must:
1. Have printed out your post and read it out loud to yourself looking for
missing words and typos;
2. Have written your post in a word processor so it can check your spelling,
punctuation, and grammar;
Then you must answer these questions:
What state does your legal issue spring from?
What are the facts of your case?
What research you have already done on your issue?
What you are thinking about doing and why?
“The only reason, I believe, why a free man is bound by human laws, is, that he binds himself.Upon the same principles, upon which he becomes bound by the laws, he becomes amenable to the Courts of Justice, which are formed and authorised by those laws. If one free man, an original sovereign, may do all this; why may not an aggregate of free men, a collection of original sovereigns, do this likewise? If the dignity of each singly is undiminished; the dignity of all jointly must be unimpaired.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419, 456 - Supreme Court 1793
I’m going to start looking around for how I bound myself to human laws. As soon as I find that I will have located how I became amenable to the Courts of Justice. Notice? It is only “human laws” that we bind ourselves too.
I’ve been noticing that everywhere they ask for a signature they are asking for our consent.
I just noticed this from Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616, 631-2 - Supreme Court 1886:
“And any compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the production of his private books and papers, to convict him of crime, or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of despotic power; but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom.”
I think extortion of a signature is of similar ilk. Wikipedia says about a signature that is proof of identity and intent; and that the traditional function of a signature is evidential: it is to give evidence of the intention (will) of an individualwith regard to that document. Wikipedia points out that the role of a signature in many consumer contracts is not solely to provide evidence of the identity of the contracting party, but also to provide evidence of deliberation and informed consent.
Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:
> When the laws
> are plain, and the application of them is uncontroverted,
> they are enforced immediately by the 465*465 Executive
> authority of Government. Chisholm v. Georgia
> <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=144881060641435
> 1612&q=+%22sovereign+powers+are+delegated%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,
> 60> , 2 US 419, 464 - Supreme Court 1793
However, when the profligacy of the lawmakers create laws beyond the
physical ability of any man to read 24/7/365 (Note Pe;osi's "we'll have to
pass it to learn what's in it"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU), your mission, should you
decide to accept it, is to controvert the application by unqualified
impersonators who are only doing it for their families in these hardest of
times.
Montgomery Blair Sibley is at it again! Here’s is his clever trick around federal judicial blockages to Obama’s eligibility. Tommy Crier did stuff like this, and we should be as well: http://www.montgomeryblairsibley.com/library/Press11.pdf
Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:
In early 2010 I was ‘ordered’ to a ‘show cause’ hearing before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire to show cause why I shouldn’t be compelled to go before the IRS for an audit of my books and records.
I engaged Paul’s services and he instructed me to return the defective court order to the Court, marked Refused for Causes, and identifying the following causes:
1. Insufficient Process: No Seal of Court and No Signature of Clerk In violation of:
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 12(b)(4) and
FRCP Rule 4
28 U.S.C. § 1691
2. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction per FRCP Rule 12(b)(1)
3. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction per FRCP Rule 12(b)(2)
4. Failure to State a Claim per FRCP Rule 12(b)(6)
I returned the irregular ‘order’ as instructed the day before the scheduled hearing. The government NEVER RESPONDED to it...and a Magistrate judge recommended (in my absence) that I should be compelled to go to an audit hearing. The game was on.
There ensued several more “irregular” or defective “orders” for me to appear before the USDC, none of which bore the required Seal or Signature per FRCP Rule 4 AND 28 USC 1691. I challenged personal jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss. The government argued that, according to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling in a Virgin Island case (which territory is actually in the 2nd District’s jurisdiction!), that the judge could simply over-rule the Federal Rules and sign a court writ and thereby establish in personam jurisdiction. He hadn’t “signed” anything – only his typed name appeared. The government never attempted to explain how a judge may also overlook statutory requirements as well, or how a U.S. Attorney may represent the “United States of America”, or how the District Court order overrules controlling case law from the Supreme Court of the United States that specifically bars the government from compelling an individual’s records (but not those of a corporation, etc), or how a District Court may overlook the the fact that the statute cited by the IRS as its authority to compel production was a) editorial rewritten by the House Revision Committee and DOES NOW NOT say what that actual Statute at Large that it’s based on says and b) is enforceable under the CFR by the BATF for excise taxes on excisable commodities, with which I have no relation. Over the course of three years, The government addressed NONE of these argument, ever.
QUESTION 1: What SHOULD the government have done in response to the returned order, way back in 2010? What statutory provision required the U.S. Attorney and/or the Court to respond to that return for causes, if any?
Today I received a notice from the District Court that says the judge ordered the case closed on Feb 4th and that it was in fact entered as closed on the 5th. QUESTION 2: Does “case closed” mean what it seems to mean – i.e., that this case is now over and done with and that the government has no more recourse to raise issues over fees, etc. that it hasn’t already filed for?
After several attempts by the IRS to get me to bring my records in for an audit,
they sent a summons to my bank for their records. I filed a motion to quash
summons in Federal court. The court denied my motion without a hearing. I filed
a motion to reconsider. It was denied. My question is thus. Since the original
date for the bank to produce their records has passed and the court did not rule
for the bank to produce their records, is the old summons still in effect or
does the IRS have to send a new summons with a new date to produce the records?
Matthew 5:13 Re: Jahushwuah's reference to saltiness being lossed the phrased "stamped under the feet of men" equals being ruled over arbitrarily or despotically; to be tyrannized. Looks like the simple solution to arbitrary, tyrannical rule is to retain our saltiness. When Jahushuwah says, "You are the salt of the earth" I've learned that what he was saying is, "You are the earth's supreme intelligence, excellence and power presented for public exhibition expressed IN WORDS."
My note with respect to this is:
If we do not speak words of excellence and power (Jahuwah's Word) we will be stamped under the feet of men; i.e. oppressed. To be oppressed is to be subject to unjust use of force or authority.
You may have noticed me posting from Revelation 12:11 that, "And they have overcome (conquered) him by means of the blood of the Lamb and by the utterance of their testimony..." "utterance of their testimony" in Greek is auto logos meaning to speak over and over.
So, to overcome the anti-christ, the epitome of tyranny and oppression, what is needed is the word of our testimony, or, the speaking of Jahuwah's Word over and over. This is also known as meditating; which means to speak or mutter.
I have a 40 minute video regarding the success I attribute to speaking the Word aloud here:
Although this is a little different, my experience has been upon obtaining the "Register of Actions" associated with a case that the term "end of case" is found. This entry may not preclude someone from re-opening the file by filing new matter or on the Court's own initiative. I have obtained Register of Actions at various stages during the pendency of a case and at each juncture the terms "end of case" were found at the bottom of the same.
Also law enforcement entities often close cases where evidence is insufficient only to later re-open them.
However, the important thing to be concerned with in your case is whether there was any kind of judgment that issued before the notice of case closed was issued. If the Court ignored all your attempts to have your issues recognized, but along the way issued an adverse order/determination, then that judgment/order may serve as a basis for some future action against you in spite of your perceptions as to its legitimacy. It could be argued that such a judgment is legitimate because you failed to properly follow procedure to have it set aside in a timely manner and it became the law of the case.
If no such judgment exists then "case closed" is effectively a win for you.
Agreed, the power of the Word is it being Spoken as Father did in the creation.
It is the creative power of thought(spirit) being manifested in action.
Â
Matthew 5:13 Re: Jahushwuah's reference to saltiness being lossed the phrased
"stamped under the feet of men" equals being ruled over arbitrarily or
despotically; to be tyrannized. Looks like the simple solution to arbitrary,
tyrannical rule is to retain our saltiness. When Jahushuwah says, "You are the
salt of the earth" I've learned that what he was saying is, "You are the earth's
supreme intelligence, excellence and power presented for public exhibition
expressed IN WORDS."
Google Books Public Domain
Aspen Publishers Online, Dec 7, 2004 - Law - 1212 pages
This comprehensive guide not only analyzes every applicable rule of civil
procedure, but also gives you practice-proven techniques for evaluating what
motions will work most effectively in each of your cases. From early pretrial
motions dealing with complaints and jurisdiction to appellate motion practice
for both victor and vanquished, Motion Practice, Fourth Edition shows you both
what is permissible and what is advisable in such aspects of motion practice as:
Formal requirements Strategic uses Use of supporting documents Effective
advocacy Persuasive oral argument Ethical issues The authors include a table of
deadlines affecting motions, along with sample forms and illustrative trial
examples.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tv1LS5hGaTUC&lpg=PR13&ots=4nqK-VWeQu&dq=motion%\
20for%20involuntary%20dismissal&pg=PR13#v=onepage&q=motion%20for%20involuntary%2\
0dismissal&f=false
I am attaching a Motion filed early last month. This motion was filed as a strategic move to preserve issues for reconsideration on Appeal if it were to become necessary.
My intent to file this Motion prompted my pro bono attorney representation to file a Motion to Withdraw Counsel because he believed he could no longer represent me due to conflict with "State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct". In a nutshell, this means he could not represent me if I wanted to file a Motion - ANY Motion. The attorney is "in charge" of the process.
If you want to assert your Rights, you must be willing to
Stand alone. A represented "person" generally does not have "Standing".
In our discussions regarding my intent to file my Motion, the attorney indicated that the prosecution had made an offer to conditionally dismiss their case against me. The terms of the dismissal were: no fines, no penalties, no court costs - I would have to agree not to get arrested for one year. I asked if I could leave the state (thereby avoid the possibility of getting arrested - in that state). The answer was - yes.
I informed him that I believed I still had to file my Motion to preserve the issues in an Appeal if I needed them.
His Motion prompted a Hearing so the Judge could decide whether or not he would allow the attorney to withdraw "counsel".
This Hearing was "off the Record" so both the Judge and I could have a frank discussion without concern for the implications of "words in the air" so to speak (what it means when there is no Record). I had my Motion prepared, printed and signed. I told the Judge I wanted to file the Motion to preserve issues for an Appeal if it became necessary but I preferred to keep counsel for the trial.
The result
of this Hearing was a win for me. The Judge permitted me to file the Motion directly - in that Hearing (an unusual event as far as I know) and he did not allow the attorney to withdraw from counsel.
In my view the purpose of having attorney representation is so they can speak to the prosecution on my behalf. If I spoke to them, that would be ex parte and therefore unethical.
The next day I accepted (through my attorney) the prosecutions offer for conditional dismissal.
This Motion is provided for the purposes of further study for those of you who want it. It is not intended to be a usable template unless you have already done some of the other "groundwork", like filing Notices of Complaint and Notices of Default
mentioned in this Motion.
The purpose of the Notices is to prepare for adjudication in federal court and ultimately the Supreme Court. In this case this is likely unnecessary.
I have another Trial on Tuesday for unrelated charges that were filed before the agreement mentioned above was struck. The outcome of this Trial allegedly has no bearing on the agreement made to conditionally dismiss the case related to this Motion.
The way I see the drama: "Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary,
the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour." 1 Pet. 5:8
Notice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement agencies are hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling, purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a product or service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of action. Persons, whistle
blowers, informants may be granted an award for information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of infringement.
OK, this theory does seem like it should work, based on the incorrect chamber of lawmakers. But I’ve always figured that the ACA couldn’t target me anyway, since I don’t participate in Social Security, and there is therefore no nexus for the IRS to be meddling with me. Direct taxes have to be disguised as indirect by associating them with privileges rather than rights. I think this clearly delineates SS participants as stepping into a privileged class, with all it’s extra rules, and apart from the State citizens who opt out of privileged classes to retain their original rights.
With income taxes, you have to step into the privilege by participating. With the 14th Amendment you have to step into the whole package which includes subjugation. Either way there is an intentional option. We certainly aren’t apprised of that choice with any competency. So we are kept in limiting contracts through fraud and lack of knowledge.
Barry, I had thought of this at the time it was ruled on. If it is a tax then it had to have originated in the house. Because it didn't it is null and void. I brought this up to many people, and wondered if Roberts did it on purpose. Thanks for recognizing it.
FORM FOR REQUESTING HELP ON YOUR CASE ON TIPS & TRICKS FOR COURT:
If you would like help on your case in order for your request to be approved you
must:
1. Have printed out your post and read it out loud to yourself looking for
missing words and typos;
2. Have written your post in a word processor so it can check your spelling,
punctuation, and grammar;
Then you must answer these questions:
What state does your legal issue spring from?
What are the facts of your case?
What research you have already done on your issue?
What you are thinking about doing and why?
Operation Graylord busted this judge for receiving bribes to fix cases. He was convicted of RICO violations and obstructing justice. IRS got involved because he wasn’t reporting his bribes. At page 663 there is some really good authority on necessity of federal RICO affecting interstate commerce. It is interesting to me to see how judge bribes work. This judge turned his ill begotten gains into money orders and the FBI noticed. Also interesting to see how others involved turned on the judge and how he tried to do damage control. Also good to see a judge mocked by the federal appellate court when they said, “Maloney's argument on appeal is somewhat convoluted.” and “This house of cards, precarious on its face, falls flat upon closer analysis.” I wonder if the defendant tried to bribe the federal judges. J
----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "rod-class@..." <rod-class@...> To: rod-class@... Sent: Mon, February 18, 2013 11:01:14 PM Subject: [rod-class] Court Date Moved To Wednesday, February 20th - Raleigh, NC
Rod Court Date Moved To Wednesday, February 20th - Raleigh, NC !
Rod Class' hearing with the North Carolina Attorney General in the Wake County Superior Court is now this Wednesday morning. There were just too many cases to hear on Monday ! And, it will be in Court Room 10B (NOT 10C) !
There were 8 or 9 Rod supporters there today ! Thanks ! Let's hope we can get them and some others for Wednesday, also !
Rod's case concerns the Taxation of Vehicles, etc. in relation to the 1930s Bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES. The hearing will be with Judge Ridgeway before whom Rod has previously
appeared ! Rod's various cases concerning this have been going on since about October of 2010 !
This should be quite an interesting hearing to say the least ! Plan to get there a little before 9:00am to check to see what time the Hearing will actually happen. The Hearing may be pushed to later in the day even though scheduled for the morning...hard to tell ! Wednesday, February 20th Wake County Superior Court Clerk's Office Phone: (919) 792-4005 Automated Directory Phone: (919) 792-4000 Clerk Nancy Lorrin Freeman Approx. 9:00am in Court Room 10B, 10th Floor 316 Fayetteville St, Raleigh, NC If you can, Please plan to attend and show support for Rod ! http://web.co.wake.nc.us/courts/
Here's Rod's explanation of the Feb 20 Court Date on the Tax Issue 5 min http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-48361/TS-712708.mp3 Private Call Tues, Feb 12, 2013 Private Attorney General And The Bounty Hunter Provision 1 hr 49 min This relates to Rod's Court Date Wed, Feb 20 in Raleigh, NC. How the PAG works...What you need to know ! Be Careful...What Rod is doing could be dangerous for YOU if You DON'T know How and Why to do it ! http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-48361/TS-717228.mp3
In the District Court, petitioner contended that he was "deprived of his right to a fair trial" because "[t]here is cause to believe that Judge Maloney's discretionary rulings in this case may have been influenced by a desire on his part to allay suspicion of his pattern of corruption and dishonesty." App. 5.[6] In support, he submitted a copy of Maloney's 1991 indictment, App. 16-35, and a newspaper article describing testimony from Maloney's trial, in which attorney William Swano described an additional, uncharged incident where he bribed Maloney to fix a murder case. App. 12, n. 1, 36-38. In a supplemental motion for discovery, petitioner's codefendant Roger Collins alleged that "[a] Government witness in the Maloney case has advised . . . that co-defendant Bracy's trial attorney was a former partner of [Judge, so called] Thomas Maloney." App. 51. Collins attached to that motion a copy of the United States' proffer of evidence in aggravation in Maloney's case, which describes in considerable detail Maloney's corruption both before and after he became a judge. See App. 54 ("Although [it is] difficult to imagine, Thomas Maloney's life of corruption was considerably more expansive than proved at trial"). The United States' proffer asserts, for example, that Maloney fixed serious felony cases regularly while a practicing criminal defense attorney;[7] that, as a judge, he continued to corrupt justice through the same 907*907 political relationships and organized-crime connections he had exploited as a lawyer;[8] and that at least one attorney from Maloney's former law firm, Robert McGee, was actively involved in assisting Maloney's corruption, both before and after he became a judge, and also bribed Maloney himself, App. 55, 68-72. In addition, the proffer confirms that petitioner's murder trial was sandwiched tightly between other murder trials that Maloney fixed.[9]
[5] At Maloney's trial, however, attorney William Swano provided testimony that lends some support to petitioner's compensatory-bias theory. See 81 F. 3d, at 697 (Rovner, J., dissenting).According to Swano, Maloney retaliated against one of Swano's clients in one of the rare cases when Swano failed to offer Maloney a bribe and, in bribe negotiations in a later case, Maloney's bag man Robert McGee admitted as much. Swano testified that he learned that in order "`to practice in front of Judge Maloney. . . we had to pay.'"Ibid.Bracy v. Gramley, 520 US 899 (1997) note 5.
Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:
The next critical step in my discrimination conflict is to make an additional demand for payment and clarification of a few points, and to offer a fee schedule for 1) continued monthly delays for their refusal to honor their debt, and 2) continued unlawful demands for an SS Number presuming I must volunteer into the program by duress.
I'm thinking $1,000 per month late penalty and $50,000 for additional attempt at compulsion triggering the 2 Title 42 Felonies.
Perhaps this isn’t the best place to look for this answer, as my first attempt went unanswered. But any comments might get me going in a productive direction.
The fee schedule activation tends to be one that is perceived as audacious. A reason to not go with the idea is that I am potentially suing a group that I myself am a member of. I would rather they negotiate or mediate. But perhaps I’m being too tender with them. They are abusing/damaging my contract rights, and committing Felonies against the SS Administration by doing so. I’m not sure how to approach them. Maybe a notice and demand for estoppels, or outright threat to file criminal complaints.
In real terms, I’m counting on the ‘default process’ as I learned it from Clyde Hyde. Notice, Demand, and Claims of Right, communicated in such a way as that they cannot refute or rebut. When I have given them that courtesy and they are unable to respond, then either file the paperwork as my own default judgment, or utilize the correspondence as evidence that I tried giving them due process, and so therefore now have a claim on which relief can be filed.
I need to get them an updated invoice, as they have refused payment now for six months. Should I include an estoppel demand with the invoice, or implement it with a more extensive/exhaustive Notice and Demand~?
I also need to challenge some slander and libel, which I’d like them to retract at their next quarterly meeting. The three area of actionable causes are felonious destruction of vendor’s contract rights, defamation of group brand by hypocrisy and criminal policy, and personal defamation through character assassination, libel and slander. They dismiss my claims and codes research, apparently based on me being considered a tax protester and scofflaw, even though they are breaking the law, and I’m showing them Administrative Remedy.
"Follow That Lead! Obtaining and Using
Tax Information in a Non-Tax Case
*Willful, unauthorized disclosure of tax return information is a
felony, carrying a maximum statutory penalty of five years of
incarceration, a $250,000 fine, and termination of
employment. 26 U.S.C. §7213(a) (1994). Section 7431
provides that the United States may be sued for civil damages
for unauthorized disclosure of tax returns and return
information by a Federal employee."
I was hoping there'd be something here for me, with my job discrimination
situation, but this seems to only relate to taxpayers and tax information, all
implying that I have a TIN and participate in those privileges. I don't.
Ref:
Job discrimination: state citizen; Fee Schedule Activation Notice
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/message/19191
Mark Gailey
--- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com,
> File : /JusticeDeptOnTaxProsecutions.pdf
> Uploaded by : legalbear7 <bear@...>
> Description : 64 Pg Memo-Justice Department on Uniform Tax Prosecutions
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/files/JusticeDeptOnTaxProsecutions\
.pdf
A couple of months ago the issue of talking to police came up.
In the video linked below a law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
Notice & Warning: This email contains proprietary business information, trade secrets, restricted and valued information intended for the addressees eyes only. All interceptors, surveillance agents foreign and domestic, enforcement agencies are hereby prohibited from accessing, possessing, using, selling, purchasing, storing, retrieving, and transmitting this valuable information as a product or service for gain. Any monetary profits, benefits or accounting of this information for gain may be prosecuted as a felony offense and cause of action. Persons, whistle
blowers, informants may be granted an award for information leading to the successful prosecution of agents committing acts of infringement.
It does not at all follow that every statute enacted ostensibly for the promotion of these ends, is to be accepted as a legitimate exertion of the police powers of the State. There are, of necessity, limits beyond which legislation cannot rightfully go.While every possible presumption is to be indulged in favor of the validity of a statute, Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700, 718, the courts must obey the Constitution rather than the law-making department of government, and must, upon their own responsibility, determine whether, in any particular case, these limits have been passed."To what purpose," it was said in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 176, "are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretences. They are at liberty — indeed, are under a solemn duty — to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority.If, therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.Mugler v. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661 - Supreme Court 1887
Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:
Judicial review of governmental action as “the device of self-governing communities to protect the rights of individuals and minorities, as well against the power of numbers, as against the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority”. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 536 (1884).
"The legitimacy of the Judicial Branch ultimately depends on its reputation for impartiality and nonpartisanship." Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 407 (1989).
"Like judicial independence, judicial accountability is not an end in itself. It too serves other ends: To promote the rule of law, institutional responsibility, and public confidence in the courts." Charles Gardner Geyh, The Endless Judicial Selection Debate and Why it Matters for Judicial Independence, 21 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 1259, 1260 (2008). Geyh further explains that the "perennial policy struggle is to strike an optimal balance between judicial independence and accountability," a balance that would ensure enough judicial independence that judges decide cases "without fear or favor," but also ensures enough accountability that the judges do not "disregard the facts or law to the detriment of the rule of law and public confidence in the courts."Id.
Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 594 (1980) (Brennan, J., concurring) (“For a civilization founded upon principles of ordered liberty to survive and flourish, its members must share the conviction that they are governed equitably.”); Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 616 (1960) (noting that the importance of the appearance of justice is “deeply rooted in the common law”);
Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:
See, e.g., Victor E. Schwartz et al., West Virginia as a Judicial Hellhole: Why Businesses Fear Litigating in State Courts, 111 W. VA. L. REV. 757, 787 (2009) (describing an “aura of impropriety throughout West Virginia’s civil justice system”); AMERICAN TORT REFORM FOUNDATION, JUDICIAL HELLHOLES 2004 23–24 (2004), http://www.atra.org/reports/hell holes/2004/hellholes2004.pdf (ranking West Virginia as the fourth worst jurisdiction and the only “statewide Judicial Hellhole”).
Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:
Send Email
