Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Disqualifications before arraignment

Expand Messages
  • mn_chicago
    ... I wonder what untimely objections one would file after the fact that would give a disinterested appeal court a reason to be interested? ... That being the
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...>
      wrote:
      >
      >
      > Frog Farmer [mailto:frogfrmr@...] wrote:
      >

      > Hmmmm....I never thought of filing my other objections formally
      > with the clerk before...in this format: written, verified,
      > objecting, reasons for the objection... I wonder how many other
      > objections could be submitted to this process. I'm thinking about
      > this because appeals only deal with overruled objections, and the
      > other side always tries to claim that you didn't object properly
      > or strenuously enough, or some other weasel words to deny you ever
      > really objected. Wouldn't it be nice to have formal objections
      > filed in the original docket?!


      I wonder what untimely objections one would file after the fact
      that would give a disinterested appeal court a reason to be
      interested?


      > My position is nobody authorized has
      > appeared. Who claims to be the other party or attorney for them?
      > I'd see who the clerk thinks it is, and then disqualify them as
      > well for any reason I could. For example, attorneys have to have
      > requirements fulfilled to be able to represent clients for money.
      > Official prosecutors have to have oaths filed just like judges.
      > So, I'm going to be careful not to inadvertently qualify anyone
      > who isn't already qualified by admitting they are a party to my
      > case! This looks like another modern created Catch-22 situation.

      That being the case, there was no need to write up formal objections
      to be found in the original docket. What docket?!


      > This is where you make them wish they never met you. If he was
      > willing to testify,...

      Okay. I so rarely get an opportunity to make a contribution back to
      you. Given your propensity for using an 8th grade English book,
      here's tidbit for you.

      "If" is conditional, it rests on something else, in the future.
      "was" is past tense.

      You cannot apply a past tnese verb to a future expectation,
      grammatically speaking.

      "If he 'were' willing to testify,..." would be the correct form.

      Now, whenever you hear someone say, "If I was you..." it will grate
      your ears. "If I were you..." flows.

      Apropo to your sign-on name, whenever someone uses an "if"
      conditional sentence that reeks of fantasy, I like to respond,
      "If a frog had wings, it would fly." The response I get is a bit
      like asking, "A dollar of WHAT?"

      Cheers!

      mn
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.