Pro se Final Orders Back this up with authority
- While in courtroom, proceeding within a civil matter, as pro se litigant, either an interlocutory ORDER or FINAL order first being drafted made ready for submission awaiting Judge's signature, presumably for what later on is to be equally enforced: As rule of thumb, aren't both sides first allowed to each entertain make in writing their own representative statements as being presented the Judge for incorporation later on into that order, so as Order exist being seen to reflect Judges decision being reached arrived at, yet at same time combines both principles derived from each of either the parties respective valid arguments and viewpoints seen held so as to best coexist equally by now being combined and being shared amongst themselves each being counterparts, to now exist as being incorporated into Order prior to Judge signing it?
IN light of above statement,
I have on occasion submitted prior to Judge signing final draft version of Order, what was seen to exist construed as my final draft version of Order awaiting Judge's final signature, only to soon too late discover Final Order/Order comes to exists unfairly, exists always to my demise, being that none of what I first stated or represented on paper as existing fairly be incorporated by being submitted the Judge is seen to exist as conspicuously absent by it not being found to exist located anywhere within the exsitiing signed order. Al that I first state is intentionally unilaterally omitted from final version draft of Order which now exist as having been signed by Judge. Results unfairly by Judge sanitizing the records thru omission of facts and statements, things taken out of context are now intentionally misconstrued to best reflect only one sides valid argument being seen to exist as being promoted, Meantime Order exist as being both prejudicial and damaging to me so as for Judge to be seen to best protect, shelter, favors my adversary.
Is the manner in which this (adverse) order being arrived at (exists to me) considered legal or permissible? Or is this local courtroom tactic now demonstrated me as being practivced unfairly favoring an old boys club network attorney, part of what already de facto exists by it being seen practiced by status quo daily, since I've never seen anything like it exist before as being allowed afforded or permitted demonstrated by a pro se litigant?