?
APPEAL HEARING – A Farce
* The turning point for me during the appeal arguments was when the Rt. Hon. Chief Justice Klebuc (retired) pointed out to the SK Government’s lawyer, Mr. Brown, that he (they) failed to file new or amended. This referred to the defendants’ lawyers, all 5 of them, not filing with the court and serving on me a Notice of Motion to strike my amended claim, nor any Statement of Defence, nor any supporting materials such as Affidavits and evidence to support striking it. Chief Justice Klebuc was implying that this was a huge irregularity.
Mr. Brown responded, “Well I guess I’m done then!” With that the justices erupted into laughter, except for me of course.
They should have been done-they should have lost!!!? A self-litigant would not have gotten away with this!!! But they did get away with ALL OF IT-because—you know why!
At the end of the appeal arguments I was told by the Honorable Chief Justice Klebuc that these justices would need to speak with a number of people and ‘at the end of that time’ they’d render their judgment in writing.
He also said, “Ms. Lowery, ‘we need to talk with some people and after that we will respond to you in writing.’
* It took a year less a week for these justices to come up with a two paragraph ruling.
Questions:
- Who did the three judges speak with?
- Did I have a legal right to even know this?
- Was this a mini judiciary inquiry?
- What really went on behind closed doors (if anything) and who were the players? I will never know.
- Did I have a right to know? I sure think so.
One thing for sure these lawyers knew that they had these judges in their corner and so they did not have to do anything according to the ‘rule book’ -the Rules of the Court. All the judiciary ignored this.
When a trial was set after a pretrial over what happened to Charlene, and it was at the last minute withdrawn due to the charges being stayed, I asked the prosecutor Lane Weigers how was this possible. I said that the judge deemed it worthy of a trial and then you throw it out – how can you do that? His answer was: “We are the LAW!”
If that’s not an ‘attitude of privilege’ I don’t know what is. Rules are to be followed not ignored, filing dates should never be changed (back-dated) in order to try and prevent one from an appeal.
Obstructing justice and outcomes as I have described in my documents should not go on even if the Registrar does it because he is not above the law nor is he the law.
Then Mr. Watson Q.C. lawyer for one of the defendants was commissioned by the Court of Appeal’s registrar to do my Appeal Book. How clever was that? Very clever because this is the only way that Mr. Watson could get his and the other 4 lawyers substantive materials in, as I would NEVER have put them in as they were never filed new or amended, being set aside along with the original claim. They had no recourse-at least they shouldn’t have had.
Their actions were not adversarial but ‘dirty tactics’ that were questionable and irregular and/or illegal, intended to obstruct justice for me and most importantly the 4 proposed infant children as plaintiffs, my grandchildren.
For example, you will note that Justice Chicoine makes a point in his decision that I did not attribute the infant children as much money as I afforded to myself. Again this was another attempt to put me in a ‘bad light’.
This was moot anyway since they were only proposed and not even added to the claim unless he, Justice Chicoine allowed them to be. He did not allow them to be added or the new evidence in to support the wrongful death of Autumn because he was appointed to this case after Justice Kovach to ‘throw my claim out’.
The state of Protection Services is a Disaster across our nation.
Have We Lost Our Way???
I’m lost…
The pleadings were worthy of more respect by these courts & they’re still no laughing matter!
Legal Fraternities:
‘fraternity’
Legal fraternities are often ‘enmeshed’ having their being as one.
Such blatant omissions of 5 lawyers to not follow the ‘court rules’ would never warrant their being penalized.
It is unbelievable that Justice Chicoine unknowingly included in his 30 plus written decision both the original claim and the amended claim. To believe that it never dawned on him that the original claim was set aside is unbelievable. My take on this is he did it to make it look like he really tried to adjudicate both and was more than fair. Submitting his decision two years less a day says it all!
He had to know that he was only to be adjudicating the amended claim.
His confusion was also evident during the hearings. He was NOT ignorant of the Court Rules either.
It was all a ploy.
This game is called ‘confusion’ and ‘the judiciary’ are only playing it with themselves’.
* Self-litigants are not confused nor as daft as you likely hope we are. As well we are here to stay as you likely wish we were not.
There are more and more self-litigants entering the legal arena because we do not have ‘deep pockets’. We need to be taken seriously!!!–because we re not going away.
‘Please apply the law’
We know ‘the game’ & we want to be ‘game-changers’ and get the judicial system back to its’ roots, that is its’ beginnings, whereby it is not so difficult to figure out when the law was broken and that a judge would know what law to apply and of course apply it.
As therapists we realize ‘power & control’ tactics are used to wear the other (the victim) down.
For the court to be in control of their own processes in a case like mine they need to undermine and disadvantage their opponent by various ‘high-handed’ tactics including ‘baffle-gabbing‘, that is high-tech talk and ‘baffle-gabbing’ – which is for buffoons.
Lawyers & Judges in Collusion
A Must Read:? What Justice Molloy describes is exactly what I experienced.
The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion – by JUSTICE JOHN F. MOLLOY
“When I began practicing law in 1946, justice was much simpler. I joined a small Tucson practice at a salary of $250 a month, excellent compensation for a beginning lawyer.
There was no paralegal staff or expensive artwork on the walls. In those days, the judicial system was straightforward and efficient. Decisions were handed down by judges who applied the law as outlined by the Constitution and state legislatures.
Cases went to trial in a month or two, not years. In the courtroom, the focus was on uncovering and determining truth and fact.
I charged clients by what I was able to accomplish for them. The clock did not start ticking the minute they walked through the door.
Looking back The legal profession has evolved dramatically during my 87 years. I am a second-generation lawyer from an Irish immigrant family that settled in Yuma. My father, who passed the Bar with a fifth-grade education, ended up arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court during his career.
The law changed dramatically during my years in the profession. For example, when I accepted my first appointment as a Pima County judge in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee than a judge.
The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator arena, with dueling lawyers jockeying for points and one-upping each other with calculated and ingenuous briefs.
That was just the beginning. By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and president of southern Arizona’s largest law firm, I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes, profited from.
I was the ultimate insider, but as I looked back, I felt I had to write a book about serious issues in the legal profession and the implications for clients and society as a whole.
The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion was 10 years in the making and has become my call to action for legal reform.
Disturbing evolution Our Constitution intended that only elected lawmakers be permitted to create law.
Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their own opinions and rulings. It’s called case law, and it is churned out daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling and that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then becomes case law, or legal precedent.
This now happens so consistently that we’ve become more subject to the case rulings of judges rather than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in our Constitution.
This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities. That’s because case law is technically complicated and requires a lawyer’s expertise to guide and move you through the system.
The judicial system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge’s application of case law all too often change the ultimate meaning.
Lawyer domination: When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called a judge. But in reality, when judges look down from the bench they are lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In any other area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of interest.
When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling class of lawyers and judges. First of all, in Maricopa and Pima counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of lawyers, along with concerned citizens.
How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated them to the bench? When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms that leverage their names and relationships.
Business of law: The concept of “time” has been converted into enormous revenue for lawyers. The profession has adopted elaborate systems where clients are billed for a lawyer’s time in six-minute increments. The paralegal profession is another brainchild of the fraternity, created as an additional tracking and revenue center.
High powered firms have departmentalized their services into separate profit centers for probate and trusts, trial, commercial, and so forth.
The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.
Bureaucratic design: Today the skill and gamesmanship of lawyers, not the truth, often determine the outcome of a case. And we lawyers love it. All the tools are there to obscure and confound. The system’s process of discovery and the exclusionary rule often work to keep vital information off-limits to jurors and make cases so convoluted and complex that only lawyers and judges understand them.
The net effect has been to increase our need for lawyers, create more work for them, clog the courts and ensure that most cases never go to trial and are, instead, plea-bargained and compromised. All the while the clock is ticking, and the monster is being fed.
The sullying of American law has resulted in a fountain of money for law professionals while the common people, who are increasingly affected by lawyer-driven changes and an expensive, self-serving bureaucracy, are left confused and ill-served.
Today, it is estimated that 70 percent of low-to-middle-income citizens can no longer afford the cost of justice in America. What would our Founding Fathers think?
This devolution of lawmaking by the judiciary has been subtle, taking place incrementally over decades. But today, it’s engrained in our legal system, and few even question it.
But the result is clear. Individuals can no longer participate in the legal system. It has become too complex and too expensive, all the while feeding our dependency on lawyers.
By complicating the law, lawyers have achieved the ultimate job security. Gone are the days when American courts functioned to serve justice simply and swiftly. It is estimated that 95 million legal actions now pass through the courts annually, and the time and expense for a plaintiff or defendant in our legal system can be absolutely overwhelming.”
————————————————
HOW REFRESHING WHEN A JUDGE TELLS IT LIKE IT REALLY IS!
Be First to Comment