What is the name of your state? arizona
recently, i got my butt kicked in justice court, by the big dogs that use a rule book that differs from that which our legislature and the supremes have deemed the rules of civil proceedure.
i was a pro per (D), in a breach of contract action. there were a couple dozen pre-trial pleadings involved, mostly comprised of: plaintiff's misrepresentations of the truth and my responses attempting to aprise the courts, lest they be construed as truth. the point here is that 1 judge had knowledge of the various exchanges, and a broad view of the playing field. on the morning of the trial as litigants awaited the justice's arrival, the justice of the peace entered without robe, and anounced that "something has come up, and an alternate would conduct the bench trial".
the alternate and i had a history of disagreement in previous landlord/tenant issues, where the justice refused to apply statute to the issues. upon this justice taking the bench, i motioned for continuance on the following: that there were intricasies of the case that he would not have specific knowledge of, and that i could not receive a fair hearing in absence of. denied. i advised that the (P) had not completed my interogatories and that i was still awaiting material evidence. denied. lastly, i contested that the last minute change of referee denied me my rights to a change of judge, as well as the opportunity to request a jury. denied, and denied.
in the preceding, the justice objected to almost every approach i made in defending the action, he objected to my establishing foundation in cross exam even though the expected testimony was included in my rule 26.1 disclosure. essentually he shut me down, ruling in favor of the (P).
notice of appeal was filed accordingly, but, wouldn't you know, no record available. at 90 minutes into the trial he had anounce to the litigants that the record was approaching a point that would require profesional transcript services if either party was to appeal, and asked if the parties wished to wind matters to a close. point here is that the record did previously exist. so as not to get too far off point, a 3rd justice presided over my request for waived fees and stay of judgement, following the generous granting of excessive attorney fees to opposing counsel. my question is:
is there a proceedural error here? judge #2 could not possibly have reviewed all of the pleadings, prior to hearing the case, (was obvious), judge #3 followed the ruling of #2 without regard for what may be legitimate fees and what was padded in post judgement affidavit, granting $7000 more than the attorney had requested from judge #1.
i feel like i just lost everything to a game of 3 card molly. please, any advise? thank you for consideration.
What is the name of your state? arizona.
recently, i got my butt kicked in justice court, by the big dogs that use a rule book that differs from that which our legislature and the supremes have deemed the rules of civil proceedure.
i was a pro per (D), in a breach of contract action. there were a couple dozen pre-trial pleadings involved, mostly comprised of: plaintiff's misrepresentations of the truth and my responses attempting to aprise the courts, lest they be construed as truth. the point here is that 1 judge had knowledge of the various exchanges, and a broad view of the playing field. on the morning of the trial as litigants awaited the justice's arrival, the justice of the peace entered without robe, and anounced that "something has come up, and an alternate would conduct the bench trial".
the alternate and i had a history of disagreement in previous landlord/tenant issues, where the justice refused to apply statute to the issues. upon this justice taking the bench, i motioned for continuance on the following: that there were intricasies of the case that he would not have specific knowledge of, and that i could not receive a fair hearing in absence of. denied. i advised that the (P) had not completed my interogatories and that i was still awaiting material evidence. denied. lastly, i contested that the last minute change of referee denied me my rights to a change of judge, as well as the opportunity to request a jury. denied, and denied.
in the preceding, the justice objected to almost every approach i made in defending the action, he objected to my establishing foundation in cross exam even though the expected testimony was included in my rule 26.1 disclosure. essentually he shut me down, ruling in favor of the (P).
notice of appeal was filed accordingly, but, wouldn't you know, no record available. at 90 minutes into the trial he had anounce to the litigants that the record was approaching a point that would require profesional transcript services if either party was to appeal, and asked if the parties wished to wind matters to a close. point here is that the record did previously exist. so as not to get too far off point, a 3rd justice presided over my request for waived fees and stay of judgement, following the generous granting of excessive attorney fees to opposing counsel. my question is:
is there a proceedural error here? judge #2 could not possibly have reviewed all of the pleadings, prior to hearing the case, (was obvious), judge #3 followed the ruling of #2 without regard for what may be legitimate fees and what was padded in post judgement affidavit, granting $7000 more than the attorney had requested from judge #1.
i feel like i just lost everything to a game of 3 card molly. please, any advise? thank you for consideration.
What is the name of your state? arizona.
