What is Justice?

[justalayman]

Lawsuit was for emotional distress due to accusation of crimes and threats of malicious prosecution. Because "somebody" was a lawyer he was above the law. He threatened a motion to strike including $5,500 in legal costs, which the law allows, and which he would pocket, making the affair profitable for him. I backed down and he has not pursued the matter.

So you had no confidence in your claims apparently.

 

[justalayman]

How would anyone know? The case would have to be reviewed, my original question.



Really? I thought judgments were based on evidence and the letter of the law, not demeanor and style. But then, what do I know.

You make an objection during the trial to preserve a right to review the concern. Did you register a proper objection?


Ask oj Simpsons lawyers what wins cases.

 

[Covah]

So you had no confidence in your claims apparently.

So I have no confidence in the judicial system apparently, which is significant. When the general public despises the justice system, the system fails. The system serves me, and you, and not us the system, which is self-serving. It serves itself by refusing accountability and responsibility. EVIDENCE:

The letter from the court (which I received Friday, hence my posting here over the weekend) says only "defendant does not owe plaintiff money". No reason or logic or accountability. How difficult is it for the judge to present an explanation, and have that explanation reviewed if not acceptable?

If you get a speeding ticket it says "excessive speed", not "just because I feel like it and there is nothing you can do". There are places in the world where police pull you over for the sole purpose of collecting a bribe, where the officer says "I pulled you over because I felt like it and you owe me a fine just because I say so". My judge said, "I ruled that way because I felt like it and there is nothing you can do about it but pay the taxes that support my professional salary".

 

[Just Blue]

So I have no confidence in the judicial system apparently, which is significant. When the general public despises the justice system, the system fails. The system serves me, and you, and not us the system, which is self-serving. It serves itself by refusing accountability and responsibility. EVIDENCE:

The letter from the court (which I received Friday, hence my posting here over the weekend) says only "defendant does not owe plaintiff money". No reason or logic or accountability. How difficult is it for the judge to present an explanation, and have that explanation reviewed if not acceptable?

If you get a speeding ticket it says "excessive speed", not "just because I feel like it and there is nothing you can do". There are places in the world where police pull you over for the sole purpose of collecting a bribe, where the officer says "I pulled you over because I felt like it and you owe me a fine just because I say so". My judge said, "I ruled that way because I felt like it and there is nothing you can do about it but pay the taxes that support my professional salary".

Covah.

There is medication(s) that will help you understand how life works. Please try one/some.

 

[Covah]

You make an objection during the trial to preserve a right to review the concern.

I do not know what that means.

Did you register a proper objection

Like "I object, immaterial"? In fact I did, repeatedly, and demanded to be heard, and the judge ignored both. A video of the proceeding would show that, but it seems the proceeding was untaped in order to protect the court from criticism. And even if I could prove the judge was completely bonkers and have him removed from the bench the judgment stands, no one is responsible!

Ask oj Simpsons lawyers what wins cases.

Another disgrace. How can people tolerate this baloney.

 

[Proserpina]

My judge said, "I ruled that way because I felt like it and there is nothing you can do about it but pay the taxes that support my professional salary".

No. No, s/he didn't. Really.

 

[Covah]

Covah.

There is medication(s) that will help you understand how life works. Please try one/some.

Is that what you do?

 

[Covah]

No. No, s/he didn't. Really.

Then how can two judges in identical cases make exactly opposite judgments?

If you apply a theory and the results are random then the theory is flawed.

 

[Zigner]

Then how can two judges in identical cases make exactly opposite judgments?

If you apply a theory and the results are random then the theory is flawed.

Maybe the first judge got it wrong?

 

[Just Blue]

Is that what you do?

If it were needed ...Yeah, I would. What you are posting is...off. Consider that it just might be you. Seriously. Go and get some help. Best wishes to you Covah...I do wish you the best.

 

[Just Blue]

Then how can two judges in identical cases make exactly opposite judgments?

If you apply a theory and the results are random then the theory is flawed.

The first Judge made a mistake in the law (hence the appeal) and the second fixed said mistake. NEITHER was guilty of misconduct.

 

[Zigner]

The first Judge made a mistake in the law (hence the appeal) and the second fixed said mistake. NEITHER was guilty of misconduct.

Actually, a small claims court appeal doesn't need any mistake in law. The defendant (if s/he loses) can request a trial de novo (an appeal) if s/he feels like it, no reason needed. Likewise, if the plaintiff loses a cross complaint, the plaintiff can request a trial de novo. The plaintiff cannot request a trial de novo if s/he loses on his/her own claim.

Additionally, it seems to me that the OP's attitude has a lot to do with things...and yes, attitude comes in to play as it speaks to credibility.

 

[Silverplum]

The first Judge made a mistake in the law (hence the appeal) and the second fixed said mistake. NEITHER was guilty of misconduct.

OP's mad at the WHOLE SYSTEM. We can't help.

 

[justalayman]

So I have no confidence in the judicial system apparently, which is significant. When the general public despises the justice system, the system fails. The system serves me, and you, and not us the system, which is self-serving. It serves itself by refusing accountability and responsibility. EVIDENCE:

The letter from the court (which I received Friday, hence my posting here over the weekend) says only "defendant does not owe plaintiff money". No reason or logic or accountability. How difficult is it for the judge to present an explanation, and have that explanation reviewed if not acceptable?

If you get a speeding ticket it says "excessive speed", not "just because I feel like it and there is nothing you can do". There are places in the world where police pull you over for the sole purpose of collecting a bribe, where the officer says "I pulled you over because I felt like it and you owe me a fine just because I say so". My judge said, "I ruled that way because I felt like it and there is nothing you can do about it but pay the taxes that support my professional salary".

How difficult is it to provide an explanation? It's not

Is the court required to provide an explanation? Usually not

Bottom line; the court determined you failed to prove your case. That is the reason you lost.

 

[justalayman]

Then how can two judges in identical cases make exactly opposite judgments?

If you apply a theory and the results are random then the theory is flawed.

There is absolutely no way the case was presented in an identical fashion. If nothing else the other party would have utilized any reasoning they originally lost to alter their case.
Of course there are the intangible differences (like your demeanor and given you had won already and was having to do it again it would be highly unlikely that would not cause a change in you), and of course the judges right to judge credibility which is surely going to vary from judge to judge.

Why do you think selecting a Supreme Court judge is such a big deal? The personality of any person selected is going to make a difference in the outcome of every case. Unless you can show actual judicial misconduct ya got nothing. If you believe there was actual judicial misconduct the state empanels a board to review complaints concerning judges. File a complaint with them if you have something to show misconduct. The fact that judge came to a different conclusion than the first judge is not misconduct though.