T
TimJacobson
Guest
Hi,
Wish I would have discovered this forum earlier, it would have been of great benefit to me. Anyway, I have a couple questions that I sure could use some feed back on. This will require a brief history of what has been and continues to be a snow balling chain of injustices.
I reside in AZ and this whole nightmare began on Nov. 1, 1996 when I was arrested and charged with DUI. I retained a law firm whose partners are State Bar certified criminal law specialists in DUI defense.
A defense was established, but it should be noted that I disputed much of the police officer arrest report, saying it was made up of misleading and false statements and lacked all mention of anything that might be used in defense. This defense was never explored, although the attorneys seemed to believe me, they acted like this conduct was commonplace and what can you do, his word – my word – why would he lie, etc. The attorneys thought we had a good defense anyway (the retrograde defense), and this was the course that was decided on.
After 1.5 yrs., to prepare this defense for trial, on the eve of trial my attorneys informed me that they failed to obtain an expert witness that would be required to present our planned defense. The expert, I found out later was going on a planned fishing trip so he would be unable to testify on this day. I also found out later that the attorneys had a history of never subpoenaing their expert witnesses and that on this occasion the trial judge was adamant that she would not grant a continuance without a subpoena.
Consequently, at this late stage I was advised that I could plead no-contest and receive the minimum sentence required by law, or I could proceed to trial without a defense, be found guilty on the State’s evidence which, I was advised would most likely result in a harsher sentence. So in April 1998, I pled no-contest and was sentenced accordingly.
My attempt to recover the $ 4300 fee, which I paid the attorneys, was unsuccessful. Although, the comment one of these attorneys said while looking me straight in the eyes, “ no we earned that money, we cant give you the money back, we earned that money”, has kept my fire burning. I then went to the State Bar with a complaint and request for fee agreement; both of these matters were conclude to my dissatisfaction. The State Bar reached these dissatisfying conclusions in part because of untruthful statements (which is evidenced in two documents signed by the same attorney stating the exact opposite of each other) and in part because the State Bar of Arizona who it seems to really be just a movie set.
During this time, I discovered the extent of the attorney’s lack of prepared ness, and from this evidence it is established that these attorneys never planned to go to trial. They did not answer the State’s request for discovery regarding the witnesses that were listed because they failed to interview these witnesses or even contact them to inform them of the upcoming trial. They did not investigate the charges including my allegations that the officer’s report was false, etc. etc..
I was successful representing myself in a post conviction relief petition, which I based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The conviction was set aside and the charges re-filed in Sept. of 1998.
After once again going though pre-trial proceedings, I had a trial date and on this date the State dismissed the charges based on the merits of the case. And on the merits it should have been dismissed but what this motion to dismiss did not state was that we intended to seek a continuance because the State failed to produce a document we requested that we hope would prove the officer (1)perjured his testimony,(2) illegally detained me for the purpose of illegally manufacturing evidence to use against me,(3) falsified his arrest report, and then (4)altered this report. In December of 1998 the charges against me were dismissed.
In Jan. of 1999, I requested this document from the police department and since it was a public document they turned it over. This document did not support my allegations against the officer.
In Feb. of 1999 I filed a malpractice suit against the attorneys. This suit is on going but is presently under advisement, Unbelievably it has come down to the big question which is, “Do I need a expert testify to the question of if the attorneys care fell below the standard of care.” This is unimaginable, the attorneys violated my rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and my case is pending a decision on if this falls below the standard of care in Arizona.
I am acting pro per in this malpractice suit. It was during discovery in this matter that I decided to act on a hunch and in July of 1999, I again went to the police department and requested the document that I asked for in Jan. This time I received the entire document. What I received in Jan. was just the title block of this document, which did not have the information I seeking. The entire document did have what I was looking for and does prove that the Officer perjured his testimony, falsified his report, altered this report, and most definitely supports my allegation that the officer illegally detained me for the illegal purpose of manufacturing evidence against me.
Unfortunately, this is only part of the injustices I have had to fight in this matter. These injustices have been at the hands of the legal community, for example the judge who violated the law so as not to have the record reflect negatively on the attorneys I’m suing, or maybe the trial judge I motioned to have changed for cause, cause being biased and unfair conduct. This conduct is in violation of her oath, and the State Bar, whose history of handling complaints against attorneys, if reviewed by a impartial reasonable person would seem to be conduct consistent with protecting unethical, dishonest attorneys.
Finally, I am to my questions but first, if you have gotten this far, I thank you. Your patience in reaching this point of my lengthy attempt at a brief history is greatly appreciated, as would any feedback to the following questions.
1. I am considering filing suit against the police officer and department for violating my civil rights and the cover-up of it and my question is regarding the statute of limitations. It is my contention that the clock should begin when I discovered the evidence proving my allegations, which was July of 1999. I have seen where it was determined in other cases, although also under other circumstances, that the clock should start at the time the damaged party became aware of the damage. Under this decision the date would be in early 1997 when I first reviewed the officers arrest report, although at that time I would not consider suit because I believed it was his word against mine and did not know of any documents or other type evidence which might prove my allegations.
Also, consider the fact that this document was requested within 2 years of the occurrence, when we asked for it in discovery and were told it could not be located.
2. Recently I in my researching procedures, court rules, and such, I read about all parties need to be joined in one action. I saw this earlier and was not sure of it’s meaning and recently saw more regarding this. Am I required to name the Officer and police department as parties in this action?
I consider it two different actions one a malpractice suit and the other a civil rights violation. What if I haven’t named them in this malpractice action? Can I still at this time join them in this action? Can I file suit against them anyway?
Any information you can provide will be appreciated and would save me more time then you can imagine.
Thank you,
Tim
Wish I would have discovered this forum earlier, it would have been of great benefit to me. Anyway, I have a couple questions that I sure could use some feed back on. This will require a brief history of what has been and continues to be a snow balling chain of injustices.
I reside in AZ and this whole nightmare began on Nov. 1, 1996 when I was arrested and charged with DUI. I retained a law firm whose partners are State Bar certified criminal law specialists in DUI defense.
A defense was established, but it should be noted that I disputed much of the police officer arrest report, saying it was made up of misleading and false statements and lacked all mention of anything that might be used in defense. This defense was never explored, although the attorneys seemed to believe me, they acted like this conduct was commonplace and what can you do, his word – my word – why would he lie, etc. The attorneys thought we had a good defense anyway (the retrograde defense), and this was the course that was decided on.
After 1.5 yrs., to prepare this defense for trial, on the eve of trial my attorneys informed me that they failed to obtain an expert witness that would be required to present our planned defense. The expert, I found out later was going on a planned fishing trip so he would be unable to testify on this day. I also found out later that the attorneys had a history of never subpoenaing their expert witnesses and that on this occasion the trial judge was adamant that she would not grant a continuance without a subpoena.
Consequently, at this late stage I was advised that I could plead no-contest and receive the minimum sentence required by law, or I could proceed to trial without a defense, be found guilty on the State’s evidence which, I was advised would most likely result in a harsher sentence. So in April 1998, I pled no-contest and was sentenced accordingly.
My attempt to recover the $ 4300 fee, which I paid the attorneys, was unsuccessful. Although, the comment one of these attorneys said while looking me straight in the eyes, “ no we earned that money, we cant give you the money back, we earned that money”, has kept my fire burning. I then went to the State Bar with a complaint and request for fee agreement; both of these matters were conclude to my dissatisfaction. The State Bar reached these dissatisfying conclusions in part because of untruthful statements (which is evidenced in two documents signed by the same attorney stating the exact opposite of each other) and in part because the State Bar of Arizona who it seems to really be just a movie set.
During this time, I discovered the extent of the attorney’s lack of prepared ness, and from this evidence it is established that these attorneys never planned to go to trial. They did not answer the State’s request for discovery regarding the witnesses that were listed because they failed to interview these witnesses or even contact them to inform them of the upcoming trial. They did not investigate the charges including my allegations that the officer’s report was false, etc. etc..
I was successful representing myself in a post conviction relief petition, which I based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The conviction was set aside and the charges re-filed in Sept. of 1998.
After once again going though pre-trial proceedings, I had a trial date and on this date the State dismissed the charges based on the merits of the case. And on the merits it should have been dismissed but what this motion to dismiss did not state was that we intended to seek a continuance because the State failed to produce a document we requested that we hope would prove the officer (1)perjured his testimony,(2) illegally detained me for the purpose of illegally manufacturing evidence to use against me,(3) falsified his arrest report, and then (4)altered this report. In December of 1998 the charges against me were dismissed.
In Jan. of 1999, I requested this document from the police department and since it was a public document they turned it over. This document did not support my allegations against the officer.
In Feb. of 1999 I filed a malpractice suit against the attorneys. This suit is on going but is presently under advisement, Unbelievably it has come down to the big question which is, “Do I need a expert testify to the question of if the attorneys care fell below the standard of care.” This is unimaginable, the attorneys violated my rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and my case is pending a decision on if this falls below the standard of care in Arizona.
I am acting pro per in this malpractice suit. It was during discovery in this matter that I decided to act on a hunch and in July of 1999, I again went to the police department and requested the document that I asked for in Jan. This time I received the entire document. What I received in Jan. was just the title block of this document, which did not have the information I seeking. The entire document did have what I was looking for and does prove that the Officer perjured his testimony, falsified his report, altered this report, and most definitely supports my allegation that the officer illegally detained me for the illegal purpose of manufacturing evidence against me.
Unfortunately, this is only part of the injustices I have had to fight in this matter. These injustices have been at the hands of the legal community, for example the judge who violated the law so as not to have the record reflect negatively on the attorneys I’m suing, or maybe the trial judge I motioned to have changed for cause, cause being biased and unfair conduct. This conduct is in violation of her oath, and the State Bar, whose history of handling complaints against attorneys, if reviewed by a impartial reasonable person would seem to be conduct consistent with protecting unethical, dishonest attorneys.
Finally, I am to my questions but first, if you have gotten this far, I thank you. Your patience in reaching this point of my lengthy attempt at a brief history is greatly appreciated, as would any feedback to the following questions.
1. I am considering filing suit against the police officer and department for violating my civil rights and the cover-up of it and my question is regarding the statute of limitations. It is my contention that the clock should begin when I discovered the evidence proving my allegations, which was July of 1999. I have seen where it was determined in other cases, although also under other circumstances, that the clock should start at the time the damaged party became aware of the damage. Under this decision the date would be in early 1997 when I first reviewed the officers arrest report, although at that time I would not consider suit because I believed it was his word against mine and did not know of any documents or other type evidence which might prove my allegations.
Also, consider the fact that this document was requested within 2 years of the occurrence, when we asked for it in discovery and were told it could not be located.
2. Recently I in my researching procedures, court rules, and such, I read about all parties need to be joined in one action. I saw this earlier and was not sure of it’s meaning and recently saw more regarding this. Am I required to name the Officer and police department as parties in this action?
I consider it two different actions one a malpractice suit and the other a civil rights violation. What if I haven’t named them in this malpractice action? Can I still at this time join them in this action? Can I file suit against them anyway?
Any information you can provide will be appreciated and would save me more time then you can imagine.
Thank you,
Tim