Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Why do some judges hand exhibits back after a trial?

Reply
Thread Tools

Why do some judges hand exhibits back after a trial?

 
 
Rocky
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2010
I won a jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro se litigant against a woman that worked
at the courthouse and had numerous friends at the courthouse that were
unknowing helping her help the boy her daughter and I used as a middle man
torment her own daughter.
http://OverProtectiveMother.com

When I sued for malicious prosecution the Judge in that trial flat out
refused to let me use the same exhibits I had used to win the jury trial
because they had been handed back to us. Transcripts for that trial can be
found at:
http://nolegalauthority.com/transcripts

When Judge Telleen stripped me of those exhibits he also stripped me of
evidence of Malice and evidence of evidence of a complete failure on the
part of the State to verify any of the statements used by Beverly Rusk or
her husband.
http://slimefest.com/Exhibits/ProofOfPerjury/

The fact remains, there was evidence of Malice and evidence of a complete
failure of the State to verify Statements used by Beverly and Ed Rusk even
before the jury trial I won I should have been allowed to present that
evidence in a malicious prosecution lawsuit as proven by the principles of
law that reversed and remanded the legal precedent that the courts claimed
supported a directed verdict to this very day.

Now back to the original question. Was it fair for the judge in the
Malicious Prosecution lawsuit to avoid the two exhibits that were used to
completely impeach all three of the State's witnesses with prior
inconsistent statements simply because they were handed back to us after the
jury trial?

Then if that was fair, was it fair for Judges in the Appellate Court to make
assumptions about the exhibits that Judge Telleen would not let me transfer
from the jury trial I won into a malicious prosecution lawsuit to make it
look like Judge Telleen did nothing wrong?

To me that is basically a violation of the rule against Double Jeopardy
because I shouldn't have to prove myself not guilty twice where I am
restricted from using the same exhibits I used to prove not guilty the first
time.

TIA


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2010
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:02:47 -0600, Rocky wrote:

> I won a jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro se litigant against a woman that worked
> at the courthouse and had numerous friends at the courthouse that were
> unknowing helping her help the boy her daughter and I used as a middle man
> torment her own daughter.
> http://OverProtectiveMother.com



Shut the **** up Roger. Nobody in this group cares about you and your 20
old court case you lost.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rocky
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2010

"richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ger5oz7ryfsh.1e4g9crwo6nsv$(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:02:47 -0600, Rocky wrote:
>
>> I won a jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro se litigant against a woman that
>> worked
>> at the courthouse and had numerous friends at the courthouse that were
>> unknowing helping her help the boy her daughter and I used as a middle
>> man
>> torment her own daughter.
>> http://OverProtectiveMother.com

>
>
> Shut the **** up Roger. Nobody in this group cares about you and your 20
> old court case you lost.


Typical response from someone who doesn't have the slightest clue as to what
reversed and remanded the Mack case.
Phucking idiot.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Rick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2010
Rocky wrote:
> "richard"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ger5oz7ryfsh.1e4g9crwo6nsv$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:02:47 -0600, Rocky wrote:
>>
>>> I won a jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro se litigant against a woman that
>>> worked

....

YOU are posting in the wrong group. This group is (mostly) about help
with computers.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rocky
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2010

"Rick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hqcqme$549$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> Rocky wrote:
>> "richard"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:ger5oz7ryfsh.1e4g9crwo6nsv$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:02:47 -0600, Rocky wrote:
>>>
>>>> I won a jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro se litigant against a woman that
>>>> worked

> ...
>
> YOU are posting in the wrong group. This group is (mostly) about help with
> computers.
>


Kindly just shut the **** up.


Tell me if you think this is too wordy and detailed:

The ORDER below proves that Judges in the Appellate Court are as reckless
with the law and as reckless with the facts as a reckless attorney is.

Duane Thompson was the reckless attorney in question and he failed to state
correctly the decision of the Appellate Court in the Mack vs. First Security
Bank of Chicago regarding the directed verdict At 110 Ill.Dec. page 542 the
court reverses and remands the case.

Duane Thompson knew from the way I worded my initial complaint against
Beverly Rusk, the exhibits I used to completely impeach her in the jury
trial I won and the argument I tried to make during the malicious
prosecution lawsuit that the Mack vs. First Security Bank of Chicago fully
supported my argument from the start.

Duane Thompson also furnished false information about the existence of
malice even after hearing where the evidence of malice was located and that
"it can be used to prove malice" from the statements below.

Page 18 line 17
THE COURT: He's showing the witness page 25 of the transcript.

Before the next statement was made Judge Telleen made it clear what word he
would accept as malicious.

Page 29 line 14:
MR WITTEKIND: The words she uses to describe it can be used to prove
malice.

All the Appellate Court would do in their ORDER below when they allowed
themselves to be duped by Duane Thompson was overlook the evidence of malice
in the transcript for the jury trial, manipulate testimony that was
completely impeached by prior inconsistent statements using the very facts
these judges were making assumptions about and then going so far as to
falsify evidence themselves in the fourth paragraph of their ORDER.

But not only would Appellate Court Judges help Duane Thompson conceal
evidence of one malicious prosecution they would help Duane Thompson conceal
evidence of two malicious prosecutions where the evidence presented in the
second jury trial proves the first jury trial was won by rendering the
statue invalid with misleading jury instructions using perjured testimony
and using a woman that obstructs justice by furnishing false information
about her daughter.

Above found at:
http://nolegalauthority.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
G. Morgan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2010
"Rocky" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I won a jury trial 12 to 0


<snip>

If he handed the evidence back, you should still have it and re-introduce it.

Ask in a legal group, this group is 80% trolls and idiots.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2010
Rocky wrote:
<moronic ...>

Ploink!



 
Reply With Quote
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2010
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400, Rick wrote:

> Rocky wrote:
>> "richard"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:ger5oz7ryfsh.1e4g9crwo6nsv$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:02:47 -0600, Rocky wrote:
>>>
>>>> I won a jury trial 12 to 0 as a pro se litigant against a woman that
>>>> worked

> ...
>
> YOU are posting in the wrong group. This group is (mostly) about help
> with computers.


Says who?



--
Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.
 
Reply With Quote
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2010
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:38:57 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:

> "Rocky" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I won a jury trial 12 to 0

>
> <snip>
>
> If he handed the evidence back, you should still have it and re-introduce it.
>
> Ask in a legal group, this group is 80% trolls and idiots.


He's just mouthing off because he thought he was a big time hot shot
defending himself in court. He's been posting this **** for over six years
ago and tries to make it sound like this is an actual ongoing event.

He's ****ed off because a girl dumped him 20 years ago.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rocky
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2010

"richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:6aena7wkl0w4.3tyy60eu4p5q$(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:38:57 -0500, G. Morgan wrote:
>
>> "Rocky" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>I won a jury trial 12 to 0

>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> If he handed the evidence back, you should still have it and re-introduce
>> it.
>>
>> Ask in a legal group, this group is 80% trolls and idiots.

>
> He's just mouthing off because he thought he was a big time hot shot
> defending himself in court. He's been posting this **** for over six years
> ago and tries to make it sound like this is an actual ongoing event.
>
> He's ****ed off because a girl dumped him 20 years ago.


God Richard, you truly are an IdIoT. I could have many different women if I
wanted to.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Microsoft Left Hand, Meet Microsoft Right Hand Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 1 03-07-2011 03:55 AM
Seek cooperation Expect hand in hand xianzeguanggao Digital Photography 0 06-14-2007 08:07 AM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
OT: They have idiot judges in Canada too! T-Bone MCSE 30 02-01-2005 06:22 PM
VHDL-AMS ,This circuit exhibits singularity Steffen Netz VHDL 0 05-03-2004 11:45 AM



Advertisments