May 18, 2016
Greetings to all,
Truths fullness is finder of facts agenda sought: so far for the record communicational and recognition wise several areas hold blatant element deficits that do not meet standards not limited to special needs trust agreement nor specific within immediate case in front of bench holding declared bias (2012 P 893) precedent now by rule (discovery) in formal dispute as qualifier steps up court of appeals process in request.
IN addition I protest full disclosure fairness in all affairs noting extreme equality prejudice demonstrates neither specific to Annual accounting nor limited within equality objections holding precedent.
Will the court of appeals hear my case?
Trustee Demon Dance.
There are two ways a court of appeals hear cases: By “Right” and by leave.
When an appeal is by right, it means you have an “AUTOMATIC” right to appeal.
You do not have to show anything special to get a review by the court of appeals.
All you have to do is follow proper procedure.
Checking with representing attorney in retrospect within best option suites formal disagreement in rule concerning Special Needs trust is customary as well as REQUESTED FOR THE RECORD.
Generally, it is easier to have your case heard by Right rather than by leave, because as long as one follows the right procedure , the court has no choice; YOUR APPEAL HAS TO BE HEARD.
Noting Pitfall for the record:
Respondent does not want to have case that was originally appealable by right turn into one that can only be filed by leave.
How does this happen; respondent or attorney misses a filing deadline which is not the position we are ever to be in, File on Time, Every time is request direct factoring in rules of discovery.
Respondent formal protest objecting to special needs trust (record) dynamics satisfies appeals 1st element in which precedent (2012 p 893) will serve as situational 2nd element qualifier consistent within up to (criminal) rights violates unifying 3rd element ; rule overturned - trust stricken.
In conclusion: standard discouragement response within “this will cost you” reference - holds no water when injustice administered; best not brought up is well advised within ARDC retrospect.
As always: Fiducially under God never integrally cloaks and daggers discovery code while unethically administering cat and Mouse unwritten contract inquisition gamesmanship and why I write.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
William Monks on behalf of self- deceased Mother and best interests of In-Living Trust.
No comments:
Post a Comment