First we must examine how it is to be applied.
The court must decide which statutes and precedents apply to case in front of it, and the finder of facts has decided what the facts are, the statutes and precedents have to be applied to the facts.
This is done step by step, and is actually pretty straight forward yet in my case procedurally many plaintiff points lack standard of proof are being overlooked consistent within 2012 P 893 while refusing to acknowledge respondent probative proffering’s evidence otherwise within original claim in concern.
Every statute and every rule of law in a case can be broken down into its most basic parts or steps, which are called “Elements.”
The Plaintiff must prove each element of the rule of law for inability.
The fact-finder applies the rule to the facts of the situation by incorporating the elements with the facts.
At each element, the facts must fit the statement of element.
If one element doesn’t fit the facts, the plaintiff loses.
For example, the fact finder may find that the plaintiff had a Fiduciary duty, so the first element is not “Satisfied” or “Met.” The fact finder then turns to the second Element, whether Plaintiff breached or violated their duty to administer carefully. If the finder of fact decided that the administrator was careless, then the court must find that the second Element is not satisfied.
But, if the finder of facts decides the respondent did, in fact, administer carefully, the court must find that the second element is satisfied, and the plaintiff loses.
The same thing happens with the Third Element. Was plaintiff agent administrative carelessness the cause for motion in concern? If it was then the third element isn’t met, and the plaintiff loses.
At each point, even if one element is not met nor satisfied plaintiff verification under oath isn’t met nor satisfied, the plaintiff loses her case.
The last element due process must mesh with the facts, too.
Did plaintiff have a duty to administer responsibly, did agent falsely motion respondent as Whitewash within duel fiduciary irresponsibleness and due to improperness was respondent injured as direct result of negligence is a two part decision which fact finder must determine and apply.
There are several reasons that this part of the Decision-making process seems so much like a Black Box. First, most people don’t know all the elements of the rule of law is going in.
That is why we hire or in living trust appropriate Lawyers – to find out what law is likely to apply to a particular problem.
Second, if the law in question is complex, and especially if the facts are complicated, too, keeping all the “ELEMENTS STRAIGHT” and figuring out how they’ll apply is very difficult, EVEN FOR EXPERTS!
Most of all, no one knows what the fact finder has decided is “TRUE” ABOUT THE EVIDENCE UNTIL AFTER THE DECISION IS GIVEN BY THE COURT.
Going in you don’t know the facts as decided by the finder of fact.
All that is known from respondent perspective is evidences should be believed!
Again, and unfortunately, nothing can guarantee that your side will be believed.
Not knowing what the facts “REALLY” are according to the finder of facts makes it seem that the process of applying the Law is very mysterious.
However, if you come at it backward, once decisions are made, and accept (even if only for the sake of argument that the findings of facts are the basis of decision, IT’S USUALLY VERY SIMPLE TO SEE HOW THE LAW IS BEING APPLIED.
Take each fact as found by the Finder of Fact, and match it to the Element of Rule of Law That it supports.
IF YOU CAN’T MAKE A GOOD MATCH THAT MEANS THE LAW WAS IMPROPERLY APPLIED, AND YOU’VE GOT GOOD ISSUES TO NOT ONLY APPEAL CASE, BUT PUT UP IN COMPLAINT BEFORE JUDICIAL STATE REVIEW BOARD.
CONSISTENCY FROM CASE TO CASE
One of the most important factors in coming to a decision in any case is making sure decisions within are consistent with precedent of 2012 P 893.
Judges can move away from precedent legitimately if they can show that the facts in the case before the court are too different than the case claimed as precedent for the same rule apply in the same way. However is the facts aren’t that different, or if it’s not logical to use a particular precedent in deciding case, as stated previously, there are good issues for appeal and ethics review.
Judges notoriously dislike appeals, and particularly dislike being told by the appeals court or commissions that they were wrong.
Knowing this should give real motivation to apply the law correctly to the facts FIRST TIME AROUND so they are not embarrassed in front of the entire Legal Community by a successful appeal or disciplinary action.
Consistency from case to case in applying the rule of Law from Precedents and “STATUTES” ARE CRITICAL TO JUDGES SUCCESS RATE, every case decision occasionally changed or overturned now and them is normal; its only when a large percentage of Judges cases are overturned that judge starts to look either incompetent or problematic.
How are final decisions actually made?
Whether the final decision is made by a Judge or Jury, same processes are used.
If there is no jury, the judge just applies each element of the rule of Law to the Facts According to the “STATUTE” or case being followed.
Once the facts have been matched up with the rules , the Judge is to look to see (WHETHER THERE ARE ANY ELEMENTS OF THE RULES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
IF THERE ARE ELEMENTS THAT HAVEN’T BEEN MET, THEN THE PLAINTIFF LOSES!
IN A NONJURY PROVERBIAL BENCH TRAIL, THE JUDGE MAY WRITE A SORT OF ESSAY CALLED AN “OPINION” STATING WHO WON OR LOST AND WHY.
FAIRNESS REQUIRES THAT THE SAME LOGIC AND LAW BE USED IN CASES THAT HAVE SIMILAR FACTS.
EACH INDIVIDUAL ELEMENT OF THE LAW MUST MATCH WITH AN ELEMENT OF THE FACTS IN ORDER FOR THE LAW TO BE SAID TO APPLY.
Situational reference material: The complete IDIOT’S Guide to successfully navigate the complex civil court system.
Author: Victoria E. Green, J.D.
Not for profit-senior community service educational shares- promoting better awareness’s through effective communications ending Financial exploitation. You do have a voice.
Story line based upon updated references in real time perspective.
No ownership or infringements are sought nor implied in extension of self-help recovery share.
We thank Dr. Peck for sharing his intuitive under God Lecture series and practice accrued wisdoms along with Victoria Greens enrichments enabling another to fight the good fight against Greed based system Injustices while preserving community integrity benefiting another from territories in Hell.
Freedom does not come free but is worth fighting for when all for the right reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment