 |
| Artful Recasting of Facts |
| 'Artful recasting of facts' is a typical phrase of legal jargon. A phrase not found in Black's Law dictionary but in first year law school books specifically, Torts and Compensation, third edition, by Dobbs and Hayden, West publishing. |
| Question is what does it mean? To an honest, moral and reasonably prudent person the understanding should be straight forward, a skillful retelling of facts or a dishonest and cunningly contrived retelling of facts. |
| In law school books the innuendo of its meaning is 'cleverly contrived retelling of facts to portray them in your favor to win a case'. There is however a line where such cleverness defeats the meaning and intent of the justice system, by going on to be fabrications of fact and clever outright lies. That line is imbued and embroiled with controversy and immorality even as to where or what it is, if not to actually question its existence. Morally unbound lawyers, an abundant creature, are slaughtering the court system in an unbridled manner actually exhibiting hubris as to who can do it better in providing the court with such 'artful' pleadings. And as for the judges, evidence on this website reveals they take it in stride, rarely denying it, usually coddling it, or are dolts falling prey to the manifestations of deceit by those lawyers more clever or intelligent than they. |
| The sad part of it all, that is from the citizens standpoint, artful recasting of facts has run our judicial system amok. It has become so established, so accepted, a way of doing business in the legal world that actual truth cannot be seen until it is 'artfully' recast! |
| And to make matters worse, as if they could be worse, recasting of fact is not to be used in a motion to dismiss yet it is rampant therein. This type of motion is to be used to identify to the court defects (failure to state a proper claim) in the opposing parties' complaint. Instead lawyers are submitting these motions full of recast facts, going so far as to dispute facts, distort facts and displace facts. The federal rules are clear this is not the stage of litigation for dispute to take place, that is what a trial is for yet judges like Judge Burns are in fact allowing it. The judge who accepts such filing is a disgrace to the judicial system and is depriving citizens of their due process rights. |
| Keeping on this tack another similar violation of rules is the unjust acceptance of summary judgment motions. Such motion is, by the rules, not to be used or accepted by a judge unless no dispute of fact exists between opposing parties. Evidence is abundant on the Internet, and in this website, that proves such motions are widely abused however accepted by judges. The interesting fact is they are typically used in a manner to deprive a citizen of their right to trial in a civil issue. But remember the Skolnick tip off, it is in civil issues where big money is usually at stake 'so what if some falls off the table into the judge's pocket' it makes an unfelt difference to the big guy when the stakes are high! |
| |
| |
| |