Thanks for Visiting!
Systems by Kenny Hendrick
Made with Trash
Solar Panel Kits
Springfield Ohio Discourse
|Below are personal sentiments at the given moment in time.
Click Here for THE ORIGINAL PAGE|
Making this website has shown clearly the one-ness of the neo-corpo-politico-econo arena (racket?).
Our Nation CAN do Better!
This Web Page last updated: May 4, 2017
Today You are the Judge
LET'S SEE WHERE YOU STAND!
The following is a true case that was "heard" within the Springfield Ohio Court of Appeals.
Okay, Here we go,
A CASE IS PRESENTED FOR YOUR REVIEW.
You are the higher Court Judge belonging to the Order of the Second Appellate Court of Appeals located in the Sunny City of Springfield Ohio.
You are reviewing the Judgement of the Lower-Court Judge's Decision in a Landlord/Tenant Dispute in which a "3rd Party" had submitted "motions" to the lower Municipal Court Judge, Plaintiff, and to the Court Record, stating that the case is a Fraud and that he is the correct Party and Tenant to the ongoing Case.
The 3rd Party applicant submitted physical DVD's of videos and motions to the Court (Attempting to "Correct The Record" and "Intervene" in the ongoing matter).
The 3rd Party (not a "named" Defendant, nor a Plaintiff) claimed to have evidence that only a Plaintiff or a Defendant in a Case can properly introduce into a Court of Law (of one's own free will).
The 3rd Party informed the Lower Court Judge, Plaintiff, and Court Record that they have a case before them in which the wrong party was being Sued.
But regardless of which party is being sued, the 3rd Party stated that he has evidence to refute any Claim made by the Landlord of the Lease, Mrs. Crow
(which is the wife of the husband that won this case, but that's not important right now).
This leaves you in a precarious situation.
The Judge you are reviewing works across the hallway from you.
In effect, YOU are a Judge, Judging a Judge.
The 3rd Party Claim to you is that he is:
1.) A First-Person Witness of the damages that the Landlords were seeking money for in the (then) ongoing Municipal Court Case,
2.) In possession of Video/Audio evidence that would refute the Landlord's Claim,
3.) In possession of documents relevant to the ongoing lower Municipal Court Case,
4.) The actual tenant during the very time that damages were occurring (claiming the Case was filed completely against the wrong party, a 70+ year old woman that was the former Lease Holder).
Now let's step up to yet another level.
Fed R Civ Rule 24.
(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who:
1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute (see TITLE IV. PARTIES);
(2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
(b) Permissive Intervention.
(1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who:
(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute(see TITLE IV. PARTIES); or (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.
Fed R Civ Rule 18. Joinder of Claims
(a) In General. A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, cross claim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.
(b) Joinder of Contingent Claims. A party may join two claims even though one of them is contingent on the disposition of the other; but the court may grant relief only in accordance with the parties™ relative substantive rights. In particular, a plaintiff may state a claim for money and a claim to set aside a conveyance that is fraudulent as to that plaintiff, without first obtaining a judgment for the money.
Counter Suit Denied, yet the money required to file the Counter-Suit was kept by the Court and the Party was not recompensed despite the denial of Service.
New subdivision (a) defines the persons whose joinder in the action is desirable. Clause (1) stresses the desirability of joining those persons in whose absence the court would be obliged to grant partial or hollow rather than complete relief to the parties before the court.The interests that are being furthered here are not only those of the parties, but also that of the public in avoiding repeated lawsuits on the same essential subject matter. Clause (2)(i) recognizes the importance of protecting the person whose joinder is in question against the practical prejudice to him which may arise through a disposition of the action in his absence. Clause (2)(ii)recognizes the need for considering whether a party may be left,after the adjudication, in a position where a person not joined can subject him to a double or otherwise inconsistent liability. See Reed, supra, 55 Mich.L.Rev. at 330, 338; Note, supra, 65Harv.L.Rev. at 1052“57; Developments in the Law,supra, 71 Harv.L.Rev. at881“85.
With this new information,
The law does not specify that one must prove him or herself to be included in an ongoing case.
More of this?