|
In this next sentence, just to make sure that I'm correct I went to the
dictionary. The judge states that the "Police investigation apparently
established express or implied authority for Defendant [Art] to negotiate the
check." In the dictionary it states that "express" means
"clear" or "specific." My answer to that is that nowhere,
and I mean nowhere, was there any proof that Art had clear or specific
authority to forge my name, cash the check and basically steal the money.
Now I'm not exactly sure what the judge thinks "implied" means,
but in the dictionary it says that it means to "express indirectly."
What the hell that means is anyone's guess. Could Art have mistaken a wink,
cough, hand twitch or a foot tap as a signal that it was all right with me to
forge my name to a check, steal the money and lie to me about the status of the
case? I don't think so.
In paragraph four the judge states:
According to the testimony of Dennis P. Strong, attorney at law, who
represented Plaintiff in securing the agreement at issue in this case, implicit
in the agreement was an unwritten provision that a grievance would not be filed
so long as Defendant complied with the terms thereof.
The first thing is that there were no "unwritten" provisions in
this agreement and if there were, they were between Art and Dennis. I never
agreed to anything unwritten. Hell, I couldn't even get Art to abide to a
written agreement, let alone anything unwritten. Then the judge states in
paragraph two of his own decision that Art paid in an untimely manner. Without
knowing it the judge agreed that Art violated the agreement, therefore I had
every right to prosecute and sue Art.
Next the judge states: "Whether there was any malpractice in
Defendant's representation is not clear. However, the evidence failed to
establish a causal relationship between the alleged malpractice and the
damages." This statement defies logic, especially for a judge. I can’t
imagine how this judge did in school because he sure as hell couldn't put two
and two together in court.
The reason I say this is that while the judge is supposedly the most
intelligent legal mind in the courtroom, he was the only one who couldn’t
figure out why Art signed the agreement or turned in his license to practice
law. Give me a break. Judge Nichols was either bought off or he was extremely
stupid. It had to be one or the other. If it was the latter, I'd like to know
how he found his way to the courtroom. I don't mean to sound disrespectful to
his position, but after experiencing Judge Louie, Judge Spore and Judge Nichols
I have no respect left for their positions or them.
The judge finishes his decision by stating:
Moreover, from the evidence it appears that when Defendant defaulted on the
terms of the agreement, Plaintiff in fact filed a written grievance on
September 22, 1986. Therefore, the court concludes that Plaintiff extracted the
subject agreement from Defendant on threat of disciplinary action. As such, the
agreement contravenes public policy and is void, unlawful and unenforceable.
The Judge was at least correct when he stated that when Art defaulted on the
agreement I filed a grievance against him with the Bar Association. What the
judge refused to say or consider was why would Art, if he had done nothing
wrong, sign the contract in the first place, then turn in his license to
practice law before the grievance was ever heard? Why would he do this if he
was innocent?
Then the judge "concludes that [I] extracted" this agreement from
Art. Once again this couldn't be any further from the truth. What would be the
likelihood of finding an attorney who would call your regular attorney and
claim that you said he did something wrong, and ask him to sign an agreement to
pay you $41,466.90? And even if you were able to find someone like this, which
I highly doubt, what would be the chance of your attorney going along with
agreeing to pay you money?
I think we both know that things like that don't happen, especially with
attorneys. You'd stand a better chance of buying the winning lottery numbers
than getting an attorney to agree in writing to pay you for something he didn't
owe you for.
On top of this, Dennis and I both testified in court that Art made the offer
to me, I didn't ask him for it. Throughout this entire process I never asked
Art for a penny nor did anyone, including Art, testify in court that I did. If
I attempted to force Art to do anything, it was nothing more than to tell the
truth and testify as to who paid him off. That was it.
As far as the grievance goes, what attorney would care if you filed a
frivolous grievance against him with the Bar Association? If he wasn't guilty
of anything, he'd fight the charge and would then probably sue you. He sure as
hell wouldn't give up his license to practice law. Why this judge came to a
totally different conclusion defies logic.
The strangest thing about the outcome of this phony trial was the fact that
the judge stated in the last paragraph of his decision that the agreement was
unlawful. In essences the judge was saying that I illegally extracted
$39,780.20 from Art James. Yet he didn't charge me with doing anything illegal.
He didn't even order me to pay back the money Art illegally paid me. What the
hell kind of judge is he who lets everyone off for felonies? Once again, it
just doesn't make sense.
After leaving the courtroom, Tom and I met back at his office. I first sat
down with him to ask if he'd be interested in taking the case over from Dennis
I related my past experiences with the local legal system and admitted I
thought it was quite crooked. Between you and me, I think he thought that I was
exaggerating about why I lost these cases--until he went to court with me! He
certainly changed his mind then.
While we were talking, he confessed he could not believe he had lost the
case. He said that he had never experienced anything like this before and
allowed that I was probably correct to think someone somewhere in the political
system was protecting Art. Tom added that after he experienced what went on in
court that day, he thought I would be wasting my time and money to try to
appeal the decision. If they could get to this judge, they could probably get
to the other judges also.
At this point I really didn't think there was anything else I could do to
fight back. The government made sure of that. As far as finding another
attorney, where do you get an attorney to take over for the attorney who took
over for an attorney to sue the original attorney? You almost get lost in the
translation let alone find someone who fits that description.
|