Challenge to Every Honorable Lawyer in America

Some seven hundred or so (700+) separate viewings so far (of which about eight are due to my visits) and no lawyer speaks yet.

Any bold lawyers left in the USA?

Read more by clicking (more)

There are about 1,000,000 living lawyers in the USA. Surely we can find a few bold ones who can protect this state supreme court if what is shown below is true or the exact opposite (really the only two possibilities but pick any gradation you want in between if you can only post a meaningful response!).

"... Respondent's argument clearly demonstrates his failure to understand that the right to be heard is not limited to only being heard in person. The right is preserved by permitting a party to submit his or her position in writing."

[Extract from: Paragraph 72, Report of Referee].

Explain as best you can the above either true universal statement of American jurisprudence

or

patent nonsense of a statement that is unjustifiable, under any interpretation, as written

or some middle ground you stake out, as a legal professional who wants to make it clear that honorable is part of being a lawyer.

[For those of you who want more, presume, as is the case at the three hearings, that each involved a motion for summary judgment successful against said current "Respondent".
This to you laymen is enough for any lawyer to eliminate any thought the hearing was on a de minimis matter, but this is not actually all the bad news for the corrupt professionals involved in this matter.]

DO WE HAVE ANY ANONYMOUS LEGAL PROFESSIONALS who care to comment, defending or attacking the above or ...?

DO WE HAVE ANY LEGAL PROFESSIONALS who care to hear more of the details to consider accepting this "Respondent" and if so suing the major corrupt enterprise involved, and the persons as well not cloaked with civil judicial immunity [and perhaps those cloaked with civil judicial immunity due to the aggregious absurdity of the entire scenario, once it is detailed, piercing the judicial veil (robes and office) otherwise expected to protect] in getting such an absurd ruling, presuming that there is some basis for such a federal suit for violations of federal civil right laws, many apply to all Americans irrespective of status?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• corrupt
• justice
• florida
• corruption
• media
• criminal
• constitutional
• constitution
• civilrights
• DoJ
• FBI

[IndictTheCorrupt]

Law Students have been the irresponsible of posters here. Abesnt rational comments, it is recommended other law students posting here avoid mentioning their limited knowledge by saying they are a 1L or 2L or even 3L, AND JUST STICK TO THE ISSUE as best as it can be dealt with with the general facts situation.

[IndictTheCorrupt]

"... Respondent's argument clearly demonstrates his failure to understand that the right to be heard is not limited to only being heard in person. The right is preserved by permitting a party to submit his or her position in writing."

[Extract from: Paragraph 72, Report of Referee].

DO YOU ACCEPT THIS AS THE LAW RELATED TO OUR RIGHT IN COURT CASES, to be heard only in writing if that is what the judge says.

[IndictTheCorrupt]

thepig is wrong for submitting is not a hearing, but thepig is a polite and logical fella.

Kyllina discredited himself with his language (and his misspellings) so his argument been ad hominem primary may be disregarded by all.

Kyllina should strategically retreat now before further damage to his reputation and credibility occurs.

[thepig]

Your lawyer is your agent. When he submits a motion on your behalf you are being heard. I assume you were suing some entity that defeated you on summaryu judgment because the court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact which might have allowed you to win your case. None of your constitutional rights have been violated if this is the case. I cannot say though because you don't give very much information. Good luck.

[IndictTheCorrupt]

You omitted whether or not you are a lawyer. I would speculate you are not. As I wrote you I will respond with the quoted passage and a bit more if this remains your answer.

[ohwidow]

If you wish to do something about this, join at countygrandjurydotorg

[SeerTravisTruman]

Lawyers a just created reflections of their society. They are societal whores. One cannot expect any benevolent attitude, sanity, or rational integrity from them because they deal with a system that is malevolent, insane, and without rational integrity. See My website for more.

[GrapeXsoda]

you are a lawyer? how many mens did you remove out from the economy in the name of the best interest for the children?

[GrapeXsoda]

family law is good bussines ...specially when the client is rich .....the lawyers are the wich one that gets all the money....and they keep the game roling until money is gone.....the predatory misandry system is design to remove the men out the economy .....

[SakonnaSitak]

I am afraid I don't understand your post. Are you a lawyer ?

[namdrut]

who is this hizup turd anyway?

[shinybluepope]

You barely provide any information for anyone to assess your qualm. Given, I am only a 2L. Still, I your statements saying that any 1L would find the court's statements without any basis in reality, should make my take on this is pertinent. By the way, I doubt I will respond if you send me piecemeal statements. I want as much of the case as possible.

[wtfiswrong80]

if you really want to flood the coffers of attorneys with money, then eliminate the ways that judges dismiss meritless cases. unfortunately, while the bar might be appreciative, the backlogged court system would be ineffective for those hat have real problems and their due process rights would be violated. if you look at it from that perspective, not only is it right to dismiss these cases but judges have a constitutional duty to do so. keep rockin' the penguin shirt though, i dig it.