Think of this post as an update please.
Yesterday I figured out what I plan to use as an Issue and then I spoke to a lawyer about my idea and got a go ahead.
I know when I setup a "Brief and Arugment" the Facts and Issues have to remain seperated but they are together for the following.
At issue is all the inconsistencies because they help prove the Appellate Court was not dealing with the law and they were not dealing with the facts when they took a bribe from Duane Thompson.
The inconsistencies are:
- Why the verdict of the instant cause does not match the verdict of the of the Mack case. When the Appellate Court claimed my argument was not supported by legal authority they failed to see two things.
a. I was arguing the exact same lawsuit as Duane Thompson and the exact same lawsuit that has been improperly held against me to this very day.
b. Duane Thompson had misrepresented the law so in reality his argument, and the Argument of the Appellate Court is unsupported by legal authority.
- Why the definition of "Probable Cause" was never applied to the instant cause and why the assumptions about the "Probable Cause" differ from the "Probable Cause" that was used to completely impeach all three of the State's Witnesses.
a. The "Probable Cause" that was used as Defense Exhibits #1 and #5 in the jury trial I won proves a "Total Lack of Good Faith" and that should have been the "Probable Cause" used in court.
b. What the Appelate Court did to come up with a "Probable Cause" was to build a history by falifing perjured testimony and then make a claim because of that history there was a "Probable Cause." Is that justice?
- Why the requirements for proving Malice were different for the Trial Court judge and the Appellate Court. To be more specific, I had met the requirements for proving "Malice" to the Trial Court Judge and all that I had to do was point to page 30 of the transcript. When the Appellate Court changed the rules they made it impossible to meet the requirements for proving "Malice."
The Bottom line is, Duane Thompson pulled the exact same stunt that was played in the Mack case and then he unfairly misrepresented the Mack case in his favor and the judges involved would not let me enter any evidence to prove he misrepresented the law or that he misrepresented the facts.
While I won't use this term when I write up a "Brief and Argument" I was clearly dealing with a Kangaroo Court.