Judge hallucinated date on exhibit and every judge overlooks it ,why?

[0p3ns0urc3s]

It is not the defense attorney’s job to question his client’s testimony. It is the plaintiff’s job to question the defendant’s testimony and poke holes in it.

The fact of the matter is that the judge didn’t think you met your burden of proof. He found the defendant more credible.

How much did repairs to your vehicle cost?

Also, when attorneys don't question their clients at trial then it's because they're trying not to suborn perjury by inviting lies in the courtroom.

Again, not my first rodeo. I picked up on that immediately.

 

[0p3ns0urc3s]

No

Wow! Look at you! Do you have a JD?
You have just done something that nearly 10 sitting judges were not able to do!

You wrote that there's no date on that exhibit and that means it is definitely not, "... had photos of the car dated for the day after the alleged incident..."

Kudos to you!

 

[quincy]

Well then, I guess you showed everyone that you cannot be pushed around. It seems a hollow victory to me but I am glad you are finding some solace in your loss.

 

[0p3ns0urc3s]

Well then, I guess you showed everyone that you cannot be pushed around. It seems a hollow victory to me but I am glad you are finding some solace in your loss.

Why does ANYONE get "hometowned"? How is this concept present among established attorneys and not one of you does anything to eradicate it!?

How do judges get away with letting some random nitpicking point of law get around a judge hallucinating/erring/mistaking a date on an exhibit which can plainly be seen?


Please don't derail my thread with talking about costs. I'm not indigent. YOU answer some tough questions.

I was offered a settlement by Progressive but it was too little too late. My loss? Not at all. I spent more money in Hawaii on loco moco and shaved ice.

I'd rather be able to talk about this FOREVER than take the money they should've given me in the claims process plus an NDA/nondisparagement/whatever.
Plus, the settlement offer let me know they'd weighed the costs and found continuing to be a lose-lose situation. It was at that point that I became absolutely overjoyed to continue. Hopefully, I set a trend.

 

[LdiJ]

Why does ANYONE get "hometowned"? How is this concept present among established attorneys and not one of you does anything to eradicate it!?

How do judges get away with letting some random nitpicking point of law get around a judge hallucinating/erring/mistaking a date on an exhibit which can plainly be seen?


Please don't derail my thread with talking about costs. I'm not indigent. YOU answer some tough questions.

I was offered a settlement by Progressive but it was too little too late. My loss? Not at all. I spent more money in Hawaii on loco moco and shaved ice.

I'd rather be able to talk about this FOREVER than take the money they should've given me in the claims process plus an NDA/nondisparagement/whatever.
Plus, the settlement offer let me know they'd weighed the costs and found continuing to be a lose-lose situation. It was at that point that I became absolutely overjoyed to continue. Hopefully, I set a trend.

Dude, we are volunteers here. We don't HAVE to answer any questions we don't want to answer. Also, you are wrong if you believe that settlements are only offered if they believe they are going to lose. Settlements are often offered when they believe that it will cost more in time, effort and money to win than the case is worth. In other words, they often offer settlements in cases that are small change to them because it's not worth their time to win. However, they WILL go ahead and pursue it to a win if what they believe is a reasonable settlement is refused.

 

[0p3ns0urc3s]

Essentially, the Courts found that the testimony and evidence presented by the defendant was more credible than what you presented. You did not provide evidence enough - with or without dated photos - to show that the young man with the broken, booted ankle was driving the car that damaged your vehicle on the date and time of the incident.

And if you've EVER heard of being "hometowned" then this reply is incredibly facetious. To me, "hometowned" basically means there'll hardly ever be sufficient evidence to overcome a biased judge, and the cost of fighting the bias will be the cost of appeals which many people can't afford or do themselves.

 

[0p3ns0urc3s]

Dude, we are volunteers here. We don't HAVE to answer any questions we don't want to answer. Also, you are wrong if you believe that settlements are only offered if they believe they are going to lose. Settlements are often offered when they believe that it will cost more in time, effort and money to win than the case is worth. In other words, they often offer settlements in cases that are small change to them because it's not worth their time to win. However, they WILL go ahead and pursue it to a win if what they believe is a reasonable settlement is refused.

I apologize. I didn't mean to have you equate my statements with a requirement. I only said to answer some tough questions... pretty please. With a cherry on top of a giant ice cream sundae.

I never said it meant they'd lose. Do not read my statements with any bias. I'm Pro Se not an idiot. JDs get "hometowned."

I said it meant they'd not want to continue because the costs outweigh the benefits. I wasn't declared vexatious and they spent time and money which was not recovered, more money than what they wanted to. The settlement was cost management. So, it is a lose-lose for them.

 

[quincy]

And if you've EVER heard of being "hometowned" then this reply is incredibly facetious. To me, "hometowned" basically means there'll hardly ever be sufficient evidence to overcome a biased judge, and the cost of fighting the bias will be the cost of appeals which many people can't afford or do themselves.

Yes. I understand that there are biased judges. Just take a look at the Supreme Court. But I still don’t think you proved your case sufficiently.

 

[0p3ns0urc3s]

Yes. I understand that there are biased judges. Just take a look at the Supreme Court. But I still don’t think you proved your case sufficiently.

That is absolutely valid. I don't care to lose when the facts don't fall in my favor.
When testimony alone of a biased family outweighs contemporaneous documentary evidence then I don't believe justice was advanced.


But, it is also absolutely valid that the judge was biased and mistook a date on an exhibit.

Is this exhibit dated? Is it "dated the day after the alleged incident..."?
https://postimg.cc/N2sghZc4

 

[quincy]

That is absolutely valid. I don't care to lose when the facts don't fall in my favor.
When testimony alone of a biased family outweighs contemporaneous documentary evidence then I don't believe justice was advanced.


But, it is also absolutely valid that the judge was biased and mistook a date on an exhibit.

Is this exhibit dated? Is it "dated the day after the alleged incident..."?
https://postimg.cc/N2sghZc4

Why do you keep posting that link?

There really does not seem to be anything left to say. You believe you were up against several biased judges. You can file complaints against the judges if you are convinced of this.

 

[0p3ns0urc3s]

Why do you keep posting that link?

There really does not seem to be anything left to say. You believe you were up against several biased judges. You can file complaints against the judges if you are convinced of this.

I'm asking for your opinion, Sir.
Is it dated, in your opinion? If so, then what is the date that you see?

I can't make you answer. But that is my whole point. All the JDs equivocate. Luckily, I can share this with common folk.



I'd also like to humbly state that your equivocation enables biased judges like those on the Supreme Court.

 

[quincy]

I'm asking for your opinion, Sir.
Is it dated, in your opinion? If so, then what is the date that you see?

I can't make you answer. But that is my whole point. All the JDs equivocate. Luckily, I can share this with common folk.

The photo is cropped. I cannot answer your question for that reason.

 

[LdiJ]

I apologize. I didn't mean to have you equate my statements with a requirement. I only said to answer some tough questions... pretty please. With a cherry on top of a giant ice cream sundae.

Thank you for apologizing but you didn't entirely understand my point. You came to a free advice site. Instead of taking whatever advice you find here that you feel is useful to you, you are arguing with the volunteers...and being a bit arrogant about it. That doesn't make a volunteer inclined to go the extra mile to research something for you.

I never said it meant they'd lose. Do not read my statements with any bias. I'm Pro Se not an idiot. JDs get "hometowned."

I don't think anyone here knows for sure what you mean by "hometowned". We can kind of guess, but we don't know for sure. It is not a normal legal definition. Also, I certainly wasn't applying any bias to your statements. I was taking them at face value.

I said it meant they'd not want to continue because the costs outweigh the benefits. I wasn't declared vexatious and they spent time and money which was not recovered, more money than what they wanted to. The settlement was cost management. So, it is a lose-lose for them.

To most legal professionals, a settlement in those circumstances is considered a "win/win" not a "lose/lose". I know nothing about your case therefore I have no opinion as to whether they offered you a settlement because they thought they would lose, or they offered you a settlement to just make the case go away. I do know however, that most attorneys who offer a settlement just to get you to go away tend to try to squash you like a bug if you refuse a reasonable settlement, and they generally succeed.

 

[0p3ns0urc3s]

The photo is cropped. I cannot answer your question for that reason.

This is the exact exhibit submitted at trial. It's all public info.

Would you say the cropped photo is dated? What about,
"... dated the day after the alleged incident..."?

If you were handed this exhibit at trial then would you regard it as "dated the day after the alleged incident..."?