민사 | 사혁원장 진리의 법창야화 [496]
페이지 정보
스승관련링크
본문
사혁원장 진리의 법창야화 [496]
뻔뻔스러운 1심판사의 주장 - "판사들의 공모 등 부패의 가능성은 미국이 더 높다"에 관련하여 [12]
오늘까지 영문 소송장 일부의 발표를 일단 마치고 다음 이 소연재에는 해설을 하겠다. 그리고 나서 서류 다른 부분을 발표할까 한다.
“Then, very outrageous and weird thing happened at the next. The Justice C of the State Court of Appeal at that time made more serious error and that error is factual error rather than legal error. The factual error was not made by Judge C in trial court. But C made the factual error at this time, as decided as I actually received Exhibit H in January of 1999. That was completely wrong. In fact, I received the backdated notice as January of 1999 (3 month forgery) in April of 1999 and I showed that evidence together with non-backdated cover letter to G. And G included it in his legal paper as Exhibit H in a confusing and ambiguous manner and then C mis-believed it was received by me in January of 1999 not in April of 1999 and that was provided by me to G. Really shocking erroneous perception!!! It became even more outrageous and weird that R committed the second forgery, 7 ½ year forgery, again in 2006!!!! Based on that obvious factual error via the psychological erroneous perception of C and the other two appellate justices made me lost two cases. In addition, if C really discovered and believed that I was lying that I did not receive Exhibit H in January of 1999, he did not need to consider whether Judge C made a legal error or not. After making the factual error, C just made some perfunctory and redundant and unnecessary legal discussions and concluded that C made no error either. However, it is still as obvious that C made a legal error regarding statute of limitation, etc. as it is obvious that C made a factual error regarding Exhibit H. Then, what happened? G refused to admit since February of 2005, though he knows everything, but he refused to tell the truth until now for many many years. Why? It is because of the conspiracy with R! …. I still believe there has been conspiracy between G and R until now. Even from the October or November of 1999 until now that conspiracy is still continuing and there are many evidences why the conspiracy was made and how the conspiracy is still continuing. If there had been no conspiracy or if there was no conspiracy any more, G already admitted his mistakes including his ambiguity.” It is to be continued to the next paragraph.
“Now, let me describe one of the reasons, or one of the clues, evidences, or one of the motives why G came to make conspiracy with the adverse attorney R, according to my best estimation and belief. Even if it happened 9 years ago, it is still critically important and will help the criminal prosecution at least against R. That conspiracy has been just between G and R only rather than also with Tursugians (defendants in BC///), and the purpose of their conspiracy is to save just R from that case while remaining Tursugians with a lot lighter liability. At that time, about November of 1999, I already found that the case would be a fantastic case after discovering R’s procedural omission pursuant to law code, and it may be expressed as “one of the most fantastic cases in the world” according to the way of expression of G. Still I am believing so. And then I demanded G to add R as one of the defendants while explaining R’s procedural problem in the foreclosure procedure pursuant to the law code. After then, G made conspiracy with R; and through that conspiracy, G planned to protect R only actually by weakening the case itself also against Tursugians. And G kept mocking me and making fun of me while saying, “It is not a good case. It is not one of the most fantastic cases in the world. It is not one of the greatest cases in the world” many times. Especially, whenever I complained he did not add R as one of the defendants, he repeated to mock me and made fun of me, his own client, with that phrase, “It is not one of the most fantastic cases in the world,” and so on. It is a very humiliating and very mocking utterance. One of the motives for the conspiracies may be G feared R as a defendant. A few times, G said that if he added R as one of the defendants, R would sue G and me with malicious prosecution. This fear including the fear of being sued by R was one of the factors that led G to conspiracy, because G felt I was weak and R was strong; so he chose to conspire with R rather than helping me and accepting my demand. Another motive for the conspiracy was some monetary or quasi monetary compensation from R. Since I kept demanding to add R as one of the defendants, G promised to do it. However, finally he betrayed my demand on the complaint and of course I grieved about that and he again he would add R as a defendant later but he resigned instead of keeping his promise. And in order to exonerate R through conspiracy with R, G made that kind of ambiguous expression in the sentence in the complaint. But eventually his choice was wrongful, that is, G made the wrong and extremely unconscionable choice. …. ”
That is right! One lie produces a lot of more lies, and one conspiracy produces many more conspiracies. Also discovery of later lie or conspiracy is the evidence for the previous lies or previous conspiracies. “One lie produces many lies over time” is the basic idea and structure of Related Case. In addition, this is the time to reveal the true facts and the lies and conspiracies to the world!
Here, let us add a brief statement about discovery on C. Plaintiff desired to reinstate Forgery Case with this new evidence from C. And then, Eric W. S (hereinafter, “S”) from Judicial Council of California started to send a letter to Plaintiff on 7/1/2009. Plaintiff attempted to talk with S a few times and finally could talk as shown in letter dated 8/28/2009. And then, additional correspondences continued on 9/15, 9/18/, 9/21/2009. Though S in behalf of C indicated some legal cases while refusing admission of C’s factual error or other help from C, in fact the status of those cases have been caused by C’s factual error. Through his refusals of admission of C or any other expression of regret to Plaintiff, Plaintiff became to believe stronger and stronger of dereliction of duty for justice, conspiracy with H, judicial corruption, and so on. At this time, Plaintiff expects C will respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests without objection after filing this instant case, though C also might avoid to accept simple admission in many ways as G has done until now. But this type of behaviors of G and C will be additional stronger evidence for their derelictions of duty for justice, conspiracy with R, judicial corruption, and so on.
동서문화원 원장/ 사법혁신원 원장/ 납세자보호센터 회장 이 진 213-482-1805
[계속]
또 다른 연재, “사혁원장 진리의 인용/사설”은 오늘은 쉽니다.
저희의 페이스북에 저희의 글들을 찾아볼 수 있으니 들르세요. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=149736875073602#!/notes.php?id=100000018391388
중앙일보 블로그에도 있으며, 거기에서 동영상/ 음악도 감상하세요.
http://blog.koreadaily.com/media.asp?med_usrid=mentor2
뻔뻔스러운 1심판사의 주장 - "판사들의 공모 등 부패의 가능성은 미국이 더 높다"에 관련하여 [12]
오늘까지 영문 소송장 일부의 발표를 일단 마치고 다음 이 소연재에는 해설을 하겠다. 그리고 나서 서류 다른 부분을 발표할까 한다.
“Then, very outrageous and weird thing happened at the next. The Justice C of the State Court of Appeal at that time made more serious error and that error is factual error rather than legal error. The factual error was not made by Judge C in trial court. But C made the factual error at this time, as decided as I actually received Exhibit H in January of 1999. That was completely wrong. In fact, I received the backdated notice as January of 1999 (3 month forgery) in April of 1999 and I showed that evidence together with non-backdated cover letter to G. And G included it in his legal paper as Exhibit H in a confusing and ambiguous manner and then C mis-believed it was received by me in January of 1999 not in April of 1999 and that was provided by me to G. Really shocking erroneous perception!!! It became even more outrageous and weird that R committed the second forgery, 7 ½ year forgery, again in 2006!!!! Based on that obvious factual error via the psychological erroneous perception of C and the other two appellate justices made me lost two cases. In addition, if C really discovered and believed that I was lying that I did not receive Exhibit H in January of 1999, he did not need to consider whether Judge C made a legal error or not. After making the factual error, C just made some perfunctory and redundant and unnecessary legal discussions and concluded that C made no error either. However, it is still as obvious that C made a legal error regarding statute of limitation, etc. as it is obvious that C made a factual error regarding Exhibit H. Then, what happened? G refused to admit since February of 2005, though he knows everything, but he refused to tell the truth until now for many many years. Why? It is because of the conspiracy with R! …. I still believe there has been conspiracy between G and R until now. Even from the October or November of 1999 until now that conspiracy is still continuing and there are many evidences why the conspiracy was made and how the conspiracy is still continuing. If there had been no conspiracy or if there was no conspiracy any more, G already admitted his mistakes including his ambiguity.” It is to be continued to the next paragraph.
“Now, let me describe one of the reasons, or one of the clues, evidences, or one of the motives why G came to make conspiracy with the adverse attorney R, according to my best estimation and belief. Even if it happened 9 years ago, it is still critically important and will help the criminal prosecution at least against R. That conspiracy has been just between G and R only rather than also with Tursugians (defendants in BC///), and the purpose of their conspiracy is to save just R from that case while remaining Tursugians with a lot lighter liability. At that time, about November of 1999, I already found that the case would be a fantastic case after discovering R’s procedural omission pursuant to law code, and it may be expressed as “one of the most fantastic cases in the world” according to the way of expression of G. Still I am believing so. And then I demanded G to add R as one of the defendants while explaining R’s procedural problem in the foreclosure procedure pursuant to the law code. After then, G made conspiracy with R; and through that conspiracy, G planned to protect R only actually by weakening the case itself also against Tursugians. And G kept mocking me and making fun of me while saying, “It is not a good case. It is not one of the most fantastic cases in the world. It is not one of the greatest cases in the world” many times. Especially, whenever I complained he did not add R as one of the defendants, he repeated to mock me and made fun of me, his own client, with that phrase, “It is not one of the most fantastic cases in the world,” and so on. It is a very humiliating and very mocking utterance. One of the motives for the conspiracies may be G feared R as a defendant. A few times, G said that if he added R as one of the defendants, R would sue G and me with malicious prosecution. This fear including the fear of being sued by R was one of the factors that led G to conspiracy, because G felt I was weak and R was strong; so he chose to conspire with R rather than helping me and accepting my demand. Another motive for the conspiracy was some monetary or quasi monetary compensation from R. Since I kept demanding to add R as one of the defendants, G promised to do it. However, finally he betrayed my demand on the complaint and of course I grieved about that and he again he would add R as a defendant later but he resigned instead of keeping his promise. And in order to exonerate R through conspiracy with R, G made that kind of ambiguous expression in the sentence in the complaint. But eventually his choice was wrongful, that is, G made the wrong and extremely unconscionable choice. …. ”
That is right! One lie produces a lot of more lies, and one conspiracy produces many more conspiracies. Also discovery of later lie or conspiracy is the evidence for the previous lies or previous conspiracies. “One lie produces many lies over time” is the basic idea and structure of Related Case. In addition, this is the time to reveal the true facts and the lies and conspiracies to the world!
Here, let us add a brief statement about discovery on C. Plaintiff desired to reinstate Forgery Case with this new evidence from C. And then, Eric W. S (hereinafter, “S”) from Judicial Council of California started to send a letter to Plaintiff on 7/1/2009. Plaintiff attempted to talk with S a few times and finally could talk as shown in letter dated 8/28/2009. And then, additional correspondences continued on 9/15, 9/18/, 9/21/2009. Though S in behalf of C indicated some legal cases while refusing admission of C’s factual error or other help from C, in fact the status of those cases have been caused by C’s factual error. Through his refusals of admission of C or any other expression of regret to Plaintiff, Plaintiff became to believe stronger and stronger of dereliction of duty for justice, conspiracy with H, judicial corruption, and so on. At this time, Plaintiff expects C will respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests without objection after filing this instant case, though C also might avoid to accept simple admission in many ways as G has done until now. But this type of behaviors of G and C will be additional stronger evidence for their derelictions of duty for justice, conspiracy with R, judicial corruption, and so on.
동서문화원 원장/ 사법혁신원 원장/ 납세자보호센터 회장 이 진 213-482-1805
[계속]
또 다른 연재, “사혁원장 진리의 인용/사설”은 오늘은 쉽니다.
저희의 페이스북에 저희의 글들을 찾아볼 수 있으니 들르세요. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=149736875073602#!/notes.php?id=100000018391388
중앙일보 블로그에도 있으며, 거기에서 동영상/ 음악도 감상하세요.
http://blog.koreadaily.com/media.asp?med_usrid=mentor2
작성일2012-07-12 14:23
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
