Protesting Injustice One Member at a Time
Fight Back or Forever Hold Your Peace
By: Rich Bergeron
In the face of injustice we must always fight back, no matter what the odds. In fact, in the legal realm if you can prove the odds are stacked more against you than they should be, it helps your case in the long run. If you have to appeal some ruling and can show the docket plainly illustrates the discrimination against you and unfair treatment, any fair court of appeals consideration will have to rule differently than the presiding judge.
It is said that a good lawyer should never move to recuse a judge. I have found it to be a catch-22. In regards to my experiences with Xyience, my request for recusal lit a fire under the judge and in the long run may have helped me, but it's very hard to tell. The Iacovelli situation could not have produced better results in response to a recusal motion. Lucille's timing has been perfect. She has caught the judge in a compromising position, and Supreme Court precedent does not allow for any other party to be subject to a judgment in this matter other than Lucille, and she is not responsible for most of the newly created sites in support of her position. Myself and Frank De Groot are. A recusal motion brought with good cause (the charges must be more than local court favoritism. There usually has to be some insider connection or business relationship to a crucial party interest) can be very powerful in one of two ways:
It can inspire the judge's ire against you and lead him or her to rule against you in a discriminatory and angry manner...OR....
It can let the judge know you are aware of his or her insider relationships and the fact that any decision he or she makes will therefore be subject to appeal if he or she does not step down.
Either way, it can help you find a way to win if you get under the judge's skin in a righteous way by knowing the law and what really constitutes a judge's duty to recuse him/herself.
Judge Barker reacted exactly how most people who feel affronted do. She shot back with negativity of her own, and she proceeded to make a linear set of decisions that solely favored the plaintiff based on thin, indefensible grounds. Without thinking Iacovelli would appeal, she ruled as if she owned the court system in Indiana and could do what she pleased to Iacovelli despite the record's lack of evidence in this case and the fabricated circumstances that led to the initial TRO. She let hate get the best of her and strayed from the jurisprudence of precedent cases and the definitive law on the issues at hand. Yet, worst of all, her latest entry thumbs her nose at the appeals court and centuries of Supreme Court Precedent as if she alone is powerful enough to over-rule all that and over-ride the guarantees of the First Amendment itself.
Judge Barker is supposed to be smarter than this. She is supposed to be a well-respected judge in her community as one newspaper editor told me when I called about the case trying to find some info on the judge's background. So why would she fly off the handle in this situation and try to make herself look foolish? Well, as a judge she has an ego and is used to getting her way. However, most judges HATE being overturned by an appeals court. Lawyers who practice regularly before certain judges usually do as little as possible to rub the judge the wrong way, even if doing so might help their client. It's one of the inherent "games" lawyers must play to work the system in their favor. The goal is to make the judge's job easier, not harder. However, even if you are not going to be back before that judge again you still have to be respectful and do things right. Still, there is a little more leeway for the pro-se litigant in a foreign state or federal district court to take steps to keep the judge honest without having to worry about the next case.
You have to be a little unconventional as a pro-se attorney, and I think at the same time you have to be unpredictable and capable of surprising the crap out of the other side by getting everything right about the process and putting forward flawless legal paperwork for the Court's review. Lawyers for the opposition will take advantage of every technicality they can. They will move to exclude evidence, they will call things "untimely," and they will try to keep you as disadvantaged as you can be. Most of all they will try to drag things out if they can get away with it. Don't ever threaten a lawyer with a long legal battle. That's what they like, because every hour they work means another handful of hundred dollar bills. You have to tell the opposing party himself if you want to promise to go full bore and never stop, and only do that if you think finances might be an issue in the long run. If money is not an obstacle for your opposition, you will need a lot more than luck and determination. You will need to work harder, and you will need to have a clear cut strategy.
In Lucille's case, I have sent multiple letters, some of which could have been damaging to Lucille's case but all of which promise only to take appropriate legal action and report the truth in a massive Online campaign to shed light on this story. The following is an example of my handiwork:
"Ms. Schneeman,(The Judge's Clerk)
Please inform Judge Barker that Lucille will file a Writ of Mandamus to the 7th Circuit (similar to this: http://www.tulanelink.com/legal/mandamus_99a.htm) to recuse her if she does not voluntarily step down. Also, I have attached a digital copy of Lucille's appeal brief which should be arriving at the clerk's office Wednesday.
Finally, Judge Barker's recent entry represents an actionable offense considering she seeks to deny a black and white issue of costs vs. income based on her erroneous belief that she can do no wrong. If anything, this behavior constitutes plenty of justification for the registration of www.judgegod.com to describe Judge Barker's misconduct. Even her 7th circuit precedent uses the word "to sue" and it is not designed to apply to an appeal of an injunction.
Judge Barker is unequivocally off base and in complete agreement with everything the plaintiff has tried to claim. The record reflects this in her denial of every single request Iacovelli has made since the granting of her telephonic appearance at the first hearing. Judge Barker only continues to show that she is biased and this is now personal to her. The Writ of Mandamus will be more specific, but suffice it to say that some of the matter from the original recusal motion and the description of her bias in the ongoing appeal (see brief) will be part of the argument.
Judge Barker's behavior has moved beyond coincidental or unintended misinterpretation of the law. It is now crossing over into willful and malicious territory. Pending the results of the appeals process, significant grounds exist upon which to file a civil rights action against Judge Barker and others engaged in what is a clear campaign to destroy what remaining quality of life Lucille has in order to falsely reward and help wipe the record clean of a doctor who committed a grave error that permanently disabled a woman. As a director of Clarian Health Care Partners, Inc. and as a direct actor in support of that company's ends, Barker is acting in such a manner that makes Clarian itself at least vicariously liable.
This action will be brought on behalf of myself in Massachusetts, and it will be made airtight by any application of sanctions to me or improper seizure of my computer or anything else of mine without due cause. Judge Barker is at odds with more than a few citizens here who care about their free speech. She is thumbing her nose at the Supreme Court itself and centuries of precedent cases which not only show that she can do wrong and has done so, but these precedents also show that she is 100 percent wrong and overwhelming case law (not "hornbook" law) proves it. As predicted, Judge Barker will destroy herself if she continues this behavior. She has already taken such steps to undermine her own character and credibility without any need for Lucille or her detractors to embellish or stretch the truth in any way. In short, her actions have made a fool of herself by her own accord. How does she think the 7th Circuit is going to take her comments about doing no wrong after reading the attached appeal? Will she ever apologize if it is determined that she can and did do wrong? She is only digging herself deeper into a hole she will never get out of reputationally, because she is committing character assassination against herself. For her own sake, she should listen to reason and stop this blatant discriminatory behavior or step off this case.
Lucille and all her supporters will only continue to champion the truth, and for that we cannot be punished."
This letter was in response to Judge Barker's most recent entry in the case.
Judge Barker really does seem to think she's God, and the above ruling proves that beyond a doubt and is the best evidence a person in this situation can have to prove bias. She has effectively told the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (who will see this entry now because a Writ of Mandamus to that court for recusal of Barke) that she can't be wrong and they might as well not bother to analyze this case at all. It's simply not possible for her to be so wrong according to her own on-the-record statements. Yet, in reality, she is in for a rude awakening.
In the long run, Lucille's case will prove that it sometimes really is worth fighting back no matter how hard it is to grasp the process and how long it takes to get justice.
Stay tuned and follow along at eppleyplasticsurgerysucks.com. We're waiting for Judge Barker's next outrageous move and hoping she doesn't take Friday off.
In the face of injustice we must always fight back, no matter what the odds. In fact, in the legal realm if you can prove the odds are stacked more against you than they should be, it helps your case in the long run. If you have to appeal some ruling and can show the docket plainly illustrates the discrimination against you and unfair treatment, any fair court of appeals consideration will have to rule differently than the presiding judge.
It is said that a good lawyer should never move to recuse a judge. I have found it to be a catch-22. In regards to my experiences with Xyience, my request for recusal lit a fire under the judge and in the long run may have helped me, but it's very hard to tell. The Iacovelli situation could not have produced better results in response to a recusal motion. Lucille's timing has been perfect. She has caught the judge in a compromising position, and Supreme Court precedent does not allow for any other party to be subject to a judgment in this matter other than Lucille, and she is not responsible for most of the newly created sites in support of her position. Myself and Frank De Groot are. A recusal motion brought with good cause (the charges must be more than local court favoritism. There usually has to be some insider connection or business relationship to a crucial party interest) can be very powerful in one of two ways:
It can inspire the judge's ire against you and lead him or her to rule against you in a discriminatory and angry manner...OR....
It can let the judge know you are aware of his or her insider relationships and the fact that any decision he or she makes will therefore be subject to appeal if he or she does not step down.
Either way, it can help you find a way to win if you get under the judge's skin in a righteous way by knowing the law and what really constitutes a judge's duty to recuse him/herself.
Judge Barker reacted exactly how most people who feel affronted do. She shot back with negativity of her own, and she proceeded to make a linear set of decisions that solely favored the plaintiff based on thin, indefensible grounds. Without thinking Iacovelli would appeal, she ruled as if she owned the court system in Indiana and could do what she pleased to Iacovelli despite the record's lack of evidence in this case and the fabricated circumstances that led to the initial TRO. She let hate get the best of her and strayed from the jurisprudence of precedent cases and the definitive law on the issues at hand. Yet, worst of all, her latest entry thumbs her nose at the appeals court and centuries of Supreme Court Precedent as if she alone is powerful enough to over-rule all that and over-ride the guarantees of the First Amendment itself.
Judge Barker is supposed to be smarter than this. She is supposed to be a well-respected judge in her community as one newspaper editor told me when I called about the case trying to find some info on the judge's background. So why would she fly off the handle in this situation and try to make herself look foolish? Well, as a judge she has an ego and is used to getting her way. However, most judges HATE being overturned by an appeals court. Lawyers who practice regularly before certain judges usually do as little as possible to rub the judge the wrong way, even if doing so might help their client. It's one of the inherent "games" lawyers must play to work the system in their favor. The goal is to make the judge's job easier, not harder. However, even if you are not going to be back before that judge again you still have to be respectful and do things right. Still, there is a little more leeway for the pro-se litigant in a foreign state or federal district court to take steps to keep the judge honest without having to worry about the next case.
You have to be a little unconventional as a pro-se attorney, and I think at the same time you have to be unpredictable and capable of surprising the crap out of the other side by getting everything right about the process and putting forward flawless legal paperwork for the Court's review. Lawyers for the opposition will take advantage of every technicality they can. They will move to exclude evidence, they will call things "untimely," and they will try to keep you as disadvantaged as you can be. Most of all they will try to drag things out if they can get away with it. Don't ever threaten a lawyer with a long legal battle. That's what they like, because every hour they work means another handful of hundred dollar bills. You have to tell the opposing party himself if you want to promise to go full bore and never stop, and only do that if you think finances might be an issue in the long run. If money is not an obstacle for your opposition, you will need a lot more than luck and determination. You will need to work harder, and you will need to have a clear cut strategy.
In Lucille's case, I have sent multiple letters, some of which could have been damaging to Lucille's case but all of which promise only to take appropriate legal action and report the truth in a massive Online campaign to shed light on this story. The following is an example of my handiwork:
"Ms. Schneeman,(The Judge's Clerk)
Please inform Judge Barker that Lucille will file a Writ of Mandamus to the 7th Circuit (similar to this: http://www.tulanelink.com/legal/mandamus_99a.htm) to recuse her if she does not voluntarily step down. Also, I have attached a digital copy of Lucille's appeal brief which should be arriving at the clerk's office Wednesday.
Finally, Judge Barker's recent entry represents an actionable offense considering she seeks to deny a black and white issue of costs vs. income based on her erroneous belief that she can do no wrong. If anything, this behavior constitutes plenty of justification for the registration of www.judgegod.com to describe Judge Barker's misconduct. Even her 7th circuit precedent uses the word "to sue" and it is not designed to apply to an appeal of an injunction.
Judge Barker is unequivocally off base and in complete agreement with everything the plaintiff has tried to claim. The record reflects this in her denial of every single request Iacovelli has made since the granting of her telephonic appearance at the first hearing. Judge Barker only continues to show that she is biased and this is now personal to her. The Writ of Mandamus will be more specific, but suffice it to say that some of the matter from the original recusal motion and the description of her bias in the ongoing appeal (see brief) will be part of the argument.
Judge Barker's behavior has moved beyond coincidental or unintended misinterpretation of the law. It is now crossing over into willful and malicious territory. Pending the results of the appeals process, significant grounds exist upon which to file a civil rights action against Judge Barker and others engaged in what is a clear campaign to destroy what remaining quality of life Lucille has in order to falsely reward and help wipe the record clean of a doctor who committed a grave error that permanently disabled a woman. As a director of Clarian Health Care Partners, Inc. and as a direct actor in support of that company's ends, Barker is acting in such a manner that makes Clarian itself at least vicariously liable.
This action will be brought on behalf of myself in Massachusetts, and it will be made airtight by any application of sanctions to me or improper seizure of my computer or anything else of mine without due cause. Judge Barker is at odds with more than a few citizens here who care about their free speech. She is thumbing her nose at the Supreme Court itself and centuries of precedent cases which not only show that she can do wrong and has done so, but these precedents also show that she is 100 percent wrong and overwhelming case law (not "hornbook" law) proves it. As predicted, Judge Barker will destroy herself if she continues this behavior. She has already taken such steps to undermine her own character and credibility without any need for Lucille or her detractors to embellish or stretch the truth in any way. In short, her actions have made a fool of herself by her own accord. How does she think the 7th Circuit is going to take her comments about doing no wrong after reading the attached appeal? Will she ever apologize if it is determined that she can and did do wrong? She is only digging herself deeper into a hole she will never get out of reputationally, because she is committing character assassination against herself. For her own sake, she should listen to reason and stop this blatant discriminatory behavior or step off this case.
Lucille and all her supporters will only continue to champion the truth, and for that we cannot be punished."
This letter was in response to Judge Barker's most recent entry in the case.
Judge Barker really does seem to think she's God, and the above ruling proves that beyond a doubt and is the best evidence a person in this situation can have to prove bias. She has effectively told the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (who will see this entry now because a Writ of Mandamus to that court for recusal of Barke) that she can't be wrong and they might as well not bother to analyze this case at all. It's simply not possible for her to be so wrong according to her own on-the-record statements. Yet, in reality, she is in for a rude awakening.
In the long run, Lucille's case will prove that it sometimes really is worth fighting back no matter how hard it is to grasp the process and how long it takes to get justice.
Stay tuned and follow along at eppleyplasticsurgerysucks.com. We're waiting for Judge Barker's next outrageous move and hoping she doesn't take Friday off.
Views: 47
Comment
About
Welcome to
SucksSite.com
Photos
Videos
Forum
Who Sucks? Tell us who really sucks in your book 2 Replies
Started by Rich Bergeron. Last reply by Seawitch Artist Nov 15, 2009.
Gripe Site Discussion
Started by Rich Bergeron May 9, 2009.
Trademark Discussions
Started by Rich Bergeron May 9, 2009.
CONTACT US
If you have any suggestions for this site or want to contact the founder Rich Bergeron, email boxer_47@yahoo.com or rich.bergeron@gmail.com.
© 2024 Created by Rich Bergeron.
Powered by
You need to be a member of SucksSite.com to add comments!
Join SucksSite.com