This Judge is lying too.
This rule provides for additional material by a pro se person. It says "in a criminal case" but that includes dependency. It's all in the same housing department. It's not a "civil" case. A civil case is totally different. A dependency case is basically a case accusing a parent of crime against a child.
It's not "civil". It's also not an "administrative hearing".
This Judge is already deliberately blocking me from entering anything into the record that supports and strengthens my argument or allows me the ability to enter supplemental and additonal evidence for review.
The law firm put forth an argument I did not consent to, and then acts like my additional evidence doesn't support their argument.
NO, not exactly. Not as is, because they deliberately narrowed the appeal to one issue, when more than one issue should have been raised. They kept out the other issues to have an excuse for not entering the evidence needed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment