There is a difference in not having a judge rule in your favor and having your rights to substantive and procedural due process criminally violated. Judgment corruptly entered, (and for your information, even the judge in the original action cannot point to a document that is a final judgment) are not valid and void ab initio. Why would so many other public officials be obstructing justice if my allegations had no merit? Why would the state appellate courts refuse to give me a hearing on a petition for a writ on mandamus if my claims were not valid and conclusive? Wouldn't it be easy enough to simply give me the hearing to which I am entitled to as a matter of law if I was wrong on either the facts or the law?
A reasonable person would have to conclude that something is amiss, wouldn't they? Do you dare to presume that there are no corrupt and dishonest judges? What kind of libertarian are you. if you believe all judges are honest?
A reasonable person would have to conclude that something is amiss, wouldn't they?I know nothing about your case except what you posted some time ago, which I don't remeber that well, so I have no opinion on the subject either way.
Do you dare to presume that there are no corrupt and dishonest judges?
No; where did I say that?
What kind of libertarian are you. if you believe all judges are honest?
I made no statement either way as to the validity of your claims; what are you getting so excited about?