The next day, 4-2, I let the secretary know I would not be in attendance. I ALSO send a letter to Atkins, Hill, and a few different councilmembers that I had decided not to attend the briefing on the courts. I explained, in THIS letter to Atkins and other councilmembers, that I would not be lured into a kangaroo council like a kangaroo court--a council that would stage a coup like I had seen staged against ME in the court. The council in large part is not concerned with doing what is right. They, like the admin judge, share an interest in protecting the city and those that work for it rather than any interest in doing right by people. They know and have been aware of any number of schemes the court has employed against me in retaliation for mine blowing the whistle on how I was mistreated by judges and as a tactic to try protecting courts who staged a coup in my case. one of these schemes involved in my case conveying false messages to others about what happened in my case, such as propagating the message that I have been habitually unwilling to follow the rules--probably with the hopes of brainwashing people into thinking that if he has have been unwilling to follow rules, his testimony is probably incredible. They could cover up and counter the allegations of judicial misdeeds and misconduct that I have made by discrediting my testimony and then arguing that the judges and prosecutors who participated in my case did no wrong, despite my reports/motions to the contrary. It does not bother the council that the court employed this scheme upon learning of the legitimate reports of misconduct in the courts I had seen. It has not concerned the council to hear how certain top level judges, prosecutors and high level clerks working on behalf of judicial leadership have repeatedly flouted the law and engaged in the kinds of unprofessional and unethical actions I have described. It does not bother them that clerks, judges and prosecutors have not apologized for bad behavior, unprofessional actions and misconduct. It does not bother them that (because I have spoken out about bad court practices) judges have tried to avoid their blameworthiness by pointing a finger at me, mischaracterizing me and then approving of various court members (brainwashed by judicial mischaracterizations) implementing policies and engaging in behavior designed to cover up past misconduct, hide future discovery of misconduct engaged in by judges and prosecutors, and harass me--both inside and outside the courtroom. The reasons these things do not bother the council is because they are so prejudiced in favor of a court and pre-trial program specifically designed and put into place to settle more cases, reduce the number of trial settings and hence achieve monetary gains for the city. Like judges, they know the pre-trial program is so good at accomplishing its goals because it repetitively engages in judicial and prosecutorial behavior that unfairly prey on the vulnerabilities of pro se defendants ignorance of the law (and their impressionability by prosecutorial influence) to short cut procedural rules to intimidate defendants into settling their cases with the city. Because they are interested in maintaining the appearance of integrity for a system that is becoming more proficient and efficient in raising revenue by reducing trial settings by the day, they are willing overlook/condone, the serious problems and misactions the courts have committed against a citizen of Dallas, like I have reported. They are willing to deny or overlook any of the unethical or illegal means that the courts use to accomplish the ends of a reduction in trial settings and lawsuits and also increases in settlements and fine payments by defendants. They are immobilized from taking action or entertaining legitimate complaints like mine, because such would cast a spot light on the dark mistakes and problems in our courts and possibly reflect badly upon their choices of a new court leadership and pretrial program. Indeed, they, like the court itself is concerned with appearances of integrity--with becoming less responsive to complaints, less open and transparent. They are willing to overlook the mis-practices that the court engages in without the public knowing, because they may favor the judge who was appointed to implement policies and procedures to accomplish these goal the council envisioned for the courts. And they have repeatedly sent first assist city manager AC over to make changes in the court to make it appear problems in the courthouse are being fixed when in actuality he is sent to invent policies or practices that make it more difficult for defendants to defend themselves against the city and that cover up future and past wrongdoing--just as certain high level clerks in the open records department and administrative judges of court have done. I therefore declined to speak at council on Wed 4-3-13 on what I had planned to talk about because it was obvious that what Atkins was alluding to when he told me wed just put this behind us. The case pending, anything could happen. The mayor could say this isnt the proper venue to make complaints (which I could debate); The council--and its staff--like the city staff had done in the court--could and most likely gang up on or take advantage of my lack of knowledge to publically discredit me, reinvent the past, alter and/or reinterpret court documents however they wanted.
Posted on: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:32:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015