tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1585157153245458789.post2341318514661393907..comments2023-11-05T00:23:53.904-07:00Comments on Splittsville Appeals: How to Lose An AppealWOLFGANG P. HIRCZY DE MIÑO, PH.D. (Political Science)http://www.blogger.com/profile/04426363428778875666noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1585157153245458789.post-18081713503139547142009-10-24T11:22:47.141-07:002009-10-24T11:22:47.141-07:00After denial of review of the Sanchez Family Case ...After denial of review of the Sanchez Family Case by the Texas and U.S. Supreme Courts, a federal lawsuit was filed in San Antonio. <br /><br />The pleadings in this federal case are available for review at Justia at http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txwdce/case_no-5:2009cv00106/case_id-346234/<br /><br />There were federal questions raised by the state courts handling of this case, and which needed to be addressed. The courts at every level refused to properly address the constitutional complaints. In essence, that the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth amendment are invoked in proceedings that impact a parents fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children. The state courts violated this right by circumventing rules of procedure and the law to achieve desired results. <br /><br />Given federal abstention doctrines, sovereign immunity, absolute judicial immunity, and relevant case law, there was never any delusion of actually prevailing in a federal lawsuit such as this. However, the complaints were properly preserved and valid, the case had standing, and it offered a plausible legal theory for the relief sought.<br /><br />The main objective of the suit was to compel an answer to the allegations and establish for the record these judges are unable to rebut the allegations against them as false. The complaint included an electronic copy of the entire record on appeal to offer the judges an easy opportunity to rebut the allegations against them as untrue. <br /><br />Surely any judge with an ounce of integrity unfairly accused of wrongdoing would stand up and defend themselves. Not in this case. Beyond hemming and hawing and general denials, the judges all pled for their right to absolute judicial immunity, which was granted.<br /><br />It is interesting the San Antonio federal court did not even minimally suggest the defendant judges were innocent of violating a parents rights of due process. The magistrates report stated all the defendant judges appeared to accept the allegations against them as truthful.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18079932003461374986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1585157153245458789.post-66815928246150040602009-10-24T10:37:32.684-07:002009-10-24T10:37:32.684-07:00The San Antonio Fourth Court of Appeals (Justices ...The San Antonio Fourth Court of Appeals (Justices Stone, Angelini, and Hilbig) unethically misrepresented the facts in this case and sugarcoated their Opinion in Sanchez v Sanchez in order to affirm the Seguin trial court. It is of interest Stone and Angelini were overturned in the Lenz v. Lenz case.<br /><br />This was a divorce custody case launched with a heavily financed legal blitz by an attorney well known for unethically manipulating the law. One who initiated the divorce with temporary protective orders alleging everything from abuse to murder conspiracies. The first hearing on temporary orders for custody conveniently coincided with the protective order hearing. The circus in court resulted in highly unfavorable temporary orders until the allegations could be resolved. This was played up as an out of control Hispanic husband and docile Anglo wife. A husband who was also an engineer at Motorola. Once this ball started rolling it did not seem to matter any more to the Seguin courts whether or not the evidence against this father later proved otherwise. <br /> <br />The central issue on appeal is that Judge Linda Jones of Seguin made a finding of "uncontroverted evidence of abuse" against a parent in a child custody case. This to leverage rulings on conservatorship and relocation she could not have otherwise done. <br /><br />When Judge Jones findings of abuse were challenged, she refused to address them. All she was asked to do was to take any instance of alleged abuse, address this in the context of the applicable statutes on abuse and the preponderance of the evidence, and state why her finding of abuse should stand. Just one good argument and case over. A no brainer if the evidence is good…<br /><br />Judge Jones did not attempt to support her findings because it couldn't be done. <br /><br />The reason is that her "uncontroverted evidence of abuse" was contradicted by CPS who reviewed the same evidence and stated there was no evidence of abuse in this family. <br /><br />The reason is court appointed psychologist Dr Shelley Probber of San Antonio stated there was no evidence of abuse. <br /><br />The reason is the trial transcripts had 35 references to the term abuse, and not a single one of these asserted abuse against the father. Most of these cites were made by opposing counsel trying her darndest to inferentially extrapolate abuse from meager circumstantial evidence. <br /><br />The reason is that not even the childrens therapist gun-for-hire retained by opposing counsel, and who "counseled" the children for eighteen months, could stand up and assert abuse, or offer any hearsay from the children to indicate abuse. <br /><br />In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the COA ignored all evidence that contradicted the trial court findings, with no indication such evidence even exists! This contrary to Texas Supreme Court mandates arising from City of Keller. <br /><br />The COA went on to state there was sufficient evidence of abuse in the record, while carefully avoiding specifics to support this. <br /><br />The COA suggested a retired SAPD officer offered evidence of abuse. But exactly what evidence was not mentioned. The transcripts show he was a backyard neighbor whose only evidence was that he once overheard the father yelling at his children to go inside the house while mowing the lawn. That was it! The COA failed to note that on cross he accepted this could have been the result of a safety concern because the children were running around the lawn mower. <br /><br />Although this was a pro se appeal, this father was fully represented through trial by attorneys who are now a district judge and the district attorney in Seguin. <br /><br />So if the above facts are truthful, can anyone argue the COA did not improperly rubberstamp the trial court? Make a couple of cracks at a pro se appeal, and case closed. <br /><br />Heck, no one will be the wiser of what actually happened behind closed doors in the San Antonio Court of Appeals… <br /><br />or will they?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18079932003461374986noreply@blogger.com