Help support TMP


"Contempt of Court " Topic


6 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to The Law Plus Board


285 hits since 3 Aug 2011
©1994-2013 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

show some respect for women Inactive Member03 Aug 2011 4:08 p.m. PST

Anyone care to venture how many days in jail this . . . attorney will rack up with this beginning to his brief?


TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 9TH
CIRCUIT,

. . . .

Plaintiff **** hereby petitions for rehearing and rehearing
en banc pursuant to F.R.A.P, 35 and 40.

This proceeding involves several issues of great importance, including several Constitutional issues that are of first impression nationwide. Issues so important that the United States of America intervened into the case to defend them.

1. Paul Hupp's Petition For Rehearing And Rehearing en
Banc Case: 08-56403 06/21/2010 Page: 1 of 9 ID: 7380345


Second, let Plaintiff make this very clear hear and now at the beginning of this petition- this Court is now on notice that public will no longer tolerate violations of the Constitution, by the Congress or the judges/judiciary that think they can rig the system, violating basic constitutional rights (such as due process of law) and engage in these acts with impunity.

Plaintiff has news for these slime ball, piece of Bleeped text, ass clown judges (Bowie, Canby, Thomas and Fletcher-this means you) that think they are going to rig the system and railroad the poor and innocent- such as blocking the discovery process so the poor cannot defend themselves,
commit perjury in their orders and a host of other constitutional violations, and do it with impunity that is simply not going to happen in this case. You Bleeped texters are now on notice. The facts of this case are going to come out, one way or the other. Remember that bitches.

The Court failed to address three (3) areas (the first of which is the most important, the Constitutional violations, questions of first impression nationwide);

1) Constitutional Violations;
2) Misconduct And Dirty Hands Of State Licensing Agency-California Commission On Teacher Credentialing; Dirty Hands Of Loan Holder Engaging In Fraud, Loan Holder Forcing Default; 3) Judicial Misconduct By Judge Bowie.

As stated earlier, the Court will address these issues ,or there will be civil unrest. Civil unrest that is going to start at the doorsteps of the slime ball, piece of Bleeped text judges that thought they were going to violate the constitutional rights of the innocent and poor with impunity.

When the Courts don't follow the law, then there is no law. With no 1aw you have nothing but anarchy and chaos, and then it is just a battle for survival. If that is what this Court wants, then that is what is is going to get.

This Court better remember that, because it is a fact of history, and nothing is going to change that. The decision of this Court on June 7, 2010 is a disgrace that is simply not going to stand opposed with impunity for the slime ball judges who wrote that decision.

Sorry my text recognition software had a lot of trouble with this court record so it may not be word for word and I did edit it a bit.

I will say this, the guy really likes the word "impunity".

Personal logo Saber6 Supporting Member of TMP Fezian03 Aug 2011 4:17 p.m. PST

Which Bar passed him?

show some respect for women Inactive Member03 Aug 2011 4:20 p.m. PST

California IIRC

DesertScrb Supporting Member of TMP03 Aug 2011 4:22 p.m. PST

The court didn't sanction the attorney, according to the third comment on this blog post: link

Dude has issues. The morbidly curious can read the entire nine-page petition here: PDF link

show some respect for women Inactive Member03 Aug 2011 4:35 p.m. PST

I have just been told this guy is acting pro se, he has a J.D. He is a famous pro se litigant, who sues (and appeals) every entity that ever Bleeped textes him off, including the California State Bar Assoc.

This is just one opinion. Source will not be disclosed. I cannot say with any certainty if any of the above is actually true.

Farstar Supporting Member of TMP05 Aug 2011 3:16 p.m. PST

California

Ah yes. We defunded our Bar Association Ethics Office over a decade ago. Stuff like this has been getting more common as a result.

Sorry - only trusted members can post on the forums.