The rant was epic and filled with rage for what happened to him in family court.
And I understood.
Evidences weren't admitted, the judge "didn't listen", and it felt like the whole system was only interested in helping someone if they were harmed in a physically violent way.
Reading his post, I could spot the inconsistencies right away. Before having taken the legal course, I would have seen this and felt just as blind-sided, just as angry.
Here was my response:
OK. A few things.
What I'm about to tell you is based on the information in a self-help legal course that I'm taking. I now promote it as a solution for every non-lawyer as it cuts through many of the things we previously have learned and or experienced for ourselves in court.
I'm not a lawyer. I'm not giving you legal advice. I'm just sharing what I've learned.
- Police reports, under the right conditions, are not hearsay. I know this because one was just used by a friend of mine in court to dismiss his entire case.
- There are rules to court procedures and rules that control judges. Most of us have never learned them (they should be teaching this in elementary and high school!)
- All evidences to be submitted must be "verified". That means that the evidences submitted must be able to be cross-examined by the other party during a trial if one was to happen. The rules of "verified" vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Example: a police report from another state, without the police officer available to say "yes I wrote that" could be considered hearsay. A police report from your own jurisdiction could be admitted with or without that depending on the rules and it's considered "verified." There's more too this and not enough space to explain.
- Affidavits are not allowed in court unless the court can question the person who wrote it. Some will allow them if they're notarized. Again, the rules vary.
- Visitation to the child and contact with the parent are two separate issues in the legal sphere. They shouldn't be always -- OK? I get it. But that's the rules. And the judge has to abide by the rules. (Logically, they could just explain this but many legal professionals just don't -- which is another reason why the course I'm taking is so instrumental.)
- Subpoenas only happen at certain stages of the court processes and procedure. If it is the wrong time and under the wrong conditions, it won't be granted. This is why they weren't issued.
- Court processes are different than "the law" but they both work together to accomplish goals. If not done correctly, nothing happens.
Now that I have better understanding of these things, I've come to learn that it's not that the law doesn't "care". It's that has to follow what's on the books and only what's on the books.
Where that fails, there is remedy.
Again, most of us aren't taught this at all. It's not what we want to hear. Personally, though I want to know how to navigate these things they way they are in their current forms because those are the only "rules" the court listens to or plays by.
You can get the gist of what some of his issues were by simply reading through the lines. And of course, I couldn't give him the exact steps to solve the situation. First, I don't have all the details and second, I don't want to give legal advice.
What I replied to the young man, is simply just a smidgen of the treasure you'll find in this legal course. You need to get it yourself and start learning.
Get the keys to justice: http://www.keystojustice.com