"Additionally, Wagners' points on appeal are nearly incomprehensible..."
lol
An exact quote.
The presiding judge, Foley, also wrote: "Wagner's concise statement [note: in the Opening Brief] of the case fails to set forth the nature of the case ..."
However, in the Opening Brief, in the first section entitled
Concise Statement of the Case, fourth paragraph following introductory material, it reads:
"During the course of the 'trial' appellant Linda M. Wagner was arrested and removed from the courtroom pursuant to a warrant issued earlier by judge Nakamura,the trial court judge herein, which in turn was based upon the criminal lies of WBGI's primary agent Francik to a grand jury that heard only from him regarding his false claim of wrongdoing. ... both Wagners were precluded from exercising any of their due process rights to a fair civil trial, as detailed
infra."
Presiding Judge Foley was not the original presiding judge. When the appeal was filed in mid 2009, the presiding judge assigned was Judge Craig Nakamura (no relation to the trial court Judge Greg Nakamura), and for the past two years he has been reviewing the case. However, one month ago he issued a terse one sentence statement recusing himself from further review of the appeal. Accordingly, Judge Foley was assigned, and a few weeks later issued the above dismissal of the appeal, with his comment that he wasn't able to comprehend that we were complaining that we did not have a trial in the usual sense of the word (both sides present, not just one side as was the case).
Apparently, the statement that the appellants did not receive a trial, because they were arrested and removed from the courtroom pursuant to the same judge's order, was not comprehensible to this new judge, or barely so. Apparently, he did not wish to entertain the concept that a trial court judge would deny a trial to parties, and so simply dismissed the appeal.
The appeal itself goes into great detail about how the plaintiff's agent lied to a grand jury in order to arrange an arrest warrant, that the trial court judge is the same one who issued the arrest warrant, and that the two of them contrived in advance of the civil "trial" to have the defendant/appellants arrested and removed from the courtroom so they could not participate in the "trial". That is likely the 'reason' the first judge recused himself, and the second presiding judge claimed it was "nearly incomprehensible". C'est la vie.
Incidentally, that prosecution based on the lying to the grand jury was dismissed and the dismissal is final, as of about 1 year ago, and the filing of suit against the liar in federal court was within a 1-year statute of limitations that started running upon finality of the dismissal.
And yes, this simply begs for Certiorari, which application therefor will be filed in the next 90 days.
And yes, this is also the subject of the separate Federal complaint that was filed to recover the amount of the "judgment" that was obtained by that criminal activity, etc.
And Mr. Richard Penner, you are engaged in libel when you re-publish false and defamatory information about other people. You are warned. Your constant linking to previously established false and defamatory links is not privileged conduct. If in doubt, don't republish, and if it appears defamatory, it is both false and defamatory.
But what do any of your postings, and my refutations thereto, have to do with the thread, which is about the LHC case. Nothing.
