Difference between revisions of "Faux Process And Rubber-Stamped Orders"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
(username removed) |
(username removed) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
So what happened here? How could a judge simply sign parental rights away at the drop of a hat, without notice or a hearing? This is what I call “faux process” (contra to “due process”) and what many attorneys refer to as a “rubber-stamped” order. The formula for this injustice is as follows: | So what happened here? How could a judge simply sign parental rights away at the drop of a hat, without notice or a hearing? This is what I call “faux process” (contra to “due process”) and what many attorneys refer to as a “rubber-stamped” order. The formula for this injustice is as follows: | ||
(1) First, a judge holds a hearing. | (1) First, a judge holds a hearing. <br> | ||
(2) Then at the hearing, the judge makes an oral ruling and tells the attorney for the "winning party" to draft a proposed order for the judge to sign. | (2) Then at the hearing, the judge makes an oral ruling and tells the attorney for the "winning party" to draft a proposed order for the judge to sign. | ||
(3) The drafting attorney then inserts wording awarding additional remedies that were not part of the judge's oral ruling nor within the scope of the hearing. | (3) The drafting attorney then inserts wording awarding additional remedies that were not part of the judge's oral ruling nor within the scope of the hearing. | ||
(username removed)