Intent

So I had an iteresting conversation the other day about my case. It brought up a few issues I had not thought of.

"Chris, forget that they admit in the depositions to home invasion and substance use to induce a sexual act."

"Okay" I replied.

"They brought a tape recorder to a meeting with your mother in law and used it to defame you, your wife and your mother who had nothing to do with this case."

"Yes but I was told in Arizona you can use a tape recorded conversations in court."

"Yes if a law enforcement agency has a warrant or it is a random taped converstion. But the lawyer coached them what to ask and used it is a way to attack you without giving you the ability to cross examine or object. The intent was to submit as testimony without giving you your legal rights. But let's put that aside for a bit."

"Okay"I replied.

"What is the maxium amount of an arbitration settlement in Arizona...it is $50,000 and yours was $54,000 plus correct?"

"Yes."

"It means that the attorney overseaing the laws for the case who was there on the behalf of Maricopa County was incompetent. He did not know the law so the County negligent. The attorney that represented you never contested the amount and even though he tried to severe at your divorce he was still obligated to inform the county the amount was illegal. Udall Shumway did not represent you correctly."

"Okay"

"The date rape attorney you will never see a dime from, they always hide the money in family name. He made no effort to change the dollar amount so he was guilty as well. Your job is to get these three disbarred and get restitution."

So that is where I stand.