One of the most frustrating aspects of dealing with the courts was they never addressed one point made during the briefings.  Yes, they wrote a lot of words but those words always ignored the arguments and instead talked exclusively about things the courts made up themselves.  Or they wrote a lot of words in order to sidestep important and relevant questions.  Here is one of many such instances, just in my case. 

The appellate court spent a lot of words in their decision pretending that I claimed to have a three-year contract with the company.  What I really claimed and what the court never addressed was that the company and I had an agreement and if one or the other did not like the agreement then the party that wanted out had to terminate the agreement. 

What makes this an obvious case of lawyer lies is that after I realized the trial court had misread the complaint[1], I pointed out to the appellate court that the phrase the trial court was fixated on was an explanation of why I chose to work for $99,000 a year instead of working for a company that paid $170,000 a year but only had 4 months’ worth of work.  I explained the phrase they wanted to discuss, instead of addressing the real issue, was there to show why I was willing to work for $99,000 a year even though I had just finished working for a company that was paying me at the rate of $117,000 a year, but at the time I took that job, only had 9 months left on their contract.  I explained in court documents that I took less money working for Serco because working for a company with a 3 year government contract was worth more to me than working for 4 months and then having to go look for work again. 

Having knowledge that the reference to a 3 year contract was addressing the contract between the Serco and the government but not wanting to address the real issue, the appellate court wrote something that was true but deceptive.  They wrote, “Thomas asserts in the Complaint that in the course of negotiations. he was told that “the period of performance of the contract was for 3 years’.” Conveniently, the court leaves out that the period of performance was between Serco and the government.  Later they quoted the trial court:

“In this case, [Thomas] claimed that Serco hired him for a minimum of three years”

No where in the complaint and definitely not in any subsequent filing had I ever claimed to have a 3 year contract.  The appellate court knew this and knew that the trial court had misread the complaint and still used the quote as if it were true.  Using something they knew was wrong, just because it fit their political philosophy, and doing it in order to hide that they were avoiding the real issue, constitutes a case of activist judges using deceptive lawyer lies.  We do not need activist judges and liars should not be appointed for life.  We need to join together to stop lawyer’s colluding together to make one contested election a lifetime appointment.  The public deserves the opportunity to replace those judges that use lies in order to make up laws.    

No Activist Judges

 

[1] The reference the trial court misinterpreted was in my complaint.  It read Serco, ““having full knowledge of the contract between SERCO and the US Air Force, Plaintiff was told that the period of performance of the contract was for 3 years.”.  Clearly, the reference talks about the contract between Serco and the Air Force.   

 

Related articles,

Lawyers Colluding to stop democracy

 Employment Relationship

 Lawyer Logic

Judicial Evasiveness cost you $1 billion in wasted taxes