Spencer Circuit Case 90-CI-0070
Partitioning Case
Library
of Congress Copyright No.
TX4-487-022 1 Apr 1996
TX4-558-085 11 Jun 1997
TX4-640-452 22 Dec 1997
by Robert Hedges -
90-CI-0070 JUDGMENTS
CI-0070 J Saunders Comment on
Recuse Motion 15 Jan 1991 |
CI-0070 Special Judge Assigned (1)(2)Order Assigning J Breslin 9 Jan 1991 |
CI-0070 Special Judge Assigned (1)(2) Order of J Hinton
Assignment 20 Mar 1991 |
CI-0070 Dale Motion to strike
Defendant's Answers - Nov/Dec 1990 | [
Comment HEDGES - any valid legal defense based on law cannot
become invalid based on the whim of an opposing litigant ]
CI-0070 Dale Status Report (1)(2) wording changed on indivisibility here -
2 Apr 1991 |
CI-0070 Dale Pretrial Conclusions (1)(2) Indivisibility
by expert witness 25 Apr 1991 | [ Comment
HEDGES - this document directly misleads an absentee court. It
claims that the record and counsel's statements make the 100
acres appeal indivisible to the court. This court has developed
no record at this time, nor does the opposition counsel ever have
authority to testify to support their own allegations, except
under oath with cross examination. The desire to substitute
"expert testimony" for the reasoning of the KY Supreme Court is
frivolous, and demands a Rule 11 sanction.]
CI-0070 Dale Notice of Deposition
1 May/10 May 1991 |
CI-0070 Dale letter rent
tobacco to Foreman
15 May 1991 |
CI-0070 Dale letter late rental
of tobacco
22 May 1991 |
CI-0070 Dale letter rental of
tobacco
4 June 1991 |
CI-0070 Dale Motion for Judgment
and Order of Sale 22 Aug 1991 |
CI-0070 Dale Reply to Answers & Defenses (1)(2)(3) 26 Sept 1991 | [
Comment HEDGES - this document again claims that the statute
designates indivisibility, and implies that forced sale is
protective of the constitutional right to just compensation by
implying that a public auction is demanded by law. ]
CI-0070 Dale Motion to Dispurse
Funds 17 Jan 1992 |
CI-0070 Dale letter to J Hinton
Pltf Reply to Deft Motion 19 Feb 1992 | [
Comment HEDGES -this letter to Judge Hinton contains Skinner v
Morrow, which raises the issue of fees from a litigant who seeks
to enforce "unwarranted claims". here is another example of a
Rule
11 violation, along with a violation of The American Common Law
Rule. Counsel Dale misled the court by citing an "off point"
case with a
vague
ruling. The reason behind the rule in the cited case was Rule
37.03 ( & Rule 41), which is the Liar Pays Rule. In the HEDGES
case no hearing has yet reached the adversarial state, in which
facts are disputed and evidence taken by testimony to prove who
lies about truthful facts accurately pled.
]
CI-0070 Dale Reply (1)(2) 21 Feb 1992 | [
Comment HEDGES -this pleading included Maynard v Boggs, a
partitioning case, for which no issue was raised on appeal about
the indivisibility of the property, or the use of expert
testimony when any thrifty shopper can compare prices. The issue
in Maynard was whether appraisal is required in KY for
partitioning, which skips past the issue of a factual
determination of actual value of property, which defies
constitutional just compensation requirements. ]