Rule of Law Radio Archive Search Engine

So if he fails to properly apply the law to the facts, you show the law, you show the facts,

and charge him with violating a ministerial duty, the duty to apply the law to the facts,

that law. The appeals court does that. So if he fails to apply the law to the facts,

If he fails to accurately apply the law to the facts,

has a ministerial duty to apply the law to the facts so that when they do apply them differently,

We reverse and remand. If he abused his discretion to the point that it required a reverse and remand, he failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

But if I say the judge violated a ministerial duty in that he failed to properly apply the law to the facts, now for that charge, if it is proved out, the judge won't have immunity.

duty to correctly apply the law to the facts in the case. The appeals court are

properly apply the law to the facts, he's personally liable, that it's a violation of

The first thing you do is admonish the judge that the judge only has authority to apply the law to the facts.

If he fails to properly apply the law to the facts, you can't sue him for that.

For the decision he makes that doesn't properly apply the law to the facts.

However, he violates a ministerial duty to properly apply the law to the facts, and that you can sue him for.

And you can also disqualify him for that, for failing to properly apply the law to the facts.

failed to apply the law to the facts, he can be sued.

And actually the reason that would work is because the judge is violating his magisterial duty to apply the law to the facts of the case.

And it also notices the judge as the judge fails to adequately apply the law to the facts,

he's there to do is apply the law to the facts.

If he fails to properly apply the law to the facts, he has violated a ministerial duty relating to his office and denied you

and apply the law to the facts

and doing what I'm going to be doing, I am looking for every spot where the judge fails to apply the law to the facts.

Yeah, you've got to bring him the law and the facts, and he must apply the law to the facts.

He must apply the law to the facts

Violation of ministerial duty to apply the law to the facts, it doesn't matter if he thinks it's an opinion

then if he renders a ruling that fails to apply the law to the facts,

No, no, you're not moving to have him removed from office. You file a judicial conduct complaint. The magistrate has a duty to apply the law to the facts, and he developed the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence and apply the law as it comes to him to those facts.

And if the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts, file a judicial complaint

If a judge renders a ruling that fails to apply the law to the facts, he violates the ministerial duty relating to his office

to apply the law to the facts and that violating its duty of his office

The judge has a duty to apply the law to the facts.

Now what you might be able to do is go after the judges for failure to apply the law to the facts.

No. You might be able to sue the trial judge for failing to apply the law to the facts.

This is a duty over which he has no discretion to apply the law to the facts in the case.

If you can show that he failed to apply the law to the facts,

He failed to apply the law to the facts.

for failing to file or apply the law to the facts.

And the judge, the same way, when the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts,

They have to apply the law to the facts.

The judge only has the power to apply the law to the facts.

The judge may only apply the law to the facts.

than the other three, then either on the three or the one he has failed to apply the law to the facts

And then the judge must apply the law to the facts in the case.

and then apply the law to the facts.

As to case law on that specific, on the failure of the judge to apply the law to the facts,

That's where you file failure to apply the law to the facts.

If they fail to apply the law to the facts, you need to hammer them.

Third thing I would do, tort letter to the judge for breaching of ministerial duty to apply the law to the facts.

is on your side the law says what he's supposed to do he failed to apply the law to the facts

close at going back after the judges when they fail to apply the law to the facts because everybody's

where the court fails to apply the law to the facts then you can file a judicial conduct

will put the judge in a position where it's to his benefit to apply the law to the facts

If he failed to apply the law to the facts, he breached a ministerial duty.

Find a bark rivets against you. If the judge fails to apply the law to the facts

And show the grand jury that by failing to grant you your remedy, by failing to apply the law to the facts, he denied you in your right to the equal protection of the laws and to petition for redress of grievance.

And we have, every time a judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts,

Okay, then you're looking at an appeal, and you might look at a judicial conduct complaint against the judge if he failed to apply the law to the facts

But the judge must apply the law to the facts as it comes to him. So you have to give him the law

Absolutely. It changes the whole landscape. And I'm considering picking up a couple of these that I can adjudicate myself. And when I can get the federal judge to render a ruling that fails to apply the law to the facts, then I go to a state grand jury and ask them to

If the judge fails to apply the law to the facts, the lies that comes to him to the facts

If he fails to do that, you don't sue him for the decision that he made but for failing to apply the law to the facts.

determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence and apply the law to the facts as it

traffic court like Julius was and the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts.

So if a judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts, that is his only job for crying

And if you can show that this judge failed to apply the law to the facts, then you ask him to disqualify himself for incompetence.

You want to find each place where the court has failed to apply the law to the facts.

You understand their weaknesses. And the other weakness, if the judge fails to apply the law to the facts,

Court in the instant case did not hear the pleading, but rather acted in violation of its ministerial duty to apply the law to the facts.

So when the judge renders a ruling that is fails to apply the law to the facts, we need to file a judiciary to come to a complaint against him.

Judges have a certain amount of discretion and they have to apply the law to the facts. But once they've done that within that, they have a reasonable degree of discretion and that's what we want to play to.

The judge, the court has a duty to apply the law to the facts.

If the judge failed to apply the law to the facts and in the process denied you in the due course of the law, so that's a crime in Texas.

But failing to apply the law to the facts. So he has a duty to establish the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence, and he failed to do so.

is if he renders a ruling that fails to apply the law to the facts.

and then failing to apply the law to the facts

If the judge failed to apply the law to the facts and denied you in your right, he committed a crime

Okay, the judge has a duty to apply the law to the facts.

then apply the law to the facts.

The judge hearing the habeas can't have an opinion about the law. He must apply the law to the facts.

That ought to be fun going after him. Failing to apply the law to the facts. Yeah, the law

and then apply the law to the facts. That's a ministerial duty. Not for the decision that

accordance with the rules of evidence, and then apply the law to the facts in the case.

in accordance with the rules of evidence and apply the law to the facts of the case. And

And now they have to apply the law to the facts. This guy claimed to sign for this company.

But the judge has a duty to apply the law to the facts.

Correct. So if a ruling by a judge is not necessarily void, they tend to be voidable if the judge failed to determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence, then apply the law to the facts as it comes to him.

then apply the law to the facts as the law comes to him.

Then the judge failed to apply the law to the facts.

determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence, then apply the law to the facts that comes to him.

then apply the law to the facts as it comes to him.

then apply the law to the facts as it comes to him.

you take the facts and apply the law to the facts and show how the court is compelled

then how to apply the law to the facts that are presented to the court.

support where you take the facts and apply the law to the facts.

facts in accordance with the rules of evidence and apply the law to the facts.

Then you need to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the court, file a judicial conduct complaint against the judge for failing to apply the law to the facts in the case, which is a ministerial duty, not a duty over which he has discretion.

The trial judge must determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence and apply the law to the facts as it comes to him.

apply the law to the facts as it comes to him.

then apply the law to the facts as the law, sorry, back up a second.

what you can say is is that the court failed to apply the law to the facts in this manner

these were the facts these were that this was the law the court failed to apply the law to the facts

The only thing you can do in legal matters is provide the facts and apply the law to the facts.

You're to apply the law to the facts as it comes to you.

and apply the law to the facts as it comes to him in the case.

No, the appeals courts' job is to apply the law to the facts

Then they must apply the law to the facts in the case to show why the judge is required by law to give you the ruling that you request.

apply the law to the facts as they come to him, then he needs to get out off that bench

in accordance with the rules of evidence to apply the law to the facts that comes to you in the case.

We've already given the facts. Now we go in and apply the law to the facts and show how these facts

determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence and apply the law to the facts as the law comes to him.

We were talking about the judge's duty to apply the law to the facts.

Now you put in the facts, you apply the law to the facts, you say they did this, this

So now you apply the law to the facts.

So their only duty is to determine the facts and apply the law to the facts.

They monitor all these judges to make sure that they properly apply the law to the facts.

Every one of them are doing exactly the same thing, failing to apply the law to the facts

And the judge is there to determine the facts and apply the law to the facts

Okay. File a motion for new trial in that accuse the judge of judicial misconduct for not allowing a challenge to the validity of the warrantless seizure and arrest and thus a challenge to his judicial incompetence and failure to apply the law to the facts by refusing to allow you to introduce an affirmative defense.

and they fail to apply the law to the facts, they render rulings that are improper,

evidence. Then you apply the law to the facts and get that in the record. You want your facts and

Disqualify her for failing to apply the law to the facts.

I will be writing some complaints against the judges for failing to apply the law to the facts here in the relatively near future

Trial court is there to determine the facts and apply the law to the facts.

And then they're going to look at the law that's before the trial judge and apply the law to the facts.

himself another agenda and he fails to apply the law to the facts I'm going to

But the judge has to apply the law to the facts.

So, yeah, if your ruling fails to apply the law to the facts

refused to apply the law to the facts

If the judge fails to apply the law to the facts,

But you can also try to seek a disqualification if you can find proper grounds to show that the judge is refusing to apply the law to the facts in the case, et cetera, et cetera.

that the judge failed to apply the law to the facts, I'm charging the judge criminally.

By failing to apply the law to the facts

The very last thing the judge will read is his duty to determine the facts and apply the law to the facts.

And then I quote this. So, I'm demanding that the court apply the law to the facts. Now,

Whatever the judge thinks at the moment, I want my judge to rule on statute, apply the law to the facts and let the law bring about justice

The judge doesn't, if you have reason to believe the judge did not apply the law to the facts

You have a right to have the judge determine the facts and apply the law to the facts.

If I can, like I have a district judge now that rendered a ruling where he failed to apply the law to the facts.

And the case law that I found says that if a judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts, that it is a due process violation.

And not attacking his ruling, you're charging him with failure to apply the law to the facts

You say he failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

Okay, I have some Texas case law and some federal case law that says if the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts, that is a due process violation subject to extraordinary remedy which is writ of mandanus.

And this is a tool I'm beginning to use so that every time a judge fails to, in my opinion, fails to properly apply the law to the facts, I'm going to appeal to a grand jury and indict him.

If you fail to properly apply the law to the facts in the case, the case law says that's

In Texas, we have under the rules of civil procedure rule 297. 297 says that if a judge shall properly apply the law to the facts.

So you could ask a higher court for real mandamus to order the judge to properly apply the law to the facts.

It has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts.

So all you want to do is get the facts on the record and the law in the record and ask the court to properly apply the law to the facts.

Just apply the law to the facts and we'll go to the appellate court and straighten all this out.

I've got a case law that says that if a judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts

because when they fail to properly apply the law to the facts, I have case law that says

And when the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts filed criminally against

For failing to apply the law to the facts

But you can claim that he failed to properly apply the law to the facts

And I got case law on that that says a failure on the judge to properly apply the law to the facts

Okay, what the case law says, essentially some case law on this, and it says that a remedy for a judge who fails to properly apply the law to the facts is an extraordinary writ.

against the judge when the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts.

But is it trial to find and determine the facts and then apply the law to the facts?

fails to properly apply the law to the facts, that is a due process violation.

Because the code says, if a judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts, that is a due process violation.

Every time the judge rules in a way that you perceive does not properly apply the law to the facts, you can file a criminal against the judge.

The law says that it is a due process violation for a judge to fail to properly apply the law to the facts.

i.e., properly apply the law to the facts.

must bring the law to the court. Then the court must properly apply the law to the facts.

fails to properly apply the law to the facts, that's a due process violation. If a judge

must perform is to properly apply the law to the facts if he fails to do so. I say,

apply the law to the facts and give you a just adjudication. He had two mock trials.

He has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts.

They take the facts and apply the law to the facts.

If you properly set the record for appeals, good chance you'll win in the trial court because the judge is required to apply the law to the facts.

Because he failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

apply the law to the facts that are properly before the court. That's all they do. They

And then they will apply the law to the facts. The judge is supposed to do that. That's his job.

Because the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts

That a judge has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts

To order the municipal court to read the documents and properly apply the law to the facts

The judge must properly apply the law to the facts. Failure to do so is a due process violation

that the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts because he didn't read the

I've got case law that says that it is a due process violation for a judge to fail to properly apply the law to the facts.

You ask a higher court to order the lower court to properly apply the law to the facts.

Duty to apply the law to the facts.

They have to know how to properly apply the law to the facts.

I have some case law that says that it is a due process violation for a judge to fail to properly apply the law to the facts.

Let's appeal to a grand jury to indict the judge for failing to properly apply the law to the facts.

And in fact, part of my strategy is to entice the judge into failing to properly apply the law to the facts so that I can file criminal charges against him.

The court does not apply the law to the facts.

He must properly apply the law to the facts.

I think two-thirds of the people listening to me are saying these guys never apply the law to the facts.

If the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts, I have case law that says that is a due process violation.

If the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts, you go after the judge personally, criminally.

If a judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts he denies you to do process,

They don't have to know a thing about the law. And if the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts, it's a narrative to just do this.

then apply the law to the facts that are in the case and come to a proper adjudication.

When he fails to apply the law, to properly apply the law to the facts,

But we got this interesting case law that says a judge has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts.

properly apply the law to the facts and in the process denies you in full free access

failed to properly apply the law to the facts

Well, if the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts

The judge has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts.

him to apply the law to the facts and render you a ruling. Once you get that ruling, that

but you are required to properly apply the law to the facts.

And if you refuse to demonstrate how you apply the law to the facts,

that gives me reason to believe that you did not apply the law to the facts.

Go back, read a mandamus, ask the trial court to order that judge to properly apply the law to the facts and file criminally against the judge for that with the court of appeals.

properly apply the law to the facts. Okay says a judge has no discretion in

So since he didn't properly apply the law to the facts in your motions and

supports your claim that he failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

And since you have reason to believe that the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts, what Jacqueline V. Chambers says,

So where did the judge fail to properly apply the law to the facts in his rulings?

A judge has no discretion in failing to properly apply the law to the facts

to properly apply the law to the facts.

And what it says is, is a judge has no discretion in failing to properly apply the law to the facts of failure.

If your ruling fails to properly apply the law to the facts, and if you get a motion that has issues in it and you fail to rule on any of those motions or any of those issues,

And the first time the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts, file a criminal against the judge, and do that as a matter, of course,

for failing to apply the law to the facts.

has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts.

That's what I'm doing now is the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts, I'll

He must apply the law to the facts, and under the law, the primary element of any transportation

Instead, he must determine the facts, then apply the law to the facts, so once all the facts are determined, the only thing left is law.

Apply the law to the facts

Anytime I have reason to believe that the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts,

blah, blah. Then the judge has essentially failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

about it that way. A judge has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts, a failure to do so

Failing to properly apply the law to the facts and in the process denied you in full free access to or enjoyment of a right.

If a judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts,

apply the law to the facts and in the process denied you in the full and free access to

required to perform specifically in that he failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

instant case, failed to properly apply the law to the facts and therefore denied defendant

say it? Yes. So where the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts. When

you state that the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts, you have to show

but if they have failed to properly apply the law to the facts, you can also appeal

So, what cases, Ralph, did you find that required the court to properly apply the law to the facts?

facts. So, when we show that the judge did not properly apply the law to the facts,

cases that require a judge to properly apply the law to the facts, we have case law that says that

with failing to properly apply the law to the facts. Okay.

properly apply the law to the facts and he has a duty to provide you with due

apply the law to the facts and fail to do so, it's a breach of abuse of discretion,

If the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts and in the process denies you

I did say that the judge failed to apply the law to the facts of the case and I did say

appeal to properly apply the law to the facts

you can find are binding, and when a judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts,

So you want to see how he did that because if he fails to properly apply the law to the facts,

Okay, that's that's what's required. You say your honor, the court ruled on this issue this way. And based on this case law, we believe that the court failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

The judge has no, see, a judge has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts of

Official misconduct and because he failed to apply the law to the facts of the case.

and the discretion does not properly apply the law to the facts,

Job is to apply the law to the facts, if the legislators place to construct the laws so

Okay, so the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts and denied the defendant

So file criminal charges against the judge for failing to properly apply the law to the facts.

then you go to the judge for failure to apply the law to the facts.

Then charge the judge with failure to apply the law to the facts.

Yes, and in the case when you charge him with failure to apply the law to the facts,

fails to properly apply the law to the facts,

could show that the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts, then you could

And when the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts, file a criminal against

Did you file criminal charges against the judges for failing to properly apply the law to the facts?

They say yes, it spits out a criminal complaint against the judge for failing to properly apply the law to the facts.

When the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts,

If you believe that the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts, file a criminal complaint against him with the grand jury.

And when the judge fails properly apply the law to the facts.

Their failure to properly apply the law to the facts was an abusive discretion and a crime against you and at the dial of due process.

And use that record to show where the appellate court, once again, just like the trial court, failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

Yeah, and accuse them of failing to properly apply the law to the facts. We need to find a California case on that subject.

I got all that, John. I got all that. The only thing that has been added to anything at all about the case is how each court has failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

The only thing that needs to be addressed in addition to what was originally addressed in the case is the failure of each court to properly apply the law to the facts.

You should charge the judge with failing to properly apply the law to the facts and ask the grand jury to determine if he denied the litigant due process.

Sting him, yeah, file criminal charges against him, accuse him of denying you due process in that he failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

Where do you charge the judge with failure to apply the law to the facts of the case, et cetera, et cetera, what you just said?

They are required to apply the law to the facts

And if the judge did apply the law to the facts

That he did not apply the law to the facts

Cause to believe that the judges did not properly apply the law to the facts

By failing to properly apply the law to the facts

fails to properly apply the law to the facts.

They did not apply the law to the facts.

Well, not the fact that it's nonjudicial. The fact that the judges do not apply the law to the facts.

Judge has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts, if he fails to do so, that's

Oh, failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

When the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts, then ask the judge to accuse

So what we're saying is, is that the judges fail to perform their duty to properly apply the law to the facts.

And they did not properly apply the law to the facts.

Judges are there to properly apply the law to the facts.

properly apply the law to the facts.

File against the judge for failing to properly apply the law to the facts.

failing to apply the law to the facts when the judge either a does not address the judicial

fails to apply the law to the facts that judge is guilty of perpetrating fraud upon the court

Yeah, so the judge has no discretion in properly applying the law to the facts, and that's where we want to take him, when he doesn't show that he properly applied the law to the facts, that creates the adverse inference that he did not properly apply the law to the facts.

Because the court did not apply the law to the facts

municipal or jp court that judge has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts that the

court is a inferior court is irrelevant the requirement to apply the law to the facts does

But you might try filing criminal charges against the court of appeals, claiming that they failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

and tell them that these are not proper complaints, but the district attorney failed to do so and then the complaints were presented to some magistrate who had a duty to properly apply the law to the facts

properly apply the law to the facts or and in the process deny you full free

So if you can show that the judge failed to apply the law to the facts, even if you don't

Every, the only purpose of the judge is to apply the law to the facts.

grievance in that he failed to properly apply the law to the facts and in the process,

If you send me an email, ask me for the case law that requires a judge to properly apply the law to the facts.

for every issue he failed to properly apply the law to the facts on.

Then you file a criminal against the judge for failure to properly apply the law to the facts.

And he's going to tell you that. However, the judge does have a duty to properly apply the law to the facts.

that creates the adverse inference that the judge did not apply the law to the facts.

The judge has a duty to apply the law to the facts. And you have that is a due process right that you have.

Well, that creates the adverse inference that he did not properly apply the law to the facts.

Or failing to properly apply the law to the facts.

However, they are required to properly apply the law to the facts, and if they refuse to

And it also creates the adverse inference that the judge did not properly apply the law to the facts.

but it's a crime if the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts he denies you do

is to properly apply the law to the facts.

they would fail to properly apply the law to the facts and in that case, they would commit

I want my judge to properly apply the law to the facts, and that's it.

They have to take what's brought before them and properly apply the law to the facts.

apply the law to the facts. Okay. I will find the letter because they just, it's

the judgment failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

ruled failed to properly apply the law to the facts and giving the judge opportunity

Did you fail to properly apply the law to the facts and in the process,

for failing to properly apply the law to the facts.

the facts and apply the law to the facts and that's all. If you expect your system to

properly apply the law to the facts the fact is you challenge subject matter

Then you file criminal charges against the judge for official misconduct, for failing to apply the law to the fact, to failing to properly apply the law to the facts.

But if the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts

He rendered a ruling that he absolutely knew did not properly apply the law to the facts.

Okay, class A, that's what I saw. It's just like a judge that fails to apply the law to the facts of the case, right?

For failing to apply the law to the facts.

Failing to apply the law to the facts.

That speaks to the duty of a judge to properly apply the law to the facts.

He didn't apply the law to the facts of the case.

but the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts and in the process abused his discretion.

You can't appeal his ruling because in order to appeal his ruling, you have to tell the court that the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

that you believe he failed to properly apply the law to the facts. He applied it this way.

failing to properly apply the law to the facts and in the process to not have been full and free

abuse of discretion, where the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

The judge is up there to properly apply the law to the facts, if he is unable to do that

that it was his duty to apply the law to the facts.

Oh, so they know this. So if you accuse the judge of failing to apply the law to the facts, I am certain I just haven't had time to research it.

Where you claim that the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts and you ask the appellate court to correct the error.

So you take your lawsuit and you adjust it as these are the facts presented to the court. This is the law and this is how the court should apply the law to the facts

Now, they're supposed to get past their humanness and apply the law to the facts, but we're still humans at the end of the day.

For failing to properly apply the law to the facts, Packer v. Walker, is that right, Brett?

You want them to misapply the law to the facts. We have a case in Texas Walker v. Packard.

Determine the facts in accordance with the rules of evidence, then properly apply the law to the facts as the law comes to him.

If a public official has failed to properly apply the law to the facts,

And where the judge has failed to properly apply the law to the facts, go after him criminally.

You take them to the law and when they refuse to properly apply the law to the facts,

In Packer v. Walker, a judge has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts and he

Because the way I'm reading the code is the judge has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts and he doesn't do that.

That's the part we got to fix when the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts

apply the law to the facts. So that kind of contradicts what I said about a court of record

and then apply the law to the facts in the case.

he is required to properly apply the law to the facts

that he did not apply the law to the facts and based on that adverse inference you can accuse him

They're required to properly apply the law to the facts.

What they're required to do is properly apply the law to the facts.

That's the judge refusing to apply the law to the facts, except for one problem.

If you believe that elements aren't in place, to direct the judge to properly apply the law to the facts, and reverse this ruling, or develop the evidence they need to support the ruling.

to apply the law to the facts?

Because the judge is refusing to apply the law to the facts.

especially where the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts, that's his job.

Or reconsideration and show how she failed to apply the law to the facts and how you maintain

and show how she failed to apply the law to the facts and how you maintain she should apply the law.

Oh, did she- did you read the order? Did she properly apply the law to the facts?

properly apply the law to the facts and you ask the trial the appeals court to

order the trial judge to properly apply the law to the facts and it'll make the

trial court failed to properly apply the law to the facts another word they

the fact did not properly apply the law to the facts right in other words we

must properly apply the law to the facts I can't get a judge apply apply the law

then they have to go to did the judge properly apply the law to the facts in determining that

He's here to apply the law to the facts

His job is to apply the law to the facts if the law does not create a just outcome.

At the end of the day, the judge has a duty to apply the law to the facts.

You know, he did not apply the law to the facts of the case.

You say that the court failed to properly apply the law to the facts here

So the judge has the duty to properly apply the law to the facts

The judge on the other hand is commanded to properly apply the law to the facts.

He's bound by code to properly apply the law to the facts.

So they're going to apply the law to the facts, whether the judge does or not.

I can appeal to an appellate court to overturn the ruling, and I can also appeal to a grand jury to indict him for failing to properly apply the law to the facts,

failing to properly apply the law to the facts.

So, when he alleges to apply the law to the facts, you ask him for exactly what law, what

to properly apply the law to the facts, I'll ask for findings of fact and conclusions and

the judge's duty to properly apply the law to the facts in that regard bias is

irrelevant if his bias causes him not to properly apply the law to the facts then

if you believe he failed to properly apply the law to the facts, then interlocutory appeal.

Okay. If you have reason to believe that the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts, you should file criminally against it.

And it goes on to say that the only thing you can actually appeal is an abuse of discretion by a judge for failing to properly apply the law to the facts.

That would be, that would mean he did not apply the law to the facts, and that would mean...

Now, whether or not you're allowed to do it, are you asking that the higher court tell that judge to apply the law to the facts and follow proper procedure?

to apply the law to the facts and that's a point of error.

If the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts, then that becomes a separate

you can go to the Court of Appeals and ask them to order the trial judge to properly apply the law to the facts so that you don't spend all your time litigating out this issue

He had a duty to properly apply the law to the facts.

to properly apply the law to the facts.

to properly apply the law to the facts. So, here is a case where someone can drag out

No, no, no. What I'm saying is you have to put facts and law on the record. And then the judge has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts.

Yeah, the judge has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts.

where the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts.

Take your pleadings and address in the pleadings where the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts

Well, unless the discretionary act clearly failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

If you could show that she misused her discretion and failed to properly apply the law to the facts, then you could hold her to it. There's something wrong with this and it would take me a while to figure out what it is.

since you are required to properly apply the law to the facts, will you tell me what law

Okay. And you demand that the court properly apply the law to the facts.

By putting – the judge must properly apply the law to the facts.

Properly apply the law to the facts and let's all go home.

So what I'm saying is, is that when a judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts

Did the judge fail to properly apply the law to the facts?

So for a judge to fail to properly apply the law to the facts, that's it.

properly apply the law to the facts it is still a state issue

judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts in a state court i'm i'm claiming that

a judge failing to properly apply the law to the facts in the state court is a state issue

actually in my favor so she failed to properly apply the law to the facts and since now she's

So I went back and looked for a California case's state judge must properly apply the law to the facts.

They ruled that they did have jurisdiction and they failed to properly apply the law to the facts,

that the Fifth Circuit failed to properly apply the law to the facts

A judge has no discretion in properly applying the law to the facts, so how did this judge apply the law to the facts in your case?

So now look at the findings and the law and say and argue how the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts

Because the only thing you can appeal is a judge's failure to properly apply the law to the facts

determine the facts and apply the law to the facts.

and that they failed to properly apply the law to the facts

that says that if a a judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts

So I felt like the Fifth Circuit failed to properly apply the law to the facts and in the

And I'm gonna allege that the Fifth Circuit failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

Here I'll sue and ask, does a judge have a duty to properly apply the law to the facts?

And if the judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts, is that a crime in the United States?

Applying his response to this case, did the judge properly apply the law to the facts?

So when the judge gets my case, I expect the judge to properly apply the law to the facts. I don't care how busy he is. If he doesn't have enough help, hire someone.

When the court has a duty to properly apply the law to the facts,

But when I read that, it says that a failure to properly apply the law to the facts is an abuse of discretion.

Yeah, I may be able to appeal the decision to the appellate court, but this judge committed a criminal act when he failed to properly apply the law to the facts.

where a judge fails to properly apply the law to the facts.

You're trying to figure out the law and apply the law to the facts.

For a judge to fail to properly apply the law to the facts, it's an abuse of discretion.

then the judge failed to properly apply the law to the facts. You file a opposition in the court,