Predatory litigation comes in many shapes and sizes, but often includes a few core elements that empower bad actors to exercise more dominance and control—thus causing exponentially greater harm—than the courts have the lawful jurisdiction and authority to exercise.
Often in predatory litigation, both litigants “lose”—typically to the benefit of third parties, such as law firms/attorneys, judges, auctioneers, real estate professionals, investors, physicians, psychiatrists, healthcare providers, expert witnesses, and more.
One of the most common elements of predatory litigation is the misuse of various “protective orders.” Under the guise of protecting one party, protective orders can be used to both bind and gag the opposing party, while doing serious damage to how their character is perceived by the court.
This is known to effectively “steal the litigant’s voice”.
Whatever a party says after a protective order has been issued against them will be heard with the stigmatized presumption that the litigant is abusive, unstable, or dangerous; that they’re not operating in good faith; that they have ulterior motives and/or malicious intent; and that likely they are wrong.
The “abuser” and the “loser” in most litigated cases are synonymous. The case is unequally yoked straight from the start, often by design.
Another common element of predatory litigation is that counsel for one party often has the favor of the presiding judge.
While this can be extremely difficult to prove, at times enabling abuses to continue in a court for decades, it is next to impossible to win a case where both the court and the opposing counsel are against one of the litigants, as the evidence from my cases in Tennessee clearly shows.
One way to catch biased judges or “case fixing” is by studying the “administration of justice” in the case, particularly by studying the language spoken between your opposing counsel and the presiding judge during each hearing, as recorded in the transcripts of evidence. Compare their conversation and language used with the court’s rules of judicial and professional conduct, to see if the officers of the court are acting honorably and upholding “justice” or if they appear to have another agenda.
Fact check their statements of law made in court to see if the law is being cited accurately, and if not, whether the judge corrects or allows the attorney’s misconduct. If the judge chooses to turn a blind eye toward misconduct, that would indicate judicial bias or complicity, both which are mandatory grounds for recusal and disqualification.
Fact check their statements of fact made in court, to test their consistency with the record as a whole, for continuity.
Don’t worry about whether the facts being cited in court are true or false, because there is no quick and definitive way to determine their validity in this exercise. While making assumptions based upon the tone of the narrative can be very misleading.
Caution needs to be exercised here to obtain accurate results, because malicious attorneys are known to use outlandish claims of fact as strategic distractions, to divert attention away from the law, the litigant’s rights, the court’s rules of conduct, and whether or not the court proceeded in proper form, for the lawful administration of justice.
Therefore, completely disregard the truth of the alleged facts for now, to allow the court process itself to be analyzed and tested, to determine whether or not the court process was executed in proper form, to provide an atmosphere of impartiality, and an opportunity for equality and justice.
If not, your rights as a litigant were almost certainly violated.
As famously cited, “It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis.”
Justice Bradley in Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885)
Justice is either justly exercised and equally afforded to all, or it is not justice.
The court process only works, as a benefit to society, when the court’s rules of conduct are obeyed for the benefit of all parties. Otherwise, the most hideous and tyrannical miscarriages of justice are possible “under the color of law”, exercised by the exact same people in the exact same buildings, absent strict compliance with the court’s codes of judicial and professional conduct.
Form means nothing without an honest, honorable, equal, just and impartial court process.
If the court doesn’t have the time or care to do it right, then the court doesn’t have the right to do it at all.
Let the members of the court give up their homes hastily, not mine.
Again, the focus of this test is on the “administration of justice” and whether or not the language and actions in court were spoken and executed fairly, equally, and impartially, in compliance with the rules of judicial and professional conduct.
The court process should not be affected by the alleged “merits” of the case. Regardless of how they have been presented.
The most violent criminal is still due equal and due process of law, by an impartial tribunal. Certainly, there can be no civil cause greater than the court’s responsibility to proceed with equal and due process, by an impartial tribunal, while exercising proper form and conduct.
Court is not the place for emotional pleadings, while Judge Michael W. Binkley essentially told me as much, yet he allowed my opposing counsel, Attorney Virginia Lee Story, to leverage obscenely emotional demands for action, without any true, honest, factual, or lawful basis whatsoever.
That is professional misconduct, and when the court not only fails to correct and discipline professional misconduct but chooses instead to participate, play along, and make rulings treating that misconduct as though it were appropriate, done in good faith, based upon real facts, and supported by the law, those acts become both attorney and judicial misconduct at that point.
“Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants’ pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.”
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233
“Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment.”
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)
“Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices… the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law.”
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982)
“Following the simple guide of rule 8(f)[e] that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice”… “The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.” The court also cited Rule 8(f) [e] FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957)
Pleading is not supposed to be a game of skill, a challenge with the mighty, or a competition to select a victor. The purpose of pleading in court is to arrive at fair and just settlements of real controversies between the litigants. Unfortunately, Attorney Virginia Lee Story never plead one facet of my “divorce” honestly, while operating in good faith, in the pursuit of either a fair or just settlement. In fact, Judge Michael W. Binkley told me that “FAIR IS SOMETHING PEOPLE DO IN THE FALL”.
This cannot be ignored its fact recorded! Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.
Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A., U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 –Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).
it needs to be recognized, brought to the courts attention, and addressed lawfully. it is the place for honest discovery of facts, equity, and the law of the land, for even handed justice for all. Yet malicious attorneys are known to hijack justice by inappropriately interjecting and manipulating emotions in tumultuous relationships.
High conflict relationships are one of the primary focuses of predatory litigation, found in divorces, child custody, guardianship, conservatorship, probate, trusts, and wills.
Where money and family drama intersect, giving the court an opportunity or responsibility to divide them. There are attorneys who build their entire careers in bad faith, by manipulating, exacerbating, and exploiting family drama in court, to assume control over both the assets and the people in families great and small.
There is probably no more greatly abused sector of litigation than that commonly referred to as “family court”; where constitutional rights and the lawful “administration of justice”, in accordance with the court’s rules of conduct, along with state and federal laws, are often found lacking in significant form.
The quickest and most reliable way I know to determine whether a party is a victim of predatory litigation or not, is by studying and testing the court process and the “administration of justice” in the case.
Here’s how you do it: In this test, you are looking to see if the law was obeyed (Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 1.1), how a judge handled his supervisory duties (Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 2.12), whether he allowed or corrected false statements of law and attorney misconduct (Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 2.15), whether he protected and maintained a fair and impartial atmosphere in the courtroom (Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 2.2), whether he protected litigants from attorney bias, prejudice, and harassment (Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 2.3), whether he protected the rights of all litigants with an equitable and lawful interest in the suit to be fairly and equally heard (Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 2.6). Likewise, did counsel comply with the rules of professional conduct regarding candor toward the tribunal (Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 3.3), fairness to the opposing party and counsel (Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 3.4), impartiality and decorum of the tribunal (Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 3.5), truthfulness in statements to others (Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 4.1), along with whether or not attorneys also report professional misconduct (Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 8.3) as the rules require.
By applying the aforementioned test, it would show that during every phase of the action in Chancery Court, doc. no. 48419B, Judge Michael W. Binkley and Attorney Virginia Lee Story disqualified themselves multiple times over, due to their repeated misconduct, including fraud on the court, bias, discrimination, harassment, and obstruction of justice.
The only evidence needed to prove that not one legal, lawful, equitable, impartial, honest, honorable, or just order was issued by defendant Chancery Court in doc. no. 48419B is the August 1, 2019, transcript of evidence[3] and the August 29, 2019, transcript of evidence[4] of the proceedings, which should then be compared to the state of Tennessee’s rules of judicial and professional conduct.[5]
The other three thousand (plus) pages filed in this lawsuit prove just how horribly corrupt and criminal certain defendants’ actions were, particularly Binkley’s and Story’s.
Every division of the Tennessee court system has refused to intervene and denied me the slightest bit of humanitarian consideration or common-sense relief by which I might simply be able to move forward, obtain critically needed employment, and survive the devastation caused by the courts and its associated actors, not just to me but also my family. Such destruction is explained in detail throughout my complaint.
Since the administration of justice never took place in court, in compliance with the rules of conduct, then likely nothing else lawful ever took place either. The court failed to provide an atmosphere free of bias and harassment where the truth was welcome and could be fairly communicated, equally heard, compared, weighed, and decided upon, where real justice could honestly prevail.
Providing such an atmosphere doesn’t happen by accident; it requires the deliberate duties, honest discipline, and good faith actions by the court, which unfortunately were missing from this case.