Injustice in the Justice System - a “Must Read” Revelation of Abuses & Malfeasance in Our Justice System

Why Do We Have Juries?

This why we have juries. Some brilliant people understood that judges could be influenced by friendships with government officials or lawyers or with whoever or by the desire to please them or by the thought they could gain favors from them and be rewarded by them. Today, many judges could be influenced to favor lawyers who gave large campaign donations. So, the best way to deal with these possibilities is to have the judgments made by a group of total strangers who do not know either side. And, the standard to win a jury decision is very high. I needed to get 5 out of 6 of the jurors to vote for me to win.

In America, we consider when a candidate defeats his or her rival for an office by 60% to 40%, it is a landslide. So, in order to win, I needed a super landslide. I needed a 83% to 17% vote win. And, I got that super win. And, the jury made the only logical decision which is that I should not have to pay Christopher Heinrichs anything. I would bet that Heinrichs is already a rich man and that he already has more than enough money to buy all he needs and live a very affluent life. So, the money he took from me just goes to his amassing of wealth. I am sure that almost nobody knows that a judge can just throw out a jury decision and make the victim pay for the expenses of the bills for “services” of all those who wanted to have him or her locked up and lost their case. And, is it possible that when Heinrichs charged me $52,000.00 (not including what he charged me for the appeals) for the same case my lawyer Robert Wilson charged me $20,000.00 that Judge Polly Jackson Spencer did not realize that Heinrichs was charging for way more time than he actually used in my case? In my opinion, Heinrichs and Kelly Cross are just thieves, and Polly Jackson Spencer is an abettor of theft. Also, Polly Jackson Spencer protected Jefferson Bank from any responsibility in their gross mismanagement of my money and allowed them to charge $5,000.00 for their “management” of my money in which they lost $112,000.00 of my money in a very short time. And, the Jefferson Bank’s lawyers charged me almost $20,000.00 for sitting in on my trial. And, the appeals court upheld Spencer’s decision, throwing out the jury verdict. And, the Texas Supreme Court refused to hear my case.

So, this is the system. And judges can, at will, throw out jury verdicts; this is not justice. There is no profession so filled with incompetence, negligence, sloth and theft as the “legal” profession. One lawyer had me sign a contract in which I agreed that he would only work on the case which was specified in the contract. So, when I instructed him not to proceed with the case until he corrected a lie he had made, he started to work on another case totally contradictory to the contract he had written. And, the bill he sent me was for way more time than the amount of time he could have possibly spent on the case I hired him for, plus the other case which his contract forbade him from working on. But, the Bar Association did not see anything wrong with what he had done. Some lawyers think that court ordered settlement conferences are excuses from preparing a case and not doing any discovery. They do not do any interrogatories, requests for production or depositions. They want their clients to walk into the conference room without the necessary information which he or she needs to negotiate a settlement which is fair to himself or herself. The Bar Association, which has the responsibility of licensing lawyers and for disciplinary action against lawyers, should not be made up of lawyers picked by lawyers but it should be composed of fair minded citizens devoted to public service. And, judges should not have the right to throw out a jury verdict. Both sides had their chance arguing the case in front of 6 or 12 unbiased citizens. When at least 5 of 6 jurors or 10 of 12 jurors has ruled one side wrong. Then, the losing side should not get a second chance by going before a judge whom those losing attorneys have known for years and to whose campaign they may have given lots of money asking that judge to overrule the jury. The losing lawyers should no longer have a system where they get to take money from the estate of the person who is supposed to be protected by the probate court, win or lose, bad case or good case. If the losing lawyer cannot win in front of the unbiased jury, that should be the end of it. There should be no appeal from the jury.

Do not expect the mainline media to report the abuses going on in the probate courts or any other horrors in the legal profession. This is not like the times of Benjamin Franklin when an ordinary person could buy a printing press and start printing a paper in his basement. Television stations and newspapers are very expensive operations and are owned by big corporations. And, the reporters are employees. So, reporters report stories the managers want to be make known and do not report stories which the managers do not want to be made known. And, stories which are reported can be slanted by the biases of media company in which the stories are reported. I sent the information about what happened to me in the probate court to Bruce Davidson, then the court reporter of the San Antonio Express-News, and to Paul Venema, the court reporter of KSAT, and I also sent the information about what happened to me to KENS, but it was not directed to any specific person. And, I did not receive a reply from any of them. Former Mayor Philip Hardberger is treated like a hero by the media. I know him well because I was a client of his when he was a personal injury attorney. He is very rich, he owns his own boat and airplane. And, he is retired. So, he does not need to worry about reprisals against himself for taking a controversial position. And, if he were a real hero, he would speak out against the injustices in the system. But, he is just a self-satisfied part of the system. As a matter of fact, he has stock in the “legal” corporation which represented Jefferson Bank in my probate case. If all the money which Jefferson Bank lost for me and what Jefferson Bank’s lawyers charged were added together, it would come to more than what I netted in the case in which Hardberger represented me. And, Hardburger charged me a fee of $85,000.00 for a case which did not go to court. Also, Hardberger recommended that I not reconcile with my elderly father. He did not like my father because my father has asked him to take less than his customary 40% of the settlement amount.

When a judge can throw out a jury decision and replace it with his or her decision, there really are no jury trials. There are only show trials. If the jury rules the way the judge wanted it to rule, he or she can say “look, we gave the person who was on trial every chance, but the jury ruled against the person on trial.” But, when the jury rules for the person on trial, the judge can just throw out the jury decision and make the decision that he or she wanted. And, if the media does not want to expose this corruption as seems the case (because the media is too busy making looters and vandals look like peaceful demonstrators), then the public will never know. And, we will continue to elect judges and appeals judges who abet the theft of thieving lawyers. Right now, the media is busy reporting about “systemic racism” even though America’s blacks are the most affluent in the world. There are numerous programs to assist America’s blacks in getting college admissions and jobs, and America is a country in which many or the world’s blacks aspire to get into. And, what about the majority of blacks who are law-abiding people who are not involved in looting or vandalism, who live in neighborhoods affected by demonstrations. They must fear it when they have to leave their homes to go to work or shopping because of the lawlessness in the streets resulting in a social climate where they know they are less likely to receive police protection. They must also fear that looted stores may not reopen necessitating that they will have to go further to do their regular shopping.