No, I'm not talking about the scumbag divorce lawyer who had a hand in this fiasco. (That's coming soon to a blog near you.) I'm talking about scumbag lawyer Mary Hamm.
But first, I'm walking a fine line here. As a Christian, I am commanded, in general to "show proper respect to everyone." More specifically, I am commanded to respect those who are in governmental authority. (Romans 13:7)
That means, in general, I shouldn't be throwing names around as others do, calling someone a "scumbag" as in "scumbag lawyers" (as in "the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers") or even a scumbag judge if I had material evidence to prove that was right.
But 1) Jesus called King Herod a "fox," so there seems to be some latitude for the Christian, there may be appropriate times to accurately label someone in power. (Although probably a distinction between name-calling and accurately describing.) And 2) I'm not referring to Mary Hamm acting in her capacity as judge. As far as I know, she's not a judge anymore and so not in authority. (And I held my tongue while she was still a judge.)
Rather, I'm referring to Mary Hamm as a scumbag when she acted as lawyer while acting as judge at my trial. For you see, per the excerpt from the trial transcript above, Mary Hamm, the judge, called and questioned the ONLY witnesses for my opponent, acting as my opponent's attorney! What are "The Court's witnesses?" (Thanks to the transcriber for getting this right.)
Scumbag lawyer Mary Hamm even lead the witnesses when she didn't get the answers she wanted. Curiously, judge Mary Hamm did not object to scumbag lawyer Mary Hamm leading witnesses. Nor did judge/attorney Mary Hamm ask any exculpatory questions of her witnesses on my behalf.
Surely a judge acting as a lawyer for a party at trial is not a "judicial act" shielded by immunity judges claim to have when you sue them, as I am doing.
We will see.
No comments:
Post a Comment