A Terroristic Divorce

When I filed my first petition which could possibly be considered a counterstrike, it was dismissed. The judge indicated it was not cognizable and could offer no further explanation indicating he could not provide me with legal advice.

Was it cognizable when first submitted as a counter petition? Which the judge asked me to resubmit as a separate petition.

After resubmitted, was it cognizable at the Short List conference where the document was not reviewed at all?

Was it cognizable as it was scheduled and rescheduled on the court calendar?

Was it cognizable at the Hearing to which I was ordered to appear?
Which had not been on the judge’s schedule?
AND TO WHICH THE OPPOSING PARTY AND HER LAWYERS DID NOT APPEAR? How did they know it wasn’t REALLY scheduled for then? And whoever informed Angst & Angst that it wasn’t actually on the Judge’s schedule, took NO ACTION to inform everyone involved.
[ Big surprise, someone in court administration is issuing incorrect paperwork. ]

Was it first scheduled for a date when it would have been cognizable? Then moved to a Family court date?

Cognizable? It was dismissed because it wasn’t cognizable, BUT NOT BECAUSE IT HAD NO MERIT. They had no defense. Yet, won fees… because it wasn’t cognizable.

Why did it take from August to December to find out it was not cognizable? How does one determine if the petition is scheduled under the judge’s Family Court schedule (with limited cognizance) or on his Civil Court schedule to which she would have been found guilty on all counts?

The use of false testimony from witnesses and informants, in addition to the practice of preying on suspects, stealing their money and covering up police crimes with false arrests and search warrants, led to the arrests of five cops in Philadelphia.

The city of Philadelphia had to release almost 500 prisoners and subsequently paid $4 million to settle civil rights lawsuits because of improper police conduct.

(Excerpts from www.TalkLeft.com)

Confidential Informants Used Heavily in Philadelphia

TalkLeft has often discussed the damage that informants do to individuals and families, to law enforcement agencies, to privacy rights, and to the criminal justice system and the society that depends upon it to operate fairly. The Inquirer reports allegations in the context of a larger issue of crime policy: law enforcement’s nearly unregulated reliance upon police informants.

Despite the work done by informants, the head of the city’s police union said many officers regard them with contempt.

So why would a dutiful officer who is skeptical of informant credibility rely upon informants at all? It’s better to put informants at risk than to risk the lives of undercover cops. Of course, officers will minimize the risk to informants, but are “looking at the welfare of the police officer first.”

If risky activities are so important, shouldn’t the trained professionals who get paid to assume the risks associated with law enforcement make them, rather than recruiting frightened and desperate and often drug addicted individuals who are pressured to take risks they would ordinarily avoid?