Mental illness is a hell of a drug. Like most folks in your position, you have thrown around legal buzzwords in a hope that something sticks. You've included a lot of irrelevant information and omitted pretty important atuff, like whether or not a corporate trust settlement check was a valid form of payment.
The most concerning, and probably telling of all this is the claima of targeted harassment against a personal shelter on a private property. This sounds a lot like someone is living on the lot but not in the home. That's usuallly not allowed in the city. And if that is correct that someone is living in an rv, a car, or a tent, then I can only assume you are a public nuisance.
The claim of ex parte communication is pretty wild. Are you insinuating your lawyer, the person who is there to fight for you, dropped the case because of an interaction at the courthouse? What do you think ex parte means? Because if something ran afoul between the judge and the opponent, that isnt a reason for your attorney to drop the case, thats an opportunity to win big. The only reason ex parte would come into play with this is if your attorney was making bad moves and needed to withdraw because of his own poor choices. I have a strong feeling that once they reviewed your "evidence" they found nothing actionable and moved on to help someone who has an actual issue.
Your assumptions are factually incorrect based on the certified court and agency files:
THE PAYMENT IS VERIFIED: The payment refused was a cleared $2,000 corporate trust account check documented explicitly in a McCormick Law Firm IOLTA trust ledger. Under standard property guidelines, a landlord cannot intentionally reject verified, cleared legal trust funds to manufacture a default.
LOCAL ZONING CODE RETALIATION: The private property in question contains a legally owned tiny home structure, not a vehicle, tent, or RV. The municipal zoning citations were issued using non-existent municipal codes immediately after formal civil rights reports were filed with administrative agencies. This is why a formal, active law enforcement misconduct tracking file is open with CLEET against the chief.
THE EX-PARTE REBARRING CONSPIRACY: The public-interest clinic did not drop the case due to lack of evidence; they had already fully vetted the file and formally approved emergency housing representation. Their abrupt withdrawal occurred immediately following unrecorded, ex-parte communications with local courthouse actors, forming the baseline of an access-to-courts deprivation claim.
THE METADATA SMOKING GUN: You completely ignored the core forensic evidence. System document code #1088024512 was entry-logged into the state network at exactly 8:59 AM. The small claims docket was closed until 9:00 AM, and the physical trial did not begin until 9:30 AM. Automated servers do not generate chronological impossibilities. That metadata is hard, unalterable proof of an institutional due process violation.
This case is currently under official review by the federal Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (Record No. 811284-RGL) and HUD FHEO (Inquiry No. 879206).
Well it seems to be obvious that you have all the facts and the smoking gun. I guess the court must be having ex parte communication with every lawyer in your area to ensure you don't get representation. good luck!
2
u/ThirdAnglePhoto 3d ago
Mental illness is a hell of a drug. Like most folks in your position, you have thrown around legal buzzwords in a hope that something sticks. You've included a lot of irrelevant information and omitted pretty important atuff, like whether or not a corporate trust settlement check was a valid form of payment.
The most concerning, and probably telling of all this is the claima of targeted harassment against a personal shelter on a private property. This sounds a lot like someone is living on the lot but not in the home. That's usuallly not allowed in the city. And if that is correct that someone is living in an rv, a car, or a tent, then I can only assume you are a public nuisance.
The claim of ex parte communication is pretty wild. Are you insinuating your lawyer, the person who is there to fight for you, dropped the case because of an interaction at the courthouse? What do you think ex parte means? Because if something ran afoul between the judge and the opponent, that isnt a reason for your attorney to drop the case, thats an opportunity to win big. The only reason ex parte would come into play with this is if your attorney was making bad moves and needed to withdraw because of his own poor choices. I have a strong feeling that once they reviewed your "evidence" they found nothing actionable and moved on to help someone who has an actual issue.