Right to due process

[KCGirl]

Civil Rights, Constitutional Rights, is there a difference?

I believe that depriving someone of their right to due process such as knowingly submitting false evidence or a judge knowing it is false and allowing it to be presented is a violation of my Constitutional rights. Is it considered that technically or is it just something people banter about?

What is the difference, if any, between constitutional rights/ civil rights?

My position is that actions done to deceive such as in my case, giving false information about a scheduled court hearing which results in a default judgment is a violation of constitutional rights to due process and to the right to defend myself in a court of law. Are those one and the same (due process,right to defend). Are they treated the same or differently?

Would be helpful to get some info, experience, opinions please. Thx :dunno:

 

[mightymoose]

Whoever informed you of the hearing must have provided proof of service to the court indicating that you were advised of the time, place, and nature of the hearing. That person provides the proof of service under penalty of perjury.
If you can show that you were not served, and that the person claiming to have properly given you notice did not do so, then you would probably have some luck getting that default judgment changed.

It sounds as if you are referring to an issue in civil court, and in that case the constitutional rights that you refer to are not really in play, since those are rights of people accused of crimes. There is a civil process though, and you can investigate to find out if things were done properly.

 

[KCGirl]

Thanks, no one "INFORMED" me about the hearing, I discovered it myself when the default judgment showed up on Case Net online.

So far, despite the fact that I have filed a complaint with the committee who "investigates" these complaints, the only person interested in the tape is me.
I would think that if you wanted to do a thorough investigation and one of the most important factors that comprise the basis for complaint is a discrepancy
about the date which was set during the hearing in August, that "investigators" would want to investigate the tape.

That seems to be a big part of the problem, the investigation committee, which is THE investigation source as authorized by Congress, is not interested in
investigating anything. They seem to be more interested in thwarting my efforts to get the truth out. Go figure?

As to whether things were done properly, while I confess to informal and haphazard training in the law, I'm fairly certain
that proper procedure is not to change hearing dates from the one set while all the parties were in court to another date of which one party (me, the defendant) was not informed.

What is your opinion and/or knowledge about the procedures commonly used or required to be used for orders of such things to be in writing and not just something the judge throws out at hearing???

 

[mightymoose]

My opinion is that if you are serious about this matter, it is well past time for you to hire a lawyer to help you out. It sounds like you are way over your head. Anything beyond simple small claims is too much to handle on your own.

 

[KCGirl]

This is absolutely awesome, the scam to end all scams! And its legal too so no problem there.

The system through various twists and turns screws you over for not playing the "good ole boy" game.

After they've played with you enough to where it starts to get boring they say: We'll let you go if you cry uncle and promise to always play the good ole boy game! It's up to you thought, whatchoooo wanna do sucka?



It all starts with some slimy low-life piece of refuse known as a junk debt buyer and their attorneys, who, by the way, have an F RATING with the BBB.

Justice really is blind or maybe it just looks the other way.