Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

The Provocateur

Please check out my new books, "Prosecutors Gone Wild: The Inside Story of the Trial of Chuck Panici, John Gliottoni, and Louise Marshall" and also, "The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers"

Sunday, January 14, 2018

TNT Tanya TalkS #1

Here's a preview of Tanya Hathaway's story.

New Hampshire Woman Takes on Oklahoma- and a Moot 
Written by: Michael Volpe and Tanya Hathaway
It’s All About Jurisdiction
A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is forever a nullity.[1][2] Wikipedia

With a corrupt judge refusing to remove himself from the case, he had no problem ignoring the evidence that the court had no jurisdiction.

A court must have some sort of a stake in a case before it can hear it; that’s called Subject-matter jurisdiction.

Proper implementation of Subject--matter jurisdiction prevents judge shopping or forum shopping.
Some of a few of the many exhibits Hathaway presented for supporting arguments for lack of Subject-matter jurisdiction include: 1) Their marital home was in New Hampshire. Hathaway never lived in Oklahoma, and XXX (referring to Hathaway’s estranged husband) wasn’t living in Tulsa County.  XXX swore their marital home as his legal residence when he applied for a P.O. box, 2) XXX obtained a New Hampshire’s driver’s license on June 27th 2014- just weeks before filing- where he swore that he lived in New Hampshire, 3) Their marriage certificate listed New Hampshire as their legal address 4) Confirmation from the US Postal Service (USPS) that XXX permanently changed his home address from Tulsa to New Hampshire 5) dozens of resumes which XXX sent to potential employers where his return address was New Hampshire  6) While Hathaway examined XXX for her motion to vacate the suit due to lack of jurisdiction, he admitted that he did not have a residence or stay anywhere in Tulsa County during the time period required to claim Subject-matter jurisdiction.  Clearly, he relied on his insiders to take care of things.

Miller, during an argument with XXX’s attorney, even threw Hathaway a bone, saying, “I don’t understand why a driver’s licenses would not be admissible to go to evidence of where a person’s residence is in a hearing on Subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Judge Miller noted that Subject-matter jurisdiction came down to, “was the petitioner a resident of Oklahoma for six months prior to filing the petition?”

When XXX testified, he insisted that he was domiciled- or had a residence in-Oklahoma at the time he filed his petition in June 2014, but when asked to provide his address, he responded, “I did not have a formal address in Tulsa.”

He even repeated this assertion when Miller asked him the same question minutes later.
Just as XXX knew he could rely on Hughes and Hastings, lawyers on XXX’s behalf, Hughes knew they could rely on Miller to make it all work. All they needed was something with the veneer of legitimacy: thinking Hathaway didn’t know better. Judicial Estoppel is a legal technicality which “prevents a party from asserting a position in one legal proceeding that directly contradicts a position taken by that same party in an earlier proceeding. According to the Cornell Law Review.

Hughes and her team argued because Hathaway had come to Oklahoma to challenge the lawsuit, this implicitly gave the state jurisdiction, except, as in this case, without Subject-matter jurisdiction, Judicial Estoppel is moot. They all know it.

Hathaway knew there was no Subject-matter jurisdiction, but couldn't prove it until discovered additional evidence that was rock solid. Knowing she could prove it, she motioned to vacate the suit in a county that by law cannot hear or rule over the matter.

Put another way, you aren’t allowed to go to New Hampshire’s Department of Motor Vehicle and swear you live there and turn around and tell a court in Oklahoma weeks later you live in that state, if all your evidence is a storage receipt.

By all rights, it was a slam dunk. No evidence was presented to overcome the lack of Subject-matter jurisdiction as the defense relied solely on Judicial Estoppel.

That’s fraud, and neither estoppel nor anything else can be achieved by fraud, unless your friends with facing the Orwellian Miller appointed by the upstanding Presiding Judge Linda Morrissey who ignored requests to review the gross negligence claimed in this matter in her court.

Miller denied Hathaway citing Subject-matter jurisdiction as the key to vacating the suit. Yet, The Hughes Team didn't use that defense! If they had, it was still a slam dunk.

Still, knowing Subject-matter jurisdiction overrides Judicial Estoppel (the defenses claim), Hathaway filed an emergency motion for reconsideration, arguing that Judicial Estoppel does not apply because subject matter was not established.  This caused Miller to augment his rulings the next day in court.

“I apparently, I left the impression and I want to correct it, that the only basis for my ruling yesterday was on the basis of Judicial Estoppel. It’s my intention to indicate that after hearing those many hours of testimony, the facts support that this court has Subject-matter jurisdiction,” the Orwellian Judge Miller stated at this hearing, “He was a resident based on the factual record presented.”
Factual Record information from Cornell University Law School Includes:

In General. In an action tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately. The findings and conclusions may be stated on the record after the close of the evidence or may appear in an opinion or a memorandum of decision filed by the court.”

The “factual record” evidence consisted of a Tulsa storage unit receipt.


If you can't believe this happened take listen to the audio below.

Saturday, January 6, 2018

Abuse in the Courtroom of Tulsa Judge J Anthony Miller

Written by Michael Volpe and Tanya Hathaway

Tulsa Judge J Anthony Miller first denies pro se litigant, Tanya Hathaway, accommodation for a "next friend" (a person who sits with you in court that can help takes notes and notes, sort through paperwork and act as support).
This violated her rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Miller denied this requests over and over- while refusing to review her medical records.
When she suffers a severe panic attack later on the same day, Miller forces her to continue; and he’s even annoyed by the complication. While being treated by the EMT's you will hear she is served a subpoena by Judge Miller to return to court. Hathaway had lost consciousness.
Prior to that, Michon Hughes, representing her ex-husband, thought during the panic attack was an appropriate time to try and strike a deal.
What say you, Oklahoma Bar- is a lawyer allowed to negotiate knowing they’re in the middle of a panic attack?
See injustice in Oklahoma EXPOSED fb page to see how Tanya is fighting back Can a judge really force someone to continue while they’re dealing with a panic attack? Why have neither been sanctioned?
You will later hear Judge Miller forces Tanya to continue knowing she had to take a controlled prescription drug to help contan her panic attack.She could barely stand, talk, was slurring, not to mention defend herself in a court of law. It gets worse.
Stay tuned for more bombshell details and recordings. This is a prime example why we must have rights to record. You won't find most of this in the transcripts....the whole unbelievable story......COMING SOON!

                                                     (Michon Hughes)
                                                      (Orwellian Judge J Anthony Miller)
                                                                 (Tanya Hathaway)
Below, see the bar complaint against Hughes. 
As you can see, the Bar took each of these allegations very seriously.

Below here is the judicial complaint against the Orwellian Miller.
see injustice in Oklahoma EXPOSED fb page to see how Tanya is fighting back