Plausible Deniability

The question of why wouldn’t a Road Board contact the auditors office after being accused of imposing a special assessment and not a levy can be answered simply. Plausible Deniability. I know I’ve said this several times now, but I keep thinking of new ways to say it.

I was just watching a video that was discussing Zealous Defense and whether attorneys can or should defend parties they know are guilty. It would seem that task is much easier if the attorney just doesn’t ask. If he does ask, he still defends the party, but he knows not to put them on the stand.

In this case, when this could have been resolved in a ten minute hearing, that they would have lost, they simply didn’t check on their presumptions. Gee, who does that sound like? Whom do you suppose the Board would have discussed all this with before actually hiring the attorney? Who might have suggested (because he already friggin knew it wasn’t) to not contact the auditors office in any way to verify it was a levy?

Plausible Deniability.

And the attorney apparently didn’t either, hence his stupid answer saying 3 times it is a levy.

I recently heard a phrase used in a national headline case in Atlanta- Gamesmanship. Plausible deniability falls under that. So does filing frivolous motions. I might do another post on that topic. The more I spend looking into all this the more tricks and tactics I discover and I think the newbie Pro Se could be taken in by them.

I was (and still am) newbie to this and there were a couple times I almost got tripped up.

I need to find that video I recently saw where the judge tells the pro se litigant that he did a great job and the most corrupt group of people he knows of are ‘lawyers.’ I really had a sense of relief when I heard that.

I’m still preparing for court this week, so it might be a few days before I can find that video and take that clip.

Just hang tight. Stand on the law. Defend yourself.