Introducing the series "Corrupted from Ed to Judge"

In nine segments, I present in video format the background and litigation experience on which the initiative of One Club Of Justicides is inspired. Here are the first five segments. The rest will be posted once I finish editing them.

Because the defamatory publications by Maria Viggers need to be heavily redacted, I'll be updating and uploading those files in the corresponding section of this site as time permits.

Corrupted from Ed to Judge (Part 1 of 9): Shady, shady University of Michigan.
Background.


Corrupted from Ed to Judge (Part 2 of 9): A fractal of court-endorse fraud.
Let me tell you a little story about a lawyer who attempted to commit fraud and got busted by me ... only to be rescued by his buddy judge ... yes, this is Michigan.


The University of Michigan and Al-Azhar Pacha duck and cover upon my scrutiny because ... well, that's what people do when they got something to hide.


Corrupted from Ed to Judge (Part 4 of 9): Directly relevant evidence? Now see the judge preclude it.
Mostly addressing my lawsuit against María Viggers, my father's second wife.


Covering the early stages of my lawsuit against Al-Azhar Pacha.

Latest briefs in my Application against Al Pacha in the Michigan Supreme Court

The attorneys representing defendant/appellee Al-Azhar Pacha have filed the Appelle's Brief and I submitted my Reply Brief. Despite using the extended deadline granted by the Michigan Supreme Court, his attorneys ended up doing copy/paste from motions they've been filing since trial court ... slacking till the last hour? panic attack? Goebbels' big lie theory? Who knows!

Comprising in 10 pages my refutation of vexatious, disproved allegations which Al Pacha's attorneys spread in 37 pages is hard, but I achieved it (for the most part).

It is funny that these attorneys' pretext in their motion for an extended deadline was the authorities I cited from other jurisidictions: "decisions from outside Michigan, requiring significant research".But now, as I pointed out in my Reply Brief, these attorneys in their brief ended up advancing the mediocre allegation that "foreign states' own iteration of defamation law [...] is not necessarily the same as that in Michigan". They didn't even try to explain what differences (if any) they "think" exist. That was hilarious. These attorneys must have realized that the appellate reviews from honest jurisdictions really don't help Al Pacha.

Another remark is these attorneys' reliance on various unpublished decisions (that is, appellate opinions that don't constitute legal precedent) to refute the arguments I support with opinions issued by the Michigan Supreme Court and other binding decisions by the Court Of Appeals.

Ignacio Viggers