Fw: Courtroom Hope Maybe Still There?

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Kae (by way of ilena rose) " <gkh1942@...>

<Recipient List Suppressed:;>

Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:58 PM

Subject: Courtroom Hope Maybe Still There?

> Thanks to all of you wonderful and understanding women out there who

> like me are trying in simple and uneducated law ways to find a way at

> first to maybe gain some monetary compensation for the great damage that

> has been done to our health.

>

> I was ready due to my health and God knows that I am tired, but due to

> your replies on my venting mode the other day, you the women have given

me

> strength to give it one my stab at filing an appeal to the Nevada Supreme

> Court.

>

> Anything that you think of that would be helpful to me I WANT TO HEAR

> ABOUT IT.

>

> Being that I am not an attorney, some of you ask what Pro Per was, Means

> Proper Person, One who has the damage done to them in the claim filed

and

> is working without council.

>

> You also ask what PSS means - Progressive Systemic Sclerosis, this where

> the calcification of my heart is probably coming from, one of those

latent

> medical things that happen to us hysterical breast implant women.

>

> Some of you ask about the Mandatory 5 year rule. I do not know if every

> state has this rule, I know that Nevada adopted this rule from California

> and the rule was to stop frivolous law suits that were not being

> diligently prosecuted to be removed >from the court system. I know that

I

> diligently pursued my case.

>

> There are so many rules that I did not even notice this one untill late

> 2001, I was still telling everyone who ask when my court date was that

the

> court had not set one yet. You see when in Nov, 2001 I finally seen a

> Order from the Court (I did not receive this) stating that all breast

> implant cases were to be sent to their respected department within the

> Court. And that those departments would be setting the court dates, I

> still thought that they would notifiy me when my court date was. I

> realize now that I should have Made a Motion to the Department to set

> Trial Date.

>

> This is another one where a person representing their self can fall

> through a loop hole. Do not matter if you have idligently pursued your

> case or not. Does not matter if the Court forgot you. Does not matter

if

> you do not have the proper information to work with. Does not matter

> if Baxter used all of the tactics they could to stop this litigation,

like

> telling the court my case was closed in 1999. I lost a year here through

> no fault of my own. They think that we people who have to represent

> ourselves should automatically know all about the courtroom proceedures.

>

> If you don't know what you are suppose to have then you don't realize

that

> you did not get it untill its to late. Baxter knew that I did not know

> these thing and that while I was out there getting ready for the

courtroom

> and me trusting the court would let me know these things (which they did

> not do) I feel through the loophole, a loophole that should not even be

> utilized in these cases that were tied up in the court system for

> years. The only reason that I went when I did for a court date was I read

> this rule and wondered if the court was aware of the time for me and why

> they were not setting the date.

>

> I was wrong again in not telling Judge Mayhan that I needed more time

than

> he quickly gave me due to Baxter and myself having to finish depo's and

> the certain things that had to happen before Pretrial Conference. I know

> that I had every thing in order but there are certain dates you have to

> have stuff to defendant before trial date and this was just to fast of a

> date and I just did not realize it. I could do what I had to do but it

> would have been tight for Baxters council to do case specific depos and

> that has to be taken into consideration. Baxter did not even dignifiy my

> Motion for Trial Date by showing up, because they knew what they were

> planning to do. They use my ignorance of these things to their advantage

> and they won.

>

> It is sad that because of a law that should not be utilized here, was

used

> to keep the facts from coming to the publics attention. I do not belived

> that our law maker intended for this law to be utilized in this way to

> stop a legitimate claim. The Book says; " Purpose of subsection (e) is

to

> compel an expeditious determination of legitimate calims " .

>

> Anyway thanks again, I guess I will have to get back to work in a

> different direction of the law, only have 30 days to appeal.

>

> Kae

>

>