Thursday July 28, 2022 (3:45 pm), “Public Defender” Lisa Maxine Estrada was added to the list of 23 Defendants, bringing the total of Defendants led by judge Christine S. Johnson, to 24 total.
The 12-page filing clearly describes the nonsense in the court that pretended to run a lawful trial that Lisa Maxine Estrada said would be a “disaster” to which the Cromars agreed, and declared in Mistrial before it began, during trial and after trail. Hence the follow-through on this pre-trial and pre-conviciton Habeas Corpus that was brazenly and unlawfully ignored.
And the evidence of a Fraudulent TRIAL continues to mount. Read the filing here.
CLICK the pdf here…
2022-07-28 – New Amendment To Durrant with Exhibits – Signed & SEALED
The Cromars seek the following RELIEF from this superior court for multiple errors made by the inferior court:
A coordinated Mockery of the Law by the Judge & Prosecutor?
The filing outlines the frivolous declarations by the court and its officers and their apparent effort to use Lisa Maxine Estrada as a Public Defender to create the appearance of “satisfying” the lawful requirement of true representation, but telling her that she doesn’t have to show up to trial. How can that be considered “representation”?
It appears that Ms. Estrada didn’t fall for it.
The Court Docket for case #201402860 & 68 (included as an Exhibit) shows that on June 6, 2022, Lisa Maxine Estrada’s office submitted “Filed: Utah Co. Public Defender Association Opposition to the Courts Appointment of Counsel” — presumably withdrawing her participation as Barbie & Ken’s “public defender”.
This OPPOSITION doc filed by Ms. Estrada’s office was on the record at the time of “Barbie and Ken’s” filing — but has magically disappeared since. What?! Destruction of evidence?
Fraud voids all it touches
Remember the maxim of Law – “Fraud vitiates (voids) everything it touches.”
The Cromar’s filing with the Utah Court of Appeals covered numerous nonsensical, frivolous and hypocritical issues began BEFORE trial.
The Cromar filing highlighted the particular nonsense of the so-called “Public Defender” that judge Johnson forced on the Cromars who rejected the offer at every opportunity claiming that they NEVER have and never will hire/accept a BAR attorney to “represent” them in this case. Their numerous reasons for rejecting service by BAR attorneys includes the fact that BAR attorneys are “officers of the court” that work in behalf of the court first and foremost (NOT the “client”), and secondly, they sign documents “in behalf” of the “clients” without their knowledge or presenting copies of every document signed.
However this is how they create secret “obligations”, including obligations that can land the client in jail or impose fines, fees and penalties “agreed to by the defendants” — but all without their knowledge. FULL disclosure does not exist in this (and most) court case.
This is the “black magic” imposed on, by and for the financial benefit of the court and its officers that has made the US and Utah court system a mockery of law and a corruption of justice.
So, just because the appearance of trial happened, does NOT make it legal. “Void ab initio” means void before it ever began.