Wild Ideas

[craesz]

How do you support an order/judgment out of a trial court without evidence?

I have seen it happen (check out the January 25, 2007 opinions of this court - love the way they gloss over this issue). Seems a little odd. The foundation of the legal system is evidence. Now the appellate courts have whittled away at this issue to the extent that I have become convinced that it is almost impossible to reverse any act based upon the erroneous admission of evidence.

I remain completely SURPRISED that an appellate court will uphold an order/judgment without any evidence to support it. Of course, for myself and laymen, this is odd. One could analogize it to the building of a house. Every house of any sort requires some form of foundation. Without a proper foundation the house will not stand. Evidence is the foundation for the acts of a trial court UNLESS the appellate court chooses to ignore this issue. I have been involved in a matters before this court where they simply avoid, in my worthless opinion, the main issue. It seems that when they have a troublesome issue before them, they can simply avoid it entirely with conclusory statements and findings. Would the rest of the world tolerate this conduct? I think not. Only in the legal system.

The end of this story may involve a long trip to the United States Supreme Court. Maybe I'll live long enough to make the trip.