I am not talking necessarily about cases such as those, but, rather, doing an analysis of what exactly has happened at all hearings, what did go right, what didn't go right, what mistakes were made, what rulings were made (incorrectly or correctly) and why? Without being able to really know the case, one doesn't necessarily know the case to be honest?
Any mistakes, errors, or prejudice should come to light. Any wrong rulings should be taken apart in detail. It's like having a surgeon dissect all the bad stuff that came beforehand, and then reassembling it to make the groundwork for the day you finally get what you were trying for?!!
Quite honestly, not knowing why something went wrong is very key. But once attorney dissects it, then we start to rebuild the case, because in most instances, a majority of the cases involve something that was done wrong or improperly, and attorney herein can usually find what those things were; typically it will be at least 3 wrong things, not one, and not two.
And not all judges or commissioners are created equal, trust us, we know who knows the job and who is not so great. (We aren't talking about knowing the law here, we are talking about whether a job as a judge is done correctly, fairly and with decorum to match...there should be no screaming, cursing, or acting like one is at a comic relief party..) We have seen instances of all of this in Butte.
Instead of complaining, figure out which actions you believe were either wrong, faulty,
improperly evaluated, done with no factual basis, no evidence, or otherwise, and then you will
eventually come down to likely three problems. Attorney usually works with cases that have
these faults, so is very familiar with these problems.