The notice of evidentiary hearing should specifically mention the evidentiary hearing. If the hearing is only for the regular hearing and evidentiary hearing gets done, then that hearing should be invalid as one party only prepared for the regular hearing.
It is unjust to hold the evidentiary hearing when the notice of the hearing states only the regular hearing.
Unilateral presentation of the evidence by one party will prejudice the party seriously.
The case where the ruling has to be reversed because of the unjust presentation of the evidence by one party.
Dr. Jain’s case no 2016-CA-7260-O against Michael Furbush and Tom Wert.
The ruling of the hearing on June 5, 2017, with Judge Higbee.
Tom Wert is defending a claim for common law fraud for the attorneys. During the proceeding of the regular hearing, along with Michael Furbush started doing testimonies and presenting evidences. How unfair to do this when all the rules for evidentiary Hearing states that the the notice of the hearing should specify that the hearing should be evidentiary to have proper due process. Dr. Jain brought the claim of fraud against the attorney simply because Dr. Jain lost precious time of her practice in defending the claim which could not be valid without the document. Document was missing so the attorneys made up the document and labeled certified to make the Jains believe to that.
Tom Wert is trying to defend his claim and one of his tactic along with Michael Furbush is to present the evidences even when it was unlawful.
Dr. Usha Jain has to work hard and spent much energy against the judgment which was given with unlawful heairng held in 2017. Dr. Jain’s hard work resulted in REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT.
Conclusion: Evidentiary hearing requires the notice of evidentiary hearing. Tom Wert was wrong in doing the testimonies etc.
Unlawful acts would not be tolerated in the Justice System of America. Citizens stand your ground.
This is a real story and not a legal advice in any way.