Sometimes judges options and final rulings are based on bad law . When judges , attorneys and prosecutors don’t follow laws and rig the system to their favor we can see how the decisions alter in favor of the other party . Parties can make mistakes with lack or unequal resources . When rules and laws are applied unfairly we can see how injustice takes place. Due to the injustice I have received I see why legal resources and equal access to time and deadlines are important to prevent citation errors or mistakes . The opposing party used a non turbocourt email address so file was never properly served within the deadline , however before opposing party knew they made a mistake they filed a certificate of service . The court covered that up but as a result Volesky made clerical errors rushing to respond without equal access of time for preparation knowing the court would be bias and made it’s decision prior at the beginning of the case and wouldn’t be fair to Volesky regardless . I do not recognize a court’s decision or order that is based on fraud . Infact I have no respect for a system of people who allow this to continue infact we live on stolen land anyways . Who said it was ok to come to land and harm the original people placing a flag in the dirt saying our land our rules now , but rules only apply to you not us ? 

Let the public decide if it was ok for the court to hide a medical record for nearly 19 years showing a medical condition and not abuse . Let the public decide if covering up deadline errors and false certificate of service for opposing parties affected Volesky’s preparation of her case .these judges and attorneys need to be held accountable especially since Volesky has custody of other children but the court misrepresent the entire case not admitting they hid files they gave volesky her other children and apologized to Volesky for their past mistakes but will not fix their mistake with the first two . The courts want to keep it covered up . This is why I believe our system is trafficking children . Volesky was tired and asked the clerk I know the judge will be bias and not grant me extra filing time should I file my brief and ask for extension the same day just incase the judge isn’t bias and correct errors later if they don’t extend time for me since I wasn’t properly served .

 

Before we begin above our videos and files showing the opposing party filed a fraudulent certificate of service in which the court covered up and punished volesky by not giving Volesky extra time even tho the opposing party never served volesky in time taking away 8 days of preparation for volesky a non attorney who lacks cool ai legal software that the opposing parties have that helps them . Volesky has had to prepare hundreds of pages under stress of the continuous fraud the courts have committed and also has a child , works and goes to school . Volesky made a clerical citation error but the case was not fabricated . Due to lack of time and equal laws not being applied to Volesky equally Volesky made a mistake in her brief a clerical citation error due to non stop judicial abuse for over 19 years . 

It’s important to understand Volesky is not an attorney and the attorneys who have made mistakes or committed fraud should no better . 

Volesky is learning and has not received justice .

Episode Topic: Volesky v. Arizona Department of Child Safety

Too many children are trafficked through hospitals and courts to never be seen by parents again. 

If Volesky was some monster why did the sane court who removed the first two grant her custody and child support of her child she currently has right now and has had him most of his entire life and he is 13 she had him the first two years and then again at age 4 until present . Evidence with retracted house hold address information will be publicly posted for review . The child Volesky has custody of was born the year after the court closed her case on false abandonment with no criminal convictions in that matter . Volesky was given that child and still has him . Where did the court traffic the other two children too and why ?

The Volesky Podcast examines procedural issues within the legal system by reviewing court records, filings, motions, and legal procedures. The podcast presents documented evidence from public records, including court documents, correspondence, timelines, and other supporting materials, allowing listeners to review the information and form their own conclusions. The podcast focuses on due process, equal application of court rules, access to justice, and transparency in judicial proceedings.

An evermore disturbing fact is that within one year of the court covering up the case and changing allegations from abuse to abandonment when medical documents showed medical conditions and not abuse the courts justified it by removing a child without a warrant without reason and later calling that false removal abandonment . We discuss the abuse of the court and child trafficking  through courts on this podcast. 

In this episode, I examine the court record, motions, filings, and correspondence in Volesky v. Arizona Department of Child Safety. My review focuses on allegations that opposing counsel, John Kelly and Andrew Fox of Coppersmith Brockelman PLC, failed to properly serve a reply brief within the required deadline while filing a certificate of service reflecting service.

I discuss the evidence, including court filings and email correspondence showing my efforts to obtain the missing brief after the deadline had passed. I also examine the legal issues raised, including procedural due process concerns, compliance with the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, and whether the parties were treated equally in the application of court rules and deadlines.

This episode provides a review of the public record and invites listeners to examine the documents and timeline for themselves.

In Volesky v. Arizona Department of Child Safety, this investigation examines whether the filing and service of a reply brief complied with the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. The evidence reviewed raises questions regarding the accuracy of the certificate of service, compliance with filing deadlines, and whether the conduct at issue implicates duties of candor, fairness, and professional responsibility under the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 3.3, 3.4, and 8.4.

In Volesky v. Arizona Department of Child Safety, this review examines whether the court applied procedural rules equally to all parties. The record raises concerns that while opposing parties were permitted to proceed despite alleged deadline and service irregularities, Volesky was denied additional time to correct filing issues and was required to proceed under significant time constraints.

Volesky contends that this unequal application of procedural requirements affected her ability to meaningfully prepare her case, correct citation errors, and respond effectively. As a self-represented litigant without access to the same legal research resources and technology available to courts and represented parties, Volesky relied on manual legal research and preparation while facing limited time to complete complex appellate requirements.

This review examines whether these circumstances implicate principles of procedural fairness, due process, equal application of court rules, and the obligation to provide a fair opportunity for all parties to be heard.

In conclusion, our review of the record raises concerns that attorneys John Kelly and Andrew Fox may not have complied with applicable deadlines and service requirements governing court filings. The issues examined include compliance with the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure (ARCAP), including requirements governing timely filing and service of documents, as well as the duty to provide accurate representations to the court.

The conduct reviewed raises questions under Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), Rule 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), and Rule 8.4 (Misconduct), which address honesty, fairness, and conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation. The review also examines whether the circumstances affected Volesky’s procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Arizona Constitution Article 2, Section 4, by limiting a meaningful opportunity to respond and participate in the appellate process.

The evidence, filings, certificates of service, and correspondence presented on this website are provided so the public can review the record and evaluate whether the applicable Arizona appellate rules, professional obligations, and principles of fair procedure were followed.

By Denying Volesky in the Case Volesky v DCS fair chance to recover a reply within the legal deadline and then the court covering that up causing Volesky to make citation errors due to lack of time or time to correct rush answers we find Volesky did not recieve due process due to Andrew Fox and John Kelly’s fraudulent Certificate of Service filed with the Appeals Division One Court in Arizona Under the case Volesky v. DCS . Furthermore the court also covered up evidence that the child was removed under false allegations of abuse as Volesky was never convicted and the court hid a document in 2007-2008 from a doctor stating the child ms medical conditions and that in his opinion it was not abuse . That document will also be publicly available on this website for further review and discussion .

What rules and laws do the viewers think the judges broke in this case . Evidence and discussions will be regularly posted for review . 

Thank you for staying tuned into this website as judicial misconduct has overtaken We the People denying constitutional rights .