When reading the Opinion in Simmons v Wilson be sure you know what “opinion” is defined as.
Definition of Opinion :
o·pin·ion
/əˈpiny(ə)n/
noun
- a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
- A belief or judgement that rest on grounds insufficient to produce certainty.
The court of appeals opinion in Simmons v Wilson is not based on facts or any knowledge
A note from us to you :
The messages and responses have been exactly how we thought you would see it and it has been amazing. We feel the power of public opinion . Thank you again for all the mail ! Cheating to win is for losers plain and simple !
ITS NEVER OK TO BRAIN WASH A CHILD !
Sure does not look like the man the court is describing does it? He loves my kids despite the incorrect views of the court .
You know when your friends know about this case and laugh at it …it’s not taken serious
If you believe what the Court of Appeals say in their opinion your being fooled.
This case states that the divorce was due to the fathers substance abuse. There is no such mention of any substance abuse in the divorce settlement. See for yourself .
This case states Mr. Simmons has been violent , yet there are no reports of any kind showing such . It’s hard to understand how a father who has paid all his child support and health insurance , who goes to work daily and files his own appeal could be using any drug . Something is not adding up .
We wonder if the fact that the ex wife Mrs Wilson’s husband is good friends with her attorney and that attorney is good friends with the judge in this case ( former District Attorney and assistant District Attorney ) had anything to do with this ? Lets dabble and see shall we? Let’s look at what the court ignored at trial and see if it looks odd .
Bias in the trial
The problem of data bias in appellate court opinions
Cited 26 times
The first paragraph in the article mentioned is stated as this:
Abstract
“For decades, researchers have studied the relationship between the political leanings of judges and the outcomes of appellate litigation in the United States. The primary source of data for this research has been published judicial opinions that describe cases and their outcomes. However, only a relatively small number of cases result in published opinions, and this sample of cases may be subject to serious biases.”
This is another one of those cases in Simmons v Wilson
This case states Mr. Simmons is violent however you don’t see any such behavior on his social media? This case states he used substances however none of his photos on his pages show any changes in appearance? Something is not adding up !
The step father once emailed Mr. Simmons saying ” do you think you can change the order ” ? because if you try we will use simple facts to show it’s correct”.
That’s easy to show however because what your reading in the opinion was manufactured in the lower trial court , by a Judge who for all intensive purposes knows the mothers attorney well and does not know what is in the child’s best interest . There is no possible way she could know. Any judges at your child’s birthday parties? No . Any there to help your child when they cut their knee? Of course not !
How about when your child had a emotional let down from losing a baseball game? Nope not there either. No judge was there when they said their first words, learned how to walk or any school events . The judge does not even know your child’s shoe size for crying out loud. I could go on and on about what the judge did not do in your child’s life and ask you if you think it’s ok for a total stranger to decide what your kids best interests are and I promise you will say no ! Not only does the step father not realize this he is acting as if him knowing his wife’s attorney and being good friends with him and the fact his wife’s attorney was the former DA and the judge the former assistant DA under him for many years had nothing to do with the outcome in this case . This judge should have recused herself and did not .
The opinions you read are derived from these judges who know attorneys some having a close relation to them . If you think going into a courtroom with that like it is and the other party with a attorney with no former working relationship with the judge is fair then your fooling yourself ! That being said how much weight can a opinion really carry? Not much ! It’s coming from a total stranger, not someone who knows the child’s needs . Remember that ! I will also add how does the parent who files for a modification look in the eyes of others after a settlement agreement has been reached when they’re allowing a total stranger to decide their own kids best interest? it makes them look like they don’t know what’s in their own kids best interests! How bout those simple facts ? Here is another point showing the incorrectness of the appeals opinion ……..Read the appeals opinion at the end it states the divorce was due to drug use . Nowhere in the divorce agreement does it mention any kind of use however even if it was it shows the mother being ok with it up til the divorce according to another footnote in that opinion . The appeals state the drug use was there for years before the divorce so the mother allowed it and was ok with it for years ? We encourage anyone to get a copy of the divorce settlement stamped with the date Nov 29, 2010 and see for yourself . There is no mention of any use . In fact we will post it below for you .
What the appeals court did in stating this use for several years was show the ex wife knew about it and yet Mr. Simmons helped her raise the kids just as good anyway . No problems whatsoever . Family Vacations taken . So it makes no sense now to say well the father should not be around the kids because nothing ever harmed them before the divorce. Regardless this was not even the case there was no use of any drugs anyway . All one has to do is go look at Mr. Simmons photos on his social media throughout the years from 2010 when the divorce occurred up to present day and there is not one photo that shows any kind of change in his appearance. This was made up by the ex wife but the jokes on her because sooner or later anyone doing meth is going to show in their appearance there is no way around it. Mr. Simmons has paid all his support , all the kids insurance , his appearance has never changed related to the allegations of use and he is proving them wrong every day . There is nothing to hide . This is not the only case that a parent is getting made to look like something they are not !
The step father is totally oblivious to the fact his new wife filed a false report on her ex ( shown below) The step father does not want to talk about that but he married her .
EVIDENCE MR. SIMMONS OFFERED THAT THE COURT IGNORED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE
- Psychiatric eval- this was signed by the therapist and ask the court to call if they had any questions it was court ordered the judge ignored it because it said something good about Mr Simmons that he was stable. This is bias. It’s a signed letter from a doctor how do you ignore that? Well this is why the judge should have recused
- D.O.T drug screens – this was offered to the court under the business records exception there is no reason the judge should have ignored these and yet she did because they were all passing no use of drugs. Again it shows Mr Simmons was not on anything the court just couldn’t accept that. This is another bias act.
- Cross examination of the ex wife – Let us say this , there are not too many pro se people who can put on a devastating cross like Mr. Simmons put on his ex wife . We present it below , but in short it clearly showed in her own words she was denying access to the kids and the court ignored this- this is another bias act
- Letters From the kids – you can’t get any better than showing written letters from your kids how much they want their father in their life the court just completely overlooked this it’s just injustice and yet another bias act
- The appointment of a guardian ad litem then declining to use the guardian – for the court to order a guardian ad litem it had concerns of something but when you appoint a guardian and then you never even inquire into it for the rest of the hearing or trial what does that say to the litigants that you were concerned at first but now you’re not concerned? The court essentially denied the father a chance to present facts with this because it knew it was going to come back with good things about Mr Simmons . The court didn’t want to hear it that’s why the court did not use the guardian. This is another bias act.
- Evidence of the ex-wife being mean to the kids- the father had audio of phone calls that he made to his kids with the mother interrupting him the court wasn’t going to hear that either another bias act.
The dictionary defines contradictory as :
contradictory
ADJECTIVE
If two or more facts, ideas, or statements are contradictory, they state or imply that opposite things are true. […]
And your looking at it here
The above photo showing the footnotes is from the Georgia Court of Appeals . It’s states the divorce was due to the fathers substance use. Now we are going to show you why what you read there is made up . Below are photos of the Divorce agreement and there is not one word related to any substance use . Anyone reading the appeals opinion is being deceived. Period .
It then states the father admitted to it but then states he denied it well which is it?
Even if there was use there are other cases allowing Father’s to retain their custody despite his history of using drugs .
[See In the Interest of M.L.C., a child (2001) Georgia Court of Appeals
There is little evidence of record indicating how the parents’ drug use affected M.L.C.
We do agree with the father, however, that there is insufficient evidence supporting the juvenile court’s conclusion that M.L.C. is deprived.
Because we agree with the father that there is insufficient evidence supporting the juvenile court’s order, we reverse.]
Look at the second footnote above and we see the words “the husband continued to deny he had drug or mental health problems “
This is because the court was given a letter stating the husband was of sound mind , signed by the therapist and it was ignored as evidence also .
On the transcripts the wife’s attorneys asked on cross examination about the letter to which Mr. Simmons stated ” The number to the doctors office is on the letter if you have any questions please call them” which is exactly what the letter asks the court to do if there were any questions . The court refused to do so !
So why in the world would anyone admit they had mental issues when you have this documentation before you?
The amount of evidence ignored in this at the trial level is horrendous.
How the mother Mrs. Wilson is able to use this as a complaint for custody when she was perfectly ok with it for years is a red flag.
MRS. WILSONS WITNESS
Ms. Morgan was clearly upset with Mr. Simmons leaving the relationship. Why else would she be on his side then after he leaves the relationship jumps over to Mrs. Wilson’s side? Her testimony should not have even been considered yet this judge did consider it . It just shows bias .
Mr. Simmons has helped babysit multiple times since this hearing so it’s ok for him to babysit other people’s kids but not ok for him to be around his ? That makes a lot of sense let us tell you ! This must be the best interests of the kids at its best ! …..
Here is the ex wife partaking in the festivities with the same person she had bad mouthed in court . She’s smiling having a good time and there’s more than this . Mrs. Wilson was driven by money which was the real reason for the divorce . She wanted to be classier they everyone else .
This case has the ex wife , her new husband who is good friends with her attorney , a former DA and a Judge who was previously the assistant DA under the ex wife’s attorney .
It could not get any better than this for the ex wife.
Mr. Simmons did not find this out until after the case was over. Nonetheless, it should have been pointed out by the judge that a recusal was in need .
Judicial Disqualification
Under canon 3 of the Judicial code of Conduct
3. Canon 3 states in part :
C. Disqualification
(1) a judge should disqualify him or herself in a proceeding in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned including but not limited to instances where:
(a) he or she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding
(b) he or she served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy or lawyer with whom he or she previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it.
Although this part (b) requires the issue of the pending matter or case , the fact that this judge was the assistant DA to the ex wife’s attorney who previously was the DA this is too close for comfort for any reasonable minded person . The main reason being that the ex-wife’s husband is good friends with her attorney. This judge should have pointed this out and stepped aside and because she did not you see it becoming a one-sided event everything the ex-wife brings in is put on the record nothing of the ex husband gets put on the record.
Now who out there thinks that under this scenario that you could possibly win against your ex?
When the appeals court makes it’s decision it’s hard to think any of it could be truth when the ex wife has all these cards stacked against her ex husband .
The Following image is from the trial transcript , it is the cross examination on the ex wife done by her ex husband Mr Simmons. This is one of the items of evidence not even considered by the trial judge and as you can see after Mr. Simmons shared this part of the transcript with the people on Quora , Mr. Simmons got the kind of responses that the judge in this case failed to do . Over nine hundred upvotes on how Mr Simmons put a devastating cross examination on his ex wife . Over seventeen thousand views . This judge , ignores crucial testimony which should have went against Mrs. Wilson , who signed the settlement agreement promising to encourage her kids relationship with her ex husband and clearly has failed to do so. I wonder if the fact her attorney is good friends with the judge has anything to do with it?
Public opinion favors the father . Let’s count the number of times a reasonable person will see bias in the acts of the court and none of these acts are in the final judgement .
It is difficult to understand how a judge could ignore this unless there is bias present .
The cross-examination above from The trial transcripts clearly show the mother not encouraging the kids to talk to the father, this was ignored by the judge when it should not have been and clearly can only demonstrate the bias there .
The ex-wife, the very first report she filed against her ex husband was unfounded when the case closed, so everything after that if they can lie once they’ll do it again that’s all you got to remember about this whole case.
What is even more amusing is the step father telling Mr. Simmons that he could not change the order because they would just use simple facts to show it’s accurate . However the step father cannot answer to these facts that occurred …
-Real victims don’t go into superior court asking for a protection order against their ex for the so called “victim” and their kids….and a week later calls the police on their ex for being at a baseball game while their ex was trying to obey the 100 yard distance restriction by watching their son’s game from a adjacent field , no where close to the so called ” victim” , then weeks after that the mother violates the very same order she prayed for by leaving the kids 20 yards away next door to their ex knowing the kids will go see their parent ( and the kids did exactly that ) while the so called ” victim” goes shopping with the step father. That’s not a victim that’s a liar . You ask for protection then go out and break your own order getting closer to the person that you got it against (20 yards) than they did you when you had them arrested ( behind the 100 yard limit) . Your not a victim your the abuser and you don’t need Superior Court to make the finding of that it’s common sense ….the facts speak it clear : The public knows who the real abuser is !
… The only credible threat around here is the mother destroying family bonds
– Use their four year old child as a weapon not once but twice to hurt that same child’s bond with a loving parent
-File for full custody allowing a total stranger (a judge) who never put a bandaid on her own kids cuts never attended any birthdays , never heard the kids first words ( which was DADA by the way) never taught them how to ride a bike or was there for any of their emotional needs or anything regarding that child’s well-being to decide what’s in her own kids best interest because apparently the mother does not know what is the best interests. Certainly no judge could possibly know it either .
– Puts pressure on her own kids not to talk to their only father they have known . We will post the text of this occurrence below
-Allows a stranger around her kids in the step dad to act as the father
LETS LOOK AT THE EX WIFES
SO CALLED “EVIDENCE “
WHICH THIS COURT SOME
HOW MANAGED TO ACCEPT IT?
So the ex wife is upset over a Facebook post which denounces parental alienation…. If the ex wife is bothered maybe stop doing it !
Yeah that’s some Trophy wife you got there !
You can ignore those facts above all you want but you cannot get rid of it .
The police were never called to the home during the marriage and the cases the ex wife filed after divorce that caused her ex to be arrested , were dismissed . You will not find any domestic violence plea or conviction and that’s because there were none . Look it up all day long !!!!!!
<ahref=”https://https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find/amp”>Click here</a>
She will tell people ” he had a protection order against him ” but not tell them that she got the order based on hearsay by using her 4 year old girl as a weapon.
Mrs. Wilson seems to think it’s ok to use her kids as weapons to get the order against her ex husband Mr. Simmons but she would be incorrect . The reasonable minded public cannot condone such actions using your child .
What you the reader do not know is that the whole time during the protection order , Mr. Simmons made it a point to never contact his ex and he did not during the whole time to prove it was invalid .
She will tell people check his arrest record but never says to them the arrests were dismissed because she had no evidence .
Chris Simmons on the hidden agenda by Crecia Wilson
____________________________________
As if the court is finding reasons to not allow visits when the following occurs
- It orders a guardian ad litem to help with the case then never uses the guardian which effectively prevented Mr Simmons from showing he has a good relationship with his kids .
- It refuses to punish the plaintiff ex wife for denial of visitation .
- The court is given evidence of the plaintiff violating her own protection order and does nothing .
- It hears the plaintiff s own testimony that showed she is violating the custody order and does nothing about it.
All the above is biased
See below the words of children who are now adults and we’re ignoring their Dad because of what their mother told them
March 18th, 2021
CENTERS FOR JUSTICE, VINDICATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
THE APPEALS BAD OPINION LINKS
” If you don’t encourage the child to have a relationship with the other parent , you’re either a bad parent or a bad grandparent , you can either encourage it or discourage it ” Judge Judith Sheindlin March 10th 2015
Knowing all of these facts that were left out of the order brings questions regarding a fair trial . Remember if the judgement rendered in this case is a product of a false report by the ex , bias in the court , a so called victim violating her own protection order and the way evidence is ignored when the father presents it but accepted when the evidence does not even amount to anything wrong done by the father when the mother presents it how else can anyone view it except bias then what you are reading in the appeals opinion is nothing more than questionable .
The American public deserves honesty in what they read . It’s not just this case but so many other cases turn on who a judge knows and until this is changed to allow for fair trials it will continue and you could be next !
Simmons v Wilson 2017 Georgia Court of Appeals - Public Critic 