In Part 17, I showed the point where the court became part of the story.
Judge Welch denied my Trial Rule 53.1 request herself.
The published procedure said the Chief Administrative Officer was supposed to decide whether withdrawal was warranted.
I asked Judge Welch to correct it.
She denied correction too.
Then a higher-court document appeared with an earlier date and later electronic activity.
That left me in a position that is difficult to explain unless you have lived inside it.
I call it the limbo.
The Same Pattern Again
This was not the first time I was stuck between two doors that were both locked.
Earlier in the case, I had asked for the Compensation Agreement.
Valeo’s own Employment Agreement said my compensation was governed by a separate Compensation Agreement.
Valeo’s own Employment Agreement said the complete agreement included the Compensation Agreement.
So I asked for it.
I denied that a valid Compensation Agreement had been produced.
I raised it in filings.
I asked to inspect the original instrument.
But the case kept moving anyway.
That was the first version of the trap.
The document mattered.
The document was not produced.
The case moved forward anyway.
Then the same kind of thing happened with Trial Rule 53.1.