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.
The rule mattered.
The procedure was not cleanly followed.
The case moved forward anyway.
Why Trial Rule 53.1 Was Different
The Compensation Agreement issue went to the foundation of Valeo’s contract claim.
But Trial Rule 53.1 went to something even more basic.
Authority.
If a judge no longer has authority to keep a case, then the next question is not who should win.
The next question is whether that judge can rule at all.
That is why the timing mattered.
That is why the procedure mattered.
That is why the later Chief Administrative Officer document mattered.
Because if the trial court’s authority had not been properly restored or confirmed, then everything that followed rested on unstable ground.
Summary judgment.
Sanctions.
Judgment.
Interest.
Collection.
Execution.
The sheriff’s writ.
All of it.
The Trap
Once the Trial Rule 53.1 issue existed, I had a problem.
If I kept litigating, I risked being told I had waived the issue by continuing to participate.
If I stopped litigating, the judgment could keep growing and eventually be enforced against me anyway.
That is the limbo.
Keep fighting, and they may say you submitted to the process.
Stop fighting, and they may say you failed to defend yourself.
There is no clean path out.
And years later, an unrelated Trial Rule 53.1 order in another case stated the problem plainly: a party can waive Trial Rule 53.1 relief by continuing to file pleadings or take voluntary action inconsistent with invoking that rule.
That is what I had been worried about all along.
The system can put you in a corner, then blame you for whichever direction you move.
What I Did
I did not invent this concern in 2026.
I raised it years ago.
In 2019, after more enforcement activity, I filed a notice with the court explaining that I believed the court did not have jurisdiction or authority to proceed until the Trial Rule 53.1 problem was properly resolved.
I was not asking the court for money.
I was not asking for special treatment.
I was not even asking the court to rule in my favor.
I was warning the court that the foundation had not been fixed.
I wrote that I was trying to protect the integrity of the court.
That may sound dramatic.
But that is what it felt like.
Because if the authority problem was real, every later action increased the risk.
For everyone.
What the Court Did
The court kept going.
The judgment kept growing.
Interest kept running.
Collection continued.
Years passed.
And now, in 2026, the same judgment is being used to reach into my family’s life.
My son’s bank account was frozen.
My daughter’s vehicle is listed in a sheriff’s writ.
My wife’s property interests are now in the path of enforcement.
My tools are listed.
My ability to work is threatened.
That is what limbo becomes when enough time passes.
It becomes enforcement.
The Practical Problem
This is not just a legal theory.
It is a practical nightmare.
A family cannot live inside unresolved court authority questions forever.
You still have to work.
You still have to file taxes.
You still have to pay bills.
You still have to raise children.
You still have to respond when money is frozen.
You still have to answer when the court orders property seized.
But every response creates the same fear:
Am I protecting my family, or am I accidentally waiving the issue?
That is the limbo.
Why the Compensation Agreement Still Matters
This is why I keep returning to the missing Compensation Agreement.
Some readers may wonder why that issue still matters after so many years.
It matters because it was the first unresolved foundation.
Valeo sued on an agreement structure that included a Compensation Agreement.
Valeo did not produce a signed Compensation Agreement.
The court allowed the case to move forward anyway.
Then, when Trial Rule 53.1 created a separate authority issue, that problem was not cleanly resolved either.
The same pattern repeated.
Do not resolve the foundation.
Move the case forward.
Treat the objection as clutter.
Enforce the result later.
That is the pattern.
Why This Matters Now
The current enforcement is not disconnected from the old record.
It is the consequence of the old record.
The sheriff’s writ does not appear out of nowhere.
It comes from the judgment.
The judgment comes from the orders.
The orders came after the Trial Rule 53.1 issue.
The Trial Rule 53.1 issue came after the court had already boxed away the missing Compensation Agreement and wage-fine evidence.
So when readers ask why I am still talking about 2017, this is why.
Because 2017 is now at my front door.
What Limbo Does
Limbo wears people down.
It drains money.
It drains attention.
It isolates you.
It makes attorneys avoid the case.
It makes ordinary life feel conditional.
It makes every filing feel dangerous.
It makes every silence feel dangerous too.
And when the party on the other side has more money, more lawyers, and more access, limbo becomes a weapon.
Not because anyone has to say that out loud.
Because that is how it functions.
The Question Keeps Getting Bigger
At the beginning, this was supposedly about a removal fee.
Then it became about wage fines.
Then it became about a missing Compensation Agreement.
Then it became about summary judgment evidence.
Then it became about metadata.
Then it became about a trial judge denying a request the published procedure sent elsewhere.
Then it became about a higher-court document with a date problem.
Now it is about enforcement against my family’s property.
That is the vortex.
Each unresolved problem pulled in the next person.
The next office.
The next order.
The next risk.
And after enough time, the original question becomes impossible to ignore:
Why would all of this happen over $37,000?
Part 19 will focus on that vortex.
Not as a theory of everything.
Not as a demand that readers accept every possible explanation.
But as the only image that fits the record:
A small case on the surface.
A much larger force underneath.
And more people pulled in as each prior decision had to be protected.
No comments:
Post a Comment