- Posted October 10, 2011 by
TEN ALLEGED FRAUDS UPON THE COURT
Plaintiffs begin with one of the integral quote cited repeatedly during these proceedings from the current Historic President of the United States: . “. . . [t]he empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges. . ." As David Beito and I discussed inthis article“African-Americans, the poor, and the politically weaktend to be the biggest victims of government violations of property rights. Since World War II, hundreds of thousands of people - most of them poor minorities - have been forcibly displacedby "blight" and "economic development" condemnations. The United States President, the Honorable Barack Obama. This article was released by the CATO Institute.http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9361
On or about September 21, 2011, the African American plaintiffs filed their allegedTEN FRAUDS UPON THE COURT in Florida for what plaintiffs viewed as a Judicial System vitiated by inconsistencies and irregularities that are crippling the system and hindering it from finding justice as exhibited below after nearly seven years of exemplary patience by plaintiffs. Pro Se plaintiffs in desperate need of relief, respectfully request that the Scholars and Justices of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT enforce the POWERS of the high court to halt the excruciating and torturous pain, hardship, damage and demise of an African American family facing the absence of justice and its appearance while standing with the undaunted courage of truths. Plaintiffs were damaged and injured as recognized by the lower court in bankruptcy proceedings and about five foreclosures. This case is even more interesting, for the lower court applied the test of Constitutional Standing and the case passed that test, yet the lower court apparently and for some unknown reasons which plaintiffs categorized asFRAUD UPON THE COURT, refused to obey the rules of the SUPREME COURT as laid down for the public in plaintiffs' view and despite plaintiffs' injuries, the lower court in 2011 called the case frivolous as understood. So plaintiffs are stuck in a legal maze and technical complexity while missing their jobs, livelihood, property, property rights along with their fundamental rights.
What is FRAUD UPON THE COURT? This question can only be answered by the United States Supreme Court not by any other individuals regardless of their competence or legal knowledge. FRAUD UPON THE COURT as understood by Pro Se plaintiffs, is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function, thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted." Plaintiffs further understand that FRAUD UPON THE COURT is "when an officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in FRAUD UPON THE COURT in Bulloch v. United States 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985). More over,FRAUD UPON THE COURT has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R. , 387 F.3d 689 (1968). Who is an officer of the Court? Lawyers are officers of the court as understood by plaintiffs. Federal judges are Judicial Officers of the Court. Fraud upon the court can be committed only by lawyers or/and judges not by civilians even in the case of one acting under the power of attorney, as understood by plaintiffs.
Now, without further ado, here are the alleged frauds upon the Federal Court in Florida:
This appears to be inoffensive. Right? Except that it vitiates everything in this case for that unauthorized appearance was force something strange in the judicial machinery meaning for the court to agree to bridge the case seamlessly from 2009 to 2011, to make sure that plaintiffs had lost their property with no recourse and that plaintiffs agreed to pay attorney cost after being impoverished by the direct actions of the minor Government in the State of Florida, namely, the Walton County. The explosive appearance of the withdrawn and terminated lawyer since April 2009, accepted by the court in January 2011 subsequent to a Pro Se Appeal, and after the court knew that plaintiffs continued Pro Se, does not carry the appearance of justice to say the least. Furthermore, the attorney appeared on behalf of plaintiffs to accept defeat and to agree that Plaintiffs must pay attorney costs unbeknownst to plaintiffs. This is egregious, preposterous and in defiance to the Supreme Court's ruling requiring an Attorney/Client agreement for representation. The Federal Court accepted that as the truth and acted upon it in their order in 2011. Meanwhile, information was sent to plaintiffs' old e-mail address unused by plaintiffs. Upon plaintiffs knowledge of that fraud, on May 5, 2011, plaintiffs confronted the attorney and informed him squarely that he was terminated since April 2009 not in 2011 and that he was acting without a contract. The attorney seemed to have been confused as he was jolted by the consequences of what he had done and upon plaintiffs vigorous request, the court acted within four hours and granted the withdrawal of that attorney on May 6, 2011 who had already done much to vitiate the system. This is gross and outrageous against African American plaintiffs or anybody regardless of their race for that matter who is injured and lost anything. You may ask, why would someone's attorney work against them? Follow this sequencial case carefully and discover for yourself. Plaintiffs are reiterating the words of Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death." This does not look like the America plaintiffs were trained to embrace as their homeland. Plaintiffs hold the proof and the facts as given to the lower court. This hurts plaintiffs to the core including the woman involved in this case who was going through her menopause.
An All-too-familiar delay while facing Rule 60 with new evidences and proof. This sort of delay is well-acquainted with by plaintiffs, and they never yielded justice nor the appearance of justice for nearly six years in this case. As it was at the start of this case it seems to be the same in the end and, after injuries and damages that led to the plaintiffs demise. Indeed, plaintiffs think of this as a mockery from the defendants who call plaintiffs injury as described by the lower court, "FRIVOLOUS." Please, please, give me liberty or give me death said Patrick Henry and reechoed by Pro Se African American plaintiffs.
Summary Judgement has been entered since March 31, 2009 in a sweeping move in favor of all defendants with clearly disputed issues unresolved. One of them is the fact that the court stated clearly that the County denied having issued a Stop Work Order which the County denied having denied. Thus it creates a material fact in a property rights and land use case with pre-existing harassment in a historically racially segregated area of Walton County in South Walton. Both the defendants and the court stated that the issue was irrelevant or not a material fact, plaintiffs are left to ponder and wonder if they are really in the United States. Now comes the earth-shaking question: Why is the judge placing irrelevant issues on her order dated March 31, 2009 to close such an unprecedented case where an African American family is loosing more than fifteen million dollars of appraised property? Plaintiffs do not know and they are saying with the preponderance of evidence at hand, "Give me liberty or give me death as Patrick Henry spoke so eloquently in 1775"
This is a major fraud in plaintiffs view since the Judge scolded plaintiff's party for wasting scarce judicial resources. Furthermore, in the case of oversight, Rule 60 is the tool to reopen the case based on the discretion of a willing judge. Why is there such reluctancy in reopening the case at the first place? Is there something to hide? The lower court wasted nearly one year from March 2006 to February 2007 doing nothing in the case and later on, upon Plaintiffs' real estate broker's sudden death in an airplane crash, and upon plaintiffs' insistency that the withdrawn attorney contact the court immediately, the attorney contacted the court and the court apologized in writing quickly (letter on file) Give me liberty or give me death said Patrick Henry and reechoed by African American Plaintiffs.
The termination of these orders was not only prejudicial to plaintiffs in terms of procedural issues but also in terms of financial loss. As real estate developers, plaintiffs expected th requested jury trial to be a time when their side of the story would be heard but after scheduling jury trial with final orders, the judge aborted both of them with no explanations to plaintiffs and with contempt for what the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT states. Those were unfair, prejudicial and costly to plaintiffs who watched the demise of their livelihood like the hour glass counting to zero. People that did bad things against the U.S. had their day or will have their day in court, but plaintiffs and tax-paying and hard-working citizens were refused access to the jury trial they requested. This is uncalled for. Give me liberty or give me death said Patrick Henry and reechoed by African American Plaintiffs. Life and liberty were promised to us by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
A commissioner's involvement was negated to extinction as NEW EVIDENCE in the case. The judge dismissed all the commissioners with prejudice while one of them particularly was engaged in inspecting and discussing the case with an attorney who stated that he spent nearly fifteen minutes in conversation with the Commissioner. Therefore, his testimony was never heard prior to the Summary Judgement and the plaintiffs respectfully requested the application of Rule 60 which was denied, thus, negating further the possible testimony of that commissioner. That commissioner holds a powerful truth for he was in the position to stop the UNFORTUNATE CONFUSION as found by the Appellate Court. Plaintiffs understand that "DURA LEX SED LEX" a latin expression which means the law is heard but its the law therefore, it is applicable to all citizens regardless of their ranks. None is above the law. The POWERS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT are respectfully requested here to bring order to possible legal chaos as seen by plaintiffs who had never seen the appearance of justice nor justice during these proceedings at all. Give me liberty or give me death said Patrick Henry and reechoed by African American Plaintiffs.
The lower court closed the case with the open rescission of a Estoppel letter. by closing the case on March 31, 2009. The Estoppel letter was predicted, it was reviewed, it was investigated, it was signed, it was issued, and later on it was mailed to the wrong address and finally it was rescinded by the Walton County for fear of its consequences. Now, it seems that any Government can give a bad word to the public and they will find another branch to support them one way or another at the expense of the public. The Appeal Court found something different, during the month of December 2010, after what the Appeal court calls "Excellent Oral Arguments," the Appeal court issued an unpublished opinion stating "UNFORTUNATE CONFUSION with respect to the initial permission for the wall and later the withdrawal thereof." (not verbatim) Pro Se plaintiffs understood that to be a violation of their Estoppel rights. Yet, the Appeal court stated it did not see Racial Segregation and apparently since there was no racial segregation, they also negated the Estoppel Violation. And, the lower court wants plaintiffs to believe that that too was OK. It is ok to give a bad word to the public, ok to cause the public to err and to their own detriment and then, and is it Ok to give Carte Blanche to a minor Government to perpetrate injustice. The lower Court found nothing wrong with that while the Walton County stated clearly on that ESTOPPEL LETTER that "It would be unjust to deny you permission" but, later on, they did exactly that. Give me liberty or give me death said Patrick Henry and reechoed by African American Plaintiffs.
The lower court stated to our understanding that the area of South Walton was "Historically racially segregated" on March 31, 2009 on the order closing the case. Therefore, we entered a place in the U.S. Known by U.S. authorities as a historically racially segregated area and yet not labeled as such to protect citizens from getting burned, meaning getting injured. The Government may have or may be doing something about that condition now, but, as African Americans, we knew nothing of that pre-existing condition. Why do we suffer from something that has been sitting there for years? The lower court stated the fact, the U.S.census bureau stated the statistical reality, a white woman who approached the plaintiffs subsequent to their purchase of the land made it clear that a black gardener came to work for her one year prior and the neighbors called the cops on the black man. The previous owners of that property were granted four months to fix a violation while the new owners. African Americans, were stopped completely before the same county obtained a written complaint, thus, violating their Due Process rights. Plaintiffs view this as an absurdity and a complete paradox. The lower court found nothing wrong with that. Give me liberty or give me death said Patrick Henry and reechoed by African American Plaintiffs.
The Court negated all TAKINGS CLAIMS in the case and by prolonging the case, contributed to the exhaustion of plaintiffs statutes of limitation. The temporary, Permanent, physical, and regulatory TAKINGS. Plaintiffs were stopped on May 11, 2005 on or about 4:15 p.m. by two white males in a little white truck who arrived with a Stop Work Order prepared in advance and planted that Stop Work Order on plaintiffs property that nullified the property to extinction. It should be noted that the property was so valuable at the time that the Donald Trump's financing division was interested to finance Plaintiffs' project. The stop work orders barred the Donald Trump's Office, the three interested individuals including an African American who had a contract on one of the lots in that development and all future interests in the property. The case went to Federal Court on or about March 2006 and was sitting dormant in that court until February 6, 2007. It was only when plaintiffs' real estate broker, the late Deborah Irby, died suddenly in an airplane crash that plaintiffs vigorously requested that their attorney contact the court ipso facto. After nearly 379 motions and attorney time sheets, the lower court closed the case by granting Summary Judgement to all the defendants in a sweeping move. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the POWERS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT be applied to render equitable justice.
Therefore, before deep involvement of public opinion and not knowing what else to do, plaintiffs are turning to the Supreme Court first for help in the restoration of legal order in our homeland.
Plaintiffs hasten to point out that what they had suffered in this case so much, they do not wish the same on any body else regardless of race, gender, creed, origin and nationalities. The current President Barack Obama, whose quotes are integral part of these proceedings specially now ashe "urges Congress to pass the American Jobs Act to put more people to work, put more money in the pockets of working Americans and give the economy the jolt it needs right now" (October 8, 2011 excerpts) seems to utter a different command from what plaintiffs are experiencing down in Florida, with a Judge that allowed African American property and their jobs to be taken away without just compensation or any relief as the Florida 1995 Act demands in the case of TAKINGS here and who wants to turn the African American plaintiffs into the offenders instead of the injured. And, the case has changed, as the fight now is a 1983 racial discrimination as seen on Pacer. By changing the label, the defendants hope to change the style for a case already carved on concrete. Plaintiffs lost their property, their property rights, their fundamental rights at the hands of a minor government apparently protected by the Federal court in Florida and as though that was not bad enough, the Federal Judge wants the injured and impoverished plaintiffs to pay for attorney cost.
This is an attempt to change something highly visible meaning Property and property rights violations into something that is highly imperceptible, that is 1983 racial discrimination which was perhaps the reason why plaintiffs suffered hardships but not the what is the hardship in question. Why would Federal Judges become so impervious with such a wide array of evidence pointing to the cause of that injustice and a wide range of discretionary tools in their hands? Plaintiffs do not know. Perhaps, some of the defendants want to lessen and water down this case like in the days of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., nobody knows why and it seems that the court is bent on looking at the case only one way to plaintiffs' further hurt and detriment. The lower Court stated that plaintiffs had Constitutional Standing based on tests that justify the legality of plaintiffs claims. Once anyone sees those facts, the panorama will begin to shift and clear prejudice as committed by the lower court will emerge with awritten apology nearly one year after plaintiffs apply for relief from March 2006 till February 2007. Plaintiffs do not know why. Neither can a court correct itself in case of FRAUDS UPON THE COURT. The intervention of the high court and/or the Congress and/or the DOJ/ and or the Executive Branch would be indispensable, in plaintiffs' eyes.
in the compendium put together by the National Economic Council, Council of Economic Advisers, and Office of Science and Technology Policy it states that "We can create the jobs and industries of the future by doing what America does best – investing in the creativity and imagination of our people. To win the future, we must out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. This case apparently, is working in the opposite direction unless redirected by the firm hands of the Supreme Court the Legislative and the Executive, if needed, as time is running out and the lower court continues to operate as though nothing happens. http://10fraudsuponthecourt.blogspot.com/
These are additional links to this file: