Foreclosure Hamlet

Supporting, Informing & Connecting People in Foreclosure

ISO Signers

Hook up with others who have the same signatories transferring your home from one financial entity to another or testifying to facts of your alleged loan or testifying to owed attorneys fees or answering interrogatories, providing facts regarding the foreclosure of your home, etc, etc, etc.

The individuals named below are not accused of wrong-doing or fraudulent activity or criminal fabrication of any sort.

Comment

You need to be a member of Foreclosure Hamlet to add comments!

Join Foreclosure Hamlet

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 4:06pm

The Complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears to a certainty that Plaintiffs would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts that could be proved in support of the claims. See Gomez v Toledo (1980, US) 64 L Ed 2d 572, 100 S Ct 1920.  See RCW 4.96.020 & 010.
The Seventh Amendment, provides in pertinent part that "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved..." This language does not include a single reference to "manipulation" of a jury by the Court in a conspiracy
with lawyers to design a verdict suitable to the Court through the use of lawyer rules, judicial rules, court rules, or otherwise trumped-up legal technicalities and instructions which effectively "handcuffs" the jury.
All of these activities are no more or less than a denial of the right to a jury
of peers with the constitutional authority to judge both the facts and law in a case. 

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 4:04pm

SEE BELOW HARPERS  MAGAZINE; JANUARY 2012’S COVER PIECE “STOP PAYMENT” featured by Christipher Ketcham  about homeowner-advocates: Paragraph under Urban Legan,…and a manipulation of the  American legal system to provide an unfair advantage and to cover the tracks of those  who “shorted” the American homeowner.  [Same done in these courts by the judges and  the lawyers.] a corrupt judicial systems deprives due process

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 4:03pm

18 U.S.C. § 3663A - Mandatory restitution to victims of certain crimes: Appeallants have evidenced a pattern of conspiracy to commit multiple crimes against us, by multiple defendants.

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense described in subsection (c), the court shall order, in addition to, or in the case of a misdemeanor, in addition to or in lieu of, any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense or, if the victim is deceased, to the victims estate.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the term victim means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered including, in the case of an offense that involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity, any person directly harmed by the defendants criminal conduct in the course of the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern. In the case of a victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardian of the victim or representative of the victims estate, another family member, or any other person appointed as suitable by the court, may assume the victims rights under this section, but in no event shall the defendant be named as such representative or guardian.

(3) The court shall also order, if agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement, restitution to persons other than the victim of the offense. (b) The order of restitution shall require that such defendant; (1) in the case of an offense resulting in damage to or loss or destruction of property of a victim of the offense (A) return the property to the owner of the property or someone designated by the owner; or (B) if return of the property under subparagraph (A) is impossible, impracticable, or inadequate, pay an amount equal to (i) the greater of; (I) the value of the property on the date of the damage, loss, or destruction; or (II) the value of the property on the date of sentencing, less (ii) the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is returned; (2) in the case of an offense resulting in bodily injury to a victim (A) pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary medical and related professional services and devices relating to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care, including nonmedical care and treatment rendered in accordance with a method of healing recognized by the law of the place of treatment; (B) pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary physical and occupational therapy and rehabilitation; and (C) reimburse the victim for income lost by such victim as a result of such offense; (3) in the case of an offense resulting in bodily injury that results in the death of the victim, pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary funeral and related services; and (4) in any case, reimburse the victim for lost income and necessary child care, transportation, and other expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense or attendance at proceedings related to the offense.

 (1) This section shall apply in all sentencing proceedings for convictions of, or plea agreements relating to charges for, any offense;  (A) that is;   (ii) an offense against property under this title, or under section 416(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856 (a)), including any offense committed by fraud or deceit; or ( the stress caused by this crime is physical injury). …. (B) in which an identifiable victim or victims has suffered a physical injury or pecuniary loss…..(2) In the case of a plea agreement that does not result in a conviction for an offense described in paragraph (1), this sect

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 4:01pm

.                THE ‘AFFIDAVIT OF REGULARITY’ 

CPLR 3212(b) mandates that “[a] motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings, and by other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions.  The affidavit shall be by a person having knowledge of the facts [.]” 

City defendants have failed to meet its initial burden of establishing prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services of NY v. Donegan, 26 Misc.3d 1227(A), 907 N.Y.S.2d 438 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2010); Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Martin, 11 Misc.3d 219, 807 N.Y.S.2d 284, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 25536 (Civ. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2005).

misrepresentation and negligence by willful conduct and Breach of oath of office and Breach of duty of care, the motion for summary judgment should have been denied because the defendants/Appellee’s  have failed to meet its initial burden of establishing prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.  Emigrant Mortgage Company, Inc. v. Fitzpatrick, 29 Misc.3d 745, 906 N.Y.S.2d 874 (Sup. Ct. Suff. Co. 2010). 

(1.)  RCW 9A.04.080; Limitation of actions.

(1) Prosecutions for criminal offenses shall not be commenced after the periods prescribed in this section.


     (b) The following offenses shall not be prosecuted more than ten years after their commission:

     (i) Any felony committed by a public officer if the commission is in connection with the duties of his or her office or constitutes a breach of his or her public duty or a violation of the oath of office;

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:58pm

to  Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicalities. Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as practicing lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th Cir1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)."  [Ihad believed Pro Se to be sufficient.]
            In Puckett v. Cox, it was held that a pro-se pleading requires less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth Circuit USCA). Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) "The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision onthe merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP and the State Court rule which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice." Civil Rights Vol 4, US Supreme Court Digest     Page 555 Judges not totally Immune 87 SCT 1213 Pierson v. Ray 94 SCT 1683 Scheur v. Rhodes 96 SCT 984 Imbler v. Pathtman 98 SCT 2018 Monell v. Social SVS; 98 SCT 2894 Butz v. Economov

            On Judges violation of oath of office; Many judges have a total disregard for their oath of office under Title 28 Section 453, All judges take this oath of office swearing to uphold the U.S. Constitution.  These are not trivial claims. It’s a big deal to submit a false affidavit to a judge. Most states including Washington State, have criminal or civil laws (or both) barring false certification. Defendants Unfair or deceptive acts against Pro Se Plaintiffs/ Propria Persona’s. Appealants evidenced beyond the preponderance of evidence by substantial material fact, declarations and depositions,

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:57pm

.                THE ‘AFFIDAVIT OF REGULARITY’ 

CPLR 3212(b) mandates that “[a] motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings, and by other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions.  The affidavit shall be by a person having knowledge of the facts [.]” 

: Defense against dismissal of complaint under Rule 12-B
There is legal sufficiency to show Plaintiff is entitled to relief under his Complaint. A Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) also Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1832 (1989). Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations. In applying the Conley standard, the Court will "accept the truth of the well-pleaded factual allegations of the Complaint." 

The Seventh Amendment, provides in pertinent part that "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved..." This language does not include a single reference to "manipulation" of a jury by the Court in a conspiracy with lawyers to design a verdict suitable to the Court through the use of lawyer rules, judicial rules, court rules, or otherwise trumped-up legal technicalities and instructions which effectively "handcuffs" the jury. All
of these activities are no more or less than a denial of the right to a jury of peers with the constitutional authority to judge both the facts and law in a case. 

 The Complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears to a certainty that
Plaintiffs would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts that
could be proved in support of the claims. See Gomez v Toledo (1980, US) 64 L
Ed 2d 572, 100 S Ct 1920.

On Absolute Immunity for Judges ;   A complaint is actionable against Judges under Title 42 U.S.C. 1985 (3), whose immunity does not extend to conspiracy under color of law. Section 1985(3) reaches both conspiracies under color of law and conspiracies effectuated through purely private conduct. Title 42 USC 1983 provides in relevant part that: "every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State....subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution. ..shall
be liable to the party injured...." 

A Title 42 1985 action which seeks compensatory and punitive damages in conjunction with equitable relief as in this case is considered a legal claim, entititling Plaintiff to a jury trial. See An-Ti v. Michigan Technological Univ., 493 F. Supp. 1137.

Plaintiff alleges a "class based", invidiously discriminatory animus is behind the conspirators' action as the Court records reflect. That the actions were clearly a product of bias and prejudice of the Court. See Griffen v. Breckridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971)

The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic 113 S.Ct.753 (1993) that the standard announced in Griffen was not restricted to "race" discrimination. It is therefore reasonable to assume that 1985 (3) may be used for "class-based" claims other than race which is alleged in this case. 

The defendant lawyers acting in conspiracy with state actors under color of law have become state actors in this case. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that "private parties", lawyers in this case, may be held to the same standard of "state actors" where the final and decisive act was carried out in conspiracy with a state actor or state  official. See Den

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:48pm

look at the last one, when the banksters are not registered to do business in your state and are not in compliance with state law and state deed of trust law which none of them are they are not lawfully able to file the complaint and or do foreclosure and the attorney is out of jurisdiction to do so also.

Definition of Void Judgment: any judgment which a court renders while lacking jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or the parties. 

* Wahl v. Round Valley Bank 38 Ariz , 411, 300 P. 955(1931), 
* Tube City Mining & Millng Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146p 203(1914); and 
* Millken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S. CT. 339,85 L. Ed. 2d 278 (1940). 

Subject matter jurisdiction can never be presumed, waived, or constructed,
even by mutual consent of the parties, and it has two parts:

(1) the statutory or common law authority for the court to hear the case, and 

(2) the appearance and testimony of a competent fact witness - in other
words, sufficiency of pleadings.


When we examine a judgment, the following indices tell us whether a court
had subject matter jurisdiction. Successful litigants will know each and
every one of them by heart. Subject matter jurisdiction usually fails
because of one of these reasons: 

(1) No petition in the record of the case, Brown v. VanKeuren,
340 Ill. 118,122 (1930). 

(2) Defective petition filed, Same case as above. 

(3) Fraud committed in the procurement of jurisdiction, Fredman
Brothers Furniture v. Dept. of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202, 486 N.E. 2d
893(1985) 

(4) Fraud upon the court, In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill,
App. 3d 393(1962) 

(5) Judge does not follow statutory procedure, Armstrong v.
Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921) 

(6) Unlawful activity of a judge, Code of Judicial Conduct. 

(7) Violation of due process, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458,
58 S.Ct. 1019(193 ; Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake , 10 Ill.2d 241, 245,
140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956); Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936), ( If
the court exceeded it's statutory authority. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278
F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) 

(8) One or more actions violated 11 U.S.C. 362(a), in re
Garcia, 109 B.R. 335 (N.D> Illinois, 1989). 

(9) No proper pleadings presented a justiciable issue to the
court, Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App 3d 701, 637 N.E. 2d 633 (1st Dist.
1994) 

(10) A complaint states no cognizable cause of action against that
party, Charles v. Gore, 248 Ill App. 3d 441, 618 N.E. 2d 554 (1st. Dist.
1993) 

(11) A person/law firm prohibited by law to practice law in that
jurisdiction represented a litigant before the court. 


Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:44pm

Dismissal Issues to Reconsider and reinstate:

The Complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears to a certainty that
Plaintiffs would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts that
could be proved in support of the claims. See Gomez v Toledo (1980, US) 64 L
Ed 2d 572, 100 S Ct 1920.

The allegations of a Complaint prepared by a state prisoner acting pro se
are generally taken as true for purposes of motion to dismiss. See Hughes v
Rowe (1980, US) 66 L Ed 2d 163, 101 S Ct 173. 

RULE 60 

The final judgement of this Court should be vacated under Rule 60(B). The
Court is requested to weigh the interest in substantial justice against the
simple need for preserving finality of the judgement. See Expenditures
Unlimited Aquatic Enterprises, Inc. v. Smithsonian Institute, 1974, 500 F.2d.
808, 163 U.S. App.D.C.140. See also Brown v. Clark Equipment Co., D.C. Mc.
1982, 961 F.R.D. 166. 

Court -a judgement to dismiss because of some trumped up technicality giving
excuse to dismiss a non-lawyer pro se litigant's complaint with merit in a
lawyer dominated Court hearing. In support of Plaintiffs Motion to vacate
Judgement, the following cases are offered; Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway,
(151 F2d.240) Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The ruling of the court in this case held; "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se
in a suit for protection of civil rights, the court should endeavor to
construe the Plaintiff's pleading without regard to technicalities."
 In
Walter Process Equipment v. Food Machinery 382 U.S. 172 (1965) it was held
that in a "motion to dismiss", the material allegations of the complaint are
taken as admitted."

Rico Case Law:

The defendants constitute an illegal enterprise in acts or threat of acts in
violation of Civil Rico Federal Racketeering Act USC 18, 1961-1963 et seq.
The following are particular violations:

18 USC 241: Conspiracy against Rights of Citizens:

18 USC 3: Accessory after the fact, knowing that an offense has been
committed against the United States, relieves, receives, comforts or assists
the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment. 

18 USC 242: Deprivation of Rights color of law of rights protected under the
Constitution of the U.S.

18 USC 512: Tampering with a witness

18 USC 1341: Mail fraud

18 USC 1343: Wire fraud

18 USC 1503: Obstruction of justice

18 USC 1510: Obstructing of criminal investigation

18 USC 1513: Retaliating against a witness, victim or informant

18 USC 1951: Interference with interstate commerce 

18 USC 1621: Perjury

18 USC 1001: Fraud

Continued statute of limitation in ongoing activity (conspiracy) (bankruptcy fraud)

Judicial Notice is discretionary. With Judicial Cognizance, the judge is BOUND to act:
See Black's Law, 6th Ed, pg 847

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:44pm

Substantive due justice has not been done 42uSC1983. A significant error has occurred the trial court should want to correct.

CR(7), there is no evidence or reasonable inference from the evidence to justify the verdict or the decision, or that is contrary to law.

Plaintiff motions for [Timely] reconsideration of this case to insure the policy of judicial economy to your trial court. The reconsideration rule fulfills that purpose and keeps expensive appeals from occurring. See Fraud upon the court case law.Bulloch v. United States, 763F. 2d lll5, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985)”Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury…It 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.

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:43pm

. The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).

The Plaintiff innocently made error in her complaint and cause of action due to being Pro SE and little experience in court law. §243 [221] Amendments allowed by affidavit. It is the duty of the court to allow parties to amend their pleading so that their case may be tried on the merits. 24  Rule 15(a) (2): The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. Roles v. Davis 1F. &F. 563, 4 H. &N 484, 28L. J. Exch. 287; Power v. Pringle, 31, Nova Scotia 78. Knight v. Dunn, 47. Fla, 175, 36 So. 02

2. Plaintiff is a Pro Se made mistake on summons and complaint in good faith Code of 1881§110;  When made in good faith the court may allow the plaintiff to plead over ; §1881§111: § 247.[225] Harmless errors Code 1881§113.  Krupski v. Costa Crociere, 560 U.S (2010);  AND One of Lane Powells documents on the internet. The Supreme Court Holds that an amended pleading “relates Back” even when plaintiff knew of the Cruise Line’s Existence and delayed in amending.6.18.2010:  PERSUANT CR9 &CR 59 &  PER HEARSAY LAW CR 802 &803; expert witness is hearsay not material evidence.

. CR 59(a) (4); CR(8); Error in law occurring at the trial and objected to at the time by the party making the application: and CR(9) substantial justice has not been done.:

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:38pm

In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice." 

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:37pm

14."Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court"
1. Who is an "officer of the court"?

        A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

2. What is "fraud on the court"?

       15. Filing a fraud Amended Complaint I Shelley did not only [DID NOT SIGN] I REFUSED TO SIGN, Whenever any 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), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It 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." 

PLAINTIFF HAVE EVIDENCED JUSTIN FILING AN ALTERED AND FALSE AFFIDAVIT TO THE COURT, THEREFORE IS IN VIOLATION TO……….

RCW 40.16.030

Offering false instrument for filing or record.

Every person who shall knowingly procure or offer any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered or recorded in such office under any law of this state or of the United States, is guilty of a class C felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both.

THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS HAVE EVIDENCED A CLASS C FELONY CRIME AGAINST THE UNITED STATES/COURTS AND THE ERICKSON’S.

THE ERICKSONS HAVE EVIDENCED FRAUD AND HAVE MADE CLAIMS OF FRAUD AND FRAUD UPON THE COURT:  RESTITUTION IS INORDER:


       16. "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 can not 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); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?

 

       17. "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court. 
        18.It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:20pm

Rules Regulating the Florida Bar which prohibit a lawyer from asserting an issue without a factual basis. Rule 4-3.1 Metitorious Claims and Contentions. (Comment: “What is required of lawyers… is that they inform themselves about the facts of their clients” cases…”) In addition, the above chronicled misconduct constitutes “unclean hands” on the part of the owner of the subject note and mortgage. “A foreclosure action is an equitable proceeding which may be denied if the holder of the note comes to the court with unclean hands or the foreclosure would be unconscionable.”  Knight Energy Services, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Col, 660 So. 2d 786, 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:19pm

Title 42 USC § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

(2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified−

Or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the law, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws.

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986

It is a felony for anyone who knows of a violation of another person's civil rights that fails to prevent the violations. This would include federal judgesCalifornia judgesDepartment of Justice employees, members of Congress, and others. Making those violations even more serious, the civil rights violations were involved in obstructing justice. And worse, the obstructing justice tactics enabled to continue the aviation disasters and the harm from other criminal activities that affected the American people and the United States' security.

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case;

And any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:18pm

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1510

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigation.
(a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

This criminal statute occurred as federal judges refused to receive the evidence that Stich and his group of government insiders sought to report. Federal judges refused to receive the evidence, retaliated against Stich for seeking to make the reports, and then rendered orders barring Stich for the remainder of his life from court access. In this way, Stich was unable to report the federal crimes (and also unable to use federal defenses against the judicial violations of federally protected rights that were inflicting great harm upon Stich.


Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to–

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to–

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(c) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from–

(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;

(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense ... (3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or

(4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation preceding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(e) For the purposes of this section–

(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and

(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:18pm

Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. Principals. (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

Note: The legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States. Case law decisions: Rothenburg v. United States, 1918, 38 S.Ct. 18, 245 U.S. 480, 62 L.Ed. 414, and United States v. Giles, 1937, 57 S.Ct. 340, 300 U.S. 41, 81 L.Ed. 493.


Title 18 U.S.C. § 3

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3. Accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States had been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

This criminal act was repeatedly perpetrated by federal judges who not only refused to receive the information about federal crimesthat they must receive as part of their administrative duties under Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 and by their acts that hindered the apprehension and trial of the people committing the offenses that Stich and his group of other former government agents had discovered and sought to report.


Title 18 U.S.C. § 4

Title 18 U.S.C. § 4 (misprision of felony). Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Federal judges repeatedly perpetrated this criminal act by blocking the reporting of the federal crimes and not making such information known to proper law enforcement personnel.


Title 18 U.S.C. § 1505

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1505. Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due the proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States ... shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:17pm
  1. . See deposition of Erica Johnson-Sech attached in CD: Case Inidymac Federal Bank Fsb, Plaintiff,  vs. Israei a Machado -50 2008 CA 037322xxxMb: Foreclosure Fraud; [“ The Sanction of dismissal is Warranted in this case”] As shown in the discussion above referenced case,  the BANK has filed many documents with the Court in complete disregard of the truth or falsity of their factual underpinnings. Under the Court’s general civil contempt powers, the Court is authorized and entitled to sanction the BANKS’s misconduct. As summarized by the Fifth District in Robinson v. Weiland, 988 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008Pretrial discovery is not intended as a game. Many trial judges throughout this state have bemoaned the tactics of the minority of lawyers and parties that abuse  the discovery process;  See The Fla. Bar v. Miller, 863 So.2d 231 (Fla.2003) ordering one-year suspension of attorney who deliberately concealed his knowledge of client’s receipt of EEOC’s right –to-sue letter).;  The Fla. Bar v. Rood, 569 So. 2d 750 (Fla.1990) (concealing expert’s memorandum and causing clients to sign false answers under oath warranted attorney’s one-year suspension); Mercer v. Raine, 443 So.2d 944,946 (Fla. 1983) (affirming sanctions of striking defendant’s answer and entering default judgment for discovery violation when defendant “knew what was going on “ and had “total disregard for the consequences “ of pending action); The integrity of the civil litigation process depends on the truthful disclosure of facts. A system that depends on an adversary’s ability to uncover falsehood s is doomed to failure, which is why this kind of conduct [fraudeulent concealments of facts] must be discouraged in the strongest possible way.   See also Channel Components, Inc. v. America II Electronics, Inc.  915 So.2d 1278( Fla, 2d DCA 2005.) Trial courts have “the right and obligation to deter fraudulent claims from proceeding in court”. Savino v. Fla. Drive In Theatre Mgnt, 697 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA ( 1997). This is because “[o]our courts have often recognized and enforced the principle that a party who has been guilty of fraud or misconduct in the prosecution or defense of a civil proceeding should not be permitted to continue to employ the very institution it has subverted to achieve [its] ends.” Hanono v. MrMurphy, 723 So.2d 892 , 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Where a party perpetrates a fraud on the court which permeates the entire proceedings, dismissal of the entire case is proper.  Desimone v. Old Dominion Ins. Co., 740 So.2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).   Plaintiff’s mislead the court and engaged in extensive discovery abuse to obstruct revelation of the known falsities in the complaint – a “flagrant abuse of the judicial process” worthy of severe sanctions.  See Martin v. Automobili  Lamborghini Exclusive, Inc., . 307 F.3d  1332 (11th Cir. 2002). Dismissal for fraud is appropriate where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing part’s claim or defense.” Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

 

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:16pm

The judges and attorneys are making false laws, this should apply:. However, where a deprivation of civil rights occurs as a result of policymaking, the  cause of action may not accrue until the defendant’s policymaking process has reached a final conclusion and further opportunities for appeal, have been exhausted. And the tolling of the statutes:

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:15pm

. In Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann (317 US 269) the United States Supreme Courtupheld the individual's right to represent him or herself without being admitted to a bar (pro se).[9]

  1.  
  1. ELC 7.1: Crime a necessary element of which, as determined by its statutory or common law definition, includes [any] of the following. (a)interference with the administration of justice; (b)false swearing (c) misrepresentation; (d) fraud;(e) deceit;(f) briber; (g)extortion;,(h) misappropriation; or (i) theft: or

Attempt, or a conspiracy, or solicitation of another, to commit a “serious crime.”

Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:13pm

look up oat of office for judges and all attorneys in your state this is WA state.

RCW 2.08.080

Oath of office.

Every judge of a superior court shall, before entering upon the duties of his or her office, take and subscribe an oath that he or she will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Washington, and will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of judge to the best of his or her ability, which oath shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state. Such oath or affirmation to be in form substantially the same as prescribed for justices of the supreme court.

4closureFraud.org Headlines

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Hamlet Stats





Visits
since 12/21/2009

Music

Loading…

© 2014   Created by Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service