Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
State -Fraud Upon the Court

State -Fraud Upon the Court



|Views: 4,945|Likes:
Published by WatsonFraud9892
Ignored by the court
Ignored by the court

More info:

Published by: WatsonFraud9892 on Apr 08, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Facts in Verification Fraud Upon Court OccurredThe entire proceedings (past and present) has been corrupted
. Even the stipulations the courtwent by to order the past eviction of plaintiff is a product of material misrepresentations by hisown attorneys to support the opposition¶s legal agenda. Consequently, plaintiff is complaininghis rights to a fair trial have been usurped not only by the opposition, but by theoutrageousmisconduct of his own attorneys. Since they worked hand and hand to ensure the legaland business agenda of the opposition were affirmed; albeit based on coercion, fraud and deceit."Fraud on the court" consists of conduct: (1) on part of officer of the court, (2) that isdirected to judicial machinery itself, (3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to thetruth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth, that is positive averment or is concealmentwhen one is under duty to disclose, that deceives court. (
 Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky
, 10 F.3d338, rehearing and suggestion for rehearing denied, certiorari denied
 Rison v. Demjanjuk,
 115 S.Ct. 295, 513 U.S. 914, 130 L.Ed.2d 205 (Ohio) 1993.²Fed CivProc 2654.
´. ..errors are so prejudicial and fundamental that expenditure of further time andexpense would be wasteful, if not futile.µ (
Salvatore v. State of Florida,
366 So. 2d745 [Fla. 1978],
cert. denied,
444 U.S. 885, 100 S. Ct. 177, 62 L. Ed. 2d 115 [1979]).
Fraud on the Court
by the opposition¶s lawyer, Kaelin and Philips,and even by the four lawyers plaintiff hiredacted to circumvent him from obtaining fair hearings in a court of law.-
Judges denied plaintiff from receiving due process of law
in the Norwalk Housing Court.This is where the offending Judges,Heckley, Grogins, and Moore, as officials of stategovernment must respect all of the legal rights guaranteed by the constitution is owed to citizens.Particularly under the Fourteenth Amendment that states:
The lawyers representing plaintiff perverted their discretional authority, and misapplied their  power to cause devastating harm to plaintiff¶s legal position. Sinceby sabotaging andundermining plaintiff¶s legal position during the proceedings, these lawyerswillfully acted todeny himof his right to receive a fair and impartial trial. Thereby, thecausational result of such professional misconduct is that with certain probability the matter of legal right of ownershipof the property would have been expediently decided in plaintiffs favor; if not but for the extremeand outrageous professional misconduct of the judges and the lawyers on both sides.³ an officer of the court«are all attorneys´
 People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 [1980]).
³Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court".
Bulloch v. UnitedStates, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court isfraud 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 amember 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.""Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embracethat 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 theusual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication."
enner 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 notin essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."³Litigant commits "fraud on court" when litigant and attorney concoct someunconscionable scheme calculated to impair court's ability fairly and impartially toadjudicate dispute. (
Sandstrom v. ChemLawn Corp
., 904 F.2d 83.²Fed CivProc 1741.
³Fruad on the court¶ may occur when acts of party prevent his adversary from fully andfairly presenting his case or defense(
 Abatti v. C.I.R.,
859 F.2d 115, Me., (1990).²FedCivProc 2654 . . . ³Plaintiffs' fraudulent scheme of manufacturing evidence to support their businessloss claim and subsequently covering-up their scheme constituted "fraud on the court" warrantingsanctions. (
 Derzack v. County of Allegheny, Pa
., 173 F.R.D. 40ff affirmed 118 F.3d 1575 (Pa.1996).²Fed CivProc 2791.
Fraud Upon the Court by Phillips and KaelinFraud Upon the Court by the Plaintiff¶s own Attorneys
Whereby, plaintiff¶s attorneys, as officers of the court, perpetrated a continuous and pervasive pattern of interfering with his ability to obtain his right to justice in the courts. Since, theycircumvented him from receiving due process provided under the Laws of the Land. This is byacting with a copious amount of outrageously perverted acts of foul play through blatant professional misconduct.Plaintiff¶s four attorneys acted within the range of their insight to be fully aware of theforeseeability to the proximate-cause equation of how their conduct affected his legal position.This is where all of plaintiff¶s lawyers surelyknew how their professional conduct was deficientof what was required to achieve a favorable result; or how their detrimental actions causedthedesecration of plaintiff achieving his legal opportunities where he could have prevailed.In effect, plaintiff¶s lawyers and those of the opposition acted in concert with corrupt intent. Thisis with engaging in a scheme and artifice to defraud plaintiff out of obtaining his rightsto relief offered through due process of law. Thereby, constituting constituent elements of malfeasanceand misfeasance conduct, dedicated to be averse to plaintiff¶s legal position, while beneficial to

Activity (33)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
godfirst01 reviewed this
Rated 5/5
Thank you!

The information presented here is absolutely PRICELESS!
michelle liked this
briansolution added this note
very similar to what the "good ole boys" Bar buddy club is doing to me in Arizona. Wrongful eviction, violation of due process, attorney's/officers of the Court perpetrating fraud against me, my deceased mothers estate and upon the Court and the Judge wants to impose sanctions against me, hold me in contempt and defraud me of the small inheritance left me by my deceased Mother.
krystalprice7 liked this
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
briansolution liked this
I'm so proud of you .you are truly a gift from the lord almighty.Your mom would also be proud never stop you are doing great thing just now that dady is here for you if you need me.now kick butt and take names
Joel Fleming liked this
ecomulada liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->