Fraud
upon
the
Court
Fraud
Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the "Court")
does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. The
Court is an unbiased, but methodical "creature" which is
governed by the Rule of Law... that is, the Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, all which
is overseen by Constitutional law. The Court can ONLY be effective,
fair and "just" if it is allowed to function as the laws
proscribe. The sad fact is that in MOST Courts across the country,
from Federal Courts down to local District courts, have judges who
are violating their oath of office and are NOT properly following
these rules, (as most attorney's do NOT as well, and are
usually
grossly ignorant of the rules and both judges and attorneys are
playing a revised legal game with their own created rules) and THIS
is a Fraud upon the Court, immediately removing jurisdiction from
that Court, and vitiates (makes ineffective - invalidates) every
decision from that point on. Any judge who does such a thing is under
mandatory, non-discretionary duty to recuse himself or herself from
the case, and this rarely happens unless someone can force them to do
so with the evidence of violations of procedure and threat of losing
half their pensions for life which is what can take place. In any
case, it is illegal, and EVERY case which has had fraud involved can
be re-opened AT ANY TIME, because there is no statutes of limitations
on fraud. This is a trillion dollar "justice industry" just
waiting
to be tapped.
"Fraud
On
The
Court
By
An
Officer
Of
The
Court"
And
"Disqualification
Of
Judges,
State
and
Federal"
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"?
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."
"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?
"Fraud
upon
the
court"
makes
void
the
orders
and
judgments
of
that
court.
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.
v.
Universal
Oil
Products
Co.,
338
Ill.App.
79,
86
N.E.2d
875,
883-4
(1949);
Thomas
Stasel
v.
The
American
Home
Security
Corporation,
362
Ill.
350;
199
N.E.
798
(1935).
Under
Illinois
and
Federal
law,
when
any
officer
of
the
court
has
committed
"fraud
upon
the
court",
the
orders
and
judgment
of
that
court
are
void,
of
no
legal
force
or
effect.
4.
What
causes
the
"Disqualification
of
Judges?"
Federal
law
requires
the
automatic
disqualification
of
a
Federal
judge
under
certain
circumstances.
In
1994,
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
held
that
"Disqualification
is
required
if
an
objective
observer
would
entertain
reasonable
questions
about
the
judge's
impartiality.
If
a
judge's
attitude
or
state
of
mind
leads
a
detached
observer
to
conclude
that
a
fair
and
impartial
hearing
is
unlikely,
the
judge
must
be
disqualified."
[Emphasis
added].
Liteky
v.
U.S.,
114
S.Ct.
1147,
1162
(1994).
Courts
have
repeatedly
held
that
positive
proof
of
the
partiality
of
a
judge
is
not
a
requirement,
only
the
appearance
of
partiality.
Liljeberg
v.
Health
Services
Acquisition
Corp.,
486
U.S.
847,
108
S.Ct.
2194
(1988)
(what
matters
is
not
the
reality
of
bias
or
prejudice
but
its
appearance);
United
States
v.
Balistrieri,
779
F.2d
1191
(7th
Cir.
1985)
(Section
455(a)
"is
directed
against
the
appearance
of
partiality,
whether
or
not
the
judge
is
actually
biased.")
("Section
455(a)
of
the
Judicial
Code,
28
U.S.C.
§455(a),
is
not
intended
to
protect
litigants
from
actual
bias
in
their
judge
but
rather
to
promote
public
confidence
in
the
impartiality
of
the
judicial
process.").
That
Court
also
stated
that
Section
455(a)
"requires
a
judge
to
recuse
himself
in
any
proceeding
in
which
her
impartiality
might
reasonably
be
questioned."
Taylor
v.
O'Grady,
888
F.2d
1189
(7th
Cir.
1989).
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."
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).
A
judge
receiving
a
bribe
from
an
interested
party
over
which
he
is
presiding,
does
not
give
the
appearance
of
justice.
"Recusal
under
Section
455
is
self-executing;
a
party
need
not
file
affidavits
in
support
of
recusal
and
the
judge
is
obligated
to
recuse
herself
sua
sponte
under
the
stated
circumstances.
"
Taylor
v.
O'Grady,
888
F.2d
1189
(7th
Cir.
1989).
Further,
the
judge
has
a
legal
duty
to
disqualify
himself
even
if
there
is
no
motion
asking
for
his
disqualification.
The
Seventh
Circuit
Court
of
Appeals
further
stated
that
"We
think
that
this
language
[455(a)]
imposes
a
duty
on
the
judge
to
act
sua
sponte,
even
if
no
motion
or
affidavit
is
filed."
Balistrieri,
at
1202.
Judges
do
not
have
discretion
not
to
disqualify
themselves.
By
law,
they
are
bound
to
follow
the
law.
Should
a
judge
not
disqualify
himself
as
required
by
law,
then
the
judge
has
given
another
example
of
his
"appearance
of
partiality"
which,
possibly,
further
disqualifies
the
judge.
Should
another
judge
not
accept
the
disqualification
of
the
judge,
then
the
second
judge
has
evidenced
an
"appearance
of
partiality"
and
has
possibly
disqualified
himself/herself.
None
of
the
orders
issued
by
any
judge
who
has
been
disqualified
by
law
would
appear
to
be
valid.
It
would
appear
that
they
are
void
as
a
matter
of
law,
and
are
of
no
legal
force
or
effect.
Should
a
judge
not
disqualify
himself,
then
the
judge
is
violation
of
the
Due
Process
Clause
of
the
U.S.
Constitution.
United
States
v.
Sciuto,
521
F.2d
842,
845
(7th
Cir.
1996)
("The
right
to
a
tribunal
free
from
bias
or
prejudice
is
based,
not
on
section
144,
but
on
the
Due
Process
Clause.").
Should
a
judge
issue
any
order
after
he
has
been
disqualified
by
law,
and
if
the
party
has
been
denied
of
any
of
his
/
her
property,
then
the
judge
may
have
been
engaged
in
the
Federal
Crime
of
"interference
with
interstate
commerce".
The
judge
has
acted
in
the
judge's
personal
capacity
and
not
in
the
judge's
judicial
capacity.
It
has
been
said
that
this
judge,
acting
in
this
manner,
has
no
more
lawful
authority
than
someone's
next-door
neighbor
(provided
that
he
is
not
a
judge).
However
some
judges
may
not
follow
the
law.
If
you
were
a
non-represented
litigant,
and
should
the
court
not
follow
the
law
as
to
non-
represented
litigants,
then
the
judge
has
expressed
an
"appearance
of
partiality"
and,
under
the
law,
it
would
seem
that
he/she
has
disqualified
him/herself.
However,
since
not
all
judges
keep
up
to
date
in
the
law,
and
since
not
all
judges
follow
the
law,
it
is
possible
that
a
judge
may
not
know
the
ruling
of
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
and
the
other
courts
on
this
subject.
Notice
that
it
states
"disqualification
is
required"
and
that
a
judge
"must
be
disqualified"
under
certain
circumstances.
The
Supreme
Court
has
also
held
that
if
a
judge
wars
against
the
Constitution,
or
if
he
acts
without
jurisdiction,
he
has
engaged
in
treason
to
the
Constitution.
If
a
judge
acts
after
he
has
been
automatically
disqualified
by
law,
then
he
is
acting
without
jurisdiction,
and
that
suggest
that
he
is
then
engaging
in
criminal
acts
of
treason,
and
may
be
engaged
in
extortion
and
the
interference
with
interstate
commerce.
Courts
have
repeatedly
ruled
that
judges
have
no
immunity
for
their
criminal
acts.
Since
both
treason
and
the
interference
with
interstate
commerce
are
criminal
acts,
no
judge
has
immunity
to
engage
in
such
acts.
GET
OUT OF DEBT NOW! http://www.newdebtelimination.com
No comments:
Post a Comment