A Blogsite with News and Thoughts about Family Law, The Divorce and Children Industry, and what many are now calling "The War on Families and Children". Family Courts have become battlefields resulting in massive casualties that include Moms, Dads, Children, and Extended Family Members. The Federal Gov't, States, their Agencies and Officials involved, including Attorneys and Judges, that profit from destroying us are the only winners. "We The People" must wake up and stop this abusive war now!

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Fraud upon the Court

"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"?
2. What is "fraud on the court"?
3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?
4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

15 comments:

  1. Can anyone give shed some light on how to utilize Fraud Upon The Court when there is evidence of such? How is the motion filed? With what court? What if the judge refuses to hear the motion?

    bdn
    Chicago, IL

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm Pro Se and this is how i did it in Tampa, Fl. I recused te judge then filed a petition with the appeal Court for Writ of Prohibition; still waiting for answer from Appeal Court!@#$%

    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

    FAMILY LAW DIVISION Y/D


    FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Case No.: 81-14711
    ON BEHALF OF, CORLIS A. McINTYRE Division Y/D

    PETITIONER

    Vs.

    LESTER P. JENNINGS

    RESPONDENT
    _______________________________________



    MOTION TO RECUSE AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW ATTACHED












    August 20, 2008
    Paul Jennings, Pro Se
    P O Box 9144
    Tampa, Fl 33674
    (813) 769-9128
    COMES NOW Respondent Pro Se, LESTER P. JENNINGS hereby moves the
    Honorable Emily Peacock of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit to Recuse herself pursuant to Rules of Judicial Administration, Rule 2.160 and F.S. 38.10.
    Plaintiff swears to the true events as detailed facts that clearly displays to a prudent and reasonable person in which this Honorable EMILY PEACOCK has given an appearance of partial impropriety, with an improper measured appearance, and irresponsibility in partial administrative decisions, for the Plaintiff’s substantive and procedural due process rights in a Res Judicata Paternity Action.
    The Honorable EMILY PEACOCK of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit has displayed bias, prejudice, partiality and reckless disregard in hearings, deciding and adjudicating the above action contrary to common and statute law. The Plaintiff hereby to wit and swears:

    Affidavit Of Facts Respondent Swears To Be True Under Oath:

    1. Honorable EMILY PEACOCK has spearheaded this tireless illegal and unconstitutional effort to violate respondent’s due process by assisting Hearing Officer LILA STELLO on several occasions to violate this court’s Order of Recusal. The most recent being July 10, 2008 hearing by Stello, on contempt of court. This hearing took place with both parties present, and Assistant Attorney General served with Motion To Recuse Stello at the Hearing by the Respondent. LILA STELLO has committed again, FRAUD ON THE COURT by again “not recording” to the record what happen at that Hearing, in her blatant and unlawful attempt to cover up her abuse of authority and Fraud On The Court. STELLO is attempting to fraud the record because the hearing was unlawful because Judge Charles Bergmann had signed an Order to Recuse Lila Stello which specifically prohibits Stello from any involvement in this case. In this instance, Extrinsic Fraud can be concluded.

    2. The Record shows this is the second time on Judge Peacock’s watch; as to the fact Judge EMILY PEACOCK is responsible as head of her department and either lacking in her duties as Judge, or part of the conspiracy; evident by the transcript of proceeding filed in the court’s record July 10, 2008. In this instance, Extrinsic Fraud can be concluded.

    3. Peacock unlawfully sent this case back to Stello. The last time Stello violated the Recusal Order, was February 2007. Judge Peacock became the Trier of facts after respondent’s motions to the court of Stello’s unlawful involvement in this case March 2007. Now again July 10, 2008, Judge Peacock sent this case back to Stello completely aware of Judge Bergmann’s Order prohibiting Stello from any involvement in this case. In this instance, Extrinsic Fraud can be concluded.

    4. Judge Peacock is responsible to enforce the renegade Hearing Officer Lila Stello; previously the prosecutor in this case, and from day one in conflict of interest since 2003 as the Hearing Officer. Lila Stello deliberately and unlawfully assigned herself to be the Hearing Officer on at least four separate incidents. She has submitted false evidence to the Court in clear conflict of interest, also in violation to Judge Bergmann’s Order of Recusal, dated August 2005 in which Judge Peacock has allowed Lila Stello to act with impunity in reference to Stello’s repeated unlawful acts and that Judge Emily Peacock refuses to uphold the integrity of the court and allow due process of the respondent. In this instance, Extrinsic Fraud can be concluded.

    5. EMILY PEACOCK has been\is the subject of this case in her involvement of Writ of Prohibition against Judge EMILY PEACOCK; Case number 2D07-4735. It would also seem inappropriate to a reasonable person for Judge EMILY PEACOCK to continue. In this instance, Extrinsic Fraud can be concluded.

    Under State 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.

    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).

    The Respondent, Pro Se, PAUL. JENNINGS, has suffered grievous damage in his action to assert his affirmative defenses of Fraud on the court, Abuse of Authority, Jurisdictional Infirmities, Res Judicata, Equitable Estoppels and Laches in the court of Judge EMILY PEACOCK.

    WHEREFORE Respondent Pro Se, PAUL JENNINGS respectfully moves and employ that the Honorable Court of Emily Peacock remove and disqualify herself as the assigned Trier of fact in Case No.: 81-14711, in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Hillsborough County.

    “Under Penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Motion and that the facts stated in it are true.”

    STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF HILLSBROUGH
    The foregoing instrument was affirmed by Oath before me this 20th Day of August, 2008, by __________________; Paul Jennings

    Who has produced__________________as identification and who did take an oath in the truthfulness of the matter.

    _____________________________
    Notary of Public









    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by certified U.S. Mail this day, August 20, 2008 to the Assistant General, The Florida Department of Revenue Judge Emily Peacock & Hearing Officer Stello.

    ___________________________________________
    PAUL JENNINGS, PRO SE

































    MEMORANDUM OF LAW

    It is not a question that the Honorable Chief Judge, David A. Demers of the Sixth Judicial Circuit can continue (expressly expounded); it is whether reasonable men might question his impartiality under all the circumstances. United States v. Gigax, 605 F 2nd 507 (10th Cir. 1979).

    Sparks v. Duval County Ranch Co., Inc. 604 F.2d 976 (1979) In seeking, quite lamely we think, to minimize the impact of what is being done here, the majority opines that the obligation of a judge to testify in such cases “is comparatively insignificant” as if this were the only danger to which judges and prosecutors are now about to be subjected. Nevertheless, this is a very small portioned of the iceberg. If there is anything a judge ought to prize and that the public demands, it is his judicial integrity. It is commonly accepted that a judge must not only avoid evil but he must avoid even the appearance of it … The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the existence of an interest in reputation which cannot be infringed without the invocation of due process requirements. citing Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 91 S. Ct. 507, 27 L. Ed.2d 515 (1971), “[w]here a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard is essential.” citing Hatcher v. Davis, Case No. 2D00-4770, August 22, 2001 citing if a chief judge issues an administrative order which attempts to amend a statute or rule by adding terms and conditions, that administrative order is invalid because it limits judicial discretion and exceeds the authority granted under Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.050(b). citing Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523(Fla. 1995) citing Denial of due process constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. citing Peterson v. Asklipious, Fla. Law Weekly, case No. 4D02-4170, December 26, 2002; allegations in a motion to disqualify are reviewed under de novo standard as to whether the motion is legally sufficient as a matter of law; citing Armstrong v. Harris, 773 So. 2nd 7( Fla. 2000), cert. Denied 532 U.S. 958 (2001). A motion to disqualify is governed in substance by section 38.10, Florida Statutes, and procedurally by Rule 2.160, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. The rule states that “[a] motion to disqualify shall show … that the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of judge. ” Fla. Rules of Judicial Administration 2.160(d)(1). citing MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargon Store Inc., 565 So.2d1332 (Fla. 1990), Whether the motion is legally sufficient requires a determination as to whether the alleged facts would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. citing Hayslip v. Douglas, 400 So.2d 553, 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), The term “legal sufficiency” encompasses more than mere technical compliance with the rule and statute; the court must also determine if the facts alleged (which must be taken as true) would prompt a reasonably prudent person to fear that he could not get a fair and impartial trial; citing Amato v. Winn Dixie Stores/ Sedgewick James, App 1 Dist., 810 So.2d 979(2002), rehearing denied, Whether a person has a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial, so as to question of how the judge feels; it is a question of what feeling resides in the affiant’s mind, and the basis for such feeling. citing It is whether reasonable men might question their impartiality under all the circumstances. See United States v. Gigax, 605 F 2nd 507 (10th Cir. 1979) citing "The sufficiency of a complaint in a civil action is a question of law."). In ruling on the motion, the trial court had to accept as true all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint and limit its consideration of factual matters to the Four Corners of the complaint. See Brewer v. Clerk of the Circuit Court, 720 So. 2d 602, 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Varnes v. Dawkins, 624 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). A reviewing court operates under the same constraints. See Rittman, 727 So. 2d at 393; McKinney Green, Inc. v. Davis, 606 So. 2d 393, 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).


    IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA



    LESTER P. JENNINGS, PRO SE

    Appellant / Petitioner DCA Case No 2D08-4806

    L.T. Case No. 81-DR-14711
    L.T. Case No. 41279 (March 1974)
    V.

    FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
    o/b/o CORLIS A. McIntyre

    Appellee / Respondent

    _______________________________________





    PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
    AND FOR RELIEF UNDER LACK OF JURISDICTION
    AND VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS



    Proceeding from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida
    _____________________________________________________________


    PETITIONER:

    Lester Paul Jennings, Pro Se
    P O Box 9144
    Tampa, Fl 33674
    813-769-9128
    12-16-2008



    APPELLANT’S MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE EMILY PEACOCK IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT
    The standard applicable to a motion to disqualify a trial judge provides as follows:
    Party seeking to disqualify a judge needs only show “a well grounded fear that he will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge. It is not a question of how the judge feels; it is a question of what feeling resides in the affiant’s mind and the basis for such feeling.” When a motion satisfies this requirement, it is legally sufficient and the trial court judge must grant the motion and proceed no further.
    Judge Peacock has in the past deliberately violated Petitioner’s liberties and/or has refused to provide due process and equal protection to the petitioner before the court and behaved in a manner inconsistent with that which is needed for full, fair, and impartial hearings. "State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law." Also see Canons 1, 2, and 3.B.6.
    1. Judge Peacock violated the August 2005 Recusal Order of Hearing Officer Lila Stello by directly sending this case to Hearing Officer Stello. Stello had recused herself in January 2004; she’s also under an Order of Recusal by Judge Charles Bergmann since 2005. The transcripts of the hearing on August 9, 2007 and filed into the court’s record on July 10 2008 is evident to the fact Judge Peacock is part of a conspiracy because she is/was completely aware of hearing officer Stello standing in this case. Extrinsic Fraud can be concluded…
    2. Judge Peacock violated the Recusal Order by directly sending this case to Hearing Officer for the second time. The court’s record is clear in the fact Judge Peacock repeated the same unlawful act in March 2007. (Exhibit-3) Also shows a clear pattern. Extrinsic Fraud can be concluded…
    3. Judge Peacock is responsible as head of her department to protect the court against fraud and to not be the enabler to Stello. Judge Bergmann order of recusal specifically stated Stello was to have no involvement and the clerk of court ordered not to assign this case to Stello. Judge Peacock clearly violated that order and sent this case to Stello twice. Extrinsic Fraud can be concluded…
    4. EMILY PEACOCK has been and\or\is, the subject of this case in her involvement since March 2007. Judge Emily Peacock has been the subject of this case by violating two previous orders of the court. (1) Order of recusal dated August 2005 (Exhibit-5), (2) Order of this case dismissed March 1974 by Judge Charles Scruggs (Exhibit-1). This above style case dated 1981 is well after the time required by law. This case is clearly Res Judicata on its face.
    5. The petitioner should not have to chance “a china man’s chance” again! Whether it is a pattern of errors in the docket, or extrinsic fraud. The evidence and facts are conclusive that the petitioner is being blocked from asserting his affirmative defense(s) by the egregious acts and so called mistakes of officers of the lower court. Judge Peacock’s participation is evident by the transcript of hearing dated August 9, 2007. Extrinsic Fraud can be concluded…



    JUDGE EMILY PEACOCK HAS VIOLATE APPELLANT’S
    DUE PROCESS BY VIOLATING THIS COURT’S ORDER OF RECUSAL

    ON JULY 10, 2008, AFTER JUDGE PEACOCK PREVIOUSLY PRESIDED OVER THIS CASE; she then for the second time; in violation, of Due Process and Order of Recusal dated August 2005, “unlawfully sent the case back to the disqualified Hearing Officer Lila Stello.” Hearing Officer Stello has unlawfully acted with impunity; in Conflict of Interest (previously the prosecutor in this case) and in violation of a Court Order of Recusal, for the third time over a period of five years. (Exhibit-2,3,8) The recusal order specifically stated “any other legal actions!” The reason for the Judge Bergmann emphasis is because he realized Stello was working behind the scene unlawfully on this case.
    The Order of Recusal dated August 17, 2005 states: (Exhibit-5)
    “Hearing Officer Lila Stello is hereby recused from this case and any other legal actions involving Corlis McIntyre or Lester P. Jennings. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is ordered not to assign any future matters involving these parties to Hearing Officer Lila Stello.”

    In fact, every Hearing Officer (Fact Finder) in Judge Peacock’s division are Recused by Order of the Court for Appearance of Improprieties and Conflict of Interest. (Exhibit-6)
    At the hearing on July 10, 2008, both parties were present and the Assistant Attorney General questioned both parties. Petitioner presented the court with a new motion to Recuse Stello at the hearing on that same date. (Exhibit-7) Now again, either Judge Peacock or Hearing Officer Stello entered into the court’s record the facts of these unlawful hearings. There is no mention to the record of this hearing and others submitted to Stello by Judge Peacock. These violations of due process are ongoing since 2003. However, Judge Peacock clearly is the adverse party with the assist; Judge Peacock enabled and allowed Stello. Judge Peacock violated the Recusal Order when she gave this case right back to Stello.
    There is no record of the July 10, 2008 hearing being cancelled or the hearing being transferred, continued, or any action by Judge Peacock or Stello to avoid the Appearance of Improprieties and Conflict of Interest. To misinform the court… to not inform the court… by an officer of the court… is extrinsic fraud on the court; after how many attempts?
    But, the Judge doesn't have the authority to make just any decision and walk away. The Judge is obligated under the Law to make a decision that is at least possible. And when it is pointed out that he has mistakenly made a decision that isn't possible, it is his duty to correct it. To make a decision that the Judge, or any reasonable person, knows is impossible and to refuse to correct it will not lead to the fulfilling of the work the Court is mandated to perform. If the Judge isn't acting in a manner that would lead to the fulfillment of his mandate, he is acting in the absence of all judicial authority.
    This case has gone from Stello to the division judge, back to Stello and back to the division judge again and again without any conclusion. Even the Assistant Attorney General filed a MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION on June 13, 2007. That motion has gone unanswered! Judge Peacock made a decision that any reasonable person, knows is impossible and refuse to correct it. However, Judge Peacock has not issued any order on the record to preserve the integrity of the court and/or to avoid the Appearance of Improprieties and Conflict of Interest. The authority of the Court exists so that judges can do the work of the Court that it is mandated to do under Law. If the Court isn't doing its mandated work, then the Court has no authority. It is the responsibility of the Court to try the case and to bring it to a conclusion. As part of the process, the judge is required under the Law to make a Decision. It would seem inappropriate to a reasonable person for Judge EMILY PEACOCK to continue in this case.
    • It is Judge Peacock’s responsibility to insure due process and uphold the integrity of the court. Clearly, the Appellant’s due process rights are being violated whether it is a mistake or a conspiracy. The unlawful acts of officers of the court including Judge Peacock to retain this case in Division D when all the Fact Finders are disqualified for Conflict of Interest and the Appearance of Improprieties has been ongoing for seven years; also in violation of the August 2005 Order of Recusal; including Res Judicata order of Dismissal March 1974.
    • Judge Peacock willfully enabled Stello, in another of her repeated egregious unlawful acts in attempting to Fraud the Court of Stello’s involvement in this case. From Judge Peacock back to Stello again and again with no reference to the record, is extrinsic fraud after how many attempts?! This is a fact, clear and on the record, that despite the Court Order of Recusal, Hearing Officer Stello controlled this case for the past seven years! It is the job of the Court to conduct a trial and to make an honest attempt at a fair and equitable judgment.

    • Judge Emily Peacock holds Respondent in willful contempt in this case where all the evidence gathered by Fact Finders, Lila Stello and Michael Coffee, both in Conflict of Interest and disqualified by Order of the Court for Conflict of Interest, also Lila Stello violated the Order of Recusal dated August 2005 signed by Judge Emily Peacock’s predecessor, Judge Bergmann. It is clear and on the record that the entire division D is in contempt of two Court Orders; the 1974 Final Order of Paternity and the August 2005 Order of Recusal. Egregious injustice! The State here may not proceed with this action in violation of the Due Process rights, and without any jurisdiction.
    THE RECORD SHOWS THIS IS THE SECOND TIME
    JUDGE PEACOCK UNLAWFULLY SENT THIS CASE BACK TO STELLO
    VIOLATING THIS COURT’S ORDER OF RECUSAL

    JUDGE PEACOCK VIOLATED THE COURT ORDER OF RECUSAL in this case of malicious prosecution the first time when she assigned Lila Stello on this case in March 2007. (Exhibit-3) Judge Peacock only had to properly reassign this case at that time to avoid these egregious Appearances of Improprieties and Conflict of Interest. It has now become a repeated offense on the part of Judge Peacock. It would seem inappropriate to a reasonable person for Judge EMILY PEACOCK to continue in this case.
    I emphasize the unlawful act of Judge Peacock sending this case back to Hearing Officer Stello; for the second time; and after this case came to Judge Peacock because all the hearing officers in Judge Peacock’s division are recused by Orders of the Court. Judge Peacock, whom presided and participates in this case, was clearly aware of the Recusal of the Hearing Officers (Fact Finders) in her Division. The Appearance of Improprieties and Conflict of Interest are enormously obvious; and the duties of the Judicial Office are paralyzed, because for the last five years this case has been about the misconduct of the Officers of the Court. It would seem inappropriate to a reasonable person for Judge EMILY PEACOCK to continue in this case.
    There is no such animal as a “simple error ongoing for five years,” when there are Court Order(s) that specifically addressed this particular error. Judge Peacock in her unlawful assist to Stello, and very well informed in this case by her own participation as to the fact she covered up fraud; (transcript of hearing August 9, 2007) then sent the case back to Stello; Judge Peacock is also aware of the fact on the record that Stello attempted to Fraud the Court’s record in January 2004, in an attempt to illegally enter a default order on the Petitioner. Stello acting in conflict of interest as Hearing officer (previously the prosecutor in this case) fraudulently entered into the court’s record that Petitioner did not appear at that required hearing .(Exhibit-8)
    Please allow me to introduce Stello’s Criminal Record (Exhibit-9) that speaks for the character of Stello and her unstable mentality at that time. These unlawful actions by Stello coincide with her unlawful activities in this case. Stello was arrested on 12/20/2003 for Simple Battery and Retail Theft. Just one month later on 01/30/2004 (Exhibit-8) is when she attempted to fraud the court’s record and committed her first offense of Extrinsic Fraud. Stello acting in conflict of interest and unlawfully submitted false documents to the court. Petitioner was at the hearing; the same hearing Stello was in conflict of interest. Stello again covered up the fraud by not recording to the record that she was recused from this case, she did not have the case reassigned, but most importantly, is the fact that Stello did not disqualify herself on the record. Stello has good reason to keep this case under her complete control, because of the fraud she committed in this case. Judge Peacock sent this case back to Stello with these facts clear in every previous motion(s) to the court by petitioner. It would seem inappropriate to a reasonable person for Judge EMILY PEACOCK to continue in this case.
    It is unlawful for Judge Peacock to assist Stello and allow Stello to transfer this case back and forth to the same division judge on three separate incidents, when Stello is under a Recusal Order. It is unlawful for Judge Peacock to send this case to Stello for Stello to transfer, cancel, continue, or schedule these hearings after the Recusal order dated August 2005; however, it is Fraud On The Court for Judge Peacock and Stello to “not record” on the record the results of the hearing(s); covering up her Fraud in this case of Res Judicata, Abuse of authority and malicious prosecution, and violating a Court order of Recusal. Therefore, Stello’s “Cover Up” of unrecorded actual involvement in this case the past five years, and also in violation of the Court’s Order, goes unlawfully unnoticed with impunity again due to the fact Judge Peacock has set the course for these transgressions by continuing to send this case back to Hearing Officer Stello. Why did Judge Peacock not record on the record what exactly happened at the hearing as required by law and the duty of the Officers of the court. There is no record of the July 10, 2008 hearing being cancelled or the hearing being continued, or any action by Judge Peacock or Stello to avoid the appearance of improprieties. Judge Peacock is party to the adverse parties, willfully and knowingly enabling Stello to manipulate the court’s record about Stello’s involvement in Conflict of Interest and in violation of a court order of Recusal.

    EMILY PEACOCK IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS CASE IN HER INVOLVEMENT
    AND APPEARANCES OF IMPROPRIETIES

    EMILY PEACOCK is/has been the subject of this case in her own involvement of Writ of Prohibition against Judge EMILY PEACOCK in 2007; Case number 2D07-4735. The petitioner has named Judge Peacock as an adverse party in the above style petition.
    The court’s record indicate all activity on the entire docket reference the unlawful acts of officers of the court, in particular Judge Peacock. The above style case is the second petition for writ of prohibition directed directly at Judge Peacock. The court’s docket will show at least ten other motions to the lower court alleging violations of due process by officers of the court in Judge Peacock division including Judge Peacock.
    In this case, it has clearly been pointed out to the Lower Court in a manner that any reasonable person can understand that its Decision is impossible. The Court has made obvious egregious errors that are apparent to any reasonable person. These obvious errors were brought to the attention of the Court and were deliberately ignored.

    FLORIDA AND FEDERAL DUE PROCESS CLAUSES REQUIRE DISQUALIFICATION
    Petitioner’s Florida and federal rights to due process of law require a Judge that both is, and appears to be, fair and impartial. There is no such animal as a “simple error ongoing for five years,” when there is a Court Order(s) that specifically addressed this particular error.
    Additionally, section 38.10, Florida Statues (2000), gives parties the right to seek disqualification of a trial judge for bias or prejudice. The petitioner’s due process and Constitutional Rights were violated. To emphasize the prejudice of Judge Peacock, this court needs only to read the transcripts of hearing August 2007. Judge Peacock clearly has become the prosecutor!


    CONCLUSION
    The lower court is acting without jurisdiction, or at least in excess of its jurisdiction, by allowing the State's claims to proceed when a final order by the same court was entered in 1974 by Judge Charles Scruggs case # 41279. This case 81-014711 is Res Judicata from the start. (Exhibit-1) It was over 7 years later in 1982 before Appellee obtained a default order through fraud and in violation of the 1974 Involuntary Dismissal under Rule 1.420 and without jurisdiction. Then, twenty years later sued for child support. The child support is for adults, siblings who are 35 years of age; they are legally closer to collecting Social Security than child support!
    The United States Constitution guarantees an unbiased Judge who will always provide litigants with full protection of ALL RIGHTS. Therefore, Petitioner respectfully request a Writ of Prohibition in light of the evidence detailing prior unethical and/or illegal conduct or conduct which gives Petitioner good reason to believe the above Judge cannot hear the above case in a fair and impartial manner.
    WHEREFORE, the facts on the record are legally sufficient to give a prudent person reasonable fear that he will not receive a fair hearing. In light of the fact that the Judge is either unwilling or unable to perform her duty as mandated by the Constitution and the Law, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Prohibition directed to the trial court, which prevents the trial court from proceeding with trial of this case and issues. The petitioner also requests an involuntary dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and violations to due process of the petitioner and any other relief that this Honorable Court deems just and proper. Petitioner request reasonable fees and cost relative to bringing this action.

    “Under Penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing and that the facts stated in it are true.”



    Dated this day of December 16, 2008.

    Respectfully submitted,

    __________________________________
    Petitioner

    Lester Paul Jennings, Pro Se
    P O Box 9144
    Tampa, Fl 33674
    (813) 769-9128










    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I certify the original copy was forwarded to Assistant Attorney General-Child Support by U. S. Mail on December 16, 2008.




    BY: ______________________________________
    Lester Paul Jennings, Pro Se
    Petitioner

    ReplyDelete
  3. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

    FAMILY LAW DIVISION Y/D

    FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Case No.: 81-14711
    ON BEHALF OF, CORLIS A. McINTYRE Division Y/D

    PETITIONER

    Vs.

    LESTER P. JENNINGS

    RESPONDENT
    _______________________________________



    OBJECTION TO SATATE ATTORNEYS FELONIOUS MOTION
    AND MOTION TO DISMISS




    December 15, 2009

    Paul Jennings, Pro Se
    Metafizcal@hotmail.com

    The Respondent specifically object to State Attorneys motion for referral to general magistrate.
    State Attorneys are knowingly involved in Paternity fraud and should be Recused from this case; the alternative Judge Peacock should dismiss this case for reasons lawfully stated below:
    1. A court of competent jurisdiction previously ordered a dismissal in favor of Respondent, eight years (Res Judicata) prior to this case 1981DR014711. Case number 41279 signed by Judge Charles Scruggs including affidavit to his signature on that order, has been submitted to this court and now recorded as part of the record. That order has not been ruled void by any court.
    2. This court ordered the State Attorney to investigate the respondent’s ability to comply with the [void] order of contempt since June 2007. The attorney Maria Chisholm stated at that time, they were to busy to investigate the [void] order of contempt and has not made this determination which the court ordered two years ago. (RESPONDENT REQUEST HEARING AND OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, Exhibits 2,3,8)Transcript of proceeding filed in the court’s record July 10, 2008, page 22 lines 1-25)
    3. The State Attorneys are in contempt of court, and caused enormous damage to the respondents due process to a fair trial. State Attorneys are contradicting themselves by continuing to motion for contempt, while violating the court order. State Attorneys refusal to comply with this court order is one of many violations to respondents due process to a fair trial.
    4. The State Attorneys are in contempt of court…to repeat this process is willful fraud on the court…to contribute to cover up of all the facts and persons involved is fraud, conspiracy, and cover up of fraud on the court… To “willfully” violate due process and manipulate the court is obstruction of justice…these unlawful acts over a period of time are criminal…persons involved are liable…

    The respondent position is that State Attorneys J. Kevin McNamara, Albert J. Arena, Maria Chisholm, and others have crossed the Bright line Standard in prosecuting this case and they are participants in a conspiracy in this case.
    5. State Attorneys continued to schedule this case with a co-conspirator Hearing Officer Lila Stello, when Stello has been recused by a court order. (RESPONDENT REQUEST HEARING AND OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, Exhibits 2,3,8)
    6. State Attorneys have unlawfully blocked respondent from all hearings on the respondent’s motions.(RESPONDENT REQUEST HEARING AND OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, Transcript of proceeding filed in the court’s record July 10, 2008, page 23 lines 20-25)




    7. State attorneys have allow and participated in prejudice against the respondent and caused enormous violations to due process in this case according to Hearing Officer Lila Stello’s reply to respondent’s complaint to the Florida Bar File No 2009-10,233(13C). Lila Stello stated the State Attorneys scheduled all hearings that resulted in violation of Stello’s recusal order. State Attorneys also violated the due process of the respondent again. (RESPONDENT REQUEST HEARING AND OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, Florida Bar File No 2009-10,233(13C) Page 2.


    WHEREFORE Respondent Pro Se, PAUL JENNINGS respectfully moves and employ the court to grant the respondent a hearing or the alternative, dismiss this case.


    PAUL JENNINGS, PRO SE
    Metafizcal@hotmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

    FAMILY LAW DIVISION Y/D


    FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Case No.: 81-14711
    ON BEHALF OF, CORLIS A. McINTYRE Division Y/D

    PETITIONER

    Vs.

    LESTER P. JENNINGS

    RESPONDENT
    _______________________________________



    RESPONDENT REQUEST HEARING AND OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT


    June 4, 2009
    Paul Jennings, Pro Se
    Metafizcal@hotmail.com

    The Respondent moves this court for a hearing on petitioner’s motion for contempt, or the alternative, the court deny petitioners request for contempt based on the lawful reasons stated below:

    According to Russell v Russell, 559 So 2d 675, 676 (Fla 3rd DCA 1990, where incarceration is under consideration as a possible remedy for a civil contempt, there must be “a separate, affirmative finding that the contemnor possesses the present ability to comply with the purge conditions set forth in the contempt order.” There must, therefore, be a new trial.” (Petitioners motion for clarification of order, dated June 12, 2007)

    This court ordered the petitioner’s attorney to investigate the respondent’s ability to comply with the [void] order of contempt since June 2007. The attorney Maria Chisholm stated at that time, they were to busy to investigate the [void] order of contempt and has not made this determination which the court ordered two years ago. (Transcript of proceeding filed in the court’s record July 10, 2008, page 22 lines 1-25)

    The petitioners attorneys are in contempt of court, and caused enormous damage to the respondents due process to a fair trial. Petitioners attorneys are contradicting themselves by continuing to motion for contempt, while violating the court order to investigate respondent ability to pay under protest of the respondent and the court. All events occurred on record during the two years the petitioners attorneys refused to comply with this court order, violates respondents due process to a fair trial.

    The petitioners attorneys are in contempt of court…to repeat this process is willful fraud on the court…to contribute to cover up of all the facts and persons involved is fraud, conspiracy and cover up of fraud on the court…to “willfully” violate due process and manipulate the court is obstruction of justice…these unlawful acts over a period of time are criminal…persons involved are liable…

    The respondent position is that petitioner’s attorneys J. Kevin McNamara, Albert J. Arena, Maria Chisholm, and others have crossed the Bright line Standard in prosecuting this case and they are participants in a conspiracy in this case.
    1. Petitioner’s attorneys continued to schedule this case with a co-conspirator Hearing Officer Lila Stello, when Stello has been recused by a court order. (Exhibits 2,3,8)
    2. Petitioner’s attorneys have unlawfully blocked respondent from all hearings on the respondent’s motions. (Transcript of proceeding filed in the court’s record July 10, 2008, page 23 lines 20-25)
    3. Petitioners attorneys have allow and participated in prejudice against the respondent and caused enormous violations to due process in this case according to Hearing Officer Lila Stello’s reply to respondent’s complaint to the Florida Bar File No 2009-10,233(13C). Lila Stello stated the petitioner’s attorneys scheduled all hearings that resulted in violation of Stello’s recusal order. Petitioner’s attorneys also violated due process of the respondent. Page 2, Florida Bar File No 2009-10,233(13C).

    The petitioner is requesting the court to issue an unlawful order:
    A court of competent jurisdiction previously ordered this case dismissed in favor of Respondent, eight years prior to this case 1981DR014711. Case 41279 signed by Judge Charles Scruggs including affidavit to his signature on that order, has been submitted to this court and now recorded as part of the record. That order has not been ruled void by any court.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow! Thanks for sharing this and I know it will help others in a similar situation. It looks very well done and thorough. I hope you get a positive response back from the appeals court.

    By reading through this it definantly has alot in common with some of the things I have been through here in Georgia. Thanks again for sharing and I wish you well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Excellent Article! This info is very important to my case! And, timely too.

    Jim: Your comment today on your post from December 2008 is 'Divine Intervention'! Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  7. BN, look to the undercut in logic for an answer to your question. It is expressed thusly; What is the EXACT AMOUNT of fraud that ANYONE has the right to commit? What is the EXACT AMOUNT of fraud that ANYONE has an obligation to endure?
    Since we know that the ENTIRE legal system is based upon the fraudulent notion that you can hire someone to get or help you get justice, it then stands to reason that you have no obligation to get involved there. How much of the fraud of the court do you have to endure in your case? How do you measure it so as to be able to tell if you've been dealt too much fraud or not yet had enough? Capice?

    This has been, The Voice of Logic and Reason.

    Randy

    ReplyDelete
  8. I just successfully defeated the Fla. Department Of revenue/child support. It takes a lot of Motions and time, but I eliminated the "free Legal service" the court provides the ex-wife in the way of an attorney.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 shall govern general provisions concerning relief
    from judgment, decrees, or orders, except that there shall be no time limit for motions based
    on fraudulent financial affidavits in marital or paternity cases. Fla. Fam. L.R.P. Rule 12.540

    ReplyDelete
  10. A fraudulent financial Affidavit constitutes Intrinsic Fraud. Declaire v. Yohanan, 453
    So.2d 375 (Fla. 1984). ‘Intrinsic fraud, on the other hand, applies to fraudulent conduct that
    arises within a proceeding and pertains to the issues in the case that have been tried or could have
    been tried. This Court, consistent with the general rule, has expressly held that false testimony
    given in a proceeding is intrinsic fraud. I.d.

    ReplyDelete
  11. PERJURY
    F.S. §837.02(2) States:
    Whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath
    in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree,
    punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.08
    In Wescott v. Wescott 444, So.2d 495 Fla. 2d DCA 1984) the court defined a Fraudulent
    financial Affidavit as Perjury. ‘Thus, allegations that intrinsic fraud, such as perjury, occurred in
    a lawsuit are insufficient grounds for bringing an independent lawsuit, as here, to set aside the
    judgment in the first lawsuit’ I.d.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Real Estate Depot, Inc., 42 So.3d 258 (Fla.4th DCA 2010),
    The court ruled:
    ‘As it is an equitable remedy, a party seeking such a lien must do so with clean hands.
    Epstein, 915 So. 2d at 1275. The clean hands doctrine "applies not only to fraudulent and illegal
    transactions, but to any unrighteous, unconscientious, or oppressive conduct by one seeking
    equitable interference in his own behalf." Dale v. Jennings, 90 Fla. 234, 107 So. 175, 180
    (1925)’ I.d.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks for this information Gordon, I'm sure it will help others, especially those in Florida.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Jennings case has been ongoing since 1981. Every Petition to the DCA denied (according to the public record docket in Hillsborough County for Case Number 81-DR-014711. So those who think his information is good - should perhaps consult with an attorney instead.



    Mr. Jennings (in January 2012) is now seeking to set aside a final judgment in this case (likely establishing his paternity of a child and ordering him to pay child support, from 20 years ago).

    Why is Mr. Jennings doing this? Was the child not his? Or is he using and abusing the system to avoid paying child support? This is a 20 year old case!!!! Absurd.

    Instead of pointing fingers at the judiciary, perhaps he should have paid his child support.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The child was proven through paternity testing not to be his. In fact it was proven on 2 separate tests.
    Perhaps he should have been more prudent in the woman he was sleeping with, that felt comfortable lying and attempting to obtain child support by fraud. Just my thoughts on the matter.

    ReplyDelete