Civil Rights Denied
You be The Judge
What are the professional obligations of any Court having taken the oath of office? Are they obligated to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States? Are they obligated to comply with the Judicial Conduct Canons? Are they obligated to redress confirmed injustice? Are they obligated to report violations of rules of professional conduct of both attorneys and judges? Are they obligated to report violations of criminal statutes? Are they obligated to nullify “void” judgments if confirmed judgments were obtained by fraud?
If a nine inch stack of established material facts attached to three civil suits is provided in support that civil rights have been denied – of fraud – of theft by deception having occurred – of defamation and the Court urges you to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice to take your suits anywhere else what might that mean?
Would a dismissal even without prejudice “Dismissed without prejudice particularly as it appears constitute another violation of civil rights? Would it constitute violations of Title 14 and Title 18? Would this Court with material facts before it have an obligation to report any even appearance of criminal violations or violations of Rules of Professional Conduct and Rules of Judicial Canons that occurred within the judicial system?
You be the Judge.
In December of 2009, under the impression that the alleged wrongful adversary case against me in the lower trial court jurisdiction was finally concluding, I filed three separate suits (1) 6:09-CV-01980- Declaratory and Other Relief $162,214.96 : (2) 6:09-CV-01984 Declaratory and Other Relief House with One Acre : (3) 6:09-CV-01985 Libel Slander Defamation Fraud Tort Crimes. To each suit I attached a three (3) inch stack of material evidence established in the prior lower court proceeding, in additional to other arguments also that my civil rights were denied.
You be the judge if the included material facts, rendered sufficient evidence, to consider the trial court acted with bias and prejudgment (see herein – Designation of Record), when issuing an early ultimatum then stopping my testimony on 66 bench book exhibits of evidence. The same bench book evidence that was properly designated in my behalf upon Appeal but never forwarded to District Appeal Court as protocol requires. The bench book exhibits, are still hidden in the case file.
I argued that all of the circumstances I suffered with believed sufficient evidence to raise a concern of my having been denied my civil right to a fair trial. I presented all the established record of known lies, deceit, and fraudulent misrepresentation, as well as the established record of the trial court acknowledging its bias and prejudgment.
I intentionally filed the three suits separately, struggling to pay separate filing fees, so that each suit would be assigned to separate federal district judges in the hopes of having a broader possibility of awareness.
The very next day the WDLA court pacer record documented the reassigning and consolidation of my three cases to one court without anyone filing any motion to consolidate.
Simultaneously to the filing of my suits, in part due to the years of egregious actions and duress I endured, I became seriously ill.
Days after my filing the three suits Mr. Ackermann; on behalf of himself, his law firm, the Bell Trust, the trust beneficiaries, the trustee all parties made defendants except the trustee, filed a Motion to Dismiss my suits. His Motion was set for hearing on March 26, 2010. Still no concern for conflicts of interest with the legal representation of multiple entities?
Prior to the March 26th hearing date, a status conference was held on February 2, 2010; STATUS CONFERENCE TRANSCRIPT
The morning of the status conference of February 2nd, I filed a Motion for a Continuance due to serious personal illness, providing sealed supporting documentation, as well as my Opposition to Mr. Ackermann’s Motion to Dismiss.
During the February 2nd status hearing the WDLA Court carried in the more than nine inches of exhibits of “material facts” established in the trial court that I attached, stating he had reviewed it all.
The Court, when asked if he had reviewed my Opposition to Mr. Ackermann’s Motion to Dismiss, which I had filed that very morning, stated he had not?
Without reviewing my Opposition the Court went on to urge that I file a Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice, so that I could re-file my suits where ever I wanted to, and do whatever I wanted to these parties elsewhere.
The Court stated that if these attorneys did anything wrong that it should be reported to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
The Court stated that if a court were aware of misconduct it had a duty to report such misconduct.
The Court, after commenting it had reviewed troubling information, with all the criminal implications, went onto to offer it’s chambers, conference room, and bad coffee; so that parties could possibly resolve the matters currently before his Court.
Mr. Ackermann stated he was comfortable defending himself, “When the time comes for me to face the music”.
However, Mr. Ackermann apparently did not want to face the music in any court of law, and filed yet a fourth Motion for protection with the trial court for protection from litigation for their acts.
Oddly the Court’s (like) three orders of dismissal stated “Dismissed without prejudice particularly as it appears there is no subject matter jurisdiction.”
You be the Judge.
It was bewildering, especially given my frail health at the time, why no courtesy was granted as to my continuation request filed on 2/2/10.
It is not clear why a status conference was held during which voluntary dismissal was urged although the matter of dismissal was set for a future hearing on March 26, 2010, and the Court confirmed it had not reviewed my Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed that very morning.
I gave the Court every piece of material fact established in the prior proceedings, believed sufficient to support that I was denied my civil right to a fair trial, and my right to a fair appeal. (Please see drop down Designation of Record)
I believe the evidence was sufficient to warrant at least a full hearing (that was scheduled for March 26, 2010) on the matter of Mr. Ackermann Motion for Dismissal.
The Judge’s dismissal order reads “appears not to have subject matter jurisdiction”
I initially pondered filing a “Reconsideration” being quite ill and feeling manipulated as my cause of action may have been set aside because of pro se capacity and the most unpleasant circumstances. Instead I thought better to wait until the trial bankruptcy court case closed, and I had secured counsel experienced in the area of civil rights, trust law and defamation, libel and slander.
Note: I can understand that perhaps a Court would not necessarily want to have a jury trial wherein so much evidence, as depicted within this web-site (with all exhibits, nine inches of material facts, I provided to the WDLA), would be unfolding about wrongful actions having occurred in a prior Court’s jurisdiction, alleging fellow attorneys as judicial officers committed those wrongful actions.
Is federal Court the proper jurisdiction for civil rights issues?
Apparently, it is the “take your suits elsewhere” determination of the WDLA Court that hastened the trustee and his attorneys to again file for protection from litigation (Please see drop down Barton vs Criminal Acts). Now granted, any plaintiff must file a motion for leave to file suit against the trustee and his attorneys.That remedy will be available to the trust and beneficiaries when they become defendant parties in future suits I intend to file.