Fraud upon the Court by Officers of the Court

A judge stated today that she refused to address anyone as a party of interest in fraud on the court matters. (eToys 01-706 Del Bankr 2001).
.
Today, Feb. 27, 2008 the Judge stated that a party who has confessed to filing a false affidavit can pay himself indemnification fees. The Judge ruled that my company CLI could not raise the issues of Fraud on the Court and that even though the contracts of CLI state that the Debtor shall pay all labor directly, it is too late for me to ask to be paid.
.
The Plan Administrator asked the Court for permission to pay himself indemnification fees. The Plan states that the Plan Administrator cannot have transactions with related parties Plan clause 3.12. Yet the Court granted the Plan Administrator permission to pay himself.
.
The Courts state that the Bankruptcy Code grants restriction of Article III standing to parties of interest. Even though my companies contracts, that was drafted by the parties that confessed to filing more than 40 false affidavits, who also received a court order that THEY would submit my paperwork to the Court, discouraging me from having independent counsel. The Court, Her Honor Mary F Walrath, refused to address the Fraud on the Court issue and said the plan clause 3.12 will not be addressed as I do not have her permission to be heard on the issue.

Where can one go when one of the firms that confessed to filing false affidavits has a partner within the Dept of Justice who is refusing to prosecute the Fraud. At the same time the Law firm of MNAT is so powerful that the Justice Dept will not even EVER mention the law firm MNAT.
.
MNAT also has the longest sitting judge on the 3rd Circuit, and the lawyer for MNAT who did the perjury, Werkheiser, clerked for the Senior Judges also.
.
When the Court throws out the Law and Anarchy is running amuck and gathering strength, where can one turn to in order to find honorable public servants to defend the Constitution?

What you are describing here simply cannot occur within American Federal Courts. There are too many check and balances.

[annjd]

I would tend to agree.

But you could certainly have an independent lawyer review and advise you--or even contact the ACLU etc

Looking upon the websites out there it would seem there IS extensive fraud upon the court, that consistently goes unpunished by inner circle comrades at arms.

It is happening today in America and seems to be extensive in Delaware, the smallest state in the land. Strange!

[nkawea4@hotmail.com]

It is happening in the Circuit Court of Fairfax county. My experience with judges who abuse their discretion in order to coverup corruption is going on till the present day. Abuse of judges in the court room has to be stopped "legal fraud" had to end. I hope those who shares in this forum will form an organization that would subject all these judges to public scrutiny.

Politics between attorneys and Judges are on the increase, the public should know and be protected.

[nkawea4@hotmail.com]

Originally Posted by laserhaas@msn.com A judge stated today that she refused to address anyone as a party of interest in fraud on the court matters. (eToys 01-706 Del Bankr 2001). . Today, Feb. 27, 2008 the Judge stated that a party who has confessed to filing a false affidavit can pay himself indemnification fees. The Judge ruled that my company CLI could not raise the issues of Fraud on the Court and that even though the contracts of CLI state that the Debtor shall pay all labor directly, it is too late for me to ask to be paid. . The Plan Administrator asked the Court for permission to pay himself indemnification fees. The Plan states that the Plan Administrator cannot have transactions with related parties Plan clause 3.12. Yet the Court granted the Plan Administrator permission to pay himself. . The Courts state that the Bankruptcy Code grants restriction of Article III standing to parties of interest. Even though my companies contracts, that was drafted by the parties that confessed to filing more than 40 false affidavits, who also received a court order that THEY would submit my paperwork to the Court, discouraging me from having independent counsel. The Court, Her Honor Mary F Walrath, refused to address the Fraud on the Court issue and said the plan clause 3.12 will not be addressed as I do not have her permission to be heard on the issue. Where can one go when one of the firms that confessed to filing false affidavits has a partner within the Dept of Justice who is refusing to prosecute the Fraud. At the same time the Law firm of MNAT is so powerful that the Justice Dept will not even EVER mention the law firm MNAT. . MNAT also has the longest sitting judge on the 3rd Circuit, and the lawyer for MNAT who did the perjury, Werkheiser, clerked for the Senior Judges also. . When the Court throws out the Law and Anarchy is running amuck and gathering strength, where can one turn to in order to find honorable public servants to defend the Constitution?

If judges themselves violate the constitution and the law, we need to subject them to public scrutiny.

[nkawea4@hotmail.com]

Abuse of discretion by a Judge--she denied me my legal right to argue my two motions in violation of the Conons of Judicial conduct and gross violations of the Virginia Rules of Evidence. She ignorned a Judge's decision on the same issue.

She just heard the opposing attorney presenting illogical statements for few minutes, statements that have no probative value on the issue before the court, violating the Rules of Evidence.

She ignored the facts in the two motions, one of them a Motion for Sanctions
against the attorney who violated 1.13 of the his professional code of
Ethics.

What do you do with Judges who continue to encourage attorneys to violate their professional code of Ethics? Shall I subject these judges to public
scrutiny? My experience with certain judges abusing their discretion goes
back to l990. I wrote these judges and they know themselves. I am ready to expose them if the need arise...I know why and who. Any response is appreciated.

If you have the proof that the judge abused his/her discretion, then make it public, by all means.

When the President of the United States "appoints" the Attorney General of the United States... anything is possible!

Head of one branch of government putting the head of another branch, especially when it's one that is a check against that branch, is only a recipe for corruption... So much for the checks and balances.


As for Fraud upon the Court by Officers of the Court, everyday 1000's of bogus default judgements are issued on breach of contract [and why wouldn't the court clerks push these dockets without contracts through, the courts pickup 10% of the alleged debt on top of the alleged debt also they get their 10% first], people go bankrupt or lose property [or even both] because the courts procedures and/or mass of paperwork... the average person loses the right to defend themselves [and even when you file an answer, good chance it can get lost.]

too bad no one stops this...

Originally Posted by Unregistered What you are describing here simply cannot occur within American Federal Courts. There are too many check and balances.

You obviously haven't had much to do with the court system. The checks and balances that are THERE, are often bypassed. For example, my (former) attorney went to court with a paper signed only by the two attorneys -- the paper said basically that I waived a hearing and voluntarily agreed to dismiss with prejudice. I had never been asked to do this and had absolutely no idea the attorney was doing this (he later hid the order from me that was entered, dismissing the case with prejudice).

The checks and balances is that before there is a voluntary dismissal, a paper must be SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES.

The judge failed to follow procedure and he let the paper signed only by attorneys dismiss the case.

Another simple check would have been for the judge to say to himself, "Hey, before I dismiss this case forever, maybe I should see someone's signature, stating that they DID waive a heariing and agree to dismiss with prejudice", but no ...... the judge didn't do that either.