Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Fraud On The Court by An Officer of The Court and "Disqualification of Judges, State and Federal" Public Notice

    Caricato da

    in1or
    522 visualizzazioni2 pagine
    Fraud on the Court by an Officer of the Court And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal" Public Notice Who is an "officer of the court"? Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980): 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. What is "fraud on the court"? Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985): Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court." 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."

    Titolo originale

    Fraud on the Court by an Officer of the Court And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal" Public Notice

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formati disponibili

    DOC, PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    Fraud on the Court by an Officer of the Court And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal" Public Notice Who is an "officer of the court"? Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980): 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. What is "fraud on the court"? Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985): Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court." 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."

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Scarica in formato DOC, PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    522 visualizzazioni2 pagine

    Fraud On The Court by An Officer of The Court and "Disqualification of Judges, State and Federal" Public Notice

    Caricato da

    in1or
    Fraud on the Court by an Officer of the Court And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal" Public Notice Who is an "officer of the court"? Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980): 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. What is "fraud on the court"? Whereas defined pursuant to Supreme Court Annotated Statute; Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985): Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court." 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."

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Scarica in formato DOC, PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 2

    Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court" And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal" Who is an "officer of the

    court" Whereas defined !ursuant to Su!re"e Court Annotated Statute# $eo!le %& 'a(ic, )) *ll&A!!&+d ,--, ,./ 0&1&2d 323 4.5)/67 A (udge is an officer of the court, as 8ell as are all attorneys& A state (udge is a state (udicial officer, !aid 9y the State to act i"!artially and la8fully& A federal (udge is a federal (udicial officer, !aid 9y the federal go%ern"ent to act i"!artially and la8fully& State and federal attorneys fall into the sa"e general category and "ust "eet the sa"e require"ents& A (udge is not the court& What is "fraud on the court" Whereas defined !ursuant to Su!re"e Court Annotated Statute# Bulloch %& :nited States, -3+ F&2d ...;, ..2. 4./th Cir& .5);67 Whene%er any officer of the court co""its fraud during a !roceeding in the court, he<she is engaged in "fraud u!on the court&" The court stated "Fraud u!on the court is fraud 8hich is directed to the (udicial "achinery itself and is not fraud 9et8een the !arties or fraudulent docu"ents, false state"ents or !er(ury& &&& *t is 8here the court or a "e"9er is corru!ted or influenced or influence is atte"!ted or 8here the (udge has not !erfor"ed his (udicial function === thus 8here the i"!artial functions of the court ha%e 9een directly corru!ted&" "Fraud u!on the court" has 9een defined 9y the -th Circuit Court of A!!eals to "e"9race that s!ecies of fraud 8hich does, or atte"!ts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud !er!etrated 9y officers of the court so that the (udicial "achinery can not !erfor" in the usual "anner its i"!artial tas> of ad(udging cases that are !resented for ad(udication&" ?enner %& C&*&@&, +)- F&+d 3)5 4.53)6# - AooreBs Federal $ractice, 2d ed&, !& ;.2, C 3/&2+& The -th Circuit further stated "a decision !roduced 9y fraud u!on the court is not in essence a decision at all, and ne%er 9eco"es final&" What effect does an act of "fraud u!on the court" ha%e u!on the court !roceeding "Fraud u!on the court" "a>es %oid the orders and (udg"ents of that court& *t is also clear and 8ell=settled *llinois la8 that any atte"!t to co""it "fraud u!on the court" %itiates the entire !roceeding& The $eo!le of the State of *llinois %& Fred 1& Sterling, +;- *ll& +;,# .52 0&1& 225 4.5+,6 4"The "aDi" that fraud %itiates e%ery transaction into 8hich it enters a!!lies to (udg"ents as 8ell as to contracts and other transactions&"6# Allen F& Aoore %& Stanley F& Sie%ers, ++3 *ll& +.3# .3) 0&1& 2;5 4.5256 4"The "aDi" that fraud %itiates e%ery transaction into 8hich it enters &&&"6# *n re Eillage of Willo89roo>, +- *ll&A!!&2d +5+ 4.5326 4"*t is aDio"atic that fraud %itiates e%erything&"6# Dunha" %& Dunha", ;- *ll&A!!& ,-; 4.)5,6, affir"ed .32 *ll& ;)5 4.)536# S>elly Oil Co& %& :ni%ersal Oil $roducts Co&, ++) *ll&A!!& -5, )3 0&1&2d )-;, ))+=, 4.5,56# Tho"as Stasel %& The A"erican Fo"e Security Cor!oration, +32 *ll& +;/# .55 0&1& -5) 4.5+;6& :nder *llinois and Federal la8, 8hen any officer of the court has co""itted "fraud u!on the court", the orders and (udg"ent of that court are %oid, of no legal force or effect& What causes the "Disqualification of Judges " Whereas defined !ursuant to Su!re"e Court Annotated Statute# Gite>y %& :&S&, .., S&Ct& ..,-, ..32 4.55,67 Federal la8 requires the auto"atic disqualification of a Federal (udge under certain circu"stances& *n .55,, the :&S& Su!re"e Court held that "Disqualification is required if an o9(ecti%e o9ser%er 8ould entertain reasona9le questions a9out the (udgeBs i"!artiality& *f a (udgeBs attitude or state of "ind leads a detached o9ser%er to conclude that a fair and i"!artial hearing is unli>ely, the (udge "ust 9e disqualified&" H1"!hasis addedI& Courts ha%e re!eatedly held that !ositi%e !roof of the !artiality of a (udge is not a require"ent, only the a!!earance of !artiality& Gil(e9erg %& Fealth Ser%ices Acquisition Cor!&, ,)3 :&S& ),-, ./) S&Ct& 2.5, 4.5))6 48hat "atters is not the reality of 9ias or !re(udice 9ut its a!!earance6# :nited States %& Balistrieri, --5 F&2d ..5. 4-th Cir& .5);6 4Section ,;;4a6 "is directed against the a!!earance of !artiality, 8hether or not the (udge is actually 9iased&"6 4"Section ,;;4a6 of the Judicial Code, 2) :&S&C& J,;;4a6, is not intended to !rotect litigants fro" actual 9ias in their (udge 9ut rather to !ro"ote !u9lic confidence in the i"!artiality of the (udicial !rocess&"6& That Court also stated that Section ,;;4a6 "requires a (udge to recuse hi"self in any !roceeding in 8hich her i"!artiality "ight reasona9ly 9e questioned&" Taylor %& OBKrady, ))) F&2d ..)5 4-th Cir& .5)56& *n $fiLer *nc& %& Gord, ,;3 F&2d ;+2 4)th Cir& .5-26, the Court stated that "*t is i"!ortant that the litigant not

    only actually recei%e (ustice, 9ut that he 9elie%es that he has recei%ed (ustice&" The Su!re"e Court has ruled and has reaffir"ed the !rinci!le that "(ustice "ust satisfy the a!!earance of (ustice", Ge%ine %& :nited States, +32 :&S& 3./, )/ S&Ct& ./+) 4.53/6, citing Offutt %& :nited States, +,) :&S& .., .,, -; S&Ct& .., .+ 4.5;,6& A (udge recei%ing a 9ri9e fro" an interested !arty o%er 8hich he is !residing, does not gi%e the a!!earance of (ustice& "@ecusal under Section ,;; is self=eDecuting# a !arty need not file affida%its in su!!ort of recusal and the (udge is o9ligated to recuse herself sua s!onte under the stated circu"stances&" Taylor %& OBKrady, ))) F&2d ..)5 4-th Cir& .5)56& Further, the (udge has a legal duty to disqualify hi"self e%en if there is no "otion as>ing for his disqualification& The Se%enth Circuit Court of A!!eals further stated that "We thin> that this language H,;;4a6I i"!oses a duty on the (udge to act sua s!onte, e%en if no "otion or affida%it is filed&" Balistrieri, at .2/2& Judges do not ha%e discretion not to disqualify the"sel%es& By la8, they are 9ound to follo8 the la8& Should a (udge not disqualify hi"self as required 9y la8, then the (udge has gi%en another eDa"!le of his "a!!earance of !artiality" 8hich, !ossi9ly, further disqualifies the (udge& Should another (udge not acce!t the disqualification of the (udge, then the second (udge has e%idenced an "a!!earance of !artiality" and has !ossi9ly disqualified hi"self<herself& 0one of the orders issued 9y any (udge 8ho has 9een disqualified 9y la8 8ould a!!ear to 9e %alid& *t 8ould a!!ear that they are %oid as a "atter of la8, and are of no legal force or effect& Should a (udge not disqualify hi"self, then the (udge is %iolation of the Due $rocess Clause of the :&S& Constitution& :nited States %& Sciuto, ;2. F&2d ),2, ),; 4-th Cir& .5536 4"The right to a tri9unal free fro" 9ias or !re(udice is 9ased, not on section .,,, 9ut on the Due $rocess Clause&"6& Should a (udge issue any order after he has 9een disqualified 9y la8, and if the !arty has 9een denied of any of his < her !ro!erty, then the (udge "ay ha%e 9een engaged in the Federal Cri"e of "interference 8ith interstate co""erce"& The (udge has acted in the (udgeBs !ersonal ca!acity and not in the (udgeBs (udicial ca!acity& *t has 9een said that this (udge, acting in this "anner, has no "ore la8ful authority than so"eoneBs neDt=door neigh9or 4!ro%ided that he is not a (udge6& Fo8e%er so"e (udges "ay not follo8 the la8& *f you 8ere a non=re!resented litigant, and should the court not follo8 the la8 as to non=re!resented litigants, then the (udge has eD!ressed an "a!!earance of !artiality" and, under the la8, it 8ould see" that he<she has disqualified hi"<herself& Fo8e%er, since not all (udges >ee! u! to date in the la8, and since not all (udges follo8 the la8, it is !ossi9le that a (udge "ay not >no8 the ruling of the :&S& Su!re"e Court and the other courts on this su9(ect& 0otice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a (udge ""ust 9e disqualified" under certain circu"stances& The Su!re"e Court has also held that if a (udge 8ars against the Constitution, or if he acts 8ithout (urisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution& *f a (udge acts after he has 9een auto"atically disqualified 9y la8, then he is acting 8ithout (urisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in cri"inal acts of treason, and "ay 9e engaged in eDtortion and the interference 8ith interstate co""erce& Courts ha%e re!eatedly ruled that (udges ha%e no i""unity for their cri"inal acts& Since 9oth treason and the interference 8ith interstate co""erce are cri"inal acts, no (udge has i""unity to engage in such acts&

    Potrebbero piacerti anche