Res Judicata, Lache, and Time Limitations are not Applicable to Void Orders/Judgments, which must be set aside.

Please visit my new BLOG: MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments – WordPress.com

**********************************************************************************

Stop corruption Corrupt judges like John D. Rainey, Janis Graham Jack, S. Thomas Anderson, Skipper Koetter, Kemper Stephen Williams; unethical lawyers like Richard T. Chapman, David Roberts, Randal W. Hill, Jameson B. Carroll, Emily T. Landry, Ron McAfee, Edward Bearman; ignorant/discriminatory ADA Shannon Salyer, Sheriff B.B. Browning & Magistrate Hope Kurtz, crooks and fraudsters like Terry J. Cox, Anita L. Koop, and those named and unnamed in my posts: They have seized upon the government by bribery and corruption. They have made speculation and public robbery a science. They have loaded the nation, the state, the county, and the city with debt. — Quotes from Denis Kearney (1847–1907), a late 19th century California labor leader, applied to some Texas’s and Tennessee’s rotten, immoral, despicable OFFICERS OF THE COURT and two major crooks and fraudsters.

**********************************************************************************

Judges were accepting money right in the courtroom.

While teaching, I also worked undercover in the lower courts by saying I was a young law teacher wanting experience in criminal law. The judges were happy to assist me but what I learned was how corrupt the lower courts were. Judges were accepting money right in the courtroom. —  Samuel Dash

Samuel Dash (February 27, 1925 – May 29, 2004) was an American professor of law who acted as a co-chief counsel along with Fred Thompson for the Senate Watergate Committee during the Watergate scandal. Dash became famous for his televised interrogations during the hearings held by the United States Congress on the Watergate incident. — From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ha! Judge Skipper Koetter seems a lot wiser in that he concealed the moneys under the cover of campaign contributions and that he managed not to accept money in the courtroom, I guess.  But a reasonable man cannot rule out his accepting money in his chambers, bedchambers, or living room, can he? One of my former attorneys mentioned that the most effective way for money to change hands had been knowingly and willfully losing the chips to the judge in the poker game in a private group. See Judge Skipper Koetter’s Campaign Finance Suspected of Bribery Posted on September 29, 2012.

**********************************************************************************

Res Judicata, Lache, and Time Limitations are not applicable to Void Orders/Judgments, which must be set aside.

  1. Res judicata consequences will not be applied to a void judgment which is one which, from its inception, is a complete nullity and without legal effect, Allcock v. Allcock 437 N.E. 2d 392 (Ill. App. 3 Dist. 1982).
  2. “…laches does not run against a void judgment. See Samango v. Hobbs, supra; People’s National Bank of Reynoldsville, to Use of Mottern v. D.&M Coal Co., 124 Pa. Super. 21 A. 452.” Com. v. Miller, 150 A.2d 585, 588 (1959)
  3. A motion to set aside a judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction is not subject to the time limitations of Rule 60(b). See Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288 (Utah 1986).
  4. A void judgment is one which from the beginning was complete nullity and without any legal effect, Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 485 F.Supp. 456      (M.D. Fla. 1980).
  5. A void judgment is one which, from its inception, is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties or to support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of enforcement in any manner or to any degree – Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So. 2d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).
  6. When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not      discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, (Colo. 1994).
  7. Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set      aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D. 278.

* Those who are seeking relief from void judgments, please read the following carefully: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment 2. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment.

The merits in this pro se litigant’s Rule 60 Motion and Memorandum soundly support her cause, outweighing the minor typographical or grammatical errors.

Paul Chen

 

Posted in FRAUD ON THE COURT, Suing officers of the court | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

District Judges Rainey, Jack and the Other Judiciaries are not Immune from Suit for Damages

 No Notice, No Jurisdiction, No Authority to Grant Relief, and the Judgment is VOID!

  1. “It is fundamental that no judgment or order affecting the rights of a party to the cause shall be made or rendered without noticeto the party whose rights are to be affected.” Tyron Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Phelps, 307 S.C. 361, 362, 415 S.E.2d 397, 398 (1992). Generally, a person against whom a judgment or order is taken without notice may rightly ignore it and may assume that no court will enforce it against his person or property. Id.
  2. See Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389. Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proven to exist.See also Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215., There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” See also Rosemond V. Lambert, 469 F2d 416., The burden shifts to the courts to prove jurisdiction.
  3. If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn’t any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void.” (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.) An illegal order is forever void.

Four Factors to Determine whether a Judge’s Act is a “Judicial” One

  1. To determine whether a judge’s act is a “judicial”
    one, the Court is to consider four factors: (1) whether the act complained of is one normally performed by a judge; (2) whether the act occurred in the courtroom or an appropriate adjunct such as the judge’s chambers; (3) whether the controversy centered around a case pending before the judge; and (4) whether the act arose out of a visit to the judge in his judicial capacity.” Malina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121, 1124 (5th Cir.1993).

(1) whether the act complained of is one normally performed by a judge: Rainey’s imposing on this indigent Plaintiff the Clerk’s duties to “issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(d), and refusing to reinstate the complaints dismissed sua sponte under Rule 1-041(E)(2) of Rules Enabling Act, which is mandatory, are not acts normally performed by a judge.

(2) whether the act occurred in the courtroom or an appropriate adjunct such as the judge’s chambers: The acts neither occurred in the courtroom nor an appropriate adjunct such as the judge’s chambers because without service of process, no parties were present, and there was no subject matter before the judge for adjudication;

(3) whether the controversy centered around a case pending before the judge: Since there was neither subject matter nor personal jurisdiction, there was no controversy that centered around any case pending before the judge and

(4) whether the act arose out of a visit to the judge in his judicial capacity: The decision was made in his administrative, ministerial, non-judicial, non-adjudicative, personal, private-citizen capacity. Without subject matter and parties before him, whatever he did was not done in his judicial, but personal, capacity.

Two Circumstances When a Judge is not Entitled to Judicial Immunity

5. There are only two circumstances when a judge is not entitled to judicial immunity: (1) when he performs acts not in his judicial capacity and (2) when he performs act, although judicial in nature, in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991). Here, Judge Rainey is not entitled to judicial immunity because (1) when he rendered the Order to Dismiss without prejudice, he was not performing acts in his judicial capacity; 2) he was making an administrative, ministerial, non-judicial, non-adjudicative decision; and (2) when he performs act, although judicial in nature, in the complete absence of all jurisdiction: neither subject matter nor personal jurisdiction was present; he was without any authority to hear the case and determine any issue.

See other related posts.

Posted by Paul Chen: ricofraudonthecourt@wordpress.com

E-mail Addresses: ricofraudonthecourt@yahoo.com
pc886405@yahoo.com

Posted in FRAUD ON THE COURT, Suing officers of the court | Tagged | Leave a comment

MOTION TO VACATE THE FINAL JUDGMENT, REINSTATE THE CASE and COMPLAINT AGAINST DEPRIVATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS

THIS POST IS REVSIED AS:

MOTION TO VACATE THE FINAL JUDGMENT, REINSTATE THE CASE and COMPLAINT AGAINST DEPRIVATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS (revised) Posted on March 25, 2013

Click on the above link instead of reading the contents below.

The revision is stylistic; the contents remain unchanged!

 

**********************************************************************************

Corrupt judges like John D. Rainey, Janis Graham Jack, S. Thomas Anderson, Skipper Koetter, Kemper Stephen Williams; unethical lawyers like Richard T. Chapman, David Roberts, Randal W. Hill, Jameson B. Carroll, Emily T. Landry, Ron McAfee, Edward Bearman; ignorant/discriminatory ADA Shannon Salyer, Sheriff B.B. Browning & Magistrate Hope Kurtz, crooks and fraudsters like Terry J. Cox, Anita L. Koop, and those named and unnamed in my posts: They have seized upon the government by bribery and corruption. They have made speculation and public robbery a science. They have loaded the nation, the state, the county, and the city with debt. — Quotes from Denis Kearney (1847–1907), a late 19th century California labor leader, applied to some Texas’s and Tennessee’s rotten, immoral, despicable OFFICERS OF THE COURT and two major crooks and fraudsters.

**********************************************************************************

Judges were accepting money right in the courtroom.

While teaching, I also worked undercover in the lower courts by saying I was a young law teacher wanting experience in criminal law. The judges were happy to assist me but what I learned was how corrupt the lower courts were. Judges were accepting money right in the courtroom. —  Samuel Dash

Samuel Dash (February 27, 1925 – May 29, 2004) was an American professor of law who acted as a co-chief counsel along with Fred Thompson for the Senate Watergate Committee during the Watergate scandal. Dash became famous for his televised interrogations during the hearings held by the United States Congress on the Watergate incident. — From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ha! Judge Skipper Koetter seems a lot wiser in that he concealed the moneys under the cover of campaign contributions and that he managed not to accept money in the courtroom, I guess.  But a reasonable man cannot rule out his accepting money in his chambers, bedchambers, or living room, can he? One of my former attorneys mentioned that the most effective way for money to change hands had been knowingly and willfully losing the chips to the judge in the poker game in a private group. See Judge Skipper Koetter’s Campaign Finance Suspected of Bribery Posted on September 29, 2012.

**********************************************************************************

 

Posted in FRAUD ON THE COURT | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

I accuse Judge Skipper Koetter of Abuse/Misuse of Judicial Power, Trespassing, Usurpation, Conspiracy, Corruption, Treason & RICO. Complete Silence?

Such charges are as serious as capital offense. Why do you keep completely silent? Ah, I see! It’s because my accusations are based on sufficient facts, ample case law, relevant law, rules, statutes, the Constitution of Texas and that of the United States that you violated. You are defenseless. Even Jerry Spence or other top litigators cannot defend you effectively to get you acquitted because mountainous evidence points against you. Take a look at the picture below:

Accused businessman

 Doesn’t this picture depict and reflect your circumstances now?
If you go to Google, paste: Judge Juergen Skipper Koetter, click any of the 6 pics popped up on the first page, click Visit page & you’ll be in my BLOG! If you click , you will slowly see 21 pictures linked to my new BLOG, MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments.

Now that you are caught between a rock and a hard place, what are you going to do about it? Sue me so that we can argue in open court.

About my accusations, refer to two of the numerous posts I have published at ricofraudonthecourt.com over the past two years: Abuse and Misuse of Judicial Power, Trespassing, Usurpation, Conspiracy, Corruption, Treason, and RICO Posted on  & How to Justifiably & Reasonably Charge the Officers of the Court with Abuse and Misuse of Judicial Power, Trespassing, Usurpation, Conspiracy, Corruption, Treason, and Racketeering? Posted on ; MOTION TO VACATE THE FINAL JUDGMENT, REINSTATE THE CASE and COMPLAINT AGAINST DEPRIVATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS (revised) Posted on ; PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE SIX COMPLAINTS FILED IN V-06-78 Posted on PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE SIX COMPLAINTS Posted on  & others.

I can be jailed again at any time, it is very easy. They can say I am a criminal and just lock me up. Chen Guangcheng   To my good luck, I am not in China! But if I should go to court, and say: I accuse Judge Skipper Koetter of Abuse/Misuse of Judicial Power, Trespassing, Usurpation, Conspiracy, Corruption, Treason & RICO. Complete Silence? as I posted on July 26, 2014, he would not hesitate to hold me in contempt of court and jail me for six months or more. That’s why I only appear at court by well-pled legal papers now and argue online based on sufficient facts and applicable law. They have to argue with me on paper, but they are unmeritorious in every respect. Consequently, people like Koetter, Roberts, and Hill have remained silent despite my repeated attacks and challenges to a duel in court! Please take a look at Dr. Linda Sheldon’s suffering from injustice by clicking the following links: Blog: Experience as a defendant in Corrupt Illinois Courts ; Illinois Corruption: Torture of Dr Linda Shelton in Illinois prison. She has been arrested 25 times beginning in 2002 for her whistle blowing activities. She has represented herself and won the first 15 cases. She has been charged with both felonies and misdemeanors. Thanks to Calhoun County for giving me the unforgettable and unforgivable 34-day jail experience, I am capable of empathizing with Dr. Sheldon’s mistreatment! I suppose my demand for $75 million damages payable by installment in 75 years to a charity of my choice is not unreasonable! That’s the price of abuse and misuse of power!

In fact, I must thank you, Mr. Koetter, for giving me this rare opportunity to write about the most corrupt judge I have ever met except John D. Rainey, who will be my next target after I am done with you!

John D. Rainey

Judge Rainey presided over my Civil Actions: 6:05-mc-00002, V-06-78, 6:09-mc-11, but rendered VOID Orders and Judgments without subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, in 610-cv-00056 Chen v. Rainey in which he was my defendant. Details will be posted as soon as Judge Koetter’s wrongdoings are exposed to my heart’s content. In fact, many instances of Judge Rainey’s misconduct have been published here. Key in his name at SEARCH area, you will find many posts related to his deliberate indifference to and reckless disregard for my legal and equitable rights much less my civil rights.

I’m a fighter, not a quitter. — Peter Mandelson — Yes, I’m a fighter, not a quitter!

Interestingly, Judge Rainey’s wrongdoings can also be covered by : Abuse and Misuse of Judicial Power, Trespassing, Usurpation, Conspiracy, Corruption, Treason, and RICO violations. For instance, his rendering the VOID Orders and Judgments without subject matter jurisdiction is subject to Treason charge. Under the Supreme Law of the Land, whenever a judge acts when the judge does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, the judge is engaged in an act of treason. U.S. v. Will; Cohens v. Virginia.

Consequently, I may also call Mr. Rainey traitor if Mr. Koetter does not object to you sharing his title. See Juergen “Skipper” Koetter: U.S. v. Will says you are engaged in an act of treason! May I call you traitor, then? posted on July 22, 2014.

Group Of Men In Prison Cell

How come the judges and the lawyers are locked in the same cell?

Don’t you think you two belong in there, too?

 

RICO: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO). 

Racketeer No. 1

Bad mafia gun manDid you let this bad mafia gun man go free without bail again, your honor?

Well, his boss has been paying much unreported cash for my campaign every year.

Racketeer No. 2

Bad mafia gun man How about him? Well, they belong to the same boss!

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

P.S. To sue me, you have my address, phone number and e-mail address for service of process through the Clerk, Pamela Martin Hardgrove.

 

Please click: Mr. Rainey: Why did you sit on my TRO Motions for 11.5 months without taking any actions while others were issued in an hour with a phone call or in one day?July 31, 2014; Koetter, the worst judge in Texas, second only to Rainey, the most corrupt federal judge! July 30, 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in ABUSE AND MISUSE OF POWER, Bribery, Can Judge Koetter Pass the Three-prong Test?, CIVIL CONSPIRACY CLAIMS, Clerk Pamela Martin Hartgrove, Collusion, Conspiracy, Corruption, David Roberts, due process of law, Egregious Misconduct, false arrest, FRAUD ON THE COURT, Fraudulent Concealment, Intentional Misrepresentation, Intrinsic/Extrinsic Fraud, Judge Janis Graham Jack, Judge John D. Rainey, Judge Juergen "Skipper" Koetter, Judge Kemper Stephen Williams, Judge Skipper Koetter, JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER'S JUDICIAL & NON-JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, Kenneth Burch, Lennar Partners, malicious prosecution, MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments, notice of lis pendens, Perjured Testimony, Perjury, Racial Discrimination, Racketeering Activity, Randal W. Hill, RECUSAL MOTION, RICO CLAIMS, Roberts Roberts Odefey Witte LLP, Selective Prosecution, Suing officers of the court, Thomas George, TRESPASS TO TRY TITLE, Trustee Mike Boudloche., VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS, wrongful imprisonment | Leave a comment

PREPARE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITHOUT A LAWYER

PREPARE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITHOUT A LAWYER

Please click the above link to view the contents posted at the new BLOG, MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments.

Paul Chen

Posted in FRAUD ON THE COURT | 3 Comments

JUDGE JUERGEN (SKIPPER) KOETTER: My readers were wrong! So was I!

Please visit my new BLOG: MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments.

My readers were wrong about why I closed the BLOG! I was wrong about the bribe/reward/donation, Your Honor!

**********************************************************************

Today marks the 4th Anniversary of the 7/15/2010 hearing held by Judge Skipper Koetter whose jurisdiction, authority, and power to hear the cases have been repeatedly challenged. However, he has never complied with the law. Specifically, when my opponents were proved to lack standing and the court had no subject matter jurisdiction, prior to the hearing, he was supposed to have required them to demonstrate that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the matters and parties before it. But he never did!   On June 4, 2014, I submitted a VERIFIED MOTION TO REOPEN Cause No. 12-4-1596. Without even reading the COVER of my Motion, (See COVER CAUSE NO. 12-4-1596)  on June 17, 2014 he signed an ORDER OF DISMISSAL (See 1) 6 17 14 ORDER OF DISMISSAL; 2) July 11, 2014 (Delivered on July 14, 2014 at 10.06 am) COVER LETTER TO THE DISTRICT CLERK) with his eyes half closed, not to speak of reading my 64- page, 208-paragraph non-frivolous pleadings substantiated by sufficient facts, relevant law, case law, statutes, rules, Texas and U.S. Constitutional provisions that safeguard our “LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY.” — All my pleadings will be gradually and systematically posted here through Claim-by-Claim Presentation and Issue-by-Issue Analysis for the benefit of those pro se litigants who have been following me for over two years.

ADVANCE NOTICE:

1. I have made sufficient preparations for MANDAMUS PETITION for years so that the Thirteenth Court of Appeals may compel Judge Koetter to vacate all the challenged VOID Orders/Judgments in due course.

2. Based upon my intensive and extensive legal research for the past ten years, I’ll disclose some tips to follow and some pitfalls to avoid regarding MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments in particular without any reservation.

3. Most importantly, please keep this controlling case law in mind: “When attacking a void order by mandamus, it is not necessary to show no adequate remedy at law exists.” See In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1007 WL 854253 (Tex. June 29, 2000)(per curiam). — This guiding principle is accepted by all the jurisdictions. *************************************************************************************                           

My readers were wrong! So was I, Your Honor!

1. My readers were wrong about why I closed the BLOG. I was neither bribed nor coerced into shutting it down. I did it upon reading the news report about your PUBLIC ADMONITION by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, (See 1) Victoria Advocate | Judicial conduct board reprimands judge; 2) PUBLIC ADMONITION of HONORABLE JUERGEN (SKIPPER) KOETTER; 3) [PDF] SkipperKoetter), and your intention of running for reelection. In order not to interfere with your reelection campaign, I closed it to the public temporarily in December 2013 with the expectation of urging you to perform your ministerial duty to vacate all the VOID Orders/Judgments rendered without subject matter jurisdiction. Meanwhile, with my permission, some of my followers have been able to access my BLOG posts without any interruptions.

2. I was wrong about the bribe/reward/donation given to you by David Roberts and his law firm, Roberts, Roberts, Odefey, & Witte, LLP, in the guise of campaign contributions. It was not $1,850.10 but $5,900.10, which was reported by THE TEXAS TRIBUNE and Texas Ethics Commission’s website without calculating any under-the-table transactions!

3. Whether it was labeled a bribe, a reward, or a donation, you violated Canon 4 D (4)(c) (You may accept any other gift, bequest, favor, or loan only if the donor is not a party or person whose interests have come or are likely to come before you, the judge) and the Bribery Statute 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A), which prohibits giving “anything of value” to a present, past, or future public official “for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official.” You are such a public official, aren’t you?

4. On July 15, 2010, David Roberts and his law firm, Roberts, Roberts, Odefey, & Witte, LLP, the donors, were a party to the lawsuit whose interests came before you, the judge, for adjudication.

5. $5,900.10 is more than “anything of value”, isn’t it? Not to mention what changed hands under the table! They gave $5,900.10 to a present, past, or future public official, you, “for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official.” Sitting on the bench with or without jurisdiction, you are such a public official, aren’t you? From now on, this BLOG will be focusing on all your wrongdoings since July 15, 2010. Most of the posts published will be based on the past, present, and future court records. To avoid being tiresome and burdensome to the laypersons, I am trying to make each post as short, concise, and understandable as possible.

 

If this is you, Judge Koetter, you are guilty of rendering six VOID Orders/Judgments and refusing to perform your non-judicial/ministerial/administrative duty to vacate the challenged VOID Orders/Judgments. Thus, you are subject to MANDAMUS proceedings and TSCJC investigations! Was it you, the district judge that frequently played cards with Mr. Roberts? Card game is one of the best ways to change money under the table, isn’t it?

See you at the 13th Court of Appeals and the State Commission on Judicial Conduct hearings in the near future!

Dollars

$300 only? For my massage, counselor? If you are serious about winning in my courtroom, I can take $900 instead of my regular price of $1,000.

Yes, your honor!

Don’t come into my chambers with cash. Let’s meet somewhere else!

***************************************************************************

Lawyer man and his client

Don’t worry, Paul! If you can raise $10,000 cash by Friday, I promise the judgment will be on our side.

Are you sure, David?

Of course, I am sure. I know the judge well enough to play cards with him every weekend.

Are you bribing him?

Nope. He can’t be bribed! So I don’t bribe him; I just let him win the $10,000 in the card games.

***************************************************************************

Judge in handcuffs

Both wrists are handcuffed, and the left hand is grasping the gavel representing judicial power. And he seems to be wearing something black. He must be a judge, but why is he handcuffed instead of putting some innocent citizens under arrest without probable cause?

Acceptance of what has happened is the first step to overcoming the consequences of any misfortune. — William James — Are you willing to accept the reality of being handcuffed, arrested, thrown into prison, and compelled to defend yourself before your colleagues? Well, if James is right, you can overcome the consequences of this misfortune as long as you accept it, right?

TO BE CONTINUED.

* I have just created a new BLOG, mandamusvoidorders@wordpress.com.  From now on, all the new posts related to MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments will be published at the new BLOG site. Thank you for your visit and please don’t hesitate to give some feedback!

Paul Chen

 

 

  

 

Posted in Anita L. Koop, Anita's Resort Properties Inc., Conspiracy, Corruption, David Roberts, due process of law, Egregious Misconduct, false arrest, FRAUD ON THE COURT, Fraudulent Concealment, Intentional Misrepresentation, Intrinsic/Extrinsic Fraud, Judge Juergen "Skipper" Koetter, Judge Skipper Koetter, JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER'S JUDICIAL & NON-JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, Kenneth Burch, malicious prosecution, MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments, Perjured Testimony, Perjury, Racketeering Activity, Randal W. Hill, Roberts Roberts Odefey Witte LLP, Suing officers of the court, Terry J. Cox, Thomas George, VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS, wrongful imprisonment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

DAVID ROBERTS PERJURED UNDER OATH & COMMITTED FRAUD ON THE COURT

Please visit my new BLOG: MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments.

783 F2d 767 United States v. Roberts | OpenJurist

David William Roberts appeals from his convictions on one count of bank fraud, one count of bankruptcy fraud, and two counts of perjury.  We affirm the convictions on all counts, but remand to the district court for modification of its order regarding restitution.

Is this you, Mr. Roberts? One count of bank fraud, one count of bankruptcy fraud, and two counts of perjury?

First refer to: David Roberts’ $1,850.15 $4,900.10 Reward Tainted Judge Skipper Koetter’s 7/15/10 Hearing Posted on November 20, 2013, please. The following excerpts are from the above. Will add more of this attorney’s misconduct, e.g., violation of automatic stay  and ineffective counsel assistance (See AMENDED Cover Letter + PETITION FOR SECTION 1983 AND STATE LAW CLAIMS filed on June 4, 2012 Posted on May 23, 2013.):

On 7/15/10, David Roberts committed perjury under oath by stating that his law firm had a 10-year policy of destroying clients’ files.

No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar. —  Abraham Lincoln — How can I disagree with our Honest Abe?  You don’t have a good enough memory of what you wrote in the emails, do you, Mr. Roberts? No wonder you committed perjury under oath at the court hearing on 7/15/10 without remembering what you wrote on Fri, Apr 30, 2004 07:13 AM!  What an unsuccessful liar! Shame on you!

True! Mr. Roberts, you lied to the court under oath. You are guilty of intentional misrepresentations. 

Count 26: The concealment or destruction of documents relating to the property or affairs of the debtor. — 18 U.S.C. §152(8): Excerpted from Complaint #2 in CIVIL ACTION V-06-78 filed on 3/14/06 available at PACER (E-mail correspondence with Roberts preserved for jury trial.) See Civil Action: 6:05-mc-00002   03/14/2006 AMENDED PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT # 2 Posted on April 16, 2012:

4. Chen’s former real estate attorney David Roberts, Esq. & Roberts, Roberts & Odefey, LLP, knowingly and fraudulently concealed, destroyed, or mutilated the recorded information under his custody (including books, legal documents, litigation papers, transaction records, escrow account records, etc.) In spite of his knowledge that such information is indispensable to Chen’s preparation for the COMPLAINTS to be filed at this Court, he first agreed by e-mail

(Fri, Apr 30, 2004 07:13 AM) to retrieve the documents at a cost of $225. Chen’s friend agreed to help pay for the service and contacted Roberts in person, by phone and by e-mail many times in vain. Eventually, Roberts even ignored the phone calls without returning calls or responding to e-mails from either Chen or his friend. Though with a long-term friendly attorney-client relationship, personally Chen holds no grudge against David Roberts, Esq. & Roberts, Roberts & Odefey, LLP, the latter’s recent misconduct made it necessary for Plaintiff to take appropriate actions for self-protection. 

There is no excuse for perjury - never, never, never. There is truth, and the truth demands respect. — Ken StarrBussinessman swearingMr. Roberts: You swore under oath. Yet the truth revealed your lies! So you committed perjury! Remember the penalty under the Perjury Statute?Truth In FocusSo you committed perjury, and you were caught red-handed for the entire world to see. Fine or jail terms aside, your good reputation is being spread far and wide for free!  

George Galloway said: I’m demanding to be prosecuted. I’m begging to be prosecuted for perjury. — Do you have the guts to follow suit?

5. Who Does the File Belong To?

The primary Texas case regarding access to client files in the absence of litigation between the attorney and client is Resolution Trust Corporation v. H_____, P.C., 128 F.R.D. 647 (N. D. Tex. 1989). The opinion does not explicitly say that the entire file belongs to the client, though that is certainly the direction that Judge Sanders’ opinion was headed. The opinion holds that an attorney owes a fiduciary duty to the client and, as a result, cannot conceal any file documents from the client, even if there is no current dispute between the attorney and the client. His ruling extends to documents such as attorney notes and memoranda. Note that Rule 76a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure makes some discovery documents “court records” which neither the attorney nor the client can destroy. Disciplinary Rule 1.15(d) provides that an attorney “may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law only if such retention will not prejudice the client in the subject matter of the representation.” (Emphasis added). The primary circumstance in which “other law” permits an attorney to retain the file is when the client has not paid for legal services and the attorney asserts a lien on the file.

In some cases, prejudice to the client from the attorney’s retention of the file will be apparent. For example, if the client is getting new counsel in the case and the file is needed to prepare adequately for a hearing scheduled in a matter of days, prejudice is likely. In general, prejudice to the client is arguable in many situations if the case is still active in some manner or actions can be taken to change the effects of the work of the attorney. Suppose, however, that the case is over, the client lost, and all appeal deadlines are over. Does it “prejudice the client in the subject matter of the representation” not to have the file to give to a new attorney so he can determine if you committed malpractice? The safest course of action is to make the file available to the client in some way. Otherwise, part of the factual presentation in the malpractice suit will be a recitation of how the attorney attempted to cover up his mistake by retaining the “client’s” file.

Under the Resolution Trust Corporation v. H_____, P.C case, the attorney is required to turnover the file to the client without having the client pay for copies. The attorney is permitted, however, to copy anything he or she may want at his or her own expense.

In light of the above case law, Roberts is required to turnover the files to Chen without having Chen pay for copies. Consequently, it was tantamount to extortion for Roberts to demand that Chen pay $225 for making copies and that Chen acquire the optical drive for document retrieval at a cost of $40,000.

Roberts is also responsible for ineffective counsel assistance in connection with identifying Cox’s agent status for Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. and for his failure to investigate the lack of standing of Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc., and the Trial Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which are the reasons why he was listed in the civil rights action: AMENDED Cover Letter + PETITION FOR SECTION 1983 AND STATE LAW CLAIMS filed on June 4, 2012 Posted on May 23, 2013.

In COMPLAINT # 2, Chen specifically demands judgment against Roberts for breach of fiduciary duty and ineffective representation in defending the wrongful foreclosure and fraudulent deficiency judgment; —.

In Causes Nos. 10-6-28, 10-6-29 & 12-4-1596, Judge Koetter rendered VOID Orders/Judgments without any jurisdiction or inconsistent with due process of law. Consequently, all those Orders/Judgments are VOID ab initio. They may be vacated with litigants’ motions or the court can and must set them aside sua sponte.

Chen contends that due process was not accorded him and other interested parties in Causes Nos. 10-6-28, 10-6-29 & 12-4-1596. Thus, subject matter jurisdiction failed in these Koetter courts because of the following specific reasons: Judge Koetter (1) did not follow statutory procedure without requiring Plaintiffs to prove existence of subject matter jurisdiction when Chen challenged the court’s lack of it, See Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921) (If a court’s decision is plainly contrary to a statute or the constitution, the court will be held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the judgment void), See, e.g., United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip., 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1995); 2) did not act impartially and did not even have any appearance of impartiality (See transcripts), See Bracey V Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997); (3) violated due process in holding the July 15, 2010 hearing by ambush (lack of pretrial discovery thwarted justice, & allowing Chen only 4 days to prepare for the hearing in the absence of the subpoenaed witnesses: Judge John D. Rainey, his case manager Ms. Joyce Richards, Terry J. Cox and Anita L. Koop, who all evaded the subpoena services) and rendering the July 15, 2010 Judgment in conspiracy with Plaintiffs David Roberts, Roberts, Roberts, Odefey & Witte, LLP, et al. as well as the November 30, 2010 Summary Judgment for Anita’s Resort Properties., Inc. which has had no standing since 6.5.1993, See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019(193 ; Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill. 2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956); Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936); (4) committed fraud upon the court by acting in manner inconsistent with due process of law and acting unconstitutionally in entering the purported orders and final judgments, See In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill, App. 3d 393(1962); (5) exceeded his statutory authority by labeling Chen “a vexatious litigant” and his lawsuits “frivolous” in the November 30, 2010 Summary Judgment without affording Chen an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way in contravention of the Texas Open Courts Doctrine, See Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967); (6) committed fraud in the procurement of jurisdiction in conspiracy with Plaintiffs Terry J. Cox, Anita L. Koop, and Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc., David Roberts, Roberts, Roberts, Odefey & Witte, LLP, et al., See Fredman Brothers Furniture v. Dept. of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202, 486 N.E. 2d 893 (1985); (7) immediately after the July 15, 2010 hearing, signed the purported Judicial Findings of Fact and Legal Conclusion prepared in advance by Plaintiffs’ three seasoned attorneys without changing a single word, without taking a glance at Chen’s pleadings filed in the record, and by giving away his bias, prejudice, discrimination, partiality and favoritism with his unspoken, unwritten, unconcealed, undisguised body language; (8) engaged in unlawful activity, particularly accepting two payments totaling $1,850.15 $4,900.10 from one of the Plaintiffs, David Roberts, and his law firm, Roberts, Roberts, Odefey & Witte, LLP, in August, 2010 after the July 15, 2010 hearing, See Code of Judicial Conduct; (9) unlawfully denied Chen’s 1st Amendment right to access the courts for redress of grievances and violated TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE by willfully, erroneously, and maliciously labeling him “a vexatious litigant”, charging him with filing “frivolous” lawsuits and prohibiting him from filing any new petitions in the State of Texas, among others; (10) misinterpreting NOTICES OF LIS PENDEN. See AMENDED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE BASED ON ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE AND QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE OF LIS PENDENS FILING Posted on April 17, 2012“Absolute Privilege of Filing Notices of Lis Pendens v. Texas Penal Code – Section 32.49. Refusal To Execute Release Of Fraudulent Lien Or Claim” Posted on October 5, 2012; The Nature and Functions of a Notice of Lis Pendens Posted on October 4, 2012Offenses Against Public Administration, Bribery and Corrupt Influence, Perjury and Other Falsification Committed by David Roberts, Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox, et al. in Conspiracy with Judge Skipper Koetter in the Judicial Proceedings; Posted on December 21, 2012;

Roberts received Mr. Karl Hsieh’s $2,500 earnest money deposit on 5 vacant waterfront lots on Sailfish Landing, Sunilandings Phase I, Port Alto, owned by Carol Townsend without closing the transaction and without refunding Mr. Hsieh’s  $2,500 deposit. Instead, he illegally used it to pay off my Pre-Petition Attorneys’ fees in violation of the Automatic Stay Provision: Details to follow. 

These facts demonstrate how greedy, cheap, lawless, unethical, and despicable this attorney has been in dealing with his clients despite his being a licensed attorney in Texas for 39 years!

I have been accusing him and the other officers of the court of all sorts of wrongdoings. How come they dared NOT sue me for defamation? Because I have been telling the truth!

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth. —  Mahatma Gandhi

Business Woman in Handcuffs My secretary has been arrested for delivering the gift box to you. Please help her, your honor.

Gift box with packs of 100 dollar banknotesI am in deep water myself, counselor! You must try to retain a good defense lawyer like Gerry Spence. I have been disqualified and they are investigating my extra-judicial activities now.

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

 

 

 

Posted in ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE OF LIS PENDENS FILING, ABUSE AND MISUSE OF POWER, Anita L. Koop, Anita's Resort Properties Inc., Can Judge Koetter Pass the Three-prong Test?, CIVIL CONSPIRACY CLAIMS, Clerk Pamela Martin Hartgrove, Collusion, Conspiracy, Corruption, Dan Heard, David Roberts, Egregious Misconduct, false arrest, FEDERAL INCOME TAX EVASION, FRAUD ON THE COURT, Fraudulent Concealment, Intentional Misrepresentation, Intrinsic/Extrinsic Fraud, Judge Janis Graham Jack, Judge John D. Rainey, Judge Juergen "Skipper" Koetter, Judge Kemper Stephen Williams, Judge Skipper Koetter, JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER'S JUDICIAL & NON-JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, Kenneth Burch, Lennar Partners, malicious prosecution, MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments, notice of lis pendens, Perjured Testimony, Racial Discrimination, Racketeering Activity, Randal W. Hill, RECUSAL MOTION, Richard Morrison, Richard T. Chapman, RICO CLAIMS, Roberts Roberts Odefey Witte LLP, Selective Prosecution, Sheriff B.B. Browning, Suing officers of the court, Terry J. Cox, Texas Penal Code – Section 32.49. Refusal To Execute Release Of Fraudulent Lien Or Claim, Thomas George, Trustee Mike Boudloche., VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS, wrongful imprisonment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

David Roberts’ $5,910.10 Reward Tainted Judge Skipper Koetter’s 7/15/10 Hearing

Business corruption 

Cause No. 10-6-29 Hearing Held on 7/15/10:

Analyzing Judge Skipper Koetter’s 7/15/10 Hearing Tainted with $1,850.15 $5,910.10 Reward by David Roberts & Roberts, Roberts, Odefey & Witte, LLP in August 2010. See Judge Skipper Koetter’s Campaign Finance Suspected of Bribery Posted on September 29, 2012; DAVID ROBERTS & JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER VIOLATED BRIBERY STATUTE 18 U.S.C. § 201 BY GIVING AND RECEIVING $1,850.10 $5,910.10 IN AUGUST, 2010 AFTER THE 7/15/10 HEARING! Reposted for the Two Leading Men: Mr. Roberts & Judge Koetter. Posted on November 24, 2012 & JUDGE KOETTER: DON’T YOU KNOW YOU MUST RECUSE YOURSELF FROM PRESIDING OVER ANY CASE INVOLVING YOUR DONORS, be they parties or attorneys? Posted on November 15, 2012.

* Correction: The amount of Roberts Roberts & Odefey LLP’s contribution has increased. It’s not $1,850.10; it’s $5,910.10!

 

                                                                          David Roberts, Partner

 Here is the Transcript: 7 15 10 TRANSCRIPT. David Roberts, Partner

I’ll analyze the key parts in detail below to demonstrate how biased, and incompetent this judge was, is, and will continue to be:

David Roberts’ $5,910.10 Reward or Bribe Tainted Judge Koetter’s 7/15/10 Hearing

The Bribery Statute says that the briber and the bribee shall be equally imprisoned for 2 to 20 years.

Business Executive Giving Bribe Money The Bribe
 He is not stupid; he runs like hell because he knows: “Hell is empty and all the devils are here.” — William Shakespeare
Refuse bribeNo bribe! Stock PhotoNo!
Not enough? I’ll get more tax-free money, your honor, as long as you rule in favor of my boss!
Giving bribe Royalty Free Stock PhotosHandcuffed Man Holding Wooden Gavel on White
Tuxedo Cuffed  Justice is blindJudge with gavel in handcuffs
                                                                             JUSTICE IS BLIND!

Is $5,900.10 a large campaign contribution and a bribe? Well, it exceeded the ceiling of $5,200!

An offense under this section of the Texas Bribery Statute is a felony of the second degree, which means 2 to 20 years in prison. And the amount is “anything of value.”

So bribers and bribees be ready for the handcuffs! As long as JUSTICE IS BLIND, you shall face the music one of these days!

I’ll continue to expose all your dark sides concealed in the court papers because of your conspiracy, fraudulent concealment and obstruction of justice, conspirators and co-conspirators! 

A social life like this is waiting for the conspirators and co-conspirators! 

Inmates from Dade County Men s Correctional

1. 34-day wrongful imprisonment without access to legal files.

2. Release on personal bond 5 days before the hearing violated due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.    Released on Saturday 7/10/10 — hearing on Thursday 7/15/10.

3. Judge John D. Rainey, his Case Manager Joyce Richards, Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox  evaded the Subpoenas without appearing in court.

4. Notices of Lis Pendens: See The Nature and Functions of a Notice of Lis Pendens Posted on October 4, 2012 & AMENDED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE BASED ON ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE AND QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE OF LIS PENDENS FILING Posted on April 17, 2012.

5. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: See MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER FOR ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Posted on September 13, 2012CASES WHERE JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER LACKED SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION RESULTING IN VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS Posted on September 30, 2012; MOTION TO VACATE JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER’S VOID ORDERS/FINAL JUDGMENTS IN 5 CASES Posted on September 25, 2012.

6. David Roberts committed perjury under oath by stating that his law firm had a 10-year policy of destroying clients’ files: Excerpted from Complaint #2 in CIVIL ACTION V-06-78 filed on 3/14/06 available at PACER (E-mail correspondence with Roberts preserved for jury trial.) See Civil Action: 6:05-mc-00002   03/14/2006 AMENDED PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT # 2 Posted on April 16, 2012:

Count 26: The concealment or destruction of documents relating to the property or affairs of the debtor. — 18 U.S.C. §152(8)

4. Chen’s former real estate attorney David Roberts, Esq. & Roberts, Roberts & Odefey, LLP, knowingly and fraudulently concealed, destroyed, or mutilated the recorded information under his custody (including books, legal documents, litigation papers, transaction records, escrow account records, etc.) In spite of his knowledge that such information is indispensable to Chen’s preparation for the COMPLAINTS to be filed at this Court, he first agreed by e-mail

(Fri, Apr 30, 2004 07:13 AM) to retrieve the documents at a cost of $225. Chen’s friend agreed to help pay for the service and contacted Roberts in person, by phone and by e-mail many times in vain. Eventually, Roberts even ignored the phone calls without returning calls or responding to e-mails from either Chen or his friend. Though with a long-term friendly attorney-client relationship, personally Chen holds no grudge against David Roberts, Esq. & Roberts, Roberts & Odefey, LLP, the latter’s recent misconduct made it necessary for Plaintiff to take appropriate actions for self-protection.

5. Who Does the File Belong To?

The primary Texas case regarding access to client files in the absence of litigation between the attorney and client is Resolution Trust Corporation v. H_____, P.C., 128 F.R.D. 647 (N. D. Tex. 1989). The opinion does not explicitly say that the entire file belongs to the client, though that is certainly the direction that Judge Sanders’ opinion was headed. The opinion holds that an attorney owes a fiduciary duty to the client and, as a result, cannot conceal any file documents from the client, even if there is no current dispute between the attorney and the client. His ruling extends to documents such as attorney notes and memoranda. Note that Rule 76a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure makes some discovery documents “court records” which neither the attorney nor the client can destroy. Disciplinary Rule 1.15(d) provides that an attorney “may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law only if such retention will not prejudice the client in the subject matter of the representation.” (Emphasis added). The primary circumstance in which “other law” permits an attorney to retain the file is when the client has not paid for legal services and the attorney asserts a lien on the file.

In some cases, prejudice to the client from the attorney’s retention of the file will be apparent. For example, if the client is getting new counsel in the case and the file is needed to prepare adequately for a hearing scheduled in a matter of days, prejudice is likely. In general, prejudice to the client is arguable in many situations if the case is still active in some manner or actions can be taken to change the effects of the work of the attorney. Suppose, however, that the case is over, the client lost, and all appeal deadlines are over. Does it “prejudice the client in the subject matter of the representation” not to have the file to give to a new attorney so he can determine if you committed malpractice? The safest course of action is to make the file available to the client in some way. Otherwise, part of the factual presentation in the malpractice suit will be a recitation of how the attorney attempted to cover up his mistake by retaining the “client’s” file.

Under the Resolution Trust Corporation v. H_____, P.C case, the attorney is required to turnover the file to the client without having the client pay for copies. The attorney is permitted, however, to copy anything he or she may want at his or her own expense.

In light of the above case law, Roberts is required to turnover the files to Chen without having Chen pay for copies. Consequently, the fact that Roberts demanded that Chen pay $225 for making copies and Chen acquire the machine for document retrieval at a cost of $40,000 was tantamount to extortion.

Roberts is also responsible for ineffective representation in connection with identifying Cox’s agency for Anita’s.

Plaintiff specifically demands judgment against Roberts for breach of fiduciary duty and ineffective representation in defending the wrongful foreclosure and fraudulent deficiency judgment;

In Causes Nos. 10-6-28, 10-6-29 & 12-4-1596, Judge Koetter rendered VOID Orders/Judgments without any jurisdiction or inconsistent with due process of law. Consequently, all those Orders/Judgments are VOID ab initio. They may be vacated with litigants’ motions or the court can and must set them aside sua sponte.

Chen contends that due process was not accorded him and other interested parties in Causes Nos. 10-6-28, 10-6-29 & 12-4-1596. Thus, subject matter jurisdiction failed in these Koetter courts because of the following specific reasons: Judge Koetter (1) did not follow statutory procedure without requiring Plaintiffs to prove existence of subject matter jurisdiction when Chen challenged the court’s lack of it, See Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921) (If a court’s decision is plainly contrary to a statute or the constitution, the court will be held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the judgment void), See, e.g., United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip., 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1995); 2) did not act impartially and did not even have any appearance of impartiality (See transcripts), See Bracey V Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997); (3) violated due process in holding the July 15, 2010 hearing by ambush (lack of pretrial discovery thwarted justice, & allowing Chen only 4 days to prepare for the hearing in the absence of the subpoenaed witnesses: Judge John D. Rainey, his case manager Ms. Joyce Richards, Terry J. Cox and Anita L. Koop, who all evaded the subpoena services) and rendering the July 15, 2010 Judgment in conspiracy with Plaintiffs David Roberts, Roberts, Roberts, Odefey & Witte, LLP, et al. as well as the November 30, 2010 Summary Judgment for Anita’s Resort Properties., Inc. which has had no standing since 6.5.1993, See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019(193 ; Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill. 2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956); Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936); (4) committed fraud upon the court by acting in manner inconsistent with due process of law and acting unconstitutionally in entering the purported orders and final judgments, See In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill, App. 3d 393(1962); (5) exceeded his statutory authority by labeling Chen “a vexatious litigant” and his lawsuits “frivolous” in the November 30, 2010 Summary Judgment without affording Chen an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way in contravention of the Texas Open Courts Doctrine, See Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967); (6) committed fraud in the procurement of jurisdiction in conspiracy with Plaintiffs Terry J. Cox, Anita L. Koop, and Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc., David Roberts, Roberts, Roberts, Odefey & Witte, LLP, et al., See Fredman Brothers Furniture v. Dept. of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202, 486 N.E. 2d 893 (1985); (7) immediately after the July 15, 2010 hearing, signed the purported Judicial Findings of Fact and Legal Conclusion prepared in advance by Plaintiffs’ three seasoned attorneys without changing a single word, without taking a glance at Chen’s pleadings filed in the record, and by giving away his bias, prejudice, discrimination, partiality and favoritism with his unspoken, unwritten, unconcealed, undisguised body language; (8) engaged in unlawful activity, particularly accepting two payments totalling $1,850.10 from one of the Plaintiffs, David Roberts, and his law firm, Roberts, Roberts, Odefey & Witte, LLP, in August, 2010 after the July 15, 2010 hearing, See Code of Judicial Conduct; (9) unlawfully denied Chen’s 1st Amendment right to access the courts for redress of grievances and violated TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE by willfully, erroneously, and maliciously labeling him “a vexatious litigant”, charging him with filing “frivolous” lawsuits and prohibiting him from filing any new petitions in the State of Texas, among others; (10) misinterpreting NOTICES OF LIS PENDEN. See AMENDED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE BASED ON ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE AND QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE OF LIS PENDENS FILING Posted on April 17, 2012“Absolute Privilege of Filing Notices of Lis Pendens v. Texas Penal Code – Section 32.49. Refusal To Execute Release Of Fraudulent Lien Or Claim” Posted on October 5, 2012; The Nature and Functions of a Notice of Lis Pendens Posted on October 4, 2012Offenses Against Public Administration, Bribery and Corrupt Influence, Perjury and Other Falsification Committed by David Roberts, Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox, et al. in Conspiracy with Judge Skipper Koetter in the Judicial Proceedings; Posted on December 21, 2012; RANDY HILL COMMITTED FRAUD ON THE COURT IN CONSPIRACY WITH JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER, ANITA L. KOOP + TEXAS GANG Posted on May 17, 2013.

Without Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Any Order or Judgment Rendered by Judge Koetter Was VOID ab initio!

It can be attacked at any time in any proceedings!

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

* My apologies! I was wrong!

Please click JUDGE JUERGEN (SKIPPER) KOETTER: My readers were wrong! So was I! Posted on  to see why!

Posted in ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE OF LIS PENDENS FILING, ABUSE AND MISUSE OF POWER, Bribery, CIVIL CONSPIRACY CLAIMS, Conspiracy, Corruption, David Roberts, due process of law, Egregious Misconduct, false arrest, FRAUD ON THE COURT, Fraudulent Concealment, Intentional Misrepresentation, Judge Janis Graham Jack, Judge Juergen "Skipper" Koetter, Judge Kemper Stephen Williams, Judge Skipper Koetter, JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER'S JUDICIAL & NON-JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, Kenneth Burch, Lennar Partners, MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Judge Kemper Stephen Williams Had No Jurisdiction Anyway!

 

Despite its lack of standing, let’s assume that the Assumed Name Certificate of Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. (ARPI) was renewed on June 6, 1993, and ARPI had standing on June 20, 1997, would Judge Kemper Stephen Williams have had subject matter jurisdiction to hear Cause No. 96-8-13090?

The answer is NO. Why? Because

Judge Williams Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Either Scenario! 

1. Neither Trustee’s appraisal nor formal abandonment in the entire record of Cause No. 96-24925-VS-7 was shown in accordance with UNIFORM LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULE S7-1. Thus, THE ORDER ON ANITA’S RESORT PROPERTIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY dated April 11, 1997 was void ab initio for non-compliance with RULE S7-1(a)(b)(c)(d), 11 U.S.C. Sections 362(a), 554(a)(b), Financial Institution’s Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§ 51.002, 51.003 (Vernon 1995), Rule 6007 of Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, among others.

2. RULE S7-1. PROCEDURE FOR ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY AND FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PROVISIONS OF 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362 IN CHAPTER 7 CASES.

RULE S7-1 specifically provides:

(a) Abandonment by Trustee Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 554(a). 

(b) Relief From the Automatic Stay Provisions of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a), Coupled With a Request for Abandonment Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 554(b). 

(c) Agreed Orders. 

(d) Dissemination of Order After Entry.

(a) Abandonment by Trustee Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 554(a).

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 554(a), a trustee in a chapter 7 case may abandon any property of the estate on the trustee’s own initiative. Prior to abandoning any property, the trustee shall first determine that the property is burdensome to the estate or that the property is of inconsequential value or benefit to the estate.

Any time a trustee abandons property, the notice of abandonment shall be in writing, and shall be filed with the clerk of the court. A copy of the notice shall be served on the U.S. trustee, the debtor(s) and the attorney for debtor(s). Pursuant to Rule 6007, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the notice shall be limited to these parties unless otherwise ordered by the court. The trustee shall file a certificate of service attached to the notice of abandonment with the clerk of the court naming the parties served and the date of service.

Pursuant to Rule 6007, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, a notice of abandonment shall inform the parties that any objection to the abandonment must be filed in the office of the clerk within fifteen days from the date of the notice, and such objection must be served on the parties entitled to notice of the abandonment. If an objection is filed, the matter will be scheduled for hearing. If no objection is filed, the abandonment will be deemed to have been made by the trustee with the court’s approval.

(b) Relief From the Automatic Stay Provisions of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a), Coupled With a Request for Abandonment Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 554(b).

Abandonment does not correspondingly provide relief from or modification of the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a). Relief from the automatic stay must be obtained pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(d) prior to any action being instituted against any property protected by the automatic stay. If relief from the automatic stay is to be obtained in a chapter 7 case, a creditor or party in interest must file a motion with the clerk of the court. If the trustee has not previously abandoned the property from the estate voluntarily, the motion seeking relief from the automatic stay should also request that the court order the trustee to abandon the property pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 554(b). The debtor(s) and the trustee should be named as respondents. A copy of the motion must be served on each respondent along with the attorney for the debtor(s) and the U.S. trustee. A certificate of service shall be attached to the motion specifying the parties served and the date of service. A hearing will then be scheduled by the clerk of the court for consideration of the motion.

When a motion seeking relief from the automatic stay is filed, coupled with a request to have the trustee abandon the property from the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 554(b), the moving party shall include in the motion and/or attach to the motion the following:

(1) A description of the subject property;

(2) A complete and legible copy of the movant’s security agreements and security instruments which establish a valid lien encumbering the subject property;

(3) The value of the subject property and the basis of the valuation; and

(4) The amount of the outstanding indebtedness secured by each lien encumbering the subject property as reflected by the schedules of the debtor(s) or such other amount as may be known by the movant.

(c) Agreed Orders.

If the moving creditor, the debtor(s) and the trustee agree as to the relief to be granted, i.e., relief from the automatic stay as well as abandonment, then an agreed order signed by the debtor(s) or the attorney for the debtor(s), the trustee and the moving creditor may be submitted to the court for consideration.

(d) Dissemination of Order After Entry.

If an order is entered by the court lifting the automatic stay as to real property and/or abandoning real property from the bankruptcy estate, the moving creditor shall mail copies of said order, within ten days of the date of its entry by the court, to any other creditors having a lien on said real property as reflected in the schedules filed by the debtor(s).

3. (3B Bankr. Service L.Ed. § 36:258 ["Trustee's abandonment of property of bankruptcy estate eliminates protection of automatic stay provisions of 11 USCA § 362(a) as to estate's interest in property.] Without formal abandonment, the estate retains all of the right, title, and interest in the properties as of date bankruptcy petition was filed.

4. The trustee had never expressed his intention to abandon the properties that ARPI held security interests, having never determined that they were burdensome or of inconsequential value or benefit to the estate. See 11 U.S.C. §554(a) (West 1993).

5. The above violations deprived Defendant ARPI of the right to litigate in the 96-8-13090 court because the secured properties remained assets of the bankruptcy estate, absent Trustee’s appraisals pursuant to Financial Institution’s Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§ 51.002, 51.003 (Vernon 1995) and formal abandonment under Rule 6007.

6. By rendering the summary judgment on June 20, 1997, Judge Kemper Stephen Williams assumed to have exercised judicial power not granted by law cited above.

7. The June 20, 1997 Summary Judgment was void ab initio in that the 96-8-13090 court had no subject matter jurisdiction to decide the case either because ARPI violated UNIFORM LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULE S7-1 or it had in fact no standing without a valid ASSUMED NAME CERTIFICATE in violation of Sec. 71.201 of the BUSINESS AND COMMERCE CODE.

8. Furthermore, the June 10, 1997 Agreement specifies: Mr. Cain, Chen’s counsel, by this agreement, wants to make it clear that he is not agreeing to the merits of the motion for summary judgment, nor by this agreement, to the entry of the summary judgment. In spite of the clear objection raised by Mr. Cain, Judge Williams rendered the Summary Judgment on June 20, 1997 in conspiracy with Cox/Koop/ARPI and their attorneys Chapman and George in deprivation of Chen’s due process and equal protection rights to have a full and fair hearing.

9. The standard of review for a traditional summary judgment is well established: (1) the movant for summary judgment has the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is therefore entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law; (2) in deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true; and (3) every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the nonmovant and any doubts resolved in the nonmovant’s favor. See, e.g., Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548–49 (Tex. 1985). Mr. Cain’s objection to the merits of the motion for summary judgment, and to the entry of the summary judgment  showed that (1) genuine issue of material fact existed and that the Movant is therefore NOT entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law; (2) in deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the nonmovant/Chen will be taken as true; and (3) every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the nonmovant/Chen and any doubts resolved in the nonmovant/Chen’s favor.

10. When reviewing a summary judgment, we must examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts against the motion. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 824-25 (Tex. 2005). Here, the Judgment granting ARPI’s motion for summary judgment without  examining the entire record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant/Chen,  indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts against the motion constituted violations of the above well-established principles.

11. The 96-8-13090 Court had no power to pass on the merits — had no jurisdiction to have rendered the judgment. It acted without jurisdiction, and the summary judgment rendered on June 20, 1997 is of no force and effect.

12. The VOID June 20, 1997 summary judgment rendered by Judge Williams had a great impact on ARPI’s Wrongful Foreclosure, Fraudulent Deficiency Judgment, False Proofs of Claims, Sheriff’s Unlawful Auctions, Anita Koop’s Illegal Possession of the Auctioned Assets and Purchasers’ Invalid Property Rights, Unlawful Control and Dominion of Wrongfully Auctioned Properties and other Unjust Enrichment Schemes to Chen’s detriment. Click to know more about this judge’s constitutional and statutory violations: Judge Kemper Stephen Williams Had No Jurisdiction Anyway! Posted on .

* If a party is found to lack standing, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction to determine the action. See Pele Defense Fund v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 77 Hawai’i 64, 67, 881 P.2d 1210, 1213 (1994). Thus, “[i]f a court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of a proceeding, any judgment rendered in that proceeding is invalid.” Bush v. Hawaiian Homes Comm’n, 76 Hawai’i 128, 133, 870 P.2d 1272, 1277 (1994).

Without Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Any Order or Judgment Rendered by Judge Williams Was VOID ab initioIt can be attacked at any time in any proceedings!

Under the Supreme Law of the Land, whenever a judge acts when the judge does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, the judge is engaged in an act of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449U.S.200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19U.S.(6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821). See Juergen “Skipper” Koetter: U.S. v. Will says you are engaged in an act of treason! May I call you traitor, then? July 22, 2014. If Koetter is a traitor, you will be in the same be wearing the same hat! And the handcuffs will be ready for you, too! 

Judge Kemper Stephen Williams

Mr. Williams has a hat similar to Mr. Koetter’s!

Compliance Arrow Breaks Through Maze Breaking RulesYou broke the rules, ignored compliance, and engaged in an act of treason by rendering the June 20, 1997 Summary Judgment without subject matter jurisdiction!Nol Nonsense Skeptical Judge It’s up to a severe, no-nonsense judge like this one to determine how you and Mr. Koetter should be punished. The actor of treason is a traitor, isn’t he? How many years would you sentence a traitor if a case should come before you for your decision?

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

 

 

Posted in ABUSE AND MISUSE OF POWER, Anita L. Koop, Anita's Resort Properties Inc., FRAUD ON THE COURT | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

If ARPI had standing, would Judge Williams have Subject Matter Jurisdiction?

Assuming the Assumed Name Certificate of Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. (ARPI) was renewed on June 6, 1993, and it had standing on June 20, 1997, would Judge Kemper Stephen Williams have had subject matter jurisdiction to hear Cause No. 96-8-13090?

The answer is NO. Why?

Judge Williams Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction Anyway! 

1. No Trustee’s appraisal and formal abandonment were shown in accordance with UNIFORM LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULE S7-1. Thus, THE ORDER ON ANITA’S RESORT PROPERTIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY dated April 11, 1997 was void ab initio for non-compliance with RULE S7-1(a)(b)(c)(d), 11 U.S.C. Sections 362(a), 554(a)(b), Financial Institution’s Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§ 51.002, 51.003 (Vernon 1995), Rule 6007 of Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, among others.

2. RULE S7-1. PROCEDURE FOR ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY AND FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PROVISIONS OF 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362 IN CHAPTER 7 CASES

(a) Abandonment by Trustee Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 554(a). 

(b) Relief From the Automatic Stay Provisions of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a), Coupled With a Request for Abandonment Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 554(b). 

(c) Agreed Orders. 

(d) Dissemination of Order After Entry.

(a) Abandonment by Trustee Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 554(a).

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 554(a), a trustee in a chapter 7 case may abandon any property of the estate on the trustee’s own initiative. Prior to abandoning any property, the trustee shall first determine that the property is burdensome to the estate or that the property is of inconsequential value or benefit to the estate.

Any time a trustee abandons property, the notice of abandonment shall be in writing, and shall be filed with the clerk of the court. A copy of the notice shall be served on the U.S. trustee, the debtor(s) and the attorney for debtor(s). Pursuant to Rule 6007, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the notice shall be limited to these parties unless otherwise ordered by the court. The trustee shall file a certificate of service attached to the notice of abandonment with the clerk of the court naming the parties served and the date of service.

Pursuant to Rule 6007, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, a notice of abandonment shall inform the parties that any objection to the abandonment must be filed in the office of the clerk within fifteen days from the date of the notice, and such objection must be served on the parties entitled to notice of the abandonment. If an objection is filed, the matter will be scheduled for hearing. If no objection is filed, the abandonment will be deemed to have been made by the trustee with the court’s approval.

(b) Relief From the Automatic Stay Provisions of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a), Coupled With a Request for Abandonment Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 554(b).

Abandonment does not correspondingly provide relief from or modification of the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a). Relief from the automatic stay must be obtained pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(d) prior to any action being instituted against any property protected by the automatic stay. If relief from the automatic stay is to be obtained in a chapter 7 case, a creditor or party in interest must file a motion with the clerk of the court. If the trustee has not previously abandoned the property from the estate voluntarily, the motion seeking relief from the automatic stay should also request that the court order the trustee to abandon the property pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 554(b). The debtor(s) and the trustee should be named as respondents. A copy of the motion must be served on each respondent along with the attorney for the debtor(s) and the U.S. trustee. A certificate of service shall be attached to the motion specifying the parties served and the date of service. A hearing will then be scheduled by the clerk of the court for consideration of the motion.

When a motion seeking relief from the automatic stay is filed, coupled with a request to have the trustee abandon the property from the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 554(b), the moving party shall include in the motion and/or attach to the motion the following:

(1) A description of the subject property;

(2) A complete and legible copy of the movant’s security agreements and security instruments which establish a valid lien encumbering the subject property;

(3) The value of the subject property and the basis of the valuation; and

(4) The amount of the outstanding indebtedness secured by each lien encumbering the subject property as reflected by the schedules of the debtor(s) or such other amount as may be known by the movant.

(c) Agreed Orders.

If the moving creditor, the debtor(s) and the trustee agree as to the relief to be granted, i.e., relief from the automatic stay as well as abandonment, then an agreed order signed by the debtor(s) or the attorney for the debtor(s), the trustee and the moving creditor may be submitted to the court for consideration.

(d) Dissemination of Order After Entry.

If an order is entered by the court lifting the automatic stay as to real property and/or abandoning real property from the bankruptcy estate, the moving creditor shall mail copies of said order, within ten days of the date of its entry by the court, to any other creditors having a lien on said real property as reflected in the schedules filed by the debtor(s).

3. (3B Bankr. Service L.Ed. § 36:258 ["Trustee's abandonment of property of bankruptcy estate eliminates protection of automatic stay provisions of 11 USCA § 362(a) as to estate's interest in property.] Without formal abandonment, the estate retains all of the right, title, and interest in the properties as of date bankruptcy petition was filed.

4. The trustee had never expressed his intention to abandon the properties that ARPI held security interests, having never determined that they were burdensome or of inconsequential value or benefit to the estate. See 11 U.S.C. §554(a) (West 1993).

5. The above violations deprived Defendant ARPI of the right to litigate in the 96-8-13090 court because the secured properties remained assets of the bankruptcy estate, absent Trustee’s appraisals pursuant to Financial Institution’s Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§ 51.002, 51.003 (Vernon 1995) and formal abandonment under Rule 6007.

6. By rendering the summary judgment on June 20, 1997, Judge Kemper Stephen Williams assumed to have exercised judicial power not granted by law cited above.

7. The June 20, 1997 Judgment was void ab initio in that the 96-8-13090 court had no subject matter jurisdiction to decide the case either because ARPI violated UNIFORM LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULE S7-1 or it had in fact no standing without a valid ASSUMED NAME CERTIFICATE in violation of Sec. 71.201 of the BUSINESS AND COMMERCE CODE.

8. Furthermore, the June 10, 1997 Agreement specifies: Mr. Cain, Chen’s counsel, by this agreement, wants to make it clear that he is not agreeing to the merits of the motion for summary judgment, nor by this agreement, to the entry of the summary judgment. In spite of the clear objection raised by Mr. Cain, Judge Williams rendered the Summary Judgment on June 20, 1997 in conspiracy with Cox/Koop/ARPI and their attorneys Chapman and George in deprivation of Chen’s due process and equal protection rights to have a full and fair hearing.

9. The standard of review for a traditional summary judgment is well established: (1) the movant for summary judgment has the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is therefore entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law; (2) in deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true; and (3)
every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the nonmovant and any doubts resolved in the nonmovant’s favor. See, e.g., Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548–49 (Tex. 1985). Mr. Cain’s objection to the merits of the motion for summary judgment, and to the entry of the summary judgment  showed that (1) genuine issue of material fact existed and that the Movant is therefore NOT entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law; (2) in deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the nonmovant/Chen will be taken as true; and (3) every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the nonmovant/Chen and any doubts resolved in the nonmovant/Chen’s favor.

10. When reviewing a summary judgment, we must examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts against the motion. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 824-25 (Tex. 2005). Here, the Judgment granting ARPI’s motion for summary judgment without  examining the entire record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant/Chen,  indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts against the motion constituted violations of the above well-established principles.

11. The 96-8-13090 Court had no power to pass on the merits — had no jurisdiction to have rendered the judgment. It acted without jurisdiction, and the summary judgment rendered on June 20, 1997 is of no force and effect.

12. The VOID June 20, 1997 summary judgment rendered by Judge Williams had a great impact on ARPI’s Wrongful Foreclosure, Fraudulent Deficiency Judgment, False Proofs of Claims, Sheriff’s Unlawful Auctions, Anita Koop’s Illegal Possession of the Auctioned Assets and Purchasers’ Invalid Property Rights, Unlawful Control and Dominion of Wrongfully Auctioned Properties and other Unjust Enrichment Schemes to Chen’s detriment.

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

E-mail Addresses:

ricofraudonthecourt@yahoo.com

pc886405@yahoo.com

Posted in FRAUD ON THE COURT | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment