From FB; Missouri Judge resigns after barring mother from seeing her infant over unpaid court fees in another state kidnap case

What a sick, sick evil person.

Mississippi judge resigns after barring mother from seeing her baby for 14 months over unpaid court fees

Former Pearl Youth Court Judge John Shirley (Official photo).

A Mississippi judge who barred a mother from seeing her newborn baby for 14 months because she hadn’t paid court-imposed fees has stepped down.

The Clarion-Ledger reports that Pearl Youth Court Judge John Shirley has resigned under pressure from local activists who decried his decision to impose a no-contact order on a resident of Jackson, Miss., who is identified in court documents only as “Mother A.”

The judge first issued the order after the woman and a friend, who were driving through the city of Pearl looking for work, were pulled over by a police officer who discovered both women had outstanding warrants for routine misdemeanor offenses. The police officer who made the arrest told the Mississippi Department of Human Services that the child who was in the car with the two women was “abandoned,” despite the fact that it was the officer’s own arrest that forced the child to be separated from the mother.

Judge Shirley awarded custody to the baby’s grandmother, while also blocking the mother from coming into contact with the child until she paid off court-imposed fees.

The Clarion-Ledger’s report does not say how much money the mother owed in court fees, however local legal justice advocates say that unpaid fees do not justify separating a mother from a four-month-old child for 14 months.
“As a civil rights lawyer in Mississippi, I am no stranger to injustice, but for a judge to prohibit an impoverished mother from having any contact with her baby until monetary payments are made is shocking and repugnant,” said Cliff Johnson, the director of the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at the University of Mississippi School of Law. “Such orders are tantamount to judicial kidnapping.”

From Joanne:

This IS NOTHING MORE THAN COURT SPONSORED KIDNAPPING.  note how the lawyer was afraid to call a pile of fecal matter a pile of sh**.

This is one of the worst judicial/lawyer/police crimes I have seen.  They should all be imprisoned for violating this mother’s civil rights.


From KD: Letter to the President

Subject: Fw: A letter to the President re: ELDER CLEANSING requesting an HONEST INVESTIGATION! It is time for the elderly to be SAFE in America!
Date: Oct 26, 2017 10:11 PM
It is very sad that the legal profession should be disgraced by so many members of the judiciary having no moral compass and engaged in ELDER CLEANSING.
Complaints have been filed by many citizens Jerome Larkin for his participation in the criminal enterprises and felonies of ELDER CLEANSING but the COVER UP CONTINUES.   Hopefully President T was serious about ‘draining the swamp’ and we (the great unwashed) will see criminal prosecutions of public officials such as Mr. Larkin who have so easily abandoned their public trust.
At the very least, Larkin ought to pay ILLINOIS INCOME TAXES on the booty stolen from so many elderly and on the MEDICARE FRAUDS that he overtly protects.
—– Forwarded Message —–
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017, 2:07:09 PM CDT
Subject: A letter to the President re: ELDER CLEANSING requesting an HONEST INVESTIGATION! It is time for the elderly to be SAFE in America!

October 26, 2017  – Chicago, Illinois – from Kenneth Ditkowsky.

Dear President T,

The Attorney Activist Andrew Ostrowski case was a wake-up call to every one of us.     In the past 30 days Ostrowski was physically hauled out of his home on spurious ‘mental health’ proceedings arrest warrants.     Fortunately, he had social media at his disposal and was able to escape the fate of many victims of the health care felonies of ELDER CLEANSING.      Indeed, Andy was not subjected to the fate of the late Mary Sykes of Chicago, Illinois.     The miscreants could not isolate him, medicate and dope him out of his mind, obtain a plenary guardian for him so as to facilitate the theft of his Estate and hundreds of thousands of dollars of Medicare and other Federal Health care funds.

This American Gulag has been conducted openly and notoriously and remains one of the best kept secrets in America.     The Government Accounting Office has sent to Congress four separate reports and every day a bunch of blogs highlights the Judicial and Political corruption that fees the unreported scandal.   (NB.  Probate Sharks, AAAPG, NASGA, MaryGSykes ****)    The Circuit Court of Cook County Probate Division case of Mary Sykes 09 P 4585 demonstrates the chronology, the perfidy, and outright criminal conspiracy that generates the felonies and the clear conspiracy prohibited by 18 USCA 371.    The Alice Gore and Robert Jaycox  cases are indicative of the total disrespect for human life and dignity that the corrupt political and judicial officials demonstrate —AND the fact that both you and I are under the right circumstances potential victims.     In fact, no one is safe including some of our best friends and worst enemies.       To the miscreants each of us is a commodity to be exploited.

The amounts of money involved in this health care fraud is staggering.      Philip Esformes was indicted in the Federal Court in South Florida for stealing a billion (nine zeros) dollars in Medicare funds.     Esformes is small potatoes compared to some of the other nursing home operators who operate right here in Chicago, Illinois.      Indeed, it is believed that Esformes’ father’s COOK COUNTY, Illinois operation dwarfs the Florida Operation many fold and he (Morris Esformes) is not the largest practitioner either in Cook County and certainly not Nationally.      However, he and his comrades are one of the biggest barriers to any health care reform in the United States of America in the foreseeable future.

Health care fraud is one of the biggest cottage industries in the United States and taxes all health care with a 700% surcharge.     No health care reform is even remotely possible without the reduction of the health care fraud surcharge dramatically.     It is amusing to hear the Political people bragging about their concern for the elderly!    “HORSE FEATHERS!”      Most are complicit!      Ditto for the media.

The nitty gritty is the Political establishment depends on HEALTH CARE FRAUD and Elder Cleansing for its very existence.     This bold statement unfortunately is true.     Check out the voting records of the residents who reside in the Esformes and related nursing homes.     How many residents voted against the candidates of the dominant political party?      Check out the campaign contributions of the nursing home operators.    How much was given to non-dominant party causes?       Check out the unofficial and non-documented transactions between the nursing home operators and the operatives of the dominant party officials, judicial operatives etc.     (such facts are known to the media – they say virtually nothing.    Indeed, the Philip Esformes indictment for stealing a billion dollars from Medicare should be big news – the alleged disrespect you allegedly showed for x received more coverage and longer coverage.    Ditto for Seth Gillman!)      Indeed, I expect that any action you take as to requesting an HONEST INVESTIGATION of the Gulag/Elder Cleansing scandal will get negative media coverage, however, as both YOU and I are potential victims any inquiry is in our manifest best interests.     We both are a “fall” away from being a serious commodity.

Let’s address the ‘nitty gritty.’      Last month South Florida had a hurricane and a nursing home in Hollywood, Florida was reported to have had a bunch of deaths – 12 in all.    It appeared that as usually happens the Power went out.     Florida this time of year is quite warm and air conditioning is a necessity, however, as is so often the situation the cabal’s nursing homes are cesspools and reasonably calculated to generate cash – not the advertise health care.    The situation became desperate as the temperature rose, however, even though there was a fully functioning hospital directly across the street because evacuation would shut off the flow of “health care” funds no 911 call was made.     Not even the patients facing crisis were wheeled the few yards across the street to safe quarters.    As commodities the few health care dollars were more important than a life or two.    (Some Government programs continue to pay after death !)        It has been reported Lawyers were dispatched to file lawsuits to thwart any action that the State of Florida contemplated.    Four lawsuits were reported to have been filed.    An interruption in the operation of the home – by an evacuation would have lost dollars for the operator — thus, a few commodities died!     To the health care miscreants their lives did not matter!

While congress has ignored the GAO reports, and law enforcement has been sluggish in cracking down on the full spectrum of this Gulag/elder cleansing scandal the facts are not unknown.    Indeed, the players are also known and honored profusely by their communities, the media, and the Establishment.     Prominent political and judicial figures are not embarrassed by their associations with these criminals, but flaunt their connections.

Please do not get me wrong – I do not condemn all nursing home operations or operators.    Many (if not most) of the faith based facilities do fine work and make more than reasonable efforts toward their commitment.   Indeed, some for profit facilities also are fine operations; however, certain operations like the Hollywood Hills and most of the cabal’s facilities are deplorable and manifestations of we charitably call criminal enterprises.       It is not the millions of dollars garnered from the patients, the insurance carriers and the government health care programs that is so disgusting –  it is the fact that these operations are openly and notoriously laughing at you and me, and appear to be immune to the Justice system’s reach.     (NB.  A few of these criminals are punished when they become too much of an embarrassment to the Political and Judicial elite, but, they are the exception).

An analysis of the problem reveals that strong ties between politics, the judiciary, and the criminal enterprises.      If you take a few moments and examine the Mary Sykes case (09 P 4585) at the Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois the ties will become obvious.

The Illinois legislature adopted 755 ILCS 5/11a – 1 et seq, and in 5/11a – 3 laid out exactly who was to be covered by the act and how the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Federal and State Constitutions were going to be complied with.     Safeguards were mandated.     These safeguards were further codified in 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10.      The review of the Mary Sykes file reveals that in total the safeguards and judicial protections were ignored. [1]

That pattern of ELDER CLEANSING is demonstrated in Mary Sykes as she was systematically isolated from her friends, her community, her activities, and the members of her family that elected not to participate in the criminal activity.      Once isolated, by a series of mesne Court orders Mary was systematically stripped of her assets.     Thefts were given legitimacy by COURT ORDERS rubber stamped by a corrupt judge and every avenue was exploited.     Federal health care programs were utilized to enrich collateral conspirators and profiteers to the maximum.    It is respectfully suggested that, but for, the elder cleansing scandal few dollars of Federal money were even remotely necessary to expend, and Mary’s full human and civil rights would have been infringed upon.

However, by the criminal conspiracy just about every dime of Mary’s and her husband’s savings was stolen.     Medicare and other Federal programs were accessed for the profit of Mary’s captors in such a routine manner that it would have escaped notice but for the fact that Mary’s younger daughter noted and informed the Court that was not inclined to listen to her that Mary had insurance coverage (from her husband’s public employment as a Police officer) that was being ignored.     In secret, the wrongfully appointed (without jurisdiction) plenary guardian emptied Mary’s safety deposition box of a gold coin collection conservatively valued at a million dollars, and removed just about every other valuable known.    Most were not inventoried – they just disappeared.    Mary’s home, reported to be valued at $800,000, prior to the guardianship was sold (with the attornment of the ‘wired’ judge) for a fraction of its reported value to and through a clout heavy local political figure. [2]

The MARY SYKES scenario is repeated time and time again in just about every jurisdiction.   The result is always the same.     When the last dollar is removed from the government program and the last dollars extricated from the elder cleansed estate, the victim is put to death.     Most of the time “hospice” is used to extract some additional dollars from Federal programs.     The involuntary suicide is an easy transition.    In the Robert Jaycox matter, he was fed in a prone position until he contacted an aspirated pneumonia – death occurred rapidly, followed by a quick cremation.

The extraction of FEDERAL FUNDS is akin to falling off a log.      The victim’s social security and pension, if any, is sequestered by the plenary guardian.    Administrative costs and expenses (including attorney fees) are readily approved by the court without real examination.     Additional charges are necessary because friends and family tend to object to their ‘loved one’ being denied his/her humanity, civil rights etc.    Ergo, the Court orders protection for the guardians and bars the family from physical contact without supervision from the victim.     A specially formed group is assigned to supervise visitation at the most inconvenient times for the family. [3]     No dollar in the possession of the victim is ignored.    18 USCA 371 liability of co-conspirators – i.e. people doing substantial acts in furtherance of the conspiracy are ignored.    Not even the tax collector is interested in collecting the taxes, interest and penalties that the conspirators have earned.

As indicated by the Philip Esformes indictment that ability to access FEDERAL FUNDS and Medicare funds is easy.      The acute care facility (nursing home) is funded by both Federal and private insurance.    The nursing home’s expenses are readily available and almost an open book; however, they are a facade.        The nursing facility outsources much of its activities.     For instance, a wholly owned Utility company charged for the electric and gas used by the facility (Multiuit)      The pharmaceutical costs were first run though a company called Total and then Omnicare.      Opioids and other chemicals could be purchased domestically and otherwise in railroad car quantities and sold to the patient and the government at several hundred percent of retail costs [4].    (NB.  Everyone has heard of the $12.00 aspirin pill!)   Linen supplies, nursing services, administration, cleaning, food service and every function is ‘farmed out’ with only skeleton staff as actual employees of the facility.      The rationale is deniability.       The nursing staff is very expensive and Registered nurses are in high demand.     Thus, when the facility is pre-warned (see Esformes indictment) that an inspector is scheduled for one of those surprise visits the correct number of RN’s are present and no staffing deficient is even on the horizon.    A slight adjustment in the facilities’ and the personnel books were copasetic. [5]

The cabal protected itself by these “Enron” style corporations and many other shams.     For every dollar spent six to seven dollars was paid by either the insurance company, the government, or the patient.    Usually the government paid. [6]     Because come election time, a 150-bed nursing home will deliver no less than 140 votes for the dominant political party the Political elite are going to give special considerations to the facility.     Judges are going to co-operate with requests for involuntary assisted suicide, protective orders barring families from contact, and accountings for assets and income that could win prices for fiction.    In addition, physician reports detailing illnesses that have no basis in fact are given absolute credence.

Right today, Mr. President you have the secret service detail to protect you from being elder cleansed; however, have you listened to the statements of political people such as Maxime Waters?         Have you read some of the medical analysis of you in the press?      Do you remember Soviet Russia and the Gulag?     It could happen here and in fact for many it is in fact happening right here in the United States.

The ‘fixed’ trial is not a fiction.     The ‘mental health arrest’ of Andy Ostrowski did happen!     Literally thousands of citizens are every day complaining that their loved ones (or they themselves) have been spirited off the street, isolated, stripped of civil and human rights while every dollar that they saved, plus, their Federal and State health care benefits is being redistributed into the pockets of various health care professionals and their 18 USCA 371 political and judicial co-conspirators.

I beg you – we need an HONEST INVESTIGATION of these felonies followed by (if the evidence garnered so provides) and HONEST PROSECUTION of each and every one of the culprits.       We need this investigation now and part of the HEALTH CARE overhaul!      We need the attitude of our government to be slanted toward GOOD and HONEST GOVERNMENT rather than expectancy and subterfuge.      I wrote Senator Durbin shortly after I became involved in investigating the Sykes case.    I wrote for his help in addressing this very serious fraud.    His response was to send me a copy of one of his stupid speeches as to how he was protecting social security.     As Mary’s social security was being stolen by the miscreant corrupt jurist and her 18 USCA 371 co-conspirators I really could care less whether Mary received social security or not!

Draining the swamp means clearing out the predators who make it unsafe to grow old in America.

Ken Ditkowsky

[1] In Mary Sykes the Sheriff of Cook County in a letter denies ever serving summons on Mary Sykes, and indeed the Court file reveals that even though Mary was abducted by the person who became the plenary guardian and removed from the County, all summons was directed to Cook County, Illinois.   The two Guardian ad Litem, and the Judge were thus aware that no attempt is notifying Mary or her next of kin was being made.  (due process requires notice and hearing).      Service of Summons on a party is JURISDICTIONAL.

·         755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 mandates that the summons to be served in a guardianship matter is to have written in its body a disclosure of the protections to be afforded the person to be served.  The Clerk of the Court at the time did not print such a form and none was provided to the Sheriff.     The facade of asking the Court for a special process server to be appointed does appear in the file.

·         As the person needing a guardian is disabled and might not comprehend the loss of civil rights that is contemplated, jurisdictional notice to next of kin is also required.    This JURISDICTIONAL requirement was similarly ignored.      The Attorney for the guardian admitted this fact on more than one occasion.

·         Notice must be provided PRIOR to any hearing to certain relevant people prior to hearing.    This requirement was totally ignored.

·         The tandem of   due process requires HEARING.     There was NO HEARING!    There was no testimony, and certainly the requirement of 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 of clear and convincing evidence of the disability was not met!     The fact is Guardian ad Litem Adam Stern drafted an order appointing a plenary guardian and Judge Maureen Connors signed the order.   (On page 91 of her evidence deposition Judge Connors admits that she was reached (wired)) For her compliance, Judge Connors was elevated to the Appellate Court of Illinois as a justice.

 From this point on the two-guardian ad litem, the guardian, the attorney for the guardian and the corrupt judge ran roughshod over the case and prevented and thwarted any attempt to extricate Mary and restore her civil rights.    Approximately Three million dollars in assets belonging to Mary and her younger daughter were stolen, plus thousands of dollars of Medicare and Insurance company funds.    Cries for an HONEST INVESTIGATION and or prosecution of the criminal activities were thwarted using the facilities of the STATE OF ILLINOIS.

[2] The sale of undervalued (bargain) transactions of real estate and other tangibles generates heavy profits for the miscreants by a series of mesne sales.    For instance, by the attornment of a judge on the ‘take’ the promulgator of the sale can induce a price for value property of fraction of the value to a “nominee.”    After the sale is approved by the Court and family objections are funneled aside the property is resold.    This sale is consistent with the first sale, and to another nominee.     A few months later, the property is resold again, this time to the account of the political miscreant, and finally the property is liquidated to the ultimate purchaser at market value.     The stolen property is reported is reported as a capital gain rather than as ordinary income earned from theft.

[3] The people assigned to do the supervision are there in reality not to supervise but to burden any attempt at communication or restoration of the victim’s rights.    They charge for everything.     In the Mary Sykes case there was a charge for doing something with the victim’s dog!    Of course, the Court approved.   In the Alice Gore case the supervisor was actually able to segregate Alice from her family and discourage any intercourse between Alice and her family.   Thus, the Guardian ad Litem could arrange for Alice’s teeth to be removed and the grains of gold therein contained sequestered into the GAL’s pocket.

[4] The plan for Andy after he was abducted was quite simple.   Inject him with chemicals and reduce him to a zombie.    When he appeared before a Judge, even though he is a lawyer, he would be unable to articulate anything or even know who he was.   The judge would be free to appoint a lawyer for him who would then agree that Andy lacked the capability to take care of himself = from that point on, Andy would be kept medicated – the government would pay for it – and he could be elder cleansed.    This technique is available to be used on both YOU and ME – if the miscreants can catch us!

[5] The Bert Morgan case gave a clue to how books and records could be works of fiction and no one complained.     In Berman, a young man was lured into a ‘go to jail free’ position.   As a young and naive pharmacy graduate, Morgan was offered a ‘dream job.’       A few months into the job, the youngster was flattered into believing that he was the 2nd “coming” and his talents had been discovered.   He was offered the position of CEO of the employment entity with all the trimmings.       The salary was obscene and benefits to die for.    The youngster dove headfirst into his job intent on giving a dollar’s work for a dollar’s pay and he excelled; however, such was not the plan of the miscreants.    To slow him down, they purchased him a luxury vehicle and a home about 40 miles from the work site.     With a wife and a young family, the youngster did not look a gift horse in the mouth and commenced enjoying his new life and the freedom that was built into the job.

 It all came to an end when the Federal Investigators confronted the young pharmacist with the fact that there were prescriptions out there that had been filled more than once.    The fraud became evident, and as the pharmacist in charge all was SOL!    The owners of the company had purchased a youngster to go to jail, and of course they denied knowing anything or anyone.    An Honest investigation will find that all the outsource companies have similar arrangements.

[6] The nursing home facility was a study in segregation.     Not every patient was a victim.    In fact, many were treated rather well (in most facilities – Hollywood Hills appears to be an exception).     People who mattered had and have reasonably good experiences and receive tolerable care.    The cost to Medicare and other providers is still quite expensive, but, it is usually a better value than the hospital for the provider.     If you have an effective advocate survival and good treatment are as good as they are in a well-run hospital – however, if you are pre-determined to be elder cleansed once the miscreants have their hands on you, with the aid a couple of corrupt judges you are history.

From Joanne;

I challenge ANYONE to get into a nursing home and take a survey of any resident (that is not drooling and slumped over from psychotropic drugs) and let us ask each and every resident 1) if they want to be there;  2) if they want to go home to their home or with a relative and 3) if this is at all possible.

Why don’t we just write the nursing homes and see if we can take such a survey.

I bet we don’t get a single taker on that one.

Nursing homes are slums and ghettos for the elderly.  No one wants to be there.

I bet you on this one.


From GG: 22 reasons to invalidate a void judgment

Twenty-two reasons to
vacate a Void Judgment

The Really BIG DealThe real issue in void judgments is, SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION!!!!Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or the parties. Wahl v. Round Valley Bank 38 Ariz, 411, 300 P. 955(1931), Tube City Mining & Millng Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146p 203(1914); and Millken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S. CT. 339,85 L. Ed. 2d 278 (1940).

I can go into void judgments at great length with enough court case cites to make anybody’s eyes glaze over but I shall refrain. Let it be said that the really big deal with subject matter jurisdiction is that it can never be presumed, never be waived, and cannot be constructed even by mutual consent of the parties. Subject matter jurisdiction is two part ; the statutory or common law authority for the court to hear the case and the appearance and testimony of a competent fact witness, in other words, sufficiency of pleadings.

Even if a court (judge) has or appears to have subject matter jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction can be lost.

Major reasons why subject matter jurisdiction is lost:

(1) No petition in the record of the case, Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118,122 (1930).

(2) Defective petition filed, Same case as above.

(3) Fraud committed in the procurement of jurisdiction, Fredman Brothers Furniture v. Dept. of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202, 486 N.E. 2d 893(1985)

(4) Fraud upon the court, In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill, App. 3d 393(1962)

(5) A judge does not follow statutory procedure, Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921)

(6) Unlawful activity of a judge, Code of Judicial Conduct.

(7) Violation of due process, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019; 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); (8) If the court exceeded it’s statutory authority. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)

(9) Any acts in violation of 11 U.S.C. 362(a),IN re Garcia, 109 B.R. 335 (N.D> Illinois, 1989).

(10) Where no justiciable issue is presented to the court through proper pleadings, Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App 3d 701, 637 N.E. 2d 633 (1st Dist. 1994)

(11) Where a complaint states no cognizable cause of action against that party, Charles v. Gore, 248 Ill App. 3d 441, 618 N.E. 2d 554 (1st. Dist. 1993)

(12) Where any litigant was represented before a court by a person/law firm that is prohibited by law to practice law in that jurisdiction.

(13) When the judge is involved in a scheme of bribery (the Alemann cases, Bracey v Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133(June 9, 1997)

(14) Where a summons was not properly issued.

(15) Where service of process was not made pursuant to statute and Supreme Courth Rules, Janove v. Bacon, 6 Ill. 2d 245, 249, 218 N.E. 2d 706, 708 (1953)

(16) When the rules of the Circuit court are not complied with.

(17) When the local rules of the special court are not complied with. (One Where the judge does not act impartially, Bracey v. Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133(June 9, 1997)

(18) Where the statute is vague, People v. Williams, 638 N.E. 2d 207 (1st Dist. (1994)

(19) When proper notice is not given to all parties by the movant, Wilson v. Moore, 13 Ill. App. 3d 632, 301 N.E. 2d 39 (1st Dist. (1973)

(20) Where an order/judgment is based on a void order/judgment, Austin v. Smith, 312 F 2d 337, 343 (1962); English v. English, 72 Ill. App. 3d 736, 393 N.E. 2d 18 (1st Dist. 1979) or

(21) Where the public policy of the State of Illinois is violated, Martin-Tregona v Roderick, 29 Ill. App. 3d 553, 331 N.E. 2d 100 (1st Dist. 1975)

And another that can and should be checked on is does the judge have a copy of his oath of office on file in his chambers? If not, he is not a judge and yes, you can go into his office and demand to see a copy of his oath of office at any time. The laws covering judges and other public officials are to be found at 5 U.S.C. 3331, 28 U.S.C. 543 and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and if the judge has not complied with all of those provisions he is not a judge but a trespasser upon the court. If he is proven a trespasser upon the court(upon the law) not one of his judgments, pronouncements or orders are valid. All are null and void.

In all, there are 22 indices which tell us whether or not a court had subject matter jurisdiction and when examining a judgment one has to know each and every one of them by heart. If he knows them by heart he can go through a judgment like Sherman going though Georgia and point out all of the errors which might make the case a void judgment, null and void upon it’s face.

SUMMARY OF THE LAW OF VOIDSBefore a court (judge) can proceed judicially, jurisdiction must be complete consisting of two opposing parties (not their attorneys – although attorneys can enter an appearance on behalf of a party, only the parties can testify and until the plaintiff testifies the court has no basis upon which to rule judicially), and the two halves of subject matter jurisdiction = the statutory or common law authority the action is brought under (the theory of indemnity) and the testimony of a competent fact witness regarding the injury (the cause of action). If there is a jurisdictional failing appearing on the face of the record, the matter is void, subject to vacation with damages, and can never be time barred.

A question which naturally occurs: “If I vacate avoid judgment, can they just come back and try the case again?” Answer: A new suit must be filed and that can only be done if within the statute of limitations.

“Lack of jurisdiction cannot be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc. The only proper office of a nunc pro tunc order is to correct a mistake in the records; it cannot be used to rewrite history.” E.g., Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South, 975 F.2d 321, 325-26 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Daniels, 902 F.2d 1238, 1240 (7th Cir. 1990); King v. Ionization Int’l, Inc., 825 F.2d 1180, 1188 (7th Cir. 1987). And Central Laborer’s Pension and Annuity Funds v. Griffee, 198 F.3d 642, 644(7th cir. 1999).

The number of void judgments on the books in America’s courthouses is so great, there is no practical way to estimate how many there are!


This page in *.pdf       67 additional SMJ case cites in *.pdf

Void Judgment Details

     22 Reasons Simply Stated

     Restated with evidence cited

Meet “Richard Cornforth”

Sue Debt Collectors Instead

     Support Docs for Suing Debt Collectors

     Unfair and Deceptive Practices

          Case Law for Suing Debt Collectors

     Recorded Calls from “just Dave”

Research Links, Videos, Court Filings & Confessions


Note worthy court actions and
actions within the debt collection industry.

Interested in knowing more?
Join our mailing list and keep up to date
on what’s happening with debt collections.


Why pay debt collectors when you can make them pay you?!
Make’m pay when they break the rules!

What Lies in Your Debt

“Behind the mask that is liberism
Is the face that is Facisism”

JRS – 2013

© Copyright 2000-Present


Contact us

Site Map




From EB: Palm Beach Post reports Judge admits Fla. Guardianship System “in disarray”

I find it quite interesting that the ARDC insists that no judges or attorneys who have clout and power are liars or thieves, but at least one Judge admits that Guardianship is nothing but one hot mess.

Read on:

Posted: 2:00 p.m. Wednesday, October 25, 2017

A state appellate judge said from the bench that one of professional guardian Elizabeth Savitt’s most controversial cases is an example of Florida’s guardianship system in “disarray” — a system that is supposed to protect incapacitated seniors but instead “sucks the ward’s estate dry.”

Last year, then-Palm Beach County Chief Judge Jeffrey Colbath handed down guardianship reforms, many of which targeted specific actions by Savitt — such as the taking thousands of dollars in fees prior to judicial approval. Savitt is married to former Circuit Court Judge Martin Colin.

View original post 819 more words

From EB: Palm Beach Post reports Judge admits Fla. Guardianship System “in disarray”

I find it quite interesting that the ARDC insists that no judges or attorneys who have clout and power are liars or thieves, but at least one Fla. Judge admits that Guardianship is nothing but one hot mess.

Read on:

Posted: 2:00 p.m. Wednesday, October 25, 2017

A state appellate judge said from the bench that one of professional guardian Elizabeth Savitt’s most controversial cases is an example of Florida’s guardianship system in “disarray” — a system that is supposed to protect incapacitated seniors but instead “sucks the ward’s estate dry.”

Last year, then-Palm Beach County Chief Judge Jeffrey Colbath handed down guardianship reforms, many of which targeted specific actions by Savitt — such as the taking thousands of dollars in fees prior to judicial approval. Savitt is married to former Circuit Court Judge Martin Colin.

“The reason why we find ourselves in this Byzantine muck, if you will, is because there is no clear strategy on who is ultimately responsible for that dignity of the ward or the preservation of the decedent’s estate,” said Judge Cory Ciklin of the 4th District Court of Appeal at a Tuesday hearing on the Savitt guardianship of Frances Berkowitz.

“Maybe something will come out of this case that, if nothing else, encourages an appreciation of how terribly the system is in disarray.”

Ciklin’s comments during a hearing Tuesday morning were even more remarkable considering the law firm of his brother Alan — Ciklin, Lubitz & O’Connell — recently got hit with a $16.4 million verdict for running up fees in a guardianship in front of Colin.

That federal case has since settled for a confidential amount to avoid a lengthy and expensive appellate process. But the troubled guardianship of Frances Berkowitz, a state case, is on appeal.

The Palm Beach Post’s award-winning investigative series, Guardianship: A Broken Trust, outlined the vast conflict of interest for Judge Colin as a sitting guardianship judge while his wife practiced as a guardian. He was removed from overseeing guardianship proceedings and announced his retirement.

The series also reported numerous complaints from families of Savitt’s wards and forced her cases to be moved. Colbath then announced his reforms.

Victim of fraud

The issue litigated Tuesday at the 4th DCA centered on whether a lawyer who sought a guardianship to protect his client, Berkowitz, could challenge Savitt for her actions and get her removed.

Boca Raton attorney Webb Millsaps claimed in court documents that Savitt squandered Berkowitz’s opportunity to recover as much as $1 million from a bank and a Miami lawyer who assisted a caregiver in defrauding Berkowitz of her life savings. The senior died on Dec. 31 at age 86.

Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Howard Coates last year ruled Millsaps and his colleague, Donna Greenspan Solomon, had only limited standing to challenge Savitt. Coates ended up dismissing Millsaps’ only surviving claim that Savitt’s appointment was invalid and may have been influenced by Judge Colin.

Millsaps also argued that Savitt failed to account for $400,000 missing from Berkowitz’s bank accounts.

Instead, the former tennis pro turned guardian entered into a settlement that let the bank and other parties off the hook and instead used what was left of Berkowitz’s money to sue Millsaps and Solomon for the fees they took in collecting more than $800,000 from the caregiver.

Solomon, representing Millsaps on Tuesday, told the appellate panel the settlement Savitt made with the bank and caregiver never was formally approved by any court.

Solomon told the appellate panel — which included Judge Mark Klingensmith and Associate Judge Mark Belanger — that Savitt paid off a $308,000 foreclosure judgment on a home she owned shortly after receiving her appointment in December 2014.

Savitt’s attorney previously told The Palm Beach Post that documentation was provided to the Clerk of Court & Comptroller showing the money used to pay off the foreclosure judgment came from Savitt’s personal accounts.

No standing

If the appellate court rules in Millsaps’ favor, Solomon said, the decision would allow the Berkowitz heirs to unwind the settlement made by Savitt. The family members have also indicated they plan to sue Savitt.

John Carter, a Boca Raton lawyer representing the family who was present at the hearing Tuesday, said Ciklin’s questions and comments highlighted the core problem with guardianship in Florida: “The need for protection of the elderly and their assets from all persons with a financial stake in the process.”

Attorney Roger Levine, arguing on behalf of the guardianship on Tuesday, told the DCA panel that Millsaps, despite being the one who sought guardianship protection for his client, had no standing under the law to challenge Savitt’s decisions.

Klingensmith, though, said he reads the state guardianship law as giving broad authority to allow interested parties to intervene if a guardian is “not acting in the best interest of the ward.”

Ciklin also indicated Coates could have acted unilaterally to get to the bottom of Millsaps’ accusations against Savitt.

“The stark reality is whatever judge is assigned to a particular case is the person in charge. Period,” Ciklin said. “This, I would suggest, needs to begin and end with that judge.”

Solomon said she pleaded with Coates to look at the Berkowitz case and “find out what is going in our guardianship system in the state of Florida.”

“The absurdity of all this to some extent is that the ward ends up paying for everybody,” Ciklin said. “And all the while the ward’s estate is just being sucked dry.”

From Bill Windsor Lawless America: Fraud upon the court


Judicial Corruption and Dishonesty

Judges, Court Clerks, and Attorneys all commit Fraud Upon the Court


Should you think judges, their staffs, court clerks, and attorneys are honest, think again.

If you are involved in a court matter, you are most likely a victim.  It is important to understand what fraud upon the court is so you can realize when it is happening to you.

Fraud upon the court is important because orders and judgments may be set aside at any time when fraud upon the court is proven.  I have seen cases where as many as 60 years later, a judgment was set aside.


The good news is that the rules and case law provide a way to get relief from wrongdoing.  The bad news is that it requires a judge to make a finding of fraud, and my experience is that the judges are all guilty, but their fellow judges will cover for them.  Sadly, judges do whatever they want to do in complete violation of the law while ignoring the facts.  I believe many commit crimes in the process.

I am not an attorney, and I am not offering legal advice.  This article contains my legal research and my experience.

Fraud upon the court is fraud committed by officers of the court.  The officers of the court are attorneys, judges, and judicial employees, including the staff of the clerk of the court.  In its simplest terms, fraud upon the court is types of actions designed to  interfere with the proper functioning and decision-making of a court.

Fraud on the court should embrace only that species of fraud which does or attempts to, subvert the integrity of the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court) (citation omitted); Kerwit Med. Prods., Inc. v. N. & H. Instruments, Inc., 616 F.2d 833, 837 (11th Cir. 1980).

In my experience, I have seen attorneys, judges, and the staff of the clerks of the courts all commit fraud upon the court, and there was at the very least a conspiracy between the judges and the clerk of the court’s office.  All of this was part of unconscionable schemes designed to improperly influence the courts in their decisions.

Fraud on the court must involve an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision . . . . Davenport Recycling Assocs. v. C.I.R., 220 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000) (alleged fraud on tax court). “It has been found only in those instances where the fraud vitiates the court’s ability to reach an impartial disposition of the case before it. Id.

In my cases, there was fraud; there was fraud on the court; and there was a conspiracy to defraud.  This fraud was intentional.  The fraud was perpetrated by officers of the court.

Herring, 424 F.3d at 386. A judge is an officer of the court, as are all members of the Bar. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

In my cases, the fraud was directed at the judicial machinery itself.  The fraud subverted the integrity of the courts.  The fraud was designed to deceive the courts into believing facts that were not true.  The courts were unable to adjudicate the matter properly because the courts were influenced by false information.

Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged that a court may grant relief from judgment where a new matter “clearly proves it to be against conscience to execute a judgment, and of which the injured party could not have availed himself before judgment. Marine Ins. Co. of Alexandria v. Hodgson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 332, 336 (1813). He further emphasized that an Article III court can grant relief where the “equity of the applicant [is] free from doubt,” and where a judgment “would be against conscience for the person who has obtained it to avail himself.” Id. at 337 (emphasis supplied).

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) and 60(d) as well as independent actions in equity may all be used to seek to vacate orders and judgments due to fraud upon the courts.

One of the essential elements of an independent action in equity is a showing of the absence of any adequate remedy at law. Bankers Mortgage Co. v. United States, 423 F.2d 73, 79 (5th Cir. 1970). The Supreme Court has further noted that an independent action in equity should be available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47 (1998). The absence of any adequate remedy at law. In re Machne Israel, Inc., 48 F. App’x 859, 863 n.2 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Nat’l Sur. Co. of N.Y. v. State Bank of Humboldt, 120 F. 593, 599 (8th Cir. 1903)). “[A]n independent equitable action for relief from judgment may only be employed to prevent manifest injustice.” Id. at 863. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), and United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (1998), this Court’s leading recent discussions of fraud upon the court.

In my cases, evidence was fabricated by the Plaintiffs’ witnesses and attorneys.  The attorneys were knowing participants in the fraud on the court.  Bogus documents were placed into the record. Lies were told under oath, at depositions and in affidavits, and in various filings with the courts, and schemes were concocted to attempt to cover-up certain falsehoods.  Attorneys for the Plaintiffs were involved in all of this.

“The fabrication of evidence by a party in which an attorney is implicated, will constitute a fraud on the court.” Id. at 1338 (citing to Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997 (1944)).

Professor Moore writes that Fraud on the court is limited to fraud that does, or at least attempts to, “defile the court itself,” or that is perpetrated by officers of the court “so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudicating cases.” Moore’s Federal Practice 3d ¶ 60.21[4][a] (3d ed. 2003). Thus, a “fraud on the court” is a fraud designed not simply to cheat an opposing litigant, but to “corrupt the judicial process” or “subvert the integrity of the court.” Oxxford Clothes XX, Inc. v. Expeditors Int’l, Inc., 127 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 1997); Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted); Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Area Boliviana, 24 F.3d 457, 460 (2d Cir. 1994). It is marked by an “unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decisions,” Dixon v. CommissionerNo. 00-70858, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831, at *1112 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2003), amending 316 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2003), or by “egregious misconduct directed to the court itself.” Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787, 789 (8th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court.”

In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”

“Fraud upon the court” has been defined 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 cannot 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.”

It is also clear and well-settled law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding.

The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation,362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).

In my first case, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans’ unconscionable scheme was to continually rule against us in spite of the evidence.  She then committed perjury in her orders so the 11th Circuit would have to base their decision on the perjured “facts of Judge Orinda D. Evans.”

Common examples of “fraud upon the court” include the “fabrication of evidence by counsel,” Greiner, 152 F.3d at 789, and the “insert[ion of] bogus documents into the record.” Oxxford Clothes, 127 F.3d at 578. But, “[b]ecause corrupt intent knows no stylistic boundaries, fraud on the court can take many forms,” Aoude v. Mobile Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989), and courts take each case on its facts. See Dictograph Products Co. v. Sonotone Corp., 230 F.2d 131, 137 (2d Cir. 1956).

While Judge Orinda D. Evans was a victim of fraud on the court, Judge Orinda D. Evans also perpetrated fraud on the court.  Judge Orinda D. Evans willfulness has been characterized by open defiance and reckless disregard of my Constitutional rights.  This willfulness is inextricably related to, but exceeds mere error.

A civil judgment may be set aside because of a litigant’s fraud on the court though no wrongdoing is ascribed to an attorney or other officer of the court. a judgment obtained by fabricated evidence.

Tampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown in my case involves far more than an injury to a single litigant.  It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society. Surely it cannot be that preservation of the integrity of the judicial process must always wait upon the diligence of litigants.  The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud. The judgment involves an issue of great moment to the public.

This is not simply a case of a judgment obtained with the aid of a witness who, on the basis of after-discovered evidence, is believed possibly to have been guilty of perjury.  Here we find a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud not only the District Court but also the Court of Appeals.  To achieve their purposes, the officers of the court created false evidence, deceived the court, answered interrogatories under oath untruthfully, filed false affidavits and gave perjured testimony, introduced altered exhibits, withheld important evidence, and filed a corrupt brief on appeal.  They frustrated discovery of its fraud through the judicial processes through abuse of the Rules of Civil Procedure.  Witnesses engaged in a concerted effort to present perjured testimony throughout the case.

The fraud on the court in my case was that species of fraud that defiles the court itself and was a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery could not perform in the usual manner in its impartial task of adjudicating cases.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) and 60(d) are two means of seeking relief.  I believe that you must first file a Rule 60(b) action in the court where the fraud took place.  If relief is denied, you can them file a Rule 60(d) action in another court (different judge); this is a new civil complaint.  Here is an example of one such action that I filed.

In Beggerly, the Court reviewed amended Rule 60(b) and the independent action it allows and concluded that such an action “should be available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.” 524 U.S. at 47. As support for this proposition the Court pointed not only to Hazel-Atlas, but also to Pacific R. Co. v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 111 U.S. 505 (1884), and Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589 (1891). Independent actions must, if Rule 60(b) is to be interpreted as a coherent whole, be reserved for those cases of “injustices which, in certain instances, are deemed sufficiently gross to demand a departure” from rigid adherence to the doctrine of res judicata. Id., 524 U.S. at 46 (citing Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 244 (1944)). In other words, a Rule 60(b) independent action in equity “should be available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.” Beggerly, 524 U.S. at 47. Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589 (1891), a case cited by the district court and the Supreme Court in Beggerly as an example of a “grave miscarriage of justice.” In Marshall, an independent action in equity was allowed to proceed because the underlying judgment was secured based on a forged document.

Under Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud on the court,” the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

Fraud on the court has been narrowly applied and is limited to the most egregious of circumstances involving the courts. Stonger, 776 N.E.2d at 357. Further, to prove fraud on the court, it is not enough to show a possibility that the trial court was misled. Id. at 358. Rather, there must be a showing that the trial court’s decision was actually influenced. Id. There must be a showing of egregious misconduct directed to the court itself. Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787, 789 (8th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). “Proof of the scheme, and of its complete success up to date, is conclusive.” Hazel-Atlas322 U.S. at 246.

In Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), the Court affirmed the conviction and internment of Fred Korematsu, an American of Japanese ancestry. In 1983, Korematsu filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis to vacate this conviction based on government misconduct. That misconduct included evidence that the government’s brief in this Court had been deliberately misleading in setting out the facts upon which the government had relied in ordering Korematsu and, petitioners believe, this case shows that where the stakes warrant and the opportunity exists, fraud upon the court will occur.

“Fraud upon the court” may take the form of a scheme or plan by a litigant, wholly without the involvement of counsel, that is intended to corrupt the court’s decision-making. See Toscano v. Commissioner441 F.2d 930, 934-36 (9th Cir. 1971)

There is no statute of limitations for bringing a fraud upon the court claim. Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 244. “A decision produced by fraud on the court is not in essence a decision at all and never becomes final.” Kenner v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 387 F.2d 689, 691 (7th Cir. 1968).

The provision of Rule 60(b) commonly known as the “savings clause” states: “This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to grant relief to a defendant not actually personally notified as provided in Title 28, U.S.C., § 1655, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.” The fraud upon the court described in the savings clause is distinct from the fraud described in Rule 60(b)(3), the latter of which allows a court to relieve a party of a judgment upon the showing of “fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.”

A fraud upon the court action must satisfy a very demanding standard to justify upsetting the finality of the challenged judgment. The Third Circuit has described the standard as follows: In order to meet the necessarily demanding standard for proof of fraud upon the court we conclude that there must be: (1) an intentional fraud; (2) by an officer of the court; (3) which is directed at the court itself; and (4) in fact deceives the court. We further conclude that a determination of fraud on the court may be justified only by “the most egregious misconduct directed to the court itself,” and that it “must be supported by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence.” Id. at 386-87 (internal footnote and citation omitted). The court further ruled that “the fraud on the court must constitute “egregious misconduct . . . such as bribery of a judge or jury or fabrication of evidence by counsel,” id. at 390 (citation omitted), and that “perjury by a witness is not enough to constitute fraud upon the court,” id. This is consistent with Hazel-Atlas, which noted that its facts presented “not simply a case of a judgment obtained with the aid of a witness who, on the basis of after-discovered evidence, is believed possibly to have been guilty of perjury.” 322 U.S. at 245. Rather, the court found a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud not only the Patent Office but the Circuit Court of Appeals.” Id

Whether sovereign immunity precludes an independent action against the United States for fraud upon the court is a question of first impression for us. United States v. Timmons, 672 F.2d 1373 (11th Cir. 1982), is one of the few cases to address this question. In Timmons, the United States first brought an ejectment action against the defendants, who maintained that a separate trial was necessary to address their defense that the United States had improperly acquired the property from the defendants’ ancestors. The Eleventh Circuit recognized that a court may “entertain an independent action in equity for relief from judgment on the basis of its independent and substantive equitable jurisdiction.” Id. at 1378.

The power to vacate a judgment that has been obtained by a fraud on the court is inherent in all courts. Wright, Miller & Kane at § 2870 (citing Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Ref. Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580 (1946)).  Almost all of the principles governing a claim of fraud on the court are derivable from Hazel-Atlas, supraWright, Miller & Kane at § 2870. If it is found that there was a fraud on the court, the judgment should be vacated and the guilty party denied all relief. Id.; Hazel-Atlas322 U.S. at 250-51. The entire cost of the proceedings, including attorneys’ fees, may be assessed against the guilty party. Universal Oil Products328 U.S. at 580.

In order to prevail on an independent action in equity to obtain relief from judgment, the party against whom a judgment is entered is required to establish: (1) the existence of a judgment which ought not, in equity and good conscience, be enforced; (2) a valid defense to the alleged claim upon which the judgment is founded; (3) fraud, accident or mistake which prevented a party to the judgment from obtaining the benefit of his defense; (4) the absence of fault or negligence by the party seeking relief from the judgment; and (5) no adequate remedy at law. McGinnity, supra; See also National Surety Company v. State, 120 F. 593 (8th Cir. 1903); Bankers Mortgage Company v. United States, 423 F.2d 73 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 927, 90 S.Ct. 2242, 26 L.Ed.2d. 793 (1970). Accordingly, if these five (5) elements could be established, a party could prevail on an independent action in equity to obtain relief from judgment, despite the procedural limitations embodied in the court rules and the other recognized means of providing a party relief from judgment.

As an “elementary” consideration before entertaining an independent action in equity to obtain relief from judgment, the party seeking relief is required to exhaust all his remedies at law. Kitzman, supra, at 586; Smeland, supra, at 987; Resaake, supra, at 566. Similarly, where a party should have brought a motion under the code of civil procedure for relief from judgment (see Kitzman, supra, at 586) or a party could have properly asked the court to invoke its inherent powers to vacate a judgment (see Smeland, supra, at 987), the court could not entertain an independent action. Conversely, where a party seeks relief from judgment by motion but does not meet the mandates of the procedural rules, his appropriate remedy is maintained through an equitable action for relief from that judgment. Resaake, supra, at 566.

An “independent action alleging fraud upon the court is completely distinct from a motion under [FRCP] 60(b).” United States v. Burke, No. 05-5277, 2006 WL 2135044, *1 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Herring v. United States, 424 F.3d 384, 389 (3d Cir. 2005)); see also United States v. Barbosa, No. 07-1292, 2007 WL 2050881, *1 (3d Cir. 2007)

The standard the Sixth Circuit has announced for independent actions, for example, requires conduct: 1. On the part of an officer of the court; 2. That is directed to the “judicial machinery” itself; 3. That is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth; 4. That is a positive averment or is concealment when one is under a duty to disclose; 5. That deceives the court. Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 348 (6th Cir. 1993) This standard recognizes that fraud upon the court, unlike perjury, need not be based on affirmative misstatements, but may be based on nondisclosures, and need not be based on proof of subjective knowledge of falsity, but may be founded on a showing of willful blindness or reckless disregard for the truth.

Other circuits have adopted more general standards. See, e.g., Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989) (“fraud upon the court is an “unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense”); Gleason v. Jandrucko, 860 F.2d 556, 559 (2d Cir. 1989) (“fraud which seriously affects the integrity of the normal process of adjudication”); Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1338 (5th Cir. 1978) (“only the most egregious conduct, such as bribery of a judge or members of the jury, or the fabrication of evidence by a party in which an attorney is implicated”); Oxxford Clothes XX, Inc. v. Expeditors Int’l, Inc., 127 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 1997) (“conduct that might be thought to corrupt the judicial process itself, as where a party bribes a judge or inserts bogus documents into the record”); Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787, 789 (8th Cir. 1998) (“egregious misconduct directed to the court itself”); Dixon v. Commissioner, No. 00-70858, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831, at *11-12 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2003), amending 316 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) (“unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision”).

“Fraud upon the court” as distinguished from fraud on an adverse party is limited to fraud which seriously affects the integrity of the normal process of adjudication. Gleason v. Jandrucko, 860 F.2d 556, 559 (2d Cir. 1988) (citations omitted); Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Area Boliviana, 24 F.3d 457, 460 (2d Cir., 1994). The concept of “fraud on the court” embraces “only 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 cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases.” Kupferman v. Consol. Research & Mfg. Corp., 459 F.2d 1072, 1078 (3d Cir. 1972) (citations omitted). Hadges v. Yonkers Racing Corp., 48 F.3d 1320, 1325 (2d Cir. 1995) (emphasis added).

The Ninth Circuit has fashioned a slightly different definition, holding that “to set aside a judgment or order because of fraud upon the court, … it is necessary to show an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision.” Bailey v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 98-CV-123-TUC-RTT (JMR), 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21517 at *26 (D. Ariz. 1998) (citing Wright, Miller & Kane at § 2870 (quoting England v. Doyle, 21 F.2d 304, 309 (9th Cir. 1960)).

The Fifth Circuit has defined fraud on the court to mean a “scheme by which the integrity of the judicial process has been fraudulently subverted by a deliberately planned scheme in a manner involving ‘far more than an injury to a single litigant.'” Addington v. Farmer’s Elevator Mut. Ins. Co., 650 F.2d 663, 668 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1098 (1981) (citing, among other authorities, Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 245-46; Wright, Miller & Kane at § 2870).

Federal courts have found that there are three ways to attack a judgment on grounds of fraud on the court pursuant to this rule. See, e.g., United States v. Buck, 281 F.3d 1336, 1341-42 (10th Cir. 2002). One method is an independent action for fraud on the court pursuant to the savings clause in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which provides that it “does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding[.]” Buck, 281 F.3d at 1341 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).

To prove fraud on the court, it is not enough to show a possibility that the trial court was misled. Humbert, 655 N.E.2d at 607; K.M., 651 N.E.2d at 277; Pinter v. Pinter, 641 N.E.2d 101, 104 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). Rather, there must be a showing that the trial court’s decision was actually influenced. G.H. Skala Const. Co. v. NPW, Inc., 704 N.E.2d 1044, 1049 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied.

The movant must establish that an unconscionable plan or scheme was used to improperly influence the court’s decision and that such acts prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting its case or defense. See In re Adoption of Infant Female Fitz, 778 N.E.2d 432, 437 (Ind. Ct App. 2002). Fraud on the court requires a “scheme by which the integrity of the judicial process has been fraudulently subverted by a deliberately planned scheme in a manner involving ‘far more than an injury to a single litigant.`” Addington(Page 9) Farmer’s Elevator Mutual Insurance, 650 F.2d 663, 668 (5th Cir. 1981) (quoting Hazel-Atlas Glass, 322 U.S. 238, 245-46, 64 S.Ct. 997, 1002 (1944)). See Davenport Recycling Assocs. v. C.I.R., 220 F.3d 1255, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000) (alleged fraud on tax court). “It has been found only in those instances where the fraud vitiates the court’s ability to reach an impartial disposition of the case before it.” Id.

All courts have the inherent equitable power to vacate a judgment that has been obtained through the commission of fraud upon the court. Universal Oil Prods. Co. v. Root Ref. Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580 (1946).

While an attorney should represent his client with singular loyalty that loyalty obviously does not demand that he act dishonestly or fraudulently; on the contrary, his loyalty to the court, as an officer thereof, demands integrity and honest dealing with the court. And when he departs from that standard in the conduct of a case, he perpetrates a fraud upon the court.

Hazel-Atlas is a prime example of a situation for which the independent action was preserved under amended Rule 60(b). 28 U.S.C. App., Fed R. Civ. P. 60, Advisory Committee’s Notes on 1946 Amendment, at p. 795 (“the rule expressly does not limit the power of the court, when fraud has been perpetrated upon it, to give relief under the saving clause. As an illustration of this situation, see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944).”). See also Beggerly, 524 U.S. at 46. The Court observed that the federal courts’ equitable power to set aside a final judgment obtained by fraud was well established and that, notwithstanding the “deep-rooted policy” of finality, “where the occasion has demanded, where enforcement of the judgment is “manifestly unconscionable,” they have wielded the power without hesitation.” 322 U.S. at 244-45 (citations and footnote omitted)

Realize that the employees of the office of the clerk of the court are all officers of the court.  When the clerk’s office fails to docket your filings, changes docket entries, backdates docket entries, and issues invalid orders that do not bear the signature of the clerk and the seal of the court, these are all acts that are grounds for a finding of fraud upon the court.  I have been amazed at the extent of the fraud perpetrated against me by the office of the clerk of the court.

This article focuses on federal court, but many states have similar statutes.

I will always file actions attempting to set aside orders and judgments when I can prove fraud upon the courts.  Before you do so, realize that corrupt judges will probably punish you by awarding massive legal fees sanctions against you.  My experience is that judges ignore the facts, ignore the law, commit crimes regularly, and will do anything to damage and stop anyone from attempting to prove fraud upon the court.


William M. Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.  This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption.   Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.


From NASGA: Patient murdered at Randoph CareOne center by another mentally deficient resident

Dementia patient, 86, is beaten to death in Randolph facility

An 86-year-old man was fatally injured, allegedly by his 58-year-old roommate, while both were being cared for in the dementia ward of a CareOne nursing facility in Randolph on Tuesday, according to Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey’s office.

The victim was identified as James Schappell, who was allegedly attacked before 8 a.m. with a ceramic trash can by his roommate, Walter Rice Jr., according to documents filed in Quincy District Court.

Schappell was rushed to Boston Medical Center but died at the hospital Wednesday night, prosecutors said.


CareOne staffers summoned Randolph police to the scene on Thomas Patten Drive, leading to the arrest of Rice on charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, described in a police report as a heavy ceramic flower pot that was being used as a trash can.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Randolph Officer Stephen Morse wrote that when he arrived at the nursing facility for a report of a head wound, firefighters had already placed Schappell in an ambulance and said he was unlikely to survive, according to the report.

Rice was sitting in a separate room away from everyone.

“I immediately noticed that both beds in the room had a extremely large amount of blood on them,” wrote Morse, describing a gruesome scene that he said suggested Schappell had been hit over the head with the ceramic pot while on his bed.

Morse said he called for additional officers to guard Rice while he secured the crime scene, which had already been touched by staff.

“There were attempts made by staff to clean the defendant and the room prior to my arrival,” Morse wrote.

Rice appeared in Quincy District Court Wednesday. Judge Mark Coven ordered a mental competency evaluation, prosecutors said. The court clinician concluded Rice was not competent, and Coven ordered further evaluation at Bridgewater State Hospital. Rice is due back in court Sept. 21.

CareOne issued a statement Thursday: “CareOne’s first priority is always to ensure the safety, security, and comfort of our residents and their families. We are fully cooperating with the authorities as they conduct their investigation. Our support and prayers are with the affected families and our entire CareOne at Randolph community.”

The agency also defended its workers at the nursing facility. “We also would like to recognize the competency and professionalism of our nurses and caregivers who responded to this incident to ensure that it was contained and that emergency medical services for the residents involved were quickly provided,” it said.

CareOne describes itself as a family-owned company founded by Daniel E. Straus. It handles 20,000 patient admissions annually.

The investigation, by state and Randolph police, along with Morrissey’s office, is ongoing.

John R. Ellement can be reached
at Murphy can be reached at