So It Is In My Opinion That I Prof. Rommel P. Westlaw & Randles P. Tompkins & Randall C. Nutter That I Believe That This Court Judge Below Is Dishonorable Judge Salvatore F. Cozza ? And Will Not Follow The Constitution / Bill of Rights
I'm A United States Citizen And A US Born Citizen & U.S. Navy Submarine Vet ! & A Emergency Medical Technician and A Drug & Alcohol Counseling / Wash. State Licensed Nursing Assistant Registration & Civil Rights Worker & Website's Owner.
I Can Not Find A RCW Code Or Laws + For A Judges Saying: ( I Do Not Like You )
"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.""Judges Saying: I Do Not Like You !"
We The People of the World & The Fallen Leaves of Lost Souls of Love & Hope !
So A Poster Found Feb.14 1945 In World War Two Nazi Germany + The Poster Talking About How the Judicial Courts and Nazi's Laws & Corruption Of The Judges, At the Time Before WW2 In The 1930's the Germany people did not care, anyway the poster reads.!
They came for the Jews, but I wasn't Jewish, so I didn't care.
They then came for the gypsies and the homosexuals. I was not a gypsy or a homosexual. I did not care.
Next they came for the Catholic Church. I wasn't Catholic. I did not care.
Now they're coming for me. To take me away, and there's nobody left the stand up to fight ! + This Poster Is On A Wall In Berlin Germany Found Feb 14 1945 Etc.
Someone Need To Stand Up And Say NO You Can Not Do This By Any Ones Laws
"All That Is Necessary For The Triumph Of Evil Is That A Good Men Do Nothing."
(Edmund Burke) This Websites Are Set Up For Freedom Of Speech Court Cases !
WE THE PEOPLE & “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ” —United States Declaration of Independence, SIGNED BY ALL ++ July 4 1776
This Website got started after 3 friends Asked (Jane Doe & Mary Doe & John Doe) Ask Me To Help Them as Iam a Licence (NAR) Nursing Assistant Registration State of Washington USA& PerWashington State Laws As A Mandatory Reporters Etc.
Credential= NA00181252 + Credential Type= Nursing Assistant Registration + First Issue Date= 02/09/2006 + Last Issue Date= 08/11/2013 + Expiration Date= 08/30/2015 Status ACTIVE + Action Taken= No Customer Service Center at (360) 236-4700 for information about actions before July 1998. Also Iam A Emergency Medical Technician / Paramedic at City Collage of Chicago 1982 & Drug & Alcohol Counseling from University of Arizona / A Civil Rights Worker & Retired U.S.Navy as a Electronic Tech. Submarines Services ! Because Of The Court Rulings I Have Not Worked * Years Now By Court Orders In 2006
Key Issues Are ! Woman's Rights, Freedom of Speech, False Arrest, Publisher Right's, Marrages Right's, Domestic Violence Laws, Sexual Assault, Mandatory Reporters, Sex, United States Constitution and Bill of Right's, Lovers, Court System, Wa. RCW Codes, Sheriffs & Police In All States, Special Ed, Dept. of Health In All States, Stalking Laws, Marrage, Affidavit of Probable Cause, Dating & A Woman Rights To Ask For Help Etc.
Unprivileged -- Lastly, in order for a statement to be defamatory, it must be unprivileged. Lawmakers have decided that you cannot sue for defamation in certain instances when a statement is considered privileged. For example, when a witness testifies at trial and makes a statement that is both false and injurious, the witness will be immune to a lawsuit for defamation because the act of testifying at trial is privileged.
Whether a statement is privileged or unprivileged is a policy decision that rests on the shoulders of lawmakers. The lawmakers must weigh the need to avoid defamation against the importance that the person making the statement have the free ability to say what they want.
Witnesses on the stand at trial are a prime example. When a witness is giving his testimony, we, as a society, want to ensure that the witness gives a full account of everything without holding back for fear of saying something defamatory. Likewise, lawmakers themselves are immune from defamation suits resulting from statements made in legislative chamber or in official materials. Higher Burdens for Defamation -- Public Officials and Figures
Our government places a high priority on the public being allowed to speak their mind about elected officials as well as other public figures. People in the public eye get less protection from defamatory statements and face a higher burden when attempting to win a defamation lawsuit.
When an official is criticized in a false and injurious way for something that relates to their behavior in office, the official must prove all of the above elements associated with normal defamation, and must also show that the statement was made with "actual malice." "Actual malice" was defined in a Supreme Court case decided in 1964, Hustler v. Falwell. In that case, the court held that certain statements that would otherwise be defamatory were protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court reasoned that the United States society had a "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."
This meant, according to the Court, that public officials could only win a defamation suit when the statement that was made was not an honest mistake and was in fact published with the actual intent to harm the public figure. According to the Court, actual malice only occurs when the person making the statement knew the statement was not true at the time he made it, or had reckless disregard for whether it was true or not.
For other people that are in the public eye, but not public officials, the defamation laws are also different. These people, such as celebrities and movie stars, must also prove, in most situations, that the defamatory statements were made with actual malice.
Copyright Protection Copyrightprotection is automatic for any creative work the moment it is created and set down in a “tangible form of expression,” including a work that can only be read with the aid of a device such as an e-book reader. The copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the e-book for public sale, rental or lending, or to make the book available for free. Without express permission, others cannot reproduce and distribute copies of the e-book. ========================= The Key Issues For 2014 Are! Woman's Rights, Freedom of Speech, Publisher Right's, Marriages Right's, Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Sex, Mandatory Reporters, United States Constitution and Bill of Right's, Lovers, Court System !
This Website Is about Freedom of Speech & U.S. Constitution & The Bill of Rights This Website Is FREE FOR ALL I The Owner Of Westlaw Books And Other Owners So Of Today Date Feb. 14 2014 I Have ?? Employees And Over 1000+ Contributors Again I Do Not Write ALL The Story Or The Articles Or The Court Reports Papers. 92% Of The Web Pages Are Written By Other People (Not By Westlaw Books Etc.) How It Works Is You Send In A Story Your Name & E-mail Are Removed Forever !
After A StoryIs Uploaded To This Website It Can Not Be Removed Only Up-Dated. So You Need To Read The Disclaimer Pages And You Must Tell The True Story's. E-Mail Your True Story / Real Court Cases And All Photos You Want On Websites.
This Whole Website's & 26 Domains + Are Now A Official E-Book !This Website Is Now Registered And Is Under Copyright Protection As Filed 3 New E-Book Books ISBN+13 978-0-9824528-4-4 + ISBN+10 0-9824528-4-5 +LCCN #: 2009912314 New # ISBN+13 978-0-9824528-0-6 + ISBN+10 0-9824528-0-2 ISBN +13 978-0-9824528-1-3 +
Judge Profile: Dishonorable Judge Salvatore (Sam) F. Cozza Sam F. Cozza Co. J. 1116 W. Broadway Avenue Spokane, Washington (Spokane Co.) Experience & Credentials University Gonzaga University, B.A. Law School University of Washington, J.D. Admitted 1981 ISLN 908142444 Member Name: Sam F. Cozza WSBA Bar #: 11609 Firm or Employer: Spokane Co Superior Court Admit Date: 5/12/1981 Address: 1116 W Broadway Ave Spokane, WA 99260-0350 United States Status: Judicial Phone: (509) 477-4795 Fax: (509) 477-5714 Superior Court Spokane County, WA - Dept. 6 Dishonorable Salvatore F. Cozza Superior Court Judge Courtroom Fourth Floor Annex Current Assignment: Family Law Judge Elected: November, 1996 Judicial Assistant: John Mueller, 509-477-4795 Court Reporter: Samantha Drummond, 509-477-4413
Preemption A doctrine based on theSupremacy Clauseof the U.S. Constitution that holds that certain matters are of such a national, as opposed to local, character that federal laws preempt or take precedence over state laws. As such, a state may not pass a law inconsistent with the federal law.
A doctrine of state law that holds that a state law displaces a local law or regulation that is in the same field and is in conflict or inconsistent with the state law.
Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution provides that the "… Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This Supremacy Clause has come to mean that the national government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power. The federal preemption doctrine is a judicial response to the conflict between federal and state legislation. When it is clearly established that a federal law preempts a state law, the state law must be declared invalid.
A state law may be struck down even when it does not explicitly conflict with federal law, if a court finds that Congress has legitimately occupied the field with federal legislation. Questions in this area require careful Balancing of important state and federal interests. Problems arise when Congress fails to make its purpose explicit, which is often the case. The court must then draw inferences based on the presumed objectives of federal law and the supposed impact of related State Action.
In the United States, the government may not prevent the publication of a newspaper, even when there is reason to believe that it is about to reveal information that will endanger our national security. By the same token, the government cannot:
Pass a law that requires newspapers to publish information against their will.
Impose criminal penalties, or civil damages, on the publication of truthful information about a matter of public concern or even on the dissemination of false and damaging information about a public person except in rare instances.
Impose taxes on the press that it does not levy on other businesses.
Compel journalists to reveal, in most circumstances, the identities of their sources.
Prohibit the press from attending judicial proceedings and thereafter informing the public about them.
Collectively, this bundle of rights, largely developed by U.S. Supreme Court decisions, defines the + freedom of the press + guaranteed by the First Amendment. What we mean by the freedom of the press is, in fact, an evolving concept. It is a concept that is informed by the perceptions of those who crafted the press clause in an era of pamphlets, political tracts and periodical newspapers, and by the views of Supreme Court justices who have interpreted that clause over the past two centuries in a world of daily newspapers, books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television broadcasts, and now Web sites and Internet postings.
The framers' conception of freedom of the press has been the subject of intense historical debate, both among scholars and in the pages of judicial opinions. At the very least, those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights purported to embrace the notion, derived from William Blackstone, that a free press may not be licensed by the sovereign, or otherwise restrained in advance of publication (see New York Times Co. v. United States, 1971.) And, although the subject remains a lively topic of academic debate, the Supreme Court itself reviewed the historical record in 1964 in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and concluded that the + central meaning of the First Amendment + embraces as well a rejection of the law of seditious libel + i.e., the power of the sovereign to impose subsequent punishments, from imprisonment to criminal fines to civil damages, on those who criticize the state and its officials.
ALL CASES NUMBERS & COURT TRANSCRIPTION REMOVED BY COURT ORDERS
A prosecutor’s guide to contempt of court + Contempt is rarer in real life than in TV courtrooms, so many prosecutors have never handled such a case. Here’s a primer on this procedure-heavy piece of law. By Andrea L. WesterfeldAssistant Criminal District Attorney in Collin CountyTelevision has taught us that with the magic words “You’re in contempt!” and the bang of a gavel, the offending person may be found in contempt for non-speech conduct and is hauled away by a bailiff to sweat out a night in jail, and order is magically restored to the courtroom. The actual practice of contempt is, of course, not quite as seen on TV. In most courtrooms, contempt is much more rarely seen, and it entails more procedure than many think. Whether faced with the threat of contempt for actions in court or asked by the judge to assist in contempt procedures for a defiant witness, prosecutors should be aware of the basic procedural requirements of contempt law. Classification
What sort of notice is required? Must a hearing be held? What rights does the accused have? Can you appeal? The answers to these questions depend on what type of contempt is alleged. Contempt may be either direct or constructive, and either civil or criminal. Direct vs. constructive contempt. The type of contempt most often featured on television is direct contempt, which involves disobedience or disrespect occurring in the court’s presence. Because the judge directly witnessed the offensive action, he may immediately punish the violator. Direct contempt stems from the court’s inherent power to punish violations in its presence.1
By contrast, constructive contempt involves disobedience which occurs outside of the court’s presence, such as failure to comply with an order. Because it occurred outside of the court’s presence, this type of contempt requires witnesses to be proven. The court is thus required to give the contemnor written notice, hold a hearing, and afford the contemnor the opportunity to call witnesses and defend herself against the charges.2 Civil vs. criminal contempt. The most important classification of contempt is civil or criminal. Despite the name, this classification has nothing to do with the underlying case. Civil contempt may occur in a murder trial as easily as criminal contempt stems from a divorce. Rather, the classification is dependent on the purpose of the contempt: Civil contempt seeks to correct a violation, while criminal contempt punishes the violator.
Civil contempt is also known as “coercive” or “remedial” contempt because it seeks to remedy the violation of a court order.3 The purpose of the contempt is to persuade the contemnor to obey a previous order. This is the classic situation of a witness being jailed until he agrees to testify. The judge may assess a fine, imprisonment, or both, and the sentence may be determinate or open-ended. The only requirement is that the contempt is conditional—the contemnor may escape the sentence by complying with the court order. In this way, the contemnors are said to carry “the keys of their prison in their own pocket.”4
Criminal contempt, on the other hand, is also known as “punitive” contempt because it seeks to punish a violation.5 The lawyer fined for swearing in court is an example of criminal contempt. It is unconditional—the punishment stands regardless of what the contemnor may later do to comply with the court order. Criminal contempt thus requires due process and a higher standard on appeal because of this punitive nature. Criminal contempt in Texas is punishable by a maximum fine of $500 and confinement for no more than six months.6 But each violation of a court order may be punished, so a lawyer could, for example, be sentenced to a $500 fine for each day he violated a discovery order.
Prosecutors should be particularly aware of criminal contempt, as it is considered a crime and can thus bar prosecution for the same conduct.7 If, for example, a person is found in criminal contempt for failure to pay child support, the State may not be able to prosecute him for criminal nonsupport for the same instances of failing to pay.8 The State should charge different dates than the contempt order to be sure not to run afoul of double jeopardy. Similarly, a person held in contempt for lying to the court may not subsequently be prosecuted for perjury for the same lie.9
It is possible for a contempt order to be both civil and criminal if it contains elements of each. For example, a judge may jail a lawyer for three days for failing to comply with a discovery order and order him to remain in jail until he complies. The initial unconditional sentence—confinement for three days even if discovery is given immediately—is criminal contempt, while the conditional portion of the sentence—where the contemnor only remains in jail until the discovery is provided—is civil contempt. Requirements of due process
No notice is required for direct contempt, whether civil or criminal, unless it is assessed against an officer of the court.10 This is due to the court’s “inherent power to punish” for actions occurring before it and because the contempt immediately follows offending behavior. But constructive contempt requires written notice of how, when, and by what means the party committed the alleged contempt.11 This notice can be in the form of a motion for contempt, a show-cause order, or any other equivalent process. Furthermore, because this is a due process issue, merely following the standard rules of service is not sufficient. Sending a notice to the defendant’s home12 or to his attorney,13 serving notice by publication under the Rules of Civil Procedure,14 or even orally notifying him15 is not sufficient if the defendant can show he had no personal knowledge of the setting and was not purposely avoiding service.
The courts do not appear to have addressed precisely how much notice is required. The only opinions that deal with a specific timeframe focus on failure to pay child support, which has its own 10-day notice requirement. In other situations, as little as three days’ notice has been held sufficient.16
Due process must also be satisfied at the contemnor’s hearing. Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature—that’s true even for civil contempt because imprisonment is a possibility; thus they must comply with criminal standards of due process.17 A person is entitled to counsel at a contempt hearing and has the right against self-incrimination.18 But there is no inherent right to a jury trial. A person held in civil contempt has no right to a jury trial, and the right exists in cases of criminal contempt only if “serious” punishment is imposed.19 Serious punishment is confinement for more than six months or a fine greater than $500. This determination is cumulative, so a series of smaller sentences for multiple violations can be combined to amount to a “serious punishment.”20 Finally, the hearing requirement may be satisfied by affidavits.21 The court is required to give the contemnor “a meaningful opportunity” to explain his behavior, but it is not required to hold a live hearing. Proof of contempt
Although the court’s power to punish through contempt is broad, contempt is meant to be exercised rarely and is presumed not to exist.22 Three elements must be satisfied to prove contempt: 1) a reasonably specific order, 2) a violation of the order, and 3) the willful intent to violate the order.23 To be specific enough to support a constructive contempt finding, an order must spell out the details of compliance in clear, unambiguous terms so that a person knows exactly what she must do to comply with it. Some courts have held that an oral order is never sufficiently specific; thus, only a written court order may support a constructive contempt finding.24 An oral order may support a direct contempt finding, but it must still be clear what the court has ordered the person to do.25
Noncompliance with an unambiguous order of which a person has notice raises the inference that the violation was willful.26 But a person is in contempt only if he has the ability to comply with the court’s order but chooses not to.27 A person may not, for example, be jailed for failing to turn over property not in his possession. But for this exception to apply, the inability to comply must be involuntary.28 If a person puts himself in a position where he is unable to comply with the order, then he may still be held in contempt. Appeal There is no appellate process for contempt orders, but a contemnor may seek relief through a writ of habeas corpus.29 A writ will issue only if the contempt order is void, meaning it is beyond the court’s power or the contemnor was not afforded due process. A contempt order is beyond the court’s power if it violates the Texas Constitution. Notably, the Texas Constitution prohibits imprisonment for debt, so a contempt order based solely on a failure to pay a debt is void. This does not apply, however, if the failure is to pay child support or a criminal fine. In both cases, this is considered failure to perform a legal duty, not failure to pay a “debt.” If a person is held in contempt but not imprisoned, then he may be able to seek relief through a writ of mandamus.30 The standard is similar to a writ—the contemnor must show that he is unquestionably entitled to relief. Other provisions
A person may not be released on any sort of bond from a contempt order.31 If the trial court permits a bond, then the person is no longer illegally confined and a writ will not issue. But if the Court of Criminal Appeals issues the writ, then it can order the contemnor released on bond pending the conclusion of its hearing.
There is a special provision, however, for officers of the court held in contempt;32 it applies to all four types of contempt. Officers of the court include attorneys, bailiffs, clerks, court reporters, and other similar officials. An officer of the court must be released on a personal recognizance bond pending a hearing to determine his guilt or innocence. He is also entitled to a hearing in front of a judge other than the offended judge. The presiding judge of the administrative district in which the contempt occurred must appoint another district judge to preside over the hearing. This is the only time a court other than the offended court is legally authorized to assess contempt. Because contempt is part of the inherent powers of the court, a court is otherwise not authorized to find a person in contempt for violating another court’s order.
A written order is required before a person may be confined for contempt, direct or constructive.33 If the contempt is civil, then the order must clearly lay out what is required to purge himself of contempt. But the court may order the person detained for a reasonable time while the written order is prepared. Conclusion
With luck, you will never have to use the information from this article. But if you do find yourself involved in a contempt proceeding, the following questions can help you quickly get a handle on the situation: • Did the offensive behavior happen in front of the judge? Is the offender an officer of the court, meaning an attorney, bailiff, court reporter, etc.? If your answers are “no” and “yes,” respectively, then you need to fulfill all due process requirements. • Was there a court order specific enough to support a finding of contempt? • Did the offender have the ability to comply with the order? If not, did the offender put herself in the position of not being able to comply? • Did the offender receive personal notice of the contempt charge and the ability to defend against it in some form?
This article is far from an exhaustive study of contempt, but it provides a good base of knowledge. Whether you are contemplating courses of action, have become involved in a hearing at a judge’s request, or hear those magic words—“you’re in contempt”—yourself, I hope this information will guide your next move. Endnotes1 Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1979). 2 Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex. 1995). 3 In re Dotson, 76 S.W.3d 393, 395 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). 4 Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 368 (1966). 5 Dotson, 76 S.W.3d at 395 n.3. 6 Tex. Gov’t Code § 21.002(b). For municipal and justice courts, the maximum is three days or $100. 7 United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993); Ex parte Rhodes, 974 S.W.2d 735, 740-42 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 8 This issue is not settled at law. It has been suggested that criminal nonsupport and criminal contempt involve sufficiently separate elements so as to not run afoul of double jeopardy. See, e.g., State v. Landrum, No. 05-98-01226-CR, 2000 WL 280317, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas, Mar. 16, 2000, no pet.) (not designated for publication). 9 Ex parte Busby, 921 S.W.2d 389, 393 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, pet. ref’d). 10 Ex parte Krupps, 712 S.W.2d 144 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). 11 Chambers, 898 S.W.2d at 261; see also In re Acceptance Ins. Co., 33 S.W.3d 443, 448-49 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.). 12 Ex parte Moore, 567 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1978, no pet.). 13 Ex parte Lackey, 522 S.W.2d 735, 735-36 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1975, no pet.). 14 Moore, 567 S.W.2d at 526. 15 Ex parte Vetterick, 744 S.W.2d 598, 599 (Tex. 1988). 16 Ex parte Hodge, 611 S.W.2d 468, 469 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1980, no pet.). 17 Ex parte Gonzales, 945 S.W.2d 830, 836 (Tex. 1997). 18 Id.; Ex parte Werblud, 536 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tex. 1976). 19 Werblud, 536 S.W.2d at 547. 20 Ex parte Griffin, 682 S.W.2d 261, 262 (Tex. 1984). 21 Fahle v. Cornyn, 231 F.3d 193, 196 (5th Cir. 2000). 22 Ex parte Jacobs, 664 S.W.2d 360, 364 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). 23 Chambers, 898 S.W.2d at 259; see also Rhodes, 974 S.W.2d at 740. 24 Ex parte Wilkins, 665 S.W.2d 760 (Tex. 1984). 25 Jacobs, 664 S.W.2d at 364. 26 Chambers, 898 S.W.2d at 261. 27 In re Gawerc, 165 S.W.3d 314, 315 (Tex. 2005). 28 Ex parte Sanchez, 703 S.W.2d 955, 959 (Tex. 1986). 29 In re Henry, 154 S.W.3d 594, 596 (Tex. 2005). 30 Kidd v. Lance, 794 S.W.2d 586, 587 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, no writ). 31 Ex parte Eureste, 725 S.W.2d 214, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). 32 Tex. Gov’t Code, § 21.002(d). 33 Ex parte Barnett, 600 S.W.2d 252, 256 (Tex. 1980).
Yet This Judge Ruled The Constitution for the United States of AmericaIs Void !
A WARNING FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT! In the words of former Chief Justice Warren Burger, "75 to 90 percent of American Trial Lawyers are incompetent, dishonest, or both."
If this statement is true, shouldn't you consider learning a little about law yourself, if only to keep your lawyers in line? We At Westlaw Books Are Helping Others !
When legal problems are in front of you, and if you don't know your rights, you might as well not have any.
Lawyers are advantaged in that they know how to find the law in the library. This knowledge is not an occult mystery.
The laws are supposed to be made by the people and for the people. They are not supposed to make lawyers and bureaucrats a privileged ruling elite.
That's why the newsletter Constitutional Business was created, to put knowledge into the hands of the general public and to teach you how to find the law.
Lawyers are often not only overpriced, but also are frequently tough to deal with.
Too many do not listen to clients, do not do enough research and do not pay enough attention to details ... and that can cost you.
You have the right under the Constitution to act as your own attorney.
And if you don't know the Constitution, both of this country, and your state, then you are at a great disadvantage. Many politicians, police and bureaucrats don't want you to know what is in these documents.
Our newsletter is designed to put you on a more level playing field with lawyers and adversaries.
You'll be better able to negotiate, argue and plead. Your results cannot be guaranteed, but we can guarantee that after reading Constitutional Business you will know more about law.
And once you've become our reader, you will know how to reach for justice.
And then you can teach others what they need to know.
It's the American way! DID YOU KNOW:
That Bar Associations have been sued for monopolistic practices?
That legal malpractice claims are at an all time record?
That pro-se litigants are forcing revolutionary changes in our justice system and that the best is yet to come?
THE HONORABLE PROF. ROMMEL PAISLEY WESTLAW + Pro_Se + IN THIS CASE
LAYMAN LAYMAN & ROBINSON PLLP By: AARON M. NACCARATO Attorney at Law 601 S. Division Street Spokane, Washington 99202 This Is A Dishonorable Law Firm Above + Lying In Court + Perjury Etc.
ALL CASES NUMBERS & COURT TRANSCRIPTION REMOVED BY COURT ORDERS
Fraud upon the courtIn the U.S., when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as "fraud upon the court", is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation.
Officers of the court include: Lawyers, Judges, Referees, and those appointed; Guardian Ad Litem, Parenting Time Expeditors, Mediators, Rule 114 Neutrals, Evaluators, Administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the judicial mechanism.
"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23
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."
Citizens Court Watch + Thank You For Taking The Time To Read This Websites !
I Hope That This Website Can Help You & Others With Your Court Cases & Laws?
You Can E-Mail US AT email@example.comYou Can Also Write TO US AT Rommel P. Westlaw @ P.O. Box 18010 Spokane, Washington. 99228-0010 U.S.A.
Phone Messages Call US AT (Washington D.C. Offices) At # 202-670-LAWS (5297) Florida # 561-907-7673 + Spokane, Wa. # 509-701-5683 + Wisconsin # 920-395-8343
You May Help Others By Making A Small Donation Or Help With Your Time Etc. PLEASE REMEMBER DO NOT TAKE THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS + Call 911
Disclaimer and Fair Use Pages For Westlaw Books + See Full Disclaimer Page + Its Five 5 Button Down From The Top Of This Website + You Can Click # Button + To Read The Whole Disclaimer For This Website and My Other Website's Info. !
Disclaimer of Warranties and Liabilities: This site does not warrant the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, safety or merchantability of fitness for a particular purpose of the information contained in This site nor in any way endorse the individuals or institutions listed in This site.
In No Event Shall Westlawbooks.com, or Any Other Web Address Etc. or Domain from Westlaw Books or its staff, its sponsors, its contributors or its ISP be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, direct, special, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages, or damages for lost profits, loss of money or revenue, or loss of use, arising out of or related to the westlawbooks.com or Any Other Web Address or Domain from Westlaw Books or my other internet Web Site or the information contained in it, whether such damages arise in contract, negligence, tort, under statute, in equity, at law or otherwise.
If you have a Complaint About Westlaw Books Dot Com or My Other Domain's ? Content of this Website, how about telling the webmaster first? You can Contact the Webmaster In Writing At P. O. Box 18010 Spokane, WA. 99228-0010 U.S.A.
Disclaimer: + This is A Disclaimer from the Owner of this Website + Please Read ! + Nothing Here Is To Be Construed As "Legal Advice". We Are Not Lawyers, And We Are Not Pretending To Be Lawyers. This manual and website and information is intended purely as a communication of information in accordance with the right of free speech. It does not constitute either general or specific legal advice. Anyone who is seeking any legal advice should consult a competent professional.
The following is provided for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. Westlaw Books is not engaged in rendering legal or other Info. & professional advice, and this form is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney.
Permission to quote statements we make and use our graphics is hereby granted without obtaining permission. We do Not copyright our quotes or graphics we create, which we Want to be widely dissembled to further the cause of Liberty and Justice for your Families and For All Families. If you use our materials, we certainly would appreciate being informed. Thank you ! Disclaimer and Fair Use Pages For Westlaw Books + See Full Disclaimer Page + Its Five 5 Button Down From The Top Of This Website + You Can Click # Button + To Read The Whole Disclaimer For This Website and My Other Website's Info. !