'ada.complaint@usdoj.gov'; 'Hannity@foxnews.com';
'oreilly@foxnews.com'; 'world@msnbc.com'; '2020@abc.com'; 'nightly@nbc.com';
'newsroom@detnews.com'; 'james.rosen@foxnews.com'; 'nightline@abcnews.com';
'bullsandbears@foxnews.com'; 'rbc@cbsnews.com'; 'msnbcinvestigates@msnbc.com';
'special@foxnews.com'; 'jloven@ap.org'; '60m@cbsnews.com'; 'mtp@nbc.com';
'viewerservices@foxnews.com'; 'heartland@foxnews.com'; 'npickler@ap.org'; 'miag@michigan.gov';
'opinion@thewire.ap.org'; 'beltway@foxnews.com'; 'Lesterholt@msnbc.com';
'foxreport@foxnews.com'; 'Colmes@foxnews.com'; 'jim.angle@foxnews.com';
'afterhours@foxnews.com'; 'lprosecutors@co.livingston.mi.us';
'jtrippi@msnbc.com'; 'rick.snyder@michigan.gov'; 'norville@msnbc.com';
'wendell.goler@foxnews.com'; 'lester.holt@msnbc.com'; 'feedback@foxnews.com';
'forbes@foxnews.com'; 'friends@foxnews.com'; 'molly.henneberg@foxnews.com';
'cash@foxnews.com'; 'atlarge@foxnews.com'; 'ftn@cbsnews.com'; 'major.garrett@foxnews.com';
'foxnews.comcomments@foxnews.com'; 'countdown@msnbc.com'; 'robert.kur@nbc.com';
'sundays@cbsnews.com'; 'warstories@foxnews.com'; 'earlyshow@cbs.com';
'brit.hume@foxnews.com'; 'dennis.sullivan@msnbc.com'; 'lmargasak@ap.org'; 'cavuto@foxnews.com';
'foxmagazine@foxnews.com'; 'pma@cbsnews.com'; 'thunt@ap.org';
'ontherecord@foxnews.com'; 'today@nbc.com'; 'evening@cbsnews.com';
'newswatch@foxnews.com'; 'dshuster@msnbc.com'; 'nightline@abc.com';
'60II@cbsnews.com'; '48hours@cbsnews.com'; 'mkx@cbsnews.com';
'efm@cbsnews.com'; 'feedback@msnbc.com'; 'msilverman@ap.org';
'dayside@foxnews.com'; 'bpc@cbsnews.com'; 'pr@ap.org'; 'kcarroll@ap.org';
'joe@msnbc.com'; 'hardball@msnbc.com'; 'rreagan@msnbc.com';
'studiob@foxnews.com'; 'imus@msnbc.com'; 'sjohnson@ap.org';
'brian.wilson@foxnews.com'; 'fns@foxnews.com'; 'abramsreport@msnbc.com';
'rfournier@ap.org
Attention: R. Jones of ABC NEWS DETROIT, MICHIGAN:
The Court of public opinion
Lyons and his companies was started in 1978: From 1978 to 2000 Lyons never had any complaints filed against him personally or his companies.
Not until
Ronald and Virginia Storzbach making a fraudulent complaints to steal money
from George Lyons and his company.
The Storzbach's then recruits other past clients and one developer Gerald Jarvis so they could also steal money and work that was performed by George Lyons and his companies.
The Storzbach's then recruits other past clients and one developer Gerald Jarvis so they could also steal money and work that was performed by George Lyons and his companies.
"Lyons had his builders and Residential Brokers License and it was illegally revoke in 2000."
Per Attorney General Statements: The action we do take will be based in part on our experience, information and knowledge of and about the person complained against.
These
past clients stole over $770,000.00 of money and work performed from
George Edward Lyons and his company. Lyons Builders Inc. By not paying money
back to Lyons for money Lyons personally used to construct their homes. This
was accomplished by ex-wife illegally removing Lyons from his marital home.
And informing Lyons that she thru everything of his including evidence
against these past clients. This evidence was recovered in 2007.
Now
fearing that ex-wife would lose the equity of $800,000.00 in the marital home
Patricia Ann Lyons. Directed by her attorney Brian Lavan to illegally remove
George Lyons from the marital home. The same attorney Brian Lavan who
committed a fraudulent forfeiture on 210 S. East Street, Brighton, Michigan. A
commercial property that George Lyons did purchase from Attorney Brian Lavan
for $250,000.00.
Because
of the illegally actions of Brian Lavan throughout lawsuits. Lavan would go
behind the George Lyons back. To make sure George Lyons could not acquire
funds to go after Attorney Brian Lavan and his illegal actions on false
forfeiture on 210 S. East Street, Brighton, Michigan.
People Brian Lavan used to make
fraudulent actions against George Lyons and his company:
Friend of the Court Gerald Eidt
Social services Richard Zipper
Court Receiver Attorney Dale Cooper
And other to be presented in the
future. To these facts George Lyons has time dated audio tapes of these people
to support his allegations against the above people.
Prior to Attorney Brian Lavan
representing Patricia Ann Lyons. Lavan and his employee Gerald Eidt
now working for the Friend of the Court. Represented George Lyons and his
companies. On to different cases (Lawsuits)
And Brian Lavan and Karen Lavan sold
210 S. East Street, Brighton Michigan for $250,000.00 to George Lyons Company.
Both committed a fraudulent forfeiture against George Lyons who per audio
tapes. Made any and all payments to Brian Lavan and Karen Lavan.
Brain Lavan filed a fraudulent
forfeiture before his partner Judge Hegarty of Brighton, Michigan Livingston
County courts. Please review the Register of deeds which will show the
partnership of Hegarty and Lavan over 8 pages of Lavan and Hegarty in
partnerships in purchasing properties.
George Lyons file over 12 motions to
remove Brian Lavan and Gerald Eidt from representing Patricia Ann Lyons. For
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. ALL MOTIONS WERE DENIED.
See audio tapes of ex-wife omitting
that her attorney Brian Lavan told her to illegally remove Lyons from the
marital home. To protect the $800,000.00 equity in the home.
The same Attorney Brian Lavan who work
for George Lyons and his company. The same Attorney Brian Lavan that sold to
George Lyons a commercial property at 210 S. East Street, Brighton, Michigan
for $250,000.00 on a Land Contract.
The same Attorney Brian Lavan who work
for George Lyons and his company on two cases.
Prior to be employed by ex-wife. The same Attorney Brian Lavan that sold
to George Lyons a commercial property at 210 S. East Street, Brighton, Michigan
for $250,000.00 on a Land Contract. See TIME DATED AUDIO TAPES.
THE START OF 39 EMERGENCY MOTIONS OF
DISQUALIFICATION OF LIVINGSTON COUNTY JUDGES.
210 S.
East Street, Brighton, Michigan 48104
The
same Attorney Brian Lavan that illegally remove Lyons from the commercial
property by making a false forfeiture with his partner Judge Hegarty of the
Brighton, Livingston County.
Per audio tapes Brian Lavan omitted
that he did in fact committed an illegal act to acquire 210 S. East Street.
Also per the same audio tape Brian Lavan wanted Lyons make a false complaint to
The State of Michigan Consumer & Industrial Services against Realtor
Richard Baker of the Baker Team. So he didn't have to pay a commission to
Richard Baker for the second sell of 210 S. East Street, Brighton, Michigan.
That Richard Baker sold the property for cash. So Lavan could purchase a
foreclosed property 8550 Grand River, Brighton, Michigan. Please review these
audio tapes and Lavan criminal acts. The action of Lavan cost the loss of 210
S. East Street, Brighton, Michigan. And $20,000.00+ worth of bring the property
up to code. And money George Lyons and his company invested into the property.
8550
Grand River Road, Brighton, Michigan 48114
Experience: of George Lyons acquire Residential Builders license in 1978. Which was wrongfully and criminally removed by the Consumer & Industrial services in 2001. George Edward Lyons Built many residential homes and subdivisions.
George
Lyons acquire Residential Real Estate license in 1976 to 2001 25 years and
Residential Brokers License in 1978 to 2001 for 23 years. Residential Builders
License 1978 to 2001 for 23 years. Of which was wrongfully and criminally removed by
the Consumer & Industrial services in 2001. George Lyons owned and operated
5 Real Estate offices. 1 office in Ann Arbor, 2 offices in Brighton, 1 in
office in Dexter and finally 1 office in Pinckney, Michigan.
On both licenses George Lyons recovered evidence that was previously presented to Consumer & Industrial service enforcement division. Proving the illegal acts of
Director
Al Shefkey
Auditor
Nicholas Myers
Director
James Montgomery
And
others
And
other in these state offices. Of CONSUMER AND INDUSTRIAL SERVICES /Enforcement
Division. Having full Knowledge and
evidence prior to any judgment of their Courts of Consumer & Industrial
Services that George Lyons and his company did no violations of the false and
fraudulent complaints of these past clients. Time Dated audio tapes with these
above employees of Consumer & Industrial services. Having this evidence the
employee’s proceeded in filing fraudulent ruling and reports to the Consumer
& Industrial service court.
The
past clients having these fraudulent reports. Use to make fraudulent lawsuits
against George Lyons and his company. Please review the Time dated audio tapes.
The State of Michigan Consumer
& Industrial Services enforcement division. Now called LARA-LICENCING
AND REGULATIONS
in 2014. With this evidence George Lyons tried to open a meeting with Consumer & Industrial Service Director of Consumer & Industrial services enforcement division Al Shefkey who worked for Consumer & Industrial enforcement division. Administrative Assistant Director Al Shefkey and the re-showing of this evidence. This evidence along with audio tapes which are time dated of Director Al Shefkey of Consumer & Industrial services and Auditor Nickolas Myers and others having full information that George Lyons was totally innocence of any and all complaints that was filed by past clients. Auditor Nickolas Myers states on time dated audio tapes.
in 2014. With this evidence George Lyons tried to open a meeting with Consumer & Industrial Service Director of Consumer & Industrial services enforcement division Al Shefkey who worked for Consumer & Industrial enforcement division. Administrative Assistant Director Al Shefkey and the re-showing of this evidence. This evidence along with audio tapes which are time dated of Director Al Shefkey of Consumer & Industrial services and Auditor Nickolas Myers and others having full information that George Lyons was totally innocence of any and all complaints that was filed by past clients. Auditor Nickolas Myers states on time dated audio tapes.
That George Lyons and his companies did
no violations against these past clients.
These past clients in fact were making COMPLETE fraudulent statements prior to the judge’s rulings. These audio tapes were played to now Director Al Shefkey and other employee’s.
These past clients in fact were making COMPLETE fraudulent statements prior to the judge’s rulings. These audio tapes were played to now Director Al Shefkey and other employee’s.
While
playing the audio tapes George Lyons also audio taped Director Al Shefkey and
others listening to these audio tapes and there comments. THAT these
representatives of Consumer & Industrial service enforcement division comments stated these past clients were
stealing and trying to destroy George Lyons and his companies. See all of these
time dated audio tapes. But they still support the past clients false
complaints. Is it because of Ronald
Storzbach’s being a police officer.
These issues and many more should come forth to protect License Residential Real Estate Agents, and License Residential Builders. Even if you overwhelming prove your innocence and you have the people on Time dated audio tapes.
I BELIEVE THEY WERE PROTECTING 2 ATTORNEY’S WHO COMMITTED EXTORTION AND EMBEZZLEMENT AGAINST GEORGE LYONS AND HIS COMPANIES. ONE OF THESE ATTORNEY’S IS NOW A JUDGE. SEE AUDIO TAPES. 2
These issues and many more should come forth to protect License Residential Real Estate Agents, and License Residential Builders. Even if you overwhelming prove your innocence and you have the people on Time dated audio tapes.
I BELIEVE THEY WERE PROTECTING 2 ATTORNEY’S WHO COMMITTED EXTORTION AND EMBEZZLEMENT AGAINST GEORGE LYONS AND HIS COMPANIES. ONE OF THESE ATTORNEY’S IS NOW A JUDGE. SEE AUDIO TAPES. 2
Judge Hegarty
Judge DelveroJudge Burress
Judge Stanley Latreille
Judge Reader
Judge Reck
Throughout all cases George Lyons was refused to speak in court by the Judges. This is support by court transcripts. Couple of the cases Judge Stanley Latreille told George Lyons to seat down and shut-up. And ruling in the other attorney. George Lyons gave overwhelming evidence and transcripts of the time dated audio tapes. But the court refused to acknowledge this evidence and the transcripts. Denying George Lyons his constitutional rights.
And please all private citizens review all this evidence. And don't get yourself in this possession. Call the Federal Government and ask them to review these criminal acts of attorney's Prosecutors Attorney's Friend of the Court Gerald Eidt and most of all the people you voted in the Livingston County Judge's. I could not place pictures on this blog. Just email me and I will send you pictures that fully shown on this documents. stgeorge7157@yahoo.com.
Also review the register of deeds on property search and search for Brian Lavan and Michael Hegarty. And ask yourself why didn't Hegarty recuse himself because his relationship with Brian Lavan.
There are more
The Consumer & Industrial Services enforcement division will file false auditor reports. Even when they know the truth prior to any judgments. These issues should come out of the shadows and light expose on many issues of criminal acts against me, and my Residential Real Estate License, and Residential Builders License. Which I received my Residential Real Estate License in 1976 and my Builders in 1978. There was no complaints file against these licenses until the criminal act of these past clients. These past clients would use these fraudulent complaints judgments in the Livingston County courts. Where the Livingston County courts would only listen to the fraudulent judgments of Consumer & Industrial service. By doing this in 1997 these past clients stole $770,000.00 from me and my company. George Lyons income for 1997 was to be $ 1, 250,000.00 (One million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars. Lost because of these people and past clients and others. That will be expose. Along with the State of Michigan Consumer & Industrial service and the Livingston County courts and others.
PAST
CLIENTS WHO JOIN TOGETHER TO STEAL MONEY AND WORK FROM GEORGE LYONS AND HIS
COMPANIES. CAUSING GEORGE LYONS IN FACING INDIGENTCY. TO STOP GEORGE LYONS FROM HAVING MONEY FOR
ATTORNEY TO FIGHT THE CRIMINAL ACTS OF THESE PAST CLIENTS.
RONALD
AND VIRGINIA STORZBACH-G.M. ENGINEER AND WORK FOR HAMBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE PEOPLE THAT STARTED THESE FALSE AND
FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS. AND ALL MADE FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS TO THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN CONSUMER & INDUSTRIAL SERVICE.
SEE TIME DATED AUDIO TAPES. STATING THAT THESE PEOPLE WERE MAKING
FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS TO STEAL MONEY FROM GEORGE LYONS AND HIS COMPANY. AND
WERE OUT TO DESTROY GEORGE LYONS AND HIS COMPANIES.
RONALD AND VIRGINIA STORZBACH
JAMES AND BETTY STEEBER
CURT AND MARY ANN LALONDE
GERALD JAVIS – DEVELOPER OF PARTRIDGE POINTE, BRIGHTON, MICHIGAN
CORRUPTED
ATTORNEYS: I AM CALLING OUT THESE ATTORNEY’S TO PROVE ME WRONG. AFTER THEY
REVIEW THEIR TIME DATED AUDIO TAPES.
ATTORNEY BRIAN LAVAN
ATTORNEY
GERALD EIDT
JUDITH THOMPSON
ATTORNEY
DALE COOPER: COMMITTED EXTORTION AND MAKING FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS TO THE
COURTS. AND TO THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE.
ATTORNEY
RICHARD COLIN NOW JUDGE FOR WASHTENAW COUNTY COURTS. RESIDING IN CHELSEA MICHIGAN.
COMMITTED EXTORTION.
ATTORNEY
MAX SPICKARD
ATTORNEY
CHARLES WIDMAIER
ATTORNEY
DOUGLAS CAMERON
PROSCUTOR’S
ATTORNEY
DAN GERBER AND THREE OTHER PROSCUTOR’S ATTOREY’S. THAT WERE SHOWN
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AND WERE TIME DATED AUDIO TAPED. AND COVERED UP THIS
EVIDENCE. THESE TAPES CAN PROVE GEORGE
LYONS ALLEGATIONS. AND HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHOW YOUR EVIDENCE AND THE
PROSCUTOR OFFICE REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT BEFORE THE JUDGE. PRIOR TO THE JUDGMENT.
George Lyons filed over 20+ police reports against past clients, and Patricia Lyons, Karl and Marian Kopp, Curt and Mary Ann Lalonde, and others with State of Michigan Police, Livingston County Sheriff, Hamburg Police, Pinckney Police, all interviews were time dated audio taped.
All policing agencies stated that Dan Gerber refused to proceed on any and all filings. Overwhelming evidence and audio tapes were presented. Proving George Lyons allegations. Still Dan Gerber refused. There is more against Gerber.
George Lyons filed over 20+ police reports against past clients, and Patricia Lyons, Karl and Marian Kopp, Curt and Mary Ann Lalonde, and others with State of Michigan Police, Livingston County Sheriff, Hamburg Police, Pinckney Police, all interviews were time dated audio taped.
All policing agencies stated that Dan Gerber refused to proceed on any and all filings. Overwhelming evidence and audio tapes were presented. Proving George Lyons allegations. Still Dan Gerber refused. There is more against Gerber.
BY EXPOSING THESE PEOPLE. TO THE LICENSE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND TO LICENSE BUILDERS THROUGH THE NEWS MEDIA.
HOPEFULLY THESE ACTIONS OF LYONS WILL PROTECT THE REALTORS AND BUILDERS AND THE CITIZENS OF LIVINGSTON COUNTY.
BECAUSE THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU TO. THIS HAPPEN TO ME. SO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. Now why didn’t I come forth about these issues: Ex-wife thinking and fearing these past clients would steal or martial home equity by making fraudulent lawsuits that was acquire with fraudulent judgments from Consumer & Industrial services.
In 1998 Ex-wife illegally removes George Lyons from the martial homes through the advice of her attorney. So none of these past clients could attach the equity in the home. And when George Lyons went back to retrieve his evidence and property Ex-wife stated to George Lyons that she throughout everything of George Lyons out of the marital home. She and others tried to destroy any and all evidence and personal property? Including time dated audio tapes.
In 2007. I was informed by C & C dumpster company, Howell, Mi. A company that I used in constructing homes. "The worker stated: George who going to pay for this dumpster you or Patti (ex-wife). I informed the person what I was going thru. He stated George I have the largest dumpster here. And everything in the dumpster has your name on it. He then stated the dumpster and the contents in the dumpster becomes his property. Now George what driveway do you what me to drop the dumpster at.
I recovered all evidence. Including time date audio tapes. Evidence that was presented to Consumer & Industrial services enforcement division employees along with time dated audio tapes.
I am presently going to the news media in the very near future: With the following sandwich board signs. Because If I can’t get fair justice or trial in the Livingston County court system because of their and attorney’s criminal acts. 3
I will try my best to protect both State of Michigan License Real Estate agents and Residential Builders. And Expose these issues. To the public.
I have recently lien 4 properties: For $21,000,000.00
1. 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan
2. Lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Michigan
3. 5640 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan
4. 4849 Gallagher, Whitmore Lake, Michigan.
These register documents can be reviewed through the Livingston County Register of Deeds. 4
SANDWICH BOARD TO BE WORN BY GEORGE LYONS
ATTENTION
NEWS MEDIA
THE LIVINGSTON COUNTY COURTS SYSTEM IS CORRUPTED
39 EMERGENCY MOTIONS FOR JUDGE’S DISQUALIFICATION
FOR BIASNESS. PLUS ALL JUDGE’S WERE CALLED AS MATERIAL WITNESSES
ALL REFUSED THESE MOTIONS ILLEGALLY.
THERE IS MUCH MORE CORRUPTION…
I HAVE THE EVIDENCE
LOOKING FOR INTERVIEWS
GEORGE LYONS
734-330-1004
http://findingjusticeforpeople.blogspot.com 5
CORRUPTED ATTORNEY’S
CORRUPTED PROSCUTOR ATTORNEY’S
CORRUPTED POLICE AGENCY’S
CORRUPTED
STATE OF MICHIGAN
CONSUMER & INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
CORRUPTED FRIEND OF THE COURTS OF LIVINGSTON
COUNTY
THIS IS A GOOD OLD BOY’S CLUB
STARTED WITH A CLIENT WHO
WAS WORKING FOR HAMBURG TOWNSHIP POLICE
WHO REFUSED TO HAVE BLACK’S BUILD IN A SUBDIVISION
IN BRIGHTON, MICHIGAN
ALL ITEMS ARE ON AUDIO TAPES TIME DATED
I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET A FAIR TRIAL.
I CHALLENGE YOU NEWS MEDIA TRY TO FIND ME IN MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS…
IF THIS CAN HAPPEN TO ME IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU…
STOP AND EXPOSE THE CORRUPTION
THIS 2 PAGE DOCUMENT IS GOING ON A SANDWICH BOARD 6
NOW THESE PEOPLE TRIED TO USE THIS STATEMENTS THAT THE CONSUMER & INDUSTRIAL SERVICES ENFORCEMENT AND USED THIS FALSE STATEMENTS TO DE-FAME ME. By definition of harm somebody's reputation: to attack somebody or somebody's reputation, character, or good name by making slanderous or libelous statements.
THE COST OF THE COVER-UP OF THE FALSE STATEMENTS OF CONSUMER & INDUSTRY SERVICES ENFORCEMENT DIVISION ENFORCEMENT DIVISION. JUST ONE THING IS $ 21,000,000.00+ (Twenty One Million plus) FOR 2014 LOST OF INCOME. THERE IS A LOT MORE.
AGAIN CONSUMER & INDUSTRIAL SERVICES ENFORECEMENT DIVISION HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT GEORGE LYONS WAS TOTALLY INOCENCE OF ANY CHARGES PER CONSUMER & INDUSTRY SERVICES ENFORCEMENT DIVISION. PRIOR TO ANY JUDGMENTS FROM CONSUMER & INDUSTRIAL SERVICES.
Respectfully submitted
George Lyons
6180 Academy Drive Suite 4
Brighton, Michigan 48116
734-330-1004
[x] I certify that the information in these documents is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
[x]I consent to releasing to the Michigan Attorney General any information or documents relative to the investigation of this complaint. 7
Prior to the Emergency Motions of the Judge’s being disqualified for biasness
All judges were also were call as material witnesses. 8 9 10
RECOVERED EVIDENCE THAT WAS HIDDEN FROM GEORGE LYONS
THERE ARE MORE PICTURES. 11
The following document is a copy that I could not scan the original because having no scanner. I have 38 more Emergency Motions for Disqualification of Judges for biasness. Who were also called as Material Witnesses? And more.
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY) 210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843 (517-546-9816)
State of Michigan court administrator For assignment of case to another judge GEORGE EDWARD LYONS HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE P.O.BOX 226 Case no. 06-021758-CZ PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 Case no. 04-020652-CF-B 734-657-1679 Case no. 04-20684-CK
PLAINTIFF -V- RONALD STORZBACH AND VIRGINIA STORZBACH H/W 7709 PARTRIDGE HILL, Brighton, Michigan 48116 Moved to: 912 Sand wedge Court Bowling Green, KY 42103-2508
UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS
Richard Friberg and Ann Friberg H/W 5640 Shoshoni Pass Pinckney, Michigan 48169 540-823-3271 Moved to: 19385 Briar Patch Drive Gordonville, Va. 22942-7564
DEFENDANTS David Feeback and Carrie Feeback H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ 10932 Whitewood Attorney for Defendants Pinckney, Michigan 48169
NEAL D. NIELSEN DEFENDANTS 2000 Grand River Suite 200 12
Brighton, Michigan 48114
Curt Lalonde and Mary Ann Lalonde H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ 3100 Crystal Springs Lane
Aka 3100 Betty Lyons Lane Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-878-2278 Attorney for the Defendant’s Lalonde’s and attorney Charles Widmaier
Attorney Kenneth V. Zich
515 E. Grand River Avenue, Howell, Michigan. 48543 Karl Kopp and Marian Kopp H/W Case no. 04-020652-CF-B 4849 GALLAGHER WHITMORE LAKE, MI. 48139
810-231-3286
Attorney for the Defendants Kopp’s
Douglas Cameron DEFENDANTS 317 W. MAIN Street Brighton, Michigan 48116 IVO AND HEATHER MARCICH H/W Case no. 04-20684-CK 3155 Crystal Spring Lane,
Aka Betty Lyons Lane Pinckney, Michigan 48169
Charles Widmaier attorney for the
Defendant’s Marcich’s 734-878-1874 822 E. Grand River Brighton, M 48116
FOLLOWING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE PER MICHIGAN COURT RULES.
AND ATTORNEYS FILING FALSE SUMMARY DISPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REMOVAL ALL CLAIMS, AND ALL CASES ON STAY UNDER INVESTIGATION 13
OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN JUDICIAL TENURE INVESTIGATION AND OTHER INVESTIGATOR’S
NOW COMES PLAINTIFF GEORGE EDWARD LYONS, States that Honorable Judge Stanley Latreille did not follow court procedures or guidelines of the MCR. 2.003. ALTERNATIVE, IF THIS MOTION IS DENIED, Plaintiff respectfully demands; A. That this motion be referred and transferred the 44th Circuit Court Chief Judge and if there is not a Chief Judge these cases be re-open and all judgments be removed and Sent to the State of Michigan Administer office for a de nova hearing and /or other or further proceedings MCR. 2003 et seq., B. That this Honorable Court to set aside any and all judgments and refrain from taking any further actions on this case during the pendency of said disqualification proceedings, as required under MCR 2.003 et seq., and C.
That this Court refrain from taking any further action on this case during the tendency of said disqualification proceedings, except those ministerial action necessary to comply with applicable statutes, court rules and case law. D. Honorable Judge Stanley Latreille did not follow these procedures. Plaintiff demands that these procedures be followed per the MCR. 2.003 And must be followed. Procedure: Proper procedure for handling a motion to disqualify is well established and was recently summarized in Czuprynski v Bay 1 2 follows: "The procedure for disqualification of a trial judge . . . which was formerly provided by statute is now provided by court rule. MCR 2.003 generally, that procedure is exclusive and must be followed. "10/31. As per and if the above would follow under conflict of Interest, and are not used as witnesses in this case and others cases that are being filed in the near future. The July 10, 1995 amendments of MCR 2.003, and Rules 3A, 3D, 6C, and 7B of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, and new MCR 9.227 and Rule 7D of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, are based on the proposed revision of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct submitted by the State Bar Representative Assembly. See 442 Mich 1216 (1993).
They are effective September 1, 1995. (3) Ruling. The challenged judge shall decide the motion. If the challenged judge denies the motion, (a) In a court having two or more judges, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the chief judge, who shall decide the motion de novo; (b) In a single-judge court, or if the challenged judge is the chief judge, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the state court administrator for assignment to another judge, who shall decide the motion de novo. ALTERNATIVE, IF THIS MOTION IS DENIED, Plaintiff respectfully demands; 14
1.That this motion be referred and transferred the 44th Circuit Court Chief Judge for a de nova hearing and /or other or further proceedings MCR. 2003 et seq 2.That this Honorable Court Chief judge to set aside any and all judgments and refrain from taking any further actions on this case during the pendency of said disqualification proceedings, as required under MCR 2.003 et seq., and 3. That this Court refrain from taking any further action on this case during the tendency of said disqualification proceedings, except those ministerial action necessary to comply with applicable statutes, court rules and case law.
Plaintiff George E. Lyons made this motion and says: 1. Within the past (14) days, Plaintiff has become aware of facts giving Rise to disqualification in all lawsuits and therefore this motion has been brought in a proper, timely manner under MCR 2.003 et seq. 2.
This Honorable Court and other legal representatives cannot impartially hear any matter involving this case because: 3. that his Honor Stanley Latreille is being called as a witness in this case. 4.
Also being called as witness is Attorney Charles Widmaier, Neil Neilson, Douglas Cameron, and there companies. a. This Court and other legal representatives is biased or prejudiced for or against either or both of the parties to this action, and biased in favor of past/present Defendant’s. Defendant’s attorney, which is disqualifying under MCR 2.003(B) (2); b. This Honorable Court and other legal representatives are disqualified by law for numerous other reasons under the provisions of MCR 2.003(B) (7). 1.
That this Honorable Court and other legal representatives and all other Livingston County judicial or Circuit officers and court personnel should be disqualified from acting upon, hearing, deciding or otherwise participating in any further disposition of this case in any manner, except to disqualify as requested; as required by MCR 2.003(B) (2) and to disqualify as requested; as required by MCR 2.003 (B) (2) and or MCR 2.003 (B) (7), the grounds for which are stated herein are stated herein and in the attached affidavit. 2. That per Plaintiff Witness List the following is included. 5.
Charles Widmaier (P-38376) Material Witness Live Attorney for the Defendants confirm audio 822 E. Grand River Avenue Brighton, Michigan (810-229-9340) ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS 15
6. Employees of Harris & Literski Material Witness Live 317 E. Grand River confirm audio Brighton, Michigan 48116 9.
All Judges’ of Livingston County are called as Material Witness Live Court system District / Circuit confirm audios and all employees’ Honorable Judge Burress Material witness Live 58. Honorable Judge Hegarty Material witness Live 59. Honorable Judge Latreille Material witness Live 60. Honorable Judge Reader Material witness Live 61. Honorable Judge Delvero Material witness Live 62. Honorable Judge Reck Material witness Live 63. Honorable Judge Pickeranin Material witnesses live all employees of Livingston Material witness Live in the County.
FOOTNOTE: THE ABOVE WERE ALSO CALL AS MATERIAL WITNESS IN THE 38 EMERGENCEY MOTIONS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE’S FOR BIASNESS. 64. Magistrate Brown Material witness Live And if the above would follow under conflict of Interest, and are not used as witnesses in this case and others cases that are being filed in the near future.
The July 10, 1995 amendments of MCR 2.003, and Rules 3A, 3D, 6C, and 7B of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, and new MCR 9.227 and Rule 7D of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, are based on the proposed revision of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct submitted by the State Bar Representative Assembly. See 442 Mich 1216 (1993).
They are effective September 1, 1995. (3) Ruling. The challenged judge shall decide the motion. If the challenged judge denies the motion, (a) In a court having two or more judges, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the chief judge, who shall decide the motion de novo; (b) In a single-judge court, or if the challenged judge is the chief judge, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the state court administrator for assignment to another judge, who shall decide the motion de novo. 16
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request: A. that this motion be granted; and, B. that this matter be thereafter transferred to the State Court Administrator’s office for reassignment to wherefore another circuit as required by MCR 2.003 et seq.
RELIEF ALTERNATIVE, THIS WAS MOTION IS DENIED, Plaintiff respectfully demands; That this motion be referred and transferred the 44th Circuit Court Chief Judge for a de nova hearing and /or other or further proceedings MCR. 2003 et seq., That this Honorable Court to set aside any and all judgments and refrain from taking any further actions on this case during the pendency of said disqualification proceedings, as required under MCR 2.003 et seq., and That this Court refrain from taking any further action on this case during the tendency of said disqualification proceedings, except those ministerial action necessary to comply with applicable statutes, court rules and case law.
Procedure: Proper procedure for handling a motion to disqualify is well established and was recently summarized in Czuprynski v Bay 1 2 follows: "The procedure for disqualification of a trial judge . . . which was formerly provided by statute is now provided by court rule. MCR 2.003 generally, that procedure is exclusive and must be followed. "10/31.: MCR 2.003 provides that a party or attorney seeking disqualification must file a written motion supported by an affidavit of facts and including all know grounds for disqualification.
The Judge complained of then holds a hearing and decides the motion. The motion was denied, and then the plaintiff is NOW referring the motion to the chief judge who must decide the motion or submit this to the State of Michigan administrator Office for a de novo on the record 32/33.
This motion is being request by the Plaintiff and per MCR 2.003 be followed. And placed before the Chief Judge and "The procedure for disqualification of a trial judge . . . which was formerly provided by statute is now provided by court rule. MCR 2.003 generally, that procedure is exclusive and must be followed. "10/31.: Respectfully submitted this January 31st, 2007 17
By: __________________________________ George E. Lyons, Plaintiff P.O. Box 226 Pinckney, Michigan 48169 734-657-1679 18
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY) 210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843 (517-546-9816)
State of Michigan court administrator For assignment of case to another judge GEORGE EDWARD LYONS HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE Latreille P.O.BOX 226 Case no.06-021758-CZ PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 Case no. 04-020652-CF-B 734-657-1679 Case no. 04-20684-CK
PLAINTIFF -V- RONALD STORZBACH AND VIRGINIA STORZBACH H/W 7709 PARTRIDGE HILL, Brighton, Michigan 48116 Moved to: 912 Sand wedge Court Bowling Green, KY 42103-2508 UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS Richard Friberg and Ann Friberg H/W 5640 Shoshoni Pass Pinckney, Michigan 48169 540-823-3271 Moved to: 19385 Briar Patch Drive Gordonville, Va. 22942-7564
DEFENDANTS David Feeback and Carrie Feeback H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ 10932 Whitewood Attorney for Defendants Pinckney, Michigan 48169 NEAL D. NIELSEN DEFENDANTS 2000 Grand River Suite 200 Brighton, Michigan 48114 Curt Lalonde and Mary Ann Lalonde H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ 3100 Crystal Springs Lane aka 3100 Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants Attorney Charles Widmaier 19
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Attorney Kenneth V. Zichi 734-878-2278 DEFENDANTS 515 E. Grand River Avenue, Howell, Michigan. 48543
Karl Kopp and Marian Kopp H/W Case no. 04-020652-CF-B 4849 GALLAGHER Attorney for Defendants WHITMORE LAKE, MI. 48139
Douglas Cameron 810-231-3286 DEFENDANTS 317 W. MAIN Street Brighton, Michigan 48116 IVO AND HEATHER MARCICH H/W Case no. 04-20684-CK 3155 Crystal Spring Lane, aka Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Charles Widmaier 734-878-1874 DEFENDANTS 822 E. Grand River, Brighton, Mi.48116
AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REMOVAL OF ALL CLAIMS OF THE DEFENDANT’S, AND PLACING THESE CASES ON STAY UNDER INVESTIGATION OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN JUDICIAL TENURE INVESTIGATION.
Plaintiff George E. Lyons, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that the following facts are true to the best of his personal knowledge; or are based on information and belief, and as to those he believes them to be true; and if sworn as a witness in this matter he would competently testify and produce other evidence to conclusively prove as follows:
1. HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE, and other legal representatives, and on information and belief, has numerous personal contacts and acquaintances among all of Livingston County judges, court clerks, other court employees and personnel.
2. HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE, and other legal representatives, these allegations beginning many years ago, became directly, indirectly, regularly and routinely involved and enmeshed with all Livingston County and Washtenaw judges and other court personnel in numerous legal, political, fraternal and social organizations.
Structures and activities; all of which on information and belief, has provided and continues to provide numerous opportunities for judicial and extra-judicial ex-parte contacts with Livingston County and Washtenaw judicial officers and other court personnel. 3.
Plaintiff believes that the HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE and other legal representatives, acting herein, has and will actively use his/ and their long-time positions, influence, access to judges and access to court records: to make ex-parte contacts with members of the Livingston County bench and /or their employees in attempts to create bias in defendant’s favor; to 20
surreptitiously remove materials from court records to which Plaintiff is a party; and to otherwise deprive Plaintiff of his rights to due process in this case in any manner possible. 4. On information and belief,
HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE and Other legal representatives, for past clients has already used his status and connections to misinform and intimidate potential attorneys for defendants in this case and thereby effectively deprived Plaintiff of legal representation herein. 5. Plaintiff believes that, from its inception, Defendant’s and other past clients has been given special considerations in the handling and treatment of the instant case by 44th Livingston county Circuit court and personnel, due to bias in favor of Defendant’s and their attorney.
6. HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE, and other legal representatives, herein is inextricably involved and enmeshed in numerous judicial and extra-judicial matters which include, in general, all Livingston County judicial and circuit officers and other court personnel.
7. All members of the Livingston Judicial and Circuit County bench would have a natural inclination or tendency, if sitting in judgment, to be biased in favor of Defendant’s and/or against Plaintiff due to the status and judicial connections of Defendant’s counsel and past attorney’s.
8. HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE and other legal representatives, has too many opportunities, and is of a mind, and has already undertaken, to improperly engage in ex-parte communications with Livingston County Judicial and Circuit court judges relative to this case; And the has repeatedly representation of Due to the circumstances and relationship existing between the HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE and other legal representatives, and all judicial and Circuit court officers in Livingston County; Plaintiff believes he cannot get a fair trial or hearing in this county.
9. Plaintiff has presented to this court, and other courts evidence to support the removal of this Case No’s. 06-021758-CZ, STORZBACH'S,FRIBERG'S,LALONDE’S AND FEEBACK’S 04-020652 KOPP’S AND 04-021106-CK Marcich’s to a de nova hearing to the State of Michigan Administration Hearing to be transfer to another circuit court.
10. Defendant George E. Lyons hereby swears under penalty of perjury that all facts stated in the forgoing Affidavit In Support of Emergency Motion for Disqualification and Denying Summary Disposition and court rulings of the Honorable Judge Stanley Latreille of the Defendants are true to the best of his personal knowledge or stated on information and belief, and as to those facts he believes them to be true.
By: _____________________________ 21
George E. Lyons, Plaintiff Subscribed and sworn to before me This_______day of ___________. 2007 Notary Public: ____________________________
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY) 210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843 (517-546-9816)
State of Michigan court administrator For assignment of case to another judge GEORGE EDWARD LYONS HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE P.O.BOX 226 Case no.06-021758-CZ
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 Case no 020652-CF-B 734-657-1679 Case no.04-20684-CK PLAINTIFF -V- RONALD STORZBACH AND VIRGINIA STORZBACH H/W 7709 PARTRIDGE HILL, Brighton, Michigan 48116 Moved to: 912 Sand wedge Court Bowling Green, KY 42103-2508
UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS Richard Friberg and Ann Friberg H/W 5640 Shoshoni Pass Pinckney, Michigan 48169 540-823-3271 Moved to: 19385 Briar Patch Drive Gordonville, Va. 22942-7564 DEFENDANTS David Feeback and Carrie Feeback H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ 10932 Whitewood Attorney for Defendants Pinckney, Michigan 48169 NEAL D. NIELSEN DEFENDANTS 2000 Grand River Suite 200 Brighton, Michigan 48114 Curt Lalonde and Mary Ann Lalonde H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ 3100 Crystal Springs Lane aka
3100 Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants Attorney Charles Widmaier Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Kenneth V. Zichi 734-878-2278 DEFENDANTS 515 E. Grand River Avenue, 22
Howell, Michigan. 48543
Karl Kopp and Marian Kopp H/W Case no. 04-020652-CF-B 4849 GALLAGHER Attorney for Defendants WHITMORE LAKE, MI. 48139 Douglas Cameron 810-231-3286 DEFENDANTS 317 W. MAIN Street Brighton, Michigan 48116 IVO AND HEATHER MARCICH H/W Case no. 04-20684-CK 3155 Crystal Spring Lane, aka Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Charles Widmaier 734-878-1874 DEFENDANTS 822 E. Grand River, Brighton, MI 48116
BRIEF MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE. DISQUALIFICATION LAW AND ARGUMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY DISPOSITION JUDGMENT AND 7 DAY NOTICE. AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REMOVAL OF ALL CLAIMS OF THE DEFENDANT’S. AND PLACING ALL CASES ON STAY UNTIL AFTER INVESTIGATION OF THE JUDICIAL TENURE INVESTIGATION OR OTHER INVESTGATOR’S FROM THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS ATTORNEYS FOR FILING FALSE SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS. DISQUALIFICATION LAW AND ARGUMENT
these underlying principles of disqualification law are well settled. What the Michigan Supreme Court said almost 125 years ago in Stockton v Township Board is and Peninsular Railway v Howard, it remains valid and binding today: "It Is among the First objects of civil government, to deprive persons of the power in adjudge finally for themselves, and conclusively assert their own causes; and so fundamental is this rule of justice, so essential to the order, peace, and even stability of government, that however broad the terms of a grant of judicial power may be, this principle remains operative, and gives rise to a tacit exception from the general words of the grant’s…The principle … asserts itself wherever judicial powers are employed by a body appointed by law…the rule is not confined to cases where the person is both judge and party.
The principle… applies to the elements and substance of the controversy, and in general, where the case is of such a nature as to make it necessary, in its course or final issue for the Trier to pass upon his own 23
implicated rights or interest, the rule attaches and unseats him. Subtle …
The court ought not to be astute to discover refined subtle distinctions to save a case from the operation of the maxim, when the principle it embodies bespeaks the propriety of its application. The immediate rights of the litigants are not the only object of the rule. A sound public policy, which is interested in preserving every tribunal appointed by law from discredit, imperiously demands its observance. "10 exactly what are the: implicated rights or interests"10 which will disqualify a judge? As was held in Stockton, supra, the can be found in the "elements and substance of the controversy:" what the Supreme Court almost a century later referred to as the "circumstances and relationships" of a case when it decided Glass v State Highway Commission, 23 citing the U.S. Supreme Court in Murchison. "A fair trial is fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.
Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this end no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome. That interest cannot be defined with precision. Circumstances and relationship must be considered.
This court has said, however, that every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge…not to hold the balance site, clear and true between the state and the accused, denies the latter due process of law, ’23 Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform it high function in the best way justice must satisfy the appearance of justice." 24 The Glass court said, "Such reasoning applies equally to Michigan’s assurance of due process." Therefore, virtually any "circumstances or relationship existing between a judge and a party litigant which would offer " possible temptation to an average" person " not to hold the balance nice, clear and true" between contending litigants denies due process of law and is interest enough to provide grounds for disqualification. "23"
We expect our judges to be human beings with normal human faults and shortcomings like the rest of us, not angles in robes. We realize there are some situations where it would be extremely difficult for any judge to remain neutral and impartial, the often-quoted opinion in Wayne County Prosecutor v. Doerfler 24 "Justice Cardozo has stated. " Deep below consciousness are other forces, the likes and dislikes, the predilections and the prejudices, the complex of instincts and emotions and habits and convictions which make the man, be he litigant or judge. "27 A judges are not expected to bring with him to the bench a blank mind and personality. As he becomes, by necessity, a composition of the general experiences of his life, refined and honed by his legal training and legal experience so that the desired judicial temperament will hopefully emerge. "28 to require a blank mind is unreasonable, but to demand an impartial and clear appraisal of each new case is not. A judge may well be subconsciously prejudiced in one way towards the evidence or the 24
parties in a case before him. It is his duty not to permit these prejudices to override his responsibilities in providing a fair forum for the determination of controversy. This duty should ideally motivate the judge to request reassignment of the case if he is aware of any prejudices which he holds which would interfere with his impartiality "29 Modern disqualification rules, grounded in public policy, exist as much for the good of the court as for the good of any litigant; and every judge has a duty to avoid even the appearance of bias, prejudice or partiality. Freely granting disqualification when justified and necessary to achieve that end.
As was said in Warren Schools v. MERC: 2 "The object of this rule…is more than guaranties that a legal dispute will be resolved objectively by unbiased and impartial persons. It is also a shield against any suspicion on the part of the litigants and the public that any subjectivity, bias and partiality contributed to the outcome of the dispute. The though behind such was best expressed by Justice Frankfurther in Baker v Carr 22:
The Court’s authority – possessed of neither the purse nor the sword – ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction. Such feeling must be nourished by the Court’s complete detachment, in fact and in appearance…" 22 The Michigan Supreme Court has adopted a rule stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Withrow:"4 judges and decision-makers should be disqualified without a showing of actual bias where "experience teaches that probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable, "4 Throughout the last century. Courts have slowly but surely broadened the measure by which a disqualification "threshold" can be reached, steadily relaxing the standards for it employment. While early decisions tended more toward requiring concrete evidence of bias such as direct financial or personal interest, there was a gradual movement toward requiring only an appearance of bias, now well-established; and, more recently, the trend is allowing a petitioner’s reasonable belief that bias exists to establish the appearance of bias, to wit:
In a 1981 decision, Pitoniak v Borman’s, 5 the court held: "A basic requirement of the constitutional right is due process is a hearing before a fair, unbiased and impartial decision-maker. 1/2/3/4/5 A party who challenges the impartiality of a judge need not show actual prejudice; it is one in which: experience teaches that the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. "4/5/6 then in 1982, the Michigan Court of Appeals held, in People v Lowenstein: 14"… (Some disqualification cases)… deal with how much of an allowance our courts will make for a judge’s inherent human failings. No human being (even a judge) is completely prejudice-free. But our judicial system requires judges. Therefore we make allowances.
Under normal circumstances, we will assume (absent evidence to the contrary) that the judge is free enough from bias to make a tolerably non-partisan Decision. For example, a judge will occasionally preside over a case involving a defendant who had earlier pleaded guilty to the offense.
Because this situation often enough arises and because the appearance of impropriety is not that high, we allow the trial judge to remain in charge of the case absent a showing of actual bias…A C However, we realize that some situations are just too dangerous. 25
Judges normally are not subjected to such special pressures and "under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies in human weaknesses, we find that the appearance of justice requires the judge to disqualify himself.
The test is not (just) whether or not actual bias or an appearance of bias that the judge was unable to hold the balance between vindicating the interests of the court and the interests of the accused. "17 In fact, even though a judge personally believes himself to be unprejudiced, unbiased and impartial, he should nevertheless certify disqualification where there are circumstances of such a nature to cause doubt as to his partiality, bias or prejudice. "18/6/2 (emphasis added) And circumstances of such a nature as to cause doubt can arise from the mind of a petitioner, as was held in1986 by the Florida Supreme Court, which arrived at the Michigan result by applying the same analysis from a different perspective, making several important points along the way as emphasized below: " … The facts alleged in a motion to disqualify need only show that the party making it has a well-grounded fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge. Judicial inquiry should focus on the reasonableness of the affiant’s belief that the judge.
Judicial inquiry should focus on the reasonableness of the affiant’s belief that the judge may be biased, and not the judge’s own perception of his or her ability to act fairly. … The sufficiency of the allegations depends upon whether he or she has successfully established the actual existence of prejudice.
The letter standard would render the motion for disqualification virtually futile and result in the sort of adversary proceeding between judge and petitioner that create bias or the appearance thereof even where none had existed before. "33 (emphasis added) And further to that: "Generally, disqualification of a judge from action in a proceeding in which he is not wholly free, disinterested and independent is intended not merely for the benefit of the parties to the suit, who are entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, but for the general interests of justice, by preserving the purity and impartiality of the courts, and the respect and confidence of the people for their decisions.
Moreover, judicial tribunals must not only be, but appear to be impartial, so that where circumstances are such as to create in the mind of a reasonable man a suspicion of bias, disqualification may be warranted although there is no proof of actual bias. "36 (emphasis added) No matter where the evolution of disqualification theory may lead, the eternal catch -22 of disqualification law will always follow: upon any request for disqualification, if there exists even a reasonable suspicion of the presence of bias, prejudice or partiality 26
any failure to grant the request tends to beg the question, lead to more suspicion and possibly create the evil otherwise truthfully denied and sought is be avoided. A truly independent non-biased judge considering such a situation should not care about retaining jurisdiction of any particular case; but instead rise above one’s self, respect a petitioner’s well-plead request and promptly proceed to remove all grounds for any suspicion of doubt, by granting
Disqualification.
Procedure: Proper procedure for handling a motion to disqualify is well established and was recently summarized in Czuprynski v Bay 1 2 follows:
"The procedure for disqualification of a trial judge . . . which was formerly provided by statute is now provided by court rule. MCR 2.003 generally, that procedure is exclusive and must be followed. "10/31.
: MCR 2.003 provides that a party or attorney seeking disqualification must file a written motion supported by an affidavit of facts and including all know grounds for disqualification.
The Judge complained of then holds a holds a hearing and decides the motion. If the motion is denied, then the party or attorney may refer the motion to the chief judge who must decide the motion de novo on the record 32/33.
Respectfully submitted this January 31, 2007
By ______________________________________
George Edward Lyons
P.O.Box 226 Pinckney,
Michigan 48169 734-657-1679 27
TABLE OF CITATIONS AND AUTHORITIES
1. US Const, Am XIV; Mich Const 1963,art 1,set 17; 2. In Re Murchison, 349 US 133, 136; 75 S Ct 623( 1955) 3. Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564, 579; 93 S Ct 1689 ( 1973) 4. Crampton v Dep’t of State, 395 Mich 347, 351 ( 1975 ) 5. Pitoniak v Borman’s, Inc. 104 Mich App 718, 722-723(1981) 6. Withrow v Larkin, 421, US 35, 47; 95 S Ct 1455( 1975) 7. Mathews v Eldridge,424, US 319, 335; 96 S Ct 893 ( 1976 ) 8. Goldberg v Kelly, 397 US 254, 263-271; 90 S Ct 1011 (1970) 9. Wayne Circuit Judges v Wayne County, 386 Mich 1 ( 1971) 10. Stockwell v Township Board, 22 Mich 341 ( 1871) 11. Peninsular Railway Co. v. Howard, 20 Mich 18 ( 1870) 12. People v Houston, 179 Mich app 753, 756 ( 1983 ) 13. Clemens v Bruce, 122 Mich App 35, 37-38 (1982) 14. People v Lowenstein, 118 Mich App 475, 481-432 (1982) 15. United State v Grinnell, 384 US 563; 86 S C: 1698 (1966) 16. People v Rider, 93 Mich App 383 ( 1979 ) 17. Ungar v Sarafite. 376 US 573, 588: 84 S Ct 841 (1964) 18. Merritt v Munster, 575 P2d 623, 624 (Okla. 1978) 19. Strong v Pontiac General. 117 Mich App 143, 148 (1982) 20. Wayne County v Recorder’s Court, 81 Mich App 143, 148 (1982) 21. Warren Schools v MERC. 67 Mich App 58 (1976) 22. Baker v Carr. 369 US 186, 267; 82 S Ct 691. 737 – 738 (1962) 23. Tumey v Ohio 273 US 510; 47 S Ct 437 (1927) 24. Offutt v United States, 348 US 11, 14; 75 S Ct 11 (1955) 25. Glass v State Hwy Const. 370 Mich 482 ( 1963 ) 26. Wayne County Prosecutor v Doerfler, 14 Mich App 428( 1968 ) 27. Cardozo, Nature of the Judicial Process, p. 167. 28. Utilities Com v Pollak, 343 US 451, 466; 72 S Ct 813 ( 1952 ) 29. Mirych v State Fair Commission, 376 Mich 384( 1965 ) 30. Consumer Power v Iosco Circuit Judge, 210Mich 572 (1920) 31. Hayes-Albion v Kuberski, 108Mich App 642, 657-658 (1981) 32. Gruprynski v Bay Judge, 166 Mich 118, 123-124 (1988) 33. People v Gauntlett, 134 Mich 737, 757-761 (1984) 34. MCR 2.003 et seq. 35. Caleffe v Vitale, 65 ALR 4th 67, 71-72 (1986) 36. See 46 Am Jur 2d, Judges ss. 86; see also ss. C (1) (a. b) of Canon 3 of the Code 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (Am Jur 2d Desk book) 28
"Fraud on the Court by an Officer of the Court" And "Disqualification of Judges, State and Federal"
1. Who is an "officer of the court"? 2. What is "fraud on the court"? 3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding? 4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"
1. Who is an "officer of the court"?
A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully.
State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).
2. What is "fraud on the court"?
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 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 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."
3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?
"Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court. It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the 29
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 Willow brook, 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).
Under Michigan and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.
4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"
Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a judge under certain circumstances. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.")
("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice. 30
"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge.
Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself.
None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
| Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". H R 420 | To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes. |
