It is well grounded fact of law and judicially uncontested that James Damiano remains to poses legal authority over the Court and defendant Bob Dylan as per the case law cited herein. There for exhibiting the legal fact that Bob Dylan is in default to James Damiano. A. Summary Judgment Standard A court may grant summary judgment only when the materials of record show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Judicially impropriety test The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judges ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired. FRAUD UPON THE COURT Judge Simandle disregarded Thirty Five hours of video taped depositions which implicate Dylan, and document Damianos Eleven Year association with Bob Dylan and CBS / Sony, Blatant admissions of guilt by defendants and also by Bob Dylan himself, eleven years of documented documents between James Damiano CBS records and Dylan, Expert testimony from a Harvard Graduated musicologist. Reinterated: A. Summary Judgment Standard A court may grant summary judgment only when the materials of record show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 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). 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 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 Moores 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. 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 entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ...); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935). Under Illinois 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. Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal 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 judges impartiality. If a judges 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. OGrady, 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. 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. OGrady, 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. The judge has acted in the judges personal capacity and not in the judges judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someones next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law. If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an appearance of partiality and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself. However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states disqualification is required and that a judge must be disqualified under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce. Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts. It is Judicially and publically uncontested by Bob Dylan that Bob Dylan and people in Bob Dylans entourage have solicited songs, lyrics and music written by James Damiano for a period of over ten years and eleven months. In the United States, the term recusal is used most often with respect to court proceedings. Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge, provides that a federal judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Motion for Request for admissions: Plaintiff stipulates that the facts expressed within this motion will be conclusively deemed as truth within 30 days of August 3, 2000, should they be left disproved by anyone. At such time said admissions and facts expressed within this motion will be deemed as truth, entered upon the record of this court and docketed with the clerk. The fact issues expressed within this motion concerning Defendants eleven year association with Plaintiff and all fact issues expressed within this motion concerning Defendants solicitation of Plaintiff James Damianos songs, will be deemed admitted after thirty days unless defendants deny the forgoing with specificity. pursuant to FRDCP rule 36. 1. OPINION OVER FACT a. In all major decisions in this litigation, this court continuously chose as truth the opinion of Defendants counsel as opposed to Plaintiffs true material facts. This motion is based on part, in light of that all decisions made by this court in favor of the Defendants, were based on opinion only and that these opinions were held as truth over Plaintiffs true material facts which conclusively reveal the opposite of these findings. Plaintiffs material facts substantiate the error within this injustice. Although said facts are massive, almost to many to cite Plaintiff will notify this court that there are indeed many other facts than what are presented here, which were produced to defendants during discovery, but for fear of submitting an oversized brief Plaintiff did not submit them. Plaintiff hereby reserves the right to enter upon the record other findings of fact not cited in this motion. Should this court provide an extension of time to allow Plaintiff to construct a more extensive brief Plaintiff is willing to comply. Said decisions in 1a. were detrimental to the outcome of this law suit by which the evidence provided herein, acknowledged and upon consideration of this court, conclusively constitute reversible error, and judicially defeat summary judgment in favor of the defendants With the recent development of the internet new finding of facts have surfaced regarding the truthfulness of defendants testimony and defense in this action. Reiterated It is well grounded fact of law and judicially uncontested that James Damiano remains to poses legal authority over the Court and defendant Bob Dylan as per the case law cited herein. There for exhibiting the legal fact that Bob Dylan is in default to James Damiano.
Posted on: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 23:54:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015