- Civil Rights Violation
- Conspiracy to Defraud
- Criminal Acts
- False Statements to State
- Obstruction of Justice
- Subornation of Perjury
- Tampering with Evidence
- Violation of Constitution
- Violation of Code of Conduct
- Violation of Oath of Office
- Violation of Rules
All evidential documents filed by attorney Logan contradict his clientâ€™s pleadings thereby confirming my illegal termination. During the case Discovery stage, attorney Logan was oftentimes uncooperative, non-compliance and his frequent untimely response filings consisted of perjury and fraud; attorney Loganâ€™s requests and motions were also based on fraud and/or perjury.
On September 1, 2006, during the courtâ€™s required mediation (with a mediator (Arthur Justice) whom I had chosen from the courtâ€™s roster), I perceived a conspiracy between the mediator and attorney Logan. After placing us in separate rooms, the mediator spent the entire session in the room with me whereby he repeatedly stated â€œwhat ifsâ€ â€œwhat if your case never go to trial; what if the jury doesnâ€™t rule in your favor; what if â€¦â€¦ I stated that my allegations were supported by irrefutable evidence, whereby he stated that sometime regardless of how much evidence a person has, their case never go to trial. Then he stated, â€œif your case does go to trial, all youâ€™re going to get is money, you can get money here!â€ I told him that I was ready to end the session and that I would take my chances with a jury.
A week later (September 7, 2006), my perception of a conspiracy between attorney Logan and the Mediator was confirmed when the Magistrate Judge scheduled an unwarranted and untimely â€œMotion Hearingâ€ based on the only Motion on record (my Motion to Compel Discovery); I promptly filed an Opposition informing the court by references to docket entries in the case record that confirmed the Motion had been resolved five (5) months earlier; therefore, a hearing on the Motion was unwarranted. The court informed me of the scheduled hearing by regular mail, certified mail and a follow-up phone call informing me that the Magistrate Judge insisted I attend the Motion Hearing although I had filed an Opposition.
During October 2, 2006 mock Motion Hearing, although, Discovery had closed three (3) months earlier and pre-trial disclosure had been filed, attorney Logan persisted he needed a chance to take my oral deposition and asked the judge to amend the Scheduling Order (although, all requirement had been completed) whereby, I was ordered to submit to an untimely oral deposition.
Attorney Logan was in direct communication with the Magistrate Judge whereby on October 2, 2006, shortly after the mock Motion Hearing, attorney Logan contacted the magistrate judge and had chamber file and docket his untimely request to modify the caseâ€™s Scheduling Order, although all requirements on the current Scheduling Order had been completed.
Prior to submitting to the oral deposition, I purchased a copy of the Motion Hearing official transcript and audio and received an embellished reproduced version of each that contained bogus discussions between attorney Logan and the Magistrate Judge. I promptly filed a Complaint pursuant to attorney Logan and the magistrate judgeâ€™s illegal activities. I requested a refund for amounts paid for the fraudulent transcript and audio CD; I also sked that the court investigate the transcript and audio.
The audio CD from the court had been recorded and received in FTR (For-the-Record) format â€“ the audio recording software used by the district court. Following the instructions enclosed with the CD, I downloaded â€œPlayer Plusâ€ from the vendorâ€™s (FTR) website and immediately converted the audio to Windows format. With few exceptions, one very obvious, the converted audio recording was almost flawless and closely corresponded to the previously purchased fraudulent transcript; however, when I later played the audio CD on the same downloaded player in the format (FTR) in which it had been recorded, I discovered the audio recording was extremely deficient with large segments of the proceedings either missing or inaudible.
Accordingly, I reviewed the CD properties and October 24, 2006 was shown as both the creation and modification date; accordingly, I contacted the software vendor (FTR) to inquire about the date changes and was informed that October 2, 2006 original/official file creation date, as well as the entire sound recording, should have been preserved during duplication/copying.
Upon receipt of the bogus reproduced audio, I emailed attorney Logan and requested that defendantâ€™s other lead attorney (his partner) take my deposition; Attorney Logan sent me an irate response informing me that he would be taking my deposition and that he would report me to the court if I refuse to cooperate with the courtâ€™s order.
Although, I filed an opposition with the court, I was forced to submit to an untimely and frivolous oral deposition (perceptibly a strategic ploy); I had previously informed attorney Logan that my case was not based on oral testimony, it was based on irrefutably documented evidence in the case file.
At the opening of October 27, 2006 mock Oral Deposition, I placed my personal tape recorder on the desk; attorney Logan and the court reporter appeared agitated. Attorney Logan alleged that he would report me to the court; whereby I informed him that I was taking precautions to ensure accurate reporting due to receipt of the fraudulent transcript and bogus Motion Hearing audio reproduced by him and the magistrate judge.
During the mock Oral Deposition, which was degrading (based on perceived purpose of the deposition and attorney Loganâ€™s earlier participation in the fraudulent reproduction of the courtâ€™s official motion hearing audio), attorney Logan purposely avoided asking questions relevant to my Complaint; instead, he repeatedly badgered me with irrelevant questions pursuant to my employment history and my personal background, alleging that for jury purposes, he was entitled to develop my background.
Although, attorney Logan had the Magistrate Judge issue a new Scheduling Order insisting that it was imperative he take my deposition, attorney Logan DID NOT file any documents pertaining to the oral deposition.
On November 14, 2006, attorney Logan filed a fraudulent, perjurious Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures (as he and the magistrate judge discussed on the reproduced spliced and embellished Motion Hearing audio) whereby he falsely alleged his client was entitled to Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56.
On December 8, 2006, I filed a Cross-Motion that was unanticipated by attorney Logan and the magistrate judge. In response to my Rule 56 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, attorney Loganâ€™s implausible December 18, 2006 Opposition proclaimed entitlement to Summary Judgment; contrarily, within the same document attorney Logan states there are genuine issues of material facts that procured summary judgment for the Plaintiff (under Rule 56, this admission also precluded summary judgment for attorney Loganâ€™s client). On January 29, 2007 I filed my 2nd Motion for Summary Judgment based on attorney Loganâ€™s failure to dispute facts alleged in my earlier Motion for Summary Judgment.
On August 23, 2007, in conspiracy with the magistrate judge and attorney Logan, the district judge granted Clemson University unsupported and perjurious Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed my meritorious Title VII lawsuit without addressing either of my Motions for Summary Judgment or my Objections to the Magistrate Judgeâ€™s Report and Recommendation.
On October 4, 2007, uninformed, I filed an unnecessary Appeal pursuant to violation of my seventh and fourteenth amendment rights and deprivation of due process. On October 11, 2007, Attorney Loganâ€™s filed a response falsely alleging the District Courtâ€™s granting of Summary Judgment to his Client was proper and relied upon facts and law stated in the Magistrate Judgeâ€™s Report and Recommendation and the District Judgeâ€™s Order (Attorney Logan was wholly aware that the Order/Judgment was devoid of Rule 56 requirements, finding of facts, standard of review, and/or applicable laws). Attorney Logan, also falsely alleged that my constitutional rights were not violated. Attorney Logan, asked the Court of Appeal to affirm the District Courtâ€™s Judgment, although, he was aware the Judgment constituted fraud upon the court and that the Judgment deprived me of my constitutional rights. On February 12, 2008, without addressing my Appeal Brief, without applying Rule 56, without contentions of law, and without applying Appellate Standard of Review, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit â€œaffirmedâ€ the District Courtâ€™s unconstitutional Void judgment. I immediately filed a Petition for Review that was denied without being addressed. Apparently, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit was in collusion with the U.S. District Court of South Carolina. (Note: I later discovered that a non-final Judgment is not appealable; accordingly, the Appeal Court did not have jurisdictional authority to â€œaffirmâ€ the district courtâ€™s void judgment.)
On July 15, 2008, uninformed, I filed an unnecessaary Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court and on July 29, 2008 attorney Logan filed a Waiver indicating a response would not be filed. On October 6, 2008 the petition for Writ of Certiorari was denied. (I filed this petition prior to discovering the laws on void Orders and Judgments.)
Subsequent to attorney Loganâ€™s conspiracy and collaborated participation in the deprivation of my constitutional right, under color of law, I filed a civil rights lawsuit 42 USC Â§ 1983 in which I named attorney Logan, and his accomplices as defendants.
A fellow attorney (Michael Smith) from the same law firm represented attorney Logan; this attorney, as attorney Logan, entered into a conspiracy with the newly assigned judges who willfully violated Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (by falsely alleging I failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). Federal Statutes and Constitutional rights were violated to protect five (5) fellow judges, named as defendants, from liability pursuant to my Statute 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 lawsuit.
On October 15, 2010, the district judge filed a void Order and Judgment dismissing my meritorious deprivation of civil rights lawsuit against attorney James W. Logan Jr.â€™s. Once again, my meritorious job discrimination and deprivation of civil right cases were unconstitutionally dismissed. My October 7, 2010 and October 26, 2010 Rule 60(b)(4) and (6) Fed.R.Civ.P. Motions requesting the court vacate its void Judgment were denied on February 18, 2011.
On September 30, 2010, the districts judge (C. Weston Houck) entered a void judgment (unlawfully based on prior void judgment) granting all defendantsâ€™ perjurious Fed.R.Civ.P. (12)(b) Motions to Dismiss. The Order unconstitutionally stated, â€œTHIS MATTER IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.â€
The case is well documented, including Logan's voice on verifiable reproduced fraudulent audio recording of court's official electronic sound recording with bogus discussion between Logan and the magistrate judge that confirms attorney James W. Logan Jr.â€™s participation in the malicious deprivation of my civil and constitutional rights in Violation of Rule 407 of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.