I filed the lawsuit on June 23, 2009; and, on August 5, 2009, attorney Smith filed a perjurious â€œBad Faithâ€ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in which he falsely stated: (a) I failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (b) my Complaint was barred pursuant to res judicata; (c) each and every claim, cause of action and/or factual allegation (in my Complaint) have been previously adjudicated by the court; (d) my claim that his clients violated my civil rights is completely without merit; and, (e) my Complaint is frivolous. All declarations made by attorney Smith are wholly and affirmatively controverted by explicitly detailed evident in the case record, including documents filed by attorney Smith on behalf of his clients.
Attorney Smith is fully aware that all Orders and Judgments in prior case (4:05-cv-02727-TLW-TER) were procured by fraud and are affirmatively devoid of Rule 56 stipulations and/or standard of review; conclusions of law prescribed by statute 42 USC 2000e et seq under which the lawsuit was filed; and, the district judgeâ€™s de novo review of my explicitly detailed objections to the magistrate judgeâ€™s report and recommendation. Attorney Smith was aware that there was affirmatively no evidence on record in either case that support grant and denial of Rule 56 summary judgment or Rule 12 Dismissal Motions; attorney Smith was aware that in the prior case, his client attorney James Logan had filed an admission that genuine issues of material facts remained in dispute, after filing a Rule 56 Motion; attorney Smith is aware that under Rule 56(c) this admission precludes â€œSummary Judgmentâ€ for either party; attorney Smith is aware that the prior Order and Judgment were void; and, accordingly Rule 12 nor the doctrine of Res Judicata were applicable to the Void Orders and Judgment, before the court for adjudication, that initiated the civil rights lawsuit.
Contrary to the uncontroverted explicitly detailed evidential record, attorney Smith filings continually and falsely maintained my allegations were completely without merit.
Attorney Smith was fully aware that all Orders, Judgments and Opinion willfully based on the Void Order and Judgment are criminally unconstitutional and has no legal ramification as a â€œmatter of law;â€ yet, attorney Smith filing falsely alleged the Magistrateâ€™s Report and Recommendation was supported by all of the evidence in the record and contains no error, whereby, Attorney Smith asked the Court to enter a deprivation of due process Judgment dismissing my meritorious 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 civil action â€œwith prejudiceâ€ and granting his clientsâ€™ bad faith and perjurious Rule 12(b)(6) Motion which he knew constituted fraud upon the court.
Attorney, SMITH, in conspiracy and acting under color of law, willfully violated federal civil and criminal laws; federal rules and regulations; professional code of conduct whereby he willfully infringed upon my due process right to invoke statute 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 for redress of prior constitutional deprivations, under color of law, in which his clients were willful participants.
On February 23, 2011, I filed a Misconduct Complaint (with supporting documents and references to case record) against attorney MICHAEL T. SMITH with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 1015 Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29201 that was initially ignored. On March 28, 2011, I sent a follow-up letter requesting a response; accordingly, the agency assigned a case number (Case No. 11-DE-L-0247) to the Complaint and unjustifiably sent me a case dismissal letter dated April 13, 2011. On April 18, 2011, I sent a letter referencing evidence in the case record that affirmatively challenged the dismissal; this letter was completely ignored.
On February 8, 2011 I sent a certified Complaint pursuant to attorney Smithâ€™s (and his accomplices) conspiracy and deprivation of my constitutional rights to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice - pursuant to Statutes: 28 U.S.C. Â§ 453; 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1621; 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1001; 18 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 241 & 242; and, Constitutional Deprivations: First, Fifth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Department of Justice failed to respond or acknowledge my Criminal Complaint and subsequently on March 28, 2011, I sent a follow-up letter. Recently, January 21, 2012, I sent another follow-up letter and enclosed my initial Complaint. Periodically, I send emails or letters to my elected officials.
The case (4:09-cv-01634-CWH-JRM) is well documented and confirms attorney Michael T. Smithâ€™s illegal activities that resulted in the deprivation of my due process right. Michael T. Smithâ€™s is in violation of Rule 407 of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.