Lawless America

Documentary Films, Magazine, Radio, TV




Menu Style


Motz Gribbon, Diana

Accused Party Type
Accused Party Title
U.S. Appellate Court Judge
Court or Office
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Accused Address -1
1100 E. Main Street, Suite 501
Accused City
Accused County
Accused State
Accused Party Zip Code
Accused Party Phone
City of Complaint
County of Complaint
State of Complaint
Date of Complaint
Complainant Address
1333 Stillfork Road, Darlington, South Carolina, 29532
Complainant Home Phone
Complainant Email
Rating of the Accused Party
On October 4, 2007, I filed an Informal Appeal Brief (Case Number: 07-1898/4:05-cv-02727-TLW) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On February 12, 2008, contrary to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (Title 28 of the United States Code), Circuit Judge Motz, and counterparts of a three-judge panel, in conspiracy with the U.S. District Court of South Carolina (Florence Division) willfully participated in the deprivation of my due process right. Circuit Judge Motz and her counterparts acting without jurisdictional authority “affirmed” by unpublished per curiam opinion, the district court’s incontestable void Judgment.

Circuit Judge Motz and her counterparts are wholly aware that the jurisdiction of the U.S. Courts of Appeals extends only to review of final decisions of the district courts; Circuit Judge Motz and her counterparts were also wholly aware that the district court’s deficient and unsupported Order and Judgment pursuant to grant and denial of Summary Judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not final based on the district court’s failure to acknowledge and/or apply Rule 56 and its standard of review; its failure to set forth facts; its failure to acknowledge and/or conduct the mandated de novo of my explicit objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation; its failure to address my two cross-motions for Summary Judgment; its failure to address/acknowledge Title VII Statute 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq (lawsuit cause of action); its failure to acknowledge reviewing the magistrate judge’s recommendations; its failure to apply conclusions of law; its denial of my unaddressed and undisputed motions for summary judgment; its inappropriate grant of summary judgment to defendant subsequent to defendant filing an admission that genuine issues of material facts were still in dispute which precluded grant of summary judgment under Rule 56; its failure to determine whether I had been illegally terminated; its loss of jurisdiction and subject matter due to its failure to follow statutory procedures; and, its entry of a Void Order and Judgment affirmatively controverted by the entire case record.

Based on the aforementioned facts, affirmatively supported by the case record (Appeal No. 07-1898/4:05-cv-02727-TLW), Circuit Judge Motz and her counterparts did not have the jurisdictional authority to enter a decision pursuant to the district court’s unsupported and, therefore, non-final judgment.

Circuit Judge Motz and her counterparts failed to remand the case back to the district court for lawful adjudication; Circuit Judge Motz and her counterparts also failed to return my Informal Appeal Brief with notification informing me that the district court’s Order and Judgment were not final and accordingly non-appealable. Contrarily, Circuit Judge Motz and her counterparts pretended the Order and Judgment were final; and, acting without jurisdictional authority, Circuit Judge Motz and her counterparts without addressing the issues and supporting facts in my Appeal Brief “affirmed” the district court’s Judgment; whereby Circuit Judge Motz and her counterparts filed a brief and vague per curiam opinion that in its entirety deceptively stated “We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error; we dispense without oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.”

It was impossible for Circuit Judge Motz (and the other 2 panel judges) to apply legal contentions to the district court’s brief deceptive Order that was devoid of application and/or compliance with Rule 56, finding of facts, reasoning, and/or applicable legal conclusions. Additionally, the evidential record (material before the court) wholly and affirmatively controverted Circuit Judge Motz’s (and the other 2 panel judges) curiam opinion and the district court’s Order and Judgment; both (Order and Opinion) were wholly devoid of “legal contentions”.

On February 25, 2008, I filed an explicit evident-base Petition for Rehearing that was unaddressed; yet, denied by Circuit Judge Motz (and the other 2 panel judges) on April 18, 2008.

The denial Order merely stated:

“The Court denies the petition for rehearing. Entered at the direction of the panel: Judge Motz, Judge Gregory, and Judge Duncan.”

As affirmed by the corresponding evidential record, Circuit Judge Motz (and the other 2 panel judges) unsupported opinion and unconstitutional Judgment in Case No 07-1898/Civil Action No. 4:05-cv-02727-TLW-TER (Roslyn Holman v. Clemson University) procured by criminal fraud, constituted willful deprivation of my civil and constitutional rights under color of law; accordingly, on June 23, 2009, I filed a Civil Rights lawsuit pursuant to Statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, (her Counterparts) Circuit Judges Roger L. Gregory and Allyson K. Duncan, District Judge Terry L. Wooten, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, defendant Clemson University, attorney James W. Logan Jr., Court Reporter/Deputy Clerk Shari L. Stefano, and Transcriber Cindy Lee Brunink.

As in prior Title VII case, the district and magistrate judges assigned to the Deprivation of Civil Rights case (No. 4:09-cv-01634-CWH-JRM) acting in conspiracy with the defendants violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to deprive me of due process and other civil and constitutional rights.

On July 7, 2009, the magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation for “Partial Summary Dismissal” alleging entitlement to “immunity” for Circuit Judge Motz (and the other 2 panel judges), the district judge and the magistrate judge.

On February 24, 2010, completely ignoring my explicitly detailed Objections with references to uncontroverted evidence in the record, and completely disregarding the magistrate judge’s unsupported “immunity” defense (affirmatively refuted in my Objections), the district judge entered an unconstitutional void Order illegally based on prior void Orders and Judgment entered in my Title VII lawsuit which were the basis for the civil rights lawsuit. The prior Orders and Judgment before the court were disregarded without adjudication. The district judge’s (C. Weston Houck) inconclusive and insufficient Order deceptively stated:

“In her objections, the plaintiff generally makes the same arguments here that were considered and rejected by the magistrate judge. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge's report and the record in this case, the court adopts the report and recommendation and it is incorporated herein by reference.”

My unaddressed deprivation of civil rights claims against Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, (her Counterparts) Circuit Judges Roger L. Gregory and Allyson K. Duncan and the district court’s district and magistrate judges were unconstitutionally dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process.

On October 26, 2010, I filed a Rule 60(b)(4) and (b)(6) Motion, (to the attention of the chief judge of the district court) requesting that the district Court vacate its void Orders and Judgment. On February 18, 2011, the chief judge (David C. Norton) abused his discretion by willfully denying my uncontroverted Motion thereby failing to vacate affirmative Void Orders and Judgment procured by fraud upon the court by the court.


Judicial Corruption is rampant.  Our rights to a fair trial are a myth.  Many judges are totally corrupt.


Our fundamental rights have been taken away by a government of wrongs. Stolen by corruption.


Misconduct is everywhere. Dishonesty abounds. Perjury, subornation of perjury, corruption!


Abuse, Dishonesty, Corruption.  It's all common with Police and Law Enforcement.


Government Dishonesty is Bad.
We must find honest people
and make them accountable
to We the People.
You are here: Corruption Reports Judges Motz Gribbon, Diana