On July 9, 2009, Magistrate Judge McCrorey filed a Report and Recommendation alleging Partial Summary Dismissal for five (5) fellow-judges named as defendants in my Deprivation of Civil Rights lawsuit (4:09-cv-01634-CWH-JRM). The Report and Recommendation were unsupported and deceptively evasive. The Report and Recommendation, and the Orders and Judgments, in prior case, deceptively entered under the pretext of Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were wholly controverted by the caseâ€™s record â€“ including inconsistencies in defendantâ€™s visible fraudulent filings.
As confirmed by evidence on record in both cases (4:05-cv-02727-TLW-TER and 4:09-cv-01634-CWH-JRM), the district court of South Carolina willfully deprived me of due process. Contrarily, without acknowledging and/or disproving deprivation claims set forth in my Complaint, Magistrate Judge McCroreyâ€™s Report and Recommendation exclusively alleged the five judges were immune from suit under Â§ 1983/Bivens; and, although, Magistrate Judge McCroreyâ€™s Report accurately acknowledged that in my Complaint, I sought a judgment for the vacation of all void Orders and Judgments entered in the Title VII case, he recommended dismissal of my 42 U.S.C.Â§ 1983 lawsuit against the five (5) judges without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Magistrate Judge McCrorey completely disregarded the fact that my 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 Deprivation of Civil Rights lawsuit derived from unsupported entry of Orders and Judgments in my Title VII lawsuit that were procured by perpetrated fraud under Rule 56.
On July 17, 2009, I filed explicit detailed Objections, with references to my evidential filings, inconsistencies in defendantâ€™s fraudulent filings, and all judgesâ€™ Report/Recommendation, Orders and/or Judgments on record that were affirmatively in violation of federal and constitutional laws and well-established local rules and procedures. My citation to evidence on record, irrefutably controverted Magistrate Judge McCroreyâ€™s Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Accordingly, on February 24, 2010, completely disregarding: Magistrate Judge McCroreyâ€™s exclusive â€œImmunityâ€ defense and my uncontroverted objections, District Judge Houck dismissed my Deprivation of Civil Rights lawsuit against the five judges in a perjurious one paragraph Order that merely states:
â€œIn 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.â€
It is ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process with respect to the defendants Wooten, Rogers, Motz, Gregory, and Duncan.
On March 1, 2010, Magistrate Judge McCrorey filed a second Report and Recommendation for â€œDismissalâ€ pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5) and (6) applicable to the other four (4) defendants who acting in conspiracy with the 5 (five) judges had engaged in illegal activities that facilitated the deprivation of my due process right.
As evident by the case record, Magistrate Judge McCroreyâ€™s Report primarily consisted of bias, fraudulent, misrepresented, opinionated, and conclusory statements. Magistrate Judge McCrorey willfully suppressed pertinent incriminating facts (explicitly detailed in my Complaint that were irrefutably supported by corresponding Exhibits) and uncontroverted evidence on record. Contrary to uncontroverted evidence on record, Magistrate Judge McCrorey alleged I failed to establish any federal claims as he completely ignored all â€œdeprivation of civil rightsâ€ claims which included, but were not limited to, deprivation of my first, fifth, seventh, and fourteenth amendment rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
As in his first report, Magistrate Judge McCroreyâ€™s second Report accurately asserted that I sought a judgment to vacate the Void Orders and Judgments (unlawfully granted in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56) entered in the prior case; contrarily, without the court establishing the validity of the prior Orders and Judgments that were before the court, Magistrate Judge McCrorey recommended granting all private actorsâ€™ (defendants) Rule 12(b)(5) and (6) Motions for Dismissal that were contingent on the courtâ€™s adjudication of the Orders and Judgments entered in prior case that were the origin of my Deprivation of Civil Rights lawsuit.
Subsequent to Magistrate Judge McCrorey filing his second wholly controverted report and recommendation and the district judge filing its first controverted Order in the case (4:09-cv-01634-CWH-JRM), I detected that, as in my Title VII lawsuit, a conspiracy was in progress; accordingly, on March 12, 2010 I filed an Affidavit and Motion pursuant to Statutes 28 USC Â§Â§ 144 & 455, to the attention of Chief Judge Norton, requesting Disqualification/Recusal of Magistrate Judge McCrorey and District Judge Houck and reassignment of the case. Contrarily, on September 23, 2010, Chief Judge Norton injudiciously denied my motion that was affirmatively supported by the attached fraudulent Orders and Judgments that were wholly controverted by the record. Chief Judge Nortonâ€™s unsupported and perjurious Order confirmed he was also a party in the conspiracy against my civil and constitutional rights.
On February 8, 2011, based on Magistrate Judge McCrorey, District Judge Houck and Chief Judge Nortonâ€™s conspiracy to deprive me of due process, I sent a certified criminal Complaint 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.
Based on the continuous collaborated conspiracy between magistrate, district, chief and circuit judges during the past six years, Iâ€™ve concluded that government intervention is required to stop judicial infringement upon my civil and constitutional right thereby allowing me the opportunity to invoke Statute 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 to redress civil rights deprivation pursuant to my Title VII job discrimination lawsuit ((4:05-cv-02727-TLW-TER).
On September 30, 2010, disregarding the provisions of Rule 12(b)(5) and (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district judge (C. Weston Houck) filed a void Order dismissing my meritorious deprivation of civil rights lawsuit against the four private actors: (Clemson University (prior lawsuit defendant), James W. Logan Jr. of Logan, Jolly & Smith Attorneys at Law (defendantâ€™s attorney), Shari L. Stefano (Deputy Clerk/Electronic Sound Recording Operator); and, Cindy Lee Brunink of Brunink Transcription Services (Transcriber)). The affirmative controverted Order, unlawfully based on prior void Orders and Judgment bought forth for adjudication unlawfully stated: â€œTHIS MATTER IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.â€
On October 15, 2010, the districts judge (C. Weston Houck) entered a void judgment wholly and affirmatively controverted by the case record.
My initial October 7, 2010 and latter October 26, 2010 Rule 60(b)(4) and (6) Fed.R.Civ.P. Motions requesting the court vacate its void Orders and Judgment were denied on February 18, 2011.
On September 16, 2011, I sent a Rule 6(b)(4)(6) to the Supreme Court of South Carolina requesting vacation of all void Orders and Judgments entered by the District Court of South Carolina; contrarily, although, all courts have a duty to vacate a void judgment, the Supreme Court of South Carolina responded, in a letter dated September 20, 2011, that it did not have the authority to review or vacate the district courtâ€™s Judgment.
Periodically, I send emails and/or letters to my elected officials asking for intervention with the South Carolina District Court to halt the continual conspiracy and infringement upon my constitutional rights by U.S. federal judges who are all under oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
The case (4:09-cv-01634-CWH-JRM) is well documented and confirms Magistrate judge Joseph R. McCroreyâ€™s Participation In The Malicious Deprivation Of My Due Process Right.