On July 9, 2009, on behalf of five (5) fellow-judges, defendants in my Deprivation of Civil Rights lawsuit (4:09-cv-01634-CWH-JRM), Magistrate Judge McCrorey filed a deficient Report and Recommendation for â€œPartial Summary Dismissalâ€ primarily consisting of non-applicable citations of authority and exclusively based on an unsupported and forfeited â€œimmunity defenseâ€
On February 24, 2010, District Judge Houck filed an unsupported Order that completely disregarded: Magistrate Judge McCroreyâ€™s â€œimmunity defenseâ€ (wholly controverted by my objections that referenced evidence on record); provisions of Statute 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1963 (upon which the pending case was founded); non-adjudication of pending unsupported Orders and Judgments (entered in prior case in violation of Rule 56 of the Fed.R.Civ.P.); and, federal statutory laws (including Complaintâ€™s claims of Constitutional deprivations).
District Judge Houckâ€™s Order fraudulently asserted that I filed an Objection, after obtaining an extension (as evident by the case records, Iâ€™ve never requested an extension during either case proceedings); District Judge Houckâ€™s Order fraudulently asserted the magistrate judge filed a comprehensive and well-reasoned report analyzing the issues. The magistrate judgeâ€™s Report and Recommendation pursuant to â€œPartial Summary Dismissalâ€ for the five (5) judges was exclusively base on a forfeited â€œImmunity Defense.â€ As irrefutably detailed and confirmed in my Objections with references to supporting evidence on record, the five (5) judges acted outside their judicial capacity; therefore, they were not entitled to â€œImmunity.â€
Contrarily, District Judge Houck nonchalantly dismissed my Deprivation of Civil Rights lawsuit against the five judges in a perjurious one paragraph Order that merely stated:
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.
District Judge Houckâ€™s Order was wholly controverted by the case record. Additionally, District Judge Houck illegally based his decision on prior void Orders and Judgments upon which the deprivation of civil right lawsuit was founded; accordingly, District Judge Houck allegedly validated the pending void Orders and Judgments without adjudication.
On March 1, 2010, Magistrate Judge McCrorey filed a second controverted Report and Recommendation for â€œDismissalâ€ pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5) and (6) on behalf of the other four (4) defendants who, in conspiracy with the 5 (five) judges, had engaged in illegal activities that facilitated the deprivation of my due process right.
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 District Judge Houck and Magistrate Judge McCrorey 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.
Accordingly, on September 30, 2010, District Judge Houck, now acting without jurisdictional authority, filed an additional Void Order granting all defendantsâ€™ perjurious controverted Fed.R.Civ.P. (12)(b) Motions to Dismiss pursuant to failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. District Judge Houckâ€™s Order unconstitutionally stated, â€œTHIS MATTER IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.â€ District Judge Houckâ€™s second Order, as his first, was based on void Orders and Judgments. District Judge Houck attempted to validate illegal proceedings over which he no longer held jurisdictional authority; he also used the prior caseâ€™s Orders and Judgments, pending adjudication, in his decision-making.
On October 7, 2010, I filed a Rule 60(b)(4) Motion to the attention of Chief Judge Norton petitioning the court to vacate all previous and current void orders and judgments on record.
On October 15, 2010, District Judge C. Weston Houck, acting without jurisdictional authority, entered an unsupported void judgment in favor of all defendants and dismissed my 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 lawsuit.
On October 26, 2010, I filed a Rule 60(b)(4) and (b)(6) Motion to the attention of Chief Judge Norton petitioning relief from District Judge C. Weston Houckâ€™s void Orders and Judgment procured by fraud upon the court.
On February 8, 2011, I sent a certified Complaint pursuant to District Judge Houckâ€™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. On January 21, 2012, I sent a second follow-up letter and enclosed my initial Complaint; to date, I have not received a response.
On February 18, 2011, Chief Judge Norton abused his discretion by denying my October 26, 2010 meritorious Rule 60(b)(4) and (6) Motion to vacate District Judge C. Weston Houckâ€™s void Order and Judgment.
Chief Judge Norton, and his accomplices, under color of law, violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed false allegedly official and legal documents (Motion, Reports & Recommendations, Responses, Orders and Judgment) to cover-up defendantsâ€™ (federal judges and others), willful deprivation of my civil and constitutional rights with willful intent to deny me access to a trial by jury thereby depriving me of due process and my right to invoke 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 for redress of civil and constitutional rights deprivation.
On September 16, 2011, I sent a Rule 6(b)(4) and (6) Motion to the Supreme Court of South Carolina petitioning the court to vacate the District Court of South Carolinaâ€™s void Judgment, and, 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.
Based on the continuous collaborated conspiracy between magistrate, district, chief and circuit judges in U.S. courts 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 for redress of civil rights deprivation in two meritorious civil right lawsuits (4:05-cv-02727-TLW-TER and 4:09-cv-01634-CWH-JRM); accordingly, periodically, to no avail, I send emails or letters to my elected officials.
Both cases (4:05-cv-02727-TLW-TER and 4:09-cv-01634-CWH-JRM) are well documented and confirm District Judge C. Weston Houckâ€™s deprivation of my due process right.