The magistrate judge (Joseph R. McCrorey) filed two unsupported reports and recommendations (dated July 9, 2009 and March 1, 2010) pursuant to alleged â€œImmunityâ€ Summary Dismissal for the five judges and dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b) for the other four defendants; and, the district judge (C. Weston Houck) filed his first perjurious Order (dated February 24, 2010) dismissing my lawsuit against fellow-judges without reason. The unsupported immunity defense asserted in the magistrate judgeâ€™s report and recommendation, as well my responsive indisputable Objections had been completely disregarded.
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.
I realized that a second conspiracy against my civil and constitutional rights (as in my Title VII lawsuit upon which the current lawsuit was founded) 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. Completely disregarding my explicit evidential affidavit and motion, the perjurious Reports and Recommendations and Order of the magistrate and district judges that were enclosed as supporting exhibits, on September 23, 2010, Chief Judge Norton injudiciously denied my meritorious motion with an Order that included perjurious declarations wholly and affirmatively controverted by the case record. The perjurious Order filed by Chief Judge Norton confirmed he was a party in the conspiracy against my civil and constitutional rights.
Chief Judge Nortonâ€™s Order, wholly and affirmatively controverted by the case record, falsely stated that I advanced no facts or incidents to support my claims of bias or impartiality. He further stated that my affidavit was not legally sufficient under section 144 and that my Motion for recusal, insofar as it relies on section 144, was denied. Chief Judge Nortonâ€™s Order falsely states:
â€œIndeed, plaintiffs request for recusal appears entirely based on her dissatisfaction with the rulings of the magistrate judge and Judge Houck in her cases, a patently insufficient ground for disqualification under applicable law. See 28 U.S.C. Â§ 455; Liteky, 510 U.S. at 541; Lindsey v. City of Beaufort, 911 F. Supp. 962, 967-68 (D.S.C. 1995) (stating that a "motion to recuse may not be predicated on the judge's rulings in the instant case or in related cases, nor on a demonstrated tendency to rule in any particular way, nor on a particular judicial leaning or attitude derived from his or her experience on the bench"); Cuyler v. South Carolina, 2010 WL 1416743, at *2 (D.S.C. Apr. 5, 2010) (The plaintiffs "disagreement with a court's prior ruling is not a valid basis for a recusal motion"). Plaintiffs motion for recusal (Docket # 42) is denied.â€
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 prior caseâ€™s void Orders and Judgments pending adjudication.
On October 7, 2010, subsequent to District Judge Houckâ€™s September 30, 2010 unconstitutional grant of the four private actors (defendants) perjurious Rule 12(b) motions to dismiss and the dismissal of my meritorious 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 lawsuit, I filed a Rule 60(b)(4) and (6) Motion to the attention of Chief Judge Norton petitioning the court to vacate all 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 closed my 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 lawsuit.
Accordingly, 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 (entered on October 7, and October 15, 2010) procured by fraud upon the court.
On February 8, 2011, I sent a certified Complaint pursuant to Chief Judge David C. Nortonâ€™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 Houckâ€™s void Order and Judgment.
Chief Judge Norton, and his accomplices willfully filed perjurious Motions, Reports & Recommendations, Responses, Orders and Judgment to cover-up defendantsâ€™ (federal judges and others) malicious violation of Rule 56 to implement deprivation of my civil and constitutional rights in prior Title VII - job discrimination lawsuit. Chief Judge Norton, District Judge Houck and Magistrate Judge McCrorey in collaboration violated civil and constitutional laws with willful intent to deprive me of due process and my right to invoke 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 for redress of prior caseâ€™s (Title VII) civil rights deprivation in a trial by jury.
Chief Judge Norton concealed fact that all Orders and Judgments in Case No. 4:09-cv-01634-CWH-JRM were illegally based on the prior caseâ€™s (No. 4:05-cv-02727-TLW-TER) Void Order and Judgment brought before this court for adjudication, in my 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 lawsuit.
Chief Judge Norton, and his accomplices (fellow judges), failed to comply with their sworn Oath to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States in the performance of official duties.
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 Chief Judge David C. Nortonâ€™s willful deprivation of my due process right.