MOTION FOR RECUSAL - Civil RICO Private Right of Action - Theft of American homes by our largest banks... "The New Mafia"

On May 1, 2017 I filed three documents with the U.S. District Court - Western District of Tennessee.  These documents are a matter of public record and can be accessed by anyone.  I filed these three documents because:  

The United States Court of Appeals at the Sixth Circuit wrote per the ruling of February 24, 2017: “This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.  No final or appealable order terminating all of the issues presented in the litigation has been entered by the district court.”  --- “The Amended Complaint remains pending.”  Pending as of February 24, 2017; the date that Clair is first made aware that a ruling at the District Court remains “Pending.”  

The three Motions / documents I filed are:



MOTION TO REVERSE JUDGMENT OF DECEMBER 28, 2016 SO AS TO RULE ON THE 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT WHICH REMAINS PENDING AS OF 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
MOTION FOR RECUSAL; CONFLICT OF INTEREST

AMENDED ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

In the interest of others who are fighting a similar battle I'm placing on this blog the MOTION FOR RECUSAL  Not my first request that these two judge's voluntarily recuse themselves based on multiple misquotes, changed content, and omissions that, in service to the Big Bank Defendants, malign the Factual Allegations as written.  Because I'm not an attorney my Civil RICO Case has been denied due process at the screening stage.  America's largest banks are stealing residential property with no disclosure to homeowners of what is actually taking place behind the scenes.  That these same financial institutions, acting like white collar criminals, can unduly influence our federal court system at the level of a Federal District Court places our entire system of law in danger.  We as public citizens must have confidence in our court system.  We must know we can have a fair arbiter.  We must trust that what we say will be believed until such time that due process moves forward and it is a jury of our peers that says yes or no.  

In a few days I'll post on this blog the Amended Assignment of Errors and the Motion to Reverse Judgment.   Defendants include: Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Evolve Bank & Trust, First American Title Insurance Company, Core Logic Services, MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., Keller Williams International etc.    


Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.  
What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear proclaim upon the housetops (Matthew: 10: 26, 27).  

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Alexandra Clair, et al.,                              
Plaintiff                                                        
                                                                                                vs.
                                                          
Bank of America, N.A., et al,                    
Defendants  

CASE NO. 16-02263-SHL-dvk   
U.S. 6th Circuit CASE NO. 16-6672                                        

MOTION FOR RECUSAL; CONFLICT OF INTEREST
1.) Clair requests that the District Court review content of the AMENDED ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS, filed with this MOTION FOR RECUSAL.  That Judge Vescovo and Judge Lipman voluntarily recuse themselves from pre-screening the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, which according to the February 24, 2017 ruling of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, does currently remain pending. 
           
2.)  Potential conflicts of interest and financial disclosures inform case assignments.  At the very least, Judge Lipman exercised poor judgment when she looked at Clair’s Defendant list and assigned Clair’s Civil RICO Private Right of Action to Magistrate Judge Vescovo for pre-screening.  Favoritism shown Defendants insured ongoing good will to the Vescovo-McLaren family connected law firms, and the bank-clients that they represent; including JP Morgan Chase Bank whom Clair was obstructed from adding to the Defendant List.  Greed fueled corruption being what it always is, just as JP Morgan Chase Bank parked Ten Billion dollars (earning no interest) for Madoff they also secreted the first sale of Clair’s home to the white collar criminal Association-In-Fact-Enterprise for eventual transfer into the pipeline of residential homes fed to Pretium Partners, LLC returning long term profit back to the banks.  Given the apparent intent to protect the big banks named as Defendants in this case a more accommodating judge could not have been chosen. 

3.)  When the impartiality of a judge is in doubt, the appropriate remedy is to disqualify that judge from rehearing further proceedings in the matter.  Where Judge Vescovo is concerned bias cannot be in doubt.  Misquotes and omissions raised in the OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and the AMENDED ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS provides concrete evidence of reckless disregard of the factual allegations as written which altered the substance of Clair’s complaint and ultimately slandered its content in favor of the Defendants.  And that, “under circumstances in which judicial bias was probable, due process, required disqualification.” (Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. and Code of Conduct for United States Judges.)      

4.)  Judge Vescovo has a significant conflict of interest in that her family members work at law firms that represent as clients Clair’s same defendants.  These clients represent a significant income stream to her family members working at the respective law firms.  Family members include her husband, son, nephew, and step son; all attorneys.  These law firms have represented these same defendants in numerous matters of litigation.  The conflict of interest defendants include in part: JP Morgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Core Logic, First American Title Insurance Company, MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. Also Pretium Mortgage Acquisition Trust, a subsidiary of Pretium Partners, LLC under which ownership all 32 RICO Pattern Example-Properties end up after being subjected to the same Property Flip Scheme laundering chain of Property Title through various financial transactions to obscure recognition of the white collar criminal identity.

5.)  In an interview conducted by Ross Pfund, Judge Vescovo’s husband, Michael (Mike) McLaren was asked: “Do you and your wife talk shop at home or do you leave that stuff in the office?”   He replied: “We talk about the law a lot.  She tells me of her cases and I tell her about mine.”[1]  The conflict of interest shared Defendant List reflected in Clair’s Civil RICO Case, also clients of family connected law firms[2] returning profit, job security, and influence to McLaren-Vescovo family members, informs bias and favor extended to the Defendants in this case.  
    
     6.)  Statements like, “However, other than disagreement with the Court’s analysis of the case, which does not constitute grounds for recusal, she has pointed to no bias.”   This statement muzzles the fourteen errors cited in the OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and dismisses the MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION rendering Clair voiceless. Judge Vescovo and by extension Judge Lipman evidence the expectation that what is improperly stated, even outright lies, will be believed because it is not in the repertoire of perception that, given the huge imbalance of power, anyone will go back and read what Clair did assert as true, factual allegations supported by hard evidence. 

7.)  This abuse of power extends to the insertion of phrases, like… with the sole intent of depriving her of her home, as the sole victim (footnote, page 2 – Document #27); so as to undermine the RICO standing of Clair’s case.  When in point of fact Clair has researched and offered as an exhibit 32 RICO Pattern Examples of homes stolen per the same chain of theft by same Defendants – meaning that Clair is not the sole victim and her home was not the sole theft asset moved into the coffers of criminals per the same chain of theft.  When allowed due process, Clair will expand on this evidence showing a national footprint of operation per criminal RICO pattern and practice, impacting carefully selected victims as unlikely to fight back; all poor and many senior citizens.  In the same document (page 3) posing an entirely different date that Clair’s case is time barred.  …injury no later than March 28, 2012; calling this date “unchanged” when in point of fact the District Court Judge previously tried to hang time barred on a non event, i.e., the foreclosure charade (Document Fraud) that never took place.  The seemingly random insertion of untrue statements that slander the factual allegations demonstrates that Judge Vescovo and Judge Lipman are not facilitating the law to an honest, unbiased standard, but managing and controlling interpretation toward a personally motivated dismissal at the pre-screening juncture.     

8.)  For a list of errors, slanderous alteration of content, and omissions which cut the legs out from under the Civil RICO Claims please read the AMENDED ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS filed with this document.  

9.)  The District Court Judges exceeded “screening” to rule on the case itself, instead of allowing due process to transpire, after the case had been docketed and the Defendants served.

10.)  The pre-screening rule was not applied correctly.  Clair was not accorded a liberal construction of her case.  This standard impossible to achieve given the disingenuous pattern of omitting fraud informing facts and events that fleshed out the RICO Predicate Acts; rewriting content so as to confuse and spin the factual allegations.   

11.)  Due Process is denied if a litigant is denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard; “Granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”[3]  Due Process rights denied Clair include: the right to a neutral decision maker and right to have the factual allegations believed. In the predetermined commitment to dismiss Clair was denied the rights to present evidence, to confront and cross examine witnesses obstructed by the slanderous reframing of the Civil RICO Private Right of Action Complaint(s).[4] 

12.)  Not deterred or checked by those substantial issues that Clair raised in the OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 8/2/2016 (14); Judge Vescovo and Judge Lipman remained unwilling to correct mistakes; though doing so would evidence the strength of character one expects of such an honorable position.  Other fraud informing facts, circumstances, and events were selectively omitted from Judge Vescovo’s conclusions; rubber stamped by Judge Lipman.  Among the omissions is independent collaboration of fraud stemming from three independent sources.  1.) US Department of the Treasury.  2.) Money Management International, Inc.  3.) The State of Tennessee, TN Real Estate Appraisers Commission, outcome of Clair’s complaint No.2015011901; Exhibit #19.  Failing to give these independent sources the due they deserved undermined credibility of the “grounds” upon which the RICO Claims survive scrutiny.  Also omitted is evidence that a prevailing culture of criminality operated among the Jones, Kelley, Boyd Perpetrator Nexus – REO Private Investor Group and which includes Keller Williams – MEM 2, and multiple Keller Williams franchise owner David Osborn.  This culture of criminality preceded and continued during the same period of the HAMP Fraud Scheme.[5]  And extended to a threat upon Clair when it became known she was investigating the fraud serving appraisal history of her property.    

13.)  Property Flip Schemes are known to courts of law, federal regulators, banks, and financial fraud investigators and could not have been a mystery to Judge Vescovo and Judge Lipman.  Judge Vescovo went out of her way to obscure the time line, doing so when she omitted the label, Property Flip – Equity Skimming Scheme. This allowed for the elevation of out of context details while concealing recognition of the chain of theft transpiring as one continuous scheme, perpetrated by same white collar criminals, continuity plus relationship, beginning to end.  The BEGINNING POINT of the flipping step-process was the first secret sale of Clair’s home functioning as Flip #1 (JP Morgan Chase Bank Loan) to the REO Private Investor Group on 5/16/2011 for $100,000; undervalued by $134,000 and which sabotaged and criminally interfered with Clair’s attempts to sell her own home; (Exhibit #23).   The MIDPOINT was the illegal eviction of Clair from her home on 4/25/2012. Accomplished per mafia-like threats and harassment with misrepresentations of authority that included phony paperwork, purported to be a “Fayette County Judge’s Order of Eviction,” that did not exist.   The Jones, Kelley, Boyd Perpetrator Nexus, a.k.a., REO Private Investor Group, obtained physical possession of Clair’s home on 4/25/2012; illegal seizure at the midpoint of the flipping scam. The END POINT of the flipping scam occurred on 8/20/2012, Evolve Bank & Trust Loan as, Flip-#:5; Exhibit #6.  On 8/20/2012, Clair’s home was vested with Keller Williams Straw buyers also the seller, also the buyer, also the listing agent, also Note Owner, a.k.a., REO ID#00906148. Exhibit #:5, Exhibit #:6, Exhibit #:7; Exhibit #:24; also Exhibit #:24-A; and Exhibit #: 49.  

14.)  In service to the dismissal Judge Vescovo avoided all mention of Document Fraud by which no Defendant has the legal right to act as they do.  All pretense of authority stem from the forged Certificate of Abandonment, fraud narrative of an abandoned property corrupting official Bank of America records, secret assigns of temporary authority and flips of Property Title over the MERSCORP Holdings, Inc system, arm in arm conflict of interest sequence of appraisals, the first devaluation of Clair’s home by $134,000, incomplete and forged, fraud perfecting filings at the Register of Deeds Office in Fayette County, TN functioning as fraud tools.  In violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, under misrepresentation of legal authority, document fraud extended to the Core Logic-Keller Williams generated Equator Work Order which orchestrated the illegal seizure of Clair’s home at the midpoint of the flipping scam on 4/25/2012 (Clair filed her case on 4/20/2016).  Document Fraud and other factual allegations, supported by hard evidence that sadly still await a courtroom, went unremarked in the pre-screening Dismissal in overt service to the Defendants.  

15.)  When Clair’s name surfaced in a corporate espionage / computer hacking case involving the same Defendants, Judge Oscar C. Carr, 111 voluntarily recused himself.  The crimes committed against Clair by the same Association-In-Fact Criminal Enterprise Defendants were used as leverage to settle: Collins Maury, Inc., d/b/a Prudential Collins-Maury, Inc. Realtors, Plaintiff v. MEM 2, LLC d/b/a Keller Williams Realty Memphis East, Defendant.  This Case was filed on November 10, 2011 as Docket Number: CH-11-1860; the same period as the HAMP Fraud Scheme and before the illegal seizure of Clair’s home on 4/25/2012.  Chancellor Oscar C. Carr, III filed: ORDER OF RECUSAL AND TRANFER TO PART 1; entered January 12, 2015 when he recognized Clair’s name having represented her in another case.  Judge Carr recused himself for far less and yet, Judge Vescovo and Judge Lipman have aggressively held onto control and sway over outcome of Clair’s case, in which Judge Vescovo has a striking conflict of interest that demands recusal.  This conflict of interest enabled and rubber stamped by Judge Lipman.  

16.)  There can be no doubt that the pre-screening of Clair’s case has failed at every level of what is legally accorded to citizens; even pro se litigants lacking legal representation. Clair requests that a District Court Judge with no ties to the Defendants will pre-screen the 2ND AMENDED COMPLIANT which, according to the 6th Circuit ruling, and despite what is asserted in the ORDER GRANTING MOTION / REQUEST FOR CLARITY; dated April 14, 2017 and postmarked April 17, 2017 still does remain pending.  

This document submitted with respect for the rule of law, in hopeful anticipation of rightful due process on this 1ST day of May, 2017.

Alexandra Clair: ___________________________________________



[1] http:///www.superlawyers.com.  “Mike McLaren Keeps it Simple” Published 2010 Mid-South Super Lawyers by Ross Pfund. 
[2] Black, McLaren, Jones, Ryland & Grifee PC.  Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC.  Bradley, Arant, Blout, Cummings LLP.  Butler Snow. 
[3] Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 437 (1982), quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965).  See also Little V. Streater, 452 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1981).
[4] Objection to the Report and Recommendations (8/12/2016); Amended Assignment of Errors (5/1/2017) 
[5] Collins Maury, Inc., d/b/a Prudential Collins-Maury, Inc Realtors, Plaintiff, v. MEM 2, LLC d/b/a Keller Williams Realty Memphis East.  Filed in Chancery Court of Shelby County 11/10/2011; Docket No: CH 11-1860.  Plaintiff Attorney is Robert F. Miller, Malcolm B. Futhey; Farris Bobango Branan PLC.  Clair’s Exhibit #:64.

Comments

MOST READ BLOGS

DISCERNING SPIRITS: A SPIRITUAL GIFT

WOODS END POST

BATTLING AIR, CONTROLLING KITTENS, KEEPING SCATTER-PROOF ARMLOADS OF SHINY, SLIPPERY MARBLES IN WHITE GLOVED HANDS: I've tried! It doesn't work! Good luck with that!

SEX-ADDICTION AND DELIVERANCE

IS WATER THE SPECIAL DOMAIN OF EVIL SPIRITS? I was asked this question / read my answer below and ask: What does an alarmist concept steal?

EDWARD SNOWDEN, CONTEXT, AND THIS GRANDMOTHERS' OPINION

SLANDER: A Personal Perspective

TWO CHRISTIAN LABELED MOVIES / SON OF GOD / NOAH / MEL GIBSON and the BENCHMARK

Popular posts from this blog

DISCERNING SPIRITS: A SPIRITUAL GIFT

SEX-ADDICTION AND DELIVERANCE

WOODS END POST