PROPERTY THEFT - CIVIL RICO - Motion to Reverse Judgment

I am now posting the last filing of May 1, 2017; MOTION TO REVERSE JUDGMENT...  Contrary to U.S. Constitutional guarantees courts can be biased against pro se litigants.  Not only did Judge Vescovo, who was assigned to "screen" my Civil RICO Complaint evidence bias, but she has an overwhelming conflict of interest with the big-bank defendants whom she favored. If due process, fairness, and the right to have the factual allegations believed at the screening juncture had not been denied me... even then this particular Judge should never have been assigned my case. In effect she did not screen my case, but ruled on it repeatedly misquoting and altering the factual allegations while omitting and altering all reference relevant to the RICO Claims. 

This judicial abuse of power speaks to the absolute conviction that given the huge imbalance of power between a Federal Judge and a pro se litigant, filing under pauper status, no one will go back and read what I did allege to be true, based on hard evidence.  In the interest of the public welfare and other pro se litigants I feel morally obligated to make what happened to me, already a matter of public record, even more public.  

I currently wait for a ruling and outcome related to the last three May 1, 2017 filings.  Links to the prior two May 1, 2017 filings:

MOTION FOR RECUSAL Link: 

AMENDED ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS  Link: 


THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Alexandra Clair, et al.,                              )
Plaintiff                                                         )
                                                                        )           CASE NO. 16-02263-SHL-dvk
v.                                                                     )           U.S. 6th Circuit CASE NO. 16-6672
                                                                        )
Bank of America, N.A., et al,                    )
Defendants                                                   )

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 FEBRURAY 2017

1.)  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.” 
2.)  I, Alexandra Clair (Clair) now know that the Amended Complaint that remains pending is the Second Amended Complaint.  On November 15, 2016 Clair filed a second Amended Complaint with the District Court.  She added two Defendants and one Co-Plaintiff.  The District Court stamped, but evidently did not accept and, or, file the Second Amended Complaint.  Since no communication was forthcoming that informed otherwise, Clair believed it had been filed. 
3.)  When Clair received the list of Defendants from the 6th Circuit she noticed that this list was sourced from the First Amended Complaint of 8/23/2016.  Therefore, did not include Defendants REO ID#00906148 (a number identifier used to commit fraud; a RICO Violation) and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank based on additional evidence collaborated by a bank filing.   Raising the issue of the incomplete Defendant List, informed by new evidence, Clair wrote a letter to Case Manager, Ms. Fultz, of the 6th Circuit.  Her letter dated November 28, 2016 reads in part: “It is important that the Court of Appeals have in their possession the last Amended Complaint filed November 15, 2016.
4.)  Ms. Fultz wrote back to Clair on December 2, 2016.  In part reads: “The district court, in its order of November 10, 2016, (RE 23) denied you leave to file a second amended complaint.  Therefore this Court cannot add the additional parties you requested as appellees since they are not part of the district court docket.”  Document No. 23 is the: ORDER DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION, signed by Judge Lipman November 10, 2016 affirming the ruling of Judge Vescovo, Document No. 22; November 8, 2016.   Given no independent oversight, muzzling the fourteen errors and misquotes of content, cited by Clair in the OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMONDATIONS so as to affirm each other’s ongoing and persistent misquotes and omission of factual allegations in biased favor of the defendants.
5.)  On December 12, 2016 Clair wrote back to Ms. Fultz.  “This is in response to your letter dated December 2, 2016. I don’t read anywhere in the Civil Rules of Procedure that a pro se litigant needs permission to file an amended complaint until such time that the case has been approved to move forward.” Docketed for trial; the Civil RICO Case moving beyond pre-screening.
6.)  After December 12, 2016 the District Court then did file what is titled ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, document No. 27, December 28, 2017.  Despite what is implied in this title this Order does not address content from the 2nd Amended Complaint which contains new evidence and which outlines in greater specificity certain key facts ignored and misquoted by the District Court Judge(s) in prior rulings.  In particular and not a matter of conjecture, the secret sale per the JP Morgan Chase bank loan, premised upon a forged Certificate of Abandonment and phony appraisal(s) contrived by the REO Private Investor Group functioning as the RICO Association-In-Fact Criminal Enterprise.  This illegal sale of Clair’s home at the ridiculous price of $100,000 devalued Clair’s home by $134,000.  This secret sale, concealed within the MERSCORP HOLDINGS, Inc. – MERS E-Registry System, as the JP Morgan Chase Bank Loan, noted additionally in a fraud riddled HUD1 as flip #1 of Property Title.  This first flip took place on 5/16/2011 eleven days after Clair listed her home for sale with Crye Leike Realty for $234,000; MLS No.: 3223195; Clair Exhibit #23.  Foregoing all due diligence Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase Bank, and the REO Private Investor Group did willfully sabotage and interfere with Clair’s, Crye Leike Realty Sale Contract.  Her attempts to sell her own home totally sabotaged, not because her home was “dual listed,” but because her home was shown on industry only websites, after 5/16/2011 as REO Owned.  No disclosure to Clair, sold outright to white collar criminals functioning with a national footprint of operation as the REO Private Investment Group.  This group then paid off the investors in the CWALT Trust at an unnecessary loss given that Clair could have sold her home, paid off all debt and still walked away at closing with cash; equity skimming potential the reason her home was targeted for theft.  This loss to the CWALT Investors represents securities fraud perpetrated by the same chain of theft and replicated in the 32 researched, RCIO Pattern Examples.   The first secret transaction of 5/16/2011, absent all disclosure to Clair, accomplished by document fraud, jumpstarted the Property Flip – Equity Skimming Scheme.  Clair’s home was subjected to five illegal transactions from 5/16/2011 thru 8/20/2012, the REO Private Investor Group, aka, the Jones, Kelley, Boyd Perpetrator Nexus, laundering the chain of title so as to accomplish theft by deception. 
7.)  The 6th Circuit asserts that the 2nd Amended Complaint remains pending. As of February 24, 2017 and not as of December 28, 2016, which despite the misleading title of the District Court ruling, did not in fact address content from the 2nd Amended Complaint?  And therefore this complaint “remains pending.” 
            8.)  Upon reading the February 24, 2016 ruling of the 6th Circuit, Ms. Clair then logically expected the District Court to rule on the Second Amended Complaint.  However, given the past history, Clair grew uneasy.  She submitted a written request to the District Court for clarity on March 6, 2017.  In this request she addressed new, additional misquotes from the December 28, 2016 order; including the ongoing omission, and reframing of salient factual allegations to favor the Defendants.  Due to a minor learning disability Clair has a problem with numbers and letters, which is exacerbated by anxiety, and is not a good proof reader.  Due to mistakes she submitted a revised second letter dated March 7, 2017.  The first paragraph of both letters reads: “I, Alexandra Clair (Clair) am writing to clarify my understanding of the February 24, 2017 filing/decision of the 6th Circuit and indicated next steps to be taken by the District Court.  Because the District Court has not ruled on the second amended complaint filed on November 16, 2016, the 6th Circuit ““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.””  Because… “The Amended complaint remains pending.” The “pending” state and status of Clair’s Civil RICO Private Right of Action filed 4/20/2016; filed well within the four year RICO statute of limitations. 
9.)  In answer to Clair’s March 7, 2017 request for clarity The District Court then mailed Clair a copy of: ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND STRICKING PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT of December 28, 2016.  With no written explanation Clair was left to interpret a dubious message implied by this action. Creating further anxiety and confusion, perhaps, in hopes that Clair would forego pursuing her due process rights to which she must be committed, not only for herself, but for the benefit of large numbers of other victims impacted by a Property Flip Scheme with a national footprint of operation, targeting with particularity of purpose the poor, the disenfranchised, and senior citizens.  Therefore, upon reading the misleading heading that claims to rule on the 2nd Amended Complaint when it does not, Clair was led to question what Amended Complaint remained pending that the 6th Circuit referred to.  Was it the First Amended Complaint that remained pending?  Was it the 2nd Amendment Complaint which the heading implies has already been ruled on when, in point of fact it’s content, and new evidence, is not addressed.  What exactly remains pending, not as of December 28, 2016, but as of February 24, 2017? 
10.)  Her questions still unanswered as of April 12, 2017, Clair therefore filed: MOTION/REQUEST FOR CLARITY.  Clair wrote: “I do not have an attorney.  I am therefore at a considerable disadvantage which is a source of anxiety to me; not schooled in procedure or law, being a senior citizen, having a minor learning disability and well aware that there is a considerable imbalance of power.  Therefore would you, in an unambiguous, straightforward manner, communicate if I am right to conclude that it is the First Amended Complaint that remains pending?  And additionally confirm that the District Court will rule on this decision at a point in time in keeping with the courts schedule.” In fact it is the 2nd Amended Complaint that still remains pending, and Clair’s first interpretation of the 6th Circuit order was correct.
11.)  In ORDER GRANTING MOTION/REQUEST FOR CLARITY dated April 14, 2017, Judge Lipman did then respond to Clair’s second request for clarity.  She wrote:  “Because this court had not issued a final order terminating all of Ms. Clair’s claims at the time she filed her appeal (November 15, 2016), the Sixth Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider her appeal of that Order.  Ms. Clair did not, however, appeal the Court’s Order dismissing her case or the final judgment entered in this matter (entered December 28, 2016) which closed her case and terminated all remaining issues in this litigation.”   
12.)  The 6th Circuit disagrees.  At the prescreening stage Clair did not need permission to file the Second Amended Complaint.  Despite the heading the Second Amended Complaint remains pending as of February 24, 2017. 
13.)  Because Clair’s case remained with the 6th Circuit on December 28, 2016, and additionally thirty days after, Clair could not have filed an appeal of what remained pending and of what she did not recognize as pending until this was pointed out by the 6th Circuit on February 24, 2017.  To expect Clair, without an attorney, which she recognizes as a huge impediment, to exercise a sophisticated interpretation of legal maneuvers that are not straightforward, as our Court System is intended to be – equal under the law to all persons – is to disenfranchise Clair from due process. 
14.)  Clair requests that (27) ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT be reversed. 
15.)  Clair requests that the District Court rule on, and weigh the content, of the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT filed as document 25, on 11/15/2016 within the strictures and limitations of the prescreening requirements.    
16.)  Clair requests per MOTION FOR RECUSAL, filed with this document along with AMENDED ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS, that Jude Vescovo and Judge Lipman voluntarily recuse themselves from exercising any control over outcome of disposition of the SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. 

This Document is submitted with respect for the rule of law, in hopeful anticipation of justice on this 1st day of May, 2017. 

Alexandra Clair: __________________________________________________
                           Signature

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

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?