"Check out the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division:
First Department court orders for investigation of the former President of the New York State Bar Association Steven C. Krane by clicking on his picture for the document. This is the price of gluttony and greed and why the almighty one has deemed such a sin.
Steven Krane, Proskauer Ross LLP who is the epitome of ethics has lost his way and acted in conflict of interest and abuse of public office with both the First Department Disciplinary Committee and the New York State Bar Association in representing his partners while maintaining conflicting public office positions in the New York Supreme Courts and NYSBA.
Although his investigation has been temporarily de-railed, it will one day be completed as a formal investigation. Yet, while Krane clerked for Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals, Judith Kaye, who by the by, is married to a Proskauer partner, Stephen Kaye, who is one of the accused Proskauer Rose partners in the Intellectual Property Department (formed after learning of the Iviewit inventions), it looks like such forces are blocking the court ordered investigation through yet another series of conflicts and abuses in the investigating department.
Where it appears that Proskauer Rose LLP has positioned deep within the ethics departments and courts to block due process and stave off the inevitable.
Yet, as you read on, even these further desperate attempts to block prosecution have uncovered further conflicts which have only caused more people to become ensnared in the web of crimes and further complaints to be filed.
Where those complaints in some instances have been refused to file and docket by members of the departments acting to block complaints against themselves inapposite of the laws of those states.
Can you imagine, complaints filed against public officers where such officers than deny the complaints with out formal procedure, sounds like the old communist regime where citizens where unable to complain about their elected officials.
It does not sound like the good old USofA where we have a constitutional right to complain against our elected officials when they are found guilty of abuse of public office and as citizens we have an obligation to our country to file such charges. Yet, the onion is peeling and desperate times call for desperate measures. "
Source and Lots More
http://iviewit.tv/about/index.htm
the Above is about 1/4 the way down....
Posted here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger...
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
New York Corruption - Judicial Corruption - Time for Accountability and Transparency
"
New York Law Journal:
May 21, 2009 "Judiciary Committee to Hold Hearings on Disciplinary Bodies", p. 1, Joel Stashenko
June 9, 2009: "Grievances Against Lawyer, Judge Discipline Panels Aired at Capital", p. 1, Joel Stashenko
HEARING #2:
VIDEOTAPE of Senate Judiciary Committee's
September 24, 2009 Hearing -- Manhattan, New York
Opening Statement by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman John Sampson
video at 0:0:0 - 0:2:53
Opening Statement by Senate Judiciary Committee Member Eric Adams
video at 0:2:54 - 0:3:32; his proposal of Task Force (at 0:34:44 --):
"...This is extensive...
...the best way to resolve inefficiencies and corruption in government
is to allow the people who are personally touched by the matter to empower us with information.
So I am going to ask the Chair if he would put in place a Task Force that will be comprised of individuals like yourself and victims to assist us in navigating how this problem is being hidden from public view..."
assented to by Chairman Sampson (at 0:47:23 - 0:47:45)
Senate Judiciary Committee's witness list
Witnesses at September 24, 2009 hearing:
RICHARD KUSE, video at 0:3:36 - 0:19:27; 0:47:49 - 0:48:14
with CATHERINE WILSON, video at 0:19:15 - 0:47:48 AND 1:53:56 - 1:58:17
JUDY HERSKOWITZ -- video at 0:48:33 - 1:03:36
ANDREA WILKINSON -- video at 1:03:52 -1:25:08
VICTOR KOVNER, Chairman/Fund for Modern Courts -- video at 1:25:09 -1:33:53
MARIA GKANIOS -- video at 1:34:00 - 1:59:59
REGINA FELTON, Esq. -- at 2:00:01 - 2:27:09
DOUGLAS HIBGEE -- video at 2:27:10 - 2:35:31
CATHERINE MALARKEY -- video at 2:35:48 - 22:38:58
NORA RENZULLI, Esq. -- video at 2:39:02 - 2:47:30
STEPHANIE KLEIN -- video at 2:49:20 - 3:06:48
IKE ARUTI, Esq. -- video at 3:06:51 - 3:22:58
TERENCE FINNAN -- video at 3:22:59 -3:27:57
GIZELLA WEISSHAUS -- video at 3:28:50 - 3:37:51
ELIOT BERNSTEIN -- video at 3:38:20 - 4:01:16
SUZANNE McCORMACK -- video at 4:01:45 - 4:16:17
with PAT HANLEY"
Source of Post
http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/judicial-discipline/nys/nys-sjc-hearing.htm
New York Corruption - New York State Commission
NO INVESTIGATION OF WITNESSES' TESTIMONY & DOCUMENTATION --
NO TASK FORCE OR SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
NO FINDINGS, NO COMMITTEE REPORT
ACTION AGENDA 2011: secure continued hearings, investigation, & findings as to witness testimony & documents --
CJA's February 21, 2011 memo to New York Times reporter William Glaberson -- "RE: PROPOSAL FOR COVERAGE: The public’s 'views' of the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct, expressed at the NYS Senate Judiciary Committee hearings in 2009 – as to which neither the Senate Judiciary Committee, bar associations, nor advocacy organizations favored by The Times have rendered ANY report or made ANY findings"
CJA's February 21, 2011 memo to New York Times Editorial Board -- "REQUEST FOR A MEETING with the Editorial Board regarding prospective Times' editorials about the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct"
Source of Post
http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/judicial-discipline/nys/nys-sjc-hearing.htm
New York Corruption
"State Bar Set to Consider NYCLA's Proposal for Conduct Commission", by Joel Stashenko, New York Law Journal, January 21, 2011
"Proposal to Revamp Judicial-Conduct Agency Draws Fire" by William Glaberson, New York Times, January 25, 2011
click here for : video of NYS Bar Association's January 28, 2011 House of Delegates' meeting, where the New York County Lawyers' Association report & recommendations were presented by its co-chairs of its Committee on the Commission on Judicial Conduct: Klaus Eppler & former Appellate Division, First Dept. Justice Betty Weinberg Ellerin
"New York Bar Seeks Limits on Investigations of Judges" by William Glaberson, New York Times, January 28, 2011
"Lowering the Bar", editorial, New York Post, January 30, 2011
"A Sex Joke and Other Judicial Bad Behavior" by William Glaberson, New York Times, February 2, 2011
"A Push to Open Hearings in Judge-Misconduct Cases" by William Glaberson, New York Times, February 3, 2011
"Judge them in open court: Legislature should open Commission on Judicial Conduct proceedings to view", editorial, Daily News, February 7, 2011
"The overdue case of judging judges", editorial, Albany Times Union, February 7, 2011
February 9, 2011 interview of Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman by CapitalTonight.Com (Liz Benjamin) on bar association proposals & public judicial disciplinary hearings (click here for full interview)
"Don't weaken commission's ability to discipline bad judges", perspective column by Bennett L. Gershman, Journal News/LoHud.Com (Gannett), February 13, 2011
Source of Post
http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/judicial-discipline/nys/nys-sjc-hearing.htm
New York, STATE LEGISLATORS ON RECORD - New York Corruption
"To All New Yorkers, .,..The people's priorities must be our priorities"
SENATE
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER -- Senator Dean Skelos
SENATE MINORITY LEADER -- Senator John Sampson
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE -- 2011-2012
CHAIRMAN John J. Bonacic "He has long championed reform in the Legislative process and believes that the best public policies are enacted when there is substantial opportunity for every Member of the Senate, and through each Legislator, all New Yorkers to participate in the law making process." (from his bio)
Senator Eric Adams
Senator Neil D. Breslin
Senator Martin Malave Dilan
Senator Adriano Espaillat
Senator Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr.
Senator Michael Gianaris
Senator Joseph A. Griffo
Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson
Senator Liz Krueger
Senator Andrew J. Lanza
Senator Kenneth LaValle
Senator Tom Libous
Senator Michael F. Nozzolio
Senator Thomas F. O'Mara
Senator Bill Perkins
Senator Michael H. Ranzenhofer
Senator Stephen M. Saland
Senator Jose M. Serrano
Senator Daniel L. Squadron
Senator Toby Ann Stavisky
ASSEMBLY
ASSEMBLY SPEAKER -- Assemblyman Sheldon Silver
ASSEMBLY MINORITY LEADER -- Assemblyman Brian M. Kolb
CHAIRWOMAN Helene E. Weinstein
Assemblyman Jonathan Bing
Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz
Albany New York, Senate Judiciary Committee,
VIDEOTAPE of Senate Judiciary Committee's
June 8, 2009 Hearing -- Albany, New York
Parts 1 & 2
Opening Statement by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman John Sampson
video at 0:0:0 - 0:4:54
Senate Judiciary Committee's witness list
Witnesses at June 8, 2009 hearing:
1st Dept. Disciplinary Committee member MARTIN R. GOLD, -- video at 0:6:29 - 0:31:47
with 1st Dept. Disciplinary Committee Chief Counsel ALAN FRIEDBERG
CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON, Esq. -- video at 0:31:51 - 0:46:52
KEVIN McKEOWN -- video at 0:46:54 -1:03:11
Commission on Judicial Conduct Chairman THOMAS A. KLONICK, -- video at 1:03:11 - 1:06:00
with Commission Administrator & Counsel ROBERT H. TEMBECKJIAN -video at 1:06:02 - 1:20:47
JUSTICE DUANE A. HART -- video at 1:20:48 -1:38:32
PAMELA CARVEL -- video at 1:38:40 - 1:50:48
PAUL H. ALTMAN -- video at 1:50:50 - 2:03:07
LUISA C. ESPOSITO -- video at 2:03:10 - 2:11:20
WILLIAM GALISON -- video at 2:11:59 -2:26:20
ELEANOR CAPOGROSSO, Esq. -- video at 2:26:22 - 2:41:29
Former NYS Bar Association President ROBERT OSTERTAG -- video at 2:41:33 - 2:52:20
JOHN A. ARETAKIS, Esq. -- video at 2:52:21 - 3:04:12
MICHAEL KELLY -- video at 0:0 - 0:2:43
KATHRYN GRACE JORDAN/End Discrimination Now -- video at 0:2:45 - 0:10:02
JAMES A. MONTAGNINO, Esq. -- video at 0:10:07 - 0:22:22
RUTH M. POLLACK, Esq. -- video at 0:23:02 - 0:36:23
KEVIN PATRICK BRADY -- video at 0:36:52 - 0:40:30
CARL LANZISERA/Americans for Legal Reform -- video at 0:40:35 - 0:47:35
Source
http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/judicial-discipline/nys/nys-sjc-hearing.htm
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Was Judge Marcy Friedman Conflicted in the Dorothea Perry and Robert Gross Case?
Here is Some Links and information for you To Examine the Motives, Facts, Conflicts of Interest Possibly in this Case.
"State Court Judge Marcy Friedman last week ruled against Perry. Her decision hinged on whether Perry was employed under contract or "at will" at the time of the incident. The court ruled that Perry's employment was at will while her claim against New York Law School was a contractual issue. In short, Perry's suit was tossed on a technicality. "
Did Judge Marcy Friedman protect the Right to Engage in Child Porn? Did Judge Marcy Friedman have ANY Motive to throw out this case, when Clearly the "Techies" Had been violated for Blowing the Whistle.
Perry v Collegis, Inc. - What Was the Real Money or the Political Motives? What was the real reason behind protecting a Professor engaging in Child Porn OVER protecting the Whistleblowers who were doing the Right Thing ?
Keep in mind that Edward Samuels, pedophile professor, and Arthur S. Leonard (author of the article below) were office neighbors and both tenured faculty members of NYLS.
http://newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2009/12/counsel-guided-court-system-with-steady.html.Why did she not recuse herself or make the connection known?
http://newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com/2009/12/counsel-guided-court-system-with-steady.html.Why did she not recuse herself or make the connection known?
Perry states that Judge Friedman never divulged any of this information during the proceedings.She found the connection through a random google search after her appeal was filed.
More to the Dorothea Perry Story
Got a Tip on any of This?
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Veritas et Aequitas
Private Property Theft through Judicial Corruption is Rampant
Expose them ALL by Name. Email me your Story
at Crystal@CrystalCox.com
at Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Judge Marcy Friedman
Judge Marcy Friedman
Got a Tip on Judge Marcy Friedman ?
eMail me
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
TerreStar Corporation Bankruptcy Courts - Conflicts of Interest, Hiding Evidence, Deny Shareholders Rights?
ORDER DENYING REQUESTS OF JEFFREY M. SWARTS - TERRESTAR NETWORKS INC.
" JEFFREY M. SWARTS - TERRESTAR NETWORKS INC., Tracy Hope Davis - U.S. Trustee - Southern District of New York - TerreStar Corporation Shares - Material Documentary Evidence Request - Evidence Suggests Debtors and Certain Creditors HAVE Colluded - AN "Engineered Bankruptcy - Bankruptcy Fraud on the CourtsWhat Relationship Does "Susan Golden" have with "Daniel Golden" - U.S. Trustee Deirdre Martini, is there any Connection or Collusion? What is the Conflict of Interest Connected to AkinGump ?
Sirius Satellite Radio Stock - What is the Conflict Here ?
(2) failure to comply with the local and federal rules for the filing and serving of pleadings,
Source of Post and Full Document
Sirius Satellite Radio Stock - What is the Conflict Here ?
Who is Watching over the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts?
NO One is Watching - NO One !!!!
"ORDER DENYING REQUESTS OF JEFFREY M. SWARTS
Upon the requests submitted to this Court by pro se litigant Jeffrey M. Swarts,
attached hereto (the “Request”), and the response of the United States Trustee attached hereto,
the Court hereby denies the Request for
(1) failure to allege a prima facie entitlement to relief and
(1) failure to allege a prima facie entitlement to relief and
(2) failure to comply with the local and federal rules for the filing and serving of pleadings,
including, inter alia, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 5005, 9013, 9014 and Local
Bankruptcy Rules 5005-2, 9006-1, and 9013-1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
November 23, 2010 "
"The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal taxpayeridentification
number, are: TerreStar New York Inc. (6394); TerreStar Networks Inc. (3931); Motient
Communications Inc. (3833); Motient Holdings Inc. (6634); Motient License Inc. (2431); Motient Services Inc. (5106); Motient Ventures Holding Inc. (6191); MVH Holdings Inc. (9756); TerreStar License Inc. (6537); TerreStar National Services Inc. (6319); TerreStar Networks Holdings (Canada) Inc. (1337); TerreStar Networks (Canada) Inc. (8766) and 0887729 B.C. Ltd. (1345). "
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 5005, 9013, 9014 and Local
Bankruptcy Rules 5005-2, 9006-1, and 9013-1.
Got a Tip on the TerreStar Bankruptcy?
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Monday, February 7, 2011
Judge Alison Renee Lee - Judge James R. Barber
"Columbia, South Carolina - There is evidence that Judge Joseph M. Strickland, Master-in-Equity, and Circuit Court Judges James R. Barber, III, G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., and Alison Renee Lee have obstructed justice by aiding and abetting Lori L. Pelzer, a/k/a Lori L. Washington, in frustrating and impeding Glen K. LaConey in the collection of his money judgments."
"Glen K. LaConey (Assignee of Record) v. Home Assist Real Estate, LLC and Xavier Troy Smith, Judgment Roll No. 258732
In the matter of Lamar Advertising of Columbia, Inc. v. Home Assist Real Estate, LLC, (Home Assist) JR# 247286, Lamar Advertising (Lamar), represented by counsel, sought execution of it’s judgment before Judge Joseph M. Strickland (Judge Strickland). During a hearing in early 2004, Judge Strickland ordered Lori Pelzer (Pelzer), officer of Home Assist, to make installment payments to Lamar, which Pelzer failed to pay. Judge Strickland issued his Order and Rule to Show Cause for Contempt against Pelzer. In response, Pelzer authored a letter to Judge Strickland, dated August 10, 2004, in which she stated that she was unable to comply with the court’s order because she and her husband were financially distressed, and that she closed Home Assist in June 2004, during the proceeding. Judge Strickland dismissed the matter without prejudice.
On December 16, 2004, Lori Pelzer’s husband, Melvin K. Pelzer, purchased a homestead valued at $261,167.00 on 216 Chalfont Lane in Richland County, South Carolina, as reflected in Deed Book R-1008, page 1467 in the Richland County Register of Deeds Office; and on December 16, 2004, Melvin Pelzer obtained a home equity loan valued at $52,223.00, secured by the Chalfont Lane property, as reflected in Deed Book R-1012, page 2314.
Subsequently, Lori and Melvin opened Pelzer Premier Realty, a general partnership, in early 2005, after entry of the judgment below against Pelzer, and during the litigation in the instant matter, which resulted in judgment in the amount of $26,500.00.
On November 7, 2005, the Court issued LaConey’s proposed Order and Rule to Show Cause, directing Pelzer to appear as officer of Home Assist Real Estate, LLC, Respondent above-named, before Judge Strickland on December 7, 2005 for supplementary proceedings (debtor examination). Pelzer appeared and testified that the documents to be produced for examination were located at her attorney’s office. LaConey demanded to examine the documents for the record. [Xavier Troy Smith, Respondent above-named, was not, and never has been, a party to the supplemental proceedings. Thus, the court had no post-judgment personal or subject-matter jurisdiction over Xavier Troy Smith.]
Judge Strickland ordered Pelzer to appear again on January 5, 2006 to produce the documents. Pelzer failed to appear, purportedly due to “surgery”. Amazingly, during a hearing on February 13, 2006, Judge Strickland refused to compel Pelzer to produce the documents as ordered, then he dismissed the matter without prejudice. Mysteriously, Judge Strickland’s written Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice, time-stamped as filed “February 14, 2006“, does not appear in the record. Pelzer dissolved Home Assist on February 14, 2006. (What a coincidence!)
Amazingly, Judge Strickland, acting without jurisdiction and in his personal capacity, dismissed the matter with prejudice on January 7, 2008 without notice, without a hearing and without application by the parties. In his order with prejudice, Judge Strickland prevaricated that a hearing was held on July 16, 2007; however, no such hearing was held. Further, Judge Strickland omitted that he previously dismissed without prejudice. Thus, Judge Strickland denied LaConey due process of law and engaged in fraud on the court. Therefore, Judge Strickland’s Order of Dismissal With Prejudice is void. [LaConey learned of the Order with Prejudice incidental to his complaint against Judge Strickland with the Judicial Merit Selection Commission in November 2008.]
On April 5, 2010, LaConey filed his motion to vacate Judge Strickland’s Order of Dismissal with Prejudice as void. To date, the motion has not been heard. Thus, LaConey has been denied the right to petition the court for redress of his grievances.
On June 28, 2010, Judge James R. Barber, III, Chief Administrative Judge for the Court of Common Pleas, filed his “Judgment“, without notice, without affording LaConey an opportunity to respond in a meaningful way, and without certifying his familiarity with the record, in which he ruled that “Because the dismissal was never appealed, Judge Strickland’s ruling has become the law of the case.”. Judge Barber omitted that LaConey had sought relief from the judgment by his motion to vacate. Apparently, Judge Barber failed to review the record in an effort to ignore the numerous affidavits filed by LaConey alleging that Judge Strickland had aided and abetted Pelzer in hindering, delaying and defrauding LaConey in the execution of his judgment, and obstructed the administration of justice.
No Petition and Order of Reference to the Master-in-Equity, conferring jurisdiction upon the Master, appear in the record. Therefore, both Judge Strickland and Judge Barber should have known, had they reviewed the record, that they lacked jurisdiction to issue any orders in this case. [Judge Barber’s order, based on Judge Strickland’s order, is void.] Judge Barber’s term as Chief Administrative Judge expired on June 31, 2010.
On July 2, 2010, LaConey sent his letter, with attachments, to Judge Alison Renee Lee, Chief Administrative Judge for the Court of Common Pleas, advising Judge Lee of the status of the case and seeking supplementary proceedings in aid of judgment.
Judge Lee responded with her letter, dated July 15, 2010, in which she advised that she was in the process of reviewing the record in the case for any appropriate action, that LaConey was not listed as a party of record in the case, had requested the Clerk of Court to correct the record, and that she had requested all relevant materials pertaining to the case from Judge Strickland’s office. To date, Judge Lee has taken no action; thereby, frustrating and impeding execution of LaConey‘s judgment.
Glen K. LaConey (Assignee of Record) v. Lori Pelzer, Judgment Roll No. 247572
On June 4, 2007, Lori Pelzer, Respondent above-named, was served through her counsel, Derwin T. Brannon, Esq., with the court’s order and Rule to Show Cause for Supplementary Proceedings, which included a restraining order against the transfer, interference with or disposal of Pelzer’s property pending further direction of the court.
However, on June 7, 2007, Pelzer restructured Pelzer Premier Realty as Pelzer Premier Realty, LLC, thereby encumbering her partnership interests in the business.
During supplementary proceedings in aid of judgment, held before Judge Strickland on July 16, 2007, Pelzer yelled in open court, “I’m not payin’ Mr. LaConey a dime! I’m READY to go to jail! I’m READY to go to jail!”, after which Judge Strickland dismissed the matter without prejudice. [“July 16, 2007” was referenced in above case.]
On July 16, 2008, Judge L. Casey Manning filed LaConey’s proposed Order and Rule to Show Cause for Supplementary Proceedings. The matter was not set for hearing.
On May 1, 2009, LaConey filed his motion for disqualification of Judge Strickland. Judge Strickland filed his Order of Recusal on May 5, 2009.
On August 6, 2009, Judge James R. Barber, III, Chief Administrative Judge for the Court of Common Pleas, filed LaConey’s proposed Order and Rule to Show Cause and set the matter for hearing before Judge G. Thomas Cooper, Jr. on September 23, 2009. Pelzer failed to appear. During the hearing, Judge Cooper directed LaConey to surrender the certified mail delivery receipt, evidencing service upon Pelzer, to Judge Cooper for filing. The delivery receipt has mysteriously disappeared.
On April 22, 2010, LaConey filed his motion for supplementary proceedings which was delivered to Judge Cooper via certified mail, return receipt requested.
The motion cited numerous incidents of fraudulent conveyances and violations of the Court’s restraining order by Pelzer. Judge Cooper disregarded the motion, failed to certify his familiarity with the record, failed to take any action, and failed to issue his final order. Thus, the matter remains pending before Judge Cooper.
On June 28, 2010, Judge James R. Barber, III, Chief Administrative Judge for the Court of Common Pleas, filed his “Judgment“, without notice, without affording LaConey an opportunity to respond in a meaningful way, and without certifying his familiarity with the record, in which he ruled that “This Court has advised Mr. LaConey that it will not be scheduling Supplemental Proceedings, a function generally performed by the Master-in-Equity. Mr. LaConey may proceed with Supplemental Proceedings in the Pelzer case, but only through the appointment of a Special Referee.”
Apparently, Judge Barber failed to review the record in the case in an effort to ignore the numerous affidavits filed by LaConey, which alleged that Judge Strickland had aided and abetted Lori Pelzer in hindering, delaying and defrauding LaConey in the execution of his judgments and had obstructed the administration of justice.
Otherwise, Judge Barber would have known that he had previously assigned the matter to a circuit court judge; which is not that, “This Court has advised Mr. LaConey that it will not be scheduling Supplemental Proceedings”. Judge Barber lacked authority to issue final order in the matter, on the basis that Judge Cooper, not Judge Barber, was the assigned judge with authority to issue a final order.
Judge Barber persistently issued orders in these cases without jurisdiction, and without service upon LaConey.
The offending orders were issued without notice, without affording LaConey an opportunity to respond in a meaningful way, and without Judge Barber’s certification of familiarity with the record
On July 2, 2010, LaConey sent his letter, with attachments, to Judge Alison Renee Lee, Chief Administrative Judge for the Court of Common Pleas, advising Judge Lee of the status of these cases and seeking supplementary proceedings in aid of his judgments.
Judge Lee responded with her letter, dated July 15, 2010, in which she advised that she was in the process of reviewing the record in the case for any appropriate action, that LaConey was not listed as a party of record in the case, had requested the Clerk of Court to correct the record, and that she had requested all relevant materials pertaining to the case from Judge Strickland’s office.
On December 21, 2011, LaConey sent his request and proposed Order of Reference for appointment of a Special Referee to Judge Lee via first-class mail. To date, Judge Lee has taken no action; thereby, further frustrating and impeding execution of LaConey‘s judgments.
South Carolina Law, S.C. Ann. § 16-17-735, persons falsely asserting authority of law; offenses; punishment:
(A) A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he:
(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien, or other infringement of personal or property rights; or
(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity.
(B) It is unlawful for a person falsely to assert authority of state law in connection with a sham legal process.
(C) It is unlawful for a person to act without authority under state law as a Supreme Court Justice, a court of appeals judge, a circuit court judge, a master-in-equity, a family court judge, a probate court judge, a magistrate, a clerk of court or register of deeds, a commissioned notary public, or other authorized official in determining a controversy, adjudicating the rights or interests of others, or signing a document as though authorized by state law.
Could the judicial misconduct committed by these corrupt judges lead to terrorist attacks of Biblical proportions against the South Carolina Judiciary?"
"Glen K. LaConey (Assignee of Record) v. Home Assist Real Estate, LLC and Xavier Troy Smith, Judgment Roll No. 258732
In the matter of Lamar Advertising of Columbia, Inc. v. Home Assist Real Estate, LLC, (Home Assist) JR# 247286, Lamar Advertising (Lamar), represented by counsel, sought execution of it’s judgment before Judge Joseph M. Strickland (Judge Strickland). During a hearing in early 2004, Judge Strickland ordered Lori Pelzer (Pelzer), officer of Home Assist, to make installment payments to Lamar, which Pelzer failed to pay. Judge Strickland issued his Order and Rule to Show Cause for Contempt against Pelzer. In response, Pelzer authored a letter to Judge Strickland, dated August 10, 2004, in which she stated that she was unable to comply with the court’s order because she and her husband were financially distressed, and that she closed Home Assist in June 2004, during the proceeding. Judge Strickland dismissed the matter without prejudice.
On December 16, 2004, Lori Pelzer’s husband, Melvin K. Pelzer, purchased a homestead valued at $261,167.00 on 216 Chalfont Lane in Richland County, South Carolina, as reflected in Deed Book R-1008, page 1467 in the Richland County Register of Deeds Office; and on December 16, 2004, Melvin Pelzer obtained a home equity loan valued at $52,223.00, secured by the Chalfont Lane property, as reflected in Deed Book R-1012, page 2314.
Subsequently, Lori and Melvin opened Pelzer Premier Realty, a general partnership, in early 2005, after entry of the judgment below against Pelzer, and during the litigation in the instant matter, which resulted in judgment in the amount of $26,500.00.
On November 7, 2005, the Court issued LaConey’s proposed Order and Rule to Show Cause, directing Pelzer to appear as officer of Home Assist Real Estate, LLC, Respondent above-named, before Judge Strickland on December 7, 2005 for supplementary proceedings (debtor examination). Pelzer appeared and testified that the documents to be produced for examination were located at her attorney’s office. LaConey demanded to examine the documents for the record. [Xavier Troy Smith, Respondent above-named, was not, and never has been, a party to the supplemental proceedings. Thus, the court had no post-judgment personal or subject-matter jurisdiction over Xavier Troy Smith.]
Judge Strickland ordered Pelzer to appear again on January 5, 2006 to produce the documents. Pelzer failed to appear, purportedly due to “surgery”. Amazingly, during a hearing on February 13, 2006, Judge Strickland refused to compel Pelzer to produce the documents as ordered, then he dismissed the matter without prejudice. Mysteriously, Judge Strickland’s written Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice, time-stamped as filed “February 14, 2006“, does not appear in the record. Pelzer dissolved Home Assist on February 14, 2006. (What a coincidence!)
Amazingly, Judge Strickland, acting without jurisdiction and in his personal capacity, dismissed the matter with prejudice on January 7, 2008 without notice, without a hearing and without application by the parties. In his order with prejudice, Judge Strickland prevaricated that a hearing was held on July 16, 2007; however, no such hearing was held. Further, Judge Strickland omitted that he previously dismissed without prejudice. Thus, Judge Strickland denied LaConey due process of law and engaged in fraud on the court. Therefore, Judge Strickland’s Order of Dismissal With Prejudice is void. [LaConey learned of the Order with Prejudice incidental to his complaint against Judge Strickland with the Judicial Merit Selection Commission in November 2008.]
On April 5, 2010, LaConey filed his motion to vacate Judge Strickland’s Order of Dismissal with Prejudice as void. To date, the motion has not been heard. Thus, LaConey has been denied the right to petition the court for redress of his grievances.
On June 28, 2010, Judge James R. Barber, III, Chief Administrative Judge for the Court of Common Pleas, filed his “Judgment“, without notice, without affording LaConey an opportunity to respond in a meaningful way, and without certifying his familiarity with the record, in which he ruled that “Because the dismissal was never appealed, Judge Strickland’s ruling has become the law of the case.”. Judge Barber omitted that LaConey had sought relief from the judgment by his motion to vacate. Apparently, Judge Barber failed to review the record in an effort to ignore the numerous affidavits filed by LaConey alleging that Judge Strickland had aided and abetted Pelzer in hindering, delaying and defrauding LaConey in the execution of his judgment, and obstructed the administration of justice.
No Petition and Order of Reference to the Master-in-Equity, conferring jurisdiction upon the Master, appear in the record. Therefore, both Judge Strickland and Judge Barber should have known, had they reviewed the record, that they lacked jurisdiction to issue any orders in this case. [Judge Barber’s order, based on Judge Strickland’s order, is void.] Judge Barber’s term as Chief Administrative Judge expired on June 31, 2010.
On July 2, 2010, LaConey sent his letter, with attachments, to Judge Alison Renee Lee, Chief Administrative Judge for the Court of Common Pleas, advising Judge Lee of the status of the case and seeking supplementary proceedings in aid of judgment.
Judge Lee responded with her letter, dated July 15, 2010, in which she advised that she was in the process of reviewing the record in the case for any appropriate action, that LaConey was not listed as a party of record in the case, had requested the Clerk of Court to correct the record, and that she had requested all relevant materials pertaining to the case from Judge Strickland’s office. To date, Judge Lee has taken no action; thereby, frustrating and impeding execution of LaConey‘s judgment.
Glen K. LaConey (Assignee of Record) v. Lori Pelzer, Judgment Roll No. 247572
On June 4, 2007, Lori Pelzer, Respondent above-named, was served through her counsel, Derwin T. Brannon, Esq., with the court’s order and Rule to Show Cause for Supplementary Proceedings, which included a restraining order against the transfer, interference with or disposal of Pelzer’s property pending further direction of the court.
However, on June 7, 2007, Pelzer restructured Pelzer Premier Realty as Pelzer Premier Realty, LLC, thereby encumbering her partnership interests in the business.
During supplementary proceedings in aid of judgment, held before Judge Strickland on July 16, 2007, Pelzer yelled in open court, “I’m not payin’ Mr. LaConey a dime! I’m READY to go to jail! I’m READY to go to jail!”, after which Judge Strickland dismissed the matter without prejudice. [“July 16, 2007” was referenced in above case.]
On July 16, 2008, Judge L. Casey Manning filed LaConey’s proposed Order and Rule to Show Cause for Supplementary Proceedings. The matter was not set for hearing.
On May 1, 2009, LaConey filed his motion for disqualification of Judge Strickland. Judge Strickland filed his Order of Recusal on May 5, 2009.
On August 6, 2009, Judge James R. Barber, III, Chief Administrative Judge for the Court of Common Pleas, filed LaConey’s proposed Order and Rule to Show Cause and set the matter for hearing before Judge G. Thomas Cooper, Jr. on September 23, 2009. Pelzer failed to appear. During the hearing, Judge Cooper directed LaConey to surrender the certified mail delivery receipt, evidencing service upon Pelzer, to Judge Cooper for filing. The delivery receipt has mysteriously disappeared.
On April 22, 2010, LaConey filed his motion for supplementary proceedings which was delivered to Judge Cooper via certified mail, return receipt requested.
The motion cited numerous incidents of fraudulent conveyances and violations of the Court’s restraining order by Pelzer. Judge Cooper disregarded the motion, failed to certify his familiarity with the record, failed to take any action, and failed to issue his final order. Thus, the matter remains pending before Judge Cooper.
On June 28, 2010, Judge James R. Barber, III, Chief Administrative Judge for the Court of Common Pleas, filed his “Judgment“, without notice, without affording LaConey an opportunity to respond in a meaningful way, and without certifying his familiarity with the record, in which he ruled that “This Court has advised Mr. LaConey that it will not be scheduling Supplemental Proceedings, a function generally performed by the Master-in-Equity. Mr. LaConey may proceed with Supplemental Proceedings in the Pelzer case, but only through the appointment of a Special Referee.”
Apparently, Judge Barber failed to review the record in the case in an effort to ignore the numerous affidavits filed by LaConey, which alleged that Judge Strickland had aided and abetted Lori Pelzer in hindering, delaying and defrauding LaConey in the execution of his judgments and had obstructed the administration of justice.
Otherwise, Judge Barber would have known that he had previously assigned the matter to a circuit court judge; which is not that, “This Court has advised Mr. LaConey that it will not be scheduling Supplemental Proceedings”. Judge Barber lacked authority to issue final order in the matter, on the basis that Judge Cooper, not Judge Barber, was the assigned judge with authority to issue a final order.
Judge Barber persistently issued orders in these cases without jurisdiction, and without service upon LaConey.
The offending orders were issued without notice, without affording LaConey an opportunity to respond in a meaningful way, and without Judge Barber’s certification of familiarity with the record
On July 2, 2010, LaConey sent his letter, with attachments, to Judge Alison Renee Lee, Chief Administrative Judge for the Court of Common Pleas, advising Judge Lee of the status of these cases and seeking supplementary proceedings in aid of his judgments.
Judge Lee responded with her letter, dated July 15, 2010, in which she advised that she was in the process of reviewing the record in the case for any appropriate action, that LaConey was not listed as a party of record in the case, had requested the Clerk of Court to correct the record, and that she had requested all relevant materials pertaining to the case from Judge Strickland’s office.
On December 21, 2011, LaConey sent his request and proposed Order of Reference for appointment of a Special Referee to Judge Lee via first-class mail. To date, Judge Lee has taken no action; thereby, further frustrating and impeding execution of LaConey‘s judgments.
South Carolina Law, S.C. Ann. § 16-17-735, persons falsely asserting authority of law; offenses; punishment:
(A) A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he:
(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien, or other infringement of personal or property rights; or
(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity.
(B) It is unlawful for a person falsely to assert authority of state law in connection with a sham legal process.
(C) It is unlawful for a person to act without authority under state law as a Supreme Court Justice, a court of appeals judge, a circuit court judge, a master-in-equity, a family court judge, a probate court judge, a magistrate, a clerk of court or register of deeds, a commissioned notary public, or other authorized official in determining a controversy, adjudicating the rights or interests of others, or signing a document as though authorized by state law.
Could the judicial misconduct committed by these corrupt judges lead to terrorist attacks of Biblical proportions against the South Carolina Judiciary?"
Source
Expose Judicial Corruption
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Thursday, February 3, 2011
What is Being Done About the Wall of Corruption in New York ? Christine C. Anderson New York Corruption Whistleblower
Government Entities such as the Tenth Judicial Grievance Committee in New York are Part of the Problem and no where near a part of the Solution.
Christine Anderson New York Corruption Whistleblower
Enough is Enough New York.
Expose Corrupt Law Firms and the Judges Who Protect them.
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Christine Anderson New York Corruption Whistleblower
Enough is Enough New York.
Expose Corrupt Law Firms and the Judges Who Protect them.
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)