"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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.