CORRUPTION AT THE SIXTH CIRCUIT: Part two of the previous blog…

The First Amendment entitles us to petition our government for redress of grievances. On appeal at the sixth circuit my appeal was subjected to forgery of a filing, two case managers, two case numbers, and clerk-authored phony appeal questions intruding as legitimate.

Conversations with those at the sixth circuit have followed along these lines. ME: When will the sixth circuit address my Motion for a Void Judgement? THEM: Your mandates have issued. ME: None of the fourteen appeal questions have been answered. THEM: Your mandates (orders) have issued; there will be no further action in your appeal. ME: The Mandates answered phony appeal questions. My fourteen appeal questions have not been answered. THEM: the Mandates have issued. ME: when will the sixth circuit rule on the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief. THEM: Mandates have issued in your case. ME: judges have not addressed the fourteen appeal questions…

IF THIS ORWELLIAN LOGIC READS LIKE INTIMIDATION THAT IS BECASUE IT IS. Overtime it is meant to have an eroding effect. To say: Shut up! You will never be heard. We hold all the power. Give up defense of your CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS. It took twenty-nine months before the Sixth Circuit – Circuit Executive as the body that protects the public and the court itself from corrupt practices addressed my Complaints of Judicial Misconduct. Did you get that? To say two-years and five-months. When they finally did (dated April 23, 2021) the unsigned Memorandum and Orders (two) came in the form of a total of four pages, two each calling my complaints frivolous. TRANSLATION: PAPER FILED. Troublesome indigent appellant postured as handled. The Sixth Circuit – Circuit Executive may not care about logic and justice but there is a higher power that does. “The Rock! His work is perfect, for all HIS words are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice. Righteous and upright is He. They have acted corruptly toward HIM” (Deuteronomy 32: 4, 5a).

It took nine days for the Memorandum and Orders to arrive. I had forty-two days to respond from the date issued. Not as easy a task as it may seem. As instructed my reply, begging for an actual investigation is in letter form and reprinted here. It’s a lot to read. Thus, I have divided these two answers, asking for the investigation I began begging for in November 2018 read here in this blog and the former (district court in Memphis, TN) within the previous blog. Perhaps my next book will delve into how rights-stealing practices seated in Screening for Merit as the precursor to due process and then assignment of “less than” appeals to the sole discretion and control of those that are not judges; separate and unequal is a Civil Rights violation. To say that the second highest court in our land no longer functions, according equal access and a level playing to WE THE PEOPLE.

May 27, 2021

RE: Misconduct Petition

To Whom It May Concern:

I hereby petition the Circuit Executive for review of their decision not to refer for investigation to the Judicial Council complaint numbers: 06-18-901 05/06/07/08.  Doing so in their role of, administration of the judicial policy and discipline process.”  I do so as my right under the First Amendment where violations: abridging the freedom of speech and right to petition the government for redress of grievances; has been fatally and repeatedly suppressed.    

I want to say here that I have a minor learning disability. Where spell check did not catch reversed letters.  Where a number may appear as wrong, I refer you to the docket and pray that the material context of what I assert will be investigated.  Because of this disability I made known to the District Court my intention to petition a future trial judge to appoint counsel.  Addressed further along there is no Motion to Appoint Counsel. 

There are repeated instances where deflection from screening abuses as the context of the appeal are contradicted and suppressed to say that a jury trial took place at the district court.  The words: Screening for Merit do not appear in any Mandate issued from the sixth circuit. 

The complaints of Judicial Misconduct directed to the second panel of judges and to Chief Judge Cole arise out of the practice of delegating “less than” indigent appeals to the discretion and control of those that are not judges.  Judges had a responsibility to know and guard how their authority had been coopted and misused by those they trusted. As a mantra I will repeat over and over again because speech is continually quashed. Fourteen properly submitted appeal questions have NEVER been answered by any mandate issued from the sixth circuit.  The Pro Se Appellants Brief has never been submitted to the error correction primary responsibility of the sixth circuit since none of the issues raised in that filing has ever been addressed.  Objection filings have never been addressed; three of them taken out of the arriving envelope, inserted into another and mailed back to (Alexandra Clair) Clair. The En Banc Petition was never circulated for deliberation and opinion to other judges of the court.  Every order that says otherwise is a complete fraud.  Proven in that not a single one of the fourteen appeal questions have ever been answered. 

“Mandates issued” were not written by federal appellate judges. Clair pushed back against denial of the right to be heard per multiple objection filings (never addressed).  Disdain for pro se indigent appeals worked corruption to the extent that judges could be fed any fiction proposed by employees at the sixth circuit.  Doing so absent any fact checking responsibility which, if due diligence had transpired during any in-chambers review or before, it would have been revealed that manipulation of the record contrived that not a single one of the appeal questions were addressed. Thus, the error correction function of the appeals process was not met.  The second panel of judges could not have read the Pro Se Appellants Brief.   By forgery they never saw the appeal from list of fourteen appeal questions. Seated in separation of filings under two case numbers they never saw the Assignment of Errors filing.  The clerk authored orders addressed phony appeal questions. 

The Circuit Executive is well aware of the Code of Conduct for federal judges.  Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary.  Impossible to achieve when the second panel of judges recklessly handed off that grounding of judicial independence to those who are not appointed, qualified or allowed by law to function in that capacity.  There was then no credible oversight of the processes or the results proven in that not a single one of the appeal questions were addressed.  Proven in that every effort to undermine the appeal itself was allowed to proceed unchecked.  Use of two dockets as fraud perfecting communication tools and other machinations overcame speech; trashing the right to be heard on both appeal questions and objections.  This informs that the prized and needed independence of the judiciary; preserving the oath of office and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America did not work to accord this Appeal any manner of a level playing field.  Rule 72(c) Appealing a Judgement.  In accordance with 28 U.S. Code § 636(c)(3), an appeal from a judgment entered at a magistrate judge’s direction may be taken to the court of appeals as would any other appeal from a district court judgement.

Oversight could have come from three sources, all of which failed. 

  1. Chief Judge Cole did not oversee the administrative functions of the court impacting this appeal and upon belief other appeals treated to the same unequal and substandard duty of care and oversight. When alerted that there were violations of procedural due process, two case numbers, two case managers, segregation of filings, and other machinations he took no action.   
  2. The Clerk of Court and the Deputy Chief Clerk failed to implement quality controls that certainly must exist as internal policies and procedures. Blame has been repeatedly assigned to the victim.  This has been experienced as intimidation.   
  3. Judges recklessly signed off on decisions absent any examination of the record.   If these practices are not “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the courts” to say that the “burden of judging.”  In fact, the “privilege of judging” no longer functions for “We the People,” as materialized in practices and conduct concealed from the public.  Who, like me, would never guess that there was a pathway by which Appellate Judges could sign off on decisions they never actually had any input in drafting.  And then, at will, never actually read or reviewed.  To say that there is an entirely separate track with the potential for government bureaucrats to strip appellants of their Constitutional rights without these appellants ever realizing the potential dangers (separate and unequal) and absent all relevant disclosure.      
  4. Corruption is exacerbated in cover-up, containment, and delay in addressing Four Complaints of Judicial Misconduct.  Hypersensitive aversion to criticism does not bode well for any changes that will deliver equal rights to pro se and indigent appeals in the future.  It has taken the circuit executive two years and five months before they have deigned to walk through the charade of answering these complaints without actually doing so. 18 U.S. Code § 3771 Crime Victims’ Rights (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; applies here.

Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently (4) A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law. Speech has been shamelessly and continually quashed.  Appeal questions still await the sixth circuit application of the Error Correction requirements.  A series of objection filings were mailed back to Clair by the Clerk’s Office.   No employee staff authored Mandate or Order has addressed a single one of the fourteen appeal questions making a mockery of: “full right to be heard according to law.”  Most recently the Motion for a Void Judgment sits in the que.  And since this last filing may actually have been assigned to a paper shredder the captioned headings appear as: 

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT I could not cut and paste as this actually appears. The two sixth circuit appeals-case numbers are: 16-6672 (first panel of judges). 17-5618 (decoy second panel of judges) Alexandra Clair plaintiff. Bank of America et al (to mean others) defendants.


Clair has been told by sixth circuit staff to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.  They know there is a less than 1% chance of being heard.  The Supreme Court should not be used as a pass the buck tool to slam the door of justice at the sixth circuit.  It is not that Clair should appeal to the highest court in the land.  It is that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals should rule on the outstanding Pro Se Appellants Brief. 

The Memorandum and Order

The Memorandum and Order does not claim that the conduct alleged in four complaints did not take place. Rather it claims that: …even if it occurred, (the conduct) “is not prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.”  There was no foundation of procedural due process applied to this appeal.  Employees of the court functioned as de facto judges.  They acted unconstitutionally in entering each and every Judgement doing so under cover of judicial authority.

The Memorandum and Order repeats the fraud narrative.  An initial review of the record reveals that the complainant filed two appeals originating from the same district-court proceeding. The proceeding herein referenced is never accurately identified as the Screening for Merit precursor to due process.  I did not file two appeals.  I filed one appeal. Per use of a forged filing the sixth circuit opened a second case number assigning a separate case manager violating their own Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; addressed further down.  Clair did not recognize this maneuver to mean no one complete record before any judge decision maker. 

The Memorandum and Order asserts that the first appeal was an interlocutory appeal. I had never read this term up to the point in time that I read this Memorandum and Order and in fact did not have authority to file an “interlocutory appeal.”  This Memorandum and Order rewrites history while subverting the truth. I filed notice of appeal 11/16/2016; Civil Case Docketed:  Notice filed by Appellant Ms. Alexandra Clair [1]; assigned appeal case No.: 16-6672.  I then waited for permission to file the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief. This permission did not come until the second case number was opened to thus contrive that the Assignment of Errors filing would never exist in the same space as the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief.  An interlocutory appeal is appropriate when a “ruling by a trial court is appealed.”  There has never been a trial court in the picture unless one wants to say that Screening for Merit can masquerade as due process.  There has never been a trial judge, nor a jury, nor the open forum of a courtroom producing a stenographic record.  

The Memorandum and Order dismisses the complaints without addressing the complaints.  Message to Clair: “You don’t matter.  We will allow the district court and the sixth circuit to strip you of your Constitutional rights.  Outgunned and out maneuvered no one will listen because, holding all the cards the Circuit Executive will not investigate. Your fourteen appeal questions were never answered at the sixth circuit. Now give up any expectation that your complaints of judicial misconduct will see any kind of credible investigation.” This is a message that impacts every pro se indigent appeal.  This message deeply and profoundly resonates and undermines public trust in the federal court system to thus, undermine our very republic.  Writing: Accordingly, it is Ordered that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii) and Rule 11(c)(1)(C) & (D), (e) of the Rules of Judicial Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings… is a miscarriage of justice and a complete travesty.  This is yet another example of citing a law without actually meeting the requirements of that law.   

The Memorandum and Order reads:  The court of appeals dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  The sixth circuit order by the first panel of judges: Appeal No.: 16-6672 also wrote: This matter is before the court upon initial consideration…  “Initial consideration” communicates that the first panel of judges trusted and expected the district court to supply an answer.  No answer meant that the appeal would be sitting in limbo at the district court ignoring: No final or appealable order terminating all of the issues presented in the litigation has been entered by the district court.  Not only was Clair deprived of this answer but the author of this Order sowed confusion in not naming what precisely had not been ruled on. Upon belief that this is another substandard employee-authored order.  From page-2, ORDER of 2/24/2017 {8} comes:  Although an order denying recusal is not immediately appealable, it may be reviewed in a mandamus proceeding.  Clair is being instructed that recusal will likely not succeed as an appeal question while at the same time, speaking to the insider echo chamber, to imply that it had previously been addressed.    The Magistrate Judge’s slander of the claims, conflicts of interest and failure to voluntarily recuse would not be addressed by any Order coming out of the sixth circuit. Clair is directed to “mandamus” as an option beyond her skill set, a legal term she did not know the meaning of, and if she engaged, would immediately fail. Further, Mandamus does not apply at the Screening for Merit juncture where access to due process hangs in the balance.  Once again, the fallacy that an actual trial took place at the district court is layered into the sixth circuit record; deflecting from Screening for Merit as the foundational context of every appeal question.   

The Memorandum and Order reads:  The court of appeals – a panel comprising three judges of the subject judges – affirmed the district court order.  If they did, they did so without ever answering a single one of the fourteen appeal questions. To mean that any order denying the right to be heard, followed by obliteration of the right to object would be an example of tyranny operating under cover of Appellate 111 Judicial authority.   

The Memorandum and Order reads:  The panel denied the complainant’s subsequent petition for rehearing en banc.  PETITION for an en banc rehearing 11/28/2017 [8].  Subsequently denied 01/18/2018 [9] Order reads: “The original panel has reviewed the decision…”  “No judge has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc.”  This filing was not a suggestion but a formally lodged petition for a valid and legitimate review, hand delivered to the sixth circuit on 11/28/2017. In derailing the En Banc Petition the clerk’s office engaged in cover-up.  It could not be read because along with multiple other offenses it made clear that appeal questions had never been answered. Content from the En Banc Petition never came under review by judges of the sixth circuit.  The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was obstructed.  Please take note that this: “Petition for Rehearing – En Banc Filing” should not be confused with the request for clarity morphed into the phony Petition for Rehearing, by first case manager Karen Fultz.  Stop with the coverup. 

The Memorandum and Order reads: For another thing, the record does not reflect that the subject judges had direct oversight of the docketing activities that the complainant disputes.  Fraud jumps from the page in the docket entries.  The accuracy of which judges had a responsibility to preserve since it represents their work-product. A simple digital search under Clair’s name would have produced two case numbers.  Leading to a logical due diligence review of the first Karen Fultz docket.  Leading to the unearthing of the Assignment of Errors filing.  Which content contradicted the validity of the phony appeal questions.  This very same chain of corruption operating unchecked and devoid of oversight led the second panel of judges to sign off on orders that are in fact a complete nullity.  

The Memorandum and Order reads: The gravamen of this complaint is that the subject judges, through intention or negligence, allowed court of appeals staff to manipulate the appellate process.  Only a system committed to damage control could write these words.  These words appeal to the insider echo chamber to say it would be dangerous to look at inequality effects stemming from delegation of Appellate Judging to those who are not judges. Only judges, not employees of the court have been appointed per a rigorous appointment process to hold the office they are privileged to hold by calling and education.  Shielding judges from their work-load, shielding the district court from criticism per the coordinated conduct of two case managers produced subversion of Procedural Due Process.  There are other examples, but both the En Banc Filing repackaged as a “suggestion” (Jeanine Hance) and the phony “edited” Petition for Rehearing (Karen Fultz) absolutely exist as manipulations of the recordThe ultimate responsibility to preserve the integrity of Article 111 judging rested with the Chief Judge and the Second Panel of Judges.

The Memorandum and Order reads: For another thing, the record does not reflect that the subject judges had direct oversight of the docketing activities the complainant disputes.  The assigned word “dispute” to say a mere dispute is a trivializing and condescending understatement. Speaking to the insider echo chamber this statement seeks out agreement for what every free thinking, honest, and responsible judge would reject. The docket was used as a fraud perfecting tool that codified lies, posturing that appeal questions were addressed when they were not.  There are two case numbers.  There are two case managers.  The Assignment of Error filing was severed from the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief and buried under the first case number though it is absolutely an appeal-essential filing. Manipulation of the docket is evidenced very clearly in yet another example.  This is how the ultimate goal-focused denial of the right to be heard functioned at the sixth circuit.

  1. Motion to Appoint Council is a complete fiction.  If this motion is found to exist that filing would be another example of forgery. 
  2. Repeating pattern, the smokescreen story that trails forward to the sixth circuit as an intrusive, deflective, phony and fictitious appeal question and equally deflects accountability away from slander of the claims and forgery of a filing at the district court is the first or second amended complaint. Under the sixth circuit second case number the phony Motion to Appoint Council is inserted into the record for the same purpose.  It functions as a fraud tool.  Its purpose is yet again to deflect from the fourteen actual appeal questions. Jeanine Hance is ruthlessly trading on the huge imbalance of power and ignorance of the pro se appellant; the end justifies the means.       
  3. The Pro Se Appellant’s Brief was filed on 07/24/2017. An answer needed to follow.  This answer needed to cover for the fact that the fourteen actual appeal questions will never be answered. In any conversation with the second panel of judges during any in-chambers review, if such an in-chambers review even took place which is highly unlikely given what the two case managers got away with. Plausible lies and the carefully layered fraud narrative needed to be accepted and signed off on. 
  4. Motion to Appoint Council does not appear as an appeal question.   
  5. Motion to Appoint Council is cited in the Jeanine Hance docket as the primary point of law upon which the second Panel of Judges have ruled.  Judges signed off on this order as Clair continued to wait in vain for an answer to those appeal questions fleshed out in the Pro Se Appellants Brief that will never come.    
  6. The docket, as a trusted record of any court is being utilized to deceive any who would read it.  The Memorandum and Order trivializes this to say that judges have no direct authority over the docket. The entry reads: 11/14/2017 [7] Order filed: We AFFIRM the judgement of the district court and DENY as moot the motion to appoint counsel.  This is an utterly phony and fictitious pretense to say that the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief has been addressed; DENY as moot the motion to appoint counsel.   If, Clair had an attorney that attorney would most certainly have been challenging and demanding answers.  But then… if an attorney had been in the picture the clerk staff operating as an out-of-control de facto court could not have continued to operate as they did.  
  7. The statement: We AFFIRM the judgement of the district court misleads away from screening as the context of the appeal.  At the Screening for Merit juncture, one would not have access to a trial judge.  It is the domain of a trial judge to make this determination as to whether counsel would be appointed.  This is yet another example where Orwellian double-speak is layered into the record to say that an actual trial took place.  To thus deflect from the Screening for Merit context of the appeal which if recognized by the first or second panel of judges would have impeded the fraud perfecting goals of Karen Fultz and Jeanine Hance and whomever it was that solicited their cooperation.

The decision not to refer for a full investigation I believe is colored by recognition that what happened to me has happened to many others. This may elicit challenges to other appeals touched by the same chain of corruption in the hands of, and under the control of, same sixth circuit administrative staff to whom judges recklessly delegated their authority.     

It is known that the financial industry defendants in particular and named in the Civil RICO Case have deep pockets and designated funds to deal with threats of exposure arising out of court litigation.  That said, a bribe is not always about money.  It can be the promise of future benefits, crony favoritism or even promotion.  It can be the exchange of gifts and services where the bill, never comes.  It may even be disguised directly or otherwise as doing the court a favor by limiting the work load of judges. It can be about commitments, seated in unequal practices, to protect the gatekeeper role of Screening for Merit as a tool to limit case load at the district courts.  A bribe may even be about blackmail and criminal coercion.  Removing judges and Article 111 judging from the equation has been an open-door invitation to corruption.

This is what happened:  First Case Number 16-6672.  First Case Manager Karen Fultz

How the first sixth circuit ORDER of 02/24/2017 [8] was subverted by the district court has been in more detail addressed in the petition for referral of an investigation; Memorandum and Order, Complaints of Judicial Misconduct 06-18-901 03/104 (Judge Sheryl Lipman and Magistrate Judge Vescovo.) If anyone reading this has not been provided all petitions begging for referral to the judicial counsel for a full investigation they can be found on my website: 

These Memorandum and Orders have issued from the Circuit Executive twenty-nine months after they were received to the Circuit Executive (proven by postal receipt) on 11/03/2018.  Repeatedly not heard, I published these four complaints in my book: Illegal Foreclosure, Title Theft, and its Chain of Corruption (April 2020).  Doing so because I have been consistently stripped of my Constitutional rights.  And because my claims were slandered at the district court the RICO Criminal Enterprise is still operating unchecked and unimpeded by any constraint of law. I believe it was a judge who said something to the effect of: The best antidote for corruption is the light of day. I would guess that many judges have expressed this same sentiment at various points in their judging career.       

In the complete lack of meaningful supervision and follow up, the district court never supplied an answer as to what the first order claimed was outstanding; never addressed.  No answer meant that the appeal was stymied at the district court. By way of contradictory and dishonest docket entries the first case manager Karen Fultz crafted an exit by which the district court had an excuse not to rule on the multiple objection filings. And, or, whatever it was that the first panel of judges ambiguously claimed was outstanding. Not until 02/09/2018, upon viewing the second docket for the first time did Clair recognize that two case managers and two case numbers meant no one continuous record before any judge decision maker. She then asked for a copy of the first docket.  Without directing to the pacer website this was sent with great reluctance.  At every point where the disparity in power and lack of knowledge could be leveraged to deliver the outcome that this Civil RICO Case would never see the light of a courtroom, it was leveraged. 

On 3/08/2017 [9] Clair sent a letter asking what it was that remained outstanding at the district court.  I wrote: 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. 

Karen Fultz admits to having “edited” this letter into the “Petition for Rehearing.” In this context, “Edited,” is a polite word for forgery. In fact, there was nothing to “rehear” since permission to file the Pro Se Appellants brief would not be granted until the district court supplied an answer. It is likely that if Judge Lipman had required an answer from the Magistrate Judge, Clair would never have filed the notice that the appeal should resume for lack of an answer.  No answer meant that the Civil RICO Case could not proceed beyond the screening blockade.  Exactly the point served up on a plate via the sixth circuit docket.

ORDER Filed: The petition for rehearing is DENIED 04/07/2017 {12) and MANDATE ISSUED {13}.  Karen Fultz then enters: “certified copy of the judgement” under Rule 41(a).  

Quoting Rule 41(a) is yet another example of citing a rule or law without having met the requirements of that rule or law. This is a dishonest and rights-stealing practice that should have no place at the second highest court in our land.  Clair has never seen or received a copy of the judgment.  Not until after 02/09/2018 did she know that there were two dockets or in fact understand the significance of the docket.  If a judgement closing the appeal before the appeal questions could even be submitted exists, I’d like to see it. I’d like to see how it contrives to perfect the fiction that I requested a rehearing.   

The Karen Fultz docket entry reads: [13] 04/17/2017 MANDATE ISSUED.  Per the pacer copy the single line reads: Enclosed is a copy of the mandate filed in this case.  Page-2 is a list of defendants.  Page-3 is blank. The actual ORDER if it exists, signed off on by the first panel of judges has never been sent to Clair. Thus, to deny notice. Who determined that this ORDER (if it exists) could not pass the smell test and, or, there was something to hide and therefore the tool of unpublished filings is utilized to further disenfranchise the pro se litigant while at the same time misleading any who would search for the truth?  The Pacer list of docket filings under 16-6672 skips number sixteen. Is the empty Pacer slot [16] the unpublished ORDER?  These maneuvers worked to deny notice and reasons for judging so as to impede the creeping and slowly dawning recognition of the degree to which corruption would deliver that not a single one of the fourteen appeal questions would ever be answered.   

It appears that no person at the sixth circuit with the responsibility of administrative oversight looked into why the heading was edited in the first place.  The first panel of judges did not read the admission of Karen Fultz that she had edited a letter and morphed it into the Petition for Rehearing as a red flag.  I doubt very much that the first panel of judges ever saw this letter.  As far as they were concerned, not until the outstanding appealable issues were addressed at the district court could jurisdiction to hear the appeal proceed.

The outcome: 03/08/2017 [9] ***ENTRY LOCKED – DOCUMENT TO BE REFILED AS A PEITION FOR REAHEARING***.”  And.  “Appellant MOTION filed by Ms. Alexandra Clair to clarify order dated 02/24/2017.” [Edited 03/09/2017 by KSF].  As unchecked corruption always does, corruption seeped beyond its original borders to script the conduct of the second case manager, Jeanine Hance.  

By this manipulation of the docket.  Per the Mandate that postured an appeal as previously heard by the first panel of judges. To imply that this Mandate met the error correction mandate of the appeals process; ruled on by the first panel of judges.  To say that at this perilous juncture when the appeal was back at the district court with expectation, at least from Clair that an answer as to what had not been ruled on would be forthcoming. Karen Fultz handed the district court judge and the magistrate judge the needed excuse by which they could blow off any requirement to rule on outstanding appealable issues.  ENTRY LOCKED / Petition for rehearing DENIED / Reference to a mystery Order which Clair did not know existed and would not have expected since she had not yet submitted the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief.  Overcome by confusion and the minefield of navigating a complicated legal process committed to protecting the district court, all Clair had to do was follow the pro se script and give up defense of her Constitutional right to be heard.  

FORGERY: Notice of 01/016/2017 directed to the First Panel of Judges: Between 02/24/2017 and 06/01/2017, Clair waited in vain for the district court to address the outstanding appealable orders and, or, other “issues” ambiguously alluded to. Clair was not aware of the fraud perfecting docket-exit provided by Karen Fultz to the district court.   

On 06/01/2017 Clair filed notice that the appeal should resume.  Upon, receiving this 06/01/2017 Notice and premised on, “The petition for rehearing is denied” MANDATE ISSUED 04/17/2017 {13} a second docket was opened under the decoy second Case No.: 17-5618. Not until after 02/09/2018 did Clair recognize this as a break from normal case management procedure to mean no complete record before any judge decision-maker.

Clair submitted this Notice that her appeal should resume through the clerk’s office at the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee who she understood would accordingly forward it to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Clair placed the only sixth circuit case number that existed in that moment on the facing page of this 06/01/2017 Notice; Case No.: 16-6672.  It was not filed under the first Appeal Case Number.  It was not filed at all.  Fourteen summary appeal questions, later fleshed out in the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief, appear in this three-page 06/01/2017 Notice directed to the first panel of judges.  Clair had adopted the habit of bringing a copy along to be stamped for her records by the filing clerk.  In blue ink Clair’s copy is stamped as received to the district court: “RECEIVED Jun – 1 AM: 9:28 Thomas M. Gould Clerk, U.S. District W/D of Memphis.” At what location was the 06/01/2017 Notice replaced, with a forgery?  At the district court or upon Karen Fultz receiving it, at the sixth circuit? 

What substitutes for the first two pages is a copy of the letter assigning the decoy second case number and new Case Manager, Jeanine Hance.  What substitutes for page-three is the list of defendants.   A series of “mistakes” contrary to Procedural Due Process law, opened the door by which the author of the 11/14/2017 [7] ORDER (Appeal Case No.: 17-5618) could and did introduce and then address fictional appeal questions never raised.  While at the same time writing into the docket the Motion to Appoint Council as the primary point of law upon which judges ruled under the decoy second case number.    

“In the United States every person by law, is entitled to the opportunity to be heard in a court of law ‘upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by an judicial decision or question’” Earl v. McVeigh.  Not a one of the fourteen appeal questions have ever been addressed.  They appear in the 06/01/2017 Notice (replaced with a forgery) as follows: 

  1. Appeal from: Judge Vescovo personal bias and conflict of interest in favor and protection of banking-defendants.  
  2. Appeal from: denial of due process. 
  3. Appeal from: culture of prejudice against pro se litigants. 
  4. Appeal from: failure to accord a liberal construction of Clair’s case. 
  5. Appeal from: failure to quote accurately the factual allegations.
  6. Appeal from: failure to screen the case, in all effect, ruling on the case itself in the manner of a defendant-attorney resulting in obstruction of a meaningful opportunity of the case to be heard before a jury. 
  7. Appeal from: Obstruction of, and, refusal to add, JP Morgan Chase Bank as a defendant based on new evidence.  And refusal to add REO ID#: 00906148; as a number identifier used to conceal theft a RICO Violation.
  8. Appeal from: Stripping of independent collaboration of fraud documented per the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury and the State of TN Department of Commerce and Insurance. 
  9. Appeal from: Abuse of judicial power in the failure to correct and acknowledge significant and overt misquotes of content codified into the record in support of the biased intent to dismiss. 
  10. Appeal from: failure to grant Clair a fair judge-decision-maker.
  11. Appeal from: Omission of content that support the RICO claims and which in the totality of those selected omissions did materially alter and slander Clair’s complaint(s). 
  12. Appeal from: failure to voluntarily recuse for conduct noted within the: Objection to the Report and Recommendations [14], Motion for Disqualification [21], The Assignment of Errors, dated November 5, 2016 and which does not appear to have been docketed.  Also, the Amended Assignment of Errors [37], which addresses additional errors. 
  13. Appeal from: Denial of the Motion to Reverse Judgment of December 28, 2016 [38] for in part, the judicial abuses raised herein.
  14. Appeal from: District Court slanderous label of the case (in part) as a “foreclosure” when, in point of fact, there was no foreclosure; an error repeatedly codified into the court records.


After forgery had obliterated these appeal questions from recognition what followed, per the rulings of 11/14/2017 [7] and the ruling of 01/18/2018 [9]; both docketed under second Case Number: 17-5618 are void judgments. The ORDER of 11/14/2017 issued under the second Case No.: 17-5618 was deprived of the Assignment of Errors. Judge’s never saw the forged/replaced 06/01/2017 list of appeal questions. Upon statement of the second case manager, Jeanine Hance, the Second Panel of Judges never read the Pro Se Appellants Brief.  To say that there was no obligation for them to do so.  Jeanine Hance use of the first-person singular and general defensiveness after 02/09/2018 (see letter) led Clair to believe that she had authored this ORDER(s).

Intent to bury the Assignment of Errors was not the only reason why a second docket was needed.  Once Clair filed notice that the appeal should resume on 06/01/2017 the Karen Fultz, employee authored unpublished mystery filing could not be seen.  Clair could not be equipped to recognize how corruption was scripting the outcome that the fourteen appeal questions would never be answered. Whatever was proposed in that utterly phony Mandate could not be internally scrutinized.  Not until the last order had issued under the Second Case Number, when it was thought to be too late because the fix was in.  And even if Clair pursued her right to object aversion to criticism and denial of error was so ingrained in the sixth circuit culture that objection filings could be easily explained away; if not trashed – never filed – conveniently never coming before any panel of judges; first or second.     

The Second Amended Complaint does not feature as an appeal question. A lot of space is devoted to this fictional appeal question.  Motion to Appoint Council does not appear as an appeal question.  Motion to Appoint Council is singularly cited in the Jeanine Hance docket entry.  It is postured as the primary point of law upon which the second Panel of Judges have ruled. The docket, as a trusted record of any court is being utilized to deceive any who would read it.  

No Order or Mandate has addressed the appeal questions centered on the Magistrate Judge’s slander of the claims.  The appeal question stated in the 06/01/2017 filing (replaced with a forgery) later fleshed out in the Pro Se Appellants Brief (never read by judges) stated: Appeal from: “Abuse of judicial power in the failure to correct and acknowledge significant and overt misquotes of content codified into the record in support of the biased intent to dismiss.”   

The words “Screening for Merit” do not appear in this ORDER of 11/14/2017.  Nor does this phrase appear in any ORDER coming from the sixth circuit. Written as: Appeal from: failure to accord a liberal construction of Clair’s case.  Appeal from: Failure to screen the case, in all effect, ruling on the case itself in the manner of a defendant-attorney resulting in obstruction of a meaningful opportunity of the case to be heard before a jury.

The series of well-coordinated “mistakes” guided this appeal to conclusions that have no factual basis in the Appeal as written and filed by Clair.  Fraud invalidates everything it enters into. “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters.  It vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.”  Walker v. Rich, 70 Cal. App. 139 (Cal.App.1926).      

Not until it was assumed to be too late, upon reading the ORDER of 11/14/2017 [7] second Case No.: 17-5618 did Clair realize that the appeal questions had not been answered.  Clair had the right to state the nature and substance of the appeal and submit specific appeal questions to the error correction duty of the appeals process.  The opportunity to be heard are “the hallmarks of due process;” Anonymous v. Anonymous, 353 So. 2d 519 (AL 1977). 

No application of Procedural Due Process protected this appeal. Notice was sabotaged as the sheer numbers of mistakes went unrecognized; not caught and remedied as they occurred. While Carey v. Piphus was about recovery of damages the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that there had been violations under the Fourteenth Amendment…  “Because the right to procedural due process is absolute. In the absence of an application of procedural due process rights, privileges, and immunities of the plaintiff(s) were abridged.” 

Up until 02/09/2018 (see letter) Clair trusted those with whom she communicated.   Separation of filings, contrary to normal case management procedure, meant that references in the Pro Se Appellant Brief, if looked for by the second panel of judges and, or, the author of the 11/14/2017 ORDER would not be found.  This sowed confusion into the record.

  1. To inform her objections Clair filed the fraud substantiating Assignment of Errors, docketed 12/08/2016, [6] under the first case number; 16-6672. Not to be confused with filing number [6] under the second case number: 17-5618, which is described on that second docket sheet as correspondence.
  2. The Assignment of Errors is referenced in the Pro Se Appellants Brief; 07/24/2017 [5] second Case No.:17-5618.  The Assignment of Errors, buried within the first docket sheet, would not be found by any sixth circuit decision-maker seeking to validate claims.  Signing off on and, or, having any input whatsoever in crafting the order of 11/14/2017 [7].
  3. Under the control of the second case manager the summary appeal questions enumerated in the 06/01/2017 Notice, were at no time present to redirect judges to the actual appeal. To thus, recognize that they were fed an appeal that had no footing in reality.   
  4. The author of the 11/14/2017 Order [7] Case No.: 17-5618.  Not to be confused with [7] under the first Case No.: 16-6672, which appears as correspondence conveys that this pro se appellant is an untrustworthy witness to the crimes committed against her and, or, to any fact she proposes on appeal.  Game on!

Once the lie of the phony appeal questions had been established by the sixth circuit ORDER, 11/14/2017 [7]; quashing everything Clair wrote, going unchallenged.  Signed off on by the second panel of judges reading: “For these reasons, we Affirm the judgment of the district court and Deny as moot the motion to appoint counsel.”  Clair was compelled to object. The conduct described herein absolutely contradicts Memorandum and Order stating: For one thing, the record does not reflect any manipulation or other impropriety in the docketing of the complainant’s appeals.

What followed was obstruction of the right to object. In ongoing control, exceeding the limits of their job descriptions employees at the sixth circuit then sabotaged every attempt Clair made to object during that period after the 11/14/2017 ORDER and up to 04/11/2018 when the last Motion for a Void Judgement was supposedly “filed.” The truth is that the Last Motion for a Void Judgment is dated 09/29/2020.  Followed by the trashed Motion to Compel an Answer; 03/14/2021.    

Motions for a Void Judgement were returned. Two letters to Chief Judge Cole alerting to administrative corruption occurring under his watch were ignored. The Alabama Supreme Court in Sharp v. State, 560 So. 2d 1107 (1989) stated: “We consider the phrase ‘opportunity to be heard’ as synonymous with the phrase ‘opportunity to object.’”  Clair was again, per the same aggressive conduct, effectively silenced, “deprived of the chance to present facts and arguments in mitigation to the initial decision makers.”  One must hope that the Second Panel of Judges would have wanted to know that not a one of the appeal questions had been addressed. All that any judge had to do was bring up on their computer screen the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief and, or, the En Banc Petition.    

Denial of Notice: Deprivation of notice occurred by practice of delegating “less than” appeals to the sole custody of staff attorneys and, or, to law clerks.  Doing so within a culture that had lapsed in vigilance and oversight.  Justice Jackson, writing for the Court in Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., supra, at 399 U.S. 313. “Many controversies have raged about the cryptic and abstract words of the Due Process Clause, but there can be no doubt that, at minimum, they require that deprivation of life, liberty, or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. 

Lack of notice occurred when the altered “edited” Petition for Rehearing was postured as what it was not.  Judges were deprived of notice when the Assignment of Errors was buried under the first case number.  Clair was deprived of notice when after the Karen Fultz Mandate had issued, she was not sent a copy.  Judges were deprived of Notice of what appeal questions were before them.  Clair was deprived of Notice when she was positioned not to object in real time until after the ORDER of 11/14/2017 was read. Other examples abound and function as a recognizable chain of conduct that delivered the same goals realized at the Screening for Merit precursor to due process that this Civil RICO Case never achieve due process; never to leave a record informing other defrauded federal agencies of how they had been defrauded by the same Criminal Enterprise. Ordinarily, service of notice must be reasonably structured to assure that the person to whom it is directed received it.  Deprivation of notice: Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S., 545, 550 (1965).  Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S., 38 (1974.)  Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S., 319, 333, (1976.)

The appeal question stated in the 06/01/2017 Notice, replaced with a forgery and thus, obliterated from the six-circuit record, appeared as: Appeal from: failure to voluntarily recuse for conduct noted within the Objection to the Report and Recommendations [14], Motion for Disqualification [21], …The Amended Assignment of Errors [37]. On appeal, recusal and disqualification of the Magistrate Judge were not addressed. 

The words RECUSE and RECUSAL appear six times in the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief. DISQUALIFICATION appears three times. Both are treated on appeal as if they never appeared in print.  This served to shield the district court from: “When the impartiality of a judge is in doubt, the appropriate remedy is to disqualify that judge from rehearing further proceedings in the matter;” Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.And that… “under circumstances in which judicial bias was probable, due process required disqualification;” Code of Conduct for United States Judges. 

The phrase “Conflict of Interest” appears as an appeal question directed to the error correction mandate of the appeals process. It was never addressed.  As a summary appeal question it appeared in the 06/01/2017 filing. Reading: “Appeal from: Judge Vescovo personal bias and conflict of interest in favor and protection of banking-defendants.”  Conflict of Interest applied to Magistrate Judge Vescovo appears eight times in the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief.  The claims were slandered reading in part: Examples of her anticipating the conflict-of-interest defense requirements substituting that alternate scenario for the Factual Allegations, inserting that defense into conclusions for dismissal, abound; (point D page-11).

Specific examples were also cited in the Assignment of Errors and referred to in the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief; effectively buried under the first Case No.: 16-6672.  To thus, deprive the Second Panel of Judges of notice while providing cover to the fictitious appeal questions addressed in the clerk-authored ORDER of 11/14/2017 [7] Case No.: 17-5618.

That the Magistrate Judge was not a fair arbiter is also not addressed.  One example cited in the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief.  “Bias is evidenced in the 4/4/2015 Commercial Appeal Article; Daniel Connolly ‘Federal court in Memphis takes steps to speed up ‘pro se’ cases.’”  Judge Vescovo’s assignment is to dispense with pro se cases that clog the federal court system improving the District Court statistics, ranked 90 out of 94 districts nationwide at the time the article was written. The article conveys that poor people who cannot afford or attract legal representation equates to a weak case with almost no chance of being won.  Double speak for, “don’t bother.”  

From the ORDER of 11/14/2017 comes the confusing statement: A party seeking reconsideration must show…  or that the decision was “clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Westside Mothers v. Olszewski…  The word, “reconsideration” is not applicable to an appeal where it is not that appeal questions should be “reconsidered,” but that the appeal questions themselves have never been addressed.  

Censored from recognition and therefore never addressed comes Paragraph one of the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief.  “Blatant and misleading misrepresentations of fact were advanced to feed dismissal, time barred, and failure to state a claim.  Slandered content was not corrected despite: Objection to the Report and Recommendations [14]; Motion for Disqualification [21]; Amended Assignment of Errors [37]; Amended Version of Letter [31]. The altered rendition of events mirrored the fraud defense deflecting from the true substance of the case: theft and illegal seizure of private property within a national footprint of operation.”

All reference to “Screening for Merit” appearing twenty-three times in the Pro Se Appellants Brief is never addressed by the ORDER of 11/14/2017; nor any order. Pro Se Appellants Brief: G.) “The law that governs ‘screening for merit;” (page-14, page-15.) was before the second Panel of Judges.  Screening for Merit is the contextual framework of the appeal.  Screening for Merit “is not Due Process” is the very foundation of the appeal. Under no determination can it be said that this appeal was heard.  “Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard.”  Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S., (1 Wall.) 223, 233, (1863).  

Any reading of the 11/14/2017 ORDER would mislead one to believe that Screening for Merit was not the setting out of which all the appeal questions are raised. Is this because there are appellate judges who believe this is an area that could benefit other district courts when properly considered on appeal and ruled on?  Page-3 of the 11/14/2017 ORDER misleads yet again to say that a trial took place.  The words state: “…pleadings only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.”  At the Screening for Merit precursor to due process defendants had not yet been served. The right of the Civil RICO defendants to “consent” as a valid point of law is not pertinent.  The still not appointed trial judge could not have withheld or granted “court’s leave.”   One is misled, yet again, per Orwellian double-speak, to believe that the ORDER of 11/14/2017 is predicated upon due process having already taken place at the district court. 

What would be the motivation for issuing Memorandum and Orders that fails in every respect to address the complaints of judicial misconduct? Others impacted by such inequality could potentially see their appeals revisited.  What happened did not take place in a vacuum.  The boldness of what took place cloaked in the confidence that no one was paying attention (tacit approval) is directly traceable to the practice of delegating “less than” appeals to those that are not judges.

My appeal at the sixth circuit has never been addressed.  It awaits adjudication on fourteen outstanding, clearly stated, and substantiated appeal questions.  To say otherwise is to prop up forgery, pretense, and the cynical rights-stealing new normal that undermines the Constitution of the United States of America and places every arbitrarily determined “less than” appeal in danger.  


Signed: ________________________________________.  Date: May 27, 2021 

Alexandra Clair; PO Box 334, Spring Hill, KS 66083 / (901) 504-9704

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s