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.

MOTION for VOID JUDGMENTS for FAILURE to EXECUTE THE ERROR CORRECTION TRUTH FINDING REQUIREMENTS of the APPEALS PROCESS.  FOR FORGERY.  FOR LACK of NOITCE.  FOR DENIAL of the RIGHT to be HEARD. FOR HAVING RECKLESSLY ASSIGNED THIS APPEAL to the SOLE DISPOSITION of THOSE that are NOT JUDGES.  FOR FAILURE to FOLLOW PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS LAW.   FOR FAILURE to ADDRESS ACTUAL APPEAL QUESTIONS. FOR QUASHING the RIGHT to OBJECT. FOR VIOLATIONS under the U.S. CONSTITUTION of PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH and FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Nine Attachments Enclosed

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: www.alexandraclair.com 

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.

SECOND CASE NUMBER 17-5618

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.  

I DECLARE UNDER PANALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL STATEMENTS ARE TRUE.

Signed: ________________________________________.  Date: May 27, 2021 

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

Complaints of Judicial Misconduct: Coverup, Damage Control, and Containment

On November 1, 2018 I filed four complaints of Judicial Misconduct. Such complaints are required to be filed with the Circuit Executive of the various federal courts; depending on where one lives. For me it was the sixth circuit located in Cincinnati, Ohio. In other words, these appeals courts are asked to investigate themselves. Because there was very clearly no willingness to address these complaints I published them in my book: ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE, TITLE THEFT, and its CHAIN OF CORRUPTION; chapters six thru nine. This book can be found on my Amazon Author Page. https://www.amazon.com/Alexandra-Clair/e/B008PY1XIQ%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_

It took twenty nine months before I got back any kind of response. The pathetic stab at coverup came in the form of minimalist and wholly inaccurate two pages each for a total of four pages. Determining that despite objective evidence no investigation into slander of the claims at the Screening for Merit precursor to due process was needed. Think this can’t happen? I direct you to: INJUSTICE ON APPEAL by, retired law school professors Richman and Reynolds: https://www.amazon.com/William-M-Richman/e/B00BJ8E4HM?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2&qid=1622990992&sr=8-2

I then had 42-days to ask yet again… and again… and again… for an investigation fated to be predictably shut down under the label “frivolous;” speaking to the insider echo chamber to say that Screening for Merit will be preserved no matter the level of abuse. My responses (objections) arrived at the Circuit Executive on Tuesday, June 1, 2021. Past behavior being the best predictor of future behavior I am publishing these objections (responses) to the Circuit Executive decision not to investigate. Begging for referral of an investigation to the sixth circuit Judicial Council. Are they even capable of objectivity? We can only hope. Courts – government bureaucrats incapable of self-examination, refusing to admit wrongs in order to restore justice are a danger to every American; to our very republic.

Alan Dershowitz said: “Judges are the weakest link in our system of justice and they are also the most protected.” Insider secrecy has protected government corruption for far too long. This first response to the decision not to investigate is directed to Marc Theriault at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals / Circuit Executive. As requested it is written in “letter form.” I’ve omitted the headings. Keep in mind that it has now been Thirty One Months – Nov. 3, 2018 thru June 6, 2021 that the first complaints have sat gathering dust with no commitment to anything, but interminable delay as a strategy… to say that WE THE PEOPLE do not matter.

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 03/104.  Doing so in their role of, administration of the judicial policy and discipline process.” As is my right under the First Amendment where repeated violations: abridging the freedom of speech and right to petition the government for redress of grievances has been fatally and repeatedly suppressed.    

It is unclear in the correspondence which number, 03 or 04, pertains to which judge? Though submitted separately and containing substantially different, though coordinated allegations dismissal is lumped together in the minimalist and inaccurate Memorandum and Order of 04/23/2021.

I believe that: 18 U.S. Code § 3771 Crime Victims’ Rights (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; applies here.  I am convinced that I am alive today only because it is believed that the fix is in and this Civil RICO Case will never see the light of a courtroom.  In my book I describe the untimely death of two persons.  There has most recently been a third.  Alexandra Clair (Clair) is a crime victim.  Not only was my home stolen, but when it was understood that she was investigating title theft schemes operating within both a local and national footprint she was threatened.

“Free from unreasonable delay.”  Serving the agenda that this Civil RICO Case die on the vine of inaction there has been a delay of two years-five-months between four complaints of judicial misconduct mailed to the Circuit Executive on Thursday, 11/01/2018.  Received as documented by US Postal Receipt on Saturday, 11/03/3018.  Present for processing on Monday, 11/05/2018.  A response finally came in the form of two unsigned Memorandum Orders dated 04/23/2021. Post marked as mailed from Cincinnati, Ohio on 04/27/2021.  Not received to my post office box until nine days later; limiting time to respond, i.e., pursuant to Rule 18, “have a right to file a petition for review and doing so within 42 day of the date of the Chief Judge’s Order.”  In the huge imbalance of power, faced with such stagnation it is perhaps expected that indigent litigants will “get the message” and simply give up.  I began fighting for right of access to due process in April 2016. I am now fighting for access to due process and recognition that my, Civil RICO case was subjected to institutionalized bias and coverup of corruption  

Two unequal and separate processes functioned as barriers to due process: 1. Screening for Merit.  2. Assignment of Appeals to the control of employees, career bureaucrats.  As evidenced by interminable delay and what I have been put through, both are shown to be so degraded as to have worked a manifest injustice with, if not addressed and rectified, ongoing threat to the public welfare.   

Under 28 U.S. Code § 352 the acting chief judge has elected to conduct a minimalist “limited inquiry” that in effect is no inquiry at all.  Selective review of the record and arbitrary application of the rules qualifies as injustice.  I have elected to address the conduct of the Magistrate Judge and her superior Judge Lipman each separately.  Doing so within this same letter, in “letter form” as instructed under 18(b) of Article VI. REVIEW BY JUDICIAL COUNCIL 18 Petition for Review of the Chief-Judge Disposition Under Rule 11(c),(d), or (e).  

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DIANE K. VESCOVO

28 U.S. Code § 1915(e)(2) rule applies only to “In Forma Pauperis” suits.  Screening as the precursor to due process immediately connotates to that screening exercise a thicket of presumptions including that being poor and lacking legal representation equates to a case not deserving of due process.  Due Process is denied if a litigant is denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard in a court of law; “granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Access to Due Process was obliterated within the already biased, Screening for Merit culture of functioning first and foremost as a gatekeeper.  Slander and manipulation of the claims had the effect of denying right to present evidence to a jury unfiltered by the Magistrate Judge slander of the claims.

Rights DENIED this Civil RICO Case at the screening juncture included: Right to a liberal construction of the Civil RICO Case.  Right to a neutral decision-maker.  Right to have the factual allegations believed. No opportunity to object seated in that none of the objection filings have been addressed.  Writing, proclaiming, asserting under cover of judicial authority that one has done something so as to appear in compliance with rules and procedures is not the same as actually doing so. 

Failure of the Circuit Executive – Memorandum and Orders do not address slander of the claims at the district court.  They avoid responsibility to do so under the stop gap of, frivolous and doing so as a means to suppress objective evidence.  This is a misuse of power and a form of corruption.  Because Screening for Merit is not Due process, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), all factual allegations of the plaintiff are to be believed and the claims must not be dismissed unless it appears that the plaintive can prove no set of facts pursuant to his or her allegations which would entitle the plaintiff to relief.[1]  At the district court the Factual Allegations were not believed. They were altered, misquoted, and by selected omission derailed so as to mirror the fraud defense before Defendants ever need show up in court to defend their actions. As a fundamental tenant of the fairness standard, “belief” equates to an honest and factual rendering of the Compliant.  By no examination of the record can it be concluded that this standard was preserved.      

28 U.S. Code § 352 (1) “whether appropriate corrective action has already been taken,” and therefore there is no need for a “a formal investigation” does not apply in that corrective action has NOT been taken.  Screening for Merit as a tool to obstruct due process is the significant stake issue of every objection filed at the district court. Moving forward from the district court to appeal at the sixth circuit speech was again quashed.  Not a single one of the fourteen appeal questions have ever been addressed by any Order or Mandate issued from the sixth circuit. As to how this happened there are direct correlations and coordinated conduct stemming forward from the district court to the sixth circuit; achieving the same goals.  That this Civil RICO Case never achieve due process and that on appeal the district court will be shielded from multiple violations of the screening requirements going so far as to blatantly and repeatedly slander the RICO Claims and which still stand to overcome speech and corrupt the district court record.  

The Memorandum and Order reads: The first consists of allegations that the subject magistrate judge made factual and legal errors that led to the dismissal of the complainant’s civil action and that the subject district judge allowed this to happen.  The second part of this statement regarding the conduct of district court judge Sheryl Lipman is addressed further down. The first part is addressed here. 

I plead for referral of the facts as a matter of record under 28 U.S. Code § 352 Review of the Complaint by the chief judge.  (d) Referral of Petition for Review to panels of the Judicial Council.  Ignoring the overwhelming pattern of slander is an exercise in tyranny.  Multiple examples have been provided proving that Magistrate Judge Vescovo slandered the claims. Examples are provided per the Amended Assignment of Errors; 05/02/2017 [37].  Some of which were first objected to in: Objection to the Report and Recommendations 08/02/2016 [14].  The Complaint of Judicial Misconduct cites these errors going back and forth between Vescovo-examples where misrepresentations and slander exist juxtaposed with what was actually written as a matter of record by the litigant.  Who, let’s be real, is not yet even a plaintiff since nowhere in the screening picture is there a trial judge or jury.

Refusal to conduct an investigation is to say that there are no circumstances by which recusal is warranted at the Screening for Merit juncture.  

I realize that the role of the Circuit Executive is not to rule.  But because they have refused to look at objective evidence that Judge Vescovo slandered the claims. Because past conduct is a predictor of future conduct, I cite in the formal record of this “letter form” four examples already in your possession, but treated under the label “frivolous” as though they do not exist. 

EXAMPLES / Every one of which works to suppress speech while elevating the fraud defense. 

  1. Judge Vescovo writes: “On March 23, 2012 Clair received notice that an eviction had been ordered.”  No “notice” was provided to Ms. Clair on March 23, 2012.  What was provided was a forged Fayette County judges order of eviction.  There was no foreclosure.  There is no proof of service of any kind in the county records.  Contradiction of the claims serve the defense while suppressing speech.   
  2. Judge Vescovo wrote in her motion for dismissal: “It appears that the fraud alleged by Ms. Clair relates to BANA’s refusal to approve Ms. Clair for HAMP…”  Judge Vescovo suppresses a core tenant of the RICO claims in this wholly inaccurate reconfiguration of the record, i.e., slander.  She contradicts the claim that BANA had no authority to proffer a HAMP application process since, stemming forward from the HUD Fraud perpetrated in 2009, BANA was no longer the servicer, the note holder, or the note owner of record.  Thus, the Hamp Fraud Scheme.  I actually wrote: “Ms. Clair is not naming Bank of America, their Servicers and Investors or any defendant named in this Civil RICO Private Right of Action for failure to modify her loan under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).”         
  3. Described page 29 of the Amended Assignment of Errors. Judge Vescovo wrote: It appears that Clair’s lawsuit filed in state case was also a Civil RICO Case. She then props up this lie (page 37 – point 26 from the Amended Assignment of Errors); Judge Vescovo writes:  Clair’s instant RICO Claims may also be barred under the doctrine of res judicata.  Clair states in the complaint that she initiated a civil RICO lawsuit against BANA in Chancery Court of Fayette County, TN.   This is an outright LIE.  If this is acceptable conduct for a Magistrate Judge every indigent, and, or, pro se litigant coming before this district court are in serious trouble.  The case filed by Webb Brewer was not a Civil RICO Case.  In fact, this case never moved beyond filing.  Clair fired him for lying about what had and had not been accomplished in June of 2014.    
  4. Amended Report and Recommendations for Sua Sponte Dismissal, the Magistrate Judge wrote: On December 21, 2011, Stancil transferred his interest in the property to Clair via a quitclaim deed in compliance with their divorce agreement.  Clair actually wrote: Brett Stancil quit claimed the Subject Property to Ms. Clair 12/21/2010 in compliance with their divorce agreement; divorce final March 2, 2011. Forward dating the year by one year and entering that wrong date into the court record contradicts the time line having enormous benefit for the financial industry defendants.     

The Magistrate Judge inserted the fraud narrative into the record. She smothered the claims each time she writes her interpretation of the foreclosure lie into the district court record. There was no foreclosure.  Each time she proposed that Clair applied for a short sale when in fact the short sale was one of five known flips of the property title, laundering the chain of title while skimming equity and thus Bank Fraud.  Each time, in contradiction of the RICO claims, she proposes that a valid HAMP application process took place deflecting from and contradicting claims pertaining to the HAMP Fraud Scheme.  Having the exhibits, the Magistrate Judge contrived to distance the hijacking of a HUD program as a pattern of theft-practice where by, premised on a fraud narrative homes were pooled into HUD programs, and then purchased out of those programs at a vastly reduced price and thus, having control of the digital property title, able to drive those mortgages, including the subject home, into default. I had a right to present these claims to a jury as supported by hard tangible proof.   Magistrate Judge Vescovo built a case for the defense upon assumption that no one would bother to read the series of objection filings.  This informs the degree to which indigent persons are held in such low regard.

The Amended Assignment of Errors was filed with the district court during that period that the appeal was sent back to the district court for ruling on outstanding appealable issues.

The Amended Assignment of Errors was filed into the district court docket on 05/02/2017 [37] district court Case No.: 16-2263.  An Assignment of Errors was first filed with the sixth circuit on 12/08/2016, [6] first sixth circuit Case No.: 16-6672. Speaking to pattern this filing was severed from the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief which was filed under second Case No.:17-5618 in a violation of Procedural Due Process and via the instrumentality of a forged filing that upon belief, originated at the district court.   Clair added to and amended the Assignment of Errors first filed with the sixth circuit.  She then filed it with the district court on 05/02/2017 in support of yet another, Motion for Recusal [36] and Motion to Reverse Judgement [38]. Never addressed. 

The circuit executive follows the same course of cover-up and concealment.  One does not need to address evidence one does not read and thus succeeds in suppressing.   In failing to address the Amended Assignment of Errors and actual content from the Complaints of Judicial Misconduct, “Misconduct” being the salient word, the wholly inadequate charade of review avoids any obligation to address the Magistrate Judge’s slander of the claims and failure to apply screening requirements. The Circuit Executive, by design, is limiting their exposure to the truth.  This serves the agenda to deny the Complaints of Judicial Misconduct a full and comprehensive review and investigation.      

Repetition of the defendant’s fraud narrative bleeds into every order written by Judge Vescovo.  There has been no impartial review of the court’s own records.  And additionally, that objection filings on facts and objective evidence have never been addressed. An important question totally ignored as the white elephant sitting in any room where these words may be read is this.  Does the right to be heard followed by the right to object operate in practice at the Screening for Merit juncture?  Are the screening requirements, among them that all the claims are to be accepted as true, hold in reality and practice?  Slander of the claims is a denial of speech. Codified as record it produces documents fraud.  Screening for Merit used as a tool to deny speech is a separate and unequal application of the law and thus a civil rights violation.  Indigent litigants are a minority class.  Only indigent appeals are submitted to Screening for Merit as the precursor to due process.  Systemic (institutional bias) seated in the gatekeeper role of this circuit executive has served the outcome, that the sacred cow of Screening for Merit is above criticism.  This presents a danger to the public welfare while sending the message that courts do not exist for the people.   

Enter: all the claims are frivolous; 28 U.S. Code 352 (b)(A)(iii).  “frivolous, lacking sufficient evidence (B) lack any factual foundation or are conclusively refuted by objective evidence…

Slandered claims to the degree proffered by Magistrate Judge Vescovo make a mockery of any pretense that the magistrate judge functioned as an impartial and objective arbiter.  “The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been construed to guarantee litigants right to a ‘neutral and detached,’ or impartial judge.” Ward v. Village of Monroville; 409 U.S. 57 (1972).  Unless the Circuit Execute wants to claim that Screening for Merit is a separate and unequal process not subject to constitutional rights and the rule of law, which by passive refusal to examine the record, by fiat is exactly what they are claiming.    

 The Memorandum and Order cherry picked, minimized and trivialized the one example cited by the Chief Judge to say that there were no conflicts of interest.  Appearance of Conflicts of Interest and bias is evidenced by:

  1. Commercial Appeal Article of 4/4/2015 by, Daniel Connolly.  Federal Court in Memphis takes steps to speed up pro se’cases.” A copy of this article was one of sixteen attachments in support of the complaint filed against Magistrate Judge Vescovo. Perhaps it is the case that two years and five months later the circuit executive no longer has copies of these attachments each bearing a numbered exhibit sticker.  According to this article the Magistrate Judge assignment is to dispense with pro se cases that clog the federal court system.  To thus improve the district court statistics, ranked 90th out of 94 districts nationwide at the time the article was written. The article conveys that poor people who cannot attract legal representation equates to a weak case with almost no chance of being won.  Double speak to readers of this Commercial Appeal Article to say “don’t bother.”  Two examples are cited in the article and by intrusion of misplaced shame seek to elicit shame by association as a stop-gap.   One example is a mentally ill person described in a manner devoid of compassion.  The second is a prisoner.  His win is called “modest” and “astounding.”  His win is disparaged as a near anomaly, almost not worth the effort when in fact shaving time off this prisoner sentence must have almost felt like a miracle to this man.  The shamefully transparent article planted in the public domain is directed to potential, already disadvantaged possible future litigants of Western Tennessee.  To say that because poverty is so great there are more of us than in other locations.  The article places stats above justice while at the same time inviting commiseration of the Magistrate Judge’s back log of work in having to deal with pro se litigants, i.e., colored as a “less than” sub group of the American population. Intimation: a waste of the courts’ valuable resources.  The article was removed from archive access after I sent it with a letter to the pre-Barr justice department. This article demonstrates an appalling lack of self-checking awareness spilling over to reflect badly on all federal district courts.  It proffers under one umbrella of thought that everyone who reads this article will agree that pro se cases are not deserving of equal treatment under the law.  The article focuses on Judge Vesvoco’s new role.  It conveys bias seated in contempt for pro se litigants. The Civil RICO case I filed a year later on 04/20/2016 would have impacted the district court budget as well as the statistical gains already made.  The phrase “speed up pro se cases” is code for dispensing quickly with indigent appeals at the Screening for Merit precursor to due process.      
  2. Judge Vescovo labeled the actions of three Memphis attorney defendants “law firms” “minimal.”  In doing so she was not screening the case, but driving conclusions toward the defense side.  Exceeding the screening requirements, she wrote into her dismissal: “it appears that the minimal allegations in her complaint that three law firms represented Clair at various points in her state court proceeding…”  This wholly untrue and fictious statement provides cover to the collaboration of three attorneys to catch and kill this Civil RICO Case. This charge would have come before a trial judge and jury had this Civil RICO Case ever been accorded the light of a court room. The statement maligns Clair to convey that she is someone who cannot get along with any attorney.  The chosen words evoke a picture of Clair running through three different law firms in one court proceeding.  In fact, as already stated there were not “three law firms,” but one attorney that represented Clair in the state case filing. The Vescovo word-pictures are replete with misstatements of facts that suppress and trivialize the RICO Claims.  That contradict the factual allegations.  That play to insider, institutionalized bias to which indigent appellants must overcome as an established and added hurdle.  
  3. These maneuvers are possible only because the Magistrate Judge operates under the assumption that confirmation bias to shield judges above the Constitutional right to be heard is so great that no one will bother to read what the pro se litigant actually wrote.
  4. Per the machinations described in point 2 (above) Magistrate Judge Vescovo has quashed: Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (Exhibit No.: 77) which sits among the exhibits she complained had not been filed. These exhibits were filed into the docket.  Screening did not require exhibits.  The question hangs as to why the Magistrate Judge needed them?  Did she share information with the financial industry cohort either directly or indirectly?  Another attachment utterly and completely ignored was No.: 19, article in which Judge Vescovo’s husband, Mike McLaren is quoted as saying, “We talk about the law a lot. She tells me about some of her cases and I tell her about mine.”  Did selected exhibits that should have had no place at the screening juncture inform risk areas to the defense side, driving construction of answers that overwhelming favor the defense (slandering the claims) before the defense ever needs show up in court?           
  5. Appearance of Conflict.  The Memorandum and Order states dishonestly that, “there are two main components of this judicial conduct complaint.”  Screening for Merit abuses are not addressed.  Slander of the claims are not addressed.  Appearance of there being conflicts of interest with the financial industry-Defendants is addressed.   Doing so in a manner that trivializes and selectively cheery picks the one part that can be easily white washed while omitting other parts.  Never been heard, thus I repeat. Defendants represent an income stream to law firms at which Vescovo-McLaren family members are employed. Even if Clair had not sent attachments this is a matter of record easily accessed via: www.pacer.gov. Clients include: Bank of America and by extension, RECONTrust Company.  Core Logic Services and by extension the Equator computer platform used as a communication tool to assign theft perfecting tasks amongst the perpetrator nexus keeping the chain of theft on track.  Also, the secret MERS Interim lender and proof of bank fraud coming from the MERS record. Thus, MERSCorp Holding, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration System.  Bank of New York Mellon and JP Morgan Chase Bank.  Pretium Partners, LLC and Pretium Mortgage Acquisition Trust, are clients of Baker Donelson; (Nicholas Vescovo). Pattern examples blocked from presentation to a jury expose the national scope of operations, i.e., thirty-two stolen property titles pooled into mortgage-backed securities, flowing into managed funds handled by Pretium Partners, LLC and linked to the perpetrator nexus and subject attorneys.  Attorney’s benefiting from two or more of these client relationships, connected by blood or marriage to Judge Vescovo, include her son, Nicholas Vescovo (Baker Donelson).  Stepson, Michael C. McLaren (Butler Snow.)  Nephew Brian Shelton (Bradley, Arant, Boult, Commings, LLP) and husband Mike McLaren.  The circuit executive has called these connections frivolous. Deflecting responsibility: Any challenge to the merits of a judge’s rulings is outside the scope of judicial-misconduct Proceedings. 

“To extent that it is based on these allegations, the complaint is subject to dismissal as frivolous under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) and (D).”  The Circuit Executive appears to be holding the line, deflecting from the trailing ramifications of where slander of the claims and the district court conduct eventually led. The claims were slandered.  Screening for Merit was used as a means to obstruct due process.  Screening was NOT by any measure a fair process but an abuse of power and an exercise in tyranny.  Stop with the coverup.  You know full well and have not forgotten that your first allegiance is to the Constitution of the United States of America, your oath of office, and the people of this nation.  Do your job.  Refer for Investigation. The Magistrate Judge could have voluntarily recused herself without ever stating the reason, as is the right of any judge to do so.  Her choice, despite multiple objection filings, was to hold onto control of screening, writing the same lies into future Orders.  Judge Lipman did not require recusal despite objective evidence that the RICO Claims were slandered.   

The Supreme Court held that because there was an objective appearance of bias, due process required recusal (Caperton) and that the guarantee of fair procedures is a right (Matthews 424 U.S. at 332; (explaining that due process prevents government from freely depriving individuals of liberty or property).   “Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a judge to recuse himself not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case, but when “extreme facts” create a “probability of bias.” 

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE SHERYL LIPMAN

I hereby petition the Judicial Council for review of their decision not to investigate Judicial Complaints filed and assigned complaint numbers: 06-18-901 03/04 on 12/06/2018.  I do so as my right under the First Amendment where repeated violations: abridging the freedom of speech and right to petition the government for redress of grievances has occurred.

I beg that the Circuit Executive refer Complaint(s) of Judicial Misconduct to the Judicial Council and then hopefully to the Judicial Conference of the United States.  I understand that the judicial council of the circuit has no power to change a decision; “only a court can do so.”  This has no bearing on the requirement that the Circuit Executive determine if, as alleged in the complaint of Judicial Misconduct, Judge Lipman did engage in conduct “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” 28 U.S. Code § 351 Complaints; judge defined (a) Filing of Complaint by any person. I qualify as any person though I and my claims of judicial misconduct are marginalized and ignored to the extent that I might as well be invisible. 

Without looking at the evidence the Memorandum and Order states that the complaints are frivolous.  To thus, communicate that the “allegations in the complaint lack any factual foundation or are conclusively refuted by objective evidence;” 28 U.S. Code 352 (b)(B).  Dismissal at the Screening for Merit precursor to due process is only appropriate for a claim based on an indisputable “meritless legal theory.” I am not an attorney.  I cannot write as an attorney would.  That said I had done extensive research.  I understood precisely how the chain of theft functioned in my case and in others, put forth in three pattern example groupings that along with other evidence, I’ve been unjustly denied the right to be present before a jury.  Judge Vescovo improperly complained that I had not filed exhibits.  She had those exhibits. Once filed that bell cannot be un-rung. The manner in which, the claims were slandered informs that she used those exhibits to frame conclusions for dismissal leaning toward the defense side. 

One sided scrutiny of the record serves to shield from criticism the sacred cow of screening which functions primarily in the gate keeper role to limit cases.  Misconduct is the salient word.  There is a duty and a responsibility to determine if judicial misconduct took place. Stop with the cover-up.    

The Memorandum and Order reads: Finally, the complaint alleges that the subject district judge failed to exercise appropriate oversight.  This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U. S C. § 351(c).  As already stated, there is no “undersigned” since the Memorandum and Order is not signed.  The Memorandum and Order addresses none of the issues of misconduct raised in the Complaint of Judicial Misconduct filed against Judge Lipman. The smokescreen story that trails forward to the sixth circuit as an intrusive, deflective, phony and fictious 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. It is a clever trick of lawyers to direct attention away from what reflects most damningly on the misconduct of their clients.  The Circuit Executive has no client.  Their duty is to the integrity of the judiciary and to the public welfare. Quashing slander and forgery the Memorandum and Order raises the smokescreen amended complaints: Meanwhile the complainant filed an amended complaint… dismissed the amended complaint, struck the second amended complaint… Please, please, please address slander and forgery. 

 The responsibility to assign Clair a fair judge, and then a fair and impartial Magistrate Judge assigned to screen the Civil RICO Case was the job of the district court. The neutrality requirement resides: “in a Constitutional order grounded in the rule of law…” Clair’s right to a fair arbiter who is: “unclouded by personal bias or conflicts of interest” Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law; 2010; was not preserved.   Right to, and access to, an unbiased judge did not rest with the Pro Se Litigant, upon recognizing that her claims were slandered to research and learning the extent of the Magistrate Judge’s conflicts of interest.

Judge Lipman had irrefutable evidence before her that the claims were slandered stemming forward from Objection to the Report and Recommendations 08/02/2016 [14]; extending thru Motion for Recusal/Conflicts of Interest 05/02/2017 [36]; and augmented by: Amended Assignment of Errors 05/02/2017 [37].  Clair is still writing to a brick wall proven in that the Memorandum and Order adopts the strategy of the district court.  They fail to address slander of the claims, forgery, and unequal application of screening procedures. The Memorandum and Order is written to the insider echo chamber to say, “job done, troublesome indigent applicant handled.”  Just because the Memorandum and Order will not write the words slander and forgery does not mean they did not occur.  For continuing to object via the only means one has at the Screening for Merit juncture Clair has been painted as troublesome and harassing.  This panders to the bias that already paints indigent persons as a “less than” class, wasting the court’s time; called in one federal publication, “a headache.”      

Judge Lipman exercised no checking control over the conduct of the Magistrate Judge.  Judge Lipman failed to enforce procedural protections at the screening juncture.  “…it is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the Citizen and against any stealth encroachment therein” (Bryers v. United States 273 US R 28 (1927)As a limitation upon abuse and over-reach of government, under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments the district court was required to preserve procedural due process “which requires the government to follow certain procedures before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.” 

  1. Judge Lipman did not enforce screening procedures.
  2. She did not require the Magistrate Judge to voluntarily recuse herself from having any further power over the screening outcomes and doing so as of: Objection to the Report and Recommendations [14] 08/02/2016.   
  3. She did not require the Magistrate Judge to address and correct Slander of the Claims. 
  4. Her passivity, taking the form of tacit approval, played a crucial role in perfecting the goals of the RICO Criminal Enterprise; illegal seizure of private property operating within both a local and national footprint absent due process. 
  5. Slander of the claims and rewriting content running unchecked had the effect of producing instrumentality in the form of Judicial Orders.  These orders repeatedly suppressed speech of the indigent litigant making use of the axiom: if one repeats a lie often enough, it will be believed. Judge Lipman, upon reading the series of Objection filings made no effort to curtail the conduct of her Junior. Lies and slander overcame facts never to inform other victims, never to inform those federal agencies also defrauded including HUD, Treasury, and the IRS; nor any federal investigators screening Civil RICO Cases.

Upon failure to screen for merit, Constitutional Rights and procedural protections denied this Civil RICO Case were:  

  1. Right to be heard. 
  2. Right to object. 
  3. Right to have the factual allegations believed.  
  4. Right, to a liberal construction of the case. 
  5. Right, to a factual rendering of the claims. 
  6. Right, to a fair arbiter. 

Judge Lipman rubber stamped every decision.  Insulated by the huge disparity of power and position she signed and adopted every dismissal, ignoring: The Supreme Court held that because there was an objective appearance of bias, due process required recusal (Caperton) and that the guarantee of fair procedures is a right (Matthews 424 U.S. at 332; (explaining that due process prevents government from freely depriving individuals of liberty or property).

Judge Lipman did not protect the free speech right of the objections to be addressed. …objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of the court.  A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations as provided by rules of the court…   And… to which objection is made; 28 U.S. Code 636 § (b)(1)(C). 

Failure to protect constitutional rights within the framework of fair screening procedures made a mockery of: All factual allegations of the plaintiff are to be believed and the claims must not be dismissed unless it appears that the plaintive can prove no set of facts pursuant to his or her allegations which would entitle the plaintiff to relief.  Clair wrote that she requested a jury trial.  Sealing coverup in the huge imbalance of power there is not only no right to appear, but there is no stenographic transcript of any discussion at which conclusions were arrived at and in this case, informed by 144-exhibits.  Upon filing these exhibits in response to Judge Vescovo’s complaint that they had not been filed, the clerk should have informed Clair that they were not required until the case was docketed for trial. 

Judge Lipman used her authority to perfect that the slandered record would stand.  Rule 38. Right to a Jury Trial; (a) Right preserved: The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution – or as provided by a federal statute – is preserved to the parties inviolate. Secondary laws running rough-shot over the truth do not take priority of authority over those rights conferred under the Constitution of the United States of America.  This is eloquently expressed and ruled on, informing and laying a foundation for future case law in: Marbury v. Madison (1803).    

Screening for Merit is a designation and label that does not appear under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Screening for Merit does not appear in the index.  A litigant whose case is assigned to screening, not being an attorney, would have to dive into these rules assuming they would know where to find them. Even so they would still wonder what does and does not apply to screening.  This informs the institutional bias to preserve screening to the disadvantage of indigent persons.  Such tactics empower abuse safe in the knowledge that indigent means no money.  No access to an attorney. Deprived of any meaningful defense. Game on!  The screening fiat court has all the advantage.                                                    

Rule 72. Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order (a) NONDISPOSITIVE MATTERS. Reads: When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings (which I have to guess is Screening for Merit) and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision.  

Rule 72(a) then states: The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.  Under Judge Lipman’s oversight, objective evidence of slander cited in multiple objection filings was not enough to require recusal.  Blatant misstatements of fact were not set aside. This informs that Judge Lipman was equally invested in seeing that this Civil RICO Case not put a dent in whatever statistical gains had been achieved over the previous year.

Claiming that one has done something without actually fulfilling the requirements of doing so does not measure up to: must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.  Every dismissal written by Judge Vescovo and adopted by Judge Lipman is premised upon changed dates, misstatements of fact, overt contradiction of claims, and fatal omissions. It appears that Judge Lipman merely rubber stamped the conclusions that saved her court the expense of allowing a Civil RICO Case to proceed.  This is informed by the record that the Circuit Executive has elected not to look at.   And that… however, the statutory obligation of the district court to arrive at its own, independent conclusion about those portions of the magistrate’s report to which objection is made is not satisfied by a mere review of the magistrates report itself.  Hernandez v. Estelle.   

Rule 72(3) Resolving Objections. Reads: The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Judge Lipman exercised none of these requirements.  Writing to what functioned as a brick wall Clair petitioned over and over again to be heard (right to object) via: Objection to the Report and Recommendations 08/02/2016 [14].  Motion for Disqualification 10/25/2016 [21].  Motion for Recusal 05/02/2017 [36].  Amended Assignment of Errors 05/02/2017 [37].  Motion to Reverse Judgement 05/02/2017 [38]. 

The first Amended Complaint arose from Judge Vescovo’s assertion that Clair could not include defrauded federal agencies as co-plaintiffs in the Civil RICO Complaint. Message to Clair, she needed to amend the complaint dropping federal agencies as co-plaintiffs.  Disdain for pro se, indigent persons suggest that every barrier to being heard, came with the expectation that she would follow the pro se script and give up.  This trick, for trick it was, served the defense. Decision as to whether federal agencies could be enjoined to the Civil RICO Case was the domain of a trial judge.  Dropping them limited exposure of these crimes having a public record that could garner investigation by federal agencies. Such a decision was the right of a trial judge and had no place at what functioned as the Screening for Merit blockade. Rule 72 was trashed. The Rules of Civil Procedure were not followed.  Screening for Merit was used as a tool to deny Due Process.  Procedural Due Process did not exist and was not enforced by Judge Lipman.    

Role of the Magistrate Judge by consent of the parties.  Is this another rule that applies everywhere but at the screening juncture?  

FORGERY: There was an interim period that my appeal to the sixth circuit was sent back to the district court for ruling on an outstanding appealable order(s) and, or, issues ambiguously alluded to.  The Order issued from the sixth circuit states: This matter is before the court upon initial consideration…  “Initial consideration” communicates that the first panel of judges expected that, if issues were not resolved at the district court permission would be granted to file the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief to mean that they would likely revisit this appeal. As it turned out they were prevented from doing so. 

The Order of: 02/24/2017, [8], first sixth circuit case number: 16-6672, reads: This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.  No final or appealable order terminating all of the issues presented in the litigation has been entered by the district court

Clair naturally wanted to know what “appealable issues” had not been addressed by the district court?  To this day she does not have an answer.  She hoped beyond hope that the sixth circuit first panel of judges recognized that the objection filings had not been addressed, i.e., that slander of the claims and denial of the right to be heard were the stake-objections and the focus of every objection filing.  Clair prayed that here was a chance that her Civil RICO Case might actually move beyond the screening blockade.  She thus, filed three Motions for Clarity.  One directed to the first panel of judges at the sixth circuit.  And two directed to the district court. The one-page second request to the District Court reads: “The District Court recently mailed me a copy of Document #:27, ORDER Dismissing Case and Striking (25) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. I am left to conclude that it is the First Amended Complaint and not the Second that the District Court has not ruled on.   I do not have an attorney.  I am therefore at a considerable disadvantage which is a source of anxiety to me; not schooled in procedure or law, being a senior citizen, having a minor learning disability and well aware that there is a considerable imbalance of power.  Therefore, would you, in an unambiguous, straightforward manner, communicate if I am right to conclude that it is the First Amended Complaint that remains pending?  And additionally, confirm that the District Court will rule on this decision (outstanding issues) at a point in time in keeping with the courts schedule.”

Following the practice of avoiding any reference to objections related to slander of the claims and material alteration of content, the district court then issued: Order Granting Motion/Request for Clarity. The Order opens in the first paragraph: Clair argues that she lacks an understanding… I was arguing nothing.  Arguing is not a luxury operating within the one-sided separate and inherently unequal Screening for Merit exercise-processes.  I was begging for clarity as to what the sixth circuit judges considered not to have been ruled on at the district court.

Between 02/24/2017 and 06/01/2017, Clair waited in vain for the district court to address whatever outstanding “issues” the sixth circuit first panel of judges referred to in their Order of 02/24/2017 [8]; No.: 16-6672.   Her hope was that finally the objection filings would address slander of the claims and thus, upon recognition of “mistakes and errors” allow her Civil RICO case to move forward.  Clair did not yet understand that the sixth circuit first case manager had contrived an exit strategy; contradicting the judges order to thus, deliver an excuse by which screening abuses, outstanding appealable orders, would never be addressed.   When it became clear that the district court had no intention of ruling on any outstanding appealable order or “issues” Clair filed the 06/01/2017 Notice that the appeal should resume. 

To elaborate… At this point Clair had no recognition that her request for clarity filed with the sixth circuit had been misrepresented as the Petition for Rehearing when in fact there was nothing to rehear since Clair had not yet been granted permission to file the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief. I believe that the sixth circuit first panel of judges never saw the request for clarity.  The first case manager, Karen Fultz, by this fatal and single “edit” of a filing provided the needed exit excuse whereby the district court need not supply sixth circuit Judges: NORRIS, BATCHELDER, AND GIBBONS with an answer.  Not supply Clair with an answer.  The relabel-heading of this filing, morphed the sixth circuit request for clarity into: The petition for rehearing is denied” MANDATE ISSUED 04/17/2017 [13]. “Denied.”  Thus, no obligation of Judge Lipman to respond and, or, require Magistrate Judge Vescovo to respond in keeping with Rule 72(a): The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.  And 72(b)(3) Resolve objections.  Objections were never “resolved” because they were never answered proven in that slander is allowed to stand. At every step were the imbalance of power, disparity of knowledge, and bias against indigent persons could be leveraged, it was leveraged by this district court.    

Clair submitted the 06/01/2017 Notice that her appeal should resume through the clerk’s office at the district court.  Clair placed the only sixth circuit case number she was aware of on the facing page of this 06/01/2017 Notice; Case No.: 16-6672.  This notice was not filed under the first Case Number upon arrival at the sixth circuit.  It was not filed at all. Fourteen summary appeal questions, later fleshed out in the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief (never read) appear in this three-page 06/01/2017 Notice. 

With trust breached Clair had adopted the habit of bringing a copy along to be stamped for her records.  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.”  This 06/01/2017 Notice, listed fourteen summary and succinctly phrased appeal questions.  They could not be allowed to filter forward to the first sixth circuit panel of judges to whom they were directed.  To whom the earlier request for clarity had been directed and gone unanswered; morphed into the phony and fraud producing Petition for Rehearing.  Objective evidence proves that this filing was replaced with a forgery. Was this filing forged and replaced at the district court?  Or, upon being received at the sixth circuit?  What substitutes for the first two pages is a copy of the letter assigning the decoy second case number and second case manager.  What substitutes for page-three is the list of defendants.

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 any judicial decision on the question.”   (Earle v. Mc Veigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398).  Or is this yet, another axiom that does not apply to screening.  This act of forgery quashed the fourteen appeal questions.  Forgery is not addressed by any Memorandum and Order.  The subject of those complaints for judicial misconduct are linked by forgery (Complaint Numbers 06-18-901 05/06/07/08).  The circuit executive has these two filings in their possession as Attachment No.: 25 and Attachment No.: 38; 38 reads: Document Fraud.  Pacer Copy of what substitutes and conceals the Appeal from list.  Proof of forgery has been quashed from recognition.  This informs cover-up extending to the Circuit Executive failure to refer the entire record for investigation to the Judicial Counsel; special committee. 

ELECTRONIC NOTIFCATIONS:  I had signed up for electronic notifications.  At the exact precise juncture where I could have been notified that upon screening the Civil RICO Case it had been dismissed:  Case No.: 16-2263, Order Adopting 7 8 Report and Recommendations 07/14/2016; (Lipman, Sheryl) (entered 04/14/2016) electronic notification failed. Four notices were not received.  Responsibility for this was assigned to me.  Blaming the victim, I was told that I had missed and, or, mistakenly deleted them.    

RICO criteria requires proof that there is an ongoing pattern of criminal behavior by the same perpetrator nexus.  Among the three cases I cited was one that, if I had been allowed due process was tied by substantial objective evidence to my, RICO case. This case centered on corporate espionage and internet hacking, sophisticated enough that it went on undetected over a three-year period. I wrote a letter to the district court; 7/18/2016 [11].  It read: It is my belief that the criminal elements named in my Civil RICO Private Right of Action, have co-opted my email account.  This fits the past pattern of behavior in another case in which the same defendants hacked into the computer system of a rival company for an extended period of time with the IP Address traced back to Keller Williams – MEM 2, LLC.  Prudential Collins-Maury, Inc., Realtors v. MEM 2, d.b.a., Keller Williams Realty, aka, Keller Williams Realty East.  Docket # CH 11 – 1860 Part 3 / Chancery Court in Shelby County, TN.

Persons from this case would have been on my witness list. Upon belief that this case was not settled until it was perceived the fix was in at the district court regarding my case.

It was apparently beyond reason that Judge Lipman would consider the possibility that any criminal element could hack the computer systems of the federal government. Or that her IT department had simply made four mistakes in not sending four communications. I then submitted evidence that the four emails in question had not been received to my computer.  This audit concluded that the hacking and, or, interference with notice began at the district court. In this instance and at this juncture the failure of notice did not originate on my end. 

The report in part stated: The only proof that the mail; was ever sent to Ms. Clair comes from whomever she spoke with.  If the Court wanted to prove the mail was sent to Clair’s email, they could have simply sent it with a read receipt, which in this case was not done.

The circuit executive has this report in their possession as Attachment No.: 17: Letter confirming emails from the district court not received. Unless of course the attachments to the complaints of judicial misconduct are lost or have been misplaced.  Or considered not worth looking at.  One must ask, was the possibility of interference with email notifications from the district court written up in whatever would function as an error report.  Or reported as a potential crime; suspicion and not proof being the threshold.  Call coincidence what you will.  Opposition to this Civil RICO Case ever seeing the light of a courtroom began here.      

The solution in dealing with the rise of indigent complaints was not to adapt performance, offering help to pro se litigants as other federal courts have done (Federal District Court in Brooklyn, NY) The appearance exists that this particular Magistrate Judge was appointed by Judge Lipman knowing that she would be predisposed to a quick turn over of this case because in fact, this was her assignment.  Have there been other similar complaints filed against Judge Vescovo involving obstruction of the right to be heard, failure to address objections, and abuse of screening procedures as a pattern, enabled by this district court?  Was Judge Vescovo appointed by Judge Lipman? 

Fraud, even mistakes and errors achieving fraud, invalidates every decision. A void judgment is a nullity, and no rights can be based thereon; it can be set aside on motion or can be collaterally attacked at any time.  Garren v. Rollis 375 P.2d 994 (Idaho 1962).   Courts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow Due Process Law. Title 5, US Cod Sec. 556(d), Sec. 557, Sec. 706.  These same machinations, employing Orwellian logic, have produced the fraud concealing outcome that I still have an outstanding Motion for a Void Judgement at the District Court.  Achieved per another separate and unequal practice of delegating “less than” indigent complaints to the sole discretion of those that are not judges. 

I DECLARE UNDER PANALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL STATEMENTS ARE TRUE.

Signed: ______________________________  Date:  _______

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


[1] Windsor v. The Tennessean, 719 F.2d 155, 158 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 826, 105 S.CT. 105, 83 L.ED.2d 50 (1984); Chartrand v. Chrysler Corp., 785 F. Supp. 666, 669 (E.D. Mich. 1992).

CATCH AND KILL: A Civil Rights Violation

In 2016 I filed a Civil RICO Case pro se and under pauper status at the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Because I filed under pauper status, to mean without an attorney and unable to pay the costs myself, this Civil RICO Case was handed over to a process called: SCREENING FOR MERIT. Now lets be clear. Judges don’t like Civil RICO Cases, or in fact any case brought by ordinary citizens. Too many judges equate being poor to mean frivolous; having no legal merit. The separate and unequal treatment that follows is biased to believe that if a case will not be taken on by an attorney that case must be unworthy at the outset. More likely than not a waste of the courts valuable time and resources. Enter, SCREENING FOR MERIT.

When filing a pro se case under pauper status within the federal courts that case is first reviewed by an assigned judge; often a magistrate judge. That judge will decide if the case rises to the level that due process is warranted. If this is news to you. Or if this sounds inherently unconstitutional that is because it is. In this huge imbalance of power corrupt judges, more aligned with a personal ideology or political agendas than they are with the rule of law. More interested in containing budgets, improving turn around court statistics, or protecting against recognition of certain crimes can all too easily exceed the strict screening criteria and kill any case they choose.

The expectation is that victims of screening in the hands of a corrupt judge, overcome by the huge imbalance of power and disparity regarding knowledge of basic constitutional rights and the law will simply follow the pro se script and give up. I chose to fight back. In doing so I encountered a culture offended and defensive of my right to do so.

At the SCREENING FOR MERIT juncture all claims are to be accepted as true. This is because “screening” is NOT DUE PROCESS. There is no judge sitting on the bench with whom one can interact with. There is no jury or access to discovery, nor opportunity to challenge lies coming from the defendants.

Since the immediate goal was to catch and kill my Civil RICO Case while at the same time curtailing any risk that federal law enforcement might take a hard look at the claims and extensive proof I had amassed Due Process as a right of every American had to be denied.

Asserting vigorously and repeatedly that one has fulfilled a legally required responsibility while utterly failing to do so, was a strategy of the Magistrate Judge assigned to tank my case before it could be heard. These same tactics seated in denial of the right to be heard followed me from the district court to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The primary duty of appeals courts is the error correction mandate. They are to address possible errors and mistakes at lower courts. If errors under law are found (such as overtly slandering the claims; failing to screen a case, but in fact ruling on a case) that case would be sent back to the district court.

Appeals courts cannot use SCREENING FOR MERIT as a tool to winnow cases, obstructing access to due process while denying the right to be heard. The solution is a far more devious, insidious practice. This is the practice of delegating “less than” or troublesome appeals to the sole discretion of those that are not judges. Clerks and, or, Staff Attorneys write the opinions that judges then rubber stamp. Right to appear is foreclosed on the front end. The expectation that judges actually read the briefs and do the work required under law does not exist for every appeals case. Therefore, constitutional rights are not evenly applied.

These are Civil Rights Violations. These are Constitutional violations statistically impacting a separate class of people, i.e., average American citizens in ever increasing numbers. Just as those that sought to see slavery accepted, before and after the Civil War; accepted as an economic necessity as though the end really does justify the means courts today are less likely to operate for the people. Distilled to one word this inequity is operational, self protected, and institutionalized as CORRUPTION.

The very act of delegating an appeals case to those that are not judges opens the door to unprecedented levels of corruption. Influencing the actions of corrupt court employees to catch and kill an appeal is far easier to accomplish when judges are taken out of the equation. Access to bribe or influence outcomes per employees of the court carries far less risk than actually bribing or even blackmailing individual judges.

I filed four complaints of judicial misconduct with the Circuit Executive at the Sixth Circuit. I mailed these complaints along with exhibits, priority mail on November 1, 2018. Because two years later these complaints were treated as if they did not exist in the realm of fact. And still are. Because my efforts to be heard on objection(s) at the sixth circuit were, and currently are, repeatedly tanked by the same career bureaucrats deeply embedded and bunkered down; self protecting against numerous violations of Procedural Due Process (including forgery and replacement of a filing), I published these complaints in my book. You can find and read these complaints in chapters six through nine.

While it has been intermittently hard to find my book… yes, censorship exists. Here is a link. I hope to offer this book on this website, but for now it can be found at: Amazon.com: Alexandra Clair: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle Though I am self-published I purchased my ISBN numbers from Bowker. You should be able to order this book by title, author name, and ISBN Number from any book store. ISBN Number: 9780984705948. Please do let me know if you have any trouble.

ILLEGAL FORECLSOURE, TITLE THEFT, AND ITS CHAIN OF CORRUPTION

There are reasons why we may not know the future. We might decide we are not going in a hard and difficult direction. We might then miss the blessings, the lessons, the enduring legacy of having overcome the evil that we are intended to uproot in so far as we are able.

The above titled book describes my journey to discover the truth behind illegal seizure of my home premised on a forged Tennessee Judge’s order of eviction. Seeking answers for myself inevitably led to many other homes stolen per a very specific and easily recognized chain of theft.

The stranglehold over legally required disclosures to American consumers of mortgages violate the Truth in Lending Act. Registrar of Deeds offices cannot be depended upon to produce a complete and unbroken chain of property title appearing as signed and notarized endorsements. In former decades we could trust that we had access to a full and complete chain of property title. This is no longer the case. No questions asked Registrar of Deeds Offices routinely file what functions as document fraud; corrupting their own systems. At multiple junctures where red flags point to some adaptation of a Title Theft Scheme, millions of Americans are rendered helpless to fight back. Thus, we know that title theft is an inside job. The chain of theft is no random or accidental happenstance.

Title Theft, control over the digital property title by criminals, PREDATES ANY ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE CHARADE. The good news is that with a little knowledge and the willingness to unearth the truth any person can effectively fight back.

I believe today that God let me experience certain extremes so that I could write about and arm others to fight back. Not everything I experienced will fit every victim of title theft. As you read my book take what fits and leave the rest.

I will soon be coming out with a companion book to: ILLEGAL FORECLSOURE, TITLE THEFT, AND ITS CHAIN OF CORRUPTION. This new book is meant to be a practical, hands-on investigative guide. It is currently in the last editing stages; titled: TITLE THEFT QUICK GUIDE OF LISTS; May 2021. Whether one has been targeted for a simple or more sophisticated chain of theft this book lays out exactly what you need, where to find it, and how to push back so as to defend your property against illegal seizure. With a few tools any person can adopt the role of being a citizen investigator, fighting back to protect private property rights. Even if your home has already been illegally seized by white collar criminals networked to the national footprint of operations it is never too late. There is no statute of limitations on a void judgement. The fly in the ointment is that fraud invalidates any decision.

My next book will describe the corruption I experienced in the federal court system. Separate and Unequal is a Civil Rights Violation. Unknown to most Americans there is no level, nor equal playing field within our federal appeals process. Read the next post. Catch and Kill: A Civil Rights Violation.

The first book can be found on my Amazon Author page. My plan is to offer these books, as well as zoon consultation via this website. Stick with me and refer back often as I develop this access and hopefully… look forward to hearing from some of you. Amazon.com: Alexandra Clair: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

Introduce Yourself (Example Post)

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

  • Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
  • Because it will help you focus your own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

  • Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
  • What topics do you think you’ll write about?
  • Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
  • If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.

Introduce Yourself (Example Post)

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

  • Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
  • Because it will help you focus your own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

  • Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
  • What topics do you think you’ll write about?
  • Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
  • If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.

Introduce Yourself (Example Post)

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

  • Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
  • Because it will help you focus your own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

  • Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
  • What topics do you think you’ll write about?
  • Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
  • If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.