Category Archives: Uncategorized

In this battle to be heard at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, November is a significant month.  And so, it seems apropos that before the month is out, I supply a November update.  Arriving October 19, 2021, I have appealed to the Judicial Conference for action on, just for starters, the document fraud and forgery being covered up as actual crimes. 

ORIGINAL COMPLAINTS OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

The Original Complaints arrived to the Sixth Circuit on November 3, 2018.  Acknowledgement of receipt and Complaint Numbers were assigned on: 12/06/2018.   

It then took the Circuit Executive twenty-nine (29-months) before I received the automatic turn-down dismissing the complaints without addressing the content.  Doing so on: 04/26/2021 a year after my self-published book: Illegal Foreclosure, Title Theft, and its Chain of Corruption first appeared on Amazon.   More telling still, in the same month and just after my first blog appeared, aptly called: Catch and Kill: A Civil Rights Violation.  

BACKGROUND

In searching for answers as to how it could be that not a single one of my appeal questions had been answered by any Order coming out of the Sixth Circuit, I learned of the separate and unequal delegation practices that fueled the corruption I was subjected to.  In overwhelming disparity pro se prisoner and non-prisoner appeals or… any arbitrarily pre-determined appeal unwelcome for almost any biased reason is sent along an unequal route scripted to end in dismissals.  Appellate judges then sign off on these employee-authored Orders/Mandates they neither read, nor vet for accuracy.  This is the automatic turn-down route that masquerades as justice.  That routinely strip profiled and selected appeals of Constitutional Rights, Procedural Due Process, and Article 111 Judging. 

This pre-determined dismissal route helps the criminal syndicate and those with political agendas to destabilize America from within.   Many of whom see American Tax Payers and what tax dollars pay for as ripe for infiltration and theft.  With the separate and unequal dismissal track in place and accepted as the new normal, corruption given a pass at the federal district court level, can be just as easily blocked on appeal.  I’d say “Wake Up America,” but I’m pretty sure we are waking up in growing numbers.  We see all around us examples on multiple fronts of attacks against this nation by those we’ve trusted.  All accomplished via sanctioned and institutionalized corruption, over-reach seated in treason and tyranny impacting entire segments of government that no longer work for the American people.   

DELAY, STONEWALL, LIE AND DENY

The Circuit Executive at the Appeals Courts handle complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability.  MISCONDUCT to say that judges may have acted wrongly.  Or DISABILITY to say that judges may be impaired to the extent that they cannot do their jobs.  The three-judge panel assigned to address my Pro Se Appellants Brief filed under the second decoy Case No.: 17-5618  were made DISABLED on the very day that my appeal moved from the first corrupt Sixth Circuit Case Manager to the second via forgery and replacement of a filing.   

Failure to address my appeal questions means that every robo-signed Oder/Mandate that addressed fictional appeal questions standing on a foundation of forgery and document fraud is a void judgement; having no power to enforce.  The Seventh Circuit ruled that: “…a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”  

Following the same step practices evidenced by delay, stonewall, lie and deny then sealed the fate that my Complaints of Judicial Misconduct, (two directed to the Screening for Merit abuses at the District Court; two directed to Sixth Circuit corruption) exposing the automatic dismissal route as a Civil Rights Crime perpetrated by the Appeals Court upon those very rights they are sworn to uphold could not be allowed even the whimper of a challenge upon the locked and barred flood gate.  Brown v. Board of Education (17 May 1954) ruled that “separate is inherently unequal.”   

Corrupting the Error Correction primary role of the Appeals Courts would of course, be followed by corruption of the complaint process.  Why wouldn’t the Circuit Executive employ the same catch and kill tactics engaged by the Clerk’s Office that they and the Chief Judge  at the time allowed?  This is the unequal treatment they are protecting.  Doing so, first under the control of Clarence Maddox and now under the control of Marc Theriault the Circuit Executive have failed to apply the rules that govern how complaints are to be handled. 

GUIDE TO JUDCIAL POLICTY: RULES FOR JUDICIAL-CONDUCT AND JUDICIAL-DISABILITY PROCEEDINGS.  ETHICS AND JUDICIAL CONDUCT…   .  Corruption skimming the surface of accountability, operating under cover of hijacked authority, will always thrive to infect every person and thing it touches. 

DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE

And thus, the over the top, crack-addict on steroids determination to catch and kill my Complaints of Judicial Misconduct before they could be addressed.  Commentary under Rule 19 reads that Complaints of Judicial Misconduct upon being assigned to a council, that council’s job is to investigate the claims.   The playbook doesn’t change.  The opportunity for corruption is a wide-open-come-hither invitation made possible by the arbitrary assignment of appeals to the sole control of those that are not judges.  One might hesitate to bribe a federal judge.  Not so much career bureaucrats wielding power that is not theirs to possess; enabled to decide what judges will and will not see.     

Just as my appeal questions were never addressed my claims of Judicial Misconduct, proven by the courts own record and under the auspices of the Sixth Circuit – Circuit Executive, have never been addressed.  The rules read that, complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability are to be treated: “for all practical purposes as an appeal.”  This did NOT happen.  “…or in exceptional cases, taking appropriate action.”   Forgery and document fraud operating as actual crimes are exceptional circumstances.       

After three years with no possibility of justice in sight, the proverbial buck (the buck stops here) has now come to a screeching halt with the Judicial Conference in Washington, DC.  In part, whose job it is to:  “Exercise authority provided in chapter 16 of the title 28 United States Codes for the review of the Circuit Council conduct and disability orders filed under that chapter…” 

The Circuit Executive has been protecting the practice of delegating “less than appeals” for quick disposal to Clerks and Staff Attorneys.  Forgetting the rules, they see this as their job. No person can defend against the separate and unequal track to which pro se appeals are overwhelmingly assigned if they do not imagine these Civil Rights Violations as stripping them of their Constitutional Rights. Getting away with this, it stands to reason that appeals that reflect on institutionalized corruption or unwelcome issues, are also slid along the same conveyer belt coming with, not only denial of access to a panel of Appellate Judges, but with automatic denial of Oral Arguments.  Appellate Judges robo-signing employee-authored Orders, indulging and affirming the unrecognized confirmation bias regarding “less than” appeals makes a mockery of any notion of equality before the bench.

Implicit in the delegation practices is the idea that certain “less than” appeals are not worth the time and attention of Appellate Judges.  They are not intellectually challenging.  They are not precedent setting or career building.  Appeals are weeded out before they can be heard.  If this sounds inherently unconstitutional, that is because it is. 

The Case Manager you are assigned will not say: “Hey, judges are too busy for you.  We don’t like your appeal nor the inconvenient or politically charged challenge(s), nor the issues you seek to be heard on.  Furthermore, you are under-represented.  Or you are not represented at all by an attorney.  Game on!  You are ripe for this weeding out process.  Before you can even be heard you are cancelled by career bureaucrats having hijacked judicial authority.   Now follow the Pre Se Script and give up any foolish defense of your Constitutional access  to a level playing field; to be heard on every appeal question involving your rights, before actual judges.  

THE COMPLIANCE CHARADE

Walking through the administrative pretense, ticking all the boxes is not the same as complying with the requirements dictated by the rules and regulations required of the Judicial Complaint process. The Circuit Executive at the Sixth Circuit failed to address that not a single one of my appeal questions were answered. That my Pro Se Appeal was stripped of Procedural Due Process safeguards.   That the rules of Appellate Procedure were not followed.  Failed to address denial of notice to judges and other crimes engaged in by the administrative arm of the Sixth Circuit. They are preserving the streamlined, second class, separate and unequal delegation practices seated in toxic levels of contempt for those that cannot afford to pay for legal representation.   Called in one court publication, “a headache.”

These “weeding out” delegation practices have corrupted the appeals process.  They have fueled abuses seated in the huge disparity of power.  In a nut-shell this is the largely unrecognized and hibernating Civil Rights issue of our times.   Brown v. Board of Education (17 May 1954) ruled that “separate is inherently unequal.”   Why?  Because separate and unequal always leads to institutionalized sanctioned and rights-stealing bias breeding contempt for those perceived as powerless and therefore ripe for exploitation.  The Circuit Executive engaging in cover-up are defending policy at the expense of law. Confronted with evidence they seek to bury that evidence. Instead of saying, “the error correction appeals process failed,” a dysfunctional and inherrently dangerous Circuit Executive has doubled-down to unflinchingly proclaim, “Rules do not apply; I am so right; I am above the law.”

As far as I can tell nothing related to my complaints have ever been docketed.  Ongoing corruption requires that the Circuit Executive limit the public record. It is doubtful that Judicial Council members, other than Judge Karen Nelson Moore and Judge Eric L. Clay, whose appointments both expired in September 2021, were ever joined by other council members.  Not all federal judges approve the delegation of appeals to clerks and staff attorneys.  Upon belief that the Original Complaints sent in November 2018 no longer exist; likely fed to a paper shredder.   A real council formed by a diverse group of judges could not be counted upon to deliver the needed coverup outcomes committed to by the Circuit Executive in November 2018.   The Circuit Executive in failing to do their job are hiding evidence of forgery and document fraud.

FROM THE CIRCUIT EXECTUTIVE TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

I was then told that I had NO RIGHT to petition the Judicial Conference Committee in Washington for review and action. To say that the Judicial Conference would not be interested in document fraud and forgery operating as actual crimes under their watch.  The thing about being repeatedly lied to is that you no longer listen. I did appeal to the Judicial Conference in Washington, DC.  I sent all off per overnight delivery at a cost of $95.50;  arriving October 19, 2021, tracking No.: EJ881545926US.   

Why, share these details? Because in the past I have been told something was not received to the sixth circuit and upon proving that it was, the corrupt Clerk’s Office, after first blame shifting to me, suddenly “found” what was missing.  The Original November 2018 Complaints were dropped into a black hole at the Circuit Executive; three years and counting, still not addressed on content and claims.  Excusing failure to submit the En Banc Petition to all judges, protecting recognition of corruption, the Clerk’s Office called that Peititon a “Suggestion.” The last filed Motion for a Void Judgement sits in the que at the Sixth Circuit treated as though it does not exist in the realm of fact.  Prior conduct being a predictor of future conduct it is therefore, not outside the realm of possibility that networked bureaucrats would ensure that my petitions never got to the Judicial Conference or to the desk or attention of seven justices. Feeding the confirmation bias that comes with dismissive labels, I have been called a crack-pot; my complaints of Judicial Misconduct “frivolous.” Such is the sanctioned contempt to which pro se litigants, precieved as powerless, are treated.

Our founders intended for each federal court to serve a different purpose.  The Appeals Courts address possible errors made at the district courts involving issues of law, procedure, and the Constitution. The error correction mandate of the Appeals courts stand in the breach between a beleaguered populace, growing corruption and the greed, tyranny, and treason engaged in by those that see the Constitution of the United States of America as an impediment.  

THE WEEDING OUT ABUSES

My voice was obliterated so as to shield Screening for Merit as the first tool to weed out pro se cases at the District Court level. Doing so before cases can be heard in the open forum of a courtroom.  Secondly when appeals and those that file certain appeals are profiled as not worth the time and attention of an Appellate Panel of Judges.  This is the secondary weeding-out-tool, i.e., the separate and unequal delegation practices.   Taking federal Judges out of the appeals equation made the tyranny that I and others have experienced in faceless, silent, growing numbers, possible.  Pause and think.   Corrupt clerks were able to run a kangaroo court absent all oversight and accountability under the noses of the very Circuit Executive now actively engaged in coverup.   

Remember this. The Circuit Executive is investigating themselves. They are over the administration functions of the appeals process. They see their job as protecting the reputation of the federal courts. Ironically perserving public trust; essential for a healthy republic. Because we have conflicts of interest built into the system, and because the entire complaint process is so secretive the role played by the Judicial Conference is essential in preserving Constitutinal rights.

RICHMAN, REYNOLDS, PETHER AND POSNER

What happened to my appeal and to me personally as a single example is addressed in the book: INJUSTICE ON APPEAL written by, two retired law professors.  William Richman (College of Law – University of Toledo) and William Reynolds (University of Maryland – Francis King Carey School of Law).     

This book should be on the required reading list of every law school in America.  Becaue it is expensive, I cannot read it with highlighter and tabs in place as I would like.

I did however read and quote the late Villanova Law Professor: Penelope Pether: “Sorcerers, Not Apprentices: How Judicial Clerks and Staff Attorney’s Impoverish U.S. Law;” 39 Ariz. St. L.J. 1 (2007) “…that the corpus of clerk and staff attorney-authorized opinions is not merely likely to be sloppy or wrong, but that it has structurally subordinating effects.  On the rare occasion that they register the kind of second-class treatment that is likely to produce injustice, they (federal courts) do not make the connection between flawed procedure and its result: systemic injustice somehow becomes invisible.” FJC Report; supra note 82.  

Between 2007 and today, there is no “rare occasion” any more. Seperate and unequal has become the new normal. Like all Civil Rights crimes the delgation practices have become increasingly more enabled disenfranchisng selected and profiled appellants from the Error Correction primary role of the Appeals Process.

Seventh Circuit Judge, Richard A. Posner attempted to level the playing field with no effect. Other judges have done the same; many feeling very strongly about the delegation practices. Another person denied their rights emailed me this statement:  “Researchers have shown that it takes at least 4% of a population to push for change before favorable change occurs.  In America that would mean about 12,000,000 people would have to demand equal protection for the poor.” 

I don’t agree. All it would take is for federal judges to stop being so enamored of their power and the rarified status of their appointments, the opinion of powerful peers who in part do not want to see more judges appointed.  Standing up to say, NO MORE.  Proclaiming: The oaths we took to, administer justice without respect of persons… That oath to faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties… and  solemnly swear to support the Constitution of the United States of America…  ACTUALLY, MATTERS and yet IS CURRENTLY MALIGNED, THAWARTHED, AND CORRUPTED; at threat to our very republic. 

There are many nonprofit advocates. Some are quite famous and others are kitchen table prisoner-rights defenders. In my humble opinion all should collectively focus on those delegation practices that deprive the poor and operationally disenfranchised persons of their rights.  Civilizations have vanished when average people are more and more denied access to justice, moral equibalance, equal application of the law executed with compassion, fairness, and a commitment to truth.   

  WHAT WILL HAPPEN AT THE JUDCIAL CONFERENCE?

I don’t know.  As near as I can tell there is no requirement that I will ever have an answer or an outcome.  I have only the postal receipt to tell me that what I sent actually arrived.  This speaks again to the levels of disdain to which American citizens who dare to persist in pursuit of transparency, answers, and an equal playing field are treated.  Any response may be a mere droplet of rain lost in the insider politics of judicial affairs, leaving victims out of any equation. 

I can however, tell you some of what I wrote to the Judicial Conference asking for review of the cover-up decisions from the Sixth Circuit – Circuit Executive. Laying out the chain of corruption engaged in by the Clerk’s Office. At the end of this blog are some quotes from other cases that might help any person treated as I have been.

CORRUPT CHAIN OF CONDUCT

I WROTE TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE THAT… That the the Order of 11/14/2017 [7] Second Case No.: 17-5618 quashed and obliterated my voice. Fictional appeal questions substituted for my actaul appeal questions. That the document fraud produced by corrupt clerks is  proven by the sixth circuit own record.  That this is never addressed or acknowledged to have taken place under the cover-up control of the Sixth Circuit – Circuit Executive complaint process.  Now three years on. Now hoping for an outcome from the Judicial Conference…   Will the seven justices be outraged by document fraud and forgery?  

1. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNCIL IS NOT AN APPEAL QUESTION. Second Case Manager, Jeannine Hance writes into the docket: [7] ORDER Filed: We affirm the judgement of the district court and DENY as moot the motion to appoint council. If any Motion to Appoint Council is found to exist it would be a whole-cloth forgery. Motion to Appoint Council is not even cited in the Jeannine Hance authored order of 11/14/2017 [7] Second Case No.: 17-5618. As a pattern of practice, seen in the conduct of both Sixth Circuit Case Managers, this lie misleads any superficial reviewer to believe that an actual trial took place at the District Court. This lie is repeatedly woven into the record serving to conceal the Screening for Merit context of every actual appeal quesion. Hereafter, as a fraud narrative, MOTION TO APPOINT COUNCIL will be treated as a valid appeal question by those that fail to read what I have actually written. Such is the bias and contempt made possible by the delgation practices to which Pro Se Appellants are treated. Pro Se Appeals are not even deserving of an honest read.
2. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT OR ANY AMENDED COMPLAINT is NOT an appeal question.  It functions as a smokescreen intruding nine-times into the clerk-authored Order of 11/14/2017 [7] Second Case No.: 17-5618, quashing the actual fourteen appeal questions from recognition. 

The first Panel of Judges, 16-6672, [8] 02/24/2017; Case Manager Karen Fultz, sent my appeal back to the district court for ruling on what were, outstanding appealable “ISSUES” (plural and not singular).  The Second Amended Complaint was the only one of the “issues” named in this substandard employee authored order.  It was NOT an APPEAL Question.  The district court never supplied an answer thanks to the exit provided by the Karen Fultz conduct described further along as the Petition for Rehearing lie.

As a paper tiger, much space is devoted to the Amended Complaint and, or, the Second Amended Complaint including, within Acting Chief Judge Moore’s Memorandum and Order(s) of 04/23/2021.  This brings one to ask:  was acting Chief Judge Moore supplied with a full record from the Circuit Executive?  In repeating the fraud narrative coming from the corrupt clerk’s office, Judge Moore appears not even remotely aware of what is alleged in the Complaints of Judicial Misconduct.  In presiding over the destiny of my Complaints of Judicial Misconduct she elevated this utterly fictitious appeal question as the dishonest red herring it was intended to function as. 

In her Memorandum and Order of 04/23/2021; addressing the district court complaints as Complaint No.: 06-18-90 103 and 104 the words, “Screening for Merit” do not even appear.  SCREENING FOR MERIT IS NOT DUE PROCESS was essential for her to recognize as the basis of every unanwered Appeal Question, each quashed by forgery.

As a federal Judge sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America I must wonder.  How does Judge Moore feel about being used to conceal mistakes, errors, document fraud and forgery? Each perfecting denial of the right to be heard on actual appeal questions as an ongoing provable pattern of engagement and then cover-up?  How can she feel about being used to bury the Complaints of Judicial Misconduct now, still not addressed on content, three years on; first filed Nov. 2018? Today Nov. 2021?  I’d like to know.  As Alan Dershowitz is claimed to have said:  “Judges are the weakest link in our system of justice and they are also the most protected”  

Being hyper averse to admitting mistakes speaks to a dangerous culture, persons and institutions, doing harm; no longer capable of being “salt nor light.”

“FRIVOLOUS” THE CATCH AND KILL LABEL

Acting Chief Judge Moore’s Memorandums and Orders of 04/23/2021 were then rubber stamped by Circuit Judge Eric L. Clay.  He too appears to be acting as another hand puppet for the Circuit Executive and, or,  he too has been deprived of a full record. 

“Frivolous” is a catch and kill blanket-label speaking to and excusing operatonal bias pre-supposing that Pro Se Cases are not worth the time and effort to actually read what is asserted. Nor, as a logical next-step, to investigate those specific claims presented on Appeal as to whether errors took place at the lower courts and are: “capable of being established.”

Judge Clay and Judge Moore walked through the charade of meeting the superficial administrative requirements of the Circuit Executive cover-up scheme committed to in November of 2018 without ever addressing.

• That not a single one of the actual appeal questions have been answered by any Order issued from the Sixth Circuit. 
• Failed to address the separation of filings; two Case Managers, two Case Numbers.
• Failed to address replacement by forgery of the 06/01/2917 Notice directed to the first Panel of Judges that my appeal should resume in which fourteen summary appeal questions, later fleshed out in the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief, all stemming from Screening for Merit violations, are listed. 
• That forgery and replacement of a filing was used as a fraud device to open a second Case Number; appointing a second Case Manager. 
• Does not address that in a complete failure of oversight Procedural Due Process, meant to protect persons from mistaken and, or, unjustified deprivations of life, liberty, or property, were not applied to this appeal.    
• Nor that the separate and unequal delegation culture deprive persons of access to judges and judging,
• Deprived of the Error Correction function of the appeals process;
• Deprived of oral arguments which could not be allowed, since if allowed the fictitious appeal questions as examples of document fraud and forgery, intruding into the sixth circuit record and…
• The Assignment of Errors filing buried under the first case number…
• …and other actions informing concert of action between two Case Managers to sink this appeal before it could be validly addressed, would have been exposed in a forum producing a record that could not be buried and ignored.   

THE PETITION FOR REHEARING IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF DOCUMENT FRAUD

The docket is a vital record that judges, litigants, lawyers, researchers and others rely upon; depending on it being absolutely truthful and accurate.  It was used by Karen Fultz and Jeanine Hance as a fraud device to convey a story in blatant contradiction of the truth.  Entries were not in place to deceive me.  Arrogance and bias, is so prevalently embedded in the group dynamics that no one cared about me or my rights.  In the exercise of this corruption, I was a mere after-thought.  The docket entries were in place to placate the biased insider echo chamber.  They were in place on the outside chance that my claims of forgery and document fraud are ever validly investigated.  An investigation that fails to restore the right to be heard on every appeal question involving rights is a crime upon me, but also upon the appeals court.

The first Case Manager, Karen Fultz, docket entry reads:  Petition for Rehearing before original panel filed by Ms. Alexandra Clair…  Case No.: 16-6672, [10].  The Petition for Rehearing could not be before the first panel of judges because IT DID NOT EXIST.  What I actually filed was a request for clarity as to what the first panel of judges considered not answered by the District Court. If the chain of corruption would unfold as intended I could not have any answer that would restore jurisdiction; allowing me to move forward. This ORDER, premised on a lie is locked by the sixth circuit over the www.pacer.gov system.  This is concealment of document fraud.    How did the Case Manager, absent all oversight and accountability get away with this?  The docket entry reads:  ***ENTRY LOCKED – DOCUMENT TO BE REFILIED AS A PETITON FOR REHEARING.  Appellant MOTION filed by Ms. Alexandra Clair to clarify order dated 02/24/2017.  Certificate of Service: 03/06/2017 – [Edited 03/09/2017. (KSF) [Entered: 03/09/2017 12:08 PM}.

No person at the Sixth Circuit read the Karen Fultz “edit” as a possible red flag, requiring a routine supervisory review.  If they had, they would have seen its purpose.  The District Court needed to be supplied an excuse not to supply an answer to me, or to the first panel of judges. I had to be stopped. A criminal enterprise needed to be protected. Screening for Merit needed to be protected. A corrupt district court Magistrate Judge needed to be protected. Karen Fultz played her part.  Enter the fictitious Petition for Rehearing Label corrupting the docket. When at this juncture there was NOTHING to rehear since I had not yet been been granted permission to file the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief. The Lie of this Petition allowed Ms. Fultz to then write into the docket that the first panel of judges had in sequential order:

1.  PRODUCED A WRITTEN ORDER
2.  RULED ON THAT PHONY ORDER
3. And then DENIED THAT NONEXISTANT PETITION FOR REHEARING. 
4. To then, per use of FORGERY and REPLACEMENT OF a FILING, open a SECOND CASE NUMBER.
5. To thus, SEVER THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS FROM THE LATER FILED PRO SE APPELLANT’S BRIEF in anticipation of successfully deceiving and denying notice to the second panel of judges.
6. Misleading the SECOND PANEL OF JUDGES to sign off on the Cerk-Authored ORDERS that bore no resemblence to what was filed by me.

Such is the culture that comes with all Civil Rights violations, separate and unequal, assigning “less than” appeals to the sole discretion and control of those that have no authority to usurp Article 111 Judging. Who are then, in all effect, empowered to run a kangaroo court. The outcomes are planned, executed, and scripted.

Case No.: 16-6672 [12] Order filed: The petition for rehearing is DENIED [10].  Alan E. Norris, Circuit Judge, Alice M. Batchelder, Circuit Judge, Julia Smith Gibbons, Circuit Judge.  Just as the first panel of judges exercised no oversight, nor could they have read anything that was filed, so did the second panel of judges follow suit. They relied on those to whom they had handed off judicial authority absent any due dilligence review.

I have never seen this Order.  I cannot access it over the Pacer System; www.pacer.gov.  With a lot to hide it cannot be read.  Even by me, because God forbid that I, or anyone else be provided enough information that we can recognize and defend against this dual system that strips “less than” citizens of the right to be heard at the second highest courts in our land.

The two Case Managers coordinated their actions. They fully believed that no one was looking over their shoulder.  They were right.  No one wondered. Why one appeal, but two Case Numbers and Two Case Managers? “Hey, let’s look into this.” The Clerk’s Office and others I spoke to, could then not accept that what worked with other Pro Se Appellants was not working with me.  It seems the Chief Clerk has lawyered up; “Sincerely Alicia Harden; Counsel to the Clerk;” 11/03/2020.   This timely letter, repeats the illogical mantra I am continually assaulted with that… although not a single one of my appeal questions have ever been answered by the robo-signed Orders somehow magically they have been. 

The Karen Fultz actions were specific.  They were intentional.  Her conduct was picked up by the second Case Manager.  This behavior is mirrored in the same exact goals flowing forward from the District Court. While the District Court slandered my claims, the Sixth Circuit obliterated the appeal questions. Both achieveing that my Civil RICO Case would never see the light of a courtroom.  

WHY THE SECOND CASE NUMBER AND THE SECOND CASE MANAGER?

The Pro Se Appellant’s Brief could not exist in the same space as the Assignment of Errors filed under the first case number.  Not if the second panel of judges could be sold on the phony appeal questions.  As it turned out the second corrupt Case Manager had nothing to worry about.  There was no follow-up, oversight, due diligence comparison with anything filed by me.  As acknowledged by Jeanine Hance, the Second Panel of Judges never read the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief. 

The ease and risks embarked upon by two Case Managers at the Sixth Circuit informs us that they believed they would never be held accountable.  Others had their backs and still do.  Proved by the fact that my Pro Se Appellants Brief has still never been ruled on.  Proved in that the right to object has been trashed.  Proved in that the En Banc Peition was not sumitted as required to all judges of the court. Rather it too was immediately trashed; dumbed down as a “suggestion.” The last filed Motion for a Void Judgement and Motion to Compel an Answer sit in the que, treated as though they do not exist in the realm of fact.   The first three were inserted into an envelope and mailed back to me unfiled.

NO INVESTIGATION

After reading the two Memorandum and Orders produced by, Judge Karen Nelson Moore dated 04/23/2021.   Acting on next steps, I filed request for an actual investigation. Appealing to the Circuit Executive I wrote:  “Doing so in their (your) 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.”   I then filed:

1. Petition for Review by the Judicial Council; Complaint No. 06-18-901 103/104; (District Court) dated May 27, 2021. 
2. Petition for Review by Judicial Council; Complaint No. 06-18-901 105/106/107/108; (Sixth Circuit) dated May 27, 2021.

These petitions could not have been read. This because the Constitutional Right to have actual appeal questions addressed, foreclosed by two Case Numbers, two Case Managers, separation of filings, forgery of a filing, document fraud, and no due diligence review or oversight – all this flew under the bar of any honest examination into the facts. 

THE SCAPEGOAT LIE OF INTERVENING EVENTS… (I have a theory)

Acting Chief Judge Clay, responsible to address these Petitions stepped lock-step into line. He merely rubber-stamped the two Judge Moore Memorandum and Orders. Where are his Memorandum’s laying out reasons for conclusions?

Under Rule 11(g)(2); reads in part: If the chief judge disposes of the complaint under Rule 11(c),(d), or (e) the chief judge must prepare a supporting memorandum that sets forth the reasons for disposition and… must be provided to the complainant. I’ve asked for this Judge Clay Memorandum, doing so on 09/29/2021.  It has not been provided. The Circuit Executive does not want a repeat of my two responses  (District Court and Sixth Circuit) to the Judge Karen Nelson Moore Memorandum and Orders. In controling the footprint of what I’ve charged they are perfecting the coverup committed to in 2018. They will not address that my right of access to a level playing field at the sixth circuit was blocked. Right to be heard was forclosed. The actual Error Correction primary role of the Appeals Process was shut down before it could even begin. As a pattern of practice the Circuit Executive is limiting their own exposure by quashing my voice. Sound familiar?

I have a theory on why I’ve been denied the Judge Clay Memorandums.  Among the Rules and Regulations that govern how judicial complaints are handled comes: 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(2) conclude the proceeding if the chief judge finds that appropriate corrective action has been taken or that action on the complaint is no longer necessary because of intervening events.

1. Magistrate Judge Vescovo, having slandered my claims at the Screening for Merit precursor to Due Process.  Whose very assignment was to dispense with Pro Se Cases clogging the district court docket to thus, improve statistics.  With multiple conflicts of interest with the defendants named in the Civil RICO Case… She retired from her position at the Federal District Court for the Western District of TN in May 2020.  Doing so, one month after my book: Illegal Foreclosure, Title Theft, and its Chain of Corruption came out.
2. Clarence Maddox who “lost” or perhaps even trashed the Original 2018 Complaints along with the exhibits (apparently not supplied to Acting Chief Judge Moore or to Acting Chief Judge Clay) has been replaced by Marc Theriault. He has picked up the threads of the cover-up scheme begun in November of 2018.
3. Susan Rogers, running defense for the Civil Rights violations and for the two corrupt Case Managers. Identifying herself as the Deputy Chief Clerk is no longer in her position. She appears to be replaced by Julie Cobble who is spewing the same Orwellian logic that… though there is no record of my appeal questions ever being answered, somehow magically they were answered. Phone call of 03/20/2021. Which I imagine was taped.
4. I notified Chief Judge Cole early on of two Case Managers, Two Case Numbers, separation of filings, no complete record before any judge decison-maker, etc. Trashing the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure resulting in no Procedural Due Process safeguards… Chief Judge Cole has been replaced by, Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton. Although I’ve written to him. Which always irritates the Clerk’s Office who then must remind me, yet again, that I have no right to be heard on actual appeal questions.
5. Senior Judge Damon Keith passed away while still in Office.

Nothing is “handled” by the departure of Magistrate Judge Diane Vescovo, or anyone else. My right to be heard on appeal at the Sixth Circuit, first on the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief, on actual appeal questions. Then on the series of objection filings including the last filed Motion for a Void Judgement and Motion to Compel an answer. All await a Sixth Circuit outcome.  A process never begun cannot logically or legally be foreclosed. 

RETRIBUTION FOR SPEAKING OUT

Which leads me to Commentary Under Rule 16: …a special committee may consider the degree to which a complainant has cooperated in preserving the confidentiality of the proceedings in determining what role beyond the minimum required by these Rules should be given to that complainant.

If I had not published the Original Complaints of Judicial Misconduct in my book.  If I had not written the blog post: Catch and Kill: A Civil Rights Violation, cover-up not withstanding, there would still be no response whatsoever from the Circuit Executive. There are laws that protect crime victims.  18 U.S. Code § 3771 Crime Victims’ Rights (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.  As a reminder, I am a Crime Victim. All I want is the right to stand before an actual trial judge and a jury of my peers and present the massive amounts of evidence I’ve compiled related to Title Theft Schemes. All I have ever wanted on Appeal is for a Panel of Judges to address the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief. The Appeal Questions are factually substantitated by the Assignment of Errors filing buried by the two Case Managers under the first Case Number. And which factually lays out Slander of my Claims by the District Court at the Screening for Merit juncture, where access to due process is blocked. I never expected to encounter the levels of corruption I am now fighting against. Distilled to, right to be heard; foreclosed at every turn.

One must hope that in real time as corruption unfolded, the Second Panel of Judges might have actually wanted to know that the clerk-authored Orders they recklessly signed off on, failed to answer a single one of the appeal questions.  If they had ever read the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief and had access to the Assignment of Errors filing, they might have wanted to address the Screening for Merit abuses; extreme by any measure.  They might have welcomed the chance to clarify for lower courts when Screening for Merit crosses a line; masquerading as Dur Process.   Denied notice and lied to by those they trusted, failing to “trust but verify,” Judge Keith, Judge Cook, and Judge Thapar did not give themselves that chance.  Either that or they were fully on board, under cover of expediency, with employees hijacking judicial authority for reasons that have nothng to do with the rule of law or the Constitution of the United States of America.

QUASHED BY FORGERY AND DOCUMENT FRAUD

Because there have been repeated efforts to conceal the actual Appeal Questions. Going so far as to replace the list of Appeal Questions with a forgery…  What substitutes for the first two pages of this filing directed to the first panel of Judges is a copy of the letter assigning the decoy Second Case Number and new Case Manager, Jeanine Hance.  What substitutes for page-two and page-three is the list of defendants.  Forgery is an actual crime. For copies and proof of this forgery, or anything else, I’m happy to send. The FORGERY CAN BE SEEN: http://www.pacer.gov. Case No.: 17-5618, 06/01/2017 [1]. Its purpose was to close the first case number doing so premised on document fraud, i.e., the utterly fictitious and phony PETITION FOR REHEARING IS DENIED fallacy.  The second decoy case number, as intended, severed the Assignment of Errors (First Case No.: 16-6672 [6] 12/08/2016) from the Pro Se Appellants Brief to thus, deprive asleep at the wheel, judges of notice that Slander of the Claims at the Screening for Merit blockade is the substance of the Appeal. 

Only after I’d read the clerk-authored Order of 11/14/2017 could I be shocked to discover that not a single one of the appeal questions had been answered.  The push back I then experienced from the Clerk’s Office made clear that I should follow the pro se script and merely give up defense of my right to be heard on appeal. They knew that the system had their backs. Thus, unfolded the Orwellian logic empowered by the huge disparity in power and position. Thus unfolded refusal to file and address the series of objection filings; The En Banc Petition and Motion for Void Judgement(s); quashing my voice at every turn. For these reasons…

I take every opportunity to list the actual appeal questions systemically and deliberately quashed from recognition by two corrupt clerks at the Sixth Circuit.   Fed fictitious Appeal Questions this is what the robo-signed Judicial Orders failed to address:

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.

IN CONCLUSION

The Civil RICO Case that I filed at the District Court in Memphis, TN in April of 2016 (this is how long I’ve been fighting to be heard in a court of law) centered on Title Theft of my home, operating within both a local and national footprint. I’ve written two books about the national scope of these crimes networked to the local footprint. Illegal Foreclosure, Title Theft, and its Chain of Corruption; (ISBN: 9780984705948).   And a small pocket book which lays out how both simple and complex title theft schemes operate.  How to recognize and protect against them early on in the chain of theft.  Title Theft Quick Guide of Lists: (ISBN: 9780984705979)

The IV Amendment protects us from illegal seizure of private property.  The XIV Amendment guarantees “Privileges or Immunities of citizens of the United States.”  It reads: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. 

It was a civil rights violation when the Sixth Circuit failed to apply Constitutional Rights, Procedural Due Process, and the courts own rules to my Pro Se Appellants Brief.  This unequal dismissal track impacting untold numbers of American citizens trample upon Constitutional Rights.  In my case, followed by the trashed Motion(s) for a Void Judgement also not addressed. Despite the fact that Courts have ruled over and over again that the right to be heard on objection filings is synonymous with the right to be heard.  Just not at the Sixth Circuit regarding those appeals sent along the automatic dismissal tracks.  Separate and unequal is the very essence of a Civil Rights Crime. 

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.’”    

Violations of Rule 27 (b) Disposition of a Motion for a Procedural Order states: A party adversely affected by the court’s, or the clerk’s, action may file a motion to reconsider, vacate, or modify that action. And: …; a motion requesting that relief must be filed.

A judgment or decree is invalid where it has no foundation of procedural due process.  As where there is an absence of notice or opportunity to be heard. 16A C.J.S. Constitutional Law, § 625; Yellowstone Pipe Line company v. Drummond, 77 Idaho 36, 287 P.2d 288. 

“Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard.”  Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S., (1 Wall.) 223, 233, (1863).  

There is ample evidence that this assumption about the quality of the work of those to whom the majority of Article 111 appellate power is delegated is not a safe one.”  Penelope Pether. “How Judicial Clerks and Staff Attorney’s Impoverish U.S. Law; 39 Ariz. St. L.J. 1 (2007). 

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. 

The Constitution of the United States of America and those rights conferred therein are affirmed by what is called the Supremacy Clause, Article VI.  It reads that: …and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary not, withstanding.  Next paragraph: …and all executive and judicial Offices, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution… 

There have been many times that the Constitution has been challenged by those that found the equality it guarantees irrespective of persons, power, or wealth detrimental to causes and crimes.  Getting around this is getting to career bureaucrats having control of appeals absent all oversight and accountability. A famous ruling came early on in our history, affirming what is called the Supremacy of the Constitution over lesser and secondary rules and laws.  It reads in part: 

“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect;”  “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law;” “Cleary, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the basis of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce…  for unconstitutionality… It operates a near nullity or a fiction of law. Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 (1803).

The impartial functions of the sixth circuit were corrupted.  The Seventh Circuit defined fraud upon the court: “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the dual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.”  Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p.512 – 60.23.  Further writing: “…a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”  This is what the Circuit Executive at the Sixth Circuit is actively concealing. 

In closing I have a few questions.  Will the JUDICIAL CONFERENCE in Washington, DC., sitting with my petitions and exhibits mailed, as proven by postal receipt, priority mail on October  18, 2021, take action?   Does the Catch and Kill reach of the Circuit Executive extend to what goes on at and with the Judicial Conference?  Will they give a pass to forgery and document fraud operating as a FRAUD UPON THE SIXTH CIRCUIT?  Will I ever be heard on appeal as an immutable right guaranteed under law and the Supremacy clause of the XIV Amendment?  Logic, common sense, and the rule of law would say that I have an outstanding appeal at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Does anyone care?   

I can be reached at: (901) 504-9704.  alexandraclair@protonmail.com Using Final Draft, I recently wrote a pilot based on the Illegal Foreclosure book.  Call me if interested in producing a riveting film series.   

Books can be purchased at: https://www.amazon.com/Alexandra-Clair/e/B008PY1XIQ%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

Because I am certain that there have been many prisoner appeals. Pro se and Indigent appeals that, like mine, were assigned to the same clerks office at the sixth circuit. Running a de facto court to say separate and unequal with “less than” appeals assigned to the sole discretion of those that are not judges.

The following letter is addressed to the new chief judge at the sixth circuit court of appeals: Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton. It was sent on July 21, 2021.

The former Chief Judge was Judge Cole. I filed a complaint of Judicial Misconduct against him as well as other judges in November of 2018. Because they were never addressed I published the four complaints of Judicial Misconduct in my book: Illegal Foreclosure, Title Theft, and Its Chain of Corruption (April 2020). The outcome of these complaints, still today, hang in the balance. To read my answer as to why the complaints should have been addressed. As was my right and is the right of every American citizen. Answered without the kind of delay tactics I experienced. I detailed the chain of corrupt conduct that stripped me of my right of access to actual judges and thus, due process in the two previous blogs. What happened to me has happened to many others. Separate and unequal is a Civil Rights violation. As practiced by Screening for Merit at the lower courts and assignment of “less than” appeasls to clerks and staff attorneys’ at the appeal courts the Constitution of the United States of America is being shredded. This fraud upon the American people comes with no disclosure. Like: “We are going to assign your appeal to a Case Manager who will function as a judge, but has no authority to act in that capacity; is that okay with you? Oh, but don’t worry. An actual judge having read none of what you wrote will sign off on this travesty absent all accountability and oversight.”

This is an open door invitation to bribery and inducement by outside actors; nothing like what our forefathers envisioned. It happened to me. It has happened to many others.

July 21, 2021

Dear Judge Sutton:

My appeal questions have never been addressed. I am fairly certain you are aware of this. Bias was so weighted against my pro se appeal, and I have to believe many other indigent appeals impacted by the same bad actors operating unchecked at least from 2016 forward. Allowing clerks to function as judges absent all judicial or administrative oversight fits perfectly the definition of a “bait and switch” shell game. One cannot, guard against what one believes is not possible. Foolish me. I actually had faith that judges would read and rule on my Pro Se Appellant’s Brief.

Filings that include: Motion(s) for Void Judgement – Motion to Compel an Answer – The En Banc Petition dumbed down and sidelined as a mere
“suggestion” by the corrupt clerks office – and the quintessential Pro Se Appellants Brief have never been ruled on. Saying that mandates have issued because staff-authored orders must be defended is, in practice an act of tyranny that has:

1.) Obliterated my right to be heard.

2.) Denied access to the error correction function of the appeals process.

3.) Denied right to appear which is worked into the separate and unequal delegation practices.

4.) Made a mockery of procedural due process.

5.) Denied notice to judges.

6.) Denied even my right to be heard on objection filings.

I have read that you have power in special circumstances. Can you not say enough is enough and submit my Pro Se Appellant’s Brief to what has never begun?

The corruption that I experienced transcends myself and did not begin at the sixth circuit. However, it is undisputable in fact that on the precise exact day that I filed the list of summary Appeal From questions and notice to the first panel of judges that some action was needed since the district court would not rule on what they deemed outstanding restoring jurisdiction (you can read the record for context on this ) this notice was replaced with a forgery. Forgery is an actual crime. The second case number served also to bury the Assignment of Errors filing filed under the first case number. Outcome informs that two case numbers were strategic and deliberate. If the staff-invented phony appeal questions would pass the smell test these two filings could not be seen by the second (decoy) panel of judges. The outcome as I pushed back sought to induce me to follow the pro se script and give up pursuit of access to the appeals process; right to be heard. At times I have experienced this push back as intimidation. It is a fact that the appeal questions answered by the phony mandates are a complete fiction. It is not that I was merely “denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard” as an oblique issue or questions debatable as to merits. It is that my appeal was NEVER by any standard of logic or law EVER HEARD and ruled on.

Perhaps you are worried that if you restore those rights stripped from the appeals process as documented per my experience other appeals touched by the same cabal of unelected bureaucrats will surface.

I filed complaints of judicial misconduct November 2018. Not until April 2021 did the Circuit Executive deign to issue a response. Upon belief, doing so only because I wrote about the corruption experienced. The Circuit Executive then called these complaints frivolous. Doing so 28-months after they were first filed. Citing none of the facts. Repeating only the cover-up narrative proposed by the sixth circuit clerk’s office having conflicts of interest and motive to hide and conceal their actions. A delay of two years and four months (actually two years and five months) cannot be normal, more evidence of a separate and unequal track seated in bias against and trading on the perceived powerlessness of indigent persons.

I then had 42-days to respond. I published my responses to the claim of “frivolous” on my website: http://www.alexandraclair.com. I am now told that the complaints of judicial misconduct will be investigated by a judicial panel. Past commitment to coverup informing future coverup you will forgive me doubting if anything will come of this. I fully expect that I will need to file a FOIA request for proof that these complaints were truly investigated and that the panel selected had access to the full record including the 43-exhibits mailed with the complaints (of Judicial Misconduct) on November 1, 2018. If denial of rights is deemed to have occurred, access must be restored setting a precedent no one really wants articulated by any formal process.

I must say this. My appeal offered a valuable and needed opportunity for appellant judges to rule on abuses taking place at another juncture where access to due process can be stripped from indigent persons for reasons that have nothing to do with rights or law. The employee authored “mandates” concealed the Screening for Merit context of the Civil RICO Case. Screening for Merit related appeal questions were never answered. The clerk authored mandates went so far as to imply that the Civil RICO Case was heard by a judge and ruled on by a jury (at the federal district court in Memphis, TN). Nothing could be further from the truth. Screening for Merit is not Due Process. Assigning my appeal to the sole discretion of bureaucrats given free license to usurp the role of judges qualifies as a separate and unequal process twisted to function as screening, i.e., culling appeal cases before they can be heard. Perhaps the subject of my next book.

Please do restore my right of access to due process seated in the error correction function of the sixth circuit. The Constitution (of the United States of America) is under assault. You can cut through the coverup and see that a panel of judges will address the Pro Se Appellant’s Brief.

Note inserted: The sixth circuit could also send my case back to the district court for ruling on what the first panel of judges deemed to be outstanding. The federal district court in Memphis, TN just blew off that request, never complied and in fact where offered an excuse not to do so by first Case Manager: Karen Fultz. Here we had a clerk obstructing notice to judges and contriving an entirely illegal outcome. Read the two former blogs for how two clerks, upon belief, conspired to protect the district court for having slandered my claims and by extension protected a dangerous and toxic RICO Criminal Enterprise sill operating today. Letter now resumes.

It is unlikely you will ever read this letter. After first given time in hopes that you will, I will publish it on my website. I hope that by some avenue you will examine what transpired and given the extreme levels of corruption begin what never started as a valid appeals process. I do not have an attorney nor do I have anything close to a wide readership of books nor website. That said I am compelled to persist in achieving access to due process. There is a moral imperative win or lose, heard or not heard, to do so making my story known not just for myself but for other similarly impacted pro se and indigent persons past and future.

Yours truly: Alexandra Clair

PS: Because the appeal questions have been consistently quashed from recognition, I’ve enclosed the Appeal from questions; forged and replaced. Please note the first case number and proof of denial of notice to the first panel of judges.

I can be reached at: alexandraclair7@gmail.com. I can be reached by phone at: (901) 504-9704. I am very interested in hearing from persons who may have had their rights trashed on appeal by the same unequal delegation practices. We must understand and acknowledge that these practices are not only unconstitutional, but have opened the door to wide spread corruption. My books can be found on my Amazon author page.

The insider echo chamber has been writing about the injustice and danger of delegating “less than” appeals to a de facto appeals court system for years. As evidenced by the following two publications.

INJUSTICE ON APPEAL: The United States Courts of Appeal in Crisis. Written by Law School professors: Authors: William M. Richman · William L. Reynolds 2012 / I cannot at the moment afford to buy this book. If anyone would like to donate it to my research efforts I would appreciate that generosity. I’d like to write something that is more accessible to future persons striped of their rights per these Civil Rights violations operating under cover of law.

Another really good article is written by the late law school professor: Penelope J. Pether. SORCERERS, NOT APPRENTICES: How Judicial Clerks and Staff Attorneys Impoverish U.S. Law. Published by the Arizona State Law Journal 2007. I found this article especially helpful.

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 record.  The 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 6^th 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

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 90^th 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 (6^th 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.