End Corporate Person-hood!

Sick of all the corporate protectionism and collusion by the courts for their kick backs from corporations?  this includes the insurance companies that insure lawyers, doctors, pharmaceuticals...

Click this link to see how you can join, or start your own banner protest:::
http://movetoamend.nationbuilder.com/may10_events

May 10, 2013 Day of Action Against Corporate Personhood

OCCUPY THE MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS MONDAY APRIL 8 2013 10:30 AM

Impeach Chief Judge Robert M. Bell

Meet us at the court of appeals in Annapolis Maryland, Monday at 10:30 AM    Bring a sign!

Unsigned Orders - NOT legal - NOT Binding!

Unsigned Orders - NOT legal and NOT Binding


And, by law, you are GUARANTEED a hearing!

[5] Judgment 228 282

228 Judgment
      228VII Entry, Record, and Docketing
            228k277 Judgment Roll or Record
                228k282 k. Signature. Most Cited Cases

Use of “signature stamps” to affix judicial signatures is discouraged as not only questionable and inappropriate generally, but also as posing risk that stamp will be obtained by unauthorized persons.



In Dobrow v. Dobrow, 50 Md.App. 465, 471, 439 A.2d 596 (1982), we commented on the use of signature stamps by judges in another county. We noted: “[T]he Master's proposed order was presumably approved and stamped with a facsimile signature of the Chancellor on February 18, 1981....” Id. at 467, 439 A.2d 596. We admonished the trial court: “We suggest the immediate end to the **859 use of facsimile signatures on original orders and decrees. Without the original signature of the reviewing judge there is nothing in the record to support a conclusion that the Chancellor ever personally saw the order.” Id. at 471-72, 439 A.2d 596.

[5] The use of “signature stamps” to affix judicial signatures is not only questionable at the least, and inappropriate generally, it may be highly risky as well. If the stamp exists, there is a risk that it will be obtained by unauthorized persons, and used by them to execute unauthorized orders, i.e., commitments, releases, judgments, dismissals. The potential for mischief is unlimited.

**********************************************************************************

134 Divorce
      134IV Proceedings
            134IV(L) Trial or Hearing
                134k150.1 Decision and Findings by Referee or Master
                      134k150.1(3) k. Objections and Exceptions, and Hearing Thereon. Most Cited Cases

Trial court erred in entering, or allowing master to enter, immediate order transferring child custody without conducting oral argument before court and apparently without reviewing file and master's recommendations. Md.Rule S74A, subd. f(2) (1996).

[4] Judges 227 24

227 Judges
      227III Rights, Powers, Duties, and Liabilities
            227k24 k. Judicial Powers and Functions in General. Most Cited Cases

Judge may not delegate judicial duties and responsibilities that are exclusively his or hers, and may not grant authority to perform those functions to bearer of his or her signature stamp.

[5] Judgment 228 282

228 Judgment
      228VII Entry, Record, and Docketing
            228k277 Judgment Roll or Record
                228k282 k. Signature. Most Cited Cases

Use of “signature stamps” to affix judicial signatures is discouraged as not only questionable and inappropriate generally, but also as posing risk that stamp will be obtained by unauthorized persons.

[6] Reference 327 100(4)

327 Reference
      327III Report and Findings
            327k100 Objections and Exceptions, and Hearing Thereof in General
                327k100(4) k. Requisites and Sufficiency of Objections and Exceptions. Most Cited Cases

Entire transcript of hearing before master need not be provided by party filing exceptions but only that portion of transcript containing testimony necessary to rule on exceptions. Md.Rule 2-541(h)(2); Rule S74A, subd. e (1996).


THE USE OF "SIGNATURE STAMPS"
In Dobrow v. Dobrow, 50 Md.App. 465, 471, 439 A.2d 596 (1982), we commented on the use of signature stamps by judges in another county. We noted: “[T]he Master's proposed order was presumably approved and stamped with a facsimile signature of the Chancellor on February 18, 1981....” Id. at 467, 439 A.2d 596. We admonished the trial court: “We suggest the immediate end to the **859 use of facsimile signatures on original orders and decrees. Without the original signature of the reviewing judge there is nothing in the record to support a conclusion that the Chancellor ever personally saw the order.” Id. at 471-72, 439 A.2d 596.

[5] The use of “signature stamps” to affix judicial signatures is not only questionable at the least, and inappropriate generally, it may be highly risky as well. If the stamp exists, there is a risk that it will be obtained by unauthorized persons, and used by them to execute unauthorized orders, i.e., commitments, releases, judgments, dismissals. The potential for mischief is unlimited.

Secret Justice: Calling out the fraud by the COURTS

STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER THE PREVAILING
VOID JUDGMENT DOCTRINES
Maryland courts are required to operate without Discrimination – unfairness – bias – prejudice “petitioners have been discriminated against and treated with unfairness, bias and prejudice by this Court and the opposing counsel. An uninterested, lay person, would question the partiality and neutrality of this Court.”[ EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]

Maryland courts are required to operate with standards of “Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.”In re Murchinson, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955)”

Maryland courts are required to operate with knowledge that “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.” Butz v. Economou, 98 S.Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S.Ct. at 261 (1882)”

Maryland courts are required to operate with knowledge of duty “Further it is the obligation of every Judge to honor, abide by, and uphold not only the Constitution and laws of the State, but they are bound by the laws and Constitution of the United States as well.”
Maryland courts are required to operate with knowledge that “State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law.” Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n 35, 96 S. Ct 3037, 49 L Ed. 2d 1067 (1976)”

Maryland courts are required to operate with knowledge that “Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States, wars against that Constitution and engages in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.” “U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)”

Maryland courts are required to operate with and knowledge that All Courts participating in upholding illegal – void judgments “Spitzberg v Notaro- Judge Gerald Rosenberg void. Based upon, Spitzberg respectfully requests that the Court set aside the Judgment entered on May 28th 2008 or in the alternative, Spitzberg moves this Court for a full evidentiary hearing for the purpose of arriving at a judgment that furthers Justice . Similarly, any other Court or entity insisting to uphold such an illegal order would be in violation of the US Constitution and therefore all officers of the court now involved with prosecuting this void order will be at risk for such censure , and may be subsequently arrested for these violations of law. Since a public servant must serve the law, and it was broken by the public servants in this case, they are acting as trespassers of the law, and Maryland courts are required to operate with knowledge of What is “fraud on the court”? “Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”

Maryland courts are required to operate with no the consequences of “Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “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 can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”Void Judgments – What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?

Maryland courts are required to operate with knowledge and recognize “Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court. “It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935). Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.”

Maryland courts are required to operate with within “Citation: 93F. 2d 313 (2d Cir. 1937) Any judgment procured by fraud is null and void. An erroneous judgment may be attacked collaterally. Affirmed”

Maryland courts are required to operate with “Spitzberg v Notaro- Judge Gerald Rosenberg void • There is a misconception by some attorneys and judges that only a judge may declare an order void, but this is not the law: (1) there is no statute nor case law that supports this position, and (2) should there be any case law that allegedly supported this argument, that case would be directly contrary to the law established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 (1920) as well as other state courts, e.g. by the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Miller. Supra. A party may have a court vacate a void order, but the void order is still void Ab-Initio, whether vacated or not; a piece of paper does not determine whether an order is void, it just memorializes it, makes it legally binding and voids out all previous orders returning the case to the date prior to action leading to void Ab-Initio. While a Judge may issue orders to control his court, he has no lawful authority to issue any order which violates the Supreme Law of the Land; and that a void order may be challenged in any court, at any time, and even by third parties. A void order has no legal force or effect. As one court stated, a void order is equivalent to a blank piece of paper.”

Maryland courts and judges are required to operate with Violations of Oath of Offic “Violation of Oath of Office is not only grounds for void judgment, but more importantly is grounds for impeachment, forever barring holding of Judicial Office.”

. “Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985),

Police impersonator/county code inspector arrested again

Police impersonator/county code inspector arrested again but nothing is done because he is a relative of someone on the board

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-75378

A repeated police impersonator and long term Baltimore County, Maryland employee has been arrested yet again but seeks to avoid prosecution as a police impersonator by describing his activity wearing various police uniforms as "Role Play". This also explains his driving a white Crown Victoria as well...or does it? According to one female homeowner and county resident, Mr. Derek Propalis showed up hiding behind a tree after she had made numerous complaints to zoning about later proven zoning violations in progress.Turns out the zoning violator was a relative of another county inspector. Propalis was wearing a "State Troopers " uniform including a gun holster and gun when discovered by the female whose normally friendly dog began growling at a tree behind her house....The homeowners pleas for help were ignored by police and zoning personnel and the zoning violator continued to harass the woman telling her he had "friends at the County" The Police impersonator, Derek Propalis was actually in charge of the zoning complaints she made. Rumor has it that instead of being charged with police impersonation and being fired by the county, the police impersonator/zoning code inspector/civil rights violator was allowed to retire instead and may be receiving a county pension..Now he's been arrested again and the county police are asking that "possible victims come forward"...but these are the same police that stood by the police impersonator and zoning violator and refused to write a report on NUMEROUS incidents which were attempts to intimidate the female homeowner/zoning violations reporter.Civil rights violations need to be investigated and the homeowner has suggested that a citizen review board for both Baltimore County Police and the Baltimore County zoning department be established as well as making the ruling of the Maryland State Court of Appeals: Baisden et al v Garrity, precedent so that this can't happen to another citizen.The County knew about the Maryland State Court of Appeals ruling BEFORE complaints were made.They allowed the zoning violations to be built even though they were reported while the work was in progress and the complaints were disregarded by the zoning department. The homeowner was told by then Deputy Director of Baltimore County Zoning, Michael Mohler, that he would watch her "go bankrupt" if she tried to fix the matter through the courts.(Baltimore County is currently under Justice Dept. scrutiny for numerous EEOC violations) He also told her about "the lady who spent 12 years fighting an illegal fence in court" which was a reference to the Baisden case which went to the Maryland State Court of Appeals and was decided in favor of "the lady ". This ruling, which could be made precedent, would protect homeowners from zoning violators who go ahead with zoning violations then ask for "forgiveness" from the county to allow the already constructed violations(built without proper permit or notice and in violation of current code, thus allowing a few "in the know " violators to skirt the rules).
Photo shows knocked over zoning notice, case 07246A. in an attempt to try to "grandfather in" the violations which were reported before completion and allowed to be finished while keeping it in the courts.Derek Propalis signature is on the original correction notice which was never fully enforced nor timely hearings scheduled. Mr. Propalis finally wrote a correction notice on the matter after the home-owner had complained for over a year when a male friend of hers from a different county made the same complaint (blatant gender discrimination) Baltimore county is currently in violation of the final ruling regarding this matter (the zoning violations ignored by Derek Propalis) issued by the Circuit Court.

Hello Russia - still looking for that "in"?

Yes, I am tracking you tracking me.  On the web site and all of the blogs.  All of your spoofed IP's have been reported and soon because of your actions, I will be forced to block entire countries.

Good move comrads!  All youve done is block people from getting help.

Even here?  Theres no money here, no credit cards, no bank info or anything.  I personally have no money and make sure theres nothing in my name. I also track my credit reports because I know you have checked the whois .

For whatever reason you have chosen us as as "targets", theres no gain for you.  Youre wasting your time.

We have no money because of corporate fraud and gangster courts.  If you continue to try to break into our web sites, then you are on the side of big money and corporate interests.

thats not "Anonymous", thats not "hacking", youre just another corporate creep.

Really?  You tired clicking the "more"?  hahahaha