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),