UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________________
APPEAL NO.: 10-15181-F
DISTRICT COURT NO.: 8:10-cv-2083-T-26EAJ
___________________________________
RONNIE MICKENS and
GLORIA J. MICKENS
Appellants/Plaintiffs
vs.
TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, et al.
Appellees/Defendants
____________________________________
Appeal from the United states District Court
For the Middle District of Florida
Tampa Division
_____________________________________
APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF
_____________________________________
PRO SE
Ronnie Mickens and Gloria J. Mickens
6420 Odom Road
Lakeland, Florida 33809
(863) 853-5991
Mickens v. Tenth Judicial Curcuit Court, et, al.
Case No.: 10-15181-F
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
WE hereby disclose the following to this Court’s interested persons order.
1.) the name of each person, attorney, association of persons, firm, law firm, partnership, and corporation that has or may have an interest in the outcome of this ___ including subsidiaries, conglomerates, affiliates,parent corporations, publicly-traded companies that own 10% or more of a party’s stock, and all other identifiable legal entities related to any party in the case:
Allen Damron Construction Company
Roger A. Alcott
Robert E. Biasotti
Mark A. Brown
Robert M. Brush
Elaine P. Canady
Daryl Casanueva
Allen Damron
Debra L. Damron
Carlton Fields, P.A.
Marsha Faux
Benjamin Hardin
C-1 of 4
Jerry Hill
Joseph G. Jarret
Elizabeth A. Jenkins
Grady Judd
Harvey A. Kornstein
Annette Marie Lang
J. David Langford
Richard A. Lazzara
Lisa Lott
Michael D. Martin
Bill McCollum
Robert McDonald
Paul H. McLester
Steve D. Merryday
Gloria J. Mickens
Ronnie Mickens
Cecelia M. Moore
Don Pell
Polk County Property Appraiser’s Office
Polk County School Board
Polk Courty Sheriff’s Office
Polk County State Attorney’s office
C-2 0f 4
Robert M. Quinn
Edith F. Rewis
Glenn A. Reynolds
Mark A. Schabacker
Second District Court of Appeals
Stewart Information Service Corporation (SISCO)
Stewart Title Company
Stewart Title Guaranty Company
Stewart Title of Polk County, Inc.
Tenth Judicial Circuit Court
2.) the name of every other entity whose publicly-traded stock, equity, or debt
may be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings:
[No List]
3.) the name of every other entity which is likely to be an active participant in the
proceedings, including the debtor and members of the creditors’ committee
(or twenty largest unsecured creditors) in bankruptcy cases:
4.) the name of each victim (individual or corporation) od civil and criminal conduct
alleged to be wrongful, including every person who may be entitled to restitution:
Ronnie Mickens
Gloria J. Mickens
We hereby certify that, excpt as disclosed above, we are unaware of any actual or potential conflict of interest involving the district judge and magistrate judge assigned to
C- 3 of 4
this case, and will immediately notify the Court in writing on learning of any such conflict.
C- 4 of 4
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Pursuant to 11th Cir. Rule 28-1 (c), Appellants, Ronnie Mickens and Gloria J. Mickens respectfully request Oral Argument because we believe that it would greatly assist Appellants and this Court in resolving Appellants’ appeal.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND
CORPORRATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT……………………………………..C-1
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT……………………………………i
TABLE OF CONTENT………………………………………………………………….ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………….iv
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………..v
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES…………………………………………………………1
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW……………………………………………………………8
STATEMENT OF THE CASE………………………………………………………… 13
STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENTS………………………………………………...20
ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………………………… ..21
I. THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FUNDAMENTALLY ERRED WHEN HE
PREMATURELY DISMISSED APPELLANTS’ PRIOR AND PRESENT FEDERAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL AS WELL AS THE GOVERNMENTAL APPELLEES FOR THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE…………………………………..21
II. THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FUNDAMENTALLY ERRED WHEN HE PREMATURELY DISMISSED APPELLANTS’ PRESENT FEDERAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SERVED AND UN-SERVED
ii
GOVERNMENTAL APPELLEES PURSUANT TO THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE, ELEVENTH AMENDMENT JUDICIAL AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITIES..................................................................................................24
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………27
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE…………………………………………………29
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE………………………………………………………. 29
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Exxon Mobile,
544 U.S. 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517……………………1,2,8,9,20,21,22,23,26,28
Harlow v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738………………………………..25
Lance,
546 U.S. at 464, 126 S. Ct. 1198…………………………………………21
Lassiter v. Ala. A&M Univ.,
28 F.3d 1146, 1184 (11th Cir. 1994)(en banc)……………………………25
Mickens v. Tenth Judicial Circuit,
181 Fed. Appx. 865, 872-73 (11th Cir. 2006)…………………………….24
Nicholson v. Shafe,
558 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2009)………………………….1,2,8,9,20,21,23,26,28
Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale,
Cite as 279 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2002)…………………………………….24
Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 40 L.Ed. 2d 90……………………………………………22,25
iv
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
A. This is a civil action for among other things, fraud, fraud upon the court, denial of due process, equal protection and freedom of speech, conspiracy, stigmatization, race and retaliation discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent conveyance, equitable estoppel, negligence, breach of construction contract, cancellation of deeds, quiet title, slander of title, conversion of title and for violation of rights protected by the Civil Rights Acts.
B. This action is instituted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, 42 U.S.C Section 1985 ©, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991, and 18 U.S.C Section 242, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961-68. Plaintiffs seeks legal and equitable relief including but not limited to compensatory and punitive damages.
C. This is an action for damages exceeding $50,000.00 the minimum jurisdictional amount for this court.
D. Appellants contend that the District Court has original, federal question, diversity, pendent, ancillary, subject matter and personal jurisdiction in this case sub judice.
v
APPELLANTS’ STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Whether Exxon Mobile, 544 U.S. 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517 and this Court’s decision in NICHOLSON v. SHAFE, Cite as 558 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2009) overruled, or made void the District Court Judge and this Court panel’s prior order and un-published opinion in Case No.; 05-01115CV-T-26-EAJ, because Appellants commenced filing Appellants’ prior and instant Federal Complaint before the state court proceedings ended in the three “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulently de-consolidated and consolidated, un-related and interrelated lawsuits and judgments scheme that was fashioned by the Appellees to obstruct Appellants from progressing Appellants’ indisputable claims in the consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated case.
2. Whether Exxon Mobile and this Court’s decisions in Nicholson v. Shafe bars the Rooker-Feldman doctrine from applying to Appellants new complaint because Appellants commenced this case before the litigation of the consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated case ended and because the Appellees’ supplanted the consolidated, interrelated case with “confusing”, “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent, un-related/interrelated, de-consolidated/consolidated lawsuits to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress/relief and free speech.
3. Whether the District Court improperly dismissed Appellants’ Complaint pursuant to Rooker-Feldman because the state courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant judgments in favor of the non-governmental Appellees and lacked jurisdiction to conspire 6. Whether the “confusing”, “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,to commit fraud, fraud upon the court and treason against the constitution to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress/relief and freedom of speech.
1
4. Whether the District Court improperly dismissed Appellants’ consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated state claims and new state and federal claims against the consolidated, interrelated non-governmental Appellees and new state and federal claims against the governmental Appellees pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to deprive Appellants’ of due process, equal protection, redress/relief and freedom of speech.
5. Whether Judge Ralph Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order on Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration took precedent over Judge Kornstein’s “confusing” “muddled to say the least.” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent,
de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits and re-consolidated the three interrelated lawsuits and made void the “confusing,” “internal contradictory,” fraudulent, de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated judgments obtained by the Appellees’ conspiracy, fraud, fraud upon the court and treason against the constitution to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress/relief and free speech. ” fraudulent, de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated state court orders and judgments conclusively prove that the District Court dismissed Appellants’ complaints in violation of Exxon Mobile and Nicholson v. Shafe, whether the consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated parties and issues between Appellants and the interrelated non-governmental Appellees have been litigated and adjudicated in state court, whether the “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internal contradictory,” fraudulent, un-related/interrelated, de-consolidated/consolidated lawsuits’ judgments were the result of the Appellees’ conspiracy, fraud, fraud upon the court, treason against the constitution to
2
avoid granting relief to Appellant based on a void ab initio quit-claim deed procured by the interrelated non-governmental Appellees.
7. Whether the Appellants filed responses in opposition to the State Attorney, Stewart Title Guaranty, Stewart Title of Polk, Canady, Rewis, Damron Construction, Allen Damron and Debra Damron, and Property Appraiser’s motions to dismiss.
8. Whether Stewart Title Guaranty Company’s perjury, contradictions, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations, conspiracy, scheme to defraud, fraud, grand theft, notary crimes, fraudulent conveyance, false pretenses, “fraud upon the court,” estopps it from denying Appellants’ complaint allegations and from filing a consolidated motions to dismiss on behalf of itself, Stewart Title of Polk County, Inc., Canady, Rewis, Allen Damron Construction Company, Allen and Debra Damron because of their internally contradictory and fraudulent relationships and interests with each other.
9. Whether the Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution prevented the consolidated/re-consolidated interwoven case or parties, issues and claims from being litigated and adjudicated.
10. Whether the Appellees, the District Court Judge and this Court’s prior panel contradicted and misrepresented that the 2nd DCA reversed and remanded for the entry of a new judgment because Judge Strickland’s’ adjudicated findings on the merits or judgment on the merits of Appellants’ fraud, cancellation of deed, quiet title, ejectment and breach of construction causes of action against Appellee Damron Construction was unsupported by the record or unsupported by Appellants’ pleadings, the factual and lawful evidence and un-requested by Appellants or either party.
3
11. Whether the District Court Judge prejudiced Appellants and deprived Appellants of due process and equal protection by improperly dismissing Appellants’ Complaints pursuant to Rooker-Feldman, judicial and qualified immunities before the 10th Judicial Circuit Court filed a required motion to dismiss or an answer and before the process server, served the 2nd DCA’s and Sheriff the summon and complaint.
12. Whether the District Court Judge prejudiced and deprived Appellants of due process, equal protection, process server fees and cost when he dismissed Appellants’ Complaints pursuant to Rooker-Feldman and judicial and qualified immunities before a process server who had sought his assistants and who had been pre-paid several times to serve the 2nd DCA and the Sheriff, who had refused to accept proper service on numerous occasions.
13. Whether the District Court Judge dismissed Appellants’ indisputable causes of action against indisputable Appellee criminal and civil wrongdoers, based on race.
14. Whether the 10th Judicial Circuit Court and the 2nd DCA ‘s Judges committed fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution in violation of their subject-matter jurisdiction and eleventh amendment/judicial immunity.
15. Whether the 10th Judicial Circuit and the 2nd DCA’s decisions and rulings were produced by conspiracy, fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason and are in essence decisions and ruling at all, and can ever become final.
16. Whether the 10th Judicial Circuit and the 2nd DCA’s lost their subject matter jurisdiction and judicial immunity and whether their judgments became void as a result of their conspiracy, fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution.
4
17. Whether Judge Kornstein’s “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internal contradictory,” fraudulent de-consolidation/consolidation of the consolidated interrelated lawsuits that he fraudulently “severered” based on the pretext that the lawsuits or parties and issues were not the same/different/un-related/distinct/independent, was a departure from the essential requirements of the law and a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
18. Whether fraud vitiates every transaction into which its enters applies to judgments as to contracts and other transactions
19. Whether an officer of the court orders and judgments are void, of no legal force or effect when he commits “fraud upon the court”.
20. Whether the District Court Judge deprived Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress and free speech when he prematurely and erroneously assumed that Appellants were alleging misconduct against the State Attorney in the scope of his prosecutorial or government advocate role and not his investigative role.
21. Whether District Court Judge deprived Appellants of due process and equal protection when he dismissed new indisputable state and federal claims and causes of action against consolidated interrelated, indispensable Appellees and issues.
22. Whether the state court judgments granted in favor of the non-governmental Appellees was based on facts, issues, and claims that was noticed, alleged, pled and litigated by consolidated, interrelated non-governmental Appellees in a case.
23. Whether Judge Strickland adjudication on the merits of Appellants’ fraud, cancellation of deed, quiet title, ejectment and breach of construction contract causes of action entitles Appellants to the protection of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the law of
5
the case against the interrelated non-governmental Appellees as a matter of law.
24. Whether the non-governmental Appellees obtained multiple fraudulent orders
and judgments based on the “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits by the Appellees’ conspiracy, fraud, fraud upon the court and treason against the constitution without subject matter jurisdiction.
25. Whether the Appellees’ “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated judgments can be used to bar the District Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
26. Whether the non-governmental Appellees’ admissions of violations of criminal statutory laws entitles Appellants to the protection of preclusion laws as a matter of law against the consolidated, interrelated non-governmental Appellees.
27. Whether the Appellees conspired and agreed with each other to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason to deprive Appellants of fourth, fifth, seventh and fourteenth amendment rights without subject-matter jurisdiction.
28. Whether the Appellees’ conspiracy, fraud, “fraud upon the court,” and treason against the constitution obstructed the Appellants from joining, consolidating and litigating against the interrelated governmental Appellees and issues in a state court proceeding.
29. Whether Judge Strickland adjudication of Allen Damron Construction Company guilty of committing fraud in misrepresenting the nature of a quit-claim deed, fraud in the execution of a quit-claim deed, fraud inducement and fraud in the formation and
6
performance of a construction contract is supported by the record and the law of the case.
30. Whether Damron Construction quit-claim deed is void ab initio and is the
essential issue of the consolidated, interrelated case or parties and issues.
31. Whether the Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution when they conspired and agreed to permit Allen Damron Construction Company to fraudulently conveyed Appellants’ private real property to Stewart Title Guaranty Company via a Special Warranty Deed without due process, equal protection, a court order or subject matter jurisdiction while Appellee Stewart Title was fraudulently purporting to Foreclosure a mortgage and/or enforce an Equitable Lien against Appellants without subject matter jurisdiction, jurisdictional standing, a right of action, cause of action and without clean hands.
32. Whether the arbitrary, “confusing,” pre-textual, “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits scheme and judgments obstructed Appellants progress and prosecution of the three consolidated, interrelated, interwoven, intertwined, or inextricably tied together lawsuits or parties and issues as one case.
APPELLANTS STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW
1. At the time of the filing of the prior action and this instant action at bar, the consolidated/re-consolidated interrelated case has not been litigated in the 10th Judicial Circuit Court Case Nos.: 1997CA-000455, 1998CA-001152, 1998CA-002977 and the three “confusing,””muddled to say the least.” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent,
de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ judgments have not ended, or no judgments at all because of the Appellees’ fraud, therefore Rooker-Feldman do not divest the District Court of it subject matter jurisdiction.
2. The District Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case at bar because the Appellees’ conspiracy, fraud, “fraud upon the court,” treason and “confusing.” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent, de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ judgments obstructed Appellants from progressing the consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated case or parties and issues against the non-governmental Appellees.
3. Pursuant to Nicholson v. Shafe and Exxon Mobile, the District Court improperly dismissed Appellants’ un-litigated and un-adjudicated consolidated, interrelated state and federal claims against the interrelated Appellees pursuant to Rooker-Feldman.
4. Pursuant to Nicholson v. Shafe and Exxon Mobile the District Court improperly dismissed Appellants’ prior and present distinct complaints pursuant to Rooker-Feldman.
5. The District Court Judge knew that the two un-related state court judgments were not consolidated or interrelated and was obtained by the Appellees fraud, “fraud upon the court,” and that Judge Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order on Appellants’ Motion for
8
Rehearing and Reconsideration re-consolidated the Appellees fraudulent de-consolidated interrelated case or parties and issues.
6. The District Court erred when it misrepresented that the state court judgments were based on merits of issues and causes of action that the consolidated, interrelated non-governmental Appellees noticed, alleged, pled and litigated.
7. Appellants Mickens filed responses in opposition to Appellees, State Attorney, Stewart Title, the Damrons and the Property Appraiser’s motions to dismiss.
8. Stewart Title Guaranty Company’s negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations, it’s employer/employee, principal/agency relationships and interests with Stewart Title of Polk, Canady and Rewis and it’s fraudulent subrogee/subrogor, mortgagee/mortgagor, Quit-Claim Deed/Special Warranty Deed, grantee/grantor and plaintiff/defendants relationships with Allen and Debra Damron and Damron Construction.bars it from being entitled it to a foreclosure/equitable lien judgment and a $234,584.64 Rescission/Sanction judgment or any relief against Appellants.
9. The non-governmental Appellees agreed that Judge Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order on Appellants Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration re-consolidated the three “confusing” muddled to say the least” internally contradictory, fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits that illegally traveled in three separate files.
10. The Appellees conspired and agreed with each other to intentionally, negligently, and fraudulently misrepresent that the 2nd DCA reversed Judge Strickland’s findings on the merits of Appellants fraud, cancellation of deed, quiet title, ejectment and breach of
9
contract causes of action when they fraudulently misrepresented that Judge Strickland’s findings were un-supported by the record or the pleadings, evidence and Appellants.
11. The District Court Judge improperly dismissed Appellants’ distinct Federal Complaint pursuant to Rooker-Feldman to deprive Appellants of due process and equal protection safeguards against the 10th Judicial Circuit Court, the 2nd DCA and the Sheriff’s failure to file a required answer or a 12(b)(6)motion to dismiss.
12. The District Court deprived Appellants of due process, equal protection, fees and costs when it dismissed Appellants’ distinct Federal Complaint before Appellants’ pre-paid process servers served Appellants’ summon and complaint on the sheriff and the 2nd DCA and before the 10th Judicial Circuit filed a required answer or a motion to dismiss.
13. The District Court Judge decision to dismiss Appellants’ new, distinct Federal Complaint conflicts with the Exxon Mobile and Nicholson v. Shafe decisions.
14. The 10th Judicial Circuit Court and the 2nd DCA Judges conspired and agreed with each other and with the other Appellees to fraudulently sever/de-consolidate/split the three consolidated interrelated case, or parties and issues to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress and free speech in state and federal court.
15. Judge Kornsteins “confusing,” muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent, de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ judgments can never be final judgments because the “severance” were based on the pretext that the three consolidated, interrelated lawsuits were simultaneously consolidated and de-consolidated and un-related and related/interrelated or simultaneously not identical and identical in parties and issues.
10
16. The governmental Appellees lost their judicial and qualified immunities when they conspired and agreed with each other and with the non-governmental Appellees to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution to cover-up the non-governmental Appellees’ quit-claim deed fraudulent conveyance and to fraudulently convey Appellants’ private real property from the Damrons to Stewart Title without subject matter jurisdiction and to fraudulently imposed purported rescission of contract without subject matter jurisdiction and to fraudulently sanctioned Appellants $234,584.64 for the cost of materials and labor and to grant a fraudulent foreclosure/equitable lien against Appellants in favor of Stewart Title and to illegally seize and eject Appellants from Appellants property and to false arrest and imprison Appellant Ron Mickens.
17. Judge Artiglierre’s findings and the doctrine of stare decisis conclusively proved that Judge Kornstein’s “severance” of the consolidated, interrelated case was a departure from the essential requirements of the law and a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
18. The multiple, different, unsupported, contradictory, fraudulen,t de-consolidated/consolidated judgments are not final judgments.
19. The non-governmental Appellees judgments are void because all the Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud and “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution when they imposed purported rescission of contract without subject matter jurisdiction for rescission of contract being invoked and sought.
20. State Attorney Jerry Hill, the Property Appraiser and Sheriff in their investigative roles conspired and agreed with their subordinates and with other Appellees to intentionally, negligently and fraudulently deprive Appellants of life, reputation, job,
11
real and personal property in violations of well-established statutory laws and constitutional rights of due process, equal protection, redress and freedom of speech.
21. The District Court dismissal of Appellants’ complaint deprived Appellants of litigating indisputable claims against Appellees in one case or lawsuits.
22. Judge Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order overturned Judge Kornstein’s different, “confusing” “muddled to say the least” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated judgments granted in favor of Allen Damron Construction Company/Stewart Title Guaranty Company in Case No. 1997CA-000455 and in favor of Stewart Title Guaranty Company in Case No.: 1998CA-002977 because the judgments were obtained by the Appellees’ conspiracy, fraud, “fraud on the court” and treason against the constitution.
23. Judges, Strickland, Moore, Prince and Atrtiglierre’s findings entitled Appellants to the protection of res judicata, collateral estoppel and the law of the case.
24. Judge Alcott conspired and agreed to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution in violation of his subject matter jurisdiction when he aborted Judge Artiglierre’s re-consolidation order and re-imposed Judge Kornstein’s “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internal contradictory,” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits” judgments.
25. As a matter of preclusion and statutory laws, the Appellees’ admitted fraudulent misrepresentations bars them from denying Appellants indisputable causes of action.
26. As a matter of law, Appellants are entitled to a final judgment on indisputable claims and causes of action against the non-governmental and governmental Appellees.
12
27. The Appellees conspired and agreed with each other to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court and treason against the Constitution to deprive Appellants of due process, etc.
28. Allen Damron, Debra Damron, Stewart Title of Polk, Canady and Rewis have never litigated as parties the issues, claims or causes of action alleged against them by Appellants in any case or lawsuits.
29. The non-governmental, interrelated, indispensable Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud to procure a quit-claim deed from Appellants and to encumber Appellants property with an invalid mortgage.
30. Judges, Strickland and Moore findings that Allen Damron Construction Company’s committed fraud to procure a quit-claim deed and to fraudulently encumber Appellants’ property without Appellants knowledge or consent is the law of the case.
31. The Appellees conspired and agreed with each other to fraudulently dismiss Allen Damron Construction, Allen Damron and Debra Damron, the defendants/cross defendants and to dismiss Stewart Title-Polk, Canady and Rewis, the defendants/third party defendants and to fraudulently convey Appellants’ property to Stewart Title Guaranty Company via a Special Warranty Deed without a court order or subject-matter jurisdiction, pending a fraudulent foreclosure/equitable lien action against Appellants.
32. The 2nd DCA panel opined in their January 23, 2009, Opinion that Judge Kornstein’s orders and judgments were “confusing” and “internally contradictory.”
33. In Case No.: 1998CA-001152, Appellants’ complaint against Allen Damron and Debra Damron in still pending in the ‘confusing,” muddled to say the least.” ‘internally contradictory” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits.
13
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Circuit State Court Judge, J. Tim Strickland adjudicated Allen Damron Construction Company guilty of fraud in misrepresenting the nature of a quit-claim deed, fraud inducement, fraud in the execution of a quit-claim deed and fraud in the formation and performance of a construction contract. Based on Appellants’ fraud, cancellation of deed, quiet title, ejectment and breach of construction contract causes of action, the factual and lawful testamentary and documentary evidence, Judge Strickland adjudicated Damron Construction’s quit-claim deed void ab initio because of it’s fraud. Allen Damron Construction Company conspired and agreed with the other above styled non-governmental Appellees to commit fraud to procure a quit-claim deed and to encumber Appellants property with an invalid mortgage without Appellants’ knowledge or consent.
Judge Cecelia M. Moore adjudicated that Allen Damron Construction Company fraudulently obtained and maintained a claim to fee simple title to Appellants’ property and used that claim to gain an unfair advantage as to what materials and features would be included in the house and as leverage to force Appellants to accept features in their house that they did not want. Judge Moore adjudicated Allen Damron Construction Company guilty of fraud, “ordered and adjudged that final judgment is hereby entered against Allen Damron Construction Company on it’s complaint.”
Ironically, Judge Moore, without subject matter jurisdiction, arbitrarily and fraudulently imposed Rescission of Contract to deprive Appellants of relief against the interrelated non-governmental Appellees based on the determination that the quitclaim deed was void ab initio. On appeal and cross appeal both parties agreed that Judge
14
Moore fundamentally erred and that neither party invoked the court’s subject matter jurisdiction for Rescission. Both parties agreed that her Order to rescind the contract was arbitrary, capricious, un-available, un-necessary, based on a pretext, un-sought, un-desired and outside the scope of the 2nd DCA’s Mandate. Judge Moore negligently and fraudulently misrepresented that “Appellants essentially sought and desired to rescind the contract.” The 2nd DCA panel conspired and agreed to commit “fraud upon the court” when it affirmed a judgment that it had already ruled that it could not affirm, a judgment unsupported by the pleadings, the evidence and objected to by both parties.
Judges, Richard Prince and J. Dale Durrance consolidated the three interrelated, interwoven, intertwined or inextricably tied together state court lawsuits or parties and issues based on the conditions that the three lawsuits were the same, interrelated, or identical in parties, facts, issues, transactions, claims and causes of action.
Judge Harvey A. Kornstein conspired and agreed with the other governmental and non-governmental Appellees to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason when he imposed a “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent, de-consolidation/consolidation, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ scheme to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress, freedom of speech, based on race in state and federal court. Judge Kornstein conspired and agreed with the other Appellees and illegally ordered the Clerk to maintain three separate files based on the pretext that the three consolidated, interrelated lawsuits were not the same, distinct, different, independent, un-related or not identical in parties, facts, issues, claims and causes of action . Judge Kornstein contradictorily and fraudulently, de-consolidated the
15
consolidated, interrelated lawsuits and ordered the parties to continue to reflect in the pleadings that the three lawsuits were still consolidated with each other.
Judge Kornstein conspired and agreed with the Appellees to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason, when he obstructed the litigation of the consolidated, interrelated case and caused confusion with internal contradictions to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress and freedom of speech. In furtherance of Judge Kornstein’s conspiracy, he illegally dismissed indispensable non-governmental Appellees and aborted interrelated parties, issues and claims. Judge Kornstein illegally or fraudulently required that the consolidated, interrelated case travel in three separate files.
Judge Kornstein lacked subject matter jurisdiction to impose Judge Moore’s arbitrary and capricious Rescission of Construction Contract remedy and judgment to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress, relief and free speech.
Judge Kornstein fraudulently granted Damron Construction, the losing party, a fabricated Order and Judgment On Motion For The Entry Of Final Judgment against Appellants, Ronnie Mickens and Gloria J. Mickens for Failure to Permit Discovery in the fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated Case No.: 1997CA-000455 while purporting to be consolidated and interrelated with Case Nos.: 1998CA-001152 and 1998CA-002977.
Judge Kornstein fraudulently de-consolidated/consolidated the consolidated, interrelated case to fraudulently grant Damron Construction, the losing party, a $234, 584.00 Sanction for the purported Costs of materials and labor against Appellants for purportedly violating a court order to inspect property that both parties agreed were arbitrary and capricious. Judges, Prince and Durrance’s Orders to consolidate the three
16
interrelated lawsuits based on the condition of identical interrelated parties and issues had already made the court’s arbitrary and capricious order to inspect property void.
Judge Kornstein conspired and agreed with the Appellees to permit the Damrons to fraudulently convey Appellants ’private real property via a Special Warranty Deed to Stewart Title Guaranty Company without jurisdiction. Judge Kornstein dismissed the Damrons, the mortgagor defendants/cross defendants and Stewart Title-Polk, Canady, Rewis, third party defendants from Stewart Title’s fraudulent Foreclosure/Equitable Lien lawsuit. Case No.: 1998CA-002977. Judge Kornstein, without subject matter jurisdiction granted Stewart Title Guaranty a foreclosure/equitable lien judgment against Appellants.
Ironically, the Damrons fraudulently conveyed Appellants’ property to Stewart Title Guaranty Company without a court order then Judge Kornstein permitted Stewart Title Guaranty Company to subsequently, shockingly and fraudulently foreclose on Appellants without a mortgage and without the Damrons, Stewart Title of Polk, Canady and Rewis as parties. Judge Kornstein lacked jurisdiction over the real property and the Damrons when he dismissed the Damrons, the fraudulent mortgagors/owners who fraudulently conveyed the property to Stewart Title pending litigation.
Judge Kornstein committed “fraud upon the court” when he dismissed Damron Construction, Allen Damron, Debra Damron, Stewart Title of Polk, Elaine P. Canady and Edith F. Rewis from the de-consolidated/consolidated Case No.: 1998CA-002977 while purporting that it was consolidated and interrelated with Cases Nos.: 1997CA-000455 and 1998CA-001152 traveling in separate files.
The DAMRONS and Stewart Title Guaranty Company’s conspired and agree to
17
co-fraudulently conveyed Appellants’ property on April 14, 2004 without a court order. Judge Kornstein and Stewart Title fraudulently pretended that it had a foreclosure/equitable lien action against Appellants. On May 14, 2004, Judge Kornstein fabricated a Trial Order with fabricated findings to stigmatize Appellants to justify a fraudulent foreclosure. The Trial Order’s fabrication were not based on consolidated, interrelated parties, issues and claims that were noticed, alleged, pled and litigated by Appellants and the consolidated interrelated non-governmental Appellees.
Judge Kornstein granted different, contradictory, fraudulent judgments against Appellants in Case Nos.: 1997CA-000455 and 1998CA-002977 while contradictorily representing that the three interrelated lawsuits were de-consolidated/consolidated.
On June 14, 2005, Judge Artiglierre granted an Order on Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration over the non-governmental Appellees objections. Judge Artiglierre’s Order overturned Judge Kornstein’s contradictory severance/consolidation and fraudulent judgments and re-consolidated the interrelated lawsuits or case.
On June 5, 2005 and September 10, 2010, Appellants commenced new federal complaints before the state court’s consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated case has been litigated or ended. The state court’s docket record conclusively proves that the consolidated, interrelated state court proceedings did not and have not ended. Judge Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order on Appellants Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration in Case No.: 1998CA-001152 re-consolidated the consolidated, interrelated case with Cases Nos.: 1997CA-000455 and 1998CA-002977. Judge Artiglierre’s Order overruled and made void the two fraudulent judgments
18
granted in the “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated split lawsuits’ scheme. The judgments were not based on the merits of the consolidated interrelated parties, facts, issues, transactions, claims and causes of actions that had been noticed, alleged and pled by the consolidated interrelated non-governmental Appellees.
On September 12, 2008, the non-governmental Appellees filed a fraudulent cross-appeal of Judge Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order on Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration. Judge Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order re-consolidated the interrelated lawsuits or parties and issues over the Appellees objections.
Subsequent to Judge Artiglierre’s Order that re-consolidated the interrelated lawsuits, Judge Alcott committed ‘fraud upon the court” when he aborted Judge Artiglierre’s Order and reverted back to imposing Judge Kornstein’s “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent, split lawsuits’ scheme to deprive Appellants due process, equal protection, redress and free speech.
On November 19, 2009 and December 03, 2009, Judge Alcott committed “fraud upon the court” when he granted Stewart Title of Polk, Canady and Rewis a fraudulent summary and final judgment based on purported collateral estoppel. Judge Alcott wholly relied on Judge Kornstein’s “confusing” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory” fraudulent, severed/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ scheme. Collateral Estoppel does not lie when parties and issues are severed/de-consolidated and dismissed based on the pretext of being different, un-identical or un-related. Judge Alcott granted Stewart Title of Polk, Canady and Rewis judgments to benefit them for fraud.
19
Judge Alcott granted collateral estoppel based on Judge Kornstein’s “confusing,” muddled to say the least,” “internal contradictory,” fraudulent, un-related/interrelated,
de-consolidated/consolidated, lawsuits’ scheme. Judge Kornstein de-consolidated the consolidated, interrelated lawsuits based on the pretext of being different, or un-related lawsuits. Judge Alcott in Case No.: 1998CA-001152 fraudulently granted collateral estoppel, a summary and final judgment to Stewart Title of Polk, Canady and Rewis who were dismissed as parties in Cases Nos.: 1997CA-000455 and 1998CA-002977.
The Appellees conspired and agreed to keep the case in a permanent state of confusion, internal contradictions, and fraud to prevent Appellants from progressing or prosecuting Appellants indisputable claims or causes of action. The governmental Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud to obstruct Appellants from being granted relief based on a void ab initio quit-claim and special warranty deed procured by the interrelated non-governmental Appellees’ conspiracy and fraud.
The Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud and “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution to deprive Appellants of relief, life, reputation, job, real and personal property, without due process, equal protection, redress and free speech.
The Appellees imposed Judge Kornstein’s“confusing,” muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ judgments to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress, relief and free speech in state and federal court. The litigation of the consolidated, interrelated parties and issues were obstructed by the Appellees’ fraud.
20
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Appellants Mickens arguments on appeal are summarized in two statements.
First, pursuant to Exxon Mobile and Nicholson v. Schafe, Appellants commenced and filed Appellants prior and present federal complaints before the state court proceedings can be lawfully ended in the “confusing,” “muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ scheme and the un-litigated consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated lawsuits or case, therefore the Rooker-Feldman doctrine do not bar the District Court Judge’s subject-matter jurisdiction against the non-governmental and governmental Appellees.
Second, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine do not bar the District Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction based on the reason asserted in Argument I and the fact that the governmental Appellees are not entitled to judicial/absolute or qualified immunities because the state court judges and the constitutional officer conspired and agreed to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court,” treason against the Constitution without subject-matter jurisdiction. The constitutional officers lost the protection of their qualified immunity when they intentionally, recklessly, wantonly, shockingly, negligently and fraudulently violated well established statutory laws and constitutional rights of due process, equal protection, redress and freedom of speech based on race. The State Attorney conspired and agreed in his role as an investigator with his subordinate investigators and the other Appellees to deprive Appellants of life, real and personal property, reputation and job in violation of well established statutory laws and Appellants’ constitutional rights of due process, equal protection, redress and free speech, based on race. .
21
ARGUMENTS I
THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FUNDAMENTALLY ERRED WHEN HE DISMISSED APPELLANTS PRIOR AND PRESENT COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE NON-GOVERNMENTAL AS WELL AS THE GOVERNMENTAL APPELLEES FOR THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO THE ROOKER FELDMAN DOCTRINE
The Supreme Court clarified in Exxon Mobile that the state court must have rendered judgment before the district court proceedings commenced. In explaining the scope of Rooker-Feldman, Exxon Mobile clarified that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “is confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name.” Exxon Mobile, 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517. In saying so, the Supreme Court limited the Rooker-Feldman doctrines to its roots—the unique facts of the Rooker and Feldman cases.
After Exxon Mobile, however, the relevant inquiry is not whether the Rooker Feldman doctrine applies to state trial court judgments but whether the entry of judgment in a state trial court marks the end of state proceedings for purposes of Rooker-Feldman. In Exxon Mobile, a unanimous Supreme Court warned the lower courts that they had extended Rooker-Feldman far beyond the contours of the Rooker and Feldman cases.
In Nicholson v. Shafe, cited as 558 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2009) this Court heeded the Supreme Court warning by confining the scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to instances where the state proceedings have ended, in line with both the Rooker and Feldman cases. A year after Exxon Mobile, the Supreme Court referred to it as a “limited doctrine.” See Lance, 546 U.S. at 464, 126 S.Ct. 1198 (“Neither Rooker nor Feldman elaborated a rationale for a wide-reaching bar on the jurisdiction of lower
22
federal courts, and our cases since Feldman have tended to emphasize the narrowness of the Rooker-Feldman rule”) After all, “[s]ince Feldman, [the Supreme Court] has never applied Rooker-Feldman to dismiss an action for want of jurisdiction.” Exxon Mobile, 544 U.S. at 287, 125 S.Ct. 1517.
The 7th Circuit stated “ a decision produced by “fraud upon the court” is not in essence a decision at all, and never become final.” “Fraud upon the Court” make void the orders and judgments of that court.” “It is also clear and well-settled that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. (The maxin, “that fraud vituates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions’). “When any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court,” the orders and judgments of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.”
The Supreme Court has also held “that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution.” “Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts.” Justice Doyles, “if (federal judges) breaks the law, they can be prosecuted.” Justice Black, “Judges, like other people, can be tried and convicted and punished for crimes. “When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are not voidable, but void, and of no legal force or effect.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 40 L.Ed.2d 90.
Appellants Mickens progress or prosecution of the consolidated/re-consolidated, interrelated, inextricably tied together state case was obstructed by the Appellees’ conspiracy to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution
23
in violation of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court,” treason against the constitution to deprive Appellants of real and personal property, reputation, job and life in violation of well established statutory laws, due process, equal protection, redress and free speech.
In state court Case No.: 1998CA-001152, Judge Arttiglierre’s found that the parties and issues were interrelated and explained in his June 14, 2005, Order, how Judge Kornstein fraudulently schemed to “put Appellants in a box” or to deprive Appellants of life, liberty and property without due process, equal protection, redress and freedom of speech in state and federal courts. Judge Artiglierre’s footnote explained:
Judge Durrance ordered the cases consolidated on May 26, 2001, and Judge Kornstien later “clarified” that Order over Plaintiffs’ objection. See Order of Consolidation dated September 24, 2003. Regrettably, that Order does little to clarify the relationship of the cases. The Order does not sever the cases but instead appears to instruct the Clerk to maintain three separate files. The Order requires that the pleadings continues to reflect that the instant case is consolidated with 1997CA-000455 and 1998CA-002977.
Judge Kornstein’s fraudulent schemed put the un-litigated, consolidated, interrelated case into a endless state of confusion, internal contradictions and fraud. Judge Kornstein split the consolidated, interrelated case into three fraudulent, contradictory, un-related lawsuits. He fraudulently ordered the parties to misrepresent in the pleadings that the three interrelated lawsuits were consolidated.
The fraudulent, contradictory, de-consolidated/consolidated proceedings cannot ever end or become final pursuant to Exxon Mobile and this Court’s decisions in Nicholson v. Shafe. Appellants Mickens contend that Exxon Mobile and this Court in Nicholson v. Shafe overruled, overturned and made void the District Court and this Court’s prior un-published decisions
24
in Mickens v. Tenth Judicial Circuit, 181 Fed.Appx. 865, 872-73 (11th Cir. 2006).
WHEREFORE, Appellants, Ronnie Mickens and Gloria J. Mickens pray that this court reversed and remand the District Court Judge’s Final Order(s) dismissing Appellants new federal complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldmant Doctrine.
ARGUMENT II
THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FUNDAMENTALLY ERRED WHEN HE PREMATURELY DISMISSED APPELLANTS’ PRESENT FEDERAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SERVED AND UN-SERVED GOVERNMENTAL APPELLEES PURSUANT TO THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE, THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT JUDICIAL AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITIES
Appellants Mickens adopt and incorporate ARGUMENT I into ARGUMENT II asserting the same reasons why the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is improper to bar the District Court Judge from exercising his subject-matter jurisdiction to grant Appellants a jury trial on Appellants’ new federal complaint against all above styled Apllellees.
. In ROWE v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Cite as 279 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2002), this Court found that “conspiring to violate another person’s constitutional rights violates Section 1983.” The District Court deprived Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress, free speech and process servers fees. Appellants Mickens alleged that the state courts’ judges conspired and agreed to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution in violation of their subject-matter jurisdiction. The District Court improperly dismissed the 10th Judicial Circuit Court pursuant to Rooker-Feldman before they filed a required motion to dismiss or an answer. He improperly dismissed Appellants’ federal complaint against the 2nd DCA pursuant to
25
Rooker-Feldman before Appellants’ process server served the 2nd DCA’s. The District Court prevented the 10th Judicial Circuit, 2nd DCA and Sheriff from becoming parties.
“When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judges loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are not voidable, but void, and of no legal force or effect.” “When a judge know that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 40 L.Ed.2d 90.
The 10th Judicial Circuit and the 2nd DCA Judges lost their judicial immunity and subject-matter jurisdiction when they conspired to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court,” and treason against the constitution to deprive Appellants of well established rights of due process, equal protection, redress and freedom of speech, based on race.
Qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary governmental functions from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate any “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738; Lassiter v. Ala. A&M Univ., 28 F.3d 1146, 1149 (11th Cir. 1994)(en banc). The State Attorney in his investigative role lost his qualified immunity, when he conspired and agreed with the other Appellees to negligently and fraudulently misrepresent that Appellants conveyed property via a quit-claim deed to Damron Construction.
The State Attorney in his investigative role conspired and agreed with the other Appellees to subject Appellants to organized, real estate, mortgage, mail and wire fraud, schemes to defraud, grand theft, false pretenses, forgery, notary crimes, conversion, false arrest, false imprisonment,
26
fraudulent conveyance, obstruction of justice, perjury, torture and RICO crimes without due process, equal protection, redress and freedom of speech, based on race..
The District Court improperly granted the State Attorney and the Property Appraiser 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss pursuant to Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The State Attorney as an investigator lost his qualified immunity when he conspired and agreed to violate Appellants rights to due process, equal protection, redress and free speech.
The Polk County Property Appraiser conspired and agreed with the other Appellees to commit fraud to deprive Appellants of life, job, reputation, real and personal property in violation of due process, equal protection, redress and free speech based on race. The District Court misrepresented that Appellants filed two responses in opposition to the Appellees’ Motions To Dismiss. Apparently, the District Court failed to consider Appellants’ Responses in Opposition with Affidavits to the Appellees motions to dismiss.
The District Court deprived Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress and free speech when he improperly applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to prevent service of Appellants’ summon and complaint on the Polk County Sheriff. The Polk County Sheriff lost his qualified immunity when he conspired and agreed with the other Appellees to commit fraud to deprive Appellants’ of job, reputation, real and personal property without due process, equal protection, redress, free speech and statutory laws.
The governmental Appellees conspired and agreed to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution by covering-up and subjecting Appellants to the non-governmental Appellees organize, real estate, mortgage, mail and wire fraud, scheme to defraud, grand theft, etc., to deprive Appellants of life, reputation, job, real and
27
personal property in violation of due process, equal protection, redress and free speech.
Pursuant to Exxon Moblie and Nicholson v. Shafe, the Supreme Court and this Court opined that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was improper to bar the District
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction because the state proceeding had not and has not ended up to this date. Appellants Mickens federal complaints were commenced before the consolidated and re-consolidated interrelated case has been litigated. The Appellees conspired and agreed to abort the litigation of the consolidated, interrelated case and supplanted it with a “confusing”, “muddled to say the least,” “internal contradictory,” fraudulent, de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated split lawsuits’ scheme that was fashioned to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress and free speech. Clearly, judgments procured by fraud cannot ever become final judgments.
Judge Kornstein fraudulently severed/de-consolidated the three consolidated, interrelated case based on the pretext that the three consolidated, interrelated lawsuits were distinct, different or not identical in parties and issues. Judge Kornstein’s conspired to commit fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution to obstruct the litigation of the consolidated, interrelated case and to deprive Appellants of due process, equal protection, redress/relief and free speech in state and federal court.
WHEREFORE, Appellants, Ronnie Mickens and Gloria J. Mickens pray that this Court reverse and remand for a jury trial against all of the above styled Appellees.
CONCLUSION
“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
28
fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjuding cases that are presented for adjudication. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by “fraud upon the court” is not in essence a decision at all, and never become final.” “Fraud upon the Court” make
void the orders and judgments of that court.” It is also clear and well settled that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding.
The Appellees’s conspiracy, fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution obstructed not completed or ended the state court’s consolidated, interrelated case, therefore pursuant to Exxon Mobile and Nicholson v. Shafe the Rooker-Feldman doctrine do not bar the District Court Judge’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
The District Court and the Appellees fraudulently misrepresented that the state court’s consolidated, interrelated case or parties and issues were consolidated, litigated and adjudicated. Judge Artiglierre’s June 14, 2005, Order on Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration exposed Judge Kornstein’s “confusing,” muddled to say the least,” “internally contradictory,” fraudulent, de-consolidated/consolidated, un-related/interrelated lawsuits’ scheme to obstruct the litigation of the consolidated, interrelated case in state and federal court.
Appellants Mickens’ consolidated, interrelated issues, claims and causes of action based on a void ab initio quit-claim deed against the interrelated non-governmental Appellees were obstructed from being litigated and adjudicated by the Appellees’ conspiracy, fraud, “fraud upon the court” and treason against the constitution without subject matter jurisdiction in state and federal court..
29
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
WE CERTIFY, that this brief complies with the type volume limitation of FED R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(B). WE HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY, that this brief complies with the type face requirement of FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(b).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBT CERTIFY that a copy of hereof has been furnished by U.S. mail to Helen Brewer Fouse, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, 501 East Kenedy Boulevard, Ste. 1100, Tampa, Florida 33602; Michael D. Martin, Attorney for Appellee, Property Appraiser, P.O. Box 367, Lakeland Florida 33802-367; Jonathan B. Trohn, Attorney for Polk County Sheriff, 1701 South Florida Avenue, P.O. Box 2369 (33806), Lakeland, Fla. 33803; Robert E. Biasotti, CARLTON FIELDS, P.A., 200 Central Ave., Suite 2300, St. Petersburg, Fla. 33701; Putnam, Creighton & Airth, P.A., Lisa Lott, P.O. Box 3545, Lakeland, Florida 33802-3545 on this _____ day of January 2011.
Respectfully Submitted
_________________________________
Ronnie Mickens and Gloria J. Mickens
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
