NOV-DEC 09,Law Clerk

After dismissal of actions warning some form of sanction. As I’m not an attorney I have no ideal what the hell that means. But having to pay attorneys to screw me, that I understand. So the final order claims a transfer along with a warning.  OK. if this matter was transfered the rules of the C.M.O. apply and the court should respond. If this is as,  proven a dismissal of civil property right violations of settled claims the court should respond. If the proven awards involved corruption by others the court should respond.

On September 9th, 2009 in response to a dismissal of settled claims and no relief and the additional ruling which orders no further action. A requested review to Judge Coleman who replaced Bobby DeLaughter was never ruled upon.  Judge DeLaughter claimed acceptance of the 251-96-493 action, yet claimed some magical action granted him authority to place and join the Maries to said cause 251-96-493 before dismissal of entire 1061, action.  Now add to this the fact that the court has recently in 2009 stated that the awards of settled claims of 251-98-1061 are still recordingly being held by Judge Green.  ha! ha! ha! 

The September response came via Judge Colemans Law Clerk. Ms. Livingston on October 26 with no response per the requested review. A letter of fasle allegations implying our settled awards of injuries and property loss were dismissed with prejdice by DeLaughter prior to his arrest for lying to F.B.I agents.  My letter to Ms. Livingston was returned to sender. In a matter where Judge Green claims recluse.  With DeLaughters removal from the bench. The Judge replacing DeLaughters dismissal of a recently assigned case in question to the legal acts had would be Judge Coleman. If Judge Colemans temporary job with the court did not allow review then this matter now resides before Judge Harrison. As this claimed to all others its juisdicitional possession of the Marie claims it is also responsable in its duty to reply.

Altought Ms. Livingston seems to have found a new job after working for Judge Coleman she still has a problem understanding that the 251-98-1061 claims are the ones requiring review, as she continues to address her letters with reference to the failed class action 251-96-493. Perhaps as Judge Harrison’s Law Clerk she will actually read the response to her wrong assumptions. And lastly she will be informed along with the recent petition seeking review that my corrospondence with the court is posted on this site.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s