B. FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (EVIDENCE):
JUDGE ROBERT C. JONES & GAYLE A. KERN (KERN APPELLEES)
Financial Conflict: Who: How is it Financial Conflict? Evidence Sources:
Damonte Ridge Judge Robert C. Jones (U.S.D.C. Nevada) Judge Jones pays Kern Appellees through HOA dues and Kern Appellees have the power to foreclose on Judge Jones’ $600, 000.00+ home. Kern Appellees could, potentially, retaliate (as she did to Appellant Moulton) by foreclosing on Judge Jones’ home if there is an adverse ruling against Kern Appellees. Nevada Secretary of State
https://www.nvsilverflume.gov/businessSearch
Corporation Wiki
https://www.corporationwiki.com/p/2cwsuq/damonte-ridge-homeowners-association
Bizapedia.com
http://www.bizapedia.com/people/NEVADA/RENO/ROBERT-JONES.html
JUDGE JONES’ HOME DEED (DAMONTE RIDGE): Washoe County Recorder’s Office DOC# 3816192
Financial Conflict: Who: How is it Financial Conflict? Evidence Sources:
Damonte Ridge Gayle A. Kern, Esq. (Kern Appellees) Kern receives HOA dues from homeowners like Judge Robert C. Jones. Kern has the ability to foreclose on Judge Jones’ home. Nevada Secretary of State
https://www.nvsilverflume.gov/businessSearch
Corporation Wiki
https://www.corporationwiki.com/p/2cwsuq/damonte-ridge-homeowners-association
Bizapedia.com
http://www.bizapedia.com/people/NEVADA/RENO/ROBERT-JONES.html
JUDGE JONES’ HOME DEED (DAMONTE RIDGE): Washoe County Recorder’s Office DOC# 3816192
Financial Conflict: Who: How is it Financial Conflict? Evidence Sources:
Lakeside Plaza Condominium Association Michelle Jones
(Judge Robert C. Jones’ wife is Michele Jones) Kern leased Appellant Moulton’s stolen/fraudulently foreclosed home to a “Michelle” Jones – it could be the same person and given the financial conflicts of interest between Judge Jones and Kern – a reasonable person would question this. Washoe County Recorder’s Office
DOC# 4379401
MICHELE JONES & ROBERT C. JONES LISTED ON DAMONTE RIDGE HOME DEED AT Washoe County Recorder’s Office DOC# 3816192
Lakeside Plaza Condominium Gayle Kern Gayle A. Kern, Esq. is the attorney that fraudulently foreclosed on Appellant’s home. Kern then proceeded to lease Moulton’s stolen home to a “Michele Jones”. Michele Jones is the name of Judge Robert C. Jones’ wife. Washoe County Recorder’s Office
DOC# 4379401
MICHELE JONES & ROBERT C. JONES LISTED ON DAMONTE RIDGE HOME DEED AT Washoe County Recorder’s Office DOC# 3816192
DAMONTE RIDGE: Judge Robert C. Jones Damonte Ridge HOA Board Treasurer (as verified by Nevada Secretary of State and CorporationWiki), where he owns a $600, 000.00+ home and where Appellee Kern is Damonte Ridge attorney.
LAKESIDE PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION – where Appellant Moulton’s stolen home was leased by Kern appellees to a Michelle Jones (verified by Washoe County Recorder’s Office Doc#4379401). Michele Jones is the name of Judge Robert C. Jones’ wife.
C. LONG LIST OF KERN’S RECENT ALLEGED HOME FORECLOSURE ACTIONS – KERN IS ATTORNEY OVER JUDGE ROBERT C. JONES’ DAMONTE RIDGE HOA – AND HAS AUTHORITY TO FORECLOSE ON HIS HOME (FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST)
Since Kern suggests Appellant/Defendant Moulton is “abusing process” by defending her own home from fraudulent foreclosure – then Moulton is in good company… here are a long list from www.Justia.com of banks and homeowners, allegedly, suing Gayle A. Kern and her law firm for alleged wrongful foreclosure actions:
Filed Parties Court Judge Type of Lawsuit Cause of Action
08/08 PennyMac Loan Services, LLC v. Townhouse Greens Association, Inc. et al
Defendant: Gayle A. Kern, Ltd., Thunder Properties, Inc., Townhouse Greens Association, Inc.
Plaintiff: PennyMac Loan Services, LLC NVD Real Property: Foreclosure Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief
08/08 PennyMac Loan Services, LLC v. Townhouse Greens Association, Inc. et al
Defendant: Gayle A. Kern, Ltd., Thunder Properties, Inc., Townhouse Greens Association, Inc.
Plaintiff: PennyMac Loan Services, LLC NVD Real Property: Foreclosure Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief
07/22 Bank Of New York Mellon v. Highland Ranch Homeowners Association et al
Defendant: Airmotive Investments LLC, Highland Ranch Homeowners Association, Kern & Associates, Ltd.
Plaintiff: Bank Of New York Mellon NVD Real Property: Foreclosure Diversity-Petition to Quiet Title
07/11 Bank of America, N.A.v. Aspen Meadows Fernley Flood Control Facility Maintenance Association et al
Cross Defendant: Aspen Meadows - Fernley Flood Control Facility Maintenance Association
Defendant: Aspen Meadows - Fernley Flood Control Facility Maintenance Association, Comstock Capital Partners, LLC, Kern & Associates, Ltd.
Counter Defendant: Bank of America, N.A.
Plaintiff: Bank of America, N.A.
Counter Claimant: Comstock Capital Partners, LLC, Remedy Property Partners, LLC
Cross Claimant: Comstock Capital Partners, LLC NVD Real Property: Foreclosure Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief
04/08 Ditech Financial Services LLC et al v. Highland Ranch Homeowners Association et al
Defendant: Airmotive Investments, LLC, Highland Ranch Homeowners Association, Kern & Associates, Inc.
Plaintiff: Ditech Financial Services LLC, Federal National Mortgage Association NVD Real Property: Foreclosure Fed. Question
04/07 Bank of America, N.A.v. Yorkshire Manor I Homeowners Association et al
Plaintiff: Bank of America, N.A.
Defendant: Gayle A. Kern, Ltd., Kern & Associates, Ltd., Phil Frink & Associates, Inc. NVD Real Property: Other Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief
03/25 Bank of America, N.A.v. Pine View Estates Home Owner's Association et al
Plaintiff: Bank of America, N.A.
Defendant: Kern & Associates, Ltd., Pine View Estates Home Owners Association NVD Real Property: Other Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief
03/18 Bank of America, N.A.v. Tenaya Creek Homeowners Association et al
Plaintiff: Bank of America, N.A.
Defendant: Gayle A. Kern, Ltd., Tenaya Creek Homeowners Association, Thunder Properties Inc. NVD Real Property: Other Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief
02/12 HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee for Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series AR3 v. Park Towers Homeowners Association et al
Defendant: Gayle A. Kern, Ltd., Park Towers Homeowners Association
Plaintiff: HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee for Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series AR3 NVD Real Property: Other Fed. Question
02/08 Bank of America, N.A.v. Wildcreek Homeowners Association et al
Plaintiff: Bank of America, N.A.
Defendant: Gayle A. Kern, Ltd., Phil Frink & Associates, Inc., Wildcreek Homeowners Association NVD Real Property: Foreclosure Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief
Filed Parties Court Judge Type of Lawsuit Cause of Action
12/11 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al v. Nadina Beverly, et al
Defendant: Nadina Beverly, Gayle A. Kern, Ltd., Meadowridge Homeowners Association
Plaintiff: Federal Housing Finance Agency, Federal National Mortgage Association, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. NVD Real Property: Foreclosure Declaratory Judgement
06 Neil Johnson v. Truckee River Highlands HOA, L, et al
Plaintiff - Appellant: NEIL M. JOHNSON
Defendant - Appellee: TRUCKEE RIVER HIGHLANDS HOA, LLC, INCLINE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, DON GLENN CA9 Land Condemnation false
06/23 Neil Johnson v. Truckee River Highlands HOA, L, et al
Petitioner - Appellant: NEIL M. JOHNSON
Defendant - Appellee: TRUCKEE RIVER HIGHLANDS HOA, LLC, INCLINE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, DON GLENN CA9 Land Condemnation false
02/23 Kern et al v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP et al
Plaintiff: Wayne D Kern, Stacy J Kern
Defendant: BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Mortgage Electronic Registry System, ReconTrust Company AZD Foreclosure Injunction
10/02 Johnson v. Truckee River Highlands HOA, LLC et al
Plaintiff: Neil M. Johnson
Defendant: Truckee River Highlands HOA, LLC, Incline Property Management LLC, Don Glenn NVD None Fed. Question: Real Property
There is no question that Kern Appellees hold power to foreclose on Judge Robert C. Jones’ home. Certainly, any reasonable person would conclude this is a blatant financial conflict of interest that would cloud Judge Robert C. Jones’ judgment and impartiality.
D. NO ABUSE OF PROCESS BY APPELLANT MOULTON WHEN CASES ARE NOT THE SAME AS DETERMINED BY U.S.D.C. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Please see EXHIBIT 2
E. ABUSE OF PROCESS: FORCED ARBITRATION OF (FRAUDULENT) FORECLOSURES - VIOLATIONS OF FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS AND PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT, TRUTH IN LENDING ACT (TILA)
In sum, Appellant Moulton purchased a home at Lakeside Plaza Condominium Association in late 2005 in Nevada. It was not long after she became aware of Lakeside Plaza’s fraud racket that was defrauding homeowners by way of board kickbacks and embezzlement. Washoe County District Attorney # 406539, Reno Police Department # 08-031672. When homeowners could not afford extortion and embezzlement – their homes were foreclosed in conspiracy by Kern Appellees and others.
If homeowners whistle-blew on these financial crimes – they faced retaliation - heavy fines (fraudulent liens against their home titles) – resulting in fraudulent foreclosures.
When Appellant Moulton discovered these crimes, she confronted Lakeside Plaza Board to correct the situation and rather than correct, the Board took initiatives to retaliate against Moulton (including, but not limited to: using police to harass and threaten, death threats, financial fines/false liens against home, fraudulent foreclosure).
Appellant was deprived her day in court because State of Nevada FORCES ARBITRATION of HOA (homeowner association) foreclosures prior to a commencement of litigation.
STATE OF NEVADA’S FORCED ARBITRATION OF FORECLOSURES IS VERY EXPENSIVE, OPPRESSIVE,
UNCONSCIONABLE and UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Appellant Moulton clearly argued against the unconstitutionality of State of Nevada’s FORCED ARBITRATION in her Noerr-Pennington/Anti-SLAPP motion (Doc# 45) (EXHIBIT 3):
[I]f homeowners seek justice from foreclosure, they must go through cost-prohibitive state-mandated arbitration, again, violating homeowners’ Due Process. There is no apparent limit on arbitration fees and costs.
Citing Friedrich v. Apfelberg, State of Nevada (D.Ct. Clark Co. Nev 2009):
There is no contractual agreement between the parties here, except for the CC&Rs. There is no provision in the CC&Rs for an award of fees and costs to a prevailing party in litigation…[and] [w]hen it comes to the fees charged by Arbitrators in NRED [Nevada Real Estate Division] arbitrations, the NRED again refuses to act…
Because NRS §38.330 (5) requires that a homeowner complete the NRED ADR program before he can proceed into District Court, these unchecked Arbitrator fees are especially pernicious. The homeowner has no choice but to subject himself to whatever tab the Arbitrator runs up…If the homeowner loses the arbitration, he loses twice, because he is then stuck with the entire Arbitrator’s fee for both sides…
Illegal Awards of Attorney’s Fees and Costs by Arbitrators…Arbitrators in the NRED program, including Respondent APFELBERG in this case, routinely award attorney's fees to a prevailing party, despite the fact that they have no legal authority to make such awards…
In addition to being unlawful, such fee and cost awards have an extreme “chilling” effect upon individual aggrieved homeowners, but have comparatively little “chilling” effect upon HOA Boards (or their attorneys). This is because the practice of awarding attorney’s fees presents the two parties with very different risks. This asymmetry is well-illustrated in the present case (NRED #09-85)…
Again, a simple question of law, decided upon succinct briefs, with no disputed facts, no testimony, and no hearing, should not have resulted in such exorbitant fees: HOA Board’s attorney’s fees totaling $15, 673.50, plus $456.12 in purported costs, and the Arbitrator’s expenses and fees totaling $5, 980.00. (Fees of undersigned counsel totaled $2, 169.42).
If, hypothetically, the HOA had lost, and was forced to pay Petitioner’s attorney’s fees and costs, the HOA would have suffered only a modest additional impact of $2, 169, a 13% increase.
In comparison, the losing homeowner here was hit with $16, 129, a 740% increase. In both absolute terms and in relative terms, the homeowner’s downside risk is an order of magnitude greater than the downside risk faced by the HOA Board…
This practice of unlimited and unchecked arbitrator fees, which are assessed against the losing side, constitutes a fundamental denial of due process, which “chills” and effectively bars all but the wealthiest homeowners from accessing justice. [emphases added]
It is Nevada’s extremely cost-prohibitive statutes and arbitration requirements that “chill” most homeowners from even attempting to remedy homeowner association frauds and abuses. Nevada state law “substantially impairs the contractual relationship” and deprives homeowner due process by mandating extremely cost-prohibitive requirements onto Nevada HOA homeowners whom seek redress, thereby, violating Contract Clause.
State of Nevada’s restrictive, cost-prohibitive homeowner arbitration program “chills” many homeowners from ever seeking recourse from HOA fraud and/or wrongs, forcing many into foreclosure and/or bankruptcy. It is no surprise why Nevada has the highest rates of foreclosure in the United States. State of Nevada certainly does not help the problem, it only exacerbates it, allowing those, like Gayle A. Kern, with clear conflicts of interest to profit from it.
State of Nevada unconstitutionally barred Appellant from defending her home from wrongful foreclosure.
Not only is FORCED ARBITRATION of real estate (in this case, fraudulent foreclosure) unconstitutional, it is oppressive and unconscionable. FORCED ARBITRATION of LOW-INCOME is an egregious miscarriage of justice that violates due process and human rights.
FORCED ARBITRATION of a fraudulent foreclosure not only violates the Federal Arbitration Act, Truth in Lending Act, and several federal laws.
Appellant Moulton could not afford FORCED ARBITRATION, whereas she could afford federal court (IFP).
According to Attorney Robert Sullivan:
Arbitrators routinely award attorneys fees from $10, 000 up to $70, 000 against a homeowner. And these are for very minor and generally very simple issues that could have been resolved, ” Sullivan explains. “The arbitrators receive their repeat business from the HOAs and the HOA attorneys. They do not receive their repeat business from the homeowner. So if an arbitrator develops a reputation for being homeowner-friendly, or even neutral, in my opinion, their names will be stricken in favor of somebody who’s more favorable to the HOA.
F. ONGOING ABUSE OF PROCESS AND ABUSE OF DISCRETION, FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WARRANT REVIEW BY NINTH CIRCUIT
Judge Robert C. Jones’ ongoing abuses of discretion, abuses of process and (non-disclosed) financial conflicts of interest with Kern Appellees warrant review by this Court. See Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 762, 764 (9th Cir. 1996).
Any reasonable person would question Judge Robert C. Jones’ impartiality in this case and Moulton’s own case (s) taking into consideration Rules 455, 144 Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 US 847 (S.Ct. 1988) and Tramonte v. Chrysler Corp. 136 F.3d 1025 (5th Cir.1998).
Jones’ Court engaged in ongoing due process violations against Appellant/Defendant Moulton by depriving her notice of hearings and orders. This has been outlined extensively throughout the course of this case through Moulton’s motions. Due to the continued abuses of process and deprivations of due process, Moulton made several motions to recuse Jones, writ of mandamus to stay proceedings pending order, interlocutory appeal:
October 7 Appellant/Defendant filed a motion for Judge Robert C. Jones’ disqualification and recusal (Doc# 47), (EXHIBIT 4) - which Jones delayed ruling until the following year in May 11 (Doc#67).
November 2 Appellant/Defendant filed a Writ of Mandamus with Ninth Circuit. (EXHIBIT 5)
July 21 Appellant/Defendant filed with Ninth Circuit an Interlocutory Appeal: Stay Proceedings Pending the motion for Judge Jones’ recusal and/or disqualification. (Jones’s Court repeatedly refused to notify Appellant/Defendant of orders and hearings – which is why she was unaware of his May 11 order denying his own recusal.) (EXHIBIT 5)
January 12 (on or about), Appellant/Defendant Moulton discovered Jones’-Kern’s financial conflicts of interest. During the course of approximately (7) seven years, Judge Robert C. Jones never disclosed to Appellant/Defendant of his financial conflicts of interest with Kern Plaintiffs/Appellees and Appellant/Defendant was never able to obtain tangible financial evidence prior to around January 12.
Judge Jones is no stranger to Ninth Circuit reprimands and abuse of process -here are just a few cases where Jones abused process including cases brought by U.S. Attorneys/Department of Justice:
Townley v. Secretary of State Ross Miller (D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00310-RCJ-WGC)
In this case, Ninth Circuit’s Judge Stephen Reinhardt questioned the integrity of Judge Robert C. Jones.
Black Rock City, LLC v. Pershing County Board of Commissioners (No. 14-15221
D.C. No. 3:12-CR-00435-RCJVPC)
We [Ninth Circuit] have in the past expressed concern over the district court’s handling of a number of cases that have reached this court, 2 and we unfortunately must do so again here. At a hearing, called sua sponte in response to the parties’ first attempt to end this case via Rule 41 (a)(2), Judge Jones excoriated and mocked counsel3 and offered lengthy criticisms of the settlement agreement despite counsel’s repeated statements that the parties were not seeking the court’s approval. (footnote: 3 Among other things, Judge Jones: noted his own laughter on the record, repeatedly lobbed accusations of malpractice, described counsel’s comments as “mealy-mouthed, ” and suggested that counsel return to law school.
United States v. Estate of E. Wayne Hage (No. 13-17039, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01154-RCJ-VCF)
The district court grossly abused the power of contempt. See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831 (1994) ("[T]he contempt power... uniquely is liable to abuse... Contumacy often strikes at the most vulnerable and human qualities of a judge’s temperament, and its fusion of legislative, executive, and judicial powers summons forth the prospect of the most tyrannical licentiousness." (citation, internal quotation marks, and ellipsis omitted)). The two "underlying concern[s] that gave rise to the contempt power" are "the disruption of court proceedings" and "disobedience to the orders of the Judiciary." Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 798 (1987).
In re United States (No. 14-70486 D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00470-RCJ-VPC)
The [Ninth Circuit] panel concluded that Judge Jones acted outside his discretion by failing to provide a valid reason to deny the United States attorney’s application for pro hac vice admission, and held that the requirement of clear error was satisfied. The panel further held that the United States had no other means to obtain relief, and the United States was harmed when the United States attorney was denied pro hac vice admission. The panel also held that the fact that Judge Jones’ order was not an isolated occurrence weighed in favor of granting mandamus relief when the petition was filed.
Since Judge Robert C. Jones refused to recuse and/or disqualify himself from this case in light of new evidence proving ongoing financial conflicts of interest, Ninth Circuit has grounds for review if district court makes an error of law. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996); Strauss v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 635 F.3d 1135, 1137 (9th Cir. 2011).
Thus, the court abuses its discretion by erroneously interpreting a law, United States v. Beltran-Gutierrez, 19 F.3d 1287, 1289 (9th Cir. 1994), or by resting its decision on an inaccurate view of the law, Richard S.v. Dep’t of Dev. Servs., 317 F.3d 1080, 1085-86 (9th Cir. 2003). See also Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct.
2205, 2211 (recognizing trial court has wide discretion “but only
when, it calls the game by the right rules”).
The court must affirm where there is such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if it is possible to draw contrary conclusions from the evidence. See Howard, 341 F.3d at 1011.[2]
Ninth Circuit has grounds for review if district court rules in an irrational manner. See Chang v. United States, 327 F.3d 911, 925 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Cmty. v. California, 618 F.3d 1066, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010)(concluding district court did not rule in an irrational manner).
G. RULE FED. R. CIV. P. 12 (b)(2) LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION ON OUT-OF STATE DEFENDANT THAT HAS NO COMMERCIAL TIES TO NEVADA
Kern Appellees sued out-of-state Defendant Moulton in U.S.D.C. Nevada. Appellant/Defendant Moulton has been a longtime permanent resident of California. To sue out-of-state Defendant in Nevada shocks any notion of fair play and substantial justice, financially harms and burdens Defendant, and severely deprives Defendant’s due process. Defendant has no commercial business in Nevada, therefore, there are no sufficient minimal contacts to exercise jurisdiction in Nevada.
Furthermore, Kern Appellee is a licensed California attorney (State Bar of California # 131258 active, admitted in 1987) and could have just as easily filed in U.S.D.C.N. California. However, Kern filed in Nevada in bad faith to cause further financial harm and burden to Defendant.
The Nevada Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff's cause of action arises where the particular defendant resides at the time of the alleged tortious conduct. Alberding v. Brunzell, 601 F.2d 474, 477 (9th Cir.1979); Lewis v. Hyams, 26 Nev. 68, 63 P. 126 (1900); Wing v. Wiltsee, 47 Nev. 350, 223 P. 334 (1924) [emphasis added]
From Judge Jones’ own order in another, non-related case regarding lack of jurisdiction:
A defendant may move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(2). Jurisdiction exists if: (1) provided for by law; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process. See Greenspun v. Del E. Webb Corp., 634 F.2d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1980).
The "purposeful direction" option of the first prong uses the "Calder-effects" test, under which "the defendant allegedly must have (1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state." Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc)). The third prong is itself a seven-factor balancing test, under which a court considers:
(1) the extent of the defendant's purposeful interjection into the forum state's affairs; (2) the burden on the defendant of defending in the forum; (3) the extent of conflict with the sovereignty of the defendants' state; (4) the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute; (5) the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy; (6) the importance of the forum to the plaintiff's interest in convenient and effective relief; and (7) the existence of an alternative forum.
Menken v. Emm, 503 F.3d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting CE Distrib., LLC v. New Sensor Corp., 380 F.3d 107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2004)).
In determining whether to transfer or dismiss a case, the court may consider: “the relative injustice imposed on the parties…" See Johnson v. Payless Drug Stores Northwest, Inc., 950 F.2d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1992)
We also have emphasized that jurisdiction may not be grounded on a contract whose terms have been obtained through "fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power" and whose application would render litigation "so gravely difficult and inconvenient that [a party] will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court." The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S., at 12, 18. Cf. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 94-96 (1972); National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 329 (1964) (Black, J., dissenting) (jurisdictional rules may not be employed against small consumers so as to "crippl[e] their defense")
III. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, Appellant, respectfully, appeals to vacate all orders on the bases of Rules 144, 455 (financial conflicts of interest) and unconstitutional barred court access (including, but not limited to):
3/10 (Doc. 108) Order Denying Defendant’s Motions to Vacate
2/10 (Doc. 102) Judgment for Kern in the amount of $30, 574.72 plus interest from the date of the Complaint until paid at the judgment rate of interest.
a May 11 $500 contempt sanction (Doc. 67) and a February 10 final judgment against Defendant Moulton for $30, 574.72, plus interest (Doc. 102) on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction and that the currently presiding judge was disqualified from sitting in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 455 (b)(4) and 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a); furthermore, pursuant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55 and 60 - all orders are void and should be vacated. This appeal is based upon exhibits attached hereto, along with the pleading and documents contained in the Court’s record.
Dated: September 27 Respectfully submitted,
JANE DOE, a.k.a. SHERYL MOULTON
By: /s/Jane Doe, a.k.a. Sheryl Moulton
Jane Doe, a.k.a. Sheryl Moulton
In Pro Per
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY EMAIL
Pursuant to Rule 25 (d) FRAP, I, Jane Doe (a.k.a. Sheryl Moulton), hereby certify that on September 27 I served copies of the following document (s): APPELLANT’S INFORMAL BRIEF; EXHIBITS by way of electronic mail (e-mail) to the following parties or attorneys at the e-mail address as last given by that person on any document which he or she has filed in this action and served upon defendant: MICHAEL A. PINTAR, ESQ., ROBERT R. HOWEY, ESQ, Glogovac & Pintar, Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected].
September 27 /s/Jane Doe, a.k.a. Sheryl Moulton
Date Signature
0 comments