"corruptions in high places" SOME WISHED THAT I WERE ON THE OTHER SIDE", TOO LATE: January 2015

Sony Roy, CEO BAFU USA,

FOUNDER of CHATEAUX de Paris, LLC.

First CASTLE ITY DESIGNER AND DEVELOPER

On my way to LAW SCHOOL I think it's proper to address the authorities in these clear violations of law, in my view, that could serve frankly, as arguments for the outside NAYSAYERS and could be prejudicial against my Country the United States as one international Lawyer already put it before me nearly seven years ago and as exhibited by some Government employees contrary to the make up of the new OBAMA ADMINISTRATION and the promises that he made before and after He took over. In Verity, and for good cause, I am glad the President did something for women here a priori. After nearly ten years of sheer abuse and Bullying by a minor Government, I came away with a powerful adage from a boxer: the best boxer is not the one that can knock out every opponent. The best boxer is the one that can stand in a fight and take a FEW PUNCHES. Such was demonstrated by the great Muhamed Ali in his fight in Manilla Africa withy Joe Frazier.

AUTHORITATIVE CITATION: "The statistics affirm Obama’s boast. Sheldon Goldman, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and a scholar of judicial appointments, said, “The majority of Obama’s appointments are women and nonwhite males.” Forty-two per cent of his judgeships have gone to women. Twenty-two per cent of George W. Bush’s judges and twenty-nine per cent of Bill Clinton’s were women. Thirty-six per cent of President Obama’s judges have been minorities, compared with eighteen per cent for Bush and twenty-four per cent for Clinton. Obama said that the new makeup of the federal bench “speaks to the larger shifts in our society, where what’s always been this great American strength—this stew that we are—is part and parcel of every institution, both in the public sector as well as in the private sector' I am very elated for the consideration given to women by this administration. My blog will appear at the President Site at the White House, the blog will percolate among all the authorities of the US. as necessary, meaning Governors, Senators, the Congressmen, an the House of representatives, the blog will cross the scrutiny of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. before lodging at the UNITED NATIONS where some hard questions will be asked concerning the agreement of VIENNA ND GENEVA which appear to be broken here by the State of Florida. Such prompted me to seek Peace for finality which was not accepted by the Federal Judges to my great amazement, having more than 100,000 violations of which more than 75000 TORTS have been submitted including some white collar crimes without statutes of limitations that deserve time and severe Government abuses unlike any Court in the United States. The U.S. does not carry that kind of a garment and is not robbed in that light at all therefore, such triggers many questions to any reasonable victim of the process. Nevertheless, these two women were not appointed by the Obama's administration and did not pass the test of Judges that President Obama would nominate. We are still at the old school and a new vision glued to an old ideal will never work. Here are some of the bases for my respectful request for FINALITY:

a) The U.S. does not carry this abusive face toward its citizens, this is human rights violation and I am not willing to accept that a County can change such in the US. Such record of more than 100,000 TORTS have never been found in the whole world by my research and in my view.

b) NO PROBABLE CAUSE to come on my property on May 11, 2005 as was reviewed by the High Court on or about June 2013. Therefore the Walton County , an agent for the STATE of Florida, in my view, violated the probable cause clause of the United States Government early on during the proceeding. TO DO WHAT THEY DID AND HERE IS THE

AUTHORITATIVE CITATION: "In United States constitutional law, SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS (SDP) is

A doctrine holding that the 5th and 14th Amendments require all governmental intrusions into fundamental rights and liberties be fair and reasonable and in furtherance of a legitimate governmental interest. The U.S. Supreme Court during the middle of the 20th Century used substantive due process to give added force to the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by constraining certain actions by law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges. (Anyone who sides with the disqualified Judges will have the same fate in jail with them)

(ADDED) In my case no protection was given at all and that is unlike the Great United States of America and is a Crime in law for it was all intentional. (It should be noted that this case appeared before the 11th Circuit Court of appeal, the 11th Circuit Court and Even the United State Supreme Court was misled by the words of this self-proclaimed FUGITIVE . I am an ordained minister and despite my years of preaching the gospel of peace I was not motivated by any feeling of anger If I could wait for ten years would I not wait a little while longer to arrive at PEACE. Especially after I lost money more than Fifteen Millions dollars of appraised properties.) Whether the Fifth and/or Fourteenth Amendments were intended to serve this function continues to be a matter of scholarly as well as judicial discussion and dissent.^[3]

SDP is to be distinguished from procedural due process (PDP). The distinction arises from the phrase "due process of law".^[4] PDP aims to protect individuals from the coercive power of government by ensuring that adjudication processes under valid laws are fair and impartial (e.g., the right to sufficient notice, the right to an impartial arbiter, the right to give testimony and admit relevant evidence at hearings).^[4] In contrast, SDP aims to protect individuals against majoritarian policy enactments that exceed the limits of governmental authority—that is, courts may find that a majority's enactment is not law, and cannot be enforced as such, regardless of how fair the processes of enactment and enforcement actually are.^[4]

AUTHORITATIVE CITATION "The Fourth Amendment to the united States Constitution originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law. Therefore my short statement is as follows the Walton County and the State of Florida are guilty of Trespassing my property illegally on or about May 11, 2005. and must pay the consequences as such was an intentional threat.

Furthermore two other TORTs brought against the State Of Florida and the Walton Count not the federal Government. I repeat lest there be any misunderstanding, I have nothing against the Federal Government and the High Court with our impeccable Judicial System which happened to be the best in the world.

NO SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS which is Government abuses as practiced by the State of Florida

NO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
AUTHORITATIVE CITATION:

NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY an overview

"This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life. These distinct rights of privacy are examined separately on the following pages:"

b) NO WRITTEN NOTICE NOR MIRANDA WARNING GIVEN. my right to a written notice or a Miranda warnings on that day as they came on my property was abrogated. In an abusive and threatening way. They had no Notice at all on that day. So, such proves the intentional make up of such an odious and unprecedented case GIVEN TO ME AS THE PLAINTIFF, TO DO WHAT THE WALTON COUNTY and THE STATE OF FLORIDA DID HERE IS THE AUTHORITATIVE CITATION NO MIRANDA WARNING WAS EVER GIVEN TO ME.

AUTHORITATIVE CITATION" Miranda warnings have been part of the criminal justice landscape for over 40 years. During that time, the courts of this country have clarified that the prosecution will not be permitted to build its case on statements obtained without giving Miranda warnings, but such statements may be admissible to impeach the defendant’s testimony. That rule encouraged some law enforcement agencies to adopt a practice of interrogation outside Miranda, and even to train investigators in the practice. Courts have determined that interrogation "outside Miranda" or in violation of Miranda (In this case will result) can result in civil rights liability under 42 U.S. Code §1983. It has now been clarified that where statements taken in violation of Miranda are not used against the defendant, civil liability will be imposed in only the most egregious violations.

This is a gift for all my students worldwide. DEMAND THAT THE LAW BE POBSERVED NOT A TITLE NOT A FUNCTION DEMAND NOTHING BUT THE LAW.

c) NO WRITTEN COMPLAINT AS IT WAS THE NORM IN THE WALTON COUNTY. A written complaint was to be given to the plaintiff prior to execution not only, such created many torts, it also created another problem for the county, called SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS In the past the citizens were abused and could not talk about the abuse such brought us SLAVERY AND JIM CROW but now we demand the LAW and that is only fair and that has nothing to do with the Fedetral Government and the Austerity of the Judicial. For all students worldwide, let me clarify here that SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS is another term for Government abuse condemned by the UNITED NATIONS at the Vienna and Geneva Conventions AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. The SUPREME COURT ALSO DISDAINED SUBSTANTIAL DUE PROCESS ESPECIALLY THE WAY IT OCCURRED there was no finess about it, it was the claws of Government coming down and as the property owner I Had nothing to say. Where did all these come from? From the Mouth of A FUGITIVE from the State of Mississippi fleeing from the IRS.

d) There started the plethora of SUBSTANTIVE DIUE PROCESS which were so inhuman or against human rights as they are considered GOVERNMENT ABUSE And for thjis I am not referring to the Federal Government but a minor Government as an agent in the Sunshine State of Florida. The United Nations will view such as sheer violations of Human rights based on the resolutions the U.S. agreed to abide by both at the conventions of Vienna and Geneva.

GIVEN TO ME AS THE PLAINTIFF TO DO WHAT THEY DID AND HERE IS THE AUTHORITATICVE CITATION for all my students worldwide. That is why the CITATION at the late Republican President Ronald Reagan’s First Inaugural address was a propos: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” The current President the Honorable and Historic Barrak Obama

e) SUCH CREATED A ONE-COUNT OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT FOR THE PREVIOUS was treated differently or what I came to read as a violation of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAWS. It is marvelous to write the law and to speak the law instead of the black rage sometimes black folks get angry angry without the proper knowledge and our counter part look down at us. We need to equip ourselves with thye knowledge of the law. the PREVIOUS OWNER RECEIVED NOTICE IN THE MAIL AFTER an APPROVED INSPECTION WAS DONE AND PROPER TIME WAS GIVEN TO HIM TO FIX THE DELAPIDATED TENNIS COURT AND HE NEVER DID AND I ENDED UP FIXING THE TENNIS COURT BEFORE I BEGIN CONSTRUCTION AFTER BUYING THE PROPERTY WHICH I DID NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND WHY I S+HOUL BE THE FIXER OF THAT PROBLEM. They had no reason to takeover my property creating an unnecessary TAKINGS and burdening further the tax payers that are paying defraying the cost of such in court did ypou know that the very money they are paying you is blood money taken from the coffers of the Federal Government after I just sent so far more than 75,000 violations they committed against me a black man in America? Know the facts. fo such, in an eminent domain style if you can catch my drift. THEY DID AND HERE IS THE AUTHORITATICVE CITATION for all my students worldwide.

TORT: NO IMPARTIAL ARBITER: The law gives me the right to have an impartial arbiter which was not done and is overtly real. with my complaints already submitted to the High Court.

TORT: NO RIGHT TO GIVE MY PERSONAL TESTIMONY: I have been obstructed and hindered lest my testimony appears in different courts and such has never happened on U.S. soil before by any Courts or Judges in good and regular standing as I know them. the right to give testimony and admit relevant evidence at hearing was completely disbarred and IO do not know why. Therefore after ten years of personal Probe and a loss of nearly 15 million dollars of appraised (properties including my main domicile in the State of georgia, and my second home on the Gulf of Mexico in Florida,) it has become evident that the processes as laid by the United States have become to be weak and of no effect for the Federal Judges in Northern Florida who have defied each and everyone of them apparently with impunity so far. For this reason I am forced to go outside to find the proper rescue for my life after being hospitalized about eleven times in ten years from My High Blood Pressure which rose at one point to 209/119 or a near death experience. I am willing with my court witness to appear on national Television and state such for it is ominous in the U.s and apparently the president doe not seem to know. This is clear OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Dear Associate Justice SOTOMAYOR,

I hope my communication finds you enjoying the best of health. I do not mean to pester you but the choice word you used in 2013 to describe the Federal prosecutor’s comments, being “PERNICIOUS” ,has attracted the attention of many around the globe as it was fitting to set the record straight while maintaining the austerity of the court and its veneer. this is a simple follow up on my correspondence to you nearly two years ago and to infiorm you that two Judges in Northern Florida have refused apparently for no legal reasons, to comply with the laws of congress and the constitution of the UNITED States and The UNITED NATIONS according to my AUTHORITATIVE CITATION and the 42 USC 1983 and I am left confused as a tax-paying citizen and an Ordained Minister on my way to LAW SCHOOL. Here is why

Subsequent to 11 hospitalizations in about 10 years of probe which nearly took my life as my attending physician (a Court witness) has warned the defendants I ould possibly suffer from a CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE, I have found some record breaking mistreatments and Government abuses in the form of (SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESSES AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESSES exclusively) that could force youbto use a more forceful word tha in the State of Florida it appears.

the Plethora of Deprivations and Defamation TORTS is beyond the wildest fathoming and may even exceed two hundred thousand if all i found are found based on the Law.

Then, the refusal to comply to the 1991 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF CONGRESS and to grand me the proper Jury Trial as stated by LAW

and the cllear

CATALOG OF CALAMITIES BEFALLING THE WALTON COUNTY IMPERCEPTIBLY. “It is a fearful thing to fall in the hands of the living God.” “Righteousness exalts a nation”

Part I)   I charged all the defendants with discrimination for accepting the opinion of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal and the 11th Circuit Court of appeal stated in or around march 2011 that there was no discrimination at all after two Federal Judges stated non-marginally : The Roys own properties in an area that Historically has been RACUIALLY SEGREGATE. Is there confusion between the Court and the Federal Judges I do not know. Yet, the Judges published it on line in defiance to the United Nation resolutions against promotion and promulgation of racial cases.

Dear President Obama here it is: I will not add anything to it and say nothing except that I was tortured on American Soil and that is the truth.

AUTHORITATIVE CITATION:

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Furthermore, the chairman of the Board of Commissioners was so corrupt and had already a lodged e-mail containing the following words “HELP A NIGGA OUT” These are the words of the black Super Star Tuppak Shakkur addressing the needs of his community, what does a white commissioner have to do with that? Can the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal go against God who makes all things happen? to the dismay of many, he pleaded guilty in court of law and he stepped down from his position that year. This is a curse on the State for the Walton County is an agent of the State of Florida and this has nothing to do with our our Federal Government or our Judicial system in my view. God is a God of Justice and does not tolerate any man to go free and live unjustly while hurting His children.

Part II) I CHARGE THE BOARD WITH VIOLATION OF MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SPEAK UP. The first attorney for the Board of Adjustment Mr. Remy, who in defiance to the Robert’s Rule Of Order I have been following for nearly 30 years before, as the chairman of the Board of ACCUTECH INDUSTRIES AND NEARLY FIFTY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, called me to sit down after the Chairman called me to speak up on or around September 22, 2005 at the Annex building of the Walton County. Where is He Now? He changed address regretfully. He is six feet under. Do not mistreat God\’s children inadvisedly.   And Some called me DUMB BLACK HAITIAN

Part III) The Walton County

Part 1) This question goes to unbiased Judges and to the Judge whom, upon a CHANGE OF VENUE if any or a grand Jury Trial if any, will review this case. I Sony Roy, do not intend to waste anymore of the Tax Paying and hardworking Citizens Moneys of the United States of whom I am one, chasing biased Judges and that is not proper and such destroys the veneer of the court and its transparency and invite NAY SAYERS LIKE THOSE OF ISIS TO DISPARAGE OUR BEAUTIFUL NATION.

Part II) If all citations were not spelled out on my last motion , it may be because

a: there was not enough space on a 25 page limitation of a motion

b) I am in Propria Persona and not an attorney

c) or the CITATION is an old Deja Vue and it would be redondant to repeat it in my view. However, it would not be in defiance to any COURT ORDER based on the law not capricious

Part III) Nevertheless ON MY WAY TO LAW SCHOOL AND BASED ON MY BLOWING THE WHISTLES FOR THE MINISCULE WORK of PROBNG THE STATE OF FLORIDA I DID IN TEN YERAS TO BRING FORTH A MAJOR CORRUPTION RING of this magnitude IN THE SUNSHINE STATE, (Violations turn to be corruptions due to quantity and level of conspiracy now I turrn to Moses Montesh Senior Lecturer, College of Law, School of Criminal Justice Department (Police Practice)

It seems to me that the Law is giving you free reigns to hurt the citizens of the United States. No sense to pretend that I am aganst the court by stating an unreasonable Law that cannot be found in any book of law that I researched . FRAUDS UPON THE COURT ARE CRIMES. FRAUDS UPON THE COURT HAVE NO STATUTES OF LIMITATION. FRAUDS UPON THE COURT CAN BE CALLED BACK EVEN AFTER SIXTY YEARS. A MAN CALLED HIS PAST FRAUDS UPON THE OURT SIXTY YEARS LATER AND WON.

AUTHORITATIVE CITATION: What Is ?Fraud on the Court??

Fraud on the Court, or Fraud upon the Court, is where a material misrepresentation has been made to the court, or by the court itself. The main requirement is that the impartiality of the court has been so disrupted that it can’t perform its tasks without bias or prejudice.       It’s important to note that fraud on the court only involves court officials or officers of the court, such as judges or court-appointed attorneys. The fraud must be directed at the “judicial machinery” itself. Fraud on the court generally does NOT me

Fraud between the two opposing parties = extrinsic frauds

Submission of fraudulent documents: =can be corrected

Perjury or false statements by witnesses =can be corrected or confessed

What Happens to the Trial If Fraud on the Court Occurs?

Fraud on the court is one of the most serious violations that can occur in a court of law. If fraud on the court occurs, The effect is that the entire case is voided or cancelled. Any ruling or judgment that the court has issued will be void. The case will usually need to be retried with different court officials, often in an entirely different venue. (CHANGE OF VENUE)

PART II A) For the official who acted in fraud upon the court, they may very well be required to step down from their position and may even be subjected to criminal consequences like a fine or a jail sentence. It could also result in other serious consequences, such as an attorney being disbarred, or a judge being removed from service. I CALLED ON TEN FRAUDS UPON THE COURT SINCE 2011 beside and all inclusive of RULE 60B =FRAUDS #10

PART III) If a court official is found to be biased or prejudiced even before fraud occurs, they are required to excuse themselves from the case, and a different official must be appointed. In some jurisidictions, a trial tainted by fraud on the court will be vacated or set aside for a certain time period (such as two years), to be “reopened” at a later date.

Some of the Criminal Consequences: beside the above-mentioned consequences, there are more severe and additional consequences that may warrant a judge or lawyer to dust off the old passport and take off as fast as the wind for the High Court will not tolerate such. We can play games to delay and the High Court may be obeserving us from afar. now we have to deliver the truth and the man that has the trirh will tell it all now.

Treason against the United States

violation of Interstate Commerce Rights

THIS CASE WAS TRIGGERED BY THE WORDS OF A FUGITIVE RUNNING FROM THE IRS AND COMING FROM THE GREAT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. HE IS ON THE LOOSE AND the STATE KNOWS WHERE HE LIVES AND WHAT HE HAS DONE. HE IS CURRENTLY HARBORED BY THE SUNSHINE STATE OF FLORIDA. I CHARGE THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR HARBORING A FUGITIVE. IS A CRIME THAT WILL TRIGGER ALL THE CRIMES COMMITTED HERE. ALTHOUGH I DECRIED THAT FACT NOTHING TO MY KNOWLEDGE HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT THAT FUGITIVE. FLORIDA IS GUILTY AS SIN.

Unbeknownst to many lawyers, at least twelve jurisdictions —

including New York and California — have statutes on the books that single out lawyers who engage in deceit or collusion. In nearly all of these jurisdictions, a lawyer found to have engaged in deceit or collusion faces criminal penalties and/or civil liability in the form of treble damages.

Until recently, these attorney deceit statutes have languished in obscurity and, through a series of restrictive readings of the statutory language, have been rendered somewhat irrelevant. However, in 2009, the New York Court of Appeals breathed new life into New York’s attorney deceit statute through its decision in Amalfitano v. Rosenberg. This Article discusses the extent to which, in this age of widespread distrust of the legal profession, this type of external regulation of the legal profession is a desirable approach. The Article concludes that although the utility of existing attorney deceit statues is undermined by the broadness of the language, the symbolism of the statutes is important. By relying on the development of tort law to address the same subject matter, courts can achieve the same educational and symbolic goals while dealing with attorney deceit on a more practical basis.

my position vis a vis the federal Government has always been and remain the same regardless of what party I belong to. I AM PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN. I am so glad the law of the United States declares emphatically I now cite “the Judge is not the court” if the law does not exist or should not be maintained as you appear to support, as you state then more and more confusion are hrown at the people and the citizen does not know what to follow: Stating in writing that I must and I must file a new case suggests the following

1. I must forego my constitutional rights

2. I must accept involuntary waivers of my Constitutional Rights

3. I must accept to relinquish my rights to find and assert FRAUDS UPON THE COURT

4. I must accept to relinquish my rights to find and assert INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

5. I must forgo MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

6. I must forgo DISCRIMINATION found, alleged and assertred against what the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal sdaid in affu-irming your court

7. I must forego my Fundamental rights as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment.

8. I must accept the State of Florida in sheer conflict and violation of TITLE SIX OF THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

9.   I must accept what the office of the Governor asserted for the Governor that he delgated important authorities to the various counties in Florida

To me, Florida is the recipient of sheer massive corruption and I decry such as the President made promises of better Judges to show compassion to the minority groups he cited. namely, older people, African American, Gays, and theose are are the LEAST OF THESE.   The amount of defendants and the TORTS found indicate Corerruption by the logical conclusion of any reasonale man. What makes a man reasonable is not the fact that he agrees with authorities but thye fact tht he aligns himsel, herself with the law.

University of South Africa for an AUTHORITATIVE CITATION

Corruption is essentially the use of public power for private gain. The first obvious site for such corruption is the public sector. The state's monopoly on control of public resources and its preferential access to certain sources of information require strict rules and procedures to ensure fair practice. In the absence of such rules, and even at times when these do exist, the government is open to a number of types of corruption.

1 Forms of corruption

1.1 Bribery

Bribery is arguably the most common form of corruption. It entails beneficiaries using extralegal means of payment to acquire government favours and resource allocations.

This can involve contracts, tax exemptions, timeframes and technical standards for complying with procurement rules and licences, public information being monopolised, or getting the government to turn a blind eye to illegal activities.

1.2 Theft and fraud (Of which I have Ten asserted Frauds Upon The Court)

Some officials steal state assets under their jurisdiction or made accessible to them as a function of their positions in government. Acquiring publicly owned assets through illegal transactions and fraud constitutes the most extensive form of such corruption.

1.3 Institutional corruption

Both the political and bureaucratic components of government could become sources and targets of corruption. A common occurrence of such political and bureaucratic corruption is where conflicts of interest are not managed, so that potential beneficiaries of projects or resource allocations are directly able to control or influence decisions about those projects or allocations.

2.1 Grand corruption

This type of corruption is defined as corruption that involves heads of state, ministers, or other senior government officials and serves the interests of a narrow group of business people and politicians as criminal elements.

2.2 Political corruption

Political corruption involves lawmakers, such as monarchs, dictators, and legislators. Such officials engage in corruption when they seek bribes or other rewards for their own political or personal benefit in return for political favours to their supporters at the expense of the public interest.

2.3 Corporate corruption

This occurs in relationships between private business corporations and the suppliers or clients. It also occurs within corporations, when corporate officials use the corporation resources for private gain, at the expense of the shareholders.

2.4 Administrative corruption

Administrative corruption includes the use of bribery and favouritism to allow certain individual businesses to lower their taxes, escape regulations, or win low-level procurement contracts.

2.5 Petty corruption

This type of corruption involves the payment of comparatively small amounts of money to facilitate official transactions, such as customs clearance or the issuing of building permits.

2.6 Systemic corruption

This type of corruption is that type of corruption that is prevalent throughout all levels of society.

3 Causes of corruption

The causes of corruption are varied and would have to be understood in specific contexts. Corruption is closely, but not solely linked to officials' discretion over rents and the degree of accountability in executing such discretion.

3.1 Ambiguous laws and regulations

A lack of clear rules governing the public sector and its procedures creates loopholes for persons or firms to receive a government benefit to which they might not be entitled. In South Africa the Corruption Act 140 of 1992 and the Prevention of corruption and Related Practices Act 12 of 2004 are vaguely formulated and this give people the leeway to avoid prosecution.

3.2 Poor enforcement of property rights and the rule of law

Weak enforcement of law and order in relation to property businesses encourage corruption. Corruption is also more likely to take place when bureaucratic red tape is excessive.

3.3 The overall culture of governance also plays an important role in corruption

If political leaders and top bureaucrats set an example of self-enrichment or ambiguity over public ethics, lower level officials and members of the public might follow suit. Hence, bribery and corruption may become the norm, even in the face of formal rules intended to support clean governance. Because of government's major role in most developing economies, opportunities for corruption are often more numerous.

4 Consequences of corruption

Corruption undermines economic development

Corruption undermines political stability and government legitimacy

Corruption undermines the fabric itself

Corruption jeopardizes the allocation of resources to sectors crucial for development

Corruption encourages and perpetuates other illegal opportunities

contact with the court in defiance to the prescibed manner of resolving issues I want to say on the onset that I never intended to sue my Country the United States for any human rights violations of which United States, I am a Proud citizen and patriot, despite all the allegations disseminated and the thousands of picture taken of me unjustly both on the Metro and on Train and airports, on the streets and in the air everywhere I went, and the clear promise to kill me by actors posing in an airport in front of me while calling on CREMATION COMPANIES to dispose of my body, and one actor even pointed a gun at my temple on Addison Rd in the State of Maryland as recorded by the police department which I contacted by the next breaking of day, and while I was unrecognized by such, and upon the misuse of the inherent powers of the court by authorities who sought to dodge the impact of their fall, unjustly to defame me.   I, once more state here that It was never my intent to sue the Judicial system which I call the “best in the world” despite all or any human imperfections, in all my messages whether written or verbal. It is not my intent today to sue my Government neither the Judicial branch. I recognize one more time here, that my current President Barack Obama has been God’s choice for the Hour and even if he makes a mistake like King David did in the Bible, He is still the appointed man to do the work God has conferred to him.   Never did I, to my recollection fathom the plan to assail my Federal Government in a Court of law or the Judicial for any evil acts against me or to appear before the United Nations and claim that my human rights were violated on U.S. soil due to the execution of any plan or stratagem by the Federal Government, the United States President except as all papers will reveal, when it came to the Walton County, the State of Florida and the Northern district of Florida Judges (Not the Judges described by President Obama before David Beito at all)    that were biased in my view and all the other defendants that supported the State of Florida being “Historically Racially Segregated.” The WALTON COUNTY being a duly representative of the State of Florida and its agent, whatever applies to the County applies to the State as well. I never intended to and I do not intend to sue the United States Government and tofuter upset the taxpayers who are paying for sothing they have no idea how to undo. I never intended to sue the victimized Federal Government which had seen over one trillion dollars gone from its coffers to the State of Florida during the past ten years and which State is “Historically Racially Segregated” according to two Federal Judges in my case as diseminated online here https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2409462/roy-v-board-of-county-comrs/ in defiance to the prescribed DOJ’s 1964 Civil Rights Act Title Six on the DOJ’s Website published online here: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/titlevi.php.

and which Governor’s office stated that the Governor delegated such authorities to the County, meaning the authorities to make decision for the State. By way of introduction and the law we are discussing here: I was the first black man who sent a video to the former Chief Judge who misused his office and incrminated the current President of the United States in his racial joke which went like this to my recollection” the little boy asked his mother Mom, How come I am black and you are white, and the mom replied Barack, the way that night went I am surprised you aren not barking”

AUTHORTATIVE CITATION:    Under our U.S. Constitution:

           a. Congress, directly responsible to the people, makes the laws and the President insures the laws are faithfully executed

                b. The President may not lawfully make new law or modify laws passed by Congress, with signing statements and executive orders

Do not expect the President to side with you as criminals law-breakers. These acts committed were done intentionally and while you were competent responsible and adequate judges in my view. and in the view of reasonable people should they be called to witness in a Grand Jury Trial.

WHY THE JUDGEMENT ENTERED ON MARCH 31 2009 SHOULD BE SET ASIDE and VACATED

PER COURT REQUEST. “THE JUDGE IS NOT THE COURT” I AM SUBMITTING THAT THERE IS OVERSIGHT CONFESSED BY THE FEDERAL JUDGES which is bound to reset the judgement entered unadvisedly against rule 60B on March 31, 2009 and affirmed by the Appeal Judges on or about March 2011

AUTHORITATI+VE CITATION: (a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave. Such was never done so the Appeal Judges were misled completely and were in grave error against the United States, by LAW. The Court’s REQUEST STANDS.

AUTHORITATIVE CITATION: Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

I have newly discovered evidence to melt this case away. The TIP GIVER IS A FORMER SELF-PROCLAIMED FUGITIVE FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI AGAINST THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES AND WAS A DISGRUNTLED INFORMANT AGAINST THE IRS AND THE WALTON COUNTY for stopping his construction across the street for violations of codes. The Walton County being an integral part of the State of florida ANOTHER FEDERAL AGENCY THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT WAS BASED ON FALSE ASSUMPTIONS and is bound to be set aside and nullified.

AUTHORITATIVE CITATION: fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;I HAVE TEN FRAUDS UPON THE COURT AND RULE 60B was FRAUD #10 therefore all frauds are without limitation so is RIULE 60B, an integral art of the FRAUD #10

(4) the judgment is void; (Therefore, by default, the judgement entered unadvisedly on March 31 2009 is VOID)

Sony Roy a member of the PROTECTED CLASS, A NATIVE OF HAITI (see court records) a non-attorney, a U.S. Citizen (see court records) respectfully submit this motion in Forma Pauperis (previously submitted) to request respectfully that this court SET ASIDE A PRIOR FINAL JUDGMENT entered unadvisedly with offer of proof, on March 31, 2009 while evoquing with much AUTHORITY RULE 60B: A RULE SUITABLE FOR A SUA SPONTE  MOTION to reopen my case # 03-06cv95- ECM.  May it please the court, without exhausting the resources from Millions of TAX PAYERS, that I cite authoritatively in support of my non-attorney status the propria persona clause which reads thus: The Supreme Court noted that "[i]n the federal courts, the right of self-representation has been protected by statute since the beginnings of our Nation. Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92, enacted by the First Congress and signed by President Washington one day before the Sixth Amendment was proposed, provided that 'in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of counsel.'"[5]

Dear Judges:

The State of Florida is under a serious flaw for abusing my constitutional rights and regardless of what you concoct the plagues will continue. IT IS A PLAGUE AND IT IS TIMELY SAYS THE GOD OF HEAVEN.

The first attorney who stopped me from talking at the BOA meeting Attorney Remy has changed address and is six feet under now according to my former lawyer.

I now understand that "Judges are not the courts" and throughout this proceeding starting since 2006 and extending to current, I wish to rectify any statements made referring to the courts being responsible for my demise or detriment or my suffering to reflect only and in their entirety the individuals in question but, not the courts of the United States. I further stated several times and accurately that Judges are people too and as such they are as faillible as other professionals. They can be misled by the deceptive tactics of others and they may fail to execute their inherent powers when it is needed due to misinformation others feed them with.   People can tell them untrue statements, some may even try to deceive them into siding with their cause except that these Judges are held to a higher standard and austerity by the public and the judicial canons and authorities for good cause. I realized that the Judges were misled and deceived by other government employees that misused their office and position to violate MY SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, MY VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS according to the 1995 Property Rights act of Florida, and even the legislative act of 1964 Title six which requests that a State must be free of Racial segregation if it is Federally Funded, and my fundamental rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution were taken in the process to my demise..  Should the court expedite this attempt at a remedy and final mandatory relief Upon completion of this remedial process I propose to spend three months in cleaning as much as possible all records whether in cyberspace or manual reflecting deficiencies of the Judges that are within my powers and guardianships.

IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL RULES (LR- CITATION):

Adopting Local Rules. Each district court acting by a majority of its district judges may, after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity to comment, make and amend rules governing its practice. A local rule must be consistent with—but not duplicative of—federal statutes and rules adopted under 28 U.S.C. §2072 and must conform to any uniform numbering system prescribed by the Judicial Conference of the United States. (2) Limiting Enforcement. A local rule imposing a requirement of form must not be enforced in a manner that causes a party to lose rights because of an unintentional failure to comply with the requirement.  I lost many fundamental rights that I wish to reclaim based on the LOCAL RULES that is why I wish the reopening of the case.

AUTHORITATIVE CITATION AGAINST RACIAL AND NATIONAL SEGREGATION   

Title 42 USC 1983 provides in relevant part that: "every person who,  under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage,  of any State....subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of  the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to  the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by  the Constitution. ..shall be liable to the party injured...." A Title  42 1985 action which seeks compensatory and punitive damages in  conjunction with equitable relief (or 3nearly 30,000 hours of personal probe and investigation) as in this case is considered a  legal claim, entititling Plaintiff to a jury trial (never done in this case) . See An-Ti v.  Michigan Technological Univ., 493 F. Supp. 1137.   Plaintiff Sony Roy  alleges a "class based", invidiously discriminatory animus is behind  the defendants' action as the Court records reflect. That the  actions were clearly a product of bias and prejudice of the Judges. See  Griffen v. Breckridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971)

reasons for which such relief may be granted:

AUTHORITATIVE CITATION OF RULE 60 At all times during these proceedings, I Sony Roy owned those properties till foreclosure on or about 2008 which marked the "permanent taking" in which time all hopes of recovery of my property were lost.

AUTHORITATIVER POWERS OF RULE 60B: Finality in litigation has particular importance in our system of justice.1) It “secure[s] the peace and repose of society” by settling disputes between parties. 2)  Once a court renders a judgment, it is final and binding on all parties. In fact, the  doctrine of preclusion prohibits the parties and their privies from raising, in future  suits, (Why asking for a new trial) issues actually litigated as well as issues that were not litigated but have a  close relationship with the original claim. RULE 6-0B: 4 However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  allow cases to be re-opened in particular circumstances. Specifically, Federal Rule of  Civil Procedure 60(b) (Rule60(b) offers a party relief from a judgment on motion when it is  “inequitable to permit a judgment to stand.” as in this case. 5 The rule applies only to final judgments, as in this case 6) Thus, Rule 60(b) strikes at the heart of the concern for resolving disputes between parties.  Because of the importance of final judgments, a court should only grant 60(b) relief  in exceptional circumstances. The Court's AUTHORITY TO REOPEN THIS CASE based on Rule 60B, a powerful tool which can set aside prior Judgement.  against ill-advised actions that closed this case on March 31, 2009 when relief was denied then.  Plaintiff Sony Roy appealed, and the decision of the district court was affirmed by the  Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, despite their finding which laid the axe at the root of tree totally different from the District Court and labeled the Walton County’s actions "UNFORTUNATE CONFUSION" whatever it stands for. As if to say when the Walton County is confused or makes mistakes the Citizens must pay" such was said in writing on or about December 22, 2010 while Mr. Scott Brannon had lodged in his email the written racial slur (HELP A NIGGA OUT) for which he pleaded guilty in court and resigned his post as the chairman of the Board of Commissioners and as Commissioner. I, Plaintiff Sony Roy, who has maintained my case in court carefully has  now filed a “Motion to Re-Open the Case” and to set aside the judgment due to its unfairness and clear bias. As legal authority for his motion, I cite FRCP Rule 60(b) I recognize the properly asserted legal basis for this motion, is  FRCP Rule 60(b) which provides that the court may relieve a party from a final judgment as set forth here:  Case 5:06-cv-03172-SAC Document Filed 06/10/08 Page 1 of 12 exactly as this case has become. Therefore, Plaintiff Sony Roy wishes to request kindly of the court the application of Rules 60B., as requested prior to and on October 2011 seeing Plaintiff Sony Roy, although not an attorney,3) THE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAWS

ANOTHER REASON TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT EVEN AFTER SIXTY YEARS as the following case will reflect:   case (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an adverse party; as the Walton County has committed and agreed to in the conspiracy

(4) circumstances under which a judgment is void;

(5) circumstances under which a judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or

(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. F.R.C.P. Rule 60(b)(1)-(b)(6). To be entitled to relief, the moving party must establish facts within one of the reasons enumerated in Rule 60(b). This motion was filed in May, 2008, over a year after the final judgment on January 26, 2007. With respect to the time in which such a motion may be brought, Rule 60(b) provides it “shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment . . . was entered . . . .” See United States v. Buck, 281 F.3d 1336, 1344 (10th Cir. 2002), citing Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, 1310 (10th Cir. 1994). It follows that motions to reopen premised upon mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect [Rule 60(b)(1)]; newly discovered evidence [Rule 60(b)(2)]; or fraud [Rule 60(b)(3)] must be brought within one year after the judgment was entered. F.R.C.P. Rule 60(b). This time limit is jurisdictional and cannot be extended. See Wesco Products Co. v. Alloy Automotive Co., 880 F.2d 981, 985 (7th Cir. 1989); Brandon v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 143 F.3d 293, 295- 96 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 948 (1998)

Law Review

Northwestern Law

Northwestern University Law Review : Colloquy : 2011 : Rethinking Extraordinary Circumstances

Rethinking Extraordinary Circumstances

Scott Dodson [*]

[download pdf]

Introduction

Normally, the entry of an unappealed final judgment ends the case forever, even if later developments undermine faith in the accuracy of the decision or the fairness of its procedural grounds. Litigation must have an end, and a final judgment usually marks that point.

Rule 60(b), however, has long been available to provide relief from judgment to losing litigants where justice so demands. The rule states that a court may relieve a party from final judgment "[o]n motion and just terms" under five enumerated grounds (including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, voidness, and judgment satisfaction) and one catchall provision.[1] The catchall, Rule 60(b)(6), provides that a court can relieve a party from judgment for "any other reason that justifies relief."[2]

Because a judgment constitutes a final decision, Rule 60 creates some tension between justice and finality. To address this tension, the Supreme Court has imposed the nontextual requirement that a movant present "extraordinary circumstances" justifying relief.[3] Further, in Ackermann v. United States, the Court held that a movant was not entitled to relief if his own litigation choices caused his predicament.[4] In Ackermann, the plaintiff's calculated financial decision not to appeal his denaturalization turned out to be a poor litigation choice after his co-plaintiff was able to overturn a similar denaturalization on appeal. The Court reasoned that Ackermann's own deliberate choice to end his litigation prevented him from invoking Rule 60(b)(6) to reopen his case after learning the favorable result of his co-plaintiff's appeal.[5]

Since then, the federal courts have done little to explain or expound upon the Ackermann rule. However, in July 2011, the Fourth Circuit sitting en banc decided Aikens v. Ingram and attempted to elaborate on the Ackermann rule.[6] The court held that, under Ackermann, a district court could deny Rule 60(b)(6) relief to a plaintiff faced with a limitations defense to a new filing if the plaintiff could have protected his claim by appealing the judgment, seeking a stay, or filing a new action.[7]

Aikens is an important but misguided pronouncement from a full circuit court on the extraordinary circumstances doctrine and the role and scope of the Ackermann rule. It applies the Ackermann rule too broadly, causing the exception to almost entirely swallow the rule. As a result, Aikens relegates Rule 60(b)(6) to the dustbins of legal practice.

Rule 60(b)(6) is an oft-used provision invoked by litigants who otherwise would be saddled with an unjust judgment.[8] Yet despite the importance of the topic, the literature on Rule 60(b)(6) is some of the sparsest in all of civil procedure. Neither Aikens II nor any other court or commentator has systematically theorized the Ackermann rule and its role in the extraordinary circumstances doctrine. This Essay takes an initial step toward rethinking extraordinary circumstances and the role of the Ackermann rule. Specifically, I argue thatAckermann should apply only when the movant deliberately chooses to discontinue the case. It should not apply to movants who continue to pursue their claims with diligence. This interpretation of the Ackermann rule more sensitively balances the competing interests of equity and finality.

Applying these guiding principles to Aikens suggests that the Fourth Circuit overstated the role and scope of the Ackermann exception. In so doing, Aikens missed a golden chance to provide doctrinal guidance and theoretical coherence to this understudied but widely used mechanism of civil practice.

I. Rule 6(b)(6)

Before the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938, federal courts used a haphazard assortment of common law remedial devices to balance the need to correct unjust judgments with the need for finality in litigation.[9] The original Rule 60(b) largely replaced this patchwork with specific procedures and limits for granting relief from judgment. But, some courts nevertheless invoked "inherent powers" to issue relief on terms that contravened those procedures and limits.[10] The 1948 Amendments altered some of the requirements and added Rule 60(b)(6), a catchall provision that recognized that the need for justice might outweigh the need for finality in unanticipated circumstances.[11] Rule 60(b), set forth below, has remained substantively unchanged since:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.[12]

All of the Rule 60(b) justifications erode the finality of judgments, which "secure[s] the peace and repose of society."[13] Accordingly, Rule 60(b)(1)–(5) specify particular justifications for overriding the interests of finality.[14] Rule 60(b)(6), however, presents a unique risk because its open-endedness invites judges to subordinate the interests of finality even when those interests might be especially strong. Textually, Rule 60(b)(6) appears to have no constraint other than whether a reason "justifies relief." Accordingly, courts often cast it broadly, construing it as "a grand reservoir of equitable power to do justice in a particular case."[15] To guard against the overuse of Rule 60(b)(6), the Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 60(b)(6) to require a showing of "extraordinary circumstances" justifying relief.[16]

In Ackermann v. United States, the Court held that, under this extraordinary circumstances doctrine, the movant's individual litigation choices could preclude Rule 60(b)(6) relief.

In Ackermann, Hans Ackermann and his business partner, Max Keilbar, were denaturalized on grounds of fraud. The denaturalizations were entered as separate judgments. Ackermann did not appeal during the allowable time period, primarily because he believed he could not bear the high cost of appealing the judgment. Keilbar, however, appealed and won a reversal of his denaturalization order. Upon receiving the news of Keilbar's reversal, Ackermann believed that his denaturalization similarly should be reversed. Because the time to appeal had lapsed, he sought to reopen his denaturalization judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).[17]

The Supreme Court held that Ackermann was not entitled to Rule 60(b)(6) relief, even if his denaturalization judgment was erroneous, because he

made a considered choice not to appeal . . . . His choice was a risk, but calculated and deliberate and such as follows a free choice. Petitioner cannot be relieved of such a choice because hindsight seems to indicate to him that his decision not to appeal was probably wrong[,] considering the outcome of the Keilbar case. There must be an end to litigation someday, and free, calculated, deliberate choices are not to be relieved from.[18]

The Ackermann rule attempts to provide the one concrete guidepost for determining whether a case presents extraordinary circumstances justifying Rule 60(b)(6) relief. Yet it too is unclear. Does the rule apply to all free, calculated, and deliberate litigation choices? The recent decision in Aikens v. Ingram exposes the difficulty of this question.

II. A Case Study: Aikens v. Ingram

In Aikens, Colonel Frederick Aikens, an active officer in the North Carolina National Guard until 2005, sued his former superior officer, William Ingram, and his former subordinate, Peter von Jess, under § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment for "wrongfully intercepting, reading, and forwarding his emails while he was deployed in Kuwait" during the Iraq War.[19]

The district court dismissed Aikens's complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust intraservice remedies with the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), a federal agency division charged with hearing grievances regarding federal military records.[20] The district court's order stated that if the ABCMR did not have jurisdiction, it would take no action and the "plaintiff may return to federal court."[21]

Aikens then attempted to comply with the district court order by seeking relief from the ABCMR. However, because the ABCMR could only order federal military records relief and not the state records relief and monetary damages that Aikens sought, the ABCMR held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Aikens's request.[22]

By this time, the three-year limitations period on Aikens's § 1983 claims had lapsed (assuming no tolling had occurred during the pendency of the ABCMR's review). Accordingly, and now having exhausted his intraservice remedies, Aikens filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to reopen his original case. The district court denied Aikens's motion, holding that any limitations problem was Aikens's own fault for two reasons: (1) Aikens waited two years and five months into the limitations period to file his original complaint and (2) Aikens failed to exhaust his intraservice remedies with the ABCMR before filing suit.[23] Aikens appealed.

The Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the district court in a 7–5 decision that generated four separate opinions. The Fourth Circuit wisely ignored the district court's reasons for the denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief. Potential plaintiffs may use much of the limitations period for a number of reasons, including to seek informal remediation, to use formal but nonjudicial grievance procedures, to consider the costs and benefits of litigation, to find and hire an attorney, to investigate facts and legal theories, to consider legal strategies, and to draft a complaint. That Aikens used up a significant amount of his limitations period is unsurprising because such use is, in part, what the limitations period is designed to encourage. It would be preposterous to fault Aikens for proceeding carefully and thoughtfully through these stages before filing a timely complaint. It would be equally preposterous to fault Aikens for failing to attempt to exhaust his intraservice remedies when the ABCMR conclusively determined that any attempt would have been futile.

Instead of deferring to the district court's reasons, the Fourth Circuit relied upon its own reasons. The court held that Aikens should have appealed the district court's dismissal order, sought a stay of the dismissal order pending exhaustion, or filed a new action before the limitations period expired. Because Aikens declined to pursue these options, the majority reasoned that the limitations predicament he now faced was his own fault, and therefore, the district court's denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief was not an abuse of discretion.[24]

Although an appellate court can affirm on grounds other than those relied upon by the district court, the abuse-of-discretion standard then does not apply to the district court's decision. Rather, an appellate court can affirm on alternate grounds only if, after an independent de novo review, it determines that the judgment was, in fact, correct.[25]

Thus, the Fourth Circuit, despite its language purporting to defer to the discretion of the district court and the concurring opinion's lengthy defense of the abuse-of-discretion standard, affirmed for its own reasons and its own independent belief in their merit.[26] In the process, the Fourth Circuit created new law on the extraordinary circumstances doctrine by extending the reach of the Ackermannrule. Now, Rule 60(b)(6) relief is never available if the movant could have appealed, sought a stay, or filed a new action but deliberately chose not to do so.

That can't be right. Such a rule requires perfect foresight in choosing among reasonable litigation options. If litigants had perfect foresight in their litigation choices, it is hard to see when Rule 60(b)(6) relief would be needed. And, if it were needed, the reason would almost certainly be because of the litigant's failure to make litigation choices with perfect foresight. The Ackermann rule would swallow Rule 60(b)(6).[27]

Aikens's case is a perfect example. When the district court dismissed his claim for failure to exhaust his intraservice remedies, he had a choice. As the Fourth Circuit recognized, he could have appealed. But the district court had cited to Fourth Circuit precedent that seemed to support the exhaustion requirement, and so the option of appealing might simply have led to an affirmance, putting him right back where he was after dismissal.[28] He also could have sought a stay while he went to exhaust, but the language of the district court's order, which did not direct the clerk to close the case, suggested that the district court would leave the case pending while exhaustion was attempted. When the district court issued a final judgment the next day, the district court had no power to enter a stay of its dismissal order without some justification for reconsideration.[29] And even if the district court agreed to consider Aikens's request for a stay, there was no assurance that the district court would have granted it.

In light of the uncertainty of an appeal or a stay, Aikens chose a different option: he chose to attempt to exhaust. Aikens did not care where his remedy came from, and he no doubt would rather have gotten it immediately from the ABCMR than wait years through the appeals process. Plus, the district court had assured Aikens that if the ABCMR could not grant him relief, then he could return to court. Aikens's decision to comply with the district court's order and seek administrative relief was a perfectly reasonable way to continue the pursuit of his claims. Indeed, it might have been unreasonable for Aikens to have done anything differently.

When the ABCMR refused his claim, Aikens could have filed a new action instead of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, as the Fourth Circuit pointed out. Yet the limitations issue was uncertain at that time; any new suit would be timely only if the limitations period had been tolled during the pendency of his original action and during the time he sought to exhaust. Further, a new lawsuit before a judge unfamiliar with the issues and the parties would have required duplicative litigation, with its attendant costs to the parties and the court. Far safer and more efficient, Aikens must have thought, to simply return to where he had left off. The district court invited him to return to federal court, and having jumped through the hoop ordered by the court, Aikens merely accepted that invitation.

Thus, at the time, Aikens's litigation choices were perfectly reasonable ones. True, Aikens freely made them. But it is hardly just to fault him for them. After all, Aikens could have been put in similarly difficult positions if he did as the Fourth Circuit suggested. If Aikens had appealed and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, would Aikens be faulted for appealing instead of seeking to exhaust his remedies first? If Aikens had sought a stay and the district court denied it after the thirty-day deadline to file an appeal had expired,[30] would Aikens be faulted for choosing to seek a discretionary form of relief instead of an appeal as of right? If Aikens had instead filed a new action, and the district court rejected any tolling arguments and dismissed on limitations grounds, would he be faulted for failing to choose to appeal or seek a stay? These rhetorical questions are designed to elicit a point: it is highly problematic to condition Rule 60(b)(6) relief on speculation of which litigation choice, among a variety of reasonable options in pursuit of the claim, might have been more successful. In Aikens's case, any one of them could have been unwise in retrospect. To deny Rule 60(b)(6) relief just because the option the movant selected turned out to be unsuccessful with 20/20 hindsight is to permit Rule 60(b)(6) relief only when it is not needed.

II. Balancing Rule 60(b)(6) with Ackermann

For these reasons, the Ackermann rule ought not apply when a litigant chooses a litigation option that is a reasonable way to continue pressing his legal claims. I do not mean to place emphasis on the word "reasonable" here. I include that qualification in my proposal only as a way of excluding patently unreasonable or fanciful ways of continuing the pursuit of a claim—disobeying a court order, pursuing a course clearly foreclosed by binding precedent, and the like. In such cases, I have no qualms accepting a rule that forces the litigant to live with his mistakes. However, I suspect (and intend) that such unreasonable choices will be rare.

I mean instead to focus on a litigant's intention to continue pressing claims. In such a case, the concerns of finality are light. Indeed, the district court's dismissal order was without prejudice and specifically contemplated a return to federal court. Meanwhile, Aikens himself continued to pursue his claims for relief with the ABCMR (a perfectly reasonable choice, for the reasons stated above). For all practical purposes, his case against the defendants was continuing. Finality interests were light, if not absent entirely.

Consequently, the Ackermann rule ought to apply only to a litigation choice that deliberately ends the dispute, such as settling the claims or abandoning the case altogether. In that circumstance, the finality concerns are real, the defendant has an expectation interest in the end of the case, and sour grapes need not be rewarded.

This construction is consistent with Ackermann and its progeny. Ackermann involved a movant who declined to appeal, primarily for financial reasons, and failed to pursue his claims in any other forum. In Polites v. United States, another Rule 60(b)(6) case, a denaturalized citizen stipulated to a voluntary dismissal of his appeal with prejudice because circuit precedent was unfavorable at the time and only moved for Rule 60(b)(6) relief after there was a supervening change in the law.[31] Similarly, Gonzalez v. Crosby involved a habeas petitioner who failed to appeal the denial of his petition and sought Rule 60(b)(6) relief only after a supervening change in the law.[32] In each case, the Supreme Court held the denial of Rule 60(b)(6) relief to be proper.[33]

In these cases, the movants deliberately abandoned their claims completely and did not pursue them in any other legal forum. Those movants sat on their laurels, biding their time and saving their resources until a change in the law, which they could have argued for in the first instance, turned in their favor and gave them new hope. In such cases, the finality interests are strong and the justice interests are arguably light. Thus, the Ackermann rule might properly apply to them.

Fred Aikens, by contrast, never gave up pursuing his claims. His circumstances therefore presented a far different case than Ackermannand its progeny. In Aikens's case, the finality interests were light and the justice interests were strong. Accordingly, the Ackermann rule should not have prevented him from seeking Rule 60(b)(6) relief. His case thus illustrates the proper scope of the Ackermann rule: the rule should disallow Rule 60(b)(6) relief only when the movant deliberately chooses to end the dispute.

Conclusion

Rule 60(b)(6), with its requirement of extraordinary circumstances, has caused discord among the courts. The Ackermann rule, while providing some guidance, is of uncertain scope. At its broadest, the Ackermann rule threatens to swallow Rule 60(b)(6) and tip the balance too far in favor of finality. This Essay suggests a narrower construction, one founded on the realities of litigation and the true interests of finality. This construction, which limits the Ackermann rule to those movants who deliberately stop pursuing their claims, opens space for a more equitable consideration of extraordinary circumstances in the context of providing relief from unjust judgments.

————

*. Associate Professor of Law, William & Mary Law School.

1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (link).

2. Id. 60(b)(6).

3. See, e.g., Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863–64 & n.11 (1988) (quoting Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 613–14 (1949)) (link). This rule is known as the "extraordinary circumstances" doctrine.

4. 340 U.S. 193 (1950) (link).

5. Id. at 196–97.

6. No. 08-2278, 2011 WL 2725811 (4th Cir. July 13, 2011) (en banc) (link).

7. Id. at *4–5.

8. For a discussion of Rule 60(b)(6), Ackermann, and the many cases following, see 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2864 (2d ed. 2011).

9. See Note, Federal Rule 60(b): Relief from Civil Judgments, 61 Yale L.J. 76, 76 & n.3 (1952).

10. Id. at 77–78.

11. See id. at 82 n.31.

12. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

13. S. Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 48–49 (1897) (link). On the balance of finality and equity, see Henry Brownstein, Note, Rule 60(b): A Rule Suitable for a Sua Sponte Motion, 15 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 153, 165–66 (2005) (link).

14. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)–(5).

15. See Christopher G. Meadows, Comment, Rule 60(b)(6): Whether "Tapping the Grand Reservoir of Equitable Power" Is Appropriate to Right an Attorney's Wrong, 88 Marq. L. Rev. 997, 999 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted) (link).

16. Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950); cf. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) (considering the extraordinary circumstances doctrine in the habeas context) (link).

17. Ackermann, 340 U.S. at 195–96.

18. Id. at 198.

19. Aikens v. Ingram, No. 08-2278, 2011 WL 2725811, at *1 (4th Cir. July 21, 2011) (en banc).

20. Aikens v. Ingram, 513 F. Supp. 2d 586, 592 (E.D.N.C. 2007) (link).

21. Id. at 591–92.

22. Aikens, 2011 WL 2725811, at *2.

23. Aikens v. Ingram, No. 06-CV-185, 2008 WL 4831420, at *5 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 5, 2008) (link), aff'd, No. 08-2278, 2011 WL 2725811 (4th Cir. July 21, 2011) (en banc).

24. Aikens, 2011 WL 2725811, at *4–5.

25. See Helvering v. Gowran, 302 U.S. 238, 245–46 (1937) (explaining that an appellate court can affirm for new reasons "if the decision below is correct") (link).

26. The Fourth Circuit did not appear to appreciate that it was misapplying the abuse-of-discretion standard. It purported to rely on the abuse-of-discretion standard while nevertheless rejecting the district court's reasons. See Aikens, 2011 WL 2725811, at *4–5.

27. As the dissent argued:

If the majority's approach is all it takes to foreclose a finding of extraordinary circumstances for Rule 60(b)(6) relief, that is, if a court can punish a movant for pursuing reasonable and legitimate strategies simply because—with the benefit of hindsight—the court can conjure up possible alternatives, it is hard to imagine that Rule 60(b)(6) relief can ever be obtained.

See id. at *20 (King, J., dissenting).

28. See Aikens v. Ingram, 513 F. Supp. 2d 586, 591 (E.D.N.C. 2007) (citing Fourth Circuit decisions requiring the exhaustion of intraservice remedies). It is worth noting that Aikens's Rule 60(b)(6) motion was not a substitute for an appeal seeking to reverse the district court's order holding that exhaustion was required. Such a reversal would be unnecessary because by then Aikens had in fact exhausted his administrative remedies.

29. Once the final judgment was entered, the district court was without power to issue a stay without some additional filing by Aikens seeking reconsideration, such as a motion under Rule 59 or Rule 60. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b) (link).

30. This deadline is jurisdictional. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213 (2007) (link).

31. 364 U.S. 426, 430–31 (1960) (link).

32. 545 U.S. 524, 537–38 (2005).

33. Reasonable minds could disagree with the Court's disposition in these cases. I do not mean to defend them. I only mean to distinguish them fromAikens and argue that, even if they are correct, they do not justify the expansive rule that the Fourth Circuit promulgated in Aikens.

————

Copyright 2011 Northwestern University

Cite as: 106 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 111 (2011), http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/colloquy/2011/23/LRColl2011n23Dodson.pdf.

Persistent URL: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/colloquy/2011/23/

(Comments)

c) COMPELLING CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICTS  Authoritative Citation from the United States Supreme Court, the US. Consitution. the local rules of Northern Florida, the qualified authorities such as WIkiedia, The Libray of Congress, the current and Past presidents, etc.  A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. THEREFORE, SONY ROY has been injured. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation.

The most important expansions of civil rights in the United States occurred as a result of the enactment of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery throughout the United States. See U.S. Const. amend. XIII. In response to the Thirteenth Amendment, various states enacted "black codes" that were intended to limit the civil rights of the newly free slaves. In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment countered these "black codes" by stating that no state "shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States... [or] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, [or] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment gave Congress the power by section five of the Fourteenth Amendment to pass any laws needed to enforce the Amendment.

f) Many Counts of the Actual Facts or event that took place to cause Sony Roy's Demise and that of his family with date of Year as possible

g) The CONSPIRACY between K Golberg and the Walton County in Florida as the one used to league against the Plaintiff Sony Roy  CONSPIRACY of individuals working for the U.S. Government and  working for the High Court of the USA . This is not against the  united States and even if necessary this case should go before the  International Court before the Congress, before the president before

This cause is before the court upon PLAINTIFF PRO SE CIVIL RIGHTS and CRIMINAL CHARGES as found in the TEN ALLEGED FRAUDS UPON THE COURT and  upon due consideration by the Court, pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. Section 2071, Rule 83, Fed.R.Civ.P., and Rule 57, Fed.R.Cr.P.,  the Rules of The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, in the form appended hereto, are hereby adopted  and promulgated by the Court

d) Many counts of the 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Violations in the State of Florida which is Federally Funded and allowing areas that are Historically racially segregated. The permeating RACIAL MOTIVATION the COMPELLING LEGISLATIVE VIOLATION and the high profile case of the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners Scott Brannon the 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT by Congress TITLE SIX The Accruing and repeating Compelling Constitutional Conflicts, legal and Legislative violations by category,

g) (NEW:) Attempts to defraud the U.S. of more than $4Million in Federal tax moneys as found by Plaintiff Sony Roy during analysis of intervening circumstances last month as a result of more than 28,000 hours of probe within the past Nine Years. (I AM BLOWING THE WHISTLE)   h) Attempts to murder Plaintiff Sony Roy after expert warnings giving advanced information to all defendants. and with the proper knowledge of the facts on hands

I) Loss of affection between Plaintiff Sony Roy and His wife an Ominous event affecting my life and causing undue duress and unceasing emotional torments. I BLOW THE WHISTLE)   j) a pLETHORA OF CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS by the Walton County in Florida

k) A varitey of Violations of Estopel rights and Illegal Estoppel Rescission

k) Multiple Counts of violations of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the 5th and the 14th Ammendments of the CONSTITUTION.   L) several counts of violations in an attempt to DEFRAUD the Federal U. S. Government.

l) Various counts of FRAUDS UPON THE COURT

IN CLOSING, The Inherent Power of the Court the application of Rule 60B, Compelling Constitutional Conflics TORTS are more than enough warant to reopen this case and addressthe damages amnd their remedy to and the noted Tort here, this case must be reopen this case to allow for justice. Hopng this matter will expeditiously solve these serious vioaltions Plaintiffs has made himself available for questioning, and oter assistance as needed

Rule 60(b) is significant for other reasons as well. For example, it safeguards 1 See S. Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 48-49 (1897). 2 Id. 3 San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco, 125 S. Ct. 2491, 2500  n.16 (2005). Not only does the decision foreclose bringing a future suit based on the same claim, but res judicata further proscribes bringing future suits that have a close relationship with the first suit. Id. It implicates issue preclusion as well. The lasting  effects are thus not insubstantial. 4 Lawlor v. Nat’l Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322, 326 (1955); see also S. Pac. R.R.. Co., 168 U.S. at 48-49. 5 See FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b); Ackerman v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 202 (1950)  (Black, J., dissenting). 6 Farr Man & Co. v. M/V Rozita, 903 F.2d 871, 874 (1st Cir. 1990). 7 R.C. by Ala. Disabilities Advocacy Program v. Nachman, 969 F. Supp. 682, 690 (M.D. Ala. 1997). 154 PUBLIC INTEREST LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 15  against potential due process violations. In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., the plaintiff challenged the court’s 41(b) sua sponte motion.8 The Court recognized that when a court exercises its inherent power under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, it may  do so without informing the party adversely affected by such a motion and not be in derogation of the due process clause.9 [T]he availability of a corrective remedy such as is provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)—which authorizes the reopening of cases in which  final orders have been inadvisedly [sic] entered—renders the lack of prior notice of less consequence. Petitioner never sought to avail himself of the escape hatch provided by Rule 60(b).10 Additionally, some courts have held that Rule 60(b) motions apply in habeas  corpus proceedings, liberating the challenging party from the strictures of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.11 Rule 60(b), therefore, has very powerful strategic and substantive implications, albeit in limited  circumstances. The question that remains, though, is who may move a court to revisit and overturn a judgment under Rule 60(b). The circuits are split on this issue, and it has yet to be resolved by the Supreme Court. This note will examine that very  question and conclude that a court may raise a Rule 60(b) motion sua sponte because the rule effectuates a court’s inherent authority and not a party’s constitutional right.12 Section II will describe the circuit court split, recognizing  that each side of the split confines its analysis to the text of Rule 60(b). This section concludes that both interpretations are insufficient to resolve this issue. Section III suggests an alternative approach. The premise of this note is that sua  sponte motions rest on the concepts of power and defendant waiver: where a rule 8 See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). 9 Id. at 630-632. 10 Id. at 632. 11 Abdur’Rahman v. Bell (In re Abdur’Rahman), 392 F.3d 174, 177 (6th Cir. 2004).  [A] Rule 60(b) motion should be treated as a second or successive habeas corpus petition only if the factual predicate in support of the motion constitutes a direct challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying conviction. In cases, which the  factual predicate in support of themotion attacks the manner in the which the earlier habeas judgment was procured and is based on one or more of the grounds enumerated in Rule 60(b), the motion should be adjudicated pursuant to Rule  60(b) . . . . [Under AEDPA], granting a second or successive habeas petition invalidates a prisoner’s conviction and/or sentence. Granting a Rule 60(b) motion has no such effect. It merely reinstates the previously-dismissed habeas petition,  opening the way for further pro

Now comes plaintiff Sony Roy respectfully requesting from this court the reopening of case number 03-06cv95- ECM based on RULE 60(B): A RULE SUITABLE FOR A SUA SPONTE MOTION a) The Walton COUNTY's actions in Florida   b)

AUTHORITATIVE CITATION OF RULE 60 B:

I.INTRODUCTION Finality in litigation has particular importance in our system of justice.1 It “secure[s] the peace and repose of society” by settling disputes between parties.2  Once a court renders a judgment, it is final and binding on all parties.3 In fact, the doctrine of preclusion prohibits the parties and their privies from raising, in future suits, issues actually litigated as well as issues that were not litigated but have a  close relationship with the original claim.4 However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  allow cases to be re-opened inparticular circumstances. Specifically, Federal Rule of  Civil Procedure 60(b) (Rule60(b) offers a party relief from a judgment on motion when it is  “inequitable to permit a judgment to stand.”5 The rule applies only to final judgments.6 Thus, Rule 60(b) strikes at the heart of the concern for resolving disputes between parties. Because of the importance of final judgments, a court should only grant 60(b) relief  in exceptional circumstances.7

a) The Court's Inherent Power Rule 41(b) sua sponte motion.8 The Court recognized  that when a court exercises its inherent power under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, it may do so without informing the party adversely affected by such a motion and not be in derogation of the due process clause.to reopen the case on its own and without any help.\

Powers of courts in conduct of judicial proceedings. 

Every court of justice has power -- (1) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence. (2) To enforce order in the proceedings before it, or before a person or body empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority. (3) To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it or its officers. (4) To compel obedience to its judgments, decrees, orders and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action, suit or proceeding pending therein. (5) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter appertaining thereto. (6) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in an action, suit or proceeding therein, in the cases and manner provided by law. (7) To administer oaths in an action, suit or proceeding pending therein, and in all other cases where it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers or the performance of its duties.

Powers of courts in conduct of judicial proceedings. 

Every court of justice has power -- (1) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence. (2) To enforce order in the proceedings before it, or before a person or body empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority. (3) To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it or its officers. (4) To compel obedience to its judgments, decrees, orders and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action, suit or proceeding pending therein. (5) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter appertaining thereto. (6) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in an action, suit or proceeding therein, in the cases and manner provided by law. (7) To administer oaths in an action, suit or proceeding pending therein, and in all other cases where it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers or the performance of its duties.

Every court of justice has power -- (1) To preserve and enforce order in its immediate presence. (2) To enforce order in the proceedings before it, or before a person or body empowered to conduct a judicial investigation under its authority. (3) To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it or its officers. (4) To compel obedience to its judgments, decrees, orders and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action, suit or proceeding pending therein. (5) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter appertaining thereto. (6) To compel the attendance of persons to testify in an action, suit or proceeding therein, in the cases and manner provided by law. (7) To administer oaths in an action, suit or proceeding pending therein, and in all other cases where it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers or the performance of its duties.

[1955 c 38 § 12; 1909 c 124 § 2; RRS § 85.]

 b) The Court's vested Power to reopen this case based on Rule 60B, which authorizes the reopening of case, a powerful tool in the hands of the Honorable Judges which was set aside before to my AWE and Amazement   c) Authoritative Citation from the United States Supreme Court, the US. Consitution. the local rules of Northern Florida, the qualified authorities such as WIkiedia, The Libray of Congress, the current and Past presidents, etc.   f) Many Counts of the Actual Facts or event that took place to cause Sony Roy's Demise and that of his family with date of Year as possible

g) The CONSPIRACY between K Golberg and the Walton County in Florida as used to league against the Plaintiff Sony Roy   d) Many counts of the 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Violations in the State of Florida which is Federally Funded and allowing areas that are Historically racially segregated. The permeating RACIAL MOTIVATION the COMPELLING LEGISLATIVE VIOLATION and the high profile case of the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners Scott Brannon the 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT by Congress TITLE SIX The Accruing and repeating Compelling Constitutional Conflicts, legal and Legislative violations by category,

g) (NEW:) Attempts to defraud the U.S. of more than $4Million in Federal tax moneys as found by Plaintiff Sony Roy during the more than 28,000 hours of probe within the past Nine Years. (I AM BLOWING THE WHISTLE)   h) Attempts to murder Plaintiff Sony Roy after expert warnings and with the proper knowledge of the facts on hands

I) Loss of affection between Plaintiff Sony Roy and His wife an Ominous event affecting my life and causing undue duress and unceasing emotional torments. I BLOW THE WHISTLE)   j) a pLETHORA OF CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS by the Walton County in Florida

k) A varitey of Violations of Estopel rights and Illegal Estoppel Rescission

k) Multiple Counts of violations of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the 5th and the 14th Ammendments of the CONSTITUTION.   L) several counts of violations in an attempt to DEFRAUD the Federal U. S. Government.

l) Various counts of FRAUDS UPON THE COURT

IN CLOSING, The Inherent Power of the Court the application of Rule 60B, Compelling Constitutional Conflics TORTS are more than enough warant to reopen this case and addressthe damages amnd their remedy to and the noted Tort here, this case must be reopen this case to allow for justice. Hopng this matter will expeditiously solve these serious vioaltions Plaintiffs has made himself available for questioning, and oter assistance as needed

Rule 60(b) is significant for other reasons as well. For example, it safeguards 1 See S. Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 48-49 (1897). 2 Id. 3 San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco, 125 S. Ct. 2491, 2500  n.16 (2005). Not only does the decision foreclose bringing a future suit based on the same claim, but res judicata further proscribes bringing future suits that have a close relationship with the first suit. Id. It implicates issue preclusion as well. The lasting  effects are thus not insubstantial. 4 Lawlor v. Nat’l Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322, 326 (1955); see also S. Pac. R.R.. Co., 168 U.S. at 48-49. 5 See FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b); Ackerman v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 202 (1950)  (Black, J., dissenting). 6 Farr Man & Co. v. M/V Rozita, 903 F.2d 871, 874 (1st Cir. 1990). 7 R.C. by Ala. Disabilities Advocacy Program v. Nachman, 969 F. Supp. 682, 690 (M.D. Ala. 1997). 154 PUBLIC INTEREST LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 15  against potential due process violations. In Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., the plaintiff challenged the court’s 41(b) sua sponte motion.8 The Court recognized that when a court exercises its inherent power under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, it may  do so without informing the party adversely affected by such a motion and not be in derogation of the due process clause.9 [T]he availability of a corrective remedy such as is provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)—which authorizes the reopening of cases in which  final orders have been inadvisedly [sic] entered—renders the lack of prior notice of less consequence. Petitioner never sought to avail himself of the escape hatch provided by Rule 60(b).10 Additionally, some courts have held that Rule 60(b) motions apply in habeas  corpus proceedings, liberating the challenging party from the strictures of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.11 Rule 60(b), therefore, has very powerful strategic and substantive implications, albeit in limited  circumstances. The question that remains, though, is who may move a court to revisit and overturn a judgment under Rule 60(b). The circuits are split on this issue, and it has yet to be resolved by the Supreme Court. This note will examine that very  question and conclude that a court may raise a Rule 60(b) motion sua sponte because the rule effectuates a court’s inherent authority and not a party’s constitutional right.12 Section II will describe the circuit court split, recognizing  that each side of the split confines its analysis to the text of Rule 60(b). This section concludes that both interpretations are insufficient to resolve this issue. Section III suggests an alternative approach. The premise of this note is that sua  sponte motions rest on the concepts of power and defendant waiver: where a rule 8 See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962). 9 Id. at 630-632. 10 Id. at 632. 11 Abdur’Rahman v. Bell (In re Abdur’Rahman), 392 F.3d 174, 177 (6th Cir. 2004).  [A] Rule 60(b) motion should be treated as a second or successive habeas corpus petition only if the factual predicate in support of the motion constitutes a direct challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying conviction. In cases, which the  factual predicate in support of themotion attacks the manner in the which the earlier habeas judgment was procured and is based on one or more of the grounds enumerated in Rule 60(b), the motion should be adjudicated pursuant to Rule  60(b) . . . . [Under AEDPA], granting a second or successive habeas petition invalidates a prisoner’s conviction and/or sentence. Granting a Rule 60(b) motion has no such effect. It merely reinstates the previously-dismissed habeas petition,  opening the way for further proce

   2. “The Law” or ‘Laws” are not limited to just codes and statutes. According to Ballentine's Law Dictionary, Third Edition, the Law is “The whole body of rules of conduct that applied and enforced under the authority of established government in determining that which is proper and should be permitted and that which should be denied, or even penalized in respect of the relationship between a person and the state, between him and society and between him and another individual” The whole body of rules of conduct include provisions of the Constitution, legislative enactments or statutes, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), ethic laws, the Canons of Judicial Conduct, Attorneys’ Code of Professional Responsibilities, municipal ordinances, ethics laws, election laws, SEC regulations, treaties, the Geneva Convention etc

AUTHORTATIVE CITATION:    Under our U.S. Constitution:

           a. Congress, directly responsible to the people, makes the laws and the President insures the laws are faithfully executed

                b. The President may not lawfully make new law or modify laws passed by Congress, with signing statements and executive orders

Do not expect the President to side with you as a criminal and a law-breaker. These acts committed were done intentionally and while you were a competent responsible and adequate judges in my view. and in the view of reasonable people should they be called o witne

SEE WHAT I DID FOR THE CURRENT PRESIDENT DESPITE THE PAINFUL AGONY THE REPUBLICANS OF THE SOUTH PUT ME THROUGH AS I WAS HOSPITALISZED 11 times in a ten year window, I lost my darling wife of thirty five years (LOSS OF AFFECTION IS ILLEGAL, I understand that some Judges think that its cute for a man to loose affection with his long standing wife but the law of the United States and the laws of the United Nations preclude such.) and my family meaning the affection and the respect I once enjoyed with my children is no longer there and it is all based on the words of a FUGITIVE taken randomly by the Walton County and executed mercilessly and intentionally. Whatever someone says they better be willing to vback it by law or else I would not have survived this past ten years. If I were guilty of one element in my developing my property worth and appraised at more than Eleven million dollars, I wiould have no leg to stand before anyone now the truith will come out plainly and no defendants will be found stnding after more than 100,000, TORTS WERE FOUND AND SUBMITTED for FINALITY TO THE Cin Northern Florida

HERE IS A SAMPLE OF WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, TALKING IS CHEAP DEMOCRATS DEMO THE FACTS. Here is an excert of a clip for President Obama in 2008, No I have never been against my President by all means this would be virtually impossible. if so, why was I treated that way as one having norights?

"corruptions in high places" SOME WISHED THAT I WERE ON THE OTHER SIDE", TOO LATE

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

CORRUPTIONS IN HIGH PLACES - THE LAW IS THE MEASURING STICK

NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY an overview

AUTHORITATIVE CITATION:

Article 7.

Article 8.

AUTHORITATIVE CITATION: What Is ?Fraud on the Court??

What Happens to the Trial If Fraud on the Court Occurs?

Northwestern University Law Review : Colloquy : 2011 : Rethinking Extraordinary Circumstances

Rethinking Extraordinary Circumstances