A New Yorker is
planning to test that theory, pro se, in trying to vacate a judgment
which was reached not only by fraud, but without statutory
jurisdiction. Also, the judge had not filed a proper oath or
undertaking; neither did his appointed fiduciary (a former judge)..
Her case involved the unlawful taking of real property. She wasted
several years in federal court, afraid to go back to state court
to use the state vacate motion similar to Fed R.60).
Now, based on a publicized second "censure" of the judge, and because
he is retiring imminently rather than face further discipline, she has
finally decided to try it. She is going pro se, after several bad
experiences with lawyers colluding with judges.
Any help or suggestions out there, while she is collecting the facts
I have also suggested that she search for other victims of the same
judge so that they can work together. We are already aware of one, but
having trouble putting her case together.
In NY, the clerks' entries are so sparse that you cannot identify what
they relate to without matching up to every document in your possession
in the court file, and then setting up your own docket list
to show filing omissions, if any.
Any help or suggestions?
Is there any reason why we can't combine court decisions like:
Silence is a fraud, where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or
where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading per
U.S. v. Tweel.
fraud will vitiate even the most solumn transactions and an asserted
title to property, founded upon it, is utterly void. US v The Aimsted
[sic], 15 US 518 at 594, (1841)