Case No.

10 A662 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------n The SUPRIME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October term 2010 __________________________________________________ George E. McDermott Petitioner VS. Kenneth J. Mac Fadyen; James J. Loftus Mariam M. Fuchs, Jeff Houston. Respondents v. __________________________________________________ Petition for writ of certiorari FROM THE United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Richmond Virginia from the United States District Court Southern District of Maryland Alexander Williams, Judge On removal from Prince Georges County Maryland Circuit Court Presiding Judge Christine Mittelstaedt & CASE HIJACKING , the dishonorable Judge Thomas P. Smith,

Kenneth J. Mac Fayden petitioner 210 E. Redwood St. Baltimore Maryland 21202 339 410 685 1763

George McDermott, Pro se 143 North Huron Dr. Forest Heights MD 20745

iii

Questions presented # 1
Does the Constitution of the United States provide for the courts to use illegal unauthorized, unverifiable and patently false pretense unsigned orders; which the courts, clerks refused to validate, authenticate, or produce original of. These unsigned orders, which are Ex dolo malo non oritur actio as they have not been authorized or memorialized into positive law by legislative process. Furthermore when recipients, repeatedly appears in court clerks offices with witnesses seeking the validation. of these Ex Facto documents, the court clerks , repeatedly refuse to validate these illegal Ex Contractu Ex Facto Ex Fictinoe Juris Ex Malitia orders; thereby denying petitioner's constitutional rights under articles III & IV Federal Constitution; thereby denying litigants due process at law requiring equal protection under the law, court clerks refusal to validate pretense orders is putting petitioners enumerated legal rights, liberties and property in jeopardy under color of law. 28 USC 1691 Seal and teste of process

Questions presented # 2
In that certain courts within the United States have Ex Facto Ex Fictinoe Juris, Ex Malitia enacted a totally biased and prejudiced system of pretense electronic filing known as PACER and CM/ECF as electronic court administration systems, bypassing the common law right to inspect and to copy all judicial records was reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) as inherent to the First Amendment. In doing so, the US Supreme Court ("said that the right was necessary for the public "to keep a watchful eye on government"). If this is so, did the US District Court and the US Court of Appeals clerk's offices deny petitioner First Amendment rights to access to his own records, which are alleged to be Ex Contractu Ex Facto Ex Fictinoe juris Ex Malitia? Once again, where and when did the action by these court clerks acting Ex Facto defeat justice and reward criminal fraud on the part of respondents and their clients, in this matter. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 Perjury, (Title 18 U.S.C. 1621).

Questions presented # 3
Did the lower courts both State and Federal violate petitioner's constitutionally protected rights afforded under the Maryland constitution Art. IV Sec.1 and Md. Declaration of Rights guaranteed under Articles. I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, X, XI, XII, XIV, XV, XVII, XII, XXI, XXXI, XXXIII, XXXVII, XXXIX XLII, by issuing unsigned orders refusing to validate the court pretense orders using a Ex Facto case management process, which encourages falsifying court documents, and records, without oversight? 28 USC 1652 State laws as rules of decision.

Questions presented # 4
Did the lower courts violate petitioner's due process rights through the issuance of pretext Ex dolo malo administrative process using unauthorized, unsigned orders, both in the state and Federal courts, which are not approved for nor authorized by constitutional amendment by the State and or Federal Legislatures. Md. Declaration of Rrights Art. III, XVII & XXX also (Title 28, sec. 1257 of the U.S. Code), Art. XV, 5. States ex rel. Thompson v. Dye, 221 F.2d 763

Questions presented # 5
Does this court have in its possession, any secret order from the Congress of the United States or any document, or congressional mandate from the president of the United States archived in the National Archives enacted into positive law; which purportedly allow a secretive off the record, deliberative process and the appellate courts in conflict with petitioner's best and rights under Maryland constitution Art IV, Sec 1 court, to be court of record at the seal, including the administrative CASE MANAGEMENT of cases

Article IV, 19 of the Constitution of Maryland. (f) Clerk.-

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Questions presented...II Table of authorities ................................................................................,.............................III Opinions below .....IV Jurisdiction .. VI Parties, the proceeding & statement regarding lodged appendix...VII Certificate of interested persons VIII Statutory provisions involved ... IX Reasons for granting the petition . X Pryor related proceedings in this court.XI Arguments..1 In adequacy of other remedies .4 Conclusion ...10 Facts which petitioner relies upon ....11 Other related cases,. Silent revealing and pertinent facts Closing the door to the Courthouse.. Pick and choose jurisprudence Relief sought Certificate of IFP status Granted at District Court and appellate courts Certificate of service and certificate of compliance. Index to Lodged appendix, which is under separate cover pursuant to Court rules

CITATIONs
Mooney v. Holoham 294 US 103,& 294, US 112 Brady V. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963) In Re: Vicki Lopez-Lukis, 113 F.3d 1187 (11th Cir. 1997). Berens v.Cobb, 539 So.2d 24, 25 (Fla.App. State ex rel. Buckwalter v. City of Lakeland, 112 Fla. 200,150 So. 508 (1933)).
Redmond v. chance, 32

Redmond vs chance 32 M.D. 42, 52 (1870),

26See [1st L.App.9a-196 + 2nd L, 13-6 + 7-14 ] (cf. Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241) 28Blundon v. Taylor, 364 Md. (2001) (b) Effect of signature
Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956)

STATUTES 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 & (Title 18 U.S.C. 1621). PART I CRIMES CHAPTER 79 PERJURY 28 USC 2074 (a) (b) ("(b) 28 USC. 2071 (b) (f) 28 USC 1331, 28 USC 1443 28 USC 1444; USC 1254 (1) 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), and Fed. R. App. P. 21(a
15 809. Validation of debts of (15 USC 1601).

USC 1254 (1) 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), and Fed. R. App. P. 21(a

15 809. Validation of debts of (15 USC 1601).

FRCP Rule 10 (c). Maryland Constitution, Art. IV .1 and Md. Declaration of Rights Articles I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, X, XI, XII, XIV, XV, XVII, XII, XXI, XXXI, XXXIII, XXXVII, XXXIX, XLII Amendments to the U. S. Constitution Title 15 USC 1692 (e)-(k). Title 15 USC 1692 (e)-(k).

Supreme Court rule 14 (g)

28 USC 1691 24 C.F.R. 203 28 USC 1746 28 USC 1352 Article IV, 19 of the Constitution of Maryland. (f) Clerk Sec. 2713. Trial of ownership of property 28 USC951 - Sec. 951. Oath of office of clerks 28 USC 1343. Civil rights (a) 28 USC 1343. Civil rights (a) 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights: 28 USC 1451 Definitions For purposes of this chapter 28 USC 1652 State laws as rules of 28 USC 1657. Priority of civil actions 28 USC 1691 Seal and teste of process 28 USC 1734. Court record 28 USC 1738 - State and Territorial statutes 28 USC 1731. Handwriting 28 USC 1964. Constructive notice 28 USC 2002 Notice of sale of realty 28 USC 2041 Deposit of moneys 28 USC 2113 Definition 28 USC 3013 Modification 28 USC 3303. Value 28 USC 3308.Supplementary provision

REGULATIONS

 99, Restatement Third The Law Governing Lawyers Rule 4-4.2, R. Regulating Fla. Bar CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Article 1, Section 24(a) First Amendment, United States Constitution

20 20

21 20

ENACTMENT OF FEDERAL RULES FOR ELECTRONIC COURT RECORDS.

The evidence shows that the clerks of the courts today do not deem themselves accountable for the integrity of electronic courts records. The online public access and case management systems of the courts (PACER and CM/ECF) were implemented over the past couple of decades in both state and federal court. In the process, a sea change was introduced in court procedures, which had been established for centuries, and were the foundation/core of our NATIONS Due Process principles of law. However, all courts that petitioner has examined, without exception, failed to publish Rules of Courts pertaining to these recently enacted pretense procedures, which are in alleged violation of previously guaranteed an established legal enumerated due process rights in state and federal constitutions and enumerated bills of Rights guaranteeing minimal Due Process rights. Moreover, all courts that petitioner has examined. HAVE denied petitioners legal right to public access to the verification of courts pretense orders sent by mail and other public/ records, these pretense alleged electronic records, and unverifiable case management systems knowingly operate in direct mala prohibita violation of petitioners First Amendment rights. Therefore, the US Congress should perform its required duties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 & (Title 18 U.S.C. 1621). Lawmakers have a duty to force these Ex Fictinoe Juris courts into legal compliance EX legibus under28 USC 2074 (b) and demand that these disrespectful courts not operate as EX Fictinoe juris any longer, Congress has made it clear and implicit that the Constitution and rule of law should be used by our courts. And our court personnel should be Ex Justa Causa as obligated under their respective employment contracts and is a mandatory requirement of their office to provide upon request to the public legally requested documents showing accountability validation of the courts use of EX FACTO mala fides rules and orders which cannot be (visually seen or certified for authenticity), the courts pretense functional proceedings and orders defy all logic and legal verification under the current code of laws) clerks mala prohibita disregard of such systems prior to their implementation 28 USC. 2071 (b) (f) which states ("(f) no rule may be prescribed by a District Court other than under this section") & 28 USC 2074 (a) (b) ("(b) clearly states that any rule abolishing, or modify 5

an evidentiary privilege shall have no force or of fact unless approved by act of Congress.") which brings into question the integrity of the court system, and its inherent unfairness to victims of ethical and legal abuse by officers of the court acting EX FACTO to their oath of office and station of office, which is to uphold and defend the written Constitution and Bill of Rights of this nation against all enemies foreign and domestic seeking to undermine the Constitution and principles of this great nation.

OPINIONS BELOW
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals did not select its alleged pretense opinions and orders for publication in the federal reporter. The alleged pretense decision is reported on pacer and attached as (2010) the District Court. Likewise, also did not select its alleged pretense opinion , which is also unverifiable. As the court clerks repeatedly have refused to produce require electronic signatures upon numerous formal written request therefore, the pretense electronic records of the United States District Court and United States Court of Appeals cannot be relied upon. As these records are unverifiable, and unauthenticated, to anyone accessing the public docket of these court cases. Once again, petitioner asserts that the (PACER and CM/ECF) is an unreliable source of information. Because of the court clerks refusal to validate these illegal Ex Contractu, Ex Facto, Ex Fictinoe juris, Ex Malitia orders, Related cases history at [2nd L,App 105]

Jurisdiction
6

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on 06/29/2010, received the Assembled Electronic Record Transmitted to Fourth Circuit -- Initial (krc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/29/2010) appealing a pretense rendition of judgment of the US District Court under 28 USC 1254 (1), while case was on appeal under federal question 28 USC 1331, asserting relief under 28 USC 1443 and 28 USC 1444; that respondents agents had knowingly committed fraud on the court by selling petitioner's property at public auction without proper notice, without permission or authority of any court, while circuit court case was statistically closed. This court is asked to review the Ex Contractu, Ex Facto, Ex Fictinoe juris, Ex Malitia actions of the District Court interfering with the appellate courts jurisdiction and authority of pretense order signed by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. on 9/20/2010, dismissing the appellate case, under color of law and authority. This court has jurisdiction under 28 USC 1254 (1) 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), and Fed. R. App. P. 21(a) to review rulings on final orders and to review the circuit court's decision on a writ of certiorari to which Chief Justice Roberts granted petitioner an extension of time in which to check validity of statute and research law purportedly granting clerks of the court legal authority to issue orders in the name of the court which they will not authenticate or validate.

A primary reason for petitioner having to seek A

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court

From the United States District Court for Greenbelt Maryland, Southern District rising from a fraudulent foreclosure proceeding initiated in the circuit court of Prince George's County Maryland, by respondents Ex dolo malo, debt collectors. Re: September 20, 2010, unsigned order, the unauthenticated pretense order of Judge Alexander Williams, denying relief afforded petitioner under 28 USC 3001 contesting a fraudulent foreclosure proceeding in which an apparent Ex dolo, malo order was issued purportedly dismissing case on removal action from the Maryland circuit court. A series of unsigned, unverifiable, pretense court orders below are being appealed. Petitioner hereby petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review and investigate the pretense unsigned order of the District Court of Maryland, dismissing case, which was legally on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and which District Court was fully aware

of this fact, knowing the appellate clerk having entered an order staying the mandate. United States Court of Appeals on August 31 District Court own docket.[DE.30] thereby 08/31/2010 30 MANDATE of USCA "STAYED" until disposition of the petition or motion as to 25 Notice of Appeal filed by George E. McDermott (krc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/31/2010)

Legally, as rules state, Divesting lower court of all legal jurisdiction.[DE.31] to change or altere a case or to enter an order denying petitioner's due process and constitutional protected rights pending the issuance of a signed verifiable authentic order from the three-judge panel which had jurisdiction. 09/20/2010 31 ORDER denying 23 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying as MOOT 21 Motion for hearing on Removal; denying as MOOT 22 Motion for Extension of Time to File Document; remanding case to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland and directing the Clerk to CLOSE this case 10. (c/m 9/20/2010 rk) (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/20/2010)

Pro se petitioner openly admits that his papers are not expertly drawn, but they do set forth allegations that his constitutional rights have been denied as a result of false allegations of respondents, respondents false and forged robo signed affidavits of respondents also the suppression of the exonerating evidence on part of the lower courts in respondents the suppression of petitioner's legal evidence, which was favorable to the petitioner would entitle this court to get to the truth and grant petitioners relief requested which is allegedly guaranteed under the Federal Constitution as this court noted that, under Mooney v. Holoham 294 US 103,& 294, US 112. This court ruled that nondisclosure is a violation of due process rights of defendants/petitioner as court has done in the past in Brady V. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963)

Parties to the proceeding The parties to the proceeding are as follows

1. Petitioner George E. McDermott representing family interest in defending sham fraudulent

foreclosure proceeding on behalf of alleged creditor M&T Bank Corp. as alleged successor in interest to 1993 loan from third-party, which bank has employed the services of a debt collection agency/purported trustees; respondents in this action.

2.

Respondents are purported representatives of alleged successor bank operating as M&T

BANCORP a Delaware Corporation / Maryland corporation. As a debt collector/purported successor trustee, subject to the provisions outlined under title 15 of the United States Constitution. Article 1692 project that collection practices act, agents for a Maryland corporation are as respondents. The following. 3. The Law Firm of Friedman and McFayden P.A. it's agents Kenneth J. MACFAYDEN;

Esquire James J. Loftus, Esquire, Mariam M. Fuchs , Esquire, and Jeff Houston. Michael Cantrell Esquire, and Kenneth Koch General Counsel for M&T BANK they are well aware of their legal requirements, under section: 15 809. Validation of debts of (15 USC 1601). The corporation
has 30 days to respond to the consumers debt validation request in writing and are in noncompliance with the letter and intent of Congress and the law. [2nd L,App 3-6 & 7-14]

United States

CERTICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISLCLOSURE STATEMENT

IN THE

SUPREME COURT CASE # 10 A662

Kenneth J. MACFAYDEN; vs.George E. McDermott & Patricia J. McDermot Pursuant to Fourth Circuit Rule 26.1, APPELLANT hereby certifies the following list of individuals and entities are known to me to have an interest in the outcome of this particular case: George E. McDermott & Patricia J. McDermott petitioners, Private citizens, victims of extreme judicial abuse by the respondents and their enablers all corporate agents under rule 26.1 United States District Court Judge Alexander Williams Southern division for Greenbelt Maryland, (judicial enabler of) Respondents Kenneth J. MACFAYDEN; substitute trustee for M&T bank James J. Loftus substitute trustee for M&T bank Mariam M. Fuchs, substitute trustee for M&T bank Jeff Houston, substitute trustee for M&T bank Dishonorable Circuit Court Judge Thomas P. Smith (judicial enabler of) Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent 9

Circuit Court Judge Crystal Dixon Mittelstaedt Circuit Court Judge Herman Dawson. The Hon. Peter B. Krauser Chief Judge Maryland Court of Special Appeals Hon. Arrie W. Davis Hon. James R. Eyler The Hon. Leslie D. Gradet clerk of the court Maryland Court of Special Appeals The Hon. Sheila Tillerson Adams Administrative Judge Marylands Seventh Judicial District The Hon. Judge Larnzell Martin Jr. Assignment judge for the Seventh Judicial Cir. Ct. The Hon. Judge Dwight D. Jackson The Hon. Judge Sherrie L. Krauser The Hon. William D. Missouri The Hon. Marilyn Bland, Clerk of the Court

(judicial enabler of) (judicial enabler of) (judicial enabler) (judicial enabler) (judicial enabler) (judicial enabler)

Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent

(judicial enabler) (judicial enabler) (judicial enabler) (judicial enabler) (judicial enabler) (judicial enabler)

Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondent

10

Statement Regarding the Lodged Appendix.

Petitioner is supplying the court with a second lodged appendix under separate cover, as permitted by this courts rules, petitioner now incorporates by reference the entire record created in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, the entire record of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the entire record of the United States District Court for Greenbelt Maryland, and the entire record of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Richmond, Virginia and all documents deriving from those pretense proceedings Pursuant to FRCP Rule 10 (c). The court is also requested to take judicial notice of the amended pleadings to the Hon. Chief Justice Roberts, who graciously granted petitioner an extension of time to file his petition and as the first lodged appendix filed and docketed with this court, the second lodged appendix being filed with petitioners petition is made necessary to show through diligent research from December 28 through February 28, 2011 the allotted time for filing of this petition.. Petitioner has found no evidence that the Maryland courts have at this time or have ever had any legal authority under the Constitution to issue unsigned pretense orders to citizens, as the numerous documents which are contained within the 2nd appendix will attest. The lodged appendix also clearly shows. Petitioner has asserted, a positive Affirmative defense in all courts as the court dockets clearly indicate, also the District Court's erroneous assertion that a jury trial was not demanded is patently false and incorrect [Att 1 clearly shows that on petitioner's first answer of March 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM, a jury trial was demanded and was requested by alleged

defendants/petitioner on all counts and all claims under prevailing statutes.1 no waiver was ever requested by either party. 1. A jury trial was requested, in my first answer, but never received. Their conclusion

within the circuit court and United States District Court clerks offices also that matters before this court now for the fourth time relate to previous frauds on this court, which can only properly be brought to the attention of the Supreme Court justices by the use of a lodged appendix. A summary of the historical background of these continuing frauds on the Supreme Court of the United States. Once again, petitioner RE- Incorporates by reference as allowed under FRCP Rule 10 (c). The records of these prior proceedings to allow this court to once again to review the underlying issues, and reasons why defendants/petitioner were forced under duress to file notices of removal, fearing a proceeding first to United States District Court in the District of Columbia. Under USCA title 15 section: 809. Validation of debts of (15 USC 1601)., Knowing from past history, a fair proceeding was impossible at in the corrupted State /Federal courts in Maryland as lodged appendix ll prov A, Petitioner is supplying the court with a second lodged appendix under separate cover, as

permitted by this courts rules, A lodged appendix is necessary to show this court that an affirmative defense has been raised. [2nd L,App 1 - 104] and also that a Jury trial was requested in first answer, but never received. [2nd L,App 7-14] Also that matters before this court now for the fourth time relate to previous frauds on the court[1st L,App 1-195]. This second lodged appendix brings attention to new evidence from the Maryland legislature, and Maryland Atty. Gen.'s office
1

Rule 38. Right to a Jury Trial; Demand (a) Right Preserved. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as provided by a federal statute is preserved to the parties inviolate. (b) Demand. On any issue triable of right by a jury, a party may demand a jury trial by: (1) serving the other parties with a written demand which may be included in a pleading no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served; and (2) filing the demand in accordance with Rule 5(d). (c) Specifying Issues. In its demand, a party may specify the issues that it wishes to have tried by a jury; otherwise, it is considered to have demanded a jury trial on all the issues so triable. If the party has demanded a jury trial on only some issues, any other party may within 14 days after being served with the demand or within a shorter time ordered by the court serve a demand for a jury trial on any other or all factual issues triable by jury. (d) Waiver; Withdrawal.A party waives a jury trial unless its demand is properly served and filed. A proper demand may be withdrawn only if the parties consent

this court must review regarding petitioner's constitutional rights and supporting petitioners the underlying issues, as to why defendants/petitioner was forced to file multiple notices of removal , fearing a just fair proceeding could not be obtained at in the state of courts in Maryland as lodged appendix will show. B. Petitioner is supplying the court with a second lodged appendix under separate cover, as

permitted by this courts rules. A lodged appendix is necessary to show this court that an affirmative defense has been raised [2nd L,App 1 - 104]. Also that a jury trial was requested in pettioners first answer, but never received. [2nd L,App 7-14] Also that matters before this court now for the fourth time relate to previous frauds on the court [1st L,App 1-195], second lodged appendix brings to its attention, new evidence from the Maryland legislature, and Maryland Atty. Gen.'s office at this court must review regarding petitioner's constitutional rights and supporting petitioners the underlying issues, as to why defendants/petitioner was forced to file multiple notices of removal, fearing that a just fair proceeding could not be obtained at in the state courts in Maryland as lodged appendix will show.

ISSUES PRESENTED
A. Did the inactions purportedly of The United States District Court Judge Alexander

Williams and purported unidentified panel of the United States Courts of Appeal judges abuse their discretion and duty of office by denying petitioners constitutional right to have this petitioners case re-moved to a federal court from a openly hostile and abusive state court system where numerous serious Federal and State constitutional questions and where prevailing serious Federal Constitutional rights were involved, thereby denying petitioners, vested Constitutional rights, under the Maryland Constitution, Art. IV .1 and Md. Declaration of Rights guarantee under Articles I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, X, XI, XII, XIV, XV, XVII, XII, XXI, XXXI,

XXXIII, XXXVII, XXXIX, XLII Amendments to the U. S. Constitution also afford relief to which petitioner was entitled to under Title 15 USC 1692 (e)-(k). And in doing so did the courts violate petitioners valid contract for services with the courts to provide full, fair and honest adjudicative services in receipt of fees paid into the court for the performance of fair judicial proceedings and making of the record, proceedings in open court which Petitioner never received as court acted, Ex Deliacteo. B, Did alleged pretense Ex Facto unsigned order of Judge Williams of the United States

District Court conflict with the established law and Code of Conduct for Federal Judges in that alleged pretense ruling of The District Court was a nullity/ Ex Facto as recorded notice of appeal had legally divested. Judge Williams court of lawful jurisdiction of the case, as the court docket clearly indicates.[DE 30]; also, Judge Williams was apprised that the mandate was stayed pending a three-judge panel review in appellate court when agents of the court acted Ex dolo, malo non oritur action to disenfranchise petitioner under color of law and authority of his legal rights. 08/31/2010 30 MANDATE of USCA "STAYED" until disposition of the petition or motion as to 25 Notice of Appeal filed by George E. McDermott (krc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/31/2010)

C.

With full knowledge of this pretense order, allegedly by Judge Williams or some

unknown agents under the judge's direct control, decided Ex dolo malo and as de facto judges to issue unsigned pretense order implicating Judge William as the maker/executor . Using sham unverifiable PACER and CM/ECF electronic court administration systems to facilitate their crimes, which the issuing court now insiders/court clerk's refuses to properly validate or authenticate the Judges de facto pretense order of the court, September 20, 2007 [DE 31] which is a deliberate act Ex dolo malo action by underlings, of Judge Williams, court acting Ex delicto,

Ex dolo malo and interfereance with the US Court of Appeals vested power and authority, as the appellate court had total absolute legal jurisdiction, having not rendered its decision and had not issued a ("Ex Large verifiable mandate"). Instead, the unverifiable sham, entry was placed on CM/ECF electronic court administration systems; once again creating the pretense of Ex Large order. But was an action Ex dolo malo. 09/20/2010 31 ORDER denying 23 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying as MOOT 21 Motion for hearing on Removal; denying as MOOT 22 Motion for Extension of Time to File Document; remanding case to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland and directing the Clerk to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. on 9/20/2010. (c/m 9/20/2010 rk) (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/20/2010)

D.

The person or persons acting within the District Court in a Ex dolo malo capacity, as the

Judge de facto were fully aware. The District Court was without legal jurisdiction to enter an order dismissing petitioners case as of the appellate court who had full legal jurisdiction and authority over Petitioners case. The Purported pretense order of 09/20/10 , which was Mala Fides violated this petitioners legal due process rights, ExContractu, as appeals court was on record and head stayed its pretense, unsigned order August 18 2010, which remains unsigned, and unverifiable as [DE 30] indicates petitioner was awaiting proper a three-judge panel review on the reconsideration as The District Court agents acted extrajudicial / Mala Fides wrongfully placing false statement on courts, unverifiable CM/ECF electronic court administration systems, which forced the petitioner to file for relief through writs of mandamus in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking extraordinary remedies to correct the courts ExContractu breach of contract to court insiders. Failure to provide for contracted legal services regarding petitioners appeal Ex dolo malo. E. Petitioner must protest, and asserts that the lower courts personnel in the clerk's office are

incorrect in asserting that petitioner is not entitled to received a signed a judicial order of the

lower courts [2nd L, App 1 - 2]. or evidence of a verifiable authenticated electronic signature authorizing the courts court clerks agents usage of, unsigned orders in the name of the court, [2nd L,App 66-67& 96], clearly indicates the court is under mandate to be in compliance with Public Law No. 106-229 -- the Digital Signatures Act of 2002 E Government Act. Requiring verification compliance, and additional requirements under the freedom of information act 552. (C) which the Court asserts in its latest Ex dolo malo correspondence that COURTS are not subject to the law and are exempted from all FOIA request, which is disproven by the February 22, 2011 correspondence from the Maryland Attorney General's office General Counsel for Legislative Affairs see [2nd L, App 1-2]. According to this letter the Courts are not exempt standard set in courts position is contrary to Mulberry vs. Madison prevailing rules. REASONS WHY THE PETITION/WRIT SHOULD ISSUE It is well established that writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, but one which is available only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. In Re: Vicki Lopez-Lukis, 113 F.3d 1187 (11th Cir. 1997). Writ of error is a common law writ used to direct an official to perform his official duties. Where, as here, the alleged judges have issued numerous pretense unassigned unverifiable orders to petitioner Ex delicto, Ex dolo malo and respondents are benefiting from their unlawful acts, Ex dolo malo, Nonoritor Acto [2nd L,App 26 &-7& 14]; while the courts refuses to rule on a legal motions challenging alleged lack of legal Ex Fictinoe, Juris Ex Malitia, orders jurisdiction, it is appropriate with this court to issue the writ. Berens v.Cobb, 539 So.2d 24, 25 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1989) (citing State ex rel. Buckwalter v. City of Lakeland, 112 Fla. 200,150 So. 508 (1933)).this court is fully aware that judicial bias exist in the federal and state courts of Maryland against petitioner. Pettioner has numerous motion for recusal which have been requested and denied by Ex Fictinoe Juris, Ex Malitia

orders. A district judge's refusal to disqualify himself can be reviewed in this by way of a petition for a writ of certiorari.

Statement of facts Pursuant to Supreme Court rule 14 (g) As not to take up the courts valuable time, petitioner will rely on the documents indicated, filed in the court below, which had been appended in two separate lodged an appendixs in the Court possession. Petitioner now asks that the court to take judicial notice, under Article II, Rule 201 (a) (b) (d) (e) (f), as all proceedings in this matter have been in secret, off the record to this point with no hearing is being held, no trials held as requested, no jury trial, as requested, no opportunity to present oral arguments. These worked in concert to lead this petitioner to file for an appeal to this honorable court. Facts are proven by documents contained in the lodged appendixes and can be verified, court records of the respective proceeding. A private video record of the matters before this court has been made available to the court by the Internet @secretjustice.com for the courts convenience. Hereafter to be referred to as abbreviated @{SJ.C.Pr #ooo} as pro se litigator has had to rely on perfecting the record without ever being allowed the honor and privilege of defending himself in open court, where proceedings were recorded.

1. Facts are and the record will reflect petitioner had an alleged mortgage fraud and violations of Title 15 USC 1692. For many years against respondents see [2nd L, App 36]. Also see [1st L, App 1-2 through 196].. 2. Facts are and record will reflect petitioner in his first answer to the court on March 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM, filed an affirmative defense seeking a jury trial, claiming fraud on all counts. Under federal statutes, and that collusion in the Maryland court system would prevent a fair trial. Separate motion for removal was filed as docket will reflect and verify see [2nd L, App 7-14].& @{SJ.C. show #212}] court records were kept out of the Clerks office, but in the judge's chambers until late March preventing petitioner access to records. 3. Facts are and record will reflect petitioner was forced to file a removal actions against respondents action as bank and case hijacking Judge Thomas Smith to federal courts Also see [2st L, App 15-16]. & @{SJ.C.show #176}. Also, see [1st L, App 1-198] court files were kept out of the court clerks office but we kept in the judge's chambers until late March preventing petitioner access to records, all proceedings were secret off the record. 4. Facts are and record will reflect petitioner Court of Special appeals for Maryland granted a stay of foreclosure see [2nd L, App 18-20].& @{SJ.C.show #177}. although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court (" upon inspection.") 5. Facts are and record will reflect petitioner Judge Williams reportedly issued an order to show cause for respondents which petitioner responded to May 5, 2011. See [2nd L, App 23-24].& @{SJ.C.show #180}. Although, no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court (" upon inspection.") 6. Facts are and record will reflect petitioner, on May 22, 2010 Court of Special Appeals issues another unsigned order, conditional stay pending the placement of a draconian bond, knowing court had no jurisdiction . See [2nd L, App 25-26].& @{SJ.C. show #180} although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court " upon inspection.") 7. Judge Krauser had been asked to recuse himself in numerous other matters, but refused. 8. Facts are and record will reflect petitioner Maryland Court of Special Deals for gangsters continues to issue unsigned orders. While this case was on appeal to federal court as a August 5, 2010 see [2nd L, App 28-29].& @{SJ.C.show #181} although no order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court (" upon inspection.") 9. Facts are and record will reflect petitioner USCA clerk sends unsigned order motion to strike. Respondents, fraudulent, corporate affiliation affidavit. See [2nd L, App 27-] and @{SJ.C.show #181} although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court (" upon inspection.")

10. Facts are and record will reflect petitioner Maryland Court of Special Deals for gangsters. Clerks office sends pretense on the side order by fax to petitioner, denying reduction in draconian super supersedeas bond once again, while appeal was still pending in federal courts See [2nd L, App 30-31].& @{SJ.C.shows #183-85}. although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court ("upon inspection.") 11. Facts are and record will reflect petitioner received signed order from the Court of Special Deals for gangsters by mail. August 17 petitioner files response on August 18 and clerk gives a second copy of purported order August 18, to petitioner. Both are obvious computer-generated forgeries, denying petitioner, just relief. See [2nd L, App 32-33] and @{SJ.C.shows #187-189} although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court ("upon inspection.") 12. Facts are and the record will reflect petitioner received a call from USCA at 1:15 PM stating request for stay denied. Case was reportedly dismissed fax copy you received setting the stage for respondents to sell petitioner's property on the courthouse steps illegally See [2nd L, App 34-35].& {SJ.C.shows #220-223}. although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court (" upon inspection.") Even though mandates was stayed. 13. Facts are and the record will reflect petitioner on September 2, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion for stay of mandate of August 18, pretense, unsigned order and the court grants the same. August 31, 2011 after respondents had with criminal malice sold petitioner's property on the courthouse steps to a known insider for undervalued price, See [2nd L, App 36-37].& @{SJ.C.shows #226-227} although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court ("upon inspection.") Even though mandates was stayed. 14. Facts are and the record will reflect petitioner received a call from USCA at 1:15 PM stating request for stay denied. Case was reportedly dismissed, faxed copy was received setting the stage for respondents to sell petitioner's property on the courthouse steps illegally See [2nd L, App 34-35].& @{SJ.C.shows @#20-223} although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court ("upon inspection.") Even though mandates was stayed. 15. Facts are and the record will reflect petitioner on September 3 petitioner was a candidate for United States Congress and participated in candidate forum which was televised and all in attendance were informed as to how corrupt our judicial system is in the state of Maryland because of our gangster courts using unsigned orders See [1st L, App 1-189 &[2nd L, App 1-105].& @{SJ.C.shows #1-227} although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court (" Upon inspection.") Even though mandates was stayed. ((No one willing to help in the candidates forum)).

16. Facts are and the record will reflect petitioner and record will reflect October 1, 2010, agents in the USCA fabricated a pretense order denying rehearing in banc , which petitioner took to the court. October 6, 2010 to verify that no signed document existed. Court pretested pretense, unsigned forgery See [2nd L, App 38-38].& @{SJ.C.show #230} Although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court (" after inspection.") 17. Facts are and the record will reflect, petitioner on October 13, 2010,. traveled to Richmond Virginia, to obtain copies of pretense of unsigned orders, which again were not in the court file and which again court clerk protested unsigned order without any verification of maker See [2nd L, App 40-41].& @{SJ.C.shows #231} although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court ("Upon inspection of same.") 18. Facts are and the record will reflect petitioner from October through November 2010. Petitioner is forced to file FOIA & Md. PIA request state and federal courts and government entities , all of which asserted immunity under false pretenses See [2nd L, App 1,2,43,50,51,49,5358-60,62,87-90&103].& @{SJ.C.show #231}. although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court ("Upon inspection.") 19. Facts are and the record will reflect petitioner once again, court of special deals for gangsters on September 17, 2010, produced and used the US mail to send another unsigned, pretense order denying just relief See [2nd L, App 42].& @{SJ.C.show #233. 234, and 235} although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court ("after inspection of the court files.") 20. Facts are and the record will reflect petitioner on October 19, 2010. petitioner was forced to go to Richmond once again to try to gain access to the pretense unsigned order issued October 18 with a witness, Dr. Elizabeth Pawlak of secret justice.org. Once again, no signed order See [2nd L, App 43].& @{SJ.C.shows #35} although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court (" upon inspection of all court files available.") 21. Facts are and the record will reflect petitioner had found out that hijacking Judge Thomas P. Smith had hijacked Judge Mittelstaedts case, as petitioner had feared, continuing his 17 years of malicious wrongful prosecution against petitioner and his family See [2nd L, App 52].& @{SJ.C.shows #4-49, 80, 85-86, 108, 114-127 educational videos}. although, gangster judge did sign the order in secret in his chambers and tried to conceal such from petitioner, under color of law and authority. 22. Facts are and the record will reflect petitioner was forced once again on December 10, 2010, to travel to Richmond to file 2 more filings with the United States Court of Appeals regarding.The AMENDED Petition for Writ of Mandamus And Petition For Writ Of Prohibition which the courts refuse to grant hearings on under color of law and authority See [1st L, App 11A-11B & 39-156].&

@{SJ.C.shows #239, 240 & 241 } although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court ("upon inspection of all available court files.") 23. Facts are and the record will reflect petitioner effectively petition this court on December 28, 2011 for an extension of time to compile this brief and by the grace of God, Chief Justice Roberts rightfully granted petitioner's application See [2nd L, App 55].& @{SJ.C.shows #243 & 245}. although no signed order was ever found in the official file jacket of the court ("upon inspection.") 24. Facts are and the record will reflect petitioner was a grace of God, ruling of the honorable Chief Justice Roberts edition has been able to through the use of FOIA statute, and MD. PIA statutes finely obtain proper legal rulings that this court needs to make a factual finding and reach a legal conclusion regarding whether petitioner was denied his due process rights law through court issuance of pretense unsigned unverifiable orders which I now know to be in violation of the Maryland Constitution and the Declaration of Rights See [2nd L, App 1-3,49-53,57-58.62-63,66 &108].& @{SJ.C.shows 2
Going to Annapolis to petition, members of the Cecil County delegation and the Maryland Senate Judiciary committee to help the victims of bank fraud and foreclosure fraud involving Cecil County 257 Bank and its attorneys follow up to victim stories programs 111 through 114 on this website.
NEW NEW

Watch

Filing a motion with the Maryland Court of Special Appeals to strike their illegal orders of December 7. As they are unsigned, unverifiable, and cannot be authenticated. basically fraud 101 by court clerks, Watch 256 acting as judges. January 20, 2011 visit to the National Archives, Washington DC as directed by the court personnel of the United States Supreme Court alleging records had been transferred there. Only one of the seven 255 case files requested is in the possession of the United States archives. Why would the court clerk Watch refused to produce these documents and send me on a wild goose chase. The reason is that courts believe they're above the law and do not have to produce verified authenticated signatures of judges or proceedings.
HeNEW Leaving NEW

the Library of Congress law library were purported cases were transferred by agents within the US Supreme Court. No documents were found with the exception of Richard 254 Finds petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, which was denied with an unsigned order. No other documents in any of the seven other cases was available or did the library have record of. Also stop at MY United States Sen. Rep. Ben Cardin's office seeking assistance with access to records Court refuses to produce. Visit to the Supreme Court of the United States confirms that courts will not produce documents known to be in their possession. Only one of the eight case files requested were at the court upon 253 inspection. January 19, 2011 four-minute video chronicling visit
NEW NEW

Watch

Watch

Filing a formal request with the clerk of the The United States Supreme Court for inspection of records Watch and public documents which of course they will not produce and allegedly are not required to, as OUR
2

this court is fully aware of its obligations, as stated by the Maryland Atty. Gen.'s office of counsel to the Gen. Assembly February 22, 2011. And I quote, "(IM in receipt of your letter dated February 1, 2011, which he stayed was copied to every member of the Maryland Senate and House of delegates. I have been authorized to respond on behalf of all recipients of your letter you are correct that Article IV, 1 of the Maryland Constitution requires or a court to be "courts of record." This requirement has been interpreted to require the court orders be in writing and not oral, see e.g. Redmond v. chance, 32 Md. 42, 52 (1870

courts are claiming to be exempt from the freedom of information act and the 2000 E. Sign ACT which 252 is of course not true. Program 251 , putting the Maryland General Assembly on notice that the courts are committing fraud on the citizens of Maryland by issuing unsigned orders report from the statehouse and Maryland Court Watch 251 of Special Appeals. 150 requests under the freedom of information act. 8 minutes long Cecil County Bank robbing people through foreclosure fraud schemes. Updates to follow
NEW

. although once again no signed order was ever found in the official file

jacket of the court ("upon inspection.") Emphasis supplied

In conclusion of the statement of facts, it is the position of petitioner and now the position of the Maryland Attorney General's, Office of General Counsel for the Legislature that unsigned orders have not been authorized for use in the state of Maryland for any of its courts including the federal courts, which must respect Maryland's Constitution and Declaration of Rights. [2nd L, App 2-3].& The synopsis outlined in bullet points 1 through 23 is but a fractional record of one case out of 110 cases involving petitioner as the victim and respondents and their court insiders are doing in a conspiracy, docket entries now total at approximately 7000 docket entries in state and federal courts in which this pro se, unskilled, victim/petitioner and his family been forced to defend their rights and liberty and property against an abusive unjust prejudice judicial systems which they have encountered over the past 17 years spread throughout the nation trying to reclaim his families rights and liberties divested from them under color of law by the use and abuse of a prejudicial court system, employing unconstitutional use of unsigned, unauthentic orders and decrees under color of law, authority to protect criminal conduct of insiders over the Constitution and rule of law. This court is fully aware that all records from 1995 to present are now housed at the National Archives in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for now and for many years to come as a protection for citizens. These records will verify that the court system's unconstitutional use of unsigned unverifiable orders is evidently prevalent. Petitioner having checked the records

and storage and irritated court clerks and found that no authenticated, verifiable signed orders exist amongst these files which I have indexed for the court convenience [1st L, App 9A-9B also 2nd L, App 95].& @{SJ.C.shows #270}. Additional exemplars of

unsigned orders obtained as late as February 25, 2011 are attached. See [ 2nd L,
App 95-103]. Where all 42 varying examples of unsigned orders are depriving victims of the rights and liberties in varying formats not approved by Congress. The most horrendous examples are from the Circuit Court records from Baltimore City, where petitioner witnessed court clerk scotch taping judges signature images onto court documents, and then to add insult to injury this court clerk TRUE TESTED this same document which he had just forged before me. See [ 2nd L, App 100-103]. Which I memorialized on video @{SJ.C.show #

270}.END. QUESTIONS PRESENTED # 1 RESTATED

Does the Constitution of the United States provide for the courts to use illegal, unauthorized, unverifiable and patently false pretense unsigned orders; which the courts, clerks refused to validate, authenticate, or produce original of. These unsigned orders, which are Ex dolo malo, non oritur actio as they have not been authorized or memorialized into positive law by legislative process. Furthermore when recipients, repeatedly appears in court clerks offices with witnesses seeking the validation. of these Ex Facto documents, the court clerks , repeatedly refuse to validate these illegal Ex Contractu, Ex Facto, Ex Fictinoe Juris, Ex Malitia orders; thereby denying petitioner's constitutional rights under Articles III and IV of the Federal Constitution; thereby denying litigants due process at law requiring equal protection under the law, court clerks refusal to validate pretense orders is putting petitioners enumerated legal rights, liberties and property in jeopardy under color of law. 28 USC 1691 Seal and teste of process.

ARGUMENT AS TO QUESTION # 1 PRESENTED

One does not have to go far to find the answer to this question. Thanks to the assistance of Chief Justice Roberts, petitioner was successful in petitioning the entire Maryland General Assembly of Maryalnd, February 1, 2011 and was fortunate enough to receive clarification on this issue from the Maryland Attaorney General's office, Office of the Council to the Gen.

Assembly in a responsive letter. See [2nd L, App 1-2 ]. & Video record @{SJ.C.show #264}.

And I quote ("you are correct that Article IV 1 of Maryland Constitution requires that
our courts be "Court of Record." This requirement has been interpreted to require that court orders be in writing and not oral, see e.g. Redmond vs chance 32 M.D. 42, 52 (1870), 28 USC 1691 this Court has been requested to take judicial notice of this authoritative document as it is properly signed and was mailed by the United States mail. 28 USC 1734 1. As statement of facts clearly indicates petitioner is and has been in the belief for the past 17 years at the courts are acting outside of their jurisdiction and authority of state and federal in Maryland 99, Restatement Third The Law Governing Lawyers. Using these now unconstitutional, unauthorized orders to force petitioner into debt slavery and financial ruin, for reasons unknown, petitioner has asserted throughout all these proceedings from the four respondents initiated this fraudulent claim. August 13, 2009 See [2nd L, App .3-5]. Under color of law3, criminal malfeasance by court insiders, as outlined in defendants/petitioners first answer and motion for removal. See [2nd L, App 7-14]. 24 C.F.R. 203. 2. The court cannot mistake language used in notice for removal to the United States District Court for Washington, DC that petitioner had the great fear that's officers of the court would not act in accordance with their office 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 to prevent his rights and liberties from being taken by respondents using false claims and false affidavits. Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1985. 4[History: R.S. Sec. 1980 derived from acts July 31, 1861, ch. 33, 12 Stat. 284; Apr.
3

Color of office refers to an act usually committed by a public official under the appearance of authority, but which exceeds such authority. An act committed under color of office is sometimes required to prove malfeasance in office. Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted no, to do. augherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956 internal citations omitted).

20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 2, 17 Stat. 13 "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment." Section was formerly classified to section 47 of Title 8, This statute, enacted to aid in "'the preservation of human liberty and human rights'" Owen v. City of Independence, 445 US 622, 636 (1980), reflects a congressional judgment that a "damages remedy against the offending party is a vital component of any scheme for vindicating cherished constitutional guarantees." As remedial legislation, [the Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment] is to be construed generously to further its primary purpose. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 US 635 (1980). U.S.C. Title 18 Sec. 241 - 242. "Whoever, under color of any law, willfully subjects any person ... to the deprivation of any rights ... protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." the 100 + unsigned orders make it clear that more than one court officer was involved and conspired with respondents agents. The Court record speaks for itself and injustice has been done. "Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession forever (Luke 23; 31-34) I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter endowed with will...Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." (Letter to John Cartwright, Monticello, June 5, 1824). THOMAS JEFFERSON ON DEMOCRACY 162 (S. Padover Ed. 1953). . End answer

QUESTIONS PRESENTED # 2 RESTATED In that certain courts within the United States have Ex Facto, Ex Fictinoe Juris, Ex Malitia enacted a totally biased and prejudiced system of pretense electronic filing known as PACER and CM/ECF as electronic court administration systems, bypassing the common law right to inspect and to copy all judicial records was reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) as inherent to the First Amendment. In doing so, the US Supreme Court ("said that the right was necessary for the public "to keep a watchful eye on government"). If this is so, did the US District Court and the US Court of Appeals clerk's offices deny petitioner First Amendment rights to access to his own records, which are alleged to be Ex Contractu, Ex Facto, Ex Fictinoe juris, Ex Malitia? Once again, where and when did the action by these court clerks acting Ex Facto defeat justice and reward criminal fraud on the

part of respondents and their clients, in this matter. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 Perjury, (Title 18 U.S.C. 1621). ARGUMENTS AS TO THE SECOND QUESTION PRESENTED Once again we have a question that the common man could easily understand and once again thanks to the extension of time granted by Chief Justice Roberts petitioner has been able to locate published law that supports his contention that the courts were acting outside of the office 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 and the Constitution by not adhering to the minimal requirements under the 2000 E Sign Act, as statutorily requirements. Accordingly, well aware of the directive from the executive office of the Pres. Office of Management and Budget, which notified all courts on August 25, 2006 of their legal obligations and reporting requirements under newly enacted PACER and CM/ECF as electronic court administration systems. See [2nd L, App 66-67 ]. and Video record @{SJ.C.show #255-259}. (John 12:1-3) 1. Once again, courts respondents and court officers were repeatedly notified of their

obligation to act in good faith, 28 USC 1964 but chose to act in malfeasance and criminal contempt to deprive pro se litigant of rights and liberties vested under the Constitution, and in northern duties as codified under 44 USC Rule 3606. As our founders recognized, and `I quote (""The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and claws after he shall have entered." (Notes on Virginia, Query XIIV). THOMAS JEFFERSON ON DEMOCRACY 162 (S. Padover Ed. 1953). 2, This Court need only look at the hundred plus unsigned orders in various forms and

formats, none of which is consistent one with another, all of which are unsigned. 28 USC 1964 all of which my video records will attest to, originals were not in court files. When public files were inspected, and all of which represent a malfeasance of office on the part of the court clerks,

28 USC 1691 Seal and teste of process 28 USC 1657, allowing underlings to prepare and mail these documents without proper legal jurisdiction and or authority. See[1st L, App 1-19 for past history & 2nd L, App 42, 43, 49, 50, 51, 60 and 84-86.]. & Video record @{SJ.C.shows # 1270} support the statement. 3. Is well-established law that judges cannot delegate their powers to outside agents on

DELEGATION OF POWER Thomas Jefferson said it best "Our ancient laws expressly declare that those who are but delegates themselves shall not delegate to others, powers which require judgment and integrity in their exercise." The courts have breached a contract with petitioner by allowing such and supervise an authenticated pretense recordkeeping by insiders. 28 USC 2071 (f) 4. Once again we must return to February 22, 2011 statement from Maryland Attorney

General's office, Office of the Council to the General Assembly in a responsive letter. See [2nd L, App 1-2 ]. & Video record @{SJ.C.show #264}. And I quote ("you are correct that

Article IV 1 of Maryland on Constitution requires that our courts be "Court of Record." This
requirement has been interpreted to require that court orders be in writing and not oral, see e.g. Redmond vs chance 32 M.D. 42, 52 (1870), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 the record speaks for itself. 99% of orders, unsigned 2% sign order. Something is very wrong with this picture.5. The Atty. Gen. admits no constitutional amendment allowing the use of these pretense of unsigned orders by unknown unauthorized parties in the court. EX POST FACTO LAW (Acts 1;9-14) 5. Finally there is abundant evidence that court were aware of these in proper actions in the

severity and distress they were causing on petitioner and his family See [1st 1-196 + 2nd L, App
5

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS "Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter endowed with will...Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." (Letter to John Cartwright, Monticello, June 5, 1824). THOMAS JEFFERSON ON DEMOCRACY 162 (S. Padover Ed. 1953).

58-60]. & Video record @{SJ.C.shows #73, 146, 162, and 168 +264} petitioner has had every constitutional right stripped from himself and his family, by the courts use of unauthorized unverifiable unsigned orders, yet purportedly, Maryland unlike other States purports to have no bond protection or citizens under Title 42 to compensate victims of judicial abuse. In lawsuits against state officers. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983; In lawsuits against federal officers while acting EX CONTRACTU. NRS 282.010 Oaths and official bonds of officers; when term of office begins. NRS 282.040 Form. All official bonds required by law of officers shall be: NRS 282.050 Bond in force during term of office: effect of subsequent law: conditions. NRS 282.060 Bond for benefit of injured or aggrieved person; action on bond without assignment. (See NEVADA CASES). State bond trust fund act waived sovereign immuntity, contested to suit upon official bond. Hill v. Thomas, 70 Nev. 389, 270 P.2d 179 (1954), cited, Hardgrave v. State, 80 Nev. 74, at 76, dissenting opinion at 82, 389 P.2d 249 (1964), Wilmurth v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 80 Nev. 337, 393 P.2 302 (1964) 6. Petitioner asserts it's unconscionable, unbelievable, and a fiction of law that respondents

could use unsigned orders; produced by unidentified parties to steal and sell properties while case was statistically closed on appeal, yet not one officer of the court will produce any required electronic signatures or originals of Courts EX CONTRACTU orders as required by law 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331

QUESTIONS PRESENTED # 3 RESTATED

Did the lower courts both State and Federal violate petitioner's constitutionally protected rights afforded under the Maryland constitution Art. IV Sec.1 and Md. Declaration of Rights guaranteed under Articles. I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, X, XI, XII, XIV, XV, XVII, XII, XXI, XXXI, XXXIII, XXXVII, XXXIX XLII, by issuing unsigned orders refusing to validate the court pretense orders using a Ex Facto, case management process, which encourages falsifying court documents, and records, without oversight? 28 USC 1652 State laws as rules of decision.

ARGUMENT ASKED FOR THIRD QUESTION PRESENTED.

If this court supports current Case Law. 28 USC 2071 (f) the common law of man, the Constitution of Maryland and the Declaration of Rights afforded therein. 28 USC 2074 (b) clearly states that any rule or abolishing, or modify an evidentiary privilege will /shall have no force or of fact unless approved by act of Congress. This should be a no-brainer in that once again we see correspondence from February 22, 2011 and statement from Maryland Atty. Gen.'s office. Office of the Council Gen. Assembly in a responsive letter. See [2nd L, App 1-2 ]. & Video record @{SJ.C.show 264}, which would appear to resolve this question And I once again quote ("you are correct that Article IV 1 of Maryland on Constitution requires that our courts be "Court of Record." This requirement has been interpreted to require that court orders be in writing and not oral, see e.g. Redmond vs chance 32 M.D. 42, 52 (1870), 1. However , given this court's use of pretense of unsigned orders, which are always

unverifiable, and that this is petitioner's 4th petition to this court alerting the Supreme Court as to the fraud and injustice working clandestinely working within the lower courts proceeding
MALA FIDES

(Philippians 1; 3-6). This court is responsible for maintaining a standard of care

consistent with their oath of office 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 EX CONTRACTU / OUT of contracts of employment as federal judges employed for the protection of the rights and liberties of our citizens. The court is fully aware that petitioner has cited malfeasance and malicious practice time and time again. Due to the almost 100 pretense of unsigned orders, Petitioner has received from this court and others under its control. These pretense unsigned, unverifiable orders mala fides have allow local acting EX DOLO MALO
TO

overturn jury verdicts after a jury verdict after jury

verdict, while allowing false and perjured testimony. As this case evidences inferior courts are not operating pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 Perjury, (Title 18 U.S.C. 1621). Which has caused petitioner to lose numerous businesses, caused petitioner to become a debt slave, because the

courts failed to act in good faith and allow court proceedings to proceed as the Constitution provides for the courts have failed to provide required services (John 12:1-3) give their best, although courts are aware that respondents are acting in Malice and their actions are illegal. 2. As the court is fully aware the term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another

party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Express malice occurs when a party gives notice of the intention to commit a crime. Implied malice occurs when, in the course of nefarious or unlawful doings, a party causes the death of another party or does harm to another. Malice, in a legal sense, may be inferred from the evidence and imputed to the defendant, depending on the nature of the case. 3.. This court has repeatedly denied petitioner access to the records. This court and other

courts have been clandestinely working with other court insiders partner with others to defeat justice. By employing unauthorized pretense orders in proceedings in which Ex dolo malo, procedures off the record denied petitioner his legal rights by the use of Ex Contractu, Ex Facto Ex Fictinoe juris, Ex Malitia. These Pretense orders all of which are unsigned, all unverified See [1st L.App.9a-196 + 2nd L, 1-110 ]. & Video record @{SJ.C.shows #1-270} show petitioner has entered contract after contract with the courts only to have them broken under color of law in addition, thousands of other citizens are being destroyed the same way, while justice is allowed to run amok, protecting gangsters of the victims of foreclosure fraud purportedly illegal under 15 USC 1692. The fair debt collection practices act, which no court allegedly has jurisdiction to grant relief to victims. 3 Once again I must go to Thomas Jefferson who has said and I quote " "Our country is too

large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable

to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens, and the same circumstance, by rendering direction impossible to their constituents, will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder and waste. And I do verily believe, that if the principle were to prevail, of a common law being in force in the United States...it would become the most corrupt government on the earth..." (Letter to Gideon Granger, Monticello, August 13, 1800). THE POLITICAL WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 97 (Dumbauld Ed. 1955). 4. The bottom line, defendants have had their constitutional rights taken from them by EX

Contractu courts employing 28 USC 2071 (f) false statement and the use of these the use of unconstitutional pretense, unsigned unverifiable orders and opinions. The court did not refute that the petitioner has been injured. The financial ruin of petitioner at the hands of respondents and co-conspirators as video evidence clearly shows their arrogant disregard for the rule of law and court procedures allow respondents to boastfully sell petitioner property on the courthouse steps, August 18, 2010, knowing their counterparts in the court clerk's offices, in judges chambers would rubberstamp their fraud on the court and deal them out of this serious criminal charges resulting from foreclosure fraud, See [1st L.App.9a-196 + 2nd L, 13-6 + 7-14 ]. & Video record @{SJ.C.show #226-227} yet corrupt lawyers protect corrupt judges. While records reflect issue is chosen to work within the law for the benefit of other victims . (Ruth; 2; 10-12) 5. Yet purportedly A.B.A. Members, Judges and Attorneys are exempt from laws of

common man outlined under TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I CRIMES CHAPTER 79 PERJURY defined by courts against common man. Under Sec. 1621. Perjury generally refers to Whoever - (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any

written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of Title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States. if you're not a court insider or member of judge's family, you have no rights in today's court. These insiders even deny existence of their employers requirements under 28 USC 1352 - Bonds executed under federal law.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED # 4 RESTATED

Did the lower courts violate petitioner's due process rights through the issuance of pretext Ex dolo malo administrative process using unauthorized, unsigned orders, both in the state and Federal courts, which are not approved for nor authorized by constitutional amendment by the State and or Federal Legislatures. Md. Declaration of Rrights Art. III, XVII & XXX also (Title 28, sec. 1257 of the U.S. Code), Art. XV, 5. States ex rel. Thompson v. Dye, 221 F.2d 763 ARGUMENT REGARDING QUESTION NUMBER FOUR Petitioner has petitioned every member of the Maryland Gen. Assembly, both delegates and senators, all United States Congressmen and Senators, the House and Senate Judiciary committee, the administrative offices of the court in Washington DC, the administrative offices for the courts in Annapolis Maryland, and the clerk of the courts for P,G. County Md.. For proof of their legal 28 USC 2071 (f) compliance with the 2002 E, Sign Act, and their respective administrative procedural safeguards and guidelines in which the courts operate regarding case administration, case preservation , case oversight and case management /administration, all of which all have refused to any acknowledge the existence any such legally required documents

exist, which is in conflict with 28 USC 2074 (b) clearly states that any rule or abolishing, or modify an evidentiary privilege will when a shall have no force or of fact unless approved by act of Congress. Leaving one to believe that judges merely transmit their pretense orders and pretense opinions to their respective clairvoyant law clerks, telepathically off the record, as a public records never know contain any of the three core documents in the public case file, which is the only case file that has any legal meaning. By law. Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538 and its progeny. (2) No prior appellate decision.- Except as otherwise provided in Rule 8-304 (c), 28 USC 2071 (f) 1 Once again, the common law of man, the Constitution of Maryland and the Declaration

of Rights afforded therein; this should be a no-brainer in that once again we refer to correspondence from February 22, 2011 and statement from Maryland Atty. Gen.'s office. Office of the Council for the Gen. Assembly in a responsive letter. See [2nd L, App 1-2 ]. & Video record @{SJ.C.show #264}, again we see correspondence from February 22, 2011 and statement from Maryland Atty. Gen.'s office. Office of the Council Gen. Assembly in a responsive letter. See [2nd L, App 1-2 ]. & Video record @{SJ.C.show #264}, which would appear to answer this question And I once again quote ("you are correct that Article IV 1 of Maryland Constitution requires that our courts be "Court of Record." This requirement has been interpreted to require that court orders be in writing and not oral, see e.g. Redmond vs chance 32 M.D. 42, 52 (1870), same rules apply here 28 USC 2071 (f). mala in sa there must be a regional. 2. Not so fast, whose telling the truth? and who is not? The court cannot have it both ways,

nor can the Maryland Gen. Assembly . Either you have a law that protects all people equally or you have no law at all. As a nation we are used to seeing In God We Trust on our coins and Federal Notes (paper money). We even ask grace on the food we eat, open legislative sessions

with prayer, and take solemn oaths before God! And throughout America, both old and new, runs the theme truth equals freedom. and we have heard Ye shall know the Truth; and the Truth shall make you free. Where did the equation originate if not in the Biblical text? Thomas Jefferson said that resistance to tyranny is obedience to God. And Lincoln phrased it, a nation under God! So do pretense unsigned orders reflect the truth or fiction of law. (Luke 11; 5-10) 3. It is petitioners stand, and belief that the Ex dolo malo administrative process using

unauthorized, unsigned pretense orders by our courts is wholly unconstitutional, (cf. Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241) denies him due process or violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.if the respondents actions are not treasonous against the Constitution and rule of law They certainly violate the intent of our law, "The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption's of time and party, its members would become despots." (Letter to William C. Jarvis, Monticello, September 28, 1820). THOMAS JEFFERSON ON DEMOCRACY 64 (S. Padover Ed. 1953). Certainly, this court knows, no one would ask a court to accept a check if it did not bear a verifiable signature, no paper can be filed with the court without a verifiable signature, no property should be transferred or sold at public auction, unless the purported mortgagor produces original in court with a verifiable signature. The Governor of the state of Maryland, and numerous Congressmen and Senators and delegates recently requested that Chief Judge Bell suspend foreclosures in Maryland because of Robo signers and fraudulent foreclosure documents, all parties signed this request See [2nd L, App 93-94 ]. & Video record @{SJ.C.show #264}, respondents never produced documents in open court, court will not allow for forensic analysis of alleged forgery, but petitioner still had his property sold illegally, while case was closed statistically by the circuit court and case was still on appeal to the US Court of Appeals now to this court. When will justice be done. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3331 Perjury, (Title 18 U.S.C. 1621).

4.

The US District Court clerk's office had in its possession, the notice of removal and

docket clearly indicates that first answer was filed with the court date stamped; then why was petitioner and codefendant denied the right to jury trial, 229 Md. at 383, 183 A.2d at 365. The cases cited make up a longbifurcated trial (cf. Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241) denies him due process or violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which was clearly evident on the first answer for the first liens filed with the circuit court. See [2nd L, App 7-14]. Had petitioner then allow a jury trial. Respondents would not have been able to sell petitioner's property illegally . See Video record @{SJ.C.show 264}, the pleadings themselves show fraud on the part of respondents
5.

Petitioner and codefendant were denied their constitutional rights requested in their first

pleadings to have a jury of their peers judge the law and the facts. You know in court proceedings which have never ever been held(cf. Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241) Justice was denied, because respondents have enlisted the help of insider contacts with tainted court personnel, which should and never again be allowed to happen. Once again, Jefferson on JURY (RIGHTS OF)"It is left, therefore, to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges, and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty." (Letter to Abbe Arnoux, Paris, July 19, 1789). 27THE POLITICAL WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 89 (Dumbauld Ed. 1955). 6. Maryland rules and committee notes a firm signatures are required. Why judges do not

follow the rules is improper, unconstitutional, and a fraud Committee Note. The last sentence of section (a), which allows a pleading to contain a business electronic mail address and a business

facsimile number, does not alter the filing or service rules or time periods triggered by the entry of a judgment. See Blundon v. Taylor, 364 Md. (2001) (b) Effect of signature.- The signature of an attorney on a pleading or paper constitutes a certification that the attorney has read the pleading or paper; that to the best of the attorney's knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for improper purpose or delay

Questions presented # 5
Does this court have in its possession, any secret order from the Congress of the United States or any document, or congressional mandate from the president of the United States archived in the National Archives enacted into positive law; which purportedly allow a secretive off the record, deliberative process and the appellate courts in conflict with petitioner's best and rights under Maryland constitution Art IV, Sec 1 court, to be court of record at the seal, including the administrative CASE MANAGEMENT of cases Article IV, 19 of the Constitution of Maryland. (f) Clerk.-

ARGUMENT REGARDING QUESTION NUMBER FIVE Once again, this should be a no-brainer for the Supreme Court of the United States and its distinguished jurists. Once again thanks to the efforts of the Chief Justice. The Maryland attorney General on February 22, 2011 responded to this question. In his opening he states " Re: Your Public Information Request. Dear Mr. McDermott: I am in receipt of your letter dated February 1, 2011, which used date was copied to every member of the Maryland Senate and House of delegates. I have been authorized to respond on behalf of all recipients of your letter." This court would have to agree this is an authoritative letter from the highest authoritative body See [2nd L, App 1-2 ]. & Video record @{SJ.C.show #264 + 268}, The letter goes on to state, and I quote ("("you are correct that Article IV 1 of Maryland on Constitution requires that our courts be

"Court of Record." This requirement has been interpreted to require that court orders be in writing and not oral, see e.g. Redmond vs chance 32 M.D. 42, 52 (1870),. 1 In their response it would appear that the pretense of unsigned order have no force and

effect by law and are a nullity fiction of law/fraud. As stated above, no government agency, state or federal, can produce required documents showing administrative procedures are properly enforced for the protection and safeguarding of our citizens. In fact, every agency contacted claims no such documents exist and if these pretense documents did exist, they are covered by privilege, and the agency and documents are not covered under the established freedom of information laws or ACTS, of this nation and or the MDIIA legislative mandates, signed by the Governor, and made positive law. See [2nd L, App 1-2 +43,49,50,51,53.57.62,63,79. ]. & Video record @{SJ.C.show #264 + 268}, 28 USC 1343. Civil rights (a) courts unlawfully denied jurisdiction or subjecting their employers to actions regarding negligence, facilitating fraud. Under28 USC 2071 (f) no rule may be prescribed by a District Court other than under this section 28 USC 2074 (b) clearly states that any rule or abolishing, or modify an evidentiary privilege will when a shall have no force or of fact unless approved by act of Congress. 2. The following is a partial list of exemplars of codified laws and statutes. The Trial Court,

the Appellate Courts, US District Court all ignored by denying petitioner the legal access he requested to a jury trial by his peers, which is a fundamental constitutional requirement that was the MALA FIDES denied. By all courts with their use of these unauthorized pretense Ex dolo malo unverifiable illegal orders issued by the various courts, under color of law and authority. Once again, petitioner reiterates a jury trial was requested in first pleading pursuant to 28 USC 2713 Sec. 2713. Trial of ownership of property I must refer to our historical founders who worry About

"Trial by jury, I consider as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government

can be held to the principles of its constitution." 29(Letter to Thomas Paine, 1789). THOMAS JEFFERSON ON DEMOCRACY 160 (S. Padover Ed. 1953). Examples of statutes, All Courts ignored, which would have saved petitioners property.
(A) 28 USC 2713 - Sec. 2713. Trial of ownership of property Not later than twenty days before the return day of a warrant issued under section 2712 of this title, the party whose property is attached, on notice to the United States Attorney, may file a plea in abatement, denying the allegations of the affidavit, or denying ownership in the defendant of the property attached.

The court, upon application of either party, shall order a trial by jury of the issues.
Where the parties, by consent, waive a trial by jury, the court shall decide the issues. A party claiming ownership of the property attached and seeking its return is limited to the remedy afforded by this section, but his right to an action of trespass, or other action for damages, is not impaired. (B) 28 USC 951 - Sec. 951. Oath of office of clerks and deputies Each clerk of court and his deputies shall take the following oath or affirmation before entering upon their duties: "I, ___ XXX, having been appointed ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of such court, and will faithfully and impartially discharge all other duties of my office according to the best of my abilities and understanding.So help me God." (C) 28 USC 1343. Civil rights (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42; (2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote. (b) For purposes of this section (1) the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a State; and (2) any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

(D)

42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, 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 and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." Title 42, United States Code, Sec. 1983 (History: R.S. Sec. 1979 derived from act Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 1, 17 Stat. 13. "An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment." 42 U.S.C. Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights:

(E) 28 USC 1352 - Bonds executed under federal law The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, concurrent with State courts, of any action on a bond executed under any law of the United States, except matters within the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade under section 1582 of this title. (F) 28 USC 1451 Definitions For purposes of this chapter - (1) The term "State court" includes the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (2) The term "State" includes the District of Columbia. (G) 28 USC 1652 State laws as rules of decision The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply. (H) 28 USC 1657. Priority of civil actions (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each court of the United States shall determine the order in which civil actions are heard and determined, except that the court shall expedite the consideration of any action brought under chapter 153 or section 1826 of this title, any action for temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, or any other action if good cause therefore is shown. For purposes of this subsection, "good cause" is shown if a right under the Constitution of the United States or a Federal Statute (including rights under section 552 of title 5) would be maintained in a factual context that indicates that a request for expedited consideration has merit. (b) The Judicial Conference of the United States may modify the rules adopted by the courts to determine the order in which civil actions are heard and determined, in order to establish consistency among the judicial circuits. (I) 28 USC 1691 Seal and teste of process All writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof. (J) 28 USC 1734. Court record lost or destroyed, generally (a) A lost or destroyed record of any proceeding in any court of the United States may be supplied on application of any interested party not at fault, by substituting a copy certified by the clerk of any court in which an authentic copy is lodged. (b) Where a certified copy is not available, any interested person not at fault may file in such court a verified application for an order establishing the lost or destroyed record. Every other interested person shall be served personally with a copy of the application and with notice of hearing on a day stated, not less than sixty days after service. (K) 28 USC 1738 - State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form. Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken. (L) 28 USC 1731. Handwriting The admitted or proved handwriting of any person shall be admissible, for purposes of comparison, to determine genuineness of other handwriting attributed to such person. (M) 28 USC 1964. Constructive notice of pending actions Where the law of a State requires a notice of an action concerning real property pending in a court of the State to be registered, recorded, docketed, or indexed in a particular manner, or in a certain office or county or parish in order to give constructive notice of the action as it relates to the real property, and such law authorizes a notice of an action concerning real property pending in a United States district court to be registered, recorded,

docketed, or indexed in the same manner, or in the same place, those requirements of the State law must be complied with in order to give constructive notice of such an action pending in a United States district court as it relates to real property in such State. (a) Any realty or interest therein sold under any order

or decree of any court of the United States shall be sold as a whole or in separate parcels at public sale at the courthouse of the county, parish, or city in which the greater part of the property is located, or upon the premises or some parcel thereof located therein, as the court directs. Such sale shall be upon such terms and conditions as the court directs.
Property in the possession of a receiver or receivers appointed by one or more district courts shall be sold at public sale in the district wherein any such receiver was first appointed, at the courthouse of the county, parish, or city situated therein in which the greater part of the property in such district is located, or on the premises or some parcel thereof located in such county, parish, or city, as such court directs, unless the court orders the sale of the property or one or more parcels thereof in one or more ancillary districts. (b) After a hearing, of which notice to all interested parties shall be given by publication or otherwise as the court directs, the court may order the sale of such realty or interest or any part thereof at private sale for cash or other consideration and upon such terms and conditions as the court approves, if it finds that the best interests of the estate will be conserved thereby. Before confirmation of any private sale, the court shall appoint three disinterested persons to appraise such property or different groups of three appraisers each to appraise properties of different classes or situated in different localities. No private sale shall be confirmed at a price less than two-thirds of the appraised value. Before confirmation of any private sale, the terms thereof shall be published in such newspaper or newspapers of general circulation as the court directs at least ten days before confirmation. The private sale shall not be confirmed if a bona fide offer is made, under conditions prescribed by the court, which guarantees at least a 10 per centum increase over the price offered in the private sale. (c) This section shall not apply to sales and proceedings under Title 11 or by receivers or conservators of banks appointed by the Comptroller of the Currency. (N) 28 USC 2002 Notice of sale of realty A public sale of realty or interest therein under any order, judgment or decree of any court of the United States shall not be made without notice published once a week for at least four weeks prior to the sale in at least one newspaper regularly issued and of general circulation in the county, state, or judicial district of the United States wherein the realty is situated. If such realty is situated in more than one county, state, district or circuit, such notice shall be published in one or more of the counties, states, or districts wherein it is situated, as the court directs. The notice shall be substantially in such form and contain such description of the property by reference or otherwise as the court approves. (O) 28 USC 2041 Deposit of moneys in pending or adjudicated cases All moneys paid into any court of the United States, or received by the officers thereof, in any case pending or adjudicated in such court, shall be forthwith deposited with the Treasurer of the United States or a designated depositary, in the name and to the credit of such court. This section shall not prevent the delivery of any such money to the rightful owners upon security, according to agreement of parties, under the direction of the court. (P) 28 USC 2113 Definition For purposes of this chapter, the terms "State court", "State courts", and "highest court of a State" include the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. (Q) 28 USC 3013 Modification or protective order; supervision of enforcement The court may at any time on its own initiative or the motion of any interested person, and after such notice as it may require, make an order denying, limiting, conditioning, regulating, extending, or modifying the use of any enforcement procedure under this chapter. (R) 28 USC 3303. Value for transfer or obligation (a) Transaction. - Value is given for a transfer or an obligation if, in exchange for the transfer or obligation, property is transferred or an antecedent debt is secured or satisfied, but value does not include an unperformed promise made

otherwise than in the ordinary course of the promisor's business to furnish support to the debtor or another person. (b) Reasonably Equivalent Value. - For the purposes of sections 3304 and 3307, a person gives a reasonably equivalent value if the person acquires an interest of the debtor in an asset pursuant to a regularly conducted, noncollusive foreclosure sale or execution of a power of sale for the acquisition or disposition of such interest upon default under a mortgage, deed of trust, or security agreement. (c) Present Value. - A transfer is made for present value if the exchange between the debtor and the transferee is intended by them to be contemporaneous and is in fact substantially contemporaneous.

28 USC 3308.Supplementary provision Except as provided in this subchapter, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relating to principal and agent, estoppel, laches, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, insolvency, or other validating or invalidating cause shall apply to actions and proceedings under this subchapter.
(S)