By: Keith Allison
A few days ago, I wrote an article published by Land of The Free. The article involved a San Angelo, Texas, not Dallas as I originally stated, United States District Court Judge Sam R. Cummings. This article is meant to inform the reader of the specifics of what Ray Hernandez has encountered at the hands of this corrupt judge. As you may remember, Ray had filed a Motion for a Default Judgment based upon the fact that the defendant American Dental Association and others had failed/refused to respond to his allegations. Following is a comprehensive view of the problem and the settled case and/or statutory laws Judge Cummings has apparently decided have no meaning in his court. It is left to you the reader to act as the jury and determine Judge Cummingsâ€™ innocence or guilt.
Comes now the plaintiffâ€™s requesting an independent reconsideration of plaintiffâ€™s motion for a default judgment based upon the principles of settled case and/or statutory laws requiring the awarding of a Default Judgment any time the defendantâ€™s ignore, fail, and/or refuse to file a defense in any litigation.
1. In the case of State vs. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 65 NW 262 30 LRA 630 AM ST 459, the Court held: â€œWhen any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.â€ Also, as found in Stringer vs. Dilger, CA 10 Colo 313 F2d 536 (1963), the Court found: â€œActions by state officers and employees, even if unauthorized or in excess of authority can be actions under color of law.â€
2. Judge Cummings also violated the American Bar Association Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, d, which states: â€œRight to be Heard: A judge shall give every person who is legally interested in a proceeding or such a personâ€™s lawyer the Right to be heard according to law.â€ Judge Cummings also avoided complying with the findings of the case of Boyd vs. U.S., 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1885) where it is stated: â€œIt is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional Rights of the citizen, against any stealthy encroachments thereon.â€ Obviously, Judge Cummings decision to dismiss plaintiffâ€™s action without giving any
findings of facts and/or conclusions of law was also meant to deprive plaintiffs of their constitutionally protected Rights to a fair hearing.â€ Such action is despicable coming from a jurist, and is unacceptable behavior from any seated judge.
3. Title 18 U.S.C. Â§242 states: â€œActs under color of law include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that officialâ€™s lawful authority if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prison guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges,â€¦.â€
4. For all intents and purposes, it appears that Judge Cummings acted in a conspiracy with other defendants to interfere with plaintiffs Civil Rights; this was in violation of 42 U.S.C. Chapter 21, Subchapter I Â§1985 (2), where it is stated, in part, it is a conspiracy â€œif two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the Right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws.â€
5. 42 U.S.C. Chapter 21, Subchapter I Â§1985 (3) states: â€œDepriving persons of Rights or privileges. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitledâ€¦ or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby
another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any Right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.â€
6. Judge Cummings is also in violation of 42 U.S.C. Chapter 21, Subchapter I Â§1986 as it applies to Action for neglect to prevent. Here, it is stated: â€œEvery person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the actionâ€¦.â€ This provision of law may also have application where the Court Clerk is concerned due to her demonstration of contempt for the plaintiffâ€™s taking action against defendants.
7. Furthermore, by ignoring plaintiffâ€™s Rights to a Default Judgment, Judge Cummings further violated Federal Rule 56(e) where it is stated: â€œInstructs the court to find in favor of plaintiffâ€™s when defendants refuse/neglect to respond to plaintiffâ€™s allegations. Specifically, Rule 56(e) states: Statement of Facts Deemed Admitted Unless Properly Controverted; Specific Record of Citations Required.â€
8. In Strong Capital Management, Inc. (Plaintiffâ€™s) vs. Marylin Gonzalez-Toro (Defendant) March 18, 2008, the Court held, in part, â€œplaintiffsâ€™ statement of material facts in support of a motion for Summary Judgment. Because the appellants did not counter the statement of material facts, the district court deemed the facts admitted, granted summary judgment, and imposed joint and several liability on the appellants for fraudulent actsâ€¦.â€
9. Under U.S. district Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania â€“ Dispaquale vs. Wilfran Agricultural Industries, Inc., Case Number 000-3818, dated December 17, 2001, the Court held: â€œDefendant filed no answer to the complaint or responsive motions. Accordingly, Plaintiff obtained a default judgment in this case for failure of the Defendant to appear, plead or otherwise defend.â€
10. With the afore cited case and or statutory laws in effect, one can only question the purpose and/or validity of Judge Cummings decision; particularly because he is a federal judge, and is supposed to have prior knowledge of such findings of constitutional importance. The case of Owen vs. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622 clarifies that issue with no other interpretation possible. Here, it is stated: â€œOfficers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional Right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law.â€
11. 28 U.S.C. Section 1361 deals with: â€œAction to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.â€ Therefore, under authority of 28 U.S.C. Section 1361, plaintiffs do hereby instruct the Court to comply with both statutory and/or case law in the provision of their Rights to Default Judgment in this matter.
What is the juryâ€™s verdict in this matter?