Liberty For Life Association

     C Jefferson

Liberty For Life

CONTENTS

Support our advertisers

Hire STRATEGIZE.com

The World's Leading Strategic Consultancy

STRATEGIZE CONSULTANCY


The Earth Pan

LFL Founder Out Of Hiding With Extraordinary Solution to fix
Government:
Peopleisim.org

Peopleisim


The Construct of Live & Origin of Everything - Soulisim

Soulisim



MenuVert
Support Adverts it helps cover costs. Ads randomly generated by advertising companies:

ADVERTISE HERE:

 

InfoTelesys Lawsuit: I. CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED / CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED

Claims 1 to 3 Fraud

On Information and belief, DEFENDANTS violated the following Constitutional Rights giving rise to the following Claims upon which relief may be granted:

First Claim For Relief Fraud by Jeremy Fogel

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS:

JEREMY FOGEL, Jeremy Fogel,

Jon Doe’s, 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006 and September 13, 2006 and other dates, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of FRAUD and or INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION, in violation of the United States Constitution and Common Law was committed by the above listed DEFENDANT/S, who did willfully and unlawfully commit FRAUD and or INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION by willful disobedience of a process and law by dismissing a case entitled to summary judgment and by issuing a fraudulent order that was false and misleading for multiple reasons including the fact that the above listed DEFENDANT/S claimed that the tort actions of murder, kidnap, grand theft auto, libel, slander, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, trespass, fraud, and violations of 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 14th Amendments and other laws were not ‘claims upon which relief could be granted’.  the above listed DEFENDANT/S had knowledge of the falsity, recklessness and indifference to the truth and intended to induce PLAINTIFF’S reliance on said misrepresentation.  The above listed DEFENDANT/S is member of a class in which PLAINTIFFS had reason to expect would ordinarily be induced to be able to rely upon; and summary judgment ordinarily occurs when the real parties of interest defending a case fail to make any appearance or plea.  The above listed DEFENDANT/S intentionally concealed facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment and said DEFENDANTS knew or believed that they/he was not telling the truth; and did not have the confidence in the accuracy of his statement that he stated and he implied that he did; and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew that they/he did not have the grounds for the order when he implied that he did.  The above listed DEFENDANT/S intentionally concealed facts and failed to disclose facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment by also refusing to answer PLAINTIFFS lawfully and properly filed Motions and Affidavits for summary judgment when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to disclose said facts in particular since PLAINTIFFS filed said Motions and Affidavits Pro Se (In Pro Per) and that the above listed DEFENDANT/S has special knowledge that PLAINTIFF did not have when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to issue said summary judgment and that said summary judgment was a fact basic to the transaction and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew this fact and legal principle.

See JEREMY FOGEL’S orders dated October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006 and September 13, 2006 in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case Number C 05-00996 JF

DAMAGE

Damage to PLAINTIFFS stemming from reliance on said misrepresentation placed in said fraudulent order that the above listed DEFENDANT/S intentionally concealed facts and failed to disclose facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment by also refusing to answer PLAINTIFFS lawfully and properly filed Motions and Affidavits for summary judgment when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to disclose said facts in particular since PLAINTIFFS filed said Motions and Affidavits Pro Se (In Pro Per / In Propria Persona, Sui Juris) and that the above listed DEFENDANT/S has special knowledge that PLAINTIFF did not have when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to issue said summary judgment and that said summary judgment was a fact basic to the transaction and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew this fact and legal principle.

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

As a consequence of the willful and malicious actions of JEREMY FOGEL/Jeremy Fogel, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum certain amount of $66,016,803,250.00.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITIES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

TITLE 28—APPENDIX: RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS: TITLE VII. JUDGMENT: Rule 55. Default:

(a) Entry. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter such party's default.

(b) Judgment. Judgment by default may be entered as follows:

(1) By the Clerk. When the plaintiff's claim against a defendant is for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain, the clerk upon request of the plaintiff and upon affidavit of the amount due shall enter judgment for that amount and costs against the defendant, if the defendant has been defaulted for failure to appear and if the defendant is not an infant or incompetent person.

“Summary judgment must be granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See, e.g., Nelson v. American National Red Cross, 26 F.3d 193, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

Second Claim For Relief Fraud by James Ware

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS:

JAMES WARE, James Ware,

Jon Doe’s, 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006 and September 13, 2006 and other dates, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of FRAUD and or INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION, in violation of the United States Constitution and Common Law was committed by JAMES WARE, who did willfully and unlawfully commit FRAUD and or INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION by willful disobedience of a process and law by dismissing a case entitled to summary judgment and by issuing a fraudulent order that was false and misleading for multiple reasons including the fact that the above listed DEFENDANT/S claimed that the tort actions of assault, grand theft auto, libel, slander, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, fraud, and violations of 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 14th Amendments and other laws were not ‘claims upon which relief could be granted’.  the above listed DEFENDANT/S had knowledge of the falsity, recklessness and indifference to the truth and intended to induce PLAINTIFF’S reliance on said misrepresentation.  The above listed DEFENDANT/S is member of a class in which PLAINTIFFS had reason to expect would ordinarily be induced to be able to rely upon; and summary judgment ordinarily occurs when the real parties of interest defending a case fail to make any appearance or plea.  the above listed DEFENDANT/S intentionally concealed facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment and he knew or believed that he was not telling the truth; and did not have the confidence in the accuracy of his statement that he stated and he implied that he did; and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew that he did not have the grounds for the order when he implied that he did.  the above listed DEFENDANT/S intentionally concealed facts and failed to disclose facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment by also refusing to answer PLAINTIFFS lawfully and properly filed Motions and Affidavits for summary judgment when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to disclose said facts in particular since PLAINTIFFS filed said Motions and Affidavits Pro Se (In Pro Per) and that the above listed DEFENDANT/S has special knowledge that PLAINTIFF did not have when JAMES WARE had a fiduciary duty to issue said summary judgment and that said summary judgment was a fact basic to the transaction and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew this fact and legal principle.

See JAMES WARE’S orders dated October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006 and September 13, 2006 in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case Number C07 00391.

DAMAGE

Damage to PLAINTIFFS stemming from reliance on said misrepresentation placed in said fraudulent order that the above listed DEFENDANT/S intentionally concealed facts and failed to disclose facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment by also refusing to answer PLAINTIFFS lawfully and properly filed Motions and Affidavits for summary judgment when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to disclose said facts in particular since PLAINTIFFS filed said Motions and Affidavits Pro Se (In Pro Per) and that the above listed DEFENDANT/S has special knowledge that PLAINTIFF did not have when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to issue said summary judgment and that said summary judgment was a fact basic to the transaction and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew this fact and legal principle.

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

As a consequence of the willful and malicious actions of the above listed DEFENDANT/S, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum certain amount of $3,001,000.00.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITIES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

TITLE 28—APPENDIX: RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS: TITLE VII. JUDGMENT: Rule 55. Default:

(a) Entry. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter such party's default.

(b) Judgment. Judgment by default may be entered as follows:

(1) By the Clerk. When the plaintiff's claim against a defendant is for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain, the clerk upon request of the plaintiff and upon affidavit of the amount due shall enter judgment for that amount and costs against the defendant, if the defendant has been defaulted for failure to appear and if the defendant is not an infant or incompetent person.

“Summary judgment must be granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See, e.g., Nelson v. American National Red Cross, 26 F.3d 193, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

Third Claim For Relief Fraud by Richard W. Wieking

PLAINTIFFS:

All PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS:

RICHARD W. WIEKING, Richard W. Wieking

Jon Doe’s, 1 to n.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS & ULTIMATE FACTS

On or about October 3, 2006, September 12, 2006, September 13, 2006, March 19, 2007; April 9, 2007; April 25, 2007, May 7, 2007 and June 4, 2007 and other dates, in the above named Judicial District, the crime of FRAUD and or INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION, in violation of the United States Constitution and Common Law was committed by the above listed DEFENDANT/S, who did willfully and unlawfully commit FRAUD and or INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION by willful disobedience of a process and law by refusing to issue summary judgment in cases entitled to such.  The above listed DEFENDANT/S had knowledge of the falsity, recklessness and indifference to the truth and intended to induce PLAINTIFF’S reliance on said misrepresentation.  The above listed DEFENDANT/S is member of a class in which PLAINTIFFS had reason to expect would ordinarily be induced to be able to rely upon; and summary judgment ordinarily occurs when the real parties of interest defending a case fail to make any appearance or plea.  By refusing to issue said summary judgment the above listed DEFENDANT/S intentionally concealed facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment and he knew or believed that he was hiding the truth; and did not have the confidence in the accuracy of his statement that he stated and he implied that he did by claiming to be the Clerk of the Court; and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew that he did not have the grounds for not issuing said summary judgments when he implied by refusing to respond that he did.  RICHARD W. WIEKING intentionally concealed facts and failed to disclose facts including the fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to a summary judgment by also refusing to answer PLAINTIFFS lawfully and properly filed Motions and Affidavits for summary judgment when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to disclose said facts in particular since PLAINTIFFS filed said Motions and Affidavits Pro Se (In Pro Per) and that the above listed DEFENDANT/S has special knowledge that PLAINTIFF did not have when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to issue said summary judgment and that said summary judgment was a fact basic to the transaction and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew this fact and legal principle.

See UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case Numbers C 05-00996 and C07 00391.

DAMAGE

Damage to PLAINTIFFS stemming from reliance on said misrepresentation placed in said fraudulent intentional concealment and failure to disclose fact that PLAINTIFFS were entitled to summary judgment by refusing to answer PLAINTIFFS lawfully and properly filed Motions and Affidavits for summary judgment when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to disclose said facts in particular since PLAINTIFFS filed said Motions and Affidavits Pro Se (In Pro Per) and that the above listed DEFENDANT/S has special knowledge that PLAINTIFF did not have when the above listed DEFENDANT/S had a fiduciary duty to issue said summary judgment and that said summary judgment was a fact basic to the transaction and the above listed DEFENDANT/S knew this fact and legal principle.

Damages incurred by Plaintiffs as a direct or indirect consequence to the above mentioned and referenced actions by DEFENDANTS are also incorporated herein as listed in the “K DAMAGES” section of this Complaint.

As a consequence of the willful and malicious actions of the above listed DEFENDANT/S, PLAINTIFF’S have sustained extraordinary damage in a sum certain amounts of $66,016,803,250.00 and $3,001,000.00.

AUTHORITIES

AUTHORITIES in section “K. COMMON AUTHORITIES” are incorporated herein by reference in addition to the following AUTHORITIES:

TITLE 28—APPENDIX: RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS: TITLE VII. JUDGMENT: Rule 55. Default:

(a) Entry. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter such party's default.

(b) Judgment. Judgment by default may be entered as follows:

(1) By the Clerk. When the plaintiff's claim against a defendant is for a sum certain or for a sum which can by computation be made certain, the clerk upon request of the plaintiff and upon affidavit of the amount due shall enter judgment for that amount and costs against the defendant, if the defendant has been defaulted for failure to appear and if the defendant is not an infant or incompetent person.

“Summary judgment must be granted where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See, e.g., Nelson v. American National Red Cross, 26 F.3d 193, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1994.

MenuVert
The Earth Plan's Peopleisim  is THE Solution to the Worlds Problems do IT!
It's time to shut down the Pedophiles & Lucifer Worshipers who sacrifice children - please visit & support Veterans For Child Rescue.
Liberty For Life can not endorse any adverts below as they are randomly generated by advertising companies.