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