Circuit court fraud

The circuit court clerk and law clerk committed fraud and caused the circuit court judge to sign the fraudulent decision affirming the fraudulent magistrate's judgment. I was nearly dead with illness and shock of this injustice. I didn't know what to do. I never in my life dealt with courts before. Yet I had to fight this injustice, for if I allowed the fraudulent magistrate's judgment to remain, the racketeering it legalized was going to continue, and I had no more money and no more health to withstand its onslaught. I fought for my life. Truly, I am a coward. But I already know that my instincts are good and much stronger than my cognition. So I continued. I researched, and learned that an "erroneous" court decision needs to be disputed with the same court in a motion for reconsideration, within the first ten days following the "erroneous" decision. I had no idea what motion was. But I researched. I learned. I cried almost all the time for the entire ten days. I could sleep only about three hours a day. I couldn't yet, at that time, comprehend the scope and the details of what happened. It was therefore nearly impossible to build a logical argument. Why am I disputing the "erroneous" circuit court decision??? Because this decision is surreal, insane. This is insanity. And I am so not good at interpreting insanity. In reality, the fact was that I provided the circuit court with my original flashdrive and all my printed exhibits, after I discovered that the magistrate's return omitted all of them. And after I explained these omissions to the presiding judge at my hearing, he said he was going to find the magistrate's summary, still missing at the time of the hearing, and then review all the exhibits that were filed (T1). I thought no sane person could find this installation (the racketeering) "properly installed", as was claimed now by both the magistrate's judgment and the circuit court decision to affirm. And the presiding judge appeared sane and wholesome at the hearing. ...... the only explanation, then, was that the presiding judge never saw my flashdrive, never saw my paper exhibits, and never saw anything. I continued to research and eventually found out that courts and judges use a staff of law clerks who provide them with legal summaries of their cases. This explained how the presiding judge could sign an order which was so irrational and contrary to the very evidence filed with the judge's court - the presiding judge never saw any of this evidence, and was supplied with a fraudulent analysis by his law clerk. I tried to put all of this in my motion for reconsideration, still unaware of the correct terms to describe this situation, and therefore describing it, still, in terms of "errors". It would take me a few months before I stumbled on the concept of fraud and the concept of fraud on the court.

Here is my motion for reconsideration, timely filed with the circuit court: motion for reconsideration , and a few excerpts below.

Screenprints E2 and E4 are the screenprints "Magistrate's return Two documents. PDF" and "Magistrate's return Three documents.PDF", of all of my case filings in the state court filing website, show that a new, third, document was back filed the day after my circuit court hearing, on Aug 22, into the old, May 29, entry for magistrate's return. The previously missing magistrate's summary appeared in this new, third, return document on 8.22.2024, when this new document was back filed into the old, 5.29.2024, entry for magistrate's return, in front of the previously filed two documents (E4, p.2).

  The relevance of exhibits E2 and E4 stems from the fact of the fraud committed by the circuit court clerk who hid the third document of the magistrate’s return prior to Appellant’s hearing and covertly back filed it into the entry for magistrate’s return after Appellant’s hearing[1], because it contained the magistrate’s summary of fact finding which the fraudulent clerk needed to conceal from Appellant. The fact of this fraud is critically significant, because if the fraudulent clerk had not concealed the magistrate’s summary from Appellant, Appellant would have necessarily raised the alarm and reported the magistrate’s fraud to the presiding judge at her hearing, and insisted on a jury trial, the way she did in her motion for reconsideration (M2). Exhibits E2 and E4 are direct proof of this fraud. The evidence they contain is corroborated by the official transcript of Appellant’s hearing (T1), as well as through a comparative analysis of the documents filed in the magistrate’s return and the actual exhibits filed by Appellant (M1). The fact of this fraud was first demonstrated in Appellant’s motion for reconsideration (M2), where Appellant explicitly objected to this fraud and requested a new trial. The circuit court order affirming the fraudulent magistrate’s judgment (E9), also demonstrates this fraud by asserting that “no errors of. . .fact” were found, - when in reality, even without Appellant’s (Plaintiff’s) exhibits, the magistrate’s return contains no evidence to support the magistrate’s judgment, which is an error of fact[2]. If Appellant’s case had been reviewed by an impartial judiciary rather than a fraudulent law clerk, this error would have necessarily been acknowledged. In other words, even without Appellant’s evidence, the magistrate’s judgment is not supported by any evidence. Whereas, with Appellant’s evidence included in review, the magistrate’s judgment proves to be fraudulent[3]. Hence the clerk’s need to exclude Appellant’s exhibits from review and to conceal the magistrate’s summary from Appellant before the hearing. For, again, if Appellant was given an opportunity to see the magistrate’s summary before the hearing, Appellant would have immediately seen that the findings of fact were fabricated, and would have raised this issue at the hearing and requested that her actual filed exhibits be reviewed, the same way Appellant did in her motion for reconsideration. The only way the fraudulent clerk could cause the desired circuit court decision was by excluding Appellant’s exhibits from review and by hiding the magistrate’s summary from Appellant so as to keep Appellant completely unaware of its fraudulent content.

  The fact of the clerk’s fraud is also corroborated by her changing the awkwardly worded caption of the original magistrate’s return entry from ‘Appeal/Appeal Return Received’ to ‘Return from Magistrate Court’. Exhibits E2 and E4 show the ample fluency with which the public index case management system is being manipulated by the fraudulent clerks: in back filing, in August, a new, third document into the old, May, entry for magistrate’s return, the clerk not only uploaded a new document into the old entry but also re-uploaded the previous two documents and changed the captioning (A16). Yet the date and time stamp of the entry remained blissfully unperturbed. It is possible that correcting the captioning on an old filing entry is a standard process allowed to court clerks, and that the fraudulent clerk used it as a pretext to back file a new, third document into the old magistrate’s return entry. Unfortunately, the fact of the new, third document having been back filed into the old entry for magistrate’s return after Appellant’s hearing is indisputable.

[2] S.C. Code § 18-9-280(3): The appellate court will verify whether or not “the order [in question] is supported by such quantum of evidence as prescribed by the statute or law under which judicial review is permitted”.

[3] S.C. Code § 18-9-280(1): The appellate court will verify whether or not “the judgment [in question] is based on findings of fact which are clearly erroneous”.

"a. Contemporaneous objection: No magistrate's summary until after hearing.

...Thus, we now know that magistrate's return filed originally under caption 'Appeal/Appeal Return Received', contained exactly two documents, none of which included magistrate's summary. [...] And we now know that I had no knowledge of magistrate's summary prior to, and on the day of the hearing,  8.21.2024. [...] it seems that this Court nevertheless assumed I had no such need prior to being able to raise legal issues with that judgement. The opposite was true: simply speaking, I had no earthly idea what magistrate's reasoning was or even could be, and therefore couldn't point out the problems in that reasoning. All I knew was that my case was clear and I had overwhelming indisputable evidence to prove it. But just how magistrate court arrived at its conclusion was absolutely incomprehensible to me, which is why I couldn't raise any issues with it. But it is the legal issues with that judgement that constitute the merits of my appeal. By denying me the opportunity to see magistrate's summary prior to my appeal hearing, magistrate court prevented me from being able to raise issues with its judgement, and therefore prevented me from stating the merits of my appeal. I attended my appeal hearing solely with intention to raise this concern to this Court, which I did, and which this Court amply corroborated (see above).

Magistrate's summary appeared in a third document of magistrate's return the day after my appeal hearing, on 8.22.2024, and was filed backdatedly in the entry for 5.29.2024, captioned now 'Return from Magistrate Court', next to the two documents of original magistrate's return (E4, p.2).

...State of South Carolina desires to adjudicate appeals based on their merits. Since I was denied the opportunity to see magistrate's summary before my appeal hearing, and thus prevented from being able to state the merits of my case, this Court couldn't adjudicate my appeal until it provided me with magistrate's summary and the time necessary to analyze it, so that I could meaningfully state the merits of my appeal. Then only could this Court adjudicate my appeal based on its merits, I thought.

However, this Court adjudicated my appeal without providing me with a meaningful opportunity to be heard, thus violating a fundamental Constitutional requirement of due process. There is a strong possibility that this Court was supplied with an incorrect, incomplete record, from which all essential evidence was removed, a record obscuring everything about my case, which caused this Court to commit this error. Whatever the reason, this Court erred in assuming that an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, in the context of all the circumstances, was provided to me at my initial appeal hearing on 8.21.2024."

" Contemporaneous objection: Respondent not present at hearing

A very important objection to note here is that Respondent was not present at my appeal hearing, (T1, p.4: 2-5, and T1, p.4: 9-10). In fact, the entire transcript of this appeal hearing confirms Respondent was not present. But this is contrary to the foundation of this Order, which makes it obvious this Court is laboring under the impression that it has "considered all relevant legal issues raised by Appellant and Respondent", and that "..on August 21, 2024. Both parties [...] had the opportunity to be heard", (E9. p.3). My initial momentary reaction was that of admiration, for this Court appeared to have an extrasensory perception which allowed it to hear Respondent who was absent. Unfortunately, on second thought I felt devastated, for the only realistic explanation was that this Court was supplied with a doctored hearing log, which could only be doctored at this Court's office. And in fact, it was doctored, (T1, p.2). This is very serious. This breadth and depth of collusion proves my fears are rational. I am afraid for my life. If this Court's office can take upon itself the power to adjudicate cases with impunity, then, given my previous experience, it is indeed true that I can rely on no protection from the law."

"The third document of magistrate's return appeared only on 8.22.2024, the day after my appeal hearing, (E4, p.2). It indeed contained magistrate's summary, as well as some of the three categories of documents I identified as omitted at my appeal hearing, but my flash-drive, with all the overwhelming essential evidence on it, still remained missing. Since the SC Code of Laws Section 18-7-130 cannot possibly exclude photo and video evidence from its requirement for the appeal to be heard by the court upon all record in the case, I must use this opportunity to raise a contemporaneous objection to the fact that magistrate court is preventing this Court from obtaining all of my evidence contained in my flash-drive."

The manufacturer's instructions are still omitted from return. The magistrate's return is corrupted and intentionally modified to support illegal practices. Magistrate's summary demonstrates unlawful intent, prejudicial judgement, and violation of my Constitutional rights... this Court didn't see any of my evidence and based its adjudication only on the set-up supplied by the magistrate court. This was an error, for since magistrate court didn't return my flash-drive, but it was referenced in my plaintiff's statement and every folder on it was explained in my plaintiff's statement, (E11), which magistrate court did happen to return, then this Court adjudicated my appeal based on an incomplete record, which is in violation of Section 18-7-130."