Predatory Acquisition under color of law

2)               THE FLYING SUMMARY FRAUD.

In the Flying Summary fraud, the magistrate’s summary of fact finding is not provided with the judgment and is not filed into the public index filing system at the county circuit court - in order that Appellant can’t see it before the hearing, while the presiding judge is told at the hearing that the magistrate’s summary is there and he simply can’t find it. Given the work load, the presiding judge will defer the task of locating the summary to his law clerk and the clerk of court, who quietly back file the magistrate’s summary into the old entry for magistrate’s return after the hearing. Thus, the vicious circle of the Flying Summary fraud is completed, to where in reality Appellant has never had an opportunity to see the magistrate’s summary and has no idea what it says, while the judge is under the impression that Appellant has had full knowledge of it. Then the law clerk provides the judge with the fraudulent analysis which asserts that Appellant has had full knowledge of the magistrate’s summary but failed to raise any specific issues with it, - and the judge is forced, by existing case law, to dismiss Appellant’s claim. For, by law, the appellate judge can only consider the specific issues raised by Appellant at the hearing. By law, Appellant can’t raise additional issues after the hearing, where, it is presumed, Appellant has already had an opportunity to raise her issues, since, it is presumed, Appellant from the start has had full knowledge of the magistrate’s summary.

Thus, the Flying Summary fraud satisfies the appellate court’s requirement to review the magistrate’s summary for possible errors of law. By depriving pro se appellants of the opportunity to raise specific issues at the hearing, the Flying Summary fraud allows the fraudulent law clerk to assert that the magistrate’s summary and judgement contain no errors of law, - setting the stage for affirming the fraudulent magistrate’s judgment. The Flying Summary fraud also sets the stage for affirming these fraudulent circuit court orders, should pro se appellants manage to appeal higher, - by effectively depriving pro se appellants of the opportunity to raise specific objections in their motion for reconsideration. For without the knowledge of the magistrate’s summary, pro se appellants normally fail to raise any specific objections within the ten days allotted for filing their motion for reconsideration. And without such specific objections, filed below, the court of appeals will dismiss their claim. No one will believe a pro se appellant that she had no knowledge of the magistrate’s summary, if the magistrate’s summary is perfectly filed in the old entry for magistrate’s return. Thus, targeted appellants are excluded from the equal protection of the law by the fraudulent magistrates and clerks.

The blessing of this Appellant’s case is two-fold: for one, the presiding judge, the Honorable Dale Van Slambrook, being an excellent judge, actually scrolled, repeatedly, through each of the two documents filed in the entry for magistrate’s return, and verbalized everything he saw for the record (T1). And for two, this Appellant, being a decent engineer in her time, actually made several objections to the absence of the magistrate’s summary at the hearing (T1), and actually saved several screenprints of all of her case filings before and after the hearing, (E2), (E4), which showed the appearance of the new, third, document back filed after the hearing into the old entry for magistrate’s return. Then, by pure miracle, this Appellant did manage to timely file her motion for reconsideration in which she proffered these screenprints as the newly discovered evidence of the judicial fraud, and raised specific objections to this fraud, requesting a new trial:  

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

(M2).

3)               THE SPOILED RETURN FRAUD.

In the Spoiled Return fraud, the magistrate’s return on appeal is modified such that the only Plaintiff’s exhibits, remaining in it, really do constitute hearsay (M2). Some exhibits are completely removed while others enjoy only the first and the last pages left. In order to beef up the spoiled return record, the magistrate includes non-consequential exhibits in doubles and triples. But all the essential exhibits are removed from return completely. For instance, Plaintiff’s flashdrive was completely removed from the magistrate’s return, - because it contains the evidence of the magistrate’s fraud (E12). For another instance, all of the official installation instructions were completely removed from the magistrate’s return, - because they directly contradict the allegation of “hearsay” in the magistrate’s summary (M2). Etc. Once properly modified, the magistrate’s return is split into several documents, and the documents without the magistrate’s summary are filed into the public index case management system. Normally, pro se appellants may not even check the filing system to see what kind of contraption was returned by the magistrate. For instance, this Appellant didn’t even know that court files are managed through a system and can be accessed online. By pure miracle, this Appellant discovered the public index filing system and checked it to see what was returned by the magistrate. When Appellant saw that all of her exhibits were either completely omitted or corrupted, she requested instruction from the court clerk on the proper method to file her copies of the original Plaintiff’s exhibits. The clerk referred Appellant to the pre-coordinated case manager, Ms. Irene Keeling, who gave Appellant the fraudulent instruction to file all of Appellant’s copies in a single packet within a letter to the clerk, unnumbered (E5). Then the fraudulent clerk captioned Appellant’s exhibits as “not reviewed in lower court”, which was meant to force the presiding judge to bar Appellant’s exhibits from review. Normally, pro se appellants may not even check the filing system to see what kind of fraudulent caption was entered. This Appellant did, and came running to the circuit court clerk, where the clerk again directed Appellant to the same Ms. Keeling who told Appellant that the caption was correct and not to worry. At that time, Appellant didn’t realize yet that Ms. Keeling was willing to lie, even in her official capacity, in order to make Appellant fail. But out of abundance of caution, Appellant still filed a request for error correction (E6). The fraudulent caption was corrected swiftly because the presiding judge saw Appellant’s request for error correction and ordered to correct it. Yet another instrument of the Spoiled Return fraud still prevented Appellant’s exhibits from review: all of Appellant’s paper exhibits were rendered utterly illegible in the process of scanning them into the court filing system (M1). Appellant’s exhibits were rendered so completely illegible that the presiding judge couldn’t see anything meaningful in them when he glanced at them at the hearing (T1). Unfortunately, Appellant never checked the filing system to see how her legible colored paper exhibits were filed, and therefore did not know her exhibits were massacred in scanning, and therefore couldn’t inform the judge of this spoliation. Truly, Appellant couldn’t conceive of such heinous conspiracy being possible. But Appellant did raise an objection to the omissions in the magistrate’s return, especially to the missing flashdrive (T1). Unfortunately, given the work load, the presiding judge deferred the task of reviewing Appellant’s record to his law clerk. And his law clerk, acting in his official capacity, supplied the presiding judge with the fraudulent analysis which asserted that all of Appellant’s exhibits were reviewed, and the magistrate’s return was reviewed, and the magistrate’s summary was reviewed, and no errors of fact were found (E9).

  Thus, the presiding judge was forced, by law, to dismiss Appellant’s claim and to affirm the magistrate’s judgment. For the presiding judge must trust his law clerk. And if his law clerk says he reviewed all of Appellant’s evidence but none of it supports Appellant’s claim, then the presiding judge must trust that Appellant’s claim is baseless. And if the law clerk says he reviewed all of the magistrate’s return and the evidence in it does support the magistrate’s judgment, then the presiding judge must trust that the judgment is founded on the evidence in the return. Therefore, the magistrate’s judgement contains no errors of fact, thinks the presiding judge.

Thus, the Spoiled Return fraud satisfies the appellate court’s requirement to review the magistrate’s judgment for possible errors of fact. The Spoiled Return fraud ensures that the documents returned by the magistrate support the magistrate’s summary and judgment, while the fraudulent clerks ensure that the exhibits filed by an undesirable appellant are excluded from review. By depriving undesirable appellants of the opportunity to have their evidence reviewed, and by substituting, in place of their actual evidence, the deliberately crafted return, the Spoiled Return fraud allows the fraudulent law clerk to assert that the magistrate’s judgment contains no errors of fact. Since the Flying Summary fraud ensured than no errors of law were found, also, the appellate court is forced to affirm the magistrate’s judgment, for no errors of law and no errors of fact were found in it. Thus, the Spoiled Return fraud and the Flying Summary fraud, together with the fraudulent law analysis, complete the requirements for affirming fraudulent magistrates’ judgments, and leave the appellate court no choice but to sign the affirming orders.

In this Appellant’s case, the fraudulent magistrate’s judgment is so glaring with errors and fraud that even the spoiled return contains no evidence to support it. But this was no obstacle for the fraudulent law clerk who simply copied the magistrate’s summary verbatim. At the same time, Appellant’s exhibits do contain direct evidence to support Appellant’s case. In Appellant’s motion for reconsideration, Appellant demonstrated that all of the evidence on Appellant’s flashdrive is the same evidence as was stored on Plaintiff’s flashdrive which was admitted, reviewed and authenticated by the magistrate (M2, pp.7-12). Appellant also demonstrated the fraud on the court committed by the magistrate and the clerks, and raised specific objections, requesting a new trial: 

Contemporaneous objection: Flash-drive still omitted from return. Manufacturer's instructions still omitted from return. Return corrupted and intentionally modified to support illegal practices.

(M2).

It is important to note here, specifically, that it is through this extrinsic fraud on the court that Appellant was not informed of the requirement to number her exhibits, and was not informed to file her exhibits within a motion to admit.

Most importantly, the originals of the photo and video files on Appellant’s flashdrive are still securely stored on Appellant’s phone and can be officially extracted to authenticate their date stamps. Appellant’s phone itself is securely stored elsewhere. If South Carolina courts continue to bar Appellant’s filed exhibits, especially Appellant’s flashdrive, from impartial review, Appellant will be forced to have this evidence officially extracted.