FOOTNOTE Per MCR.2.003(b) in a single-judge court, or if the challenged judge is the chief judge, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the state court administrator for assignment to another judge, who shall decide the motion de novo.
ASK YOURSELF HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE HAD OVER 18 EMERGENCY MOTION DISQUALIFICATION 10 AS CHIEF JUDGE. WHY DID'T JUDGE LATERILLE FOLLOW MICHIGAN COURT RULES;2.003.
ASK YOURSELF HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE HAD OVER 18 EMERGENCY MOTION DISQUALIFICATION 10 AS CHIEF JUDGE. WHY DID'T JUDGE LATERILLE FOLLOW MICHIGAN COURT RULES;2.003.
IF THE CHALLENGED JUDGE IS CHIEF JUDGE,ON THE REQUEST OF A PARTY THE CHALLENGED JUDGE SHALL REFER THE MOTION TO THE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE FOR ASSIGNMENT TO ANOTHER JUDGE, WHO SHALL DECIDE THE MOTION OF DE NOVO.
WHO WAS JUDGE LATERILLE PROTECTING. GEORGE LYONS COULD NOT GET A FAIR TRIAL IN LIVINGSTON COUNTY COURTS. GEORGE LYONS CONSTITUTION RIGHTS WERE DESTROYED.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY)
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843 (517-546-9816)
State of Michigan court administrator
For assignment of case to another judge
GEORGE EDWARD LYONS HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE
P.O.BOX 226 Case no. Case no. 06-021758-CZ
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 Case no. 04-020652-CF-B
734-657-1679 Case no. 04-20684-CK
PLAINTIFF
-V-
RONALD STORZBACH AND VIRGINIA STORZBACH H/W
7709 PARTRIDGE HILL,
Brighton, Michigan 48116
Moved to: 912 Sand wedge Court
Bowling Green,KY 42103-2508
UNKNOWN
DEFENDANTS
Richard Friberg and Ann Friberg H/W
5640 Shoshoni Pass
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
540-823-3271
Moved to: 19385 Briar Patch Drive
Gordonville, Va. 22942-7564
DEFENDANTS
David Feeback and Carrie Feeback H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ
10932 Whitewood Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 NEAL D. NIELSEN
DEFENDANTS 2000 Grand River
Suite 200
Brighton, Michigan 48114
Curt Lalonde and Mary Ann Lalonde H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ
3100 Crystal Springs Lane aka 3100 Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Kenneth V. Zichi
734-878-2278 DEFENDANTS 515 E. Grand River Avenue,
Howell, Michigan. 48543
Karl Kopp and Marian Kopp H/W Case no. 04-020652-CF-B
4849 GALLAGHER Attorney for Defendants
WHITMORE LAKE, MI. 48139 Douglas Cameron
810-231-3286 DEFENDANTS 317 W. MAIN Street
Brighton, Michigan 48116
IVO AND HEATHER MARCICH H/W Case no. 04-20684-CK
3155 Crystal Spring Lane, aka Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Charles Widmaier
734-878-1874 DEFENDANTS 822 E. Grand River
Brighton, M 48116
FOLLOWING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE PER MICHIGAN COURT RULES.
WHO WAS JUDGE LATERILLE PROTECTING. GEORGE LYONS COULD NOT GET A FAIR TRIAL IN LIVINGSTON COUNTY COURTS. GEORGE LYONS CONSTITUTION RIGHTS WERE DESTROYED.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY)
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843 (517-546-9816)
State of Michigan court administrator
For assignment of case to another judge
GEORGE EDWARD LYONS HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE
P.O.BOX 226 Case no. Case no. 06-021758-CZ
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 Case no. 04-020652-CF-B
734-657-1679 Case no. 04-20684-CK
PLAINTIFF
-V-
RONALD STORZBACH AND VIRGINIA STORZBACH H/W
7709 PARTRIDGE HILL,
Brighton, Michigan 48116
Moved to: 912 Sand wedge Court
Bowling Green,KY 42103-2508
UNKNOWN
DEFENDANTS
Richard Friberg and Ann Friberg H/W
5640 Shoshoni Pass
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
540-823-3271
Moved to: 19385 Briar Patch Drive
Gordonville, Va. 22942-7564
DEFENDANTS
David Feeback and Carrie Feeback H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ
10932 Whitewood Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 NEAL D. NIELSEN
DEFENDANTS 2000 Grand River
Suite 200
Brighton, Michigan 48114
Curt Lalonde and Mary Ann Lalonde H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ
3100 Crystal Springs Lane aka 3100 Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Kenneth V. Zichi
734-878-2278 DEFENDANTS 515 E. Grand River Avenue,
Howell, Michigan. 48543
Karl Kopp and Marian Kopp H/W Case no. 04-020652-CF-B
4849 GALLAGHER Attorney for Defendants
WHITMORE LAKE, MI. 48139 Douglas Cameron
810-231-3286 DEFENDANTS 317 W. MAIN Street
Brighton, Michigan 48116
IVO AND HEATHER MARCICH H/W Case no. 04-20684-CK
3155 Crystal Spring Lane, aka Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Charles Widmaier
734-878-1874 DEFENDANTS 822 E. Grand River
Brighton, M 48116
FOLLOWING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE PER MICHIGAN COURT RULES.
AND ATTORNEYS FILING FALSE SUMMARY DISPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REMOVAL ALL CLAIMS, AND ALL CASES ON STAY UNDER INVESTIGATION OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN JUDICIAL TENURE INVESTIGATION AND OTHER INVESTIGATOR’S
NOW COMES PLAINTIFF GEORGE EDWARD LYONS, States that Honorable Judge Stanley Latrelle did not follow court procedures or guidelines of the MCR. 2.003.
ALTERNATIVE, IF THIS MOTION IS DENIED, Plaintiff respectfully demands;
A. That this motion be referred and transferred the 44th Circuit Court Chief Judge and if there is not a Chief Judge these cases be re-open and all judgments be removed and Sent to the State of Michigan Administer office for a de nova hearing and /or other or further proceedings MCR. 2003 et seq.,
B. That this Honorable Court to set aside any and all judgments and refrain from taking any further actions on this case during the pendency of said disqualification proceedings, as required under MCR 2.003 et seq., and
C. That this Court refrain from taking any further action on this case during the tendency of said disqualification proceedings, except those ministerial action necessary to comply with applicable statutes, court rules and case law.
D. Honorable Judge Stanley Laterille did not follow these procedures. Plaintiff demands that these procedures be followed per the MCR. 2.003 And must be followed.
Procedure:
Proper procedure for handling a motion to disqualify is well established and was recently summarized in Czuprynski v Bay 1 2 follows:
“The procedure for disqualification of a trial judge . . . which was formerly provided by statute is now provided by court rule. MCR 2.003 generally, that procedure is exclusive and must be followed. “10/31.
As per and if the above would follow under conflict of Interest, and are not used as witnesses in this case and others cases that are being filed in the near future.
The July 10, 1995 amendments of MCR 2.003, and Rules 3A, 3D, 6C, and 7B of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, and new MCR 9.227 and Rule 7D of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, are based on the proposed revision of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct submitted by the State Bar Representative Assembly. See 442 Mich 1216 (1993). They are effective September 1, 1995.
(3) Ruling. The challenged judge shall decide the motion. If the challenged judge denies the motion,
(a) In a court having two or more judges, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the chief judge, who shall decide the motion de novo;
(b) In a single-judge court, or if the challenged judge is the chief judge, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the state court administrator for assignment to another judge, who shall decide the motion de novo.
ALTERNATIVE, IF THIS MOTION IS DENIED, Plaintiff respectfully demands;
1.That this motion be referred and transferred the 44th Circuit Court Chief Judge for a de nova hearing and /or other or further proceedings MCR. 2003 et seq.,
2.That this Honorable Court Chief judge to set aside any and all judgments and refrain from taking any further actions on this case during the pendency of said disqualification proceedings, as required under MCR 2.003 et seq., and
3. That this Court refrain from taking any further action on this case during the tendency of said disqualification proceedings, except those ministerial action necessary to comply with applicable statutes, court rules and case law.
Plaintiff George E. Lyons made this motion and says:
1. Within the past (14) days, Plaintiff has become aware of facts giving Rise to disqualification in all lawsuits and therefore this motion has been brought in a proper, timely manner under MCR 2.003 et seq.
2. This Honorable Court and other legal representatives cannot impartially hear any matter involving this case because:
3. That his Honor Stanley Laterille is being called as a witness in this case.
4. Also being called as witness is Attorney Charles Widmaier, Neil Neilson, Douglas Cameron, and there companies.
a. This Court and other legal representatives is biased or prejudiced for or against either or both of the parties to this action, and biased in favor of past/present Defendant’s. Defendant’s attorney, which is disqualifying under MCR 2.003(B) (2);
b. This Honorable Court and other legal representatives are disqualified by law for numerous other reasons under the provisions of MCR 2.003(B) (7).
1. That this Honorable Court and other legal representatives and all other Livingston County judicial or Circuit officers and court personnel should be disqualified from acting upon, hearing, deciding or otherwise participating in any further disposition of this case in any manner, except to disqualify as requested; as required by MCR 2.003(B) (2) and to disqualify as requested; as required by MCR 2.003 (B) (2) and or MCR 2.003 (B) (7), the grounds for which are stated herein are stated herein and in the attached affidavit.
2. That per Plaintiff Witness List the following is included.
5. Charles Widmaier (P-38376) Material Witness Live
Attorney for the Defendants confirm audio
822 E. Grand River Avenue
Brighton, Michigan
(810-229-9340)
ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS
6. Employee’s of Harris & Literski Material Witness Live
317 E. Grand River confirm audio
Brighton, Michigan 48116
9. All Judge’s of Livingston County Material Witness Live
Court system District / Circuit confirm audios
And all employee’s
. Honorable Judge Burress Material witness Live
58. Honorable Judge Hagerty Material witness Live
59. Honorable Judge Latreille Material witness Live
60. Honorable Judge Reader Material witness Live
61. Honorable Judge Delvero Material witness Live
62. Honorable Judge Reck Material witness Live
63. Honorable Judge Pickeranin Material witness Live
All employees of Livingston Material witness Live
County.
64. Magistrate Brown Material Material witness Live
And if the above would follow under conflict of Interest, and are not used as witnesses in this case and others cases that are being filed in the near future.
The July 10, 1995 amendments of MCR 2.003, and Rules 3A, 3D, 6C, and 7B of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, and new MCR 9.227 and Rule 7D of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, are based on the proposed revision of the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct submitted by the State Bar Representative Assembly. See 442 Mich 1216 (1993). They are effective September 1, 1995.
(3) Ruling. The challenged judge shall decide the motion. If the challenged judge denies the motion,
(a) In a court having two or more judges, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the chief judge, who shall decide the motion de novo;
(b) In a single-judge court, or if the challenged judge is the chief judge, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the state court administrator for assignment to another judge, who shall decide the motion de novo.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request:
A. That this motion be granted; and,
B. That this matter be thereafter transferred to the State Court Administrator’s office for reassignment to wherefore another circuit as required by MCR 2.003 et seq.
RELIEF
ALTERNATIVE, THIS WAS MOTION IS DENIED, Plaintiff respectfully demands;
That this motion be referred and transferred the 44th Circuit Court Chief Judge for a de nova hearing and /or other or further proceedings MCR. 2003 et seq.,
That this Honorable Court to set aside any and all judgments and refrain from taking any further actions on this case during the pendency of said disqualification proceedings, as required under MCR 2.003 et seq., and
That this Court refrain from taking any further action on this case during the tendency of said disqualification proceedings, except those ministerial action necessary to comply with applicable statutes, court rules and case law.
Procedure:
Proper procedure for handling a motion to disqualify is well established and was recently summarized in Czuprynski v Bay 1 2 follows:
“The procedure for disqualification of a trial judge . . . which was formerly provided by statute is now provided by court rule. MCR 2.003 generally, that procedure is exclusive and must be followed. “10/31.:
MCR 2.003 provides that a party or attorney seeking disqualification must file a written motion supported by an affidavit of facts and including all know grounds for disqualification. The Judge complained of then holds a hearing and decides the motion.
The motion was denied, and then the plaintiff is NOW referring the motion to the chief judge who must decide the motion or submit this to the State of Michigan administrator Office for a de novo on the record 32/33.
This motion is being request by the Plaintiff and per MCR 2.003 be followed. And placed before the Chief Judge and “The procedure for disqualification of a trial judge . . . which was formerly provided by statute is now provided by court rule. MCR 2.003 generally, that procedure is exclusive and must be followed. “10/31.:
Respectfully submitted this January 31st, 2007
By: __________________________________
George E. Lyons, Plaintiff
P.O.Box 226
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-657-1679
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY)
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843 (517-546-9816)
State of Michigan court administrator
For assignment of case to another judge
GEORGE EDWARD LYONS HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE Latreille
P.O.BOX 226 Case no.06-021758-CZ
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 Case no. 04-020652-CF-B
734-657-1679 Case no. 04-20684-CK
PLAINTIFF
-V-
RONALD STORZBACH AND VIRGINIA STORZBACH H/W
7709 PARTRIDGE HILL,
Brighton, Michigan 48116
Moved to: 912 Sand wedge Court
Bowling Green,KY 42103-2508
UNKNOWN
DEFENDANTS
Richard Friberg and Ann Friberg H/W
5640 Shoshoni Pass
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
540-823-3271
Moved to: 19385 Briar Patch Drive
Gordonville, Va. 22942-7564
DEFENDANTS
David Feeback and Carrie Feeback H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ
10932 Whitewood Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 NEAL D. NIELSEN
DEFENDANTS 2000 Grand River
Suite 200
Brighton, Michigan 48114
Curt Lalonde and Mary Ann Lalonde H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ
3100 Crystal Springs Lane aka 3100 Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Kenneth V. Zichi
734-878-2278 DEFENDANTS 515 E. Grand River Avenue,
Howell, Michigan. 48543
Karl Kopp and Marian Kopp H/W Case no. 04-020652-CF-B
4849 GALLAGHER Attorney for Defendants
WHITMORE LAKE, MI. 48139 Douglas Cameron
810-231-3286 DEFENDANTS 317 W. MAIN Street
Brighton, Michigan 48116
IVO AND HEATHER MARCICH H/W Case no. 04-20684-CK
3155 Crystal Spring Lane, aka Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Charles Widmaier
734-878-1874 DEFENDANTS 822 E. Grand River,
Brighton, Mi.48116
AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE
AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REMOVAL OF ALL CLAIMS OF THE DEFENDANT’S, AND PLACING THESE CASES ON STAY UNDER INVESTIGATION OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN JUDICIAL TENURE INVESTIGATION.
Plaintiff George E. Lyons, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that the following facts are true to the best of his personal knowledge; or are based on information and belief, and as to those he believes them to be true; and if sworn as a witness in this matter he would competently testify and produce other evidence to conclusively prove as follows:
1. HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE, and other legal representatives, and on information and belief, has numerous personal contacts and acquaintances among all of Livingston County judges, court clerks, other court employees and personnel.
2. HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE, and other legal representatives, these allegations beginning many years ago, became directly, indirectly, regularly and routinely involved and enmeshed with all Livingston County and Washtenaw judges and other court personnel in numerous legal, political, fraternal and social organizations. Structures and activities; all of which on information and belief, has provided and continues to provide numerous opportunities for judicial and extra-judicial ex-parte contacts with Livingston County and Washtenaw judicial officers and other court personnel.
3. Plaintiff believes that the HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE and
other legal representatives, acting herein, has and will actively use his/ and their long-time positions, influence, access to judges and access to court records: to make ex-parte contacts with members of the Livingston County bench and /or their employees in attempts to create bias in defendant’s favor; to surreptitiously remove materials from court records to which Plaintiff is a party; and to otherwise deprive Plaintiff of his rights to due process in this case in any manner possible.
4. On information and belief, HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE and
Other legal representatives, for past clients has already used his status and connections to misinform and intimidate potential attorneys for defendants in this case and thereby effectively deprived Plaintiff of legal representation herein.
5. Plaintiff believes that, from it inception, Defendant’s and other past clients has been given special considerations in the handling and treatment of the instant case by 44th Livingston county Circuit court and personnel, due to bias in favor of Defendant’s and their attorney.
6. HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE, and other legal representatives, herein is inextricably involved and enmeshed in numerous judicial and extra-judicial matters which include, in general, all Livingston County judicial and circuit officers and other court personnel.
7. All members of the Livingston Judicial and Circuit County bench would have a natural inclination or tendency, if sitting in judgment, to be biased in favor of Defendant’s and/or against Plaintiff due to the status and judicial connections of Defendant’s counsel and past attorney’s.
8. HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE and other legal representatives, has too many opportunities, and is of a mind, and has already undertaken, to improperly engage in ex-parte communications with Livingston County Judicial and Circuit court judges relative to this case; And the has repeatedly representation of Due to the circumstances and relationship existing between the HONORABLE JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE and other legal representatives, and all judicial and Circuit court officers in Livingston County; Plaintiff believes he cannot get a fair trial or hearing in this county.
9. Plaintiff has presented to this court, and other courts evidence to support the removal of this Case No’s. 06-021758-CZ,STORZBACH,FRIBERG,LALONDE’S AND FEEBACK’S 04-020652 KOPP’S AND 04-021106-CK Marcich’s to a de nova hearing to the State of Michigan Administration Hearing to be transfer to another circuit court.
10. Defendant George E. Lyons hereby swears under penalty of perjury that all facts stated in the forgoing Affidavit In Support of Emergency Motion for Disqualification and Denying Summary Disposition and court rulings of the Honorable Judge Stanley
Laterille of the Defendant’s are true to the best of his personal knowledge or stated on information and belief, and as to those facts he believes them to be true.
By: _____________________________
George E. Lyons, Plaintiff
Subscribed and sworn to before me
This_______day of ___________. 2007
Notary Public: ____________________________.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY)
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843 (517-546-9816)
State of Michigan court administrator
For assignment of case to another judge
GEORGE EDWARD LYONS HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE
P.O.BOX 226 Case no. 06-021758-CZ
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 Case no. 04-020652-CF-B
734-657-1679 Case no. 04-20684-CK
PLAINTIFF
-V-
RONALD STORZBACH AND VIRGINIA STORZBACH H/W
7709 PARTRIDGE HILL,
Brighton, Michigan 48116
Moved to: 912 Sand wedge Court
Bowling Green,KY 42103-2508
UNKNOWN
DEFENDANTS
Richard Friberg and Ann Friberg H/W
5640 Shoshoni Pass
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
540-823-3271
Moved to: 19385 Briar Patch Drive
Gordonville, Va. 22942-7564
DEFENDANTS
David Feeback and Carrie Feeback H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ
10932 Whitewood Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 NEAL D. NIELSEN
DEFENDANTS 2000 Grand River
Suite 200
Brighton, Michigan 48114
Curt Lalonde and Mary Ann Lalonde H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ
3100 Crystal Springs Lane aka 3100 Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Kenneth V. Zichi
734-878-2278 DEFENDANTS 515 E. Grand River Avenue,
Howell, Michigan. 48543
Karl Kopp and Marian Kopp H/W Case no. 04-020652-CF-B
4849 GALLAGHER Attorney for Defendants
WHITMORE LAKE, MI. 48139 Douglas Cameron
810-231-3286 DEFENDANTS 317 W. MAIN Street
Brighton, Michigan 48116
IVO AND HEATHER MARCICH H/W Case no. 04-20684-CK
3155 Crystal Spring Lane, aka Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Charles Widmaier
734-878-1874 DEFENDANTS 822 E. Grand River,
Brighton, Mi 48116
BRIEF MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE.
DISQUALIFICATION LAW AND ARGUMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY DISPOSITION JUDGMENT AND 7 DAY NOTICE. AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REMOVAL OF ALL CLAIMS OF THE DEFENDANT’S. AND PLACING ALL CASES ON STAY UNTIL AFTER INVESTIGATION OF THE JUDICIAL TENURE INVESTIGATION OR OTHER INVESTGATOR’S FROM THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS ATTORNEYS FOR FILING FALSE SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS.
DISQUALIFICATION LAW AND ARGUMENT
These underlying principles of disqualification law are well settled. What the Michigan Supreme Court said almost 125 years ago in Stockton v Township Board is and Peninsular Railway v Howard, it remains valid and binding today:
“It Is among the First objects of civil government, to deprive persons of the power in adjudge finally for themselves, and conclusively assert their own causes; and so fundamental is this rule of justice, so essential to the order, peace, and even stability of government, that however broad the terms of a grant of judicial power may be, this principle remains operative, and gives rise to a tacit exception from the general words of the grant’s…The principle … asserts itself wherever judicial powers are employed by a body appointed by law…the rule is not confined to cases where the person is both judge and party.
The principle… applies to the elements and substance of the controversy, and in general, where the case is of such a nature as to make it necessary, in its course or final issue for the trier to pass upon his own implicated rights or interest, the rule attaches and unseats him. Subtle
…
…
The court ought not to be astute to discover refined subtle distinctions to save a case from the operation of the maxim, when the principle it embodies bespeaks the propriety of its application. The immediate rights of the litigants are not the only object of the rule. A sound public policy, which is interested in preserving every tribunal appointed by law from discredit, imperiously demands its observance. “10
Exactly what are the: implicated rights or interests”10 which will disqualify a judge? As was held in Stockton, supra, the can be found in the “elements and substance of the controversy:” what the Supreme Court almost a century later referred to as the “circumstances and relationships” of a case when it decided Glass v State Highway Commission, 23 citing the U.S. Supreme Court in Murchison.
“A fair trial is fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this end no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome. That interest cannot be defined with precision. Circumstances and relationship must be considered. This court has said, however, that every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge…not to hold the balance site, clear and true between the state and the accused, denies the latter due process of law, ’23 Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform it high function in the best way justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” 24
The Glass court said, “Such reasoning applies equally to Michigan’s assurance of due process.” Therefore, virtually any “circumstances or relationship existing between a judge and a party litigant which would offer “ possible temptation to an average” person “ not to hold the balance nice, clear and true” between contending litigants denies due process of law and is interest enough to provide grounds for disqualification. ”23”
Exactly what are the: implicated rights or interests”10 which will disqualify a judge? As was held in Stockton, supra, the can be found in the “elements and substance of the controversy:” what the Supreme Court almost a century later referred to as the “circumstances and relationships” of a case when it decided Glass v State Highway Commission, 23 citing the U.S. Supreme Court in Murchison.
“A fair trial is fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this end no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome. That interest cannot be defined with precision. Circumstances and relationship must be considered. This court has said, however, that every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge…not to hold the balance site, clear and true between the state and the accused, denies the latter due process of law, ’23 Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform it high function in the best way justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” 24
The Glass court said, “Such reasoning applies equally to Michigan’s assurance of due process.” Therefore, virtually any “circumstances or relationship existing between a judge and a party litigant which would offer “ possible temptation to an average” person “ not to hold the balance nice, clear and true” between contending litigants denies due process of law and is interest enough to provide grounds for disqualification. ”23”
We expect our judges to be human beings with normal human faults and shortcomings like the rest of us, not angles in robes. We realize there are some situations where it would be extremely difficult for any judge to remain neutral and impartial, the often-quoted opinion in Wayne County Prosecutor v. Doerfler 24
“Justice Cardozo has stated.
“ Deep below consciousness are other forces, the likes and dislikes, the predilections and the prejudices, the complex of instincts and emotions and habits and convictions which make the man, be he litigant or judge. “27
A judge is not expected to bring with him to the bench a blank mind and personality. As he becomes, by necessity, a composition of the general experiences of his life, refined and honed by his legal training and legal experience so that the desired judicial temperament will hopefully emerge. “28
To require a blank mind is unreasonable, but to demand an impartial and clear appraisal of each new case is not. A judge may well be subconsciously prejudiced in one way towards the evidence or the parties in a case before him. It is his duty not to permit these prejudices to override his responsibilities in providing a fair forum for the determination of controversy. This duty should ideally motivate the judge to request reassignment of the case if he is aware of any prejudices which he holds which would interfere with his impartiality “29
Modern disqualification rules, grounded in public policy, exist as much for the good of the court as for the good of any litigant; and every judge has a duty to avoid even the appearance of bias, prejudice or partiality. Freely granting disqualification when justified and necessary to achieve that end. As was said in Warren Schools v. MERC: 2
“The object of this rule…is more than guaranties that a legal dispute will be resolved objectively by unbiased and impartial persons. It is also a shield against any suspicion on the part of the litigants and the public that any subjectivity, bias and partiality contributed to the outcome of the dispute. The though behind such was best expressed by Justice Frankfurther in Baker v Carr 22:
The Court’s authority – possessed of neither the purse nor the sword – ultimately rests on sustained pubic confidence in its moral sanction. Such feeling must be nourished by the Court’s complete detachment, in fact and in appearance…” 22
The Michigan Supreme Court has adopted a rule stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Withrow:”4 judges and decision-makers should be disqualified without a showing of actual bias where “experience teaches that probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable, “4
Throughout the last century. Courts have slowly but surely broadened the measure by which a disqualification “threshold” can be reached, steadily relaxing the standards for it employment. While early decisions tended more toward requiring concrete evidence of bias such as direct financial or personal interest, there was a gradual movement toward requiring only an appearance of bias, now well-established; and, more recently, the trend is allowing a petitioner’s reasonable belief that bias exists to establish the appearance of bias, to wit:
In a 1981 decision, Pitoniak v Borman’s, 5 the court held:
“A basic requirement of the constitutional right is due process is a hearing before a fair, unbiased and impartial decision-maker. 1/2/3/4/5 A party who challenges the impartiality of a judge need not show actual prejudice; it is one in which: experience teaches that the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. “4/5/6
Then in 1982, the Michigan Court of Appeals held, in People v Lowenstein: 14
“… (Some disqualification cases)… deal with how much of an allowance our courts will make for a judge’s inherent human failings. No human being (even a judge) is completely prejudice-free. But our judicial system requires judges. Therefore we make allowances. Under normal circumstances, we will assume (absent evidence to the contrary) that the judge is free enough from bias to make a tolerably non-partisan
Decision. For example, a judge will occasionally preside over a case involving a defendant who had earlier pleaded guilty to the offense.
Because this situation often enough arises and because the appearance of impropriety is not that high, we allow the trial judge to remain in charge of the case absent a showing of actual bias…A C However, we realize that some situations are just too dangerous.
Judges normally are not subjected to such special pressures and “under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies in human weaknesses, we find that the appearance of justice requires the judge to disqualify himself.
The test is not (just) whether or not actual bias or an appearance of bias that the judge was unable to hold the balance between vindicating the interests of the court and the interests of the accused. “17 In fact, even though a judge personally believes himself to be unprejudiced, unbiased and impartial, he should nevertheless certify disqualification where there are circumstances of such a nature to cause doubt as to his partiality, bias or prejudice. “18/6/2 (emphasis added)
And circumstances of such a nature as to cause doubt can arise from the mind of a petitioner, as was held in1986 by the Florida Supreme Court, which arrived at the Michigan result by applying the same analysis from a different perspective, making several important points along the way as emphasized below:
“ … The facts alleged in a motion to disqualify need only show that the party making it has a well-grounded fear that be or she will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge. Judicial inquiry should focus on the reasonableness of the affiant’s belief that the judge.
And circumstances of such a nature as to cause doubt can arise from the mind of a petitioner, as was held in1986 by the Florida Supreme Court, which arrived at the Michigan result by applying the same analysis from a different perspective, making several important points along the way as emphasized below:
“ … The facts alleged in a motion to disqualify need only show that the party making it has a well-grounded fear that be or she will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge. Judicial inquiry should focus on the reasonableness of the affiant’s belief that the judge.
Judicial inquiry should focus on the reasonableness of the affiant’s belief that the judge may be biased, and not the judge’s own perception of his or her ability to act fairly. … The sufficiency of the allegations depends upon whether he or she has successfully established the actual existence of prejudice.
The letter standard would render the motion for disqualification virtually futile and result in the sort of adversary proceeding between judge and petitioner that create bias or the appearance thereof even where none had existed before. “33 (emphasis added)
And further to that:
“Generally, disqualification of a judge from action in a proceeding in which he is not wholly free, disinterested and independent is intended not merely for the benefit of the parties to the suit, who are entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, but for the general interests of justice, by preserving the purity and impartiality of the courts, and the respect and confidence of the people for their decisions.
And further to that:
“Generally, disqualification of a judge from action in a proceeding in which he is not wholly free, disinterested and independent is intended not merely for the benefit of the parties to the suit, who are entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, but for the general interests of justice, by preserving the purity and impartiality of the courts, and the respect and confidence of the people for their decisions.
Moreover, judicial tribunals must not only be, but appear to be impartial, so that where circumstances are such as to create in the mind of a reasonable man a suspicion of bias, disqualification may be warranted although there is no proof of actual bias. “36 (emphasis added)
No matter where the evolution of disqualification theory may lead, the eternal catch -22 of disqualification law will always follow: upon any request for disqualification, if there exists even a reasonable suspicion of the presence of bias, prejudice or partiality
any failure to grant the request tends to beg the question, lead to more suspicion and possibly create the evil otherwise truthfully denied and sought is be avoided.
A truly independent non-biased judge considering such a situation should not care about retaining jurisdiction of any particular case; but instead rise above one’s self, respect a petitioner’s well-plead request and promptly proceed to remove all grounds for any suspicion of doubt, by granting disqualification.
Procedure:
Proper procedure for handling a motion to disqualify is well established and was recently summarized in Czuprynski v Bay 1 2 follows:
“The procedure for disqualification of a trial judge . . . which was formerly provided by statute is now provided by court rule. MCR 2.003 generally, that procedure is exclusive and must be followed. “10/31.
: MCR 2.003 provides that a party or attorney seeking disqualification must file a written motion supported by an affidavit of facts and including all know grounds for disqualification.
No matter where the evolution of disqualification theory may lead, the eternal catch -22 of disqualification law will always follow: upon any request for disqualification, if there exists even a reasonable suspicion of the presence of bias, prejudice or partiality
any failure to grant the request tends to beg the question, lead to more suspicion and possibly create the evil otherwise truthfully denied and sought is be avoided.
A truly independent non-biased judge considering such a situation should not care about retaining jurisdiction of any particular case; but instead rise above one’s self, respect a petitioner’s well-plead request and promptly proceed to remove all grounds for any suspicion of doubt, by granting disqualification.
Procedure:
Proper procedure for handling a motion to disqualify is well established and was recently summarized in Czuprynski v Bay 1 2 follows:
“The procedure for disqualification of a trial judge . . . which was formerly provided by statute is now provided by court rule. MCR 2.003 generally, that procedure is exclusive and must be followed. “10/31.
: MCR 2.003 provides that a party or attorney seeking disqualification must file a written motion supported by an affidavit of facts and including all know grounds for disqualification.
The Judge complained of then holds a holds a hearing and decides the motion. If the motion is denied, then the party or attorney may refer the motion to the chief judge who must decide the motion de novo on the record 32/33.
Respectfully submitted this January 31, 2007
By ______________________________________
George Edward Lyons
P.O.Box 226
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-657-1679
TABLE OF CITATIONS AND AUTHORITIES
1. US Const, Am XIV; Mich Const 1963,art 1,set 17;
2. In Re Murchison, 349 US 133, 136; 75 S Ct 623( 1955)
3. Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564, 579; 93 S Ct 1689 ( 1973)
4. Crampton v Dep’t of State, 395 Mich 347, 351 ( 1975 )
5. Pitoniak v Borman’s, Inc. 104 Mich App 718, 722-723(1981)
6. Withrow v Larkin, 421, US 35, 47; 95 S Ct 1455( 1975)
7. Mathews v Eldridge,424, US 319, 335; 96 S Ct 893 ( 1976 )
8. Goldberg v Kelly, 397 US 254, 263-271; 90 S Ct 1011 ( 1970)
9. Wayne Circuit Judges v Wayne County, 386 Mich 1 ( 1971)
10. Stockwell v Township Board, 22 Mich 341 ( 1871)
11. Peninsular Railway Co. v. Howard, 20 Mich 18 ( 1870 )
12. People v Houston, 179 Mich app 753, 756 ( 1983 )
13. Clemens v Bruce, 122 Mich App 35, 37-38 ( 1982 )
14. People v Lowenstein, 118 Mich App 475, 481-432 ( 1982 )
15. United State v Grinnell, 384 US 563; 86 S C: 1698 ( 1966 )
16. People v Rider, 93 Mich App 383 ( 1979 )
17. Ungar v Sarafite. 376 US 573, 588: 84 S Ct 841 ( 1964 )
18. Merritt v Munster, 575 P2d 623, 624 ( Okla. 1978 )
19. Strong v Pontiac General. 117 Mich App 143, 148 ( 1982 )
20. Wayne County v Recorder’s Court, 81 Mich App 143, 148 ( 1982 )
21. Warren Schools v MERC. 67 Mich App 58 ( 1976 )
22. Baker v Carr. 369 US 186, 267; 82 S Ct 691. 737 – 738 ( 1962 )
23. Tumey v Ohio 273 US 510; 47 S Ct 437 ( 1927 )
24. Offutt v United States, 348 US 11, 14; 75 S Ct 11 ( 1955 )
25. Glass v State Hwy Const. 370 Mich 482 ( 1963 )
26. Wayne County Prosecutor v Doerfler, 14 Mich App 428( 1968 )
27. Cardozo, Nature of the Judicial Process, p. 167.
28. Utilities Com v Pollak, 343 US 451, 466; 72 S Ct 813 ( 1952 )
29. Mirych v State Fair Commission, 376 Mich 384( 1965 )
30. Consumer Power v Iosco Circuit Judge, 210Mich 572 ( 1920 )
31. Hayes-Albion v Kuberski, 108Mich App 642, 657-658 ( 1981 )
32. Gruprynski v Bay Judge, 166 Mich 118, 123-124 (1988)
33. People v Gauntlett, 134 Mich 737, 757-761 ( 1984 )
34. MCR 2.003 et seq.
35. Caleffe v Vitale,65 ALR 4th 67, 71-72 ( 1986 )
36. See 46 Am Jur 2d, Judges ss. 86; see also ss. C ( 1 ) ( a. b ) of Canon 3 of the Code 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct ( Am Jur 2d Desk book )
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY)
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843 (517-546-9816)
State of Michigan court administrator
For assignment of case to another judge
GEORGE EDWARD LYONS HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE
P.O.BOX 226 Case no.06-021758-CZ
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 Case no. 04-020652-CF-B
734-657-1679 Case no. 04-20684-CK
PLAINTIFF
-V-
RONALD STORZBACH AND VIRGINIA STORZBACH H/W
7709 PARTRIDGE HILL,
Brighton, Michigan 48116
Moved to: 912 Sand wedge Court
Bowling Green,KY 42103-2508
UNKNOWN
DEFENDANTS
Richard Friberg and Ann Friberg H/W
5640 Shoshoni Pass
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
540-823-3271
Moved to: 19385 Briar Patch Drive
Gordonville, Va. 22942-7564
DEFENDANTS
David Feeback and Carrie Feeback H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ
10932 Whitewood Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 NEAL D. NIELSEN
DEFENDANTS 2000 Grand River
Suite 200
Brighton, Michigan 48114
Curt Lalonde and Mary Ann Lalonde H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ
3100 Crystal Springs Lane aka 3100 Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Kenneth V. Zichi
734-878-2278 DEFENDANTS 515 E. Grand River Avenue,
Howell, Michigan. 48543
Karl Kopp and Marian Kopp H/W Case no. 04-020652-CF-B
4849 GALLAGHER Attorney for Defendants
WHITMORE LAKE, MI. 48139 Douglas Cameron
810-231-3286 DEFENDANTS 317 W. MAIN Street
Brighton, Michigan 48116
IVO AND HEATHER MARCICH H/W Case no. 04-20684-CK
3155 Crystal Spring Lane, aka Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Charles Widmaier
734-878-1874 DEFENDANTS 822 E. Grand River,
Brighton, Mi 48116
(REVISED)
Respectfully submitted this January 31, 2007
By ______________________________________
George Edward Lyons
P.O.Box 226
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-657-1679
TABLE OF CITATIONS AND AUTHORITIES
1. US Const, Am XIV; Mich Const 1963,art 1,set 17;
2. In Re Murchison, 349 US 133, 136; 75 S Ct 623( 1955)
3. Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564, 579; 93 S Ct 1689 ( 1973)
4. Crampton v Dep’t of State, 395 Mich 347, 351 ( 1975 )
5. Pitoniak v Borman’s, Inc. 104 Mich App 718, 722-723(1981)
6. Withrow v Larkin, 421, US 35, 47; 95 S Ct 1455( 1975)
7. Mathews v Eldridge,424, US 319, 335; 96 S Ct 893 ( 1976 )
8. Goldberg v Kelly, 397 US 254, 263-271; 90 S Ct 1011 ( 1970)
9. Wayne Circuit Judges v Wayne County, 386 Mich 1 ( 1971)
10. Stockwell v Township Board, 22 Mich 341 ( 1871)
11. Peninsular Railway Co. v. Howard, 20 Mich 18 ( 1870 )
12. People v Houston, 179 Mich app 753, 756 ( 1983 )
13. Clemens v Bruce, 122 Mich App 35, 37-38 ( 1982 )
14. People v Lowenstein, 118 Mich App 475, 481-432 ( 1982 )
15. United State v Grinnell, 384 US 563; 86 S C: 1698 ( 1966 )
16. People v Rider, 93 Mich App 383 ( 1979 )
17. Ungar v Sarafite. 376 US 573, 588: 84 S Ct 841 ( 1964 )
18. Merritt v Munster, 575 P2d 623, 624 ( Okla. 1978 )
19. Strong v Pontiac General. 117 Mich App 143, 148 ( 1982 )
20. Wayne County v Recorder’s Court, 81 Mich App 143, 148 ( 1982 )
21. Warren Schools v MERC. 67 Mich App 58 ( 1976 )
22. Baker v Carr. 369 US 186, 267; 82 S Ct 691. 737 – 738 ( 1962 )
23. Tumey v Ohio 273 US 510; 47 S Ct 437 ( 1927 )
24. Offutt v United States, 348 US 11, 14; 75 S Ct 11 ( 1955 )
25. Glass v State Hwy Const. 370 Mich 482 ( 1963 )
26. Wayne County Prosecutor v Doerfler, 14 Mich App 428( 1968 )
27. Cardozo, Nature of the Judicial Process, p. 167.
28. Utilities Com v Pollak, 343 US 451, 466; 72 S Ct 813 ( 1952 )
29. Mirych v State Fair Commission, 376 Mich 384( 1965 )
30. Consumer Power v Iosco Circuit Judge, 210Mich 572 ( 1920 )
31. Hayes-Albion v Kuberski, 108Mich App 642, 657-658 ( 1981 )
32. Gruprynski v Bay Judge, 166 Mich 118, 123-124 (1988)
33. People v Gauntlett, 134 Mich 737, 757-761 ( 1984 )
34. MCR 2.003 et seq.
35. Caleffe v Vitale,65 ALR 4th 67, 71-72 ( 1986 )
36. See 46 Am Jur 2d, Judges ss. 86; see also ss. C ( 1 ) ( a. b ) of Canon 3 of the Code 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct ( Am Jur 2d Desk book )
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 44th JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF (LIVINGSTON COUNTY)
210 S. HIGHLANDER WAY, HOWELL, MICHIGAN, 48843 (517-546-9816)
State of Michigan court administrator
For assignment of case to another judge
GEORGE EDWARD LYONS HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE STANLEY LATREILLE
P.O.BOX 226 Case no.06-021758-CZ
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 Case no. 04-020652-CF-B
734-657-1679 Case no. 04-20684-CK
PLAINTIFF
-V-
RONALD STORZBACH AND VIRGINIA STORZBACH H/W
7709 PARTRIDGE HILL,
Brighton, Michigan 48116
Moved to: 912 Sand wedge Court
Bowling Green,KY 42103-2508
UNKNOWN
DEFENDANTS
Richard Friberg and Ann Friberg H/W
5640 Shoshoni Pass
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
540-823-3271
Moved to: 19385 Briar Patch Drive
Gordonville, Va. 22942-7564
DEFENDANTS
David Feeback and Carrie Feeback H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ
10932 Whitewood Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 NEAL D. NIELSEN
DEFENDANTS 2000 Grand River
Suite 200
Brighton, Michigan 48114
Curt Lalonde and Mary Ann Lalonde H/W Case no. 06-021758-CZ
3100 Crystal Springs Lane aka 3100 Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Kenneth V. Zichi
734-878-2278 DEFENDANTS 515 E. Grand River Avenue,
Howell, Michigan. 48543
Karl Kopp and Marian Kopp H/W Case no. 04-020652-CF-B
4849 GALLAGHER Attorney for Defendants
WHITMORE LAKE, MI. 48139 Douglas Cameron
810-231-3286 DEFENDANTS 317 W. MAIN Street
Brighton, Michigan 48116
IVO AND HEATHER MARCICH H/W Case no. 04-20684-CK
3155 Crystal Spring Lane, aka Betty Lyons Lane Attorney for Defendants
Pinckney, Michigan 48169 Charles Widmaier
734-878-1874 DEFENDANTS 822 E. Grand River,
Brighton, Mi 48116
(REVISED)
Past cases filed against Plaintiff and the continues Biasness against Plaintiff George Lyons in the Livingston County Court System.
All Disqualification of Judge’s was structured if motion is denied proves that the Judge’s are Bias.
On STORZBACH AND FRIBERG’S vs. Lyons Builders, Inc. 04-020684-CK
ISSUE: Judge Stanley Latreille: Motion for Disqualification: denied request. The court had full knowledge of the wrongful actions of Storzbach and Friberg.
1. Storzbach, Friberg v. Lyons Builders, Inc. Plaintiff George Lyons can and did prove their criminal actions. Audiotapes on all attorneys’ and their illegal court actions.
( 1998 The State of Michigan Consumer & Industry Service closed the false complaint of Richard and Ann Friberg and founded that Lyons Builders, Inc. and George Lyons did no violations against Friberg’s).
2. ISSUE: Storzbach attorney Richard Conlin, made a false statement to the court to acquire a $55,000.00 levy and a $ 3,000.00 legal fees, by falsely stating he personally mail out notice of hearing to George Lyons, through audio tape conversations Richard Conlin, was to mail all notices to George Lyons Attorney this was not done, attorney Richard Conlin stated in court that he had no idea that George Lyons was being represented by An attorney.
This statement was false an misleading. By this statement of Attorney Richard Conlin illegally acquire Storzbach a false levy OF $55,000.00 and $3,000.00 attorney fees. And these actions of Storzbach and Friberg started the Ripple effect of Fraud ON STORBACH’S AND THEIR ATTORNEY RICHARD COLIN PART. SEE AUDIO TAPES.
Footnote: FIVE FALSE LAW SUITS WERE FILED AGAINST PLAINTIFF GEORGE LYONS AND HIS COMPANIES BY STORZBACH, FRIBERG, LALONDE, MARCICH, and STEEBER. All building contracts of George Lyons and Lyons Builder’s Inc.
Footnote: FIVE FALSE LAW SUITS WERE FILED AGAINST PLAINTIFF GEORGE LYONS AND HIS COMPANIES BY STORZBACH, FRIBERG, LALONDE, MARCICH, and STEEBER. All building contracts of George Lyons and Lyons Builder’s Inc.
Were governed by the American Arbitration clause, The Livingston County Court system had no jurisdiction in any of these Case. Motion was presented by George Lyons and all motions were denied by all Judges’. NONE OF THESE BUILDING CONTRACT’S WAS TO BE IN THE LIVINGSTON COUNTY COURTS SYSTEM FOR NO JURISDICTION.
1. ISSUE: Attorney Brian Lavan represented George Lyons and his company Lyons & Associates, Inc. On two different court cases. Brian Lavan then represented George Lyons and his company with a lease with option to buy 210 S. East St. Brighton Mi. Between and signed by Brian & Karen Lavan.
2. ISSUE: Attorney Brian Lavan then without George Lyons permission then represented Patricia A. Lyons ex-wife of George Lyons. In to acquire illegally acquire lot 88 Arrowhead Subdivision, 5456 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi. Which Attorney Brian Lavan committed Conflict of Interest against George Lyons and his companies.
3. ISSUE: Plaintiff requested motion before Judge Laterille to remove Brian Lavan for Conflict of Interest. Motion denied by Judge Stanley Laterille. Then a Motion to disqualify Judge Laterille for Biasness, Motion denied by Judge Stanley Laterille. See Michigan Court rules on Disqualification of Judge’s
4. ISSUE: Court receiver Dale Cooper who was the Court Receiver for filing false statements to Judge Stanley Laetrile review exhibit and audio tape on Del Cooper and Attorney Grievance complaint that was presented in to Court.
5. ISSUE: The evidence given to this court proven beyond a reasonable doubt that George Lyons preformed $98,000.00+ for Storzbach but the false statement from Consumer & Industry services took president.
6. ISSUE: The evidence for Richard and Ann Friberg given to this court proven beyond a reasonable doubt that George Lyons paid out of his own pocket $ 133,000.00 toward finishing Friberg’s 5456 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan and Friberg’s owed George Lyons $ 160,000.00 at time of closing.
7. ISSUE: Court receiver Dale Cooper court receiver for Storzbach and Friberg fraudulent case filed false report to Judge Stanley Laterille. Review exhibits and audio tape of Dale Cooper review Attorney Grievance on Dale Cooper.
1. ISSUE: Attorney Brian Lavan represented George Lyons and his company Lyons & Associates, Inc. On two different court cases. Brian Lavan then represented George Lyons and his company with a lease with option to buy 210 S. East St. Brighton Mi. Between and signed by Brian & Karen Lavan.
2. ISSUE: Attorney Brian Lavan then without George Lyons permission then represented Patricia A. Lyons ex-wife of George Lyons. In to acquire illegally acquire lot 88 Arrowhead Subdivision, 5456 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi. Which Attorney Brian Lavan committed Conflict of Interest against George Lyons and his companies.
3. ISSUE: Plaintiff requested motion before Judge Laterille to remove Brian Lavan for Conflict of Interest. Motion denied by Judge Stanley Laterille. Then a Motion to disqualify Judge Laterille for Biasness, Motion denied by Judge Stanley Laterille. See Michigan Court rules on Disqualification of Judge’s
4. ISSUE: Court receiver Dale Cooper who was the Court Receiver for filing false statements to Judge Stanley Laetrile review exhibit and audio tape on Del Cooper and Attorney Grievance complaint that was presented in to Court.
5. ISSUE: The evidence given to this court proven beyond a reasonable doubt that George Lyons preformed $98,000.00+ for Storzbach but the false statement from Consumer & Industry services took president.
6. ISSUE: The evidence for Richard and Ann Friberg given to this court proven beyond a reasonable doubt that George Lyons paid out of his own pocket $ 133,000.00 toward finishing Friberg’s 5456 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan and Friberg’s owed George Lyons $ 160,000.00 at time of closing.
7. ISSUE: Court receiver Dale Cooper court receiver for Storzbach and Friberg fraudulent case filed false report to Judge Stanley Laterille. Review exhibits and audio tape of Dale Cooper review Attorney Grievance on Dale Cooper.
Attorney Dale Cooper caused legal interference and illegal actions caused these illegal actions of tortuous Interference, civil conspiracy, restriction of trade and fraud. Both cases of Storzbach and Friberg were Fibrous laws committed by these people and their attorney’s.
8. ISSUE: This evidence was given to this court proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Plaintiff George Lyons preformed $ 98,000.00+ more work for Storzbach but the False statement from Consumer & Industry service took president, See audio tapes on Consumer & Industry Service and their wrongful filing of false complaint reports.
9. ISSUE: The evidence for Richard and Ann Friberg given to this court proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant at the time George Lyons paid out of his own pocket $ 133,000.00 toward finishing Friberg’s 5456 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan.
8. ISSUE: This evidence was given to this court proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Plaintiff George Lyons preformed $ 98,000.00+ more work for Storzbach but the False statement from Consumer & Industry service took president, See audio tapes on Consumer & Industry Service and their wrongful filing of false complaint reports.
9. ISSUE: The evidence for Richard and Ann Friberg given to this court proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant at the time George Lyons paid out of his own pocket $ 133,000.00 toward finishing Friberg’s 5456 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan.
THE FRIBERG’S WERE TRANSFER TO GORDONVILLE, VIRGINIA HALF WAY THROUGH CONSTRUCTION OF 5654 SHOSHONI PASS, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN. PLAINTIFF GEORGE LYONS HAD TO BORROW MONEY TO FINISH CONSTRUCTION. USING $ 90,000.00 OF PLAINTIFF GEORGE LYONS HIS PRIVATE HOME 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MI.
AS COLLATERAL. THE FRIBERG’S OWE PLAINTIFF $ 160,000.00 AT THE TIME OF CLOSING PLUS MONEY TO SUBCONTRACTOR AND MATERIAL HANDLERS AT THE TIME OF CLOSING.
10. ISSUE: COURT RECIEVER DALE COOPER INTERFERANCE AND ILLEGAL ACTIONS CAUSED THESE ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF TORTOUS INTERFERENCE, CIVIL CONSPIRACY, RESTRICTION OF TRADE AND FRAUD, AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
BIG ISSUE:
ISSUE: Livingston County Case People of the State of Michigan against George Lyons for ENTERING WITHOUT PERMISSION 99-1823-SM.
Footnote: George Lyons has evidence that Prosecutor Attorney had full Knowledge that Kopp’s made a fraudulent filing a false forfeiture against George Lyons. The Prosecutor’s did the following stating that George Lyons was could not commutate with his Attorney, and the case was dismissed.
1. Plaintiff George Lyons borrowed $ 90,000.00 from the Kopp’s to finish 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan.
2. Kopp’s filed a wrongful lawsuit of forfeiture against the Plaintiff George Lyons stating the never received and payments toward the $ 90,000.00 that Plaintiff borrowed from the Kopp’s.
3. Plaintiff George Lyons was wrongful remove from marital residence 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. by ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons. She was informed by her attorney Brian Lavan to remove Plaintiff George Lyons from 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. This illegal action or removal from residence 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. Plaintiff was banded from 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. This held all evidence that proved Kopp’s made a fraudulent forfeiture lawsuit against the Plaintiff.
4. In July 2004 Plaintiff George Lyons received evidence that was at 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi.
5. A certified check made out to Lyons Builders, Inc. dated 1994 for $ 24,000.00 that stated paid to the order of Karl and Marian Kopp, for the Payment on Camelot. Footnote: this was an agreed contract the certified check showed contract was for payment on Camelot.
FOOTNOTE: Plaintiff George Lyons has evidence that Prosecutor Attorney had full knowledge that Kopp’s made a fraudulent filing a false forfeiture against Plaintiff George Lyons.
ISSUE: Kopp’s filed a false police report against the Plaintiff George Lyons for entering without permission in 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.
ISSUE: To Stop the Plaintiff George Lyons. The Livingston County court motion that Plaintiff George Lyons should go under a mental examination test. This motion was presented by the Livingston County Prosecutor’s office. This wrongful action stopped the Plaintiff from having due process.
ISSUE: Footnote: Prosecutor’s office had in its possession transcripts that the Kopp’s made the fraudulent police report showing that Kopp’s gave permission the Plaintiff George Lyons. See Audio tapes.
ISSUE: The Prosecutor’s did the following from the report from the Forensic Ypsilanti, Mi. could not communicate with his court appointed Attorney Mark Spickard, and the case was dismissed. See Attorney Grievance against Attorney Mark Spickard and Forensic Dr. Judith Thompson.
ISSUE: Judge Delvero: Motion for Disqualification: Gave overwhelming evidence to Judge Delvero that George Lyons was innocent the evidence given to Judge Delvero court will prove this. See Case File.
ISSUE: False police report of Kopp’s for entering without permission: Transcripts were given to Livingston County Prosecutor’s proving that George Lyons was given Permission to enter 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. See Case File.
ISSUE: This wrongful action by the Kopp’s for entering without permission: Transcripts were given to Livingston County Prosecutors proving that Plaintiff George Lyons was given permission to enter 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan by the Kopp’s please review case file.
ISSUE: This wrongful action by the Kopp’s in making a false police report against Plaintiff George Lyons for entering 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, and Mi. Plaintiff Home. These illegal actions were a cover-up for the Kopp’s making a Fraudulent Forfeiture against Plaintiff residence at 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi.
1. ISSUE: George Lyons played audiotapes for court appointed attorney Mark Spickard, and taped recorded Spickard listening and recorded his comments of the Kopp’s giving Permission to enter 1194 Camelot, Pinckney.
2. ISSUE: Judge Delvero ordered George Lyons to have a forensic test in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Played audio taped to Ypsilanti Forensic examiner Judith Thompson and George Lyons then audio taped examiner Judith Thompson and recorded her comments.
3. ISSUE: COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY SPICKARD AND FORENSIC EXAMINER JUDITH THOMPSON HAD TO DO WAS STATE TO THE COURT, GEORGE LYONS WAS GIVEN PERMISSION TO ENTER 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MI. AND THE CASE WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN DROPPED.
4. ISSUE: BUT TO PROTECT OTHER ATTORNEY’S AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, THEY HELD BACK EVIDENCE. This was a cover-up and obstruction of Justice, and Judicial misconduct. This gave the Kopp’s illegal possession of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi market price $ 800,000.00 to $ 1,100,000.00. This was illegally supported by Livingston County Court system and the Livingston County Prosecutor’s office.
5. ISSUE: These actions will place Court appointed attorney Mark Spickard and Livingston County Prosecutor’s and Forensic examiner Judith Thompson into malpractice actions, and illegal interference and civil conspiracy and restriction of trade, and Fraud, Judicial misconduct and obstruction of Justice.
6. ISSUE: George Lyons loses his builders and residential brokers license in June 2000 because of the false complaints of the past clients, which has a 6 year statue of limitations against the above clients, and attorney’s and examiner for the state of Michigan.
7. ISSUE: These wrongful actions will place Court appointed attorney Mark Spickard and Livingston County Prosecutor’s and Forensic examiner Judith Thompson into malpractice illegal actions, and illegal interference and civil conspiracy and restriction of trade and Fraud, Judicial misconduct and obstruction of Justice.
8. ISSUE: The wrongful Livingston County Prosecutor’s and Livingston County Court system, and the Friend of the Court used false mental examinations to
9. wrongfully Control the Plaintiff George Lyons (See attorney Grievance letter for the FRIEND OF THE COURT REFEREE GERALD EDIT.) ENCLOSED.
10. ISSUE: Plaintiff George Lyons wrongful loses his builders license and residential brokers license in June 2000 which has a 6 year statue of Limitations against the above clients, and attorney’s and examiner for the State of Michigan.
11. The following illegal actions of Storzbach, Friberg, Feeback, Lalonde, Marcich through the Livingston County Building Department and their inspector proves that Plaintiff George Lyons of Lyons Builders, Inc. performed over $ 387,000.00 of work that these past clients and never paid for. And these Clients caused Plaintiff George Lyons to face false Charges of N.S.F. Charges which falls under criminal actions.
See evidence given to Court. All Plaintiff evidence were hid away from Plaintiff by Ex-wife Patricia A. Lyons and Karl and Marian Kopp because they were afraid they may lose the equity of $ 800,000.00 to $ 1,100,000.00 and the $ 65,000.00 balance owed to the Kopp’s this was directed by Attorney Brian Lavan of Patricia Ann Lyons. See audio tape and Attorney Grievance Committee of Brian Lavan.
Lalonde, Marcich framed Plaintiff for false N.S.F. Charges
ISSUE: People of the State of Michigan N.S.F. CHARGES 96-9526-FH /96-9522-FH /96-9523-FH See Case Files these files are open to the Public.
1. ISSUE: Judge Daniel Burress-False N.S.F. Charges filed against Plaintiff please review Chain of events. Statements in transcripts in court case, session of large groups that was truly stated in court was not included in the transcripts. See audio tapes of Plaintiff recorded in court by the Plaintiff.
2, ISSUE: Prior to this Judge Daniel Burress had three motions for disqualification for biasness, Once for refusal of removing Brian Lavan on conflict of Interest, as attorney for representing ex-wife in divorce between George Lyons and Patricia Lyons, and second for Motions for Attorney Charles Wedmaier conflict of interest, Mr. Wedmaier represented George Lyons and Lyons & Associates, Inc. (aka Lyons Builders, Inc. in the case against Brian Lavan, illegally removing George Lyons from 210 S. East Street, Brighton, Mi.
SO ATTORNEY BRIAN LAVAN COULD ILLEGAL REMOVE PLAINTIFF GEORGE LYONS AND TAKE POSSESSION OF 210 S. EAST ST. BRIGHTON, MI. TO ACQUIRE A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MORE PROFITABLE FOR ATTORNEY BRIAN LAVAN ON GRAND RIVER, BRIGHTON, MICHIGAN.
10. ISSUE: COURT RECIEVER DALE COOPER INTERFERANCE AND ILLEGAL ACTIONS CAUSED THESE ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF TORTOUS INTERFERENCE, CIVIL CONSPIRACY, RESTRICTION OF TRADE AND FRAUD, AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
BIG ISSUE:
ISSUE: Livingston County Case People of the State of Michigan against George Lyons for ENTERING WITHOUT PERMISSION 99-1823-SM.
Footnote: George Lyons has evidence that Prosecutor Attorney had full Knowledge that Kopp’s made a fraudulent filing a false forfeiture against George Lyons. The Prosecutor’s did the following stating that George Lyons was could not commutate with his Attorney, and the case was dismissed.
1. Plaintiff George Lyons borrowed $ 90,000.00 from the Kopp’s to finish 5654 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan.
2. Kopp’s filed a wrongful lawsuit of forfeiture against the Plaintiff George Lyons stating the never received and payments toward the $ 90,000.00 that Plaintiff borrowed from the Kopp’s.
3. Plaintiff George Lyons was wrongful remove from marital residence 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. by ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons. She was informed by her attorney Brian Lavan to remove Plaintiff George Lyons from 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. This illegal action or removal from residence 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. Plaintiff was banded from 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. This held all evidence that proved Kopp’s made a fraudulent forfeiture lawsuit against the Plaintiff.
4. In July 2004 Plaintiff George Lyons received evidence that was at 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi.
5. A certified check made out to Lyons Builders, Inc. dated 1994 for $ 24,000.00 that stated paid to the order of Karl and Marian Kopp, for the Payment on Camelot. Footnote: this was an agreed contract the certified check showed contract was for payment on Camelot.
FOOTNOTE: Plaintiff George Lyons has evidence that Prosecutor Attorney had full knowledge that Kopp’s made a fraudulent filing a false forfeiture against Plaintiff George Lyons.
ISSUE: Kopp’s filed a false police report against the Plaintiff George Lyons for entering without permission in 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.
ISSUE: To Stop the Plaintiff George Lyons. The Livingston County court motion that Plaintiff George Lyons should go under a mental examination test. This motion was presented by the Livingston County Prosecutor’s office. This wrongful action stopped the Plaintiff from having due process.
ISSUE: Footnote: Prosecutor’s office had in its possession transcripts that the Kopp’s made the fraudulent police report showing that Kopp’s gave permission the Plaintiff George Lyons. See Audio tapes.
ISSUE: The Prosecutor’s did the following from the report from the Forensic Ypsilanti, Mi. could not communicate with his court appointed Attorney Mark Spickard, and the case was dismissed. See Attorney Grievance against Attorney Mark Spickard and Forensic Dr. Judith Thompson.
ISSUE: Judge Delvero: Motion for Disqualification: Gave overwhelming evidence to Judge Delvero that George Lyons was innocent the evidence given to Judge Delvero court will prove this. See Case File.
ISSUE: False police report of Kopp’s for entering without permission: Transcripts were given to Livingston County Prosecutor’s proving that George Lyons was given Permission to enter 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. See Case File.
ISSUE: This wrongful action by the Kopp’s for entering without permission: Transcripts were given to Livingston County Prosecutors proving that Plaintiff George Lyons was given permission to enter 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan by the Kopp’s please review case file.
ISSUE: This wrongful action by the Kopp’s in making a false police report against Plaintiff George Lyons for entering 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, and Mi. Plaintiff Home. These illegal actions were a cover-up for the Kopp’s making a Fraudulent Forfeiture against Plaintiff residence at 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi.
1. ISSUE: George Lyons played audiotapes for court appointed attorney Mark Spickard, and taped recorded Spickard listening and recorded his comments of the Kopp’s giving Permission to enter 1194 Camelot, Pinckney.
2. ISSUE: Judge Delvero ordered George Lyons to have a forensic test in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Played audio taped to Ypsilanti Forensic examiner Judith Thompson and George Lyons then audio taped examiner Judith Thompson and recorded her comments.
3. ISSUE: COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY SPICKARD AND FORENSIC EXAMINER JUDITH THOMPSON HAD TO DO WAS STATE TO THE COURT, GEORGE LYONS WAS GIVEN PERMISSION TO ENTER 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MI. AND THE CASE WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN DROPPED.
4. ISSUE: BUT TO PROTECT OTHER ATTORNEY’S AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, THEY HELD BACK EVIDENCE. This was a cover-up and obstruction of Justice, and Judicial misconduct. This gave the Kopp’s illegal possession of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi market price $ 800,000.00 to $ 1,100,000.00. This was illegally supported by Livingston County Court system and the Livingston County Prosecutor’s office.
5. ISSUE: These actions will place Court appointed attorney Mark Spickard and Livingston County Prosecutor’s and Forensic examiner Judith Thompson into malpractice actions, and illegal interference and civil conspiracy and restriction of trade, and Fraud, Judicial misconduct and obstruction of Justice.
6. ISSUE: George Lyons loses his builders and residential brokers license in June 2000 because of the false complaints of the past clients, which has a 6 year statue of limitations against the above clients, and attorney’s and examiner for the state of Michigan.
7. ISSUE: These wrongful actions will place Court appointed attorney Mark Spickard and Livingston County Prosecutor’s and Forensic examiner Judith Thompson into malpractice illegal actions, and illegal interference and civil conspiracy and restriction of trade and Fraud, Judicial misconduct and obstruction of Justice.
8. ISSUE: The wrongful Livingston County Prosecutor’s and Livingston County Court system, and the Friend of the Court used false mental examinations to
9. wrongfully Control the Plaintiff George Lyons (See attorney Grievance letter for the FRIEND OF THE COURT REFEREE GERALD EDIT.) ENCLOSED.
10. ISSUE: Plaintiff George Lyons wrongful loses his builders license and residential brokers license in June 2000 which has a 6 year statue of Limitations against the above clients, and attorney’s and examiner for the State of Michigan.
11. The following illegal actions of Storzbach, Friberg, Feeback, Lalonde, Marcich through the Livingston County Building Department and their inspector proves that Plaintiff George Lyons of Lyons Builders, Inc. performed over $ 387,000.00 of work that these past clients and never paid for. And these Clients caused Plaintiff George Lyons to face false Charges of N.S.F. Charges which falls under criminal actions.
See evidence given to Court. All Plaintiff evidence were hid away from Plaintiff by Ex-wife Patricia A. Lyons and Karl and Marian Kopp because they were afraid they may lose the equity of $ 800,000.00 to $ 1,100,000.00 and the $ 65,000.00 balance owed to the Kopp’s this was directed by Attorney Brian Lavan of Patricia Ann Lyons. See audio tape and Attorney Grievance Committee of Brian Lavan.
Lalonde, Marcich framed Plaintiff for false N.S.F. Charges
ISSUE: People of the State of Michigan N.S.F. CHARGES 96-9526-FH /96-9522-FH /96-9523-FH See Case Files these files are open to the Public.
1. ISSUE: Judge Daniel Burress-False N.S.F. Charges filed against Plaintiff please review Chain of events. Statements in transcripts in court case, session of large groups that was truly stated in court was not included in the transcripts. See audio tapes of Plaintiff recorded in court by the Plaintiff.
2, ISSUE: Prior to this Judge Daniel Burress had three motions for disqualification for biasness, Once for refusal of removing Brian Lavan on conflict of Interest, as attorney for representing ex-wife in divorce between George Lyons and Patricia Lyons, and second for Motions for Attorney Charles Wedmaier conflict of interest, Mr. Wedmaier represented George Lyons and Lyons & Associates, Inc. (aka Lyons Builders, Inc. in the case against Brian Lavan, illegally removing George Lyons from 210 S. East Street, Brighton, Mi.
SO ATTORNEY BRIAN LAVAN COULD ILLEGAL REMOVE PLAINTIFF GEORGE LYONS AND TAKE POSSESSION OF 210 S. EAST ST. BRIGHTON, MI. TO ACQUIRE A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MORE PROFITABLE FOR ATTORNEY BRIAN LAVAN ON GRAND RIVER, BRIGHTON, MICHIGAN.
SEE AUDIO TAPE AND THESE GAVE MOTIVE FOR BRIAN LAVAN ILLEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF GEORGE LYONS.
1. ISSUE: Charles Widmaier without permission from George Lyons represents past client Curt & Mary Ann Lalonde and Ivo & Heather Marcich. These actions of company Harris & Literski and attorney Charles Widmaier, proves beyond a reasonable doubt a conflict of Interest and tortuous interference, civil conspiracy, restriction of trade, and fraud. George Lyons request espungment from the false
N.S.F. charges, review all evidence prior to hearing of the N.S.F. charges and after the false N.S.F. charges proves overwhelming that George Lyons and his company was falsely charged for N.S.F. charges.
1. ISSUE: Charles Widmaier without permission from George Lyons represents past client Curt & Mary Ann Lalonde and Ivo & Heather Marcich. These actions of company Harris & Literski and attorney Charles Widmaier, proves beyond a reasonable doubt a conflict of Interest and tortuous interference, civil conspiracy, restriction of trade, and fraud. George Lyons request espungment from the false
N.S.F. charges, review all evidence prior to hearing of the N.S.F. charges and after the false N.S.F. charges proves overwhelming that George Lyons and his company was falsely charged for N.S.F. charges.
BECAUSE THE PAST CLIENTS CURT AND MARY ANN LALONDE, AND IVO AND HEATHER MARCICH FRAMING PLAINTIFF GEORGE LYONS FOR THE FALSE N.S.F. CHARGES. SEE AUDIO TAPES AND PERMIT HISTORY OF THE LIVINGSTON COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
Footnote: Through the Livingston County Building Department proves that these clients, Storzbach, Friberg, Lalonde, Feeback, and Lalonde owed this writer $ 387,000.00 this is support by the Livingston County Building inspector on audio tapes.
2. ISSUE: In Court George Lyons had over 2 feet of evidence was presented to Judge Burress court and the Livingston County Prosecuting attorney.
3. ISSUE: 6 time with the State of Police, MANY times with the Pinckney police, and FIVE TIMES with the Hamburg township police, and THREE TIMES to the F.B.I. investigators in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and NUMBEROUS TIMES WITH Livingston County Sheriff department, and to the Michigan Consumer & Industry services, Livingston County Building Department, and Washtenaw County Sheriff department, evidence was given that Past clients were framing George Lyons and his company for false N.S.F. charges.
4. All policing agencies agreed that these past clients were framing George Lyons for false N.S.F. charges, all police agents were audio taped and their upset responses
About these past clients to George Lyons. That they talk to Livingston County prosecutor, and stated the Livingston County Prosecutor’s stated “even if George Lyons was telling the truth, the Livingston County prosecutor would not do anything. And refused to proceed. But still all policing agencies all agreed that these past clients were framing George Lyons for false N.S.F.
5. ISSUE: This is a cover-up of a false police report. And costing George Lyons loses of Builders, and residential broker’s licenses, and 5 years of probations for being falsely charged for N.S.F. charges.
ISSUE: Judge Delvero: Karl Kopp filed a false police report against George Lyons.
Footnote: Through the Livingston County Building Department proves that these clients, Storzbach, Friberg, Lalonde, Feeback, and Lalonde owed this writer $ 387,000.00 this is support by the Livingston County Building inspector on audio tapes.
2. ISSUE: In Court George Lyons had over 2 feet of evidence was presented to Judge Burress court and the Livingston County Prosecuting attorney.
3. ISSUE: 6 time with the State of Police, MANY times with the Pinckney police, and FIVE TIMES with the Hamburg township police, and THREE TIMES to the F.B.I. investigators in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and NUMBEROUS TIMES WITH Livingston County Sheriff department, and to the Michigan Consumer & Industry services, Livingston County Building Department, and Washtenaw County Sheriff department, evidence was given that Past clients were framing George Lyons and his company for false N.S.F. charges.
4. All policing agencies agreed that these past clients were framing George Lyons for false N.S.F. charges, all police agents were audio taped and their upset responses
About these past clients to George Lyons. That they talk to Livingston County prosecutor, and stated the Livingston County Prosecutor’s stated “even if George Lyons was telling the truth, the Livingston County prosecutor would not do anything. And refused to proceed. But still all policing agencies all agreed that these past clients were framing George Lyons for false N.S.F.
5. ISSUE: This is a cover-up of a false police report. And costing George Lyons loses of Builders, and residential broker’s licenses, and 5 years of probations for being falsely charged for N.S.F. charges.
ISSUE: Judge Delvero: Karl Kopp filed a false police report against George Lyons.
a. False police report for entering without permission 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi.
b. George Lyons was falsely arrested and taken to the Livingston County Jail.
c. The above action falls under tortuous interference, civil conspiracy, false police report, fraud, restriction of trade.
1. ISSUE: Conversations between Marian Kopp and George Lyons Audio tapes these conversations giving permission to enter 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. this conversations was played for George Lyons court appointed attorney Mark Spickard all he had to do was go into court and state that George Lyons was given permission to move into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.
But Spickard did not PRESENT THIS EVIDENCE TO THE LIVINGSTON COUNTY COURT SYSTEM SHOWING OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE, AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BY COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY MARK SPICKARD PART.
2. ISSUE: Court orders by Judge Delvero to have a George Lyons take a Forensic exam. That Exam was done by Forensic examiner Judith Thompson, the same tape was played for Judith Thompson, and again all Mrs. Thompson had to do was tell the court Mr. Lyons was given permission to enter into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. But her report was George Lyons was not competent to stand trial (not being able to communicate with court appointed attorney.) Again by doing this fraudulent action this stopped George Lyons from acquiring his home that was falsely taken away from him BY KARL AND MARIAN KOPP.
3. ISSUE: And also this action protected the legal representatives and attorney in stopping from any money to fight past clients, and their malpractice attorneys. Attorney that work for me before they work for past clients. AND STOPPED THE PLAINTIFF FROM ACQUIRING 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN. THESE ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF THESE PEOPLE CAUSE THE FOLLOWING TO PROTECT THE KOPP’S IN
a. Making a false forfeiture on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.
b. For illegal acquiring equity funds for legal representation.
ISSUE: Judge Stanley Latreille: George Lyons started suit with Ivo & Heather Marcich in Ingham County Circuit court for making false complaints with the Lansing State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services to acquire illegal funds from George Lyons ad his company, Defendant’s attorney Charles Wedmaier filed a change of venue.
Friend of the court- Case No.: 1996023807 DM
ISSUE: Judge Susan Reader: Divorce case from Judge Daniel Burress to Judge Susan Reader as Friend of the court judge. Disqualification against Honorable Judge Susan Reck.
1. Overwhelming evidence was given to these Honorable courts.
2. ISSUE: Request for removing Court Receiver Gerald Edit for Conflict of interest, Court Receiver Gerald Edit work for Attorney Brian Lavan and Attorney Gerald Edit represent Brian Lavan. George Lyons hired Brian Lavan to fight a lawsuit against James and Betty Steeber v. Lyons & Associates, Inc. that the Steeber’s breach building contract.
3. ISSUE: George Lyons was directed to be examined by Dr. Zipper. Overwhelming evidence was given to Dr. Zipper proving that ex-wife was using the Friend of the Court to financially destroying and keep George Lyons from his children.
a. Dr. Zipper still wrote a fraudulent letter to the Court Receiver Gerald Eidt against George Lyons. Placing George Lyons in a bad light.
b. ISSUE: George Lyons requests another Doctor. This doctor was from the same office of Dr. Zipper.
c. ISSUE: Dr. Rockwell found that George Lyons was not true that the false allegations that Dr. Zipper stated in his report, that George Lyons is highly intelligent person, and loved his daughters very much, and that his ex-wife was using the Court of Judge Daniel Burress and the Court of Judge Susan Reck to financially destroy George Lyons and keep George Lyons from his Daughters. All these meeting were audio taped.
d. ISSUE: Court Receiver Gerald Edit did not like this letter. And requested to have Dr. Zipper again review George Lyons.
e. ISSUE: Prior to the meeting the children of George Lyons and Patricia A. Lyons were ordered by the Friend of the Court their own attorney.
f. ISSUE: This attorney received overwhelming evidence against proving George Lyons innocent of any charges made by Patricia A. Lyons. The same evidence that again was given to Doctor Zipper.
g. ISSUE: Doctor Zipper listen to audio tapes along with Patricia A. Lyons attorney Molly Reno, in a report that Court Referee Gerald Edit false statement that he talk to the eldest daughter, Jeannine A. Lyons.
h. ISSUE: In Gerald Edit statement that his daughter in an interview with Mr. Edit stated that Her Father stated to her that their was someone out to get her, and Cut off her fingers, and Kill her and her sister. Gerald Edit wrote this in a court report to Judge Susan Reck.
i. ISSUE: Finding out this outrageous story, George Lyons contacted his daughter, and audio taped this conversation. George Lyons asks his daughter, who would say such a crazy story. Jeannine A. Lyons stated that her mother (Patricia A. Lyons and Dale Fisher) stated to her that someone was out to kill her and her sister, and cut their fingers off.
j. George Lyons then asked her why they would say anything like that to them, Jeannine Lyons stated because they care about us, and you don’t. George Lyons said so I never very said anything like that. Jeannine Lyons stated no dad you never did.
k. ISSUE: This audio tape was played for Gerald Edit (prior working for Friend of the Court. Friend of the court Referee Gerald Edit work for Attorney Brian Lavan.) Now George Lyons recorded his comments, and to Dr. Zipper and his comments, and both attorney Patricia A. Lyons attorney and my daughter’s attorney and George Lyons recorded their comments.
l. ISSUE: Dr. Zipper made fraudulent statements to the Friend of the Court even after this evidence proving the innocents of George Lyons. Costing Plaintiff George Lyons $70.00 per hour in a supervised environment.
m. ISSUE: Patricia Lyons wrote a letter to the Friend of the Court, that letter was completely taken apart by George Lyons sentence by sentence; proving that everything was in that letter was fabricated by Patricia A. Lyons. (This is proven through audio tapes and documents through the freedom of information act with the Consumer & Industry Services.
n. This evidence was given to Patricia A. Lyons Attorney, and to Gerald Eidt court referee for Friend of the court, and to the Daughter s attorney, and most of all to Dr. Richard Zipper. Still after this information was given out Dr. Zipper working for Gerald Edit, made a poor court report against George Lyons.
IMPORTANT ISSUE
Footnote: Prior to working as a Friend of the Court Referee Attorney Gerald Edit work for Plaintiff George Lyons. Attorney Gerald Edit work for Attorney Brian Lavan causing conflict of interest against Plaintiff George Lyons. Plaintiff George Lyons made a motion to removal of Gerald Edit this motion was denied by Judge Susan Reck, causing biasness against plaintiff George Lyons.
o. ISSUE: This again court cover-up to protect (Attorney Brian Lavan and Bad attorneys and illegal past clients and others and possibly Judge’s that were disqualified for biasness.
BIG ISSUE
ISSUE: There is other evidence like the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services doctoring George Lyons residential Broker license.
ISSUE: And then Ann Arbor Board of Realtors finding that George Lyons was found did no violations by the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services case.
And informed by this false allegations. But the Ann Arbor board of Realtors still ruled to remove George Lyons and his company from the Ann Arbor board of Realtors for one year. That they did not get evidence from the Consumer & Industry services,
ISSUE: George Lyons audio taped Ann Arbor Board of Realtors executive secretary Lisa Kirk, receiving that information prior to any formal complaints, this was audio taped conversation by George Lyons, The audio tape was then played for Executive President Pete Cornell, and again George Lyons audio taped Mr. Cornell acknowledgement and his comments to the tape recording. Still George Lyons was removed from the Ann Arbor Board of Realtors for 1 year even despite the fact that he was found innocents by The Consumer & Industry Services and false allegations were made by past clients. The above is just a very small part of evidence against the above.
ISSUE: PLAINTIFF IS REQUESTING THE STATE OF MICHIGAN JUDICIAL TENURE AND ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THIS HONORABLE COURT TO INQUIDE THE FOLLOWING FILES AS EVIDENCE FROM THE LIVINGSTON COUNTY COURT SYSTEM.
Plaintiff requests the following cases to be used files and transcript and court video and audio recording to be used as evidence in Case 04-020652. Lyons v. kopp.
1. People of the State of Michigan N.S.F. CHARGES 96-9526-FH /96-9522-FH /96-9523-FH
2. People of the State of Michigan ENTERING WITHOUT PERMISSION 99-1823-SM
3. People of the State of Michigan DOMICTIC ABUSE CHARGES 98-0467-SM
4. People of the State of Michigan STORZBACH AND FRIBERG’S 04-020684-CK
5. Friend of the court- Case No.: 1996023807 DM
These figures do not include Plaintiff lose in income or payments still owed to the Plaintiff over the many years. That total is over $ 800,000.00 to $ 14,000,000.00 chain of events for total.
CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff hopes and prays this Honorable court grant the Plaintiff constitutional right: In a 1981 decision, Pitoniak v Borman’s, 5 the court held:
“A basic requirement of the constitutional right is due process is a hearing before a fair, unbiased and impartial decision-maker. 1/2/3/4/5 A party who challenges the impartiality of a judge need not show actual prejudice; it is one in which: experience teaches that the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. “4/5/6
ISSUE: Plaintiff has given overwhelming evidence to the Mediation and they approved this case Kopp v. Lyons to go to Court. And the Summary Disposition was again a way to stop Plaintiff from a his constitution rights, and protect past clients, the legal representatives of the Livingston County Court system, and the past Defendant’s Karl and Marian Kopp. The above people could possibly be charged for Tortuous Interference, Civil Conspiracy, Fraud, and restriction of trade.
The Plaintiff hopes and prays the following chooses. That this motion for a Stay and Judge Stanley Laterille is disqualified as judge in case ALL CASES AS NOTED IN THIS DOCUMENTS and ALL Summary dispositions are set aside. And this case is transferred to The State of Michigan Administration office for a de nova hearing per law.
ISSUE: The above Judge’s and all evidence given to Judicial Tenure, State of Michigan Bar Association, and continue the complaints with the Attorney Grievance committee.
ISSUE: The plaintiff feels if he could only present this evidence to an un-bias court or un-bias jury, the Defendant’s and others would be charged and found guilty for tortuous interference, civil conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice, and restriction of trade that was committed against the Plaintiff and more.
This and other evidence has been sent to the State of Michigan Judicial Tenure and the Attorney Grievance Committee.
Plaintiff request a Stay in this court on these Defendant’s and this case until proper review against the Livingston County Court system and their wrongful bias and false summary dispositions actions against the Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________________
George Edward Lyons
P.O.Box 226
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-657-1679
(Current as of 7/01/2004) from the State of Michigan Court rules:MCR Rule 2.003 Disqualification of Judge
(A) Who May Raise. A party may raise the issue of a judge's disqualification by motion, or the judge may raise it.
(B) Grounds. A judge is disqualified when the judge cannot impartially hear a case, including but not limited to instances in which:
(1) The judge is personally biased or prejudiced for or against a party or attorney.
(2) The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.
(3) The judge has been consulted or employed as an attorney in the matter in controversy.
(4) The judge was a partner of a party, attorney for a party, or a member of a law firm representing a party within the preceding two years.
(5) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse, parent or child wherever residing, or any other member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household, has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding or has any other more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.
(6) The judge or the judge's spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(a) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director or trustee of a party;
(b) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(c) is known by the judge to have a more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding;
(d) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
A judge is not disqualified merely because the judge's former law clerk is an attorney of record for a party in an action that is before the judge or is associated with a law firm representing a party in an action that is before the judge.
(C) Procedure.
(1) Time for Filing. To avoid delaying trial and inconveniencing the witnesses, a motion to disqualify must be filed within 14 days after the moving party discovers the ground for disqualification. If the discovery is made within 14 days of the trial date, the motion must be made forthwith. If a motion is not timely filed, untimeliness, including delay in waiving jury trial, is a factor in deciding whether the motion should be granted.
(2) All Grounds to be Included; Affidavit. In any motion under this rule, the moving party must include all grounds for disqualification that are known at the time the motion is filed. An affidavit must accompany the motion.
(3) Ruling. The challenged judge shall decide the motion. If the challenged judge denies the motion,
(a) in a court having two or more judges, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the chief judge, who shall decide the motion de novo;
(b) in a single-judge court, or if the challenged judge is the chief judge, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the state court administrator for assignment to another judge, who shall decide the motion de novo.
(4) Motion Granted. When a judge is disqualified, the action must be assigned to another judge of the same court, or, if one is not available, the state court administrator shall assign another judge.
(D) Remittal of Disqualification. If it appears that there may be grounds for disqualification, the judge may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, out of the presence of the judge, whether to waive disqualification. If, following disclosure of any basis for disqualification other than personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, the parties without participation by the judge, all agree that the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to participate, the judge may participate in the proceedings. The agreement shall be in writing or placed on the record.
Respectfully submitted
__________________________
George Edward Lyons
P.O. Box 226
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-657-1679
OF JUSTICE, AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BY COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY MARK SPICKARD PART.
2. ISSUE: Court orders by Judge Delvero to have a George Lyons take a Forensic exam. That Exam was done by Forensic examiner Judith Thompson, the same tape was played for Judith Thompson, and again all Mrs. Thompson had to do was tell the court Mr. Lyons was given permission to enter into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. But her report was George Lyons was not competent to stand trial (not being able to communicate with court appointed attorney.) Again by doing this fraudulent action this stopped George Lyons from acquiring his home that was falsely taken away from him BY KARL AND MARIAN KOPP.
3. ISSUE: And also this action protected the legal representatives and attorney in stopping from any money to fight past clients, and their malpractice attorneys. Attorney that work for me before they work for past clients. AND STOPPED THE PLAINTIFF FROM ACQUIRING 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN. THESE ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF THESE PEOPLE CAUSE THE FOLLOWING TO PROTECT THE KOPP’S IN
a. Making a false forfeiture on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.
b. For illegal acquiring equity funds for legal representation.
ISSUE: Judge Stanley Latreille: George Lyons started suit with Ivo & Heather Marcich in Ingham County Circuit court for making false complaints with the Lansing State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services to acquire illegal funds from George Lyons ad his company, Defendant’s attorney Charles Wedmaier filed a change of venue.
Friend of the court- Case No.: 1996023807 DM
ISSUE: Judge Susan Reader: Divorce case from Judge Daniel Burress to Judge Susan Reader as Friend of the court judge. Disqualification against Honorable Judge Susan Reck.
1. Overwhelming evidence was given to these Honorable courts.
2. ISSUE: Request for removing Court Receiver Gerald Edit for Conflict of interest, Court Receiver Gerald Edit work for Attorney Brian Lavan and Attorney Gerald Edit represent Brian Lavan. George Lyons hired Brian Lavan to fight a lawsuit against James and Betty Steeber v. Lyons & Associates, Inc. that the Steeber’s breach building contract.
3. ISSUE: George Lyons was directed to be examined by Dr. Zipper. Overwhelming evidence was given to Dr. Zipper proving that ex-wife was using the Friend of the Court to financially destroying and keep George Lyons from his children.
a. Dr. Zipper still wrote a fraudulent letter to the Court Receiver Gerald Eidt against George Lyons. Placing George Lyons in a bad light.
b. ISSUE: George Lyons requests another Doctor. This doctor was from the same office of Dr. Zipper.
c. ISSUE: Dr. Rockwell found that George Lyons was not true that the false allegations that Dr. Zipper stated in his report, that George Lyons is highly intelligent person, and loved his daughters very much, and that his ex-wife was using the Court of Judge Daniel Burress and the Court of Judge Susan Reck to financially destroy George Lyons and keep George Lyons from his Daughters. All these meeting were audio taped.
d. ISSUE: Court Receiver Gerald Edit did not like this letter. And requested to have Dr. Zipper again review George Lyons.
e. ISSUE: Prior to the meeting the children of George Lyons and Patricia A. Lyons were ordered by the Friend of the Court their own attorney.
f. ISSUE: This attorney received overwhelming evidence against proving George Lyons innocent of any charges made by Patricia A. Lyons. The same evidence that again was given to Doctor Zipper.
g. ISSUE: Doctor Zipper listen to audio tapes along with Patricia A. Lyons attorney Molly Reno, in a report that Court Referee Gerald Edit false statement that he talk to the eldest daughter, Jeannine A. Lyons.
h. ISSUE: In Gerald Edit statement that his daughter in an interview with Mr. Edit stated that Her Father stated to her that their was someone out to get her, and Cut off her fingers, and Kill her and her sister. Gerald Edit wrote this in a court report to Judge Susan Reck.
i. ISSUE: Finding out this outrageous story, George Lyons contacted his daughter, and audio taped this conversation. George Lyons asks his daughter, who would say such a crazy story. Jeannine A. Lyons stated that her mother (Patricia A. Lyons and Dale Fisher) stated to her that someone was out to kill her and her sister, and cut their fingers off.
j. George Lyons then asked her why they would say anything like that to them, Jeannine Lyons stated because they care about us, and you don’t. George Lyons said so I never very said anything like that. Jeannine Lyons stated no dad you never did.
k. ISSUE: This audio tape was played for Gerald Edit (prior working for Friend of the Court. Friend of the court Referee Gerald Edit work for Attorney Brian Lavan.) Now George Lyons recorded his comments, and to Dr. Zipper and his comments, and both attorney Patricia A. Lyons attorney and my daughter’s attorney and George Lyons recorded their comments.
l. ISSUE: Dr. Zipper made fraudulent statements to the Friend of the Court even after this evidence proving the innocents of George Lyons. Costing Plaintiff George Lyons $70.00 per hour in a supervised environment.
m. ISSUE: Patricia Lyons wrote a letter to the Friend of the Court, that letter was completely taken apart by George Lyons sentence by sentence; proving that everything was in that letter was fabricated by Patricia A. Lyons. (This is proven through audio tapes and documents through the freedom of information act with the Consumer & Industry Services.
n. This evidence was given to Patricia A. Lyons Attorney, and to Gerald Eidt court referee for Friend of the court, and to the Daughter s attorney, and most of all to Dr. Richard Zipper. Still after this information was given out Dr. Zipper working for Gerald Edit, made a poor court report against George Lyons.
IMPORTANT ISSUE
Footnote: Prior to working as a Friend of the Court Referee Attorney Gerald Edit work for Plaintiff George Lyons. Attorney Gerald Edit work for Attorney Brian Lavan causing conflict of interest against Plaintiff George Lyons. Plaintiff George Lyons made a motion to removal of Gerald Edit this motion was denied by Judge Susan Reck, causing biasness against plaintiff George Lyons.
o. ISSUE: This again court cover-up to protect (Attorney Brian Lavan and Bad attorneys and illegal past clients and others and possibly Judge’s that were disqualified for biasness.
BIG ISSUE
ISSUE: There is other evidence like the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services doctoring George Lyons residential Broker license.
ISSUE: And then Ann Arbor Board of Realtors finding that George Lyons was found did no violations by the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services case.
And informed by this false allegations. But the Ann Arbor board of Realtors still ruled to remove George Lyons and his company from the Ann Arbor board of Realtors for one year. That they did not get evidence from the Consumer & Industry services,
ISSUE: George Lyons audio taped Ann Arbor Board of Realtors executive secretary Lisa Kirk, receiving that information prior to any formal complaints, this was audio taped conversation by George Lyons, The audio tape was then played for Executive President Pete Cornell, and again George Lyons audio taped Mr. Cornell acknowledgement and his comments to the tape recording. Still George Lyons was removed from the Ann Arbor Board of Realtors for 1 year even despite the fact that he was found innocents by The Consumer & Industry Services and false allegations were made by past clients. The above is just a very small part of evidence against the above.
ISSUE: PLAINTIFF IS REQUESTING THE STATE OF MICHIGAN JUDICIAL TENURE AND ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THIS HONORABLE COURT TO INQUIDE THE FOLLOWING FILES AS EVIDENCE FROM THE LIVINGSTON COUNTY COURT SYSTEM.
Plaintiff requests the following cases to be used files and transcript and court video and audio recording to be used as evidence in Case 04-020652. Lyons v. kopp.
1. People of the State of Michigan N.S.F. CHARGES 96-9526-FH /96-9522-FH /96-9523-FH
2. People of the State of Michigan ENTERING WITHOUT PERMISSION 99-1823-SM
3. People of the State of Michigan DOMICTIC ABUSE CHARGES 98-0467-SM
4. People of the State of Michigan STORZBACH AND FRIBERG’S 04-020684-CK
5. Friend of the court- Case No.: 1996023807 DM
These figures do not include Plaintiff lose in income or payments still owed to the Plaintiff over the many years. That total is over $ 800,000.00 to $ 14,000,000.00 chain of events for total.
CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff hopes and prays this Honorable court grant the Plaintiff constitutional right: In a 1981 decision, Pitoniak v Borman’s, 5 the court held:
“A basic requirement of the constitutional right is due process is a hearing before a fair, unbiased and impartial decision-maker. 1/2/3/4/5 A party who challenges the impartiality of a judge need not show actual prejudice; it is one in which: experience teaches that the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. “4/5/6
ISSUE: Plaintiff has given overwhelming evidence to the Mediation and they approved this case Kopp v. Lyons to go to Court. And the Summary Disposition was again a way to stop Plaintiff from a his constitution rights, and protect past clients, the legal representatives of the Livingston County Court system, and the past Defendant’s Karl and Marian Kopp. The above people could possibly be charged for Tortuous Interference, Civil Conspiracy, Fraud, and restriction of trade.
The Plaintiff hopes and prays the following chooses. That this motion for a Stay and Judge Stanley Laterille is disqualified as judge in case ALL CASES AS NOTED IN THIS DOCUMENTS and ALL Summary dispositions are set aside. And this case is transferred to The State of Michigan Administration office for a de nova hearing per law.
ISSUE: The above Judge’s and all evidence given to Judicial Tenure, State of Michigan Bar Association, and continue the complaints with the Attorney Grievance committee.
ISSUE: The plaintiff feels if he could only present this evidence to an un-bias court or un-bias jury, the Defendant’s and others would be charged and found guilty for tortuous interference, civil conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice, and restriction of trade that was committed against the Plaintiff and more.
This and other evidence has been sent to the State of Michigan Judicial Tenure and the Attorney Grievance Committee.
Plaintiff request a Stay in this court on these Defendant’s and this case until proper review against the Livingston County Court system and their wrongful bias and false summary dispositions actions against the Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________________
George Edward Lyons
P.O.Box 226
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-657-1679
(Current as of 7/01/2004) from the State of Michigan Court rules:MCR Rule 2.003 Disqualification of Judge
(A) Who May Raise. A party may raise the issue of a judge's disqualification by motion, or the judge may raise it.
(B) Grounds. A judge is disqualified when the judge cannot impartially hear a case, including but not limited to instances in which:
(1) The judge is personally biased or prejudiced for or against a party or attorney.
(2) The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.
(3) The judge has been consulted or employed as an attorney in the matter in controversy.
(4) The judge was a partner of a party, attorney for a party, or a member of a law firm representing a party within the preceding two years.
(5) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse, parent or child wherever residing, or any other member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household, has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding or has any other more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.
(6) The judge or the judge's spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(a) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director or trustee of a party;
(b) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(c) is known by the judge to have a more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding;
(d) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
A judge is not disqualified merely because the judge's former law clerk is an attorney of record for a party in an action that is before the judge or is associated with a law firm representing a party in an action that is before the judge.
(C) Procedure.
(1) Time for Filing. To avoid delaying trial and inconveniencing the witnesses, a motion to disqualify must be filed within 14 days after the moving party discovers the ground for disqualification. If the discovery is made within 14 days of the trial date, the motion must be made forthwith. If a motion is not timely filed, untimeliness, including delay in waiving jury trial, is a factor in deciding whether the motion should be granted.
(2) All Grounds to be Included; Affidavit. In any motion under this rule, the moving party must include all grounds for disqualification that are known at the time the motion is filed. An affidavit must accompany the motion.
(3) Ruling. The challenged judge shall decide the motion. If the challenged judge denies the motion,
(a) in a court having two or more judges, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the chief judge, who shall decide the motion de novo;
(b) in a single-judge court, or if the challenged judge is the chief judge, on the request of a party, the challenged judge shall refer the motion to the state court administrator for assignment to another judge, who shall decide the motion de novo.
(4) Motion Granted. When a judge is disqualified, the action must be assigned to another judge of the same court, or, if one is not available, the state court administrator shall assign another judge.
(D) Remittal of Disqualification. If it appears that there may be grounds for disqualification, the judge may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, out of the presence of the judge, whether to waive disqualification. If, following disclosure of any basis for disqualification other than personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, the parties without participation by the judge, all agree that the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to participate, the judge may participate in the proceedings. The agreement shall be in writing or placed on the record.
Respectfully submitted
__________________________
George Edward Lyons
P.O. Box 226
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-657-1679
No comments:
Post a Comment