PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN. YOU FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF. IS THERE CORRUPTION IN LIVINGSTON COUNTY COURTS MI?

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

IS THERE CORRUPTION, YOU THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN DECIDE AND TO THE MANY OF EMAILS I RECEIVE DAILY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT...

State of Michigan
In the Livingston County Circuit Court
204 S. Highlander Way, Howell, Michigan 48843
517-546-9816

George Edward Lyons,
11994 Weiman
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-954-4040
Plaintiff,
vs.

James Brady a single man,
1194 Camelot,
Pinckney, Mi.48169
Phone unavailable
Defendants,

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY
Attorney for Defendant
Douglas J. Cameron
McCririe & Cameron Attorneys and Counselors
317 W. Main St.Brighton, MI 48116810-229-6167

POSSIBLE OTHER DEFENDANTS
Karl and Marian Kopp, husband and wife
Case no. 04-020652-CF-B LYONS V. KOPP

Case No.: 07-23338-CH
Hon. Judge Latreille

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT. AND DENY DEFENDANT SUMMARY DISPOSITION.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR Partial Default Judgment against Defendant James Brady and Karl F. Kopp and Marian J. Kopp for possession of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan 48169 and granting possession and acquiring completely clear Title on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. from the Plaintiff George Edward Lyons

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT- AND DENY DEFENDANT SUMMARY DISPOSITION. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S PARTIAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT JAMES BRADY AND PAST DEFENDANTS KARL F. KOPP AND MARIAN J. KOPP IN COMPLETELY ACQUIRING OF TITLE FOR SAID PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 FOR PLAINTIFF GEORGE EDWARD LYONS AND THAT ANY AND ALL CLOUDS AND OR LIENS ON THE TITLE SHALL BE REMOVED.

1. INTRODUCTION:

Plaintiff states that Defendant James Brady and Past Defendant’s Karl F. Kopp and Marian J. Kopp H/W (hereinafter “Mr. Brady and Mr. Kopp and Mrs. Kopp”) Mr. Brady’s request for a false summary disposition motion cannot survive, and the request for Mr. Brady’s request for a summary disposition should be denied. Plaintiff complaint seeks the return of real property which is currently owned by Plaintiff George Edward Lyons. And is still owned by Plaintiff Mr. Lyons and his ex-wife. Mr. Lyons also seeks an excess of $1,000,000.00 in damages due to the illegal actions of Mr. and Mrs. Kopp who which caused “major losses in Plaintiff (sic) life and career. Plaintiff has set forth legally cognizable causes of action.

Plaintiff states that Defendant Mr. Brady and Mr. and Mrs. Kopp did not raised a affirmative defense, Including in the existence of a prior actions, res judicata, the statue of limitations which falls under (Equitable Tolling for the Plaintiff), the statue of frauds, legal disability and clean hands, any of which will serve to defeat Defendant Mr. Brady and Mr. and Mrs. Kopp defense and claims against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is seeking to quiet title in the property in question and is requesting injunctive relief enjoining Defendant Mr. Brady and Mr. and Mrs. Kopp from recording any liens against Plaintiff properties.

The Plaintiff is also requesting damages due to the Fact that Plaintiff George Edward Lyons have incurred substantial damages dealing with Defendant Brady and Mr. and Mrs. Kopp and their fraudulent and unfounded claims and their criminally and illegal actions wrongfully made against the Plaintiff George Edward Lyons.

II. FACTS

Prior to 1997, Plaintiff and Mr. and Mrs. Kopp were friends and had several business relationships which primarily involved Mr. and Mrs. Kopp building projects for the Kopp’s.

In approximately 1994, Plaintiff began experiencing personal difficulties, by other past clients who embezzling over $770,000.00 from the Plaintiff, this is supported by A REFERENCE BOOK THAT PROVES THESE TRAGIC OF JUSTICE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF LYONS THIS BOOK has been incorporated in this case file.

These past clients in making fabricated complaints to State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services. To financially address these difficulties Plaintiff was going to banking agencies to acquire a loan. Mr. Kopp asks Plaintiff if he could finance the Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000.00) loan.

This statement is supported by audio tapes. As security for this loan of Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000.00). As security for this loan for both the Kopp’s and the Plaintiff and his wife two Warranty deeds are to be placed into escrow to Plaintiff home 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, (See Exhibit A).

This was an arm’s length transaction with a formal closing and title insurance. The first Deed to the Kopp’s was wrongfully recorded by the Kopp’s within of the closing. Immediately following the closing.

A memorandum of Land Contract was to be only recorded to stop the exposure of price of the sale of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. (See Exhibit B) Mr. and Mrs. Kopp sold the Camelot residence on Land Contract back to Mr. Lyons and his ex-wife for Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000.00). On a five year land contract with nothing down, interest at nine percent (9%) and modest monthly payments of Seven Hundred Twenty Four Dollars Sixteen Cents ($724.16).

A. THIS WAS A CONTRACT The Kopp’s received on June 30, 1995 a certified check endorsement statement: FOR Twenty-Four Thousand ($24,000.00). “PAID TO THE ORDER OF KARL AND MARIAN KOPP FOR PAYMENT ON CAMELOT. EXHIBIT B: The accept the check which noted: FOR PAYMENT ON CAMELOT.

B. The Kopp’s asked Plaintiff to construct of a home on lot 1 Norcrest, Brighton, Michigan. Of which the Plaintiff builders profit was Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) for construction. And the builder’s profit was to be used as payments on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. EXHIBIT C:

C. The Kopp’s were given equity of Thirty-Two Thousand Dollars ($32,500.00) in lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Michigan which the money was used a payment on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. See EXHIBIT C:

D. A total of payments made by the Plaintiff on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan per the Land Contract to Mr. and Mrs. Kopp was One hundred and Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ( $106,500.00) Plaintiff totally pay off the Land Contract before 1996.

E. FOOTNOTE: Mr. Kopp stated per audio tape that Plaintiff did not have to make any payments on the above land contract until the closing of 5640 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan. That closing took place December 28th 1997. The Kopp’s false forfeiture took place February 1997.

At which time Plaintiff never received notice of summon and complaint or any other notifications. This reason is that Plaintiff was wrongfully removed by Plaintiff ex-wife. All notification was intercepted by Ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons of

who was having an affair with Karl Kopp both before and after the Divorce of Ex-wife Patricia A. Lyons with Plaintiff George Lyons. See audio tapes supporting this. Marian Kopp will testify to the above statements in favor of the Plaintiff.

F. The Plaintiff, Mr. Lyons began experiencing personal difficulties due to the extortion and embezzlement by past clients STORZBACHS, FRIBERGS, FEEBACKS, LALONDES AND MARCICHS who had embezzled from the Plaintiff and his company.

Despite this infusion of cash and the illegal actions of past client’s and there embezzlement from the Plaintiff and his company in the approximate amount of $770,000.00. Mr. and Mrs. Kopp and ex-wife fearing they would lose the equity of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.

G. Mr. and Mrs. Kopp falsely construct a fabricated forfeiture of Mr. and Mrs. Kopp on February 1997 to protect the equity in 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan of which Mr. and Mrs. Kopp and ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons were told to remove Plaintiff George Edward Lyons from marital home 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.

Because if Plaintiff was using 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan as his residence, and had an interest in said property. The Past Clients who won criminally wrongful judgments against the Plaintiff and his company could attach a total of Three Hundred and Thirty Three Thousand Dollars ($333,000.00) of wrongfully and criminally acquired in wrongful payments for the judgments against the Plaintiff and his company and family, an to acquire this money though the Plaintiff equity in 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.

H. PLAINTIFF STATES THAT Mr. and Mrs. Kopp criminally commenced a FALSE land contract forfeiture action in the 53rd District Court (case #97-303-LT-Judge Delvero.)

1. Judge Delvero had an Emergency Motion of Disqualification for Biasness of which the Judge Denied at which also denied Plaintiff Lyons his due process of law.

2. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).

3. Livingston County Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").

4. That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recue himself/herself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."

5. The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.

6. "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recue herself/himself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

7. Further, the Judge Delvero has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.

8. Judges Delvero, Reck, Reader, and Latreille do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, and then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge.

Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid.

9. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.

10. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996)

11. ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").

12. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
“
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....
”
13. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
“
No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...
”

14. should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.

15. The Livingston county judge’s did in fact issue an orders after he has been disqualified by law, and if the George Lyons has been denied of any of his /and his wife's property, the Livingston County judge’s have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce".

16. The Livingston county judge’s has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. These Livingston county judge’s, are acting in this manner, and has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However these Livingston county judges did not follow the law.

17. George Edward Lyons as a non-represented litigant, and the Livingston county courts did not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has not disqualified him/herself.

18. However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.

19. JUDGE’S DELVERO, RECK, BURRESS, READER, LATREILLE REFUSED TO DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES. Judge Delvero could face the following: Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce".

The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However, some judges may not follow the law, of which Judge Delvero's actions in not disqualifying himself is refusing the Plaintiff his Due Process of Law.

20. There was a request for an adjournment at Mr. Kopp’s attorney's request (Molly Reno). Plaintiff and his ex-wife Patricia Lyons were never notified to be present at the next hearing. The Kopp’s received a false default judgment.

21. The local police became involved and Plaintiff George Lyons was wrongfully removed from 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan after Mrs. Kopp gave permission to Plaintiff George Lyons to re-enter into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan with Mrs. Kopp stating through audio tapes. Mr. Kopp to protect his illegal gains files a false police report against Plaintiff for entering without permission. Mr. Kopp having full knowledge Mrs. Kopp gave permission to enter into said real property 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan 48169.

22. IMPORTANT- AS OF 2008 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN PROPERTY IS STILL IN PLAINTIFF OWNERSHIP: PLEASE READ FURTHER…“George Lyons he was never going to loss 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan, and he’ll never have to pay any more for the property.” Being an authorized grantor on the warranty deed Mrs. Kopp has that authority to give back 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi.

23. Plaintiff George Lyons was arrested for entering without permission. George Lyons has evidence overwhelming evidence that the Livingston County prosecutor’s office and Plaintiff George Lyons court appointed attorney (Spickard) and Ypsilanti Forensic examiner Judith Thompson conspired together to wrongful and criminally find Plaintiff George Lyons not competent to stand trial.

24. This illegal action on the above proves that there was judicial misconduct, and these people committed fraud upon the court to illegally stop Plaintiff George Lyons from having any money to go after attorneys and officers of the court who also committed fraud upon the court. This criminal action stopped the Plaintiff from having Due process of Law.

25. EQUITABLE TOLLING FOR THE PLAINTIFF: This opens the entry of Equitable Tolling for the Plaintiff. That in 2008 George Lyons was found competent to stand trial. Any and all judgments filed against the Plaintiff by Defendant Brady and Mr. and Mrs. Kopp and their attorneys are all null and void.

26. In 2004, Plaintiff Lyons filed a Lawsuit against Mr. and Mrs. Kopp. The Summons and Complaint sent to Mr. and Mrs. Kopp through Certified mailing at the U.S. Postal service on three different mailing two both Mr. and Mrs. Kopp.

IMPORTANT: KOPP'S REFUSED 10 CERTIFIED MAILING TO THEIR HOME ADDRESS

1. Did not claim certified mailing on Summons and Complaint.
2. Did not claim certified mailing on Summons and Complaint.
3. REFUSED CERTIFIED MAILING OF NOTICE TO APPEAR IN COURT FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT ruling. (SEE EXHIBITS D).

4. Plaintiff was granted the Default Judgment by Judge Daniel Burress for possession of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. This document was recorded at the Livingston County Register of Deeds.

5. Without notice to Plaintiff George Lyons to appear in court, Mrs. Kopp motions the court stating that neither her or her husband were given notice of the Lawsuit or Summons and Complaint or the motion for the Plaintiff for Default Judgment.

6. Former Judge Burress denied Plaintiff his Default Judgment by false statements of Marian Kopp. (SEE EXHIBITS D).

7. In 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 Plaintiff recovers evidence on the Kopp’s case on other cases of past clients which was hidden from the Plaintiff by Mr. and Mrs. Kopp. See audio tapes. (SEE EXHIBITS E).

IMPORTANT:

1. On May 31, 2005 Marian Kopp files at Livingston County Register of Deeds a Warranty Deed for 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan, thereby granting full possession for 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan to Plaintiff George Edward Lyons and ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons. (SEE EXHIBIT F.)

III. ARGUMENTS

For motions brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C) (1) Through (C)(7) AND (C) (10), the court may consider affidavits, deposition, admissions, or other documentary evidence along with the pleading MCR 2.116(G)(2). Only the pleadings may be considered by the Court when a motion is brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C) (8) or (C)(9), MCR 2.116 (G)(5).

A. ANOTHER ACTION HAS BEEN INITIATED BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES INVOLVING PLAINTIFF LYONS’ CLAIM FOR POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PREMISES.
Under MCR 2.116(C)(6) a trial court may grant Summary Disposition on the Grounds that another action exists between the same parties involving the same claim, Bartlett v. North Ottawa Community Hospital, 244 MichAPP 685; 625 NW2d 470 (2001). As previously stated as in the Exhibits to this Brief supports, there is another action between these same parties involving the same claims on file with the 53rd District Court, Case No. 97-303-LT.

Therefore a Summary Disposition and Default Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Lyons, pursuant to MCR 2.116(C) (6) are proper.

B. PLAINTIFF LYONS' CLAIM IS GRANTED BECAUSE OF A PRIOR JUDGMENT AND IS DENIED BECAUSE OF A PRIOR JUDGMENT ISSUED IN THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT, FILE NO. 97-303-LT THE PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED PLAINTIFF’S DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

1. Plaintiff Lyons did fail to defend against Mr. & Mrs. Kopp’s Fabricated Land Contract forfeiture action in the 53rd District Court, because of not receiving proper notification to appear in court. That Mr. & Mrs. Kopp’s have hidden evidence from the Plaintiff. That Mr. & Mrs. Kopp did in fact receive a certified check, and equity in Lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Mi. and Mr. & Mrs. Kopp still owe Plaintiff Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) proving that Plaintiff Lyons made all payments on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.

2. That in Fact that 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan was in the Possession of Plaintiff and his ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons as of March 31st 2005.

3. That in fact Mr. & Mrs. Kopp did not have ownership of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan when the criminally sold 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan to Defendant James Brady. Because of her recording on March 31st 2005 of the warranty Deed back to Plaintiff Lyons and his ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons.

4. That in fact, Judge’s Delvero, Reck, Buress, Latreille, and David Reader did not have jurisdiction to make any rulings for the following reason. All Livingston County Judges including Judge David Reader had an Emergency Motion of Disqualification against these Judge’s. Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce".

The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law. SEE EXHIBIT G.

5. The Livingston county judge’s did issue an order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the George Lyons has been denied of any of his / her property, the Livingston County judge’s have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce".

6. The Livingston county judge’s has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. These Livingston county judge’s, are acting in this manner, and has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge).

7. That in fact the Plaintiff called all Livingston County Judge’s as material witness. That the granting of any judgments by Judge David Read is null and void, if the Judgment is granted Judge David Reader could be in none compliance of Federal law in not giving Plaintiff Lyons Due Process of Lyons.

8. FOOTNOTE: AFTER RECOVERING HIDDEN EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF. HIDDEN BY BOTH OF MR. & MRS. KOPP. THE PLAINTIFF CAN PROVE THAT BOTH MR. & MRS. KOPP AND PAST CLIENTS OVERWHELMING THAT PLAINTIFF LYONS HAD CRIMINAL ACTS PERFORMED IN GREATEST DEGREE COMMITTED BY PAST CLIENTS AND DEFENDANT BRADY AND MR. & MRS. KOPP AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.

9. Future Summary Disposition and Default Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Lyons pursuant to MCR 2.115 (C) (7) based upon the Default Judgment of Judge Daniel Burress in his granting the Default Judgment. The same Default Judgment that was wrongfully removed by false statement to Judge Burress Court by Marian Kopp. And in the March 31st 2005 Warranty Deed filed in the Livingston County Register of Deeds by Marian Kopp. SEE EXHIBIT H.

PLAINTIFF LYONS CLAIM IS NOT TIME BARRED FOR THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS. MCL 600.5805(10): MSA 27A.5805(10).

1. Specifically states that, “The period of Limitations is 3 years after the time of the death or injury for all actions to recover damages for the death of a person, or injury to a person or property.” The Plaintiff has continually tried to find justice on this Case No. 97-303-LT. The case of Judge Delvero went into case of Judge Burress, Judge Reck, and Judge David Reader.

The last motion on this case was in 2008. But none of the above cases or Judges had jurisdiction in Livingston County Court system by the Livingston County Judges. This falls under judicial interference. And these Judges did in fact deny the Plaintiff his Due Process of Law.

2. The other possibilities are the officers of Livingston County Court system, causing judicial misconduct, and "tortuous interference" and civil conspiracy against, and Judicial interference. the Plaintiff and his companies. The plaintiff is still vital. Plaintiff Lyons has followed the proper courses of action to challenge the District Court’s decision through an appeal to cure the Breach of the Land Contract by redeeming the property. The Plaintiff did not owe any payments on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.

3. On March 31st 2004 Plaintiff received default judgment from Judge Daniel Burress on said property 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan 48169 with full clear title.

4. On March 30, 2005 Marian Kopp went to the Livingston County register of Deeds and recorded said Deed transferring 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan from Karl and Marian Kopp H/W to Plaintiff George Edward Lyons and Patricia Ann Lyons H/W SEE EXHIBIT

5. IN THESE ABOVE ACTIONS PLAINTIFF DID IN FACT REDEEM HIS PROPERTY AT 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN.

PLAINTIFF LYONS CLAIM IS GRANTED BY THE STATUE OF FRAUDS, MCL 566.106: MSA 26,906.

1. The Statue of Frauds is clear and unambiguous. It states: “No estate or interest in lands, other than leases for the a term not exceeding one (1) year, nor any trust or power over or concerning lands, or in any manner relating thereto, shall hereafter be created, granted, assigned, surrendered or declared, unless by act or operation of law, or by a deed or conveyance in writing, subscribed by the creating, granting, assigning, surrendering or declaring the same, or by some person there onto by him lawfully authorized by writing.” MCL 566.106; MSA 26.906. The following falls under the above categories.

2. On March 31st 2004 Plaintiff received default judgment from Judge Daniel Burress on said property 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan 48169 with full clear title.

3. On May 31, 2005 Marian Kopp went to the Livingston County register of Deeds and recorded said Deed transferring 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan from Karl and Marian Kopp H/W to Plaintiff George Edward Lyons and Patricia Ann Lyons H/W SEE EXHIBIT

IN THESE ABOVE ACTIONS PLAINTIFF DID IN FACT REDEEMED HIS PROPERTY AT 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN.

1. Plaintiff Lyons claims that he should be granted the ownership interest in the subject real property. The Warranty Deed executed by Mr. Karl F. Kopp and his wife Mrs. Marian J. Kopp on March 11, 1994 and recorded in the office of Register of Deeds on May 31st 2005 clearly establishes that Mr. and Mrs. Kopp transferred all of their right, title and interest in the subject real property to Plaintiff Lyons and his wife.

2. Plaintiff is not in contempt of any of the Livingston County court, District or Civil. All Judge’s received Emergency Motion for Disqualification for Biasness, also all judges were in the Livingston County court systems were called material witnesses. Plaintiff Lyons is not under a legal disability and can maintain this action. Therefore the future Summary Disposition and the Default Judgment Plaintiff is submitting can be signed by Judge Stanley Latreille.

PLAINTIFF HAS SUCCESSFULLY STATED A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED.

1. Defendant Brady's motion for Summary Disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C )(8) should be denied. A Motion for Summary Disposition is properly granted if a claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery by the Defendant and past Defendant’s Mr. & Mrs. Kopp. A Motion for Summary Disposition is tested on the Pleadings alone, and all well-pled factual allegations contained in a complaint me be accepted as true. Simco v Blake. 448 Mich 648; 532 NW2d 842 (1995).

2. Defendant Brady's statements in this matter are, at best, an incomprehensible rambling of mistruths. They are completely devoid of any well-pled factual allegations, and responses, and are legally insufficient to state any claim against Plaintiff Lyons and his wife. Therefore, Default Judgment for said real property and future Summary Disposition with relief should be granted in favor of the Plaintiff Lyons and Summary Disposition of the Defendant Brady should be denied.

PLAINTIFF LYONS HAS SUCCESSFULLY STATED A VALID DEFENSE TO DEFENDANT BRADY'S SUMMARY DISPOSITION.

A Motion for Defendant Brady's Summary Disposition under MCR 2.116 (C ) (9) is tested solely by reference to the Pleadings or responses. When a material allegation of the Defendant is categorically denied, Summary Disposition is improper. Mere denial of liability is a valid defense. That the defense is ultimately unsuccessful, in whole or in part., does not make it invalid. Nasser v Auto Club Ins. Ass’n. 435 Mich 33; 457 NW2d 637 (1990).

Defendant’s Brady and past Defendants Mr. & Mrs. Kopp answer to the complaint is also an incomprehensible rambling of mistruths. Plaintiff has filed affirmative defense. Based on the Pleading in this matter, Defendant Brady is not entitled to Summary Disposition.

IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

It is tragic of Justice in what happened to Plaintiff Lyons, his ex-wife and his daughters, Caused by the Defendant Brady and Mr. & Mrs. Kopp and past client of the Plaintiff.

Defendant Brady and Past Defendant’s Mr. & Mrs. Kopp and past clients are responsible for this tragedy and did not act within the confines of the legal system. Further Defendant Brady has failed to plead any valid defense to the Plaintiff's complaint.

Therefore, Summary Disposition of the Defendant should be denied and the past clients of Attorney Douglas Cameron should be incorporated back into this lawsuit.

Furthermore, that Attorney Douglas Cameron of McCririe & Cameron, Main Street, Brighton, Michigan and his company is removed for conflict of interest as Defendant Brady's attorney. Attorney Douglas Cameron has been called as a material witness by this Plaintiff in this case.

Therefore, the Default Judgment of the Plaintiff in this matter and an order entered awarding the relief requested in the Motion for Default Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff Lyons of said real property 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan, with complete and clear title to said real property, and immediate possession be granted to Plaintiff.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_________________________________
GEORGE EDWARD LYONS-PLAINTIFF
11994 Weiman
Pinckney, Michigan
734-954-4040
http://findingjusticeforpeople.blogspot.com/

State of Michigan
In the Livingston County Circuit Court
204 S. Highlander Way, Howell, Michigan 48843
517-546-9816

George Edward Lyons,
11994 Weiman
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-954-4040
Plaintiff,
vs.

James Brady a single man,
1194 Camelot,
Pinckney, Mi.48169
Phone unavailable
Defendants,

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY
Attorney for Defendant
Douglas J. Cameron
McCririe & Cameron Attorneys and Counselors
317 W. Main St.Brighton, MI 48116810-229-6167

POSSIBLE OTHER DEFENDANTS
Karl and Marian Kopp, husband and wife
Case no. 04-020652-CF-B LYONS V. KOPP

Case No.: 07-23338-CH
Hon. Judge Latreille

Judge Stanley Latreille Granting Partial Default Judgment against Defendant James Brady and Karl F. Kopp and Marian J. Kopp for possession of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan 48169 and granting possession and acquiring Title on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. from the Plaintiff George Edward Lyons

PARTIAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT JAMES BRADY AND PAST DEFENDANTS KARL F. KOPP AND MARIAN J. KOPP AND COMPLETE ACQUIRING OF TITLE FOR SAID PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 FOR PLAINTIFF GEORGE EDWARD LYONS AND THAT ANY AND ALL CLOUDS AND OR LIENS ON THE TITLE SHALL BE REMOVED.

AT A SESSION OF SAID COURT HELD IN THE COURTHOUSE IN THE CITY OF HOWELL, COUNTY OF LIVINGSTON, AND THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, ON _________________THIS____ DAY OF DECEMBER________________2008.
PRESENT: HONORABLE STANLEY LATREILLE, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE.

Defendant James Brady a single man and Past Defendants Karl F. Kopp and Marian J. Kopp having been served with a copy of this Complaint and having been defaulted and notified thereof with notice of this hearing and the Court otherwise fully advised in this matter.
This matter brought before this Court by the Plaintiff GEORGE EDWARD LYONS, a motion for partial Default Judgment against Defendant JAMES BRADY a single man and past Defendants KARL F. KOPP AND MARIAN J. KOPP, husband and wife and from here-on-in known only as KARL F. KOPP AND MARIAN KOPP, matrimonial titles withstanding, acquiring title to Plaintiff GEORGE EDWARD LYONS real estate, a Default having been previously ordered and this Court otherwise fully advised in the premises:

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Partial Default Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff GEORGE EDWARD LYONS against Defendant JAMES BRADY a single man and Past Defendants KARL F. KOPP AND MARIAN J. KOPP and removing any and all claims.

And removing any and all claims of liens and or Interest filed as recorded by the Defendant JAMES BRADY and Past Defendants KARL F. KOPP AND MARIAN J. KOPP against the Plaintiff GEORGE EDWARD LYONS' property located at 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 also known as the Legal Real Property described below to be hereby granted and returned to GEORGE EDWARD LYONS as the original and rightful sole owner of said property.

ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL 28, 29, and 30 of Camelot Shores No. 3 and also known as 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan 48169.

IT IS FURTHER GRANTED AND ORDERED that the Claims of Interest filed by the Defendant JAMES BRADY A SINGLE MAN AND PAST DEFENDANTS KARL F. KOPP AND MARIAN J. KOPP THAT ANY AND ALL CLAIMS OR INTEREST IN PLAINTIFF GEORGE EDWARD LYONS ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE ARE REMOVED AND RENDERED NULL AND VOID.

IT IS FURTHER GRANTED AND ORDERED ON MARCH 18, 1994 ON LIBER 1809, Page 0523 March 18, 1994 and on tax roll no. 14-36-301-406, 14-36-301-046 Livingston County Records, affecting Plaintiff GEORGE EDWARD LYONS PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 IS HEREBY DISCHARGED, set aside, removed, and declared null and void.

IT IS FURTHER GRANTED AND ORDERED ON MAY 19, 2005 ON LIBER 4824, Pages 0969 and 0970 and 0971 and 0972 tax roll no. 14-36-301-046, Livingston County Records, affecting Plaintiff GEORGE EDWARD LYONS PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED ABOVE 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 IS HEREBY DISCHARGED, set aside, removed, and declared null and void.

IT IS FURTHER GRANTED AND ORDERED ON FEBRUARY 06, 2006 ON LIBER 5032, Page 454 tax roll no. 14-36-301-046, Livingston County Records, affecting Plaintiff GEORGE EDWARD LYONS PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED ABOVE 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 IS HEREBY DISCHARGED, set aside, removed, and declared null and void.

IT IS FURTHER GRANTED AND ORDERED ON FEBRUARY 10, 2006 ON LIBER 5035, Page 883 tax roll no. 14-36-301-046, Livingston County Records, affecting Plaintiff GEORGE EDWARD LYONS PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED ABOVE 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169 IS HEREBY DISCHARGED, set aside, removed, and declared null and void.

IT IS FURTHER GRANTED AND ORDERED that any other liens, claims, interest or any other documents filed by, or on the behalf of Defendant James Brady, and past Defendants Karl F. Kopp and Marian J. Kopp and or their Family members or legal representatives against the Plaintiff is hereby discharged, set aside, removed and declared null and void.

IT IS FURTHER GRANTED AND ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any and all claims recorded by the Defendant JAMES BRADY a single man and past Defendants KARL F. KOPP AND MARIAN J. KOPP in the office of the Register of Deeds for the County of Livingston, State of Michigan against the above described real estate be and hereby are set aside and discharged, specifically including the any and all records.

IT IS FURTHER GRANTED AND ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any and all claims recorded by the Defendant JAMES BRADY a single man and past Defendants KARL F. KOPP AND MARIAN J. KOPP be hereby enjoined from recording with the Livingston County Register of Deeds any further documents against the above described real estate of any or any other real estate owned by Plaintiff or his companies or his family members without first obtaining leave of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER GRANTED AND ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any and all claims recorded by the Defendant JAMES BRADY a single man and past Defendants KARL F. KOPP AND MARIAN J. KOPP, is enjoined from entering on the above-described real estate and any real estate owned by the Plaintiff George Edward Lyons, his companies or family members. THAT ANY AND ALL CLOUDS AND OR LIENS ON THE TITLE SHALL BE REMOVED.

IT IS FURTHER GRANTED AND ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any and all claims recorded by the Defendant JAMES BRADY a single man and past Defendants KARL F. KOPP AND MARIAN J. KOPP, there are no monies/money or fees owed to the Defendant JAMES BRADY a single man and past Defendants KARL F. KOPP AND MARIAN KOPP OR THERE FAMILIES OR THEIR COMPANIES OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES BY THE PLAINTIFF GEORGE EDWARD LYONS OR HIS FAMILY, COMPANIES, OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Date: ________________________

______________________________

Hon. Judge Stanley Latreille
Circuit Court Judge of Livingston
County, Michigan

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN IS THERE CORRUPTION IN LIVINGSTON COUNTY, MICHIGAN

The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some of these judges may not follow the law.

The Livingston county judge’s did issue an order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the George Lyons has been denied of any of his / her property, the Livingston County judge’s have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce".

The Livingston county judge’s has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. These Livingston County Judges are acting in this manner, and therefore have no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However, these Livingston County Judges did not follow the law.)

Plaintiff response statement: TO PAGE 1 and Paragraph 1 of the Case Evaluation of Defendant JAMES BRADY: The Plaintiff is seeking damages and the return of certain Real property located at 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. (AKA SEC 36 T1N R4E CAMELOT SHORES #3 LOT 28 & 29 AND THE SW'LY 33 FT M/L OF LOT 30 SPLIT 3/92 FROM 029.) The AFORE MENTIONED property is currently criminally and wrongfully owned by the Defendant JAMES BRADY.

The Defendant criminally and fraudulently received a false warranty deed through a false forfeiture committed by the Kopp’s from the Plaintiff George Lyons and his ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons of the 1194 Camelot property from the Defendant’s attorney Douglas Cameron in representation of Karl and Marian Kopp. Attorney Douglas Cameron represented both the Defendant and the Kopp’s and committed fraud upon the court by submitting a false summary disposition to the Livingston County Court to acquire illegal gains from the Plaintiff and his ex-wife.

Prior to this, the ownership of the property 1194 Camelot residence was owned by the Plaintiff and his ex-wife. The Plaintiff’s Complaint demands the court to find Mr. Brady is guilty of receiving and concealing stolen property and embezzlement. Plaintiff’s Complaint also seeks in excess of $1,000,000.00 (1 million dollars) due to the illegal and criminal actions of Mr. & Mrs. Kopp and Defendant James Brady in which property 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. was wrongfully sold by Mr. & Mrs. Kopp and received by Defendant James Brady.

Plaintiff states that Karl and Marian Kopp criminally filed a fraudulent forfeiture against the Plaintiff and his ex-wife. The Kopp’s committed fraud upon the court, by committing perjury in their false forfeiture on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan by stating they never received any monies from the Plaintiff and his ex-wife. These statements and false forfeiture were in fact liable and perjury committed by the Kopp’s on their part in a sworn court of law. The Plaintiff further states the Kopp’s received a $24,000.00 (TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS) official check on which it is noted on the back of said check FOR THE PAYMENT ON CAMELOT. See EXHIBIT A.

The Kopp’s also received equity from the Plaintiff in lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Michigan. of which at the time was in excess of $35,000.00 (Thirty-Five Thousand dollars). The Kopp’s were receiving these monies from the Plaintiff and his company for the sole purpose of making additional payments towards the said property located at 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. See also Exhibits A: See audio tapes.

The Kopp’s also breached the building agreement that was approved by the Kopp’s and Plaintiff building company on lot 1 Norcrest, Brighton, Michigan of which the Kopp’s were receiving another $50,000.00 ( FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ) in builder’s costs from the Plaintiff's building company namely, (Lyons Builders Inc. ). In which this payment was to be also to be used to make payments toward 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. See Exhibits A See audio tapes.

The Plaintiff states that the Defendant’s attorney Douglas Cameron is again trying to wrongfully discredit the Plaintiff George Lyons by his fraudulent means of giving this court a grand delusion that his clients the Kopp’s and Plaintiff Brady are innocent against the charges that the Plaintiff is filing against the Defendant James Brady and Mr. & Mrs. Kopp in their criminal actions against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff further states that Attorney Douglas Cameron trying to file yet again, another fraudulent and fabricated Summary Disposition against the Plaintiff. Attorney Douglas Cameron is committing further/additional fraud upon the court by presenting this fabricated Document of Case Evaluation of Defendant James Brady.

Further to this, the Plaintiff presented overwhelming evidence that was presented in the prior cases by the Plaintiff proving that attorney Douglas Cameron had full knowledge that he and his law firm, were in fact, committing fraud upon the Livingston County court by filing the last fraudulent summary disposition against the Plaintiff George Lyons and his company.

Attorney Douglas Cameron is again presenting yet another fraudulent Summary Disposition and by doing so is committing again another fraud upon the Livingston County court along with and in doing so further committing an additional criminal act against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff further states that the additional false Summary Disposition requested by Defendant’s attorney Douglas Cameron for Summary Disposition cannot survive a Summary Disposition because the Plaintiff George Lyons did set forth all legal cognizable causes of action and therefore this case is able to be tried by this court.

The Plaintiff George Lyons in previous cases was denied Due Process of Law which is governed by the United States Constitution. Again Plaintiff George Lyons' Due Process was denied by the Livingston County Judges, attorneys and their present and past clients.

Attorney Douglas Cameron, the Kopp’s and Defendant James Brady which is supported by this document in their wrongful and criminal acts against the Plaintiff George Lyons. The Plaintiff did in fact answer Mr. Brady’s false statements and allegations raised by these three Defenses:

(1) The Plaintiff should not be denied this law suit against the Defendant because of the illegal actions of the Defendant James Brady, Past Defendant’s Karl F. Kopp and Marian J. Kopp and their Attorney Douglas Cameron in his action to commit fraud upon this court. And the judges in their suppressing of the Plaintiff's rights of due process of Law in previous cases which is governed by the United States Constitution.

(2) Plaintiff has in fact stated a claim of which relief can be granted and again is repeated in this document. Finally,

(3) there is in fact a genuine issue as to all material facts and the Plaintiff George Lyons is entitled to a Judgment in his favor as a matter of Law against the Defendant.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Response statement to PAGE 2 and Paragraph 2 of the Case Evaluation of Defendant JAMES BRADY: Plaintiff correcting the false statements of Attorney Douglas Cameron. Prior to 1997, Plaintiff and Defendant’s predecessors in title, Mr. & Mrs. Kopp, were friends and had a relationship of which Mr. Karl F. Kopp did in fact have an adulterous relationship with the Plaintiff ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons.

Marian Kopp was the office Manager of Lyons Builders Inc. at 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. Which primarily involved Mr. & Mrs. Kopp funding the Kopp’s a building project on lot 3 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Michigan.

Plaintiff George Lyons who until 2000 was at the time a licensed residential builder and real estate broker. Plaintiff response statement: Sometime around 1994 these License’s were wrongfully and criminally removed by the State of Michigan (Plaintiff will explain in court).

Also please review Reference Book that has already been present to this court will support the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services illegal and criminal actions in wrongfully removing Plaintiff licensed residential builders and real estate broker’s license.

The Plaintiff, Mr. Lyons began experiencing personal difficulties due to the extortion and embezzlement by past clients STORZBACHS, FRIBERGS, FEEBACKS, LALONDES AND MARCICHS who had embezzled from the Plaintiff and his company.

The approximate amount of embezzlement of funds from the Plaintiff George Lyons by the afore mentioned people is in the amount of $770,000. 00 (SEVEN HUNDRED AND SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS).

Review Plaintiff’s accounting and recovered documents that was hidden by Mr. & Mrs. Kopp to protect their embezzlement from Plaintiff George Lyons. The actual figure of this monetary amount can be verified with proof of accounting and bank statements.

The Kopp’s, did in fact, embezzle the Plaintiff's marital residence located at 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan by making a fraudulent forfeiture against Plaintiff George Lyons marital home. This dwelling and property located at 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan ( AKA SEC 36 T1N R4E CAMELOT SHORES #3 LOT 28 & 29 AND THE SW'LY 33 FT M/L OF LOT 30 SPLIT 3/92 FROM 029.) ) was appraised for in 1996 for $800,000.00 (EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS).

Again, during that false forfeiture created by the Kopp’s, the Plaintiff was denied Due Process of Law as is governed by the United States Constitution. The Livingston County court system, the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry Service (also known as the Department), past clients and the Kopp’s that the Plaintiff was building homes for. These statements are supported by a document that has already been presented to this court. See Exhibit A: referred to as the 'reference book'.

The PLAINTIFF-REFERENCE BOOK proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a report from the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry Service's Administrator, Judge Mourning was given a fabricated report by State employee auditor Nicolas Myers and past clients Ronald and Virginia Storzbach and their witnesses did knowingly commit perjury to acquire illegal funds from the Plaintiff George Lyons. Judge Mourning, did in fact, deny Plaintiff George Lyons his Due Process of Law which is supported by the United States Constitution.

The false Hearing report by Judge Mourning on the Storzbach’s' false complaint to the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry Services was wrongfully used by many other past clients and the Kopp’s to acquire illegally funded monies obtained by criminal means from the Plaintiff George Lyons and his company.

The same false Hearing by Judge Mourning has also poisoned the Plaintiff’s credibility in the Livingston County Court system and their Judges.

This REFERENCE BOOK has been presented in this case as evidence in which it proves that the Livingston County Court System and the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry Services were denied jurisdiction to hear any complaints by the past clients and the Kopp’s. Further to this, the entire building contracts of these past clients and the Kopp’s were governed by the Federal American Arbitration clause in all past clients and Kopp’s contracts.

Both The Livingston County Courts and the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services did in fact deny the Plaintiff George Lyons his Due Process of Law in previous cases which is governed by the United States Constitution.

Further to this, the Livingston County Judges did in fact issue Orders/Rulings/Judgments after he/she was disqualified by law.

The Plaintiff George Lyons has been denied and continues to be denied of any or all of his property despite proof of his sole ownership, this further lays cause to believe based on documented evidence whether intentional or otherwise that the Livingston County Judges may have been or are currently engaged in the Federal Crime of

"interference with interstate commerce" of any and all cases in the Livingston county court system along with the State of Michigan offices of the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services aka Department of Labor and Economic Growth administration Judge’s”.

This further identifies, that both the Livingston County Court System and the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry Service did in fact deny Plaintiff George Lyons his Due Process of Law, which was governed by the United States Constitution and is supported by the Federal Arbitration clauses in all the of the Kopp’s and past clients' contracts. In which the Livingston county judges did in fact deny the Plaintiff George Lyons his Due Process of Law.

The Federal Arbitration clause in all contracts proves overwhelmingly that the Livingston County Courts and the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry Service Judicial Department had no jurisdiction against the Plaintiff George Lyons and his companies and all of the cases that were brought forward by past clients and Mr. & Mrs. Kopp in their fraudulent forfeiture against the Plaintiff and/in illegally acquiring 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan ( AKA SEC 36 T1N R4E CAMELOT SHORES #3 LOT 28 & 29 AND THE SW'LY 33 FT M/L OF LOT 30 SPLIT 3/92 FROM 029 ) the Plaintiff's marital home.

PAGE 2 and Paragraph 2 of the Case Evaluation of Defendant JAMES BRADY: In an attempt to address these difficulties on a financial which affected the Plaintiff's ability to complete building projects, deal with his customers and in an attempt to address these difficulties on financial basis (caused due to the embezzlement of over $770,000.00 (SEVEN HUNDRED AND SEVENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS) in monies from the Plaintiff and his company by past clients and Mr. & Mrs. Kopp taking the advantage of the Plaintiff ).

Past client Karl Kopp then approached Plaintiff Lyons and his present ex-wife Patricia Lyons requesting instead the Plaintiff Lyons going to a financial group to acquire an equity loan.

After this, Karl Kopp and Marian Kopp further requested Plaintiff George Lyons to consider them for the loan to finish CONSTRUCTION ON 5640 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan in Richard and Ann Friberg's project.

Footnote: The Friberg’s false complaint to the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry Service was overturned by Consumer & Industry Service that Plaintiff George Lyons did no violations against Richard and Ann Friberg and the false complaint was closed. Evidence already presented.

As stated on the audio tape, Karl Kopp stated they could use the interest on funds that the Plaintiff was to borrow from a financial group. Mr. Lyons and Patricia Lyons regrettably agreed to the request from the Kopp’s with stipulations.

Karl Kopp also stated on audio tape (That the monthly payments did not have to start until the sale of 5640 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan, since 5640 Shoshoni Pass did not close until December 1997)

This money borrowed from the Kopp’s was used to finish Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan whereas the Friberg’s refused to make any more payments on their project, the reason given that they were transferring to Gordonville, Virginia. The Friberg’s did in fact, breach their building contract with Plaintiff George Lyons and his building company.

Again The Plaintiff George Lyons agreed to take the Loan for $90,000.00 (NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS) from the Kopp’s. Along with that the agreement that the Plaintiff did not have to make any payments until the sale of 5640 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan. See the time dated audio tapes Exhibit A: with the Kopp’s supporting these statements above by the Plaintiff.

As per the closings on the Loan of $90,000.00 (NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS) two deeds on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan were to be placed into an escrow account. One deed to the Kopp’s and the second back to the Plaintiff and his wife Patricia Ann Lyons for 1194 Camelot Pinckney, Michigan.

These warranty Deeds for 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. were not to be removed from the approved escrow account. See Exhibit A: audio tapes with the Kopp’s.

The Kopp’s' wrongfully and criminally acquired these signed warranty deeds from the escrow account and recorded said warranty deed at the Register of Deeds from Plaintiff Grantor’s George Lyons and his wife to the Grantee’s Kopp’s.

The second warranty deed on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. from Grantor’s Karl and Marian Kopp’s that was to be placed into an escrow account.

Which would give back 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan to the Grantee’s Plaintiff George Lyons and his ex-wife Patricia Lyons. This Warranty deed for 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan was illegally removed from the escrow account by the Kopp’s (or by Marian Kopp’s and this deed was again taken to the Register of Deed’s and recorded/registered on title by Marian Kopp. See Exhibit A:

THIS ACTION OF MARIAN KOPP’S GAVE BACK THE POSSESSION OF 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN, WHICH WAS RECORDED BY MARIAN KOPP FOR INTEREST OF ONE DOLLAR ($1.00). SEE EXHIBIT A:

This Warranty deed for 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. again was recorded by LAND CONTRACT HOLDER MARIAN KOPP. This action of Mrs. Kopp proves that the Kopp’s had no right to take any possession/ or sell of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan to Defendant James Brady.

The real record shows that the sale of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan back to Plaintiff George Lyons and his ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons for the said amount of $1.00 (ONE DOLLAR). Was recorded by Marian Kopp on May 30th 2005

This action of the Kopp’s proves overwhelming in fact that Defendant James Brady did in fact purchase fraudulently and unlawfully and did acquire property from Karl and Marian Kopp who in fact fraudulently stole the property located at 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan from the Plaintiff and his now ex-wife Patricia Lyons.

The true owners George Lyons Plaintiff and his now ex-wife of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. See Exhibits A:

Plaintiff response statement to: Attorney Douglas Cameron false statement in DEFENDANT JAMES BRADY EVALUATION STATEMENTS:” Despite the infusion of cash, Mr. Lyons business and personal problems persisted and payments on land contract ceased shortly after it had been signed”.

(SEE EXHIBIT A: OF OFFICIAL CHECK FROM PLAINTIFF GEORGE LYONS COMPANY TO THE KOPP’S FOR PAYMENT ON CAMELOT and this official check did in fact paid in full for all past and future payments on Plaintiff's George Lyons marital home at 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi ).

Now the attorney Douglas Cameron's statements in the DEFENDANT JAMES BRADY EVALUATION STATEMENTS are fabricated by the Kopp’s. The act of the Kopp’s and their attorney Douglas Cameron is their way of committing fraud upon the court.

Again please SEE EXHIBIT A: AN OFFICIAL CHECK TO KARL & MARIAN KOPP FOR $24,000.00 (TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS) DATED JUNE 30TH 1995 which WAS ENDORCED OVER TO KARL AND MARIAN KOPP AND STATED ON THE BACK, 'FOR PAYMENT ON CAMELOT'. This official check dated June 30th 1995, from George Lyons Company was a contract between the Plaintiff George Lyons and his company and Karl & Marian Kopp.

This Official check proves that the Kopp’s did in fact, accept payments for 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan on The Land Contract payment between Plaintiff and his company and Mr. and Mrs. Karl Kopp’s. This also proves the Kopp’s did in fact file a fraudulent and falsified forfeiture against the Plaintiff’s property located at 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.

The following statement is from the Case Evaluation of Defendant James Brady on page 2, paragraph two. “Finally, after receiving no payments on the Land contract for approximately three years, Mr. & Mrs. Kopp commenced a land Contract forfeiture action in the 53rd District Court.”

The above STATEMENT IS FALSE AND MISLEADING IT ALSO PROVES THAT THE KOPP’S STARTED A FABRICATED FALSE FORFEITURE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF AND HIS EX-WIFE after receiving full payments on all past and future payments as stated in the land contract between the said Parties.

Per Exhibits A: Which proves that the statement of the Kopp’s: page 2, paragraph 2 of the Case Evaluation of Defendant, James Brady: that “Finally, after receiving no payments on the Land contract for approximately three years.

Which was in fact, false and misleading and this statement provided by the Kopp’s proves the Kopp’s did in fact commit perjury in the eyes of the court and liable on a legal document. See closing statement on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan DATED MARCH 11TH 1994. Payment was made by Plaintiff to the Kopp’s DATED June 30th 1995. For $24,000.00 (TWENTY FOUR-THOUSAND DOLLARS). See Exhibit: A

FOOTNOTE: Also please review audio tapes known as Exhibit A: in which Karl Kopp states to Plaintiff George Lyons. “George you don’t have to make any payments on Camelot, until you close on Shoshoni Pass.”

THE OFFICIAL CHECK OF $24,000.00 (Twenty-Four Thousand) TO KARL & MARIAN KOPP STATES: PAID TO THE ORDER OF KARL AND MARIAN KOPP FOR PAYMENT ON CAMELOT. THIS WAS CASHED AND DEPOSITED IN THE KOPP’S MICHIGAN NATIONAL BANK ACCOUNT BY THE KOPP’S DATED JUNE 30TH 1995 SEE EXHIBITS.

Attorney Cameron's statement in the Case Evaluation of Defendant James Brady on page 2 paragraph two THIS STATEMENT SHOULD BE REPEATED (“Finally, after receiving no payments on the land contract for approximately three years, Mr. & Mrs. Kopp commenced land contract forfeiture in the 53rd District court.” ) THIS STATEMENT OF THE KOPP’S ATTORNEY CAMERON IS TOTALLY FABRICATED by the Kopp’s and their attorney Douglas Cameron.

Attorney Douglas Cameron did in fact have full knowledge that the Kopp’s did in fact receive payment of $24,000.00 in an official check from Plaintiff George Lyons and his company.

Through previous documents and played audio tapes presented to attorney Cameron he did in fact have full knowledge prior to making this false statement and not coming forth with the truth.

This proves overwhelmingly that attorney Cameron is committing and did commit a fraudulent act upon the court in protecting the illegal and criminal actions of the Kopp’s by omitting known evidence. (See enclose description on fraud upon the court.)

Further the statement in the case evaluation of Defendant James Brady on page 2 paragraph two of attorney Cameron's statement of their case of Evaluation of Defendant, James Brady Background. (“After one adjournment at Mr. Lyons request, (1). He and his wife failed to appear for the second scheduled hearing and a Default Judgment of Forfeiture was entered by Judge Delvero. There was no appeal from the Judgment nor was a redemption made. Despite his failure to comply with the Forfeiture Judgment.

Plaintiff response statement to Mr. Lyons embarked on an ever-increasing pattern of bizarre behavior and on several occasions attempted to take up residence in the Camelot property. (The local police became involved and Mr. Lyons was ordered to stay away from the premises. “)

Per above statement please review documents on the Kopp’s filing a fraudulent police report against the Plaintiff. That the Plaintiff enters the property without permission per audio tape Marian Kopp did in Fact gave Plaintiff George Lyons permission to move back into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. and start up land contract payment.

This Statement of Marian Kopp was never rescinded this statement. See false police report of the Kopp’s this again was an illegal action of the Kopp’s in stopping Plaintiff George Lyons in receiving back Plaintiff’s marital home at 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi.

1. To the above false statement of Attorney Cameron. Plaintiff was never given notice to re-appear in Judge Delvero's court for a second scheduled hearing; this could have been an accident by Mr. and Mrs. Kopp’s attorney not sending notification to appear in court or the attorney's secretary somehow missed sending out notification, or the notice could have been lost in the mail.

During that period of time the Plaintiff between 1996-1997 was removed from the Plaintiff's home at 1194 Camelot by a false injunction in his divorce complaint.

The notice could have been sent to 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan and because of the Plaintiff's ex-wife adulterous affair with Karl Kopp. This notice could have been taken and not shown to Plaintiff by his ex-wife. This is a statement supported by audio tape conversations with the Kopp’s and Plaintiff ex-wife.

Plaintiff response statement to page 3 paragraphs 1 of attorney Cameron's statements of their case of Evaluation of Defendant, James Brady's Background.

In August of 2000, Mr. Lyons began filing Pro-Per Motions in the District Court forfeiture action. The first such Motion was denied by Judge Delvero on September 11, 2000. Approximately two weeks later, Mr. Lyons filed a Motion to set aside the Forfeiture Judgment and again requested immediate possession of the home. A Hearing on this Motion was held on October 16, 2000 at which time Mr. Lyons' Motions were denied and he was sanctioned by Judge Delvero. A proposed order was submitted to which Mr. Lyons filed objections. Mr. & Mrs. Kopp, through their attorney, filed a Motion to settle the Order and a Hearing was held on November 13, 2000. At this Hearing Kopp’s Proposed Order was entered with Judge Delvero further ordering that there could be no filing by Mr. Lyons or Hearings in the forfeiture case until Mr. Lyons paid sanctions in the amount of $1,500.00. These sanctions have been paid. Mr. Lyons, however, continued his harassment of Mr. & Mrs. Kopp by filing a lien against the Camelot property and inundating them with paperwork outlining all of the terrible things that had happened to Mr. Lyons allegedly due to actions of Mr.& Mrs. Kopp. Due to a number of business disputes that Mr. Lyons had with customers and his behavior, Mr. Lyons builder’s and broker’s licenses were revoked by the State of Michigan in 2000. Mr. Lyons had also filed several other Pro-per actions in the County and Ingham County against the State of Michigan and various former customers of his. None of these cases have been successful.

TO READERS PLEASE UNDERSTAND ALL OF PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE WAS HIDDEN BY THE KOPP’S. THE KOPP EVEN TRIED TO DESTROY SAID EVIDENCE FROM PLAINTIFF GEORGE LYONS SEE EXHIBIT #'S INCLUDING AUDIO TAPES. THIS AGAIN WAS A CRIMINAL ACT ON THE KOPP’S PART AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF AND HIS EX-WIFE.

(THESE ABOVE STATEMENTS OF ATTORNEY DOUGLAS CAMERON ARE BEING USED ONLY IN THE DISCREDITING OF THE PLAINTIFF BY THE KOPP’S ATTORNEY DOUGLAS CAMERON BY USING SMOKE AND MIRRORS TO ILLEGALLY AND FALSELY DISCREDIT THE PLAINTIFF.) AND IN TRYING TO SUPPORT JUDGE DELVERO IN HIS WRONGFUL AND ILLEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.

THE FOLLOWING PROVES THAT FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE KOPP’S ILLEGAL FORFEITURE IN THE COURT OF JUDGE FRANK R. DELVERO IN ANY AND ALL JUDGMENTS, ORDERS AND/OR RULINGS OF ARE LEGALLY DENIED.

AND NONE OF THE JUDGMENTS, ORDERS AND/OR RULINGS ISSUED BY JUDGE FRANK R. DELVERO HAS BEEN DISQUALIFIED BY LAW PRIOR TO ANY JUDGMENTS, ORDERS AND/OR RULINGS THROUGH MOTIONS MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF.

JUDGE FRANK R. DELVERO DID NOT FOLLOW THE COURT RULES OF DISQUALIFICATION AND ANY RULINGS, JUDGMENTS AND/OR ORDERS OF JUDGE DELVERO WOULD BE VOID AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND ANY AND ALL JUDGMENTS, ORDERS AND/OR RULES JUDGE FRANK R. DELVERO HAD NO LEGAL FORCE. BECAUSE JUDGE FRANK R. DELVERO DENYING THE PLAINTIFF GEORGE LYONS MOTION FOR THE EMERGENCY MOTION OF DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE FRANK R. DELVERO FOR BIASNESS.

Plaintiff response statement: Prior to Judgments/orders of 53RD District Judge Delvero. Judge Delvero had a motion presented against him and his court. For the Disqualification of Judge Delvero for Biasness. Judge Delvero denied this motion. Under the federal law.

Judge Frank R. Delvero did not have any discretion not to disqualify himself. By law, Judge Delvero is bound to follow the law. Should Judge Frank R. Delvero did not disqualify himself as required by law, and then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself.

None of the orders issued by Judge Delvero who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid.

It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a Judge Delvero not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996)

("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
“
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....
”
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
“
No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...
”

Should a judge Delvero issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and the plaintiff has been denied of any of his / her property Then the Judge Delvero has been engaged in the

Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce".

The Livingston county judge Delvero did in fact issue orders after he has been disqualified by law, and the Plaintiff George Lyons and his wife have been denied of any of his / her property, the Livingston County judge Delvero have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce".

The Livingston county Judge Frank R. Delvero has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity.

Livingston county Judge Frank R. Delvero, was acting in this manner, and has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). And all Judgments/orders/ rulings of Judge Delvero are and should be dismissed.

Footnote: IMPORTANT ITEM of the Kopp’s filing a false police report against the Plaintiff for entering without permission:

See EXHIBIT B: which proves the Kopp’s did in fact file a false police report against Plaintiff George Lyons which also is an additional criminal act by the Kopp’s See chain of evidence the Kopp’s false police report against the Plaintiff George Lyons:

IMPORTANT ISSUES

On March 31st 2005 at 1:56 pm. (Exhibit 8: Warranty Deed in the transfer in the conveyed of the warrant of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. to the Plaintiff Lyons from the Kopp’s for $1.00).

Marian Kopp, who was named on the Land Contract between Lyons and Kopp’s. (Mrs. Kopp in having the authority to transferred possession of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. back to Plaintiff George Edward Lyons and ex-wife Patricia A. Lyons.

Marian Kopp’s motive to submit the Transfer of Warranty Deed to register the deed’s of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan to Plaintiff and ex-wife Patricia Lyons as per audio tapes Exhibit A:. Marian Kopp has stated on audio tape her husband and the Plaintiff's ex-wife tried to criminally acquire 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. from the Plaintiff as heard on Exhibit A: audio tapes and that Marian Kopp’s' husband Karl Kopp was having an adulterous affair with the Plaintiff's wife at the time, Patricia A. Lyons. See Exhibit A:

Through-out the case history of the relationship of the Plaintiff’s ex-wife and the criminal protection of Mr. Karl Francis Kopp they sought to embezzle 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan from Plaintiff. See Exhibit A:

Footnote: The warranty Deed still stands as the sole owners of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan are the Plaintiff George Lyons and ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons.

Any transfer of a Warranty deed of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan to Defendant James Brady was completely illegal. Again the Kopp’s had no legal rights to sell to 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. to Defendant James Brady as they were not in legal possession of the said property.

The Plaintiff demands total and immediate possession of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. And the Defendant James Brady and Karl & Marian Kopp are defrauding this Honorable court.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST IN 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MI.

Plaintiff response statement Page 4, paragraph 1 of attorney Cameron's statements of their Case of Evaluation of Defendant, James Brady Background.

In March 2004, Mr. Lyons wrote a letter to Mr. & Mrs. Kopp advising them that he would be re-taking possession of the Camelot residence. This letter was quickly followed by Mr. Lyons filing a law suit in the Livingston County Circuit Court against Mr. & Mrs. Kopp. Mr. Lyons entered a Default against Mr. & Mrs. Kopp without having bothered to notify them of the Law suit or serve them with process.

The Default was set aside by Judge Burress on his Motion. Judge Burress denied two Motions of Mr. Lyons for immediate possession of the Camelot residence and warned him that he faced sanctions in that matter and that he should engage the services of an attorney.

IMPORTANT: Again the previous statement of Attorney Douglas Cameron has only a fractional part and one-sided of truth in his statement:

Mr. & Mrs. Kopp’s received over 5 different certified mailings sent to the address at their marital home located at 4849 Gallagher, Whitmore Lake, Hamburg Township Michigan 48189 of which the Kopp’s refused acceptance of the certified mailings.

Both on the Summon and Complaint and Notice for Appearance in court on the Default Judgment for possession of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. See return certified mailings return notice of delivery from the U.S. POSTAL SERVICES FOR THE KOPPS.

Marian Kopp refused to take or sign for Notice of Summon and Complaint and Notice to appear in court by a witness who was the process server who will testify against the Kopp’s in this court.

ALSO The Kopp’s did not IN FACT notify the Plaintiff when they went before Judge Burress and acquire an illegal removal of Judge Burress Default Judgment against the Kopp’s for possession of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. SEE audio tapes.

FOOTNOTE: Judge Burress and Judge Reader had MOTIONS OF Emergency Motion for Disqualification for Biasness FOR BOTH JUDGE’S 4 to 5 times by Plaintiff George Lyons. This was denied by Judge Burress and also denied by Judge Reader.

Plaintiff response statement page 4, paragraphs 1 of attorney Cameron's statements of their case of Evaluation of Defendant, James Brady Background.

On March 19, 2005. The Court, by Judge Reader, entered an Order granting Summary Disposition in favor of Mr. & Mrs. Kopp’s Counter Complaint. This Order also specifically Dismissed Mr. Lyons Complaint with prejudice and vested title to Camelot residence in Mr. & Mrs. Kopp. This Order is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. Mr. Lyons made several appeals to the Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court. All of which were summarily denied.

Again the previous statement of Attorney Douglas Cameron has only a fractional part and one-sided of truth in its statement: Judge Reader had an Emergency Motion of Disqualification for Biasness.

And Per the Federal Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").

That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."

The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, or protecting attorney’s fraud upon the courts summary dispositions does not give the appearance of justice.

"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recues herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

Further, Judge David Reader and Judge Daniel Burress have a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.

Judges do not have the discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a Judge David Reader not disqualify himself as required by law, and then the judge Reader has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid.

It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a Judge David Reader not disqualify himself, then the Judge David Reader is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996)

("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").

Should a Judge David Reader issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the Judge David Reader may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce".

Judge Reader has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.

The Livingston county judge David Reader did issue an order after he has been disqualified by law, and if Plaintiff George Lyons and his ex-wife have been denied of any of his / her property, the Livingston County Judge Reader have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce".

The Livingston county judge’s has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. These Livingston county judge’s, are acting in this manner, and has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However Livingston county Judge David Reader did not follow the law.

Plaintiff response statement: per page 4, paragraphs 2 of attorney Cameron's statements of their Case of Evaluation of Defendant, James Brady Background.

Plaintiff JAMES BRADY subsequently purchased the Camelot residence from Mr. & Mrs. Kopp on December 30, 2005. This was an open market, arms length transaction with a formal closing, tile insurance and delivery of a warranty deed. Despite the fact that Mr. Brady has never met Mr. Lyons or had any other contact with him, Mr. Lyons apparently feels he now has free reign to harass Mr. Brady.

Again the previous statement of Attorney Douglas Cameron has only a fractional part and one-sided of truth in his statement: And in this statements and other statements are Attorney Douglas Cameron unlawful act of committing fraud upon the court.

On March 31st 2005 at 1:56 pm. (Exhibit 8: Warranty Deed in the transfer in the conveyed and warrant of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan to the Lyons from the Kopp’s for $1.00).

Marian Kopp ( Who is named on Land Contract between Lyons and Kopp’s and Mrs. Kopp having the full authority) to transfer possession of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan back to Plaintiff George Edward Lyons and ex-wife Patricia A. Lyons. Marian Kopp’s motive to submit the transfer of warranty deed to register of deed’s of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan to Plaintiff and ex-wife as per audio tapes. Marian Kopp’s' husband had criminally acquired 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan from Plaintiff and per audio tapes Marian Kopp’s husband Karl Kopp was having an ongoing an adulterous affair with the Plaintiff's wife Patricia A. Lyons. See Exhibit A:

Through-out the case history of the relationship of the Plaintiff’s ex-wife and her criminal protection of Mr. Karl Francis Kopp to embezzle 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan from Plaintiff. See Exhibit A:

Footnote: The Warranty Deed still stands as the only owner of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan is the Plaintiff George Lyons and ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons.

The transfer of a false Warranty deed of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. To Defendant James Brady was completely illegal. The Kopp’s had no legal rights to sell to 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. The Plaintiff demand total and immediate possession of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. And the Defendants James Brady and Karl & Marian Kopp are defrauding this Honorable court.

Plaintiff response statement: per page, 4 paragraphs 2 of attorney Cameron's statements of their Case of Evaluation of Defendant, James Brady Background. This was an open market, arms length transaction with a formal closing, title insurance and delivery of a Warranty Deed.

Again the previous statement of Attorney Douglas Cameron has only a fractional part and one-sided of truth in his statement: And in this statements and other statements are Attorney Douglas Cameron unlawful act of committing fraud upon the court.

Plaintiff response statement: This was not an open market, nor a arms length transaction with a formal closing. The Title Company Metropolitan Title Company had full knowledge that the Kopp’s made a false forfeiture on the Plaintiff, (2) and had full Knowledge that the Kopp’s received a $24,000.00 (TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND DOLLAR) official check for payments on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. from the Plaintiff.

IMPORTANT Metropolitan Title company WAS PROTECTING THEIR ILLEGAL ACTS ON OTHER ILLEGAL ACTS THEY COMMITTED AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF IN OTHER CASES OF PAST CLIENTS THAT WERE FILING FRAUDULENT LAWSUITS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF. THIS ILLEGAL ACTION OF METROPOLITAN TITLE COMPANY WAS TO STOP THE PLAINTIFF FROM RECEIVING ANY MONEY TO ACQUIRE ANY LEGAL REPRESENTATION.

The Metropolitan Title Company had full Knowledge that the Kopp’s and Plaintiff George Lyons were in court, and the title company protected the Kopp’s in their illegal actions. See audio tape conversations with Metropolitan Title Company.

Second an open Market: Defendant had full knowledge of the illegal actions of the Kopp’s and still proceeded in wrongfully purchase 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.

Footnote: Defendant James Brady prior to purchasing 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.
JAMES BRADY'S PRIOR PROPERTY was 5136 Gallagher, Whitmore Lake, Michigan approximately one minute from Karl and Marian Kopp’s' marital property 4849 Gallagher, Whitmore Lake, Michigan.

Prior to wrongfully purchasing 1194 Camelot, Pinckney: JAMES BRADY lived at and owned 5136 GALLAGHER, WHIMORE LAKE, MICHIGAN 48189 on the same street of Karl and Marian Kopp’s marital home, 4849 Gallagher, Whitmore Lake, Michigan 48189 PRIOR TO WRONGFULLY PURCHASING 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN. SEE EVIDENCE:

1. Defendant lived approximately one minute from Kopp’s marital property located at 4849 Gallagher, Whitmore Lake, and Michigan per Yahoo map

2. Defendant in the illegal action to illegal remove the Warranty Deed from the Kopp’s possession. The Kopp’s acquire a friend in their neighborhood to purchase 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. for ½ the price $400,000.00. of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan which should have been on the market for $800,000.00

3. This was civil conspiracy on the Brady and Kopp’s part. To illegal acquire funds from Plaintiff George Lyons and his ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons of who Karl Kopp was having an adulterous affair with Patricia Lyons prior to the Divorce of Plaintiff and his ex-wife Patricia A. Lyons.

4. This is supported by audio tapes, witnesses and the enclosed evidence on property of the Kopp’s and the Defendant James Brady.

5. Plaintiff response statement: 4, paragraph 2 of attorney Cameron's statements of their Case of Evaluation of Defendant, James Brady Background. Mr. Lyons apparently feels he now has free reign to harass Mr. Brady.

Again the previous statement of Attorney Douglas Cameron has only a fractional part and one-sided of truth in its statement and again trying his best to discredit Plaintiff.

Plaintiff George Lyons in his search from truth in the judicial system and Plaintiff working against a corrupted legal attorney’s in the past and now: In the stopping these attorneys from committing fraud upon the court and their filing fabricated Summary Dispositions against the Plaintiff. To acquire illegal gains for their clients, and their law firm.

Plaintiff response statement page 4, paragraphs 3 of attorney Cameron's statements of their Case of Evaluation of Defendant, James Brady Background: It should be noted by this by this Panel that in a unrelated matter, Lyons v. Marcich, 44th Circuit Court File No. 04-021106, Court of Appeals docket numbers 267969 and 269576, the Court of Appeals denied Mr. Lyons’ Motion to waive fees to curb his serious abuses in filing Motions in that matter in that matter and went so far as to call Mr. Lyons “an abuser of the judicial system.”

Again the previous statement of Attorney Douglas Cameron has only a fractional part and one-sided of truth in his statement:

The Marcich joined forces with other past clients starting with the Storzbach’s, Friberg’s, Feeback’s, and most of all Lalonde’s to embezzle over $770,000.00 from Plaintiff George Lyons and his Company.

Between the Marcich’s and the Lalonde’s Plaintiff has overwhelming evidence that these past clients framed Plaintiff George Lyons and his company for N.S.F. Charges. The actions of the above people committed civil conspiracy and tortuous interference.

IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THE KOPP’S HAD HIDDEN AND TRIED TO DESTROY EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF WHICH THE PLAINTIFF DID EVENTUALLY RECOVER.

Again these past clients embezzle over $770,000.00 from the Plaintiff and his Company. These illegal actions were started with RONALD AND VIRGINIA STORZBACH filing a false complaint to the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services. A fabricated Hearing report has been presented to this court and is the court file of Lyons vs. Brady.

1. Plaintiff George Lyons had to face complete destruction of his company and his life because the wrongful actions of the Defendant James Brady and past Defendant’s and Karl and Marian Kopp.

2. That as results of Karl F. Kopp and Marian J. Kopp in there filing a fabricated false forfeiture against Plaintiff George Lyons property 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi.. Along with Karl and Marian Kopp filing a false police report for entering with out permission into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi.. And along with Karl and Marian Kopp slandering the title of Plaintiff property 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi.

3. That in recording said false forfeiture and acquire illegal title to 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan that Karl and Marian Kopp violated provisions along with Marian Kopp being a licensed real estate agent have violated provisions MCLA 565.108; and MSA 26.1278 which entitling Plaintiff to damages including reasonable attorney fees.

4. That further, Karl and Marian Kopp and Defendant James Brady and their criminally recording of said alleged title and the wrongfully acquirement of title of Plaintiff property 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. by Karl and Marian Kopp and the Defendant James Brady through embezzlement.

5. These illegal actions done by Karl and Marian Kopp and Defendant James Brady with such gross indifference and to such reckless disregard to the Plaintiff George Lyons and ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons and his companies, as to constitute a willful and wanton act entitling Plaintiff to exemplary damages.

6. That the Plaintiff George Lyons has been damage for aside wrongful actions of the Defendant James Brady and Karl Kopp and Marian Kopp.

7. That, as the results of slander of title aforesaid that plaintiff has incurred damages consisting of the following.
a. Impairment of vendibility;
b. Ligation expensive;
c. Loss or impairment of credit;
d. Deformation of Character;
e. Major Loss of income;
f. Mental stress;
g. Exemplary damages;
h. Reasonable attorney fees;

Plaintiff response statement page 5, paragraphs 2 of attorney Cameron's statements of their Case of Evaluation of Defendant, James Brady.

III. PLAINTIFF ARGUMENT AND RELIEF REQUESTED

The Plaintiff demands judgment in such sum of excess of $1,000,000.00 ( One million dollars ) and if Defendant James Brady and Karl and Marian Kopp H/W are found guilty of the following RECEIVING & CONCEALING STOLEN PROPERTY [MCL 750.535] with knowledge that the property was stolen, under Michigan law defines 3 levels of R&C: $20,000 or more: Felony -- up to 10 years and/or $15,000 fine (or 3x property's value), if Defendant’s are found guilty of the following EMBEZZLEMENT [MCL 750.174].

Since 01/01/1999, Michigan defines 4 levels of Embezzlement: under $200: Misdemeanor -- up to 93 days and/or $500, or 3 times amount embezzled, whichever is greater or per as found to be owning plus interest, cost and attorney fees, and Plaintiff now demands the immediate return with clear title without clouds the Plaintiff property 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan 48169.

It is Obvious that no cause of action exists for the Defendant James Brady against Plaintiff George Lyons and that the Summary Disposition is illegal action of Attorney Douglas Cameron to commit fraud upon the court. It is equally obvious that the Plaintiff should be granted Summary Disposition in favor of the Plaintiff George Lyons against the Defendant James Brady.

If Attorney Douglas Cameron is found guilty of committing fraud upon the court. Mr. Cameron should be charged with sanctions by this panel and the court for committing fraud upon the court.

That the Plaintiff has any and all past cases in the Livingston County court is re-opened all with cases that where Plaintiff George Lyons was wrongfully denied Due Process of Law.

Along with all cases in Livingston County District court, The State of Michigan Consumer & Industry courts, the Ingham County Court, the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court.

This Panel can, however, impede Defendant’s efforts to further abuse the judicial system by unanimously finding that Defendant James Brady and his Attorney Douglas Cameron action is frivolous pursuant to MCR 2.403(K)(4) AND MCL 600.4963(2) and grant the Plaintiff George Lyons the immediate possession of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan with a complete clear title.

This panel and court bring criminal charges against the Defendant James Brady and Karl Kopp and Marian Kopp for the enclosed criminal acts and that any and all Judge’s committing and stopping the Plaintiff George Lyons from having Due Process of Law be reviewed and charged and sent to the Judicial Tenure Committee of The State of Michigan further civil and criminal charges will follow. This is the relief which Plaintiff George Edward Lyons, respectfully requests.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________________
GEORGE EDWARD LYONS - PLAINTIFF
11994 Weiman
PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN 48169
734-954-4040
Friday, October 24, 2008
http://findingjusticeforpeople.blogspot.com/

Friday, September 19, 2008

LOOK AT THIS ONE.. GOING TO THE NEWS MEDIA

State of Michigan ( PLEASE READ AFTER THE FOLLOWING DEFINATIONS )

Please review Emergency Disqualification of Judge's in this blog (Article THREE).

This motion is similar to all the Motions that was presented to all these judge's.

State of Michigan In the Livingston County Circuit Court
204 S. Highlander Way, Howell, Michigan 48843
517-546-9816

George Edward Lyons,
11994 Weiman
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-954-4040
Plaintiff,
vs.

James Brady and wife,
1194 Camelot,
Pinckney, Mi.48169
Phone unavailable
Defendants,

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY
Attorney for Defendant
Douglas J. Cameron
McCririe & Cameron Attorneys and Counselors
317 W. Main St.Brighton, MI 48116810-229-6167

POSSIBLE OTHER DEFENDANTS
Karl and Marian Kopp H/W
Case no. 04-020652-CF-B LYONS V. KOPP

Case No.: 07-23338-CH
Hon. Judge Latreille

Judge’s who refused to disqualify themselves/
Plaintiff disqualify the enclosed Judges.

Motions for Disqualification of Judge Stanley Laterille or be charge for possible treason
"Fraud on The Court By An Officer Of The Court"And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal"

To review one of George Lyons Emergency Motions for Disqualification’s of these Judge’s please go to http://findingjusticeforpeople.blogspot.com

(Article Three that was drafted by George Edward Lyons)

Definitions: These definitions are to help the reader to have a better outlook in the illegal actions that was preformed against George Edward Lyons in the Livingston County courts systems.

1. Who is an "officer of the court"?

2. What is "fraud on the court"?

3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?

4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"

1. Who is an "officer of the court"?

A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully.

State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

2. What is "fraud on the court"?

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated

"Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."

"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?
"Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court. It is also clear and well-settled Michigan law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934)

("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).

Under Michigan and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

4. To the reader's What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").

That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."

The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.

"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.

Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge.

Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid.

It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996)

("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
“
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....
”
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
“
No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...”

Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce".

The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge).

However some judges may not follow the law.

The Livingston county judge’s did issue orders after he has been disqualified by law, and if the George Lyons has been denied of any of his / her property, the Livingston County judge’s have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce".

The Livingston county judge’s has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity.

These Livingston county judge’s, are acting in this manner, and had no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However these Livingston county judges did not follow the law.

George Edward Lyons as a non-represented litigant, and the Livingston county courts did not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has not disqualified him/herself.

However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.

IMPORTANT:

The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution.

If a judge acts after he or she has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.

In the judge’s acting without jurisdiction. All of the building contracts of George Edward Lyons building company carried the American Federal arbitraction clause, All case were governed by this arbitration clause:

All Judge’s in Livingston’s county had no jurisdiction to make any rulings against George Edward Lyons. George Lyons made outrageous amount of Motion’s that were made in all cases by George Edward Lyons that the Livingston County Courts had no jurisdiction. All of the Livingston County Courts Judge’s rulings of George Lyons Motions were denied.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

THE FOLLOWING JUDGE’S WERE DISQUALIFIED FOR BIASNESS BY PLAINTIFF GEORGE LYONS FOR THE JUDGE’S IN THE LIVINGSTON COUNTY JUDGE’S over 34 motions for disqualification on the below judge’s.

That these judge’s denied Plaintiff George Edward Lyons from his Constitutional rights.

These Judge’s did not have jurisdiction in to making any rulings against George Lyons in any of the cases that were filed in Livingston County Court system.

44th Circuit Court Judge David Reader and Daniel Burress Judicial Center Building - 204 S. Highlander Way, Suite 5, Howell, MI 48843
Phone 517.548.1120Fax 517.545.9688

44th Circuit Court Judge Stanley Latreille and Judge Susan Reck Judicial Center Building - 204 S. Highlander Way, Suite 5, Howell, MI 48843
Phone 517.546.3060Fax 517.552.2512

53rd District Court Chief Judge Michael Hegarty Died also Judge Hegarty law partners with Attorney Brian Lavan.Brighton District Court - 224 N. First St., Brighton, MI 48116.

Judge Michael Hegarty was Law partners with Attorney Brian Lavan, who was once George Lyons attorney. George Lyons was also purchasing a commercial property from Attorney Brian Lavan, and Brian Lavan also represented George Lyons and his company against James and Betty Steeber.

Attorney Brian Lavan illegally represented George Lyons ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons in a divorce. In representing Patricia Ann Lyons. Attorney Brian Lavan then filed suit against George Lyons and James and Betty Steeber.

There is more on Attorney Lavan on tape recorded by George Lyons in Mr. Lavan requesting George Lyons to file a fraudulent complaint with the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services against a Realtor in the effort in not paying said Realtor a commission Named Richard Baker of the Baker Team.

IMPORTANT:

George Lyons made many motion’s to remove Attorney Brian Lavan for CONFLICT OF INTEREST from his ex-wife lawsuit against George Lyons with Judge Daniel Burress and Judge Stanley Laterille.

BOTH JUDGES DENIED GEORGE LYONS MOTION to removal of Attorney Brian Lavan for Conflict of Interest. And committing fraud upon the Livingston county court.

53rd District Court Judge Delvero Judicial Center Building - 204 S. Highlander Way, Howell, MI 48843

George Lyons had a home at 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. George Lyons borrowed $90,000.00 from a friends Karl and Marian Kopp to finish a building project at 5640 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi.

The Friends Karl and Marian Kopp filed a fraudulent forfeiture against George Lyons and his wife at that time 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan appraised for $800,000.00. and Lyons only owed the $65,000.00 To the Kopp’s, in the Kopp’s false forfeiture the Kopp’s stated that they never received any money for the monthly payments from the Lyons’s

This Fraudulent forfeiture was false and misleading by the Kopp’s. Against George Lyons who had no evidence to deny this false allegation of the Kopp’s.

Until 2007 the Kopp’s were removing evidence from 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. George Lyons recovered a $24,000.00 check which made to the Kopp’s for payment on Camelot. This $24,000.00 check was cash and approved by the Kopp’s in a there signature on the back of the check.

THIS CHECK WAS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE KOPP’S AND LYONS. WHERE THEY ACCEPTED PAYMENT ON 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MI. THE STATEMENT ON THE CHECK STATED FOR PAYMENT ON CAMELOT-MEANS THE KOPP’S DID IN FACT ACCEPTED PAYMENTS ON 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MI.

In the Kopp’s filing a fraudulent forfeiture against the Lyons the Kopp’s stated they never received any payments on the contract between George and Patricia Lyons and Karl and Marian Kopp.

These illegal action of the Kopp’s proves the Kopp’s did committ against George Lyons extortion and embezzlement upon the Lyons. The Kopp’s also committed fraud upon the Livingston county courts to illegally acquire 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.

This check from George Lyons of $24,000.00 to the Kopp’s cover any all past payments and future payments for 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. This check stated on the back for payment for Camelot.

The Kopp’s falsely stated in there false forfeiture “The Lyons made no payments on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. This statement was false and criminal act committed by the Kopp’s against the Lyons.

In the Kopp’s trying to Stop George Lyons in his lawsuit again the Kopp’s requested George Lyons to re-enter 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.

The Kopp’s then Framed George Lyons for entering without permission. In filing a false police report, where George Lyons was wrongfully arrested, and taken to the Livingston County Jail, and prosecuted by the Livingston County Prosecutor's then this story really starts.

Prior to this Marian Kopp gave George Lyons permission to enter into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. and start payments to the Kopp’s on the original land contract this conversation was taped recorded by George Lyons.

After two weeks living in 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. Karl Kopp made a fraudulent Police report to Pinckney Police, that George Lyons enters 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. George Lyons was wrongfully arrested and went before Judge Delvero.

Having no money, because of the extortion of the Kopp’s and other’s. George Lyons was given a Court appointed attorney Mack Spickard of Howell, Mi.

George Lyons played the audio tape giving George Lyons permission to move back into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. George Lyons taped recorded court appointed attorney listening to Marian Kopp’s approval to enter into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi and start making payments.

Now all the court appointed Attorney Mack Spickard of George Lyons had to do was take the audio tape into court and state to Judge Delvero Mr. Lyons was given permission to enter 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. Attorney Spickard DID NOT DO THIS.

Prosecutors of Livingston County made a motion that George Lyons is examine by the Ypsilanti Forensic center for Competence to stand trial. George Lyons was exam by Dr. Judith Thompson of the Forensic center.

George Lyons played the same audio tape of Marian Kopp giving George Lyons permission to enter into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. to Dr. Judith Thompson of the Forensic center and recorded her commitments on the tape. Mrs Thompson stated the Kopp’s did give permission to enter into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan George Lyons marital property.

Again George Lyons recorded the Conversation with Dr. Judith Thompson listening to Marian Kopp tape recording giving George Lyons permission to enter into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. Dr. Thompson did agree that George Lyons was given permission to enter into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. By Marian Kopp.

And again all Dr. Thompson had to do was tell Judge Delvero Mr. Lyons had permission to enter 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. DR. THOMPSON DID NOT DO THIS.

Wrongfully Dr. Thompson filed a letter to Judge Delvero that George Lyons was not compendent to stand trial. This was a lie on Dr. Thompson part. Both actions of Court appointed attorney Mack Spickard and Dr. Judith Thompson should be charged with committing Fraud upon the court of Judge Delvero.

This illegal action of these two is a common illegal act performed by attorneys in Livingston County Court system.

This Stopped George Lyons and his ex-wife from acquiring back his marital property 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. Furthermore the Livingston County Prosecutor’s office did have both a copy of the $24,000.00 check that was given to the Kopp’s for payment on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan

Proving that the Kopp’s made a fraudulent forfeiture against George Lyons and his ex-wife Patricia Lyons and also there office also had a copy of the Marian Kopp audio tape approval of George Lyons to enter into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi.

Footnote: Both Karl Kopp and Marian Kopp both were on the Land Contract on proving that Marian Kopp had full permission and rights to give George Lyons permission to enter into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. with or without permission of Karl Kopp, and Karl Kopp had full Knowledge prior to filing his false police report to Pinckney, Mi. that Marian Kopp gave George Lyons permission to enter into 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi.

There was no rescinding by Marian Kopp in giving George Lyons her permission to enter 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. This is proven through audio tapes of the Kopp’s.

The following people and Governmental department should be charged with committing fraud upon the court. Livingston County Prosecutor’s office, Court appointed attorney Mack Spickard and Ypsilanti Forensic center Dr. Judith Thompson, and Karl and Marian Kopp.

Judge Delvero was removed from his seat on the Livingston County Courts for sexual harassment.

Dated this September 18, 2008

______________________________
George Edward Lyons / Plaintiff
11994 Weiman
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-954-4040