STATEMENT OF FACTS Defendant is Plaintiff’s ex-wife. (Cited appeals exhibits June 18th 2012 and (cited: June 20th Claim of Appeals page 8) Years after their divorce, Defendant illegally converted property of the Plaintiff to herself. Specifically, Plaintiff had a warranty deed for Lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Michigan, in the name of Plaintiff’s company, Lyons and Associates Inc. and Karl and Marian Kopp. Lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane was worth over $65,000. Cited appeals exhibits June 18th 2012 page 4). Defendant and her attorney, Thomas Halm (the partner of Defendant’s current attorney, David Prine), contacted the original owners Kenneth and Shirley Morgan and falsely stated that Halm was the attorney for Plaintiff George Lyons and that George Lyons lost the Warranty deed, and Defendant’s attorney Halm then requested a new warranty deed for Lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane. Halm was not Plaintiff’s attorney, and Plaintiff was unaware of Halm’s actions. (cited: June 20th Claim of Appeals page 15: “600.2919a Recovery of damages. The Morgan’s thought that Thomas Halm was Plaintiff attorney. Halm requested them to redraft a new warranty deed to Lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, and sent it to Thomas Halm’s office in Howell, Michigan. This illegal act of Halm and Defendant secured for Defendant a wrongful deed to Lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Michigan. This illegal act removed Karl and Marian Kopp from acquiring their interest in Lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane and shorted Plaintiff Lyons by $65,000.00. (cited: June 20th Claim of Appeals page 15). This act of Halm and Defendant also helped cause Plaintiff’s loss of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. This is because the interest of Lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane was going to the Kopp’s and was going to be used for payment by Plaintiff on a loan from the Kopp’s for 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan, which Plaintiff then lost because the interference of the Defendant and her Attorney Thomas Halm and others. Page 3 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan appraised in 1997 for $800,000.00. Plaintiff had no mortgage on 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan, and the property was owned free and clear. Defendant further caused the conversion of Plaintiff’s property at 1194 Camelot through facilitating a foreclosure of the property without Plaintiff’s knowledge. This was done, in part, by filing a false police report against Plaintiff which wrongfully removed Plaintiff from the home and prevented Plaintiff from being aware of a foreclosure action against Plaintiff’s property. Cited in Exhibits dated June 18th 2012. ( and cited: June 20th Claim of Appeals Additionally, Defendant altered the deed on another property of Plaintiff, 5640 Shoshoni Pass, by whiting out the reference to Plaintiff and writing in Defendant’s name as a purported officer from Lyons and Associates Inc to Lyons Inc. even though Defendant was not an officer or agent of Lyons and Associates Inc. And receiving illegal funds from the closing of 5640 Shoshoni Pass, By doing this, Defendant then took possession and has been trying to sell Lot 2 Betty Lyons to a third party for her own profit. and ( cited: June 20th Claim of Appeals page 18 American Bar Association Rule 3.4 prohibits a lawyer from destroying or assisting another in destroying evidence pertaining to a case. Likewise Title 18 of United States Code Sections 1503, 1510, 1512 and 1519). Defendant thereafter attempted to destroy evidence relating to her activities, including documents belonging to Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendant ordered a Dumpster from C & C Dumpster Company from Howell, Michigan. Fortunately, Plaintiff was contacted by C & C Dumpster Company regarding payment of the dumpster since almost everything in the dumpster had the Plaintiff’s name on it. As a result, Plaintiff recovered various items of evidence. Defendant’s actions in attempting to destroy evidence are the basis of Plaintiff’s spoliation of evidence claim against Defendant. (cited: June 20th Claim of Appeals page 16). Plaintiff’s original complaint against Defendant, which was prepared by Plaintiff in pro per, asserted the above facts, and various additional facts against the Defendant. and cited: June 20th Claim of Appeals page 12-13). Page 4: The core of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant falls under the claim of conversion. Michigan Law MCL 600.2919(a) provides that any person damaged can sue “another person for “stealing or embezzling property or converting property to the other person’s own use”. In addition, Michigan Common Law also provides for a tort of conversion. Common Law conversion “is any distinct act of domain wrongfully exerted over another person’s personal property in denial of or inconsistent with the rights therein.” See Head v. Phillips Camper Sales & Rental, Inc. 234 Mich. App. 94, 111 (1999). (cited: June 20th Claim of Appeals page 15.) Plaintiff believes that the above facts and law state a valid claim of relief against Defendant. Defendant has offered no counterargument to the above. Instead, Defendant ignores Plaintiff’s explanations and pretends not to understand Plaintiff’s pro per complaint. Defendant brought a motion for summary disposition. The grounds for the motion for summary disposition are basically now moot, as the court ordered dismissal on entirely different grounds that were never raised by the Defendant or briefed by the parties. Defendant’s argument in the motion for summary disposition was that Plaintiff was trying to pursue a criminal matter, not a civil matter, and that the disputes between Plaintiff and Defendant were resolved in the divorce proceedings. and cited: ( June 20th 2012 Claim of Appeals). The court dismissed the case even though Plaintiff presented law showing that Michigan law allows a civil claim for conversion, and pointing out that the actions occurred after the divorce proceedings were over. Plaintiff offered evidence supporting his case. However, Judge Hatty had no interest in the arguments made by Plaintiff or in the briefs. Instead, he dismissed the complaint on two new grounds. First, Judge Hatty dismissed the case on the grounds that Plaintiff had not paid sanctions/fees ordered by a different judge (Judge Latreille) in an unrelated case against another defendant, James Brady. This was not a matter That had been raised by the defendant. Judge Hatty ruled that it did not matter that it was an unrelated case against a different defendant, nor did it matter that Plaintiff was indigent and could not pay the fees, nor did it matter that Plaintiff did not know the order applied to bringing cases against other defendants besides the defendant in the other case. Nor did Judge Hatty give defendant an opportunity to research and respond on the issue, nor did he give defendant an opportunity to try earning or borrowing money to pay the fees before dismissing the case. Judge Hatty also dismissed the case on the grounds that the case was “frivolous on its face,” but the judge did not explain to the Plaintiff why he considered Plaintiff’s action a frivolous lawsuit, nor did he give Plaintiff any opportunity to correct the pleading to show Plaintiff’s valid case against the Defendant. Cited in Claims of Appeals June 20th 2012. Prior to and during Judge Latreille in the case Lyons vs. Brady. Judge Latreille had 5+ Emergency Motions for Disqualification for Biasness. Motions Submit by the Plaintiff George Edward Lyons. Some Judge Latreille refused to hear. The relevant portion of the transcript from the hearing is as follows: “THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Lyons, back in 2008 you were warned by Judge Latreille about frivolous filings. And he ordered specifically on December 11, 2008, in Case 07-2338-CH, Judge Latreille issued an order dismissing your quiet title action against a James Brady and awarding attorney fees and costs to Mr. Brady. And to deter you from filing additional litigation, Judge Latreille required you to pay all costs associated with that case prior to filing any additional litigation in this court. Have you paid that money? MR. LYONS: I am indigent. My income per month is $535.00 per month. THE COURT: All right. So you’ve proceeded in violation of Judge Latreille order that you not file any Litigation until you’ve paid off those others costs? MR. LYONS: I thought that was just against Mr. Brady. THE COURT: No. No. The order was clear, and you’ve just told me on this record that you’ve not paid those other -- the costs as Judge Latreille ordered before you filed any litigation. Page 6 MR. LYONS: I am not sure – THE COURT: Is that a yes? MR. LYONS: That I’m not sure, Your Honor. THE COURT: You just said yes about two minutes ago. MR. LYONS: I’d have to – I’d have to check and see if I did pay those. THE COURT: I’m taking your first answer that you haven’t paid it, and I will go on to tell you that at this time there’s no evidence that we can find in the court record to indicate that you have paid any of those fees or costs associated with that litigation. The action in this case --this case shouldn’t even be here now because you violated Judge Latreille’s order. And you knew what that order was and you hadn’t paid those monies. Why the case got filed it shouldn’t have been. But what you’ve caused here is additional frivolous litigation to be filed. And even though you filed this case in pro per you’re still held to the same standards as other citizens and lawyers. … And I’ve had the opportunity to -- to read your papers and to hear you argue, and it’s clear that the dots aren’t being connected here. You shouldn’t be filing this litigation without complying with the orders of the Court, and you’re causing havoc on other people’s lives where you have no right to be doing that. … THE COURT: Well, after reviewing Defendant’s Motion, the Court does grant Defendant’s motion for summary Disposition pursuant to 2.116(C)(8) and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice in its entirety. Further, because Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of legal merit and Plaintiff Has been previously been warned by this Court -- actually this Court’s successor -- predecessor in 2008 about filing frivolous actions, the Court will award Defendant sanctions pursuant to MCR 2.114, MCR 2.625 and MCL 600.2591(3)(A)(III). Reviewing the complaint -- well, I don’t have to get into that. It’s clear on its face that it’s devoid of any Legal merit and I’m not going to have to go into further Reasons on this.” Page 7 Therefore, the issues on appeal are (1) whether it was proper for the court to dismiss Plaintiff’s case on an issue not raised by the Defendant, and without notice or opportunity for the Plaintiff to research or respond to the issue, (2) whether the trial court denied Plaintiff his right of access to the courts by dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice for failure to pay fees that Plaintiff, as an indigent, was physically unable to pay; and (3) whether the court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s case with prejudice as “frivolous,” without giving Plaintiff a chance to amend the complaint, where Plaintiff had clearly explained the legal and factual basis for his valid complaint against the Defendant. (Cited in Claim of Appeals June 20th 2012. ) Page 8   ARGUMENT Argument Number I In this action, the trial court never gave Lyons a meaningful opportunity to present his case. The trial court did not give Lyons the opportunity to present the evidence or witness testimony before the court. The hearing cannot be considered a meaningful opportunity for Lyons to present the merits of his case against the defendant. Lyons’ case is not frivolous, which could be shown if this Court grants Lyons the chance to present his case in court. Lyons can show the trial court’s dismissal must be reversed, and this Court should remand the case for trial. Argument Number II The US Constitution requires that courts allow access to the courts. Judge Hatty’s summary disposition denied the plaintiff access to the court. Plaintiff is indigent and cannot pay the fees require by the court. It violates the Constitution for Judge Hatty to dismiss plaintiff Lyons case. For not paying fees that plaintiff has no ability to pay. Boddie v. Connecticut,401 U.S. 371 (1971) “Meaningful access to the courts is a fundamental constitutional right derived from the first amendment and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, the right protects a litigant's interest in using the judicial process to attain redress of grievances. For pro se litigants, the right guarantees all the means necessary to ensure an adequate hearing on all alleged grievances.” Page 9: Argument Number III Defendant’s motion for Summary Disposition argued that Plaintiff Complaint did not state a valid claim for Relief. However, Plaintiff responded to the court as follows. The claims against Defendant Patricia Ann Lyons are not brought by the Plaintiff as a prosecutor, but are instead brought as an individual properly bringing a civil claim for damage based on the criminal conduct. Michigan Law allows a plaintiff to bring a civil claim under the theory of conversion in situations like this where the defendant has stolen or taken property from the plaintiff. For example, Michigan Law MCL 600.2919(a) provides that any person damaged can sue “another person for “stealing or embezzling property or converting property to the other person own use”. MCL Section 600.2919a. Section 600.2919a provides: Under “600.2919 Plaintiff Lyons can Recovery of damages, costs, and attorney's fees by person damaged; remedy cumulative. Sec. 2919a. (1) A person damaged as a result of either or both of the following may recover 3 times the amount of actual damages sustained, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees: (a) Another person's stealing or embezzling property or converting property to the other person's own use. For which Defendant Lyons pervious attorney Thomas Halm did in fact embezzled property lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Mi. from Plaintiff Lyons. Attorney Thomas Halm is noted Partner with today’s Defendant’s Lyons attorney David Prine. (b) Another person's buying, receiving, possessing, concealing, or aiding in the concealment of stolen, embezzled, or converted property when the person buying, receiving, possessing, concealing, or aiding in the concealment of stolen, embezzled, or converted property knew that the property was stolen, embezzled, or converted. Which in fact the Defendant attorney previously represented Defendant Attorney Brian Lavan and Dale Cooper did in fact do on 5640 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan. PAGE 10 (2) The remedy provided by this section is in addition to any other right or remedy the person may have at law or otherwise.” In addition, Michigan Common Law provides for a similar tort called conversion. Common Law conversion “is any distinct act of domain wrongfully exerted over another person’s personal property in denial of or inconsistent with the rights therein.” See Head v. Phillips Camper Sales & Rental, Inc. 234 Mich. App. 94, 111 (1999). Defendant’s acts complained of are a conversion of Plaintiff’s property because Defendant stole 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan and 5640 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Michigan and Lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Michigan. Which was done by Defendant’s attorney at the time Thomas Halm, Partner with Defendant’s attorney now David Prine by switching warranty deeds and forging papers and in tricking Plaintiff and by Defendant giving 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan away for free, which she had no right to do, all as described in the Complaint. Her acts in stealing and taking property that belonged to Plaintiff clearly constitute conversion under both the statute above and under Michigan Common Law. I have a right to sue her because I was damaged by these crimes by this Defendant and others. Spoliation of evidence is an act that is prohibited by American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 37 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Title 18 United States Code. Sanctions for spoliation are preventative, punitive and remedial in nature. Separate tort actions are also permitted. American Bar Association Rule 3.4 prohibits a lawyer from destroying or assisting another in destroying evidence pertaining to a case. Likewise Title 18 of United States Code Sections 1503, 1510, 1512 and 1519 prohibits a party from destroying or assisting another in destroying evidence, PAGE 11 PAGE 12: And provides for criminal prosecution against the wrongdoer. Under Title 18 United States Code Section 1519, a wrongdoer can be fined in huge amounts and imprisoned up to 20 years. This acts of the American Bar Association Rule 3.4 shows that Defendant attorney Thomas Halm and partner with attorney Dale Prine. That Thomas Halm did in fact assisted in destroying evidence pertaining to a case. By illegally switching warranty deeds on lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Michigan. Which Plaintiff Lyons had an interest in. And that interest was lost because of the acts of Defendant’s attorney Thomas Halm and Defendant and which is now supported his partner who is now by Defendant’s attorney David Prine. I. Under MCR 2.403(K)(4) and 2.403(N)(3), the requirement for a plaintiff to post a $5000 bond applies only to cases where all of the underlying claims sound in tort. In the present case, the trial court erred in determining that Plaintiff was required to post a bond at least 14 days before trial under MCR 2.403(N) in order to avoid dismissal of his claims. Why? Because the provision only applies to tort cases. It is undisputed that the requirement of a bond under MCR 2.403(N) and 2.403(K) (4) is limited to “tort cases.” Indeed, the limitation to “tort cases” occurs in the opening text of MCR 2.403(K)(4), which authorizes a case evaluation panel to find a case frivolous “[i]n a tort case ….” The Michigan Court of Appeals interpreted the meaning of the term “tort case” in MCR 2.403 in the case of Wilcoxon v. Wayne Cty Neighborhood Legal Serv., 252 Mich. App. 549, 555 (2002). The Wilcoxon court held that an action is a “tort case” under MCR 2.403(N) and MCR 2.403(K)(4) only if all of the underlying claims sound in tort, and that the bond provision does not apply if a case includes claims that do not sound in tort. The facts of the Wilcoxon case are on point. In Wilcoxon, the plaintiff pursued claims both in contract and in tort against her former employer. Wilcoxon, 252 Mich. App., at 550. In mediation under MCR 2.403, the case evaluation panel unanimously found the plaintiff’s claims to be frivolous. Id. at 551. When the Plaintiff did not post a $5000 bond under MCR 2.403(N) (3), the defendant moved to have the case dismissed. Id. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s action was not a tort case under MCR 2.403(K) (4). Id. at 552. On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court and affirmed the decision. Id. at 552, 555. The Court of Appeals pointed out that even though two of Plaintiff’s claims did sound in tort, other claims sounded in contract. Id. at 552-53. Interpreting MCR 2.403, the court ruled: “There is nothing in the language used in the court rule that indicates that its authors intended the specific subcategory “tort case” to encompass civil actions that include both tort and any other civil claims. As used in the court rule, a tort case is one where all the underlying claims sound in tort. If a case includes both tort and contract claims, or tort and any other type of civil claims, then that case falls within the category civil case or action, but not within the subcategory “tort case.” Id. at 555 (underlining added). Therefore, under MCR 2.403, Lyons was only required to pay past judgment in a totally different case. if his claims sounded solely in tort. PAGE 13: PAGE 14: II. Appellant’s claims against Defendant Brady in prior case seek to establish title to 1194 Camelot based, inter alia, on a prior warranty deed to Lyons for the property. Although Lyons does allege that defendant has committed tortious acts, Lyons’ claims do not sound solely in tort. Therefore, the payment for past judgment on a totally different case and dismissal provisions of MCR 2.403(K) (4) and 2.403(N) (3) do not apply to the present case, and the trial court erred in dismissing Lyons’ claims. Similar to the plaintiff in Wilcoxon, claims against Defendant include claims that are not based on tort, and thus the bond and dismissal provisions of MCR 2.403(N) (3) do not apply to Lyons and cannot support the trial court’s dismissal. Plaintiff has admittedly struggled to represent himself in propia persona in this action. Certainly, the various allegations Lyons made in his complaint against the defendant can be hard to read. Plaintiff apologizes, but asks this Court to understand that Plaintiff was without legal help to assist him in preparing or presenting his claims below. Despite the difficulties in reading Appellant’s original complaint, Appellant submits that it is undeniable that the crux of Lyons’ complaint – namely, that Lyons is the rightful owner of 1194 Camelot, 5640 Shoshoni Pass, and Lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Michigan. that a deed conveying 1194 Camelot to Lyons was properly recorded, that the defendant Lyons knew of Lyons’ claim to 1194 Camelot when James Brady purchased the home from Karl and Marian Kopp, and thus James Brady is not a bona fide purchaser for value – is sufficiently clear in the complaint. (Cited in Claims of Appeal) Actions like Lyons’, to establish title to land in Michigan, properly arise under MCL 600.2932. MCL 600.2932 provides: “Any person … who claims any right in, [or] title to … land, may bring an action in the circuit courts against any person who claims … any interest inconsistent with the interest claimed by the plaintiff. … Actions under this section are equitable.” Although Lyons did not label his claim against James Brady and Karl and Marian Kopp and the Defendant as an action to quiet title under MCL 600.2932, the true nature of Lyons’ claim as an action to quiet title is nevertheless apparent upon reading Lyons’ complaint as a whole. As stated in the case of Adams v. Adams, 276 Mich. App. 704, 711 (2007): “It is well settled that the gravamen of an action is determined by reading the Complaint as a whole, and by looking beyond mere procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim.” Thus, this Court must look past the labels in Lyons complaint and determine the exact nature of Lyons’ claims as to defendant Lyons and Karl and Marian Kopp and James Brady. (Cited in Claims of Appeal). Lyons’ complaint demonstrates that his true claim against James Brady is that title to 1194 Camelot properly belongs to Lyons, not James Brady. Thus, the complaint is not simply a tort case as James Brady contends. For example, the Complaint states that “the subject matter of this complaint concerns, in part real property,” identified as 1194 Camelot; indicates that the property “stolen” is 1194 Camelot; states in Defendants have “slandered” Lyons’ title to the property (1194 Camelot); states in that Lyons “has always been owner of 1194 Camelot” and that Defendant has “illegally acquire[d] title on 1194 Camelot; states in that the “slander of title” has impaired the vendibility of the property for Lyons; and, perhaps most importantly, “demands the immediate return with clear title without clouds the Plaintiff[‘s] property 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan 48169” (emphasis added) in the request for relief of the Complaint. PAGE 15: The fact that there are also multiple allegations of fraud in the complaint (in addition to the claims of title ownership) of 1194 Camelot, 5640 Shoshoni Pass, and Lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane is irrelevant to the issue at hand, since the statement of payment on a totally different case and dismissal provisions of 2.403 apply only to cases in which all of the claims presented sound in tort – which is not the case here. Furthermore, various cases in Michigan have held that allegations of fraud or other tortious conduct in a complaint do not turn an action into an action for tort (for statute of limitations purposes), where the “gravamen” (that is, the ground or essence) of the complaint is to establish title in real property. A sample case in this regard is Adams v. Adams, 276 Mich. App. 704 (2007). In Adams, the court found that despite the plaintiff’s allegations of fraud against the defendant, the gravamen of the complaint was to quiet title in real property; as such, the true nature of the action was to quiet title. See Adams, 276 Mich. App. at 716. Similarly, in the present case, the gravamen of Lyons’ complaint against Brady is to quiet title to 1194 Camelot. (Cited in Claims of Appeal). Finally, Appellant submits that because the Michigan Court Rules are construed to secure the just determination of actions and avoid harsh consequences for pleading errors that do not prejudice the opposing party, a dismissal of Lyons’ action is not justified due to a failure of Lyons to correctly label one or more claims as being too quiet title. See Rieth v. Keele, 230 Mich. App. 346, at HN4 (1998), citing MCR 1.105. III. Alternatively, even in a tort case, the trial court cannot dismiss a plaintiff’s claims, and impose sanctions, without giving the plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to present his claims. The trial court did not give Lyons a meaningful opportunity to present his claims and evidence to the court. As such, this court must reverse the trial court’sorder. PAGE 16: Under Michigan law, even when a plaintiff in a tort case must post a bond under MCR 2.403, the trial court cannot dismiss the plaintiff’s claim for failure to post the bond unless the trial court first performs a de novo review that affords the party “a meaningful opportunity to present their case.” Knoke v. Michlin Chem. Corp., 188 Mich. App. 456, 460 (1991). The trial court failed to provide Lyons this opportunity in the present case. As such, the dismissal must be reversed. (Cited in Claims of Appeal). The case of Knoke v. Michlin Chem. Corp., 188 Mich. App. 456 (1991) is on point. In Knoke, a plaintiff brought tort actions against multiple defendants. Id. at 457. In mediation, the mediators determined that the plaintiff’s action was frivolous, thus requiring the plaintiff to post a $5,000 bond in order to proceed to trial. Id. When the plaintiff failed to post the bond on time, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Id. at 458. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed. Id. at 460. In reversing the lower court, the Court of Appeals noted that MCR 2.403(N)(3) necessarily requires de novo review by the court in upholding a mediation panel’s ruling that a plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous; otherwise, the rule would “vest the mediators with judicial powers reserved solely for the courts by the constitution.” Id. at 459-60. This de novo review by the court must provide the litigant “a meaningful opportunity” to present his case. Id. at 460. As the Knoke court stated: “Given the nature and purpose of mediation, we conclude that there should be a de novo review of the mediators’ decision on this issue. … Due process requires that litigants be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present their case. Anything short of de novo review of the type of determination here would be an affront to fundamental notions of due process….” Id. PAGE 17: PAGE 18: In this action, the trial court never gave Lyons a meaningful opportunity to present his case. Lyons attempted to argue the frivolousness determination at the motion of Summary Disposition to dismiss hearing, offering to present evidence to the court of the “transfer of deeds” to Lyons in 2005 before the subsequent deed to James Brady a totally different case and Defendant. (see In Brady case Hearing Transcript, at page 5, lines 4-12), but the trial court In both cases instead cut off Lyons, said that from the court’s “review of the file” the action was frivolous, and lectured Lyons relating to past lawsuits and actions in prior years. Hearing Transcript, at pages 5-6 for Brady. The trial court in both cases did not give Lyons the opportunity to present the evidence or witness testimony before the court. The court instead invited testimony solely from the defendant’s counsel, on the issue of attorney fees, and told Lyons to just have a seat in Brady case. The same statement was made by Judge Hatty that Id, at page 6, line 24, to page 7, line 13.of Brady case The December 11, 2008 hearing cannot be considered a meaningful opportunity for Lyons to present the merits of his case against the defendant. Both cases were so much alike it was like the same words were used by both Judges’ . In Brady case Lyons’ case is not frivolous, which could be shown if this Court grants Lyons the chance to present his case in court. Lyons can show the deed transferring title in 1194 Camelot to him; he can also show that the deed was recorded by Marian Kopp on May 31, 2005, which preceded the Kopp’s’ sale of the same property to the defendant. This presents a prima facie case to establish title in 1194 Camelot to Lyons. Furthermore, James Brady’s claim that he is a bona fide purchaser of 1194 Camelot is clearly unsustainable under the law, as it is well settled that “[a] subsequent purchaser of real property in Michigian will prevail over a competing interest holder in the same property only if the purchaser is ignorant of the competing interest and the purchaser is first to record its interest in the property.” Tibble v. Consumers Credit Union, 334 B.R 889 (W.D. Mich. Bankr. Ct. 2005). As James Brady’s interest was recorded after the recording Lyons’ interest, Brady’s interest does not prevail over Lyons’ interest in 1194 Camelot. All wrongfully and criminally protect by Defendant Lyons, and Karl and Marian Kopp and James Brady and Defendant Lyons prior attorney Thomas Halm partner with Defendant attorney now David Prine. For all of the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s judgment must be reversed, and this Court should remand the case for trial. (as Cited in Claims of Appeal and Exhibits), STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED Appellant George Lyons therefore requests that the trial court’s order dismissing Defendant’s complaint, and imposing attorney’s fees, costs, and other sanctions on Plaintiff, be reversed in its entirety, and that the case be remanded for trial. Appellant further asks this Court to direct that a different trial court judge and court be assigned to Plaintiff’s case, if possible, in order to ensure Plaintiff’s right to a fair trial. In addition Plaintiff requests the removal of Defendant’s attorney David Prine from this case and his company Halm and Prine P.C. for Conflict of Interest and David Prine’s partner’s role as a key witness for wrongfully switching warranty deed on lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Mi. In addition or in the alternative, if this court determines that Plaintiff did not adequately state his claims against defendant in Plaintiff’s original complaint, Appellant asks that this Court order the trial court to allow Plaintiff Lyons to PAGE 19: Amend his complaint to more clearly express his claims against Defendant without any requirement to pay fees that Plaintiff has no ability to pay. Respectfully submitted, _________________________________________________/ George Edward Lyons/Plaintiff/Appellant 6180 Academy Drive, Suite 4 Brighton, Michigan 734-330-1004 October 15th 2012

PERJURY IN LIVINGSTON COUNTY

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
CHAPTER LXII

PERJURY

750.422 Perjury committed in courts.

Sec. 422. Perjury committed in courts—Any person who, being lawfully required to depose the truth in any proceeding in a court of justice, shall commit perjury shall be guilty of a felony, punishable, if such perjury was committed on the trial of an indictment for a capital crime, by imprisonment in the state prison for life, or any term of years, and if committed in any other case, by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 15 years.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;CL 1948, 750.422.
Former law: See section 1 of Ch. 156 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5820; CL 1871, § 7653; How., § 9235; CL 1897, § 11305; CL
1915, § 14972; and CL 1929, § 16563.

750.422a Making intentional material false statement in petition as felony; penalty;
Consecutive terms of imprisonment.

Sec. 422a. (1) An individual who intentionally makes a material false statement in a petition filed under section 16 of chapter X of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 770.16, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both. (2) The court may order a term of imprisonment imposed under this section to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment being served by the
Individual.

History: Add. 2008, Act 411, Imd. Eff. Jan. 6, 2009.

750.423 Definition.

Sec. 423. Definition—Any person authorized by any statute of this state to take an oath, or any person of whom an oath shall be required by law, who shall wilfully swear falsely, in regard to any matter or thing, respecting which such oath is authorized or required, shall be guilty of perjury, a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 15 years.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;CL 1948, 750.423.

Former law: See section 2 of Ch. 156 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5821; CL 1871, § 7654; How., § 9236; CL 1897, § 11307; CL
1915, § 14974; and CL 1929, § 16565.



750.424 Subornation of perjury.
Sec. 424. Subornation of perjury—any person who shall be guilty of subornation of perjury, by procuring another person to commit the crime of perjury, shall be punished as provided in the next preceding section.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;CL 1948, 750.424.
Former law: See section 3 of Ch. 156 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5822; CL 1871, § 7655; How., § 9237; CL 1897, § 11307; CL 1915, § 14974; and CL 1929, § 16565.

750.425 Inciting or procuring one to commit perjury.

Sec. 425. Inciting or procuring one to commit perjury—Any person who shall endeavor to incite or procure any person to commit the crime of perjury, though no perjury be committed, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 5 years.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;CL 1948, 750.425.
Former law: See section 4 of Ch. 156 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5823; CL 1871, § 7656; How., § 9239; CL 1897, § 11309; CL
1915, § 14975; and CL 1929, § 16566.

750.426 Court reasonably believes perjury committed.

Sec. 426. Proceeding when court reasonably believes perjury has been committed—Whenever it shall appear to any court of record that any witness or party who has been legally sworn and examined or has made an affidavit in any proceeding in a court of justice, has testified in such a manner as to induce a reasonable presumption that he has been guilty of perjury therein, the court may immediately commit such witness or party, by an order or process for that purpose, or may take a recognizance with sureties, for his appearing to answer to an indictment for perjury; and thereupon the witness to establish such perjury may, if present, be bound over to the proper court, and notice of the proceedings shall forthwith be given to the prosecuting
Attorney.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;CL 1948, 750.426.
Rendered Wednesday, July 28, 2010 Page 1 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 132 of 2010

1. In The beginning Ronald and Virginia Storzbach and their attorney Richard Conlin. Who committed Blackmail or Extortion to acquire illegally funds from George Lyons and his company at Lot 16 Partridge Pointe. . In Stealing funds from George Lyons and his company Lot 16 Partridge Pointe, Brighton, Michigan.

See enclosed document. And Accounting along with copies of Building Contract and checks Lyons paid to construct the Storzbach’s home on Lot 16 Partridge Pointe.

2. The Storzbach and their attorney Richard Conlin committed Extortion or Blackmail against George Lyons and his company to illegal and stealing Lot 16 Partridge Pointe, Brighton. Michigan.


THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
CHAPTER XXXIV
EXTORTION

750.213 Malicious threats to extort money.
Sec. 213. Malicious threats to extort money—any person who shall, either orally or by a written or printed
Communication, maliciously threaten to accuse another of any crime or offense, or shall orally or by any
Written or printed communication maliciously threaten any injury to the person or property or mother, father,Husband, wife or child of another with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatever, or With intent to compel the person so threatened to do or refrain from doing any act against his will, shall be Guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 20 years or by a fine of not
More than 10,000 dollars.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;CL 1948, 750.213.Former law: See section 19 of Ch. 153 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5729; CL 1871, § 7528; How., § 9093; CL 1897, § 11488;CL 1915, § 15210; CL 1929, § 16726; Act 188 of 1897; and Act 83 of 1925.

750.214 Extortion by public officers.

Sec. 214. Extortion by public officers—Any person who shall wilfully and corruptly demand and receive from another for performing any service, or any official duty, for which the fee or compensation is established by law, any greater fee or compensation than is allowed or provided for the same, and any public officer, for
whom a salary is provided by law in full compensation for all services required to be performed by him, or by His clerks or deputies, who shall wilfully and corruptly demand and receive from any person any sum of,Money as a fee or compensation for any services required by law to be performed by him in his said office, or By his clerks or deputies, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor;

Both Storzbach’s and their Attorney Conlin committed extortion against George Lyons and his company.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;CL 1948, 750.214.
Former law: See section 22 of Ch. 156 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5841; CL 1871, § 7674; How., § 9256; CL 1897, § 11326;
CL 1915, § 14993; CL 1929, § 16584; and Act 179 of 1863.
Rendered

BLACKMAIL: The crime involving a threat for purposes of compelling a person to do an act against his or her will, or for purposes of taking the person's money or property.

The term blackmail originally denoted a payment made by English persons residing along the border of Scotland to influential Scottish chieftains in exchange for protection from thieves and marauders.

In blackmail the threat might consist of physical injury to the threatened person or to someone loved by that person, or injury to a person's reputation. In some cases the victim is told that an illegal act he or she had previously committed will be exposed if the victim fails to comply with the demand.

Although blackmail is generally synonymous with Extortion, some states distinguish the offenses by requiring that the former be in writing.

ENCLOSED IS ATTORNEY COLIN LETTER TO GEORGE LYONS AND HIS COMPANY WAS IN WRITING. Blackmail is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both.

STORZBACH’S AND HIS ATTORNEY RICHARD CONLIN COMMITTED ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL ACTS AGAINST GEORGE LYONS.



THE STORZBACH’S THEN GOES TO CONSUMER & INDUSTRY SERVICES AND MAKES FALSE POLICE REPORT (filing a fraudulent complaint) TO THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.

1.On Storzbach’s at the beginning. The Storzbach’s paid George Lyons and his company $41,000.00 to start the construction on Lot 16 Partridge Pointe, Pinckney, Mi.

2.George Lyons and his company used that $41,000.00 and started construction on the Storzbach’s project. Per the Building contract George Lyons and his company did over $64,000.00+ in the construction of Storzbach’s project. See accounting of Storzbach. This shows that George Lyons used up the $41,000.00 plus over $28,000.00 of George Lyons own money.

3.Then comes Storzbach’s and his attorney Richard Conlin committing Blackmail or Extortion against George Lyons and his company. To acquire Lot 16 Partridge Pointe, Brighton, Michigan See attached document. That if George Lyons does not sell Lot 16 Partridge Pointe, Brighton, Michigan.

4.Attorney Conlin would place a lien on all 8 lots George Lyons Company owns in Partridge Pointe. Brighton, Michigan. This is called Blackmail or Extortion in the legal system.

5.Once Storzbach’s illegally and criminally acquired Lot 16 Partridge Pointe. The Storzbach illegally and criminally removed George Lyons and his company from Partridge Pointe, Brighton, Michigan. Storzbach then files a fraudulent complaint to State of Michigan Consumer & Industry Services. And commits perjury against George Lyons and his company.

AGAIN THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
CHAPTER LXII

PERJURY

750.422 Perjury committed in courts.

Sec. 422. Perjury committed in courts—Any person who, being lawfully required to depose the truth in any proceeding in a court of justice, shall commit perjury shall be guilty of a felony, punishable, if such perjury was committed on the trial of an indictment for a capital crime, by imprisonment in the state prison for life, or any term of years, and if committed in any other case, by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 15 years.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;CL 1948, 750.422.
Former law: See section 1 of Ch. 156 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5820; CL 1871, § 7653; How., § 9235; CL 1897, § 11305; CL
1915, § 14972; and CL 1929, § 16563.

750.422a Making intentional material false statement in petition as felony; penalty;
Consecutive terms of imprisonment.

Sec. 422a. (1) An individual who intentionally makes a material false statement in a petition filed under section 16 of chapter X of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 770.16, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both. (2) The court may order a term of imprisonment imposed under this section to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment being served by the Individual.

History: Add. 2008, Act 411, Imd. Eff. Jan. 6, 2009.

750.423 Definition.

Sec. 423. Definition—Any person authorized by any statute of this state to take an oath, or any person of whom an oath shall be required by law, who shall wilfully swear falsely, in regard to any matter or thing, respecting which such oath is authorized or required, shall be guilty of perjury, a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 15 years. History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;CL 1948, 750.423.

Former law: See section 2 of Ch. 156 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5821; CL 1871, § 7654; How., § 9236; CL 1897, § 11307; CL 1915, § 14974; and CL 1929, § 16565.

750.424 Subornation of perjury.

Sec. 424. Subornation of perjury—any person who shall be guilty of subornation of perjury, by procuring another person to commit the crime of perjury, shall be punished as provided in the next preceding section.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;CL 1948, 750.424.
Former law: See section 3 of Ch. 156 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5822; CL 1871, § 7655; How., § 9237; CL 1897, § 11307; CL 1915, § 14974; and CL 1929, § 16565.




750.425 Inciting or procuring one to commit perjury.

Sec. 425. Inciting or procuring one to commit perjury—Any person who shall endeavor to incite or procure any person to commit the crime of perjury, though no perjury be committed, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 5 years.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;CL 1948, 750.425.
Former law: See section 4 of Ch. 156 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5823; CL 1871, § 7656; How., § 9239; CL 1897, § 11309; CL
1915, § 14975; and CL 1929, § 16566.


750.426 Court reasonably believes perjury committed.Sec. 426. Proceeding when court reasonably believes perjury has been committed—Whenever it shall appear to any court of record that any witness or party who has been legally sworn and examined or has made an affidavit in any proceeding in a court of justice, has testified in such a manner as to induce a reasonable presumption that he has been guilty of perjury therein,

the court may immediately commit such witness or party, by an order or process for that purpose, or may take a recognizance with sureties, for his appearing to answer to an indictment for perjury; and thereupon the witness to establish such perjury may, if present, be bound over to the proper court, and notice of the proceedings shall forthwith be given to the prosecuting Attorney.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;CL 1948, 750.426.
Rendered Wednesday, July 28, 2010 Page 1 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 132 of 2010

Legislative Council, State of Michigan Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov Former law: See section 5 of Ch. 156 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5824; CL 1871, § 7657; How., § 9239; CL 1897, § 11309; CL 1915, § 14976; and CL 1929, § 16567.

750.427 Perjury trial; securing and detaining papers.

Sec. 427. Securing and detaining papers, etc., necessary in perjury trial—If, in any proceeding in a court of justice, in which perjury shall be reasonably presumed, as aforesaid, any papers, books, or documents shall have been produced, which shall be deemed necessary to be used on any prosecution for such perjury, the court may, by order, detain the same from the person producing them so long as may be necessary in order to their being used in such prosecution.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931;CL 1948, 750.427.
Former law: See section 6 of Ch. 156 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5825; CL 1871, § 7658; How., § 9240; CL 1897, § 11310; CL 1915, § 14977; and CL 1929, § 16568.
Rendered Penalty for Filing a False Police Report in Michigan
By Mardi Link, eHow Contributor
updated: September 21, 2009

I want to do this!To file a false police report in Michigan is a crime. A person who intentionally makes a false report of a crime or causes a false report to be made by another person may be found guilty of either a felony or a misdemeanor, depending on the circumstances of the particular incident.

Michigan Law

1. Section 750.411a of the Michigan Penal Code, states that, "a person who intentionally makes a false report of the commission of a crime . . . to a peace officer, police agency of this state or of a local unit of government, 9-1-1 operator, or any other governmental employee . . . is guilty of a crime." The law also provides that a person who causes someone else to make a false report can be considered guilty of a crime as well.

Filing a false police report also falls under filing a false complaint to the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry service a local unit of government or government employee.

The following committed Perjury and the above and committed an illegal act to acquire illegal funds and property from George Lyons and his company. .

A. James and Betty Steeber: Owes Lyons $35,000.00

B. Ronald and Virginia Storzbach

Now following PEOPLE WHO FOLLOWED the Storzbach’s illegal and criminal lead the following in their illegal and criminal thinking that they could protect their lies.

Because of the Storzbach’s lies, these criminals also past clients thinking the Storzbach’s were telling the truth. But they were not. And neither were the past clients were telling the truth.

The criminal or past clients thinking their lies would be protected by Storzbach’s statements. The past clients thought their lies would be protected.

C. Richard and Ann Friberg. The State of Michigan Consumer & Industry founded that the Friberg’s were lying in their complaint. And sent a letter to George Lyons and his company did NO VIOLATIONS AGAINST THE FRIBERG’S.

But this finding was too late. It was sent one year after the Friberg’s using their false complaint to Complaint about George Lyons and his company to C & I.

D. George Lyons did not have the findings of the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services. See attached document from the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services.

E. George Lyons has an audio tapes of the Friberg stating they wanted out of the building contract with George Lyons. Because they were being transferred to
Gordville, Virginia. The Building contract with Lyons Builders, Inc. and Richard and Ann Friberg’s was terminated. by the Friberg's.

F. Because this evidence was hidden from George Lyons but recovered in 2007. This also shows that George Lyons used over $166,000.00 of his own money to finish this project.

G. George Lyons was illegally force to close by Friberg’s false lawsuit which he illegally acquire funds from that closing. Along with the following people who to acquire illegal funds from said closing.

H. Ronald and Virginia Storzbach-$ 25,000.00+ Steeber’s $35,000.00+ Patricia Ann Lyons $10,000.00+ The Real Estate commission that was not for sale by George Lyons and his company. But was illegal forced to sell because of Friberg’s false lawsuit.

Court Receiver Dale Cooper his commission. Attorney Cooper thru audio tapes committed fraud and obstruction of justice. To the Livingston County Court.

I. David and Carrie Feeback: $87,000.00 owed to George Lyons and his company. Thru audio tapes. The Feeback’s stated they paid George Lyons and his company $87,000.00 by his David Feeback’s handwritten sworn statement.

J. Feeback’s has to come forth and face the audio tape conversation with George Lyons and produce the $87,000.00 checks that he stated in the sworn statement that he paid George Lyons and his company. If the Feeback’s cannot produce these check’s a lien will be filed against the Feeback’s property.

A Forfeiture will be filed by George Lyons against Feeback’s property. To pay George Lyons and his company back his $87,000.00 plus interest. Also criminal charges will be filed by George Lyons against the Feeback’s

K. Ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons stole funds from the closing on Lot 88 Arrowhead subdivision, aka 5640 Shoshoni Pass, Pinckney, Mi. her interference caused George Lyons and his company to lose over $166,000.00 from said closing.

Patti conspired with Karl and Marian Kopp to hide evidence from George Lyons. Evidence that would prove that these people stole over $700,000.00 + from George Lyons and his company. There is more…

L. Karl and Marian Kopp filed a false forfeiture on George Lyons marital home. By stating that George Lyons never made any payments toward a loan. In the recovery of the evidence, George Lyons recovered a $24,000.00 check proving that the Kopp filed a false lawsuit/forfeiture against George Lyons marital home. See copy of check made out to Karl and Marian Kopp which states FOR PAYMENT ON CAMELOT

Proving overwhelming that George Lyons did in fact made payments on the loan and that George Lyons was totally paid up.

Thru audio tapes conversations and documents proves that the Kopp’s did in fact file a false lawsuit/forfeiture against George Lyons and that they did in fact commit perjury and a criminal acts to criminally acquire George Lyons marital home. There is more…

M.Curt and Mary Ann Lalonde: Framed George Lyons and his company for False N.S.F. charges. To steal money from George Lyons and his company. There is more including audio tapes.

N.Ivo and Heather Marcich: Framed George Lyons and his company for False N.S.F. charges. To steal money from George Lyons and his company. There is more including audio tapes.

Because the above people and who made fraudulent complaints to the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry services, and filed fraudulent lawsuit. Too illegally and criminally to remove George Lyons Residential Builders License and Real Estate broker’s license thru Perjury.

The Lost of income is overwhelming for George Lyons and his Companies. These illegal actions of these people stop George Lyons and his company from having his
Due Process of Law. And stopped George Lyons and his company from having any funds to acquire an Attorney to fight these criminals and their attorney’s.


CONTINUE: Misdemeanor/Felony Charges

2.The charges levied against a person accused of filing a false police report in Michigan are specifically tailored to the type of crime that was reported. For example, a person who files a false police report stating that a misdemeanor has occurred can be charged with a misdemeanor offense.

3.If the false report claims a felony was committed, the person who makes that report can be charged with a felony. In theory, additional charges of perjury may also apply if the case goes to court and the accused testifies falsely.

4.Thru the State of Michigan Consumer & Industry Service and the past clients filing false complaints (false report claims) did in fact committed a felony against George Lyons and his companies.

Punishment

The making of a false police report is taken seriously in Michigan. Punishment for a conviction of this crime depends upon whether the crime falsely reported was a misdemeanor or a felony. Misdemeanors carry a penalty of not more than 93 days in jail and not more than a $500 fine, or both.

The penalty for felony convictions is not more than four years in jail and not more than a $2,000 fine, or both.

Obstruction of Justice by the above people.

Obstruction of justice is the crime of interfering with the administration and due process of the law, including any criminal proceeding or investigation. Obstruction can be either a federal crime or a state crime, depending on the type of proceeding interfered with. To be guilty of obstruction of justice, a person must have knowledge of an investigation or proceeding and attempt to influence it.

The definition of obstruction is very broad and includes any interference with the application of the law, so there are many offenses that can be considered obstruction of justice. Some examples include:

• Lying to police during questioning; Making statements to police or to representative of the State of Michigan representative of Consumer & Industry services. And illegally criminally removing George Lyons and companies Residential Builders and Real Estate Broker’s license by making false and misleading statements. To acquire illegal funds from George Lyons and his companies.

• Falsifying or destroying documents sought by the police during an investigation;

• This was done by Ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons and Karl and Marian Kopp to illegal commit forfeiture of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. Attempting to steal and hiding evidence from George Lyons and his company. There motive was to steal 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan from George Lyons. Appraised in 1996 for $800,000.00

• Attempting to influence a jury or witness.
The right of individuals to remain silent only allows them to refuse to answer police questions. If they answer and lie, this is not protected and is obstruction.

Penalty for Obstruction of Justice.

The above committed obstruction of Justice against George Lyons and his companies by their illegal and criminal acts.

Since there are so many offenses that can constitute obstruction of justice, the penalty will vary based on the severity of the offense. Penalties can range from simple fines to jail time of up to ten years.

The above people believe that they got away with their illegal and criminal acts against George Lyons and his company. That the Statue of Limitation protected them in their illegal act.

These people would be wrong in their thinking. These illegal and criminal acts fall under equitable tolling protecting George Lyons and his companies.

Equitable tolling

Definition - Noun
: a doctrine or principle of tort law: a statute of limitations will not bar a claim if despite use of due diligence the plaintiff did not or could not discover the injury until after the expiration of the limitations period.
George Lyons and his company are in acting Equitable tolling for George Lyons and his companies against the illegal actions of the above people.

The above people committed A frame up or setup is an American term referring to the act of framing someone, that is, providing false evidence or false testimony in order to falsely prove someone guilty of a crime.[1] It is possibly derived from the English word frame, meaning to cause someone innocent to appear guilty by "putting the person in a picture frame of suspicion".[citation needed]

Sometimes the person who is framing someone else is the actual perpetrator of the crime. In other cases it is an attempt by law enforcement to get around due process. Motives include getting rid of political dissidents or "correcting" what they see as the court's mistake. Some lawbreakers will try to claim they were framed as a defense strategy. The term comes from the criminal subculture, with an early version being the claim that "someone is trying to put me in the frame," as in a picture frame.[citation needed]

Example: Frame-ups in labor disputes sometimes swings public opinion one way or the other. During a strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts, police acting on a tip discovered dynamite and blamed it on the union.

National media echoed an anti-union message. Later the police revealed that the dynamite had been wrapped in a magazine addressed to the son of the former mayor. The man had received an unexplained payment from the largest of the employers. Exposed, the plot swung public sympathy to the union.

[2]Frame-ups are often part of conspiracy theories. For example, there were frame-up accusations in the anthrax incident involving the United States Postal Service.[3]
Because of the illegal and criminal acts of the above people they STOP George Lyons and his company from Due process of Law.

Also the above item Framing of George Lyons and his company. Was done by Curt and Mary Ann Lalonde and Ivo and Heather Marcich. In this false N.S.F. Charges filed by the Livingston County Prosecutor’s office. Against George Lyons.

See evidence showing that Curt and Mary Ann Lalonde and Ivo and Heather Marcich did in fact caused the N.S.F. False charges against George Lyons and his company.
This in Fact was a criminal act caused by Curt and Mary Ann Lalonde and Ivo and Heather Marcich. This illegal act of these people causes George Lyons to face false charges of N.S.F. charges and 5 years of probation.

Per the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution-George Lyons and his companies was denied Due Process of Law…Because of these people.
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive rights and procedural rights.

Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.

The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the Confederacy and its officials.

These subjects fall under Due process of Law…or the Fifth Amendment.
Main article: Due process in the United States

The Fifth Amendment prevents individuals from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law.

(George Lyons was deprived of Due Process of Law. By the Above people and others.)

“Due process extends to all persons and corporate entities. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly binds the states with due process protections, through selective incorporation. Fifth Amendment due process protection has not always been granted to corporations, but was first applied to corporations in 1893 by the Supreme Court in Noble v. Union River Logging 147 U.S. 165. This was not long after the Supreme Court first granted 14th Amendment protection to corporations in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886.

The Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government (see Barron v. Baltimore), and the Fourteenth Amendment, by its own terms, applies against the States. While the Fifth Amendment includes a due process clause.

However, in Bolling v. Sharpe 347 U.S. 497 (1954), the Supreme Court averred that it was absurd that the Constitution could deny the states the power to abridge equal protection of the laws, yet permit that power to the Congress.


"[T]he concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive," reasoned Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Court thus interpreted the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause to include an equal protection element but has continued to hold that there is a difference between due process and equal protection in its fourteenth amendment jurisprudence.
Money that was stolen from and owed to George Lyons and his company by the below people.

James and Betty Steeber $ 35,000.00
Ronald and Virginia Storzbach $155,715.71
Mike Coad and Jamie Spiele $ 8,000.00
David and Carrie Feeback $ 87,000.00
Richard and Ann Friberg $166,000.00
Curt and Mary Ann Lalonde $162,566.74
Ivo and Heather Marcich $141,646.95

TOTAL $755,929.40


GREED

After stealing the above money from George Lyons and his companies. The following people continue to steal money from George Lyons and his Companies.
Ronald and Virginia Storzbach file a fraudulent judgment in the amount of
$55,000.00. +

Curt and Mary Ann Lalonde: file a fraudulent judgment approx $75,000.00 +

Ivo and Heather Marcich: filed a fraudulent judgment approx. $45,000.00 +
The above shows just plain greed.

FEAR STARTED THE FALSE FORFITURE, BUT IT WAS STILL A CRIMINAL ACT.

1.Because of the above and their illegal and criminal acts. And through audio tapes with Marian Kopp. Mrs. Kopp stated the reason that the Kopp’s committed a fraudulent forfeiture against George Lyons to illegally acquire 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan.

2.Was the FEAR OF THE ABOVE PEOPLE? AND THEIR ACQUIRING ILLEGAL JUDGMENTS AGAINST GEORGE LYONS AND HIS COMPANY. OF WHICH THEY COULD THEN FILE FALSE LIEN AGAINST 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MICHIGAN.

3.That is the reason the Kopp’s filed a fraudulent forfeiture against George Lyons and 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. And made a false police report against George Lyons for Entering without permission.

1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan George Lyons marital home, was stolen from George Lyons by Karl and Marian Kopp. Appraised out for $800,000.00 in 1996.

Lot 88 Arrowhead Subdivision, AKA 5640 Shoshoni Pass; Pinckney, Michigan was stolen by Ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons. Worth $55,000.00 in 1997. And causing George Lyons and his company to loss over $166,000.00 because of her illegal and criminal interference.

Patricia Lyons then stole Lot 2 Betty Lyons Lane, Pinckney, Michigan thru fraudulent statements and committing Perjury Ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons stole from George Lyons company Lyons Builders, Inc. Worth at the time $ 65,000.00.

ALL OF THE ABOVE COMMITTED PERJURY TO THE STATE OF MICHIGAN CONSUMER & INDUSTRY SERVICES AND THE LIVINGSTON COUNTY COURT SYSTEM TO ILLEGALLY AND CRIMINALLY ACQUIRE THE ABOVE FUNDS FROM GEORGE LYONS AND HIS COMPANY.

The reason this is being brought forth now is that Ex-Wife and Karl and Marian Kopp hidden evidence from George Lyons and his company.

Which they tried to destroy said evidence to wrongfully acquire 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. Through audio tapes and transcripts of Ex-wife Patricia Ann Lyons stating that she thru everything of George Lyons and his company out in the garbage.

But through C&C dumpster company. The Driver Call George Lyons in 2007 Stating “George who going to pay for the dumpster you or Patti. George Lyons informed the driver what Patti and the Kopp’s did. And the Driver stated George when I remove the Dumpster off the Property. It becomes my property. What driveway do you what me to drop off the dumpster.

George Lyons recovered all the clients’ evidence including audio tapes. That on every conversation’s with the above client’s. Proving their criminal acts and Perjury against George Lyons and his company.

Again George Lyons audio taped any and all meetings and conversations with these Client’s, subcontractors, and material handler’s. Which was recovered in 2007.




OTHER EVIDENCE WAS ACQUIRED THRU THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION IN 2010 FROM ALL THE POLICING AGENCIES IN LIVINGSTON COUNTY. AGAINST PEOPLE MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS AND POLICE REPORTS TO THESE AGENCY.TO ILLEGALLY AND CRIMINALLY SUPPORT THERE ILLEGAL FRAMING OF GEORGE LYONS AND HIS COMPANIES
There is more;

respectfully
George Lyons

See how the corruption of Livingston County court system were included in these allegations.

THERE IS OVERWHELMING A LOT MORE…THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO BE NOT KNOWN, BUT ARE WILLING TO COME FORTH UNDER THE State of Michigan whistleblower protection act§15.361 et seq. and case law.

Please review: 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


PLAINTIFF EMERGENCY MOTION TO DENY DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO MCR 2.403(N) (3) AND DENY OTHER RELIEF W/JUDGE’S COPY AND DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S THE REQUEST FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND GRANTING PLAINTFF’S EMERGENCEY DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MI.




PLAINTIFF EMERGENCY MOTION TO DENY DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO MCR 2.403(N) (3) AND DENY OTHER RELIEF W/JUDGE’S COPY AND DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S THE REQUEST FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND GRANTING PLAINTFF’S EMERGENCEY DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR 1194 CAMELOT, PINCKNEY, MI.

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, George Lyons, and in support of the Denying of Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to MCR 2.403(N) (3) and other relief w/Judge’s copy.

1. This matter was before a Case Evaluation Panel on Wednesday, October 29, 2008, and the Panel unanimously determined that Plaintiff’s was a frivolous.

2. This determination came to the through fabricated and false statements made by Defendant’s attorney Douglas Cameron. See audio tape conversations of the evaluation meeting.

3. Plaintiff did in fact reject the Panel’s determination and Defendant did in fact accepted a poisonous judgment from the evaluation panel that was wrongfully acquired by false statements of the Defendant’s attorney Douglas Cameron.

4. Also the Plaintiff has repeatedly stated that the Plaintiff could not have a fair trial in the Livingston County Courts both District and Civil. The Plaintiff has requested that all cases in Livingston County courts be transfer to Lansing Administration office for a De-nova hearing to be sent to a new court outside of Livingston County.

5. These requests were denied by all of the Judge’s of Livingston County Court system. These actions of the Judge’s denied Plaintiff due process of law and caused interference of interstate commerce and denied Plaintiff his due process of law.

Livingston County Courts did in fact committed Suppression of Due Process of Law for the Plaintiff.

6. 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).

7. 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.").

8. That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recues 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."

9. 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 recues herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).


10. 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.
11. The Livingston County Judges do not have the discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself/herself 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.

12. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
13. 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)

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

15. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
“
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....
”
16. 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 ...
”

17. 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.

18. 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".


19. 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

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.

20. 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:

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

22. 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. ALL CASES OF GEORGE LYONS AND HIS COMPANIES WERE AUTOMTICALLY DISQUALIFIED BY LAW. ALL CASES HAD NO JURISDICTION AND WERE RULED BY THE FEDERAL AMERICAN ARBITRATION CLAUSE.

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


24. All Judges’ 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.

25. ALL OF THE LIVINGSTON 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 total on the all of the Livingston County Judge’s.


26. That the Livingston County judge’s did in fact denied Plaintiff George Edward Lyons from his Constitutional rights of Due process of Law.

27. The Livingston County Judges’ 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.

28. As a result of the Panel’s determination and the misleading statements of Defendant’s attorney Douglas Cameron. And the Plaintiff’s rejection of said panel’s determination pursuant to MCR 2.403(N) (3), the Plaintiff should not be required to post a $5,000.00 cash or surety bond with the Court. If this criminal action is forced onto the Plaintiff. This will prove an outrageous travesty of Justice against the Plaintiff.

29. If the court forces the payment of the $5,000.00 cash or surety bond paid by the Plaintiff would be considered Extortion by the Court.

The Definition of extortion: Extortion, outwrestling, or exaction is a criminal offense, which occurs, when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups.

The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense.

Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] additionally, exact in its formal definition means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or to make somebody endure something unpleasant.[2]
In the United States, extortion may also be committed as a federal crime across a computer system, phone, by mail or in using any instrument of "interstate commerce." Extortion requires that the individual sent the message "willingly" and "knowingly" as elements of the crime. The message only has to be sent (but does not have to reach the intended recipient) to commit the crime of extortion.

Extortion is distinguished from blackmail. In blackmail, the blackmailer threatens to do something which would be legal or normally allowed.

Extortion is distinguished from robbery. In "strong arm" robbery, the offender takes goods from the victim with use of immediate force. In "robbery" goods are taken or an attempt is made to take the goods against the will of another—with or without force. A bank robbery or extortion of a bank can be committed by a letter handed by the criminal to the teller. In extortion, the victim is threatened to hand over goods, or else damage to their reputation or other harm or violence against them may occur. Under federal law extortion can be committed with or without the use of force and with or without the use of a weapon. A key difference is that extortion always involves a written or verbal threat whereas robbery can occur without any verbal or written threat (refer to U.S.C. 875 and U.S.C. 876).

The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. But extortion sometimes leads to more dangerous illicit activities which raises concerns with law enforcement agencies.

It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences. For example, certain lawsuits, fees for services such as banking, automobile insurance, gasoline prices, and even taxation, have all been labeled "legalized extortion" by people with various social or political beliefs.

30. The following statements are fact:

a. Per case no. 04-020652-CF Judge Reader case. Exhibit 1 WITNESS LIST: Per exhibit recorded with the Livingston county clerk office and per CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS.

b. DATED 9/04/04 Plaintiff Witness List calls Defendant’s attorney Douglas Cameron as a hostile witness and on page 8: number 50 Plaintiff called ALL LIVINGSTON COUNTY CIRCUIT/DISTRICT JUDGES WERE CALL AS MATERIAL WITNESS: LIVE TO confirm audio/transcript.

Which disqualifies all Judge’s of Livingston County Court, including Judge David Reader.

c. Per case no. 04-020652-CF Judge Reader case. Exhibit 2: Per exhibit recorded with the Livingston county clerk office and per CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS DATED 5/11/05 AND PRIOR PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL Plaintiff file a Motion of Disqualification of Judge Reader for Biasness. Judge Reader did not follow the State of Michigan court rules and the Federal Government rules of Disqualification of a Judge.

d. At this point if a Livingston County 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. THIS ACTION OF JUDGE READER STOPPED PLAINTIFF LYONS FROM ACQUIRING HIS DUE PROCESS OF LAW.


e. Per the State of Michigan Law and the Federal Government law this case 04-020652-CF which should have been transfer to the State of Michigan Lansing Administration office for a De-Novo hearing. This was not done the motion of the Plaintiff was wrongfully denied his due process of law.

f. The Plaintiff was denied Due Process of Law. Any and all judgments of Judge David Reader Judgments or rulings would be null and void per State of Michigan Law and Federal Law.

g. The wrongful order of case no. 04-20652-CF Granting Summary Disposition to Karl and Marian Kopp should be denied and the wrongfully vesting and quieting title to the real property at issue to Karl and Marian Kopp should be denied. In title was issued in the 44th Judicial Circuit Court. Case no. 04-20652-CF, by Judge Reader.

h. The Plaintiff should be granted and the vesting and quieting title to the real property issued to Plaintiff George Edward Lyons on 6/11/04 Judge Daniel Burress granted Default Judgment.

i. The Kopp’s refused acceptance of Certified mailings for Notice of Default Judgment to grant the vesting and quieting of title to 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan. See Exhibit 3.

j. The Default judgment was granted and then wrongfully removed because the Kopp’s committed perjury by stating that they never received any notification of the hearing for the Default Judgment of the Plaintiff being presented to Judge Burress court. The Kopp’s refused all certified mailings from the Plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF LYONS WAS GRANTED COMPLETE POSSESSION OF SAID PROPERTY BY KARL AND MARIAN KOPP ON MAY 31, 2005.

1. On May 31, 2005 the Kopp’s Recorded at the Livingston County Register of Deeds a Warranty Deed completely granting back possession to Plaintiff and his ex-wife for 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Michigan 48169 for $1.00 EXHIBIT 4:

2. The Defendant Brady has no legal right to the possession of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. The Plaintiff should be granted immediately possession of 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. The Plaintiff Motion for Default Judgment that has been submitted to this court should be granted by Judge Stanley Latreille.

3. The Defendant Brady along with past clients Mr. & Mrs. Kopp could be possibly be held for criminally responsible for accepting and committing extortion, tortuous interference and civil conspiracy in accepting stolen property and wrongfully in the purchasing a 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. property for half the price it’s worth.

4. THIS WAS AN ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT BRADY AND MR. & MRS. KOPP TO REMOVE TITLE OF THE SAID PROPERTY OUT OF THE WRONGFUL HANDS OF MR. & MRS KOPP AND PUT ANOTHER UNLAWFUL OBSTRUCTION FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO LEGALLY ACQUIRE BACK HIS SAID MARITAL PROPERTY BACK. Per the Michigan Penal Code:

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)Act 328 of 1931750.535 Buying, receiving, possessing, concealing, or aiding in concealment of stolen, embezzled, or converted property or motor vehicle; violation; penalty; rebuttable presumption; enhanced sentence based on convictions; prohibited defense.

POSSIBLE CHARGE’S AGAINST DEFENDANT BRADY AND MR. & MRS. KOPP PER THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) ACT 328 OF 1931
Sec. 535.

(1) A person shall not buy, receive, possess, conceal, or aid in the concealment of stolen, embezzled, or converted money, goods, or property knowing, or having reason to know or reason to believe, that the money, goods, or property is stolen, embezzled, or converted.

(2) If any of the following apply, a person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $15,000.00 or 3 times the value of the property purchased, received, possessed, or concealed, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:


(a) The property purchased, received, possessed, or concealed has a value of $20,000.00 or more.

(b) The property purchased, received, possessed, or concealed has a value of $1,000.00 or more but less than $20,000.00, and the person has 2 or more prior convictions for committing or attempting to commit an offense under this section. For purposes of this subdivision, however, a prior conviction does not include a conviction for a violation or attempted violation of subsection (4) (b) or (5).


(3) If any of the following apply, a person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or 3 times the value of the property purchased, received, possessed, or concealed, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:

(a) The property purchased, received, possessed, or concealed has a value of $1,000.00 or more but less than $20,000.00.

a. The property purchased, received, possessed, or concealed has a value of $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00, and the person has 1 or more prior convictions for committing or attempting to commit an offense under this section. For purposes of this subdivision, however, a prior conviction does not include a conviction for a violation or attempted violation of subsection (4) (b) or (5).

(4) If any of the following apply, a person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the value of the property purchased, received, possessed, or concealed, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:

(a) The property purchased, received, possessed, or concealed has a value of $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.

(b) The property purchased, received, possessed, or concealed has a value of less than $200.00, and the person has 1 or more prior convictions for committing or attempting to commit an offense under this section or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to this section.


(5) If the property purchased, received, possessed, or concealed has a value of less than $200.00, a person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00 or 3 times the value of the property purchased, received, possessed, or concealed, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine.

(6) The values of property purchased, received, possessed, or concealed in separate incidents pursuant to a scheme or course of conduct within any 12-month period may be aggregated to determine the total value of property purchased, received, possessed, or concealed.


(7) A person shall not buy, receive, possess, conceal, or aid in the concealment of a stolen motor vehicle knowing, or having reason to know or reason to believe, that the motor vehicle is stolen, embezzled, or converted. A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or 3 times the value of the motor vehicle purchased, received, possessed, or concealed, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine. A person who is charged with, convicted of, or punished for a violation of this subsection shall not be convicted of or punished for a violation of another provision of this section arising from the purchase, receipt, possession, concealment, or aiding in the concealment of the same motor vehicle. This subsection does not prohibit the person from being charged, convicted, or punished under any other applicable law.

(8) If the prosecuting attorney intends to seek an enhanced sentence based upon the defendant having 1 or more prior convictions, the prosecuting attorney shall include on the complaint and information a statement listing the prior conviction or convictions. The existence of the defendant's prior conviction or convictions shall be determined by the court, without a jury, at sentencing or at a separate hearing for that purpose before sentencing. The existence of a prior conviction may be established by any evidence relevant for that purpose, including, but not limited to, 1 or more of the following:


(a) A copy of the judgment of conviction.
(b) A transcript of a prior trial, plea-taking, or sentencing.
(c) Information contained in a presentence report.
(d) The defendant's statement.

(9) A person who is a dealer in or collector of merchandise or personal property, or the agent, employee, or representative of a dealer or collector of merchandise or personal property who fails to reasonably inquire whether the person selling or delivering the stolen, embezzled, or converted property to the dealer or collector has a legal right to do so or who buys or receives stolen, embezzled, or converted property that has a registration, serial, or other identifying number altered or obliterated on an external surface of the property, is presumed to have bought or received the property knowing the property is stolen, embezzled, or converted. This presumption is rebuttable.

(9) If the sentence for a conviction under this section is enhanced by 1 or more prior convictions, those prior convictions shall not be used to further enhance the sentence for the conviction pursuant to section 10, 11, or 12 of chapter IX of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 769.10, 769.11, and 769.12.

(10) It is not a defense to a charge under this section that the property was not stolen, embezzled, or converted property at the time of the violation if the property was explicitly represented to the accused person as being stolen, embezzled, or converted property.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- Am. 1941, Act 11, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;-- CL 1948, 750.535 ;-- Am. 1952, Act 40, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952 ;-- Am. 1957, Act 69, Eff. Sept. 27, 1957 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 242, Eff. Mar. 30, 1973 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 55, Imd. Eff. Apr. 1, 1974 ;-- Am. 1979, Act 11, Eff. Mar. 27, 1980 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 311, Eff. Jan. 1, 1999 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 720, Eff. Apr. 1, 2003 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 374, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006

Constitutionality: The statutory presumption in MCL 750.535(2) that a dealer in personal property is presumed to know that property received with an altered serial number is stolen does not violate due process requirements because there is a rational connection between the proven facts and the fact presumed. People v Gallagher, 404 Mich 429; 273 NW2d 440 (1979).

THE REQUEST IN GRANTING OF PLAINTIFF REQUEST TO EQUITABLE TOLLING:

1. The past clients of Attorney Douglas Cameron. Karl and Marian Kopp. In filing a false police report case no. 99-183 for Entering without permission. Karl Kopp conspired with Marian J. Kopp, and filed a fabricated false police report to the Pinckney Police department. Of which the Plaintiff Lyons was wrongfully found not competent to stand trial.

2. This ruling was obstruction of justice by the Livingston County Court. That granted the Plaintiff Count appointed attorney Mac Spickard and the Livingston County prosecutor who requested and motion to directed Plaintiff to the Ypsilanti Forensic center. Plaintiff was wrongfully and falsely examined by examiner Judith Thompson.

3. Both the Court appointed Attorney for Plaintiff Mac Spickard and the Ypsilanti Examiner committed fraud upon the court. This illegal action of the both had Plaintiff George Lyons denied his due process of Law. This evokes and grants the Plaintiff Lyons the right to Equitable Tolling for the Plaintiff. See Exhibit 5:

(1) False letter from Ypsilanti Forensic center by examiner Judith Thompson.

(2) Letter from Department of Veteran Affairs Medical center Dr. Mark Lyubkin, M.D. Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry.

4. The Equitable tolling for the Plaintiff Lyons. Allows Plaintiff Lyons an action to proceed despite its having been brought outside the statute of limitations when there exist the circumstances that have prevented timely filing of the action through no fault of the Plaintiff. See Truitt v. County of Wayne, 148 F.3d 644, 648 (6th Cir. 1998).

5. The Plaintiff Lyons Equitable tolling is a principle of Tort law stating that a statute of limitations shall not bar a claim in cases where the Plaintiff Lyons, despite use of due diligence, could not or did not discover the injury until after the expiration of the statute of limitations period.

6. That any and all previous cases of the Plaintiff. Including case no: 04-020652-CF of Judge David Reader in his judgments/ruling and other judge’s and their judgments/rulings that was filed against the Plaintiff Lyons are null and void per the equitable tolling status and denying Plaintiff Lyons his due process of law by the judge’s of Livingston County.

7. Due to the Defendant Brady and Past Defendant’s Kopp’s Attorney Douglas Cameron and there Bizarre and their criminal acts in their Court filings and motions, of Past Defendant’s Kopp’s and Defendant Brady should be barred from filing any lawsuits in the Livingston County District, Probate and Circuit Court regarding the real property at issue, and Plaintiff’s acquisition thereof, until such time as Past Defendant’s Kopp’s and Defendant Brady until such time as Defendant’s Kopp’s has paid in full, both the One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) sanction wrongly imposed by Judge Frank Del Vero in case #97-303-LT that was acquired through perjury and criminal act of the Kopp’s and the Five Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Six Dollar and Sixty Cent ($5,496.69) wrong judgment for false attorney Fees and expenses awarded by Judge David Reader in case #04-206520 CF of which are now should be paid in full to the Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Honorable Court grant him the following relief.
A. Enter an Order dismissing Defendant’s actions with prejudice:

B. Enter an Order dismissing Defendant’s Summary Disposition:

C. Enter an Order dismissing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to MCR 2.403 (N)(3) and for other relief.

D. Enter an Order Granting Emergency Motion for Default Judgment for said property 1194 Camelot, Pinckney, Mi. in favor of the Plaintiff.

E. Enter and Order Granting Plaintiff Lyons Equitable Tolling.

F. Enter a Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Brady and Past Defendant’s Karl F. Kopp and Marian J. Kopp H/W for monetary damages in an amount sustained by the proofs.

G. Enter a Judgment awarding Plaintiff his actual cost and attorney fees incurred in the defense of this groundless and vexatious actions committed by Defendant Brady and Past Defendant Karl F. Kopp and Marian Joan Kopp:

H. Enter an Order rescuing Attorney Douglas Cameron from this case.

I. Enter an Order Barring Defendant Brady and Past Defendant’s Karl F. Kopp and Marian J. Kopp from filing any other lawsuits in the Livingston County District, Probate and Circuit Courts regarding the real property at issue, and Defendant’s acquisition thereof, until such time Defendant’s Brady and Past Defendant’s Karl F. Kopp and Marian J. Kopp pays three times the amount in full to the Plaintiff of the following, both the One Thousand Five Hundred Dollar ($1,500.00) sanction wrongfully imposed by Judge Frank Del Vero in case #97-303-LT and the Five Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Six Dollar and Sixty Cent ($5,496.60) judgment for the false attorney fees and expense wrongfully awarded by Judge David Reader in case #04-20652-CF as well as any cost and attorney fees awarded in this action, and

J. Grant Plaintiff such further relief as the Honorable Court Deems just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,


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

Monday, December 08, 2008






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


PLAINTIFF’S BREIF IN SUPPORT OF DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PURSUANT TO MCR 2.403(N)(3) AND OTHER RELIEF W/JUDGE’S COPY AND DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S THE REQUEST FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION





PLAINTIFF’S BREIF IN SUPPORT OF DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PURSUANT TO MCR 2.403(N) (3) AND OTHER RELIEF W/JUDGE’S COPY AND DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S THE REQUEST FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION

INTRODUCTION

The following Plaintiff statements are in response to the fraudulent statements of Attorney Douglas Cameron and his clients Defendant JAMES Brady and Mr. & Mrs. Kopp in the said Document Mr. Cameron presented as a CASE EVALUATION OF DEFENDANT JAMES BRADY. Also named in this response are the Judges of Livingston County as IN NOT following the letter of the Law.

PAGE 1 and Paragraph 1 of the Case Evaluation of Defendant JAMES BRADY states: The Plaintiff GEORGE LYONS has commenced yet another bizarre action.

Plaintiff response statement: Plaintiff presented motions that were made and not followed by the Livingston County court Judge’s and hereby not giving the Plaintiff his due process of Law and these Judge’s did not follow the U.S. Constitution by both the Livingston County judges and Attorneys.

Further, the Plaintiff states it is the bizarre actions by the attorneys including Defendant James Brady and Attorney Douglas Cameron who may be committing fraud upon this court. Along with the Judge’s of Livingston County who may have committed interference with Interstate Commerce by not disqualifying themselves in previous cases that were heard by these same said judges and not granting the Plaintiff his Due Process of Law.

Plaintiff George Lyons was not given his due process of Law. Should a Livingston County 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."). Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the parties has been denied of any of his / her property.

Then the judge’s 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 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. and Lyons, Inc. Realtors 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 done 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 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 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 recues 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". The 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 an 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 removes 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 without 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 Defendant’s 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 and Past Defendant’s Karl F. Kopp and Marian J. Kopp.

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
Monday, December 08, 2008
http://findingjusticeforpeople.blogspot.com





































IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY:

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 George Lyons disqualified the enclosed Judges for biasness.


Plaintiff Motions for Disqualification of Judge’s of the Livingston County Judge’s could in all probability be charge for possible treason per the following.

All of the Livingston county judge’s did issue orders after he/she has been disqualified by law, and George Lyons has been denied of his property, the Livingston County judge’s may have been 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 Judge’s.


"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. Also please go to http://findingjusticeforpeople.blogspot.com

(Please Read Article Three In the Emergency Motions was drafted by George Edward Lyons)
The Definitions incorporated: These following definitions are to help the people who are not legal minded readers in having a better knowledge in the illegal actions that was probable preformed against George Edward Lyons and his company and family by the Livingston County courts systems and attorney’s.

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"?

Judges is an officer of the court, as well as is 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. 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 recues 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, 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.

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 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 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 lawGeorge 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.

ALL CASES OF GEORGE LYONS AND HIS COMPANIES WERE AUTOMTICALLY DISQUALIFIED BY LAW. ALL CASES HAD NO JURISDICTION AND WERE RULED BY THE FEDERAL AMERICAN ARBITRATION CLAUSE.

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

All Judges’ 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.

ALL OF THE LIVINGSTON JUDGE’S WERE DISQUALIFIED FOR BIASNESS BY PLAINTIFF GEORGE LYONS FOR THE JUDGE’S IN THE LIVINGSTON COUNTY JUDGE’S. PLAINTIFF FILED over 34 motions for disqualification of the Livingston County Judge’s.

That the Livingston County judge’s denied Plaintiff George Edward Lyons from his Constitutional rights. The Livingston County Judges’ 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.

Monday, December 08, 2008
Respectfully submitted

______________________________
George Edward Lyons / Plaintiff
11994 Weiman
Pinckney, Michigan 48169
734-954-4040
http://findingjusticeforpeople.blogspot.com