Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Motion to Strike Answer Brief for Willful Fraud Upon the Court; or, in
the alternative; Conditional Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Motion,
and Corresponding No Objection to Striking Same from the Record
Comes now the Appellant, Theresa M. Martin, providing alternatives to and for
this Court’s convenience and wisdom in ruling, properly, by stating the following:
1. This appeal is, by no means, worried about any mere corrections of errors in
procedure, rule and/or law, but a planned formality in exhaustion of state remedies,
prior to strict obedience of Ephesians 5:11, Matthew 18:17, and etc., in center stage
of the United States District Court, along with all mandated law enforcement units.
Florida courts, judges, attorneys and related persons as incompetent and/or corrupt,
and one has only to review all the materials and history herein, to deduce the same.
1
3. Appellee’s Answer Brief did dramatically sour the present situation, as being
fully replete with example after example of unmitigated, reckless and willful fraud.
(dereliction of legal duties, conspiracy, and conflict of interest - Reply Brief, at 12)
(fraud upon the court - Reply Brief, generally), Mr. Corrente has also attempted to
criminally defraud the law in these matters using additional schemes: i.e., by trying
to defraud that this review only comes through one (1) procedural device of writ of
certiorari, when this matter arises, in fact, through a dual framework of inextricably
intertwined review from both discretionary and direct appeal routes, both in one,
and, indeed, had there existed sufficient page limits room for the Reply Brief, the
arguments would have been raised that the State, by seeking to address and answer
only the discretionary prong of this appeal (“writ of certiorari”, “no departure from
the essential requirements of law”), has also waived and conceded Theresa’s direct
review prong in this appeal, further entitling Theresa to absolute relief in her favor.
5. Mr. Corrente even “conjured up” new “facts” out of thin, blue air, such as
arguing about “Leon County” (Answer Brief, 7) (Leon County is not involved…).
2
7. Heck, Mr. Corrente even miserably failed to include a standard of review for
this Court, and to *actually* sign his Certificate of Service, i.e., his Answer is void.
8. One could go on and on, shredding nearly every single averment of Corrente
as willful fraud and criminal action, but it is hoped the point has been made clear.
9. Without doubt, Mr. Corrente’s design was to “influence” this Court, with his
plethora of written dung droppings, enough to defraud and obstruct the due course
of established law within these matters, and to further shield/assist criminal perps.
10. Moreover, had Mr. Corrente’s fraudulent scheme enjoyed a modicum of any
success, and this Court had ruled in favor of the State, then his fraud upon the court
would be complete, per the elements of law (see, e.g., Bulloch v. United States, 763
F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985); Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7
Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23; and, etc.), and, in that event, Mr.
Corrente would have pulled the relevant Justices here into an untenable situation,
as co-defendants with himself and the lower fools under civil lawsuit, whether that
would be a certain-named three (3) Justices on panel assigned, or the full en banc
Court, if a fraudulent ruling would emanate by the form of a per curiam opinion.
11. Even further, Mr. Corrente’s wicked scheme to embroil the Justices of this
Fifth District into molten-hot fraud and criminal activity would have induced new
cause of action in the federal proceedings to seek immediate federal takeover and
supervision of the entire Florida court system, due to a then-100% record of fraud.
3
12. This Court should now, accordingly, find itself extremely disturbed over Mr.
Corrente’s subterfuge, and begin to weigh out the proper addressing of that issue.
13. Now, see, due to the State’s once-again total disdain for ethics, its own laws,
or even a scintilla of decency, let alone fair play, Theresa shall not be satisfied with
receiving any relief less than as was specifically detailed. See Initial Brief, 44-45.
14. This Motion to Strike the Appellee’s Answer Brief is quite lawfully and
strongly based on documented argument, facts and law, and Theresa would have
every right to insist - and to enforce - this Court’s immediate granting of the same.
15. However, that will be unnecessary, should this Court conclude that Theresa
is fully entitled to all relief that she seeks within her Initial Brief, and order same.
16. In that latter event, Theresa voluntarily dismisses this Motion to Strike, and
further, has no objections to the Court even striking this instant motion to strike.
17. There is not enough reason to send additional persons to federal prison, and
have more retirement accounts, pensions, and all other benefits erased under F.S. §
112.3173, just in order for Theresa to now be finally restored with the justice she
should have had under law, years ago, and to have all her monies finally returned.
18. Appellant, therefore, strongly urges this Court to exude impeccable wisdom
in determining the latter course of above-suggested relief shall be the proper result.
Honorable Court’s convenience and wisdom, and urges the latter now be Ordered.
4
Respectfully submitted,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify: that on this __29__ day of March, 2010, a true and complete
copy of the foregoing alternative motions in relief, by depositing the same in the
United States mail, first class postage preaffixed, has been duly served upon:
Appellant pro se
Theresa M. Martin
10918 Norwood Avenue
Port Richey, FL 34668
727-857-4193
amothersfight@yahoo.com
Theresa M. Martin
10918 Norwood Avenue
Port Richey, FL 34668
727-857-4193
amothersfight@yahoo.com