Exclusively for Lawyers - Click Here | Home | Log in | Signup




Critically Important (Class Action)
Join class action ( 0 users joined this class action )

Click Here to Send a Private Email to "Critically Important"

Date of posting: 2015-02-10 04:11:07
Page Views: 3198
Dispute with: A Government Organization
Amount: Over $100,000
Description: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (JUDICIAL BRANCH) REFUSES TO AFFIRMATIVELY ACKNOWLEDGE I SERVED ON ACTIVE DUTY!

I’m an unemployed retired disable combat veteran who volunteered for - and served in support of - EVERY major conflict the U.S. has been involved in for the past 50 years.

In 2010, I was RECALLED. In 2012, SERGIO MENDEZ, Esq. filed a Complaint for Partition concerning Dad’s house – and followed it with a “Not on Active Duty” Affidavit & Motion for Default.

After re-retiring, I REMOVE the case to Federal Court.

Judge SIGLER IGNORED the removal, continued to hold hearings and taxed ALL my inherence from the forced house sale to MENDEZ – and ISRAEL REYES, the former judge she appointed Special Magistrate to JUST sign the contract in PLACE of me and close the sale – and ordered I pay him the remaining unpaid sum of $3,266 (REYES’ award: $21,000).

All SIGLER’S post-removal hearings and orders are UNLAWFUL - and I ignore them.

District Judge LENARD and Magistrate Judge O’SULLIVAN, inter alia, REFUSE (surreptitiously of course) to affirmatively acknowledge my active duty service – despite the MANY substantiating documents attached to my Notice of Removal.

Why? To AVOID complying with 28 U.S.C. § 1442a that gives sued servicemembers the EXPLICIT RIGHT to effect removal.

Despite the record showing active duty – AND proof of a false affidavit, a federal crime – LENARD remands the case.

I APPEAL. FIVE appellate judges REFUSE to affirmatively acknowledge I served on active duty – after ALSO receiving substantial, substantiating documents – and DENY me the RIGHT to an appeal.

HOW? They cite “28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)(d)” - but REFUSE to quote it.

Instead, they DIG until they find Alvarez v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 508 F.3d 639, 641 – where court ERRED by quoting the 1st half of §1447(d) as a COMPLETE sentence by substituting a period in place of a comma – and CITE it as reason for the denial.

They HIDE “… , except an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 [and § 1442a] or 1443 of this title shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.”

CASES: Federal appellate (13-12424-F); District (13-cv-21177-JAL); Circuit (12-12413-CA-42); State appellate (3DCA: 09-3164; 09-1308; 09-2201; 09-2544; 11-2771; 12-2507 & 12-2865); Probate (08-704-MH; 08-1496-GD-3; 11-2053-CP-03).

In ALL case records there’s NO AFFIRMATIVE ALLEGATION OR SHOWING that I’ve done ANYTHING legally or morally wrong!

REYES seeks to UP his award to $34,000+ – and SIGLER sees a chance to NULLIFY the removal via case law – but ONLY if they can force me to PARTICIPATE in state proceedings. I REFUSE. I’m ARRESTED and SIGLER ordered I be JAILED indefinitely.

After suffering incommunicado for 3 DAYS IN JAIL (solitary administrative lockdown) I was brought before SIGLER again.

Under duress, I partially fill out their “fact information sheet.” I’m given 30 days (Feb. 21) to submit a complete form. I’ve no doubt SIGLER will jail me AGAIN when I don’t comply.

PLEASE HELP! I NEED LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN FEDERAL COURT, PUBLICITY & FEDERAL INVESTIGATIVE INTERVENTION.

Ralph Irwin
Major, USAF (Ret.)
27331 SW 164 Ave
Homestead, FL 33031
irwin2@bellsouth.net
786-404-3288
Zipcode: 33031
City: Homestead
State: Florida

Comments

Earn credibility, login with your Facebook account.

Members should use caution and good judgment when posting cases for review by the HelpMeSue.com community. Members could be held legally responsible for damages to a person's or entity's reputation if a court were to find that the post constitutes libel or defamation. Under federal law (the Communications Decency Act), because HelpMeSue.com does not censor posts or investigate them for accuracy, HelpMeSue.com is not legally responsible for the posts that members post, even if those remarks are defamatory. However, this law does not protect the person who writes the post from responsibility for it.