TRUTH
A sorely missed commodity in American Courts!
In the American Bar Association’s Center for Professional Responsibility; Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.1: Truthfulness in Statements to Others; the rule cannot be more specific:
“A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements.”
But should you take part in a legal battle, don’t expect any of that to matter.
Why? Well there’s 18 U.S. Code § 1001*1 – Statements or entries generally.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
Wait. There’s More…
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
One might expect the opposite. Its official. Are you in a civil case? Did you know you can lie all you want to? (If you represent yourself; don’t do it!) If fake topics, misleading interpretations of law and the other of thousands of lawyer tactics were covered by the very law made to say so… almost all worthless actions would stop. But since that is not the case:
Pettifoggers*2 use that freedom to lie. The massive gaping legal hole of the freedom to make materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations in court; is what allows the pettifogger the ability to confuse and obfuscate and get away with it.
One of the most difficult things to attempt to explain to people reviewing the cases under in Re; Lee Kent Hempfling et. ux. is the sad fact that facts are not relevant, truth does not matter, courts do not, and can not stop the lies.
But here is the tool most favored:
The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.
The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine requires knowing what it is and what it means. For that we turn to KEITH LANCE, et al., APPELLANTS v. GIGI DENNIS, COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE on appeal from the united states district court for the District of Colorado The Suprme Court of the United States issued a Per Curiam opinion No. 05–555. Decided February 21, 2006.
The court stated: “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents the lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by “state-court losers” challenging “state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U. S. 280, 284 (2005). In this case, the District Court dismissed plaintiffs’ suit on the ground that they were in privity with a state-court loser. We hold that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar plaintiffs from proceeding, and vacate the District Court’s judgment.” …
“This Court is vested, under 28 U. S. C. §1257, with jurisdiction over appeals from final state-court judgments. We have held that this grant of jurisdiction is exclusive: “Review of such judgments may be had only in this Court.” District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U. S. 462, 482 (1983) (emphasis added); see also Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers, 398 U. S. 281, 286 (1970); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413, 416 (1923). Accordingly, under what has come to be known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments”
[NOTE: Every one of the five cases included in Re Lee Kent Hempfling et.ux. Is lacking a final order from being public. That does not mean those orders do not exist, I am sure they do, they are each listed on the appropriate docket with missing content; and they are in force but in secret until made otherwise. Not once, in any case was a court ever requested to overrule any other court, state or federal. The request was always to require the lower courts to release the orders they claim to hold. The defense counsel in both Hempfling v Stanford and Hempfling v CVDC Holdings et.al. in Phoenix District Court almost a decade ago: proposed Rooker-Feldman as their primary defense ignoring the requests made of the courts. In each instance the court upheld the fake Rooker-Feldman concoctions. That managed to stop the cases but now there is no legal reason to stop the cases.]
“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine takes its name from the only two cases in which we have applied this rule to find that a federal district court lacked jurisdiction. In Rooker, a party who had lost in the Indiana Supreme Court, and failed to obtain review in this Court, filed an action in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the state-court judgment. We viewed the action as tantamount to an appeal of the Indiana Supreme Court decision, over which only this Court had jurisdiction, and said that the “aggrieved litigant cannot be permitted to do indirectly what he no longer can do directly.” 263 U. S., at 416. Feldman, decided 60 years later, concerned slightly different circumstances, with similar results. The plaintiffs there had been refused admission to the District of Columbia bar by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and sought review of these decisions in federal district court. Our decision held that to the extent plaintiffs challenged the Court of Appeals decisions themselves—as opposed to the bar admission rules promulgated nonjudicially by the Court of Appeals—their sole avenue of review was with this Court. 460 U. S., at 476.” [Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (2006)]
A state court dental malpractice case, cloaked in the knowledge that a crime was committed in the clerk’s office in hiding documents given to a deputy clerk is placed in limbo in violation of FRCP Rule 62 with further actions prohibited by the court. The state court refused to release the final order and the crimes committed before the trial took place have been left to hang on the legal vine of ignoring away problems. We have tried ever since for justice to be known.
The District case Hempfling v Voyles (v Volkmer) et.al.; was a complaint about there not being a state ruling. It was defended in Phoenix District Court by claiming there was a state ruling, petitioners lost and the district court could not address it. Evidence contains a letter from the then Clerk of Court of Pinal County, Chad Roche that the place holding order shown on the docket was not the final order and would be replaced by it. “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents the lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by ‘state-court losers’”. The entire problem has been no release or court orders.
As it were: A case filed prior to the Volkmer case (Hempfling v Stanford 4 et. al.) was defended by the exact same Assistant Attorney General of Arizona; Hartman-Telez,arising from the same state case, where the new ‘clerk’ had determined on her own that petitioners were losers in the malpractice case. No such ruling was ever issued. The case was defended with the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, by the same Assistant Attorney General, for the same state case that still to this day does not have a final order issued.
Delays in trial outcomes did not start in the Ninth Circuit.
Hempfling v. LM Communications et. al.
Fourth Circuit Charleston South Carolina District Court, Judge Patrick Michael Duffy. 2004! Last in 2006. #05-1987.
The case was filed as an employment discrimination action. A counter claim was filed but never heard by the court. That counter claim raised the previously made allegations of an external direct action control of the EEOC by the NAACP of South Carolina, involving then SC AG McMaster, SC Senator Lindsey Graham and the SC Chapter of the NAACP. It managed to destroy my claim (trying to hire a black female) in order to give a preferred treatment settlement with the black lady I tried to hire. The order provided by that court simply affirmed the magistrate’s documents, none of which discussed the actual case. NO FINAL ORDER was ever publicly issued by the Charleston South Carolina District Court.The empty docket number awaits the order. Taking it to the appeals court was worthless. NO FINAL ORDER ISSUED.
Hempfling v. LM Communications Inc.,
172 F. App’x 523 (2006)
March 27, 2006 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · No. 05-1987
172 F. App’x 523
Lee Kent HEMPFLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LM COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED, a Kentucky Corporation; LM Communications of South Carolina, Incorporated, a Kentucky Corporation; LM Communications II of South Carolina, Incorporated, a Kentucky Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 23, 2006.
Lee Kent Hempfling, Appellant Pro Se. Greg Horton, Buist, Moore, Smythe, McGee, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lee Kent Hempfling appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Hempfling’s employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hempfling v. LM Commc’ns, Inc., No. CA-04-1373-2-PMD (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
During the Charleston South Carolina District Court trial and lead up periods mail addressed to the court was stolen by someone inside USPS. Another instance took place in the court house. The counter claim alone would have tied up anything to prosecute but, there has been no prosecution.
The recommendations of the Magistrate Judge amounted to a reversal of case facts. What was attributed to the plaintiff was attributed to the defense and vice-versa. It was a worthless document. But it became the case. And it stays that way until the order that is hidden is released In fact, until all orders are released the petitioners continue to suffer.
The counter claim raised serious allegations of national defense law violations by DOJ, FBI, SC AG, NAACP, SC NAACP, but was never looked into, at least not publicly.
Contrary to what it may appear I absolute hate filing law suits. I have never filed a law suit that was not completely and totally factual and necessary. Before the LM Communications case I had not written for , nor filed in any court. My wife Suesie and I stood in our then living room in Charleston South Carolina and swore we would not permit ourselves to be used or attacked again and that it ended there. Well. That was almost 18 and a half years ago. 17 of those have been waiting on a ruling that never came.
v. Volkmer Phoenix District Court No. CV-16-03213-PHX-ESW Magistrate Eileen Willet:
This case was to force the Arizona Superior Court to release the order that would end the case Hempfling V CVDC Holdings LLC et. al. (dentists) but had been purposely withheld and then, in violation of FRCP Rule 62. The case was essentially ‘stayed’ without due process of a stay hearing. That stay was the case in Phoenix. Allegations were made by the state clerk’s office that responsive filings were withheld from the docket making it look like defense counsel failed to appear. The clerk indicated their filings were trash. That meant the docket did not have responses 10 days after the deadline passed to receive them. As it would be, the court never listed the defense attorneys as having appeared. The missing and not docketed documents were apparently found as they showed up on the docket. Only one attorney representing 1 dentist was listed as appearing. The other firm was ignored even though they filed. Even in the Arizona Appeals Court and the Arizona Supreme Court, only one defense attorney was recognized as having appeared.
NO ORDER AN APPEAL COULD BE TAKEN ON WAS EVER RELEASED BY THE COURT. Then current court Clerk Chad Roche confirmed the order of the court was a placeholder that would be replaced when the real order was issued. IT NEVER ISSUED. This email thread explains.
——– Forwarded Message ——– Subject:
RE: Mr. Roche
Date:
Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:17:49 -0700
From:
Roche, Chad <[email protected]>
To:
Suesie Hempfling <xxx>
I understand. I’ll let you know something as soon as I can.
Chad A Roche
Clerk of the Superior Court
Pinal County
________________________________________
From: Suesie Hempfling [xxx]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 2:09 PM
To: Roche, Chad
Subject: Re: Mr. Roche
Thank you for your email.
I know it’s been almost 9 months & we still haven’t received any final
orders. I have no clue what the reason is behind the long wait and it is
extremely frustrating.
If the final order has not been issued (since we haven’t received
anything at all…) would you please tell me… and if you can, please
tell me why. It would relieve a lot of stress & since my health isn’t
the greatest, that relief would go a long way.
On 11/24/2014 12:41 PM, Roche, Chad wrote:
> Yes, drafts are deleted because they’re not official. I’ll check on the case again to see if any final orders have been issued. If they have, I’ll email them to you.
>
>
> Chad A Roche
> Clerk of the Superior Court
> Pinal County
> ________________________________________
> From: Suesie Hempfling [xxx]
> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 10:58 AM
> To: Roche, Chad
> Subject: Mr. Roche
>
> Mr. Roche,
> I haven’t written to you before but now I feel the need for an answer to my question/concerns.
> You stated on April 2nd, 2014: “Once the final order is completed and signed the draft will be deleted and replaced with the actual order. ”
> Is this true? Also, will I ever be receiving the final order from this court?
>
>
> Reference:
> HEMPFLING vs CVDC HOLDINGS
> S-1100-CV-201102200
>
> Suesie Hempfling
When Hempfling v CVDC Holdings et.al. was filed, The deadline for a response from those parties sued had passed. 10 days had passed. I went to the Apache Junction, AZ Satellite Court Clerk’s office and asked if anything had been filed in response to our law suit. After looking in the computer and office the assistant clerk (now elected clerk Rebecca Padilla determined no defense filings had responded to the case. A few days later documents from both defense attorney firms were found by the clerk and added to the docket. Only one firm was recognized as appearing. A crime had taken place. The case was defaulted. Nobody was being investigated or arrested or anything. The Motion for Default is yet to be dealt with.
Therefore the Phoenix District Court case.
A ‘Special Action’, unique to Arizona, dealing with procedural and appearance issues was misconstrued to be a dismissal of the case. That special action could not have done that. All facts about that action were in the record.
And then, after taking it to the appeals court, in a memorandum, instead of pointing out that the no orders were ever issued by the state court ,that Rooker-Feldman was a lie: the appeals court bought the Rooker Feldman line and affirmed the memorandum of December 26, 2017. BUT never issued a ruling. The determination of a lack of subject matter was false.
In both of those main cases some crime or another was committed. In the South Carolina court, mail to the court was stolen and from mail in the court clerk’s office and the counter claim raised serious national security questions of direct action in Executive agencies. We literally were able to peer up the chain of shadow relationships from the bottom but no discussion of the facts in the counter claim was ever held.
No final order from Arizona, or from the Phoenix District court.
From: Roche, Chad [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 2:08 PM To: LKH
Subject: RE: Request to address issue
Lee,
The ORDER that shows up on the 25th would be the draft of the order filed on the 27th.
There’s a glitch with how the internet displays our register of actions (it’s controlled by the State Supreme Court). Once the final order is completed and signed the draft will be deleted and replaced with the actual order. There’s a new eAccess system coming for the public that will display things correctly but it’s in development now.
As far as I see right now, there won’t be anything else coming because the judge’s final ruling closes the case.
Very Respectfully,
Chad Roche
Clerk
That ‘final order’ never happened. The ‘draft’ was claimed to be the final order by the State of Arizona who’s new county court clerk (Amanda Stanford) was responsible for deciding civil cases and attempting collection from informa pauperis deferments without court orders to do so. Stanford was forced to resign 3 her position but she still works for Pinal County.
The Ninth Circuit Appeals court took the Phoenix District court order, reloaded the case and issued their own ruling. But they won’t let anyone know what it says. This order of December 26,2017 is its placeholder.
According to a document from all the way back to 1998 The Department of Justice “agrees that a ‘shortcoming’ of the Ninth Circuit today is ‘its failure effectively to address erroneous panel decisions in important cases.'” 4
There is no case less important than any other case in a blind justice environment.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED
DEC 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LEE KENT HEMPFLING; SUESIE KENT HEMPFLING,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
KENT VOLKMER*; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16329
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03213-ESW MEMORANDUM**
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Eileen S. Willett, Magistrate Judge, Presiding*** Submitted December 18, 2017****
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Lee Kent Hempfling and Suesie Kent Hempfling appeal pro se from the
* Kent Volkmer has been substituted for his predecessor, M. Lando Voyles, as Pinal County Attorney under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
*** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
**** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
district court’s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with prior state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Hempflings’ action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it constituted a prohibited “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment and raised a claim that was “inextricably intertwined” with that state court judgment. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rooker-Feldman precludes adjudication where “the only redress [plaintiffs] seek is an ‘undoing’ of the prior state-court judgment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Hempflings’ motion for reconsideration because the Hempflings failed to state any grounds warranting relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60).
We do not consider issues raised by the Hempflings in their brief that are not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.
1992).
AFFIRMED.
No argument was ever presented that was not supported by more than one pathway of identification and proof. None. There was no state ruling to appeal. The memorandum is erroneous on its face.
1: Hempfling v LM Communications et.al. Termed: 03/27/2006 Docket numbers 37,38,39,40,41 hidden from view.
This has been a dead case for 17 years. More than three times the expiration of statues of limitations in federal crimes. The court was attacked by mail theft. I had been program director and morning drive talent at WCOO in Charleston South Carolina. The music was rhythmic oldies based and mostly black in origin but no full time black people were on the staff. A black female was part time and was trainable. I tried to hire her full time to perform middays on the station and I was fired for it. The station’s part time engineer (a real problem child) died mysteriously after I was gone. I had nothing to do with it. The counter claim filed by LM Communications in the case was simply a copy of my press release. All of which was true.
2: Hempfling v Volkmer et.al.
This has been dormant for almost five years. Convenient it is only a month away from exceeding statues of limitations and the people who stole the US Mail from the ninth Circuit court (FIVE TIMES, one of which was a sting with the court informed of the process) and caused Google to censor the Ninth Circuit and Phoenix District courts from publishing anything with HEMPFLING in the name as they were obviously expecting to lose..
It was done using the Lumen Database vigilante copyright system. Where the government printing office had a copy of the order someone didn’t want people to know about (nobody thought of that copy), the Internet from Google did not have the case order indexed from the court’s website.But all other cases of the same day were indexed by Google from the same location. Nobody could have found the case. Why would it have mattered?
One politician was about to run for Senator. Another was about to become U.S. Attorney for Arizona. Two wives were about to become judges, one federal and one state appeals. If it were known that somehow those positions were being protected. It wouldn’t matter.
Lumen Database is where authors get revenge.
If someone has stolen your content, or has violated your copyright you can complain to Google and Google will file a report with Lumen Database which then provides the rest of the world with sanitized links to content that supposedly does not violate copyright.
In Other Words: Lumen Database is where Google and most likely other bad actors go to have site url’s listed as copyright violations to keep them out of search results. Our case was censored from the court by using a children’s book copyright. The Federal Court blocked by a children’s book.
That is a company’s prerogative for its own property.
But when that task of censorship is at the direction of an Arizona State Official: A Constitutional Crisis exists.
A state official cuts a deal with google to keep the knowledge of this case out of Google. It stayed out for months after the case’s mandate. But the final order in the case is hidden. An empty docket number awaits.
3: U.S. District Court District of South Carolina
U.S. District Court: District of South Carolina (Charleston) CIVIL United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:04-cv-01373-PMD Hempfling v. LM Communications, et al : Judge Patrick Michael Duffy USCA OPINION #66 No permission to view document. Date Terminated: 08/31/2005. As of August 13, 2021 still showing Case in other court: Fourth Circuit, 5-1987
Court of Appeals Docket #: 17-16329 Termed: 12/26/2017 Lee Hempfling, et al v. Kent Volkmer, et al. The memorandum (Docket #22) affirming the district court is referring to the 04/11/2017 Magistrate’s decision which was overturned by the three judge panel in rehearing the case: a requirement in the Ninth Circuit for Constitutional questions. No decision of that three judge panel (04/19/2018 Filed order (J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, BARRY G. SILVERMAN and JAY S. BYBEE) Appellants’ petition for panel rehearing (Docket Entry No. [23]) is denied. Appellants’ motion to stay the mandate (Docket Entry No. [23]) is denied as unnecessary. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. ) has NOT been published yet this case mandated MANDATE ISSUED. (JCW, BGS and JSB) [10854002] (RR)
4: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:16-cv-03213-ESW Hempfling et al v. Voyles et al Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett: This case was appealed 06/27/2017 As of August 13, 2021 still showing as Case in other court: Ninth Circuit, 17-16329. Docket #30 is blank and missing where the opinion should be. The mandate is docket # 31 04/30/2018.
5: Arizona Superior Court Pinal County
Case Number: S-1100-CV-201102200: HEMPFLING vs CVDC HOLDINGS et.al. Pinal County Superior Dental Malpractice, Fraud And Embezzlement : Filing Date: 6/6/2011 ; Disposition Date: Left blank. 3/25/2014 ORDER: COURT ORDER / RULING has been declared to be a placeholder by the elected Clerk of Court: entered statement as evidence in District Court seeking to force release of this case. This case technically ended in default through bribery of court clerks.
No prosecution of any crime committed in any of these cases has ever occurred. Rather, the existence of a crime and a prosecutor’s desire to protect the perpetrator from big bad pro se litigants has meant no justice.
Footnotes:
1. 18 USC 1001: Statements or entries generally (house.gov)
2. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/pettifogger “You don’t hear the word pettifogger much these days, since the word is fairly archaic, but you might come across it in an old book. A bad lawyer, or pettifogger, used dubious means to get clients and to win cases. The mid-16th century word itself combined petty — “small,” from the French petit — with the obsolete word fogger, “underhanded dealer,”
3. PinalCentral.Com FLORENCE — Amanda Stanford, clerk of the Pinal County Superior Court, announced Wednesday evening that she is resigning effective late this month. Stanford first took her oath of office as clerk in January of 2015. Wednesday in an email she wrote, ‘I apologize for relaying this information this way, but due to social distancing, there isn’t much of an option. I wanted to let you know that I have tendered my resignation. My last day will be April 26.’ Stanford, a Republican, did not give any reason for her resignation at the time. Stanford told PinalCentral Friday that she will become the finance director for the Pinal County Attorney’s Office, a position that actually pays more than being the clerk of the Superior Court.” Apr 9, 2020 Updated May 21, 2020
4. Comments of the United States Department of Justice on the Tentative Draft Report of the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals (Nov. 6, 1998), available at http://app.comm.uscourts.gov/report/comments/DOJ.htm.