Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC

  Upcoming Classes

Search CFLA's Article Archive:

Is the Federal Magistrates Act Unconstitutional? Ninth Circuit Pro Se Asks the U.S. Supreme Court for An Answer

9thcircuitprosereport.blogspot.comMay 19, 2013

By Erin K. Baldwin

Questions Presented

Commencing June 14, 1979, via General Order 194, [1] and amended July 2, 1979 via General Order 194-A [2] the Central District Court of California has denied access to unincarcerated, unrepresented citizens seeking to enforce their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Commencing August 14, 1970, via In re Amendment of Rule 3, [3] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied unincarcerated, unrepresented appellants the opportunity to be heard on appeal to enforce their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Whether civil provisions in the Federal Magistrates Act are unconstitutionally void for vagueness and overbroad; and whether these defects plus the decision of Congress to terminate this Court's power under the Rules Enabling Act permitted inferior federal courts to promulgate rules that delegated Article III cases to Article I courts.

Whether Central District official court policies that recharacterize pro se Article III private rights suits at common law as Article I public rights administrative agency cases on appeal to facilitate an unconstitutional delegation of an Article III case to an Article I court are unconstitutional.

Whether the Ninth Circuit affirms and advances Central District court policies by biased and prejudicial precedents; and whether its screening policies described in In re Amendment of Rule 3 are unconstitutional because they create an administrative classification unsupported by public policy that denies pro se §1983 appellants an opportunity to be heard.

Whether a permanent injunction is a proper remedy or prior restraint in a defamation case when it is obtained by third party state officials not before the court against an anonymous blogger identified by these state officials by federal criminal subpoenas without notice to estop protected First Amendment conduct; and whether these injunctions can be enforced in civil court by criminal contempt without a district attorney before the judge that ordered the injunctions and contempt.

Read more.

Back to May 2013 Archive

CFLA was founded by the Nation's Leading Foreclosure Defense Attorneys back in 2007 to serve the Foreclosure Defense Industry and fight pervasive Bank Fraud. Since opening our virtual doors, CFLA has rapidly expanded to become the premier online legal destination for small businesses and consumers. But as the company continues to grow, we're careful to hold true to our original vision. For us, putting the law within reach of millions of people is more than just a novel idea—it's the founding principle, just ask Andrew P. Lehman, J.D.. With convenient locations in Houston and Los Angeles, you can contact Our National Account Specialist and General Manager / Member Damion W. Emholtz at 888-758-2352 for a free Mortgage Fraud Analysis or to obtain samples of work product, including cutting edge Bloomberg Securitization Audits, Litigation Support, Quiet Title Packages, and for more information about our Nationally Accredited and U.S. Department of Education Approved "Mortgage Securitization Analyst Training Certification" Classes (3 days) 24 hours for approved CLE & MCLE Credit (Now Available Online).

SEE BELOW- http://www.certifiedforensicloanauditors.com

Call us toll free at 888-758-2352

Bookmark and Share
Facebook Like us on Facebook
Twitter Follow us on Twitter
YouTube View our YouTube Videos
LinkedIn Connect to us on Linkedin
BBB Logo


Contact us or view our Sample Documents & Audits by completing the form below.


DVD Sets Only $99


FREE Mortgage Fraud Analysis


Order Cutting-Edge Services Now


Quiet Title Packages from Licensed Attorneys


Affiliate Services


CFLA Sponsored Attorney Links


Take-Home Education Package