THIS CASE WAS FILED ON ELECTION DAY 2012.
The case number is 8:12-CV-2519-EAK-AEP. The assigned Judge is Elizabeth A. Kovachevich. First nominated by Gerald Ford for a federal judgeship in 1976, she was [blocked/unconfirmed] by the Senate that term, then fully dropped by Jimmy Carter, then later nominated again, by Ronald Reagan, for her federal judgeship on January 26, 1982, into a seat vacated by George C. Young. She was then later confirmed by the Senate on March 4, 1982, and received her commission on March 9, 1982. She also served previously as Chief Judge during 1996-2002. The assigned Magistrate Judge for this case is Anthony E. Porcelli.
Judge Kovachevich is 76 years old, has never been married, and has no children. She is reportedly an "extremely pious" and active member of her Diocese, being "proudly Catholic" and having "visited most of the Marian Shrines around the world" (hundreds) during her life, even creating (donating) a brand new Marian Shrine to honor the late Monsignor John McNulty who was diocesan director of Pro-Life Activity for years at one of her parent's churches, spearheading the launch in 1996 of Red Mass for the entire Tampa Bay area, and sitting on that corresponding Board of Directors for the Tampa Bay Catholic Lawyers Guild. As if custom-made for this case, she also has a Bachelor of Business Administration degree from the University of Miami, even with the highest, most prestigious magna cum laude honors in the area of Finance (see page 12 here), plus, interestingly, went to law school with, romantically dated, and was for years in private practice with Roy Speer, co-founder of the Home Shopping Network empire.
But, looks can be deceiving, as Kovachevich has a very controversial history, including officially saying all coed dormitories are taxpayer whorehouses, infamously ordering that a little handicapped girl could only attend her school inside a glass cage (but this was quickly overturned on appeal), going all screwy on school desegregation (but that was also overturned on appeal), spending 23 pages to allow an atheist lawsuit to proceed forward but then later dismissing it on pretty much the exact same grounds, and frustrating the Jewish community using the same mode, yet also originally siding with a religious jail guard who refused an inmate's abortion pill request, but then also allowing four (4) complaints in that case, later reversing course to side with abortion.
See also this page describing her being the subject of abuse of power within a tell-all book, being voted the worst federal judge in the area, and about several other highly controversial rulings during her career. Complicating matters even further, the Middle District of Florida is one of the busiest in the nation, with some 16,000 pending cases at any moment, a caseload ratio that is far worse than it was a decade ago, and with Middle District judicial vacancies now at 10-25%, it gets the yellow flag warning level, causing even attorneys who won their cases to still complain that she is a disgrace...
November 6, 2012
The large initial complaint package was filed, with four separate petitions, all receiving hand-written, temporary case numbers upon their front pages (like the above image):
And, of course, an entire Complaint package was then served by certified mail, return receipt requested, as per Rule 5 service of process, upon each of the ten (10) named abortionist corporate Defendants, and also to both Obama and AG Holder in the name of the Cross-Defendant, United States a.k.a. the United States Federal Government.
November 6, 2012 (con't)
Still on Election Day, no more than just a few hours after this (large) lawsuit package was first physically filed at the Clerk's counter, i.e., long before the Court ever had an opportunity (and duty) to first review the various supporting filings involved..., Judge Kovachevich denied the emergency petition to enjoin all 2012 presidential election processes, by one single irrelevant statement - by only that the language of the 12th Amendment is in regards to the Electoral College (duh?!?). Well, of course it is, we already knew that, and that is irrelevant. Regardless of whether you're talking about Electoral College ballots, OR the popular vote, the necessary point is still the same: in NEITHER of those systems (electoral - popular) can any presidential candidates be paired into the same ballot with any vice-presidential candidates! See that Petition to Strike Down the 12th Amendment for full explanation on why this must be so.
Moreover, Judge Kovachevich failed to address - whatsoever - either of the other two (2) biggie hammers raised in the emergency petition, i.e., that it is an absolute 100% legal impossibility for Obama to ever have been constitutionally eligible for the White House (see that Declaration on Obama Ineligibility court filing), let alone massive election frauds evidenced heavily within both the primary and the general elections.
However, nobody ever expected any federal judge to actually Order, on Election Day already happening, that all voting processes nationwide must somehow suddenly and immediately cease... That would be an absurdly unreasonable expectation, and since all three (3) issues are still fully in play via the Complaint (Obama cannot possibly be a valid president; the 12th Amendment required separate balloting between Prez and VP candidates; and massive election frauds were within both the primary and general elections), the eventually forced "redo" election (2013?) is still coming, regardless...
In trying to provide a prompt and timely response to what the Rules required be filed as an "emergency" petition, Judge Kovachevich screwed up really bad in her haste, by not addressing any of the actual issues raised. She delayed justice, but didn't stop it at all, and these inexcusable errors of shoddy work will be thoroughly addressed later.
November 7, 2012
One day after filing the above large lawsuit package, the Court Ordered that this case be designated (and rightfully so) as a "Track Three" case, and further that all parties meet within sixty (60) days for Case Management scheduling and such related issues.
"Track Three" cases involve complex litigation, imminent issues that impact the public interest, larger types of class action lawsuits, and such similar very significant matters.
November 19, 2012
Merely pursuant to instructions within the above Order, all of the ten (10) abortionist Defendants and Cross-Defendant the United States were simply served a copy of the same Order, along with the several pages of attached Case Management paperwork.
November 26, 2012
Apparently overwhelmed by the size and scope of the lawsuit (precisely the reason the motion for three judge panel had been originally included), Judge Kovachevich "sua sponte" (on her own, without any party asking, out of the blue) dismissed the original Verified Complaint, based upon one totally flawed premise, in that, supposedly, it was a "shotgun pleading" - i.e., a single pleading that would try to "incorporate every antecedent allegation by reference into each subsequent claim for relief or affirmative defense." Shotgun pleadings make it "virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief." Judge Kovachevich also ordered the filing of an Amended (replacement) Complaint within just 14 days, and then, based upon flawed dismissal of the original Complaint, denied "all pending motions as moot."
Of course, there were seven (7) very huge legal errors via that Order: (a) the original Complaint had only three Counts, two Counts regarding abortion and birth rate losses destroying our Economy, plus one totally different Count regarding Breach of Contract by the federal government about its many duties to all 50 States and Commonwealths through the Founding Documents, so it cannot possibly be a "shotgun pleading" at all; (b) indeed, each of the major biggie issues was filed via its own separate supporting document, precisely to "compartmentalize" the issues for ultimate clarity and to avoid any confusion or inability to perceive each standalone biggie issue, so again it cannot possibly be a (single) "shotgun pleading" at all; (c) since the Relator-Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, the Court was not allowed to hold any pro se person so dispositively liable to any of the Rules, let alone technicalities or nuances of the Rules, let alone obscure technicalities, let alone within a case that the Court, itself, had previously designated as a "Track Three" (complex litigation) case..., as the Court may and can do - but will only rarely do - with professionally licensed attorneys and their filings, i.e., it was an act of flagrant class discrimination, unintentional or otherwise; (d) indeed, the Court had already been duly provided with express and binding caselaw authority, prior, on the exact same matters of illegal mistreatments of pro se parties (see the Notice of Pro Se Rights filed directly with that same original Complaint); (e) the sheer brevity of only 14 days in which a mere pro se party was to somehow recreate, refashion and reproduce, let alone also prepare, collate, assemble and bind the required fifteen (15) copies of any new complaint for any complex litigation case - completely impossible and untenable, especially when any licensed attorney would have been surely given at least 30 days, perhaps even 45, 60 or 90 days, given the sheer size and scope of ANY case designated as Track Three, the most complex of the three designation types; (f), the ONLY "pending motion" was the ONLY motion filed into the case so far, the motion for three judge panel from the original complaint package, and that same motion was expressly and solely directed unto the Chief Justice of the entire District, Chief Justice Anne Conway, so mere Judge Kovachevich had absolutely no authority to step on the toes of Chief Justice Conway's superior and exclusive jurisdiction to that motion (even let alone the ridiculous irony of all the above confusion, calamity, and circus of errors that the very same motion for THREE judge panel was precisely designed and filed in properly considered forethought to prevent, in the first place...); and (g), within the original Complaint, itself, the Court had already been duly advised that Count Three, the root Breach of Contract claim by the States and Commonwealths directly against the Federal Government and directly on the Founding Documents of our nation, was simply beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, itself being only a sub-unit of the Federal Government, the inferior "child" party to the Contract of the Founding Documents. In other words, the Court had no true legal power to "dismiss" Count Three, since those realms are under the exclusive contractual powers of the States and Commonwealths.
There is another huge legal reason why this Court was not even allowed to dismiss any part of the original Complaint, at all. This is not a "prisoner suit" or a lawsuit filed under request for "IFP" (in forma pauperis: pauper, filing fee waived, etc.), where the given judge is allowed to "pre-screen" any no filing fee complaint for "worthiness" of the federal court system. This case was and is a normal, fee fully paid case, and the given judge is not allowed to pretend otherwise and do any pre-screening... which also always acts in behalf of the given defendants being sued. The Judge was not allowed to pre-screen this original Complaint, whatsoever, under the pretended guise of either Section 1915 and/or Section 1915A (prisoner & IFP suits), and help defend on behalf of the Defendants being sued - because in a normal, fully paid lawsuit, the Defendants must defend themselves, utilizing either outright denials of the complaint's allegations and/or the normal wide variety of defensive motions, i.e., to dismiss count(s) or all of a complaint, for more definite statement(s), several defensive motions available under Rule 12, and so forth. The Judge screwed up bad, really bad, by an attempting to sua sponte step in suddenly on behalf of the Defendants interests and legal duties, and do any pre-screening of the Complaint, whatsoever. Naughty, naughty, shame upon her, but of course they all knew two important facts involved: that this lawsuit is basically unstoppable, precisely because there simply is NO defense against the overwhelming power and unshakable truth of raw mathematics [i.e., abortion v. economy], and even more importantly, this was the week when defaults and default judgments could finally be filed, and "they" were desperate about what they know they cannot ever defend...
Once again, Judge Kovachevich had delayed justice, but didn't stop it at all, and these inexcusable errors of shoddy work are all to be thoroughly addressed later. However, another version of the Complaint within the official court record will make it that much harder for any judges or attorneys to pretend ignorance or play dumb as to the issues.
November 27, 2012
One of the ten (10) named nongovernmental Defendants, Family Planning Councils of America, finally filed an Appearance by the law firm of Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, specifically by attorneys Blake Delaney and Sundeep Nath, of that firm's Tampa office.
Lazy as attorneys often are, though, they forgot to even sign the notice of appearance. The attached certificate of service is signed, but that is not the signature required for the filing, itself. Mr. Delaney didn't even include any required signature block area for their notice, whatsoever... so, legally, it is a worthless joke. It is void, easily stricken.
November 28, 2012
Notwithstanding the Court's totally flawed dismissal of the original Complaint, this was the first available week, under the Rules, for filing Defaults against any non-appearing Defendants. Along those same lines, all Returns of Service must be prepared and filed first, and so a double-check of various legal nuances reveals that one party, the United States, was not technically served "enough" (although some caselaw says it was fine).
Instead of serving the "President" and the Attorney General, like what is properly done for any State or Commonwealth (serve Governor plus Attorney General), service upon the United States is not the same pattern, but unto the Attorney General and the local U.S. Attorney. Hence, a full original Complaint package was served via certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the office of Mr. Robert E. O'Neill, who is the local U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida (District where this lawsuit has been filed).
December 10, 2012
After a significant amount of work, in itself, the Returns of Service Upon All Named Parties are finally completed and filed, in preparation for later filings for Defaults and Default Judgments upon non-appearing Defendants. Included for proof of service were the Exhibits: Exhibit A (p1, p2, p3), Exhibit B, Exhibit C (p1, p2, p3) and Exhibit D.
Still valiantly working towards the impossible deadline set by the previous Order for an amended complaint to be filed, wanting no more "accidents" or "confusion" on the part of the Court again, and needing to take advantage of the extra three (3) days that are automatically added for receipt of such things via mail (see Rule 6), the corresponding Notice was also filed with the Clerk today, indicating the coming Thursday, November 13th, as the (still hopeful) date for said ordered amended complaint to be finally filed.
December 17, 2012
After an impossibly short deadline, the First Amended Complaint was finally filed on the following Monday, along with the required Motion for Belated Acceptance of the newly-filed replacement complaint, and also clearly reminding the Court that it was not allowed to dismiss the original - in the first place - per the authorities previously filed, and then, the filestamped copies were served upon all of the dozen formal recipients.
January 3, 2013
After over double the amount of time allowed to appear and defend/respond, nine (9) of the ten (10) nongovernmental Defendants (corporate abortionists) still had failed to so much as even have Appearances filed yet, so full packages for both Clerk's Default, and for Clerk's Default Judgment, as per the Rules provide, were filed against each of those same nine (9) Defendants, using the required 2x3=6 paperwork sets:
- Clerk's Entry of Default: Planned Parenthood (Request)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: Planned Parenthood (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: Planned Parenthood (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: Planned Parenthood (Request)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: Planned Parenthood (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: Planned Parenthood (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: National Abortion Federation (Request)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: National Abortion Federation (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: National Abortion Federation (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: National Abortion Federation (Request)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: National Abortion Federation (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: National Abortion Federation (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: Center for Reproductive Rights (Request)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: Center for Reproductive Rights (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: Center for Reproductive Rights (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: Center for Reproductive Rights (Request)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: Center for Reproductive Rights (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: Center for Reproductive Rights (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: Nat'l Network of Abortion Funds (Request)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: Nat'l Network of Abortion Funds (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: Nat'l Network of Abortion Funds (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: Nat'l Network of Abortion Funds (Request)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: Nat'l Network of Abortion Funds (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: Nat'l Network of Abortion Funds (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: NARAL Pro-Choice America (Request)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: NARAL Pro-Choice America (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: NARAL Pro-Choice America (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: NARAL Pro-Choice America (Request)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: NARAL Pro-Choice America (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: NARAL Pro-Choice America (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: Choice USA (Request)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: Choice USA (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: Choice USA (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: Choice USA (Request)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: Choice USA (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: Choice USA (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: National Organization for Women (Request)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: National Organization for Women (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: National Organization for Women (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: National Organization for Women (Request)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: National Organization for Women (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: National Organization for Women (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: EMILY's List (Request)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: EMILY's List (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: EMILY's List (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: EMILY's List (Request)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: EMILY's List (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: EMILY's List (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: Feminist Majority Foundation (Request)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: Feminist Majority Foundation (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Entry of Default: Feminist Majority Foundation (proposed Entry)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: Feminist Majority Foundation (Request)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: Feminist Majority Foundation (Affidavit)
- Clerk's Default Judgment: Feminist Majority Foundation (proposed Entry)
Also filed on this same day was a Motion to Compel Corporate Disclosures (after over an entire month late, Plaintiffs were tired of waiting upon lazy attorney Delaney to comply with one of his most basic procedural duties, required to be filed at the same time as whatever he files first, i.e., with his Appearance), a Motion to Clarify Conflicts of Interest (because attorney Delaney's firm, i.e., Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, is a big-time, nationwide law firm involved daily in numerous cases for the PLAINTIFFS in this case, and so should not be actually trying to represent any of the DEFENDANTS in this case...), and a Notice of Attempted Conference Scheduling, since regardless of changing from an original complaint to amended complaint or not, the Court's "Track Three" designation and related scheduling Order still controls, and the deadline is January 5th, without any other party yet responding to more than one scheduling attempt made so far. More will develop upon these issues soon, no doubt.
January 9, 2013
Within the seven (7) days that Plaintiffs had allowed at max, or else filing for sanctions against him, see just above, attorney Delaney finally filed his client's Disclosures, or actually, only part of them... Apparently always lazy and incompetent, he only fulfilled the easiest of the two required answer sets for disclosures... blundering idiot. Oh, and guess what? That's right - you got it - he forgot once again to include any signature, whatsoever, inside the filing, itself, so it is (also) void, anyway. This is really pathetic, and it appears papers will have to be filed to kick this fool completely out of the case.
January 10, 2013
The Magistrate Judge, also not paying enough attention, but apparently believing he is just following along with the Plaintiffs' offer to voluntarily withdraw the same Motion to Compel (regarding those Disclosures, if made within the 7 days demanded), enters an "Endorsed" Order denying that motion as moot (because now it seems - at only a first glance - that the Disclosures were filed within the time Plaintiffs had demanded). But, of course, since these Disclosure answers really were not fully complied with yet, if he had bothered to look, even the Magistrate is caught red-handed in not paying enough attention to even very simple and short filings of just 2-3 pages apiece... what a joke.
January 17, 2013
Was it knowing fraud, i.e., intentional treason and so forth?? Or, was it merely utterly gross negligence, gross dereliction of duties, and that kind of total failure? Today, the Judge finally GRANTED the December 17th Motion for Belated Acceptance of that First Amended Complaint, and THEN vomited out an entire series of ridiculous errors of law, possibly in order to torpedo this very hammering lawsuit using any means necessary.
You can review Judge Kovachevich's Order dismissing Count I with prejudice, and the other three Counts without prejudice (meaning all three of those Counts could be filed in a brand new lawsuit), but this Order is literally not worth the paper it is written on, and we will certainly press forward, for we have the truth, facts, and law on our side.
Of all the numerous errors committed by Judge Kovachevich in this Order, the biggest ones are so obvious that they immediately raise bright red flags. The Judge began the first few pages of her "argument" (starts on page 5) discussing various aspects of what a court should do when a complaint is attacked by a motion to dismiss. Her first "argument" is entitled "A. Rule 12(b)(6)" which is strictly about a motion to dismiss, her second "argument" is entitled "B. Rule 12(b)(1)" which is strictly about a motion to dismiss, and her third "argument" ("C. Consideration of Documents Attached to the Complaint or Incorporated") is also strictly about a motion to dismiss, and how to treat it without automatically being converted into a motion for summary judgment.
Except, uhm, nobody filed any motion to dismiss... In fact, NONE of the Defendants filed ANY motions, of ANY kind, for ANYTHING, at all, whatsoever... Indeed, and as is detailed above, 9 of the 10 corporate abortionist Defendants and Cross-Defendant the United States had never filed ANYTHING - not even an Appearance into the case - and the other corporate abortionist Defendant had only filed its Appearance, and its partial Disclosures (neither of which was even signed). Can you spell the word "F-R-A-U-D"?
Judge Kovachevich spent the next few pages seriously mischaracterizing (defrauding) what the actual issues and allegations are, "accidentally" swapping (misapplying) the issues between the different Counts, even self-contradicting some of her own findings, and generally creating one big mess of mostly off-base and off-point chaos in attempt to (falsely) pretend that the *fact* of abortion and similar unnatural birth rate losses eventually causing economic destruction somehow cannot be proven to her, the judge of the court. But, that's just it - FACTS do not have to be proven to a judge, when the right of JURY trial has been duly claimed and reserved... When a lawsuit claims a trial by jury, all determinations of fact are reserved for that jury, and the judge is basically relegated to the mere "referee" of the case between the parties, without the power to make findings on any FACTS. She can make findings on matters of LAW all day long, but not on the allegations of FACT - she was completely out of line to even suggest it, in the first place. Indeed, the only time that any judge, within a trial by jury case, can even get remotely close to usurping the legal right of jury trial, and deciding any fact, whatsoever, is only when something like a motion to dismiss, or motion for summary judgment, or similar biggie motion is filed - yet, of course, the Defendants had never filed any such thing... Moreover, that fact was already well proven via previous court filings (which is precisely why none of the Defendants even tried to defend - because they can't argue against math...), Judge Kovachevich wasn't paying attention to prior court filings (as usual), and it is ludicrous to even suggest this fact cannot be proven, when it is already fairly well known around the world. Indeed, as the judge, she is required by law to accept ALL allegations of fact as TRUE, regardless of her personal beliefs and/or opinions on the matter (the Judge cites the Twombly case to try and get around that, but Twombly is about pleading standards in surviving a motion to dismiss which - again - didn't exist in this case...). Even further, her "inability" to understand this simple economic fact doesn't jive with her having those magna cum laude honors in Finance for her Univ. of Miami BBA degree... Can you spell the word "F-R-A-U-D"?
For Count II, the Judge first confirms legal standing is achieved, then ends up directly contradicting herself, she ridiculously tries to pretend that her federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction of a federal false claims action?, she tries to assume that every false claims action must be sealed, but this only confirms she totally failed to read that precise section within the original Complaint..., not to mention the cases she cites actually support not sealing this particularly unique case (i.e., there are no possible criminal investigations, there is no question as to whether the United States will be party or not [the U.S. is a Cross-Defendant in this case already], and there is also no hidden or secret information involved). Can you spell the word "F-R-A-U-D"?
The Judge totally missed the 12th Amendment issue for the second time (she again failed to pay any attention - see November 26th above), she also revealed failing to pay actual attention to the Impostor issue, by stating there is no legal standing, and by citing a few "birther" lawsuits filed directly against Obama, but the gotcha truth is that express legal standing was already provided by *multiple* federal statutes (too bad those "birther" attorneys never did their homework properly, but we had them in our prior filing...), plus we are not suing Obama as a legal party, but instead suing the Federal Government for IT to be enjoined from accepting Obama as President.
Oh, and did we forget to mention that even IF there actually HAD been any motion to dismiss, filed by anyone, then the Judge would still be 100% guilty of incredibly total denial of the well-known, absolute legal right to respond to any such motion before the court could rule upon any such "motion", which in this District is a fixed minimum of fourteen (14) days' time to first respond, see Local Rule 3.01(b)... but, of course, this "motion to dismiss" was a total fabrication. Can you spell the word "F-R-A-U-D"?
The above are just a few examples of the literally dozens of serious errors the Judge made, but you get the idea by now: this so-called "Order" is literally not even worth the paper it is written on. But don't forget the pressure "they" were under, what with those nine default judgments already filed for 100% of the assets of each Defendant, and with exposing a very, very serious conflict of interest in the single law firm that filed appearance in the case, i.e., "something rotten in Denmark" as the saying goes.
Of course, let's be clear: We're talking about a lawsuit that will shut down the entire abortion industry, nationwide, that will finally kick the Impostor and his faux regime out of our White House, and that will totally vaporize ObamaCare (not just the HHS mandate), not to mention the other biggies involved (welfare, gold standard, etc.), so the powers-that-be were never expected to just put up their hands in total surrender.
We expected the likelihood of having to appeal up to the next level, but we just didn't expect that the kinds of errors made by the trial court would be so clearly fraudulent, so hopelessly out-of-touch, and so flagrantly flawed as to even the basics of law, that it would not only make winning on appeal a breeze, but also invoke judicial discipline!!
February 14, 2013
As is only partially described above, the Court has made many blundering errors, and while the Judge, the Magistrate, and the Clerk may have overwhelming caseloads, that is certainly no excuse for the circus of ridiculous legal and procedural errors that have already been made in this case... Sadly for them, the Motion to Correct Errors filed today was in fact very embarrassing, especially with all the fraud committed by them, and demands that ALL prior "Orders" in this case be immediately vacated, that all nine Default Judgments be now entered against Planned Parenthood, and those other eight corporate abortionists, as they were required by law to be done back on January 3rd, that Judge Kovachevich be immediately removed from this case, and that NEW judges be brought in. However, we still feel that this is not enough, and we will be amending soon for more relief. There is even a distinct possibility to seek formal impeachment.
March 18, 2013
Today is the next available court business day after the first 30-day mark passed over the weekend, still without a ruling or action upon our stinging Motion to Correct Errors.
If still nothing happens after yet another sixty days, then we will file a harsh reminder notice and demand to make a ruling, so either we get the justice we are entitled to at this trial level, or get moving along up the appeals court - and have them decide just how bad is it when a trial court judge makes up bogus pleadings totally out of thin air.
April 15, 2013
Besides being Tax Day, this is also the 60-day mark since filing our "gotcha" Motion to Correct Errors. Apparently, neither federal Judge Kovachevich nor Magistrate Porcelli have either the integrity or guts to touch these extremely embarrassing matters. Also, don't forget that each of the attorneys already involved (for the Federal Government, and for the one Defendant that entered an Appearance) have their various legal duties (under the rules of court, under civil statutes, and under criminal statutes) to promptly report the clearly unlawful actions of Judge Kovachevich to the variously corresponding authorities, and by not doing so, they implicate themselves very deeply into this mess.
May 15, 2013
The ninety day mark has arrived, and still without either any partial or full ruling as of yet, so sometime reasonably soon we will be filing the reminder notice and demand for ruling upon our Motion to Correct Errors - after a couple other items are drafted up for simultaneous filing, including praecipe for the clerk to correct the record in preparation for appeal, and re-summary of settlement offer. Sorely embarrassed they all must be.
In addition, the official biographies and experience history of each of the nine different Tampa federal judges has been provided for your direct review, here in PDF format.