THIS COURT HAS RULED - WordPress.com

THIS COURT HAS RULED: Plaintiff has failed to allege facts showing either that relief from

judgment is warranted by the alleged misconduct, or that plaintiff suffered prejudice that

would justify sanctions under the court’s inherent authority or Fed.R.Civ.P. 37.

THIS COURT HAS RULED If plaintiff believes a disciplinary sanction is warranted against

defendants’ counsel, then plaintiff may file a complaint in accordance with D.Kan. Rule 83.6.3.

Rule 83.6.3 is incorrect and states

(1) Complaints Filed in This Court. A complaint against an attorney practicing in this court for

any cause or conduct that may justify disciplinary action must be:

(A) in writing;

(B) under oath-unless filed by a judge or magistrate judge of this court; and

(C) filed in the record office of the clerk at Kansas City. The clerk must refer all complaints so-

filed to the Disciplinary Panel.

This is the only information given, "the record office of the clerk at Kansas City" I was referred to

State Courts, judicial qualifications, to Topeka Clerks of Court, then forwarded to the Courts of

Appeals, called the attorney general, and spent over 2 hours chasing a road to nowhere based on

this Courts Rule 83.6.3 recommendation.

The office of the disciplinary administrator from Kate F. Baird, Deputy Disciplinary

Administrator who wrote: "Please be advised that this office does not have jurisdiction to consider

a disciplinary action against David Bodney because he is not licensed to practice law by the

Supreme Court of Kansas.

This letter is from January 3rd, 2018.

I already contacted the Arizona Bar, because the Plaintiff has already done so, and has in fact

spoken with the president for over a hour regarding David Bodney in this case.

Mr. Yeager: You can request to speak to Mr. McCauley by calling the State Bar’s phone

number which is (602) 252-4804.

Nicole Kaseta, Bar Counsel

4201 N. 24th St., Suite 100 | Phoenix, AZ 85016-6266

T : 602.340.7369 F : 602.416.7569

EMAIL: [email protected]

www.azbar.org

Mr. McCauley in fact was very concerned about this case and in fact was expecting the Court to

rule on this matter, NOT dismiss it, with no information to give, I was told please let us know

what the court agrees to, there are reasons on their end why they cannot look into the case from

this angle, because most all their issues come from people complaining about "hiring attorneys."

Also Mr. William Delaney who is with the investigations department at the Disciplinary Office in

Kansas spoke to myself over an hour also about this case and was very concerned and I will quote

verbatim when asked about "true and correct copies" of e-mail communications and if omitting

them is a violation or not . . . .Mr. Yeager, let me tell you this, I was a police officer before, and I

have been in the Federal Courts to testify, and I can tell you this, you cannot in any way or

manner submit any document to a court, I don't care what kind of document it is, you can not omit

something and say it is "true and correct" and it is not!

This Court has allowed this to be, I have addressed these issues several times, I am asking for a

ruling on SPECIFIC MATTERS (NOT issues relating to Rule 37), if the court is not able to do

this, then it DOES have the authority to admit this to the proper channels, because the Plaintiff is

a pro se, and this court allowed an unethical lying attorney to get away with interfering with the

judicial process, therefore again, my 14th amendment rights have been violated and that

means I did NOT get due process.

I am taking verbatim the exact information regarding possible sanctions against David Bodney.

Questionable Behavior Possible Sanctions:

The Plaintiff respectfully requests from the Court an inquest into the questionable conduct of the

Defendants' attorney, David Bodney, as to whether or not there has been any violations or

intention to interfere with the judiciary process, by ways and means of alteration of true and

correct copy of email communications, alteration of true and correct conversation regarding our

phone conference to confer about the discovery process in good faith, advising opponent

(unrepresented) of what could be considered improper legal advice, and by possible interference

advising or not advising his clients to remove or preserve vital evidence that could have been

used (in discovery) to prove actual malice in Plaintiff's case.

The Plaintiff feels that the Defendants have attempted to misrepresent him as uncooperative, not

abiding by rules and procedures, having prejudice against the Defendants and their General

Counsel, overall bad behavior, and unfit to be able to represent himself before the Court of law.

Fraud on the court consists of conduct: "1) on the part of an officer of the court; that 2) is directed

to the judicial machinery itself; 3) is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in

reckless disregard of the truth; 4) is a positive averment or a concealment when one is under a

duty to disclose; and 5) deceives the court." Carter [v. Anderson], 585 F.3d [1007] at 1011 (citing

Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 348 (6th Cir. 1993)). Petitioner has the burden of proving

existence of fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 1011-12 (citing Info-Hold,

830

Case 5:18-cv-04019-SAC-GEB Document 48 Filed 12/08/18 Page 117 of 133

Appellate Case: 18-3252 Document: 010110105133 Date Filed: 01/03/2019 Page: 831

Inc. v. Sound Merch., Inc., 538 F.3d 448, 454 (6th Cir. 2008)).

Since lawyers and judges are officers of the court, any fraudulent misrepresentations they may

make on a central matter in a legal dispute constitutes what could be perceived as a perpetration

of a Fraud Upon the Court.

It would be warranted under the Court's inherent power to exercise inquest into whether or not

there has been a “particularized showing of bad faith” with "intent to deceive the court" by the

Defendants' attorney to try to sabotage the Plaintiff's case, depriving the Plaintiff of a fair trial,

and whether sanctions should be considered.

Below is the missing information from our "true and correct" email conversation and "true and

correct" ‘meet and confer conference,’ true and correct copy of advisories, and possible missing

pieces of evidence suggesting tampering with evidence that would have been vital to the strength

of my case if this case moves into discovery phase.

It must be stated that Plaintiff in no way is making direct false accusations towards his opponent

just for spite; I am only questioning the infractions that may or may not have been done with the

intention to deceive the court.

Remember please that deception can be subtle.

Due to Plaintiff's lack of legal knowledge and legal experience, I simply am not sure if the

Defendants’ attorney acted wrongly to try to place me in a disadvantage and sabotage my case.

831



Did the Court perhaps entertain anyone of the negative versions of David Bodney’s assertions

about my behavior and attitude, such as unreasonable, uncooperative, and was the court

influenced in any way by falsified versions of our conversations and email communications?

ARGUMENT

In David Bodney's: Doc. No. 28, "Statement of the Nature of the Matter Before the Court," in his

7-page memorandum he states: "Prior to and during the Rule 26(f) conference, for reasons of

judicial economy and cost savings to the parties, counsel for NPR suggested that the parties

stipulate to a stay of discovery and disclosures until the Court rules on Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss. At the same time, NPR suggested that the parties agree to preserve all discoverable

information, including electronically- stored information. Plaintiff declined to stipulate to stay

discovery and disclosures, conceding that in so doing he was choosing to be “unreasonable.”

In compliance with the Rule 26(f) conference Plaintiff called attorney David Bodney and

introduced himself respectfully and in fact communicated to David that he wanted him and NPR

to know they were dealing with a reasonable man.

I informed David Bodney at the beginning of our conversation I didn’t want to talk "at him" but

"with him," for which he thanked myself and we proceeded to talk for close to 1 hour and 30

minutes I believe having a very civilized conversation.

It was disappointing that from our long and agreeable conversation David Bodney chose to refer

to the only sentence, which taken out of context not only does not portray the true nature of our

832



conversation, but misrepresents it, and misrepresents the plaintiff, his true demeanor, character

and personality as well.

The Records will show (full recorded conversation can be obtained from Defendants’ attorney)

that trying to make the Court believe that in this conversation the plaintiff presented himself like

an unreasonable man is incorrect.

I am not sure if David Bodney wanted to back up this false claim, because he provides another

inaccurate written version of "true and correct" email conversations, and more important, omitted

a vital email communication, which by alteration, does in fact change things significantly

supporting his facts, proving that the Plaintiff is actually "unreasonable."

See DKT 27-2 CERTIFICATION OF DAVID J. BODNEY PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 37.2

paragraph (3). "Via email, Mr. Yeager declined to agree to the proposed joint stipulation, and

instead proposed that the parties proceed with a Rule 26(f) conference on Monday, July 23, 2018.

A true and correct copy of Mr. Yeager’s response of Saturday, July 21, 2018 is attached to

Defendants’ Motion to Stay at Exhibit “1”, page 2."

David Bodney provided to the court an exhibit ( DKT 27-1) that included 6 emails between the

Plaintiff and attorney David Bodney, dates are (1) July 20, 2018 3:21 PM, (2) July 21, 2018 11:49

AM, (3) July 21, 2018 6:26 PM, (4) July 21, 2018 8:35 PM, (5) July 24, 2018 10:02 AM, (6) July

26, 2018 7:17 AM, when in fact there were 7.

The emails listed above show dates of the 20th, 21st, 24th and 26th. The email that was either

833



“purposely or accidentally" omitted was from July 24th at 5: 26 PM which states:Dear David,

Thank you for getting back to me, if I didn't feel it was necessary I wouldn't have bothered,

however, something very good and pure, on spiritual level has transpired, and I feel an urgency in

my spirit to speak with you, I will call you at that time.

Please allow for 30 minutes of uninterrupted time.

Sincerely William Yeager

The "intention" and “willingness” to confer in good faith is proven in Plaintiff's email below;

I stated, “Dear David, Thank you for getting back to me...” David had no problem arranging

another phone conference, because he had previously had a pleasant conversation with me (in

which David stated that he would be speaking with his clients (NPR) and ask for a proposal and

get back to me in about 10 days.) After our first long and “pleasant” phone call conversation, my

spirit was inspired to initiate a solution that concluded we all could come to a reconciliation type

of agreement and arrangement; in fact I told David Bodney to inform everyone at NPR that Anais

and myself were willing to drive to Washington (NPR’s offices) and meet with everyone

personally.

Does this sound like an “unreasonable person?”

Why was email # 7 not included in the "true and correct" copy of our email conversation? Again,

another illustration of taking sentences out of context:

834



David Bodney presents in Exhibit 2 / paragraph 4: "Mr. Yeager responded with an email that

concluded in relevant part, “I don’t like you or anyone else from NPR, so keep

that in your heart and mind for the record. Save this email if you want for the courts and the

judge.”

The above is only partly true. Mr. Bodney either purposely or accidentally did not only cite the

wrong page (the correct page was # 4, not # 3), but he did not include the whole paragraph and

therefor misrepresented the story in our email communication. Stating "I don't like you...” out of

context makes the Plaintiff sound angry, irrational, and unreasonable to the Courts and no Court

wants even remotely to deal with a pro se that has bad behavior.

But the whole email stated: Email: "Keep in mind, I intend to conduct myself in a professional

manner, but consider that on Saturday evening just now after a simple rubber raft outing this

evening with Anais, I found her crying and sobbing in the kitchen. I asked her whats wrong? She

said, "I just want David Bodney to know I didn't come here to marry a flim flam fraud, and that

we are good people and they destroyed my hopes and dreams." I am an enlightened man, one of

understanding and compassion, but right now I am not a happy man seeing my wife cry, and I

don't like you or anyone else from NPR, so keep that in your heart and mind for the record.

Save this e-mail if you want for the courts and the judge."

William Yeager

Notice my initial statement states, "I intend to conduct myself in a professional manner," but it

835



appears it wouldn't serve the intention of the opposition to include this.

The fact is, it was very upsetting to see my wife crying after having a nice quiet evening, she said

while we were rafting she was trying to communicate to David Bodney’s heart, so that he

wouldn't feel the need to fight and be unfair; the accusations by NPR about her husband broke her

heart bad enough, but then after all this time, NPR hires an attorney that called her husband a

flim-flam artist. David Bodney took it out of context, turned it around, and used it against us

instead.

Improper Legal Advice?

David Bodney writes in an email dated Aug 21 at 5:53 PM (regarding the amended complaint): "I

can state that there is no basis for adding individual defendants to your complaint – and every

reason to remove Ashley Messenger as a defendant." Again "As you know, the Court has already

ruled that your allegations against Ashley Messenger were insufficient to state a claim. (Order, p.

28.) Rather than adding new defendants to your amended complaint, you should be removing Ms.

Messenger as a defendant in light of the Court's Order."

I am completely confused.

Did I misunderstand something when Judge Sam Crow stated: But, plaintiff makes a

barely sufficient prima facie showing that Messenger purposefully

directed allegedly wrongful actions at plaintiff in Kansas where

plaintiff’s career was being conducted in part and was allegedly

damaged. This can be considered adequate grounds for the exercise

of personal jurisdiction over Messenger in this court.

836



This is confusing, why am I being given advice by David Bodney that, "As you know, the Court

has already ruled that your allegations against Ashley Messenger were insufficient to state a

claim. (Order, p. 28.) Rather than adding new defendants to your amended complaint, you should

be removing Ms. Messenger as a defendant in light of the Court's Order."

I am being told "I should" be removing Ashley.

From what I understand not only was David Bodney giving me advice, but wrong advice.

During my research I discovered information that received my attention such as: Rule 226 Kansas

Rules of Professional Conduct specifically states that:

4.3 Transactions with Persons other than Clients: Dealing with Unrepresented Person [1] During

the course of a lawyer's representation of a client, the lawyer should not give advice to an

unrepresented person other than the advice to obtain counsel. Considering Rule 226, Should

David Bodney be giving me this advice? I have to ask, because I am not certain.

8.4 Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession: Misconduct It is professional misconduct for a

lawyer to:

(a) Violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct, knowingly assist or induce

another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

837



(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness

as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official;

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of

judicial conduct or other law; or

(g) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.

I discovered another lawsuit that was filed against NPR by Ed Butowsky; I noticed he had listed

several of the senior editors along with the journalist that he was suing in his Complaint. When I

tried to find out if these same superiors were in fact the ones who edit and over see Andrew

Flanagan's stories, David Bodney informed me in an email that: "You filed a lawsuit against NPR,

and it is currently a party in this litigation. If you wish to speak with any of its officers, directors

or employees, I ask that you do so through me. Currently, you have no right to conduct discovery

in this litigation."

Shortly after I filed my amended complaint some people contacted Glenn DeRosa pretending to

be journalists to ask questions about Billy Yeager and Jimmy Story. Glenn De Rosa has never

been contacted once by anyone regarding Billy Yeager since 1970, and yet all of a sudden after

the amended complaint is filed, he is receiving phone calls? The only way to get his phone

number was from the Amended Complaint, who is reading that?

Again, I am confused by advice or should I say admonitions by David Bodney, who told me I did

838



not have certain rights.

I told David Bodney I was trying to be fair, and did not want to include anyone at NPR who

should not be a part of this lawsuit, however, I realized there were also others who may have been

just as negligent as Andrew Flanagan.

David Bodney told me that I had “...no right to conduct discovery in this litigation.”, yet when I

asked David Bodney about if it was legal or not that someone had contacted Glenn De Rosa, and

why had I been told I couldn’t conduct discovery, he refused to answer my request ink my email

sent on Oct 12, 2018 at 6:22 PM

Based on Rule 4.3 David Bodney should have corrected the misunderstanding:

Rule 4.3 and Restatement Section 103 advises that: "The attorney has an affirmative duty to

correct any misunderstanding of the pro se adversary as to the attorney’s role in the matter." and

"The attorney has a duty to refrain from providing legal advice to the pro se adversary, other than

the advice to secure counsel."

Spoliation of Evidence?

In David Bodney's: "Document 28" "Statement of the Nature of the Matter Before the Court," in

his 7-page memorandum, he states:

"Prior to and during the Rule 26(f) conference, for reasons of judicial economy and cost savings

839



to the parties, counsel for NPR suggested that the parties stipulate to a stay of discovery and

disclosures until the Court rules on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. At the same time, NPR

suggested that the parties agree to preserve all discoverable information, including

electronically- stored information. Plaintiff declined to stipulate to stay discovery and disclosures,

conceding that in so doing he was choosing to be “unreasonable.”

Mr. David Bodney stated: parties agree to preserve all discoverable information, including

electronically-stored information.

Somewhere between the months of June and September 2018, the social media account of the

Defendant Andrew Flanagan (His Facebook Account) was taken down.

Plaintiff had already collected screen shots and postings from the Defendant’s social media

accounts; some of those were shared in the original complaint, and also in the Amended

Complaint, as evidence of the journalist’s disrespectful, cynical, unethical conduct.

It is obvious that David Bodney and Ashley Messenger could have not forgotten to tell Andrew

Flanagan to preserve discoverable information, so WHY was this vital source of evidence

destroyed?

The fact is that if the Plaintiff succeeded with his reconsideration or at the court of appeals and his

case was to move forward, if this account of Andrew Flanagan was permanently deleted, Plaintiff

will be put at a serious disadvantage.

840



Since June of 2017, Andrew Flanagan, NPR, Ashley Messenger and Jacob Ganz, were all well

aware that they could possibly be hauled into court by a defamation lawsuit.

A duty to preserve evidence arises when there is knowledge of a potential claim." Micron Tech. v.

Rambus, 255 F.R.D. 135 (D.Del.2009), aff'd 645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Since June of 2017, Andrew Flanagan, NPR, Jacob Ganz, and Ashley Messenger were all well

aware of being hauled into court by a defamation lawsuit.

As far as I can gather, Andrew Flanagan's Facebook account was established as far back as 2009.

Prior to working at NPR Andrew Flanagan worked as Senior Editor for Billboard from

2015-2017.

The Facebook page had vital evidence and circumstantial evidence to present to the jury

regarding Andrew Flanagan's journalistic standards and ethics, and whether or not he has an

agenda towards certain types of people and artists; there is no doubt from what was obtained

previously from Andrew Flanagan's most recent postings revealed a very unstable, unreliable,

unprofessional, and overall unbalanced person who had a serious chip on his shoulder against

spirituality and christianity.

This is a screen-shot taken from Andrew Flanagan's Facebook page; once again, it depicts a cruel,

immoral person’s mind:

We will repeat another screenshot to show this is not just a mistake.

841



There is nothing funny or to LOL ( Laugh out Loud) about any person, man, or Jesus that

was crucified, being mocked and scorned, ridiculed.

“Lord Jesus, Come into my life" is what is known as "the sinner’s prayer,” and it has saved

many a man; Billy Graham saved many a sinner with this simple prayer; the prisons are

full of millions of men and women who have converted and changed their lives due to this

simple powerful prayer.

842



There is nothing remotely funny about the image Andrew chose to share on his Facebook page.

Andrew read the information in Plaintiff and his wife’s websites, watched our music videos, the

trailer of the documentary film about myself and my wife that won Most Inspirational movie

award, read about our benefit concert, about Jimmy’s Story film, my other films, and chose to hide

the truth he knew and instead to make a joke out of me, my work and my mission.

Whether you are a believer or not, there is no reason whatsoever to attack any good man with

good intentions.

Findings.

No act serves to threaten the integrity of the judicial process more than the spoliation of evidence.

Gathering factual information is at the “core of our civil discovery system, There are rules

843



regarding how information is to be preserved and produced in civil disputes. Courts first consider

whether a duty to preserve evidence exists. To assess whether a duty exists, courts may consider:

the conduct, event or information that may trigger a preservation obligation, to whom the

preservation

duty may extend, and the scope of the preservation obligation. Answering these questions is

critical to parties and their counsel in making timely decisions to safeguard data, documents, and

tangible evidence when litigation is filed, threatened, or is reasonably anticipated.

(“A party which reasonably anticipates litigation has an affirmative duty to preserve relevant

evidence.”); Toste, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2359, at *8 (“As soon as a potential claim is identified,

a litigant is under a duty to preserve evidence which it knows or reasonably should know is

relevant to the action.”) (citation omitted); Colfer v. Southwest Builders & Dev. Co., 832 P.2d

383, 385 (Nev. 1992) (“[E]ven where an action has not been commenced and there is only a

potential for litigation, the litigant is under a duty to preserve evidence which it knows or

reasonably should know is relevant to the action.”) (citation omitted). 58. Hirsch v. General

Motors Corp., 628 A.2d 1108, 1122 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1993) (quoting County of Solano v.

Delancy, 264 Cal. Rptr. 721, 731 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989), opinion withdrawn , No. S013565, 1990

Cal. LEXIS 488 (Feb. 1, 1990)). See also Baliotis , 870 F. Supp. at 1290 (quoting Fire Ins. Exch.

v. Zenit Radio Corp., 747 P.2d 911, 914 (Nev. 1987) (“litigant is under a duty to preserve

evidence which it knows or reasonably should know is relevant to the action”)); Willard v.

Caterpillar, Inc., 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 607, 625–26 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (observing that “[t]he critical

legal question, . . . is whether the litigation was reasonably foreseeable at the time the

discoverable documents were destroyed. The existence of a legal duty depends on the answer to

844



this . . . question.”). 60. Zubulake, 220 F.R.D. at 217.

The duty to preserve documents, electronically stored information, or tangible evidence based on

the existence of pending, threatened, or reasonably foreseeable litigation arises under the common

law. To determine whether and when a duty to preserve exists, a party must determine what law

applies to spoliation issues that arise during pending litigation

or in the context of an independent tort claim for spoliation. [a] lawyer shall not: (a) unlawfully

obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or

other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another

person to do any such act; ....” M.R.C.P. 3.4. To purge damaging information on social media

would, if relevant, likely constitute spoliation. See Scott v. Garfield, 454 Mass. 790, 798 (2009)

(“The doctrine of spoliation permits the imposition of sanctions and remedies where a litigant or

its expert negligently or intentionally loses or destroys evidence that the litigant (or expert) knows

or reasonably should know might be relevant to a possible action, even when

the spoliation occurs before an action has been commenced.”).

Duty to preserve

The failure to preserve electronic or other records, once the duty to do so has been triggered,

raises the issue of spoliation of evidence and its consequences.'" Surowiec v. Capital Title

Agency, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d 997, 1005 (D. Ariz. 2011) (quoting Thompson v. U.S. Dep't of

Housing & Urban Dev., 219 F.R.D. 93, 100 (D. Md. 2003)). "Spoliation is the destruction or

material alteration of evidence, or the failure to otherwise preserve evidence, for another's use in

litigation." Id.

845



A party seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence must prove the following elements: (1) the

party having control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it when it was destroyed or

altered; (2) the destruction or loss was accompanied by a culpable state of mind; and (3) the

evidence that was destroyed or altered was relevant to the claims or defenses of the party that

sought the discovery of the spoliated evidence [.] Surowiec, 790 F. Supp. 2d at 1005 (quoting

Goodman v. Praxair Servs., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 494, 509 (D. Md. 2009)).

Culpable state of mind

Plaintiff has the burden "'to establish a reasonable possibility, based on concrete evidence rather

than a fertile imagination, that access to the lost material would have produced evidence favorable

to [its] cause.'" Sampson v. City of Cambridge, Md., 251 F.R.D. 172, 180 (D. Md. 2008) (quoting

Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd., 167 F.R.D. 90 (D. Colo. 1996)).

The doctrine has been characterized "as a scheme to interfere with the judicial machinery

performing the task of impartial adjudication, as by preventing the opposing party from fairly

presenting his case or defense." In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Antibiotic Antitrust

Actions, 538 F.2d 180, 195 (8th Cir. 1976) (citations omitted); see also Rozier v. Ford Motor Co.,

573 F.2d 1332, 1338 (5th Cir. 1978) Other United States Courts of Appeals expressly require that

fraud upon the court must involve an officer of the court. See Geo. P. Reintjes Co. v. Riley Stoker

Corp., 71 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 1995); Demjanjuk, 10 F.3d at 348.

The Ninth Circuit noted that "one species of fraud upon the court occurs when an `officer of the

court' perpetrates fraud affecting the ability of the court or jury to impartially judge a case."

846



Pumphrey v. Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Weese v.

Schukman, 98 F.3d 542, 553 (10th Cir. 1996) (noting that "fraud on the court should embrace

only that species of fraud which does or attempts to, subvert the integrity of the court itself, or is a

fraud perpetrated by officers of the court") (citation omitted); Kerwit Med. Prods., Inc. v. N. H.

Instruments, Inc., 616 F.2d 833, 837 (11th Cir. 1980) (same).

ABA\ Code: "suppressed or concealed evidence wrongfully." If evidence has been wrongfully

kept from the court, then the court makes its decision based on discrepancies and

misrepresentations.

It is absolutely vital for Plaintiff to know this Court's Ruling regarding whether of not any

violations have been committed; if there are, this must be addressed to decide my choices of

"Standard of Review" of what will be included, or not included, in my Appeals.

Respectfully submitted

S/ William Yeager December 7th, 2018.

Documents

THIS COURT HAS RULED - WordPress.com