I think so.

Here is the pertinent language in the code 18 U.S.C. 241:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

This is what I allege happened, as I wrote it within an informal appellate brief filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

(“Sherman” is Mary Sherman, the member-manager of Silver Strand Plaza, LLC. “Kramer” is Lynn Kramer. Both are my sisters.)

Sherman allowed Kramer to transfer her shares in SSP to a living trust that benefitted and had her husband as co-trustee. This was disallowed by the SSP OA and I received no notification of a vote as required by the OA.

Sherman stalled transmitting the updated member list to me until after I filed my complaint in which I named Kramer as an individual, but not her trust. I did not know Kramer transferred her shares to a trust until I received the updated member list. I had to make an immediate amendment to the complaint.

I had to receive leave to file electronically, so the Clerk of the Court filed my documents for me until Docket entry 9 on July 16, 2019. I did not notice Linda R. Kramer missing from the docket. After I filed the FAC to add the trustees of the Lynn and Erik’s Trust (which I think might be a misnomer for the Erik and Lynn’s Trust), the Clerk added the new defendants, but Linda R. Kramer as an individual was either removed or had never been included. Kramer seized upon the opportunity to try to extract herself from the litigation as an individual by excluding herself as an individual from her response to the complaint. I informed the deputy clerk of the error and asked him specifically if he could grant a default. He said yes. After I filed a less than stellar motion for default, he informed me of a case that had a successful motion for default filed to use as a template.

While I was correcting my motion, the deputy clerk did a favor for Kramer by adding her to the docket entry 19, her trustee’s response, without notating the correction. (The District Court Clerk in the Eastern District of Arkansas always notes every change made to the docket entries.) After the clerk learned that I had taken a copy of the original docket entries, the clerk changed the altered entry back, again without notation of the change. This appeared to me that I would receive unequal treatment on this case.  It reminded me of activity on my custody case. It showed an intent to falsify the record for my litigation adversaries, which is malicious.

My allegation against the district court clerk is plausible, supported by evidence and it is true.

Kramer knew about my horrible experience in family court. She told me I “took on the mafia and won.” She knew that I checked into a hospital with anxiety and depression caused in major part by my experience in court. It was especially cruel for her to abuse the process by enlisting the Clerk to alter the docket, like was done to me in my family law case. In that paper file case, the alterations started small and culminated in the entire 14 volumes going missing for years at a time.

I immediately reported the falsification of the record to the Court through filed documents. The Court gave me no relief, and in fact threatened me for making the report, as I will discuss further in another section.

I filed a 42 USC 1983 case in Arkansas district court concerning the clerk’s misconduct. It was dismissed before reaching the merits on issues concerning immunities. I disagreed with the MTD but did not respond. I was low on energy.

Throughout these proceedings and the 42 USC 1983 suit the Clerk did not provide the electronic history of changes to the docket. The system software was changed subsequently, and I am afraid that evidence has now been destroyed.

The harm, because the clerk changed the alteration back, was the innate harm implicit in the violation of my Constitutional Rights. I made the reasonable inference that the court would not provide me a fair adjudication of my grievances. And I was right.

In response to the alteration of the docket and the improper collusion between attorney Keith Cochran and the deputy clerk to deny me a clerk’s default against Linda R. Kramer as an individual, I asked for sanctions under Rule 11 and for the court to order the clerk to enter default.

[After Judge Sammartino denied my relief and threatened and intimidated me from bringing any corrupt conduct to the court’s attention] I asked Judge Sammartino to recuse, Doc. 153.

[Lynn] Kramer as an individual was in default by excluding herself from the MTD filed timely on behalf of the co-trustees of the Lynn and Erik’s Trust.

[The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked:]

What issues are you asking the court to review in this case? What do you think the district court did wrong?

Whether omitting one of two capacities in which Linda Kramer was named from the list of represented defendants joined on the cover of an MTD means that separate defendant was in default. If so, whether the clerk must grant default, which can only be set aside after a successful motion to set it aside that explains that the party was omitted by error and why she should be allowed to late file.

The clerk erred and the court upheld the error by allowing the clerk to look to a footnote on page 6 of the MTD, Doc. 19-1, and make an improper inference that the attorney who wrote the MTD represented Ms. Kramer in all her capacities.

The court erred by writing an intimidating footnote in her Order of March 23, 2020, Doc. 111. “The Court cautions Plaintiff against impugning the Clerk or other staff of this Court or District based on gratuitous speculation regarding relationships of favoritism toward litigants or their counsel. See, e.g., ECF No. 85 at 2, 4. Such accusations should not be made lightly and, absent evidence supporting such claims, the Court will not countenance them.”

My testimony given through declaration and documents certified under Rule 11 was evidence, exhibits attached were evidence, and the revision history of the docket software was available to the court.

The court erred by failing to follow simple procedure, FRCP Rule 55(a) and (c).

The court erred by failing to sanction attorney Keith Cochran and his firm for convincing the clerk to include Linda Kramer as an individual on the electronic record days after her deadline and violating Rule 11 in defending his misconduct.

[The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked:]

What law supports these issues on appeal? (You may refer to cases and statutes, but you are not required to do so.)

In determining whether to grant default, a clerk may look no further than the cover of a document. If a separate defendant is left off the list of represented defendants, in other words not joined, whether purposefully or inadvertently, they must file a motion to have default set aside pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 55.

Obviously, Linda R. Kramer as an individual was not joined to the co-trustees’ timely response. That separate defendant was not on the docket until two days after the MTD was filed as Doc. 19.

***********************

I did not cite 18 U.S.C. 241, Conspiracy Against Rights in the brief. I wonder if the Justices of the Ninth Circuit will notice the criminal conduct on their own, and if they will uphold our Constitution as they are sworn to do.

You may download the entire brief which is posted below.

Email: bohemian_books@yahoo.com