Appeal Dismissal Errors & Alleged Court Violations: The Agnes Mecurry & Etha Jones Case

In this episode of Appeal Dismissal Errors & Alleged Court Violations: The Agnes Mecurry & Etha Jones Case, we delve into the recent legal developments surrounding the appeal dismissal of Agnes Mecurry and Etha Jones (Case No. 24-5786). The appellants argue that their appeal was wrongfully dismissed due to an oversight in court procedures, specifically pointing to violations of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(A)(v). We explore the key elements of their case, including claims of a fraudulent dismissal, overlooked motions, and potential RICO violations implicating Appellee Jeffrey Ward. Tune in as we unpack the intricacies of judicial procedure, alleged misconduct, and the broader implications for judicial integrity.

Whether you're a legal professional, a court reform advocate, or simply curious about how the judicial system operates, this episode provides an in-depth analysis of a case that highlights crucial issues within our court system.

#FamilyCourtTyranny #ReformFamilyCourt #StandWithMeg #BrokenSystem #FamilyCourtReform #CreateAMovement #JudicialMisconduct #LegalReform #AppealCase #CourtProcedure #JusticeSystem

Transcript

Briefing Doc: Agnes Mecurry and Etha Jones Appeal (Case No. 2:23-CV-29)

Subject: Notice to the Court of Error in Dismissal of Appeal and FRAP 4(A)(v) Violations

Appellants' Argument:

This document outlines the arguments of Agnes Mecurry and Etha Jones (Appellants) regarding the dismissal of their appeal (Case No. 24-5786) and alleged violations of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(A)(v) by the court.

Key Points:

1. Erroneous Dismissal: Appellants argue that the dismissal of their appeal (Case No. 24-5786) on October 7, 2024, for failure to pay fees was in error. This is because other related appeals (24-5196, 24-5208, 24-5612) were still pending and a motion to consolidate all appeals was filed on August 26, 2024.
2. FRAP 4(A)(v) Violations: Appellants contend that the court violated FRAP 4(A)(v), which states that filing deadlines are suspended while a Rule 60 motion (motion for relief from judgment) is pending. The Appellants had a Rule 60 motion pending, which should have suspended the fee deadline for appeal 24-5786. They argue the court failed to recognize this suspension.
3. Court Errors and Potential RICO Violations: Appellants allege that the court ignored their motion to consolidate, leaving appeal 24-5786 on the docket, which ultimately aided in its "fraudulent" dismissal. They directly accuse Appellee Jeffrey Ward of taking advantage of this situation by filing a motion to dismiss on October 7, 2024. Furthermore, they suggest these actions constitute a pattern of obstruction of justice by the court, potentially violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
4. Previous Rulings and Judicial Economy: Appellants point out that they are not subject to fees for appeal 24-5786 as previous appeals were granted in forma pauperis (IFP) status and a recent denial of IFP should not affect this. Additionally, they argue that a timely filed Rule 60 motion renders the final judgment void. They cite case 23-CV-141, where a similar situation led to a void judgment, suggesting the court should void the judgment in this case for judicial economy.

Quotes:

• "Appellant's motion to consolidate the appeals submitted on August 26th, 2024 was completely left out on the docket to aid and abet a fraudulent dismissal of this case."
• "It is apparent that this Court is engaged in RICO obstruction of justice to Appellants by violating its own rules of appellate procedure."
• "Moreover, the latest appeal 24-5786 motion was filed showed that the final judgment is VOID based off the judgment entered by Judge Ronnie Greer in case 23-CV-141."

Conclusion:

Appellants urge the court to recognize the aforementioned errors and reinstate appeal 24-5786. They allege serious misconduct by the court and Appellee Jeffrey Ward, potentially hinting at a larger pattern of judicial misconduct.

Disclaimer: This briefing doc is based solely on the provided excerpts and does not include any legal analysis or interpretation.