The subject of this post is a comprehensive suit at equity (see post of March 18, 2016, infra, for the principles of equity) for a constructive trust based on constructive fraud, filed with the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, August 11, 2016, and amended August 16, 2016.
The root word of “constructive” is construe (not construct):
“con׳strue . . . to determine the meaning of ; interpret ; explain, as to construe a foreign language (into English) ; to construe one’s conduct ; to construe a clause or a law.” A Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Isaac K. Funk, Editor in Chief (Funk & Wagnalls Company: New York, 1903) (hereinafter “Funk & Wagnalls”), p. 404.
“constructive, adj. Legally imputed; having an effect in law though not necessarily in fact. ● Courts usu. give something a constructive effect for equitable reasons <the court held that the shift supervisor had constructive knowledge of the machine’s failure even though he did not actually know until two days later>.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief (West Group: St. Paul Minn., 1999), p. 309.
A constructive trust is not an actual trust per se but an equitable remedy imposed by the court to redress wrongs and prevent unjust enrichment resulting from, among other things, constructive fraud; to wit:
“constructive trust . . . a trust set up by a court to deal with property that has been acquired by fraud or by inequitable means; specifically : a trust so formed to distribute property where distribution and enjoyment under the original transaction was against the principles of equity.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary: Unabridged, (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated: Springfield, Mass., 2000), s.v. “Constructive trust.”
“Constructive fraud occurs when there is a breach of a legal or equitable duty that, irrespective of guilt, the law declares fraudulent because of its tendency to deceive others, to violate confidence, or to injure public interests . . . . An example of constructive, as opposed to actual, fraud involves the failure to disclose facts when there is a duty to make a disclosure. . . .” William V. Dorsaneo III, Texas Litigation Guide, Vol. 4, Ch. 55 (Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.: New York, 2016) (“Dorsaneo”), p. 55-5.
“The most important and common type of constructive fraud supporting the imposition of constructive trusts involves the breach of a fiduciary or confidential relationship . . . . When an abuse of a confidential or fiduciary relationship is alleged, the burden of proof is on the fiduciary to establish the fairness of the transaction, that there was full disclosure of all facts and circumstances, and that there was good faith and the absence of pressure or influence on the part of the fiduciary . . . .” Id. at 55-8.
“Fiduciary relationships are those that, as a matter of law, are relationships of trust and confidence. . . .” Id. at 55-9.
Every judge is a fiduciary toward the public, of which Petitioner is a part; to wit:
“ ‘Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit — and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir.1985) — includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. . . .’ ” McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 371–372 (1987), quoting Judge Posner in United States v. Holzer, 816 F.2d 304 (1987).
United States District Judge Lynn Nettleton Hughes of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division had an equitable duty to disclose certain material facts and information to Petitioner, but failed to do so, even when expressly requested of him.
Further, Defendant Hughes failed to discharge / perform a certain legal duty imposed by law (this same legal duty applies in every Federal civil case in every Federal court throughout the Union), which resulted in Petitioner’s loss of, among other things, beneficial use of Petitioner’s real property (Petitioner’s home) for the last 27 months and permanent loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal property (in law, called “personalty”).
“A constructive trust may be imposed on anyone who knowingly participates in another’s breach of a fiduciary duty or knowingly benefits from the breach. The remedy ‘reaches all those who are actually concerned in the fraud, all who directly and knowingly participate in its fruits, and all those who derive title from them voluntarily or with notice.’ ” Dorsaneo, p. 55-14.
There are 46 other Defendants who knowingly participated in Defendant Hughes’ breach of fiduciary duty, one of whom is JPMRRE, LLC, who acquired title to Petitioner’s home in Porter, Texas (the “Porter Property”)—not at a public auction as ordered by Defendant Hughes in his May 23, 2014, Order of Sale and Vacature, but privately and secretly and at less than 75 percent of its fair market value on date of sale, August 25, 2014.
Defendant JPMRRE, LLC is not entitled to retain the Porter Property; to wit:
“A third party who obtains property as a result of the defendant’s [Defendant Hughes’] fraud or other wrongdoing is not entitled to retain that property . . . . The key is whether the recipient is unjustly enriched. A bona fide purchaser for full value would not be unjustly enriched by being allowed to retain the property; instead, the constructive trust is imposed on the proceeds of the sale in the hands of the wrongdoer . . . . In contrast, those who benefit from another’s wrongdoing and do not pay full value for the property may be forced to accept a constructive trust on the property they have received. . . .” Dorsaneo, p. 55-21.
Normal Federal solution: Remove case to Federal court
What normally happens in cases like this when someone sues the Federal government or a Federal officer in a state court, is that an officer of the United States Department of Justice simply gives notice to the state court that he is removing the case to a Federal court under authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1441 or 1442 and thereafter opens a new case in the closest United States District Court.
Any application to remove this Texas case to a Federal court is unauthorized, fraudulent, and willful—because the only species of court to which the aforementioned statutes authorize removal—a limited-jurisdiction District Court of the United States—no longer exists, rendering lawful removal impossible.
Typically, Federal actors just bulldoze over anyone and everyone in their path to achieve their objective; in this instance, removal of the Texas case to a Federal court.
The commercial liability that accrues to each defendant personally / organizationally for unlawful removal of this case, however, is far more extreme than the few millions of dollars in damages owed as a consequence of Defendant Hughes’ constructive fraud and theft of Petitioner’s home under color of authority and the 46 other defendants’ participation therein.
The penalty for such removal is spelled out in Petitioner’s “Notice and Warning of Commercial Grace,” which appears at the top of Plaintiff’s Amended Original Petition (hyperlinked below).
Petitioner on (a) August 11, 2016, filed the original petition; (b) August 15, 2016, a “Notice of Lis Pendens” (lis means controversy or dispute or suit at law or equity; pendens means pending) against Petitioner’s stolen home; and (c) August 16, 2016, an amended original petition.
The amended original petition was served on Defendants either by personal delivery or USPS Certified Mail, return receipt requested, beginning August 25, 2016.
In the process of conspiring criminally and committing theft of Petitioner’s home under color of authority, Defendants committed collectively between 10,000 and 15,000 felonies—each of which has a substantial monetary value and for which every Defendant, beginning as of his respective initial date of participation in the purported case employed to defraud Petitioner of his home, would be personally liable to Petitioner should any Defendant purport to remove said Montgomery County, Texas, case to a purported United States District Court without statutory or constitutional authority.
A description of the two files hyperlinked below:
- “Plaintiff’s Amended Original Petition, August 16, 2016 (18.6 MB)” (a) dissolves any confusion the reader may have developed over his life as to the exact nature of what he mistakenly believes is the United States, Department of the Treasury, Secretary of the Treasury, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Internal Revenue Service, United States Department of Justice, Office of the Clerk of Court (of any Federal court), United States District Courts, United States Marshals Service, United States Courts of Appeals, United States Treasury, and Federal Reserve—intentionally manufactured by Congress (and actors within the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation and these organizations) over the last 152 years, in order to defraud Americans of their birthright and deprive them of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, (b) documents the constructive fraud of the trial-court judge, Defendant Lynn Nettleton Hughes, and connivance with Defendant Hughes on the part of the five circuit judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, (c) demonstrates that (i) no Defendant individual is bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, (ii) every United States District Court is a municipal court of the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation; and (iii) other than Defendant United States of America, no Defendant organization is part of the organic general government of the de jure Republic of March 4, 1789, (d) itemizes the dollar-value of the constructive fraud and various types of damages resulting therefrom, and (e) demands judgment decreeing, among other things, a constructive trust on the Porter Property, with Defendant JPMRRE, LLC as constructive trustee for the benefit of Petitioner, and ordering Defendant JPMRRE, LLC to convey to Petitioner within 20 days free and clear of all encumbrances the entire interest held by Defendant JPMRRE, LLC in the Porter Property;
- The “Notice of Lis Pendens, August 15, 2016,” filed four days after the original petition, one day before the amended original petition, in the Official Public Records of Montgomery County, Texas, against the Porter Property warns potential buyers that the title thereto presently held in the name of Defendant JPMRRE, LLC is in litigation and that, should someone purchase Defendant JPMRRE, LLC’s claim to the Porter Property, he is in danger of being bound by an adverse judgment.
* Note: This document has numerous references to the United States Statutes at Large. In this context, the phrase “at large” means “Not included within particular limitations; in general; for all; as, a Congressman at large” (Funk & Wagnalls, p. 1003, s.v. “Large”). For example, 104 Stat. 4935 means the 104th volume of the Statutes at Large, page 4935. Using the following link the reader can verify for himself the accuracy of any reference herein to the Statutes at Large: http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=104&page=4935#. When the page comes up, simply insert the number of the desired volume and page in the appropriate box and click “Get Document” and that particular page of that particular volume of the Statutes at Large will appear. From there the reader can click to go to the next sequential page or prior page or insert new numbers and go to an entirely different volume or page.