Request for Admissions

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 31st CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
201 McMorran Blvd.
Port Huron, MI 48060
(810) 985-2031
 
 
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Hon. Judge: Daniel J. Kelly
Case No.: 09-2175-PZ

 

 

                       RE: People of the City of Port Huron v. Arthur L. Lockett

Dear Clerk of Court:

Enclosed for filing, please find Defendant’s Requests For Admissions ex parte affidavit in support, and proof of service.
 
And please except my sincere thanks, in advance, for this portion of your attention, time, and most kind cooperation in the matter.

Respectfully,

__________________________
Mr. Arthur L. Lockett
Pro se Defendant
909 Stone St. Apt. #1
Port Huron, Michigan 48060

 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 31st CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR
OFFICE OF THE CLERK

201 McMorran Blvd.
Port Huron, MI. 48060

 

Arthur L. Lockett,                                                                 Hon. Judge: Daniel J. Kelly

                                 Plaintiff,                                             Case No.: 09-2175-PZ

v.

                                                                                          PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET

                                                                                          REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

People Of The City Of Port Huron 

                                Defendant.

_________________________________/

Requests For Admissions

NOW COMES, Pro Se, Plaintiff, Arthur L. Lockett, pursuant to: MCR. 2.312(A), “a party …may serve on another party a written request for the admission of the truth of a matter within the scope of discovery: Reference case ID: 07P00808OM.

Requesting Party: Plaintiff, Mr. Arthur L. Lockett’s:

Admission Requests. First Set.

Responding Party: Defendant, The City Of Port Huron:

To Defendant: The City Of Port Huron; and attorney, T. Allen Francis; John Livesay; District Court Judge Cynthia S. Platzer; Kevin K. Kenaya and of the witnesses that provided testimony to Lockett‘s criminal-trial jury, and from court appointed trial-counsel Margaret Kelly.

Mr. Arthur L. Lockett, the plaintiff, in the above cause of action, requests that attorney, T. Allen Francis, and The City Of Port Huron, the defendant in the above cause, admit to the truth of the following matters:

1). Admit that: Mr. Arthur L. Lockett’s (hereafter, Plaintiff) criminal conviction is obtained by the City’s use, and jury’s reliance, on perjured trial testimony and false documentation. 

2). Admit that, foremost among the City Attorney’s duties, as a prosecutor, is making certain that no one is deliberately deprived of Liberty in violation of his or her Constitutional Rights

3). Admit that MCL 750.224a Sec.224a. prohibits police officers’ unreasonable use of a device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology irrespective of whether the individual has been trained in the use, effects, and risks of the device, and is using the device while performing his or her official duties:

4). Admit that, John Livesay suppressed evidence, to wit: the sound of the surveillance video and deliberately deprived Lockett of his Liberty in violation of his Constitutional Rights.

5). Admit that, John Livesay suppressed documentary evidence, to wit: the transaction that had accrued on Lockett’s Bridge Card.

6). Admit that, at all relevant times, John Livesay suppressed documentary evidence that was in defendant‘s possession and under his control, to wit: the transaction that had accrued on Lockett’s Bridge Card, that would have impeached his principle witness, Kevin K. Kenaya.

7). Admit that, John Livesay suppressed documentary and surveillance video record evidence that will, and would have, impeached his principle witness, Kevin K. Kenaya, at this present time, is in defendant‘s possession and control and defendant has failed to grant Plaintiff‘s September 28th 2009 request for same.

8). Admit that, there is clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence of a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to intentionally fraud the court.

9). Admit that, John Livesay suppressed evidence, in defendant‘s possession shows that the fraud was perpetrated by officers of the court.

10). Admit that, John Livesay suppressed evidence that goes to the heart of materiality, and that a reasonable probability exist that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. This materiality standard, is applied not only to exculpatory material, but also to material which would be relevant to the impeachment of witnesses.

11). Admit that documents presented along with this complaint, is more than compelling evidence of fraud because Plaintiff’s evidence consists of trial transcripts and records kept over the course of regularly conducted business, and is regulated by the government. Thus, well supported allegations of fraud upon the court.

12). Admit that, as prosecutor for the city of Port Huron, John Livesay (P-23123) knew his witnesses was going to lie before taking the witness-stand, and was lying while on the witness stand concerning the materiality of the case. In fact, it was John Livesay plan by design.

13). Admit that, Plaintiff request the documents that would expose the falsehoods, prior to the start of his criminal trial, and the fact the prosecutor failed to provide same.

14). Admit that, that when a defendant is denied the right to counsel, as in this case, this denial of counsel deprives the court of jurisdiction and renders void any ensuing judgment issued by that court.

15). Admit that, this judgment ought not, in equity and good conscience, be enforced;

16). Admit that, Plaintiff has a good defense to the alleged cause of action on which judgment is founded.

17). Admit that, it is fraud, and not a accident or mistake which prevented Plaintiff, in the judgment, from obtaining the benefit of his defense.

18). Admit that, there is an absence of fault or negligence on the part of Plaintiff. 19). Admit that, there is an absence of any other adequate remedy at law.”

20). Admit that, the Brady v. Maryland, court held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” “As a matter of due process, the prosecution must disclose to the defendant any evidence in its possession, or that is reasonably obtainable, that tends to exculpate the defendant.“ However, defendant failed to meet the requirements of this rule.  

21). Admit that the evidence withheld was material and exculpatory, violating the heart of the holdings of Brady, to wit: the prosecution’s suppression of evidence, in the face of a defense production request, the evidence was favorable to the Plaintiff’s defense in the underlining action as it is material to the determination of guilt.

22). Admit the defendant’s obligation to disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence in his possession, even in the absence of a request, or upon a general request, by defendant.

23). Admit that the defendant knew or should have known that testimony given to the trial was perjured.

24). Admit that the conviction must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury.

25). Admit that the defense specifically requested certain evidence and the defendant withheld it.

26). Admit that, the conviction must be set aside where, as here, the suppressed evidence “might” have affected the outcome of the trial. “Might” being less than a preponderance.

27). Admit that a duty resides in the defendant to reveal to the criminal defense obviously exculpatory evidence; if the prosecutor does not reveal it, reversal of a conviction may be required, but only if the undisclosed evidence creates a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.

28). Admit that the undisclosed evidence creates a reasonable doubt as to the Plaintiff’s guilt in the underlining action.

29). Admit that defendant did, in fact, engaged in both civil and criminal, misconduct consistence with the five elements of fraud upon the court which consist of:

1. On the part of an officer of the court;

2. That is directed to the ‘judicial machinery’ itself;

3. That is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth;

4. That is a positive averment or is concealment when one is under a duty to disclose;

5. That deceives the court. 

30). Admit that, the jury’s decision in this case is produced by fraud upon the court and is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.

31). Admit that, defendant’s Fraud upon the court" made void the orders and judgments of underlining court.

32). Admit that, it is also clear and well-settled law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding.

33). Admit that, the maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to other transactions. The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters. It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.

34). Mr. Lockett, pro se Plaintiff, requests that attorney, T. Allen Francis; admit to the genuineness nature of the following documents, copies of which are attached to this Request for Admission:

35). A copy of a page from Plaintiff’s criminal trial-court transcript. ID: 07P00808OM

36). A copy of a page from the EBT- Electronically Benefit Transfer

..

37). Attorney, T. Allen Francis; is required to serve responses to this Request for Admission no later than May 15th 2010.

Respectfully submitted:

______________________________

Mr. Arthur L. Lockett Thursday, April 8, 2010

Pro se Plaintiff
909 Stone St. Apt #1
Port Huron, Michigan 48060

(810) 985-9309

(

810) 354-2021

Each matter as to which a request is made is deemed admitted unless, within 28 days after service of the request, or within a shorter or longer time as the court may allow, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection within 42 days after being served with the summons and complaint. Each matter admitted is conclusively established for the purposes of the pending action. MCR 2.312(D). Matters admitted due to a lack of response may be considered by a court in ruling on a motion for summary disposition. Medbury v Walsh, 190 Mich App 554, 556; 476 NW2d 470 (1991).“

See also, Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 348 (6th Cir. 1993).

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 31st CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
201 McMorran Blvd.
Port Huron, MI 48060
(810) 985-2031

 

Arthur L. Lockett,                                                             Hon. Judge: Daniel J. Kelly

                      Plaintiff,                                                         Case No.: 09-2175-PZ

 
v.                                                                                        Request For Admission
 
 
People of the City of Port Huron,

                      Defendants.

_____________________________________/

 

Proof Of Service

NOW COMES, pro se Plaintiff, Arthur L. Lockett, pursuant to

Title 28, Part V, Chapter 115 § 1746, and states: that I, Mr. Arthur L. Lockett, do declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States Of America, as represented by my signature below, that I did cause, at or near _9_:_30__, AM., on this date of: April __5th__ 2010, to be served, by hand delivery, a copy of the Request for admissions on the Defendants at the Attorney, T. Allen Francis‘, office, at:

Fletcher Fealko Shoudy & Moeller PC

522 Michigan St.
Port Huron, MI 48060
(810) 987-8444
 
Respectfully submitted:
 
______________________________

Mr. Arthur L. Lockett Thursday, April 8, 2010

Pro se Plaintiff
909 Stone St. Apt #1
Port Huron, Michigan 48060

(810) 985-9309

(

810) 354-2021

 
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 31st CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
201 McMorran Blvd.
Port Huron, MI 48060
(810) 985-2031
 

Arthur L. Lockett,                                                                  Hon. Judge: Daniel J. Kelly

                      Plaintiff,                                                              Case No.: 09-2175-PZ

 
v.
                                                                                                Request For Admission
 
People of the City of Port Huron,

                      Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Arthur L. Lockett’s

Ex Parte Affidavit in Support

NOW COMES, In pro se, Plaintiff, Arthur L. Lockett, pursuant to

Title 28, Part V, Chapter 115 § 1746, and states: that I, Mr. Arthur L. Lockett, declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States Of America, as represented by my signature below, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and, of which, includes statements made in, and in support of Plaintiff’s: Request for Admissions; Proof of Service; and this Ex Parta Affidavit.

Respectfully submitted:

_________________________

Mr. Arthur L. Lockett Thursday, April 8, 2010

Pro se Plaintiff
909 Stone St. Apt #1
Port Huron, Michigan 48060

(810) 985-9309 (810) 354-2021

Title 28, Part V, Chapter 115 § 1746:

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s