The History of "Insurance Fraud" against The Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Ohio, and all American citizens.
Below are the historical “Case Docket Numbers” of the legal actions associated with nearly 20 years of “insurance company fraud” and “fraud on the court”. A “breach of contract” and bad faith with malice to the insured, along with a willful conspiracy to "forged; fabricated and perpetrate “false statements" and "false claims" of the term "Employee Retirement Income Security Act, (1974)", against the legal parties involved herein, against the Officers of the Courts, and against the state and federal American Courts, and the judicial taxpayers.
The Plaintiff (the “insured” and “injured” party herein, as Ackerman(s)) have legally expressed a “jury demand endorsed hereon” for a "trial by jury", and to this day remains “incomplete” in court of law, now nearly 20 years past. Still no jury trail, with a jury of our peers, on all genuine legal issues of fact for a jury to decide in the state regulated “business of insurance”.
Applicable Rules of Constitutional Law
Article VI of the United States Constitution;...all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; ….
~and~
* U.S. Constitution; United States Bill of Rights; First Amendment (Redress the Government), Seventh Amendment (Jury in Civil Cases), Tenth Amendment (State Powers), and Fourteenth Amendment (Rights of Citizens).
~and~
* Ohio Constitution; Bill of Rights; Section 1 (Inalienable Rights), Section 5 (Trial by jury), and Section 16 (Redress in Courts) of the Ohio Bill of Rights.
*******************************************************************************
Relevant Bad Case Law to all American Citizens
The "Original Action" of these legal matters can be found at the
Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, Ohio ~ State Jurisdictional Venue (Dayton, Ohio) at Case No. 2000-CV-1472 and Case No. 2003-CV-9499.
1) The Plaintiffs makes state law claims, with an instant action to a “jury demand",
2) Two (2) cases; independent, yet with parallel state law claims.
3) Alleged "False Statements" of the expressed text as the "Employee Retirement Income Security Act", by the legal team of the insurance company
4) Alleged Perjury / Fraud on the court
* Case No. 2000-CV-1472 - 2000 ~Case removed; State Constitutional law access, privilege and rights are "denied".
* Case No. 2003-CV-9499 - 2003 ~ Case removed; State Constitutional law access, privilege and inviolate rights to a “trial by jury” are "denied".
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Cases are "removed" to the Southwestern District Court of Ohio, ~ Federal Jurisdictional Venue
1) Plaintiffs carry state law claims, with a “Jury Demand". See: FRCP 81(c)
2) Two (2) cases; independent with parallel state law claims are removed via two claims 1) Diversity of citizenship (Legal parties are from different states)
3) Alleged "False Claims" of the "Employee Retirement Income Security Act" against the insured party's state law claims with alleged acts of Perjury / Obstruction of Justice / leading to "fraud on the court".
* Case No. 03:00-cv-0277 - 2000 ~ Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and inviolate rights to a “trial by jury” are "denied".
* Case No. 03:04-cv-0033 - 2004 ~ Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and inviolate rights to a “trial by jury” are "denied".
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Appeals to Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ~ Federal Jurisdictional Venue
* Case No. 05-3828 - 2005 ~ Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and rights are "denied".
* Case No. 05-3829 - 2005 ~ Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and rights are "denied".
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Appeals to Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals again ~ Federal Jurisdictional Venue
* Case No. 06-3454 - 2006 ~ Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and rights are "denied".
* Case No. 06-3456 - 2006 ~ Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and rights are "denied".
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Appeals to Supreme Court of the United States ~ Federal Jurisdictional Venue
1st Writ ) Original jurisdiction "writ of certiorari" ~ denied without a case number assigned, returned ~ Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and rights are "denied".
2nd Writ) "Writ of certiorari" at Case No. 05-10337 - 2005 ~ Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and rights are "denied".
3rd Writ) "Writ of certiorari" at Case No. 07-05446 - 2007 ~ Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and rights are "denied".
Fraud on the Court (Appeal) / Grand Jury Hearing (Appeal)
See: Remedies for fraud at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 60(d)(1)(3) for jurisdiction and redress to proper state and federal Constitutional access, privilege and inviolate right to a “trial by jury”, for equitable remedies of relief and future deterrent.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Appeals to Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ~ Federal Jurisdictional Venue
* Case No. 08-4324 -2008 (Fraud on the Court) ~ Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and rights are "denied".
* Case No. 08-4529 -2008 (Grand Jury Motion) ~ Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and rights are "denied".
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Note: The Supreme Court of the United States with authority and responsibility to address a Constitutional question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by the highest court in the United States of America. See: United States Constitution Article VI.
Appeal again to The Supreme Court of the United States / Highest State and Federal Jurisdiction Venue
4th Writ) Case No. 08-10231 - 2009 ~ a "writ of certiorari" / Docketed May 08, 2009 / Petition for rehearing ~ Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and rights are "denied".
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A Return to the State of Ohio Court Venue for Action to Original Jury Demand
The aggrieved legal parties now returns to the State of Ohio Court venue under the "Adequate and Independent" Doctrine for a "trial by jury" proceeding (Ohio Constitution; Bill of Rights; Section 5 (Trial by Jury), since the federal court venue is repugnant to the "functional operation" of the Constitution of the United States.
The state law claims of the LTD Insurance participant / beneficiary (Plaintiff),returns to the Ohio State Court venue for Constitutional law protection per the alleged act to "willfully and knowingly" forged; fabricated and perpetrated, "false claim" and false statements" of the "common words" and "technical term", expressed as the "Employee Retirement Income Security Act" (ERISA) which has obstructed justice; due process and equal protection of the laws with a trial by jury upon a jury demand.
* See 28 U.S.C. Section 1254 ~ Appeal to the State (Ohio) Appellate Court venue with a jurisdictional challenge to the "false claims" of the "Employee Retirement Income Security Act." (Which are clearly, to the reasonable person(s), are "null and void" to the participant's insurance policy carrying not the first ink drop of the federally mandated "Statement of ERISA Rights" and or any other language of the "common words" to be furnished to both the participants, and to the beneficiaries, by the Plan Administrator.)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Appeal again to the Appellate Court of Montgomery County, Ohio, Second Appellate District ~ State Venue
* Case No. CA 023443 ~ Appellate Court of Montgomery County, Ohio, Second Appellate District, with a Jurisdictional Challenge, and motion to "Certify a Conflict of Judgments" Ohio App. R. Rule 25 (A). ~ Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and rights are "denied".
Note: An additional application for a “Motion for Reconsideration of Conflict of Judgments”, filed October 19, 2009, per the court possible oversight and/ or misapprehension. (Ohio App. R. Rule 25 (A) and 26A). ~
Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and rights are "denied".
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Appeal to The Supreme Court of Ohio ~ Highest State Jurisdictional Venue
Case No. 2009-1794 ~ Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio; Discretionary Appeal (Felony); Claimed Appeal of Right filed 10/05/09.
*Also find a “Notice” to The Supreme Court of Ohio of the determination by the Second Appellate District court of Montgomery County, Ohio, ; filed 12/17/09.The Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses appeal as “not involving any substantial constitutional question”, filed on 12/30/09. ????
The Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and rights are again "denied".
Appeal to The Supreme Court of Ohio ~ Highest State Jurisdictional Venue
The Plaintiffs have still not had due process to "trial by jury" in the State or Federal Court venue(s), as prescribed by State and U.S. Constitutional law.
A "motion for reconsideration" is filed on 01/11/10 to The Honorable Supreme Court of Ohio, for State(s) and Federal Constitutional protection of 300,000,000+ American citizen who trust and depend on the "rule of law" for public safety and great general interest and wellbeing.03/03/10 ~ Motion for Reconsideration ~ "Denied". Federal and State Constitutional law access, privilege and rights are again "denied".
03/15 and16/2010 ~ Appellants' motion to apply FRCP 60 (d)(1)(3) with "Claim of Unconstitutionality" / Clarification of Orders / Decisions / Motion for Leave. Fraud on the Court v. Jury Demand.
04/02/10 ~ Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer ~ Passes away holding the "keys" to truth and justice to a "Claim of Unconstitutionality" upon a jury demand action. HE KNOWS THE TRUTH.
05/03/10 ~ Ohio Governor Ted Strickland appoints interim Chief Justice Eric Brown to represent the Honorable Supreme Court of Ohio.
05/05/10 ~ Two days later, with thousands of documents to review and other cases to address, the Plaintiff's Motion to apply FRCP 60 (d)(1)(3) with "Claim of Unconstitutionality" / Clarification of Orders / Decisions / Motion for Leave are "Denied".
Now nearly 10 years without a trial by jury. Why?
01/03/11 ~ Motion for leave and notification to present “constitutional question of law”.
02/16/11 ~ "Motion for leave" is denied, however the judicial notice remains open for sua sponte action by the Ohio Supreme Court Justices while under oath to support and affirm the text and interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America.
02/16/11 to the present day 02/16/2020 (Nine years of deprivation of civil rights), the insured legal party still has not been afforded the legal right to jury demand to determine the facts of the case matter, and now has gone back to the 'original jurisdiction' of the state court venue in Montgomery County, Ohio for "intervention" (Ohio Rule 24) to preserve the "original action" to a jury demand for a trail by jury to determine all genuine disputed material facts upon alleged "insurance company fraud", for a jury to decide in a court of law, and has again been denied access to a trail by jury.
The "original instant actions" to a jury demand of these case(s) are still "incomplete", and without a trial by jury on all legal issues of fact for a jury to decide. Due process must proceed with equal protection of the laws for all Americans.
Why have the American judicial courts and government representatives aborted the American citizens and their "inviolate legal right" to a "trial by jury", thus adhering to the enemies giving (insurance company) "aid and comfort" to the enemy from our State of Ohio and U.S. Constitution?
A near attempt to destroy the cornerstone of functional democracy as a fundamental freedom to the citizens of the Unites States of America.
Upon judicial notification, The Supreme Court of Ohio is mandated to perform and "certify" a question of unconstitutionality" as prescribed under 28 U.S.C. 2403(a)(b).
See: Docket Entry 01/03/11 (last entry) at the Supreme Court of Ohio case No. 2009-1794 which remains open for Constitutional intervention by the Justices, or otherwise be held in contempt of the court.
The Plaintiff of Ohio, as "We the People" of the United States and abroad, now patiently await the Supreme Court of Ohio action to "certify" a question of constitutionality (Right to a trial by jury), to the Ohio Attorney General and United States Attorney General under 28 U.S.C. 2403(a)(b).
*****************************************************************************************
Note: Another hardship is created by the "bad faith" of the insurance company Assurant (fka- Fortis Benefits Insurance Company / Fortis), is a foreclosure of the insured legal party's home while waiting for the courts to perform its “mandated” duties to protect and exercise a "trial by jury".
This particular case is listed in the Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, Ohio as Case No. 2009 CV 03194, and has proceeded in the courts for over ten (10) years, along with 3 (three) illegal Sheriff Sales. The insured party has lost the comfort of their home due to alleged insurance company fraud matter and fraud of the courts.
See: Supreme Court of Oho Case No. 2021-0720, 2021-0721, 2021-0156, 2017-0385 and Supreme Court of the United States Case No. 05-10337, 07-5446, 08-10231, 17-8816 and 21-8145 for tyrany proceedings on this corrupt foreclosure and predicating insurance company fraud case matters ~ "DENIED".
Why obstruct "due process of law" to determine the genuine issues of material facts?
Foreclosure action before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit at 19-4066 seeking compelling jurisdiction of case matters and vacate Sheriff Sale of property, denied.
Also note, another hardship is created by the "bad faith" of the insurance company Assurant (fka- Fortis Benefits Insurance Company / Fortis), the insured legal party has wage garnishment due to delinquent bills cause by insurance company fraud.
Also note, another hardship is created by the "bad faith" of the insurance company Assurant (fka- Fortis Benefits Insurance Company / Fortis), as credit card debt collections continue in the Dayton Municipal Court, Dayton, Ohio at case No. 2013CVF01963 and
A "judicial notice" has also been filed for "extraordinary intervention" in The Dayton Municipal Court (Grassroots jurisdiction) upon "show cause" and "judicial notice" of the insurance case(s) carrying a paramount procedural deficiency to a "jury demand" made in a court of law".without "support' to the Constitution of the United Stares.
See Case No. 2018CVF04906 Judge Carl Henderson, presiding.
See Case No. 2020CVF04788 JUDGE
Currently, the insured legal party is still to this day waiting for a trial by jury. (Now nearly 23 years in the courts of aleged “insurance company fraud” performed by Assurant / (fka Fortis Benefits Insurance Company) for the supreme jurisprudence of The Supreme Court of Ohio to perform is mandated duties to address the Plaintiff’s proposed “Constitutional questions of law”, while under oath, so as to protect the "inviolate right" to a "trial by jury" of our peers, as prescribed by State and United States Constitutional law.
When asking for Constitutional protection over the many years, why have our Local, State and Federal Senators, Representatives, Executives and agencies, not acted while under oath of affirmation and support on this critical State of Ohio and United States Constitutional matters of law?
Please contact your Local, State and Federal Representatives for help in saving our and your embedded Constitutional laws!
The State and Federal Constitutional laws which provide the access, privilege and "inviolate" rights to a "trial by jury", are now nearly "aborted", for all American citizens to enjoy, via this current "bad case law".
Act Now! You can be the part of the public action to make your voice heard for exemplary law around the world. Simply send a friendly letter to the courts, and to your Local, State and Federal government representatives, so as to protect our cornerstone of democracy; an inviolate right to a "Trial by Jury" to determine the genuine legal issues of material facts for a jury to decide.
Thank You for your patriotic support to the State and Federal Constitutions, while preserving the honesty and integrity of the American Judicial Courts.
|