ED Magedson – Founder
MICHAEL R. STILLMAN (P42765)7091 Orchard Lake Road,ste.207 W. Bloomfield, Michigan USA
MICHAEL R. STILLMAN (P42765) Andover Financial,LLC ATTORNEY USE JUDGE TO STEAL? W. Bloomfield Michigan
After I received my: "August 29, 2013, ORDER, from Judge Patricia Jefferson, Granting my Motion to Set Aside Plaintiff's Default Judgment" for reasons: (1) 'Good Cause'- because Plaintiff, Attorney Stillman lied via his process server that I "was serverd personally at an address,13736 Conley" which I have never live, and (2) 'Meritorious Defense'-because the debt Stillman alleged I owed was false, because I never made the debt.
Yet, Attorney Michael R. Stillman refused to return my $906. he acquired from my Tax refund he garnished, 7 years later with no summons, on May 1, 2013, by Order of the same Judge, Patricia Jefferson at the 36th District Court in Detroit, MI.
On, September 05, 2013, I filed my timely 'Motion For Summary Judgment' under MCR 2.116(C) (10); lack of jurisdiction, and placed on the motion Review/Decision calender of Judge P. Jefferson for 10/08/13. But, Judge Jefferson refused to make a decision based on it, as set forth by the following:
1. As to Good Cause:
The (a) law and (b)Constitution is clear and unambiguous under:
(a). MCR 2.105(J)(3) An Action shall not be dismissed for improper service of process unless the service failed to inform the defendant of the action within the time provided in these rules for service.
According to the "rules for service" Plaintiff had from 6/26/06, to serve Defendant, Julia, before his summons expired on 9/25/06. But since the Plaintiff never served the Defendant Plaintiff's 'Action' should have been "dismissed for improper service."
As to 5th and 14th Amendment:
(b) No person shall be...deprived of...property, without due process of law;nor equal protection of the laws.
2. As to Meritorious Defense:
Based on the Defendant, Julia's unrefuted and unrebutted evidence, affidavit and testimony that Julia never made the alleged debt, the Judge had to Grant Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Plaintiff's 2006, false and fraudulently acquired Default Judgment. Leaving Judge Patricia Jefferson with NO authority or Jurisdiction to give Defendant's $906.00 to the Plaintiff and should have Order the Plaintiff to Return Julia's $906,inter alia, as follows:
3. As to Lack of Jurisdiction:
The FACT is that Defendant, Julia, has a bonafide ORDER dated August 29, 2013, setting aside(vacating, voiding) Plaintiff's fallaciously attained "Default Judgment". In re Dogan v. Michigan Basic Property Ins a*s'n, 130 Mich App 313,320;343 NW2d 532 (1983). As supported:
"Under present law, the proper basis for vacating the default judgment where service of process was defective is that the defective service deprived the trial court of personal jurisdiction over the defendant and the trial court was, therefore, without legal authority to render a judgment (by default or otherwise)"
So the question is : Why would a judge (Patricia Jefferson) knowing the law...set a trial for 10/21/13, after the facts have been fully adjudicated by her 8/29/13, Order that defendant had both "Good Cause and a Meritorious Defense" to vacate the fallacious Default Judgment of Plaintiff, then give Defendant's $906 Garnished by the Plaintiff to Michael Stillman for attorney fees after he "Dismissed his 2006 claim" on 10/21/13,( that was already set aside/vacated on 8/29/13) on the day of a trial that the Judge, Patricia Jefferson, had NO authority, legal basis or jurisdiction to set in the first place?
For two reasons Judge Patricia Jefferson palpably erred in her 10/21/13, Order when citing MCR 2.603(d)(4) that she "was required to assess Taxable costs, and impose a reasonable attorney fees to the Plaintiff...as a condition of setting aside the (8/29/13) default."
First,.Judge Jefferson omitted what MCR 2.603(d)(4) referrence to as "except as prescribed in MCR 2.625 (D) particularly,subsection (3) that "If jurisdiction was in fact not acquired, costs may not be imposed."
Second, Plaintiff was not the prevailing party for: (1) his default judgment was 'set aside'/made void, and (2) Plaintiff DISMISSED his own Claim,(see above #3par.3) thus according to MCR 2.625(A)(1);(B)(2);(3)only the prevailing party may receive "Taxation of Costs and attorney fees".
Ultimately, the Debt Collector, Attorney Michael Stillman used Judge Patricia Jefferson to steal Julia's $906 Tax Refund. That may not be a lot of money, but for a single mother of 4 minor children that means the difference between a months rent, especially since Julia had to run back and forth to court between May 2013 and September 2013, and therefore got fired from her job at Quicken Loans.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of victems like Julia suffering the same kind of injustice as Julia and their complaints also fall on deaf ears. There are NO attorneys that will challenge the judge, despite their admission that the Judge is unequivocally wrong in this and many other cases. Notice of the Judges nonfeasance, color of law and conspiracy has be sent to the Judicial Tenure Commission-where we are sure will yeild No results because Julia is an in pro per litigant and Detroit is steep in the take over of Black peoples land and property and NO justice being rendered is a pattern. Julia has also filed her appeal to 3rd Circuit Court.
If you can help Julia please contact her. Thank you.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 11/08/2013 09:15 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/MICHAEL-R-STILLMAN-P42765/W-Bloomfield-Michigan-48322/MICHAEL-R-STILLMAN-P42765-Andover-FinancialLLC-ATTORNEY-USE-JUDGE-TO-STEAL-W-Bloomf-1097879. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:Search Tips
In order to assure the best results in your search:
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.