Malpractice, settlement fraud or contract fraud, which is the most accurate charge?


It looks like we will find that the owner of Urbanski reporting, Vahl reporting and the Popovich Law Firm will all be caught forging signatures and manipulating documents.  Also, Barch is directly connected to the doctored Gagnon exhibit 1 (it looks like he is the forgerer).

This involves the owners of at least 4 different companies.

The most correct charge in this case seems to be "fraud on the court by an officer of the court" against each of these 4 companies.  The following link provides details:

https://corruptjudge.webs.com/civilrightsviolations.htm

The website explains who is an "officer of the court".  It explains what "fraud on the court" is and cites case law.

According to these explanations, it appears the most legally accurate charge we can make is "Conspiracy to Commit Fraud on the Court by Officers of the Court".


This is very important because the consequences of these charges lead to a total collapse of court proceedings (quoting website):

"Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
        It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935). 




Final note:  Every transaction and ruling and order and judgement of the court involving the underlying McGuire and Gagnon cases and the present case will be declared 'void' if we can establish "fraud on the court".  The forged signatures and doctored Gagnon exhibit 1 should be sufficient to do this.

Likewise, Judge Meyer can be named as a defendent under the same charges.