Now, Idaho's special, well-known and tightly established un-justice ways is practiced like this: Its Supreme Court decides in advance, in a completely prejudicial, autocratic manner the winners in all appeals, including based on the personalities of the litigants, (in civil matters specifically if are they locals or outsiders, and if the they are represented by favored local counsel), then they hand over the appealed case designated not to be reversed to a so-called "Court of Appeals"" to rule on instead of the Supreme Court.

            This Court of Appeals automatically always agrees with the District Court judges, (it does not deviate from its firmly ordered, well-known role) no matter the applicable laws and facts, and know for certain that by the agreed-upon arrangement the Supreme Court will not entertain its right of supervision to review such uniformly “unpublished” opinions of the Court of Appeals, no matter how ridiculously unlawful they might turn out to be.

             The Court of Appeals decisions are invariably done under their standard, supposedly all-encompassing, protective banner, trying desperately to free the Court of Appeals from having to follow any laws or facts, and such mantra is routinely employed by the Court of Appeals at all times and it goes like this:

            Such well-known Idaho system of organized and unchangeable unfairness is understood and feared by all members of the justice business in that state, and Idaho attorneys are scared to represent clients whom they know would be losing, no matter what, because siding with them would severely hurt such lawyers with the ruling authoritarian higher ups in this nightmarish, un-American set up.

            There is one attorney, a Todd Reed of Sandpoint, ID, a twist, he welcomes cash from unknowing prospective out of state clients, but being aware of the all-encompassing state conspiracy, will not actually represent them!

            While knowing the rigged system, other Idaho attorneys (with a conscience!) refuse to accept money from outsiders to act on their behalf.

            Reed is an exception: a thief. He will take a designated loser’s money, but will not actually act for him, but – to curry favor with the higher ups - in fact help the local opponent who is favored by leaders of the accepted provisional set up.

            It seems that the Idaho Court of Appeals was created by the Idaho Supreme Court to facilitate the big cheat, to help the Idaho Supreme Court avoid ruling on cases where the lower courts would have to be reversed. *

            So the Court of Appeals’ main (and may be only) job is to affirm the judgments of district court judges, then the Supreme Court invariably refuses to review the case. End of story. End of justice.

            According to the top attorneys in the state, this is how the Idaho justice business circumvents the law whenever it wants to protect favored locals against out of state litigants in civil cases.

            Under the standard, expected hoaxer: „THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY” - absolutely ANYTHING appears possible, including the disregarding of US Supreme court decisions, our Constitution, or the reinterpreting or ignoring of all relevant Idaho laws, the inventing of non-existent facts without limitation, since no unpublished opinion constitutes precedent or be binding upon any court. “This is an unpublished opinion” is taken to free the Court of Appeals from adhering to the law and the facts regarding cases it rules on: there is one side to the appealed story they are supposed to oversee, the side of the given District Court.

            In a most recent “FRAUD ON THE COURT” Gerdes case the Court of Appeals did point out that it disagreed with the district court on the decisive points of the law, yet at the end they timidly (and illogically) ruled against the side that by their own standards should have won, adhering to their expected role as set forth by the Idaho Supreme Court!

            However, due to the law respecting FRAUD ON THE COURT, by refusing to review the case, the Idaho Supreme Court ratified the proven reality of Fraud on the Court in the Sarah Gerdes defamation case.

            In actuality the Idaho Supreme Court evaporated: (1) Judge Mitchell’s judgment and Order, as well as (2) the Court of Appeals’ invalid, unpublished opinion in that case.

            The District Court Order and the Opinion of the Court of Appeals being 100% lawless in actuality simply ceased to exist, because in America a judgment obtained directly by fraud is automatically annulled and made void by law. Void means abolished, non-existent. (Judge Mitchell, to attempt to save his friend, local celebrity self-publisher Sarah Gerdes, quietly made proven evidence against Ms. Gerdes disappear in his final Order, which act is called Fraud on the Court.

"A decision produced by fraud on the court is not in essence a decision at all and never becomes valid."

            “Fraud vitiates everything which it touches, and destroys the very thing which it was devised to support; the law does not temporize with trickery or duplicity.”
Coson v. Roehl 63 Wn.2d 384 (1963) 387 P.2d 541
(In the Gerdes defamation case defendant Gerdes, her lawyer Mr. Cifrese and the judge himself used trickery and duplicity to try to defeat the innocent plaintiffs.)

DUKE BAR JOURNAL:

            "Fraud on the court" is a ground for invalidation of a judgment.”

            It seems that according to the US Supreme Court defendant Gerdes lost by constitution, since whatever judge Mitchell and the Idaho Court of Appeals opined, are overruled by the American law controlling Fraud on the Court. (Defendant Gerdes was correct in that she was in control of this case, not Judge Mitchell, and that her friend judge Mitchell would make her win, no matter how many laws she (and her lawyers) over and over openly and confidently broke, but judge Mitchell failed to understand that in America, if uncovered, one cannot ultimately win a lawsuit by cheating. Judge Mitchell was discovered and the well-known incorporated Idaho system of injustice could not succeed in overriding US law in the Gerdes case.)

            “There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates…judgments… Mr. Wells, in his very useful work on Res Adjudicata, says, sect. 499: 'Fraud vitiates every thing…that is, a judgment obtained directly by fraud, is annulled and made void. United States v. Throckmorton U.S. Jan 1, 1878 98 U.S. 61 (1878)”

PATRIOT NETWORK ON FRAUD ON THE COURT:

            "It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything." Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); (Judge Mitchell in the Sarah Gerdes defamation case was guilty of Fraud upon the Court by unlawfully and tacitly simply eliminating decisive evidence, and his Order is therefore void, and so is that of the Court of Appeals who ruled disregarding the multiple Frauds on the Court in the Gerdes case.”

            “A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. State attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements.” (“A judge is not the court,” that is why the cheating by judge Mitchell is an attack on the US justice system even if Idaho tolerates his behavior.)

"Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.”

            “When any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, (and are) of no legal force or effect.”

            “The US Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960”

            “If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.”

South Texas College of Law: FRAUD ON THE COURT:

            “Fraud on the Court has been recognized for centuries as a basis for setting aside a final judgment”

              “A number of courts have held that a “fraud on the court” occurs “where it can be demonstrated that a party has set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim”

            In the Gerdes case Judge Mitchell simply made decisive evidence of defamation vanish on page 33 of his final Order by illegally rewriting submitted defamatory text from the Book at issue. The Court of Appeals ignored the ruse and the Supreme Court refused to consider the facts.

This is the accepted order of the legal business in the state of Idaho, a long-established procedure that must be adhered to by the entire Idaho legal community, or you cannot practice law there and all the attorneys know this: they have to operate in a nightmarish reality, where the concept of “right and wrong” ceased to exist long ago and was replaced by a prejudiced, totalitarian, rightist state rule.

“A judgment procured by fraud is not a valid decision and is never final. So held in Burke v. United States of America, U. S. District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 06-3249 at 6: 'There is no statute of limitations for bringing a fraud upon the court claim. Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S. at 244.

             As a circuit court has explained, "a decision produced by fraud on the court is not in essence a decision at all and never becomes final." Kenner v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 387 F.2d 689, 691 (7th Cir.1968). (The Gerdes decisions by judge Mitchell and the Court of Appeals are perpetually invalidated by law,)

            “In Kupferman v. Consolidated Research & Manufacturing Corp, the court stated that [w]hile an attorney “should represent his client with singular loyalty that loyalty obviously does not demand that he act dishonestly or fraudulently; on the contrary his loyalty to the court, as an officer thereof, demands integrity and honest dealing with the court.” And when he departs from that standard in the conduct of a case (as lawyer Scott Cifrese has done more than 10 times in the Gerdes case as demonstrated and proven in the court papers) he perpetrates a fraud upon the court.

*Court of Appeals Unpublished Opinions by Release Date, virtually all

of them affirmed!

o July 17, 2020 47958/47959 IDHW v. Jane Doe [1]

o July 9, 2020 47032 State v. Davis [2]

o July 8, 2020 47121 State v. Anaya [3]

...