Complaint Review: Judge Thomas Tucker - Detroit Michigan

The case at bar is regarding Defendant's picketing a Bank(sic) for alleged embezzlement of her funds, but since the state court failed to give her notice of the trial dated, after 5 years of litigation as in pro per and Defendant prevailing on her appeal that was remanded, Plaintiff was granted a Default "Final Judgment" for defamation of the undisputed "private individual"(the bank). Defndant filed Bankruptcy. The Plaintiff filed an Adversary Claim for nondischargeability.  The question is a simple one of   "Whether the Negligence standard under MCL 600.2911(7) cited in the alleged state court's Finding of Fact and Conclusion of law [hereafter Finding of Fact] rise to 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(2) and, or 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code for willful and malicious injury to another entity:

"MCL 600.2911(7), last amended in 1988, limits a private individual" to "economic damages" if the defamatory statements were "published negligently. Subsection (7) facially applies only to "private individuals and not to entites."

"Secton 523(a)(6) provides that a debtor is not discharged from any debt "for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of anothcer entity."

The Plaintiff was granted $4,733.00, only, for "economic damages" persuant to the alleged Finding of Fact.

Judge Thomas Tucker of Bankruptcy Court Violates:

CANON 3: A Judge Should Perform The Duties Of The Office Fairly, Impartially And Diligently.

Despite the fact that (1) the Plaintiff produced an incomplete record of only the alleged state court "Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law", See In re George,BAP 6th Cir. (2013), that had a forged electionic undetermin- able filing date (Exhibit 85.2)- Judge Tucker used it as a bases for his ruling to grant the Plaintiff Summary judgment; and (2)Yet, that very same alleged Finding of Fact supra called Defendant's actions "negligent" and cited MCL Id. that does not rise to the Bankruptcy Code for nondischargeability under section 523(a)(2) or 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury, still, Judge Tucker "Ordered...that (1) Defendant's Debt to Plaintiff is Nondischareable Under 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a)(6) ..." See his 5/30/13 Order et.al. Docket 122. Unfair.

In addition to Plaintiff's forged Find of Fact, at the summary judgment hearing Plaintiff made a blatantly false statement when fallaciously quoting the state court by saying "Judge Warrrn said Defendant committed fraud by forging the transaction summary" that evidenced the embezzlement. When the Bankruptcy judge Tucker asked council where that was found in the Finding of Fact Plaintiff's council could not show him-because it was not in the state courts Finding of Fact. Judge Tucker should have sanctioned Plaintiff for lying on the record and not being forthright with the court-instead he granted Plaintiff summary judgment. Unfair, bias.

However, at that same summary judgment hearing Defendant demonstrated by unequivocal evidence that Plaintiff had admitted in its state court Verified Complaint p.3 that its experts had determined that: "Futhermore, the transaction summary has been examined by Plaintiff's officials and has been deemed to be a forgery by Plaintiff's representative. See attached Exhibit C." Since the state court granted Plaintiff its Final Judgment by Default based on the "Pleadings in its Verified Complaint" then it is unambiguous that the state court excepted as true that the "Plaintiff's [own] representative" forged the tranaction summary.  Exhibit C is Plaintiff's Expert's affidavit. A question of fact that should have been presented at a Bankruptcy trial.

Furthermore, arguing that: the outrageous attorney fees of $54,058.66 granted to the new attorney, Don Blevans, for "6 billable hours x $350.00 hour does not compute to reasonable attorney fees. Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519,528-529. Judge Tucker ignored that serious "question of fact" Defendant intented to present at trial along with the other questions of facts ,i.e. the forged date on the alleged Finding of Fact Plaintiff presented, no transcript of state court ruling, admissions, fees...Notwithstanding those unanswered questions Judge Tucker granted Plaintiff summary judgment anyway. Partial to Plaintiff.

Hence, it is absolutely in the Bankruptcy Court record that the Defendant filed two affidavits and the electronic e-file print out evincing defendant was signed up to receive electronic documents from the State Court and opposing party but her name was remove by the state court or judges clerk, preventing her notice of the trial, but, Judge Tucker blatantly lied on the record and said it was not in the Bankruptcy file.-  See Dockets 5,6; 5/30/13, transcript. And the 2 Affidavits & affirmative defense of Defendant Judge Tucker simply disregarded- that would have, also, prevent summary judgment. Dockets 8,9 & 87  

Thus this Bankruptcy judge has accepted the lies of Plaintiff, tells lies on the record for the Plaintiff and ruled by use of lies for the Plaintiff. If that's not enough evidence of violation of Canon 3 for judicial partiallity and unfairness, join me to examine his lack of diligence in performing his duty of the office to adhere to the standards of:

CANON 3(A): Fairly, impartially and Diligently.(2) A judge should hear and decide matters assigned...(3) A judge should be patient,m dignified, respectful and courteous to litigants...with whom the judge deals in an offficial capacity (4) A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that persons lawyer, the full righ to be heard according to law. 

This report is about bankruptcy Judge Tucker's most eggregious  conduct, as follows: (A) I had 4 motions before him for over eight months:     1. motion to dismiss; 2. motion for summary judgment;  3. motion to compel Discovery Response by Plaintiff;   and, 4. motion in limini. Three he would not hear at all and one, for summary judgment, he allow defendant only 7 minuts to argue, where as the opposing party was allowed 1 hour and 38 minuts to argue.-Transcript 5/29/2013.

Even though my Motion to Compel Discovery Response by Plaintiff et.al was not yet heard-when I stood up to remind him judge Tucker told me to "sit down and shut-up and don't interrupt him" as he granted Plaintiff Summary Judgment. Unbelievable! and outrageous! See 5/29/13 transc. and 5/30/13, transcpt & Order and his 5/31/13. Order, reopenning the case to Deny my motions.

Knowing I had no experience in Federal Courts-my Pro Bono attorney, Kurt Thornbladh said he would represent me in my appeal to District Court, but he did not. I don't know if he became intimidated by Judge Tucker or if he just joined in the conspiricy. But what I do know is that: "A pro bono attorney's responsibility to a client continues through entry of judgment and the filing of appeal if the client wishes to appeal."The same a any attorney -MRPC Rule 6.1-6.6 and implicating Rules 1.1- 1.3 & 1.4-1.16. NOTE: I have filed my grievance against Kurt with Attorney Grievence Commission on July 05,2013.

As if, any one of, all of the above is not enough to obliterate any smidgen of respect for judges and public confidence in the courts- it gets worse when Judge Tucker wrote and "Order" on 7/8/13, after my case with him was closed, directing the District Court to "Deny[ing] Defendant's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" because he swore/ "certified that Defendant's (my) appeal is frivolous" after I surprised him and prepared my own "Statement of the Issues to Be Presented on Appeal" on 6/24/13; without the aid of my pro bono attorney. How gross and prejudicial to the administration of justice is that???? Of course, any judge you file an appeal against would seek to hinder that appeal.

For that very reason in United States v Kras, 409 U.S. 434, 440 (1973)(Bankruptcy Act ) (stating that " sec. 1915(a) is not now available in bankruptcy"); and Perroton v Gray (In re Perroton), 958 F.2d 889,893-896(9th Cir. 1992)(holding that bankruptcy courts do not have authority to act under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1915(a) because a bankruptcy court is not a "court of the United States" within the meaning of this statute). However, using out date and inapplicable precedence Judge Tucker attemptes to convince the District Court Judge, Nancy G. Edmunds/Magistrate Judge Laurie J. Michelson, assigned to my appeal, that I should not be allowed to have my fees waived per my affidavit. For example he cited the old 1987 in "("The United States District Court for the District of Kansas in In re Laurence Lee Keiswetter, Case No. 86-4385-R (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 1987), has held that 28 U.S.C sec 1915 on in forma pauperis proceedings applies to the filing of a bankruptcy appeal.")" that was overturned by the aforemention United States supra; In re Perroton Id.(if applicable at all).-Canon 3(A)(1) A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law..."

Here it is Tucker granted me to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in the Bankruptcy Court because he knows it is a Constitutional and federal right.  Now I can't afford the transcripts or the Appeal fees in the United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan, and he knows that, too!

Thank you for 'your ear' RipoffReport.