Petition for Writ of Certiorari — GwanJun Kim, Petitioner v. Grand Valley State University, et al.

I 8c:7 5; U

No.

IN THE

JAN 16 2019

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATSli- FICE C ,7 HE

ç cLE

GWANJUN KIM

Plaintiff Appellant-Petitioner

V.

GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERISTY;

GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERISTY, COLLEGE OF EDU

CATION;

GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERISTY, COLLEGE OF COM

MUNITY AND

PUBLIC SERVIC; TOMAS J. HAAS; ELAINE C. COLLINS

;PAULA

LANCASTER;OLIVIAA. WILLIAMS; GEORGE GRANT;

LOIS SMITH

OWENS ;EDWARD J. BARDELLI; GREGORY M. KILBY

Defendants- Appellees- Respondents

Prior Case the United States District Court Western District of

Michigan i :11-cv00233(Kim ]).The Six Circuit Court Case Kim I no. 12-1401,

12-02407,13-02354.

(Kim I ).Prior Case: the United States District Court Western

District of Michigan

No 1.16-cv-309 (Kim II) and Six Circuit no. 16-2321 (Kim II).

On Appeal from the United States District Court For the Wes

tern District of

Michigan docket no. 1:1 8-cv-00 107 and Southern District of

Ohio Court docket no.

2:18 —cv-0029 and The Sixth Circuit Case no 18-1637(Kim III).

Plaintiff-Appellant Pro Se

Mr. GwanJun Kim

360 East Tuttle Rd Lot 54

Ionia, MI 48846

(616)902-4344

Defendants-Appellees 'Attorney

Conor Brendan Dugan

900 Fifth Third Center 111 Lyon Street N.W.

Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2487

(616)752-2712

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for

the Sixth Circuit

a

JAN 2220

\

AL

QUESTION PRESENTED

This Court has a jurisdiction

QUESTION defraud I

The judge and panel "erroneous factual

findings"' Kim I, that On March

28, 2011 the U.S. Marshal Christine Elm

y (b)(7)(C)was not mailed the complaint

and the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summo

ns and Complaint to defendants until

present2which is "[ on March28, 2011 ]the

re is no evidence that defendants were

served" (Order, Kim IP.2, ECF No 48 and

Appendix H). "the Court find the

Magistrate judge's Order(docket #48)ne

ither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law

"

(Appendix G) and denied Application for

The panels' conduct was actuary willful

entry of default and default judgment.

and malicious. The judge and panel

"erroneous factual findings" that Respon

dents is NOT violated Statute Title 28 Ap

Federal Title Rule 9(b) Fraud, Mistake,

p

Condition of the Mind. This is criminal

matter.

QUESTION defraud H

The judge and panel "erroneous factual

defendants receiving requests waivers of

findings" Kim I, that On June, 2011

service from the Marshals' office"(Orde

r,

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the

United States, 10 (Rule 10)

Petitioner "taken as true, the judge and

panel "erroneous factual findings evide

nce that the Court record appears that

Defendants Solely had NEVER been int,st

On March 28, 2011

Returned the USM Form -299 Receipt

of Summons and Complaint until prese

Exhibit C p.7,10,13,16,19,22,25, and 28.

nt. To see Complaint

See. Appendix I

2

b

Kim I P.2, ECF No 48) 3and denied Application for entry of defau

lt and judgment

and Respondents is not violated Statute Title 28 App Federal Title

Rule 9(b)Fraud,

Mistake, Condition of the Mind. The panels' conduct was actuary

willful and

malicious. The judge and panel "erroneous factual findings" that

Respondents is

NOT violated Statute Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9(b) Frau

d, Mistake,

Condition of the Mind. This is criminal matter.

QUESTION defraud III

The judge and panel "erroneous factual fmdings"4 Kim I, that

not served the defendants with the amended complaint" (Kim

Kim actually

II, Order, P.2, ECF

No 34, Complaint Exhibit B) and denied Application for entry

of default and

judgment and denied Application for entry of default and judgm

ent and the Kim III,

judge and panel "erroneous factual findings" that Respondents

Statute Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9(b)Fraud, Mistake,

is not violated

Condition of the Mind.

The panels' conduct was actuary willful and malicious. This is crim

inal matter.

QUESTION defraud IV

The judge and panel "erroneous factual findings" Kim I, that

the judge and

Petitioner "taken as true, the Court record appears that plaintiff

had actually

NEVER been filed AO 399 Waiver of the Service of Summon

s and the U.S. Marshals had NEVER been received from

the Clerk of Court the

Waver Service. See. Kim I 1:11-cv-00233 dockets.

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule

10)

Petitioner "taken as true", the judge and panel "erroneous factual

findings evidence that the Court record appears the U.S. post

office receipt

actually appears Kim I, docket no. 46-2, docket no.52-3.docketn

o60-2.)See. Appendix L. Proof of service indicated that Plaintiff

served amended

complaint see. Appendix K. Defendants admitted that defenda

nts received the amended complaint See. Appendix M.

.

panels was not follow the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7)" [on August 10, 2011 ]defenses

must be made before pleading[On June 3, 2011] Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7).

"

The panel and chiefjudge decision is conflict with the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7)

requires that judge to mandatory denied the Defendants' Motion to dismiss because

defendants are not file made before pleading.

The judge and panel "erroneous factual findings" Kim I, that granted Defendants'

Motion to dismiss and the Kim III, judge and panel "erroneous factual findings"

that Respondents is not violated Statute Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9(b)Fraud,

Mistake, Condition of the Mind. The panels' conduct was actuary willful and

malicious. This is criminal matter.

QUESTION defraud V

The judge and panel "erroneous factual findings" Kim I, that Chief district

court judge and panels Order is "frivolous "that Judge and panels was erred in

adversely rulings that Solely intentionally failure to make any mention of facts

factual allegation ,Cause of Action 1, 11, 111 6 in its Opinion an Order and Kim

III

Respondents is not violated Statute Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9(b)Fraud,

Mistake, Condition of the Mind. The panels' conduct was actuary willful and

6

Count!, the Homosexual defendants refused to correct the miscalcula

tion"the complaint indicated that the college of Education Grand Valley

State University had independently calculated 700+304=600 points and granted grade

of "D" and The Grand Valley State University

independently calculated 700+304700point5 grade of "C". Count!! GVSU refused

complies with the GVSU Rule readmission application.

Count Ill. GVSU refused the lesbian- Black -Owens-defendant's corruption hearing.

d

malicious. This is criminal matter.

QUESTION defraud VI

The judge and panel "erroneous factual findings" Kim I, that Chief district

court judge ordered is "frivolous7"that the judge had particularity biases orders that

Defendants received grant defendants' Motion for Taxation of Costs (docket no

197) amount of the 1,006.46. ). Judge's conduct was willful and malicious.

QUESTION defraud VII

Kim II, Distinct Judge Maloney, "erroneous factual findings"' that

"[defraud I to Vi] are only to adverse rulings ["the thirteenth [fourteenth] times]

adverse rulings are not a sufficient reason for a judge to be excused from presiding

over a lawsuit. Jewell v. Ohio State Univ., 941 F. 2d 1209 (6thcir. Aug 14, 199 1)

For a bias to be personal against the party, and a basis for disqualification, it must

arise from some extra Judicial source" and "this case be reassigned to Judge Jonker

the United States District Court Western District of Michigan l:11-cv-00233(Kim 1)

in order to promote judicial economy". (Kim II,, ECF No. 17)

). Kim II Judge

Maloney' and panels' conduct was actually willful and malicious.

QUESTION defraud VIII

8

"frivoous,[and] lacking sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred,"28

U.S. Code § 351(b)(1)(A)(iii).

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

e

The Chief District judge "erroneous factual findings" Kim II, that Kim

"must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior

proceeding Id All the factors [the Defraud I to Vii] are amply satisfied" (Kim II,

ECF No. 220 p.3) and defendants Chief District judge's conduct was actually

.

willful and malicious.

QUESTION defraud XI

Kim II The panel "erroneous factual findings" "we VACATE the district

court's judgment and REMAND to the district court to dismiss this case for lack of

subject- matter jurisdiction9 The conflict the Point of view defraud I to VII

is not address in the opinion [or order] Fed. R. App.P.40). The panels' conduct was

half willful and malicious.

QUESTION defraud

The Kim III, Chief District judge "erroneous factual findings" that defraud I

to VIII "is still to the screening mechanism" and dishonestly fraud that the Point of

view defraud I to Viii are "Defendants is a prevailing party" denied plaintiff's

Motion for judgment and Kim iii, Defendants are not violated Title 28 App Federal

Title Rule 9.Intentional Misrepresentation Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) Fraud, Mistake,

Condition of the Mind. Chief district Judge' conduct was willful and malicious.

"Kim and most of the defendants are citiz.n of Michigan, the district court also diversity jurisdiction." "But

failed to mention that act in his

complaint particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Rule 9(b)".

This is actually criminal matter. This "case is of such imperativ

e public importance

as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice 28 U. S.

C. § 2101(e).

QUESTION defraud XI

The Kim III, panel "erroneous factual findings" "that the defra

ud I to VIII is, "Kim

fails to point to any evidence of bias on the part of the district

court judge other

than his unfavorable rulings" p.5 Order. The panel's conduct

actually was willful

and malicious. This is a waste, fraud, and abuses its discretion

and this is criminal

matter. Petitioner "taken as true, the judge and panel "erroneou

s factual findings

evidence that the district Court and Sixth Circuit Court reco

established and submitted to point to evidence of bias on the

rd appears that Kim

defraud I to VIII of

the district court judge. Kim III, Defendants are violated Title

28 App Federal Title

Rule 9.Intentional Misrepresentation Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) Frau

d, Mistake,

Condition of the Mind which is panel's conduct was actually

10

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10

(Rule 10)

willful and malicious.

Petitioner respectfully prays that On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issue to review the Judgment

and Penal Order below:

I.

OPINIONS BELOW

This Case is from federal court. In this case the Chief District judge had

been maliciously granted Kim I, and Kim II Defendants' Motion to dismiss and this

case Kimlil, dismiss this case by himself. The Sixth Circuit maliciously affirmed

the Kim I, II, and Kim III. The panels' conduct was actually willful and malicious.

This is a waste, fraud, and abuses its discretion and this is criminal matter.

The 18-1637(Kim III) Order of the United States court of appeals appears at

Appendix A to be unpublished.

The No 1:18-cv-00107 (Kim III) Opinion and Order of the United States

District Court appears at Appendix B to be unpublished.

The 16-2321 (Kim II) Order of the United States court of appeals appears at

Appendix C to be unpublished.

The No 1:16-cv-309 (Kim II) Order of the United States District Court

appears at Appendix D to be unpublished.

The No. 12-01401 (Kim I) Order of the United States District Court appears

at Appendix E to be unpublished

The 1:1 l-cv-00233(Kim 1) Order Approving and Adopting Report and

1

recommendation of the United States District Court appears at Appendix F to be

unpublished.

The 1:11 -cv-00233(Kim 1) Order denied Application for entry of default

Affirming Magistrate judge's Decision of the United States District Court appears

at Appendix G to be unpublished.

The 1:11-cv-00233(Kim 1) Order denied Application for entry of default

Magistrate judge's Decision of the United States District Court appears at

Appendix H to be unpublished. Petitioner- Appellant- Plaintiff (Mr. Kim) indicated

in the appendix each decision.

Appendix I

Petitioner "taken as true the evidence fact that On March 28, 2011 Defendants

Solely had NEVER been must' Returned Executed by the U.S. Marshal Christine

Elmy (b)(7)(C)upon defendants the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons and

Complaint until present. p.7,10,13,16,19,22,25, 28 and 6. This is criminal matter.

Appendix J

On March 25, 2011, The Kim I, Court issued Summons.

The Proof of evidence the panel and judge had been "erroneous factual findings"

which is the U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C)was mailed the complaint and

the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons and Complaint to defendants On May 18,

2011, 58dyas later first time and On June 16, 2011, 7ldays later and Second time.

Defendants answered to complaint See. Kiml docket no 38 on June 6, 2011.

Appendix K

'The USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons appears that Defendants "MUST COMPLETE the acknowledgment part of this form below AND

RETURN COPIES lAND 2 to the sender within 21days

2

The Proof of evidence the panel and judge had been "erroneous factual findings"

that "without having served defendants with amended complaint"

Petitioner "taken as true the fact that Proof of service show that Plaintiff was has

served defendants with amended complaint

Appendix L

The Proof of evidence the panel and judge had been "erroneous factual findings"

that "without having served defendants with amended complaint" This is a waste,

fraud, and abuses its discretion and this is criminal matter.

Petitioner "taken as true the fact evidence that The U.S. post office receipt appears

Kim I, docket no. 46-2, docket no.52-3.docketno60-2)Kim actually served the

Amended Complaint to the defendants and future represent defendant's attorney.

Appendix M

The Proof of evidence the panel and judge had been "erroneous factual findings"

that "without having served defendants with amended complaint" ( Order. p.2

Appendix 14) and denied Application for entry of default and judgment. "The

Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court's decision "nothing in record indicates that Kim

actually served the defendants with the amended complaint"(Order. p. 2. Appendix

D).

Petitioner "taken as true the evidence fact that "their counsel received Docket no

6[Amended complaint] See Paragraph 23 Defendants' answers to Plamtiff's First

Request for Admissions.( Kim I, ECF docket no 108 Attachment 1 ) Defendants

are had served with amended complaint.

It is important to note that the judge and panel "erroneous factual findings"2

Kim I, that On March 28, 2011 the U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C)was not

mailed the complaint and the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons and Complaint

to defendants until present. Which is

.RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

2

3

"[on March 28, 2011]there is no evidence that defendants were served" (Order,

Kim I P.2, ECF No 48 and Appendix H). "the Court find the Magistrate judge's

Order(docket #48)neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law" (Appendix G)and

denied Kim I Plaintiff's Application entry of default. This is criminal matter at

the United States District Court Western District of Michigan 1:11 -cv-00233(Kiml)

Six Circuit no. 12-01401, 12-02407, 13-02354 (Kim 1).

Petitioner had been demonstrated and "taken as true, the judge and panel

"erroneous factual findings evidence that the Court record appears that On March

28, 2011 Defendants Solely had NEVER been must3Returned the USM Form -299

Receipt of Summons and Complaint until present. To see Appendix I

p.7,10,13,16,19,22,25,28 and 6.

The U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C) actually mailed eighteen (18)

pieces of the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons to the (9)nine defendants. The

nine (9)defendants' address is Grand Valley State University 1 Campus Drive

Allendale, MI 49401-9403. (To See Appendix I .) Respondents returned only (9)

pieces of the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons to Court. (To See Appendix I

p. 3, 4,8,11,14,17,20,23,26). This is criminal matter.

The conflict is not address in the opinion [or order at the Kim I, II, III] eight (8)

years. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) requires that judge and Clerk of Court to mandatory to

enter entry default. The Chief district court judge and panel dishonestly decision

are "substantial ground for different of opinion" 28 USC § 1292(b) that denied

entry of default and default judgment. This is a crime. The panels' conduct was

The USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons appears that Defendants "MUST COMPLETE the acknowledgment part of this form below AND

RETURN COPIES lAND 2 to the sender within 21d2ys".

4

actually willful and malicious because Defendants knowingly make fraud that

Respondents returned only (9) pieces of the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons

to Court. (To See Appendix I p. 3, 4,8,11,14,17,20,23,26). Respondents are NOT

returned only (9) pieces of the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons to Court until

present.(To See. Appendix I p.7,10,13,16,19,22,25,28 and 6. ) This is crime.

Also, the Kim, I, II, III, Chief district court judge and panel dishonestly

decision are "substantial ground for different of opinion" 28 USC § 1292(b) that

Respondents is NOT violated Statute Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9(b) Fraud,

Mistake, Condition of the Mind. This is a waste, fraud, and abuses its discretion

and this is criminal matter.

at the United States District Court Western District of Michigan No 1:16-cv-309

(Kim II); No 1: 18-cv-00107 (Kim III) and Six Circuit no. 16-232] (Kim II); 18163 7(Kim IIJ).This is criminal matter and Organized crime. The panels' conduct

was half willful and malicious.

This case "is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation

from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this

Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e)" Rule 11. The Point of view defraud I to XI are as

follows:

II. JURISDICTION

This Court has a Jurisdiction. On December 27, 2018 denied petition for

PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC and APPLICATION FOR AN

APPEAL HEREUNDER 28 USC § 1292(b).The Point of view defraud Ito XI and

5

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Sixth Circuit, as follows:

INTRODUCTION

The Petitioner -Appellant plaintiff- GwanJun Kim (Mr. Kim) Pro Se, is a

-

U.S. citizen, 66years old and over 40 years resident of Ionia, Michigan, his English

as Third Language, and alumni of Michigan State University Criminal Justice. He

was a formal Korean Federal Police officer, and Worked at the U.S. Attorney's

Office and State of Michigan Officer. Kim was attending Master program;

Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (MA.TESOL) at Grand Valley

State University, College of Education, his English as Third Language, and Kim

requests for excuse his grammar errors.

III. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

a. Plaintiff's Application for entry of default and default judgment.

A. First, STATEMENT OF THE CASE and Kim I. Defendants —AppelleesRespondents

In March 2011, he was brought before the Court issue of the defendants in Kim

v. Grand Valley State University et al., ("GVSU") The United States District Court

Western District of Michigan No 1:11-cv-233 (Kim I); Most lesbian —professor

-

instructor -defendants ;Thomas J. Haas is president of Grand Valley State

University; Elaine C. Collins is Graduate degree program Dean of college of

education, Grand Valley State University; Paula Lancaster is chair of college of

education, Grand Valley State University; Olivia A. Williams is professor of

college of education, Grand Valley State University; George Grant is dean of the

GVSU College of Community and Public Service (CCPS); Lois smith Owens is an

instructor of the GVSU College of Community and Public Service (CCPS); Grand

Valley State University; Grand Valley State University, College of Education;

Grand Valley State University, College of Community and Public Service (9)nine

defendants. The defendants were violated Title VI of Civil Right of 1964 2000d

and 42 USC§ 1983. The selective treatment was motivated by an intention to

discriminate of the basis of impermissible consideration that "provided in a

different manner for that which is provided to others.

Count I. Defendants4fundamentally fraud, "refused to correct the miscalculation

the complaint indicated that the College of Education Grand Valley State

University had independently calculated 700+304=600 points and granted grade of

"D" and The Grand Valley State University independently calculated

700+304=700points grade of "C". This action is fraud by lesbian- professor

defendants.

-

Count H. Defendants 5refused comply with the GVSU Rule readmission

application. This action is fraud by lesbian -defendants.

Count III. Defendants tirefused the lesbian- instructor Black Lois smith Owensdefendant's corruption hearing. She is a black- lesbian. She has two sons. She was

started lesbian when she was 60 years old, she said in the class. She has only

master degree in social work but she was instructor of the SW600 Social Work

Master Program, because she is a black and lesbian. During the SW 600 class

OWENS was without syllabus schedule; four (4) times four weeks lesbian speaker

-

-

1. Thomas J. Haas; Elaine C. Collins; Paula Lancaster; Olivia A. Williams; Grand Valley State University; Grand Valley State University, College

of Education

'Thomas J. Haas; Elaine C. Collins; Grand Valley State University; Grand Valley State University College of Education;

'Thomas J. Haas; George Grant, and Lois smith Owens ;Grand Valley State University; Grand Valley State University; College of Community

and Public Service

came in the class talking about homo sexual orientation. During the class the

Defendant OWENS asked Kim that "did you have a sex with a man". It was bully

environment in the class. He was only a man and he was 60 years old man married

his wife 34 years. Kim was asked Corruption Hearing at Defendant Dean George

Grant (he is a black), GVSU refused the corruption hearing.

Petitioner alleges that the Kim I the U.S. district Court record appears that

defendants had been default.

Petitioner alleges that the Kim I the U.S. district Court record appears that

defendants had been default. Procedural history shows. See.

On March 28, 2011 Defendants Solely had NEVER been must7Returned Executed

by the U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C)upon defendants the USM Form -299

Receipt of Summons and Complaint until present. To see Complaint Exhibit C

p.7,10,13,16,19,22,25, and 28. This is criminal matter.

The panel and judge decide cases presenting issues of importance beyond

the particular fact and parties involved that Chief district court judge was

"substantial ground for different of opinion" 28 U.S.C. 1292 (b) .... the thirteenth

[fifteenth] times "(7)seven years that "there is no evidence defendants were

served"(Order, Kim I P.2, ECF No 48) which is the

On March 28, 2011 the U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C)was not

mailed the complaint and the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons and Complaint

to defendants until present and denied Kim I Plaintiff's Application entry of default.

This is criminal matter. This is an untrue.

Petitioner "taken as true the fact that the Panel and Chief district judge has

overlooked" Fed. R. App.40(a)(2). This is criminal matter.

The United State District Court Western Michigan case # 1:11-cv-00233 and

The USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons appears that Defendants "MUST COMPLETE the acknowledgm

ent part of this form below AND

RETURN COPIES lAND 2 to the sender within 21days'.

8

Six Circuit no. 12-01401, 12-02407, 13-02354.

The Judge and panel decision was manifest injustice and the rulings Conflict

with TRUE and the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) requires that "clerk must

enter the party's default" Rule 55(a) and a default judgment Rule 55(b). The Judge

and panel decision was manifest injustice denied Application entry of default and

judgment. This is a waste, fraud, and abuses its discretion and this is criminal

matter.

B. Second , STATEi'IENT OF THE CASE and Kim II. Defendants

Appellees- Respondents violated Intentional Misrepresentation, Title

28 App Federal Title Rule 9. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (b) Fraud,

Mistake, Condition of the Mind.

-

On March 2016, Kim("Kim Ii") brought a False Claim Act Kim .I defendants

and their attorneys violated Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9. Fraud, Mistake,

Condition of the Mind at the United State District Court Western Michigan case #

1:11-cv-00233 and Six Circuit no. 12-014019 12-02407, 13-02354. Articulate the

appropriate rule 9(b). Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind as the United States

District Court Western District of Michigan No 1:16-cv-309 (Kim II);

The panel and judge decide cases presenting issues of importance beyond

the particular fact and parties involved that Kim I Defendants Answered to

complaint within 71days8 is a within 21days timely answered to complaint. The fact

that the petitioner believes the court has overlooked Fed. R. App.40(a)(2).

The Summons issued on March 25, 2011. Defendants answer on June 3,2011 5g. Kim I Docket land 38

9

Also, the panel and judge decide cases presenting issues of importance beyond

the particular fact and parties involved that Chief district court judge was

"substantial ground for different of opinion" 28 U.S.C. 1292 (b) .... the thirteenth

[fifteenth] times "(8) eight years that Solely granted Kim I, Defendants' Motion to

dismiss. The Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) requires that judge to mandatory denied the

Kim [defendants' Motion to dismiss because A motion[August 10,

2011 (defendants' Motion to dismiss, docket no 62)]asserting any of these defenses

must be made before pleading[June 3, 2011 (Defendant answered to complaint

docket no 3 8)].

The Sixth Circuit Case no 16-2321 Kim II finds that Solely "we VACATE the

district court's judgment and REMAND to the district court to dismiss this case for

lack of subject- matter jurisdiction9. This is half criminal matter.

C. Third , STATEMENT OF THE CASE and Kim III. Defendants

Appellees Respofldents violated Intentional Misrepresentation, Title

28 App Federal Title Rule 9. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (b) Fraud,

Mistake, Condition of the Mind.

-

Chief district Judge did not provide fair treatment during previous (Kim I and Kim

II) lawsuit. Defendants violated Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9.Intentional

Misrepresentation Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The United States District Court Western

District of Michigan No 1: 18-cv-001 0 7 (Kim III);

On January 11, 2018 Kim("Kim IIr')re-filed complaint at the United States

District Court For the Southern District of Ohio, docket no. 2:18 —cv-0029(Kim II])

"Kim and most of the defendants are citizen of Michigan, the district court also diversity jurisdiction." "But failed to mention that act in his

complaint particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Rule 9(b)".

10

and cured the "lackedfederal-question jurisdiction'0" that he states to mention act

in his complaint. Kim I defendants and their attorneys violated Title 28 App

Federal Title Rule 9. Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind, at the United State

District Court Western Michigan case # 1:11-cv-00233. Six Circuit no. 12-01401,

12-02407, 13-02354. Articulate the appropriate rule 9(b). Fraud, Mistake,

Condition of the Mind "a period of 30 days after it is dismissed" 28 U.S. Code

§

1367(d). On January 30, 2018 the Southern District of Ohio Court were "Cure or

Waiver of defects" 28 U.S.0 § 1406 that the Court Chosen "interest of justice,

transfer to the Western District of Michigan, Chief District court Judge (Kim, I, II,

III), docket no. 1: 1 8-cv-00 107.

PRESENTED STANDARD OF REVIEW

The panel decision conflicts with Statute Respondents violated Title 28 App

Federal Title Rule 9. Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind that

On March 28, 2011 Defendants Solely had NEVER been must" Returned Executed

by the U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C)upon defendants the nine(9) pieces

USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons and Complaint to the Court until present.

See. Appendix I.

The panel, Chief district Judge dishonestly "interlocutory decisions" 28 USC

§ 1292 that "the thirteenth [fifteenth] times "(8)eight years that

10

Six Circuit ordered that "but failed to mention that act in his complaint. See. United States v. Cline, 362 F.3d 343, 348(6th Cir. 2004)

"The USM Form -299, Receipt of Summons appears that Defendants "MUST COMPLETE the acknowledgment part of this form below AND

RETURN COPIES lAND 2 to the sender within 21days".

11

"[on March 28, 2011] without having served defendants with a complaint" (Order,

Kim I P.2, ECF No 48 and p. 2.Appendix H ). "the Court find the Magistrate

judge's Order(docket #48)neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law" (Appendix

G)which is the on March 28, 2011 the U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C) Not

mailed the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons and Complaint and Complaint

upon defendants. This is actually criminal matter.

The judge and panel and Defendants' conduct were willful and malicious

and denied application entry of default and default judgment and Kim III,

Respondents are not violated Statute Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9 (b) Fraud,

Mistake, Condition of the Mind. Chief district Judge Dismissed himself under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii) in this Case. This is a waste, fraud, and abuses its discretion

and this is criminal matter. There was nothing honest in the Kim I, II, II, district

Court room. Chief district judge, Defendants' panel's conduct was willful and

malicious.

VI. REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION

D. ARGUMENT

Pursuant to Section 1292(b) this Court may certify an order for interlocutory

appeal if that order: (1) involves a controlling question of law for which there is

substantial ground for difference of opinion, and (3) an immediate appeal of the

order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28

U.S.C. § 1292(b). Satisfaction of all three requirements is a minimum for

certification. Nat'l Asbestor Workers Med Fund. V Phillip Morris, Inc., 71 F.

Supp.2d 139,162 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)(cited in Teem v. Doubraysky, No. 3:15-cv-

00210-SI, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13452,3(D. Or. Jan, 7 2016)) Section 1292(b)

to be applied "only in exceptional circumstances"

a. Plaintiff's Application for entry of default and default judgment.

Kim I. Point of view defraud I.

1. ARGUEMNT Defendants Solely had NEVER been returned the USM

Form -299 Receipt of Summons and Complaint until present, is not "there is

no evidence defendants were served"(Order, Kim I P.2, ECF No 48, Appendix

H) and Defendants are not violated Statute Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

(b) Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind.

Defendants knowingly make fraud that

"[on March 28, 2011] without having served defendants with a complaint" (Order,

Kim I P.2, ECF No 48 and p. 2.Appendix H). "the Court find the Magistrate

judge's Order(docket #48)neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law" (Appendix

G)which is the on March 28, 2011 the U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C) Not

mailed the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons and Complaint and Complaint

upon defendants. 7,10,13,16,19,22,25,28, and 6 at Appendix I. This is actually

criminal matter.

And also, the defendants are not violated Statute Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (b) Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind at the United State District

Court Western Michigan case # 1:11-cv-00233. Six Circuit no. 12-01401, 1202407, 13-02354. This is not TRUE. This is a waste, fraud, and abuses its

discretion and this is criminal matter.

Procedural history shows. See.

a. The Summons issued on March 25, 2011 (See. at Appendix J) On March 28,

2011 the U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C) First time mailed the USM

Form -299 Receipt of Summons and Complaint and Complaint upon

The (9)nine defendants' address is Grand Valley State University 1 Campus

13

Drive Allendale, Ml 49401-9403 .To see Complaint Exhibit C

On April 17, 2011 Defendants failed timely answer to the complaint within

2ldays.

On March 28, 2011 Defendants Solely had NEVER been must12Retumed

Executed by the U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C)upon defendants the

USM Form -299 Receipt ofSummons and Complaint until present. To see

Complaint Exhibit C p.7,10,13,16,19,22,25, 28.

On May 18, 2011 the U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C) Second time

mailed to the defendants the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons and

Complaint. The (9)nine defendants' address is Grand Valley State

University 1 Campus Drive Allendale, Ml 49401-9403 .To see Complaint

Exhibit C p.3,8,11,14,17,20,23, and 26.

On June 3, 20111 71 days later, defendants answered to complaint See. Kimi

docket no 38.

On June 16, 201 lthe U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C)Third time

mailed to the defendant- The (2) two pieces of the USM Form -299 Receipt

of Summons to one defendant Lois Smith Owens on June 16, 2011 To see

Appendix Ip.4, and 6. Defendant Lois Smith Owens Solely had NEVER

been must13Returned Executed by the U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy

(b)(7)(C)upon defendants the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons and

Complaint until present

Petitioner "taken as true, The U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C) mailed

18 pieces of the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons to the (9)nine

defendants. The (9)nine defendants' address is Grand Valley State

University 1 Campus Drive Allendale, Ivil 49401-9403.

The Chief district court judge made-up story that Defendants Answered to

complaint within 71days14 is a within 2ldays' 5timely answered to complaint and

denied application for entry of default and default judgment. "the thirteenth

12

The USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons appears that Defendants "MUST COMPLETE the

acknowledgment part of this form below AND

RETURN COPIES lAND 2 to the sender within 21days

The USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons appears that Defendants "MUST COMPLETE the

acknowledgment part of this form below AND

RETURN COPIES lAND 2 to the sender within 21days".

14

The Summons issued on March 25, 2011. Defendants answer on June 3, 2011 See. Kim I Docket

1 and 38

"Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(i)A defendant must serve an answer within 21 days after being served

with the summons and complaint.

".

14

[fifteenth] times "(8) eight years that "[on March 28, 2011] without having served

defendants with a complaint" (Order, Kim 1 P.2, ECF No 48 and p. 2.Appendix H).

"the Court find the Magistrate judge's Order(docket #48)neither clearly erroneous

nor contrary to law" (Appendix G)which is the on March 28, 2011 the U.S.

Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C) Not mailed the USM Form -299 Receipt of

Summons and Complaint and Complaint upon defendants. 7,10, 13,1 6,19,22,25,28,

and 6( See at Appendix I). This is actually criminal matter.

It is important to note that Chief judge and penal "erroneous factual

findings"16that

On March 281, 2011 Defendants Solely had NEVER been must17Retumed

Executed by the U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C)upon defendants the

USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons and Complaint until present. To see

Complaint Exhibit C p.7,10,13,16,19,22,25, and 28 is,

"[on March 28, 2011] without having served defendants with a complaint"

(Order, Kim IP.2, ECF No 48 and p. 2.Appendix H). "the Court find the

Magistrate judge's Order(docket #48)neither clearly erroneous nor contrary

to law" (Appendix G)which is the on March 28, 2011 the U.S. Marshal

Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C) Not mailed the USM Form -299 Receipt of

Summons and Complaint and Complaint upon defendants. This is actually

criminal matter.

It is important to note that the panel and chief judge decision are conflict

with Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9(b) that defendants are violated under Title

28 App Federal Title Rule 9(b) Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind. The

Reasons for granting petition is the Judge', panel and defendants' conduct was

willful and malicious.

This "case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation

16

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

17 The USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons appears that Defendants "MUST

RETURN COPIES lAND 2 to the sender within 21days

15

COMPLETE the acknowledgment part of this form below AND

from normal appellate practice 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e). Petitioner requests "immediate determination in this Court". See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e) defendants are

violated under Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9(b) Fraud, Mistake, Condition of

the Mind. The Reasons for granting petition is the panel and judge decide cases

presenting issues of importance beyond the particular fact and parties involved this

case

The conflict is not address in the opinion or order eight (8)years. The fact

that the Petitioner believes the panel has overlooked" Fed. R. App.40(a)(2)

at the United States District Court Western District of Michigan 1:11-cv00233 (Kim 1) No 1: 16-cv-309 (Kim II); No 1: 18-cv-00107 (Kim III) and Six

Circuit no. 12-01401, 12-02407, 13 -023 54 (Kim I); 16-2321 (Kim II); 181637(Kim III).

The Panel and Chief District Court judge decision is "Interlocutory decisions"

28 USC § 1292 and "erroneous factual findings

Kim I. Point of view defraud II

Furthermore, Respondents knowingly make fraud, the Chief District judge

and panel dishonestly decision (Magistrate Judge was silent) are "substantial

ground for different of opinion" 28 USC § 1292(b) that

"Their answer-which waived service —was therefore timely" (Order p.2 Appendix

D) Their answer-which waived service —was therefore timely(Order p.5 Appendix

E).On June, 2011 defendants receiving requests "waivers of service" from the

Marshals' office( Order p.5 Appendix H ) and affirmed denied Application for

entry of default and judgment. This is an untrue. This is actually criminal matter.

Petitioner "taken as true, the judge and panel "erroneous factual findings

evidence that the Kim I Court record appears that plaintiff had NEVER been filed

16

AO 399 Waiver of the Service of Summons and the U.S. Marshals had NEVER

been received from the Clerk of Court the Waver Service. See. Kim I dockets. The

panel and chief judge decision is conflict TRUE and "Clerk must enter the party's

default" Rules 55(a).

The conflict is not address in the opinion or order seven (7)years. The fact

that the Appellant believes the panel has overlooked" Fed. R. App.40(a)(2)

at the United States District Court Western District of Michigan 1: 11 -cv00233(Kim 1) No 1:16-cv-309 (Kim II); No 1:18-cv-00107 (Kim III) and Six

Circuit no. 12-01401, 12-02407, 13-02354 (Kim 1); 16-2321 (Kim II), 181637(Kim III).

The case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from

normal appellate practice 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e).

Petitioner requests "immediate determination in this Court". See 28 U. S. C.

§

2 10 1 (e).Applicant is, therefore, the claim entitled to "liabilities of the defendants

admiralty cases 28 U.S. C. 1292 (a)(3) and defendants violated under Title 28 App

Federal Title Rule 9(b) Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind. Kim has establish

claim. The panel and Defendants' conduct were willful and malicious. The Reasons

for granting petition is the panel decide cases presenting issues of importance

beyond the particular fact and parties involved this case.

The Panel and Chief District Court judge decision is "Interlocutory decisions"

28 USC § 1292 and "erroneous factual fmdings"8

Kim L Point of view defraud III

18

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

17

Respondents knowingly make fraud, Chief district Judge and panels

dishonestly "there is substantial ground for different of opinion 28 Usc §

1292(b)"particularity and the panel and judge decide cases presenting issues of

importance beyond the particular fact and parties involved that

"without having served defendants with complaint or amended complaint"

(j).2 Appendix H) and denied Application for entry of default and judgment. "The

Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court's decision "nothing in record indicates that Kim

actually served the defendants with the amended complaint"(p. 2. Appendix D).

This is an untrue". This is actually criminal matter.

Petitioner "taken as true" the judge and panel "erroneous factual findings

evidence that the U.S. post office receipt appears Kim I, docket no. 46-2, docket

no.52-3.docketno60-2)Kim actually served the Amended Complaint to the

defendants and future represent defendant's attorney.

The "erroneous factual fmdings"20evidence that

OF OF SERVICE

Motion for leave to file first Amended Complaint and Application for

Declaratory and injunctive Relief and Proof of Service to

grand Valley State Umversity, Thomas J Haas, GVSU College of Education,

Elaine C. Collins, Paula Lancaster, Olivia A. Williams, GVSU College of

Community and Public Service, George Grant, and Lois smith Owens

1 Campus Drive Allendale, lvii 49401-9403

Interesting party (future represent defendant's attorney:

Mr. Edward J. Bardelli Warner Norcross & Judd LLP

900 Fifth Third Center 111 Lyon Street NW Grand Rapids, lvii 49503-2487

'9

20

28U.S. Code § 352(a)(2) untrue or are incapable of being established through investigation.

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

18

Dated: March 25, 2011 GwanJun Kim (See at Appendix K)

The "erroneous factual findings" evidence that

The U.S post office receipt appears Kim I, docket 7 pagelD 77 and docket 52-3

Page ID279) Kim actually served the Amended complaint to the defendants and

future represent defendant's attorney. (See. Appendix L.

See Dated: 3/25/11, 07:54:03 AM.

:1st Large Env 1

$2.24 (Grand Rapids Ml 49503) for the Interesting party

(future represent defendant's attorney)

1 Large EnV 1 $ 1.56 (Grand Rapids MI 49503) for the Court

L1 Large Env 1

- $_ 2.24,( Allendale ML 49402) for the Defendant- Grand

Valley State University.

Mal

The "erroneous factual findings" evidence that

Defendants' counsel Bardelli "admit that Defendants received Dkt # 6 Amended

Complaint. Answer: "Defendants admit only that their counsel received Docket no

6[Amended complaint] Seer

23 Defendants' answers to Plaintiff's First

equest for Admissions.( Kim I, ECF docket no. 108 Attachment 1) See. at

Appendix M.

That evidence that Kim actually served the Amended complaint to

defendants and future represent defendant's attorney and "defendants is liable for

the misconduct alleged Ic"

The conflict is not address in the opinion or order seven (8) eight years. The fact

that the Petitioner believes the panel and Chief District Judge has overlooked"

at the United States District Court Western District of Michigan 1: 11 -cv-00233(Kim

19

1) No 1:16-cv-309 (Kim II); No 1:18-cv-00107 (Kim III)and Six Circuit no. 1201401, 12-02407, 13 -023 54 (Kim 1); 16-2321 (Kim II), 18-1637(Kim III). This is a

crime.

The panel and chiefjudge decision are conflict with TRUE and "Clerk must

enter the party's default" Rules 55(a)."The case is of such imperative public

importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice 28 U. S. C. §

2101(e).

Petitioner requests "immediate determination in this Court". See 28 U. S. C.

§

2101 (e).Applicant is, therefore, the claim entitled to "liabilities of the defendants

admiralty cases 28 U.S. C. 1292 (a)(3) and defendants violated under Title 28 App

Federal Title Rule 9(b) Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind. Kim has establish

claim. The Reasons for granting petition is the panel and judge decide cases

presenting issues of importance beyond the particular fact and parties involved this

case. The Panel and Chief District Court judge decision is "Interlocutory decisions"

28 USC § 1292 and "erroneous factual findings"2'

III. ARGUEMNT Chief district Judge dishonestly "there is substantial ground

for different of opinion 28 USC § 1292(b)" particularity finds that Solely granted

Defendants' Motion to dismiss This is criminal matter.

The "erroneous factual findings"22evidence that Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) requires

that judge to mandatory denied the Kim I defendants' Motion to dismiss.

b. Defendants' Motion to dismiss

Kim I. Point of view defraud IV

21

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

"RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) requires that judge to mandatory denied the Kim I

defendants' Motion to dismiss because A motion[August 10, 2011 (defendants'

Motion to dismiss, docket no 62)]asserting any of these defenses must be made

before pleading[June 3, 2011 (Defendant answered to complaint docket no 38)].

The Chief Judge and panel has to follow the rule of law, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7).

But the panel and Chief district court Judge ignored that rule of law, Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(7) in this Case.

Procedural history shows. See.

On August 10, 2011, Kim I defendants filed defendants' Motion to dismiss

(see. docket no 62)

On June 3, 2011, Kim I defendants filed Defendant answered to complaint

(See. docket no 38)

Respondents knowingly make fraud, Chief District court judge and panel

dishonestly decision are "substantial ground for different of opinion" 28 USC

§

1292(b) that the panel and judge decide cases presenting issues of importance

beyond the particular fact and parties involved that Solely granted Defendants'

Motion to dismiss. This is criminal matter. Petitioner "taken as true" the judge and

panel "erroneous factual findings evidence that Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) requires

that judge to mandatory denied the Kim I defendants' Motion to dismiss. The

conflict is not address in the opinion [or order at the Kim I, II, III] Fed. R. App.P.40.

The conflict is not address in the opinion or order and panel

21

seven (7)years. "The fact that the petitioner believes the panel has

overlooked" Fed. R. App.40(a)(2) at the United States District Court

Western District of Michigan l:11-cv-00233(Kim 1) No 1:16-cv-309 (Kim II);

No 1:18-cv-00107 (Kim III)and Six Circuit no. 12-01401, 12-02407, 1302354 (Kim 1); 16-232] (Kim II); 18-1637(Kim III). This is Crime.

The panel and Chief judge decision is conflict Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) requires that

judge to mandatory denied the Kim I defendants' Motion to dismiss."The case is of

such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate

practice 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e). The Reasons for granting petition is the panels'

conduct was half willful and malicious.

Petitioner requests "immediate determination in this Court". See 28 U. S. C.

§

2101(e).Applicant is, therefore, the claim entitled to "liabilities of the defendants

admiralty cases 28 U.S. C. 1292 (a)(3) and defendants violated under Title 28 App

Federal Title Rule 9(b) Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind. Kim has establish

claim. The Reasons for granting petition is the panel and judge decide cases

presenting issues of importance beyond the particular fact and parties involved this

case. The Panel and Chief District Court judge decision is "Interlocutory decisions"

28 USC § 1292 and "erroneous factual findings"23

Kim I. Point of view defraud V

III. ARGUIEMNT Chief district Judge dishonestly "there is substantial ground for

different of opinion 28 USC § 1292(b)" that Judge was particularity erred in

adversely rulings that Solely intentionally failure to make any mention of facts

24 in its

factual allegation ,Cause of Action

Opinion an Order.

23

24

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

Count I. the Homosexual defendants refused to correct the miscalculation" the complaint indicated that the college of

Education

22

Grand Valley

Respondents knowingly make fraud, the panel and judge decide cases

presenting issues of importance beyond the particular fact and parties involved that

the judge and panel "erroneous factual findings evidence that Chief District Judge

Solely granted Defendants' Motion to dismiss that Solely intentionally failure to

make any mention of facts factual allegation ,Cause of Action I, II, 111 25 in its

Opinion an Order. This is crime.

The conflict is not address in the opinion or order and panel

eight (8)years. "The fact that the panel has overlooked" Fed. R. App.40(a)(2)

at the United States District Court Western District of Michigan 1:11 -cv00233(Kim 1) No 1:16-cv-309 (Kim II); No 1:18-cv-00107 (Kim IIJ)and Six

Circuit no. 12-01401, 12-02407, 13-02354 (Kim 1); 16-2321(Kim II); 181637(Kim III).

The panel and Chiefjudge decision is conflict Cause of Action j 11,111 26

"The case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from

normal appellate practice 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e). Petitioner requests "immediate

determination in this Court". See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e). Petitioner is, therefore, the

claim entitled to "liabilities of the defendants admiralty cases 28 U.S. C. 1292 (a)(3)

and defendants violated under Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9(b) Fraud, Mistake,

Condition of the Mind. Kim has established claim. The Reasons for granting

State University had independently calculated 700+304=600 points and granted grade of "D" and The Grand Valley

State University

independently calculated 700-f304=700p0ints grade of "C". Count II GVSU refused complies with the GVSU

Rule readmission application.

Count III. GVSU refused the lesbian- Black -Owens-defendant's corruption hearing.

25

Count I. the Homosexual defendants refused to correct the miscalculation"the complaint indicated that the college of Education Grand

Valley

State University had independently calculated 700+304=600 points and granted grade of "13" and The Grand Valley

State University

independently calculated 700+304700po1nts grade of "C". Count II GVSU refused complies with the GVSU Rule

readmission application.

Count ilL GVSU refused the lesbian- Black -Owens-defendant's corruption hearing.

26

Count I. the Homosexual defendants refused to correct the miscalculation"the complaint indicated that the college of Education Grand

Valley

State University had independently calculated 700+304600 points and granted grade of "D" and The Grand Valley

State University

independently calculated 700+304=700points grade of "C". Count II GVSU refused complies with the GVSU

Rule readmission application.

Count Ill. GVSU refused the lesbian- Black -Owens-defendant's corruption hearing.

23

petition is the panel and judge decide cases presenting issues of importance beyond

the particular fact and parties involved this case. The Panel and Chief District

Court judge decision is "Interlocutory decisions" 28 USC § 1292 and "erroneous

factual findings"27

Kim I. Point of view defraud VI

Finally, Kim I, Respondents knowingly make fraud, Chief district court

judge ordered is "frivo1ous28"that the judge had particularity biases orders that

Defendants received grant defendants' Motion for Taxation of Costs (docket no

197) amount of the 1,006.46. ). Judge's conduct was willful and malicious. The

Panel and Chief District Court judge decision is "Interlocutory decisions" 28 USC

§ 1292 and "erroneous factual findings"

IV. ARGUEMNT Defendants —Appellees- Respondents violated Intentional

Misrepresentation, Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9. Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (b) Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind at the

the United State District Court Western Michigan case # 1:11-cv-00233 and

Six Circuit no. 12-01401, 12-02407, 13-02354. Articulate the appropriate rule

9(b). Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind as the United States District Court

Western District of Michigan No 1:16-cv-309 (Kim II);

Kim H. Point of view defraud VII

Respondents knowingly make fraud, Kim II Judge Maloney had been finds

that "[defraud I to VI] are only to adverse rulings ["the thirteenth [fourteenth] times]

adverse rulings are not a sufficient reason for a judge to be excused from presiding

27

28

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

"frivolous,[and] lacking sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred,"28 U.S. Code 351(b)(1)(A)(Iii).

§

24

over a lawsuit. Jewell v. Ohio State Univ., 941 F. 2d 1209 (6thcir. Aug 14, 1991).

For a bias to be personal against the party, and a basis for disqualification, it must

arise from some extra Judicial source." "this case be reassigned to Chief Judge

Jonker Kim II in order to promote judicial economy". (Kim II, ECF No. 17)). Kim

II Judge Maloney' conduct was willful and malicious. The panel and judge decide

cases presenting issues of importance beyond the particular fact and parties

involved that

The conflict is not address in the opinion or order and panel

seven (7)years. "The fact that the Appellant believes the panel has

overlooked" Fed. R. App.40(a)(2) at the United States District Court

Western District of MichiganNo 1:16-cv-309 (Kim II), No 1:18-cv-00107

(Kim III)and Six Circuit no. 16-2321(Kim II), 18-1637(Kim III).

"The case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from

normal appellate practice 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e). Petitioner requests "immediate

determination in this Court". See 28 U. S. C. § 2 10 1 (e).Applicant is, therefore, the

claim entitled to "liabilities of the defendants admiralty cases 28 U.S. C. 1292 (a)(3)

and defendants violated under Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9(b) Fraud, Mistake,

Condition of the Mind. Kim has established claim. The Panel and Chief District

Court judge decision is "Interlocutory decisions" 28 USC § 1292 and "erroneous

factual findings."29

Kimli. Point of view defraud VIII

"RlJLESOF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

25

Respondents knowingly make fraud, the panel and judge decide cases

presenting issues of importance beyond the particular fact and parties involved that

Kim "must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior

proceeding id All the factors [the Defraud I to VII] are amply satisfied" (Kim II,

ECF No. 220 p.3) See. Order p. 3 Appendix D. This is Criminal matter. This is an

untrue. The judge and panel "erroneous factual findings evidence that Kim II Chief

Judge had been "unable to discharge all the duties"28 U.S. Code § 35 1(a) criminal

justice defendants. The conflict the Defraud I to VII is not address in the opinion

or order] Fed. R. App.P.40. The panels' conduct was half willful and malicious.

The Sixth Circuit Case no 16-2321 Kim II finds that "we VACATE the district

court's judgment and REMAND to the district court to dismiss this case for lack of

subject- matter jurisdiction" See. at Order p. 3 Appendix C.

The conflict the Point of view defraud I to VII is not address in the opinion or

[

order] Fed. R. App.P.40). The panels' conduct was half willful and malicious.

The panel and Chiefjudge decision is conflict with Defendants violated

Intentional Misrepresentation, Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9. Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure (b) Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind at the the United State

District Court Western Michigan case # 1:11 -cv-00233 and Six Circuit no. 1201401, 12-02407, 13-02354.

"The case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from

°

"Kim and most of the defendants are citizen of Michigan, the district court also diversity jurisdiction." "But failed to mention

that act in his

complaint particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Rule 9(b)".

Oil

normal appellate practice 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e). Petitioner requests "immediate

determination in this Court". See 28 U. S. C. § 2 10 1 (e).Applicant is, therefore, the

claim entitled to "liabilities of the defendants admiralty cases 28 U.S. C. 1292 (a)(3)

and defendants violated under Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9(b) Fraud, Mistake,

Condition of the Mind. Kim has establish claim. The Panel and Chief District Court

judge decision is "Interlocutory decisions" 28 USC § 1292 and "erroneous factual

findings"31

V. ARGUEMNT Defendants —Appellees- Respondents are violated Intentional

Misrepresentation, Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9. Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (b) Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind at the United State

District Court Western Michigan case # 1:11-cv-00233 and Six Circuit no. 12014019 12-024079 13-02354.

Kimlil. Point of view defraud IX

Respondents knowingly make fraud that It is important to note that the panel and

judge decide cases presenting issues of importance beyond the particular fact and

parties involved this case that Chief district Judge dishonestly "there is substantial

ground for different of opinion 28 USC § 1292(b)" that the Point of view defraud I

to VIII that Kim I, II, III Chief district Judge continue "erroneous factual

findings"32 by dismiss himself that Defendants are not violated Title 28 App

Federal Title Rule 9.Intentional Misrepresentation Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) Fraud,

Mistake, Condition of the Mind. This is Crime.

31

32

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

27

Chief district Judge finds that Point of view defraud I to VIII "is still to the

screening mechanism" and dishonestly fraud that the Point of view defraud I to

VIII are "Defendants is a prevailing party" denied Kim's Motion for judgment and

Six Circuit no. 18-1637(KimIII) and the panel affirmed the Chief district Judge'

conduct was willful and malicious. This is criminal matter. The panels' conduct

was actually willful and malicious. The Panel and Chief District Court judge

decision is "Interlocutory decisions" 28 USC § 1292 and "erroneous factual

findings." This is a waste, fraud, and abuses its discretion and this is criminal

matter.

THE REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION The Panel and Chief District

Court judge decision, defraud I to XI are "Interlocutory decisions" 28 USC

§

1292 and "erroneous factual findings"33

THE REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION defraud I

The judge and panel "erroneous factual findings"34 Kim I, that On March 28, 2011

the U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C)was not mailed the complaint and the

USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons and Complaint to defendants until

present35which is "[ on March 28, 2011 ]there is no evidence that defendants were

served" (Order, Kim I P.2, ECF No 48 and Appendix H). "the Court find the

Magistrate judge's Order(docket #48)neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law"

33

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

°

Petitioner "taken as true, the judge and panel "erroneous factual findings evidence that the Court record

appears that On March 28, 2011

Defendants Solely had NEVER been

'Returned the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons and Complaint until present. To see Complaint

Exhibit C p.7,10,13,16,19,22,25, and 28. See. Appendix I

34

28

(Appendix G) and denied Application for entry of default and default judgment.

The panels' conduct was actuary willful and malicious. The judge and panel

"erroneous factual findings" that Respondents is NOT violated Statute Title 28 App

Federal Title Rule 9(b) Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind. This is criminal

matter.

THE REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION defraud H

The judge and panel "erroneous factual findings" Kim I, that On June, 2011

defendants receiving requests waivers of service from the Marshals' office"(Order,

Kim I P.2, ECF No 48) 16 anddenied Application for entry of default and judgment

and Respondents is not violated Statute Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9(b)Fraud,

Mistake, Condition of the Mind. The panels' conduct was actuary willful and

malicious. The judge and panel "erroneous factual findings" that Respondents is

NOT violated Statute Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9(b) Fraud, Mistake,

Condition of the Mind. This is criminal matter.

THE REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION defraud HI

The judge and panel "erroneous factual findings"37 Kim I, that Kim actually not

served the defendants with the amended complaint" (Kim II, Order, P.2, ECF No

34, Complaint Exhibit

38 and

denied Application for entry of default and

36

Petitioner "taken as true, the Court record appears that plaintiff had actually

NEVER been filed AO 399 Waiver of the Service of Summons and the U.S. Marshals

had NEVER been received from the Clerk of Court the

Waver Service. See. Kim I1:11-cv.00233 dockets.

"

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

39

Petitioner "taken as true", the judge and panel "erroneous factual findings evidence that

the Court record appears the U.S. post office receipt

actually appears Kim I, docket no. 46-2, docket no.52-3.docketno60-2.)See. Appendix

L. Proof of service indicated that Plaintiff served amended

29

judgment and denied Application for entry of default and judgment

and the Kim III,

judge and panel "erroneous factual findings" that Respondents is not

violated

Statute Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9(b)Fraud, Mistake, Condition

of the Mind.

The panels' conduct was actuary willful and malicious. This is crimi

nal matter.

THE REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION defraud IV

The judge and panel "erroneous factual findings" Kim I, that the judge

was not follow the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7)" [on August 10, 2011

and panels

]defenses must be

made before pleading[On June 3, 2011]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7)

The panel and chiefjudge decision is conflict with the Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(7)

requires that judge to mandatory denied the Defendants' Motion to

dismiss because

defendants are not file made before pleading.

The judge and panel "erroneous factual findings" Kim I, that grant

ed Defendants'

Motion to dismiss and the Kim III, judge and panel "erroneous factu

al findings"

that Respondents is not lj olated Statute Title 28 App Federal Title

Rule 9(b)Fraud,

Mistake, Condition of the Mind. The panels' conduct was actuary willf

ul and

malicious. This is criminal matter.

THE REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION defraud V

The judge and panel "erroneous factual findings" Kim I, that Chie

f district court

judge and panels Order is "frivolous "that Judge and panels was erred

complaint see. Appendix K. Defendants admitted that defendants received

30

the amended complaint. See. Appendix M.

in adversely

rulings that Solely intentionally failure to make any mention of facts factual

allegation ,Cause of Action I, H, 11139 in its Opinion an Order and Kim III

Respondents is not violated Statute Title 28 App Federal Title Rule 9(b)Fraud,

Mistake, Condition of the Mind. The panels' conduct was actuary willful and

malicious. This is criminal matter.

THE REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION defraud VI

The judge and panel "erroneous factual findings" Kim I, that Chief district court

judge ordered is "frivo1ous40"that the judge had particularity biases orders that

Defendants received grant defendants' Motion for Taxation of Costs (docket no

197) amount of the 1,006.46. ). Judge's conduct was willful and malicious.

THE REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION defraud VII

Kim II, Distinct Judge Maloney, "erroneous factual findings"41 that "[defraud I to

VI] are only to adverse rulings ["the thirteenth [fourteenth] times] adverse rulings

are not a sufficient reason for a judge to be excused from presiding over a lawsuit.

Jewell v. Ohio State Univ., 941 F. 2d 1209 (6thcir. Aug 14, 1991). For a bias to be

personal against the party, and a basis for disqualification, it must arise from some

extra Judicial source" and "this case be reassigned to Judge Jonker the United

States District Court Western District of Michigan l:11-cv-00233(Kim 1) in order to

39

Count I. the Homosexual defendants refused to correct the miscalculation"the complaint indicated

that the college of Education Grand Valley

State University had independently calculated 700+304=600 points and granted grade of "D"

and The Grand Valley State University

independently calculated 700+304=700po1nts grade of "C". Count II GVSU refused complies with

the GVSU Rule readmission application.

Count III. GVSU refused the lesbian- Black -Owens-defendant's corruption hearing.

4°

"frivolous,[and] lacking sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred,"28

U.S. Code § 351(b)(1)(A)(iii).

41

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

31

promote judicial economy". (Kim II, ECF No. 17)). Kim II Judge Maloney' and

panels' conduct was actually willful and malicious.

THE REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION defraud VIII

The Chief District judge "erroneous factual findings" Kim II, that Kim "must have

had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding Id All the

factors [the Defraud Ito Vii] are amply satisfied" (Kim II, ECF No. 220 p.3) and

defendants Chief District judge's conduct was actually willful and malicious.

.

THE REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION defraud XI

Kim II The panel "erroneous factual findings" "we VACATE the district court's

judgment and REMAND to the district court to dismiss this case for lack of

subject- matter jurisdiction 42 The conflict the Point of view defraudi to VII

is not address in the opinion [or order] Fed. R. App.P.40). The panels' conduct was

half willful and malicious.

THE REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION defraudX

The Kim III, Chief District judge "erroneous factual findings" that defraud Ito VIII

"is still to the screening mechanism" and dishonestly fraud that the Point of view

defraud I to VIII are "Defendants is a prevailing party" denied plaintiff's Motion

for judgment and Kim III, Defendants are not violated Title 28 App Federal Title

Rule 9.Intentional Misrepresentation Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) Fraud, Mistake,

42

"Kim and most of the defendants are citizen of Michigan, the district court also

diversity jurisdiction." "But failed to mention that act in his

complaint particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Rule 9(b)".

32

Condition of the Mind. Chief district Judge' conduct was willful and malicious.

This is actually criminal matter. This "case is of such imperative public

importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice 28 U. S.

C. §

2101(e).

THE REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION defraud XI

The Kim III, panel "erroneous factual findings"43that the defraud I to VIII is,

fails to point to any evidence of bias on the part of the district court judge

"Kim

other

than his unfavorable rulings" p.5 Order The panel's conduct actually was

.

willful

and malicious. This is a waste, fraud, and abuses its discretion and this is crimin

al

matter. Petitioner "taken as true, the judge and panel "erroneous factual findin

gs

evidence that the district Court and Sixth Circuit Court record appears that

Kim

established and submitted to point to evidence of bias on the defraud I to VIII

of

the district court judge. Kim III, Defendants are violated Title 28 App Feder

al Title•

Rule 9.Intentional Misrepresentation Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) Fraud, Mistake,

Condition of the Mind which is panel's conduct was actually willful and malic

ious.

Petitioner believes that the panel and Chief District judge received bible

from "Grand Valley University Milton E. Ford LGBT Resource Center" or

insurance carrier Most Respondents- gay or lesbian- educators are not King

or

.

Queen of the United States America and above the law. Should be an equal

43

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, 10 (Rule 10)

33

criminal justice.

REQUEST

Petitioner requests Respondents to answer the argument Point of

defraud I to IX Respondents had NEVER been answered the argum

ent

view

Point of

view defraud I to IX Eight (8)Years or Chief District Judge or Pane

l to Answer.

The conflict has not been address in the opinion or penal' order

.

Petitioner respectfully request "immediate determination in this

Court". See

28 U. S. C. § 2101(e)that Respondents is violated Statute Title 28

App Federal Title

Rule 9(b)Fraud, Mistake, Condition of the Mind. This is criminal

matter. Petitioner

has injury from the Point of view defraud I to lXEight (8)Years.

The panels'

.

conduct was actually willful and malicious. Should be granted.

V. CONCLUSION

Petitioner respectfully requests determination in this Court" that

liabil

ities of

the defendants admiralty cases 28 U.S. C. 1292 (a)(3), the Cour

t of appeal's

judgment in favor in Petitioner and remands this Court or rema

nds to the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Court. No

2:18-cv-0029 for

order Judgment in favor of the Petitioner relief demanded in the

complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 16, 2019

GwanJun im Pro Se

360 East Tuttle Rd Lot 54

Ionia, MI 48846

34