Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pro Se 2

    Uploaded by

    jmgamso
    1K views3 pages
    Deborah E. Frisch, ph.d., responds to Docket Clerk's ostentatious offical misconduct. She says she is defendant, appellant or plaintiff, depending on which shyster-vermin she is dealing with. She argues that since the final judgment in the case was signed by Mary Moran, it is not a valid final judgment.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Deborah E. Frisch, ph.d., responds to Docket Clerk's ostentatious offical misconduct. She says she is defendant, appellant or plaintiff, depending on which shyster-vermin she is dealing with. She argues that since the final judgment in the case was signed by Mary Moran, it is not a valid final judgment.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1K views3 pages

    Pro Se 2

    Uploaded by

    jmgamso
    Deborah E. Frisch, ph.d., responds to Docket Clerk's ostentatious offical misconduct. She says she is defendant, appellant or plaintiff, depending on which shyster-vermin she is dealing with. She argues that since the final judgment in the case was signed by Mary Moran, it is not a valid final judgment.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    Case 6:09-cv-06126-TC Document 229 Filed 10/14/10 Page 1 of 3 Page ID#: 1212

    Deborah E. Frisch, Ph.D.


    3003 W. 11th Avenue PMB #168
    Eugene, OR 97402
    (541) 520-2929
    email: dfrisch@pobox.com

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

    EUGENE DIVISION

    DEBORAH FRISCH CASE NO. 09-cv-6126-TC

    Plaintiff PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO


    DOCKET CLERK BRINN’S
    OSTENSIBLE OFFICIAL
    MISCONDUCT

    CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, a municipal corporation,


    ROBERT WEAVER, JUDSON WARDEN, DANIEL LONG,
    CITY OF EUGENE, a municipal travesty, LANE COUNTY,
    THUG HARCLEROAD, CRETIN MITCHELL, VERMIN GARDNER,
    WRETCHES SAYDACK, VOLMERT AND MILLER et. al.

    Defendants

    Plaintiff shall henceforth refer to self as litigant since she is defendant, appellant or

    plaintiff, depending on which shyster-vermin she is dealing with. Litigant files this

    response to the order filed by Docket Clerk Brinn and signed by USDC-OR Magistrate

    Coffin deeming all pending motions (e.g., motions to rescind the half dozen first and

    fourteenth amendment harassing orders based on various false allegations about Sterling

    Pew, Liani Reeves, Christopher Henry and Sheryl Nogelmeir) moot since the frocked

    cowfucker in San Francisco denied the plaintiff’s appeal. The cowfucker and its

    wretched frocked colleagues denied litigant’s allegation that since the final judgment in

    the case was signed by Mary Moran, it is not a valid final judgment. Indeed, the final

    1
    Case 6:09-cv-06126-TC Document 229 Filed 10/14/10 Page 2 of 3 Page ID#: 1213

    judgment needs to be signed by an honest to god article three judge like Chief

    Judge/Zucchini Patch Slavemaster Ann L. Aiken or Senior Judge Michael Hogan and not

    by a mere magistrate like Coffin and certainly not by court staff like Forgerer (USDC-OR

    SO 2009-14, 11(12?).09) Moran.

    Since litigant cannot believe that it is in the court’s interest continue to non-

    consensually use Sterling, Christopher and the shyster-gook in Salem who is a whore for

    Isaiah Kroger’s sick fuck daddy-o to continue to escalate the aggression against the

    litigant’s rights that began on November 30, 2009 without the consent of Ms. Pew and

    Ms. Nogelmeier and escalated on May 10 and 17, 2010 to non-consensually include Mr.

    Pew, Ms. Reeves and Mr. Henry, litigant assumes that the mootness of all pending

    motions implies the rescinding of the disgusting, unjustified, revolting aggression against

    the litigant by Mr. Coffin on behalf of as-yet-unindicted-misdemeanors Fonberg-Weller

    and Weller-Fonberg on May 17, 2010.

    THAT IS, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, litigant assumes that litigant has the

    right to do research on PACER whenever Karen McCowan or Caterina Rosenfeld or

    Frank Shliske (if he’s out of jail yet) or Chuck Ringo has that right. LITIGANT NO

    LONGER CHOSES TO COMPLY with the illegal first and fourteenth amendment

    harassment on May 14, 2010 by Gary Gleaves, who engaged in so much pathetic,

    inappropriate sexual banter disgusted as duck talk with Docket Clerk Brinn that made the

    litigant want to puke on many occasions. Get a room Gary and Laura you pathetic duck

    fans. While you’re at it, get a life.

    And speaking of Docket Clerk Brinn, it is beyond the litigant’s comprehension

    that she would choose to continue to aggress against the litigant’s right to do research on

    2
    Case 6:09-cv-06126-TC Document 229 Filed 10/14/10 Page 3 of 3 Page ID#: 1214

    PACER by false alleging damages to court staff. Once again, litigant HAS NO CHOICE

    but to conclude that the mootness of all pending motions DEMANDS that all unjustified

    harassment on behalf of C-word Klonoski needs to END IMMEDIATELY.

    Litigant will file notice of appeal to the supreme court of the fraudulent judgment

    by cowfucker kozinski’s whores next week. Litigant might wait until Monday to act on

    allegations above. But litigant might not. You never know what this litigant’s gonna do.

    Dated this 14th day of October, 2010.

    BY: /s/ Deborah E. Frisch


    _______________________
    Deborah E. Frisch
    3003 W. 11th Ave. PMB 168
    Eugene, OR 97402
    (541) 520-2929

    You might also like