On September 7, 2006, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III commenced a conspiracy against my civil and constitutional rights with the scheduling of an October 2, 2006 mock Motion Hearing allegedly on the only motion on file – my April 20, 2006 Motion to Compel Discovery.
This began an outrageous five years (and counting) experience that proved to Roslyn Holman that our federal courts are corrupt….
As confirmed by the corresponding case (4:05-cv-02727-TLW-TER), docket entries and my September 13, 2006 Opposition that referenced evidence on record, my Motion to Compel Discovery had been resolved on May 18, 2006; accordingly, Magistrate Judge Rogers was aware that October 2, 2006 Motion Hearing was unfounded; however, I received notification of the hearing by regular and certified mail; and, on September 28, 2006, the court phoned to inform me that Magistrate Judge Rogersâ€™ chambers advised that regardless of my Opposition on file, I must attend an October 2, 2006 Hearing.
The mock Motion Hearing had been scheduled subsequent to September 1, 2006 mediation with a mediator, Arthur Justice, whom I had chosen from the courtâ€™s roster. The mediator had immediately placed the defendantâ€™s attorney and me in separate rooms whereby he repeatedly harassed me with negative and deceptive suppositions and assertions. Accordingly, I perceived a conspiracy was in progress.
Upon opening the October 2, 2006 mock Motion Hearing, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers declared my Motion to Compel Discovery moot; then, immediately proceeded to address defendantâ€™s untimely and unsupported Proposed Amended Conference and Scheduling Order which, as I pointed out on an updated docket report, had not been filed with the court. Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers astonishly stated â€œit notâ€ and began turning pages of a document as if searching for the docket entry; he recovered by stating he had received it by email. To the contrary, the caseâ€™s Conference and Scheduling Order Discovery deadline had expired on July 28, 2006. In fact, all requirements and deadlines on the Scheduling Order had been completed, including both partiesâ€™ exchange and filing of pretrial disclosure.
On July 28, 2006, the court had officially terminated Discovery, however, during the October 2, 2006 untimely and unnecessary motion hearing, the defendantâ€™s attorney insisted he take my oral disposition; accordingly, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers stated he was reopening Discovery ONLY to allow the defendantâ€™s attorney his entitlement to take my deposition. Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers ordered me to submit to an oral disposition to be scheduled before the month end. My interjection that all allegations in my Complaints were supported by irrefutable documented evidence on record proofing an untimely Oral Deposition groundless, was disregarded.
On the afternoon of the October 2, 2006 mock Motion Hearing, defendantâ€™s attorney copied me on an email sent to Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers with the following fraudulent assertion:
â€œPursuant to your instructions at this morningâ€™s hearing â€¦â€¦â€
Defendantâ€™s attorney had attached an untimely and unsupported Proposed Amended Scheduling Order with new deadlines for requirements that had already been completed in accordance with the original Conference and Scheduling Order.
On October 3, 2006 (the day after the mock motion hearing), Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers filed and implemented defendantâ€™s email proposal as an â€œAmended Scheduling Order.â€ Because all requirements had been completed and deadlines had expired, the Conference and Scheduling Order could not be amended. To circumvent this iron-clad rule, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers implemented a â€œNew Conference and Scheduling Orderâ€ and deceptively referenced it as an â€œAmended Conference and Scheduling Orderâ€.
I ordered/purchased a transcript of the October 2, 2006 Motion Hearing proceedings; and, on October 7, 2006, received a spliced version with bogus discussions between Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers and defendantâ€™s attorney, James Logan, pursuant to amending the existing Scheduling Order and filing a Motion for Summary Judgment subsequent to taking my disposition; contrarily, as noted on case docket, the deadline for filing dispositive motions had terminated on August 14, 2006. The Transcript was FALSIFIED!
On October 10, 2006, I filed a Motion for Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogersâ€™ recusal whereby I detailed his unethical activities and the Motion Hearing ploy. I emphasized that Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogersâ€™ decision to enter into a conspiracy with the defendantâ€™s attorney was prejudicial to the administration of justice and that if he was not removed from the case, I would not be granted a fair trial. At that time, I hadnâ€™t realized his intent was that my case never to go trial.
On October 18, 2006, I filed a formal Complaint (No. 06-9046) of Judicial Misconduct against Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit â€“ pursuant to statute 28 U.S.C. Â§ 351. I enclosed a copy of the fraudulent transcript and other irrefutably supporting evidential documents from the case record. (I later forwarded a copy of the fraudulent audio recording, received after filing the Complaint.)
On October 24, 2006, I presented the court with a letter specifically ordering an audio copy of October 2, 2006 Motion Hearing from the courtâ€™s official electronic sound recording. What I received was different — a reproduced, embellished, and spliced audio CD inclusive of bogus discussions between Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers and the defendantâ€™s attorney, James Logan. The fraudulent Motion Hearing audio recording closely corresponded to the previously purchased fraudulent transcript. I filed several motions requesting a refund for receipt of the fraudulent transcript and audio recording.
On October 30, 2006, I sent explicitly detailed complaints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). I included the verifiable bogus transcript and audio recording; and, I also referenced irrefutable evidence in the case record that affirmed Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogersâ€™ collaborated conspiracy and participation in the illegal reproduction and misrepresentation of U.S. Courtâ€™s official transcript and audio recording. However, neither agency initiated an investigation.
On November 27, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed my Complaint (No. 06-9046) against Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers by deceptively asserting that my allegations of conspiracy were frivolous and that there was no need to launch an investigation into tampering with the audio recording. On December 18, 2006, I responded by filing a Petition for Judicial Review. On January 4, 2007, the Petition was denied.
As Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers and defendantâ€™s attorney, James Logan, bogusly discussed on the reproduced audio recording of October 2, 2006 mock motion hearing, on November 14, 2006, under the direction of Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, the defendantâ€™s attorney, James Logan, filed a motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, I counteracted with an unanticipated cross-motion that disrupted their ploy and impeded case proceedings.
On August 1, 2007, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers filed a perjurious Report and Recommendation that was wholly biased, deficient, misrepresented, speculative, and affirmatively controverted by the entire evidential record.
My cross-motions for Summary Judgment were merely acknowledged in the Introduction of Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogersâ€™ Report, and although neither was addressed or discussed, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers recommended both be denied in the Conclusion of his Report.
Contrary to my uncontroverted evidence on file and defendantâ€™s inconsistent unauthorized, perjurious, and self-contradicting filings, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogersâ€™ Report and Recommendation falsely stated that I failed to submit any evidence to establish that I was illegally terminated. Defendantâ€™s evidential filings primarily consisted of an unsigned proposed reduction-in-force plan, on plain paper, applicable to one of its on-campus academic department (College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Life Sciences) located in Clemson, South Carolina. None of defendantâ€™s evidential filings were applicable to my previously held position with one of Clemson Universityâ€™s extension programs, â€œPublic Service Activities,â€ as correctly stated in my termination letter. I worked in one of defendantâ€™s extension offices located in Florence, South Carolina. None of defendantâ€™s evidential filings cite or support allegations pursuant to my termination letter.
More importantly, there are affirmatively no evidential filings alleging or affirming defendantâ€™s implementation of an actual reduction-in-force. All insufficient and fraudulent filings wholly and explicitly reference a â€œPROPOSED REDUCTION IN FORCE.â€
Contrarily; Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers Report suppressed defendantâ€™s fraudulent and perjurious filings, inclusive of a bad faith Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment. Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers Report falsely stated, â€œthe defendant has met its burden of producing a legitimately non-retaliatory reason for Plaintiffâ€™s terminationâ€.
Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogersâ€™ Report cited, but failed to apply, a Summary Judgment standard of review; and, contrary to defendantâ€™s perjurious evidential filings and admission to the existence of genuine issues of material facts in dispute subsequent to filing its Motion for Summary Judgment (precluding grant of Summary Judgment under Rule 56(c)). In willful violation of Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers recommended the grant of Summary Judgment for the defendant.
Contrary to the evidential record, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogersâ€™ Report and Recommendation unjustifiably states:
“The undersigned concludes that Plaintiffâ€™s termination was not in retaliation for her Charge of Discrimination and that, as such, Plaintiffâ€™s claim should be dismissedâ€.
Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogersâ€™ Report and Recommendation consisted of the following repetitious, but inconclusive excerpts:
â€œPlaintiff asserts; according to Plaintiff; Plaintiff claims; Plaintiff argues; it appears by Plaintiffâ€™s own evidence; it is not clear whether Plaintiff is referring toâ€¦.â€
However, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogersâ€™ Report, wholly based on deceptions and unfounded speculations failed to negate or confirm any of his inconclusive statements.
On August 23, 2007, the federal District Court Judge Terry L. Wooten filed an Order and Judgment that failed to acknowledge reviewing Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogersâ€™ recommendations; however, he granted defendantâ€™s motion for Summary Judgment, denied one of my unaddressed Motions for Summary Judgment, while wholly disregarding the other; and, he dismissed my meritorious Title VII Claims without due process of law.
District Judge Terry L. Wooten’s Order, devoid of case specifics, merely asserted:
â€œAfter careful review of the Report, the objections thereto, and the memoranda filed in this case, the Court elects to accept the Report (Doc. #86). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate judge, it is ORDERED that Clemsonâ€™s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Holmanâ€™s motion for summary is DENIED.â€œ
On October 4, 2007, uninformed, I filed an unnecessary Appeal pursuant to violation of my seventh and fourteenth amendment rights and deprivation of due process. On February 12, 2008, without addressing my Appeal Brief, without applying Rule 56, without contentions of law, and without applying Appellate Standard of Review, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit â€œaffirmedâ€ the District Courtâ€™s unconstitutional Void Judgment. I immediately filed a Petition for Review that was denied without being addressed. It became apparent that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was in collusion with the U.S. District Court of South Carolina. On July 15, 2008, still uninformed, I filed an unnecessary Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, and on October 6, 2008, the petition for Writ of Certiorari was denied. (The Appeal and Writ of Certiorari were filed prior to discovering the laws on Void Orders and Judgments.)
On June 23, 2009, based on Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III participation in the deprivation of my civil and constitutional rights, under color of law, I filed a Civil Rights Lawsuit (Case No. 4:09-cv-01634-CWH-JRM) pursuant to Statute 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 against him and his accomplices, District Judge Terry L. Wooten, three (3) Circuit judges Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, Judge Allyson K. Duncan, and Judge Roger L. Gregory), Defendant (Clemson University, defendantâ€™s attorney -James W. Logan, Court Reporter/Deputy Clerk Shari L. Stefano, and an independent transcriber – Cindy Lee Brunink.
As in prior Title VII case, the district and magistrate judges, Judge C. Weston Houck and Judge Joseph R. McCrorey, assigned to the Deprivation of Civil Rights case (No. 4:09-cv-01634-CWH-JRM) acting in conspiracy with the defendants violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to deprive me of due process and other civil and constitutional rights to protect fellow judges and the other defendants from liability pursuant to Statute 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983.
On July 7, 2009, in my deprivation of civil rights lawsuit, the magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation for â€œPartial Summary Dismissalâ€ alleging entitlement to â€œimmunityâ€ for Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, the district judge and the three (3) circuit judges.
On February 24, 2010, completely ignoring my explicitly detailed Objections with references to uncontroverted evidence in the record that disproved alleged immunity entitlement, and completely discarding the magistrate judgeâ€™s unsupported â€œimmunityâ€ defense, the District Court Judge C. Weston Houck, entered an unconstitutional void Order that was illegally based on the prior void Order and Judgment entered in my Title VII case that were before the court for adjudication. District Court Judge C. Weston Houck’s inconclusive and insufficient Order deceptively stated:
â€œIn her objections, the plaintiff generally makes the same arguments here that were considered and rejected by the magistrate judge. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s report and the record in this case, the court adopts the report and recommendation and it is incorporated herein by reference.â€
My unaddressed deprivation of civil rights claims against Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, the district judge, and the three (3) circuit judges were unconstitutionally dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process.
On October 26, 2010, I filed a Rule 60(b)(4) and (b)(6) Motion, (to the attention of the chief judge of the court) for the district Court to vacate its void Order and Judgment. On February 18, 2011, Chief Judge David C. Norton abused his discretion by willfully denying my uncontroverted Motion thereby failing to vacate a Void Order and Judgment wholly controverted by the case record.
Both cases (Title VII Job Discrimination – 4:05-cv-02727-TLW-TER) and (Deprivation of Civil Rights – 4:09-cv-01634-CWH-JRM) are well documented and confirm that Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III willful conspiracy and illegal activities that resulted in the deprivation of my civil and constitutional rights.
written by Roslyn Holman
My experience with the federal courts in Atlanta and the Eleventh Circuit, the federal courts in Washington DC and the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, have been essentially identical to Roslyn Holman’s experience in South Carolina and with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I have received almost identical reports from all over the country. In my opinion, Rosllyn Holman’s story is the rule, not the exception. I believe our federal courts have become a criminal rackete4ering operation. William M. Windsor
I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS. The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions. Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response. This website does not provide legal advice. I do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption. Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed. Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website. The law is a gray area at best. Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.