NRTC’s Post

The plain truth is that the current criminal contempt of court proceedings would not be happening if the Alabama District Court would have decided the pending motion to vacate the injunction orders that was filed beforehand on 11/20/2023. (Doc. 158). The motion to modify or vacate. O’Neal v Allstate Indemnity Insurance Company Inc. et. al. Case No. 20-cv-00743-LCB, (ND. Ala). It does not matter what the court decided because O’Neal is entitled to appeal that decision before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals as a matter of right. The expectation is the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals must uphold the prior Alabama DPS and HMS administrative decisions finding no liability coverage existed for the injunction orders to have been issued from the beginning according to federal law. Title 28 USC. Section 1738. The rule is that the federal District Court has no authority or jurisdiction to override an Alabama administrative agency decision because it has the same effect as a state court judgment. Id. That means the current criminal contempt of court proceedings could not have happened in the above regard. That is why the Alabama District Court refused to decide the pending motion to vacate the injunction orders. More specifically, there would have ultimately been an appellate court determination that Allstate obtained the injunction orders through misrepresentation and fraud in the aftermath. Id.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has enough information and evidence to determine that the Northern Alabama District Court intended to deny access by verbally altering the written injunction orders at the prior civil contempt proceedings on 04/04/2022. In Re Wendell D. O’Neal, Case No. 24-10202-B, (11th Cir). Connecting the dots from the prior civil contempt proceedings to the undecided pending motion for vacating the injunction orders is pretty much a straight line between 04/04/2022 to 01/29/2024. Id. The record shows the Alabama District Court disregarded the renewed motion to vacate the permanent injunction orders in favor of commencing a criminal contempt proceeding against O’Neal despite the one year statute of limitations prohibited Allstate’s criminal contempt allegations stemming from the prior civil contempt hearing between 04/04/2022 and 11/27/2023. Id. O’Neal urges the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to expedite an order directing the Northern Alabama District Court to decide the pending motion to vacate the injunction orders and for recovery of the $3,002.86 dollars that Allstate improperly paid to the Huntsville hospital in view of the prior record of state and federal court proceedings. The Alabama Supreme Court decided that O’Neal’s healthcare fraud claims should proceed against Avectus and Allstate by a judgment on 06/09/2023. O’Neal v Avectus Healthcare Solutions LLC. et. al. Case No. SC-2023-0106, (Alabama Supreme Court). What’s equally remarkable is that something continues to duplicate O’Neal’s pleadings for a writ of mandamus under different case numbers between 01/22 and 01/29/2024. Id. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has not issued an order or answered the telephone regarding the above related phenomenon because of fear. Id.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals somehow filed a second petition for a writ of mandamus after docketing the same pleadings as the original proceeding between 01/22 and 01/26/2024. See the attached screenshot of the docket entry for the same case that was filed on 01/22/2024. In Re Wendell D. O’Neal, Case No. 24-10202-B, 24-10235, (11th). The clerk must remove or somehow nullify the second petition for a writ of mandamus because something else caused it to be filed through an employee who did not think that the proceeding was already underway or that she could trip O’Neal and the court up by filing the same case twice. Id. Who knows whether the clerk should have known that the mandamus proceedings commenced several days earlier on 01/22/2024. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that the employee was moved to do what he or she did to cause confusion. We know that somethings work through darkness that includes people who are caused to do things that they either wanted to or not. Id. The scriptures state that no one could be moved to do anything that was not already in them for it to be done. Id. Let us think about that for a while until the next information is published about the status of the case in the aftermath. Id.

Our latest weekly newsletter is out with decisions by the #SCC in 7 leaves to appeal, plus, our pick for the court of appeal decision of the week. And, check out our “out of this world” last word, which reminds us just how small we are in the universe!

Our latest weekly newsletter is out with decisions by the #SCC in 7 leaves to appeal, plus, our pick for the court of appeal decision of the week. And, check out our “out of this world” last word, which reminds us just how small we are in the universe!

Juries form the bedrock of the American system of justice. That foundation erodes when citizens fail to participate. To reinforce the importance of responding appropriately to a summons for jury service, the Judicial Branch of Arizona in Maricopa County will hold a series of hearings on Oct. 20 to seek answers from community members who have ignored or failed to respond to their summons for jury service. These “order to show cause” hearings will ask as many as 20 citizens why they have failed to report. Read more: https://lnkd.in/g635f7dC Those appearing have, for this required court hearing, been served summons by the Maricopa County Sherriff’s Office. That summons, served in-person by uniformed deputies, requires attendance at the hearing but only a judge can issue sanctions to someone who fails to appear pursuant to a summons. Citizens without legitimate excuses may be fined and ordered to report for jury service. Visit https://lnkd.in/gH3vmP2x to learn more.

Check out our latest compilation of biweekly summaries and links to recent precedential opinions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit!

Courtesy of C-SPAN, here is the link to yesterday’s oral argument in U.S. v. Trump in the D.C. Circuit. Lots to learn for appellate attorneys on how to confront and how to avoid confronting difficult arguments.

Today is the start of the 2023-24 Supreme Court term! If you're interested and getting the overview on some of the important cases to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this year, check out ELS Supreme Court Advocacy Program's new blog - the Supreme Court Preview!

Great investment in the future