Edwards v. Barclays Services Corporation

bef mee UMN" se200 JUL 16 2020 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | { □ FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: PRO SE OFF! C nn □□ STEPHEN ———_ dee en SDNY 4s: Pla Bocy MEN FT Case No: 1:19-cv-09326-gbd-gwg Blac ERONICAL ry FILE | DA #: *LED [CHIEF JUDGE Colleen McMahon Request To REMOVE Judge a Daniels for conflict of Interest and Vacate Orders .. Set for Jury Trial BARCLAYS GROUP USA, INC., d/b/a “BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE”, a DENIED Delaware Corporation, MOTION Defendant. "JUL 2.0 2020 see Order (ECF No. 21) ——__——__—— . one A. Darel Stephen S. Edwards Reed Smit USGE SD. DANIELS | Plaintiff in Pro Personam Attorneys for the Defendants Lexington Avenue, Floor 22 New York, NY 10022 PLAINTIFF’S 2°* MOTION TO VACATE ORDERS Dated June 25, 2020 and to DISQUALIFY Because of Conflict of Interest Magistrate Judge Gorenstein and Judge George B Daniels For Violation of the 1 and 14 Amendments of The Constitution Further It is now discovered that both Magistrate Gorenstein and Judge Daniels have conflict of interest! Both have Banking Relationships with Barclays directly and or indirectly with family members and failed to remove themselves from this case. This is troubling.

NOW COMES Plaintiff and in response to this Court’s July 6 Order now that J know the Court is reading these motions quickly please allow this motion to vacate your Order’s all of them as your authority because both Magistrate Gorenstein and Judge Daniels have conflict of interest as stated above. There are Federal Questions of law that remain and now there is fraud upon the court by both the Court and the Defendants. The Courts Orders Dated June 25, 2020 are frivolous and should be vacated because now we find that the Court has conflict of interest both Magistrate Gorenstein and Judge Daniels have direct and indirect (Family Members) that have banking relationships with Barclays. { am “we” are all lucky we have a Constitution in the USA.

DISCUSSION OF FOLLOWING IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF ARIZONA: New York Judge’s should think on their own not be influenced by a pedophile Former Judge Hugh Heygi in Arizona ! He was removed from the Bench for a reason. His mental deficiency. Why are you following in the fottsteps of a pedhiphile they don’t have the mental capacity to think strait and you followed him with your decisions which are similar in nature and sicking to any US Citizen.

On his last day from the Bench The Honorable Hugh Heygi a Pedophile ruled to sell my home for $57,666.66 see CV2017-03266. Judge Heygi was reassigned from the criminal division and assigned to a civil matter with an HOA in Phoenix Arizona. Judge Heygi was retired from the bench based on his bizarre conduct. See Case # CV-14-0085-PRR. Judge Heygi wanted to know the sexual experiences of an 11 Year Old Girl who was raped by her step-father who was ultimately sent to prison for 22 Years. Judge Heygi is Mormon and Mormons like little children!

What sexual details did Judge Heygi want to know about the 10 Year old girl? To Protect the Mother The Arizona Voice for Crime Victims provided the legal work pro bono on behalf of the mother. This case went all the way the Arizona Supreme Court before the Mother was protected from Judge Heygi testifying against her own daughter. Pedophiles do not think right their brains are deficient and if this court wants to follow Hugh Heygi so be it that within your own life’s work and you and only you can change it. If this Courthouse does not correct the mistakes and follow the Constitution The then the victim Edwards will exercise his duty and rights to obtain justice by making you Judge Daniels and Magistrate Gorenstein defendants with Barclays in an unbiased environment continuing these discussions of Barclays Conduct with unbiased attention because there are federal questions and violations that remain. The Truth matters and if this Court wants to be honest then the Court will set for Jury because the court knows or should know there is not 1 New Yorker or 1 American who will agree that a consumer should pay for goods and services that were never rendered. IN fact one merchant admitted to Barclays they double billed over $7000.00. So the current rulings are abstract and Null and Void See Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 Further They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) Elliot v. Piersol. The Current Orders are Null and Void and should be vacated and a Jury trial set to determine why Barclays does not want to follow federal law and NOT follow in the footsteps of ARIZONA! This Court should not be afraid of the truth. The Court did not even hold a hearing.. Plaintiff was not heard. Facts were ignored. No Court has authority to force payment for goods never received.

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted." Judge Daniels affirms in his July 6th ruling that he should be removed when claiming there is ‘No controlling decision” is such a lazy scapegoated approach to justice which further confirms Judge Daniels should be removed and all orders VACATED.

1. Disqualify Judge Daniels and Magistrate Gorenstein 2. Vacate Orders dated June 25, 2020 because Federal Questions Remain..

3. Set this matter for JURY trial as required by the Constitution of The United States.

July 13, 2020 STEPHEN S. AWARDS Plaintiff in Pro Personam IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK STEPHEN S. EDWARDS, Plaintiff, Case No: 1:19-cv-09326 v. BARCLAYS GROUP USA, INC., d/b/a “BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE”, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant.

Stephen S. Edwards Reed Smith LLP Plaintiff in Pro Personam Attorneys for the Defendants 16030 36" Street 599 Lexington Avenue, Floor 22 Phoenix, AZ 85048 New York, NY 10022 PROOF OF SERVICE I certify that on July 13, 2020, I served a copy of the Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Dismiss and Proof of Service by first class mail on the following: Reed Smith LLP |” Lexington Avenue, Floor 22 a New York, NY 10022 fo July 13, 2020 STEPHEN S. EDWARDS Plaintiff Stamps oa □□□ 2 | So endicia ef = S ‘ . □□ AGEN So = Hi ed © S <= — ie □□ eed = oS = =e eee □□ PARE = —— 28 □□ FOE 3 ———— af □ ae 3 «| = —— i Bam coh] = i zis SS _t & □□ | □ = ———— + = oy Cl □□ —————— x 5 i ; wo ————— > □□ Ss ge □□ 2 3/5 = sees CE S25 2, 5 ——=— 23°55 3|5 © OS ——u_umms i S>8oe = Cc 2£ □□□ Cif=e ns ™ Lf □□□ > _ qn =e SangGe 22 I NN Se □□ 2Oor2i — iS no —__ az □□ eacsss ee So =a 3 2 aa420 59 cc oS wo ——_—. = Sy □□□ > = => ee re 3 □ © □□□ □ eS uw ZEEE □□□ pe S 2R= —_—_ w □□ 5 a ————— □□□ □□ be =—=——— F 233 □□ a./.8 o === Bee □□ ae N Re wo co yar □□ o SWS ——— ou □□ 228 = ots —— ess wos —_———el oe SS >3S2 ca giz w Bt A S53 □□ Bes ———— ay □□□ □ □□ CS rc = oo g 1 . = □□ > (UL) LL oe 236 ih Z □□ oO 4 ge Sx O Bi es a LL! els 2s 7 cia < □□ =_ 2 i Crammer sa Pre ao □ * oe O : & oe BoP = □□ □ — oO 4 Sx a ge 1, O° □ 5 BS - wy □□□ □□ =! { Gere ~*~ ae on [a] Oo. □□□ □ => Nieo® eS 2 □□□ Cc) spr cl □□ 5 te Lu ~- ae ein, a □□ = cc Oe □□ (Cs f ; @& Se: □□ Ww fo W □□□□ a □ □ rc □□□ □ QI oo □□□ □□ &~ Cle □□□ 5 SN □□□ WA © a | Or □□ □□ 2, w AN □□ Ri e . t ~ □ □ Q j ; 7 = Y oa □□ eg S Ee wo □□□ 3 } NI oo 40 □□□ CO he £ 8 32 □□ * oO ‘ 3 ox —_— ee z ey eas ao < 3 eEEEROea □□ Gs — oO □ oO ae Mee CE Oe Goes = g oO n & ——— ee □□ a ne a a= Somcemesssncece| □□ = © Le 2 x» a2 oT □□ □ cams ese ef □ 5% = © De Q. aoze ef, & Ze == O □ Cc) >on 55 £ EE =— © □□ a womens . oaks o § BG anes □□ □□ a : 2 «Mo □□ Oo 22 > EEE □□ weer : =~ Od § = = £ ce a □□ □ ma fom ots &£€aenu 6 ——— — □□ ner : a oc a c naeReeee □□□ x □ By □ a □□ an a & XY Sorensen © □□ Peer rar oO 3 4 masummmecemninns □□ me me ee Oo ANS □□ □□