, along with hundreds of other of my online newspapers and publications. My life is focused on my church, my spiritual and healing work. I am selling individual blogs (online magazine publications), all blogs, individually to the highest bidder. If you Like one of my online magazines, my publications, my intellectual property, and want to make me an offer, email me at . This FOR Sale posted by Reverend Crystal Cox, Bringing Back Goddess Church.

Also Note, if you wish to hire me to do any online marketing or investigative blogging work use that same email.

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox THINKS it is time to File a Lien against ALL the Judges involved in the massive fraud on the courts, property theft, forgery, and constitutional rights violating case of the Shirley Bernstein Estate and Simon Bernstein Estate going on now in the Florida Probate Courts and involving Judge Martin Colin, Judge David French, Judge Charles E. Burton, Judge David Crow and possible the Sheriff of Palm County Florida.

Let's take a look at your rights to PUT a lien on a Judge or Sheriff. 

Judge Martin Colin
Information on filing a lien against a bond of a Judge.

I believe state officers are required by statute or by the head of any state department to secure and give a fidelity bond, a bond that ensures their actions.

It is my understanding that if you feel a Judge is corrupt or is not upholding the law or your constitutional rights, you Can You File A Lien Against His Bond On File In Order To Force Him To Do His JOB.

If  a judge wants to play "god" in the courtroom, and totally ignore the rules of law and your constitutional rights. I believe you can file a lien upon his bond in order to force him into complying with the law. As it sure seems the Judge and Sheriff are neglecting their duties and neglecting their court.

If a Judge is "railroading" you, clearly acting outside of the laws of the United States and the State of Florida, then it is my understanding that you certainly can file a lien against this judge for his total ignoring of law and violating your rights of due process and constitutional rights.

It is my understand that a judge and a Sheriff cannot work in their job if they cant get bonded.

So why NOT file your Proof of Corruption AND the UnEthical, UnConstitutional, and UnLawful actions of the Judges in this case as a LIEN against their BOND?

Tips, Information and Laws on How to File a Lien against a Judges Surety Bond in Florida

Palm County Florida Sheriff
It is my understanding that when you file a lien against a public servant the lien holder/ins company does an investigation, thus they must see proof as to the validity of the lien. In the Simon Bernstein and Shirley Bernstein Estate we see clear evidence of fraud, forgery and attorneys seem to be conspiring with Judges, or so it looks that way from what I have read.

We see clearly that these attorneys and Ted Bernstein conspired with or are connected to Kimberley Moran of Tescher and Spallina law firm to have it look as if Simon Bernstein signed documents, and had them notarized at Tescher & Spallina Law Firm with Kimberley Moran AFTER HE DIED.

Ted Bernstein 
This evidence is clear, it is on court dockets, in hearing transcripts, on Governor complaints and rulings, on sheriff reports and yet Judge Martin Colin and other Judges in this case seem to be protecting estate and probate law firm Tescher & Spallina and Boca Raton Insurance Company Life Insurance Concepts, Ted Bernstein.

This is all connected to the multi-Billion dollar legal action of the iViewit technology case and I myself believe that these judges are favoring what looks to be corrupt lawyers and they may possibly be getting a kick back as there is plenty of money to be had in this case, as we have previously seen from the iViewit case naming all of this same parties and worth 100's of BILLIONS.
I believe the Judges involved in the Simon Bernstein and Shirley Bernstein Estate forgery and fraud case have violated title 42 USC code. I also believe they have ALL violated 28 U.S.C. § 455, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and have violated human and civil rights of the victims of this case.


Section 1983 Litigation to help you understand the laws regarding this issue.$file/Sect1983.pdf

If Judge Martin Colin appointed Ted Bernstein executor of the Simon Bernstein state after he knew of clear forgery and fraud on the courts and crimes against the true heirs of the Simon Bernstein, and Shirley Bernstein Estate, is Judge Martin Colin liable for the financial damage and hardship that his rulings outside of law and the constitutional rights of those in his court?
Judge David French

Did Judge Martin Colin require a probate bond in this case where millions are at stake and there is massive fraud, estate assets sold off and stolen?

Do laws in the State of Florida require the executor of an estate to provide a probate bond to the courts? Probate bonds will guarantee that executors of the estate will not alter or damage the estate. Did Judge Martin Collin require a probate bonds in this case?

Did Tescher & Spallina provide a probate bond? This is a rather large estate and assets over a million dollars each have already been SOLD off, by what looks like the fraudulent activity of Ted Bernstein conspiring with Donald Tescher and Rober Spallina of Tescher & Spallina.

Are there any laws or ways to uphold the estate and probate law in Florida when someone dies and their own attorneys and estranged offspring loot their estate?
Ted Bernstein, Bernstein Family Foundation

Also in this there was a condo already sold for over a million that may have undersold for a million, this involved a buyer named Wesley Voorheis, who I believe made a deal of some kind to get the property for at least a million less then it was worth, by way of some shady dealings with Life Insurance Concepts and Ted Bernstein, just how I see it.

Note: I am a REAL ESTATE Forensics EXPERT, I do not claim to know fully Florida Law. However, this property SOLD via Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, and had Title Insurance insuring that it was SOLD by the property own and there sure seems to be some fraudulent actions here in my opinion, here is my report and opinion on the Shirley Bernstein Condo Sale.

It appears to me that Gregory Gefen of Signature ALL REGENCY TITLE COMPANY, Signature Title Group Knowingly allowed Ted Bernstein to steal a 1.6 million dollar property, just how I see it.

So Is Wesley Voorheis a Proxy for Ted Bernstein?

Did Wesley Voorheis of move this asset out of the country for Tescher and Spallina, Ted Bernstein or ?

 G. Wesley Veorheis seems to be the same  Wesley Veorheis Chairman of Hudbay Minerals Inc., Director at Granite Real Estate Inc.,  Managing Director of VC & Co. Incorporated and a Partner of Voorheis & Co. LLP, which act as strategic advisors to institutional and other shareholders. Prior to the establishment of Voorheis & Co. LLP in 1995, Wesley Voorheis was a partner in a major Toronto law firm.   Wesley Public Company Directorships (Past 5 years): MI Developments Inc. (June 2011 to present), Coventree Inc. (2008 to 2012), easyhome Ltd. (2010 to 2011), Hollinger Inc. (2006 to 2008), Sun Times Media Group, Inc. (2007 to 2008).

How is G. Wesley Voorheis connected to  Tescher and Spallina, Ted Bernstein, Greg Geffen or any other players of the Shirley Bernstein, Simon Bernstein fraud and forgery estate and probate case out of Palm County Florida?

I fully believe, in my opinion that the above sale involved mortgage fraud, title insurance fraud and banking fraud at least. It also seems that the Bank of Montreal is somehow connected to all this, in what sure seems to me to be white collar crime.

Donald Tescher, Lawyer
How in the world did what seems to be a Canadian Resident, Wesley Voorheis, get a single Family Fannie Mae loan on a condo of this value in FLORIDA?  Is this a primary resident? Is this Fannie Mae FRAUD? Surely Fannie Mae, Wesley Voorheis, BMO Harris Bank N.A., and Steve Paraggua know about the fraud and forgery in connection with all of this.

Here is the Mortgage Document I am commenting on;

I personally believe that Ted Bernstein of Life Insurance Concepts did some deal to hide this asset from the rightful heirs, either with Wesley Voorhei knowing or not knowingly conspiring, just my opinion.

A bit more on this Condo Sale

Note: Look at this Insurance company also questioning issues of these Estates, yet the Judges involved are "playing dumb". There is so many layers to all this, meanwhile the victims of all this, in this moment are children and are the heirs of the estate, in which Tescher and Spallina seem to have VIOLATED the wishes of their now deceased clients.

the Heritage Union Life Insurance case

Judge David Crow, Judge in Kimberly Moran Case
So can the True and Correct lawful heirs of the Simon Bernstein, and Shirley Bernstein Estate file a lien against the Judges and Sheriff involved, as there are some pretty hefty price tags on these assets adn I believe these judges now have some liability.

Folks, pay attention to this case as many of your parents, grandparents move to Florida, many of you in Florida over a lifetime; you work your whole life, pay your attorneys to carry out your wishes and the commit forgery having documents signed by you AFTER YOU DIE, and Florida Judges such as Judge Charles E. Burton, Judge David Crow and estate and probate Judges such as Judge Martin Colin and Judge David French, as well as the Sheriff of Palm County Florida should be liable for any action that violated the constitutional rights of the victims of this case or did not uphold the oath of their office. 

It looks to me, in my Opinion, as if these Judges and the Sheriff violated 28 U.S.C. § 455, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and 28 U.S.C. 455.

And I think that Victims of these Judges should file a Lien against their Bond.

Judge Martin Colin RULES to NOT Disqualify Himself. I Believe this violates 28 U.S.C. § 455, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and 28 U.S.C. 455.

Folks, this is against the Law right? A Judge Cannot RULE to NOT remove himself.
Below we see that Judge Martin Colin, ya know the one that claimed to "maybe" read Miranda Rights to the clear forgery and fraud on the courts of those involved in the Simon Bernstein Estate, well he has RULED it's just not a good idea to REMOVE him ya see..

A Bit on the importance of an IMPARTIAL Judge

"According to, Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law, Second Edition,
Charles Gardner Geyh, Associate Dean of Research, John F. Kimberling Professor of
Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, a Federal Judicial Center Publication;

"For centuries, impartiality has been a defining feature of the Anglo-American judge’s role in the
administration of justice.

The reason is clear: in a constitutional order grounded in the rule of law, it is imperative that judges make decisions according to law, unclouded by personal bias or conflicts of interest.

Accordingly, upon ascending the bench, every federal judge takes an oath to
“faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties” of judicial office; and the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been
construed to guarantee litigants the right to a “neutral and detached,” or impartial, judge.

Moreover, in a democratic republic in which the legitimacy of government depends on the
consent and approval of the governed, public confidence in the administration of justice is

It is not enough that judges be impartial; the public must perceive them to be so.

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges therefore admonishes judges to “act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary”
and to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities"

"When the impartiality of a judge is in doubt, the appropriate remedy is to disqualify that judge
from hearing further proceedings in the matter.

In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., a case concerning disqualification of a state supreme court justice, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that litigants have a due process right to an impartial judge, and that under circumstances in which judicial bias was probable, due process required disqualification. The Court noted, however, that disqualification rules may be and often are more rigorous than the Due Process Clause requires.

So it is with disqualification requirements for federal judges, which require disqualification when a judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned."

Disqualification Under 28 U.S.C. § 455

A. Overview

1. The text of § 455 The primary source of disqualification law in the federal judicial system is 28
U.S.C. § 455. It provides, in its entirety, as follows:

§ 455. Disqualification of justice, judge or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in
controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served
during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or
such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such
capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning
the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his
household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the
proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the
spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee
of a party;

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome
of the proceeding;

(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in
the proceeding.

(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a
reasonable effort to inform himself about the
personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in
his household. 10 Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law

(d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases
shall have the meaning indicated:

(1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other
stages of litigation;

(2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law

(3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a
relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:

(i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that
holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the
judge participates in the management of the fund;

(ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a
“financial interest” in securities held by the organization;

(iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a
mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the
organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the

(iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest”
in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the

(e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to
the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in
subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under
subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full
disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.

(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate
judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after
substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or
discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a
fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial
interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome),
disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or
minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the
grounds for the disqualification.

Sections (a) and (b) occupy the core of § 455 and should be read
together. The two sections divide the universe of disqualification into
two halves: the general, catch-all category of § 455(a), which requires
disqualification from any proceeding in which a judge’s “impartiality
might reasonably be questioned”; and a list of more specific grounds
for disqualification in § (b).

The remainder of § 455 is directed at implementing §§ (a) and (b):
• Section (c) admonishes judges to keep abreast of their financial
interests to ensure that they know when to disqualify themselves under § 455(b)(4).

• Section (d) defines terms employed in §§ (a) and (b).

• Section (e) provides parties with a limited opportunity to waive
disqualification otherwise required by the catch-all § (a)—
typically where the judge is poised to disqualify himself or herself sua sponte—but does not
permit the parties to waive disqualification required by the more specific provisions of § (b).

• Section (f) provides a limited opportunity for judges to avoid
the need to disqualify themselves for financial interest under
§ (b)(4) through divestiture.
2. Interpretive ground rules
a. Interpreting § 455(a) in relation to § 455(b)

As embodied in § 455, §§ (a) and (b) are conceptually separate.
Section (a) compels disqualification for the appearance of partiality, while
§ (b) “also” compels disqualification for bias, financial interest, and
other specific grounds. In contrast, the Model Code of Judicial Conduct—after which § 455 was
originally modeled—and the current Code of Conduct for United States Judges unify the two
halves conceptually by characterizing the specific grounds for disqualification as a nonexclusive
subset of circumstances in which a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
 For the most part, this may be a distinction without a difference—disqualification is required if
the specific or general provisions are triggered, regardless of whether the specific provisions are
characterized as a subset of or separate from the general.

On the other hand, by onceptualizing them separately, § 455 can require disqualification under specific circumstances enumerated in § (b) that might not reasonably be characterized as calling a judge’s impartiality into question under § (a). For example, § (b)(4) requires judges to disqualify themselves for financial interest
“however small,” which necessarily includes an interest so small that it could not reasonably call the judge’s impartiality into question.

Any circumstance in which a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned under §
(a) requires disqualification, even if the circumstance is not enumerated in § 455(b).
 At the same time, when § 455(b) identifies a particular situation requiring disqualification, it will
tend to control any § 455

(a) analysis with respect to that specific situation. For example, §455(b)(5) requires disqualification when one of the parties is within the third degree of relationship to the judge. Consequently, a fourth-degree relationship to a party does not by itself create an appearance of partiality requiring disqualification under § 455(a)— although disqualification under § 455(a) might still be appropriate if, for example, the judge’s
personal relationship with the fourth-degree relative was so close as to call the judge’s impartiality into question. As the Supreme Court explained, “[s]ection 455(b)(5), which addresses
the matter of relationship specifically, ends the disability at the thirddegree of relationship, and
that should obviously govern for purposes of § 455(a) as well.”

The 1974 amendments to § 455, however, shifted the balance by requiring disqualification whenever a judge’s impartiality “might” reasonably be questioned, and the legislative history made clear that in revising the statute, Congress sought to end the “duty to sit".

“When Congress amended § 455(a), it made clear that judges should apply an objective
standard in determining whether to disqualify. A judge contemplating disqualification under §
455(a), then, should not ask whether he or she believes he or she is capable of impartially
presiding over the case.

 Rather, the question is whether a judge’s impartiality might be questioned from the perspective of a reasonable person, and every circuit has adopted some version of the “reasonable person” standard to answer this question.

 In the context of denying a motion for his disqualification from Cheney v. United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, Justice Scalia noted that this reasonable person is aware “of
all the surrounding facts and circumstances.” The Second Circuit has characterized the
reasonable person as an “objective, disinterested observer” who is privy to full knowledge of the
surrounding circumstances.”
“The question has sometimes arisen as to whether the standard for disqualification differs in a
bench trial where the judge’s role is even more pivotal than in a jury trial. In Alexander v.
Primerica Holdings, Inc., the court of appeals said: “We cannot overlook the fact that this is a
non-jury case, and that [the judge] will be deciding each and every substantive issue at trial . . . .
When the judge is the actual trier of fact, the need to presserve the appearance of impartiality is
especially pronounced”

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455, and upon examination of the record, I, Personally believe that Judge Martin Colin is NOT impartial and is violating the constitutional and lawful rights of the victims in this case.

Judge Martin Colin SHOULD NOT, as a matter of law and the duties of his Judicial Office, be RULING on a Motion to NOT exclude HIMSELF. This is unethical, unconstitutional and sure seems to me to be Illegal.

Thursday, January 9, 2014

oH SNAP.. super Darn, the TRUTH number 3 in the search for "Tescher and Spallina"

Tescher and Spallina Forgery Case

oh and darn, all that money to all those fake directory submissions to protect your alleged CRIMES
and WOW .. number 9 is

the Truth will set you FREE they say. But they also say it will PISS YOU OFF FIRST.

May God Save your SOULS Evil Doers and Protect your VICTIMS.

Palm Beach Sheriff's Office Researching Ted Bernstein, Simon Bernstein, Shirley Bernstein Estate Fraud and Forgery Case. Question; Why is Kimberly Moran not in jail for forgery? Well Tescher and Spallina must be above the law. Watch out PUBLIC, sure seems legal in Florida to swear you signed documents worth MILLIONS after you are DEAD.

Visitor Analysis & System Spec
Referring URL:
Host Name:fire1.pbso.orgBrowser:IE 8.0
IP Address: — [Label IP Address]Operating System:Win7
Location:Lake Worth, Florida, United StatesResolution:1920x1200
Returning Visits:0Javascript:Enabled
Visit Length:2 hours 41 mins 18 secsISP:Florida Department Of Management Services - Techno

Navigation Path

9 Jan05:39:45
9 Jan06:42:43
9 Jan06:42:48
9 Jan06:49:50
9 Jan07:26:10
9 Jan07:26:15
9 Jan07:26:19
9 Jan07:26:21
9 Jan07:26:34
9 Jan07:27:28
9 Jan07:27:29
9 Jan07:27:38
9 Jan07:27:53
9 Jan07:28:16
9 Jan07:28:19
9 Jan07:28:29
9 Jan07:28:34
9 Jan07:28:37
9 Jan07:28:48
9 Jan07:35:20
9 Jan08:09:06
9 Jan08:09:09
9 Jan08:09:20
9 Jan08:09:23
9 Jan08:14:48
9 Jan08:14:51
9 Jan08:15:00
9 Jan08:15:28
9 Jan08:21:03