William A. Anderson v. American General Life Insurance Company

This court has held that concerning punitive damages, in cases where the employer was found to have acted with actual malice or reckless indifference to the plaintiffs federally protected rights and was high up on the corporate hierarchy, that once those criteria were established, the employer may assert a good faith defense to vicarious liability for punitive damages where the employment decisions of managerial agents were contrary to the employer’s good faith efforts to comply with Title VII. Similarly, Federal Circuit Courts have held the same in recent years. Their Reasoning is straightforward and clearly defined. Officers of the court have an obligation to promote justice and are held to a higher standard of legal and ethical obligations. In the spirit of due process, this court has held that an officer of the court has an ethical duty of due diligence to investigate the allegation of fabricated or false evidence prior to making a ruling based upon that evidence, magnified when given notice of the potential falsification, and also an opportunity to respond to the evidence presented identifying the falsification. This court has held concerning contract law that, at the least, 3 basic elements must exist - Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration. This court has also held, as a general rule, that a court will construe ambiguous contracts terms against the drafter of the agreement. Minus ambiguity, an officer of the court is held to a higher standard of legal and ethical obligation to follow the agreement upon which they entered into agreement with between all parties. The questions presented are:

1. Is it a violation for an Arbitrator to assert a defense on behalf of a defendant of which the defendant did not request or present on their own behalf?

2. Once identified as false evidence “prior” to ruling, does a ruling officer of the court violate due process or commit judicial misconduct by ruling on an issue utilizing that false evidence that was non-existent?

3. Whether an officer of the court violates a contractual agreement when they switch from agreed upon terms between all parties to a term that creates a detriment to one party?