Equifax Reply Brief Filed 10/02/20
Equifax Reply Brief Filed 10/02/20
Objectors-Appellants,
v.
Plaintiffs-Appellees.
and
Defendants-Appellees
Christopher Andrews
PO Box 530394
Livonia, MI 48153
248-635-3810
[email protected]
Pro se appellant, non attorney
Page 1 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 2 of 142
Pursurant to Cir. R. 28-1(b) and Fed Rule App.26.1, Christopher Andrews declares
owned corporation and there is no publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more
Pursurant to Cir. R. 28-1(b) and Fed Rule App.26.1 the following trial judges,
C-1 of 110
Page 2 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 3 of 142
C-2 of 110
Page 3 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 4 of 142
Page 4 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 5 of 142
Page 6 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 7 of 142
Page 7 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 8 of 142
Page 8 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 9 of 142
Page 9 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 10 of 142
Page 10 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 11 of 142
Page 11 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 12 of 142
Page 12 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 13 of 142
Page 13 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 14 of 142
Page 14 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 15 of 142
Page 15 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 16 of 142
C-15 of 110
Page 16 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 17 of 142
Page 17 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 18 of 142
Page 18 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 19 of 142
Page 19 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 20 of 142
Page 20 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 21 of 142
Page 21 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 22 of 142
C-22 of 110
Page 23 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 24 of 142
Page 24 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 25 of 142
Page 25 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 26 of 142
795. Davis, Jeremy, Plaintiff Davis, John W., Objector and Counsel for Objector
John W. Davis
796. Davis, John William, Objector, Appellant
797. Davis, Karen, Objecting Class Member
798. Davis, Leonard A., counsel for Plaintiff(s)
799. Davis, Olivia, Plaintiff Davis, Patrick, Plaintiff
800. Davis, Ryan, Objecting Class Member
801. Davison, Laura J., Plaintiff
802. Davison, Terry, Plaintiff
803. Davitz, Dianna, Plaintiff
804. Dawe, Tricia, Objecting Class Member
805. Day, Elaine, Objecting Class Member
806. de Jesus, Peter, Plaintiff
807. De Ville, Tammy Tonette, Plaintiff
808. Deacon, Daniel, Objecting Class Member
809. Dean, Kevin R., counsel for Plaintiff(s)
810. Dearborn, Mark J., counsel for Plaintiff(s)
811. Dearman, Mark, counsel for Plaintiff(s)
812. Decker, Isabel Holguin, Plaintiff
813. DeConcini, Donna, Plaintiff
814. DeCosta, Christopher Joseph, counsel for Plaintiff(s)
815. Dees, Marshall P., counsel for Plaintiff(s)
816. Defliese, Lenore, Objecting Class Member
817. Dejesus, Michael, Objecting Class Member
818. Dela Cruz, Monique, Plaintiff
819. Delapp, Kenneth, Objecting Class Member
820. Delgado, Yesenia, Objecting Class Member
821. DeMarco, Jennifer Pascucci, Plaintiff
822. DeMarco, Jr., Daniel, Plaintiff
823. Demetrio, Thomas A., counsel for Plaintiff(s)
824. Dennett, Stanley, Objecting Class Member
825. Dennis Corry Smith & Dixon, LLP- ATL, counsel for Plaintiff(s)
826. Dennis, Jasmine, Plaintiff
827. Dennis, Kaitlyn Leeann, counsel for Plaintiff(s)
828. Depalma, Peter, Objecting Class Member
C-25 of 110
Page 26 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 27 of 142
Page 27 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 28 of 142
Page 30 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 31 of 142
Page 31 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 32 of 142
Page 32 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 33 of 142
Page 33 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 34 of 142
Page 34 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 35 of 142
Page 35 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 36 of 142
Page 38 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 39 of 142
Page 39 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 40 of 142
Page 41 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 42 of 142
Page 44 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 45 of 142
Page 45 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 46 of 142
Page 46 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 47 of 142
Page 47 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 48 of 142
Page 48 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 49 of 142
Page 49 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 50 of 142
Page 50 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 51 of 142
Page 51 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 52 of 142
Page 52 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 53 of 142
Page 53 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 54 of 142
Page 54 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 55 of 142
Page 55 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 56 of 142
Page 56 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 57 of 142
Page 57 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 58 of 142
Page 58 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 59 of 142
Page 59 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 60 of 142
Page 60 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 61 of 142
Page 61 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 62 of 142
Page 62 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 63 of 142
Page 63 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 64 of 142
Page 64 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 65 of 142
Page 65 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 66 of 142
Page 66 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 67 of 142
Page 67 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 68 of 142
Page 68 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 69 of 142
Page 69 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 70 of 142
Page 70 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 71 of 142
Page 71 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 72 of 142
Page 72 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 73 of 142
Page 73 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 74 of 142
Page 74 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 75 of 142
Page 75 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 76 of 142
Page 76 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 77 of 142
Page 77 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 78 of 142
Page 78 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 79 of 142
Page 79 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 80 of 142
Page 80 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 81 of 142
Page 81 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 82 of 142
Page 82 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 83 of 142
Page 83 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 84 of 142
Page 84 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 85 of 142
Page 85 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 86 of 142
Page 86 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 87 of 142
Page 87 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 88 of 142
Page 88 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 89 of 142
Page 89 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 90 of 142
3025. Schubert Jonckheer Kolbe & Kralowec LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s)
3026. Schubert, Noah M., counsel for Plaintiff(s)
3027. Schubert, Robert C., counsel for Plaintiff(s)
3028. Schumacher, Richard, Objecting Class Member
3029. Schumitsh, Jennifer C., Plaintiff
3030. Schur, Hong, Plaintiff
3031. Schur, W. Craig, Plaintiff
3032. Schwab, Judyann, Objecting Class Member
3033. Schwartz, Steven A., counsel for Plaintiff(s)
3034. Scott Cole & Associates, APC, counsel for Plaintiff(s)
3035. Scott Cole & Associates, APC, counsel for Plaintiff(s)
3036. Scott, Anthony, Plaintiff
3037. Scott, Jens, Objecting Class Member
3038. Scott, Lawerence, Objecting Class Member
3039. Scott, III, Ralph Downing, counsel for Defendant(s)
3040. Scribner, John, Objecting Class Member
3041. Scripps, Kerry, Objecting Class Member
3042. Scroggins, Joanna, Objecting Class Member
3043. Scrogham, Ronald, Objecting Class Member
3044. Scullion, Jennifer R., counsel for Plaintiff(s)
3045. Searless, Queen, Objecting Class Member
3046. Seaton, Calvin Objecting Class Member
3047. Seeger Weiss, LLP - NJ, counsel for Plaintiff(s)
3048. Seeger, Christopher A., counsel for Plaintiff(s)
3049. Seely, Kevin A., counsel for Plaintiff(s)
3050. Segal, Scott S., counsel for Plaintiff(s)
3051. Segur, Anna, Objecting Class Member
3052. Seidenspinner, Jeff, Objecting Class Member
3053. Seiter, Jeff, Plaintiff
3054. Sekiya, Julianne, Plaintiff
3055. Selders, Derek, Plaintiff
3056. Semnar & Hartman, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s)
3057. Semnar, Babak, counsel for Plaintiff(s)
3058. Semsak, Daniel, Objecting Class Member
C-89 of 110
Page 90 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 91 of 142
Page 91 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 92 of 142
Page 92 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 93 of 142
Page 93 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 94 of 142
Page 94 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 95 of 142
Page 95 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 96 of 142
Page 96 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 97 of 142
Page 97 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 98 of 142
Page 98 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 99 of 142
Page 99 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 100 of 142
Christopher Andrews
Table Of Contents
Table of Authorities……………………………………………………………..114
Introduction……………………………………………………………………...115
Conclusion………………………………………….……………………………135
Certificate Of Compliance……………………………………………………...141
Certificate Of Service…………………………………………………………..142
Table of Authorities
Pettway v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 576 F.2d 1157, 1219 (5th Cir. 1978)………128
United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1266 n.20 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc)...129
27 CFR 70.305(c)(2)…………………………………………………..116,120,133
Introduction
The appellees don’t want oral argument because they would be forced to try and
explain away to the Eleventh Circuit the lies, fraud, errors and shenanigans that
they created/ignored that are contained in this settlement and approval that voids it.
The “Claim” section comes out of Equifax’s and Plaintiffs’ brief’s with the page
Claim: Objectors have failed to carry their heavy burden of making a “clear
showing” that the district court abused its discretion, Bennett, 737 F.2d at 986,
when it certified a nationwide settlement class and approved the settlement. Pg’s
165-166
Response: Absolutely wrong. This appellant has carried his burden based on the
evidence and case law cited in his opening brief based on what the appellant wrote
and testified to that no one wishes to address head on. It was clear error and abuse
of discretion for the district court to approve a class action settlement that contains
fraud on the class and court’s machinery that the appellees designed and remained
silent about. It was also manifest error and abuse of discretion for the court to fail
to address the meritorious objection that contained eleven issues along with his
Claim: His contentions are largely senseless—and where they are not senseless,
Response: No, Equifax’s counsel is playing dumb, scared, desperate and hides its
participation in the fraudulent mailing date/no standing lie scheme which tricked
the court into ignoring the appellant’s meritorious objection and testimony then it
approved the now illegal deal. Here is more evidence that the mailing date/no
standing lie was designed to knowingly influence the court to ignore the
reads in part….. “(2) “… If the document is sent by U.S. certified mail and the
presented, the date of the U.S. postmark on such receipt shall be treated as the
The U.S. Postal Certified Mail Receipt stamped by the postal employee on
November 19, 2020 can be seen at Doc 913-2, Exhibit 4. King and Spalding had
access to this information above every minute of the day since December 05, 2019
when it showed up on the docket ten months ago. They knew class counsel
committed fraud on the court when they claimed the objections was mailed a day
late meaning he lacked standing, a bald face lie and misconduct. Ten months later
they still have not corrected the record and failed to inform the court of the fraud.
Page 116 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 117 of 142
So, King and Spalding committed a $380 million fraud on the class, court and its
machinery by their complicit silence, which is misconduct, they have violated the
fees, expenses, requires reversal at a minimum and is not a harmless error. They,
their client and class counsel are in deep trouble and know it. Investigations are
required to determine who knew what and when along with license pulls.
Claim: Not only have Objectors failed to identify any fundamental unfairness, they
have also failed to identify any substantive problem in the district court’s order that
Response: False. The appellant’s objection, testimony, motions and briefs have
scared and forced the guilty into silent submission and cover-up mode. See above
Claim: The district court spent more than a third of its opinion explaining, in detail,
Response: The court and appellees all chose not to go on the record to protect them
from having to explain and provide answers to the tsunami of reversible errors and
fraud that were pointed out by this appellant which they can’t logically explain
away; they ignored addressing the issues, remained mute then engaged in a cover-
Claim: The district court rejected Objector Andrews’s objection on its merits.
Response: False. The court said it was untimely (See order Doc 1053). The
meritorious objection with a bunch of due process and reversible issues contained
within it can’t logically or legally be rejected on the merits since the court
abdicated its responsibility to the class when it failed to address even one out of the
eleven meritorious issues raised in the objection along with two issues raised at the
misleading at the most. King and Spalding’s response can’t overcome this
appellant’s evidence in his brief. Because of their knowledge of the fraud on the
court which they remained silent about, this deal contains fraud, civil or criminal
Claim: (1) Christopher Andrews. Andrews filed a notice of appeal on February 10,
2020. (R.985) He did not appeal the amended final judgment entered on March 27,
Response: The appellant is not on Pacer and does not receive filings automatically.
Intentional or not, the Clerk of the Court failed to mail him copies of the approval
order, final order, judgment, amended approval and bond order along with other
orders pertaining to him that he was legally entitled to receive, so he could respond
to them in a timely and legal manner. These errors violated the appellant’s due
process rights. He did not pay the bond because he could not afford to as was
shown. It’s a comedy of errors in this case which is pretty sad or all done
the appellant’s appeal should not be illegally dismissed because of the due process
errors caused by the Clerk of the Court. This is not a harmless error.
6. Did the district court abuse its discretion in ordering six objector-appellants to
post $2,000 bonds to secure payment of the taxable appellate costs? Pg 111.
Response: Yes it did for this appellant. The court’s claim for rejecting the in forma
application is a false flag and is not the true reason for rejecting it; the evidence in
the record absolutely contradicts the district court. Not wanting to be reversed by
illegally depriving the appellant from appealing and reversing this clearly biased,
illegal error strewn approval are the real reasons for its decision.
9. Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Andrews’ objections and
finding that class counsel, defense counsel, the claims administrator, and the court
did not commit unethical and criminal acts and collude to defraud the class? Pg
111.
Response: Yes it did. The district court failed to address any of the extremely
meritorious issues either because of the criminal false mailing date lie scheme that
falsely claimed the objection was a day late so the court was misled or it simply
Here is the evidence of the false mailing date, no standing lie collusion scheme
which is fraud and misconduct designed by the appellees directly or known by both
Timely mailing treated as timely filing, 27 CFR 70.305(c)(2). This section reads in
part….. “(2) If the document is sent by U.S. registered mail, the date of registration
of the document shall be treated as the postmark date. If the document is sent by
U.S. certified mail and the sender's receipt is postmarked by the postal employee to
whom such document is presented, the date of the U.S. postmark on such receipt
The U.S. postmark on the receipt can be seen in Doc 913 specifically Doc 913-2,
Exhibit 4. Class counsel also had access to this same information every minute of
the day but intentionally lied and committed fraud in the false mailing date lie
scheme that has been going on for ten months now to get the deal through for the
$77.5 million. They never corrected the record nor did Equifax come forward
Had the court done its job, this panel would be able to understand the thought
process of what and why the court did but it can’t, no one can. The court chose to
go into a silent mode when it should have been asking questions to the appellant
and appellees. The parties lies were false and misleading when made and
knowingly so. The scheme purposely misled and deceived the court into approving
this $380 million deal, giving the plaintiffs a windfall of $77 million in fees and
mailing date lie scheme perpetuated on the appellant, the class and the court’s
machinery. The duplicitous lawyers used the usurious bond to cover-up their
scheme by attempting to force the appellant out of the litigation. The evidence is
clear and convincing and beyond any doubt, it’s really criminal obstruction of
justice. There are four Rule 11 violations involving four false sworn declarations in
four documents that were electronically filed, which is wire fraud, along with
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct for the mailing date/standing lie
fraud scheme. The fraud lies prohibit affirmance and requires reversal and more
which I will write about at the end of the brief. The bond order also is required to
be voided so fraud and misconduct are not rewarded in this case; they almost all
got away with it. As a result of the errors, the representative parties clearly did not
“fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).
for personal reasons, were among those who objected. (Id. at 109-14)
Response: False. One objection a year does not make someone a serial objector.
He always objects and appeals on behalf of himself and all absent class members.
Response: Absolutely false, again. The appellant has never done that contrary to
the false lie claim made and repeated many times without proper due diligence.
Claim: He also has been sanctioned, arrested, and held in contempt for
And, he has been admonished repeatedly for filing frivolous objections, failing to
comply with court orders, acting in bad faith, and baselessly alleging counsel and
Page 122 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 123 of 142
professional objector who has extorted additional fees from counsel in other
Response: That claim applies to one case only and is not in the record at the lower
influence the court to dismiss his appeal and not address the fraud, due process
errors and issues that were raised by the appellant and ignored by the lawyers and
the court. The appellant also has never extorted fees, a bald face lie, again, the
second false declaration to this court in their response and sixth overall.
The entire paragraph is their last desperate “Hail Mary” pass to “get us out of the
fraud we got caught in and the issue we can’t address” by these $2,600.00 an hour
overpaid lawyers who are not as good and not worth what they think they are. If
they are worth $2,600.00 an hour for this fraudulent, error strewn fraudulent con of
a disaster of a deal, then I am worth double that for pointing out all the errors they
missed and pointing out the fraud scheme they created and covered-up. Class
counsel knows they have been beat and have nothing to lose, just like the motion to
dismiss was a Hail Mary pass. But just so the record is clear, I will address the
paragraph briefly in case some want to know the rest of the story. The objection
and appeal in that case, like in this case, pointed out all the reversible issues that
the court and lawyers did not know they made until it was pointed out (like in this
Page 123 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 124 of 142
case.) They got scared as well and that court assessed an illegal $150,000.00
appeal bond to silence this appellant and block an appeal from being filed and
ruled on. Since that was his first time being assessed a bond, (this is the second) he
Unfortunately he conflated the bond issue with the merits and also failed to
properly typeset the document to their requirements which the court could not
accept, now he knows the rules and more importantly the unwritten ones. Next
time the court will take his petition in one of his current cases. The sanctions were
for delaying the deal by going to the Supreme Court, embarrassing the lawyers and
court by pointing out all the errors they ignored and not showing up for a creditor
exam the day after he filed the Supreme Court brief. That court declined to put the
hearing on hold for a few days to allow the objector time to adequately prepare.
The appellant would have to have traveled across state lines and prepared for the
deposition with three business hours of preparation which was unacceptable. The
creditor exam subpoena was delivered via email, which is illegal in Michigan
which I never agreed to and the judge simply ignored the illegality if it. A few days
later, the appellant was brought before the court, answered questions for an hour
and walked out the door. That court just last year stated in an order, “…perhaps the
collection (of the sanctions) will silence him.” The participants are also trying to
A news article from way back when, I did raise this issue in that appeal.
Sixth Circuit Appears to Erroneously Affirm § 1927 Sanctions Imposed on
Non-Attorney Pro Se Whose Conduct Could Have Been Sanctioned under
Rule 11 or the Inherent Power
The actions of the lawyers and court in this case are another example of the
silencing him game approach and covering up egregious errors, illegalities and
Claim: The court found all requirements of Rule 7 had been met and, in so doing,
reiterated its earlier findings that Frank, West (through his attorneys), Cochran, and
Andrews are serial objectors not acting in the best interests of the class. (Id. at 6-9)
Each objector complied with the order, except for Andrews, who never paid the
bond. Pg 129.
Response: The lawyers and the court failed to define serial objector. Class counsel
forgot to include it in their libelous motion the court rubber stamped for them
making it all look like it was legitimate, which it not. One objection a year does not
make anyone a serial objector unlike the serial class action files and settlers in this
case who have obviously been doing it all wrong for years based on the egregious
errors made in this case. If the error prone lawyers and some courts would know
enough, learn to listen and act rightly, it would help them perform their jobs
properly and then there would be nothing to object and appeal to. The appellant
Claim: Third, the class notice did not discourage objections by creating
unreasonable barriers as Davis alleges. Instead, the Court imposed common sense
guidelines that are consistent with Rule 23 and the Manual for Complex Litigation
to ensure fairness at the final approval stage, and Davis sites no case suggesting
otherwise. Pg 131
Response: The appellant raised the due process violating twenty five page limit on
objections in his own objection and incorporated it into his brief so he will respond
to this issue as the limit was in the notice. A court cannot consider “evidence that
was not in the record before the district court.” See Summers v. Winter, 303 F.
App’x 716, 717 (11th Cir. 2008). The appellees and court all intentionally designed
and approved a plan that limited the objection length and therefore the issues that
could be raised in adequate detail. The appellant had to leave out fifty pages out of
his objection which prohibited the appellant from raising other material reversible
issues at the lower level in detail and therefore at this level, like the fee and
incentive awards for just one example and the two issues raised briefly in his
Claim: Fifth, the imposition of a modest $2,000 bond was not an abuse of
discretion. The amount reflects an estimate of taxable costs and is less than other
Response: The bond was unaffordable, not modest and due process violating as for
Claim: Andrews’ chief argument seems to be that the district court ignored his
objection, but the court said several times it had considered and rejected Andrews’
Response: False. What about the clear fraudulent false mailing date/standing lie
scheme that they have been caught red handed with their hands in the class till?
They don’t deny a word of it, can’t and won’t explain it away, lie like a rug; no one
cares or does anything about it and the court remains intentionally silent. It’s all
part of the overwhelming evidence that this is a crooked rigged settlement and
approval that begs for a reversal and more. The court claims the objection was
untimely and at the same time claims the objection was addressed with the wave of
a hand which the appellant disagrees with. So which one is it? Nobody knows
because nothing was explained and everything swept silently under the rug. The
court clearly never touched the thirteen meritorious issues raised before it that were
settlement is fair to the absent class, and must provide a “reasoned response” to
legitimate objections. Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977)
(“The Court should examine the settlement in light of the objections raised and set
Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 576 F.2d 1157, 1219 (5th Cir. 1978); Burke v. Ruttenberg,
That same logic should apply in this case to the appellant’s extremely meritorious
objection and testimony filed on behalf of himself and 147.9 million class
members that also lacked any finding of fact or conclusions. This court has no
basis to review the district court’s exercise of discretion as to why it ignored the
appellant’s meritorious objection issues and testimony. The district court cannot
properly play its fiduciary role unless the appellant’s meritorious objection and
testimony have been fully and fairly responded to which they were not. The
inaction by the court caused a high degree of reasonable probability that the
omission affected the outcome of the proceeding. This circuit has explained that
the outcome of a case or leave ‘grave doubt’ as to whether they affected the
outcome of a case.” United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1266 n.20 (11th Cir.
2004) (en banc) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764–65
(1946)).
It would have been obvious to the lawyers — indeed, to a first-year law student —
that class counsel’s crooked, mailing date, standing lie scheme did have a
“substantial influence” on the court and leaves “grave doubt” whether the court
would have approved the deal had it addressed the issues that it had a legal
The lawyer’s intentionally lied to the class, the court and committed fraud on a
obtain a now crooked $380 million approval and a crooked $77.5 million in fees.
The district court had the evidence of class counsel’s lie, mailing/standing fraud
scheme right in front of it, Doc. 913 and three attached exhibits but still
intentionally remains willfully blind and willfully silent, like King and Spalding.
Even after approval, the appellant alerts the court multiple times but it simply
ignored the evidence in the motions that was right in front of it, again and without
adequate explanation simply rejects them with no explanation. Class counsel, King
and Spalding and the district court all intentionally failed to notify this circuit that
This case should have never been given preliminary, let alone final approval, based
on all the unresolved, reversible issues contained in the objection and his
testimony. By the court not doing its job, the appellant and class were deprived of
the benefits of the adversarial process in this case and thus adequate justice. The
court’s failure to address the meritorious issues raised in his objection and
testimony at the fairness hearing is clear manifest error and abuse of discretion that
Claim: Next, Andrews claims that class counsel defrauded the court, poisoning the
entire final approval order. The district court labeled this claim “frivolous and
absurd” and Andrews offers nothing new on appeal. (R.1062) His other objections
Response: The appellant repeats the response right above this one. Clearly fraud on
the class and the court’s machinery is poison even if the court doesn’t see it, turns a
blind eye to it or denies it, it’s there. The lawyers and court don’t want the fraud
and manifest errors to be spotlighted and have the deal reversed so they smear and
Claim: Andrews complains the named plaintiffs were not actively involved and
thus were not adequate. (Br. at 147-51) The court concluded otherwise. (R.1029 at
Response: The named plaintiffs were rubber stamp, clueless puppets that had no
involvement in the litigation other than to lend their names to the lawyers who
placed them on the complaint earning the named plaintiffs a $2,500.00 bounty.
See Brief pg’s 147-150 proving the named plaintiffs were uninvolved, detached
observers. The proven lying lawyers hijacked the case for their own personal
benefit by selling out the class in this $380 million fraud deal.
Claim: Andrews argues class members should not have to file a claim. (Br. at 153)
The court held that filing a claim is fair (R.1029 at 79) and a claim obviously is
necessary, e.g. to choose credit monitoring or show the amount of their out-of-
Response: The lawyers and court are absolutely wrong, again, and here is why. In
many data breach cases like say a grocery store having only the shopper’s in store
credit card information hacked, the affected company will automatically provide
their affected customers with credit monitoring immediately, even if a class action
has not been filed. They can do this because they can identify all the victims. A
claims made settlement is only necessary if people can’t be identified which is not
reduces claims in this case to just 11% of the total claimants affected, saving
Equifax lots of money and the lawyers are paid off with $77.5 million, a quid pro
quo.
Page 131 of 142
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 10/02/2020 Page: 132 of 142
How come Equifax didn’t send a letter providing free ID Theft Monitoring to all
victims? To save themselves a lot of money that’s why. As the appellant has
written in his objection and referenced in his brief, credit monitoring that was
offered in this case is a joke and here is why. The extensive amount of allegedly
still unknown personal information stolen from this appellant and each individual
claimant that the appellees still refuse to disclose to us is a joke and has never been
explained, like a lot of things. We need to know what was stolen before deciding
what action to take; this is a due process violation. Extremely valuable items that
may have been stolen include but are not limited to name, address, city, state, zip
code, drivers license, social security number requires more appropriate coverage.
Plain old credit monitoring is a band aid when this case requires stitches, ID Theft
Monitoring.
In this case, all 147.9 million victims should not have been given credit
wealth of information taken and without having to file a claim since Equifax
already has all contact information for everyone victimized! Those who separately
can claim money damages can file a claim if they can prove it, which right now
Claim: Andrews argues class counsel defrauded the class and committed various
unethical acts. (Br. at 160-66) The district court rejected this argument as it is
Response: First sentence is true, the second is false. Counsel and the court both
refused to respond and address the fraud the appellees engaged in at the lower level
that is well documented so Plaintiffs’ ten month long silence on the matter should
cause a forfeiture of that denial at this level but I will respond to it anyway.
Timely mailing treated as timely filing. 27 CFR 70.305(c)(2). This section reads in
part….. “(2) If the document is sent by U.S. registered mail, the date of registration
of the document shall be treated as the postmark date. If the document is sent by
U.S. certified mail and the sender's receipt is postmarked by the postal employee to
whom such document is presented, the date of the U.S. postmark on such receipt
The U.S. Postal Certified Mail Receipt stamped by the postal employee on
November 19, 2020 can be seen at Doc 913-2, Exhibit 4. Class counsel also had
access to this information every minute of the day since December 05, 2019 when
it showed up on the docket, but intentionally lied and committed fraud in the false
mailing date lie scheme to obtain the $77.5 million in fees. They never corrected
the record nor did Equifax come forward regarding this fraud on the class and
court’s machinery.
This misconduct fraud prohibits approval and awarding of any fees or expenses.
There are numerous Rule 11 violations that have been extensively documented in
the record, objection and brief that can’t and have not been refuted by counsel or
the court regarding the mailing/standing fraud scheme until their response brief
was filed, a bit too late. Counsel lied in four different documents. (Now five
documents if you include their false claims in their response brief). The lawyers on
both sides and the named plaintiffs all “see, hear and know nothing” like Sergeant
Schultz in Hogan’s Heroes. The representative parties clearly did not “fairly and
Class counsel purposely misled and deceived the court into approving this sellout
$380 million deal, giving themselves a windfall of $77 million in fees, $2,500.00
in payoff bounties for the named plaintiffs and approving the crooked lawyers
The duplicitous lawyers then used the usurious bond and motion to attempt to
force the appellant out of the litigation. The evidence is clear and convincing and
multiple documents that were electronically filed, which is wire fraud, along with
violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding the false mailing date
lack of standing claim. The blatant lies made by the class counsel in their Whack-
A-Mole mailing date/standing lie scheme prohibit affirmance and requires reversal.
The bond order also is required to be voided because it’s well known that fraud and
misconduct can never, ever, be rewarded. They (almost) got away with it. This is
. Conclusion
This is a fraudulent, hold up, wait a minute, something’s not right settlement and
approval. The clear evidence shows this appellant has satisfied and successfully
carried his heavy burden of making a “clear showing” that the district court abused
its discretion, Bennett, 737 F.2d at 986, when it certified a nationwide settlement
class and approved the settlement that contains fraud in the deal. Plaintiff’s
response can’t overcome this appellant’s overwhelming evidence in his brief, they
Based on the intentional due process right violations caused to the appellant by the
participants in the fraudulent mailing date, lack of standing lie scheme and the
errors by the Clerk of the Court not sending him documents to respond to, the
jurisdictional lacking, cover-up bond order and judgments’ that were never served
on him so his appeal should not be dismissed before reaching a merits decision.
Before approving a proposed settlement, the court must determine that “class
representative and class counsel have adequately represented the class,” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e)(2). The named plaintiffs were not involved at all in this deal and sold
minimum requires reversal and firing of the inept and duplicitous named plaintiffs,
class counsel and the steering committee for fraud and misconduct in the mailing
date, standing lie fraud scheme. Class counsel made multiple Rule 11 violations in
multiple filings then they attempted to cover-up their illegal actions by demanding
violating $2,000.00 for this appellant. The in forma application was illegally
rejected to silence him, then counsel filed a motion to dismiss the appeal to again
attempt to illegally force him out of the objection and appeal process to cover up
their fraud.
King and Spalding (K&S) are guilty by their silent complicitness in the fraudulent,
mailing date, standing lie scheme by remaining mute which caused this approval to
So, the appellant requests that K&S be sanctioned by ordering them to refund to
Equifax all the fees they have been paid to date since it’s well known that lawyers
can’t benefit when they get caught engaging in misconduct, especially fraud.
Class counsel and the steering committee can’t legally collect any fees now or in
the future either because of their fraudulent lie, standing scheme which is
misconduct so they should be ordered removed from the case without fees or costs
On the bright side the appellants filed the best objections and appeal briefs ever
written and assembled in any class action settlement and appeal in history (700
cases a year settle in all courts) which shows just how truly illegal this deal is.
What has taken place in this case is typical of what this appellant has seen over the
past few class action settlements and appeals he is currently involved in. When the
truth can’t be refuted, like here, an illegal rubber stamp approval is still made,
personal attacks, lying, fraud, Rule 11 violations, cover-up and shenanigans are
commonplace, with justice being perverted, all so people can save face and force
through self interested agendas. It’s going on all over the country.
This approval absolutely requires reversal, but based on the outright fraud
contained within it that corrupted and poisoned this deal; something more is
required like pulling law licenses, impaneling a grand jury and one more thing.
After sanctioning King and Spalding by ordering them to return the fees they billed
Equifax and kicking class counsel and the steering committee out of the case
without fees or expenses, the appellant requests three votes to dismiss the case or
send it back to the inferior court and order it to dismiss it because of the
unaddressed merit issues raised, justiciability and standing issues, six Rule 11
violations, that being false sworn declarations, violations of common law, the due
process violations by the Clerk of the Court by failing to send the appellant the
judgment, amended judgment, bond order and a few more orders so he could
protect his rights and those of 147.9 million other class members rights, the
the fraud on the class, the court’s machinery, obstruction of justice, wire fraud,
violations of Rule 23(e) and 23(e)(2), 23(a)(4) and 23(g)(4), violations of Eleventh
Circuit, Supreme Court case law and The Rules of Professional Conduct.
If the appellant or anyone else for that matter did what the lawyers in this case
have done, he/she would be fired, sued and jailed for years but the proven lying
incompetent lawyers apparently have a free pass to lie, cheat and commit fraud.
For whatever reason, the court illegally ignored and turned a blind eye to the
appellant’s objection, motions and testimony. There is no trust left with anyone in
Let me close with the following that absolutely summarize the best decision that
“Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall; All the king's
horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty, this settlement and
“There is a saying that if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and
quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck.” In re Sorah, 163 F.3d 397, 401 (6th
Cir. 1998).
Based on the overwhelming evidence, the easy decision to make in this case was
I certify that all of the above is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
The appellant is unable to file paper copies of the reply brief due to Covid-19.
Christopher Andrews
This document complies with the word limit of Fed. R. App. P. 27 because,
excluding the parts of the document exempted by Fed. R. App. 32(f), this document
This document complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5)
and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a) (6) because it has been
Christopher Andrews
PO Box 530394
Livonia, MI 48153-0394
T 248-635-3810
Email [email protected]
Pro se Appellant, non attorney
October 02, 2020
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that today he filed the foregoing reply brief on CM/ECF
with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which will send electronic notification
to all attorneys and all the appellants, including all pro se parties who have all
Christopher Andrews