Hi, mac1932 is me John, this my 1st time using this cite. I am 75 and disabled my complaint below is for fraud but I want to add "cause of action" that my SSA benefits and Disability benefits taken by FL income deduction order are exempt from attachment, please help me with my plight, Thanks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MDFL
JOHN L. McCARTY
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT GRGURIC,
Defendant__________/ Case No. 6:06-cv-1444-Orl-PCF-UAM

COMPLAINT 2. NATURE OF THE ACTION: John is informed, believes, and on that basis alleges and presents circumstantial evidence, set of facts, consistent with the allegations; adequately and sufficient to state his claim of a legal injury caused by Grguric and demanding damages from Grguric of $150,000.00 for loss of his Social Security Administration Benefits, and Disability Income Benefits from 4/1999 to present due to Grguric’s sharp legal practice, superior knowledge, fraud, and Officer of the Court position, that took unconscionable advantage of John; an infirm, aged, 100% disabled, Korea War Veteran in Mexico by holding a clandestine trial preventing John; ignorant of the adversary existence of the suit from presenting his case. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1969 (2007)
3. JURISDICTION Fed. R.Civ. P.8 (a)(1) grounds upon which this Court’s jurisdiction depends in this complaints actual controversy include: a) seeks damages in excess of $75,000 exclusive of interest, costs and attorney fees; is diversity of citizens of different States; under 28 U.S.C. §1332; b) subject matter jurisdiction is invoked under 15 U.S.C. §1673(a) and c) and d) Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367; and e) valid sections of the U.S. Code not expressly asserted and/or are inadvertently omitted that confers on federal courts the jurisdiction in “all civil actions” between diverse parties.
4. VENUE is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) defendant resides in this judicial district.
5. FEDERAL RULES of EVIDENCE 201(b) allows facts to be introduced into evidence and the authority of a judge to accept as facts matters which are in official records. Here John proves by Exhibit “A” Civil Case Docket (“CCD”) entries 1-13 in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, FL; case No DR 98-4687 (“18th Court”) that he was not represented of knew of Grguric’s tactics. On examination the 18th court records establish that there is no evidence; records, transcripts or essential requirements of law to support Grguric’s ex parte default judgment; ineligible for appeal. The burden of proof on any point offered in court is on the person offering the point by a preponderance of the evidence rests throughout upon the party asserting the affirmative issue, Defendant has failed his burden of prove that John was not a party to the default judgment is on Defendant
6. STANDING Plaintiff invokes his claims and he is entitled to “offer evidence A Judgment is the highest evidence and cannot be contradicted by the parties to it and must be attacked by independent action in equity not an extension of the 18th Court’s judgment…entered by Grguric’s, fraud and deception prevented John from presenting his case, and ignorance of the adversary existence of the suit
7. Grguric denied John due process of notice “a default judgment entered in violation of the act is fraud” See Courtney v. Warner, 290 So 2d 101 (Fla 4th DCA 1974) and holding a clandestine trial was: a) unjust, b) oppressive, c) fraudulent, d) unreasonable, e) unconscionable misconduct; f) tortious interference, g) invasion of real legally protected interest, h) breach of duty, i) malice, j) neglect, k) deception; and these unconscientious dealings prevented John’s chance to be heard, object, raise federal claims; or 18th court contempt power caused by his extrinsic fraud; a collateral issue and basis for relief.
8. Statute of Limitations: Fla. Stat. §95.031(2)(a) (An action founded upon fraud under § 95.11(3), including constructive fraud… must be begun within 12-years after the date of the commission of the alleged fraud). Same for statute of repose for fraud;
9. Florida Litigation Privilege does apply to this case; Grguric’s action described in ¶s 1-7 proves beyond a doubt that John was not a party to the ex parte proceeding that resulted in a money judgment and he could not seek a contempt of Court order.
10. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine (RFD) inapplicable “Where the federal plaintiff does not complain of legal injury caused by a state court judgment, but rather of a legal injury caused by an adverse party, RFD does not bar jurisdiction.”. See, e.g., Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003); Adkins v. Rumsfeld, 464 F.3d 456 (4th Cir. 9/18/2006)
11. No doctrine, res judicata, equitable estoppel; bars a federal claim brought by one who was not a party to the state court action and therefore not in any position to seek contempt or appellate review of the judgment” Johnson v DeGrandy, 512 US 997, 1005-06, 114 S.Ct 2647, 129 LEd2d 775 (1994))
12. FACTS Defendant failed to sign the petition CCD 1-3. 11/10/1998 requisite of FL Stat §120.569(2)(e) makes an unsigned petition fraud. The Federal Constitution or FL. R. Jud. Admin. 2.060(d) & 2.515(a) do not excuse Defendant Grguric from the signature rule.
13. FL Stat §§48.193 & 61.1312(1) requires to exercise jurisdiction over a person outside Florida “notice shall be given in a manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice.
14. Grguric’s Petition defective it failed to allege long arm jurisdiction over John. John was not within the state of Florida; failure to allege that the parties domiciled in FL at initiation of action and he fraudulently omitted the fact FS §§48.193, 48.194.
15. CCD indicates the service of the petition was not made in the United States; insufficiency of service of process refers no court’s jurisdiction to decide money issues.
16. Service of process in Mexico in 1998-99 was governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which require actual notice. No return of service. FL Stat §48.194(1) require a return of service to make service legal.
17. Defendant Grguric breached his duty; by not alleging facts to show the 18th court subject matter jurisdiction to decide money issues or to take John McCarty’s income.
18 John’s answer filed to the petition 11/24/1998 CCD Nos. 4-6 exhibit “C” prove John challenged the 18th Court’s jurisdiction to award a money judgment and prevented: a) the clerk from entering a default b) auxiliary jurisdiction. and c) the entry of a default money judgment See
19. Grguric failed to Notice documents from CCD 7 to CCD 12; FINAL JUDGMENT only asserts conclusory allegations. CCD 13 05/12/1999 state Income Deduction Order (IDO) issued. Defendant failed to prove John’s ability to pay any part without great sacrifice.
20. CCD 14 establishes that the 18th court on 5/26/1999 sent John in Mexico a Certified Notice/Delinquency and CCD 15 proves ret’d 18th court by the post office for lack of postage to Mexico. It’s reasonable to assume that Grguric did not want John to receive documents in Mexico so he could effect a clandestine trial; ex parte default permanent money judgment without having to deal with John’s valid defenses, objections, contempt of court, and dispositive motions that would include lack of jurisdiction & standing; statute of frauds, failure to state a claim.
21. The records reflect that Defendant Grguric either knew or should have known a) that a judgment is infirm on the face of the record when it appears on the face of the record that the trial court had no power to enter the default money judgment; b) he did not present evidence of John’s alleged wealth or income other than his disability income; c) that he deliberately and fraudulently caused the trial judge to err and enter a money judgment; d) he deliberately and fraudulently denied John his benefits due him as he had not been in or had any connection with Florida since 1993; over five (5) years prior to the petitions filing; e) that he deliberately and fraudulently failed to give John an opportunity to comment or object; f) he deliberately and fraudulently and illegal caused John to have his income taken; g) he made material fraudulent misrepresentations of fact in order to obtain the Plaintiff's benefits; h) his conduct as set forth herein in this complaint was deceitfully committed with fraudulent intent; i) errors and omissions contained in the 18th court judgment impermissible caused a trial judge to accept verbatim a proposed final judgment without an opportunity for comments, objections; findings of fact, competent, evidence to impute income, record, and conclusions of law or independent judgment in the case."
22. As a direct result of the allegations above Plaintiff is damaged and continues to be damaged by the loss of his Social Security benefits and Disability income benefits.
CAUSE OF ACTION I Actionable FRAUD Intent to Deceive:
23. Plaintiff incorporates paragraph 2 and 12-22 as if fully rewritten herein to prove Defendant Grguric fraud, the record reflects Grguric met all elements of: a) actionable fraud; b) intentional false statements concerning material facts; c) false representation of fact

CAUSE OF ACTION II FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
24. Plaintiff incorporates ¶ 2 &¶s 12-23 as if fully rewritten herein that proves Defendant Grguric acts in securing a default ex parte judgment was fraudulent misrepresentation concerning material facts contained in the 18th Court file from CCD 1 through 13.