|
Linda L. Fogh,
John F. Fogh, Gordon Ross Henderson, James Norris,
Edna Louise Brumbaugh,
Pavel Goberman,
Clinton & Margaret Tullis, Ronald Porter, James
and Judith Keenan, Richard Strickland,
Professor Peter Boateng, Craig & Louise Friday, Paul Carroll,
Lorraine Boars, Adrian Banks, Steve Thomas
Gary Triestman,
Lorraine Duboys, James F.Gibson,
Janice
M. Halgren,
Excerpts from a brief below, they filed in federal court.
___________________________
Questions Raised
Is a person entitled to the speedy remedy by due course of law
by a jury, presided over by an impartial judge, and if so, does
established proof to the contrary void the judgments?
If judges and clerks do not take and fulfill
their oaths of office, are they absolutely immune from suit?
Does the doctrine of
absolute judicial immunity unfairly treat judges as a special
class when they violate the United States Constitution using
bias, prejudice, maliciousness and corruption, and if immunity
exists under the law, does it violate the supremacy clause by
failing to protect the public from court corruption?
Summary
. When some
one believes his rights have been violated, he goes to court
expecting a fair resolution. He does so with an abiding faith in
the American constitutional framework of the courts, and feels a
sense of anger and betrayal when a fair hearing does not result;
this is especially so at both state and federal levels. After
paying stiff filing fees and costs for duplication of paperwork
and many hours of research, the court takes the money on the
pretext of hearing a constitutional claim often from state court
abuse and then turns its back on the litigant, and dismisses the
case in violation of Amendment V. People become especially angry
when they recognize that they have been barred from the court,
not on the basis of the merits or the lack thereof, but rather,
by the growing consensus that the judges, by and through
dishonest representations and equally dishonest court clerks,
are only motivated by their own political self-interests, and
greed. Americans will not give up easily the hard won liberties
paid for with American lives. Consequently, more lawsuits and
appeals result as the litigant comes to realize that the issue
is not of a poorly drafted pleading by a self represented
litigant, but rather, the court's arbitrary and specific
intention to dismiss a valid complaint no matter what it takes
- including fraud.
The average ages of the people
listed here represent the largest demographic segment in America
today. Their prosperity is the result of lifetime of hard work.
When all that effort is swept aside through judicial
maliciousness and corruption in violation of the oath of office,
and in many cases the complete absence of an oath, people have a
right to complain. Those who haven't experienced the judicial
system live in fear of it. Those that have will be forever
cynical of all aspects of government. They are at the point in
their lives when healthcare and alternative housing and even
just the daily necessities of life are major concerns. We feel
the time has come for the Court to reconsider its policy of
absolute judicial immunity, the myths surrounding it, and the
harm it is causing our nation. The United States has a
compelling economic interest in seeing that all Americans remain
secure in their homes, and in their employment to preserve a
stable economy indeed see our economy grow and prosper. The
Government has spent the people's Social Security benefits. Who
will provide in the future for those who have been cheated by
corrupt clerks and judges? It cannot be in the best interests of
our nation to allow entire estates to be squandered through
court corruption because we lack the courage to punish a
dishonest judge no matter where he sits. The few people listed
here represent significant losses, homes, incomes, jobs, and
future security through private contracts, and thriving
businesses.
We are average law abiding men and
women acting as self represented litigants, who expected a fair
contest, and instead, received sorry excuses for not applying
constitutionally guaranteed protections. Through the sacrifice
of many lives, Americans have paid well since the inception of
the United States Constitution for the right to be heard and we
have been denied that right. Our sincere thoughts and concerns
for future generations as well as for the general well being of
our country follows.
According to the law, there must
be a qualified judge, service of process must be perfected, and
the hearing must be fair and regular from the outset. Previous
courts have ruled that any judgment is void otherwise. We
believe this Court is bound by the same constitutional
guarantees, established by the United States Constitution and
earlier courts. One complainant, a woman in her sixties, who
was in a wheel chair at the time, endured three arrests in her
own home suffering 128 days in custody so that one HUD employee
at the county level and two bank officers could arrange the
theft of her condo "as an abandoned property." She was
transported back and forth between three counties. There were no
warrants and no charges. She nearly died in custody for lack of
prescheduled surgery. The court dismissed her complaint because
it claimed it "lacked merit," and a short plain statement. Her
life has never been the same; she lives in terror of
being arrested then becoming lost in the system and isolated
from her family. Who cold blame her?
"Due Process
Clause also encompasses a third type of protection a guarantee
of fair procedure." Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 1113 (1990)
"When fraud is used by lawyers and government officials in the
judicial process, orders and judgment are void and jurisdiction
is lost". Browning v. Navarro 826 F2d 335,342-45 (5th Cir.
1987) 826 Fd2 335 342-45 (5th Cir. 1987) cites Hazel-Atlas Glass
v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 64 S.Ct. 997 (1944) In re Laing, 945 F2d 354 (10th Cir. 1991)
"Fraud in the
procurement of a judgment sufficient to warrant relief there
from is properly identified with fraud upon the
court.
"An
order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void, and
can be attacked in ANY proceeding in ANY court where the
validity of the judgment come into issue."
See Rose v.
Himely, (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 Led 608;
Pennoyer v. Neff, (1877)
95 US 714, 24 L Ed 565;
Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457,
21 I Ed 897;
Windsor v. McVeigh,
(1876) 93 US 274,
23 L Ed 914;
McDonald v. Mabee, (1917) 243 US 90, 37 S Ct 343, 61 L Ed 608.
"If a judgment is
void, relief is not a discretionary matter it is mandatory."
Orner v. Shalala, 30 Fd3 1307 (9th Cir. 1994) see also 243
BR 380 (D. Ariz. 1999)
Motions to Dismiss
The court denied all of the
evidence that each of us filed, in our complaints and also to
prevent dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) (or the equivalent). On
the one hand, the court states that the complaint must be
believed as true, and the facts taken in the most favorable
light to the non-moving party. Further, "A complaint
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it
appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of his claim which would entitle him to relief."
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Despite
these statements, the court makes a point of dismissing
complaints to cover up malfeasance by bar associates where there
are facts in question brought on constitutional grounds, and
where the defendant as the moving party makes the motion.
People are lured into the courts and pay the fees, with the
expectation of being heard. On the other hand, the judge seems
intent on doing anything he can think of to prevent this from
happening.
It seems to us that when a judge
gets so involved that he provides the excuses for the defendants
he becomes just another defense lawyer by ordering "denied"
evidence staring up from the printed page using any random
excuse that does not apply to the circumstances thereby ignoring
the U.S. Constitution and prior case law in the process. Indeed,
where is the fairness in pitting government lawyers and all
their resources against a person who files a valid complaint
against a state or federal agency or a state judge?
"The Rules
themselves provide that they are to be construed "to secure the
just speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action."
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.178, 181, 182 (Dec. 3,
1962.
Timing is only a factor when it can be applied to the people's
detriment.
Other Case
Examples
There is a case of racial
discrimination in which the complainant is an accomplished,
fully qualified Afro-American FAA inspector pilot, a former
Vietnam veteran, and now, a second year law student that has
proven with a variety of written reports, exemplary employment
records, eye witness accounts, and other data that he was fired
based on racial discrimination, nothing he described satisfied
the court. The court told him that he didn't prove his case. His
witness was also fired. These men have both paid a very dear
price for placing their faith in a federal law that is not
applied in the courts.
___________
In another instance, a black man
sought employment for which he was also qualified, and was
rejected. He writes of being attacked by a federal judge when
he filed a Title VII lawsuit. He appealed his case dismissal,
and the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. It went back to
the same trial judge and within a two-hour trial, the judge
ruled against the complainant a second time. This man writes a
sincere letter about his desire to work, but instead, has
suffered poverty, despair, homelessness, including all of the
attending pain and humiliation much like 75 percent of all
Afro-American males, while federal judges refuse to apply the
federal law. How can anyone believe that our country is uplifted
by such treatment?
______________
In another case, a concerned
airline captain endured a climate of harassment and employment
discrimination for a period of four years finally resulting in
his dismissal for nothing more than noting aircraft mechanical
problems in his flight logbooks as required by his
employer. After months of having his reports ignored, he
informed the FAA and was terminated without warning and or a
stated cause. He has been denied discovery and all of the
protections he had been guaranteed as well as employment
benefits that he earned by working more than twenty years for
the same airlines. His request for discovery was denied and his
case dismissed
__________________
A tenured full professor from a
Puerto Rican university was fired when he complained that he was
not receiving the proper salary or benefits. He filed a Title
VII action and it was removed to a state court where
material facts were concealed and misrepresented. In addition,
his attorneys accepted advance payment for an appeal and then
filed it too late to be heard. The professor has never actually
had the right to be heard, and he feels his professional
reputation has been damaged as a result.
__________________
" The principal of access to
the courts of course consists not merely of the right to file a
complaint but it includes the right to file other papers,
including motions apprising the court of possible changes in the
facts." NAACP v. Meese, 615 F.Supp 200 (D.D.C. 1985).
__________________
One man was a Carrier Competitive
Service Federal Government Employee
working for the Department of the Navy, who lost his job through
a Reduction In Force (RIF) action. While testing a pilot
program, he also became an involuntary test subject without his
knowledge or consent. The rules were changed eliminating
the normal appeals process for redress. It meant that this
category of employee is without protection or any form of
redress, whether challenging the federal statutes themselves, or
the agency's compliance with statutes, rules or regulations or
constitutional questions or violations. Without the right to
formal judicial oversight, the agency wrongly becomes the sole
judge of its own actions.
____________________
Referring to discovery, and
writing for the unanimous court Justice Rehnquest states: "
Due Process Clause clearly requires a fair trial in a fair
tribunal…" See Bracy v. Gramley, Warden 96-6133 (1997) the
petitioner was sentenced to death by Judge Maloney who was later
convicted on federal charges of taking bribes from criminal
defendants. The conviction is positive proof that judicial
immunity is a myth. There cannot be absolute judicial immunity
all of the time and no immunity occasionally. "No man in this
country is so high that he is above the law." Butz et al
v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978).
________________________
In 1977-78, Arizona experienced
two hurricanes. The Government decided to reduce the water
level behind Hoover Dam affecting the river basin along the
Colorado River in Arizona. Twenty-two farms flooded as a
result. Most affected was a $10 million farm that was completely
washed away. By an act of Congress, Federal Emergency Relief was
made available to the farmer in the form of another farm, and he
was approved for an approximately $4.5 million low interest
loan. Six months of preparation went towards those efforts.
Despite all, a single county loan officer for Farm Services
Administration over-ruled United States Congress and refused to
make the reparations effective. The case made its way to the
Federal Supreme Court where the clerks filed the case and then
changed the case number and another case given that number was
heard instead. We find changed case numbers is a common
practice. The petitioner sued the Court Clerks, and subpoenaed
Chief Justice Rehnquist who refused to testify as being "too
busy." Five years later, Justice Rehnquist ruled that President
Clinton's position in government did not immunize him.
The farmer has suffered two strokes and never received any
compensation for his losses. This case illustrates violations of
the rules reaching all the way to the Justice of the Supreme
Court where Mr. Martin seeks to have the Chief Justice excluded
from hearing his case for a conflict of interest.
" The very purpose of title 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 was to interpose the federal courts between
the State and the people, as guardians of the people's federal
frights - to protect the people from unconstitutional action
under color of state law." Pullium v Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984).
Unqualified Judges
While qualifications to hear a
case are not necessarily all constitutional ones, Article VI
does contain the Supremacy Clause and it requires that judges,
like other public officials, both state and federal, be bound by
the constitution, and by the oath or affirmation to support it.
The ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon C (1)(a)(1980) the Due
Process Clause and equal protection of the law as set forth in
the Amendment XIV, establishes a constitutional floor. On that
basis, issues concerning the Due Process Clause or judicial
conduct certainly should be compared to that minimum
requirement.
In another case, a
man owns an original land patent that is outside the
jurisdiction of the county situated near his land. For twenty
years he lived there in peace. Suddenly, and without warning,
the County treasurer began taxing the property as though it was
located in the County and would not be persuaded to the contrary
even when confronted with irrefutable proof that by private
contract this man does not owe the money. Article 1, Sec.
10 might just as well not exist for the ease with which this
prohibition is violated.
In 1996, a very wealthy
successful California real estate entrepreneur sued a partner
who had breached their agreement. A sham trial took place at the
end of which the Judge decided it would be more beneficial if
the entrepreneur paid the damages, and so he gave the partner an
$18 million personal judgment. A retired California Superior
Court Judge reviewed the case for an appeal and said the
judgment was very questionable and would probably be reversed.
The entrepreneur was still solvent
despite the judgment, but the requirements of the bond
made it necessary to file Chapter 11 reorganization. Even though
he is a debtor in possession, with a very solvent estate, a
trustee was appointed, and the trustee immediately commenced
massive liquidations. They went well beyond paying the
minimal debts of entrepreneur's ongoing business and the
judgment lien. Then, strangely, the $18 million secured
judgment that caused this catastrophe was transformed into a
much lower $1.950 million unsecured settlement by a
compromise. The debtor could easily have afforded to pay
this much lower amount without filing for reorganization. The
trustee paid the debts of the estate in full plus ten percent
interest. two and one half years ago leaving a residual
balance of approximately $30 million. Despite the fact that the
bankruptcy is over, Bankruptcy Judge Peter W. Bowie, will not
release the residue back to the debtor. He knows that he ahs
allowed the trustee- who was also a bankruptcy judge, to
dishonestly manage the reorganization. The judge is holding the
$30 million dollars as ransom freely admitting that he is
awaiting one or the other of two events. Either the debtor must
sign a full release that he will not sue the judge or the
trustee, for their outrageous, conduct, or the judge intends to
wait for the statute of limitations on being sued to run out.
He leaves the choice to the entrepreneur, and he refuses to
submit to extortion. In the mean time, the looting of this
estate continues. The trustee has been forced to pay $11 million
dollars in administrative fees and the looting is not finished.
The debtor on the other hand, has received less than $22
thousand of his own money since the inception of the case more
than six years ago. Judge Bowie will not even release enough
funds so the entrepreneur can hire an attorney.
The entrepreneur has demanded the
U.S. Trustee investigate, but he refuses to get involved. We
know of several cases in which the U.S. Trustee has been asked
to investigate and in each situation has refused. None of us can
figure out what service a U.S. Trustee performs for the
government. In another bankruptcy case in Washington, the court
refuses to void judgment liens that are based on litigation
without service, where there is extrinsic fraud, an impaired
contract, involuntary servitude, and the judges who caused this
bankruptcy all lack the oath of office. The bankruptcy judge
involved his own lawyer relative to aid in the cover up and
ordered that his relative receive $12,500 for a so-called
compromise amounting to nothing more than Judge Samuel Steiner's
bribe. The Chief Judge of Bankruptcy Court Western District of
Washington is, for all intent and purposes, blind. He appears
to have vision only from the outside corner of right eye. He is
physically incapable of reviewing the many detail papers
associated with bankruptcy. Nevertheless, Judge Thomas Glover
was just reappointed to an additional Fourteen-year commitment.
Assuming that he is honest, which given the circumstances of at
least one bankruptcy, is very doubtful, who does his reading,
his clerk?
The average person has absolutely
no protection when fundamental guarantees are not observed,
indeed, judicial immunity leaves the public completely
defenseless to be terrorized by any kind of state or federal
government official when called upon by the growing list of this
or that immune adversary. The court has stated that it "stands
as the guardian of the people's rights." The question we should
all be asking is how often in the last several decades has the
court been willing to assume this roll? The guardian has become
guard who is more apt to bar the door to the courtroom.
How much research does the court
expect the average citizen to do in order to achieve justice?
The laws are very specific about how a judge goes about the
duties of his office, and he agrees to these responsibilities in
order to become elected. It is outrageous that people can no
longer even trust that he or she has kept these election
promises. It is an outrage that a Secretary of State has not
obtained the proper oath before allowing an individual to call
himself a judge. We jump at every opportunity to pass laws
seldom are they observed and even fewer are enforced by the
courts. It is equally outrageous that the court refuses to
void a judgment when asked to do so and the situation clearly
mandates that it be done. If judges do not respect the law, why
should the people?
"The law commands allegiance
only if it commands respect. It commands respect only if the
public thinks the judges are neutral." Bill Meyers, Strong
Warnings From The Supreme Court." U, S, News and World Report,
Nov. 29, 1999 at 36 (quoting Justice Anthony Kennedy).
"The clash of political
interests is fine for a legislature. But if you have that in
the court system, you will then destroy confidence that judges
are deciding things on the merits." Id (quoting Justice Stephen Bryer).
Stare Decisis comes with a price
tag most Americans cannot afford. If those decisions are not
applied across the board the court simply reinvents the wheel
from one case to the next at great expense and serious loss of
credibility. The people are lured into court believing in the
concept of justice; if pertinent cases are ignored in favor of
cases that are not relevant then this whole practice citing case
law is really nothing more than another bait and switch scam.
In fact, there are so many cases contradicting each other that
one could spend a lifetime in court arguing cases and never
reach the issues before the court.
The courts are failing to
take into account the tough-mindedness of the American people.
They have not changed their minds about what they view their
rights to be under the original meanings of the United States
Constitution. They are very likely to revolt if the courts
continue a policy of blatant favoritism hinging on judicial
fraud and corruption. Nothing constructive is gained by it
except perhaps another step approaching anarchy and
embarrassment in the eyes of the rest of the world. It is the
government itself that has squandered the talents and resources
of this once proud great nation. Some place along the way, the
United States Government has gotten the idea that it can
substitute brute force against Americans instead of serving
justice as is guaranteed under the U. S. Constitution.
The Government wants the full
participation of the taxpayer, the voter, and juries. It wants
young men and women to place their lives in jeopardy in order to
fight its wars; however, each of these activities comes with the
expressed condition that there shall be a rule of law, and that
law must include all judges and court clerks.
home
Judicial
Accountability |
Judicial
Independence |
Discipline
State Court Judges
Appeals-State
Court |
Disposal of JQC & Other Records |
Discipline
Federal Court Judges
Appeals-Federal Court |
Judicial
Canons |
Violation
of Separation of Powers
History of the
Bar |
Privatization
of the Bar |
Unauthorized
Appropriation of Funds
The Judicial Bar
Rules |
Unauthorized
Bar Functions |
Law
is Big Business |
Endnotes
|
