complaint to comm on disciplin of judges

8/14/2019 Complaint to Comm on Disciplin of Judges

1/8


2/8

!25i56789

10

i:131 4

1 5161 7181 920

COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVALAND DISCIPLINE2190 S. Mason Road, Suite 201St. Louis, Missouri 63131E-mail: jim.smith@ c o u r t s . m o . g o v (314) 966-1007Facsimile: (314) 966-0076COMPLAINT ABOUT A MISSOURI JUDGE OR COURT COMMISSIONER

Case # 07CY-CV06125 was filed seeking rem edy for trespass with injury and trespass on the case as aCourt of Record1 proceeding according to the course of the Common Law 2 in Clay Co unty, MissouriCircuit Court3 and the Honorable A nthon y (REX) Gabbert of Division 2 was assigned to hold it.

The case seeks dam ages ag ainst two private individuals for trespass with violence who w ere initiallyacting in their office as Ka nsas City Missouri police officers and who claimant claims vacated theiroffice of authority by and throug h their acts that intruded into plaintiffs private domain (jurisdiction)for the purpose of restraining plaintiffs right of action witho ut prob able cause of attending crime andtherefore acted in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority and short of statutory right. As such,defendants acted in their ow n private capacity and unde r color of State and local Law. Frazier issued 3municipal citations to plaintiff to be heard in the municipal court of Kansas City. This suit proceeded

1 A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independentlyof the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to thecourse of comm on law, its acts and proceeding s being enrolled for a perpetual mem orial. Jones v.Jones, 18 8 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, CJ.See, also, Led w ith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.2 This action proceeded according to the course of the common law by decree of the sovereign andhis suit and as described generally in Ko f f 1 er, " C O M M O N LAW PLEAD I N G , " page80,and by Stephen, A Treatise on the Principles of Pleading InCivil Actions, c. I, Of the Proceedings in An Action, from ItsCommencement To Its Termination, 59, 60 (3rd ed. by Tyler,Washington, D. C. 1893).3 COURT . An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly und er its authority,consisting of one or more officers, established and m aintained for the purpose of hearing anddetermining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and ofapplying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at timesand places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]

william duff Page 1 12/29/2007


3/8

2 122232 A--26272829J OnJ233343 5M .3 7383940n4 243444546474849505152-55V-

against Frazier an d Roth in their private capacities on that premise. All Documents filed in this caseby plaintiff are testimony an d offers of proof as if sworn to under affirmation in that proceedingaccording to the course of the common law, all evidence is in the filed papers an d plaintiff has signedin verification thereto.

Simultaneously, the action filed by Frazier proceeded in the Municipal Court of Kansas City: JudgeWilliams of court room A. Duff answered those charges and the clay county court issued anorder firstfor the Municipal court to stay it's proceedings and finally for the Municipal court to dismiss the actionbefore it as the matter had been fairly settled in the Clay county court.. Williams ignored both ordersan d proceeded to find Duff guilty of two of the three charges brought.The questions to be decided in the Clay county case are:

1. Were plaintiff actions a constitutionally protected activity? If yes;2. Were there an y oaths agreements or applications fo r benefits, entered into by plaintiff thatdiminished the protectied nature of that activity? If no;3 . Does the office of police possess authority to restrain by force a constitutionally securedactivity? If no;4. Does th e officer vacate th e office of trust in order to perform the act of forcefully restrainingsuch activity? If yes;5. Is the act/restraint a trespass? If yes6. Is Plaintiff injured by that trespass and due remedy an d damages., if yes;7. Finally, what are the damages.

As such, th e subject matter to be decided here is law. Defendants have admitted to the facts alleged,and the entire case proceeds upon the paperwork. Verbal testimony may be wholly unnecessary inorder for the court to reach its conclusion especially where defendants have admitted the factscomplained of by plaintiff, as here.

All th e above was established and proven up by plaintiff in the original action and the attendingexhibits, filed on 6-15-2007with return service made on 7-17-2007, as shown on the docket inthiscase and as is typical of a case proceeding according to the course of the common law. TheHonorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert (ARG) had opportunity to question plaintiffs construction of thecourt and allocation of jurisdiction since that time but has remained silent on the matter until th e 11-7-2007 hearing where only by implication did he contest. He merely ignored the substance of the actionan d injected rules and law foreign to that decreed in this case.

will iam duff Page 2 12/29/2007


4/8

575859606 ]62

6465666768697071727374757677

Plaintiff filed, on 8-1-2007, motion to recover property 1 taken by defendants and for stay of municipalcourt proceedings (administrative law) until such time as this superior court decided on the issue ofplaintiffs right of action. The right of action issue is the boundary separating appropriate statutoryenactments (administrative law) and enforcement and enactments that exceed the authority of the state,(rule making and legislation that abrogate constitutionally secured rights) Recovery was sought in theform of Replevin as decreed in the law of this case4, see Exhibit F. The court5, on 8-1-2007, orderedreplevin, w/o bond, of plaintiffs property and stay of the underlying municipal action and for the clerkof this court to issue writ of execution on said replevin to be delivered to the sheriff. The court furtherinvited the Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert and all parties to agree with the courts order or to showcause why same should not stand6. Allwere silent beyond the t ime allocated and there was no requestfo r additional time. There was no objection to the order and there was no action taken by themagistrate or the clerk to fulfill the order. Plaintiff contends The magistrate had a duty attendant to hisoffice to extend the judicial power to this case at law or to show cause why that power should not beextended. ARG did neither and we begin to find out why he did neither in the 11-7-2007 hearing. Ittherefore must be obvious to any reasonable man; the magistrate is injecting what he apparentlybelieves is his discretion to operate the court under statutory jurisdiction and rules of court notpreviously decreed in this case. In doing so, plaintiff contends ARG is prejudicing plaintiffs case forthe benefit of defendants, in that, his acts are against the weight of the evidence, not supported bysubstantial evidence, and erroneously declares or appliesthe law.

4 The very meaning of'sovereignty1 is that the decree of the sovereign makes law. [American BananaCo. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19Ann.Cas. 1047.]3 A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently ofthe person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it. and proceeding according to the course ofcommon law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 18 8Mo.App. 220, 175S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also,Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155N.E. 688, 689.6 "Further, the magistrate, plaintiff, and defendants are invited to each file and serve on all otherinterested parties a brief no later than ten (10) days after receipt of this order to show cause to thiscourt why this order should not take effect or should be modified and notice of intent to file said briefmust be filed within three (3) days of receiving this order either by email or by fax or by filing sameinto the record of this case. The court, mindful of the rights of the parties and the importance of fairplay, will liberally construe the arguments presented."

will iam duf f Page 3 12/29/2007


5/8

787980818283s i8586878889909]92

'

949596

9899100101102103104105106107108

Defendant filed its first mo tion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which was marked received byth e clerk 8-20-2007 with copies in the case file marking it filed on 8-16-2007. Plaintiff has a certifiedcopy of the entire case file through 8-16-2007but this document is not included therein. D efendantssecond motion to dismiss replevin was filed 9-6-2007.

The Court issued its order denying defendants first mot ion to dismiss an d judgment in default on 8-24-200 7, which included th e paragraph shown in FN6, All were silent beyond th e tim e allocated an d therewas no request for additional time.

Plaintiff rebutted both Defendants motions to dismiss on 9-11-2007

The court denied bo th defen dants mo tions for cause shown on 9-11-2007with the parag raph seen inFN6 thereon. All were silent beyond the tim e allocated and there was no request for additional time.

The court th en issued a second command on 9-12-2007, entitled "PRECAEPE", for the court clerk toissue writ of execution on the stay order and the replevin order in cludin g a similar paragraph as inFN 6, but a dding clerk thereto. All were silent beyon d the tim e allocated and there was no request foradditional time. The clerk, magistrate or the parties took no action.

Plaintiff, on 10-10-2007 noticed hearing for 10-17-2007, or as soon thereafter as the court could hearit, fo r case management conference. The filing was returned to plaintiff by Division 2 clerk who toldplaintiff she does not set hearings that way. Fu rther that plaintiff m ust contact clerk and get a hearingdate before no ticing th e hearing. Plaintiff got the new date and re-noticed th e hearing fo r 11-7-2007.No te: it was during this conversation that plaintiff was first mad e aware of an undercurrent functioningin the circuit suggesting that plaintiff was a belligerent. The clerk comm ented 'you have beenbelligerent since the first time you came into this circuit'. This comment prompted plaintiffs nextfiling, "Jurisdictional Statement-Restatement from th e Action" that being an attempt to explain wh atth e clerk an d others were obviously taking as belligerence.

On the day of the h earing all were present and the record will show: The Honorable Anthony (REX)Gabbert of Division 2 called this case. As we rose to take our positions the bailiffs (2) closely

w i l l i a m duff Page 4 12/29/2007


6/8

10 911011111 21131141151161171181 1 912012112212312412512612712812913013 113 213313413 513613713 813 9

surrounded the bench and one denied the Special Master appointed in this case into the bar. Plaintiffand MAAG proceeded to the bench where th e Honorable An thony (REX) Gabbert of Division 2 askedMAAG to present arguments on defendants motions to dismiss. Plaintiff objected declaring the courthad already ruled on those m otions and tha t they had been denied. Plaintiff further declared thehearing was on plaintiffs motion fo r case management hear ing. The Honorable Anthony (REX)Gabbert declared 'it was not, that he didn' t do such hearings, that th e hearing was on defendantsmotions to dismiss'. Plaintiff objected and asked if the Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert ofDivision 2 had read the documents filed in this case to which he responded that he had read all.During the hearing, th e bailiffs appeared to make an uncommon effort to hover close around plaintiff.The Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert of Division 2 thereafter adjourned th e hearing saying 'hewould take th e motions under consideration. ' Plaintiff took th e hovering activity of the two bailiffs assome evidence that th e clerks belief in plaintiffs belligerence was shared by ARG and others in thecircuit an d that such unfounded belief serves to prejudice plaintiff.

On 11-8-2007 an order purporting to originate by the court and stating '"you are hereby notified that the"court" du ly entered the following: 08 Nov200 7 dismiss by Ct w/o prejudice - upo n review of thecourt, defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs petition are granted and cause is dismissed for cause asstated in both defend ant's motions. Clerk to notify plaintiff an d defendants attorney. ARG". Ittherefore m ust be obvious to any reasonable man, the mag istrate is injecting what he apparentlybelieves is his discretion to operate th e court under statutory jurisdiction (adm inistrative law) and rulesof court not previously decreed in thi s case. In doing so , plaintiff contends ARG is prejudicingplaintiffs case for the benefit of defendants, in that, his acts ar e against th e weight of the evidence, notsupported by substantial evidence, an d erroneously declares or applies th e law.

The court, on its own motion, thereafter filed in this case a w rit of error Quae Coram Nobis Residantvacating th e hearing on defendants motion fo r cause shown an d reversing th e resulting magistratesorder entered onto file and docket of this case. Th e cou rt, further, adm onished the mag istrate not againto issue an y ruling order or judg m ent respecting th e instant case that did not have prior agreement bythe court and further warning of con tempt proceedings should the mag istrate fail to adhere thereto. Inaddition, the court admonished th e clerk fo r accepting th e magistrate's order of dismissal an d placing itin the case file and on the docket of th is case without leave of th is court to do so.

will iam duff Page 5 12/29/2007


7/8

14014114214314414514614714814915015115215315415515615715815916016 116216316416516 6167168169170

IN SUMMARY

The entire record will show ARG's belief, by implication that plaintiff possesses of no right to life,liberty or property except as the State or its subdivisions define an d declare. Such wou ld not beunalienable in nature and therefore must be a void assertion in that all would be rule making orlegislation abrogating rights secured by the controlling con stitutions in opposition to Mirand a, Hale vHenkel, Chisholm v Georgia, Yick Wo, Chicago v Collins, and countless other cases tha t declare theunalienable nature of plaintiffs unalienable right of action. Further, ARG did so without there beingone shred of evidence in the record of this case tha t the state or its subdivisions possessed higher titleto plaintiffs life, liberty an d property or that plaintiff had otherwise lawfully consented to such stateauthority. As such, ARG could only have m ade his decision from his own knowledge or belief whichin and of itself void s his acts. Obviously, the m ag istrate is injecting wh at h e apparently believes is hisdiscretion to operate the court under statutory jurisdiction (administrative law) and rules of courtforeign to and not previously decreed in this case, all of which would be administrative law notcommon law. In doing so , plaintiff contends ARG is prejudicing plaintiff and his case for the benefitof defendants, in that, his acts are against the weight of the evidence, not supported by substantialevidence, and erroneously declares or applies the law.

Plaintiff has no problem with an "out in the open" and ho nest descent to his claims that bring abou tevidence and proof in support of arguments, but he vigorously objects to the innuendo and actsbyimplication that obviously seek to discredit said claims without proof (acts of despots). Those acts arenot acts of an honest an d respectable government or judiciary an d must breach th e controlling cannonsin nu m erou s ways. Plaintiff will leave this comm ission to identify the specific breaches beingcomplained of here.

Finally, the comm ission is informed that there is no appeal from the decision of a court of recordproceeding according to the course of the common law. Therefore, plaintiffs only recourse to the actscomplained of here are with this commission or in the federal courts under title 18 ss241 or 2.Plaintiff does not wish to be at odds with this judiciary but only seeks fairness, respect an d opendiscourse in pursuit of justice and protection for the freedoms this judiciary is oath bound to protect.

w i l l i a m duff Page 6 12/29/2007


8/8

17117217317417517617717817918 018 118 218 3

Wherefore, plaintiff, having no interest in arguing with the 7 th judicial circuit when th at argu men tdiminishes his real claims against defendants, and not wishing to start contempt proceedings againstARG and the Court Clerk, asks this commission to reign in this out of control judicial officer so thatfurther waste of the scarce judicial resource is unnecessary and so that fairness an d justice can prevail"out in the open" for all to see.

Respectfully submitted

William Duff816-429-5038wdd@will iamduff . co m10 8 NW 10 1 PI Kansas City, Mo 64155

william duff Page 7 12/29/2007