1

1

2

3

STATE OF ARIZONA 4

V 5

STEPHEN KANDIK 6

7

2 CA-CV 2009-0180/ CT-20090056 8

9

APPELLANT OPENING BRIEF 10

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS 11

DIVISION TWO 12

13

JANUARY 28, 2010 14

15

16

17

18

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS: 19

20

* THE STANDING ISSUE 21

PAGES 3-17 22

STANDING CHALLENGE – CONSTITUTIONALITY CHECK 23

24

*DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AN JUDICIAL FRAUD 25

PAGES 17-27 26

WITNESS SUPPRESSION – OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 27

28

*EXTRAODINARY CIRCUMSTANCE'S 29

PAGES 27–30 30

EVASION OF DUTY TO INFORM ON ISSUE OF FACT 31

32

*DUE PROCESS DENIED AND VOID JUDGEMENTS 33

PAGES 30–45 34

LOSS OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND NULL 35

. JUDICIAL ORDERS 36

37

*SEC 33 AND 9TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS 38

PAGES 45-48 39

JUDICIAL DISDAIN FOR SEC 33 AND 9TH AMENDMENT 40 41

*CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE AND SERVICE 42

43

PAGES 49 44

3

¶1 The Constitution, in the words of John 45

Adams, was written for a moral and religious 46

people; being wholly inadequate for people who 47

have no morals, no conscience and certainly no 48

principles or standards; who believe right and 49

wrong are situational, pliant to whatever their 50

agenda is. 51

52

THE STANDING ISSUE: 53

54

¶2 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS, I 55

FORTHWITH CHALLENGE ARIZONA'S CLAIM OF STANDING 56

IN THE CAUSE AGAINST ME. 57

*****"standing is a jurisdictional matter antecedent to 58

the right to relief." Farmer v. Kinder, 89 S.W. 3d 447, 59

451 (Mo. banc 2002) (citing State ex rel. Williams v. 60

Marsh, 626 S.W.2d 223, 227 n.6 (Mo. banc 1982) 61

***** (...standing is “threshold requirement of every 62

case” and may be raised at any time); see also Warth v. 63

Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 517-18, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 45 L. Ed. 2d 64

343 (1975) (“The rules of standing … are threshold 65

determinants of the propriety of judicial intervention.”). 66

*****standing is a "jurisdictional issue which may be 67

4

raised by any party or the Court at any time City of 68

Madison v. Bryan, 763 So. 2d 162, 166 (Miss. 2000) 69

(citing Williams v. Stevens, 390 So. 2d 1012, 1014 (Miss. 70

1980)).P23. 71

72

¶3 FURTHERMORE: THOUGH I RAISED THE MATTER, 73

THE PLAINTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING 74

THAT THEY HAVE STANDING. 75

*****THE PLANTIFF ULTIMATELY BEARS THE BURDEN 76

OF ESTABLISHING STANDING. SEE Fink v. Golenbock, 77

238 Conn. 183,199 n.13, 680 A.2d 1243 (1996) 78

*****THE PLANTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF 79

ESTABLISHING STANDING. SEE STORINO V. BOROUGH 80

OF POINT PLEASENT BEACH, 322 F. 293, 296 (3d Cir. 81

2003). 82

***** plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that he 83

or she has standing. Sierra Club, 100 Hawai'i at 250, 59 84

P.3d at 885. 85

86

¶4 AS YET; ARIZONA, HAS NOT FACTUALLY PROVEN 87

THEY HOLD STANDING? AS OUTLINED IN THE ADJACENT 88

RULINGS THEY WILL NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY 89

5

HAVE A LEGITIMATE "LEGAL" RIGHT, (TITLE OR 90

INTEREST...) NOT MIND YOU, A SUPPOSED, ASSUMED, 91

PRESUMED, CONJECTED OR HYPOTHETICAL RIGHT, BUT 92

RATHER ONE WHICH IS ESTABLISHED AS LEGAL. 93

*****Standing is the legal or equitable right, title, or 94

interest in the subject matter of the controversy which 95

entitles a party to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. 96

Crosby v. Luehrs, supra; Hradecky v. State, 264 Neb. 97

771, 652 N.W.2d 277 (2002). 98

*****‘‘Standing is the legal right to set judicial 99

machinery in motion. One cannot rightfully invoke the 100

jurisdiction of the court unless [one] has, in an individual 101

or representative capacity, some real interest in the 102

cause of action, or a legal or equitable right, title or 103

interest in the subject matter of the controversy.’’ 104

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tomlinson v. Board 105

of Education, 226 Conn. 704, 717, 629 A.2d 333 (1993). 106

107

*****The purpose of an inquiry as to standing is to 108

determine whether one has a legally protectable interest 109

or right in the controversy that would benefit by the 110

relief to be granted. Crosby v. Luehrs, supra; Hradecky v. 111

State, supra. 112

6

*****Id. The litigant must have some legal or equitable 113

right, title, or interest in the subject of the controversy. 114

See, Crosby v. Luehrs, supra; Chambers v. Lautenbaugh, 115

263 Neb. 920, 644 N.W.2d 540 (2002). 116

117

¶5 CAN A CLAIMANTS MERE ASSUMPTION OR 118

ASSERTION OF LEGAL STANDING SUFFICE IN SETTING THE 119

WHEELS OF JUSTICE ROLLING? IS THIS ADEQUATE? 120

ARIZONA IS LIKELY BANKING ON SUCH FAR FLUNG 121

FANCIFUL HOPES. YET THE LAW HAS MORE TO SAY ON THE 122

MATTER: 123

****”. . . A legislative enactment is conclusively 124

presumed to be constitutional unless it is clearly shown 125

that the act contravenes the state or federal 126

constitution." Caldis v. Board of County Comm'rs, Grand 127

Forks County, 279 N.W.2d 665, 669-72 (N.D. 1979). 128

****Constitutionally, "a statutory presumption cannot 129

be sustained if there be no rational connection between 130

the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed." Tot v 131

United States, 319 US 463, 467; 63 S. Ct. 1241, 1245, 87 132

L.Ed.2d 1519 (1943) 133

7

****"Substantive due process analysis requires a close 134

correspondence between legislation and the goals it 135

advances." Hoff v. Berg, 1999 ND 115, ¶ 14, 595 N.W.2d 136

285. A court "may declare a statute unconstitutional on 137

substantive due process grounds if 'the Legislature had 138

no power to act in the particular matter or, having power 139

to act, [ ] such power was exercised in an arbitrary, 140

unreasonable, or discriminatory manner and [ ] the 141

method adopted has no reasonable relation to attaining 142

the desired result.'" Id. (quoting City of Fargo v. 143

Stensland, 492 N.W.2d 591, 594 (N.D.1992). 144

****Laws that interfere with "fundamental rights" are 145

"suspect" and demand "close scrutiny" by courts. Laws 146

cannot simply be passed on whimsy, but there must be a 147

"compelling state interest." Any law that would "chill" 148

exercising a right is "patently unconstitutional." It is a 149

well established right of the people "to be free to travel 150

throughout the length and breadth of our land 151

uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which 152

unreasonably burden or restrain this movement." 153

Shapiro v Thompson, 394 US 618 (1969). 154

*****"Where activities or enjoyment, natural and often 155

necessary to the well being of an American citizen, such 156

as travel, are involved, we will construe narrowly all 157

8

delegated powers that curtail or dilute them... to repeat, 158

we deal here with a constitutional right of the citizen..." 159

Edwards v. California 314 US 160 (1941). 160

161

¶6 AS I CLEARLY POINTED OUT IN MY INITIAL 162

APPELLANT BRIEF, THERE IS NO CONFUSION, ARS 41-163

1722 THE AZ PHOTO ENFORCEMENT STATUTE COUPLED 164

WITH ITS ENFORCEMENT ARM A.R.S. 28-645 (A)(3)(a) 165

ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED IN A BLATANTLY AND OVERTLY 166

UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANNER BREACHING SECTION 13 167

ARTICLES 2,9,33, AS WELL AS,THE 9TH AMENDMENT OF 168

THE US CONSTITUTION. 169

170

¶7 I AM TRULY DISAPPOINTED THAT MY WITNESSES 171

AND I WHERE UNABLE TO HALT THIS ASSAULT ON THE 172

PEOPLES RIGHTS, IT GRIEVES ME TO STAND BY AN WATCH 173

AS ARIZONA'S CORRUPT GOVERNMENT IMPOSES UNFAIR 174

ILLEGAL AND UNDERHANDEDLY MANIPULATED PENALTIES 175

AGAINST TARGETED CLASSES OF CITIZENS, WHILE 176

OTHERS (LIKE CORPORATE FLEETS AND EVERY TYPE OF 177

9

GOVERNMENT VEHICLES), ARE BEING EXEMPTED FROM 178

THIS WHOLE SCALE TREASON WHICH CONTRAVENES BOTH 179

CONSTITUTION'S. 180

¶8 I AM ANXIOUS TO HEAR HOW THE STATE WILL 181

JUSTIFY FINING AN INDIVIDUAL LIKE MYSELF AS A 182

REMEDY TO A PERCEIVED WRONG, WHILE AT THE SAME 183

TIME, SIMPLY OVERLOOKING AND IGNORING THAT SAME 184

VIOLATION, TO RECTIFY IT FOR GOVERNMENT AND 185

CORPORATE DRIVERS, WHAT IS THE RATIONAL FOR 186

PUNISHING SOME AND DISREGARDING THE ACTIONS OF 187

OTHERS. 188

189

¶9 THIS WRONG DOING HAS HAD A POWERFULLY 190

CHILLING EFFECT ON ME, THE VICTIM OF THE CRIME. I 191

HAVE GIVEN UP ON DRIVING IN ARIZONA EVER AGAIN; 192

THIS WAS THE PLACE OF MY BIRTH AND MY FAMILIAL 193

HOME. I AM A TALENTED SCENIC PHOTOGRAPHER AN 194

WISH I COULD SHARE WITH YOU SOME OF MY PHOTOS, SO 195

YOU COULD FULLY UNDERSTAND THE MAGNITUDE OF 196

10

LOSS TO MYSELF AND THE WORLD, RESULTING FROM THIS 197

TRAVESTY. EXTORTION RUN AMOK IN ARIZONA HAS 198

STRIPPED ME OF MY LICENSE, THOUGH I HAVE BEEN AN 199

EXEMPLARY DRIVER AND HAVE ONLY THIS SINGLE 200

ALLEGED OFFENSE CHARGED AGAINST ME FOR WELL OVER 201

A DECADE. 202

203

¶10 IN ANY CASE, FOR THE STATE TO PROVE 204

STANDING TO MY SATISFACTION AND APPARENTLY TO 205

THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY EARLIER COURTS (I PREY WE 206

ALL REVERENCE), A WINK AND A NOD WILL NO LONGER 207

SUFFICE. IT IS TIME FOR CLOSE SCRUTINY AND THE 208

AFORE MENTIONED AND FOLLOWING CASE LAW SHOULD 209

DEFINE THE STANDARDS ARIZONA SHOULD NEED TO 210

MEET. 211

****"Insofar as a statute runs counter to the 212

fundamental law of the land ,...(or state)...(constitution) 213

it is superseded thereby." (16 Am Jur 2d 177, Late Am 214

Jur 2d. 256) 215

**** "When an act of the legislature is repugnant or 216

11

contrary to the constitution, it is, ipso facto, void." 2 Pet. 217

R. 522; 12 Wheat. 270; 3 Dall. 286; 4 Dall. 18. 218

219

****"It (the legislature or statutory laws) may not 220

violate constitutional prohibits or guarantees OR 221

AUTHORIZE OTHERS TO DO SO." Lockard v. Los Angeles 222

33 Cal2d 553; Cert den 337 US 939. 223

****"The State cannot diminish rights of the people." 224

Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 225

226

¶11 CAN THE JUDICIARY SIMPLY ALLOW ARIZONA TO 227

PROFESS THAT THERE ARE NO INFRINGEMENT'S AND 228

THEREBY MOVE AHEAD WITH MORE ILLEGAL 229

PROSECUTIONS IF THAT IS THEIR INTENTION? 230

****“The court is to protect against any encroachment 231

of Constitutionally secured liberties.”It is the duty of the 232

Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the 233

Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments 234

thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis." Boyd v. 235

United 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885) 236

****No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert 237

its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles 238

12

of the Constitution." Downs v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 244 239

(1901) 240

****"A rule cannot be simply (invented or) retained 241

when challenged. It must be shown valid, or be struck 242

down." Fox TV Station, Inc v FCC, Case No. 00-1222; _ 243

US App DC _; 280 F3d 1027, 1034; 2002. US App LEXIS 244

2575; 30 Media L Rep 1705 (19 Feb 2002). 245

****it’s not “legally” sufficient to just make allegations, 246

those allegations must be based on facts; those facts 247

must establish where, when, why and how the legal right 248

was allegedly acquired.. Rule 602 Federal Rules of 249

Evidence. 250

****Pacific Insurance Company v. Soule, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 251

433 433 (1868)...The (STATE) national government, 252

though supreme within its own sphere, is one of limited 253

jurisdiction and specific functions. It has no faculties but 254

such as the Constitution has given it, either expressly or 255

incidentally by necessary intendment. Whenever any act 256

done under its authority is challenged, the proper 257

sanction must be found in its charter, or the act is ultra 258

vires and void. 259

****"Constitutional 'rights' would be of little value if 260

they could be indirectly denied." Gomillion v. Lightfoot 261

364 U.S. 155 (1966) cited also in Smith v. Allwright, 321 262

13

U.S. 649.644 263

****Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243.“We are bound to 264

interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it 265

existed at the time it was adopted.” 266

267

¶12 TO PUT A FINER POINT ON IT, AND 268

ELEVATE THE BAR BACK TO WHERE OUR CREATOR 269

AND FORMER MEN OF HONOR AND REASON, 270

INTENDED IT TO BE SET, I FURTHER ADD THE 271

FOLLOWING DECISIONS FOR ARIZONA'S WOULD 272

BE CONSTITUTION CRUSHING LEGAL MINIONS TO 273

HURDLE: 274

****Unconstitutional Acts are not Law. We must 275

distinguish form and substance. Not just anything 276

passed by legislators that have the form of a law, is in 277

fact, a law. To be a law, an enactment must be 278

constitutional, i.e., within the actual de jure authority of 279

the Legislature. This is res judicata. “All laws which are 280

repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” 281

Marbury v Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176; 2 LE 282

14

60 (1803). 283

****“Where rights secured by the Constitution are 284

involved, there can be no rule making or legislation 285

which would abrogate them.” Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 286

436, 491; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966). 287

**** “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no 288

rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; 289

creates no office. It is in legal contemplation, as 290

inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton 291

v Shelby County, Tennessee, 118 US 425, 442; 6 S Ct 292

1121; 30 L Ed 178 (1886). 293

****When laws (such as invented maximum numeric limits) 294

lack rational basis, they are invalid, and must be 295

stricken. See Industrial Union Department v American 296

Petroleum Institute, 448 US 607; 100 S Ct 2844; 65 L Ed 297

2d 1010 (1980). 298

****No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law 299

and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnett v. Vallier, 300

116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908) See also Bonnett v 301

Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); 302

State ex rel Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 303

NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist v Donald, 164 304

Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex 305

rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 306

15

457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands v 307

Anderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); 308

and Butzlaffer v Van Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 309

2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983). 310

311

****"Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", 312

Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14(1954) 313

314

¶13 I NOT ONLY ASK THAT YOU DEMAND FULL 315

ADHERENCE TO THESE WELL ESTABLISHED PARAMETERS 316

OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IN THE DEMONSTRATION OF 317

STANDING, BUT THAT YOU ISSUE AN INJUNCTION 318

AGAINST FURTHER ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES ON THE PART OF 319

THE STATE, UNTIL THEY CAN SHOW THAT THEIR 320

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ARE NOT BEING UNDERTAKEN IN 321

A MANNER WHICH CONFLICTS WITH SECTION 13 322

ARTICLES 2, 9, 33, AS WELL AS, THE 9TH AMENDMENT. 323

324

¶14 AT PRESENT THERE IS A JUDGE AND A SHERIFF 325

IN THE STATE AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHERS 326

16

OF US TO WHOM THESE DEFIANTLY ILLEGAL 327

PROSECUTIONS ARE REPUGNANT AND DETESTABLE AND 328

WHO KNOW THAT JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT THIS BE 329

STOPPED. FURTHERMORE; EVENTUALLY, FULL 330

UNPROMPTED RESTORATION OF MY DRIVING PRIVILEGES 331

AND FAIR COMPENSATION FOR MY ATTORNEY'S 332

GRUELING TIRELESS HOURS WILL SOMEWHAT HELP TO 333

RECTIFYING THIS WRONG... 334

PRO SE RIGHTS 335

****PRO SE RIGHTS "Following the simple guide of rule 336

8(f) FRCP that all pleadings shall be so construed as to 337

do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the 338

approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one 339

misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and 340

accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to 341

facilitate a proper decision on the merits.". Conley v. 342

Gibson 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) 343

344

****Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, 345

however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we 346

hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings 347

17

drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner 404 U.S. 519 348

(1972) 349

****Pro se pleadings are to be considered without 350

regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not 351

to be held to the same high standards of perfection as 352

lawyers Jenkins v. McKeithen 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959) 353

Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket 354

v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 355

356

DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND JUDICIAL FRAUD: 357

358

¶15 ACCORDING TO SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE MILLER, 359

MY RIGHT TO HAVE MY 8 SUBPOENAS ISSUED WAS 360

DENIED ME BECAUSE... (JUDGEMENT PAGE 4)... N0 361

PRETRIAL DISCOVERY SHALL BE PERMITTED ABSENT 362

EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. 17 B A.R.S.TRAFFIC 363

VIOLATIONS CASES CIV. PROC. RULES 13(b). HIS 364

DETERMINATION WAS FLAWED IN TWO CRITICAL WAYS. 365

366

¶1 6 (1) THIS WAS THE SAME INTENTIONALLY 367

DECEPTIVE CLAIM THAT L.S.M. LEVITT MADE. THE 368

PROBLEM WITH THIS ASSERTION IS THAT BOTH OF THESE 369

18

INDIVIDUALS HAVE ENGAGED IN DUPLICITOUS FRAUD 370

ENDEAVORING TO SWEEP MY WITNESSES UNDER THE RUG 371

OF DISCOVERY. THESE PEOPLE ARE PAID TO KNOW AND 372

UPHOLD THE LAWS AND BOTH KNEW FULL WELL, THAT 373

ONLY TWO VERY SHORT PARAGRAPHS DOWN THE PAGE, 374

THE RULES CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY STATE “BOTH 375

PARTIES MAY SUBPOENA WITTINESS". 376

377

¶17 MY SUBPOENAS FOR SHERIFF PAUL BABEU OF 378

PINAL COUNTY, AND JUDGE JOHN KEEGAN OF 379

ARROWHEAD JUSTICE COURT, WERE EXCLUSIVELY FOR 380

PERSONS ONLY NO DOCUMENTS... AND NO RATIONAL OR 381

EXPLANATION WAS PROFFERED TO ME REGARDING THESE 382

STAND ALONE PARTIES. THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY DONE 383

BECAUSE TO FOCUS ON THIS ISSUE WOULD HAVE 384

HIGHLIGHTED IT, AS AN ISSUE OF IMPORTANCE, THIS 385

WAS AND IS AN INTENTIONAL PREMEDITATED ACT OF 386

DECEIT. JURISTS ALWAYS HAVE a "Higher Duty" to know 387

the Constitution and law, and to convey the truth of the 388

19

law to citizens. ONCE WAS PERHAPS AN ERROR (LEVITT), 389

TWICE OUT OF TWO IS A PATTERN (MILLER). 390

391

******Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 392

(1988) 45 Cal. 3d 518, 533. "Before.....imposing a fine, 393

judges are required to provide due process of law, 394

including strict adherence to the procedural 395

requirements contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. 396

Ignorance of these procedures is not a mitigating 397

but an aggravating factor”. Duncan v. Missouri, 152 398

U.S. 377, 382 (1894) 399

400

*****Fraud. An intentional perversion of truth for the 401

purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part 402

with some valuable thing belonging to him or to 403

surrender a legal right. A false representation of a 404

matter of fact… which deceives and is intended to 405

deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal 406

injury. … It consists of some deceitful practice or willful 407

device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his 408

right, or in some manner to do him injury… (Emphasis 409

added) –Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, page 594 410

411

*****Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 412

480(1983).Fraud and deceit may arise from silence 413

20

where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from 414

speaking an untruth. 415

416

****** "Fraud in its elementary common law sense of 417

deceit - and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears 418

in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 419

168 (7th Cir. 1985) - includes the deliberate 420

concealment of material information in a setting 421

of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary 422

toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the 423

litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately 424

conceals material information from them he is guilty of 425

fraud....” McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S 350, 371-372 426

427

*****Fraud, Deceit, deception, artifice, or trickery 428

operating prejudicially on the rights of another, and so 429

intended, by inducing him to part with property or 430

surrender some legal right. 23 Am J2d Fraud § 2. 431

Anything calculated to deceive another to his prejudice 432

and accomplishing the purpose, whether it be an act, a 433

word, silence, the suppression of the truth, or other 434

device contrary to the plain rules of common honesty. 23 435

Am J2d Fraud § 2. 436

437

21

*****"Silence can only be equated with fraud where 438

there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an 439

inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally 440

misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking 441

behavior... This sort of deception will not be tolerated 442

and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately." 443

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. 444

Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 445

932. 446

*****“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th 447

Circuit Court of Appeals to embrace that species of fraud 448

which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a 449

fraud perpetrated by the officers of the court so that the 450

judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner 451

of its impartial task of adjudicating cases that are 452

presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F. 3d. 453

689 (1968) j 7 Moore’s Federal practice, 2d ed., p. 512 ¶ 454

60.23 The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced 455

by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at 456

all, and never becomes final.” 457

458

*****"The parties are entitled to know the findings and 459

conclusions on all of the issues of fact, law, or discretion 460

presented on the record." citing Butz v. Economou 438 461

22

U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 2894, 57 L. Ed. 2d 895, (1978). 462

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION v. SOUTH CAROLINA 463

STATE PORTS AUTHORITY et al. certiorari to the United 464

States court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 01-46. 465

2.535 U.S. 743, 122 S. Ct. 1864, 152 L. Ed. 2d 962, 466

(2002). Argued February 25, 2002--Decided May 28, 467

2002. See also FRCPA Rule 52(a) and United States v. 468

Lovasco 431 U.S. 783 (06/09/77), 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. 469

Ed. 2d 752, and Holt v. United States 218 U.S. 245 470

(10/31/10), 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 471

472

*****A more alarming doctrine could not be 473

promulgated by any American court, than that it was at 474

liberty to disregard all former rules and decisions, and to 475

decide for itself, without reference to the settled course 476

of antecedent principles.” Faye Anastasoff vs. United 477

States of America, 8th 41 Circuit Court, 2000. 478

479

*****No officer of the law may set that law at defiance 480

with impunity. All the officers of the government from 481

the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and 482

are bound to obey it." Butz v. Economou 98 S. Ct. 2894 483

(1978) 484

*****“Where the rights of individuals are affected, it is 485

23

incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures. 486

This is so even where the internal procedures are 487

possibly more rigorous than otherwise would be 488

required. MORTON v. RUIZ, 415 U.S. 199, 380 (1974) 489

490

*****Due process is violated if a practice or rule offends 491

some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and 492

conscience of our people as to be ranked as 493

fundamental." Snyder v Massachusetts, 291 US 97, 105. 494

495

*****"Aside from all else, 'due process' means 496

fundamental fairness and substantial justice. Vaughn v. 497

State, 3 Tenn.Crim.App. 54, 456 S.W.2d 879, 883." 498

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, page 500. 499

500

******Due Process is that which comports with the 501

deepest notions of what is fair and right and just." 502

Solebee v. Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9, 16 (1950) (Justice 503

Frandfurter dissenting.) 504

505

*****"the right to... [trial by jury, to the writ of habeas 506

corpus, and to]... due process of law. It has been 507

repeatedly decided that these amendments should 508

receive a liberal construction, so as to prevent stealthy 509

encroachment upon or 'gradual depreciation' of the 510

24

rights secured by them, by imperceptible practice of 511

courts ...". GOULED v. UNITED STATES. United States 512

Supreme Court February 28, 1921 65 L.Ed. 647; 41 S.Ct. 513

261; 255 U.S. 298 514

515

*****18 USC §241 makes it a crime to conspire to 516

oppress a constitutional right 517

518

¶18 THESE CITATIONS MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR 519

COURT ROOM FRAUD IS ALL TOO COMMON AND IS 520

ABHORRENT TO OUR WAY OF LIFE, AS WELL, IT 521

WARRANTS IMMEDIATE EFFORTS TOWARDS IT’S 522

RECTIFICATION. TO THE PUBLIC AND I, THERE IS NO 523

MISTAKING THAT THIS CALCULATED MANEUVERING TO 524

DENY MY WITNESSES WAS DONE, NOT ONLY TO ROB US 525

OF OUR MONEY, BUT ALSO OF OUR RIGHTS, LIBERTY AND 526

OF JUSTICE AS WELL, BY FORESTALLING THE 527

ADJUDICATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO 528

THE STATE RUN RACKETEERING RING. 529

530

¶19 WHILE YOU MAY CHOOSE TO PROVIDE LEGAL 531

25

COVER FOR THESE TRESPASSER /TRAITOR’S, BY 532

CLAIMING THAT THEY WERE SIMPLY MISTAKEN, 533

INCOMPETENT OR INEPT, AND I WOULD CERTAINLY 534

AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT, THE RECORD STILL POINTS 535

TO MUCH MORE SINISTER MOTIVATIONS. 536

537

¶20 EXAMINE THE COURT RECORDS OF THESE 538

JUDGES, YOU WILL SEE THAT THEY BOTH HAVE INFACT; 539

REPEATEDLY ALLOWED WITNESSES IN THE PAST. AND 540

THAT THIS WAS NOT A MEMORY LAPS, THEY WERE WELL 541

AWARE OF THE LINE THEY CROSSED. THIS WAS AN 542

INTENTIONAL EFFORT, ONE ENGAGE IN WITH MALICE OF 543

FOR THOUGHT, TO DENY ME DUE PROCESS AND OBSTRUCT 544

JUSTICE AND THIS IS A FEDERAL CRIME WHICH YOU NEED 545

TO ADDRESS. (Any judge or attorney who does not report 546

a judge for treason as required by law may themselves be 547

guilty of misprision of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 548

2382.Under Federal law) THESE FELONS NEED TO BE 549

DISBARRED AND JAILED AND IT HAS FALLEN UPON YOUR 550

26

SHOULDERS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE EFFORTS TO BRING 551

THESE CULPRITS TO JUSTICE. 552

553

¶21 BY THIS MEASURE ALONE, THE "JUDGMENT" 554

WHICH STRIPPED ME OF MY DRIVING PRIVILEGES AND 555

MORE THEN A THOUSAND DOLLARS, IS AND ALWAYS HAS 556

BEEN VOID, IT IS INVALID AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN. 557

558

***** "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his 559

judicial function. ... it is not a judicial function for a judge 560

to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs 561

in the courthouse."".....When a judge acts as a 562

trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the 563

law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the 564

judges' orders are void, of no legal force or effect. When 565

judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or 566

they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge 567

without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the 568

law, and are engaged in treason The Court in Yates v. 569

Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 570

(N.D. Ill. 1962) 571

572

573

27

EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE'S 574

¶22 (2) FURTHERMORE: JUDGE MILLER ASSERTED 575

THAT NO "EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE'S" EXISTED 576

IN THIS MATTER, YET HE AFFORDED NO SUBSTANTIVE 577

ACCOUNT AS TO HOW HE ARRIVED AT THAT 578

DETERMINATION. IN MY RESEARCH, I FOUND NO 579

DEFINITIVE EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT CONDITIONS 580

COMPRISES A BASELINE STANDARD. HOWEVER: I DID TAP 581

INTO A COMMON THREAD SIGHTED AS A KEY COMPONENT 582

CONSISTENTLY. 583

¶23 {a}SUCH AS WHEN..."According to the FCC, an 584

STA can be granted in cases of extraordinary 585

circumstances where denying the grant would seriously 586

prejudice the public interest." I TAKE THIS TO MEAN, THE 587

FCC CAN BREACH IT'S OWN STANDARD PROTOCOLS, WHEN 588

IT SERVES THE GREATER PUBLIC INTERESTS. 589

¶24 {b}AND; IN "a judicial nomination 590

(a)"circumstance” is "extraordinary" when the result of 591

28

that nomination could have an "extraordinary" impact 592

upon the future of the country." I TAKE THIS TO MEAN, AN 593

EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE EXIST, IF IN A GIVEN 594

SITUATION, THE OUTCOME COULD HAVE AN LASTING 595

ADVERSE EFFECT UPON A LARGE SEGMENT OF OR THE 596

ENTIRE POPULACE. 597

598

¶25 USEING THIS AS A GAGE, IT'S CLEAR TO SEE WHY 599

ARIZONA FELT IT NEEDED TO CURTAIL MY WITNESSES 600

FROM PUBLICLY DISMANTLING THE ALLEGED 601

CONSTITUTIONALITY AND LAWFUL STATUS OF IT'S 602

EXTORTION PRACTICES. INDEED IT BECAME NECESSARY 603

BECAUSE THE STATE RECOGNIZED THAT THE 604

"CIRCUMSTANCES" INVOLVED WERE NOT ONLY 605

"EXTRAORDINARY", BUT IN FACT, "EXTRAORDINARILY 606

EGREGIOUS". EVENTUALLY THEY WILL BE ON THE HOOK 607

FOR RETURNING TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS STOLEN 608

FROM TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT LAW ABIDING 609

CITIZENS UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW. 610

29

¶26 FOR ANYONE TO CLAIM THAT THIS SITUATION IS 611

ANYTHING LESS THEN AN EXTINCTION LEVEL EVENT FOR 612

THIS GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE IS DELUSIONAL 613

...THERE HAS BEEN NO MORE SIGNIFICANT ASSAULT ON 614

THE FREEDOMS OF ARIZONANS AND THEIR 615

CONSTITUTION SINCE MIRANDA. MILLERS LUDICROUS 616

CLAIM IS AN ABSURD ATTEMPT AT OBFUSCATION AT BEST, 617

AND DUPLICITY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AT 618

WORST. AS ADDRESSED IN THE TRAILING COURT 619

DECISION, JUDGE MILLER SHOULD HAVE WENT ON 620

RECORD, CLEARLY EXPLAINING HIS RATIONAL. INDEED 621

WHAT QUALIFYS IN HIS EYES AS EXTRAORDINARY 622

CIRCUMSTANCES... I FOR ONE CAN'T WAIT TO HEAR. 623

*****"The parties are entitled to know the findings and 624

conclusions on all of the issues of fact, law, or discretion 625

presented on the record." citing Butz v. Economou 438 626

U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 2894, 57 L. Ed. 2d 895, (1978). 627

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION v. SOUTH CAROLINA 628

STATE PORTS AUTHORITY et al. certiorari to the united 629

states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 01-46. 630

30

2.535 U.S. 743, 122 S. Ct. 1864, 152 L. Ed. 2d 962, 631

(2002). Argued February 25, 2002--Decided May 28, 632

2002. See also FRCPA Rule 52(a) and United States v. 633

Lovasco 431 U.S. 783 (06/09/77), 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. 634

Ed. 2d 752, and Holt v. United States 218 U.S. 245 635

(10/31/10), 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 636

637

"It is not the function of our government to keep the 638

citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the 639

citizen to keep the government from falling into error." 640

Perry v. United States 204 U.S. 330, 358 641

642

DUE PROCESS DENIED AND VOID JUDGEMENTS: 643

*****I answer it is better to invade the judicial power of 644

the States than permit it to invade, strike down, and 645

destroy the civil rights of citizens, A judicial power 646

perverted to such uses should be speedily invaded. ... 647

And if an officer shall intentionally deprive a citizen of a 648

right, knowing him to be entitled to it, then he is guilty of 649

a willful wrong which deserves punishment.” “ 650

Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st sess. 1680 (1866) 651

(presidential veto message to Congress). at 1837 652

653

****"the evils of allowing intentional, knowing 654

31

deprivations of civil rights to go unredressed far out 655

weighed the speculative inhibiting effects which might 656

attend an inquiry into a judicial deprivation of civil 657

rights." at 567 SANTIAGO V. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, 658

435 F.Supp. 136 659

660

¶27 AS STATED IN THE PREVIOUS ARGUMENT 661

ADDRESSING DUE PROCESS AND FRAUD, WITHOUT 662

ADEQUATE EXPLANATION OR CAUSE, MY SUBPOENAS FOR 663

WITNESSES WERE DENIED ME IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF 664

THE CITY'S LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE AS WELL AS... 665

666

******The sixth amendment and the due process clause 667

of the federal constitution guarantee to a defendant the 668

right to subpoena a witness...." State, v. Montgomery, 669

A61 So.2d 387, 392, (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985). The "defendant 670

has a constitutional right to compulsory process of 671

witnesses to produce testimony which is admissible in 672

the cause for which he is on trial." Krantz v. State, 405 673

So.2d 211,212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). 674

675

******This constitutional protection exists "because of 676

the fundamental unfairness which results from placing a 677

man on trial on a criminal charge and denying him the 678

32

means to compel the attendance of witnesses, within the 679

jurisdiction of the court, who are in possession of 680

material facts which show or tend to show his innocence 681

of the charge." Trafficante v. State, 92 So.2d 811, 682

815(Fla. 1957). 683

684

******The "trial court has no more authority to refuse 685

to enforce for a defendant's benefit the production of the 686

evidence available to be procured and for which 687

compulsory process has been issued than to deny the 688

process itself in the first instance." Sims v. State, 867 689

So.2d 1208, 1210 (Fla. 3dDCA 2004). 25. The right of the 690

Defendant to cross-examine witnesses and his right to 691

present evidence in opposition to or in explanation of 692

adverse evidence are essential to a fair hearing and due 693

process of law. Alexander v.State, 288 So.2d 538, 539, 694

(Fla. 3rd DCA 1974) 695

696

******"The facts and the law do matter and judicial 697

action by judges or the like must be in accords with 698

those presented to the court. This is to assure due 699

process of law and equal protection of the law..." E. g., 700

ICC v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93 -94 (1913); 701

Willner v. Committee on Character & Fitness, 373 U.S. 702

96, 103 -104 (1963).” Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S.254 703

33

(1970). 704

705

******"clear violations of laws on reaching the result, 706

such as acting without evidence when evidence is 707

required,...are just as much jurisdictional error as is the 708

failure to take proper steps to acquire jurisdiction at the 709

beginning of the proceeding". Borgnis v. Falk Co., 133 710

N.W. 209. 711

712

*****“The record must show that the statute was 713

complied with” In re Marriage of Stefini, 253 Ill. App. 3d 714

196, 625 N.E.2d 358 (1st Dist. 1993). 715

******Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 716

(1988) 45 Cal. 3d 518, 533. "Before.....imposing a fine, 717

judges are required to provide due process of law, 718

including strict adherence to the procedural 719

requirements contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. 720

Ignorance of these procedures is not a mitigating but an 721

aggravating factor”. Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 722

382 (1894). 723

724

******“In a court of limited jurisdiction, the court must 725

proceed exactly according to the law or statute under 726

which it operates.” Whenever a judge does not exactly 727

comply with the statute, he/she has lost subject-matter 728

jurisdiction and all orders or judgments issued without 729

34

subject-matter jurisdiction are void, of no legal force or 730

effect. Flake v Pretzel, 381 Ill. 498, 46 N.E.2d 375 (1943) 731

732

******"Where a court's power to act is controlled by 733

statute, the court is governed by the rules of limited 734

jurisdiction, and courts exercising jurisdiction over such 735

matters must proceed within the strictures of the 736

statute."; In re Marriage of Milliken, 199 Ill.App.3d 813, 737

557 N.E.2d 591 (1st Dist. 1990). ALSO : Johnson v. Theis, 738

282 Ill.App.3d 966, 669 N.E.2d 590 (2nd Dist. 1996). 739

740

******[T]he authority of the court to make any order 741

must be found in the statute.” Levy v. Industrial Comm'n 742

(1931), 346 Ill. 49, 51, 178 N.E. 370, 371."); Skilling v. 743

Skilling, 104 Ill.App.3d 213, 482 N.E.2d 881 (1st Dist. 744

1982) 745

746

*****The Judge, by ignoring guidelines as set by law, 747

did lose jurisdiction in the matter. His acts then became 748

ultra vires or outside of the powers of his jurisdiction. 749

"Jurisdiction, although once obtained, may be lost, and 750

in such case proceedings cannot be validly continued 751

beyond the point at which jurisdiction ceases". Federal 752

Trade Commission V. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643, 75 L.Ed. 753

1324, 51 S.Ct. 587. 754

35

¶28 ALL THESE FINDINGS SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT 755

THE TASK OF JUDGING ENTAILS APPLYING ESTABLISHED 756

LAW, NOT SIDE STEPPING OR CONTORTING IT TO THEIR 757

OWN ENDS, THERE IS NO LATITUDE OR DISCRETION FOR 758

THAT, THIS SHOULD BE THEIR PRIMARY DUTY, AND THEY 759

HAVE EACH TAKEN A SOLEMN VOW TO FULFILL THIS 760

RESPONSIBILITY, SO I ASK YOU. 761

¶29 DID LEVITT AND MILLER KNOW THAT THEY WERE 762

TRAMPLING ON THE CONSTITUTION WHEN THEY 763

FORSTALLED MY WITNESSES AND DUE PROCESS? SHOULD 764

I REALLY CONCLUDE THAT THEIR INTENTIONS IN 765

TREADING ON MY RIGHTS WERE A WELL MEANING, 766

HONEST AND ABOVE BOARD EFFORTS TO RENDER 767

JUSTICE? PERSONALLY I'M NOT THAT NAIVE AND I DOUBT 768

YOU ARE EITHER. 769

¶30 FROM THE RECORD, WHY SHOULD WE NOT 770

BELIEVE, JUDGE MILLER EXAMINED THE SUBPOENAS FOR 771

WITNESSES, SIMPLY DISREGARDED THE ISSUE AND 772

MOVED AHEAD ANYWAY WHITEWASHING THE CASE, AS 773

36

THOUGH STANDING HAD NOT BEEN COMPROMISED? OR 774

SHOULD WE GIVE ALLOWANCES INSTEAD, IN THE 775

DIRECTION OF ASSUMING HIS JUDGELY SKILL SETS 776

AREN’T QUITE UP TO SNUFF, AND THAT THIS WAS ONLY 777

AN OVERSIGHT. IN EITHER CASE, THESE JUSTICES HAVE 778

CONVERTED THE COURTS INTO A RACKETEERING 779

COLLECTION AGENCY AND THE CONSTITUTION BE DAMD. 780

781

******The judge has a duty to continually inspect the 782

record of the case, and if subject-matter jurisdiction 783

does not appear at any time from the record of the case, 784

then he has the duty to dismiss the case as lacking 785

subject-matter jurisdiction. Should a judge act in any 786

case in which he does not have subject-matter 787

jurisdiction, he is acting unlawfully, U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 788

200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens 789

v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821), 790

and without any judicial authority 791

792

******“inspection of the record of the case has been 793

ruled to be the controlling factor. If the record of the 794

case does not support subject-matter jurisdiction, then 795

the judge has acted without subject-matter jurisdiction.” 796

37

The People v Brewer, 328 Ill. 472, 483 (1928) 797

798

*****"If the record does not show upon its face the 799

facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be 800

presumed not to have existed.” Norman v. Zieber, 3 Or at 801

202-03 802

803

*****Void judgment; when the local rules of the special 804

court are not complied with. Where the judge does not 805

act impartially, Bracey v. Warden, U.S. Supreme Court 806

No. 96-6133(June 9, 1997) 807

808

****"The doctrine that where a court has once acquired 809

jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which 810

arises in the cause, and its judgment or decree, however 811

erroneous, cannot be collaterally assailed, is only correct 812

when the court proceeds according to the established 813

modes governing the class to which the case belongs and 814

does not transcend in the extent and character of its 815

judgment or decree the law or statute which is 816

applicable to it." In Interest of M.V., 288 Ill.App.3d 300, 817

681 N.E.2d 532 (1st Dist. 1997) 818

819

****Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot 820

go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act 821

beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of 822

38

it, their judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. 823

They are not voidable, but simply void, and this even 824

prior to reversal." Old Wayne Mut. I. Assoc. v 825

McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Williamson 826

v Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L.Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850); 827

Rose v Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.Ed. 608, 617 828

(1808). Also see Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340;” 829

Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 830

41 S.Ct. 116 (1920). 831

832

****Violation of due process, Whenever any judge 833

engages in any act which is in violation of the Supreme 834

Law of the Land, the judge has lost jurisdiction. Johnson 835

v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019(1938) ;Pure Oil Co. 836

v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill.2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 837

(1956);Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936), (If 838

the court exceeded it's statutory authority. Rosenstiel v. 839

Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) 840

841

***** Where a court, after acquiring jurisdiction of a 842

subject matter, as here, transcends the limits of the 843

jurisdiction conferred, its judgment is void." Armstrong v 844

Obucino, 300 Ill. 140, 143, 133 N.E. 58 (1921). 845

846

***** "Scheuer v.Rhodes, 416US. 232,94 S.CL 847

39

1683,1687 (1974). By law, a judge is a state officer. The 848

judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual 849

(in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the 850

law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge 851

loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges orders 852

are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or 853

effect. 854

855

***** "not every action by a judge is in exercise of his 856

judicial function....it is not a judicial function for a judge 857

to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs 858

in the courthouse."".....When a judge acts as a 859

trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the 860

law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the 861

judges' orders are void, of no legal force or effect. When 862

judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or 863

they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge 864

without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the 865

law, and are engaged in treason The Court in Yates v. 866

Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 867

(N.D. Ill. 1962) 868

869

*****The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "Since such 870

jurisdictional defect deprives not only the initial court 871

but also the appellate court of its power over the case or 872

40

controversy, to permit the appellate court to ignore it ... 873

[would be an] unlawful action by the appellate court 874

itself." Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991); 875

Miller, supra. 876

877

¶31 INTENTIONAL OR NOT, IT SHOULD BE VIVIDLY 878

CLEAR ARIZONA JUDGES ROUTINELY OPERATE OUT OF 879

BOUNDS, OR AS IF THERE ARE NO BOUNDRYS AT ALL. 880

THEIR ACTIONS AND THE RECORD SHOW CONTEMPT FOR 881

THE LAW AND PROOVE THAT SUBJECT MATTER 882

JURISDICTION WAS LOST IN THE VERY FIRST RULING 883

AND MINUTES OF THAT SHAM KANGAROO TRIAL, I WAS 884

SUBJECTED TO. 885

¶32 FOR THESE JURISTS THERE IS NO COVER, NO 886

LEGAL REFUGE, MY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED 887

AND CONSEQUENTLY THEIR VOID DECISION HOLDS NO 888

POWER, IT IS AND ALWAYS WAS INVALID, ALL THAT 889

REMAINS IS FOR YOUR HONORS TO DO, IS ACKNOWLEGE 890

THIS NULLTY AND FOR THE STATE TO PREPARE ITSELF 891

FOR A HANDS DOWN CIVIL RIGHTS PUMMELING. 892

41

******Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1574: 893

Void judgment. One which has no legal force or effect, 894

invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose 895

rights are affected at any time and at any place directly 896

or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., 897

Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. One which from its 898

inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, 899

without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or 900

support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, 901

and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or 902

enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Judgment 903

is a "void judgment" if court that rendered judgment 904

lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the 905

parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due 906

process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901. 907

908

******"A void judgment is one rendered by a court 909

which....acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, 910

In re. Estate of Wells, 983 P.2d 279, (Kan.App. 1999).In 911

re. Eckel v. MacNeal, 628 N.E.2d 741 (Ill. App.Dist. 912

1993). In re. U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14 Matter of 913

Marriage of Hampshire, 869 P.2d 58 ( Kan. 1997). In re. 914

Edwards, 962 F.2d 641, 644 (7th Cir. 1992) (citation 915

omitted).” Antoine, et al. v. Atlas Turner, et al. (6th Cir., 916

1995). In re. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend 5- Triad Energy 917

42

Corp. v. McNeil, 110 FRD 382 (S.D.N.Y.) 1986 918

919

*****Void judgment under federal law is one in which 920

rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over 921

dispute or jurisdiction over parties or acted in manner 922

inconsistent with due process of law or otherwise acted 923

unconstitutionally in entering judgment, U.S.C.A. Const. 924

Amend. 5, Hays v. Louisiana Dock Co., 452 N.E.2d 1383 925

(Ill App. 5 Dist. 1983). 926

927

******Judgments entered where court lacked either 928

subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were 929

otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, 930

must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, 931

S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D. 278 932

933

******When rule providing for relief from void 934

judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary 935

matter, but is mandatory, Orner v. Shalala, 30 936

F.3d 1307, ( Colo. 1994). 937

******"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of 938

jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215. 939

940

****"Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", 941

Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14(1954), 942

43

******Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 943

2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of this title, the court, 944

in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other 945

than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as 946

part of the costs, except that in any action brought 947

against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in 948

such officer's judicial capacity such officer shall not be 949

held liable for any costs, including attorney's fees, 950

unless such action was clearly in excess of 951

such officer's jurisdiction. 952

953

Pro se 954

******The courts provide pro se parties wide latitude 955

when construing their pleadings and papers. When 956

interpreting pro se papers, the Court should use common 957

sense to determine what relief the party desires. S.E.C, v. 958

Elliott, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992). See also, 959

United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (3rd Cir. 1999) 960

(Court has special obligation to construe pro se litigants' 961

pleadings liberally); Poling v. K.Hovnanian Enterprises, 962

99 F.Supp.2d 502, 506-07 (D.N.J. 2000). 963

964

******Pro se litigants' court submissions are to be 965

construed liberally and held to less stringent standards 966

44

than submissions of lawyers. If the court can reasonably 967

read the submissions, it should do so despite failure to 968

cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, 969

poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant's 970

unfamiliarity with rule requirements. Boag v. 971

MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 972

(1982); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 973

50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 974

U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)); Haines 975

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 976

(1972); McDowell v. Delaware State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 977

189 (3rd Cir. 1996); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 978

42 (3rd Cir. 1992)(holding pro se petition cannot be held 979

to same standard as pleadings drafted by attorneys); 980

Then v. I.N.S., 58 F.Supp.2d 422, 429 (D.N.J. 1999). 981

982

******Moreover, "the court is under a duty to 983

examine the complaint to determine if the 984

allegations provide for relief on any possible 985

theory." Bonner v. Circuit Court of St. Louis. 526 986

R2dl33h 1334 (8th Cir. 1975) (quoting Bramlet v. 987

Wilson. 495 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1974) 988

989

******Defendant has the right to submit pro se briefs 990

45

on appeal, even though they may be in artfully drawn but 991

the court can reasonably read and understand them. See, 992

Vega v. Johnson, 149 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1998). Courts 993

will go to particular pains to protect pro se litigants 994

against consequences of technical errors if injustice 995

would otherwise result. U.S. v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243 996

(D.C.Cir. 1996). 997

998

SEC 33 AND 9TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS 999

1000

¶33 JUDGE MILLERS BLATANT DISREGARD OF MY SEC 1001

33 AND 9TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS VIOLATIONS CLAIMS 1002

WERE INTELLECTUALLY DISINGENUOUS. INDEED, FOR 1003

HIM TO IGNORE SUCH AN ASSERTION, BASED SOLELY ON 1004

THE FACT THAT, I PROVIDED NO EARLIER SPECIFIC CASE 1005

LAW, IS AN EXERCISE IN TREASON. HE IS ENDEAVORING 1006

TO REWRITE THE CONSTITUTIONS BY SUGGESTING THAT 1007

ONLY RIGHTS PREVIOUSLY ASSERTED OR ESTABLISHED 1008

BY COURTS CAN BE UPHELD. WHEN THE VERY NATURE OF 1009

THESE RIGHTS ASSURANCES (9 AND 33), IS THAT THEY 1010

ARE, INFACT AS YET UNDELINEATED, OTHERWISE; THE 1011

46

DRAFTERS WOULD HAVE INTENTIONALLY LAID OUT 1012

EXACTLY WHAT THE ENTAILED RIGHT PROTECTIONS 1013

CONSISTED OF. 1014

1015

¶34 IT IS INCONTESTABLE THAT CITIZENS POSSES 1016

YET UNASCRIBED RIGHTS, WHICH OUR COURTS THUS FAR, 1017

HAVE NOT EVOLVED ENOUGH TO IDENTIFY AND 1018

CATEGORIZE AS PROTECTED. THESE ETHEREAL RIGHTS 1019

CAN AN WILL NOT COME TO LIGHT, UNTIL INDIVIDUALS 1020

THEMSELVES, PERSONALLY ADVANCE ENOUGH TO 1021

RECOGNIZE AND VOICE THEM. THIS MIGHT OCCUR AT ANY 1022

GIVEN TIME (PERHAPS CENTURIES DOWN THE LINE) 1023

NEVERTHELESS; EVENTUALLY, THE JUDICIARY WILL BE 1024

RELIED UPON TO RECOGNIZE AN UPHOLDABLE THESE 1025

FORMERLY UNDIVULGED RIGHTS (OR GET OUT OF THE 1026

WAY FOR IT WOULD BE GODS WILL THEY WOULD BE 1027

HINDERING). THESE LAWS EXIST SEPARATE AND APART 1028

FROM ESTABLISHED AND ACKNOWLEDGED LAW, UNTIL 1029

TRIGGERED IN THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF MEN AT THE 1030

47

BEHEST OF OUR CREATOR, WHEN WE HAVE BECOME 1031

HONORABLE ENOUGH TO BARE THEM (I.E., WHY ELSE ADD 1032

AMENDMENTS AGAIN AND AGAIN OVER TIME). 1033

1034

¶35 WHEN I DECLARED (IN MY BRIEF) MY GOD GIVEN 1035

RIGHT...NOT TO ALLOW THOSE PROFESSING TO GOVERN 1036

TO CHEAT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE BY ENGAGING IN FRAUD, 1037

AND RACKETEERING, THAT WAS A VASTLY MORE 1038

LEGITIMATE ASSERTION, THEN THE GOOD JUDGES 1039

SUGGESTION THAT WITHOUT SIGHTING SPECIFIC 1040

PREVIOUS PRECEDENCE, I HADN'T POSTULATED A VALID 1041

REDRESSABLE ISSUE. FOLLOWING HIS LOGIC, THAT 1042

WOULD MEAN IN THE VERY FIRST 9TH OR 33RD TYPE 1043

VIOLATION CASES EVER BROUGHT (AND ALL THOSE TO 1044

FOLLOW), THAT THE PLAINTIFFS CAUSE WOULD LACKED 1045

ACTIONABLE MERIT, BECAUSE THEIR WAS NO 1046

PREEXISTING CASE LAW TO SUPPORT HIS VIEW...THIS IS 1047

A CLEARLY FLAWED AND ABSURD ON ITS FACE, AN MORE 1048

LIKELY A CULPABLE LEGAL RATIONAL, WHICH NEEDS TO 1049

48

BE SWIFTLY STRUCK DOWN FOR THE TREASONIOUS 1050

OBSTRUCTIONIST BENCHISLATION NONSENSE THAT IT IS. 1051

1052

1053

1054

1055

1056

1057

1058

1059

1060

1061

1062

1063

1064

1065

1066

49

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 1067

AND SERVICE 1068

1069

PURSUANT TO ARCAP 14(B), 1070

I, STEPHEN KANDIK, CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED 1071

BREIF (ACCORDING TO MICROSOFT WORD) CONTAINS 1072

7,722 WORDS. AND THAT TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITIES 1073

COMPORTS TO ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS LAID OUT 1074

FOR E-FILLING. 1075

1076

1/28/2010 STEPHEN KANDIK 1077

210 S. SHERWOOD VILLAGE DR. 1078

TUCSON AZ 85710 1079

(520) 245-0527 1080

1081

2 COPIES OF THE FORGOING BRIEF 1082

WERE MAILED ON 1/28/2010 TO: 1083

1084

WILLIAM F. MILLS 1085

SUPERVISING PROSECUTOR 1086

P.O. BOX 27210 1087

TUCSON, AZ 85710-7210 1088

1089

RE: 2 CA-CV 2009-0180/ CT-20090056 1090

1091