IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Charles William Adams Case Number: 1:04-MC-10193
Unrepresented Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED STATEMENT OF FACT
and MOTION FOR VOID JUDGMENT
NOW COMES THE PLAINTIFF, a Natural Man, the Sovereign Creator of his servant government, a creation of Our Creator, Sui Juris, who under threat, duress and coercion, petitioned and invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for the constrained purpose of this case 04-MC-10193 pursuant to his First Amendment right to redress and never knowingly or unknowingly waiving any his rights herein presents the following Verified Statement Of Fact and Motion For Void Judgment, concerning Judge Rya Zobel’s “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION” of November 2, 2004 and presented to the Plaintiff and Defendant for the first time on January 11, 2005.
Notice To Judge Rya Zobel
The purpose of this notice is to establish the facts at issue in a controversy that has arisen between us due to the fact that you practiced law from the bench and issued a “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION” inventing arguments in favor of the defendant which were never presented by the defendant (the government) without proper authority to do so and discarding any appearance of impartiality. Therefore the Plaintiff, having no due process in this court in which the defendant is represented by both the US Attorney and the judge may have no alternative but to take this controversy before another U.S. Court or a higher court. In order that each of us has the facts before us, I am, therefore, stating the verified facts that I am willing to swear to in court and which will be proven by the record. This is your opportunity to rebut the verified facts as I have enumerated them below. Any factual statement that you do not specifically rebut UNDER OATH will stand as undisputed verified fact in any future legal proceeding.
Please carefully review each numbered statement of fact, and if you disagree with such fact, state the reasons for your disagreement UNDER OATH, along with rebuttal. List each of your rebuttals, numbering them according to the number as listed below. If you do not specifically contest any fact listed below, I will be forced to conclude that you do not disagree with such fact.
VERIFIED STATEMENT OF FACTS
- A pro-se Plaintiff is to be held to a less stringent standard than professional attorneys. Judge Zobel, under her Oath of Office and Judicial Canons, is required to be fair to all litigants.
“… allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers…” Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972).
- Judge Rya Zobel denied even the illusion of impartiality and due process for the Plaintiff when she practiced law from the bench and created arguments for the defendant when she wrote and presented her “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION” dated November 2, 2004.
- At no time did the defendant ever even bother to present any rebuttal at all to the Plaintiff’s arguments concerning the authority of the IRS agents to obtain search warrants or carry firearms on warrants other than subtitle E activities. When the defendant never even responded and therefore defaulted Judge Rya Zobel discarded her role as impartial judge weighing the facts of each side and with extreme prejudice invented arguments for the defendant and presented them in her “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION” dated November 2, 2004.
- The court has shown blatant prejudice in favor of the defendant at all times during these proceeding including but not limited to sealing the plaintiff’s case so he could not obtain dockets or other information about his own case against the government. Without access to copies of the docket the plaintiff has no way to know when the government or the judge has entered and filings in this case. It is impossible for the plaintiff to obtain due process when his case against the government has been sealed.
- There is no order in the sealed docket to seal his case so there is obvious collusion between the US Attorney and either Judge Rya Zobel or her agents or underlings in the court to impede the plaintiff in the prosecution of this case.
- Judge Zobell acceded to fraud, perhaps unknowingly, perpetrated on the Court by the IRS agents and the U.S. Attorneys. It is possible that all parties to the fraud had no knowledge of this fraud; however, officials in this case now have full knowledge of this illegal activity and can be held accountable for any further unlawful activities and failures to take corrective measures. All willing participants of the perpetrated fraud also acceded to and perpetrated a deprivation of the Constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.
- The agents involved in these actions for the IRS are specifically excluded by title from obtaining warrants actions under subtitle A and subtitle C by 26 USC 7608. The defendant (the government) has never disputed this fact in this case.
- The agents involved in these actions for the IRS are specifically excluded by 26 USC 7608 from carrying firearms except when the warrants involve “Subtitle E” activities which are Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The defendant (the government) has never disputed this fact in this case.
Judge Rya Zobel, you have indeed acted outside of your lawful authority by practicing law from the bench when you invented arguments for the defendant who never even bothered to respond to the facts specifically stated as #8 and #9 in this affidavit. Since the defendant has never bothered to respond they are in default and acquiesce to the fact that these claims are the undisputed truth. All officials may be held liable under U.S. Supreme Court rulings as follows.
“Personal-capacity suits, on the other hand, seek to impose individual liability upon a government officer for actions taken under color of state law. Thus, ‘[o]n the merits, to establish personal liability in a 1983 action, it is enough to show that the official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right.’ Id., at 166.” HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991).
“When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity.” Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).
“Personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights is prerequisite to award of damages, but defendant may be personally involved in constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violation.” (Gallegos v. Haggerty, N.D. of New York, 689 F. Supp. 93 (1988).
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda, 384 US 436, at 491.
"No State legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his Undertaking to support it". Cooper Vs. Aaron. 358 U.S. 1 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).
Judge Rya Zobel, perhaps unknowingly and unwillingly you have abandoned your role as impartial arbiter between the parties involved. Is it possible that you have been forced into this action by terrorist or extortion threats of the IRS or by your employer the defendant?
“No sophisticated person is unaware that the Internal Revenue Service has been in possession of facts with respect to public officials which it has presented or shelved in order to serve what can only be called political ends, be they high or low. And a judge who knows the score is aware that every time his decisions offend the Internal Revenue Service, he is inviting a close inspection of his records.” Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167 (1965).
Judge Zobel, I believe your “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION” was based on erroneous assumptions and distorted conceptions of law and facts and that you used these preconceived notions to invent arguments for your employer, the defendant without relying on the following U.S. Supreme Court rulings:
28 USC Sec. 455, and Marshall v Jerrico Inc., 446 US 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980): "The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases. This requirement of neutrality in adjudicative proceedings safeguards the two central concerns of procedural due process, the prevention of unjustified or mistaken deprivations and the promotion of participation and dialogue by affected individuals in the decisionmaking process. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978). The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law."
“Parties who, by the constitution and laws of the United States, have a right to have their controversies decided in their tribunals, have a right to demand the unbiased judgment of the court.” PEASE v. PECK, 59 U.S. 595 (1855).
“It is true that no one has a vested right in any particular rule of the common law, but it is also true that the legislative power of a state can only be exerted in subordination to the fundamental principles of right and justice which the guaranty of due process in the Fourteenth Amendment is intended to preserve, and that a purely arbitrary or capricious exercise of that power whereby a wrongful and highly injurious invasion of property rights, as here, is practically sanctioned and the owner stripped of all real remedy, is wholly at variance with those principles.” TRUAX v. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, 330 (1921).
NOTICE TO Honorable Rya Zobel
If you fail to respond within 15 days the Plaintiff will be forced to conclude that you have been acting against the Plaintiff without authority of law. Plaintiff will, thereafter, commence a lawsuit against you. Your actions have caused the Plaintiff very much mental and emotional hardship, financial losses, along with expenses and losses suffered by your unauthorized actions.
Plaintiffs call your attention to the following rulings:
“When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity.” Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).
" ... where an act is done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction and this is known to the judge there is no immunity. Johnson v. MacCoy, 278 F2d 37 (9th Cir., 1960); Kenney V. Fox, 232 F 2d 288 ..." Rhodes v. Houston; 202 Fed Supp. 624
A ruling in violation of precedent rulings is the performance of an unconstitutional act by a judge: “Rule 28A(i) expands the judicial power beyond the limits set by article III by allowing us complete discretion to determine which judicial decisions will bind us and which will not. Insofar as it limits the precedential effect of our prior decisions, the Rule is therefore unconstitutional.” Anastasoff v. United States of America 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000).
The Court in Yates Vs. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that, "Not every action by any judge is in exercise of his judicial function. It is not a judicial function for a Judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the Courthouse, when a judge acts as a Trespasser of the Law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject matter jurisdiction and the Judge's orders are void, of no legal force or effect."
“An instrumentality of Government he might be and for the greatest ends, but the agent, because he is agent, does not cease to be answerable for his acts.” BRADY v. ROOSEVELT STEAMSHIP CO., 317 U.S. 575 (1943).
"There is also a general rule that if any officer- ministerial or otherwise- acts outside the scope of his jurisdiction and without authorization of law, he is liable in an action for damages for injuries suffered by a citizen as a result thereof." Cooper v. O'Connor, 99 F.2d 135, 137, 138 (D.C. Cir. 1938) See also Estrada v. Hills, 401 F.Supp. 429, 434 (N.D.Ill. 1975).
Plaintiff, hereby, await your response and/or rebuttals. If the Honorable Rya Zobel needs additional response time, please notify Plaintiff within the 15 day time period.
“Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside”. Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D. 278.
“Void order which is one entered by court which lacks jurisdiction over parties or subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter judgment, or order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that party is properly before court”, People ex rel. Brzica v. Village of Lake Barrington, 644 N.E.2d 66 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1994).
“A ‘void’ judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by ). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen the old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been.” 10/13/58 FRITTS v. KRUGH. SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97.
“Decision is void on the face of the judgment roll when from four corners of that roll, it may be determined that at least one of three elements of jurisdiction was absent: (1) jurisdiction over parties, (2) jurisdiction over subject matter, or (3) jurisdictional power to pronounce particular judgment that was rendered”, B & C Investments, Inc. v. F & M Nat. Bank & Trust, 903 P.2d 339 (Okla. App. Div. 3, 1995).
Plaintiff Charles William Adams, A Natural Person, a Creator of Government and a Creation of Our Creator hereby files this Motion for Void Judgment with this Honorable Court based on the following:
MOTION TO VACATE FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
- Judge Rya Zobel allegedly issued the “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION” dated November 2, 2004. Since the document contained arguments for the defendant that the defendant never even presented the Pro-se Plaintiff needs to be assured that it was Judge Zobel and not someone else who wrote the “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION”. Defendants respectfully demand that Judge Zobel signs the proposed order of the earlier motion.
2. Since this chain of events was all started by the IRS, and the Plaintiff is aware of previous threats to judges by the IRS, and therefore, in order to obtain justice against intimidation or threats, the Plaintiff respectfully demands that Judge Zobel provide a sworn statement that there have been no communications with the IRS or threats by the IRS or any government agents or by her employer or anyone working for the US Attorney(s).
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully demands that Judge Zobel provide a copy of her Oath of Office, in order to establish personal jurisdiction for issuance of the order.
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully demands that Judge Zobel sign a statement under Oath that there have been no communications between Judge Zobel and any official of the IRS or other governmental official, without the Plaintiffs being informed.
Wherefore, Defendants respectfully demand that Judge Zobel sign a statement under Oath that there have been no threats made to her by the IRS or any other government agent, real or implied.
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully demand that Judge Zobel issue an Order to vacate the “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION” dated November 2, 2004.
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully demand that Judge Zobel issue an order to immediately pronounce the search warrants 04M-1053-JGD and 04M-1055-JGD void ab initio and the property taken from 221 Madison Street during the raid per those warrants to be immediately returned to the Plaintiff at 42 Monroe Street, Norwood Massachusetts and all evidence obtained to be quashed ab initio and the Plaintiff to be made whole by the return of all property, licenses and his good name and standing.
Submitted by:
_____________________________ _________________________________
Clyde W. Goodguy Rea B. Goodguy
Dated: ____________________
Notary: The above signed have presented themselves before me and have properly identified themselves.
Here is Clyde's information:
Clyde W. Goodguy, individually and in his capacity as the trustee of "THE DOLLAR TRUST, et al.
REA B. Goodguy (Wife)
Clyde W. Goodguy, Corporation Sole
Box 227
Freedom, WY 83120
Phone: 208-873-2760
Email: cwGoodguy@silverstar.com
Sincerely,
Frederick C. Damron
130 South Cold Springs Road
Olive Hill, KY 41164
Phone: 606-286-4096
Fax: 606-286-0286
Email: fdamron@ezwv.com
No comments:
Post a Comment