1

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[x ] For cases from federal courtsfederal courtsfederal courtsfederal courts:

A

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

to

the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ x] is unpublished.

B

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

to

the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ x] is unpublished.

2

JURISDICTION

[x ] For cases from federal courtsfederal courtsfederal courtsfederal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was . Dec 12, 2014

[X] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date:

, and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

.

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including

(date) on

(date)

in Application No.

A

.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

3

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

42 USC § 1983 - CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS

AMENDMENT IV of the U.S. Constitution

AMENDMENT V of the U.S. Constitution

AMENDMENT VII of the U.S. Constitution

AMENDMENT VIII of the U.S. Constitution

AMENDMENT XIV of the U.S. Constitution Sec. 1

4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Since the founding of our nation, the constitution has been a cornerstone of the most

basic principles this country affords every citizen to be free from the arbitrary or tyrannical acts

of the government. In the event of tyrannical actions upon a citizen, there are provided by

constitutional right, ways a citizen can defend themselves in a court of law. That is, if they are

fortunate enough to escape the grasp of the original illegal acts perpetrated upon them in the first

place. If those constitutional and due process rights and opportunities are then again arbitrarily

denied or ignored at a federal level, leaving no redress for the citizens to defend themselves; the

tyranny is in fact the very nature and intent of the government itself to operate without justice for

all. The Supreme Court noted that "in the federal courts, the right of self-representation has been

protected by statute since the beginnings of our Nation. Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789,

1 Stat. 73, 92, enacted by the First Congress and signed by President Washington one day before

the Sixth Amendment was proposed, provided that 'in all the courts of the United States, the

parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of counsel.

2. According to the National Center for State Courts 2006 report, in the United States,

many state court systems and the federal courts are experiencing an increasing proportion of pro

se litigants. Estimates of the pro se rate of family law overall averaged 67% in California, 73% in

Florida's large counties, and 70% in some Wisconsin counties. Madelynn Herman (September

25, 2006). "Self-Representation: Pro Se Statistics". National Center for State Courts. Archived

from the original on 2012-05-04. In San Diego, for example, the number of divorce filings

involving at least one pro se litigant rose from 46% in 1992 to 77% in 2000, in Florida from 66%

in 1999 to 73% in 2001. California reports in 2001 that over 50% of family matters filings in

5

custody and visitation are by pro se litigants. "Trends in Pro Se Litigation". In the U.S. Federal

Court system for the year 2013 approximately 27% of civil actions filed, 92% of prisoner

petitions and 11% of non-prisoner petitions were filed by pro se litigants "Civil Pro Se And Non-

Pro Se Filings, by District, During the 12-Month Period Ending September 30, 2013".

3. Some rules express a preference for resolution of every case on the merits, even if

resolution requires excusing inadvertence by a pro se litigant that would otherwise result in a

dismissal. The Judicial Council justifies this position based on the idea that "Judges are charged

with ascertaining the truth, not just playing referee... A lawsuit is not a game, where the party

with the cleverest lawyer prevails regardless of the merits." Ibid (quoting Gamet v. Blanchard).

It suggests "the court should take whatever measures may be reasonable and necessary to

insure a fair trial" and says "There is only one reported case in the U.S. finding a judge's

specific accommodations have gone too far". The committee notes to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure rule 56 on summary judgments notes that: "Many courts take extra care with pro se

litigants, advising them of the need to respond and the risk of losing by summary judgment if an

adequate response is not filed. And the court may seek to reassure itself by some examination of

the record before granting summary judgment against a pro se litigant. Right to present relevant

evidence: Cooper v. California (1967), McCray v. Illinois (1967), Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987)

Olden v. Kentucky (1988), Michigan v. Lucas (1991).

(following excerpts from Ex. 5) Novi Police actual “follow up investigation” document of attorney conspiring with police to kidnap and completely fabricate fraudulent charges and make up or “secure some type of felony warrant” when father has final order legal “sole custody” and clearly no crime was committed by the father.

6

(Ex. 1) Paragraphs from Ratified Marital Settlement Agreement

7

(Ex 2) legal ratification by judge

4. This instant suit was originally filed pro-se in Washington D.C. in pauper status

February 15, 2013, and time stamped February 25, 2013. However, the docket date is April 12,

2013. This case was reviewed by a panel of D.C. judges and docked number 13-CV- 0496 and

listed as 42:1983 civil rights act. While the claim was being screened by a "panel of judges" it

was ordered that the case would “proceed” and be transferred to the eastern district of Michigan

on April 12, 2013. Transfer was completed electronically April 30, 2013. The case was not only

"not dismissed" but transferred by the D.C. district to move forward in the eastern district of

Michigan. Plaintiff filed an objection to transfer May 5, 2013 due to conflict of interest in that

Judge Cleland of the eastern district is a defendant and "guilty of extortion, fraud and other acts

8

and is employed currently" in Michigan, On June 5, 2013, there was apparently an order

reassigning case from Lawrence P. Zatkoff to, unbelievably, “defendant” Judge Cleland. The

plaintiff was not copied on the order. The plaintiffs May 5, 2013 filing was posted as June 11,

2013. Then an order vacating the June 5, 2013 assignment was docketed and the case was

reassigned to Zatkoff again. On January 22, 2014 the U.S. court of appeals for the sixth circuit

intervened and assigned District Judge James G. Carr from the Northern District of Ohio to

preside over the case. Only after ten of the defendants have already been served, and the

defendants call the court house to coerce the judge Carr illegally, does he decide to take adverse

action outside of a motion to dismiss, and prior to the defendants time to respond to the

complaint (another fraud upon the court). His involuntary dismissal is without precedent.

5. April 11, 2014, Judge Carr outrageously dismissed all claims with prejudice, even

though the D.C. court listed it as 42:1983 civil rights act and did not dismiss it but reassigned it.

Carr also illegally and outrageously stated that since an appeal could not be taken in “good faith”

that any appeal must be with prepayment of applicable fees; this was again to punish the pro se

plaintiff without precedent or cause. Florida Judge Davies, some time ago after the initial

abduction and kidnapping, made a statement which Carr latched on to personally. Judge Carr

goes on to pick out of 119 pages of plaintiff’s complaint to cite the fact someone was mentioned

by Judge Davies himself, implying that she may have done someone a favor in facilitating the

outrageous high level kidnapping and abduction pulled off with the assistance of federal and

state agencies. ( Willie Meggs personally knows her). Judge Davies stated, “There was nothing

you could have done that would have changed what we were going to do to you or your

daughter, so don’t fight it”. He said, “As long as Hillary is in office you will never get her back”,

referring to Hillary Clinton of course. It was a clear implication of the surrounding

9

circumstances. Judge Davies said it, not the plaintiff, so people can infer what they want from it.

If that is not enough, see the action Judge Carr takes in the matter.

6. In Carr’s effort to dismiss the complaint, he exposes his conflict of interest. Obviously,

he has an issue with Clinton showing up on the complaint because he was in fact "Hired By

Them"; further convoluting the case. According to record on federal judicial service: Judge Carr

was nominated by William J. Clinton on January 27, 1994 to a seat vacated by Richard B.

McQuade, Jr. Judge Carr knew this fact full well, and coming upon this issue in the complaint,

he should have immediately recused himself. But instead, he chooses to act on his compulsions

and do the wrong and unjust thing, by enforcing his prejudice in drafting an order which in effect

maliciously punishes a pro se plaintiff for filing a complaint at all. The order was even stated to

be with prejudice by Car himself. Carr’s compensation is clearly tied to other parties mentioned

in the complaint by Judge Davies, even though they are not defendants in the complaint. This

clearly compelled Carr’s prejudicial, illegal, unjust, and untimely decision. On April 21, 2014,

the plaintiff filed a Plaintiff's Motion to Quash, Motion for Recusal, and Objection to Order. On

May 5, 2014, Judge Carr ordered the motion was deemed an appeal, however, he ordered as

another malicious “punishment” a certification that no appeal may be taken by the plaintiff

without prepayment of applicable fees, because, he outrageously contended, it could not be

taken in “good faith” under 28 U.S.C. 1915 (a) (3).

7. He clearly knew this was untrue as did the court of appeals as they ultimately charged

no costs per February 5, 2015 mandate 14-1584; even though they neglected to do the rest of

their job properly. The HSC pointed out that an involuntary dismissal of a complaint with

prejudice are disfavored and the threshold for doing so is set high. Dismissal with prejudice

"cannot be affirmed absent deliberate delay, contumacious conduct, or actual prejudice."

10

Shasteen, Inc. v. Hilton Hawaiian Village Joint Venture, 79 Hawai'i 103, 107, 899 P.2d 386, 390

(1995). Without evidence of any one of these three elements, the dismissal is an abuse of

discretion. Carr presented no evidence of any misconduct of any kind by the plaintiff. If you

were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented

litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would

seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself. Pro se plaintiffs are supposed to have due process

and constitutional rights too. That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to

recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir.

1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but

that he believes that he has received justice." The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed

the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362

U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13

(1954).

8. On May 30, 2014 Plaintiff filed in the appeals court “Plaintiff’s Motion for Default

Judgment” citing the defendants had already been served and their time had run out to reply and

comply with court rules of pleading. They also filed no request for extension, retained no

counsel, and intentionally chose not to comply or participate. Additionally, Judge Carr’s order

was void as a matter of law because he was clearly required to recuse himself and did not;

another fraud upon the court and abuse of discretion. Plaintiff filed his appellate brief on July 14,

2014 which addressed every component of Carr’s order in great detail with some partial

snapshots of some prime, irrefutable, signed, dated, documentary exhibits from the complaint

11

itself for ease of reference. The brief was accepted on first submission without any revisions

required.

9. December 12, 2014 the sixth circuit court of appeals affirmed Carr’s order without a

reasoned opinion. The order doesn’t even mention the brief at all, or the specific, irrefutable,

evidence which was presented in it, as components of the original exhibits. It simply ignores the

entire brief, documentary evidence, facts, and applicable law presented without refuting them or

correcting any application. A pro se plaintiff should never be intentionally mistreated and denied

due process rights in this manner by a federal court. The order intentionally misrepresents,

trivializes, and ignores outrageous, felonious, misconduct by the defendants; only to cover up the

case with insulting allegations of implausibility as if it is some sort of personal issue and not a

complaint with 400 pages of exhibits. Not only that, but the appeals court insanely accuses the

father of doing the kidnapping and states “which led to his arrest in 1997 in Michigan for

kidnapping”. The father was “never” arrested for kidnapping; he was arrested illegally on

trumped up fraudulent “grand theft” charges which were dismissed. The father/ pastor has been

denied all contact with his daughter for last 10 years through illegal acts of pagan terrorism.

AMENDMENT IV of the U.S. Constitution ….” no Warrants shall issue, but upon

probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Fraud is does not establish probable cause to arrest an innocent citizen and take their child)

12

10. That is the whole point, and the court of appeals itself intentionally misrepresents the

facts and law to cover it up through fraud upon the court defaming the father and intentionally

ignoring the law, evidence, and facts. (Excerpt 14-1584 C.O.A. order page 2 Dec.12, 2014). This

is defamatory per se.

11. It is also without the necessary specific reference and reasoning because it has none.

A complaint cannot be implausible if it is a fact supported with hard copy, irrefutable,

documentary evidence of illegal acts per se; you can’t make this stuff up it is so outrageous and

obviously illegal.

12. The plaintiff divorced his former wife in 97’and the divorce agreement was drafted

by the former wife’s attorney, the father was unrepresented. The plaintiff and former wife

agreed to give the plaintiff, (father) “sole custody”, in “exchange” for ex-wife not having to pay

any child support. The agreement included a separation and noninterference clause and was

13

approved, witnessed, ratified and ordered. During the proceedings it was always understood, by

the attorney and the judge, the plaintiff was moving to Michigan for better job opportunities and

the former wife was free to come along and live separately; the truck was even being packed

while the papers were being approved and the lease for the town home ran out that same day.

There were no restrictive covenants at all on moving and it was all on the up and up. The father

called the ex-wife when he arrived in Michigan and it was not some big secret where he was,

unlike what they tried to make it seem, because the father’s sister was there. The former wife

decided to stay in Florida, intentionally. The ex-mother in law harassed and tormented the former

wife about the agreement and stated that she should have taken the child and all the money. She

also stated “you can’t let him have her, he loves Jesus too much!” Rather than file any motion for

change of custody and serve it on the father as the law requires, the former wife, her mother, and

new attorney (Marilyn Morris) decided to conspire with State Attorney Willie Meggs, local,

state, and federal officials to illegally fabricate baseless, trumped up, grand theft charges to

abduct the child and falsely imprison and arrest the father (who just graduated with honors from

Florida State 19 months earlier). This was a blatant act of unprovoked, illegal, discriminatory,

terrorism and intentional fraud upon the court.

13. The former wife filed fraudulent sworn statements while she was on probation for

domestic violence, the former mother in law filed fraudulent statements about a car theft from

her house, attorney Marilyn Morris was instructed to come up with ”some sort of felony

warrant”. The grand theft was even exaggerated monetarily and was comprised only of

children’s clothes and a couple pieces of furniture with a value of maybe 750.00 which were

already part of the marital settlement agreement. The child was illegally abducted, and the father

falsely arrested and imprisoned and put in leg chains and hand cuffs. Father was then carted

14

around from one federal institution to another around the country with murders and rapists in leg

chains and handcuffs on con-air flights for a month. ( purely “insane” and “unconstitutional”)

14. Once back in Florida, the father was forced to get a criminal attorney who “required”

the father to get a family law attorney (and even paid the retainer out of his retainer). The family

law attorney failed to appeal anything and was simply a pawn of the state in a kangaroo court.

The original and legal marital settlement agreement was completely thrown out by Judge Davies

in violation of law, and a new one created by “fraud upon the court”; removing the father’s sole

custody (without cause or due process) and extorting child support from the father illegally

(without submission of a guidelines sheet by the family law attorney) . Immediately after the

change in custody, the fake grand theft charges were dropped (nolle processed) because they

knew the fake trumped up charges were a pretext for change in custody and they accomplished

their true agenda (hold them over the father’s head as a form of duress) and preconceived means

to an end. The criminal attorney later took an employment position with the State Attorney

Willie Meggs who he was defending the father against showing the true conflict of interest and

causation.

15. Judge Davies, who threw out the original and only legal MSA agreement, told the

father where to go to get a job, which was with a government contractor Detroit Diesel. He stated

that the “mother would get the child and you will do okay financially”. The father was still given

shared custody though, likely out of their feelings of guilt. From then on the father was working

for government cronies at Detroit Diesel as a financial analyst, they were aware of the situation

and even commented on it at times; and that brought to light a whole other set of other illegal

issues, because of their and the judge’s admitted involvement.

15

16. The father thought that if other courts could see what was really happening, he could

get the family law issues corrected, but all the Florida family law and appeals courts went along

with, ignored, or covered up the barbaric illegal acts. The family law attorney attempted to sue

the father for 30,000.00 more than he was already paid, even though he didn’t do proper

representation, any appeals, or submit, and wasn’t required to submit by the judge, a guidelines

sheet (another fraud upon the court). The father was forced to file for bankruptcy. As a pro se,

the father attempted to get the child support set to a reasonable amount so he could still travel to

see his daughter. After the mock hearing, hearing officer Dawn Coloca -Johnson sent a

fraudulent extortion order that did not represent at all what was determined at the hearing and

even increased the support. Additionally, cruelly and barbarically, the hearing officer required

the father to pay support in June and July when he would have his daughter for summer. This

extortion and fraud upon the court was to intentionally and maliciously sabotage the father’s

ability to provide his daughter a proper summer vacation while no travel expenses were shared

either. The father was informed that the hearing officer actually checked out the tape of the

hearing, and erased it. She did this to destroy and block any evidence on appeal. ( Another insane

fraud upon the court).

17. When the daughter was 7 years old, the mother and aunt tried to get her in to

pornography and showed her pictures of other naked women, specifically one named “Michelle”,

naked with her legs spread and stated to the child that it would be “cute” if she did it also. The

child told her father about it on a visit and the father filed charges immediately and the reviewing

officer, after speaking with the child, also was concerned and called child services to report the

incident. (Exhibit 13 in the complaint)

16

18. There was an admission and the pornographic pictures were found but the case was

blocked by State Attorney Willie Meggs, who stated he was the “only game in town” (another

fraud upon the court) the same one who, with Judge Reynolds, abducted the child, kidnapped and

falsely imprisoned the father in the first place, abusing the child. (Exhibits to the original

complaint verify this). It was becoming quite clear that was how the government operated, down

there, at the very least. Willie Meggs, in a face to face meeting with the father February 16,

2001, even stated, “We do things differently down here” as an admission. He also said, “so let

me see, you want me to do for you what we did to you for her?” Father said, “No, what you did

to me was illegal, what I want you to do is enforce the law. Meggs stated, “If I say charges aren’t

going to be filed then charges aren’t going to be filed”.

17

19. Assistant state attorney Goodwin and Chief investigator Gandy were present also, all

we wearing loaded guns in holsters. They made one comment that they would have not done to

the father what they did, “if we knew what you were like”. This again demonstrates the arbitrary

original kidnapping and abduction had nothing to do with the law, but was entirely and illegally

contrived and fabricated. Plaintiff mentioned to Meggs that he knew a retired Judge who my

come down there to help and Meggs said, that he was the "only game in town" and the facts

didn't matter. The father/plaintiff mentioned that he had some recent opinions on the matter by a

retired judge. The Meggs stated, " go ahead and bring him down here, he'll be like a fish out of

water" and "we do things differently down here", and "good for her if she can get away with

breaking the law".

20. From then on, in retaliation, the fathers work environment suffered at the government

contractor Detroit Diesel through harassment. Plaintiff’s supervisor Bob Green made additional

comments about the plaintiff's marital status, having to "leave the country to get a job", having to

"kill your parents" or "rob a bank' to have enough money to see your daughter again, stating

"nothing is going to be easy", in addition to other various kinds of harassment detailed in the

complaint. Green made the comment about the plaintiff “never” seeing his daughter again in

2005; and since 2005 all contact the father had with his daughter, including phone calls, has been

blocked. Bob Green clearly had a role in knowing of the continued illegal kidnapping and

abduction just as Judge Davies told the plaintiff he would work for Detroit Diesel before he even

got the job. Green stated to he was told he could do anything he wanted to do the plaintiff, short

of hitting the plaintiff. Mr. Green stated he was considered an "officer" and used homeland

security to label the plaintiff a "terrorist" because Green is a mentally ill. No employer in their

18

right mind would ever even consider making such outrageous disturbed comments about

someone’s child.

21. Obviously, there was prior knowledge. This was all admitted in the Green civil suit

and they never denied any of it. The father took the Green case all the way to this Supreme Court

based on USCA6 No. 07-1941-2260/2389/2492 but certiorari was denied, it was stated, because

the printer made the font off 1 point off, as the only error. Even though rules state a pro se is not

to be held to the same level of perfection as a practicing attorney, the plaintiff was, in this case.

April 1, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion with this U.S. Supreme Court to correct the clerical error,

but it was denied submission and actually returned without a number. I guess we will find out

what happens this time with the whole world watching this case proceed over the internet as it

goes down in history. For a pastor, it all serves a greater purpose no matter what happens.

22. The plaintiff was physically attacked by the former wife on numerous occasions,

sometimes with others assisting in the act such as Mona Vonk and Tonya Smith at the child’s

school who assaulted the father, when he went to pick up his daughter. The Leon County

Sheriff’s Deputy by named John Meeks arrived and attempted to persuade the employees that the

father hit them back and he could take the father to jail if they would "just say he did". The

deputy fabricated a no trespassing warrant, contrary to the principal Johnson's wishes, and forced

the father by threat to let his daughter go when he had physical and legal custody, again

abducting her, defaming the father, traumatizing the child, causing severe emotional distress to

daughter and father and forcing the father to "leave town". This was after threatening several

times to put the father in jail and refusing as before to press charges against those who

committed illegal acts. Lauren even said, “Why are they trying to make you look like a bad

daddy?” Leon County Sheriff's Deputy Meeks stated that plaintiff should "stay up in Michigan"

19

and that the plaintiff is only making it harder on his daughter by trying to see her and that "the

more you come down the harder we will make it for her" just as Bob Green stated "maybe you

just won’t be able to pick her up".

23. When assault and battery charges were filed against the ex-wife, they would be

blocked by Sheriff Larry Campbell who would ignore the assault and battery incidents and

instead threaten the father, illegally, with additional arrests. Campbell would harass, terrorize,

and threaten the father through hypocrisy and lies stating, “YOU WERE IN THE WRONG”.

(Attached exhibit 18 from complaint) This is after the father would travel over 1000 miles each

way just to see his daughter. This is just another insane abduction, after one of many physical

attacks in retaliation for reporting the ex-wife’s insane abusive act of coercing and involving the

daughter in pornography. According to Campbell it was his “instructions”.

24. From then on, the father was eventually denied any and all contact, even phone calls,

20

with his daughter, regardless of what visitation required, since she was 11 years old. There is no

greater tyranny, or cruel and unusual punishment, than taking someone’s child! AMENDMENT

VIII of the Constitution in part: …. nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. However, they

still did illegal income tax intercepts and income deduction for child support (involuntary

servitude) while denying any contact! The Florida courts refused to enforce the visitation at all

by order of Willie Meggs. The father was also run out of town from then on, repeatedly and

illegally, by the Tallahassee and Leon county police and Sheriff Larry Campbell and his

deputies.

25. The father was repeatedly and illegally threatened with additional illegal false arrests

and false charges. All this was done because a father was trying to protect his daughter from

child abuse (supported by actual e-mail and dozens of other exhibits and documents in the

complaint). Similar to Meggs prior admission, they were doing to the father what they should

have been doing to the ex-wife. AMENDMENT XIV of the constitution: No State shall make or

enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Federal

kidnapping statute envisages continuing offense. U.S. v. Denny-Shaffer, C.A.10 (N.M.) 1993, 2

F.3d 999.

e-mail letter from ex-wife and intent of illegal denial of all contact. More threats and

admission of criminal, fraudulent, second court order she refers to as (“ours”) of which there still

is no violation from the father. Here is more intentional, hypocritical, harassment and pure evil.

This is continuing intentional infliction of emotional distress by definition per se. One of the

deputies also offered to knock off the father.

21

<mandymeier@hotmail.com> Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:56:22 +0000

Here's the deal, Dan. You don't matter. Nothing you say or do or think or

feel matters. You know why? Because there's no rewind button on life. Lauren

is 14 and you have never been a father to her and never will be. My best

advice to you is to get some help and try to make something of your miserable

existance and stop interefereing with those of us who are living our

productive lives. You are the product of the choices you have made and until

you realize that there will never be any hope for you. You think you are

SOOOOOOOOOO smart, so take some responsiblity, smartass. No one is smart

enough to have taken advantage of you, right? So my other advice to you is

to terminate parental rights in the legal sense, since you did so many years

ago in the emotional, financial, and every other sense. That way, the state

will not have any recourse to "extort" any more money from you for supporting

your child. You were really more of a sperm donor than anything else so you

should just act accordingly. So I'll remind you, there is no rewind. Its

over. Wow. Funny for you to be the one to refer to court orders when you

are so clearly in violation of ours! Your harrassing emails will be

forwarded to the court and the proper authorities for review for criminal

prosecution. Please refrain from any such contact with me in the future.

26. The father filed suits against government contractor Detroit Diesel, Supervisor Bob

Green, and the other defendants including the state and federal agencies, Willie Meggs, Larry

Campbell, and others responsible for the original abduction and kidnapping and other continuing

acts. When the suit was filed against Detroit Diesel for their illegal acts, they fired the father in

retaliation within two weeks of the filing (this act is in itself enough to state a claim of retaliation

sufficient to go to trial). They never denied the alleged retaliation in the accepted amended

complaint, and lost by default and failure to respond. The father was illegally denied a decision

in his favor (another fraud upon the court), even though the opposing attorney admitted the

plaintiff won as a matter of law. What makes this an even more extreme case of fraud was the

fact that the father won the cases pro se, and as a matter of law has a right to more liberal

interpretations of pleadings than that of a practicing attorney. The opposing attorney never even

asked for a more definite statement and even admitted the father pleaded “exactly what you

intended to” and “they will probably give you that one on appeal”.

22

27. When the green case was filed, federal Judge Cleland attempted to sanction the

father, illegally, through another extortion and fraud upon the court. Amazingly, the court of

appeals recognized this and overruled his illegal $20,000.00 in sanctions designed to punish the

pro se father. Then, the father is attacked by the Police immediately after the initial filing of this

similar obstructed complaint in September of 2007 in which the plaintiff was nearly killed (on

video) when illegally and arbitrarily attacked, beaten, choked, tasered, and imprisoned by the

Southfield, MI Police; outrageous Illegal bail was set at $150,000.00 !, and the plaintiff was

charged with 3 trumped up felonies all of which the jury found not guilty (establishing the

prosecution was malicious). AMENDMENT VIII to the Constitution, Excessive bail shall not be

required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. In reality,

this was the second illegal kidnapping and false imprisonment of the father. Nobody can deny

150,000 is excessive bail for a false arrest.

28. End of trial, after the Jury foreman states “not guilty” three times, ”the prosecutor

actually jumps up and yells at the jury, "but he’s suing the FBI!!" showing true basis for the

attack right from the beginning. This is not a surprise since Dave Kotel of the FBI called the

plaintiff’s parents before the initial attack. Dave. Kotel personally contacted the plaintiffs Father

and Mother and told them that it would be in their "best interest" not to help the plaintiff (Para.

146 complaint). After plaintiff found out who he called, plaintiff called Kotel back and asked if

he had contact with anyone. He initially denied it, then, when plaintiff proved to him he was

lying and gave him specific details of his calls to plaintiff's parents he became combative and

said, “So what!?”, and admitted contact. This is COINTELPRO per se. That is when plaintiff

asked to speak with his supervisor Toni Charabot , who basically admitted the phone call and did

23

not deny the plaintiff was followed but that it was “another agency” i.e. Homeland Security

doing it.

29. This is also not surprising, since the original illegal kidnapping and abduction

displayed additional similar behavior with illegal stalking of family members and the plaintiff by

government agencies involved. It was never a secret where the father was when he moved, this is

all ridiculous and unjustified drama, exaggeration, and fabrication by the police for a political

favor. (Excerpt from evidence exhibit 5 in complaint c 97-9637 evidence of police illegally

kidnapping plaintiff on file) This behavior is intolerable in a civilized society and was already

addressed by the U.S. senate committee investigation on COINTELPRO.

30. Then, in another in conflict of interest and obstruction, Cleland then “again” illegally

intervened “again” to block the pending federal civil case and commit “another” fraud upon the

court. Judge Robert H. Cleland, who is a “defendant” named in the suit, illegally takes the case

from the judge assigned to it and arbitrarily and illegally dismisses it using the illegal detention

as a pretext for failure to proceed in a timely manner.

31. Then, yet again, Cleland attempts to intervene in this instant civil suit by having the

case assigned to him when he is one of the defendants, “again”. But the court of appeals

intervenes again assigning another judge. Cleland is violently in opposition to the Constitution,

rules of the court and the cannons he was sworn to uphold. He intentionally, repeatedly, and

criminally, obstructs justice and violently attacks pro se filers rights. No plaintiff, or any citizen

for that matter, should be brutally and maliciously obstructed, stalked, and denied justice like this

24

by any judge. This especially applies to pro se filers who are to be treated with greater

consideration as a matter of law. It is just insane and outrageous.

32. The irrational and brutal abuse which has been inflicted on the father for attempting

to exercise his rights and find justice just to see and protect his daughter is tyrannical. It is illegal,

unconstitutional, and completely in opposition to the rules and procedures for how pro- se filers

should be treated. This is simply insane terrorism, child abduction, alienation, and abuse. It

continues to this day, and 10 years later the daughter still lives in fear of the terrorist acts of the

government that destroyed her father’s life, and what they may do to her if she wants to see her

father. Now the federal courts are blocking the case too.

33. The Supreme Court noted that in the federal courts, the right of self-representation

has been protected by statute since the beginnings of our Nation. Section 35 of the Judiciary Act

of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92, enacted by the First Congress and signed by President Washington one

day before the Sixth Amendment was proposed, provided that 'in all the courts of the United

States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of

counsel.

34. Most courts will interpret a pro se litigant’s pleading “liberally” and will not dismiss

the complaint for mere technical violations of rules. Stanley v. Goodwin, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1026,

1032-33(D. Haw. 2006) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)) In fact, some

courts will go so far as to advise the pro se litigants of the defects in their pleadings and give

them an opportunity to amend before dismissal. Fedrik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th

Cir. 1992)). If the plaintiff fails to include sufficient information, counsel should consider filing a

motion for a more definite statement that clearly articulates the deficiencies of the pro se

25

complaint. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims are brought frequently by pro se prisoners. Such claims

require that a defendant, “acting under the color of state law,” has deprived the plaintiff of a right

under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 47 (1988).

35. Many pro se litigants will use this in their pleadings; "Pleadings in this case are being

filed by Plaintiff In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are to be considered without regard to

technicalities. Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as

practicing lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11th

Cir1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v.

BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)." In Puckett v. Cox, it was held that a pro-se

pleading requires less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (456 F2d 233 (1972 Sixth

Circuit USCA). Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) "The Federal Rules

rejects the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be

decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a

proper decision on the merits." According to Rule 8(f) FRCP and the State Court rule which

holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

I. The questions presented are exceedingly important. The court(s) below "so far

departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned

(gave explicit approval of) such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an

exercise of this Court's supervisory power."

36. Innocent citizens of this country have a right to be free from arbitrary kidnappings,

false imprisonment, denial of contact with their children as a political favor, and other forms of

tyranny. The 6th circuit deliberately misrepresents the circumstances surrounding the complaint

by stating “which led to his arrest in 1997 for kidnapping”. The plaintiff has “never” been

26

arrested for kidnapping but was the “victim” of a kidnapping(s). Then there is the attack and

beating after filing the first federal suit by the police which is also on video. The 6th circuit court

recognizes an arrest, yet arbitrarily denies the evidence by a pro se and even outrageously

defames the plaintiff to cover up the truth to make it look as if the plaintiff didn’t have “sole

custody”. The D.C. court already assigned the case and flagged it as 42 USC § 1983 - CIVIL

ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS. A pro se case assigned by another court and

already reviewed cannot be dismissed for failure to state a claim when a claim has already been

recognized and even “stated by another court”. It is not in the interest of judicial economy for a

panel of judges to assign a case if they know it would be dismissed. In the appellate brief there is

a section which states “what law do you want applied” for a pro se. The 6th Circuit Court of

Appeals never followed through and applied any of the law that was listed or denied their

application. There was no reasoned opinion, but a pro se should be especially entitled to have

one in a federal case. Additionally, the defendants have already been served and failed to file a

response in the time required by rules and procedures causing a default judgment against them.

II. The decision below conflicts with Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678 (2009).

37. The 6th circuit does not directly apply any law, but makes bald general applications

without specificity and expects us to guess their application. This means, there is no reasoned

opinion because they do not provide a “reason” the case applies. Although they cite Iqbal,556

U.S. at 678; Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,327-28 (1989) they fundamentally neglect to

apply any law and this conflict with other courts. The order provides no reasoned opinion for

their decision. Common sense must prevail here, there will never be a precedent intended to

prevent a pro se from presenting a valid complaint of fraud upon the court. The court is not an

institution of ignorance and stupidity designed to ignore and facilitate illegal acts in violation of

27

the constitution. Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice. Unlike the plaintiff, Iqbal had no

written document admissions of the specific acts upon which he was basing his claims, he had no

personal meetings with the defendants in which admissions were made as to illegal behavior as

the plaintiff does here with Meggs. This supports factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim

that is more than plausible. There is no case law to the contrary.

38. The plaintiff's allegations cannot be considered to be general, the evidence shown in

the complaint as exhibits supports the allegations and elaborates and expounds on the allegations

with very intricate and specific details; it is also to be considered a part of the plausibility or

reasonable inference of pleading as a whole. Must the obvious be restated twice in order not to

be ignored? Court...should view each allegation in the context of the entire complaint to

determine whether a plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support his or her claim. See In re

Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., 799 F. Supp. 2d 777, 782 (N.D. Ohio 2011) A Pro se

plaintiff’s complaints, if construed liberally, prevent a judge from using hyper critical

misrepresentations and arbitrarily ignoring the facts to punish pro se plaintiff's by hinging their

rights, or the denial of them, on the pleading alone rather than the irrefutable facts. This is so

“common sense”, rather than prejudice, prevails. Also, in the interest of justice, the judge has the

flexibility to request additional facts or evidence or a more definite statement before making an

arbitrary adverse judgment without context and devoid of common sense. PLEADING §103

Importantly, said the Court, plausibility is not an invitation for judges to engage in probabilistic

reasoning to weed out improbable, but well-pleaded complaints. Determining whether a claim is

plausible is a “contextspecific task” requiring the exercise of “judicial experience and common

sense".

28

III. The court misapplies Arkenbrandt v. Richards 504 U.S. 689 703 (1992) and Bell

Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,570 without a reasoned opinion as supporting

their position. This is not a family law case, but a constitutional and civil rights case

as recognized by the D.C. court and cannot be “factually implausible”. Family law

courts do not legalize the use of fraudulent grand theft charges, illegal beatings, or

fraud upon the court to facilitate or cover up a proceeding, or addressing the illegal

criminal acts themselves.

39. The 6th circuit states “Despite Meier’s contentions to the contrary, the claims raised in

his complaint are often fantastical or factually implausible.” It is not in the court’s procedure or

rules to use a term like “despite” as a flip denial or dismissal of facts for a pro se. If they are

attempting to allude to some sort of mental instability, by using the insult as a “pretext” for a

denial of due process rights, the plaintiff was already illegally forced by the government to go

through testing of a psychologist after the illegal retaliation attack and beating when the first

federal filing was made. In addition, the plaintiff paid for his own evaluation by a second

psychiatrist. Plaintiff was found to have no such issues at all, and when it went to jury trial, the

government lost on that and the three fraudulent felony charges too. They already used that

ridiculous, defamatory, ploy and lost at jury trial, so that game is over. It is simple, on the

plaintiff’s complaint, and here, what you see is what you get with documentary evidence.

Additionally, the plaintiff is a world class corporate analyst and auditor, in addition to being a

pastor. The plaintiff was trained and educated to find and analyze all the facts and facets of an

issue and assemble a logical conclusion to the matter. The fact is, everyone else is outraged and

shocked at the inaction and negligence by the courts, and they complain that only the courts are

making the irrational accusations perceived by all as an obvious cover up.

40. The 6th circuit is maliciously ignoring the merits and evidence because it is

“impossible” for the complaint to be “implausible; since it is based on facts and documentary

evidence. It is not implausible that the claims are supported by documentary evidence. Is not

29

implausible that the plaintiff’s daughter was illegally abducted and the plaintiff kidnapped with

documentary evidence. It is not implausible that the plaintiff was attacked, beaten (on video) and

charged with 3 trumped up felonies in retaliation for a federal suit and won at jury trial in case

08-43959. We already have the documentary evidence, and admissions, that a pleading satisfying

Twombly would not even require before discovery, so we are “beyond factual allegations that

are required by law” or even “reasonable inference” we have “undeniable proof “and “prima

facie evidence”. Nothing anyone could possibly write or plead or state about any evidence in any

case could go beyond the actual evidence itself, yet Twombly allows for the lower acceptable

threshold of a well plead fact before the evidence or discovery. Considering only those well-

pleaded facts, a complaint must "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly,

550 U.S. at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A plaintiff's factual

allegations must be enough to raise the claimed right to relief above the speculative level and to

create a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence to support the claim.

41. In a First Amendment retaliation claim, "retaliation for the exercise of constitutional

rights is itself a violation of the Constitution." Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 394. Do we need a

video of the attack, beating, choking, and tasering to state a claim? Plaintiff should not have to

go to such lengths, especially as a pro se, because there is already a full court record of trial to

review. But, if the court needs it, there “is” a video of the attack. Also, the order says “often”

fantastical or factually implausible without a single example or reason; and by the choice of the

word “often” rather than “always”, we know that it does not apply to all of the claims anyway.

30

42. The lack of a reasoned opinion in a dismissal by the court is similar to an admission

in Rule 8, if you will. Rule 8(d), a pleader must do more than make a “passing reference” to the

allegations in the preceding pleading or interpose an “ambiguous response” to them. As

discussed under Rule 8(b) a denial must meet the substance of the averments denied; otherwise

the response will be treated as an “admission” under Rule 8(d) Similarly, as is discussed in

earlier sections, a denial on “information and belief” or a denial based upon a lack of knowledge

or information that is addressed to matters of “public record or items that are peculiarly within

the pleader's knowledge” will be ineffective and the matter deemed admitted under Rule 8(d).

The trial and evidence, including the video of the illegal act, is a matter of public record as are

the exhibits in the complaint.

43. The 6th circuit mentions, but never denies, there was repeated fraud upon the court

and a kidnapping. This is what is accepted as “Supporting Factual Positions”: Rule 56 C(1) (A)

citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents,

electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made

for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials. Plaintiff

fulfilled the rules by providing evidence of cases cited, documents provided and not denied,

admissions cited, stipulations cited, affidavits signed and notarized cited, yet the due process

rights of a full and fair opportunity to litigate are still being denied illegally even on appeal.

Chief Justice William Howard Taft explained the purpose behind the clauses in Truax v.

Corrigan (1921) as follows: “The due process clause requires that every man shall have the

protection of his day in court, and the benefit of the general law, a law which hears before it

condemns, which proceeds not arbitrarily or capriciously, but upon inquiry, and renders

judgment only after trial, so that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities

31

under the protection of the general rules which govern society. It, of course, tends to secure

equality of law in the sense that it makes a required minimum of protection for every one’s right

of life, liberty, and property, which the Congress or the Legislature may not withhold.”

44. Definition: Plausible Wikipedia: Apparently reasonable and valid, and truthful. So is a

truth that has been proven by fact and evidence plausible? By definition, it is impossible for it

not to be. The court recognizes the father was arrested by their own admission, so they recognize

this is “plausible”; yet they intentionally misrepresent who did the kidnapping. The father was

the “victim” of the kidnapping, as is obvious from the documents. This is why a civil jury trial

has been continually denied and why they make intentional false decisions in opposition to the

mounds of irrefutable evidence of the government conspiring and illegally kidnapping innocent

citizens. The court, rather than helping the pro se plaintiff exercise his rights, is acting as an

adversary as if they are employed by the defendants in that capacity. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at

398. Moreover, because "there is no justification for harassing people for exercising their

constitutional rights," the deterrent effect of the adverse action need not be great in order to be

actionable. Id. at 397 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "The plaintiff's evidentiary

burden is merely to establish the factual basis for his claim that the retaliatory acts amounted to

more than a de minimis injury." Bell, 308 F.3d at 606.

45. The plaintiff filed a demand for a jury trial and is guaranteed a right to jury trial by

Amendment VII of the constitution; but that right is being denied time and again to obstruct

justice. The Court in Iqbal reiterated that "the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not

require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than 'an unadorned, the defendant-

unlawfully-harmed-me-accusation.'" Thus, .Iqbal established the most current precedent for

courts to follow when making the determination as to whether plaintiff’s allegations in the

32

complaint are able to survive a motion to dismiss. However, many courts still have implied the

plausibility standard is not strictly adhered to when ruling on a pro se complaint's ability to

survive a motion to dismiss. However, this pro se plaintiff is being arbitrarily treated with

misrepresentations, hypercritical conclusionary statements, and deliberate indifference without a

proper reasoned opinion by Judge Carr and the 6th circuit court of appeals in violation of due

process.

IV. The court misapplies any statute of limitations as barring a claim of fraud upon the

court and continuing acts.

46. In CJS JUDGMENTS § 782 XXI. Res Judicata§ 782. Considerations of fairness and

justice Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, being an equitable doctrine, as discussed supra §

779, will generally be applied “only where no unfairness or injustice results.” So, even if the

elements of the doctrine are otherwise met, a court may still deny application of the doctrine

where such application would be fundamentally unfair. Is it unfair to deny someone their

Constitutional rights and contact with their own child because he “loves Jesus too much”? First,

we will consider that any state court action which is void by “fraud upon the court” as was

mentioned before is 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further

stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and

never becomes final." The court must use common sense, and not attempt to trick people into

believing their order by using bald citings of law, as if they automatically apply to any complaint

without a reasoned opinion to back it up.

47. It is only fair that we provide the court a foundation in which to hold fast to the

doctrine of fraud upon the court as an exception to “any time bar”. As such, we cite the

following: Herrington v. United States 424 F.3d 384; 2005. Plaintiff widow and the heirs of two

33

other widows filed an action to set aside a 57-year-old "settlement agreement" on the grounds

that it was procured by fraud upon the court. That is correct, a "57 year old settlement

agreement" Did the court throw this case out as time barred? No, they examined the case to see if

there was in fact a "fraud upon the court" 57 years ago, which may have denied them their rights.

What was the alleged fraud that rose to the level of consideration 57 years later? It was simply

the allegation, “without evidence”, that the government fraudulently misrepresented the nature of

the reason for not providing enough specifications about a plane in 1948.

48. For that allegation, which we use as precedent, the court found it stated a claim for

relief sufficient for the court to investigate the fraud for a simple "settlement agreement". But,

according to Carr and the 6th circuit, an illegal and continuing felony kidnapping, fraudulent

charges, beatings, false imprisonment and extortion by the government is not a claim even if

illegal. No one believes Carr or the 6th circuit court order that the plaintiff has no claims, and it is

clear and obvious to all what is a Constitutional violation. It is obvious to the United Nations,

who is being copied on all of the filings, and has responded to the plaintiff. It is obvious to all on

You Tube who watch Pastor Luke’s videos; it is obvious to the thousands watching the

“meiervmeggs” website which posts all the filings. This is precisely why there are guaranteed

jury trials; they are to prevent this kind of extreme and brutal tyranny and denial of obvious

constitutional rights by a corrupt government. If you Google ” Meier V. Meggs”, you will see

how much is out there for everyone to see.

49. This is also why pro se dismissals are such an abomination. They open the door, not

to clear frivolous lawsuits, but to a pretext for bullying pro se citizens who are seeking justice. If

someone files a frivolous lawsuit and they want to proceed then let them. If it was indeed

frivolous, then the real rules and procedures will address this. They will lose at trial and have to

34

pay court costs, sanctions, attorney’s fees, and more. Today, dismissals are intentionally misused

as a pretext to allow frivolous cases to proceed as political favors when arbitrarily ignored. Then

dismissals are used as a threat, or club, to deny truly obvious and outrageous cases from

proceeding when they are applied arbitrarily, unfairly, and maliciously, just as is happening here.

50. Someone negligently spills hot coffee on themselves at McDonalds and their claim is

not dismissed because of who they are, or there are ridiculous trip and fall lawsuits that proceed

as stating a claim. But, here we have an outrageous illegal kidnapping, beating, false

imprisonment, child abuse, emotional distress, abductions, denial of due process rights,

retaliations, and denial of obvious constitutional rights, which are being unjustly and

outrageously ignored simply because criminals working in the government are the perpetrators;

outrageous! No one will ever believe that is the way to provide justice, but; everyone who is

watching this case on the internet knows full well that it is a historically significant example of

tyranny. The 6th circuit won’t even publish their own orders on this case in an attempt to keep it

unknown to the public; it is even stated on the top of the order: “NOT RECOMMENDED FOR

FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION” because it is such an abomination. This is why all court orders

must be published, so some are not arbitrarily and inconsistently hidden from public view by the

courts based on the intentional denial of due process, civil, and constitutional rights.

51. In the Herrinigton case, we use as precedent; the court did not dismiss it as res

judicata, or sovereign immunity, but reviewed the case stating: "The court rejected the

Government's argument that an abuse of discretion standard of review was appropriate and

instead reviewed de novo." The fraud is the main focus in seeking justice, not the passage of time

to cover it up so the perpetrators can get away with illegal acts. In order to meet the necessarily

demanding standard for proof of fraud upon the court, the United States Court of Appeals for the

35

Third Circuit concludes that there must be: (1) an intentional fraud; (2) by an officer of the court;

(3) which is directed at the court itself; and (4) in fact deceives the court. The Third Circuit

further concludes that a determination of fraud on the court may be justified only by the most

egregious misconduct directed to the court itself, and that it must be supported by clear,

unequivocal and convincing evidence. This case most certainly, by all accounts, contains

egregious misconduct of all kinds providing clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence per se.

52. In this petition alone, we have proof of a “prima facie” case of fraud upon the court:

We have a father with sole custody, proof of illegal charges, proof of conspiring to concoct these

charges illegally by an officer of the court, deception of the court in another jurisdiction with the

fraudulent charges, and the police officer stating there was no violation of court order by the

father, an actual federal extradition and more. Then we have another case of false arrest, false

imprisonment, more beatings, more fraudulent charges and an entire jury trial to expose it! Then

we have never ending threats and harassment after that. Which is worse, an allegation of missing

specifications of a plane for a “settlement agreement” 57 years ago, or a proven (with written

documentation) conspired illegal kidnapping, abduction, extortion, false arrest, false

imprisonment, and fraud upon the court, and more which continues to this day? (See paragrephs

9-21 in appellate brief).

53. This is only a fraction of the proof available referenced in the original complaint with

400 pages of exhibits. Are pro se plaintiff’s entitled to relief from illegal judgments as every

other citizen? Why are citizens, who just happen to work for the government, given the

immunity to terrorize innocent people outside the law? This is called tyranny. Due Process: The

Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal

government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of

36

law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due

Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central

promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law

("legality") and provide “fair procedures”. Historically, the clause reflects the Magna Carta of

Great Britain, King John's thirteenth century promise to his noblemen that he would act only in

accordance with law (“legality”) and that all would receive the ordinary processes (procedures)

of law. The requirement that government function in accordance with law is, in itself, ample

basis for understanding the stress given these words.

54. A commitment to legality is at the heart of all advanced legal systems, and the Due

Process Clause often thought to embody that commitment. The clause also promises that before

depriving a citizen of life, liberty or property, government must follow “fair procedures”.

Thus, it is not always enough for the government just to act in accordance with whatever law

there may happen to be. Citizens may also be entitled to have the government observe or offer

fair procedures, whether or not those procedures have been provided for in the law on the basis

of which it is acting. Action denying the process that is “due” would be unconstitutional.

55. A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state

judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal

judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal

attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is

not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980). Whenever any officer

of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the

court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud

upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between

37

the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a

member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not

performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been

directly corrupted."

56. "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to

"embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud

perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual

manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v.

C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit

further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all,

and never becomes final." Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has

committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal

force or effect.

57. That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any

proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888

F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated

that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he

has received justice."

58. This Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must

satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960),

citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe

from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice. A

38

judge ignoring or facilitating a kidnapping, taking a case which he is a defendant, denying a jury

trial, or using his position to obstruct justice, does not give the appearance of justice.

59. "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in

support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated

circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). None of the orders issued by

any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they

are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.

60. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process

Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The

right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process

Clause."). Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified “by law”, and if the party

has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the

Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's

“personal capacity” and “not in the judge's judicial capacity”. It has been said that this judge,

acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided

that he is not a judge).

39

40