Corruption in Government Must STOP -
Obey the Constitution
_________________________
Why is Obedience to the State and Federal Constitutions so Important?
Because Public Officers commit heinous criminal acts EVERY DAY
which they would NOT commit if they honored their oaths to obey the Constitutions
________________________
Magritz's Verified Bill Quia Timet, and Motions for Jurisdictional Clarification
and Clarification of Unsigned "Orders"
It was obvious that there were "Unseen Hands" behind the machinations of the "court" in Washington, District of Corruption, that were condoning fraud upon the court by opposing attorneys and pulling out all stops to get rid of the Magritz Breach of Fiduciary lawsuit against the dishonest, false swearing, perjuring Public Officers. After all, who ever heard of an honest politician, besides one or two who were marginalized, imprisoned, or assassinated?
So, might as well get in their face and ask them, as Fiduciaries of the Public Trust, what they are doing. Inquiring minds want to know. They have a duty to respond. And to respond honestly. ROFL. Right. Animal Farm, and, We're the gov't and you're not. The 6 pages of dolus sent by the court to Magritz was returned to the court with this Bill, and is reproduced below the Bill. |
|
____________________
VERIFIED BILL QUIA TIMET, and, COMPLAINANT’S VERIFIED MOTIONS FOR: JURISDICTIONAL CLARIFICATION, and,
CLARIFICATION OF UNSIGNED “ORDERS” ___________________________________________________________ VERIFICATION
The undersigned Complainant, Steven Alan Magritz, of his own personal knowledge and under the pain and penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, does depose and declare that all of the factual statements made in the instant “VERIFIED BILL QUIA TIMET” and “Motions For: Jurisdictional Clarification, and, Clarification of Unsigned “Orders” are true and correct, except as to those individual statements specifically made upon information and belief, and as to such matters, the undersigned verily believes the same to be true. INTRODUCTION Complainant, Steven Alan Magritz, filed suit in the “district court of the United States” for the District of Columbia as the only remaining federal court venue wherein a man, in propria persona, could obtain relief or remedy in original jurisdiction. The Equity Jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked as a result of all failed attempts to resolve this matter administratively. The record clearly indicates that administrative res judicata was not and has not been recognized. See Complainant’s “Exhibit F” incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, the only proper jurisdiction and venue lies in Equity with the “district court of the United States”.
The “United States District Court” for the District of Columbia, and other federal courts, function solely between parties that are “legal fictions”. This is evidenced in Complainant’s instant case by some person or persons with access to both courts in the District of Columbia acting in breach of their fiduciary duty by committing identity theft of Complainant’s persona and “creating” a “mirror image” case in the “United States District Court” with “STEVEN ALAN MAGRITZ” as the complaining party. Further, said “person(s)” fraudulently converted Complainant’s breach of fiduciary suit into a statutory Title 42 Section 1983 “civil rights” suit. The alleged “Orders” dated June 29, 2012 and July 26, 2012 issued out of the “United States District Court” bore a different case number than Complainant’s case, were not issued by the court in which Complainant’s Complaint was filed, were misaddressed to the legal fiction “STEVEN ALAN MAGRITZ” at the post office box rented by the notary public who acts as Complainant’s contact person, have no bearing whatsoever on Complainant’s suit filed in the “district court of the United States”, and are deemed by Complainant to be prima facie evidence of identity theft and mail fraud. Complainant herewith revokes, cancels, nullifies nunc pro tunc Complainant’s “signature” on the Motions to Strike Interlopers’ Baum, Rice and Van Hollen’s Motion(s) To Dismiss as having been a mistake. Complainant was mislead by the “Notice of Electronic Filing”, which was not accompanied with a copy of the “ORDER” dated June 29, 2012, which was issued by a different court with a different case number than Complainant’s, and directed to a different Complaining Party than Complainant. Complainant charges the “failure” to send Complainant a copy of the alleged “ORDER” was intentional and intended to deceive Complainant. Said “ORDER” exposes on its face that it was not issued in Complainant’s suit filed in the “district court of the United States” for the District of Columbia. Further, Baum, Rice and Van Hollen’s Motions were filed in a different court and a different case in a different jurisdiction and venue than those of Complainant, therefore Complainant’s “response” was a mistake and is herewith revoked, nullified, disavowed nunc pro tunc to preclude officers of the court from “relying” thereupon to the injury of Complainant.
JUDICIAL NOTICE NOTICE: This Court is a Judicial, and not an administrative proceeding. NOTICE: Complainant’s Complaint invoked the Equity Jurisdiction of this Court by and through the causes of action and relief requested set forth therein. NOTICE: Equity Jurisprudence governs this Court; this Court shall take Mandatory Judicial Notice of the Maxims governing Equity Jurisprudence. NOTICE: Complainant filed suit against Respondents in Equity, which acts in personam against individuals in their personal capacity, not their official capacity. NOTICE: Complainant did not file a Title 42 Section 1983 suit, or any other at law suit, which has been dishonestly claimed, alleged, assumed, presumed, insinuated, et cetera by officers of the court, beginning with the person who prepared the false “Civil Cover Sheet” without Complainant’s consent and over Complainant’s objection. Complainant charges breach of fiduciary duty by officers of the court who are deemed to have committed identity theft in violation of Title 18 section 1028 and mail fraud in violation of Title 18 section 1341 as part of a scheme to deprive Complainant of Complainant’s private property. VERIFIED BILL QUIA TIMET
1. Complainant does NOT UNDERSTAND, does NOT CONSENT TO, and does NOT ACCEPT, the unsigned “ORDERS” dated June 29, 2012 and July 26, 2012 from the “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT” which is not the court Complainant filed suit in, the captions of which are different from the caption of Complainant’s suit; which name a different complaining party other than Complainant; which labels or denotes the complaining party differently than in Complainant’s suit; which have a completely different case number than Complainant’s suit; and, which were misaddressed to STEVEN ALAN MAGRITZ, P.O. Box 342443, MILWAUKEE, WI 53234, but given to Complainant by the Notary Public, Kenneth A. Kraucunas, who rents P.O. Box 342443. 2. Complainant made a typographical mistake in wording in the caption that stated “the following public officers in their individual capacities and in their official capacities …”. The aforesaid wording “and in their official capacities” was a typographical mistake. Complainant did not, and does not, and is not filing suit against the public officers in their “official capacity” as evidenced throughout Complainant’s entire pleadings, not the least of which is the fact that Complainant invoked this Court’s Equity Jurisdiction, which acts in personam, and the naming of the Respondents with their residence address as required by Local Rule LCvR 5.1 (e)(1) which reads, “The first filing by or on behalf of a party shall have in the caption the name and full residence address of the party.” (emphasis added). As stated in the caption of Complainant’s Complaint, “Names and addresses of all known Respondents are set forth in Exhibit C, incorporated herein by reference”. “Exhibit C” listed the residence address of each Respondent. 3. Complainant is fearful that the activities of some person with access to this Court, possibly an inexperienced first-term law clerk, but more likely than not someone acting with mens rea, but certainly not the experienced jurist Emmet G. Sullivan himself, is using the name of Emmet G. Sullivan d/b/a Judge, and is acting either by mistake or with insufficient knowledge of Equity Jurisdiction and equity pleading, or with mens rea, and is therefore acting in a biased and injurious manner against Complainant by denying Complainant due process as well as denying Complainant access to the court. See Moore’s “Fraud on the court”, infra.
4. Complainant is fearful that the fraudulently created “mirror image” suit in the “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT” into which attorneys Baum, Rice and Van Hollen have filed numerous false representations, will be used as a pretext by Chancellor Emmet G. Sullivan, or some other person using the name of Emmet G. Sullivan, to fraudulently deny Complainant relief or remedy in the “district court of the United States”. 5. Complainant is fearful that the activities of some person with access to this Court, more likely than not someone acting with mens rea, has intentionally misrepresented Complainant’s suit in Equity Jurisdiction against public officers in their individual capacity as a statutory civil rights action (T42 §1983) against those same public officers in their official capacity, and is therefore acting in a fraudulent, biased and injurious manner against Complainant by denying Complainant due process as well as denying Complainant access to the court by: A) Preparing a falsified “Civil Cover Sheet” falsely representing Complainant’s suit to be a category “890 Other Statutory Actions” rather than a breach of fiduciary suit brought for violations of Constitutional mandates or prohibitions. B) Preparing a falsified “Civil Cover Sheet” falsely representing Complainant’s suit to be a “42 USC 1983” Cause of Action rather than a suit against public officers in their individual capacity for breach of fiduciary duty.
C) Preparing a falsified “Civil Cover Sheet” falsely representing Complainant to be “Pro se” rather than presenting himself as a man in his proper person in inherent jurisdiction. D) Preparing a falsified “Docket Sheet”, not for the “district court of the United States” in which Complainant filed suit, but for the “U.S. District Court”, which falsely reads “Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act”; “Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions”; “Public Officers in their official (sic) capacities (sic) and (sic) official capacities …”, among other false representations. E) Mailing misaddressed mail to STEVEN ALAN MAGRITZ, P.O. Box 342443, Milwaukee, WI 53234, rather than correctly addressed mail to Steven Alan Magritz, c/o Kenneth A. Kraucunas, Notary Public, P.O. Box 342443, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53234. F) Making use of the United States mail by sending an unsigned alleged “ORDER” in an attempt to deceive Complainant. G) Mailing postmarked July 30, 2012 an unsigned alleged “ORDER” dated July 26, 2012 from the “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT”, which is not the court in which Complainant filed suit. Complainant filed suit in the “district court of the United States”. H) Mailing postmarked July 30, 2012 in an envelope from the “UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT” an unsigned alleged “ORDER” dated June 29, 2012 from the “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT”, which is not the court in which Complainant filed suit. Complainant filed suit in the “district court of the United States”. I) Mailing unsigned alleged “ORDERS” naming as the complaining party “STEVEN ALAN MAGRITZ”, which is not Complainant. Complainant is Steven Alan Magritz.
J) Mailing unsigned alleged “ORDERS” denominating the complaining party as “Plaintiff”, whereas the complaining party in Complainant’s suit is denominated “Complainant”. K) Mailing unsigned alleged “ORDERS” for a case denoted “Civil Action No. 11-806 (EGS)”, which is not Complainant’s suit. Complainant’s suit is denoted “Case Number: 12CV806 EGS”. L) Failing to recognize established Maxims set forth in Complainant’s Motions To Strike, which now are revoked, supra, which have governed Equity Jurisprudence for centuries, Maxime ita dicta quia maxima est ejus dignitas et certissima auctaritas atque quod maxime omnibus probetur.[1] Principia probant non probantur.[2], [3] M) Attempting to block or deny Complainant access to the Equity Jurisdiction of the “district court of the United States” as evidenced by creating a “mirror image” suit in the “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT”. N) Attempting to block or deny Complainant access to the “district court of the United States” for the District of Columbia as evidenced by communications from the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rather than from the district court of the United States. O) Ignoring Complainant’s pleading in equity to the Equity Jurisdiction of this Court as evidenced by the aforesaid referenced “ORDERS”. P) Attempting to convert the Equity Jurisdiction of this Court to Law Jurisdiction, supra. [footnotes:] [1] A maxim is so called because its dignity is maximum and its authority the most certain, and because approved at the maximum by all. [2] Maxims have an inherent probative force, and need not to be proved. [3] 2 Kent’s Com., 553. So fundamental are these maxims that he who disputes their authority is regarded as beyond the reach of reason. Q) Attempting to block or deny Complainant relief from unjust enrichment of third parties caused by public officers in breach of their fiduciary duty by acting outside the scope of their duties by taking private property for public use without just compensation, as evidenced by the content and tone of the aforesaid “ORDERS”.
R) Attempting to block or deny Complainant relief from unjust enrichment of third parties caused by public officers in breach of their fiduciary duty by acting outside the scope of their duties by impairing the obligation of contracts, supra. S) Attempting to block or deny Complainant relief from the acts of public officers acting in breach of their fiduciary duty, which caused Complainant an injury. T) Attempting to block or deny Complainant relief from the acts of public officers acting in insurrection and rebellion to the Constitution of the United States of America. MOTIONS FOR: JURISDICTIONAL CLARIFICATION, and, CLARIFICATION OF UNSIGNED “ORDERS” It will hereinafter be presumed that an inexperienced first-term law clerk, or more likely than not someone acting with mens rea, is “using” the name of Emmet G. Sullivan although the aforesaid unsigned “ORDERS” dated June 29, 2012 and July 26, 2012 purport to be “Signed” by Emmet G. Sullivan d/b/a Judge. Professor Moore, in Moore's Federal Practice ¶60.33, writing about “Fraud on the court” says, “And, while less obvious, an abnegation by the judge of his judicial function, although no actual fraud was perpetrated, may well be a ‘legal’ fraud by him upon the judicial institution.” See 7 Moore's Federal Practice ¶60.33 at 510–11. And, “Fraud upon the court” should, we believe, embrace only 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. Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 60.33, at 515 (2d ed. 1978).
Complainant shows this honorable Court as follows: 1. Complainant filed suit in the “district court of the United States” for the District of Columbia, not the “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT” for the District of Columbia. 2. Complainant tendered payment when filing the aforesaid Complaint with Postal Money Orders which directed: “Pay to district court of the United States”, which tender was accepted, thereby creating a contract with the “district court of the United States”. 3. Complainant filed suit against public officers in their individual capacity, not against public officers in their official capacity. 4. Complainant has not consented, does not consent, and will not consent in the future, to the hypothecation or collateralization or securitization or pledging or other “use”, in any manner or shape or form or title or name or description or guise whatsoever, Complainant’s Complaint filed with the “district court of the United States” for the District of Columbia, to or for the benefit of the United States, or any “court”, or any other “person”. 5. Complainant’s suit filed in the aforesaid Court invoked Equity Jurisdiction of the Court. 6. Complainant is “Steven Alan Magritz”, not STEVEN ALAN MAGRITZ. 7. Complainant receives mail pursuant to a private contract with a notary public as properly evidenced in Complainant’s Complaint, viz, Steven Alan Magritz, c/o Kenneth A. Kraucunas, Notary Public, P.O. Box 342443, … not STEVEN ALAN MAGRITZ, P.O. Box 342443, … 8. The aforesaid notary handed Complainant misaddressed envelopes to “STEVEN ALAN MAGRITZ” containing the aforesaid “ORDERS” from the “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT”.
9. Complainant’s suit was assigned the following: “Case Number: 12-CV-806 EGS”, not “Civil Action No. 11-806 (EGS)” as indicated on the aforesaid “ORDERS” from the “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT”. 10. The aforesaid “ORDERS” obviously do not pertain to Complainant or to Complainant’s suit filed in the “district court of the United States”. COMPLAINANT’S VERIFIED MOTIONS COMPLAINANT MOVES this honorable Court, in the person of Chancellor Emmet G. Sullivan, as Chancellor and as a fiduciary of the Public Trust, to forthwith fully disclose, as required by fiduciaries, and to validate said disclosure with his personal hand signature, to Complainant why the established Maxims of Equity Jurisprudence which have governed Equity practice in both the United States of America as well as England for centuries are being ignored by this Court in which Complainant invoked Equity Jurisdiction. COMPLAINANT MOVES this honorable Court, in the person of Chancellor Emmet G. Sullivan, to forthwith fully disclose to Complainant why the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT mailed the aforesaid “ORDER” dated July 26, 2012 rather than the “district court of the United States”, and, to fully disclose the difference between the two different courts. COMPLAINANT MOVES this honorable Court, in the person of Chancellor Emmet G. Sullivan, to forthwith fully disclose to Complainant why, when Complainant has a bona fide contract with the “district court of the United States”, Complainant receives no communication from the “district court of the United States” wherein Complainant filed Complainant’s suit. COMPLAINANT MOVES this honorable Court, in the person of Chancellor Emmet G. Sullivan, to forthwith fully disclose to Complainant why this Court is not functioning pursuant to Equity Jurisdiction as invoked by Complainant’s Complaint.
COMPLAINANT MOVES this honorable Court, in the person of Chancellor Emmet G. Sullivan, to forthwith fully disclose to Complainant whether the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT is acting in Equity Jurisdiction, Law Jurisdiction, admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, or some “other” jurisdiction. If “other”, then specify and fully disclose. COMPLAINANT MOVES this honorable Court, in the person of Chancellor Emmet G. Sullivan, to forthwith fully disclose to Complainant why the aforesaid “ORDERS” are captioned “STEVEN ALAN MAGRITZ” rather than Steven Alan Magritz as denoted in the Complaint. COMPLAINANT MOVES this honorable Court, in the person of Chancellor Emmet G. Sullivan, to forthwith fully disclose to Complainant why the aforesaid “ORDERS” indicate they relate to “Civil Action No. 11-806 (EGS)” rather than “Case Number: 12CV806 EGS”. COMPLAINANT MOVES this honorable Court, in the person of Chancellor Emmet G. Sullivan, to forthwith fully disclose to Complainant why communications via mail, if they are meant for Complainant, are not properly mailed to “Steven Alan Magritz, c/o Kenneth A. Kraucunas, Notary Public, P.O. Box 342443, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53234, as set forth in Complainant’s Complaint. ENCLOSED HEREWITH are the misaddressed mailings, the aforesaid “ORDERS” dated June 29 and July 26, 2012, which were obviously crafted, designed, and intended to deceive Complainant, to deny Complainant due process, and to deny Complainant access to the Court, written by someone who is “using” the name of Emmet G. Sullivan d/b/a Judge, both of which were handed to Complainant by the Notary Public on August 2, 2012, which Complainant does NOT RECOGNIZE, does NOT CONSENT TO, and does NOT ACCEPT, and which are being timely “returned” to Emmet G. Sullivan as not applicable to Complainant or Complainant’s suit filed with the “district court of the United States” invoking Equity Jurisdiction. The aforesaid returned “ORDERS” are identified and exposed in their deceitful intent by the following markings: A) “Improper jurisdiction and venue” with an arrow pointing to the name of the court, “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT”; B) “Incorrect party” with an arrow pointing to the name, “STEVEN ALAN MAGRITZ”; C) “Incorrect case number” with an arrow pointing to “Civil Action No. 11-806 (EGS)”.
COMPLAINANT MOVES this honorable Court, in the person of Chancellor Emmet G. Sullivan, to forthwith GRANT Complainant’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment. Respondents have not filed any response or opposition whatsoever to Complainant’s suit filed within the jurisdiction or venue of this Court wherein Complainant filed suit, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and Complainant is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law. Dated this August 13, 2012. BY:_____________________________ Steven Alan Magritz CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that all 43 Respondents for whom a summons has been issued by the Court are being served a copy of the following documents signed by Steven Alan Magritz on this August 13, 2012 by way of first class, postage prepaid United States mail, mailed to their respective residence address indicated in Complainant’s filings with the clerk of this court. 1) “JUDICIAL NOTICE” dated August 13, 2012. 2) “MOTION TO DEMAND PRESIDING JUDGE READ ALL PLEADINGS COMPLAINANT FILES WITH THIS COURT, AND ADHERE ONLY TO CONSTITUTIONALLY COMPLIANT LAW AND CASE LAW, AND MORE PARTICULARLY, THE “BILL OF RIGHTS” AND THE MAXIMS OF EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE, IN ITS RULINGS” dated August 13, 2012. 3) “VERIFIED BILL QUIA TIMET, and, COMPLAINANT’S VERIFIED MOTIONS FOR: JURISDICTIONAL CLARIFICATION, and, CLARIFICATION OF UNSIGNED “ORDERS” dated August 13, 2012. ________________________________ |
____________________
Go to the Prologue page for a timeline and summary description of what this website is about
Return to top of this page
Go to The Ozaukee MOB home page, www.OzaukeeMOB.org
Go to Public Officer Quislings and Traitors main page
Go to Lawless Sheriff Maurice A. "Maury" Straub page
Go to independent Investigative Reporter Gene Forte main page
Go to the "800 Lb Gorilla" Lawsuit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty main page
Return to top of this page
Go to The Ozaukee MOB home page, www.OzaukeeMOB.org
Go to Public Officer Quislings and Traitors main page
Go to Lawless Sheriff Maurice A. "Maury" Straub page
Go to independent Investigative Reporter Gene Forte main page
Go to the "800 Lb Gorilla" Lawsuit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty main page