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
_______________
Attorneys commit crimes that are covered up other attorneys,
judges, and other public officers
Those who cover-up the crimes are more dishonest, corrupt, crooked, culpable, immoral, reprobate, decadent, degenerate, worthy of punishment, etc.,
than the original crime-committing attorney.
____________________
Serving in Public Office is a PRIVILEGE
WHY?
Because it is a privilege for a man to be deemed to be of the highest moral character, exhibiting such honesty, integrity, and good faith that other men would trust such a man to protect their life, liberty, and property. A man who is unfaithful and breaches such a sacred Trust is of such moral turpitude as to have descended below the level of a baby-raper, for such a one has figuratively raped the unborn as well as those who already have been born.
Public Officers that do not act with the highest fidelity to the Constitutions they are required to support exhibit contempt and disrespect for the high calling of public office.
Because it is a privilege for a man to be deemed to be of the highest moral character, exhibiting such honesty, integrity, and good faith that other men would trust such a man to protect their life, liberty, and property. A man who is unfaithful and breaches such a sacred Trust is of such moral turpitude as to have descended below the level of a baby-raper, for such a one has figuratively raped the unborn as well as those who already have been born.
Public Officers that do not act with the highest fidelity to the Constitutions they are required to support exhibit contempt and disrespect for the high calling of public office.
_________________________
This Affidavit in Support of Motion To Vacate a Void Judgment was filed in 2007 in the proceedings where Andrew "MT head" Gonring was Disqualified for Perjury of his Oath.
The Quisling Public Officers referred to herein are individually named on the
"Hall of Shame Quislings of 2001 - 2001" page
____________________
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT OZAUKEE COUNTY ____________________________________________________________________________
In the Matter of the Foreclosure of Tax Liens under §75.521, Wisconsin Statutes, by Case No. 01-CV58-B3 Ozaukee County, List of Tax Liens For 1997, No. 24 ____________________________________________________________________________ AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE A VOID JUDGMENT ____________________________________________________________________________ 1. I, Steven Alan Magritz, Petitioner / Movant of the verified petition/motion to vacate a void judgment filed August 7, 2007 in the above-captioned matter, in support of said verified petition /motion states that he is a competent witness, that the facts contained herein are true, correct, complete, and not misleading under penalty of perjury under the laws of the united States of America (de jure) and The state of Wisconsin (de jure), and as for those statements made upon information, reason, or belief, Petitioner believes them to be true. 2. All exhibits that are attached hereto are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety as if fully reproduced herein. 3. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 201 and corresponding Wisconsin rules 902.01 regarding judicial notice of adjudicative facts, and, Federal Rules of Evidence 902 and Wisconsin rules 909.02 regarding self-authenticating documents, this court shall take judicial notice of documents certified out of the office of the Register of Deeds of Ozaukee County, Wisconsin that corroborate and substantiate all that I am about to testify to. Some of these documents have been previously filed with this court and other county officers and have in the past strangely disappeared from the files, therefore for my own protection I have maintained in my possession, and have here with me today, certified copies of the aforesaid documents. This Court shall take particular and specific judicial notice of the Formal Certificates of Protest issued by commissioned officers of the Secretary of State of the State of Wisconsin which certify and bear witness to my affidavits and contents therein and the admissions of Karen L. Makoutz, Dennis E. Kenealy, Jeffrey S. Schmidt, Joseph D. McCormack, Maurice A. Straub, and all two members of the Board of Supervisors of Ozaukee County. 4. I have previously filed pleadings with this court, under penalty of perjury. These pleadings have gone unrebutted and unanswered by the plaintiff, the public business corporation named Ozaukee County. The first pleading was timely filed with the Court on May 31, 2001 in response to the Complaint in this instant matter, case number 01-CV-58. It was a verified Answer to the Complaint, plus a Counterclaim. My verified Answer and Counterclaim was, and remains to this day, unrebutted, and therefore all statements, and all claims, and all charges therein are admitted by the plaintiff business corporation named Ozaukee County. 5. My Answer and Counterclaim was never acknowledged on the court docket sheet or court record as having been received and filed with the court, as required by law. 6. My verified Answer and Counterclaim was removed from the court files by Dennis E. Kenealy, attorney for Ozaukee County, and Jeffrey S. Schmidt, clerk of court for Ozaukee County. Exhibit A attached hereto is a copy of the court record evidencing that my responsive Answer and Claim to this instant matter was not recorded in the court records as having been received and filed, notwithstanding the fact that my responsive Answer and Claim was timely received on May 31, 2001, as evidenced in Exhibit B, which are time and date stamped copies of said Answer and Claim which I obtained after the documents had been returned to the court in December, 2001. 7. Exhibit C, Register of Deeds document number 708567, page 952, is a Formal Certificate of Protest by Notary Public evidencing the admission by Kenealy of the transfer by both Jeffery S. Schmidt and Karen L. Makoutz of my Answer and Claim to Kenealy, the admission by Kenealy of drafting a Default Judgment stating that no answer had been received when in fact Kenealy had physical possession of the Answer and Claim filed with both Makoutz and Schmidt. 8. My verified statement regarding unrebutted stipulations by Kenealy appear on pages 954 through 958 of document number 708567 and includes Kenealy’s admission that Kenealy knew that I never transferred title to my private property nor hypothecated said title of my land to the public on page 956, item number 5. 9. Exhibit D attached hereto, Register of Deeds document number 698699, page 981 evidences a Formal Certificate of Protest by Notary Public evidencing that Schmidt has admitted by tacit procuration the transfer of the commercial instrument, my Answer and Claim, from the office of the clerk of court to Dennis E. Kenealy and has failed to provide any legal or lawful reason for said transfer, and further evidences that the alleged non-existence of the Claim/ Answer is the proximate cause of my removal without claim from my land. All thirty-two members of the Board of Supervisors received a copy of this Protest with my Affidavit as evidenced on pages 983 to 985, but all failed to respond or rebut. 10. Exhibit E, Register of Deeds document number 698440, again evidences the Schmidt admissions by way of affidavit and notarial protest, as well as the affidavits of two of the witnesses who accompanied me to the office of the clerk of court on December 11, 2001 and witnessed the fact that my Answer and Claim were not in the file, witnessed Schmidt’s admission that they were not in the file, and witnessed Schmidt calling Kenealy and asking Kenealy to look in Kenealy’s office for my Answer and Claim. The affidavits of the witnesses are on pages 857 and 858. 11. My Answer and Counterclaim was removed from the court files without the legally required written permission from a judge. 12. My Answer and Counterclaim was removed from the court files without the legally required receipt being given by Kenealy to clerk Schmidt for its removal. 13. My Answer and Counterclaim was not returned to the court files by Kenealy within the legally required 10 days. 14. My Answer and Counterclaim was never returned to the court files until sometime in December, 2001, some SEVEN months later, and then only after I had started an investigation and personally questioned Schmidt on December 11, 2001 as to its disappearance from the court files. 15. Neither the Plaintiff business corporation named Ozaukee County, by and through its corporate counsel Dennis E. Kenealy, nor by and through any of its officers, employees, or agents, ever rebutted any of the responses that I made in my Answer and Counterclaim, nor did they rebut any of the charges or statements that I made in my verified Answer and Counterclaim. 16. These statements in my verified Answer and Counterclaim include, but are not limited to, the fact that my land is private property, the fact that my land is not hypothecated or pledged to the corporation named United States on the bankruptcy of the corporate United States, the fact that my land is not pledged or hypothecated to the public business corporation named State of Wisconsin, the fact that my land is not hypothecated or pledged to the public business corporation named Ozaukee County, the fact that I have no contract with any of the aforesaid public business corporations that would evidence a duty or liability or obligation on my part to said corporations with respect to my private land, in any form or by any nomenclature or pretense whatsoever, be it called “rent” or “taxes.” 17. These statements in my verified Answer and Counterclaim include, but are not limited to, the fact that I had tendered payment to Karen L. Makoutz, Ozaukee County treasurer, pursuant to coercion and threat of abuse of legal process, in full and complete discharge of any purported liability, and thus paid extortion to Makoutz for the full and complete discharge of any purported liability. 18. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and corresponding Wisconsin Rules 802.02, Failure to Deny, the statements and charges in my Answer and Claim stand as admitted. For the record, at this time I reaffirm under penalty of perjury every statement, charge, or claim made in my verified Answer and Counterclaim, and move said document into evidence in this Court, and declare said document received by this Court as evidence. 19. I have here in my possession copies certified out of this Court of my Answer and Claim evidencing timely receipt by this Court of my Answer and Claim, Exhibit A, as well as a certified copy of the court record, Exhibit B, evidencing the fact that my Answer and Counterclaim was never recorded as having been received by this Court, and make offer of proof. 20. Therefore, since there is, and was, no dispute, there is, and was, no controversy for the Court to hear, the court lacked jurisdiction, and this Court must rule that the purported judgment issued on August 9, 2001 by Joseph D. McCormack is void ab initio. 21. I have sent numerous letters, statements, affidavits, and Formal Certificates of Protest by Notary Public to the plaintiff business corporation named Ozaukee County, by and through its attorney, Dennis E. Kenealy, as well as by and through other authoritative officers of the corporation, including but not limited to Karen L. Makoutz, Jeffrey S. Schmidt, Joseph D. McCormack, Maurice Straub, Gustav Wirth Jr., and thirty some members of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff business corporation, commonly referred to as the Board of Supervisors. 22. None of my statements, charges, letters, or affidavits, nor any of the Formal Certificates of Protest by Notary Public, have ever been rebutted by the plaintiff corporation by or through any officers, employees, agents, or representatives of the plaintiff corporation, including but not limited to corporation attorney Dennis E. Kenealy. 23. Exhibit E, Register of Deeds document number 698440, Formal Protest by a Notary Public, page 859, evidences the failure of Makoutz to respond to a request to show proof of claim that Ozaukee County, or anyone other than Steven Alan Magritz had any claim or legal or lawful authority to sell, transfer, assign, hypothecate, et cetera, any interest in my land, and further evidences the agreement with Makoutz that neither Makoutz, nor the Principal(s) or Agent(s) of Makoutz have any claim to or against my land. 24. My statements, charges, and affidavits are admitted by plaintiff business corporation Ozaukee County as a matter of law. Failure to answer is Silence. They are further admitted under two well established doctrines of Silence, the doctrine of estoppel, and the doctrine of fraud. First, Failure to answer is Silence. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” US v Tweel, (1977) 550 F 2d 297. 25. Each and every public servant or other person who has sworn an oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America has a legal duty, as well as a moral duty, to not impair or infringe or trespass against the Rights of American Citizens, and has a duty to respond to their masters, the Sovereign American Citizens. 26. The doctrine of Estoppel by Silence, which “arises where a person is under a duty to another to speak or failure to speak is inconsistent with honest dealings,” as stated in the case of In Re McArdles Estate, 250 NYS 276, 287, emphatically applies to our public servants who have sworn an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. 27. Karen L. Makoutz, the purported complaining officer of the plaintiff business corporation named Ozaukee County has never denied, rebutted, or even responded at any time to any of my statements, claims, charges, or affidavits, which are recorded in the public record at the office of the Register of Deeds. 28. As evidenced by Affidavit recorded in Deeds on April 6, 2001, document number 674178, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit H, Makoutz has admitted said statements, claims, charges, and affidavits. Makoutz has admitted and agreed that neither she, nor any other person or entity, on behalf of himself/ herself/ itself, any Agent, any Principal, any party-in-interest, presented a claim against my land, which is private land. 29. Makoutz has admitted and agreed that my private land is not pledged or hypothecated to the public. Makoutz admitted and agreed that there is no more public debt liability on the accounts with regard to my private land. Makoutz admitted and agreed that any liabilities were paid off. 30. Makoutz admitted and agreed that my lands are privatized out of the public system. Makoutz admitted and agreed that I claimed all right, title, and interest in my land in fee simple absolute. 31. Makoutz admitted and agreed that my lands in which I claimed all right, title and interest in fee simple absolute, were not liable to taxation at the time the tax, of which Makoutz’s alleged tax lien arises, was levied. 32. Makoutz admitted and agreed that notwithstanding the non-liability to taxation as herein-before stated, the tax was in fact paid on March 2, 2001, when payment was mailed to Makoutz by registered mail. 33. Makoutz admitted failure and/or refusal to divulge any and all contracts, visible or invisible, express or implied, in law or in equity, upon which Makoutz was acting, thereby admitting that no such contracts exist. 34. Makoutz admitted and agreed that Makoutz may not argue, controvert, or otherwise protest the finality of these administrative findings in any subsequent process, whether administrative, commercial, admiralty/maritime, or judicial. Document number 674178 with my affidavit was filed with this Court on May 31, 2001 and was included in my verified Answer and Counterclaim. 35. I believe that there is filed with this Court a certified copy from the Register of Deeds of Document number 674178, but if not, I have here in my possession a certified copy and make offer of proof. Document number 674178 evidences that there was no controversy, the plaintiff business corporation named Ozaukee County had no standing to bring its complaint, the Court had no jurisdiction to rule on the alleged merits of the Complaint, the Court had no jurisdiction to grant a default judgment, therefore this Court MUST now rule that the purported judgment issued on August 9, 2001 by Joseph D. McCormack is void ab initio. 36. On April 5, 2001, pursuant to coercion and threat of abuse of legal process, Makoutz received my tender of payment as full and complete discharge of the alleged liability via registered United States mail, as evidenced in document number 675637 recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds. Document number 675637 with my affidavit was filed with this Court on May 31, 2001 and was included in my verified Answer and Counterclaim. 37. I believe that the document number 675637 filed with this Court is a certified copy from the Register of Deeds, but if not, I have here in my possession a certified copy and make offer of proof. Exhibit I, Register of Deeds document number 675637, is attached hereto, and evidences an unrebutted Confirmation of Face-to-Face Conversation with Makoutz wherein Makoutz admitted her breach of fiduciary and conversion of my tender of payment, pages 895 and 896. 38. Makoutz did not protest my tender of payment for non-acceptance or non-payment or for any reason at all. A Formal Certificate of Protest Of Commercial Paper U.C.C. §3-505 by a Notary Public was prepared and a copy served upon Makoutz, with Makoutz failing to respond. Neither I, nor the protesting notary have ever received a response from Makoutz regarding either the tender of payment or the Notary’s Protest. 39. I have not seen or been presented with any fact or statement or claim or communication by Makoutz or Kenealy or anyone else that the tender of payment on April 5, 2001, did not constitute full and complete discharge pursuant to Wisconsin statutes §403.603. Pursuant to the supreme court of the United States, “Still a government may suffer loss through the negligence of its officers. If it comes down from its position of sovereignty and enters the domain of commerce, it submits itself to the same laws that govern individuals there. Thus, if it becomes holder of a bill of exchange, it must use the same diligence to charge the drawers and endorsers that is required of individuals, and if it fails in this, its claim upon the parties is lost.” United States v. Barker, 12 Wheat. 559, as cited in Cooke v. U.S., 91 U.S. 389. 40. My statements are admitted by the public business corporation Ozaukee County under two well established doctrines of Silence, the doctrine of estoppel, and the doctrine of fraud. 41. First, Failure to answer is Silence. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” US v Tweel, (1977) 550 F 2d 297. 42. Each and every public servant or other person who has sworn an oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America has a legal duty, as well as a moral duty, to not impair or infringe or trespass against the Rights of American Citizens, and has a duty to respond to their masters, the Sovereign American Citizens. 43. The doctrine of Estoppel by Silence, which “arises where a person is under a duty to another to speak or failure to speak is inconsistent with honest dealings,” emphatically applies to our public servants who have sworn an oath to support the Constitution of the United States (In Re McArdles Estate, 250 NYS 276, 287). 44. Document number 675637 evidences my tender of payment to Makoutz, it evidences that there was no controversy, it evidences that the plaintiff business corporation named Ozaukee County had no standing to bring its complaint, that the Court had no jurisdiction to rule on the alleged merits of the Complaint, and that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant a default judgment, therefore this Court MUST now rule that the purported judgment issued on August 9, 2001 by Joseph D. McCormack is void ab initio. 45. On April 20, 2001, I again tendered payment in full, as extortion, pursuant to coercion and threat of abuse of legal process, to Makoutz by presentment of Tender Of Payment, and, Notice of Reservation of Right to Initiate Counterclaim and to Claim Bond or Surety, and, Notice of Public Record, and, Verification of Tender of Payment and Notice of Reservation of Right To Initiate Counterclaim and To Claim Bond Or Surety, and, Creditor Disclosure Statement, and, Certified Promissory Note in the amount of $22,634.97, and, an Offer of Performance. 46. My writing reminded Makoutz that I had an agreement with Makoutz that Makoutz was acting without authority and was attempting to assert a claim upon property that Makoutz had no lawful interest in. 47. I reminded Makoutz that I had an agreement with Makoutz that there is no pledge to the public of my lands, and that the accounts have been adjusted and there is no more public debt liability on the accounts with regard to my lands. 48. Makoutz did not make presentment of the Note for collection, did not issue me or the clerk of court a redemption certificate, and did not issue a notice of protest. 49. Makoutz maintained her rigid code of Silence and failure to rebut or deny. 50. On April 26, 2001, the refusal and dishonor by Makoutz of my tender of payment was protested by Formal Certificate of Protest of Commercial Paper U.C.C. §3-505 by a notary public. Evidence of tender of payment and Certificate of Protest are recorded in Deeds, document number 675781, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 51. I have not seen or been presented with any material fact or claim by Makoutz or Kenealy or anyone else that the tender of payment on April 5, 2001, did not constitute full and complete discharge pursuant to Wisconsin statutes §403.603. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” US v Tweel, (1977) 550 F 2d 297. 52. Each and every public servant or other person who has sworn an oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America has a legal duty, as well as a moral duty, to not impair or infringe or trespass against the Rights of American Citizens, and has a duty to respond to their masters, the Sovereign American Citizens. The doctrine of Estoppel by Silence, which “arises where a person is under a duty to another to speak or failure to speak is inconsistent with honest dealings,” as stated in the case of In Re McArdles Estate, 250 NYS 276, 287, emphatically applies to our public servants who have sworn an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. 53. Makoutz, Kenealy, and the business corporation named Ozaukee County are estopped from asserting their alleged claim in this Court. I believe that a certified copy of document number 675781 was incorporated in my Answer and Counterclaim filed with this Court on May 31, 2001, but if that copy is not certified, I have here in my possession a certified copy and make offer of proof. Document number 675781 evidences my tender of payment to Makoutz, it evidences that there was no controversy, it evidences estoppel, it evidences that the plaintiff business corporation named Ozaukee County had no standing to bring its complaint, that the Court had no jurisdiction to rule on the alleged merits of the Complaint, and that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant a default judgment, therefore this Court MUST now rule that the purported judgment issued on August 9, 2001 by Joseph D. McCormack is void ab initio. 54. According to the records of the public business corporation named Ozaukee County, on February 7, 2001, the Taxation and General Claims Committee consisting of members Kulfan, Dohrwardt, Kletti, McCulloch, and Weyker, purportedly authorized Kenealy to bring foreclosure action against my private land. 55. However, neither Ozaukee County, nor the Taxation and General Claims Committee of Ozaukee County have any Constitutional authority to foreclose upon my private land. 56. Ozaukee County, a public business corporation and a legal fiction, is legally and lawfully incapable of asserting a claim against, or claiming a duty from, an American Citizen or his property except by way of contract. And, as previously stated, I have no contract with, or hypothecation to, the business corporation named Ozaukee County, or any of its agents, principals, partners, associates, et cetera. 57. Furthermore, the Taxation and General Claims Committee did not even have statutory authority to foreclose on the private property of this American Citizen. 58. But the clear language of the Wisconsin statutes did not deter Kenealy, Kulfan, Dohrwardt, Kletti, McCulloch, or Weyker. 59. Wisconsin statutes §59.01(1) clearly states that “The powers of a county as a body corporate can only be exercised by the board, or in pursuance of a resolution adopted or ordinance enacted by the board.” Wisconsin statutes §59.52(12) clearly states, in pertinent part, “In counties with a population of 50,000 or more, the board may delegate its power in regard to current accounts, claims, demands or causes of action against the county to a standing committee if the amount does not exceed $10,000.” 60. The amount of the purported tax certificate or claim against my private land was in excess of $20,000. This clearly is in excess of the statutorily specified limit of $10,000, therefore only the full board of supervisors would have authority to authorize actions on claims. 61. The Taxation and General Claims Committee clearly acted outside of its statutory authority. The public business corporation named Ozaukee County clearly acted outside of its statutory authority. In the case of Waukesha County v. Young, 106 Wis.2d 244 (1982), the court stated, “The county’s failure to fully comply with the statute renders a foreclosure judgment void.” And in the case of State v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189 (1901), the court stated, “The proceeding is not according to the course of the common law; it is purely statutory, and compliance with the statute is requisite to jurisdiction at every step.” 62. And in the case of Halbach v. Halbach, 259 Wis. 329 (1951) the court stated, “Court has duty to annul an invalid judgment. Laches cannot operate to validate a void judgment.” 63. The public business corporation named Ozaukee County was not only acting outside of constitutionally compliant law, it was acting outside of its statutory authority. The Court had no jurisdiction to rule on the so-called Complaint, the Court had no jurisdiction to grant a default judgment. Therefore this Court MUST now rule that the purported judgment issued on August 9, 2001 by Joseph D. McCormack is void ab initio. 64. There has been much fraud in this matter by public servants who have sworn an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Fraud perpetrated against me as well as fraud upon the court as set forth in Hazel-Atlas Glass v. Hartford-Empire, 322 U.S. 238 (1944), the classic supreme court case regarding fraud upon the court. In that case, the supreme court stated that “under certain circumstances, one of which is after-discovered fraud, relief will be granted against judgments regardless of the term of their entry.” 65. That court further stated that, “tampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society.” 66. That court also stated “Equitable relief against fraudulent judgments is not of statutory creation.” In this instant matter, Makoutz was served a copy of my Answer and Claim on May 31, 2001 by certified mail. 67. Makoutz gave my Answer and Claim to Kenealy. Kenealy thereafter drafted a default judgment for McCormack to sign which stated that “no answer herein had been served upon the Karen L. Makoutz.” 68. I have not seen or been presented with any evidence that Kenealy’s actions do not constitute misconduct in public office and fraud upon the court. 69. My verified Answer and Claim was received by the clerk of court via registered U.S. mail on May 31, 2001. Both the envelope and its contents were time and date stamped May 31, 2001, at approximately 9:41 am. 70. However, for some “mysterious” reason, and contrary to required law, the court record sheet does not show that my Answer was received by the clerk of court. 71. I started investigating in December as to how Kenealy could have obtained a default judgment when I had filed an Answer setting forth both of the two complete defenses that required the matter to be set for trial. 72. The presiding officer has no discretion in the matter. The statutes clearly state that when an answer is filed that sets forth either of the two available defenses, the matter must be set for trial. 73. My verified Answer stated both complete defenses. 74. On December 11, 2001, I and three others visited the office of the clerk of court to inspect the case file. 75. I discovered that my Answer and Claim were not in the file, nor was there any record that they had ever been received by the court. 76. When I questioned Jeffrey S. Schmidt about the missing documents, Schmidt was evasive and attempted to offer numerous excuses for their absence, stating that they might be in his other office or in another case file. 77. I stated that at the time there was no other case file, asked him how many offices he had, and confronted him with a copy of the U.S. mail registered return receipt evidencing that my Answer and Claim had been received by the court on May 31, but was not in the file nor had it been recorded on the docket sheet or court record. 78. Schmidt hastily reached down, grabbed a phone, called Kenealy, and stated, “Dennis, Steve Magritz is here looking for the Answer to the Summons and Complaint on the foreclosure. Would you look for it in your office?” 79. The subsequent admissions by Schmidt that Schmidt transferred my Answer and Claim to Kenealy and did not record them in the court record as having been received, as well as the affidavits of two witnesses who accompanied me on December 11, 2001, are recorded in Deeds document numbers 698440 and 698699, of which I have here certified copies and make offer of proof. 80. Kenealy subsequently admitted removing my Answer and Claim while under oath and giving testimony at a hearing on May 30, 2002, Dane County case number 02-CF-1170, pages 80 – 81 of the transcript. 81. With regard to the duties of the clerk of court, Wisconsin statutes §§59.40 and 807.08 state that the clerk shall file and keep all papers properly deposited with him; the clerk shall keep a court record and write in that record … the date of filing every paper therein; the clerk shall not permit any paper filed in the clerk’s office to be taken therefrom unless upon written order of a judge of the court; the clerk shall take a written receipt for all papers so taken and preserve the same until such papers are returned; and, papers so taken shall be returned at once upon request of the clerk or presiding judge, and no paper shall be kept longer than 10 days. 82. Jeffrey S. Schmidt performed none of the aforementioned duties required by law. Kenealy, aided and abetted by Schmidt, unlawfully and illegally removed my Answer and Claim from the court records and concealed them for about 6 or 7 months until I started an investigation. 83. If the court ever had jurisdiction, which I deny, the court lost jurisdiction with the removal and concealment of my Answer and Claim from the court by my opposing attorney, Dennis E. Kenealy. 84. Regarding void judgments the courts have stated the following. In the case of Waukesha County v. Young, 106 Wis.2d 244 (1982), the court stated, “The county’s failure to fully comply with the statute renders a foreclosure judgment void.” And in the case of State v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189 (1901), the court stated, “The proceeding is not according to the course of the common law; it is purely statutory, and compliance with the statute is requisite to jurisdiction at every step.” And in the case of Halbach v. Halbach, 259 Wis. 329 (1951) the court stated, “Court has duty to annul an invalid judgment. Laches cannot operate to validate a void judgment.” 85. The Court had no jurisdiction to rule on the so-called Complaint, the Court had no jurisdiction to grant a default judgment, therefore this Court MUST now rule that the purported judgment issued on August 9, 2001 by Joseph D. McCormack is void ab initio. 86. On July 9, 2003, Robert C. Braun of the Christian Civil Liberties Union mailed a letter to each and every member of the Board of Supervisors of the public business corporation named Ozaukee County pursuant to their oath of office to support the Constitution. 87. Pursuant to their oath, they were requested to rebut my 11 page Affidavit of Criminal Report and Probable Cause By Witness and Victim of Criminal Activity, in which I made accusations of criminal acts perpetrated by Ozaukee County officers or employees. 88. On August 24, 2003, Robert C. Braun mailed a follow-up letter to the supervisors reminding the supervisors, none of whom had responded to Braun’s July 9 letter, that an unrebutted Affidavit stands as Truth. Braun stated that “Your silence has been deafening.” Braun further stated, “I again request your individual response in writing.” 89. Braun’s Affidavit stating that none of the supervisors responded to either of his letters is recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds, document number 805562, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 90. I have here in my possession a certified copy of document number 805562, and make offer of proof. An unrebutted Affidavit stands as truth in Law. 91. None of the supervisors rebutted any statement in my affidavit of criminal report. 92. My unrebutted statements include, but are not limited to the following in document 805562:
93. The doctrine of Estoppel by Silence, which “arises where a person is under a duty to another to speak or failure to speak is inconsistent with honest dealings,” as stated in the case of In Re McArdles Estate, 250 NYS 276, 287, emphatically applies to our public servants who have sworn an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. 94. Pursuant to the aforesaid unrebutted affidavits, the entire Board of Supervisors of Ozaukee County has admitted that there was no controversy, that the plaintiff business corporation named Ozaukee County had no standing to bring its complaint, that the Court had no jurisdiction to rule on the alleged merits of the Complaint, and that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant a default judgment, therefore this Court MUST now rule that the purported judgment issued on August 9, 2001 by Joseph D. McCormack is void ab initio. 95. I have repeatedly made requests and demands upon all relevant officers, officials, and employees of the public business corporation named Ozaukee County for any documentation, evidence, contract, certificate, assessment, or proof of claim for any liability whatsoever attaching to my private land wherein I might have a duty, liability, or obligation to the public business corporation named Ozaukee County. 96. I have made these requests and demands upon Karen L. Makoutz, Dennis E. Kenealy, Jeffrey S. Schmidt, Joseph D. McCormack, Maurice A. Straub, every member of the Taxation and General Claims Committee both in their individual capacity as well as their official capacity, every member of the Board of Supervisors of Ozaukee County, and others. 97. These repeated demands and requests are evidenced in Deeds document number 701453, Exhibit J attached, along with notarial protest and affidavit, all of which were mailed to Kenealy, Makoutz, Schmidt, McCormack, Straub, and all 32 members of the Board of Supervisors, all of whom failed to rebut, deny, or respond, thereby admitting everything therein. 98. Each and every one of these individuals has sworn an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Wisconsin. 99. Each and every one of these individuals has a sworn duty to act pursuant to their sworn oath to support only Constitutionally compliant laws, be they federal or state laws. 100. Each and every one of these individuals has a sworn duty to not impair the Rights of this, or any other, American Citizen. 101. Each and every one of these individuals has sworn an oath pursuant to Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States that they will not impair the Obligation of Contracts, which includes but is not limited to using fraud, coercion, deception, threats, force, the threat of force, et cetera, to implicitly or explicitly cause any American Citizen to contract with either them or their public business corporation named Ozaukee County. 102. Each and every one of these individuals has sworn an oath that pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States that they will not impose involuntary servitude upon an American Citizen. However, that is exactly what they have done to Steven Alan Magritz. 103. Each and every one of these individuals has repeatedly, on numerous occasions, almost countless occasions, refused to communicate with me. 104. None of them, these sworn public servants, has ever responded to my requests or demands. 105. Each and every one of these individuals has repeatedly, on numerous occasions, almost countless occasions, refused to provide any justification whatsoever for their demands upon me. 106. These public servants have never provided any evidence or documentation indicating that their demands upon me, or their acts against me, were Constitutionally compliant. 107. If their actions are not specifically authorized by the Constitution, they are prohibited. 108. I even made a demand upon Karen L. Makoutz for a certified copy of the alleged tax certificate that Makoutz was allegedly in possession of, and upon which Makoutz and her accomplice Kenealy were purportedly foreclosing upon on behalf of the public business corporation named Ozaukee County. Makoutz refused to provide me with a copy of the purported Tax Certificate, stating that all she had was a computer printout. 109. This is massive fraud of unbelievable proportions. 110. The public business corporation, by and through its agents Makoutz and Kenealy, were fraudulently foreclosing on a non-existent tax certificate. 111. Each and every one of these individual public servants is engaged in massive fraud upon American Citizens. 112. In addition, they have encouraged, incited, and/or instructed the occupant of the office of Sheriff to commit armed acts of violence against Steven Alan Magritz. 113. The “Sheriff,” one Maurice A. Straub, is himself is not lawfully occupying the office of Sheriff, inasmuch as Straub has not posted the constitutionally-required personal surety bond. 114. Makoutz and Kenealy knowingly, willingly, intentionally, fraudulently brought to this Court a non-existent claim and obtained a judgment signed by Joseph D. McCormack. 115. Kenealy then used his fraudulently obtained void judgment to violently seize by armed force my private property without a claim, and without any compensation to me whatsoever. 116. The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, nor without due process of law, which mandates that any judgment be based on facts, law, and evidence, none of which applies to the “judgment” signed by Joseph D. McCormack. 117. The record of the court evidences no facts in evidence, no document being foreclosed upon, no evidence of any liability, no testimony, absolutely nothing. No due process of law. 118. Ozaukee County, by and through its agents including but not limited to Dennis Kenealy and Maurice Straub, seized my private property with a value in excess of $500,000.00, and did not pay me as much as a dime in compensation. 119. This is a violation of my constitutionally secured Right to property, Right to just compensation, and Right to not be deprived of property without due process of law and in accordance with constitutionally compliant law. 120. The acts and actions of these public servants are in violation of their sworn oath, and, whatever color of law they are acting under, it is not constitutionally compliant. 121. The judgment obtained by the public business corporation named Ozaukee County is a void judgment, therefore this Court MUST now rule that the purported judgment issued on August 9, 2001 by Joseph D. McCormack is void ab initio. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America (de jure) that the foregoing facts in this affidavit are true and correct, and as for any statements made upon information, reason, or belief, I believe them to be true and correct. Executed on November _____, 2007. Steven Alan Magritz |
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