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 

_______________

Public Officers swear an Oath, which they do not keep, to support the Constitutions. 

Question:  By what authority does a False swearing, perjuring Public Officer hold office?

Answer:   NONE Whatsoever.  There is no expiration date on their oath of office.

____________________

Attorneys commit crimes that are covered up other corrupt attorneys, 
corrupt 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.  Their corruption should NEVER be tolerated.

Did they die in vain?

_________________________ 

Corrupt Judges, Corrupt District Attorneys, and Fellow Travelers

When judges and prosecutors, to whom the people naively look for "justice", DEFY the very Constitutions they are required to support, they are without excuse.  They can't say, "the devil made me do it", because they themselves are the very embodiment of evil.  Yes, evil is alive and well, and running rampant right now.  And anyone who has had any dealings with the "Just-us" system, the "Good Old Boys" attorneys' guild, knows that is true.  Just ask Gerry Spence, arguably the best lawyer in the history of America:

Gerry Spence -  An Honest Lawyer

Gerry Spence, born, reared and educated in Wyoming, is best known as an undefeated trial lawyer and a rugged individualist whose public pronouncements ring with the authority of common sense and moral vision.  He graduated cum laude from the University of Wyoming Law School in 1952, and has spent his lifetime representing the poor, the injured, the forgotten and the damned against what he calls “the new slave master,” a combine of mammoth corporations and gargantuan government.  Gerry never lost a criminal case, and he has not lost a civil case since 1969.

____________________

Introducing  (drum roll and circus parade music):  Andrew T. Gonring, d/b/a -"judge?" 

Warning and Notice to Readers:  

At the founding of the united States of America, most people knew the calling to Public Service was a noble calling.  Men served with honor, then returned to private life.  The OFFICE men served in was then, and is now, to be honored.  

While the OFFICE must be respected and held in high regard, the Occupant of the office should be given only the respect that he earns.  Andrew T. Gonring has earned both contempt and ridicule by perjuring himself on the record.   Presenting:

Andrew T. Gonring

....+

Look in the vacuum bottle - "MT head"

     =

Result: Clown in a gown

____________________

In 2007, "MT" Gonring perjured himself by refusing, on the record, to honor his Oath to support the Constitutions.  This may have been the first documented case in Wisconsin history of a "judge" openly, arrogantly, flauntingly acting in rebellion to the Constitution and committing perjury of his oath.  Maybe the first in America that is self-accusatory? 
 

          In 2007, shortly after getting out of prison, Magritz filed a motion to vacate the void "default" judgment obtained by Shyster Kenealy with the help of co-conspirators of The Ozaukee County MOB, the 2001-2002 Quislings, which led to the violent SWAT Team attack and illegal taking of the Magritz property, at gunpoint, by the local Revenue Agent, the Lawless Sheriff named "Maury" Straub. 

          Prior to what was supposed to be a "hearing", Magritz attempted to file an affidavit in support of his motion, but the clerk refused to take it, pursuant to "orders from the judge".  THAT is obstruction of justice.  The transcript shows, "MT" Gonring also refused to allow Magritz to file the affidavit during the "hearing".  Actually, "MT" Gonring planned to just read his script, deny Magritz a hearing, deny the Magritz motions, and then run out the back door.  He accomplished his last goal because he disappeared faster than a magician's rabbit after hurling a curse at Magritz.

          At the very beginning of the "hearing", Magritz swore himself in under penalty of perjury so that his every utterance would be legally admissible as evidence.  Two of the dishonest, oath perjuring Ozaukee County public officers were at the table for the opposing counsel.  They were Ozaukee County Corporation Counsel Dennis E. Kenealy and Treasurer Karen L. Makoutz, both of whom were accused of crimes against Magritz.  These accusations were made in front of "MT" Gonring, who assented to the crimes.  The accusations were not rebutted by either Kenealy or Makoutz, both of whom HAD A DUTY to rebut the Magritz accusations if they could.  But they remained silent, thus admitting their guilt on the record. 

          "MT" read his script, denying the first three motions, which are set forth below.  When "MT" perjured his Oath by denying the motion requiring him to uphold Constitutionally secured rights, Magritz disqualified him. That's when the ro-bo cops with the guns threateningly closed in on Magritz, waiting for "MT" to give the "signal" to pounce.  But listen to the exchange yourself. 

            Sounds like "MT" is following right down the same path as those corrupt, dishonest, perjuring, false swearing attorneys, judges, and other Public Officers that Investigative Reporter Gene Forte from radio station KRLA in Los Angeles exposed when investigating "The Magritz Story".  Some of Forte's reports and broadcasts are set forth on the Investigative Reports Summaries + audio page, while portions of some broadcasts were transcribed and set forth on the Investigative Reports Transcripts + audio page.              

          The first three motions referred to at the beginning of the "hearing" are set forth below, as is the transcript.  Magritz paid valuable consideration for the transcript, which contained numerous "errors" and omissions, some of which were significant.  When Magritz praeciped the Court Reporter to make the corrections, she refused.  She stated that "MT", the disqualified "judge", would have to approve them.  So much for an honest, "independent" Court Reporter.  Now we know who told you to make those "errors" and omissions, don't we, Tamara A. Hardy?  Following the transcript below is a copy of "MT's" current oath.  On paper "MT" swears to support the Constitutions, but when requested to do so publicly, on the record, he refuses.  Another dishonest, false swearing, perjuring Public Officer acting in Breach of his Fiduciary Duty.

Tamara A. Hardy at work.

          After Magritz disqualified "MT" for insurrection and sedition against the Constitution, he filed his affidavit, an Amended Motion To Vacate A Void Judgment, and the motions "MT" had "denied".  A new judge named James K. Muehlbauer was "appointed".  Muehlbauer didn't allow Magritz a hearing, ignored his motions, and rubber-stamped the void judgment.  Animal Farm.

____________________

Here are the Motions "judge" Andrew T. "MT head" Gonring denied - on the record

Subpoena.doc
File Size:	25 kb
File Type:	doc

Download File

---

Secured rights.doc
File Size:	29 kb
File Type:	doc

Download File

---

Compliance.doc
File Size:	24 kb
File Type:	doc

Download File

---

Vacate void.doc
File Size:	33 kb
File Type:	doc

Download File

---

_________________________ 

FILED DOCUMENT

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-CV-58-B3                        Ozaukee County, List of Tax Liens
For 1997, No. 24

__________________________________________________________________________________

                MOTION FOR COURT TO ISSUE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND COMPEL 
                                    TESTIMONY AT NOVEMBER 5, 2007 HEARING

__________________________________________________________________________________

      1.            I, Steven Alan Magritz, Petitioner / Movant herein, petitions this Court under authority of Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution of The state of Wisconsin regarding remedy for wrongs, as well as Article in Amendment the Fifth of the Bill of Rights guaranteeing due process of law, to issue subpoena duces tecum for materials held by, under the control of, or secreted by, and to compel appearance and to give testimony at the hearing in the above-captioned matter scheduled for November 5, 2007, as well as any continuance thereof, to the following persons set forth herein-below:

      2.            Karen L. Makoutz - all notes, letters, emails, writings, correspondence, or tender(s) of payment to and/or from Steven Alan Magritz, or to other persons with respect to Steven Alan Magritz, by whatever name addressed, (e.g., Steven A. Magritz).

      3.            Dennis E. Kenealy - all notes, letters, emails, writings, correspondence, or tender(s) of payment to and/or from Steven Alan Magritz, or to other persons with respect to Steven Alan Magritz, by whatever name addressed, (e.g., Steven A. Magritz).

      4.            Jeffrey S. Schmidt - a certified copy of the “record sheet” or “docket sheet,” by whatever name called, of the record in the above-captioned matter wherein all documents received by the Court are required to be entered indicating the type of document as well as the time and date received by the court, as well as all notes, letters, emails, writings, correspondence, to and/or from Steven Alan Magritz, or to other persons with respect to Steven Alan Magritz, by whatever name addressed, (e.g., Steven A. Magritz).

      5.            Michael J, Riebe - all notes, letters, emails, writings, correspondence, to and/or from Steven Alan Magritz, or to other persons with respect to Steven Alan Magritz, by whatever name addressed, (e.g., Steven A. Magritz).

Dated this _­­____ day of October, 2007.

Sincerely,
Steven Alan Magritz, sui juris

                                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, certify that I have mailed via postage-paid, United States mail, a copy of this motion from Steven Alan Magritz to the public business corporation named OZAUKEE COUNTY, c/o Mary Marchese, county clerk, for corporation attorney Dennis E. Kenealy, 121 W. Main Street, Port Washington, Wisconsin 53074 on this _______ day of ______________, 2007.  Mailed at:  ________________________________.

________________________ 

FILED DOCUMENT

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-CV-58-B3                        Ozaukee County, List of Tax Liens
For 1997, No. 24

__________________________________________________________________________________

             MOTION TO CLAIM AND EXERCISE CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED RIGHTS and  
                    REQUIRE THE PRESIDING JUDGE TO RULE UPON THIS MOTION, and ALL
                             PUBLIC OFFICERS OF THIS COURT TO UPHOLD SAID RIGHTS

________________________________________________________________________

                       COMES NOW Steven Alan Magritz, Movant, and moves the court, without accepting the jurisdiction of the court, pursuant to oaths sworn by the presiding judge and the attending public officers:

            1.            To acknowledge and act in accordance with a United States Federal Court ruling, to wit:  “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.”  Miller v. U.S. 230 F, 2d 286, 489;

            2.            To honor, uphold and abide by the oaths taken by the presiding judge and attending court officers, pursuant to the Constitution of the United States of America, Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, and the Constitution of the Republic of Wisconsin, Article IV, Section 28, in this matter;

            3.            To provide due process of law, pursuant to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America, and pursuant to Article I, Sections 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Wisconsin, and as required by the aforementioned oaths taken by the presiding judge and attending court officers, in this matter;

            4.            To provide equal protection under the law, as required by the National and state Constitutions and pursuant to the referenced oaths;

            5.            To respect, protect and uphold the Rights of Steven Alan Magritz, an American Citizen, in this matter, which Rights are guaranteed in the National and state Constitutions, pursuant to referenced oaths;

            6.            To acknowledge and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America as the Supreme Law of this court, in this matter, pursuant to the mandate, in Article VI, Section Two, of the Constitution of the United States of America, that the National Constitution is the Supreme Law of Wisconsin;

            7.            To acknowledge and so rule that any court and/or judge which denies a Citizen to present evidence in any hearing or trial in total support of his position, which evidence had previously been sent to Plaintiff and is unrebutted by Plaintiff and counsel, is perjury of oath and denial of due process of law.  Since neither Plaintiff nor counsel rebut this evidence, then, there was and is no dispute, and since there was and is no dispute, there was and is no controversy, and since there was and is no controversy, all prior proceedings must be declared void ab initio;

            8.            To acknowledge and so rule that this court and no other court and no judge in Wisconsin has jurisdiction over or can issue a court order against an American Citizen or his private property if that court and/or judge:  (a) do not provide due process of law; (b) do not provide equal protection under the law; (c) do not respect and uphold the Constitutionally Secured Rights of American Citizens, and in the instant action, the Rights of Steven Alan Magritz, an American Citizen, pursuant to the Rights guaranteed in the Constitutions of the United States of America and the Republic of Wisconsin; (d) act with sufficient force so as to deny the powers of the National and state Constitutions.    

            Wherefore Movant Steven Alan Magritz respectfully moves this court to grant this Motion for the aforesaid reasons.

         Respectfully submitted,
         All Rights Reserved
         Steven Alan Magritz, sui juris, American Citizen                                                               

                                                       CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, certify that I have mailed via postage-paid, United States mail, a copy of this Judicial Notice from Steven Alan Magritz to the public business corporation named OZAUKEE COUNTY, c/o Mary Marchese, county clerk, for corporation attorney Dennis E. Kenealy, 121 W. Main Street, Port Washington, Wisconsin 53074 on this _______ day of _______, 2007.  Mailed at: _______________.

_________________________

FILED DOCUMENT

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-CV-58-B3                       
Ozaukee County, List of Tax Liens
For 1997, No. 24

__________________________________________________________________________________

                  MOTION TO DEMAND THIS COURT READ ALL PLEADINGS MOVANT FILES 
                WITH THIS COURT, AND ADHERE ONLY TO CONSTITUTIONALLY COMPLIANT 
                LAW AND CASE LAW, AND MORE PARTICULARLY, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, IN 
                                                     ITS RULINGS

 _______________________________________________________________________

            COMES NOW Movant, Steven Alan Magritz, and moves this Court, pursuant to the oaths sworn by the presiding judge and attending public officers, and their duties to the National Constitution, in any and all proceedings before this Honorable Court in this matter:

            1.            To read, consider, comprehend and rule upon all motions and pleadings Magritz files with this Court, with Court rulings based only in and supported by laws, statutes and case law in agreement with, and not in opposition or contradiction to, the National Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights;     

2.            To honor, uphold and abide by the oaths taken by the presiding judge and attending court officers, pursuant to the Constitution of the United States of America, Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, and Constitutional requirements thereof;

            3.        Pursuant to those oaths, to base and support all rulings in law or case law which is Constitutionally compliant and which will not: (A) deny the powers of and Rights guaranteed in the National Constitution; (B) deny Constitutional Rights to American Citizens, in the instant case, Steven Alan Magritz; (C) violate federal and/or state Constitutionally compliant laws; (D) shield, exonerate or hold public servants or officers or officials harmless and immune from violating federal or state laws, federal or State Constitutions, violating Steven Alan Magritz’s Constitutionally Secured Rights and Rights of due process of law, wrongdoing(s), crimes, criminal activity(ies), fraud, collusion and conspiracy, insurrection, sedition or anarchy.     

4.         To acknowledge that American Citizens, in the instant matter, Steven Alan Magritz, are Sovereign in this Nation, and that the state, the government, this, and other Courts serve the American Citizens pursuant to:  (A) limited powers delegated from the Constitution, which delegated powers are derived from the People; (B) oaths taken to uphold the Constitution; (C) the Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights; (D) powers authorized only by the Constitution or laws in full compliance therewith, specifically, the Bill of Rights, and (E) acknowledge that lack of Constitutional authority precludes any action and voids any ruling by this Court. 

Wherefore, since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of this Land, to which this Court and presiding judge are sworn, Movant Magritz respectfully moves this Honorable Court to grant this Motion, based in and supported by the federal Constitution, for the aforesaid reasons, to honor and uphold Magritz’s Constitutionally Secured Rights during all judicial proceedings, to read Magritz’s pleadings and rule based only in law and case law compliant with, and not in opposition or contradictory to, the Constitution.

         Respectfully submitted,
         All Rights Reserved
         _______________________________                     Date:  _________________
         Steven Alan Magritz, sui juris, American Citizen                                                               
            

                                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, certify that I have mailed via postage-paid, United States mail, a copy of this Judicial Notice from Steven Alan Magritz to the public business corporation named OZAUKEE COUNTY, c/o Mary Marchese, county clerk, for corporation attorney Dennis E. Kenealy, 121 W. Main Street, Port Washington, Wisconsin 53074 on this _______ day of ______________, 2007.  Mailed at:  ___________________________.

_________________________

FILED DOCUMENT

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-CV-58-B3                       
Ozaukee County, List of Tax Liens
For 1997, No. 24

__________________________________________________________________________________

                          VERIFIED AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE A VOID JUDGMENT

__________________________________________________________________________________

            COMES NOW Movant, Steven Alan Magritz, with a Verified Amended Motion To Vacate A Void Judgment, and moves this Court, pursuant to the oaths sworn by the presiding judge and attending public officers, and their duties to the National Constitution, to vacate and declare void ab initio the judgment entered on August 9, 2001 in the above captioned matter.  Magritz shows the Court as follows:

1.      That at the times material to this action the relevant officers, officials, or employees of Ozaukee County were Karen L. Makoutz, Joseph D. McCormack, Jeffrey S. Schmidt, Maurice A. Straub, and Dennis E. Kenealy.

2.      That the respective offices of the aforesaid persons were treasurer, presiding officer, clerk of court, sheriff, and corporation attorney.

3.      That Karen L. Makoutz made unsubstantiated demands for performance upon Movant.

4.      That Movant made repeated demands upon Makoutz to substantiate Makoutz’s demands.

5.      That Makoutz never responded to any of Movant’s demands for Makoutz to provide proof of claim, or substantiate Makoutz’s demands.

6.      That under threat of abuse of legal process, Movant tendered payments to Makoutz as extortion on several occasions, without any response whatsoever from Makoutz.

7.      That Movant tendered payment to Makoutz with a Certified Promissory Note, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference in its entirety as if fully reproduced herein.

8.      That Makoutz failed or refused to respond to, or even acknowledge, Movant’s tender of payment (extortion).

9.      That Makoutz transferred Movant’s tender of payment to the person named Dennis E. Kenealy.

10.  Upon information, reason, and belief, Dennis E. Kenealy still retains possession of Movant’s tender of payment, unless perhaps Kenealy has sold, pledged, transferred, hypothecated, negotiated, or by some other means utilized Movant’s tender of payment in commerce for gain for himself or other person(s) unknown to Movant.

11.  That Kenealy instituted legal proceedings to seize Movant’s private land.

12.   That Kenealy instituted legal proceedings to seize Movant’s private land without a claim.

13.  That Movant responded to the legal proceedings by filing an Answer and Claim with the court.

14.  That Kenealy acted in concert with Jeffrey S. Schmidt to remove Movant’s Answer and Claim from the court files.

15.  That Schmidt never recorded on the court record sheet the receipt of Movant’s documents.

16.  That Schmidt transferred Movant’s documents to Kenealy without permission from a judge.

17.  That Kenealy concealed Movant’s documents for approximately six and one-half months until Movant started an investigation, after which the documents were mysteriously returned to the court files.

18.  That presiding officer Joseph D. McCormack entered a judgment on August 9, 2001, that purportedly granted Ozaukee County ownership and possession of Movant’s private land.

19.  That McCormack granted the judgment to Ozaukee County without testimony, affidavit of liability, or evidence of any claim whatsoever.

20.  That McCormack, Kenealy, and Ozaukee County trespassed upon Movant’s Land Patents.

21.  That Maurice A. Straub, aided and abetted by dozens of heavily armed men, nine of whom concealed their identities, seized at gunpoint Movant’s private land.

22.  That Maurice A. Straub seized Movant’s private land without a claim.

23.  That Maurice A. Straub seized Movant’s private land without a warrant.

24.  That Maurice A. Straub trespassed upon Movant’s Land Patents.

25.  That Maurice A. Straub removed Movant from Movant’s private land at gunpoint.

26.  That Maurice A. Straub removed Movant from Movant’s private land at gunpoint, without a warrant, and jailed Movant without a warrant.

27.  That neither Ozaukee County, nor anyone else, ever paid any compensation whatsoever to Movant for Movant’s private land that has a current estimated value of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

28.  That notwithstanding numerous demands or requests by Movant upon Makoutz, Schmidt, McCormack, Straub, Kenealy, and all thirty-two members of the Board of Supervisors of Ozaukee County, absolutely none of those persons ever produced a claim upon which Ozaukee County was purportedly moving, and ultimately did move, to seize Movant’s private land.

29.  That none of the aforesaid thirty-seven persons ever even responded to Movant’s numerous demands or requests.

30.  That Movant’s private land was protected by Land Patents granted by the United States of America.

31.  That a Land Contract is a contract protected by the provision of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution for the United States, which prohibits the impairing of contracts.

32.  That Movant was deprived of his private land without a claim, in violation of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution for the United States as well as Article I, Section 12 of the Constitution for the state of Wisconsin, which prohibits the impairing of contracts, which includes but is not limited to a prohibition on the enforcement of unilateral “contracts”.

33.  That Movant was deprived of his private land by a bill of attainder, specifically a bill of pains and penalties, in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America as well as Article I, Section 12 of the Constitution for the state of Wisconsin.

34.  That Movant was deprived of his private land without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

35.  That Movant’s private land was taken for public use without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as well as Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of the state of Wisconsin.

36.  That Movant’s private land was seized without a warrant, in violation of the Fourth Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as well as Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of the state of Wisconsin.

37.  That Movant’s private land was seized in violation of the First Article in Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as well as Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution of the state of Wisconsin, which guarantees the right to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

38.  That Movant was forced into involuntary servitude by demands upon his right to property, his property, and his land, all without a claim, all in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as well as Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the state of Wisconsin, prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude.

          WHEREFORE, Steven Alan Magritz moves the Court declare the judgment entered August 9, 2001, in the above captioned matter 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 motion 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 this ________ day of December, 2007.

All Rights Reserved,
Steven Alan Magritz

                                                  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, certify that I have mailed via postage-paid, United States mail, a copy of this Motion from Steven Alan Magritz to the public business corporation named OZAUKEE COUNTY, c/o Julianne B. Winkelhorst, county clerk, for corporation attorney Dennis E. Kenealy, 121 W. Main Street, Port Washington, Wisconsin 53074 on this ____ day of _____, 2007.  Mailed at:  _______________.
      

_________________________

FILED DOCUMENT

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-CV-58-B3                       
Ozaukee County, List of Tax Liens
For 1997, No. 24

 __________________________________________________________________________________

                                     OBJECTION TO RULING and MOTION TO SET ASIDE

 ________________________________________________________________________

            COMES NOW Movant, Steven Alan Magritz, with Objection to the November 5, 2007 ruling by Andrew Gonring on Magritz’s VERIFIED PETITION IN THE NATURE OF A PETITION TO VACATE A VOID JUDGMENT AND COLLATERAL ATTACK UNDER AUTHORITY OF the Constitution of The state of Wisconsin, ARTICLE I, SECTION 9,

REMEDY FOR WRONGS, and moves this Court, pursuant to the oaths sworn by the presiding judge and attending public officers, and their duties to the National Constitution, to Set Aside Gonring’s ruling, and, schedule a new hearing.  Magritz shows the Court as follows:

1.      At the November 5, 2007, hearing, Magritz was sworn in and provided the Court testimony pursuant to the following affirmation by Magritz:  “Let the record show that my every utterance is made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America.”

2.      That the Court was defective for refusal of presiding officer Andrew Gonring to confirm his duties pursuant to his sworn oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States.

3.      By his actions, the Court was defective because, due to perjury of oath, insurrection, and sedition by Andrew Gonring when in response to Magritz’s MOTION TO CLAIM AND EXERCISE CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED RIGHTS and REQUIRE THE PRESIDING JUDGE TO RULE UPON THIS MOTION, and ALL PUBLIC OFFICERS OF THIS COURT TO UPHOLD SAID RIGHTS Gonring stated:  “I don’t know what that says other than I’m supposed to do my job and to the extent that that’s all that motion says, that motion is denied.”

4.      Gonring’s statement was and is on its face a denial, refusal to support, or explicit renunciation of his sworn oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States.  Gonring is required to take such oath, and to be bound thereto, pursuant to Article VI, Sections two and three of the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution for the state of Wisconsin, federal law, as well as state law.

5.      By his actions, Gonring’s statement was and is an open public declaration of insurrection and sedition against the Constitution of the United States that invoked the self-executing sections three and four of the 14th Amendment thereby removing Gonring from office (section three) and prohibiting Gonring from receiving any salary, wage, pension, perk, payment, et cetera whatsoever (section four).

6.      By his actions, Gonring committed perjury of oath, insurrection, and sedition, after which Magritz disqualified Gonring and ordered Gonring to remove himself from the bench.  Gonring stated:  “I’m not removing myself”, thereby committing contempt of court.

7.      While Magritz was giving sworn testimony regarding fraud upon the Court by attorney Dennis E. Kenealy and Karen L. Makoutz, treasurer, regarding their conversion and concealment of Magritz’s tender of payment to Ozaukee County as full and complete discharge of any purported tax liability, and their concealment from the Court of Magritz’s tender and discharge, Magritz was interrupted by Gonring and prevented by Gonring from continuing his testimony.

8.      While Magritz was giving sworn testimony regarding fraud upon the Court by Kenealy and Makoutz, regarding Makoutz having received, transferring to Kenealy, and Kenealy then concealing, Magritz’s Answer and Counterclaim to the foreclosure action by Ozaukee County, Magritz was interrupted by Gonring and prevented by Gonring from continuing his testimony.

9.      While Magritz was giving sworn testimony regarding fraud upon the Court by Kenealy and Jeffrey S. Schmidt, clerk of court, regarding the illegal and unlawful removal of Magritz’s Answer and Counterclaim from the court files, the failure to record on the court record sheet that said documents had been received by the Court, and, then the subsequent concealment from the Court of said documents by Kenealy for 6 to 7 months, Magritz was interrupted by Gonring and prevented by Gonring from continuing his testimony.

10.  Prior to the hearing, when Magritz attempted to file his affidavit in support of the VERIFIED PETITION IN THE NATURE OF A PETITION TO VACATE A VOID JUDGMENT AND COLLATERAL ATTACK UNDER AUTHORITY OF the Constitution of The state of Wisconsin, ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, REMEDY FOR WRONGS, which had accompanying documentary substantiation from the office of the Register of Deeds, the clerk of the court refused to accept his affidavit for filing with the Court.

11.  While Magritz was providing sworn testimony regarding the void judgment, Magritz demanded that Gonring receive the affidavit in support with accompanying documentation that the clerk had refused to accept for filing, but Gonring refused to receive Magritz’s affidavit in support of the motion before the Court.

12.   While Magritz was giving sworn testimony pursuant to the federal misprision of felony statute, Magritz was interrupted by Gonring and prevented from continuing by Gonring.

13.   Gonring consistently, and I believe intentionally, misapplied Wisconsin statute 806.07 by claiming that there was a 1 year limitation, contrary to the explicit language of the statute which states in pertinent part, “This section does not limit the power of a court … to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.

14.  Since Gonring stated “I’ve read 78 of your 78 pages of your motion,” Gonring has no excuse for not knowing his duty to not rule contrary to the classic supreme court case regarding fraud upon the court as set forth in Hazel-Atlas Glass v. Hartford-Empire, 322 U.S. 238 (1944), which was cited in item number 67 of my petition to vacate.  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.”  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.”  That court also stated “Equitable relief against fraudulent judgments is not of statutory creation.”  I believe that Gonring intentionally ignored the ruling in Hazel-Atlas Glass with knowledge and intent to cause Movant an injury.

15.  Gonring disregarded the controlling Wisconsin statutes regarding foreclosures, specifically 75.521(14a), to wit:  (14a) Damages.  Any person who was the owner of any right, title or interest in land which was lost by judgment of foreclosure as provided in this section may within 2 years from the date of entry of such judgment, in the cases hereinafter mentioned other than fraud and within 6 years in the case of fraud, commence an action in the circuit court against the county …”  My petition to vacate a void judgment as well as obtain affirmative relief was filed within six years.  I believe that Gonring’s ignoring the clear language of the Wisconsin statutes, which Gonring claimed that he was going to follow rather than abiding by his sworn oath to the Constitution, was done knowingly, willfully, intentionally, purposefully, with the knowledge and intent that I would be injured thereby.

16.  Gonring disregarded Wisconsin case law on void judgments as set forth in the annotations to Wisconsin statutes 75.521(14a) and which was  cited in item number 66 of my motion to vacate, to wit:  “The county's failure to fully comply with the statute renders a foreclosure judgment void.”  Waukesha County v. Young, 106 Wis. 2d 244, 316 N.W.2d 362 (1982).  My motion to vacate a void judgment clearly and unequivocally set forth numerous material failures of the county to follow mandated Wisconsin statutes, which Gonring claimed that he was going to follow rather than abiding by his sworn oath to support the Constitution.  Since Gonring stated “I’ve read 78 of your 78 pages of your motion,” then I believe that one can only conclude that Gonring intentionally disregarded both Wisconsin statutes and Wisconsin case law with intent to cause Movant an injury.

17.  My affidavit in support of motion to vacate that Gonring refused to allow to be filed is filed herewith, as well as the documents in support thereof.

       Wherefore, in consideration of the foregoing, Magritz demands the “ruling” by Andrew Gonring be set aside by this Honorable Court.

 

       And Further, in consideration of the foregoing, Movant demands that a new presiding officer be assigned to hear Magritz’s VERIFIED PETITION IN THE NATURE OF A PETITION TO VACATE A VOID JUDGMENT AND COLLATERAL ATTACK UNDER AUTHORITY OF the Constitution of The state of Wisconsin, ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, REMEDY FOR WRONGS inasmuch as Gonring, by his actions, has committed the following deprivations of my Constitutionally Secured Rights including but not limited to due process of law and freedom of speech, as well as crimes against the peace and dignity of the People of The state of Wisconsin:  

• 1)  perjury of oath of office;  
• 2)  sedition;  
• 3)  insurrection;  
• 4)  obstruction of justice;  
• 5)  aiding and abetting a felony;  
• 6)  misprision of felony;  
• 7)  misconduct in public office;  
• 8)  tampering with public records by refusing the admission of an affidavit in support of a motion before the court;  
• 9)  tampering with a witness, victim, or informant of crime who at the time was reporting crime to an officer of the court under penalty of perjury pursuant to federal law that requires such reporting to a judicial officer or military officer;  
• 10)  denial of due process;  
• 11)  denial of freedom of speech;  
• 12)  contempt of court by continuing to sit on the bench after being disqualified;  
• 13)  bias and prejudice against Movant as evidenced by Gonring ruling contrary to the clear wording of Wisconsin statutes as well as controlling case law that Gonring, by his own admission, had read, viz., “I’ve read 78 of your 78 pages of your motion,”.
  

         Respectfully submitted,
         All Rights Reserved
         Steven Alan Magritz, sui juris, American Citizen                   Date:  __________________
          

                                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, certify that I have mailed via postage-paid, United States mail, a copy of this  Motion from Steven Alan Magritz to the public business corporation named OZAUKEE COUNTY, c/o Mary Marchese, county clerk, for corporation attorney Dennis E. Kenealy, 121 W. Main Street, Port Washington, Wisconsin 53074 on this ____ day of _________, 2007.  Mailed at:  _______________.

_________________________

FILED DOCUMENT

The Chief Judge of the District, who had previously acted hostilely toward Magritz, apparently appointed 
a replacement for Andrew T. "MT head" Gonring
after "MT" was disqualified by Magritz

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-CV-58-B3                       
Ozaukee County, List of Tax Liens
For 1997, No. 24

__________________________________________________________________________________

                                                          BILL QUIA TIMET __________________________________________________________________________________

       NOW COMES Steven Alan Magritz, in want of counsel (hereinafter undersigned), Petitioner in the above styled action, and as and for a Bill Quia Timet, shows to the Court as follows:

1.            That the undersigned is a layperson and untrained in the law.

2.            That on December 10, 2007, Petitioner received a presentment from a person unknown to Magritz named James K. Muehlbauer.

3.            That the presentment was an unsigned document purporting to be a “Decision and Order” in this instant matter.

4.            That Magritz timely and properly Cancelled And Returned To Originator the presentment received from James K. Muehlbauer.

5.            That the undersigned believes that James K. Muehlbauer filed the aforesaid Decision And Order as a ruse to deceive the Court into denying Magritz a hearing and due process of law.

6.            That the undersigned fears that the Court is agreeable to taking actions against the undersigned in violation of the substantive, procedural, and due process rights of the undersigned, pursuant to Muehlbauer’s “Decision And Order”.

7.            That the undersigned fears that the Court will deny the undersigned a hearing based upon Muehlbauer’s “Decision And Order”, thus denying the undersigned due process of law.

8.            That the undersigned is confused by the apparent delay on the part of the Court in setting a time and date certain subsequent to the disqualification of Andrew T. Gonring at the onset of the November 5, 2007 “hearing” based upon Gonring’s perjury of oath, sedition, and insurrection.

9.            That it is by means of this Bill Quia Timet the undersigned is seeking the assistance of the Court to understand the rights and duties of all of the various parties in the above styled action at this time. It is further the plea of the undersigned to the Court to assist the undersigned in the effort thereof to preserve and utilize to the advantage thereof all of the rights which are or may be the undersigned’s.

Dated December 12, 2007

All Rights Reserved,
Steven Alan Magritz

                                                  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, certify that I have mailed via postage-paid, United States mail, a copy of this Bill Quia Timet from Steven Alan Magritz to the public business corporation named OZAUKEE COUNTY, c/o Mary Marchese, county clerk, for corporation attorney Dennis E. Kenealy, 121 W. Main Street, Port Washington, Wisconsin 53074 on this _______ day of ________, 2007.  Mailed at:  _____________.

_________________________

FILED DOCUMENT

If Anyone Thinks these Corrupt Courts Responded 
To Anything Magritz Filed, Well .....
Now where is Bill Clinton's best stash?

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-CV-58-B3                       
Ozaukee County, List of Tax Liens
For 1997, No. 24

 __________________________________________________________________________________

                        NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF DECISION AND ORDER FOR CAUSE
                                                                  AND 
                 MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTED TO JAMES K. MUEHLBAUER TO SHOW CAUSE
                                                                  AND
                               DEMAND FOR COURT TO SET CERTAIN A TIME AND DATE
                                                 FOR A HEARING ON MOTIONS
   _______________________________________________________________________

            COMES NOW Movant, Steven Alan Magritz, with a Notice Of Cancellation Of Decision And Order For Cause, and, Motion For Order Directed To James K. Muehlbauer To Show Cause, and, Demand For Court To Set Certain A Time And Date For a Hearing On Motions, and moves this Court, pursuant to the oaths sworn by the presiding judge and attending public officers, and their duties to the National Constitution, to forthwith issue the aforesaid Order To Show Cause and set certain a time and date for a due process hearing on Movant Magritz’s various motions submitted to the Court.  Magritz shows the Court as follows:

1.      On December 10, 2007, Magritz received a presentment from a person unknown to Magritz named James K. Muehlbauer.

2.      That the presentment was an unsigned document purporting to be a “Decision and Order” in this instant matter.

3.      That Magritz timely and properly Cancelled And Returned To Originator the presentment received from James K. Muehlbauer, and attaches a copy hereto as evidence thereof.

4.      Magritz herewith moves the Court for an order directed to the person named James K. Muehlbauer, an interloper in this instant matter, for an Order To Show Cause, ordering James K. Muehlbauer to respond to the Court and to Magritz setting forth specific answers to the following questions. 

A.   Who is James K. Muehlbauer?

B.   By what authority does James K. Muehlbauer claim or presume to insinuate himself into this instant matter?

C.   By what constitutional authority does James K. Muehlbauer claim or presume that allows Muehlbauer to insinuate himself into this instant matter?

D.   By what constitutionally compliant law does James K. Muehlbauer either claim authority or presume to insinuate himself into this instant matter?

E.    By what constitutional authority or constitutionally compliant law does James K. Muehlbauer claim the ability, power, or authority to issue a ruling, opinion, decision, or order in this instant matter?

F.   By what constitutional authority or constitutionally compliant law does James K. Muehlbauer claim the ability, power, or authority to issue a ruling, opinion, decision, or order in this instant matter without a constitutionally compliant due process hearing? 

G.    By what constitutional authority or constitutionally compliant law does James K. Muehlbauer claim the ability, power, or authority to validate a nullity?

H.   By what constitutional authority or constitutionally compliant law does James K. Muehlbauer claim the ability, power, or authority to validate a nullity, especially, particularly, or specifically a nullity pronounced by Andrew T. Gonring who was DISQUALIFIED as presiding officer for perjury of oath, sedition, and insurrection at the onset of the November 5, 2007 hearing, thereby rendering any purported ruling by Gonring a nullity?

I.    By what constitutional authority or constitutionally compliant law does James K. Muehlbauer claim any immunity whatsoever from being complicit with or acting in concert with Andrew T. Gonring in Gonring’s November 5, 2007, acts and actions, on the record, of violation of Oath of Office; perjury in office; insurrection; sedition; obstruction of justice; aiding and abetting a felony; misprision of felony; misconduct in public office; tampering with a witness, victim, or informant; contempt of court; party to a crime; or denial of constitutionally-secured right to due process of law, freedom of speech, and guaranteed Republican form of government.

5.      Further, Magritz herewith demands that the Court set a time and date certain for a constitutionally compliant due process hearing to hear all of Magritz’s motions.

6.      Magritz reminds the Court that contrary to the stated opinion of some, that a constitutionally compliant due process hearing is not evidenced by the fact that one merely files a piece of paper with the Court.   

All Rights Reserved,
Steven Alan Magritz                                                                Date

                                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, certify that I have mailed via postage-paid, United States mail, a copy of this motion from Steven Alan Magritz to the public business corporation named OZAUKEE COUNTY, c/o Mary Marchese, county clerk, for corporation attorney Dennis E. Kenealy, 121 W. Main Street, Port Washington, Wisconsin 53074 on this _____ day of _______, 2007.  Mailed at:  ________________.
      

____________________

Here is the transcript:

By the way "MT", which secret society curse was that, that you hurled at Magritz as you ran out of the courtroom as if you realized you were not wearing any clothes?  Defrocked, so to speak.  Nice of "Official Court Reporter" Tamara A. Hardy to leave that in the transcript, wasn't it?  
Real cool, dude. 

Check out the look of horror and revulsion on this boy's face.  Is he looking at an unmasked Public Officer who has just exposed himself, "MT"?

Complete corrected transcript.pdf
File Size:	997 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

"MT" Gonring, is that you?

____________________

"MT" says "I'm telling you what we are doing."  Wrong, "MT".  You had your script on how you were going to do BOHICA on Magritz. Did it go as you had planned, "MT"?  
Or did you trip on your own arrogance?  "MT" also said. "We're going to address that, too, in a second."  But he never did.  Maybe his cage got rattled?

"MT" Gonring's cage getting rattled.

"MT" says "Don't interrupt me".  I've got my lines to read.  People should spend some time in courtrooms watching these clowns.  You don't have to go to the cinema.  It is all an act.  They are reading canned lines.  Some of these guys would really be entertaining, except for the fact they are using men and their labor as merchandise.  Re. 18:13.  A really sharp attorney can educate guys like "MT", but their fees are not affordable for the vast majority of Americans.

An illusion. Which do you see? Young lady or old hag?

Can you believe what this clown in the gown says here?  He says, "You sat on it for six years."  What a jackass.  This clown knows very well that it was his good "Buddy", "Dirty Jim" Doyle, who tried to put Magritz away for life as revenge, and that Magritz "sat" in prison for the previous 5 years compliments of "Dirty Jim".  You are one clown short of a 3 ring circus, "MT".

Hey "MT".  Tell the class the name of YOUR "coven" or "lodge" or "group" or "club" or "association" whose members might hurl the curse you did, below.  The Ozaukee Presstitutes and Shyster Kenealy falsely accused Magritz of being in some "group", which they couldn't name.  What's your flavor?  And don't lie. 

Don't lie, Gonring.

____________________

"MT's" current oath on file.  Would you believe he swears to uphold the Constitutions, and then, from the bench, on the record, denies his sworn oath and duty?  What a Quisling.

Gonring.pdf
File Size:	99 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

---

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

Did they die in vain?