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 

________________________

Complainant Magritz's Motion To Strike Interloper AG Van Hollen’s Motion To Dismiss

          State of Wisconsin Attorney General John Byron "J.B." Van Hollen, by and through AAG David C. Rice, unlawfully interposed the Corporation named The State of Wisconsin into the Magritz suit by claiming to represent DA Adam Y. Gerol, and "judges" Sandy A. Williams and Andrew T. Gonring, in their official capacity when those dishonest Public Officers were being sued personally, individually, for Breach of Fiduciary Duty.  
MTS AG Van Hollen.pdf
File Size: 432 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
          The AG falsely claimed Magritz filed a statutory "civil rights case" subject to a statute of limitations.  But Magritz filed suit for dishonesty and Breach of Fiduciary Duty to support the Constitutions.  There is no expiration date on the Constitutions, nor on the oath of Public Officers to obey the Constitutions.  The AG also claimed Eleventh Amendment immunity, which was inapplicable since the state was not being sued.  The AG also claimed prosecutorial immunity and judicial immunity.  Maybe "prostitute-orial" immunity would have been more appropriate.  These dishonest Public Officers have prostituted themselves and the high calling to public office.  
          Statute At Large I Stat. I set forth the Declaration of Independence in which it was declared that all men are created equal.  So where do these attorneys get off declaring themselves to be above the law or immune from being held accountable for their crimes or breach of fiduciary duty?  Animal Farm.
          So the Attorney General claims his cohorts can sic a lawless sheriff upon an innocent man for political purposes in order to cover-up crimes by public officers?  Are they going to send out drones, next? 
          Since when do these guys walk on water?  Who do they think they are, Jesus Christ?  
          "Meadow Muffins", "Road Apples".  W'e're the gov't, and you're not. 
            Complainant Steven Alan Magritz moves this honorable Court to strike the “Motion To Dismiss Action Against Defendants Gerol, Williams, and Gonring” filed, or deceitfully attempted to be filed, into Complainant’s suit in Equity by Interlopers, attorney J.B. Van Hollen and attorney David C. Rice, hereinafter Interlopers, agents for the individual Respondents named herein, for reasons of failure to file a Notice of Appearance with this Court; violation of LCvR 83.2 regarding practice by attorneys, in particular LCvR 83.2(c)(1); false representations to the Court, dishonesty, bad faith, and unclean hands, and shows this Court as follows:

            He who comes into equity must have clean hands. Complainant charges Interlopers (Van Hollen & Rice) with failing to file a Notice of Appearance with this Court, failure to abide by LCvR 83.2, particularly LCvR 83.2(c)(1), as well as with making false representations to this Court intentionally to deceive this honorable Court for the purpose of preventing or perverting justice and causing Complainant an injury. The false representations by Interlopers set forth 
herein provide this honorable Court with the knowledge of the bad faith, unclean hands, as well as sanctionable activity of Interlopers.

            Complainant filed with this honorable Court a Complaint in Equity, invoking Equity Jurisdiction, which acts in personam. Equity operates upon the person.

            Complainant filed suit against public officers in their individual capacity, not in their official capacity. “In an early case in this court (Crocker v. Brown County, 35 Wis. 284), it was said that public officials take their offices cum onere; that is, they take them with all the responsibilities attached. Forest County v. Poppy, 193 Wis. 274, 213 N.W. 676, 677 (1927).” Thus, public officers are liable in their individual capacity. Equity will suffer no wrong without a remedy. Equity has the capacity to do justice and right every wrong, no matter how powerful the wrong-doer.

            The herein named individual Respondents, Andrew T. Gonring, Sandy A. Williams, and Adam Y. Gerol have acted in concert, or acted in collusion, and have solicited Interlopers in an attempt to deceive this honorable Court and evade their responsibilities and liabilities as individuals, as public officers, and as fiduciaries overseeing the Public Trust. He who comes into equity must have clean hands.

            The false representations, dishonesty, bad faith, or unclean hands demonstrated by Interlopers are directly attributable to each of the above named Respondents in their individual capacity. He who comes into equity must have clean hands.

            Once a court is rightfully possessed of a case in Equity it will not relinquish it short of doing complete justice. Equity regards the substance and not the form.

            Complainant filed this case, properly captioned and properly plead, against public officers in their personal, individual, private capacities for breach of fiduciary duty, which duty 
is set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America. Equality before the law is equity, and equity will enforce the Constitution.

            Pursuant to Local Rule 5.1(e)(1) the name and full residence address of each individual Respondent was furnished to the Court by Complainant since the Respondents were being sued in their individual capacity, not their official capacity as falsely proclaimed by Interlopers on pages 5 and 6 of Interlopers “Brief”. Interlopers claim to represent “defendants” (not respondents properly denoted in Complainant’s suit in Equity) in their official capacity.

            Interlopers are not only attempting to convert Complainant’s suit from Equity Jurisdiction to law jurisdiction, but Interlopers’ false representations evidence dishonesty, bad faith, unclean hands, which is imputed directly to each and every Respondent, individually, who acted in concert or collusion and solicited Interlopers in attempting to deceive this honorable Court.

            By way of a partial listing only, the following examples from Interlopers’ “Brief” evidence the false representations to this honorable Court. These false representations of Interlopers provide this Court with the knowledge of the dishonesty, bad faith, and unclean hands of Respondents.

  • On page 2, paragraph 4 of Interlopers “Brief”, Interlopers falsely state Complainant initiated a “John Doe” proceeding, whereas Complainant had not initiated a “John Doe” proceeding, but in fact had filed a “Verified Motion For A Determination Of Probable Cause for a determination if probable cause exists to arrest Kenealy for criminal acts.” (Affidavit in Support of Complaint, ¶ 48). Further, Interlopers next statement is therefore false on its face, to wit: “and issued a decision and order refusing to issue a criminal complaint against Kenealy”.  See Affidavit, 
        supra, ¶ 51. Interlopers’ false statements are dishonest, made in bad faith with unclean    
        hands, and are imputed to Respondents in their individual capacity.

  • Interlopers attempt to apply a “statute of limitations” to the mandates or prohibitions of the Constitution of the United States of America is disingenuous, frivolous, ludicrous, contemptible, and a further breach of fiduciary duty by Respondents upon whom the Interlopers’ act is imputed. See Interlopers’ “Brief”, page 5, section II. He who comes into equity must have clean hands.

  • Interlopers attempt to apply the Eleventh Amendment when the State is not a party to the suit, and the Respondents are sued in their individual capacity rather than in their official capacity as insinuated by Interlopers, is dishonesty, bad faith, and unclean hands imputed to the Respondents individually. See Interlopers’ “Brief” page 5, section III. 

  • Interlopers attempt to shield Respondents from suit in their individual capacity for breach of fiduciary duty, which duty is imposed upon Respondents by Article VI Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America, by claiming “absolute prosecutorial immunity”, is dishonest and a breach of fiduciary duty by Interlopers themselves, which is further imputed to Respondents in their individual capacity. Respondents are being sued in Equity Jurisdiction, which acts in personam. Equity operates upon the person. Equality before the law is equity, and equity will enforce the Constitution. Equity has the capacity to do justice and right every wrong, no matter how powerful the wrong-doer.

  • Interlopers attempt to equate Complainant’s suit in chancery to a statutory Title 42 Section 1983 suit, see Interlopers’ “Brief” pages 6 through 8, is dishonest, an apparent attempt to justify criminal misconduct including but not limited to misprision of felony, and a further breach of 
        fiduciary duty by Interlopers themselves, all of which is imputed to Respondents in their 
        individual capacity. Equality before the law is equity, and equity will enforce the Constitution.  

  • Interlopers further attempt to deceive this honorable Court by insinuating Complainant brought suit against Respondent Gonring for denying Complainant’s motion to vacate a judgment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Andrew T. Gonring perjured his oath of office, on the record, by denying Complainant’s motion for Gonring to abide by his oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America. Further, Gonring committed misprision of felony, as evidenced by the transcript and court record. Interlopers’ false statements made to deceive this Court evidence dishonesty, bad faith, unclean hands, and breach of fiduciary duty, all of which are imputed to the Respondents in their individual capacity.         Complainant reserves the right to address the issue of venue should it please the Court. However, since Complainant is suing the Respondents only in their private, individual capacity, and Interlopers claim to represent some “defendants” in their official capacities, and Interlopers have failed to file a Notice of Appearance, and Interlopers have failed to abide by LCvR 83.2(c)(1), Interlopers have no right or authority or “standing” to motion this Court for anything whatsoever. Therefore Complainant has no duty to respond to Interloper’s assertions, EXCEPT TO EXPOSE Interlopers’ false representations to this honorable Court in Interlopers’ attempt to deceive this Court and prevent or pervert justice, which false representations are imputed to Respondents in their individual capacity.

           Interlopers’ Motion To Dismiss must be stricken since Interlopers attempt to come before this honorable Court with deceit, in bad faith, with unclean hands, failing to abide by LCvR 83.2(c)(1), and, representing “defendants” in their official capacity when Complainant’s suit is against Respondents in their personal, individual capacity, in Equity Jurisdiction. 

            I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Maxim ita dicta quia maxima est ejus dignitas et certissima auctaritas atque quod maxime omnibus probetur.  Dated this ____ day of July 2012.

                                                            Respectfully submitted,

                                                            By: ____________________________________

                                                                        Steven Alan Magritz, Complainant

                            

                                       Proof of Service

I certify that all 43 Respondents for whom a summons has been issued by the Court are being served a copy of this “Verified Motion To Strike Interlopers Van Hollen and Rice Motion To Dismiss” on this July ___ 2012 by way of first class, postage prepaid United States mail, mailed to their respective residence address indicated in Complainant’s filings with the clerk of court. Van Hollen and Rice are each being mailed a courtesy copy.

__________________________________ 

____________________

Proposed Order Striking Interloper State AG's Motion to Dismiss
Proposed Order, AG.pdf
File Size: 43 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?