I would never have
believe this before I saw it with
my own eyes. We are all brought up
believing the judges are fair, honest
and smart. As son as they put on that
black robe they have enormous power.
Yet nothing could be further from
the truth. In fact the system is set
up so these judges can do whatever
they want and as time goes by, and
their egos and arrogance gets the
best of them they get worse and worse.
Judges are suppose to do two things:
1) Determine the facts, 2) Apply the
law. Unfortunately judges come to
believe they are the law. They come
to believe whatever they think and
say is right, because no on in the
court house dares go against them.
In fact lawyer kiss judges as as a
matter of standard operating procedure,
embedding in every motion compliments
and massaging the egos of judges to
win their favor. It is disgusting
to watch because it immediately shows
that judges have little ability to
remain impartial to the facts of the
case. Good lawyers win bad cases,
and poor lawyer lose good cases.
There are many cases
where the injured party begins to
fight back for his civil and constitutional
rights. This then reveals the true
nature of judges because they beging
to go after that person. Judges should
NEVER be able to go after anyone.
In fact they are not allowed to make
a case, this is the job of an opposing
counsel. However, there are many examples
where judges are working hard to put
someone in jail because they don't
like them and they are simply fighting
for their rights and exposing a judges
overzealous and illegal actions.
Here is an example
where a judge is overstepping because
James is a true warrior in the cause
to bring these out of control judges
down and make them accountable for
their unlawful actions. James founded
a group called Livebeat dads and them
began marketing a program nationally
to set up The National Association
of Court Watchers (NACW). This is
very threatening to judges because
they know they are breaking the laws
every day and they are vulnerable
if this is documented by a system
out of their control. They break the
law every day by making statements
of the records (asking the recording
be paused so they can threaten and
intimidate people). They break the
law every day by taking away fundamental
constitutional rights of people and
denying due process. They break the
law every day by doing what they WANT
do do instead of what the law says
they MUST do.
09/22/2005 SDTIN
- 56233162 Sep 22 2005 9:46:53:450AM
Realized $ 0.00
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
09/22/2005 O - 56233726 Sep
22 2005 10:14:38:340AM Realized $
0.00
ORDER OF COMMITMENT FOR PUNISHMENT
RETURN FROM DAVID L MOSS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
09/22/2005 O - 56233736 Sep
22 2005 10:16:11:463AM Realized $
0.00
ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION AND NOTICE
OF TRANSFER
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
09/22/2005 CTFREE - 56239124
Sep 22 2005 4:31:38:410PM Realized
$
0.00
CANTRELL, DAMAN: ON THE RECORD WITH
ROBERTA ADKISSON. STEVE VINCENT ALLOWED
TO WITHDRAW. PLAINTIFF REPRESENTED
BY JIM WILLIAMSON. GUARDIAN AD LITEM,
RICK CLARKE, PRESENT. DEFENDANT SENTENCED
TO AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS IN DAVID
L. MOSS. PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT PROPOSED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW, AND OR, DECREE OF DIVORCE. DEFENDANT
GIVEN 7 DAYS TO RESPOND. CONTINUED
EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDER PO-05-3122
SET 10-5-05 9:00 P.M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Report Generated by The Oklahoma Supreme
Court Network at September 24, 2005
00:28:28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
End of Transmission.
Disability Petition C/O Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007
Administrative Office of the Courts,
1915 North Stiles, Suite 305,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105,
Office of the Attorney General
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd, Ste 112
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Attorney General
Alberto R. Gonzales
U.S Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530?0001
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.),
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Federal Building, Suite B-120
17 South Park Row
Erie, PA 16501
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.),
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Harrisburg Office
Room 1104, Federal Building
228 Walnut Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.),
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Philadelphia Office
600 Arch Street Suite 9400
Philadelphia, PA 19106
U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform
1615 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20062-2000
Office of Governor Brad Henry
State Capitol Building
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 212
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
H. Marshall Jarrett,
Counsel Office of Professional Responsibility
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite
3529
Washington, D.C. 20530
Office of the Circuit Executive
United States Courts for the Tenth
Circuit
Byron White United States Courthouse
1823 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado 80257
Judge Tom C. Gillert,
Tulsa-Pawnee Administrative District,
Tulsa County Courthouse,
500 S. Denver, Rm. 501,
Tulsa, OK 74103
Oklahoma Bar Association
1901 N. Lincoln Blvd.,
Oklahoma City,
OK, 73152-3036
Oklahoma County Bar Association
119 N. Robinson, Suite 240,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102
Tulsa County Bar Association
1446 South Boston,
Tulsa, OK, 74119
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.),
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Washington DC Office
711 Hart Building
Washington, DC 20510
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.),
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Pennsylvania Offices
Allentown Office
Suite 3814, Federal Building
504 W. Hamilton
Allentown, PA 18101
James read the Bible to his children
now Senator Williamson along with
Special Judge Cantrell and Guardian
Ad Litem Rick Clarke have been looking
into his sanity based on his "crazy
reading of the bible" to his
children. Where are our morals and
where are our religious rights, where
is our due process. IF you do not
stand up to these tyrants who will
be next? The Sunday school teacher
or the Pastor?
(1) Did the Senator Williamson, Special
Judge Cantrell and Guardian Ad Litem
Rick Clarke commit perjury?
(2) Did the Senator Williamson, Special
Judge Cantrell and Guardian Ad Litem
Rick Clarke obstruct justice?
(3) Did the Senator Williamson, Special
Judge Cantrell and Guardian Ad Litem
Rick Clarke tamper with witnesses;
and
(4) Did the Senator Williamson, Special
Judge Cantrell and Guardian Ad Litem
Rick Clarke abuse the power of his
office
Jaime-Alvaro Burbano In Propria Persona
Sui Juris No. Case No. FD- 2004-4392
Who is being held without bale, without
the right to due process.
This principle of law was stated by
the U.S. Supreme Court as "Courts
are constituted by authority and they
cannot go beyond that power delegated
to them. If they act beyond that authority,
and certainly in contravention of
it, their judgments and orders are
regarded as nullities. They are not
voidable, but simply VOID, AND THIS
IS EVEN PRIOR TO REVERSAL." [Emphasis
added]. Vallely v. Northern Fire and
Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41
S. Ct. 116 (1920). See also Old Wayne
Mut. I. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S.
8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907); Williamson
v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L. Ed,
1170, 1189, (1850); Rose v. Himely,
4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.Ed. 608, 617
(1808).
Former Connecticut governor gets a
year in prison Rowland: 'I let my
pride get in my way'
NEW HAVEN, Connecticut -- Former Gov.
John G. Rowland was sentenced to a
year in prison and four months under
house arrest Friday for selling his
office in a corruption scandal that
destroyed his career as one of the
Republican Party's brightest and fastest-rising
stars. The judge imposed the sentence
after Rowland pleaded for leniency
and confessed he had lost his way
morally and developed "a sense
of entitlement and even arrogance."
"I let my pride get in my way,"
he told U.S. District Judge Peter
C. Dorsey. He resigned last summer
amid a gathering drive to impeach
him.
Sen. James Williamson (Bar # 9698).
is in fact, the County of Tulsa Attorney
and a Senator a conflict of Emolument,
and wholly unconstitutional.
Wanton Negligence of my rights, and
the already violated rights. COMES
NOW THE PETITIONER, in this matter,
TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHT, to Disqualification
of a Judge. Due to the violation of
rights, and by violation the Constitution
of the United States of America by
which Judge Contrell, swore to uphold.
Special Judge Cantrell is NOT an elected
JUDGE! has Violated Constitution!
While a Judge may issue orders to
control his court, he has no lawful
authority to issue any order which
violates the Supreme Law of the Land.
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Section. 6.
Clause 2: No Senator or Representative
shall, during the Time for which he
was elected, be appointed to any civil
Office under the Authority of the
United States, which shall have been
created, or the Emoluments whereof
shall have been encreased during such
time; and no Person holding any Office
under the United States, shall be
a Member of either House during his
Continuance in Office. Guardian Ad
Litem Rick Clarke is trumping up evaluations
to delay decisions.
Free Jaime-Alvaro Burbano
In Propria Persona Sui Juris
No. Case No. FD-2004-4392
First: Jurisdiction. Judge Cantrell
has no jurisdiction in this matter.
Yes, James has done the correct thing
and challenged it--and he has APPEARED
SPECIALLY; however, there is something
even more powerful which keeps the
judge at bay right now.
1.) James is doing a Habeas Corpus
action to secure his child. He is
in the midst of making that formal
legal demand by writ of habeas corpus.
As you know, there cannot be two trial
matters on the same subject matter.
You cannot have two cases deciding
the same thing (surplusage and replication.)
That is why, courts hold off on prosecuting
a criminal Federally while the state
is in the midst of adjudicating him.
Once that trial is over, the criminal
is shipped off to the Federal venue
in which to also stand trial there.
A man may commit several murders in
several states: each state waits their
turn while the guy is prosecuted in
state after state. After each trial,
the criminal is processed to the next
state to stand the same exact charges.
2.) Writ of Habeas Corpus is a trial
procedure in itself. As that procedure
is pending: no trial or hearing can
ensue UNTIL that habeas process is
over.
In its order granting the Appellees'
motion for summary judgment, the district
court began its analysis by setting
forth the elements of a § 1983 claim
against an individual state actor
as follows:
(1) [the plaintiff] possessed constitutional
right's of which (s)he was deprived;
(2) the acts or omissions of the defendant
were intentional;
(3) the defendant acted under color
of law; and
(4) the acts or omissions of the defendant
caused the constitutional deprivation.
Estate of Macias v. Lopez, 42 F. Supp.2d
957, 962 (N.D. Cal. 1999). The court
also stated that, to establish municipal
liability, a plaintiff must show that
(1) [the plaintiff] possessed a constitutional
right of which (s)he was deprived;
(2) the municipality had a policy
or custom;
(3) this policy or custom amounts
to deliberate indifference to [the
plaintiff's] constitutional right;
&
(4) the policy or custom caused constitutional
deprivation.
3.) While James has his Habeas process
going (which they have recognized
on the record), he cannot have a collateral
process working on the same subject
matter.
We have a case in Massachusetts, (Cimini)
where the federal judge ruled when
presented with the legal question
of "Who owns the children?"
(oddly, that man was not arrested
for doing so); that judge admitted
on the federal record, that "Yes,
the father has these rights, BUT THEY
ARE NOT ABSOLUTE."
(e.g. the 3 "postive disqualifications"
contravening a fathers custody does
not make the right absolute).
So we know these rights exist, James
is being pullied by Cantrell in which
to frustrate James Habeas process--SO
THE JUDGE CAN RUSH THROUGH HIS STATUTORY
PROCESS TO ATTEMPT TO SUPERCEDE THE
HABEAS CLAIM.
Cantrell in OPEN COURT today, actually
turned to the audience in court and
made a small silliloque that he was
not biased nor prejudiced to fathers.
"Oh," he asserted, in what
was clearly a weeping rendition of
"I have a dream"; "I
have been good to fathers, I gave
two fathers their children last week."
(Probably solely due to the pressure
we have put on him in open court and
this case.)
PLEASE PRODUCE A SOLE SINGLE MOTHER
TO WHOM YOU HAVE BADGERED AND BERATED
IN OPEN COURT, AND TOLD TO SHUT UP;
TOLD TO SIT DOWN; THEN PUT IN JAIL
FOR STANDING UP FOR HER CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS AND FOR DISQUALIFYING YOU.
ODDLY, we put in a SUBPOENA today
which made the claim that a Judge
had to give several warnings to a
litigant before finding them in DIRECT
CONTEMPT. Whereas the Judge in question
is in direct contempt of his oath
of office and in violation of due
process!
We should be pushing the Presiding
Judge Gillert in this matter, and
everyone must call him and ask when
James jury trial hearing is set for
the disqualification. We must ask
Gillert why ONLY PLAINTIFF'S WITNESSES
ARE ALLOWED BEFORE CANTRELL. They
are trying to now find James incompetent
(I presaged this defense over a week
ago)--WITH NO ASSEVERATIONS FROM ANY
DEFENSE WITNESS! "Only plaintiff's
get to testify here" is the resounding
rejoiner in Cantrells' Court.
We need EVERYONE whom has witnessed
these events to get their affidavits
in order . All he has is tyranny in
his arsenal and he is using it to
his advantage, but that clock is ticking.
Here's what must be done:
1.) Habeas to OKL Supreme Court (working
on it now).
2.) Habeas to the Federal Court (District
Court of the United States- -NOT the
USDC).
3.) Mandamus to Appeals court on Disqualification.
4.) NOTICE TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE
(people must WRITE him (not call)
about what is transpiring) to give
him NOTICE. Here's why:
5.) IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS to the
Oklahoma Senate against Cantrell and
Gillert.
Send a formal Notice to the purported
"judge" (who is nothing
more than a special master/ministerial
actor in this case) that he cannot
keep James in jail without probable
cause and must release him within
48 hrs. of the jailing. The nature
of the case involved is CIVIL in nature.
Pursuant to Allen v. City of Portland,
73 F.3d 232, 237 (9th Cir. 1995, and
later cases, e.g., Stevens v. Rose
(2004), since there can be no probable
cause to arrest and jail people in
civil matters (probable cause is defined
as someone who has committed or is
committing a CRIME), James must be
immediately released or he has a state
civil rights claim against all involved,
as well as criminal charges of official
misconduct against the purported "judge".
Any misdemeanor or felony against
a judge is considered official misconduct,
which is an impeachable offense that
can be brought to the state assembly
for charging and then transferred
to the senate for trial.
(k) Allegations of criminal conduct.
If a judicial council dismisses, solely
for lack of jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 351 et seq., non-frivolous
allegations of criminal conduct by
a judge, the judicial council's order
of dismissal shall inform the complainant
that the dismissal does not prevent
the complainant from bringing any
allegation of criminal conduct to
the attention of appropriate federal
or state criminal authorities. If,
in this situation, the allegations
of criminal conduct were originally
referred to the circuit by a Congressional
committee or member of Congress, the
judicial council — if no petition
for review of the dismissal by the
Judicial Conference lies under 28
U.S.C. § 357.
Corruption in Family Courts is rampant:
IF you answer yes to the following
"impeach able facts:" Then
it is corruption!
Due process is NOT allowed. Shut up,
sit down and you are arrested for
defending yourself.
"The courts of justice of the
State shall be open to every person,
and speedy and certain remedy afforded
for every wrong and for every injury
to person, property, or reputation;
and right and justice shall be administered
without sale, denial, delay, or prejudice."
Okla. Const. Art. 2, §6.
TITLE 28--JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
PART II--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CHAPTER
31--THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Sec. 528. Disqualification of officers
and employees of the Department of
Justice The Attorney General shall
promulgate rules and regulations which
require the disqualification of any
officer or employee of the Department
of Justice, including a United States
attorney or a member of such attorney's
staff, from participation in a particular
investigation or prosecution if such
participation may result in a personal,
financial, or political conflict of
interest, or the appearance thereof.
Such rules and regulations may provide
that a willful violation of any provision
thereof shall result in removal from
office. (Added Pub. L. 95-521, title
VI, Sec. 603(a), Oct. 26, 1978, 92
Stat. 1874.) Effective Date Section
effective Oct. 26, 1978, see section
604 of Pub. L. 95-521, set out as
a note under section 591 of this title.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights U.S. Code
: Title 18 : Section 241
This statute makes it unlawful for
two or more persons to conspire to
injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate
any person of any state, territory
or district in the free exercise or
enjoyment of any right or privilege
secured to him/her by the Constitution
or the laws of the United States,
(or because of his/her having exercised
the same). It further makes it unlawful
for two or more persons to go in disguise
on the highway or on the premises
of another with the intent to prevent
or hinder his/her free exercise or
enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation
of Rights Under Color of Law U.S.
Code : Title 18 : Section 242
This statute makes it a crime for
any person acting under color of law,
statute, ordinance, regulation, or
custom to willfully deprive or cause
to be deprived from any person those
rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by the Constitution
and laws of the U.S. This law further
prohibits a person acting under color
of law, statute, ordinance, regulation
or custom to willfully subject or
cause to be subjected any person to
different punishments, pains, or penalties,
than those prescribed for punishment
of citizens on account of such person
being an alien or by reason of his/her
color or race. Acts under "color
of any law" include acts not
only done by federal, state, or local
officials within the bounds or limits
of their lawful authority, but also
acts done without and beyond the bounds
of their lawful authority; provided
that, in order for unlawful acts of
any official to be done under "color
of any law," the unlawful acts
must be done while such official is
purporting or pretending to act in
the performance of his/her official
duties. This definition includes,
in addition to law enforcement officials,
individuals such as Mayors, Council
persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors,
Security Guards, etc., persons who
are bound by laws, statutes ordinances,
or customs.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud
and False Statements TITLE 18 - CRIMES
AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
Section 1001. Statements or entries
generally (a) Except as otherwise
provided in this section, whoever,
in any matter within the jurisdiction
of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government
of the United States, knowingly and
willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers
up by any trick, scheme, or device
a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious,
or fraudulent statement or representation;
or
(3) makes or uses any false writing
or document knowing the same to contain
any materially false, fictitious,
or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 5 years,
or both.
Title 42 USC Section 1983 Laws: Cases
and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 42 :
Section 1983
Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation
of rights Every person who, under
color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or
Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected,
any citizen of the United States or
other person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws,
shall be liable to the party injured
in an action at law, suit in equity,
or other proper proceeding for redress,
except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an
act or omission taken in such officer's
judicial capacity, injunctive relief
shall not be granted unless a declaratory
decree was violated or declaratory
relief was unavailable. For the purposes
of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District
of Columbia shall be considered to
be a statute of the District of Columbia
The "liberty interest of parents
in the care, custody, and control
of their children is perhaps the oldest
of the fundamental liberty interests"
recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Troxel v. Granville, 527 U.S. 1069
(1999). Moreover, the companionship,
care, custody, and management of a
parent over his or her child is an
interest far more precious than any
property right. May v. Anderson, 345
U.S. 528, 533, (1952). As such, the
parent-child relationship is
an important interest that undeniably
warrants deference and, absent a powerful
countervailing interest, protection.
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services,
452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981).
I swear an oath to the constitution,
that the forgoing is true and correct
to the best of my knowledge.
Signed_______________________________
Print Name: _____________
Signed:_______________________________Print
Name: ____________
All Rights Reserved by the Citizen
and None Waived.
Article. IV.
The Citizens of each State shall be
entitled to all Privileges and Immunities
of Citizens in the several States.
CaseMasterID=1555958;
|