Attorney NOTICE of Fraud Upon Court _________________________________ _____________________________________________ Case Number: Attorney Notice BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ACCUSER! No proof, no abduction! 1. I have and maintain full compliance with my Oath. See: AO 153 Attorney Oath on Admission 2. I have never been disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command. 401. 3. I have never willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any court. 402. 4. I have never advocated the obstruction of court orders, obstructed court orders or interfered in court orders. 1509. 5. makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry 1001 6. I have never allowed, been aware of perjury nor have I done Subornation of Perjury on behalf of my client, in order to obstruct a court order, further a case, or to get back at someone. 1622 7. Obstruction of court orders I have never willfully prevented, obstructed, impeded, or interfered with, or willfully attempts to prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere with, the due exercise of rights. 1509. 8. I have never conspired with a private citizen, as an attorney and or with state actor, to kidnap. 1983. 9. I have never conspired to do any overt act to assist in custodial interference. 10. I have never advocated that my client abduct, restrain, confine or carry away the children. 11. I have never assisted in an abduction or wrongful retention of children against a court order. 12. I have never opposed the return of the children once my client failed to prove her accusations. 13. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 401. Power of court A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as (1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice; (2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions; (3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > § 402 Contempt Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall be prosecuted for such contempt as provided in section 3691 of this title and shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment, or both. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001 § 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. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to— (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 79 > § 1622 Subornation of Perjury Sec. 1622. Subornation of perjury Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 73 > § 1509 TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I--CRIMES CHAPTER 73--OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Sec. 1509. Obstruction of court orders Whoever, by threats or force, willfully prevents, obstructs, impedes, or interferes with, or willfully attempts to prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere with, the due exercise of rights or the performance of duties under any order, judgment, or decree of a court of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. No injunctive or other civil relief against the conduct made criminal by this section shall be denied on the ground that such conduct is a crime. A PRIVATE CITIZEN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER § 1983 While a private citizen cannot ordinarily be held liable under § 1983 because that statute requires action under color of state law, if a private citizen conspires with a state actor, then the private citizen is subject to § 1983 liability. Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir 2001) quoting Bowman v. City of Franklin, 980 F.2d 1104, 1107 (7th Cir. 1992) To establish § 1983 liability through a conspiracy theory, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) a state official and private individual(s) reached an understanding to deprive the plaintiff of his constitutional rights, and (2) those individual(s) were willful participants in joint activity with the State or its agents. Fries v. Helsper, 146 F.3d 452, 457 (7th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation and citations omitted). TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 55 > § 1201. Kidnapping, abduction, or unlawful restraint If two or more persons conspire to violate this section and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life. TITLE 18 > PART II > CHAPTER 227 > § 3559 (C) the term “kidnapping” means an offense that has as its elements the abduction, restraining, confining, or carrying away of another person by force or threat of force; TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 121 > § 11601. abduction or wrongful retention of children (2) Persons should not be permitted to obtain custody of children by virtue of their wrongful removal or retention. TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 121 > § 11603 Child Abduction Judicial remedies (B) in the case of an action for arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access, that the petitioner has such rights. (2) In the case of an action for the return of a child, a respondent who opposes the return of the child has the burden of establishing— (A) by clear and convincing evidence that one of the exceptions set forth in article 13b or 20 of the Convention applies; and (B) by a preponderance of the evidence that any other exception set forth in article 12 or 13 of the Convention applies. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 2 Principals aids, abets, (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 2 Principals (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 4 Misprision of felony Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. TITLE 28 > PART II > CHAPTER 31 > § 528 § 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. EXHIBIT 022 - NOTICE OF ATTORNEYS NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY It’s a VIOLATION of the 11th Amendment for a FOREIGN CITIZEN to INVOKE the JUDICIAL POWER of the State. Article XI. The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. US citizens (FEDERAL CITIZENS) are FOREIGN to the several States and SUBJECTS of the FEDERAL UNITED STATES/STATE of NEW COLUMBIA/DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ATTORNIES are considered FOREIGN AGENTS under the FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT (FARA) and are SUBJECTS of the BAR ASSOCIATION. Government Is Foreclosed from Parity with Real People – Supreme Court of the United States 1795 Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them. S.C.R. 1795, Penhallow v. Doanes Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), Supreme Court of the United States 1795 ----- And, An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness. (Trinsey v. Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647) This applies both with Federal Rules of Evidence and State Rules of Evidence.... there must be a competent first hand witness (a body). Their has to be a real person making the complaint and bringing evidence before the court. Corporations are paper and cant testify. “Manifestly, [such statements] cannot be properly considered by us in the disposition of [a] case.” United States v. Lovasco (06/09/77) 431 U.S. 783, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2d 752, Under no possible view, however, of the findings we are considering can they be held to constitute a compliance with the statute, since they merely embody conflicting statements ofcounsel concerning the facts as they suppose them to be and their appreciation of the law which they deem applicable, there being, therefore, no attempt whatever to state the ultimate facts by a consideration of which we would be able to conclude whether or not the judgment was warranted. Gonzales v. Buist. (04/01/12) 224 U.S. 126, 56 L. Ed. 693, 32 S. Ct. 463. No instruction was asked, but, as we have said, the judge told the jury that they were to regard only the evidence admitted by him, not statements of counsel, Holt v. United States,(10/31/10) 218 U.S. 245, 54 L. Ed. 1021, 31 S. Ct. 2, The prosecutor is not a witness; and he should not be permitted to add to the record either by subtle or gross improprieties. Those who have experienced the full thrust of the power of government when leveled against them know that the only protection the citizen has is in the requirement for a fair trial. Donnelly v. Dechristoforo, 1974.SCT.41709 ¶ 56; 416 U.S. 637 (1974) Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting. Care has been taken, however, in summoning witnesses to testify, to call no man whose character or whose word could be successfully impeached by any methods known to the law. And it is remarkable, we submit, that in a case of this magnitude, with every means and resource at their command, the complainants, after years of effort and search in near and in the most remote paths, and in every collateral by-way, now rest the charges of conspiracy and of gullibility against these witnesses, only upon the bare statements of counsel. The lives of all the witnesses are clean, their characters for truth and veracity un-assailed, and the evidence of any attempt to influence the memory or the impressions of any man called, cannot be successfully pointed out in this record. Telephone Cases. Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Company, Molecular Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company. American Bell Telephone Company v.. Molecular Telephone Company, Clay Commercial Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, People’s Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company, Overland Telephone Company v. American Bell Telephone Company,. (PART TWO OF THREE) (03/19/88) 126 U.S. 1, 31 L. Ed. 863, 8 S. Ct. 778. Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D. C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647. Factual statements or documents appearing only in briefs shall not be deemed to be a part of the record in the case, unless specifically permitted by the Court – Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedure, Federal local rule 7.1(h). Trinsey v Pagliaro D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647. Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Pro Per and pro se litigants should therefore always remember that the majority of the time, the motion to dismiss a case is only argued by the opposing attorney, who is not allowed to testify on the facts of the case, the motion to dismiss is never argued by the real party in interest. Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination. Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647. Frunzar v. Allied Property and Casualty Ins. Co. (Iowa 1996)† 548 N.W.2d 880 Professional statements of litigants attorney are treated as affidavits, and attorney making statements may be cross-examined regarding substance of statement. [And, how many of those Ass-Holes have first hand knowledge? NONE!!!] Porter v. Porter (N.D. 1979 ) 274 N.W.2d 235 ñ The practice of an attorney filing an affidavit on behalf of his client asserting the status of that client is not approved, inasmuch as not only does the affidavit become hearsay, but it places the attorney in a position of witness thus compromising his role as advocate. Deyo v. Detroit Creamery Co (Mich 1932) 241 N.W.2d 244 ñ Statutes forbidding administering of oath by attorneys in cases in which they may be engaged applies to affidavits as well.
Posted on: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 08:22:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015