Res Judicata, Lache, and Time Limitations are not Applicable to Void Orders/Judgments, which must be set aside.

Please visit my new BLOG: MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments – WordPress.com

**********************************************************************************

Stop corruption Corrupt judges like John D. Rainey, Janis Graham Jack, S. Thomas Anderson, Skipper Koetter, Kemper Stephen Williams; unethical lawyers like Richard T. Chapman, David Roberts, Randal W. Hill, Jameson B. Carroll, Emily T. Landry, Ron McAfee, Edward Bearman; ignorant/discriminatory ADA Shannon Salyer, Sheriff B.B. Browning & Magistrate Hope Kurtz, crooks and fraudsters like Terry J. Cox, Anita L. Koop, and those named and unnamed in my posts: They have seized upon the government by bribery and corruption. They have made speculation and public robbery a science. They have loaded the nation, the state, the county, and the city with debt. — Quotes from Denis Kearney (1847–1907), a late 19th century California labor leader, applied to some Texas’s and Tennessee’s rotten, immoral, despicable OFFICERS OF THE COURT and two major crooks and fraudsters.

Corruption

**********************************************************************************

Judges were accepting money right in the courtroom.

While teaching, I also worked undercover in the lower courts by saying I was a young law teacher wanting experience in criminal law. The judges were happy to assist me but what I learned was how corrupt the lower courts were. Judges were accepting money right in the courtroom. —  Samuel Dash

Samuel Dash (February 27, 1925 – May 29, 2004) was an American professor of law who acted as a co-chief counsel along with Fred Thompson for the Senate Watergate Committee during the Watergate scandal. Dash became famous for his televised interrogations during the hearings held by the United States Congress on the Watergate incident. — From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ha! Judge Skipper Koetter seems a lot wiser in that he concealed the moneys under the cover of campaign contributions and that he managed not to accept money in the courtroom, I guess.  But a reasonable man cannot rule out his accepting money in his chambers, bedchambers, or living room, can he? One of my former attorneys mentioned that the most effective way for money to change hands had been knowingly and willfully losing the chips to the judge in the poker game in a private group. See Judge Skipper Koetter’s Campaign Finance Suspected of Bribery Posted on September 29, 2012.

**********************************************************************************

Res Judicata, Lache, and Time Limitations are not applicable to Void Orders/Judgments, which must be set aside.

  1. Res judicata consequences will not be applied to a void judgment which is one which, from its inception, is a complete nullity and without legal effect, Allcock v. Allcock 437 N.E. 2d 392 (Ill. App. 3 Dist. 1982).
  2. “…laches does not run against a void judgment. See Samango v. Hobbs, supra; People’s National Bank of Reynoldsville, to Use of Mottern v. D.&M Coal Co., 124 Pa. Super. 21 A. 452.” Com. v. Miller, 150 A.2d 585, 588 (1959)
  3. A motion to set aside a judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction is not subject to the time limitations of Rule 60(b). See Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288 (Utah 1986).
  4. A void judgment is one which from the beginning was complete nullity and without any legal effect, Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 485 F.Supp. 456      (M.D. Fla. 1980).
  5. A void judgment is one which, from its inception, is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties or to support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of enforcement in any manner or to any degree – Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So. 2d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).
  6. When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not      discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, (Colo. 1994).
  7. Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set      aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D. 278.

* Those who are seeking relief from void judgments, please read the following carefully: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment 2. Memorandum in Support of Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment.

The merits in this pro se litigant’s Rule 60 Motion and Memorandum soundly support her cause, outweighing the minor typographical or grammatical errors.

Paul Chen

 

Posted in FRAUD ON THE COURT, Suing officers of the court | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

District Judges Rainey, Jack and the Other Judiciaries are not Immune from Suit for Damages

 

No Notice, No Jurisdiction, No Authority to Grant Relief, and the Judgment is VOID!

  1. “It is fundamental that no judgment or order affecting the rights of a party to the cause shall be made or rendered without notice to the party whose rights are to be affected.” Tyron Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Phelps, 307 S.C. 361, 362, 415 S.E.2d 397, 398 (1992). Generally, a person against whom a judgment or order is taken without notice may rightly ignore it and may assume that no court will enforce it against his person or property. Id.
  2. See Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389. Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proven to exist.See also Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215., There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” See also Rosemond V. Lambert, 469 F2d 416., The burden shifts to the courts to prove jurisdiction.
  3. If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn’t any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void.” (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120-c.) An illegal order is forever void.
  4. Under the Supreme Law of the Land, whenever a judge acts when the judge does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, the judge is engaged in an act of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5L.Ed 257 (1821).
  5. After a ten-month delay in granting me to proceed in forma pauperis on 2/13/06 in response to my 4/14/05 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, you violated 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 (d) without requiring the Clerk to issue summons and serve all process. Section 1915 (d) provides, in pertinent part: “The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.” Consequently, you were in complete absence of subject matter or personal jurisdiction. Without of subject matter, you have been engaged in many acts of treason since 2/13/06.

    Being a traitor, you are entitled to a just and fair trial. Since you are stripped of judicial immunity, you should enjoy the same privileges of handcuffs, standing behind bars,

Businessman with handcuffsBusinessman wearing handcuffs

 

 In ancient times, you would end up being hanged or executed!

Criminal man with hangman noose around the neck silhouette  Vector executioner

 

Four Factors to Determine whether a Judge’s Act is a “Judicial” One

  1. To determine whether a judge’s act is a “judicial”
    one, the Court is to consider four factors: (1) whether the act complained of is one normally performed by a judge; (2) whether the act occurred in the courtroom or an appropriate adjunct such as the judge’s chambers; (3) whether the controversy centered around a case pending before the judge; and (4) whether the act arose out of a visit to the judge in his judicial capacity.” Malina v. Gonzales, 994 F.2d 1121, 1124 (5th Cir.1993).

(1) whether the act complained of is one normally performed by a judge: Rainey’s imposing on this indigent Plaintiff the Clerk’s duties to “issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(d), and refusing to reinstate the complaints dismissed sua sponte under Rule 1-041(E)(2) of Rules Enabling Act, which is mandatory, are not acts normally performed by a judge.

(2) whether the act occurred in the courtroom or an appropriate adjunct such as the judge’s chambers: The acts neither occurred in the courtroom nor an appropriate adjunct such as the judge’s chambers because without service of process, no parties were present, and there was no subject matter before the judge for adjudication;

(3) whether the controversy centered around a case pending before the judge: Since there was neither subject matter nor personal jurisdiction, there was no controversy that centered around any case pending before the judge and

(4) whether the act arose out of a visit to the judge in his judicial capacity: The decision was made in his administrative, ministerial, non-judicial, non-adjudicative, personal, private-citizen capacity. Without subject matter and parties before him, whatever he did was not done in his judicial, but personal, capacity.

Two Circumstances When a Judge is not Entitled to Judicial Immunity

5. There are only two circumstances when a judge is not entitled to judicial immunity: (1) when he performs acts not in his judicial capacity and (2) when he performs act, although judicial in nature, in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991). Here, Judge Rainey is not entitled to judicial immunity because (1) when he rendered the Order to Dismiss without prejudice, he was not performing acts in his judicial capacity; 2) he was making an administrative, ministerial, non-judicial, non-adjudicative decision; and (2) when he performs act, although judicial in nature, in the complete absence of all jurisdiction: neither subject matter nor personal jurisdiction was present; he was without any authority to hear the case and determine any issue.

See other related posts.

Posted by Paul Chen: ricofraudonthecourt@wordpress.com

 

 

Posted in FRAUD ON THE COURT, Suing officers of the court | Tagged | Leave a comment

MOTION TO VACATE THE FINAL JUDGMENT, REINSTATE THE CASE and COMPLAINT AGAINST DEPRIVATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS

THIS POST IS REVSIED AS:

MOTION TO VACATE THE FINAL JUDGMENT, REINSTATE THE CASE and COMPLAINT AGAINST DEPRIVATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS (revised) Posted on March 25, 2013

Click on the above link instead of reading the contents below.

The revision is stylistic; the contents remain unchanged!

 

**********************************************************************************

Corrupt judges like John D. Rainey, Janis Graham Jack, S. Thomas Anderson, Skipper Koetter, Kemper Stephen Williams; unethical lawyers like Richard T. Chapman, David Roberts, Randal W. Hill, Jameson B. Carroll, Emily T. Landry, Ron McAfee, Edward Bearman; ignorant/discriminatory ADA Shannon Salyer, Sheriff B.B. Browning & Magistrate Hope Kurtz, crooks and fraudsters like Terry J. Cox, Anita L. Koop, and those named and unnamed in my posts: They have seized upon the government by bribery and corruption. They have made speculation and public robbery a science. They have loaded the nation, the state, the county, and the city with debt. — Quotes from Denis Kearney (1847–1907), a late 19th century California labor leader, applied to some Texas’s and Tennessee’s rotten, immoral, despicable OFFICERS OF THE COURT and two major crooks and fraudsters.

**********************************************************************************

Judges were accepting money right in the courtroom.

While teaching, I also worked undercover in the lower courts by saying I was a young law teacher wanting experience in criminal law. The judges were happy to assist me but what I learned was how corrupt the lower courts were. Judges were accepting money right in the courtroom. —  Samuel Dash

Samuel Dash (February 27, 1925 – May 29, 2004) was an American professor of law who acted as a co-chief counsel along with Fred Thompson for the Senate Watergate Committee during the Watergate scandal. Dash became famous for his televised interrogations during the hearings held by the United States Congress on the Watergate incident. — From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ha! Judge Skipper Koetter seems a lot wiser in that he concealed the moneys under the cover of campaign contributions and that he managed not to accept money in the courtroom, I guess.  But a reasonable man cannot rule out his accepting money in his chambers, bedchambers, or living room, can he? One of my former attorneys mentioned that the most effective way for money to change hands had been knowingly and willfully losing the chips to the judge in the poker game in a private group. See Judge Skipper Koetter’s Campaign Finance Suspected of Bribery Posted on September 29, 2012.

**********************************************************************************

 

Posted in FRAUD ON THE COURT | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments

JOHN D. RAINEY: Why did you delete your image from the photobucket?

At http://media.photobucket.com, I found: “Sorry. This person moved or deleted this image.” Why did you delete your image, Mr. Rainey?

On May 14, 1990, you had to take the following oath before performing the duties of your office: “I, John D. Rainey, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a federal district court judge under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

You spoke with a forked tongue, promising to be neutral, detached, disinterested, non-partisan, impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nondiscriminatory you would never deliver. Your judicial and non-judicial misconduct demonstrated your violation of the OATH OF OFFICE. Thus, you have repeatedly warred against the Constitution and laws of the United States, and engaged in acts of treason.

What would the Rainey ancestors think of you? They would roll over in their graves, wouldn’t they?

God has given you one face, and you make yourself another. — William Shakespeare   The face you make yourself is the mirror of your mind, and your eyes reveal the secrets of your heart in silence. Is that why you moved or deleted your photo from the photobucket?

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. — Plato   So you are afraid of the light, John!

Since you are afraid of showing your real face, I have to provide the world with another John D. Rainey, who looks young and handsome!

 He resembles you before you became wicked, doesn’t he?

Wicked! Royalty Free Stock Images

 

Advertising Wicked. Royalty Free Stock Photo

 
 

Evil face Stock PhotosDo you have red eyes?

 

Evil face Royalty Free Stock ImagesOr green eyes now?

 

A man is known by the company he keeps.

Birds of a feather flock together.

Let’s see who your company is.  a vicious woman

“It is false to say that you are a vicious man, Mr. Rainey; you are not a vicious man, you are vice itself.”
“It is false to say that you are a vicious woman, Ms. Jack; you are not a vicious woman, you are vice itself.” — Marcus Aurelius (Roman emperor, best known for his Meditations on Stoic philosophy, AD 121-180)

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

* Click Images for judge skipper koetter’s corruption, and you will see 12 photos. Click any one of them,  wait awhile, and it will take you to more than 60 images linking to my BLOG. Have these given you sleepless nights, Skipper and John?

 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted in Clean Air Act Violations, Conspiracy, Corruption, Crime Victims Rights Act Violations, David Roberts, due process of law, Egregious Misconduct, false arrest, FRAUD ON THE COURT, Fraudulent Concealment, Intentional Misrepresentation, Intrinsic/Extrinsic Fraud, Anita L. Koop, Anita's Resort Properties Inc., Judge John D. Rainey, Judge John D. Rainey's Corruption, Judge John D. Rainey's Misconduct, Judge Juergen "Skipper" Koetter, Judge Skipper Koetter, JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER'S JUDICIAL & NON-JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, Judge Skipper Koetter's Judicial Misconduct, Kenneth Burch, malicious prosecution, MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments, Perjured Testimony, Perjury, RACIAL & ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION, Racketeering Activity, Randal W. Hill, Randall W. Hill, Roberts Roberts Odefey Witte LLP, Suing officers of the court, Terry J. Cox, Thomas George, Uncategorized, VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS, wrongful imprisonment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ABOUT

IN THE WORLDWIDE WEBCOURT OF PUBLIC OPINION
SOUTHERN TEXAS DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION CASES:

Chen v. John D. Rainey, Janis Graham Jack, Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox, Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc., et al.

Chen v. Skipper Koetter, Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox, Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc., et al.

JURY DEMAND ON ALL COUNTS

Presiding Judge: Nationwide P.O. (Public Opinion)
Jury Panel: Statewide P.O. (Public Opinion)
St. Peter: “Do you swear under oath that you spoke/wrote/posted, speak/write/post, have spoken/written/posted, will speak/write/post the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”
St. Paul’s follower, Paul Chen: “I did; I do; I have done; I will do!”
Author’s Note:

I had a B.A. in English from National Taiwan University, and an EDM (Master of Education) Degree from Harvard. After Harvard, I began aggressively investing in real estate in the sunshine states: California, Florida and Texas. I have encountered various real-estate-related problems, consulted more than 30 attorneys, and learned a lot from them. Most attorneys are quite competent, but clients like you and me must realize that we are not the only clients they work for. In other words, it is impossible for any attorney to give us and our causes of action his or her undivided attention. Thus, I used to do a lot of preliminary work for them, equivalent to serving as their legal assistant.

I have been fighting against racial discrimination, manifest injustice, miscarriage of justice, inequality, RICO, fraud on the court, civil conspiracy, and other deprivations of “life, liberty, or property” protected by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for the past ten years. I have spent 15 hours per day doing legal research on a great body of case law, federal/state laws, the Constitutions of the United States, Texas and Florida. I have filed several thousand pages of pleadings in both federal and state courts. Never have I been given the opportunity to have a full and fair hearing. That’s why I have been blogging since April 12, 2012. Thanks to WordPress.com for offering this excellent website free of charge, which makes it possible for me to expose all the perpetrators’ unlawful, unconstitutional acts and irreparable harms inflicted on me and similarly situated minorities and indigents. And I have felt the great impact of this WEBCOURT OF PUBLIC OPINION.

I was labeled “a vexatious litigant” and was prohibited from filing any more “notices of lis pendens” and new lawsuits in the State of Texas, according to Judge Skipper Koetter’s Orders and Final Judgments in Case No. 10-6-28 and Case No. 10-6-29.

My posts are aimed at challenging such unconstitutional and unlawful orders/judgments with sufficient factual findings and sound legal conclusions to substantiate my refutation of potential “contempt of court” charges threatening me with another penal code violation.
I heartily welcome any constructive comments on the contents or suggestions as to what topics to blog about.

Sharing bitter and sweet experiences is beneficial to both readers and writers, I believe.
Let’s work together to make this world better and allow me to continue this mission until justice is served.
Paul Chen
P.S. Rainey’s 4/30/2014’s VOID Order prompted me to divert my attention from the Texas corrupt officers of the court to the federal judiciaries, e.g., John D. Rainey, Janis Graham Jack, et al.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.

Posted in Conspiracy, Corruption, Crime Victims Rights Act Violations, David Roberts, due process of law, Egregious Misconduct, false arrest, FRAUD ON THE COURT, Fraudulent Concealment, Intentional Misrepresentation, Intrinsic/Extrinsic Fraud, Anita L. Koop, Anita's Resort Properties Inc., Clean Air Act Violations, Judge John D. Rainey, Judge John D. Rainey's Corruption, Judge John D. Rainey's Misconduct, Judge Juergen "Skipper" Koetter, Judge Skipper Koetter, JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER'S JUDICIAL & NON-JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, Judge Skipper Koetter's Judicial Misconduct, Kenneth Burch, malicious prosecution, MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments, Perjured Testimony, Perjury, RACIAL & ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION, Racketeering Activity, Randal W. Hill, Randall W. Hill, Roberts Roberts Odefey Witte LLP, Suing officers of the court, Terry J. Cox, Thomas George, Uncategorized, VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS, wrongful imprisonment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

RAINEY’S 4/30/2014 & 7/12/2010 VOID MEMORANDUM OPINIONs & ORDERs COMPARED!

The former had a delay of seven years after the jury’s guilty verdict against Citgo, and the latter had a 11.5 months’ delay to grant my requests to proceed in Forma Pauperis, but denied the two TRO Motions and all the other motions in one brush. See PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AGAINST TERRY J. COX, ET AL. filed on September 8, 2009 Posted on April 16, 2012; Suggesting Voluntary Recusal Of Judges Under Special Circumstances filed on October 14, 2009 Posted on April 22, 2012; PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE SIX COMPLAINTS FILED IN V-06-78 filed on July 24, 2010 Posted on April 17, 2012; MOTION TO VACATE THE FINAL JUDGMENT, REINSTATE THE CASE and COMPLAINT AGAINST DEPRIVATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS (revised) filed on October 4, 2010 Posted on March 25, 2013; MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; Chen v. Cox et al :: 6:2009mc00011 :: Texas Southern Download Doc #18 for the worthless, contemptible VOID Order rendered on July 12, 2010 after evading my subpoena to testify at the July 15, 2010 hearing with the pretense of attending a judicial conference. Was there really a judicial conference on July 15, 2010? You lied under oath, didn’t you, Mr. Rainey? — The linked documents are merely a small portion of the legal papers generated during my ten-year fight against injustice, unfairness, and discrimination. How could you have slept on my rights since 2005 without giving me a day in court, disqualified judge rainey! Your name is not even worth capitalizing!

With respect to the 4/30/2014 ORDER, it is an error of impunity, an error of failing to find a culpable person, Citgo, guilty of injuring the community members/crime victims’ health and lives and liable for full and timely restitution under the Crime Victims’ Right Act (CVRA)18 U.S.C. § 3771, which provides in part: (a)(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. The seven years’ delay after the jury’s guilty verdict and the $0 restitution order are contrary to CVRA and the Constitution, making the ORDER VOID ab initio, and the judge liable for criminal charge of treason, and civil damages claims by the crime victims.

Serious male judge taking oath Stock PhotographyGood or Evil Royalty Free Stock Image

Your violation of the OATH OF OFFICE constituted an act of treason, remember? You are a wicked, crooked, left-handed, evil-minded, disqualified judge, aren’t you? 

No one ever became extremely wicked suddenly. — Juvenal, Roman poet, author of the Satires. Witnessing John D. Rainey’s extreme wickedness, I cannot agree with Juvenal more!
Rainey did not become extremely wicked suddenly. He has gradually become wicked since May 14, 1990 when he received his commission.

There is one commonality between these two purported MEMORANDUM OPINIONs & ORDERs: VOIDNESS because the former violated the Crime Victims Act and the latter violated 28 USC Section 1915(d). Both were contrary to the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, among others.

I have to admit that Rainey’s law clerks have been very good at covering up his crimes by citing a lot of case law, which sound and look convincing, but are misleading and have no basis in fact or in law.

It was ridiculous to grant my requests to proceed in Forma Pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) without having the Clerk serve all process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) after 11.5 months’ delay. Consequently, none of the Defendants were notified and were not before the court for adjudication of the issues in controversy, and the court had neither subject matter nor personal jurisdiction. Without subject matter jurisdiction, Rainey again committed another act of treason and any purported MEMORANDUM OPINIONs & ORDERs are VOID ab initio.

Rainey’s opinion about sealing the lawsuits is silly and laughable. When I filed the two TRO Motions on July 27, 2009, I asked that the complaints be sealed. TROs are supposed to be issued within 7 to 10 days. There must have been a hearing after ten days. Upon open court hearing, the sealed order is ineffective automatically. I didn’t ask Rainey to have my Motions sealed for 11.5 months. The purpose of having the Motions sealed was that I moved the court to impose an immediate asset freeze, preliminary and permanent injunctions, an interim accounting, disgorgement with prejudgment interest and a civil money penalty against each defendant, as well as the appointment of a receiver over the assets of Defendants. Without putting the TRO Motions under seal, the Defendants could have their assets fraudulently transferred. After 11.5 months, the TRO Motions no longer served the purpose of emergency relief. Many abused women and children move the courts for TROs. Waiting for 11.5 months would have got them injured if not killed. I cited 30 precedents 30 TRO PRECEDENTS in which the TROs were issued within one to 10 days. Rainey issued a TRO in an hour by phone In Looper v. Morgan on January 24, 1992, and another ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons In Heartbrand Beef, Inc. v. Lobel’s of New York, LLC et al. on July 30, 2008; the Plaintiffs filed the complaint on July 25, 2008.  If this is not discrimination, what is it? Why? Is it because the Citgo crime victims, like me, are indigent minorities, not equal to white crooks like you, Anita L. Koop, Citgo executives, among others, John?

Your handling of USA v. Citgo is unusually callous, arbitrary, unreasonable, and conscience-shocking, Mr. Rainey. Citgo’s $2 billion was at stake. The fact that in 2012 Citgo’s executives knew that on 4/30/2014 you would only impose a fine of $2 million for the DOJ, $45,000 for the dead birds but nothing for the crime victims cast doubts about your illegal ex parte communications with the Defendants or their attorneys. 

We both are instructed to lose up to $50,000 today and attend a dinner party with you tonight, your honor!

Young blond woman playing cards Stock Photos

I strongly suggest that the DOJ and the crime victims’ counsel do a thorough research on the requirements of MANDAMUS, cite Rainey’s violations of the Crime Victims Act and the victims’ Due Process rights protected by the Constitution to have the 4/30/2014 ORDER vacated, and have the case reinstated under Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2), which provides that Plaintiff “may move for reinstatement of the case,” and, “upon good cause shown, the court shall reinstate the case.” When the statute uses “shall”, it means “must”. Therefore, it is mandatory that the court reinstate the case. Meanwhile, investigate Citgo’s ongoing Clean Air Act violations so that more counts may be incorporated into the reinstated cause of action.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen 

* Click Images for judge skipper koetter’s corruption, and you will see 12 photos. Click any one of them,  wait awhile, and it will take you to more than 60 images linking to my BLOG. Have these given you sleepless nights, Skipper and John?

Posted in Clean Air Act Violations, Conspiracy, Corruption, Crime Victims Rights Act Violations, David Roberts, due process of law, Egregious Misconduct, false arrest, FRAUD ON THE COURT, Fraudulent Concealment, Intentional Misrepresentation, Intrinsic/Extrinsic Fraud, Anita L. Koop, Anita's Resort Properties Inc., Judge John D. Rainey, Judge John D. Rainey's Corruption, Judge John D. Rainey's Misconduct, Judge Juergen "Skipper" Koetter, Judge Skipper Koetter, JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER'S JUDICIAL & NON-JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, Judge Skipper Koetter's Judicial Misconduct, Kenneth Burch, malicious prosecution, MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments, Perjured Testimony, Perjury, RACIAL & ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION, Racketeering Activity, Randal W. Hill, Randall W. Hill, Roberts Roberts Odefey Witte LLP, Suing officers of the court, Terry J. Cox, Thomas George, Uncategorized, VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS, wrongful imprisonment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Violations of Clean Air Act by Citgo and Those of Clean Water Act by Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox & ARPI

ARPI (Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc.) in 1983 destroyed 5 acres of wetlands and 20 acres of fresh-water lake without performing the mitigation program required by Clean Water Act. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), ACOE (Army Corps of Engineers) and the other regulatory agencies simply closed their eyes without taking any criminal or civil actions. The violations are ongoing because Anita L. Koop, et al. have never complied with the regulations. I filed a 60-Day Notices to Sue on June 14, 2007. See 60-DAY NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE (Complete Text) Posted on April 23, 2012. However, after 60 days of the notice, I did not file the civil action in the Federal District Court in that two agencies never returned the CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS. Since the violations are ongoing, there is no statute of limitations.

Wetlands flooding Stock ImagesFlorida Wetlands Collage Royalty Free Stock Photos

Ducks In Florida Wetlands Stock ImagesWetland Refuge Stock Photo 

5 acres of such wetlands were filled up with the dirt dredged to form the

canals in Sunilandings Phase I without creating another 5 acres of wetlands.

Wetlands park Stock PhotoGroup of kids jumping into Lake Royalty Free Stock Photos

Swan in lake Stock PhotographyGeese on the lake Stock Photos

 A 20-acre fresh water lake was filled with the dirt dredged to construct the

canals without creating another 20 acres of lake required by the Clean Water Act.

 
Likewise, I suggest that the DOJ and the Crime Victims’ attorneys probe into Citgo’s continuing Clean Air Act violations in addition to filing a PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS to vacate the VOID Order rendered by Rainey on April 30, 2014 for violating the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and the victims’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen 

 
 
Posted in Anita's Resort Properties Inc., Clean Air Act Violations, Conspiracy, Corruption, Crime Victims Rights Act Violations, David Roberts, due process of law, Egregious Misconduct, false arrest, FRAUD ON THE COURT, Fraudulent Concealment, Intentional Misrepresentation, Intrinsic/Extrinsic Fraud, Anita L. Koop, Judge John D. Rainey, Judge John D. Rainey's Corruption, Judge John D. Rainey's Misconduct, Judge Juergen "Skipper" Koetter, Judge Skipper Koetter, JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER'S JUDICIAL & NON-JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, Judge Skipper Koetter's Judicial Misconduct, Kenneth Burch, malicious prosecution, MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments, Perjured Testimony, Perjury, RACIAL & ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION, Racketeering Activity, Randal W. Hill, Randall W. Hill, Roberts Roberts Odefey Witte LLP, Suing officers of the court, Terry J. Cox, Thomas George, Uncategorized, VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS, wrongful imprisonment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rainey’s 4/30/14 Order is VOID for Violating Crime Victims’ Rights Act & the Constitution!

CONTROLLING CASE LAW

If a court’s decision is plainly contrary to a statute or the constitution, the court will be held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the judgment void for Rule 1-060(B) purposes, even if the court had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip., 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1995). Here, Rainey violated the statute, Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and the victims’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, making his Order VOID ab initio.

I. Rainey Violated Crime Victims’ Rights Act

18 U.S.C. § 3771, Crime victims’ rights, provides in pertinent part:

(a) RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS.–A crime victim has the following rights:

(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused: The victims have the right to be reasonably protected from Citgo’s air pollution.

Boy in inhaler Royalty Free Stock ImageOld woman Royalty Free Stock Image
YOUNG                                                               OLD
Helping with asthma Stock PhotoAsthma patient Stock Photography
MALE                                                                        FEMALE
 
The young, the old, the men and the women living in the Citgo neighborhood have been forced to breathe toxic air and suffer through various smoke and toxic pollutants-related illnesses since Citgo started its Corpus Christi Refinery. 
 

Dirty smoke and pollution Royalty Free Stock PhotographyAtmospheric pollution Royalty Free Stock Images Air pollution coming from factory smoke stacks over sunset global concept earth preserving halt global warming Royalty Free Stock PhotosNursing home Stock Image

Grandma, I’ve finally graduated from college and got a good job now. I’ll try to move you away from the dirty air here as soon as possible!    
 
(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding. Denial of restitution without a bench or jury trial violated the victims’ right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding,
 
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding: Rainey’s statement that the jury would “unduly delay the sentencing process,” and the need for a speedy rulingoutweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims” denied the victims the right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving sentencing, which includes restitution.
 
(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law: Rainey’s seven years’ delay after the jury’s guilty verdict to announce the sentencing and $0 restitution violated the victims’ right to full and timely restitution!

The victims’ right to full and timely restitution should relate back to the date of Jury conviction of Citgo’s crimes in June 2007.

(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. Seven years’ delay does violate “the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay,” doesn’t it?

(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy: The untimely sentencing and denial of restitution without a factual finding or a jury trial is unfair, unjust, inequitable.

(b) RIGHTS AFFORDED.–In any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a). Before making a determination described in subsection (a)(3), the court shall make every effort to permit the fullest attendance possible by the victim and shall consider reasonable alternatives to the exclusion of the victim from the criminal proceeding. The reasons for any decision denying relief under this chapter shall be clearly stated on the record.

 David: Thanks for the bribe! Skipper

Citgo: Thanks for the bribe!  I will deny Plaintiffs any restitution without calculating any amount you owe them.  John

Businessman With Handcuffs While Partners Holding His ArmsTake it easy, your honor. We will certainly bribe your way out!

***************************************************************************************
Rainey did not comply with these mandatory duties to ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a).

Rainey’s statement that the jury would “unduly delay the sentencing process,” and the need for a speedy rulingoutweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims” is in contravention of this Act.

* Rainey’s 4/30/14 Order is plainly contrary to the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, subsection (a)(6) & (7), among others, and Rainey’s held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the Order VOID ab initio.

II. Rainey violated the Victims’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution

A judgment issued from a proceeding that violates a citizen’s right to due process is void. State v. Rehbein, 235 Neb. 536, 455 N.W.2d 821 (1990); State v. Von Dorn, 234 Neb. 93, 449 N.W.2d 530 (1989); State v. Ewert, 194 Neb. 203, 230 N.W.2d 609 (1975); In re Application of Maher, North v. Dorrance, 144 Neb. 484, 13 N.W.2d 653 (1944); In re Betts, 36 Neb. 282, 54 N.W. 524 (1893). A void judgment may be set aside at any time and in any proceeding. VonSeggern v. Willman, 244 Neb. 565, 508 N.W.2d 261 (1993); Marshall v. Marshall, 240 Neb. 322, 482 N.W.2d 1 (1992); State v. Ewert,; Ehlers v. Grove, 147 Neb. 704, 24 N.W.2d 866 (1946); Hayes County v. Wileman, 82 Neb. 669, 118 N.W. 478 (1908). ‘A void judgment may be attacked at any time in any proceeding.’

Orders or “[j]udgments entered contrary to due process are void.” Neylan v. Vorwald, 121 Wis.2d 481, 488, 360.

* Rainey’s 4/30/14 Order is also plainly contrary to the Victims’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Rainey’s again held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the Order VOID ab initio.

III. The 4/30/14 Order is a piece of waste paper, an absolute nullity.

A void judgment has been termed mere waste paper, an absolute nullity; and all acts performed under it are also nullities. Again, it has been said to be in law no judgment at all, having no force or effect, conferring no rights, and binding nobody. It is good nowhere and bad everywhere, and neither lapse of time nor judicial action can impart validity. Commander v. Bryan, 123 S.W.2d 1008, (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth, 1938, n.w.h.); 34 Tex.Jur., Sec. 262, page 177; Maury v. Turner, 244 S.W. 809, (Tex.Com.App., 1922). Also, a void judgment has been defined as “one which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at anytime and at any place directly or collaterally.” Black’s Law Dictionary; Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., 80 S.W.2d 1087, (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland, 1935, writ ref.); Gentry v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 379 S.W.2d 114, 119, (Tex.Civ.App., Houston, 1964, writ ref., n.r.e., 386 S.W.2d 758).

Man with lots of waste paper Besides sleeping on my constitutional rights and those of the Citgo crime victims, you have been sleeping in lots of waste paper resulting from your VOID Orders/Judgments at the expense of taxpayers, including me. For your information, I had over $1 million tax carry-forward, which was wiped out at my Chapter 7 Petition on 11/25/1996. Thus, I was one of the taxpayers who paid you salary.  Got that, Mr. Rainey? 

Betraying me and the Citgo crime victims may not be a capital crime, but betraying and warring against the Constitution you swore to uphold is an act of treason, remember? Let me refer you to 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason, which states in pertinent part: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Male hands holding prison bars Royalty Free Stock PhotoGirl with chains and padlock Stock Image

Mr. Rainey: You and Ms. Janis Graham Jack, having repeatedly warred against the Constitution you swore to uphold, are guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason, but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Pile of Money Royalty Free Stock ImageStack of Money Royalty Free Stock Image 

$10,000? That’s 10,000 pieces of these! Or 100 pieces of these! I am sure both of you can afford it, can’t you, Mr. Rainey?
 

IV. Citgo’s intentional, inexcusable behavior is subject to punitive damages.

Even if compensatory damages are nominal, substantial Punitive Damages are available.

Plaintiffs Awarded $9 Billion in Punitive Damages in Actos Litigation

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/08/prweb12066744.htm

Aug 4, 2014 Plaintiffs Awarded $9 Billion in Punitive Damages in Actos Litigation Argue Settlement is Fair, Parker Waichman LLP Comments.

“The jury in the Actos bellwether trial found for the plaintiffs indicating that the plaintiffs were due $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $9 billion in punitive damages. The plaintiffs have also indicated that said there is a significant amount of evidence supporting the jury’s finding of inexcusable behavior, which included Takeda’s not complying with a 2002 litigation hold to preserve evidence, wrote the National Law Journal. The judge found that Takeda acted in bad faith by destroying evidence that revealed it was aware of Actos’ potential health risks.”

“CITGO learned within months after the two tanks went into operation that the upstream oil water separators did not work.” “Citgo knowingly disregarded safety. Consequently, the tanks emitted benzene, a known cancer-causing carcinogen, into the air, at the serious health risk of the poor residents, who cannot afford to move or hire an attorney to fight for their rights. Such intentional, inexcusable behavior subjects Citgo to punitive damages.

V. Conclusion

Rainey’s 4/30/14 Order, being plainly contrary to the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and the U.S.A. Constitution, Rainey’s court is held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the Order VOID ab initio.

Citgo’s crime victims and DOJ should consider filing A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS based on VOID Order, which has no statute of limitations. Please consult: PREPARE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITHOUT A LAWYER Posted on . Furthermore, I suggest that the attorneys research and cite more federal case law to support the PETITION and that Citgo’s crime victims and their family members can also seek damages for their mental pain and suffering or loss of consortium, in the event of death.

Paul Chen

 

* Click Images for judge skipper koetter’s corruption, and you will see 12 photos, click any one of them, and wait awhile, it will take you to more than 60 images linking to my BLOG. Have these given you sleepless nights, Skipper and John?

Posted in Clean Air Act Violations, Conspiracy, Corruption, Crime Victims Rights Act Violations, David Roberts, due process of law, Egregious Misconduct, false arrest, FRAUD ON THE COURT, Fraudulent Concealment, Intentional Misrepresentation, Intrinsic/Extrinsic Fraud, Anita L. Koop, Anita's Resort Properties Inc., Judge John D. Rainey, Judge John D. Rainey's Corruption, Judge John D. Rainey's Misconduct, Judge Juergen "Skipper" Koetter, Judge Skipper Koetter, JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER'S JUDICIAL & NON-JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, Judge Skipper Koetter's Judicial Misconduct, Kenneth Burch, malicious prosecution, MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments, Perjured Testimony, Perjury, RACIAL & ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION, Racketeering Activity, Randal W. Hill, Randall W. Hill, Roberts Roberts Odefey Witte LLP, Suing officers of the court, Terry J. Cox, Thomas George, VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS, wrongful imprisonment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I AM FED UP, JOHN D. RAINEY. “SO ARE WE,” SAY CITGO’S CRIME VICTIMS!

 

  facebook.com
 

Rainey has never complied with the statutes requiring him to perform mandatory duties except 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). On 4/14/05 I filed a MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. He approved it on 2/13/06, after 10 months’ delay.

From then on until today, he has never complied with Section 1915(d), which provides in pertinent part: “The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.” In other words, none of the defendants in Civil Actions: 6:05-mc-00002 and V-06-78, 6:09-mc-11 Chen v. Cox, & 610-cv-00056 Chen v. Rainey have ever been served with Summons and my Complaints. As a result, none of the defendants have been before the court and the issues of controversy have never been presented before the court for adjudication. Thus, John D. Rainey and Janis Graham Jack have had neither subject matter jurisdiction nor personal jurisdiction over the above cases, and they both have committed treason. Under the Supreme Law of the Land, whenever a judge acts when the judge does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, the judge is engaged in an act of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5L.Ed 257 (1821).

Without subject matter jurisdiction, all the orders or judgments are VOID ab initio, and all my causes of action are subject to reinstatement under Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2), which provides that Plaintiff “may move for reinstatement of the case,” and, “upon good cause shown, the court shall reinstate the case.”

In the Order of 1/15/2008, Rainey stated in pertinent part: “The court will not reinstate Plaintiff’s complaints — regarding this matter.”

All the Orders and/or Judgments rendered in 6:05-mc-00002 and V-06-78, 6:09-mc-11 Chen v. Cox, & 610-cv-00056 are VOID ab initio for violating 28 USC Section 1915(d) and Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2), which make it a mandatory duty for Rainey to reinstate those cases. Despite my repeated requests for reinstatement of the Complaints, he denied them without giving any reason. Thus, my causes of action have been equitably tolled.

When I sued him on August 31, 2010, and asked him to recuse or disqualify himself, he refused and continued rendering VOID Orders. See PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE SIX COMPLAINTS Posted on April 22, 2012. On July 24, 2010, I was forced to sue him again, and he could not but assign the case to Janis Graham Jack, who conspired with him by giving me 2 minutes at her lunch break and throwing me out of the courtroom, which she usurped in complete absence of jurisdiction. PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE SIX COMPLAINTS FILED IN V-06-78 Posted on April 17, 2012.

My two TRO Motions were sent to Chief Judge Hayden Head on July 30, 2010, but were transferred to him on August 10, 2009. He sat on my emergency motions for 11.5 months, and on July 12, 2010, without having the Clerk serve process pursuant to 28 USC Section 1915(d), he issued a void MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as follows (See CHEN v. COX No. V-09-11. – Leagle.com | Leagle):

1. Plaintiff’s requests to proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. Nos. 1 & 16) are GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to return the $350 “borrowed check” to Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for a Court-Appointed Attorney (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Have All the Documents in this Case Sealed (Dkt. No. 11) is DENIED.

4. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED.

5. Plaintiff’s Motion Objecting to South Port Alto MUD Petition (Dkt. No. 9) is DENIED.

6. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Removal of Civil Rights Cases from the State Court to the District Court Pursuant to § 1443 (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED.

7. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion Suggesting Voluntary Recusal of Judges under Special Circumstances (Dkt No. 13) is DENIED.

8. Plaintiff is ORDERED file a concise complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 within 15 days after the date of this Order.3

9. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, or any other order of the Court, this action shall be dismissed.

VOID ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS

The above rulings are in complete absence of jurisdiction and are VOID ab initio. A void judgment has been termed mere waste paper, an absolute nullity; and all acts performed under it are also nullities. Again, it has been said to be in law no judgment at all, having no force or effect, conferring no rights, and binding nobody. It is good nowhere and bad everywhere, and neither lapse of time nor judicial action can impart validity. Commander v. Bryan, 123 S.W.2d 1008, (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth, 1938, n.w.h.); 34 Tex.Jur., Sec. 262, page 177; Maury v. Turner, 244 S.W. 809, (Tex.Com.App., 1922). Also, a void judgment has been defined as “one which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at anytime and at any place directly or collaterally.” Black’s Law Dictionary; Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., 80 S.W.2d 1087, (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland, 1935, writ ref.); Gentry v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 379 S.W.2d 114, 119, (Tex.Civ.App., Houston, 1964, writ ref., n.r.e., 386 S.W.2d 758).

If a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the judgment is void. Pifer v. Pifer, 31 N.C. App. 486, 229 S.E.2d 700, 702 (1976).

A judgment entered by a court which lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void. Marshall v. Marshall, 240 Neb. 322, 482 N.W.2d 1 (1992). Also, it is the longstanding rule that such a void judgment may be attacked at any time in any proceeding. Id. ; Drennen v. Drennen, 229 Neb. 204, 426 N.W.2d 252 (1988); Lammers Land & Cattle Co. v. Hans, 213 Neb. 243, 328 N.W.2d 759 (1983).

A judgment issued from a proceeding that violates a citizen’s right to due process is void. State v. Rehbein, 235 Neb. 536, 455 N.W.2d 821 (1990); State v. Von Dorn, 234 Neb. 93, 449 N.W.2d 530 (1989); State v. Ewert, 194 Neb. 203, 230 N.W.2d 609 (1975); In re Application of Maher, North v. Dorrance, 144 Neb. 484, 13 N.W.2d 653 (1944); In re Betts, 36 Neb. 282, 54 N.W. 524 (1893). A void judgment may be set aside at any time and in any proceeding. VonSeggern v. Willman, 244 Neb. 565, 508 N.W.2d 261 (1993); Marshall v. Marshall, 240 Neb. 322, 482 N.W.2d 1 (1992); State v. Ewert,; Ehlers v. Grove, 147 Neb. 704, 24 N.W.2d 866 (1946); Hayes County v. Wileman, 82 Neb. 669, 118 N.W. 478 (1908). ‘A void judgment may be attacked at any time in any proceeding.’”

Orders or “[j]udgments entered contrary to due process are void.” Neylan v. Vorwald, 121 Wis.2d 481, 488, 360

If a court’s decision is plainly contrary to a statute or the constitution, the court will be held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the judgment void for Rule 1-060(B) purposes, even if the court had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip., 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1995). In my cases, Rainey violated 28 USC Section 1915(d), Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2) and my Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, making his Orders and Judgments VOID.

RECUSAL AND/OR DISQUALIFICATION

The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).

Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).

The above case law applicable to my cases should apply to USA v. Citgo, et al., too.

Rainey slept on the crime victims’ rights for seven long years after the jury’s conviction of Citgo. This is in violation of their right to speedy trial, Due Process and Equal Protection under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, making his purported MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER rendered on April 30, 2014 VOID ab initio.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

Posted in Clean Air Act Violations, Conspiracy, Corruption, Crime Victims Rights Act Violations, David Roberts, due process of law, Egregious Misconduct, false arrest, FRAUD ON THE COURT, Fraudulent Concealment, Intentional Misrepresentation, Intrinsic/Extrinsic Fraud, Anita L. Koop, Anita's Resort Properties Inc., Judge John D. Rainey, Judge John D. Rainey's Corruption, Judge John D. Rainey's Misconduct, Judge Juergen "Skipper" Koetter, Judge Skipper Koetter, JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER'S JUDICIAL & NON-JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, Judge Skipper Koetter's Judicial Misconduct, Kenneth Burch, malicious prosecution, MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments, Perjured Testimony, Perjury, RACIAL & ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION, Racketeering Activity, Randal W. Hill, Randall W. Hill, Roberts Roberts Odefey Witte LLP, Suing officers of the court, Terry J. Cox, Thomas George, VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS, wrongful imprisonment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

JUDGES JOHN D. RAINEY AND JUERGEN “SKIPPER” KOETTER: MY APOLOGIES FOR THE MERCILESS ATTACKS ON YOUR MISCONDUCT!

For damages inflicted on you, if any, you have to go to the fraudsters: Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox & their legally and factually non-existent Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc., who are the real perpetrators of all the crimes against me. 

Silly Criminals Stock ImagesMan and woman prisoners Stock Photo

Prisoner locked in handcuffs Royalty Free Stock PhotographyWoman In Handcuffs Holding Small House Stock Image

This couple, Queen of Fraudsters and King of Foxes, are the foxiest, greediest, and the most deceitful criminals on earth!
 
You are unlucky to have been assigned my cases unless you are really in conspiracy with them, as suspected by some friends of mine!
 
It is said that a certain judge even bragged of being in their pockets. Was it you, Mr. Rainey, or you, Mr. Koetter?
 
Did they bribe you two or you did them favors because you are closely related or associated? Tell the truth, nothing but the truth!
  

Bold Truth Nothing but truth Stock Images

 

All of my attacks are justifiable and reasonable based upon your injustice, unfairness, inequality, deliberate indifference, and reckless disregard for my legal and equitable rights in handling my causes of action.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

Posted in Clean Air Act Violations, Conspiracy, Corruption, Crime Victims Rights Act Violations, David Roberts, due process of law, Egregious Misconduct, false arrest, FRAUD ON THE COURT, Fraudulent Concealment, Intentional Misrepresentation, Intrinsic/Extrinsic Fraud, Anita L. Koop, Anita's Resort Properties Inc., Judge John D. Rainey, Judge John D. Rainey's Corruption, Judge John D. Rainey's Misconduct, Judge Juergen "Skipper" Koetter, Judge Skipper Koetter, JUDGE SKIPPER KOETTER'S JUDICIAL & NON-JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, Judge Skipper Koetter's Judicial Misconduct, Kenneth Burch, malicious prosecution, MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments, Perjured Testimony, Perjury, RACIAL & ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION, Racketeering Activity, Randal W. Hill, Randall W. Hill, Roberts Roberts Odefey Witte LLP, Suing officers of the court, Terry J. Cox, Thomas George, VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS, wrongful imprisonment | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment