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.
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.
(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 ruling “outweighs 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
Take 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 ruling “outweighs 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).
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.
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.
$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 …
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.
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 July 16, 2014. 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.
* 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?