Grand Jury Motion To Determine Jurisdiction July 8th 2015
-
Upload
conflict-gate -
Category
Documents
-
view
9 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Grand Jury Motion To Determine Jurisdiction July 8th 2015
-
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS
IN RE: REQUEST FOR GRAND JURY Case No. 15MR2P
MOTION TO DETERMINE SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
+
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS
(Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-259 and Supreme Court Rule 133(c)(1)
+
REQUEST FOR PLEADINGS TO BE FILED IN CASE
By District Judge Richard M. Smith, assigned
11th Judicial District
State of Kansas
COMESNOW,thepeopleoftheGRANDJURYPETITIONinaccordancewithK.S.A.
60266JurisdictionandVenueandchallengesthiscourtsjurisdictionandstatesas
follows:
-
REALPARTIESOFINTEREST
Petitionersaretryingtounderstandwhotherealpartiesofinterestareincasenumber
2015MR2P.Petitionershaveadueprocessrighttoknowtherealpartiesofinterest
arebeforethiscasecanbedismissed.
SUBSTANTIVESYSTEMOFLAW
Petitionerscannotproceedwithcasenumber2015MR2PuntilPetitionershaveaclear
andpresentunderstandingwhetherthisCourtisproceedingundercontractlawortort
law.IfthiscourtisoperatingundercontractlawthendoesntRule3.15(B)stillexistand
hasnotbeenruledunconstitutionalandPetitionerswouldlikeajudicialdetermination
onthisstatuteandsubstantivesystemoflawCrawfordCountyCourtoperatesunder.
REMEDYDEMANDED
PetitionerdemandsthatthiscourtchangethejudgeinaccordancewithK.S.A.20311d
andscheduleahearingforPetitionerswithajudgelicensedinKansasthathas
subjectmatterjurisdictionbycomplyingwithRule3.15(B)ofTheCodeOfJudicial
ConductsothattheRespondentscancomeandanswerthequestionsunderpenaltyof
perjuryposedbyPetitionerssothatthenatureandcausecanbedeterminedandifthe
courtlackedsubjectmatterjurisdictiontosignanyORDERSincasenumber
2015MR2PandthatiswhyallORDERSinthiscasearesigned15MR2Pwhichis
notthesamenumberastheGRANDJURYPETITIONwhichwasfiledonMay19,
2015.
INVOKINGJUDGESOATHOFOFFICE
PetitionersherebyinvokestheoathoftheofficeofTheHonorableRichardSmithinthis
case,pursuanttoArticleVI,Clause3,oftheConstitutionfortheUnitedStatesof
America,andfullyincorporatesithereinbyreference,asiffullyincorporatedherein.
TakeNOTICE:anyjudgetakinganyactionsinthiscasewithouthavingjurisdictionin
personamandoversubjectmatterandwithouthavingauthorityconferredbyasigned,
-
valid,andcurrentoathofofficemaybeguiltyofusurpationofpoweraccordingtoK.S.A.
601202(1)andmaybeliableforprosecutionundertheClearfieldDoctrine.
NOTICEOFLACKOFUNDERSTANDINRE:VENUE
PetitionergivesthiscourtnoticethatPetitionerdoesnotunderstandhowthevenuein
whichtheabovenamedcourtisproceeding,anduntilPetitionerhasaclearandpresent
understandingofsuchvenue,thepetitionercannotproceedwithtrial.Isthiscourt
proceedingintherepublicstateorinthecorporatestate?AreallORDERSinthis
casejudicialordersoraresomeoftheORDERSinthiscaseadministrativeordersand
thatiswhytherearespacesinbetweenMR2PonthecasenumberORDERSand
notwrote2015MR2PliketheGRANDJURYPETITIONwasstampedfiled.Howcan
thiscourthaveVenueinCrawfordCountyDistrictCourtincasenumber2015MR2P
whenHonorableSmithhasnotproperlyfilledouthisfinancialdisclosurereportin
accordancewithRule3.15(B)ofTheCodeofJudicialConduct.
JURISDICTION
PetitionersarefamiliarwithK.S.A.60266whichisstatutorylawinKansasand
PetitionersarefamiliarwithArticleIIIoftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesof
America,theRepublic,andtheinLaw,equity,andadmiraltyJurisdictionsofthe
Courtsthereunder.Petitionersdonotunderstandhowthiscourthasanyjurisdiction
overPetitionerswhenHonorableSmithdidnotcomplywithRule3.15(B)ofTheCode
ofJudicialConduct.Petitionershaveunalienablerights,reservedabinitio,andwantto
knowhowthiscourtcanexercisejurisdictionoverPetitionerwithoutPetitionersexplicit
grantofsuchjurisdiction.Inshort,Petitionerschallengethiscourtsjurisdiction
becausePetitionersrefusetogivethiscourtjurisdictionsincePetitionershavenothad
ajudgeinthiscasethathascompliedwithRule3.15(B)ofTheCodeofJudicial
Conductandthereforenosubjectmatterjurisdictionshouldhavebeengrantedto
HonorableSmith.Noassumptionofjurisdictioncanbemade,especiallyinthefaceof
squarechallenge.Afternoticeofjurisdictionchallenge,assumptionofjurisdiction
withoutverifiedproofisausurpationofpower.Petitionerscannotproceedincase
-
number2015MR2Puntilthiscourtcanshowthatthiscourthasjurisdictionover
Petitioners.
ARGUMENTS+AUTHORITIES
AccordingtoK.S.A.60265andK.S.A.60266CrawfordCountyDistrictCourtshould
havelackedsubjectmatterjurisdictiontohearcasenumber2015MR2Pandthepeopleofthe
GrandJuryPetitionchallengethiscourtsjurisdictiontosignanyORDERSinthiscasedueto
lackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.Ajudgemustbeactingwithinhis/herjurisdiction
astosubjectmatterandperson,tobeentitledtoimmunityfromcivilactionfor
his/heracts,Davisv.Burris,51Ariz.220,75P.2d689(1938).Whenajudicial
officeractsentirelywithoutjurisdictionorwithoutcompliancewithjurisdictionrequisites,
he/shemaybeheldcivillyliableforabuseofprocesseventhoughhis/heractinvolveda
decisionmadeingoodfaiththathe/shehadjurisdiction.StateuseofLittlev.U.S.
Fidelity&GuarantyCo.,217Miss.576,64So.2d697.JudicialImmunityalsoshould
notapplybecauseHonorableSmithsdutytofillouthisfinancialdisclosureform
correctlybyApril15,2015andcomplywithRule3.15(B)ofisaministerialactthatis
notentitledtoanyformofjudicialimmunity.Theclerk,asanofficerofthecourt,is
obligedtocomplywiththerulesofproceduregoverninghisduties.Whendelinquentor
derelictinsuchperformance,appropriatelegalmeasuresareavailabletoenforce
compliance,aswellastosecureredressbywayofdamagesincurredasaresultofhis
failuretoperformthoseduties.Wardv.Fountain,122So.2d209,210(Fla.1stDCA
1960)(emphasisadded).HonorableSmithisanofficerofthecourtaswelland
-
thereforenoimmunityshouldapplytoHonorableSmithjustliketheclerkofthecourt.
InCookv.CityofTopeka,654P.2d953(Kan.1982),theSupremeCourtofKansas
analyzedtheapplicabilityofjudicialimmunitytotheactionsoftheclerkofcourt,and
concludedthatpurelyministerialactionsbytheClerkofCourtsundertakenpursuantto
statutorydirectivearenotsubjecttothedoctrineofjudicialimmunity.Atitscore,the
courtsanalysisinvolvesadeterminationastowhethertheclerkwasengagedina
judicial,quasijudicial,orministerialtask.Seeid.At957.Ifthecomplainedofactionsof
theclerkareministerial,judicialimmunitydoesnotapply.Seeid.At958.
One test used to determine whether a clerk of a court is engaged in a judicial,
quasijudicial or ministerial task is to see if a statute imposes a duty upon the clerk to
act in a certain way leaving the clerk no discretion. In Am.Jur.2d it is stated while there
is some conflict as to the judicial or ministerial nature of certain specific duties of a clerk
of courthis duty is purely ministerial when it is prescribed by statute. 15A Am.Jur.2d,
ClerksofCourt21,p.156(emphasissupplied).
Cookv.CityofTopeka,654P.2d953,957(Kan.1982).AClerkmaynotescape
liabilityforillegalorimproperperformanceofaministerialtaskimposedbystatute.Id.
At958.
WhenajudgedoesnothaveSubjectMatterJurisdictionandhehearsacaseanywayheisnotfunctioningundercontract,notinsured,notbonded,andisactingonlyaprivatemanwithUNLIMITEDLIABILITYandisLIABLEACCORDINGLY.ThecourtlosesjurisdictionasafunctionofitsownselfdefiningrulesbecauseunderitsrulestheCOURTMUSTPROCEEDACCORDINGLYTOLAWORSTATUTE:Thefollowingareapartiallistofelementswhyajudgeiswithoutsubjectmatterjurisdictionandallofitsorders/judgmentsarevoid:
(1)Ajudgedoesnotfollowstatutoryprocedure,Armstrongv.Obucion,300Ill.140,143(1921),
-
(2)Unlawfulactivityofajudge,CodeofJudicialConduct,
(3)Violationofdueprocess,Johnsonv.Zerbst,304U.S.458,58S.Ct.1019(1938)PureOilCo.V.CityofNorthlake,10Ill.2d241,245,140N.E.2d289(1956)Hallbergv.GoldblattBros.,363Ill.25(1936),
(4)Ifthecourtexceededitsstatutoryauthority,Rosenstielv.Rosenstiel,278F.Supp.794(S.D.N.Y.1967),
(5)Wherethejudgedoesnotactimpartially,Braceyv.Warden,U.S.SupremeCourtNo.966133(June9,1997),
(6)Whenthejudgeisinvolvedinaschemeofbribery(theAlemanncases,Braceyv.Warden,U.S.SupremeCourtNo.966133(June9,1997),(14)whereasummonswasnotproperlyissued.
JudgeSmith,signedORDERinacasethathedidnothaveSUBJECTMATTER
JURISDICTIONtohearincasenumber2015MR2PforfailingtocomplywithRule
3.15(B)ofTheCodeofJudicialConductwhichisthesameastheabovementioned
statementtwo(2)whichisUnlawfulactivityofajudge,CodeofJudicialConduct.
ThereforeforthefollowingStatementsofFactsthisCourtLackedSubjectMatter
JurisdictioninCaseNumber2015MR2P:
STATEMENTSOFFACTS
1.HonorableRichardM.Smithshouldhavelackedsubjectmatterjurisdictiontohearcasenumber2015MR2PforfailingtofollowSupremeCourtrule601BRelatingToJudicialConductCanon3.Rule3.15(B)(2013Kan.Ct.R.Annot.748)becausehedidnotfilehisJudicialFinancialDisclosureReportfor2013untilMay13,2014andhedidnotfillouthis2014JudicialFinancialDisclosureReportuntilMay19,2015whichbothviolatesRule3.15(B)ofRulesRelatingToJudicialconduct.AccordingtoCanon3Rule3.15(B)ajudgeissupposedtohavehisfinancialdisclosurereportfilledoutbyApril15ofeverycalendaryearandhisfailuretofilehis2013and2014financialdisclosurereportsontimeisaviolationofTheCodeofJudicialConduct.Rule3.15(B)saysAjudgeshallreportannuallytheinformationlistedabovein(A)(1)through(7)onaformprovidedbytheCommissiononJudicialQualifications.Thejudgesreportforthe
-
precedingcalendaryearshallbefiledaspublicdocumentintheofficeoftheClerkoftheAppellatecourtsonorbeforeApril15ofeachyear.
2.HonorableSmithalsoseemstohaveviolatedTheCodeofJudicialConductRule3.15(A)(6)becausehis2014financialdisclosurereportfailstolisthispositionthatheholdsatMoundCityChristianChurch212SpruceMoundCityKs,66056,Elderwhenhis2013financialdisclosurereportshowsthathewastheTrusteeatMoundCityChristianChurchandthepeopleneedtoknowifhestillholdsthispositionasTrusteeandhisfailuretolisthispositionisaviolationofTheCodeofJudicialConduct.ThefactthathedidnotfilehisfinancialdisclosurereportuntilafterApril15,2015whichisthelastdaytofileyourtaxeslookslikeheshidingeconomicinformationwhichisaviolationofthecodeofjudicialconduct.Onpage29ofTheExamplesofConductfoundToBeImproperitstatesthatajudgewasinformallyadvisedthatpaymentoftaxesisalegalobligationforwhichjudgesareresponsible.IalsofeelthatsincehisfinancialdisclosurereportwasnotfilledoutbyApril15,2015andthathedidnothaveSUBJECTMATTERJURISDICTIONtoheartheGrandJuryPetitionincasenumber2015MR2P.
3.ItseemstobeaviolationofTheCodeOfJudicialConductaccordingtoJudicialEthicAdvisoryOpinion1997JE77whichsaysJudgemayserveaselderofchurchaslongasjudgedoesnotsolicitfunds.Canon4C(4)(b).HowdoesthisnotrelatetoJudgeRichardSmithfilingonMay13,2014onhisfinancialdisclosurereportthatheiswiththebusiness/organization/entityasMoundCityChristianChurchwhereheholdsthepositionasTrustee.Thefirsttimehementionsthispositionwiththechurchisonhiscalendaryear2012financialdisclosurereportthathefiledontimeonApril8,2013andmentionsthepositionasTrusteewhichisaviolationbecausehecollectsfundsforthechurch.ThisshouldviolateRule3.12CompensationforExtrajudicialActivitiesanditshouldalsoviolateRule3.14ReimbursementofExpensesandWaiversofFeesorChargesCOMMENT(1)wherereligiousandcharitableorganizationsarementioned.Sincehefailedtomentionhispositionastrusteeonthe2014financialdisclosurehemighthavefailedtoproperlyshowexpensessincehedidnotfiletheseontimebyApril15,2015whichwastaxday.ThisalsoviolatesRule3.15(A)(1)(2)(3)(5)(6)(B)ReportingRequirements.
4.HonorableSmithwouldalsoseemtolacksubjectmatterjurisdictionbecauseofaviolationoftheethiccodethatheiswithLinnCountyCommunityFoundationasaBoardmember/SecretaryandheisalsowiththeKansasSentencingCommissionwhereheholdsthepositionofChairman/BoardMember.Hefailstomentioneitheroneofthesetwo(2)boardmemberpositionsonhisfinancialdisclosurereportforcalendaryear2014thathedidnotfileintimeonMay19,2015.JudgeSmithfirstmentionsthe
-
positionswithLinnCountyCommunityFoundationandKansasSentencingCommissiononhiscalendaryear2010financialdisclosurereportthathedidfileontimeonApril11,2011.Healsofilesthesamepositionsonhiscalendaryear2011financialdisclosurereportthathefiledontimeonJanuary30,2012.ThisshouldviolateRule3.12CompensationforExtrajudicialActivitiesandRule3.15(A)(1)(2)(3)(5)(6)(B)ReportingRequirementsforthese2organizationsaswell.ItalsowouldseemtobeaviolationofCanon5A(2)becausethepageExamplesofConductfoundToBeImpropersaysthatAjudgewasfoundtohaveviolatedCanon5A(2)byfilingforapositionontheschoolboardwhileholdingthepositionofjudge.Thesamepageshowsanotherexamplewhereajudgewasinformallyadvisedthatserviceonaboardwithjudicialreferralstothatboardwasinappropriatebecausethejudgesimpartialitycouldhavebeencalledintoquestion.ThiswouldseemtobethesamethingasLinnCountyCommunityFoundationasaBoardmember/SecretaryandalsowiththeKansasSentencingCommissionwhereheholdsthepositionofChairman/BoardMember.ThiswouldalsoseemtobethesamethingasJEOpinion1995JE56whichsaysFulltimemunicipalcourtjudgeservingasamemberofthelocalboardofeducation.Canon5A(2).JEOpinion1996JE70saysDistrictJudgemaynotserveonpolicedepartmentcommunityadvisoryboard.JEOpinion1997JE73saysJudgemaynotserveastrusteeforcommunityorganizationwhichaimstoimprovequalifyoflifeforchildrenandyouth.Canon4(A)(1),4C(4),anotherJEOpinionis1999JE90whichsaysNewlyappointedjudgemaycompleteatermonalocalschoolboardbetterpracticeofvoluntaryresignationsuggested,JEOpinion2001JE104saysAdistrictjudgemayserveontheboardofdirectorsofthelocalUnitedWaybutshouldnotsolicitfundsorusehis/herofficeforfundraisingpurposes.Canon4C(4),In2007JE152saysAjudgemayserveonanAlumniassociationBoardofDirectorssolongashedoesnotsolicitfundsorofferlegaladvice.Canon4C(4)andCanon4G.SeeJE77,104,and134.In2007JE154saysAjudgemayserveontheBoardofTrusteesoftheKansasBarFoundationsolongashedoesnotsolicitfundsorofferlegaladvice.Canon4C(4)andCanon4G.Je77,104,134,and152.ItseemsthatJudgeSmithviolatedtheseopinionsaswellandshouldbereprimandedforhisviolationsofthecodeofjudicialconduct.
5.HonorableSmithalsofailstomentiononhisfinancialdisclosurereportifheisamunicipal,fulltime,orparttimejudge.HealsofailstomentionifheisaSenior,HearingOfficer,orProTemporeJudgeonhisCalendarYear2014reportandthisshouldbeaviolationofRule3.15(B)aswellsinceitisnotproperlyfilledout.
6.PetitionersdonotunderstandwhytheORDERDENYINGGRANDJURYPETITIONISINALLCAPITALLETTERSandOrderDenyingVariousRequestsandOrderLimiting
-
FurtherFilingsisinupperandlowercaselettersandwouldlikeajudicialdeterminationonthisissue.
7.PetitionersdonotunderstandwhytheGRANDJURYPETITIONwasfiledunder2015MR2PandwouldliketoknowiftheORDERDENYINGGRANDJURYPETITIONISINALLCAPITALLETTERSandOrderDenyingVariousRequestsandOrderLimitingFurtherFilingsareinfactADMINISTRATIVEORDERSandnotJUDICIALORDERSsincetherearespacesbetweenthe5Rand2anditlacks2015.
6.ThePeopleoftheGrandJuryPetitionwouldlikearulingonthisMOTIONTODETERMINESUBJECTMATTERJURISDICTIONtoseeifthiscaseshouldbevacated/voidedduetolackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.
WHEREFORE,thepeopleofGRANDJURYPETITIONpraystothecourtfor
anOrdervacatingandvoidingtheORDENYINGGRANDJURYPETITIONANDOrder
DenyingVariousRequestsandOrderLimitingFurtherFilingsmadeHonorableRichard
M.Smithforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdictionandtransferthiscasetoanoutofthe
11thjudicialdistrictjudgewithsubjectmatterjurisdictiontohearthiscase.
RespectfullySubmittedby:
By:/s/sEricMMuatheP.O.Box224,Pittsburg,KS,66762
By:/s/sNoahDayP.O.Box224,Pittsburg,KS,66762
By:/s/sKaseyKingP.O.Box224,Pittsburg,KS,66762
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
-
IcertifythatonJuly8th,2015theforegoingwasmailedviafirstclasscertifiedmailtothefollowingaddresses:
JUDGERICHARDM.SMITH
LINNCOUNTYDISTRICTCOURT,
P.O.BOX350,
MOUNDCITY,KS66056