UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

PASTOR DANIEL L. MEIER

Plaintiff, Case No. 13-cv-11921Hon. James G. Carr

v.

WILLIAM M. MEGGS STATE ATTORNEY, FL. ET. AL.

Defendant(S)._________________________________/

MOTION TO QUASH, MOTION FOR RECUSAL,

AND OBJECTION TO ORDER

Plaintiff, Pastor Daniel L. Meier, files this Plaintiff's Motion

to Quash, Motion for Recusal, and Objection to Order dated April 11, 2014,

postmarked April 14, 2014 and received by U.S. Mail April 18, 2014 as support

states:

1. Judge Carr's order is fraught with errors, inaccuracies, and

misrepresentations and is an invalid order with no grounds as a matter of law.

As mentioned in the complaint, copies of all filings are being sent to the

United Nations to document these outrageous abuses.

2. Plaintiff filed the instant case in Washington D.C.. The case was

to address common law, constitutional, due process, and other civil and human

rights violations commonly recognized in both domestic and international courts

1 of 18

of law. This case was originally filed pro-se in pauper status February 15, 2013,

and time stamped February 25, 2013. However, the docket date is April 12, 2013.

This case has been in process for well over a year. In the D.C. jurisdiction

any pro se filing goes through an approximately 4 to 6 week "screening process"

this is where the difference between the docket date and time stamp date come

into play. During this very detailed screening process the complaint, in the

interest of judicial economy, is prescreened by a "panel of Judges" to make sure

that the complaint meets the Federal rules for pleading and states a valid claim

on which relief can be granted. If it does not pass the screening process, it does

not get assigned a docket number and is returned to the plaintiff. Once ruled

upon favorably, only then can it move forward. This complaint received docket

number 13-CV- 0496 and listed as 42:1983 civil rights act. Process verified

in call to D.C. court Mar. 8, 2013 3:00 p.m.

3. While the claim was being screened by a "panel of judges" it was

ordered that the case would be transferred to the eastern district of Michigan

on April 12, 2013. Transfer was completed electronically April 30, 2013. The

case was not only "not dismissed" but transferred by the D.C. district to move

forward in the eastern district of Michigan by assignment.

4. Plaintiff filed an objection to transfer May 5, 2013 and appealed

the order due to conflict of interest in that Judge Celand of the eastern district

being a defendant is "guilty of extortion, fraud and other acts is employed

2 of 18

currently". These acts of extortion and fraud involved another defendant

Bill Altman as was stated in the instant complaint. Para. 151

"Judge Cleland conspired with Bill Altman and Gregory V. Murray

to extort any proceeds from the sale by illegally sanctioning the plaintiff

$18, 242.38, when sanctions should have been against the defendant"

This is just one small portion of the many violations by Altman and Cleland.

5. The plaintiff actually appealed these sanctions specifically,

and Judge Cleland was over ruled by the court of appeals and was found to

have attempted to extort more than was allowed by court rules and knowingly

demanded other or greater sums than are authorized by law. This would

would also render the frivolous motion for such sanctions by Bill Altman without

merit, and as such, ultimately failed on appeal. Being denied, it can also be an

act of malpractice and abuse of process and fraud upon the court. The "proof"

is the ruling of a higher court itself which was not appealed by the defendant.

6. On June 5, 2013 , the instant case, order was made reassigning it

from Lawrence P. Zatkoff to, unbelievably, defendant Judge Cleland. The plaintiffs

May 5, 2013 filing is posted as June 11, 2013 and an order vacating the June

5, 2013 assignment was docketed and the case was reassigned to Zatkoff again.

On January 22, 2014 the U.S. court of appeals for the sixth circuit intervened

and assigned District Judge James G. Carr from the Northern District of Ohio

to preside over the case. So, while Cleland is getting sued he tries to preside

3 of 18

over the suit itself that he is listed as a defendant and his criminal act is only

stopped when the court of appeals intervenes. Another "proof" of how outrageous

Cleland and these continuing acts have become. It's a matter of court record.

7. Therefore, the Court of appeals not only found there to be sufficient

evidence of conflict of interest as stated in the complaint, but of ongoing acts

of such a magnitude to assign and order a judge from an entirely different State

of Ohio to preside over the case; demonstrating that the complaint not only

has been reviewed by a higher appeals court, but has been found to have such

continuing relevant truth and validity that the claim won an appeal even before

the final assignment to a lower court. This assignment is another "proof" of the

complaint's review by a "panel of Judges" and being found to be not only

to be "stating a claim(s) on which relief could be granted", which was in fact

being granted by the court of appeals itself, but also to withstand a higher level

of scrutiny than would ever be applied to it by the lower court. This would make

any dismissal by a judge or by any motion in the lower court for failure to state

a claim impossible; because the higher court already ruled in favor of the

claims and complaint. This would also render the act of any order of the lower

court attempting to deny or block an appeal of right as not being in "good faith",

and also impossible, because of the complaints prior success in already being

before the higher court of appeals and winning the appeal in good faith. Not only

would an appeal from an invalid dismissal be in good faith, it would be a good

4 of 18

and just action to uphold the integrity of the appeals court from a lower court's

illegal arbitrary dismissal which itself was not in "good faith" and is void as a

matter of law.

8. Ignoring these facts, Judge Carr's order is attempting to deny

the plaintiff an appeal of right and attempting to illegally make the plaintiff pay

for an appeal before it can be taken; even though the plaintiff has already had a

successful pro se appeal in pauper status in the same case and there is not

significant change in circumstances and Judge Carr is arbitrarily dismissing all

claims with prejudice illegally and without any just cause. Order p.5

1 Am. Jur. 2d Abuse of Process § 6The ulterior motive or purpose generally required in an abuse of process action[FN1] may take the form of coercion to obtain a collateral advantage not properly involved in the proceedingitself,[FN2] such as the surrender of property or the payment

of money, by the use of the process as a threat or a club;[FN3]there is, in other words, a "form of extortion"

9. This case has already proceeded far past any kind of dismissal. The

lower court attempting to dismiss this complaint is the lower court attempting

to over rule the higher court and denying it's responsibility to preside over the

case justly. A court of appeals is not going to assign a case to a lower court to

dismiss it when they already found in favor of it by order and assignment based

on continuing acts. The lower court is essentially doing an objection to the

assignment without conferring with the court of appeals and is essentially

in contempt of the court of appeals ruling, order and assignment itself by

5 of 18

using an invalid order to obstruct the process from proceeding in the normal

mode. This is as it did when it assigned defendant Cleland again to the case

and triggered the court of appeals to intervene in the first place.

10. The lower courts order to dismiss is clearly not timely and is void

as a matter of law and is simply additional fraud upon the court, obstruction of

justice, denial of due process, harassment, denial of full and fair opportunity to

litigate, abuse of process and more.

11. The order seeks to deny service by U.S. Marshal after the fact that

ten of the defendants have already been served. Only after the first defendants

are served, and the defendants call the court house to coerce the judge, does

he decide to take adverse action outside of a motion to dismiss, and prior to

the defendants time to respond to the complaint.

12. The background summary that judge Carr begins with is clearly

misleading, stating that: "It appears that, sometime after the divorce, the plaintiff

was arrested in Michigan". Rather than show plaintiff was an honors graduate

of Florida State who had "Sole Custody" and was illegally arrested and falsely

imprisoned on trumped up felony charges as a pretext to facilitate an illegal

change in custody. This was done with an illegal exparte and extradition order

in violation of state, federal and international law, due process, human rights,

and that all charges were later dropped or nolle processed to prove the falsity.

13. All of this had began, and is continuing to this day, because

6 of 18

apparently the plaintiff "loves Jesus too much". Comp. par. 24 and that

their "god" was "better than Jesus" because they "took all the money" and the

father lost everything Comp. par. 23. It appears the intent here is for the only way

for the plaintiff to see his daughter in peace and spend time with his grown child is

to enlist the help of a Christian militia to escort him on the visit. Many people

are not as patient as the plaintiff and some stand up and shout "This is

this is outrageous! How can he do this! How can they get away with that!" Your

illegal orders are creating outrage among peaceful people. You need to stop this

illegal tyranny and oppression that upsets the people and abuses children.

False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint by one person of the physical liberty of another.Am Jur 2d False Imprisonment 1

14. Then judge Carr goes on to pick out of 119 pages the fact

Hillary Clinton was mentioned by Judge Davies, implying that she may have

played a role in the outrageous kidnapping and abduction pulled off by state

and federal agencies. The Judge seems to focus on this issue for some reason

when there is also personal contact with Jeb Bush who does grant some

positive help with referrals to address the matter of the later child abuse by the

mother and aunt.

15. There seems to be another conflict of interest here. Apparently,

Carr has an issue with Clinton showing up on the complaint because he was

in fact "Hired By Them". This case gets more convoluted and all the time.

7 of 18

According to record on federal judicial service: Judge Carr was nominated

by William J. Clinton on January 27, 1994 to a seat vacated by Richard B.

McQuade, Jr.. Additionally, at least one of the defendant's brothers worked

with the Clintons also.

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 tribunalfree from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on

the Due Process Clause.").

16. Judge Carr knew this fact full well, and coming upon this issue

in the complaint he should have immediately recused himself. But instead,

he chooses to act on his compulsions, not unlike Bill, and do the wrong thing

by acting upon his prejudice in drafting an order which in effect punishes the

plaintiff for filing a complaint at all. Carr's compensation is tied to other parties

mentioned in the complaint and this clearly distorted his decisions.

Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if

there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh

Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202….None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified

by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are

void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.

17. In this case, a dismissal is used to punish the plaintiff for exercising

his legal rights to pursue justice. Judge Carr should have never done a dismissal

when his responsibility is to allow more liberty not less. He moves to apply and

even improperly mentions the statute of limitations. In doing so, he unnecessarily

8 of 18

undermines the plaintiff's claim as a favor to the defendants. This behavior

falsely restrains the case. In effect, he is illegally working for the defendants as

a "free counsel " against not only the plaintiff, but the judicial system and the

court of appeals by dispensing prejudice and obstruction rather than justice

and even "offering up a defense ", even if not applicable in the instant case.

"Involuntary dismissal is a punishment that courts may use when a party to a case is not acting properly"

18. A motion to dismiss based on the expiration of the statute of

limitations is analyzed under Rule 12(b)(6). See Gordon v. Nat'l Youth Work

Alliance, 675 F.2d 356, 360 (D.C.Cir.1982) (citing 5C CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT

& ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1277 (1969)).

Accord Ghartey v. St. John's Queens Hosp., 869 F.2d 160, 162 (2d Cir.1989)

(same). Cf. Rector v. Approved Fed. Sav. Bank, 265 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir.2001)

(holding that "[a] statute of limitations requires a litigant to file a claim within

a specified period of time [but a] litigant's untimely filing does not preclude the

court from addressing the claim; the court does not lack jurisdiction [and may]

address the claim, limited only by the defendant's assertion of a statute of

limitations defense. Moreover, [unlike a jurisdictional issue] the defendant may

waive the defense by failing to raise it.") Even though the statute of limitations

is a moot point due the clearly continuing acts and recruitment of additional

actors to this very day, the very principle must be properly brought to light.

9 of 18

"Abuse of process" can be defined as the use of a legal process ,

whether criminal or civil, against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the process was not designed Am Jur 2d 1

Abuse of Process

"Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges." See: JCUS-APR 73

Canon 3 requires disqualification of a judge in any proceeding in which the judge has a financial interest, however small

A judge may encourage and seek to facilitate settlement but should not act in a manner that coerces any party into surrendering the right to have the controversy resolved

by the courts.

Canon 3A(5). In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the

parties to be heard…

Cannon 2(B) A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or

judgment

...violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law.

19. "Fraud upon the court" is fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so

that the judicial machinery can not perform in the "usual manner" its "impartial"

task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R.,

387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The

7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in

essence a decision at all, and never becomes final ."

20. 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.

10 of 18

610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.

Ct. 11, 13 (1954).

21. 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.").

22. That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to

recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably

be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc.

v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that

the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has

11 of 18

received justice."

23. Judge Carr then goes on to make ridiculous out of context

comment about strangers at a running track when the focus was obscure

knowledge of specific locations, instances, times and dates to tie cause and

effect that were statistically impossible otherwise.

24. The rest of the summary is just more inappropriate deceptions

designed to defame the complaint by intentional distortion and never addresses

the attack by the police in a home invasion where the plaintiff is beaten, tasered

punched, kicked, choked and nearly killed for calling the police about an attack

on the house. Then plaintiff is charged with three false felonies, all of which the

plaintiff wins over in a jury trial. The prosecutor yells at the jury after plaintiff is

found not guilty "but he's suing the FBI". Of course the Judge does not bring

that one up, or the illegal 150,000.00 bond that went along with it, or the cruel

and unusual punishment in the jail. Also, there's the FBI Dave Kotel "calling the

plaintiff's parents" and threatening them and stating it would be in their best

interest not to help him and then arrogantly admitting to it. This is why there

are jury trials, and also why psychopaths try to block jury trials. These acts

are admitted and are consistent and identical to what the U.S. Church Senate

committee found to be illegal acts of the Cointelpro program already asserted

in the complaint. At least 24 identical acts to the ones below found to be illegal

by the U.S. Senate are in the complaint.

12 of 18

Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law §§ 901, 911

"Arbitrary discrimination between persons in similar circumstances is a denial of due process"

ENCYCLOPEDIA COINTELPRO DEFINITION

Cointelpro or (Counter intelligence Program) is a series of covertand often illegal projects conducted by the FBI. They targeted student demonstrators, Islam, antiwar community, Christian leadership conference, (PETA) People for the ethical treatment

of animals (who oppose the kosher slaughter of cows) and they put people from Greenpeace on a terrorist watch list. The inspector General found 2001-2006 “troubling” FBI practices consistent

with the Church Senate Committee. The FBI would discredit, disrupt, undermine trust, plant false media stories, make anonymous phone calls, spread misinformation, create pseudo movement groups, manipulate or strong arm parents, employers,landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble. The FBI conspires with police and abuses the legal system to harass, make

people appear to be criminals, police officers would give perjured

testimony, fabricate evidence to use as a pretext for false arrests,

wrongful imprisonment, and use conspicuous surveillance to

intimidate. They use local police departments to threaten, conduct

illegal break-ins, commit vandalism, assaults, beatings, and

assassinations. Their declared purpose for illegal acts was ”national

security” even from 1956-1976. They use unsavory and vicious tactics to break up marriages, disrupt meetings, and ostracize persons from their profession. Sound familiar? The committee

concluded that “Government officials, including those whose principal duty is to enforce the law, have violated or ignored the law over long periods of time and have advocated and defended

their right to break the law”. They investigated people for

“factually weak” reasons and without adequate basis”. They usesecret informants and other intrusive techniques and a myriad of other “dirty tricks” to undermine people with no just cause.

Wikipedia encyclopedia FBI search Cointelpro

25. The Judge goes on to state that about the Detroit Diesel lawsuits

that "None of the suits has been successful" This statement is a "lie", and as a

13 of 18

matter of fact all of the suits were successful and that is why there is a "Demand

for Jury Trial" because illegal decisions are void as a matter of law is never final.

(Cite as: 26 Cal.App.2d 143, *145, 78 P.2d 1167, **1167)But a judgment which is void on its face is a mere nullity, and may be collaterally attacked. In 1 Freeman on Judgments, p. 643,

§ 322, it is said: 'A judgment void upon its face and requiring only an inspection *145 of the record to demonstrate its invalidity

is a mere nullity, in legal effect no judgment at all, conferring no

right and affording no justification.'

26. Judge Carr is clearly not "construing facts alleged as true and in light

most favorable to the plaintiff" as he is required to do; especially for a pro se. This is

not to be an exparte hearing, but a jury trial, and the jury is to decide.

"Pleadings in this case are being filed by Plaintiff In Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are to be considered without regardto technicalities. Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same

high standards of perfection as practicing lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F2d 1459 (11thCir1990), also See Hulsey v. Ownes 63 F3d 354 (5th Cir 1995). also See In Re: HALL v. BELLMON 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991).

"The Federal Rules rejects the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." According to Rule

8(f) FRCP and the State Court rule which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice."

Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance dismissals based on a

judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations. In applying the Conley standard, the Court will "accept the truth of the

well-pleaded factual allegations of the Complaint."

27. Bill Altman even defaulted on the amended retaliation complaint

by not responding at all; making it impossible for plaintiff not to win since the

14 of 18

complaint was well plead and cited as a prima facie case. He admitted to everything.

5 FPP § 1279��Under the first sentence of Federal Rule 8(d), a failure to deny averments in a preceding pleading constitutes an admission of the facts alleged in those averments . .....The sentence obviously

applies when a required responsive pleading, such as an answer, has not been filed.[FN2] Same rule applies to state action

28. Due to the intricacies of the relationships and continuing acts,

none of the defendants in the instant case can be dismissed, and that is precisely

why judge Carr tried to illegally dismiss all of them in an all or nothing proposition

with corrupt intent to illegally obstruct the proceedings.

In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may granted, a court must accept the facts

pled by the plaintiff as true and construe them in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. See Martin Marietta Corp. v. Int'l

Telecomms. Satellite Org., 991 F.2d 94, 97 (4th Cir.1992).

Statute of limitations on fraud is 7 years with the exception of continuing acts, or Fraud upon the court which has no time limit.

“The only instance in which Rule 60(b) allows for the reopening of lawsuits regardless of the passage of time is when there is an allegation of fraud upon the court, for the law favors discovery and correction of corruption of the judicial process even more than it requires an end to lawsuits.” Lockwood v. Bowles, D.C.D.C.1969, 46 F.R.D. 625, 634.

The statute begins to run against such an action from the termination of the acts which constitute the abuse complainedof Harvy v.Pincus, 549 F. Supp 332 (E.D. Pa. 1982) jdgment aff'd,

716 F.2d 890 (3rd Cir. 1983)

Cite as: 373 F.3d 625, *632

Under the second interpretation, once a conspirator has committed an act of continuing effort, the conspiracy would continue from the

15 of 18

point of the original conspiratorial agreement until the last act of continuing effort. That presumption of its continued existence between those two points in time would only be rebutted if the conspirator had made a showing of "abandonment or success". In effect, the statute of limitations would reset from that act of

continuing effort.

29. Additionally, there are 400 pages of exhibits which go with the

complaint to back it all up, documenting continuing efforts from 1997-2014

including what judge Carr has just done here. Last case was 2010 well within

the statute of limitations even without the doctrine of continuing acts being

applied, which is still applicable. Pacer the (2008 complaint has all the exhibits)

Not to mention the numerous, and also clearly continuing, frauds upon the court

(as in the instant case) which has no statute of limitations.

30. The primary thing in this case that rises to the level of wholly

irrational is the behavior of Judge Carr and other defendants who are clearly

biased, irrational, delusional and incompetent. No Judge has judicial immunity

for committing a felony as Judge Carr attempts to present in his order.

A complaint is actionable against Judges under Title 42 U.S.C. 1985 (3), whose immunity does not extend to conspiracy under

color of law. Section 1985(3) reaches both conspiracies under color of law and conspiracies effectuated through purely private conduct.

The Complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears to a certainty that Plaintiffs would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts that could be proved in support of the claims. See

Gomez v Toledo (1980, US) 64 L Ed 2d 572, 100 S Ct 1920.

31. If a case of this magnitude, being the biggest pro se lawsuit in

16 of 18

U.S. history, well plead, and by a pastor, can't make it to trial; it signifies a

complete and violent collapse of pro se and basic human rights in the United

States. State sponsored kidnapping and abductions of a child and the later abuse

and extreme religious alienation, in the instant complaint, is seen as an act of

religious civil war by many and is a violation of international law.

32. It appears obvious to many that the very act of judge Carr's

invalid order is not only to deny the plaintiff his civil rights, but to harass the

plaintiff as a pastor. It was served the day before Good Friday and Easter weekend

in an intentional act of religious harassment and discrimination.

33. Plaintiff wants the U.S. government to act immediately in

correcting some of the egregious errors facilitated by it. The U.S. Government

should immediately step forward and provide for Christian family counseling

to help repair a relationship they illegally destroyed and encourage family

contact by filing restraining and protective orders against the Florida authorities

so the pastor can see his daughter freely without additional threats and retaliation.

The Government should also reimburse the plaintiff for the dozens of trips where

contact was illegally denied as a start. This stupidity has gone on long enough

and needs to stop. The whole world is watching this case, and watching how our

judicial system operates, or fails to do so, by denying its own laws, constitution,

and committing outrageous and continuing human rights violations.

17 of 18

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, the plaintiff, Pastor Daniel L. Meier, requests of the

court to Quash the Dismissal Order dated April 11, 2014 for the above stated reasons,

violations of procedures, and other unlawful and discriminatory acts and for judge

Carr to recuse himself for the above violations of substantive rights, due process

rights, constitutional rights, and other prejudicial acts.

April 21, 2014 Respectfully Submitted,

Pastor Daniel L. Meier31505 Grand River Ave.Suite 9EFarmington, Michigan48336(313)303-6093

18 of 18