America's Deadly Sins: The Fed Funny Farm Vol. IX - MORE STATE MOTIONS TO DISMISS (UPDATED 5/23, WITH ANSWERS)

NOTE: By the way, in case you haven't figured this out yet, I don't ever...EVER expect to win...NOR IS THIS POSSIBLE IN ANY WAY AGAINST ANYONE CLAIMING TO BE GOVERNMENT OVER YOU these days. The purpose of all of this is to EXPOSE THE ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF THE JUDICIARIES...NOT ONLY IN YOUR STATE, BUT ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL AS WELL, and to show you that Government, and the agencies thereof, have come up with legal ways to skirt you at all times, using a host of different little tricks, passed by their buddies in the house and senate in order to help them elude justice, commit crimes legally, and get away with it too; including IMMUNITY, claiming to NOT be a municipal corporation (which, of course, they all are) by legal definition, etc.

And, my answer to this travesty:

Christopher (Bruce) the living man, plaintiff, moves to resist the motion to dismiss the State’s offices, namely Defendants White, Price, Hurn, Blink, Egly, Vaudt and Kelly; concerning reasons to do so by the state, on these grounds:

(a) That State employees are absolutely immune or claim judicial and qualified immunity. If there is prosecutorial immunity for ADMINISTRATIVE judges (WHO ARE, ESSENTIALLY, ACTING AS CLERKS OF COURT and not acting in their official capacities), magistrative judges (where the same thing applies) and Guardian ad litems because they are state employees; then there is no real justice in this country. This means that state and county employees can do what they want, to whomever they want (including violate federal and state laws) willy-nilly, with no consequences. If this is justice, then the American people have no power whatsoever, or so they may claim. The County and State “officials” of this country will answer to someone, or face the wrath of the people and be tried, jailed, put to death or ousted. If this is indeed the case, then I will hang up my residence, and move elsewhere, for where there is no justice, there is no life. To state this matter further, this issue of immunity to prosecution at the cost of our rights and federal statute violations shall be outed in the nth degree to the people of this state and this country by me (as it has ALREADY), and the matter WILL be corrected, and those allowed to escape our charges shall face the people for their punishment, which may not be nearly as lenient as this court’s. Should their honors insist that we apply THIS method, then by all means…dismiss this case, based on their immunity. It will then be my duty to ensure that these defendants answer to the people, and God have mercy on their souls; for the people shall know it all at my hand and in due course.

(b) That is NOT a federal civil rights lawsuit arising out of any one state case or issue; this is an accusation of violation of rights under color of law on a CONTINUAL basis, from July 21^st, of 2014, until the present. It encompasses over 8 cases, 2 of which just happen to be child custody cases, and one appeal to those cases. Moreover, it further goes to accuse the State of Iowa, together with the County of Polk, The appellate courts, the Des Moines Police Department and several others of collusion and conspiracy against the civil rights of both defendants over the period of the same 8 cases. The claimants are also claiming all to be a network of criminals working together to defraud not only these plaintiffs, but others in the State of Iowa, and the federal Government, by way of eliciting federal funds, and through violations of many other state and federal laws. This court does NOT lack jurisdiction; because this is not an appeal to any one state action. Besides, it is the duty of the claimant to prove jurisdiction exists, and these complainants have done just that (see Jurisdiction paragraph, page 2, complaint.) If they have not done that, the court needs to show leniency to the claimants, and help them accomplish it. These are new accusations, concerning old violations; true, yet those violations have occurred continuously and maliciously, over and over again, by varying judges, lawyers and other State, City and County actors. This concerns violations against the civil, due process and Constitutional rights of the claimants on an ongoing basis over a period of 4 years. Those violations have been clearly defined in each and every single item of the original complaint. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does NOT APPLY IN THIS SITUATION, since these are brand new claims that do not address appeals.

(c) Heck v. Humphrey does not apply in this case. The Plaintiffs are not incarcerated, nor is they engaged in any sort of habeas corpus action, nor are they asking for relief concerning anything relating to that sort of action. Thereby, this case does not apply in any way to the current action of the plaintiffs.

(d) See letter (b), this same section.

(e) Once again, just because the State “STATES” that the plaintiffs have no standing, does not make it so. The plaintiffs will address their reasoning in their responding brief to their reasoning, soon to appear.

(f) If the plaintiffs have not stated a claim (something only attorneys seem to be able to accomplish) then the plaintiffs ask their honors to assist the plaintiffs in doing so.

Wherefore, since all of the reasons of the State to dismiss this action have been properly debunked, the claimants insist that this action be heard, regardless of the inane rantings, reachings and reasonings of the Attorney General and their criminal cohorts.

Respectfully,

Christopher (Bruce) the living man Date: __________________________

Elizabeth (Bruce) The living woman Date:___________________________

Now, how about the answer to this crock...but first, let's get the transcripts to the calls made to the 2 social workers, that apparently contained a threat to their lives. Thought you might want to see these:

NOTE: The first one, to Ms. Nieman (the one with the 3 boxes, for those of you wondering), is missing a couple words...but yeah, I said what's there, and the missing words...are missing...so that isn't "the threat" to Ms. Nieman's life ("Is this where the weapons of mass destruction are? No, not here...maybe under this rock...noooo...not here either" - G.W. Bush Jr.). Later, we see a part where is DOES say "I hope you enjoy your job, because it's about over....OK, so maybe "Threatening your Job" = Threatening your life, in County Attorney land.

"Christopher (Bruce) the living man answers the brief filed in relation to the administrative clerks of court and the GAL Paul White:

Plaintiffs filed a CLAIM dated April 10th against several defendants. The Attorney general asserts that the “clerks”, Hurn, Kelley, Blink, Price, Egly and Vaudt are District Court Judges. Appointed “Judges” acting NOT in their official capacities are, essentially, administrative, and “clerks of court”, and thereby have NO judicial, sovereign, or absolute immunity available to them. Even if they did, the actions of these “clerks” and “lawyers” need to be overseen by someone; and if not the federal court, then whom? The plaintiffs filed several complaints with both the Supreme Court, the Lead County Judge, and the judicial oversight committee on each and every attorney and judge between 1-3 years ago, and have yet to see any resulting decision, or any appropriate action taken. When the Supreme Court is called about attorney Dale Mays’ infractions, for example, even after 3 years, the Supreme Court of Iowa is STILL addressing the issue. The judicial oversight committee recently related to the plaintiffs that they never received ANY of our judicial complaints about these judges. Since the State of Iowa’s relative oversight committees, therefore, insist on NOT doing their job, it is then up to the people to do something in turn, and relieve those “actors” from their positions, since it is the people who pay their salaries, not the State of Iowa.

So then, where does one go? To whom do we turn? If the federal Government will not oversee criminal matters offended by State officials, people who work FOR the state (who also reside here); but are more than happy to file actions against the people who ALSO reside in the same state, then the federal courts are essentially USELESS to the people and should not exist. Moreover, the “states” should then be individual countries, not portions of the country as a whole, if the Government on the federal level will not oversee any crimes committed by the same.

Generally speaking, the Attorney General generally speaks of us asserting a broad conspiracy engaged in by all the defendants. They do not assert anything, they accuse and allege instead, and can provide proof of the same, and have indicated every element of that conspiracy in their claim. The Attorney General, however, is correct that we have not stated the cases involved, but seems to be aware of the claimants enough to get all the cases correct in his brief. The claimants state, then, that the cases mentioned by the Attorney General are inclusive and correct. As to the Attorney General’s mention of the juvenile cases being affirmed on appeal, the claimants were not allowed at any time to have the name of the appellate judges, when they would ask about this with the Supreme Court, or they would have included them as defendants as well. They are also guilty of conspiracy against the plaintiff’s rights. In order to avoid the cost of many jobs on both the county and state levels, the appellate courts made a grievous error in judgement on several counts, including demanding that the claimants pay, within a 2 week period of time, over $1000 for transcripts concerning crimes committed on the district level, or they would not consider any events up to termination; and also by depriving the claimants submission of new evidence in an answer to their final decision; claiming that we were attempting to get them to change their mind (which is exactly correct, and should have been our right.) Finally, because the State AG “States” that the matter was affirmed on appeal doesn’t mean that a. It was a correct decision, nor b. does it mean that conspiracy against our rights did not occur on the Supreme Court level as well.

Next the state refers to the matter of the State of Iowa v. Plaintiff Christopher in case #AGCR283733, and that I plead guilty to two 3^rd degree harassment charges. This is absolutely correct. Later, the State dismissed the 1^st degree harassment charge (just a few days prior to trial concerning this matter, BECAUSE THEY HAD NO PROOF OF IT), claiming that I had plead guilty to the two lesser charges (where I just made these social workers a little nervous, Harassment 3^rd), so they let the Harassment in the 1^st degree charge go (where I allegedly THREATENED TO KILL ONE OF THEM). The Claimant Christopher states that there never was a threat to the social worker’s life (proven by the attached transcripts, exhibit 1, filed in both JVJV237203, (Iowa, January 7^th, 2015, a month and a half prior to the charges being filed) and in JVJV238150 (Iowa, January 7^th, same date, same time period prior to the charge.)) This charge, along with the other two was filed nearly a month and a half after their alleged occurrences, and exactly 1 WEEK prior to the termination hearing, in an conspiratorial effort between the county attorney’s offices (John P. Sarcone and Kevin Bell) and the Department of Human Services (Stephanie Rhinehart, Emily Nieman and Katie Gosch) and The Des Moines Police Department (Detective Jake Lancaster) to a. Have both the plaintiffs afraid to show for their termination hearing, and b. Because of their non-attendance, the State would then be able to claim they had no standing for appeal, and also, to be able to fabricate a fictitious termination hearing transcript, where they could claim they said whatever looked good on the docket, that we had abandoned interest in our child and consented to our termination (see claim #’s 32, 40-42, and 45-47) by not attending.

Then, the state AG claims that Plaintiff Christopher was found guilty by administrative clerk Hurn, for harassment of Darren Tromblay of CityView IN CASE SMAC359086. Administrative clerk Hurn was influenced by Administrative clerk Price to find plaintiff Bruce guilty after administrative clerk Egly deprived Plaintiff Bruce of a jury trial, when he had asked for one in enough time to do so, then changed the record of the court to claim Christopher had asked SPECIFICALLY for a non-jury trial, even though plaintiff Bruce has copy of the original motion FOR a jury trial, filed in all cases active at the time. The court or the clerks of court substituted HIS motion for, for a motion that THEY designed that asked for a jury trial in only the felony case. They conspired with plaintiff Tromblay to bring these charges against the plaintiff Christopher, and the plaintiff can prove this, showing an email that Tromblay had sent to the plaintiff Bruce threatening to file charges if he pushed him to produce an article containing his story. Plaintiff Bruce was not able to retrieve this email in jail, because the courts had imposed an unreasonable and unconstitutionally high bail to ensure his stay in the jail. The State mentions that administrative clerk Blink upheld that decision in appeal, he did NOT. Administrative clerk PRICE “heard” that appeal, and ruled against the Plaintiff Christopher due to his obvious bias against him, being the administrative clerk that upheld the kidnapping of his child, T.B., unlawfully. Plaintiff Christopher has tried 4 times on 4 separate occasions to get hearing to define and prove administrative clerk Price’s bias against him, and administrative clerk Price HIMSELF denied Plaintiff Christopher his right to get that bias determined.

Next the State mentions that a jury found plaintiff Bruce Guilty of Stalking and Harassment in case FECR292312, overheard by Administrative clerk Blink. Administrative clerk Blink denied Plaintiff Bruce the right to present evidence, and to hear witnesses by both dismissing ALL witnesses in elected offices, and by conspiring with co-council Taylor to dismiss the remaining witnesses, and by deeming ALL of his evidence concerning matters proving his innocence in conspiracy as “irrelevant” to the matter at hand. Evidence filed neared almost 200 pieces of filed evidence in his defense. Since he deprived Plaintiff Bruce his entire defense, of course, a jury would then find Plaintiff Bruce guilty as charged.

Plaintiff Christopher has chosen not to allege anything about misconduct in case SMAC363417. However, it’s important to mention its existence, only in that Defendant Lane happened to be in charge of ALL 4 criminal matters regarding Plaintiff Bruce, even though there are countless assistants that could have overseen any other of those matters instead. If the state would rather the plaintiff make claim in THAT DECISION, the plaintiff Christopher may caution the AG’s office to shut their mouth, or we can accommodate them gladly by amending the complaint AGAIN, and adding new defendants in this matter. I’m sure Newbury Living and the Des Moines Police Department and their officers Kyle Theis and officer Cole would rather that we didn’t add them to the conspiracy charges.

And, since the State has mentioned no claim against GAL White, Plaintiff Bruce has mentioned GAL White being part of his Juvenile proceedings, therefore, GAL White, being the GAL in those proceedings, is inclusive in Plaintiff’s claim of Conspiracy against their rights, and part of the RICO allegations as well. Defendant White was also privy to fabricating the false and non-existent termination hearing. Claim Stated.

The claimants notice that nothing relating to case #PCCE080717 was referenced. The claimants wish to do so instead. The claimants state that Judge Jeannie Vaudt simply went through the motions where this claim is concerned. She conspired with Jesse Ramirez, County Attorney, to not do a damn thing, not review relevant evidence, and just took what was given her by the County Attorney as gospel, and didn’t do anything, but sign her name to the finished “proposed order” and went her way. She, of all the administrative clerks listed, is guilty of not doing her administrative duty. Period.

The claimants shall not and will not reference case law from cases that have nothing to do with this claim. Should they in some fashion relate to this claim, there are no absolute likenesses in this or other cases. Situations, claimants, defendants and ruling entities, combined with infinite circumstances that clearly define differences in all aspects of different cases prohibit a definite of case law concerning any decision past made. The claimants insist that the judge make his own ruling, dependent on what it should be dependent on…his OWN reasoning, his OWN knowledge, and his OWN common sense, without leaning on the decisions others have made in irrelevant cases.

Respectully,

Christopher (Bruce), The Living Man

Elizabeth, the Living Man"

Stay tuned, cause more motions are comin'....right along with some more resists and answers from my side as well.

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

The Fed Funny Farm Vol. IX - MORE STATE MOTIONS TO DISMISS (UPDATED 5/23, WITH ANSWERS)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Websites I Support!