In The United States District Court For The District Of Columbia

Transcription

1 In The United States District Court For The District Of Columbia BRET D. LANDRITH, SAMUEL K. LIPARI Case No. 12-cv ABJ Plaintiffs vs. Hon. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., Chief Justice of the United States Defendant RULE 11 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Comes now the plaintiffs, BRET D. LANDRITH and SAMUEL K. LIPARI, appearing pro se and make the following motion for sanctions under Rule 11. STATEMENT OF POINTS 1. Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. committed the specific conduct alleged below to violate subdivision (b of Rule 11 when USA Ronald C. Machen Jr., Chief Civil ASA Daniel F. Van Horn, and ASA Claire Whitaker signed and filed the Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 on 4/22/2013 as Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. s representatives and agents. 2. The Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 expressly states at page 2 that it incorporates by reference the challenged contentions, allegation, and denials of the earlier Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #9 that Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR was given notice in the plaintiffs Amended Complaint Doc. # 11 at pages 22-40, and plaintiffs 04/08/2013 Response To Order Of The Court Doc. # 13 that he is required to withdraw and correct. 1

2 A. Material Misrepresentations to the Tribunal 3. On 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., USA Ronald C. Machen Jr., Chief Civil ASA Daniel F. Van Horn, and ASA Claire Whitaker knowingly made again the misrepresentation in Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 9 that..there is no support in McBryde for their proposition that this Court is authorized to impose injunctive relief on the Chief Justice. Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. (Doc. #9 at pg On 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., USA Ronald C. Machen Jr., Chief Civil ASA Daniel F. Van Horn, and ASA Claire Whitaker knowingly misrepresented the plaintiffs original and amended complaints through omission of ( Doc. 1 Pg. 22 Neither plaintiff has appeared before the defendant in his capacity as a judge or justice for the purpose of intentionally misrepresenting the application of In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. to procure a dismissal through fraud on the court as the compliant alleges District of Kansas USA Barry R. Grissom procured a dismissal of the W.D. of Oklahoma defendants. 5. On 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., USA Ronald C. Machen Jr., Chief Civil ASA Daniel F. Van Horn, and ASA Claire Whitaker knowingly misrepresented the plaintiffs original and amended complaints through omission of the expressly stated ( Doc. 1 Pg. 22 Neither plaintiff has appeared before the defendant in his capacity as a judge or justice and in Count I The defendant is liable to the plaintiffs for prospective injunctive relief restraining his ministerial and executive administration of 2

3 the Judicial Conference of the United States, where the Chief Justice Hon. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. functions in a ministerial capacity as the chief executive ( Doc. 1 Pgs to give notice that In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. is inapplicable. 6. On 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., USA Ronald C. Machen Jr., Chief Civil ASA Daniel F. Van Horn, and ASA Claire Whitaker knowingly misrepresented the plaintiffs original and amended complaints as seeking relief from rulings by judges through the false statement Nothing that the Chief Justice does in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Judicial Conference relates in any way to controlling the manner in which federal judges rule. 28 U.S.C Thus, there is no injury in fact that is connected to the Chief Justice s conduct Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. (Doc. #9 at pg On 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., USA Ronald C. Machen Jr., Chief Civil ASA Daniel F. Van Horn, and ASA Claire Whitaker knowingly made the material factual misrepresentation to this court (Doc. #9 at pg. 8 that he has nothing to do with judicial misconduct policy, when the complaint and amended complaint seeks to modify the way judicial ethics complaints are published, a decision he made in the exercise of his administrative capacity power in response to Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 A Report to the Chief Justice The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee Stephen Breyer, Chair September On 4/22/2013 in Doc. 14 at page 3Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., USA Ronald C. Machen Jr., Chief Civil ASA Daniel F. Van Horn, and ASA Claire Whitaker 3

4 knowingly misrepresented to the tribunal that the plaintiffs seek to have the court order a state admissions committee on how to conduct its proceedings. B. Extrinsic Frauds In An Attempt to Obstruct Justice 9. Since filing the original complaint, the defendant through his agents has caused the disruption of the plaintiff SAMUEL LIPARI s business to enter the home healthcare market through his business Medical Supply Line and caused him to lose the server hosting he was in contract for at Nexcess.net, L.L.C., Melrose Ave., Southfield MI Since filing the original complaint, the defendant through his agents has caused the prevention of communications via The Go Daddy Group, Inc. Company Information N. Hayden Rd. Scottsdale, AZ, to new contacts by the plaintiff SAMUEL LIPARI s in his business to enter the home healthcare market through his business Medical Supply Line. 11. Since filing the original complaint, the defendant through his agents has caused the disruption and cut off of Internet communications of the plaintiff SAMUEL LIPARI s nephew Ryan J. Lipari. 12. Since filing the original complaint, the defendant through his agents has caused the disruption and cut off of SAMUEL LIPARI s celluar prepaid phone on January 24, 2013, the wireless carrier H2O was shut off (despite being prepaid. LIPARI made several efforts to regain service through technical support who were unfamiliar with any other instance where prepaid services would be cut off. 4

5 13. Since filing the original complaint, the defendant through his agents has caused the disruption and cut off of BRET LANDRITH s celluar phone on the wireless carrier AT&T on January 24, 2013 was also shut off preventing communication with SAMUEL LIPARI and his friends and associates most of the business day. 14. Copies of the letters served by certified US Mail to Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR, USA Ronald C. Machen Jr., Chief Civil ASA Daniel F. Van Horn, and ASA Claire Whitaker which included this attached motion for sanctions are attached now to this motion. See exhibits 1-4. STATEMENT OF AUTHORITIES Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. and his counsel s conduct in signing and filing on 4/22/2013 the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 is sanctionable under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11. The conduct is a separate and subsequent act from the misrepresentations by Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. and his counsel in the Motion to Dismiss Doc. #9 addressed as the basis of an independent claim by the plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint Doc. # 11. Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR s filing of the false representations to this court on 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 to procure a dismissal through extrinsic fraud is an act of knowing participation with federal officials with private and state actors in 15 U.S.C. 1,2 (Sherman Act criminal conduct and violations of the Civil Rights Acts 18 USC 241, 242, and 245 with state officials, injuring the plaintiffs. 5

6 Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. and his counsel s intentional misrepresentations were made to this court on 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 to cause invite Judge Amy Berman Jackson to commit fraud on her own court and obstruct justice. See Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514 generally and at (3rd Cir., Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. and his counsel s lack of candor to the tribunal in knowingly misrepresenting the application of the controlling precedent and misrepresenting material facts to this court is a violation of Rule 11 and the rules of professional ethics governing this jurisdiction: Rule 3.3 of the local rules prohibits a lawyer from knowingly "offer[ing] evidence that the lawyer knows to be false," D.C. R. OF PROF. CONDUCT 3.3(a(4 U.S. v. Bruce, 89 F.3d 886, 319 U.S. App. D.C. 245 at 894 (C.A.D.C., Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. and his counsel s intentional misrepresentations were made to this court on 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 after the falseness of the material facts and misrepresentations of law were made known to the defendant. This intentional and knowing misrepresentation can require the forfeiture of Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. s defenses as a sanction. See generally U.S. v. Shaffer Equipment Co., 11 F.3d 450 (C.A.4 (W.Va., CONCLUSION Whereas for the above reasons the plaintiffs request that the court sanction Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. and his counsel and grant the relief sought in the plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. 6

7 Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ Bret D. Landrith ~. Samuel K. Lipari -- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The plaintiff's hereby certify that they have served the defendant's counsel by and by US Mail on A1.;1tl 2J.~r Ms. Claire Whitaker, Assistant U. S. Attorney Judiciary Center Building 555 Fourth St., N.W., Rrn. E4204 Washington, D.C Claire.Whitaker@usdoj.gov Attorney for DefendantHon. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. BRET D. LANDRITH Apt. 209, 5308 SW Tenth St. Topeka, KS bret@bretlandrith.com Plainti~ring pro se ~~ ~-;0 ~ SAMUELK. 803 S. Lake Drive Independence, MO saml@medicalsupplyline.com

8 April 24, 2013 Hon. John G. Roberts Chief Justice United States Supreme Court 1 First St NE Washington, DC RE: D.D.C. 1:12-cv LANDRITH et al v. ROBERTS Rule 11(c(2 Notice Honorable Sir, This letter regards your misrepresentations to the District of Columbia, District Court where you are a defendant. On 4/22/2013 you filed a Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #14 that expressly incorporates by reference misrepresentations of material facts and law from your Motion to Dismiss Doc. #9 contradicting facts and controlling precedent to which you had legal notice. The plaintiffs Amended Complaint Doc. # 11 at pages 22-40, and plaintiffs 04/08/2013 Response To Order Of The Court Doc. # 13 state the specific and knowing misrepresentations of the applicable precedent and the material misrepresentations of facts of matters before the district court regarding the district court s prior exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over prospective injunctive relief and declaratory relief claims under the constitution against a higher federal appeals court chief judge in a private individual redress action in McBryde v. Committee to Rev. Cir. Council Conduct, 83 F.Supp.2d 135 at 149 (D.D.C., Doc. # 11 and # 13 gave you specific details of your knowing use of the extrinsic fraud of your agents to openly procure a dismissal through Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514 at (3rd Cir., 1948 fraud on the court. You have twenty one days from service of this letter to withdraw the challenged defenses, contentions, and denials and to appropriately correct the same, or within another time the court sets. Sincerely, Bret D. Landrith Samuel K. Lipari RULE 11 Motion Exb. 1

9 April 24, 2013 Ronald C. Machen Jr. United States Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C RE: D.D.C. 1:12-cv LANDRITH et al v. ROBERTS Rule 11(c(2 Notice Honorable Sir, This letter regards your misrepresentations to the District of Columbia, District Court where you represent the defendant. On 4/22/2013 you filed a Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #14 that expressly incorporates by reference misrepresentations of material facts and law from your Motion to Dismiss Doc. #9 contradicting facts and controlling precedent to which you had legal notice. The plaintiffs Amended Complaint Doc. # 11 at pages 22-40, and plaintiffs 04/08/2013 Response To Order Of The Court Doc. # 13 state the specific and knowing misrepresentations of the applicable precedent and the material misrepresentations of facts of matters before the district court regarding the district court s prior exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over prospective injunctive relief and declaratory relief claims under the constitution against a higher federal appeals court chief judge in a private individual redress action in McBryde v. Committee to Rev. Cir. Council Conduct, 83 F.Supp.2d 135 at 149 (D.D.C., Doc. # 11 and # 13 gave you specific details of your knowing use of the extrinsic fraud of your agents to openly procure a dismissal through Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514 at (3rd Cir., 1948 fraud on the court. You have twenty one days from service of this letter to withdraw the challenged defenses, contentions, and denials and to appropriately correct the same, or within another time the court sets. Sincerely, Bret D. Landrith Samuel K. Lipari RULE 11 Motion Exb. 2

10 Daniel F. Van Horn Chief, Civil Division United States Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C April 24, 2013 RE: D.D.C. 1:12-cv LANDRITH et al v. ROBERTS Rule 11(c(2 Notice Honorable Sir, This letter regards your misrepresentations to the District of Columbia, District Court where you represent the defendant. On 4/22/2013 you filed a Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #14 that expressly incorporates by reference misrepresentations of material facts and law from your Motion to Dismiss Doc. #9 contradicting facts and controlling precedent to which you had legal notice. The plaintiffs Amended Complaint Doc. # 11 at pages 22-40, and plaintiffs 04/08/2013 Response To Order Of The Court Doc. # 13 state the specific and knowing misrepresentations of the applicable precedent and the material misrepresentations of facts of matters before the district court regarding the district court s prior exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over prospective injunctive relief and declaratory relief claims under the constitution against a higher federal appeals court chief judge in a private individual redress action in McBryde v. Committee to Rev. Cir. Council Conduct, 83 F.Supp.2d 135 at 149 (D.D.C., Doc. # 11 and # 13 gave you specific details of your knowing use of the extrinsic fraud of your agents to openly procure a dismissal through Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514 at (3rd Cir., 1948 fraud on the court. You have twenty one days from service of this letter to withdraw the challenged defenses, contentions, and denials and to appropriately correct the same, or within another time the court sets. Sincerely, Bret D. Landrith Samuel K. Lipari RULE 11 Motion Exb. 3

11 Claire Whitaker, Assistant United States Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C April 24, 2013 RE: D.D.C. 1:12-cv LANDRITH et al v. ROBERTS Rule 11(c(2 Notice Honorable Madame, This letter regards your misrepresentations to the District of Columbia, District Court where you represent the defendant. On 4/22/2013 you filed a Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #14 that expressly incorporates by reference misrepresentations of material facts and law from your Motion to Dismiss Doc. #9 contradicting facts and controlling precedent to which you had legal notice. The plaintiffs Amended Complaint Doc. # 11 at pages 22-40, and plaintiffs 04/08/2013 Response To Order Of The Court Doc. # 13 state the specific and knowing misrepresentations of the applicable precedent and the material misrepresentations of facts of matters before the district court regarding the district court s prior exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over prospective injunctive relief and declaratory relief claims under the constitution against a higher federal appeals court chief judge in a private individual redress action in McBryde v. Committee to Rev. Cir. Council Conduct, 83 F.Supp.2d 135 at 149 (D.D.C., Doc. # 11 and # 13 gave you specific details of your knowing use of the extrinsic fraud of your agents to openly procure a dismissal through Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514 at (3rd Cir., 1948 fraud on the court. You have twenty one days from service of this letter to withdraw the challenged defenses, contentions, and denials and to appropriately correct the same, or within another time the court sets. Sincerely, Bret D. Landrith Samuel K. Lipari RULE 11 Motion Exb. 4

12 In The United States District Court For The District Of Columbia BRET D. LANDRITH, SAMUEL K. LIPARI Case No. 12-cv ABJ Plaintiffs vs. Hon. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., Chief Justice of the United States In his official capacity as head of the Judicial Conference of the United States Defendant ORDER OF SANCTIONS Upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11 the court grants the motion, and for good cause shown, it is this day of, 2013, ORDERED, that said motion is granted, and it is FURTHER ORDERED, that the plaintiffs First Amended Complaint Claims will be deemed conceded by the defendant. Copies to Defendant : Ms. Claire Whitaker, Assistant U.S. Attorney Judiciary Center Building 555 Fourth St., N.W., Rm. E4204 Washington, D.C Claire.Whitaker@usdoj.gov Attorney for Defendant Hon. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR.