Re: Seeking 'friend of court' briefs - background docs attached
Walt Tuvell
- Walt
Dr. Cordero,
May I please use your comment below in court? I am motioning to disqualify a judge, and not sugar coating my motion. In support, I think it would benefit me to cite comments such as yours when I accuse him of fraud upon the court.
If you have any suggestions for other materials that I may supplement them with, I would sincerely appreciate it.
Dave Neal
From: Bill Scheidler <billsc...@outlook.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 2:15:36 PM
To: Walt Tuvell; drrco...@judicial-discipline-reform.org; janet_c...@yahoo.com; lgca...@yahoo.com; edi...@lawfulpath.com; b...@bobhurt.com; rod_s...@hotmail.com; kendit...@yahoo.com; Bo...@nkmr.org; brendamp...@gmail.com; a...@bsolaw.com; georgemcd...@gmail.com; mir...@aol.com; lfru...@gmail.com; dragonfl...@hotmail.com; el...@hush.com; busi...@isidororodriguez.com; Dave...@live.com; wiza...@dialup4less.com; zambon...@hotmail.com; gal...@yahoo.com; predestin...@gmail.com; kel...@aaapg.net; micke...@gmail.com; neilpr...@gmail.com; u.dow...@lycos.com; edl...@yahoo.com; ad1...@hotmail.com; pcast...@gmail.com; stanca...@gmail.com; ter...@comcast.net; andrea.o...@gmail.com; jeff...@aol.com; bsto...@gmail.com; cynthi...@gmail.com; a...@truedemocracy.net; a_art...@yahoo.com; edi...@highcountryjournal.com; brawleym...@yahoo.com; ralphger...@gmail.com; olla...@gmail.com; johnti...@live.co.uk; corde...@yahoo.com; Dr.Richard....@verizon.net
Subject: Re: Seeking 'friend of court' briefs - background docs attachedAttached are:
Complaint dkt 1-1
Defendants motion to dismiss, dkt 8
My Response, dkt 24-1
Judge Settle's order, Vol 1, dkt 28.
Docket history
If you have any other concerns or needs let me know. Keep in mind that the issue is "judges-judging-judges" and the "institutional conflict of interest" when judges use court rules to deny substantive rights.
Regards,Bill Scheidlerchief activist at www.corruptwash.comFuture Candidate for WA State Legislature http://corruptwash.com/2016/05/20/activist-enters-race-for-washington-state-representative-26th-district/
From: Walt Tuvell <walt....@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 1:54 PM
To: Bill Scheidler; drrco...@judicial-discipline-reform.org; janet_c...@yahoo.com; lgca...@yahoo.com; edi...@lawfulpath.com; b...@bobhurt.com; rod_s...@hotmail.com; kendit...@yahoo.com; Bo...@nkmr.org; brendamp...@gmail.com; a...@bsolaw.com; georgemcd...@gmail.com; mir...@aol.com; lfru...@gmail.com; dragonfl...@hotmail.com; el...@hush.com; busi...@isidororodriguez.com; Dave...@live.com; wiza...@dialup4less.com; zambon...@hotmail.com; gal...@yahoo.com; predestin...@gmail.com; kel...@aaapg.net; micke...@gmail.com; neilpr...@gmail.com; u.dow...@lycos.com; edl...@yahoo.com; ad1...@hotmail.com; pcast...@gmail.com; stanca...@gmail.com; ter...@comcast.net; andrea.o...@gmail.com; jeff...@aol.com; bsto...@gmail.com; cynthi...@gmail.com; a...@truedemocracy.net; a_art...@yahoo.com; edi...@highcountryjournal.com; brawleym...@yahoo.com; ralphger...@gmail.com; olla...@gmail.com; johnti...@live.co.uk; corde...@yahoo.com; Dr.Richard....@verizon.net
Subject: Re: Seeking 'friend of court' briefsObviously, nobody in their right mind is going to go-out-on-a-limb, and submit an amicus for a pig-in-a-poke. You need to bundle up you filings in an intelligible manner, and provide them to us (free-of-charge, not referring to PACER as you've done here). Please do so.
One example (there are many other way to do it): http://bit.ly/2kDSEUn & http://bit.ly/2mHdbWx.
On 03/28/17 16:39, Bill Scheidler wrote:
Greetings to all concerned about judicial unaccountability.
Am seeking 'friend of court' briefs, per FRAP 29. The issue that needs to be addressed by amicus concern judges-judging-judges, prohibited by 28 USC 455(a) and (b), and 28 USC 2072(b), that results when a litigant's "jury demand" is denied under a judge's use of their court rules, such as rule 56 (summary judgment). In the use of their court rules, a litigant's substantive right to a jury is denied, and the "people's" right to exercise their powers through a jury is also denied.
The denial of such fundamental rights, possessed by the individual and the people, is prohibited by 28 USC 2072(b). The consequence of judges using court rules to deny substantive rights then results in an impermissible conflict where 'judges-judge-judges' (i.e., appeals) .... which creates an institutional conflict prohibited by 28 USC 455(a) and (b).
The principle brief is due June 19, 2017, the Amicus Brief would be due 7 days thereafter. Case #
The Issues presented by the 'principle brief' are:
A. Scheidler was delegated a government task and has immunity from defendant Hull’s (Judge) retaliation.
B. Judge Settle’s order, dkt 28, is arbitrary
C. Judge Settle’s order, dkt 28, is issued in violation of 28 USC 455(a) and (b).
D. Judge Settle’s order, dkt 28, does not comply with 28 USC 1652.
E. Judge Settle’s order, dkt 28, which violate 28 USC 455 and 28 USC 1652, creates an “institutional conflict of interest in its resolution” in violation of 28 USC 455 and 28 USC 2072(b).
F. Judge Settle’s order violates 28 USC 2403(b) and Rule 5.1
Here is your chance to argue judges don't obey the laws that apply to judges.
Regards,Bill Scheidlerchief activist at www.corruptwash.comFuture Candidate for WA State Legislature http://corruptwash.com/2016/05/20/activist-enters-race-for-washington-state-representative-26th-district/
From: drrco...@judicial-discipline-reform.org <drrco...@judicial-discipline-reform.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 10:35 AM
To: janet_c...@yahoo.com; lgca...@yahoo.com; edi...@lawfulpath.com; b...@bobhurt.com; rod_s...@hotmail.com; walt....@gmail.com; kendit...@yahoo.com; Bo...@nkmr.org; brendamp...@gmail.com; a...@bsolaw.com; georgemcd...@gmail.com; mir...@aol.com; lfru...@gmail.com; dragonfl...@hotmail.com; el...@hush.com; busi...@isidororodriguez.com; Dave...@live.com; wiza...@dialup4less.com; zambon...@hotmail.com; gal...@yahoo.com; billsc...@outlook.com; predestin...@gmail.com; kel...@aaapg.net; micke...@gmail.com; neilpr...@gmail.com; u.dow...@lycos.com; edl...@yahoo.com; ad1...@hotmail.com; pcast...@gmail.com; stanca...@gmail.com; ter...@comcast.net; andrea.o...@gmail.com; jeff...@aol.com; bsto...@gmail.com; cynthi...@gmail.com; a...@truedemocracy.net; a_art...@yahoo.com; edi...@highcountryjournal.com; brawleym...@yahoo.com; ralphger...@gmail.com; olla...@gmail.com; johnti...@live.co.uk; corde...@yahoo.com; Dr.Richard....@verizon.net; DrRCo...@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.
Subject: How Judge Neil Gorsuch and his peers dismiss 99.83% of complaints against them and dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions; the need for We the People to demand that Congress hold public hearings on our experience at the mercy of unaccount...Justiceship Nominee Neil Gorsuch reportedly said that:
«An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us».
Guided by that we-against-the-rest-of-the-world mentality,
he and his peers in the 10th Circuit have protected each other
by disposing of the 573 complaints filed against any of them
during the 1oct06-30sep16 11-year period through self-exemption from any discipline
except for one reprimand, a 99.83% dismissal rate;
they also dispose of 93% of appeals with reasonless decisions.The concern is not whether he favors big corporations over the little guy,
but whether anybody protects us from them:UNACCOUNTABLY INDEPENDENT JUDGES,
WHO RISKLESSLY ENGAGE IN WRONGDOING.The demand for public hearings of complainants and parties
that he and his peers have dumped out of court
By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net,
DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.
NOTE: If in spite of all the effort to circumvent the glitch in software or interference with communications that creates “joinedwords” in Dr. Cordero’s emails(†>ol2:426§C), this email has them or any other formatting oddity, kindly overlook them and send a note to Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.
This article may be republished and redistributed non-commercially,
provided it is without any addition, deletion, or modification, and
credit is given to its author,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
In particular, you may send it to your senator - https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/- and other representatives –e.g., http://www.house.gov/representatives/.-
- After President Trump issued his first immigration ban, Federal District Judge James Robart of the 9th Circuit suspended it nationwide. The President referred to him disparagingly as “this so-called judge”. When his justiceship nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who sits on the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, paid a goodwill visit to Congress in anticipation of his confirmation hearings, he was asked about the President’s reference and he reportedly remarked that “An attack on one of our brothers and sisters of the robe is an attack on all of us”.
.
2. His remark was confirmed by the conduct of the three-judge appellate panel of 9th Circuit judges who unanimously upheld the nationwide suspension to send Trump a warning: ‘Don’t you ever mess with us!’
.
3. J. Gorsuch too has been practicing his remark. As a circuit judge for the last 11.5 years, he has tolerated and/or participated in the systematic dismissal of the 573(L:3) complaints against judges in his circuit and the systematic denial of petitions to review such dismissals(L:65, 68).
.
4. He and his peers have protected their own, taking only one corrective action, a reprimand. Their system of self-exemption from discipline is 99.83% perfect in effect. That statistic is representative(stat:1-60) of how the judges in the other circuits dispose of complaints against themselves: in self-interest and with total disregard for complainants, other parties, and the rest of the public. They are left exposed to the judges’ self-ensured unaccountability, which inevitably leads to their riskless wrongdoing. What would your boss do if he or she could risklessly do anything to you and anything for himself or herself and his or her peers?
NOTE: The file at:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf and
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >ol2:546.
contains materials corresponding to the (blue text references) herein as follows:
.
(1) the composite statistical table, next, with the Line(L:#) of the pertinent heading or entry concerning complaints filed against federal judges in the 10th Circuit during the 2006-2016 tabulated years;
.
(2) its source, that is, the official1 statistical tables(stat:page#) concerning the complaints filed in each of the 13 circuits and two national courts during the 1996-2016 21-year period for which such statistics are available;
.
(3) the endnotes[#] with explanations about the composite statistical table and/or links to the official statistical tables; and
.
(4) the table template for you and other readers to tabulate a similar composite table for any such circuit or national court. Let Readers point to the judges’ own official statistics to:
a) show the judges’ abusive dismissal of complaints against them and their self-exemption from any discipline; and
b) demand congressional hearings on the experience with them of yours and other complainants, parties, and the rest of We the People.
.
This article and all other (blue text references) are supported by Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries based on original research of official documents. The study is titled and downloadable thus:
.
Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field
of judicial unaccountability reporting* †.
* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to ol:393
.
† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from ol2:394
A. How complaint statistics are produced and the message that they send to Congress and the public
.
5. Each circuit collects its statistics and sends them to the Administrative Office of the U.S Courts (AO)[1]. The latter’s director is appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and must include them in his Annual Report to the Judicial Conference of the U.S., which is presided over by the chief justice and gathers all the chief circuit judges, and representative district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges. The Report is also submitted to Congress and the public. Hence, J. Gorsuch and all his peers send annually an unambiguous, unabashed message to all politicians and us:
.
‘We have rendered the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that you, politicians, passed in 1980[2] to set up the complaint mechanism useless. You, the public, waste your time complaining against us, for we take care of our own. We are so powerful that we can just as easily suspend a presidential order nationwide as doom to failure a whole legislative agenda by declaring each of its laws unconstitutional. And we are untouchable! In the last 228 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, only 8 of us federal judges have been impeached and removed.(*>jur:22fn14) We can engage in any wrongdoing, for we are our own police. We are the Judges Above the Law of the State Within the state.
B. J. Gorsuch values getting along with his “brothers and sisters in the robe” higher than getting justice done
.
6. J. Gorsuch stated as a badge of honor at the hearings that of the 2,700 cases in which he has participated as a panel member 97% have been decided unanimously. He added with pride “that’s the way we do things in the West”…as if there were a justice of the East and it were any different.
.
7. With that he did not mean ‘because in the West judges morph into each other to surmount the differences inherent in being appointed by either Republican or Democratic politicians, discarding the different views that we held in college, which led me to found the opposition paper The Federalist.’
.
8. Rather, he confirmed the AO statistics that show that circuit judges dispose of 93% of appeals in decisions “on procedural grounds [e.g., “for lack of jurisdiction or jurisdictional defect”], by consolidation, unsigned, unpublished, without comment”(†>ol2:455).
.
9. The majority of these decisions are reasonless, fiat-like summary orders(*>jur:43§1). They fit the front side of a 5¢ form, with one rubberstamped operative word, mostly ‘the decision below is Affirmed or the motion is Denied’. They express the morphed judges’ pro-forma justice: 'However things were, we leave them so. Next!'
.
10. The rest of those 93% decisions have an opinion so arbitrary, ad-hoc to reach a convenient result, or unlawful that they may not be relied upon in other cases; so they too are marked “not-precedential”, which is anathema to our system of common law based on precedent. Only the remaining 7% of decisions are signed, published, and intended to pass the scrutiny of the media, be discussed in law journals, and included in law school casebooks to establish the author’s reputation.
.
11. What criteria does J. Gorsuch use to treat parties so unequally: dumping their appeals with a meaningless decision or sweating it out on a meaningful one?
.
12. In fact, he also bragged that in 99% of his cases he had been in the majority. This means that in only 1% of them he felt so strongly about the issues or the parties to go to the trouble of dissenting, thus being in the minority. Nevertheless, he remained a typical judge within the norm, for the 2% of cases where it was one of the other two panel members who dissented can be distributed equally by allocating 1% to each of them.
.
13. For him and his peers getting along with each other and taking it easy with 93% of appeals are more appealing attitudes than a principled discharge of their duty. The latter requires reading the briefs, doing legal research, and coming to the panel conference prepared to advocate “a result compelled by the law”, which he said a good judge pursues.
.
14. No wonder he shied away from the exacting and socially lethal action of denouncing any of his peers or even protesting publicly their systematic dismissal of complaints against them, which would have entailed a lot of controversy and led to his peers outcasting him as a traitor.
C. The Senate’s debate should concentrate on the pro-forma justice that J. Gorsuch and his friends provide to parties and the rest of We the People
.
15. So the question for the senators to ask before voting on J. Gorsuch is not whether what got under his skin in that 1% of cases in which he stood up for something other than his camaraderie with his peers was a big corporation or a little guy.
.
16. Rather, it is how he could claim commitment to rule of law results, never mind integrity, although during the past 11.5 years on the bench he has seen his peers dismiss on average one complaint a week of those 573 against them, but has simply looked the other way or even joined the other bullies in abusing their judicial power to silence complainants by resorting to false pretenses(L:44-50) to dump their complaints.
.
17. Why did he tolerate, or participate in, the cheating of parties out of the meaningful appellate service to which their payment of the filing fee entitled them contractually?
.
18. By ensuring his and his peers’ unaccountability, they have abused their independence to provide themselves an irresistibly tempting and impenetrable cover for their riskless wrongdoing.
D. The need for Congress to hold hearings on the experience at the mercy of unaccountable judges of complainants, parties, and We the People, the masters of all judicial servants
.
19. It is not by mounting a filibuster against J. Gorsuch that senators, or by watching it while remaining inactive that the House members, should handle his confirmation. It is by holding public hearings for the complainants and the parties to appeals that he and his peers have dumped out of court and deprived of equal justice under law.
.
20. Holding those hearings will not be an attack on judicial independence. As representatives of We the People, the only source of sovereign power and the masters of “government of, by, and for the people”, Congress has the duty to defend and enforce the People’s right to hold all their public servants, including their judicial public servants, accountable and liable for their wrongdoing.
.
21. Those hearings will be the product of an overdue application of the principle that in ‘government, not of men and women, but by the rule of law’, judges are not allowed to arrogate to themselves unaccountable independence. Their continued holding of office as public servants depends on their faithfully and competently serving their masters, the People.
.
22. President Trump said in his inaugural speech, “We are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the People”. Let him and Congress put those words into practice. Let us, the People, demand that he and Congress hold public hearings to find out the masters’ experience at the mercy of their judicial servants, the most powerful of all public servants, who have trampled justice to climb to a position by definition for wrongdoers: Judges Above the Law.
23. To that end, send this article to your senator - https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/- and other representatives –e.g., http://www.house.gov/representatives/- and share and post it as widely as possible.
Visit the website at, and subscribe to its series of articles thus:
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org> + New or Users >Add New.
Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)...and you may enter it.
* http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.orgDr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net, DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org, CorderoRic@yahoo.com, Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@cantab.net
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b
NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.
********************************
See:
(1) the above article;
(2) the composite statistical table concerning complaints against judges in the 10th Circuit;
(3) the endnotes;
(4) the table template; and
(5) the official statistical tables concerning complaints in the 13 circuits and the two national courts
at:
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ol2/DrRCordero_hearings_JGorsuch_complainants&parties.pdf
1 through 4 are also at † >ol2:546 of Dr. Cordero’s study of judges and their judiciaries:
Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field
of judicial unaccountability reporting* †
* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to ol:393
† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from ol2:394
**********************************************************************************
Walt Tuvell
So, I realize it's early, and that you're here seeking comments/advice on this very topic (I have none at this point), but I wonder what strategy you're planning to pursue, and when you'll have a rough first outline/draft for us to review? For, you're to need to come up with some better arguments than just handwaving "the whole system is corrupt", in order to have any viable chance of bringing a judicable case/controversy before the appellate court.
Walt Tuvell
It seems you're complaining about something to do with the "right to a jury trial", right? But what exactly? For example, here are some possibilities:
- You mention the Rights Enabling Act (REA, 28 USC §2072), which authorized the Supreme Court to promulgate (federal) rules of court procedure (FRCP, etc.). Are you arguing that the REA is unconstitutional, or anything else related to the REA (e.g., are you complaining about some portion of the REA, such as the meaning of "substantive rights")?
- Just to make sure: We're talking only about right to jury trials in CIVIL (not CRIMINAL) cases, right?
- You also note that your case was dismissed at Summary Judgment (FRCP 56), so is it Rule 56 specifically what you're complaining about (as opposed to the whole REA generally)?
These questions will get us oriented. Once they're answered,
we'll still need much more details about your proposed appeals
brief, of course, so if you have any preliminary arguments you can
share with us, that would be helpful.
Walt,
The issue isn't whether my case was decided fairly. The issue is whether it was decided as our laws intend!!!! IF we, as a litigant and we as the People, are to REGAIN our control over government, we must insure the "laws that apply to judges" are obeyed.
Here is the question we all need to address .... my "dispute" concerns public servants conduct that harmed me .... I demanded a jury trial. A judge, under their claimed "court rule" power dismissed my case -- no jury, just another "public servant" acting under his own view of the power judges grant themselves. IF we are a county "of the people, for the people, and BY THE PEOPLE", and as a citizen of Washington State, "governments derive their "just powers" by the "consent of the governed" isn't the JURY by which the People consent and determine if governments are "of the people and for the people" and acting in a "just manner"? Isn't a "judge" who denies a jury actually just a 'public servant deciding the powers of public servants'?
Again, I'm not asking anyone to plead my case ... I'm asking everyone to "PLEAD" for the people and their right to have a JURY (unless a jury is waived) determine if "public servants" are acting according to law. Otherwise, it is only one voice fighting for the "good of all".
I can illustrate the problems by asking this question ... if there are disputes between private parties; between private corporations; between a citizen v corporation; between citizen v public servant .... why is there only one set of court rules? Clearly the circumstances and interrelationships that define the rights each litigant has or is owed should determine what "court rule" applies so "fundamental rights" are NOT circumvented. 28 USC 2072(b) was passed to assure 'fundamental rights' are not 'abridged, enlarged, or modified'!!! So how does a judge use court rules to deny a jury demand and determine what the "PEOPLE" should be determining?
Regards,
Bill Scheidlerchief activist at www.corruptwash.comFuture Candidate for WA State Legislature http://corruptwash.com/2016/05/20/activist-enters-race-for-washington-state-representative-26th-district/
From: Walt Tuvell <walt....@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 5:18 AM
To: Bill Scheidler; drrco...@judicial-discipline-reform.org; janet_c...@yahoo.com; lgca...@yahoo.com; edi...@lawfulpath.com; b...@bobhurt.com; rod_s...@hotmail.com; kendit...@yahoo.com; Bo...@nkmr.org; brendamp...@gmail.com; a...@bsolaw.com; georgemcd...@gmail.com; mir...@aol.com; lfru...@gmail.com; dragonfl...@hotmail.com; el...@hush.com; busi...@isidororodriguez.com; Dave...@live.com; wiza...@dialup4less.com; zambon...@hotmail.com; gal...@yahoo.com; predestin...@gmail.com; kel...@aaapg.net; micke...@gmail.com; neilpr...@gmail.com; u.dow...@lycos.com; edl...@yahoo.com; ad1...@hotmail.com; pcast...@gmail.com; stanca...@gmail.com; ter...@comcast.net; andrea.o...@gmail.com; jeff...@aol.com; bsto...@gmail.com; cynthi...@gmail.com; a...@truedemocracy.net; a_art...@yahoo.com; edi...@highcountryjournal.com; brawleym...@yahoo.com; ralphger...@gmail.com; olla...@gmail.com; johnti...@live.co.uk; corde...@yahoo.com; Dr.Richard....@verizon.net
Cc: JudicialM...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Seeking 'friend of court' briefs - background docs attached
Walt Tuvell
But I didn't say I felt the judge made the "right" decision. What I said is that "the court's ruling seems reasonable on its face, absent rebuttal/appeal from you."
And nothing more can be said at this point, because from all outward-facing intents-and-purposes, your arguments insofar as we can(not) see them, are even more opaque than the court's. The only way to overcome this obstacle is to advance an intelligible argument to us.
At this point, it seems as-if you're saying "start with the Constitution, skip-forward to today (ignoring everything that happened during the intervening 200+ years), and now I'll tell you how it all SHOULD have ended up". But that's not an intelligible argument.
I think we are in the ballpark. But it is simple and it boils down to these Federal statutes, 28 USC 455, 28 USC 1652 and 28 USC 2072(b).
Looking at these statutes alone is there a 'fair forum' in which to challenge a judge for NOT obeying these laws? Isn't it true that the only forum is by appeal? And isn't that simply leading to a "judge-judging-judges" in deciding whether or not judges obey the laws that apply to judges? And isn't that EXACTLY the very situation prohibited by 28 USC 455 - disqualification for bias and fiduciary conflict, and 28 USC 2072(b), cannot use court rules to "enlarge, modify or abridge" the powers of judges?
Therefore a "jury" (unless waived) is the ONLY forum that assures judges are not using court rules to enlarge their own powers and circumvent the laws that apply to judges.
Let me go back to your comment that you felt the "judge" made the right decision ... did the judge apply "state law" as 28 USC 1652 requires? did the judge 'disqualify' as 28 USC 455 mandates because the controversy involves "judicial/lawyer/Bar misconduct"? Did the judge use court rules to 'enlarge, modify, abridge' substantive rights? When I read the order it was clear to me that my "grievance" was never addressed nor were the laws that apply to defendants cited to justify their conduct ... so what makes the judge's order 'right'? And now isn't it doomed to appeal where another judge will be judging the first judge? It is all a circular scheme, that violates the statues cited, so "judges" control "outcomes" and the rights of the parties.
Regards,Bill Scheidlerchief activist at www.corruptwash.comFuture Candidate for WA State Legislature http://corruptwash.com/2016/05/20/activist-enters-race-for-washington-state-representative-26th-district/
From: Walt Tuvell <walt....@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 9:40 AM
Walt Tuvell
Namely: You made a jury demand in a civil case (Amend 7, FRCP 38), and you would've gotten it, except for the fact that you didn't survive summary judgment (FRCP 56), as authorized by the REA (28 USC §2072). And this is only the Fed part of it: you're not-at-all-clear how WA state law plays into this, though you apparently think it does, because you mumble something about 28 USC §1652. And, I'll be damned if I know how the Disqualification Statute, 28 USC §455 comes into it.
In other words: There are a lot of "moving parts" here (above, echoing the 3 bullet points I made earlier), by your own telling, and THAT'S what makes it "complicated".
Unless you can tease apart this multiplicity, and make an intelligible argument about it all (as opposed to "merely quoting/handwaving high-level catch-phrases, sometimes of your own making, and skipping the 'intermediate logic/wisdom' of the intervening decades/centuries"), then you're going to get nowhere with your appeal. Just as you got nowhere with your case at the (Fed) district court.
Basically: if you can't explain it to a sympathetic audience like the present one, then you'll certainly have no chance in the courts, either. And hence, nobody is going to come forward with an amicus for you.
So, tell us, "in 25 words or less": What the hell are you talking about? You claim your "one paragraph" is the "total argument". But it's not. It's nonsense.
It seems this should be much more simple a task .... It isn't about my case, it is about the rule of law.
When a jury is demanded, as I made a jury demand, it is the jury (i.e., the People) who then exercise their plenary powers! If a judge denies a jury so he can employ his court rule powers to decide what the People are asked to decide, he/she is using court rules to modify, enlarge, abridge a constitutional rights that are mine and the Peoples. This then results in a "institutional conflict" because an 'appeal' is the only mechanism to attack a judges orders -- i.e., judges-judging-judges. This institutional conflict is prohibited by 28 USC 455 and 28 USC 2072(b).
This one paragraph could be the total argument made by an amicus. Why must it be more complicated?
Regards,Bill Scheidlerchief activist at www.corruptwash.comFuture Candidate for WA State Legislature http://corruptwash.com/2016/05/20/activist-enters-race-for-washington-state-representative-26th-district/
From: Walt Tuvell <walt....@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:08 AM
To: Bill Scheidler; drrco...@judicial-discipline-reform.org; janet_c...@yahoo.com; lgca...@yahoo.com; edi...@lawfulpath.com; b...@bobhurt.com; rod_s...@hotmail.com; kendit...@yahoo.com; Bo...@nkmr.org; brendamp...@gmail.com; a...@bsolaw.com; georgemcd...@gmail.com; mir...@aol.com; lfru...@gmail.com; dragonfl...@hotmail.com; el...@hush.com; busi...@isidororodriguez.com; Dave...@live.com; wiza...@dialup4less.com; zambon...@hotmail.com; gal...@yahoo.com; predestin...@gmail.com; kel...@aaapg.net; micke...@gmail.com; neilpr...@gmail.com; u.dow...@lycos.com; edl...@yahoo.com; ad1...@hotmail.com; pcast...@gmail.com; stanca...@gmail.com; ter...@comcast.net; andrea.o...@gmail.com; bsto...@gmail.com; cynthi...@gmail.com; a...@truedemocracy.net; a_art...@yahoo.com; edi...@highcountryjournal.com; brawleym...@yahoo.com; ralphger...@gmail.com; olla...@gmail.com; johnti...@live.co.uk; corde...@yahoo.com; Dr.Richard....@verizon.net
Walt Tuvell
Walt,
I think you misread 28 USC 455, 28 USC 2072(b). And I don't think you feel that 'judges-judging-judges' violates these laws. If you believe judges are kings, can give themselves whatever power they want, and then decided if they have complied with their own claims of power, then you will likely need far more than what I've provided or can provide.
However, if judges must comply with the law and NOT engineer a scheme by which judges end up judging judges and deciding for themselves the power which they grant themselves, then a "jury" (UNLESS WAIVED) is the ONLY forum which will alleviate this unlawful scenario. It is on THIS POINT that an amicus brief is requested.
Nothing else needs to be addressed by an amicus (unless you want).
Regards,Bill Scheidlerchief activist at www.corruptwash.comFuture Candidate for WA State Legislature http://corruptwash.com/2016/05/20/activist-enters-race-for-washington-state-representative-26th-district/
From: Walt Tuvell <walt....@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 1:32 PM
Walt Tuvell
To say you "prevailed in your first appeal" is total, utter, and complete double-talk/nonsense/gibberish. Period.
Not everyone thinks its nonsense. In my first appeal to the 9th circuit, which included 28 USC 455 argument, I prevailed -- the 9th identified where I failed to note facts to support a 28 USC 455 argument - now I'm citing facts and law, see docket 1-1, pages 1-5, attached previously and here again. An amicus brief on this issue would add more weight to the argument. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2790017/william-scheidler-v-james-avery/
Regards,Bill Scheidlerchief activist at www.corruptwash.comFuture Candidate for WA State Legislature http://corruptwash.com/2016/05/20/activist-enters-race-for-washington-state-representative-26th-district/
From: Walt Tuvell <walt....@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 1:47 PM