posted by Edward Johnston the Democracy the devil prove me wrong as file I have done to the gov, and elected and public servants ,,, jay smith my brother in-law Portland Oregon 14 yr old boy more to the lawful facts hear anciently killed my brother Jay Smith the fraud of law measure 11 the crime of the Americans Quo Warranto https://youtube/watch?v=WyXteb01PAQ&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop look the crime up of democracy the devil contractors proven court record prove me wrong peace ad god bless Jesus oregontrackers ... come in peace IN THE 17th ADMINASTRATION CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON CORPRATION Public Notice and criminal complaint living life man Victim edward malone johnston VS. Acting judge Thomas Brandford ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No: ____________ CR _12-279 Clerk of Court: ________________________Judge: ___omb____CASE #131799--DA case# 12-279 public demand and notice to Recuse acting judge Thomas Branford on His criminal action including all administration judges Please submit your re-insurance policy number and name of the insurer along with all necessary claim forms. Also provide you error and omissions policy number and name of insurer along with all necessary claim forms. Comes the Victim of piracy. kidnaping , assault , contamination , edward -malone :johnston for the fact that his acting Honor Thomas is not capable of maintaining the appearance of impropriety. 1.9 Rule 1.9 Conflict of Interest: Former Client Cannon 3(1). Plaintiff relies on the authority provided by the Western District Court of Appeals in 1999: Robin Farms Inc. v. Bartholomoe, 989 S.W.2d 238 (Mo.App. S.D. 04/06/1999) Although authorizing a change of Judge for cause, Rule 51.05(d) does not provide guidance as to what qualifies as cause, requiring a Judge to recuse; consequently, we turn to section 476.180 and Rule 2, Canon 3D of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which do. Section 476.180 provides that [n]o Judge of any court of record, who is interested in any suit or related to either party, or who shall have been of counsel in any suit or proceeding pending before him, shall, without the express consent of the parties thereto, sit on the trial or determination thereof. The specific instances delineated in the statute have no application here. Hence, we turn to Rule 2, Canon 3D. [50] Rule 2, Canon 3D provides, in pertinent part, as follows: [51] D. Recusal [52] (1) A Judge should recuse in a proceeding in which the Judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where the Judge: [53] (a) has a personal bias or prejudice concerning the proceeding; [54] (b) served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, . . . ; [55] (c) knows that the Judge . . . has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding . . . ; [56] (d) or a spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: [57] (i) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; [58] (ii) is known by the Judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; [59] (iii) is to the Judges knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding . . . . [60] None of the specified instances found in the rule apply in this case. However, the phrase including but not limited to signifies that a Judges duty to disqualify is not limited to the instances specified in the rule. State ex rel. Wesolich v. Goeke, 794 S.W.2d 692, 698 (Mo. App. 1990). No guidelines or canons could set forth standards which would deal with every conceivable motion which might be filed by a party. State v. Cruz, 517 A.2d 237, 241 n.1 (R.I. 1986). Consequently, the Code does not provide specific guidelines as to how to determine what factual situations would fall under the including but not limited to language of Rule 2, Canon 3D(1). The determination must be made on a case-by-case basis. [61] It is well settled that a Judge, pursuant to Rule 2, Canon 3D(1) and in accordance with Rule 2, Canons 2 and 3(C), which provide that he or she should avoid the appearance of impropriety and shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice, respectively, must recuse in any proceeding in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned by reason of actual bias and prejudice or an appearance of impropriety. State v. Nicklasson, 967 S.W.2d 596, 605 (Mo. banc 1998), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 119 S. Ct. 549, 142 L. Ed. 2d 457; State v. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d 313, 321 (Mo. banc 1996), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 118 S. Ct. 149, 139 L. Ed. 2d 95 (1997); State v. Smulls, 935 S.W.2d 9, 16-17 (Mo. banc 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1254, 117 S. Ct. 2415, 138 L. Ed. 2d 180 (1997); State v. Taylor, 929 S.W.2d 209, 220 (Mo. banc 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1152, 117 S. Ct. 1088, 137 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1997); State v. Nunley, 923 S.W.2d 911, 918 (Mo. banc 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1094, 117 S. Ct. 772, 136 L. Ed. 2d 717 (1997). There is a presumption that a trial Judge would not undertake to preside over a case where his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Kinder, 942 S.W.2d at 321. However, under the Code this presumption is rebutted, requiring a Judge to recuse himself or herself, with or without an application, where there is actual bias and prejudice, or an appearance of impropriety. Rule 2, Canon 3D(1); Kinder, 942 S.W.2d at 321; State v. Novak, 949 S.W.2d 168, 170 (Mo. App. 1997); State v. Lee, 948 S.W.2d 627, 629 (Mo. App. 1997). [62] Under Rule 2, Canon 3D(1), the test for determining disqualification is whether a reasonable person would have factual grounds to doubt the impartiality of the court. The term reasonable person is nterchangeable with the terms objective onlooker and disinterested bystander. Hayne4s v. State, 937 S.W.2d 199, 203 (Mo. banc 1996). Statutes at Large 1789-1875 are also available at the Library of Congress ... Vol. 17, 1871-73 (55MB) Vol. 18, 1873-75 ... Vol. 62, 1948 (103MB) Vol. 63, 1949 ... Supreme courts ruled Without Corpus delicti there can be no crime “In every prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”, i.e., the body or elements of the crime.” People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185. •In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.]. • •denied Bonds and oath of office ORS 221.903 Chapter 221 As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury. People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793. Defendants have property and I want it back. title 18 241 - 242 The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a natural individual entitled to relief is entitled to free access to its judicial tribunals and public offices in every State in the Union (2 Black 620, see also Crandell v. Nevada, 6 Wall 35. Plaintiff should not be charged fees, or costs for the lawful and constitutional right to petition this court in this matter in which he is entitled to relief, as it appears that the filing fee rule was originally implemented for fictions and subjects of the State and should not be applied to the Plaintiff who is a natural individual and entitled to relief. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43] Denied the video tapes of my heart attack in jail June 5th true the 7th 2013 covering up attempt on my life, Unlawful Property taxes collections filing September 11 2013 in this matter; the injured party edward- malone: johnston must request for his life that the Thomas Branford having not received any stipulation on the part of the defendant must request the Thomas Branford plausibility upon his own knowledge involvement added in the conspiracy with others who has had Edward Malone Johnston kidnap held 2500.00 and 7500.000 total of for total to date $10000.00 Cash of my resources I DEMAND back .plus damages including Jailers AKA co-conspirators taking my liberty by forced against my will. Putting me in a jail cell with tom keene 8-26-1958 of Otis Oregon with highly infective with hepatices C and other contamination threating to my life as I WITTENSE THE CRUELITY OF JAILERS inhuman treatment, refusing to sappily toms oxygen in a timely manner , tom and Edward were put in a single cell enclosed jail cell. Their was Blood was or still is all over the single cell walls, ceiling floors and doors, bedding. My ransom was paid by 5pm. I was NOT LET OUT UNTILL 10PM / I believe to make sure I was contaminated. to collect the interest of my birth certificate commit identity fraud . This MAN Thomas Branford has personal knowledge and the destruction of my family in 2004 after I recalled the Lincoln county school board 2002, I also including was 0f knowledge odfw patty burke lied Oregonians in the 2004 Oregon coast subsistence fishers to only put the lawful AMERICANS RIGHTS TO FEED THIER FALILEYS to make life a privilege.including county commissioner Terry Thomson, Doug hunt I recalled in 2002 Lincoln county school board, Bill hall former news manager Yaquina Bay Communications. senator arnie roblan, has present of knowledge of the crimes that have been committed including /house david gomberg other members are WERE OF THE CRIMES THAT HAVE BEEN COMMITED, Brian Timmy 1622 n nye, witness to the crime,. In alternative requests that the recuse pursuant to Rule 51.05 for cause. (U.C.C. 1-308 All Rights Reserved a man, edward-malone:johnston (Non-corporation) P.A.G. OFFICE OF GRANTOR/SETTLER FOR THE: [EDWARD MALONE JOHNSTON], [EDWARD JOHNSTON],[EDWARD MALONE JOHNSTONII] et al, TRUST C/O 1540 N NYE STREET Oregon Territory [97391-9998] Phone 5413361233 Fax: 5413361233 Respectfully Submitted by the injured party edward-malone:johnston C/0 1540 n nye street Oregon territory Autograph _____________________________________________ Reply, Reply All or CIRCUIT COURT A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court of Cook County is a criminal enterprise. U.S. v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985). The United States Supreme Court recently acknowledged the judicial corruption in Cook County, when it stated that Judge Maloney was one of many dishonest judges exposed and convicted through Operation Greylord, a labyrinthine federal investigation of judicial corruption in Chicago. Bracey v. Gramley, case No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997). Since judges who do not report the criminal activities of other judges become principals in the criminal activity, 18 U.S.C. Section 1, and since no judges have reported the criminal activity of the judges who have been convicted, the other judges are as guilty as the convicted judges. The criminal activities that the Federal Courts found in the Circuit Court of Cook County still exist, and are today under the care, custody and control of Judge Greylord II (Chief Judge Donald OConnell). The Circuit Court of Cook County remains a criminal enterprise. JUDICIAL IMMUNITY Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act, or for their administrative/ministerial duties. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is then not performing a judicial act, he is performing a ministerial act. Judicial immunity does not exist for judges who engage in criminal activity, for judges who connive with, aid and abet the criminal activity of another judge, or to a judge for damages sustained by a person who has been harmed by the judges connivance with, aiding and abeting, another judges criminal activity.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 11:23:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015