JOHN D. RAINEY: YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY DENIED OUR CONSTITUITIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY!

WE THE PEOPLE are protected by The Bill of Rights and the other amendments to the United States Constitution.

Mr. Rainey: You are supposed to follow the rules!

But you have made your own rules again and again!

Luke 18:25 – For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

I would say: It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a corrupt judge like Rainey to enter into the kingdom of God.

You applied the wrong laws to the facts. We have the right to challenge your erroneous rulings and have them VOIDED.

Like Pres. Obama, you said: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God.” — You didn’t do equal right to the poor, particularly us, the crime victims, and to the rich, Citgo and other big businesses, did you?

It does not require a man of wisdom to tell right from wrong, just from unjust, fair from unfair.

Your callous, arbitrary and unreasonable handling of my Civil Actions: 6:05-mc-02 and V-06-78, two TRO Motions and other Petitions in 6:09-mc-11 and that of 06-563 – USA v. CITGO Petroleum Corporation et al can be attacked at any time in any proceedings because all your orders are VOID ab initio and [There is no time limit within which to file a motion to vacate a void order or judgment. 735 ILCS 5/2-1401(f); People v. Wade, 116 Ill.2d 1, 506 N.E.2d 954 (1987) (“A void judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally.”); In re Marriage of Macino, 236 Ill.App.3d 886 (1992) (“if the order is void, it may be attacked at any time in any proceeding, “).] See JUDGES JOHN D. RAINEY AND JANIS GRAHAM JACK: A GREAT BODY OF CASE LAW CLEARLY SHOWS YOUR POWER AND DUTY TO VACATE THE VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS YOU RENDERED ILLEGALLY.

 Cancer and other illnesses have been rampant in the Citgo neighborhood for years!

My brother and I were lucky enough to have an early “medical screening”, and the doctor detected tumors in our lungs before they spread! Why did you refuse to have Citgo pay for our $250 annual screening expenses, Judge Rainey? Why?

 My wife has died of breast cancer!

It is true that there may be a variety of risk factors; it is also true that she was exposed to Citgo’s toxic fumes between 1994 and 2003. How can you rule out the long-term effects of the Cancer-producing Benzene and other toxic pollutants on Citgo’s neighboring residents like us, Judge Rainey?

Your callous, arbitrary and unreasonable handling of my Civil Actions: 6:05-mc-02 and V-06-78, two TRO Motions and other Petitions in 6:09-mc-11 and that of 06-563 – USA v. CITGO Petroleum Corporation et al can be attacked at any time in any proceedings because all your orders are VOID ab initio and [There is no time limit within which to file a motion to vacate a void order or judgment. 735 ILCS 5/2-1401(f); People v. Wade, 116 Ill.2d 1, 506 N.E.2d 954 (1987) (“A void judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally.”); In re Marriage of Macino, 236 Ill.App.3d 886 (1992) (“if the order is void, it may be attacked at any time in any proceeding, “).] See JUDGES JOHN D. RAINEY AND JANIS GRAHAM JACK: A GREAT BODY OF CASE LAW CLEARLY SHOWS YOUR POWER AND DUTY TO VACATE THE VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS YOU RENDERED ILLEGALLY.

Mr. Rainey: On April 30, 2014, you cunningly banged the gavel for the $1.8 billion bucks, didn’t you?

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

 

* Click Images for judge skipper koetter’s corruption, and you will see 12 photos. Click any one of them,  wait awhile, and it will take you to 82 images linking to my BLOG. Have these given you sleepless nights, Skipper and John?

RAINEY’S 4/30/2014 & 7/12/2010 VOID MEMORANDUM OPINIONs & ORDERs COMPARED!

The former had a delay of seven years after the jury’s guilty verdict against Citgo, and the latter had a 11.5 months’ delay in response to my two TRO Motions.  On July 12, 2010, I subpoenaed him and his case manager to testify at my Notice of Lis Pendens hearing, he denied my requests and dismissed all the motions in one brush on the same date of subpoena service. See PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AGAINST TERRY J. COX, ET AL. filed on September 8, 2009 Posted on April 16, 2012; Suggesting Voluntary Recusal Of Judges Under Special Circumstances filed on October 14, 2009 Posted on April 22, 2012; PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE SIX COMPLAINTS FILED IN V-06-78 filed on July 24, 2010 Posted on April 17, 2012; MOTION TO VACATE THE FINAL JUDGMENT, REINSTATE THE CASE and COMPLAINT AGAINST DEPRIVATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS (revised) filed on October 4, 2010 Posted on March 25, 2013; MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; Chen v. Cox et al :: 6:2009mc00011 :: Texas Southern … Download Doc #18 for the worthless, contemptible VOID Order he rendered on July 12, 2010 after evading my subpoena to testify at the July 15, 2010 hearing with the pretense of attending a judicial conference. Was there really a judicial conference on July 15, 2010? You lied under oath, didn’t you, Mr. Rainey? — The linked documents are merely a small portion of the legal papers generated during my ten-year fight against injustice, unfairness, and discrimination. How could you have slept on my rights since 2005 without giving me a day in court, disqualified judge rainey! Your name is not even worth capitalizing!

With respect to the 4/30/2014 ORDER, it is an error of impunity, an error of failing to find a culpable person, Citgo, guilty of injuring the community members/crime victims’ health and lives and liable for full and timely restitution under the Crime Victims’ Right Act (CVRA)18 U.S.C. § 3771, which provides in part: (a)(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. The seven years’ delay after the jury’s guilty verdict and the $0 restitution order are contrary to CVRA and the Constitution, making the ORDER VOID ab initio, and the judge liable for criminal charge of treason, and civil damages claims by the crime victims.

Your violation of the OATH OF OFFICE constituted an act of treason, remember? You are a wicked, crooked, left-handed, evil-minded, disqualified judge, aren’t you? 

No one ever became extremely wicked suddenly. — Juvenal, Roman poet, author of the Satires. Witnessing John D. Rainey’s extreme wickedness, I cannot agree with Juvenal more!
Rainey did not become extremely wicked suddenly. He has gradually become wicked since May 14, 1990 when he received his commission.

There is one commonality between these two purported MEMORANDUM OPINIONs & ORDERs: VOIDNESS because the former violated the Crime Victims Act and the latter violated 28 USC Section 1915(d). Both were contrary to the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, among others.

I have to admit that Rainey’s law clerks have been very good at covering up his crimes by citing a lot of case law, which sound and look convincing, but are misleading and have no basis in fact or in law.

It was ridiculous to grant my requests to proceed in Forma Pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) without having the Clerk serve all process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) after 11.5 months’ delay. Consequently, none of the Defendants were notified and were not before the court for adjudication of the issues in controversy, and the court had neither subject matter nor personal jurisdiction. Without subject matter jurisdiction, Rainey again committed another act of treason and any purported MEMORANDUM OPINIONs & ORDERs are VOID ab initio.

Rainey’s opinion about sealing the lawsuits is silly and laughable. When I filed the two TRO Motions on July 27, 2009, I asked that the complaints be sealed. TROs are supposed to be issued within 7 to 10 days. There must have been a hearing after ten days. Upon open court hearing, the sealed order is ineffective automatically. I didn’t ask Rainey to have my Motions sealed for 11.5 months. The purpose of having the Motions sealed was that I moved the court to impose an immediate asset freeze, preliminary and permanent injunctions, an interim accounting, disgorgement with prejudgment interest and a civil money penalty against each defendant, as well as the appointment of a receiver over the assets of Defendants. Without putting the TRO Motions under seal, the Defendants could have their assets fraudulently transferred. After 11.5 months, the TRO Motions no longer served the purpose of emergency relief. Many abused women and children move the courts for TROs. Waiting for 11.5 months would have got them injured if not killed. I cited 30 precedents 30 TRO PRECEDENTS in which the TROs were issued within one to 10 days. Rainey issued a TRO in an hour by phone In Looper v. Morgan on January 24, 1992, and another ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons In Heartbrand Beef, Inc. v. Lobel’s of New York, LLC et al. on July 30, 2008; the Plaintiffs filed the complaint on July 25, 2008.  If this is not discrimination, what is it? Why? Is it because the Citgo crime victims, like me, are indigent minorities, not equal to white crooks like you, Anita L. Koop, Citgo executives, among others, John?

Your handling of USA v. Citgo is unusually callous, arbitrary, unreasonable, and conscience-shocking, Mr. Rainey. Citgo’s $2 billion was at stake. The fact that in 2012 Citgo’s executives knew that on 4/30/2014 you would only impose a fine of $2 million for the DOJ, $45,000 for the dead birds but nothing for the crime victims cast doubts about your illegal ex parte communications with the Defendants or their attorneys. 

We both are instructed to lose up to $50,000 today and attend a dinner party with you tonight, your honor!

I strongly suggest that the DOJ and the crime victims’ counsel do a thorough research on the requirements of MANDAMUS, cite Rainey’s violations of the Crime Victims Act and the victims’ Due Process rights protected by the Constitution to have the 4/30/2014 ORDER vacated, and have the case reinstated under Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2), which provides that Plaintiff “may move for reinstatement of the case,” and, “upon good cause shown, the court shall reinstate the case.” When the statute uses “shall”, it means “must”. Therefore, it is mandatory that the court reinstate the case. Meanwhile, investigate Citgo’s ongoing Clean Air Act violations so that more counts may be incorporated into the reinstated cause of action.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen 

* Click Images for judge skipper koetter’s corruption, and you will see 12 photos. Click any one of them,  wait awhile, and it will take you to more than 80 images linking to my BLOG. Have these given you sleepless nights, Skipper and John?

The Violations of Clean Air Act by Citgo and Those of Clean Water Act by Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox & ARPI

ARPI (Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc.) in 1983 destroyed 5 acres of wetlands and 20 acres of fresh-water lake without performing the mitigation program required by Clean Water Act. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), ACOE (Army Corps of Engineers) and the other regulatory agencies simply closed their eyes without taking any criminal or civil actions. The violations are ongoing because Anita L. Koop, et al. have never complied with the regulations. I filed a 60-Day Notices to Sue on June 14, 2007. See 60-DAY NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE (Complete Text) Posted on April 23, 2012. However, after 60 days of the notice, I did not file the civil action in the Federal District Court in that two agencies never returned the CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS. Since the violations are ongoing, there is no statute of limitations.

5 acres of such wetlands were filled up with the dirt dredged to form the

canals in Sunilandings Phase I without creating another 5 acres of wetlands.

 A 20-acre fresh water lake was filled with the dirt dredged to construct the

canals without creating another 20 acres of lake required by the Clean Water Act.

Likewise, I suggest that the DOJ and the Crime Victims’ attorneys probe into Citgo’s continuing Clean Air Act violations in addition to filing a PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS to vacate the VOID Order rendered by Rainey on April 30, 2014 for violating the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and the victims’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

 

 

Rainey’s 4/30/14 Order is VOID for violating Crime Victims’ Rights Act & the Constitution!

CONTROLLING CASE LAW

If a court’s decision is plainly contrary to a statute or the constitution, the court will be held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the judgment void for Rule 1-060(B) purposes, even if the court had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip., 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1995). Here, Rainey violated the statute, Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and the victims’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, making his Order VOID ab initio.

I. Rainey violated Crime Victims’ Rights Act

18 U.S.C. § 3771, Crime victims’ rights, provides in pertinent part:

(a) RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS.–A crime victim has the following rights:

(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused: The victims have the right to be reasonably protected from Citgo’s air pollution.

YOUNG                                                               OLD

MALE                                                                        FEMALE

 

The young, the old, the men and the women living in the Citgo neighborhood have been forced to breathe toxic air and suffer through various smoke and toxic pollutants-related illnesses since Citgo started its Corpus Christi Refinery. 

 

Grandma, I’ve finally graduated from college and got a good job now. I’ll try to move you away from the dirty air here as soon as possible!    

 

(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding. Denial of restitution without a bench or jury trial violated the victims’ right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding,

 

(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding: Rainey’s statement that the jury would “unduly delay the sentencing process,” and the need for a speedy ruling “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims” denied the victims the right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving sentencing, which includes restitution.

 

(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law: Rainey’s seven years’ delay after the jury’s guilty verdict to announce the sentencing and $0 restitution violated the victims’ right to full and timely restitution!

The victims’ right to full and timely restitution should relate back to the date of Jury conviction of Citgo’s crimes in June 2007.

(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. Seven years’ delay does violate “the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay,” doesn’t it?

(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy: The untimely sentencing and denial of restitution without a factual finding or a jury trial is unfair, unjust, inequitable.

(b) RIGHTS AFFORDED.–In any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a). Before making a determination described in subsection (a)(3), the court shall make every effort to permit the fullest attendance possible by the victim and shall consider reasonable alternatives to the exclusion of the victim from the criminal proceeding. The reasons for any decision denying relief under this chapter shall be clearly stated on the record..

 David: Thanks for the bribe! Skipper

Citgo: Thanks for the bribe!  I will deny Plaintiffs any restitution without calculating any amount you owe them.  John

Take it easy, your honor. We will certainly bribe your way out!

***********************************************************************************

Rainey did not comply with these mandatory duties to ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a).

Rainey’s statement that the jury would “unduly delay the sentencing process,” and the need for a speedy ruling “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims” is in contravention of this Act.

* Rainey’s 4/30/14 Order is plainly contrary to the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, subsection (a)(6) & (7), among others, and Rainey’s held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the Order VOID ab initio.

II. Rainey violated the Victims’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution

A judgment issued from a proceeding that violates a citizen’s right to due process is void. State v. Rehbein, 235 Neb. 536, 455 N.W.2d 821 (1990); State v. Von Dorn, 234 Neb. 93, 449 N.W.2d 530 (1989); State v. Ewert, 194 Neb. 203, 230 N.W.2d 609 (1975); In re Application of Maher, North v. Dorrance, 144 Neb. 484, 13 N.W.2d 653 (1944); In re Betts, 36 Neb. 282, 54 N.W. 524 (1893). A void judgment may be set aside at any time and in any proceeding. VonSeggern v. Willman, 244 Neb. 565, 508 N.W.2d 261 (1993); Marshall v. Marshall, 240 Neb. 322, 482 N.W.2d 1 (1992); State v. Ewert,; Ehlers v. Grove, 147 Neb. 704, 24 N.W.2d 866 (1946); Hayes County v. Wileman, 82 Neb. 669, 118 N.W. 478 (1908). ‘A void judgment may be attacked at any time in any proceeding.’

Orders or “[j]udgments entered contrary to due process are void.” Neylan v. Vorwald, 121 Wis.2d 481, 488, 360.

* Rainey’s 4/30/14 Order is also plainly contrary to the Victims’ Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Rainey’s again held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the Order VOID ab initio.

III. The 4/30/14 Order is a piece of waste paper, an absolute nullity.

A void judgment has been termed mere waste paper, an absolute nullity; and all acts performed under it are also nullities. Again, it has been said to be in law no judgment at all, having no force or effect, conferring no rights, and binding nobody. It is good nowhere and bad everywhere, and neither lapse of time nor judicial action can impart validity. Commander v. Bryan, 123 S.W.2d 1008, (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth, 1938, n.w.h.); 34 Tex.Jur., Sec. 262, page 177; Maury v. Turner, 244 S.W. 809, (Tex.Com.App., 1922). Also, a void judgment has been defined as “one which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at anytime and at any place directly or collaterally.” Black’s Law Dictionary; Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., 80 S.W.2d 1087, (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland, 1935, writ ref.); Gentry v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 379 S.W.2d 114, 119, (Tex.Civ.App., Houston, 1964, writ ref., n.r.e., 386 S.W.2d 758).

 Besides sleeping on my constitutional rights and those of the Citgo crime victims, you have been sleeping in lots of waste paper resulting from your VOID Orders/Judgments at the expense of taxpayers, including me. For your information, I had over $1 million tax carry-forward, which was wiped out at my Chapter 7 Petition on 11/25/1996. Thus, I was one of the taxpayers who paid you salary.  Got that, Mr. Rainey? 

Betraying me and the Citgo crime victims may not be a capital crime, but betraying and warring against the Constitution you swore to uphold is an act of treason, remember? Let me refer you to 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason, which states in pertinent part: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Mr. Rainey: You and Ms. Janis Graham Jack, having repeatedly warred against the Constitution you swore to uphold, are guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason, but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

$10,000? That’s 10,000 pieces of these! Or 100 pieces of these! I am sure both of you can afford it, can’t you, Mr. Rainey?

 

IV. Citgo’s intentional, inexcusable behavior is subject to punitive damages.

Even if compensatory damages are nominal, substantial Punitive Damages are available.

Plaintiffs Awarded $9 Billion in Punitive Damages in Actos Litigation …

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/08/prweb12066744.htm

Aug 4, 2014 … Plaintiffs Awarded $9 Billion in Punitive Damages in Actos Litigation Argue Settlement is Fair, Parker Waichman LLP Comments.

“The jury in the Actos bellwether trial found for the plaintiffs indicating that the plaintiffs were due $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $9 billion in punitive damages. The plaintiffs have also indicated that said there is a significant amount of evidence supporting the jury’s finding of inexcusable behavior, which included Takeda’s not complying with a 2002 litigation hold to preserve evidence, wrote the National Law Journal. The judge found that Takeda acted in bad faith by destroying evidence that revealed it was aware of Actos’ potential health risks.”

“CITGO learned within months after the two tanks went into operation that the upstream oil water separators did not work.” “Citgo knowingly disregarded safety. Consequently, the tanks emitted benzene, a known cancer-causing carcinogen, into the air, at the serious health risk of the poor residents, who cannot afford to move or hire an attorney to fight for their rights. Such intentional, inexcusable behavior subjects Citgo to punitive damages.

V. Conclusion

Rainey’s 4/30/14 Order, being plainly contrary to the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and the U.S.A. Constitution, Rainey’s court is held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the Order VOID ab initio.

Citgo’s crime victims and DOJ should consider filing A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS based on VOID Order, which has no statute of limitations. Please consult: PREPARE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITHOUT A LAWYER Posted on July 16, 2014. Furthermore, I suggest that the attorneys research and cite more federal case law to support the PETITION and that Citgo’s crime victims and their family members can also seek damages for their mental pain and suffering or loss of consortium, in the event of death.

Paul Chen

The crimes committed by Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox & the non-existent Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc.

This is just an advance notice.

To be completed soon.

JUDGES JOHN D. RAINEY AND JUERGEN “SKIPPER” KOETTER: MY APOLOGIES FOR THE MERCILESS ATTACKS ON YOUR MISCONDUCT!

For damages inflicted on you, if any, you have to go to the fraudsters: Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox & their legally and factually non-existent Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc., who are the real perpetrators of all the crimes against me. 

This couple, Queen of Fraudsters and King of Foxes, are the foxiest, greediest, and the most deceitful criminals on earth!

 

You are unlucky to have been assigned my cases unless you are really in conspiracy with them, as suspected by some friends of mine!

 

It is said that a certain judge even bragged of being in their pockets. Was it you, Mr. Rainey, or you, Mr. Koetter?

 

Did they bribe you two or you did them favors because you are closely related or associated? Tell the truth, nothing but the truth!

  

 

 

All of my attacks are justifiable and reasonable based upon your injustice, unfairness, inequality, deliberate indifference, and reckless disregard for my legal and equitable rights in handling my causes of action.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

I AM FED UP, JOHN D. RAINEY. “SO ARE WE,” SAY CITGO’S CRIME VICTIMS!

 

160 × 115 – facebook.com

 

Rainey has never complied with the statutes requiring him to perform mandatory duties except 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). On 4/14/05 I filed a MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. He approved it on 2/13/06, after 10 months’ delay.

From then on until today, he has never complied with Section 1915(d), which provides in pertinent part: “The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.” In other words, none of the defendants in Civil Actions: 6:05-mc-00002 and V-06-78, 6:09-mc-11 Chen v. Cox, & 610-cv-00056 Chen v. Rainey have ever been served with Summons and my Complaints. As a result, none of the defendants have been before the court and the issues of controversy have never been presented before the court for adjudication. Thus, John D. Rainey and Janis Graham Jack have had neither subject matter jurisdiction nor personal jurisdiction over the above cases, and they both have committed treason. Under the Supreme Law of the Land, whenever a judge acts when the judge does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, the judge is engaged in an act of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5L.Ed 257 (1821).

Without subject matter jurisdiction, all the orders or judgments are VOID ab initio, and all my causes of action are subject to reinstatement under Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2), which provides that Plaintiff “may move for reinstatement of the case,” and, “upon good cause shown, the court shall reinstate the case.”

In the Order of 1/15/2008, Rainey stated in pertinent part: “The court will not reinstate Plaintiff’s complaints — regarding this matter.”

All the Orders and/or Judgments rendered in 6:05-mc-00002 and V-06-78, 6:09-mc-11 Chen v. Cox, & 610-cv-00056 are VOID ab initio for violating 28 USC Section 1915(d) and Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2), which make it a mandatory duty for Rainey to reinstate those cases. Despite my repeated requests for reinstatement of the Complaints, he denied them without giving any reason. Thus, my causes of action have been equitably tolled.

When I sued him on August 31, 2010, and asked him to recuse or disqualify himself, he refused and continued rendering VOID Orders. See PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE SIX COMPLAINTS Posted on April 22, 2012. On July 24, 2010, I was forced to sue him again, and he could not but assign the case to Janis Graham Jack, who conspired with him by giving me 2 minutes at her lunch break and throwing me out of the courtroom, which she usurped in complete absence of jurisdiction. PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE SIX COMPLAINTS FILED IN V-06-78 Posted on April 17, 2012.

My two TRO Motions were sent to Chief Judge Hayden Head on July 30, 2010, but were transferred to him on August 10, 2009. He sat on my emergency motions for 11.5 months, and on July 12, 2010, without having the Clerk serve process pursuant to 28 USC Section 1915(d), he issued a void MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as follows (See CHEN v. COX No. V-09-11. – Leagle.com | Leagle):

1. Plaintiff’s requests to proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. Nos. 1 & 16) are GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to return the $350 “borrowed check” to Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for a Court-Appointed Attorney (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Have All the Documents in this Case Sealed (Dkt. No. 11) is DENIED.

4. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED.

5. Plaintiff’s Motion Objecting to South Port Alto MUD Petition (Dkt. No. 9) is DENIED.

6. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Removal of Civil Rights Cases from the State Court to the District Court Pursuant to § 1443 (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED.

7. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion Suggesting Voluntary Recusal of Judges under Special Circumstances (Dkt No. 13) is DENIED.

8. Plaintiff is ORDERED file a concise complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 within 15 days after the date of this Order.³

9. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, or any other order of the Court, this action shall be dismissed.

VOID ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS

The above rulings are in complete absence of jurisdiction and are VOID ab initio. A void judgment has been termed mere waste paper, an absolute nullity; and all acts performed under it are also nullities. Again, it has been said to be in law no judgment at all, having no force or effect, conferring no rights, and binding nobody. It is good nowhere and bad everywhere, and neither lapse of time nor judicial action can impart validity. Commander v. Bryan, 123 S.W.2d 1008, (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth, 1938, n.w.h.); 34 Tex.Jur., Sec. 262, page 177; Maury v. Turner, 244 S.W. 809, (Tex.Com.App., 1922). Also, a void judgment has been defined as “one which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at anytime and at any place directly or collaterally.” Black’s Law Dictionary; Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., 80 S.W.2d 1087, (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland, 1935, writ ref.); Gentry v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 379 S.W.2d 114, 119, (Tex.Civ.App., Houston, 1964, writ ref., n.r.e., 386 S.W.2d 758).

If a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the judgment is void. Pifer v. Pifer, 31 N.C. App. 486, 229 S.E.2d 700, 702 (1976).

A judgment entered by a court which lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void. Marshall v. Marshall, 240 Neb. 322, 482 N.W.2d 1 (1992). Also, it is the longstanding rule that such a void judgment may be attacked at any time in any proceeding. Id. ; Drennen v. Drennen, 229 Neb. 204, 426 N.W.2d 252 (1988); Lammers Land & Cattle Co. v. Hans, 213 Neb. 243, 328 N.W.2d 759 (1983).

A judgment issued from a proceeding that violates a citizen’s right to due process is void. State v. Rehbein, 235 Neb. 536, 455 N.W.2d 821 (1990); State v. Von Dorn, 234 Neb. 93, 449 N.W.2d 530 (1989); State v. Ewert, 194 Neb. 203, 230 N.W.2d 609 (1975); In re Application of Maher, North v. Dorrance, 144 Neb. 484, 13 N.W.2d 653 (1944); In re Betts, 36 Neb. 282, 54 N.W. 524 (1893). A void judgment may be set aside at any time and in any proceeding. VonSeggern v. Willman, 244 Neb. 565, 508 N.W.2d 261 (1993); Marshall v. Marshall, 240 Neb. 322, 482 N.W.2d 1 (1992); State v. Ewert,; Ehlers v. Grove, 147 Neb. 704, 24 N.W.2d 866 (1946); Hayes County v. Wileman, 82 Neb. 669, 118 N.W. 478 (1908). ‘A void judgment may be attacked at any time in any proceeding.’”

Orders or “[j]udgments entered contrary to due process are void.” Neylan v. Vorwald, 121 Wis.2d 481, 488, 360

If a court’s decision is plainly contrary to a statute or the constitution, the court will be held to have acted without power or jurisdiction, making the judgment void for Rule 1-060(B) purposes, even if the court had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip., 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1995). In my cases, Rainey violated 28 USC Section 1915(d), Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2) and my Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, making his Orders and Judgments VOID.

RECUSAL AND/OR DISQUALIFICATION

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. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.

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.”).

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 tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).

The above case law applicable to my cases should apply to USA v. Citgo, et al., too.

Rainey slept on the crime victims’ rights for seven long years after the jury’s conviction of Citgo. This is in violation of their right to speedy trial, Due Process and Equal Protection under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, making his purported MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER rendered on April 30, 2014 VOID ab initio.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

Can any judge in the world beat JOHN D. RAINEY by: 1) sitting on any TRO Motion for over 11.5 months?

 Your duty is the administration of justice.

Do you consider undue delay fair and just to the crime victims?

Time is of the essence, isn’t it, Mr. Rainey?

Can any judge in the world beat JOHN D. RAINEY by:

1) sitting on any TRO Motion for over 11.5 months without any action;

 How can you sit on my two TRO Motions for 11.5 months without any motion?

2) sleeping on the crime victims’ rights without sentencing for 7 years after the jury’s guilty verdict;

Are these Venezuela Bolivares that your law clerk is sleeping on for you,

Mr. Rainey? 

Oh, you have dollars for your clerk to sleep on while you sleep on litigants’ rights!

3) denying the victims’ right to restitution without a bench or jury trial because it’s too burdensome?

 Which of these gavels do you use most often, the honorable John D. Rainey?

 

 

 

 

 I have never lost my appetite for money and power, I must admit!

That is why Mr. Chen’s TRO Motions, the sentencing after the jury verdict, and the restitution for the 800 designated crime victims are of no importance! 

None of the above! I like this one:

Sorry, Corpus Christi low-income families and Mexican Americans, you can never outbid Citgo. Why waste your time asking jurors to decide how much you are owed? It might take another seven years. By then, those who have cancer may have died. Why bother? 

Long story short. Not to mention the bid price, can you afford to send me a Christmas gift like this?

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

REPLY TO CITGO’S CRIME VICTIMS’ INQUIRIES RE: RAINEY’S RESTITUTION ORDER IS VOID; IT MUST BE VACATED!

Please GOOGLE judge juergen “skipper” koetter’s corruption photos to get about 50 LINKS to this BLOG!   Dripping water can pierce through rocks. Rest assured that sooner or later, truth will prevail!

Deuteronomy 16:19 — You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.

Mr. Rainey: Even if you are blindfolded, you can still feel the stacks of banknotes and hear the jingling of millions of gold coins!

RE: RAINEY’S RESTITUTION ORDER IS VOID; IT MUST BE VACATED!

REPLY TO CITGO’S CRIME VICTIMS’ INQUIRIES:

MANDAMUS under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 may be time-barred, but a VOID Order or Judgment must be set aside. This statute says an appeal must be made within 14 days to the Court of Appeals following the denial. This is a vague statement so can you define the circumstances under which this is law? I know Void orders would be unaffected but from what I read, Void judgments are matter of court opinion. So far no one has agreed that what they did in your case represents an actual VOID judgment or at least it was never declared Void by anyone. So the catch all thing in this statute is if justice has not been done.

“I think your attacks are the only way that is effective, but I doubt Rainey will suffer much from the attacks. He just ignores them.” 

18 U.S.C. § 3771: 14 days’ limitation is applicable to this Crime Victims’ Rights Act only.

The following case law should supersede the 14 days’ limitation of 18 U.S.C. § 3771: 

Rainey’s violations are against the victims’ right to due process protected by the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. As a result, the restitution order is VOID ab initio. It must be vacated.  “Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 278.” Please refer to: Void Orders: Fraud Upon the Court, No Jurisdiction/No Authority, No Due Process, No Res Judicata, No Laches, No Appeal Necessary Posted on June 15, 2012.

“Void judgment is one rendered by court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in manner inconsistent with due process,” U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5.

The requirements of due process not only include notice, but also include an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way, and judicial review. Grannis v. Ordean, 234U.S. 385, 394 (1914).

Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh, 91US503,23 LEd 398.

Evans v Corporate Services, 207 Ill.App.3d 297, 565 N.E.2d 724 (2nd Dist. 1990) (“a void judgment, order or decree may be attacked at any time or in any court, either directly or collaterally.”)

Oak Park Nat. Bank v Peoples Gas Light & Coke Col, 46 Ill.App.2d 385, 197 N.E.2d 73, 77 (1st Dist. 1964) (“that judgment is void and may be attacked at any time in the same or any other court, by the parties or by any other person who is affected thereby.”).

My federal case is crystal clear. Please read my Open Letter to Judge John D. Rainey and Judge Janis Graham Jack of Texas, Addressing and Suing Them as Private Citizens Posted on June 10, 2012. I count on Rules Enabling Act Rule 1-041(E)(2) and 28 USC Section 1915(d) and emphasize the word SHALL, which means it’s mandatory for the judge to comply with the specific statutes.

My state court cases center on Koetter’s six VOID Orders/Judgments, which are undeniable.

He just colluded with Plaintiffs’ attorney Randall W. Hill, who lied under oath, committed perjury and fraud on the court.

 

My attacks are not entirely ignored. Take a look at the 150+ persons tagged. Read JUDGE JUERGEN (SKIPPER) KOETTER: My readers were wrong! So was I! Posted on July 15, 2014, and PUBLIC ADMONITION by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, (See 1) Victoria AdvocateHYPERLINK “http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2013/sep/26/judge_admonished_jrp_092713_220865/” | Judicial HYPERLINK “http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2013/sep/26/judge_admonished_jrp_092713_220865/”

conduct board reprimands judge; 2) PUBLIC ADMONITION of HONORABLE JUERGEN (SKIPPER) KOETTER; 3) [PDF] “HYPERLINK “http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tx/Hon_Juergen_Koetter_Public_Admonition.pdf”Skipper

HYPERLINK “http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tx/Hon_Juergen_Koetter_Public_Admonition.pdf”” HYPERLINK “http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tx/Hon_Juergen_Koetter_Public_Admonition.pdf”Koetter).

Job 13:9 Would it turn out well if He examined you? Could you deceive Him as you might deceive a mortal? Mr. Rainey: Could you? The Citgo crime victims might have been deceived by you, could you deceive Him and your conscience?

Job 4:8 As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it. Don’t you believe that you who plowed evil and you who sowed trouble would reap it, John?

The truth is between your stories and

my stories. The judge is supposed to be neutral!

 

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

John D. Rainey violated Crime Victims’ Rights Act: The victims’ right to full and timely restitution was denied!

Rainey’s violations are against the victims’ right to due process protected by the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. As a result, the restitution order is VOID ab initio. It must be vacated.

The requirements of due process not only include notice, but also include an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way, and judicial review. Grannis v. Ordean, 234U.S. 385, 394 (1914).

Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh, 91US503,23 LEd 398.

The crime victims’ right to restitution was denied without any hearing because Rainey thought it was too troublesome.

He had the right to delay sentencing for seven years without explanation, but the restitution recipients could not have a day in court to have a fair, just, meaningful hearing?

Crime Victims’ Rights Act

18 U.S.C. § 3771. Crime victims’ rights

(a) RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS.–A crime victim has the following rights:

(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused: The victims have the right to be reasonably protected from Citgo’s air pollution.

 Why didn’t Rainey live with the victims’ family for a week to have personal experience in breathing the toxic air?

(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.

(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding. Denial of restitution without a bench or jury trial violated the victims’ right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, 

(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding: Rainey’s statement that the jury would “unduly delay the sentencing process,” and the need for a speedy ruling “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims” denied the victims the right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving sentencing, which includes restitution.

(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.

(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law: Rainey’s seven years’ delay after the jury’s guilty verdict to announce the sentencing and $0 restitution violated the victims’  right to full and timely restitution!   

(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. Seven years’ delay does violate “the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay,” doesn’t it? 

(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy: The untimely sentencing and denial of restitution without a factual finding or a jury trial is unfair, unjust, inequitable.  

Rainey’s statement that the jury would “unduly delay the sentencing process,” and the need for a speedy ruling “outweighs the need to provide restitution to any victims” is in contravention of this rule.

 

RESISTANCE!                                                  CORRUPTION!

Each crime victim is an underdog fighting tooth and nail against repression, unfairness, and injustice!

(b) RIGHTS AFFORDED.–In any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a). Before making a determination described in subsection (a)(3), the court shall make every effort to permit the fullest attendance possible by the victim and shall consider reasonable alternatives to the exclusion of the victim from the criminal proceeding. The reasons for any decision denying relief under this chapter shall be clearly stated on the record.

Rainey did not comply with these mandatory duties to  ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a). 

The above violations are against the victims’ right to due process protected by the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. As a result, the restitution order is VOID ab initio.

MANDAMUS under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 may be time-barred, but a VOID Order or Judgment must be set aside. See “Void judgment is one rendered by court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in manner inconsistent with due process,” U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5; “Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 278.” Please refer to: Void Orders: Fraud Upon the Court, No Jurisdiction/No Authority, No Due Process, No Res Judicata, No Laches, No Appeal Necessary Posted on June 15, 2012.

Mr. Rainey: The more I think about this case, the more I suspect that you might have been playing cards with the Citgo executives just as Koetter did with Roberts and other attorneys! The difference is that this case involved $1.8 billion while Koetter merely received $5,000 bribe, reward, gift in the guise of campaign contribution!

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen