JUDGE KOETTER RENDERED VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS WITH NEITHER JURISDICTION NOR DUE PROCESS

INTRODUCTION

The following seven Orders or Judgments founded upon the 7/2/1996 VOID Trustee’s Deed which had been obtained by the wrongful foreclosure of Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. (ARPI), a non-existent corporation, were rendered by Judge Koetter without any power, authority or jurisdiction:

• 7/15/10 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
• 7/16/10 DEFAULT JUDGMENT
• 11/30/10 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS
• 11/30/10 FINAL JUDGMENT
• 4/11/12 ORDER FOR ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
• 5/15/13 FINAL ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
• 6/17/14 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

ARGUMENT

1. It is the judiciary’s responsibility to promote and provide fair and equal treatment to all parties. Individual judges are charged with the task of adjudicating claims in a manner that protects the rights of both parties. See In re Thomas, 873 S.W.2d 477, 496-97 (Tex. Rev. Trib. 1994) (citations omitted). Judge Koetter has never taken his responsibility to promote and provide fair and equal treatment to Chen in all the cases before him. He is charged with the task of adjudicating claims in a manner that protects the rights of both parties. But his arbitrary rulings and misconduct demonstrate bias, prejudice, partiality, favoritism, unfairness, and injustice contrary to the task imposed on him.
2. In conspiracy with the attorneys involved in these cases, and David Roberts, Esq., Judge Koetter committed fraud on the 10-6-28, 10-6-29, 10-6-13752 & 12-4-1596 Courts by proceeding to hear the cases and making decisions without any power, authority or jurisdiction.
3. Chen contends that due process was not accorded him and other interested parties. Thus, subject matter jurisdiction failed in these Koetter courts because Judge Koetter:

1) engaged in unlawful activity, particularly accepting $5,900.10 from one of the Plaintiffs, David Roberts and his law firm, Roberts, Roberts, Odefey & Witte, LLP. before and after the July 15, 2010 hearing. — Is the $5,900.10 to be regarded as a bribe, a reward or a campaign contribution or all of the above?

2) signed, immediately after the July 15, 2010 hearing, the purported Judicial Findings of Fact and Legal Conclusion drafted and prepared in advance by Plaintiffs’ three seasoned attorneys, Kenneth Burch, Carl Haddard, Richard Morrison, Assistant DA Shannon Salyer, et al. without changing a single word, without glancing at Chen’s pleadings filed on the record, and by giving away his bias, prejudice, discrimination, partiality and favoritism with his obvious body language. “It was patently unfair to the Defendant, who has not had “ample opportunity” to argue for or against the findings.” See In re Colony Square Co., 819 F.2d 272, 275 (11th Cir. 1987); see also In re Walker, 532 F.3d at 1311. (“When an interested party is permitted to draft a judicial order without response by or notice to the opposing side, the temptation to overreach and exaggerate is overwhelming.”) Id. The record shows that the hearing started at 9 a.m. and ended at about 10.00 a.m., that the void JUDICIAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW REGARDING DOCUMENTATION OR INSTRUMENT P[E]RPORTING TO CREATE AS L[EI]N OR CLAIM prepared by Plaintiffs’ attorneys in advance was filed at 10:07 a.m. with Judge Koetter’s signature without considering Chen’s challenges of, inter alia, subject matter jurisdiction filed on the record.

3) did not act impartially and did not even have any appearance of impartiality by allowing the three opposing attorneys to approach the bench, by smilingly signing their prepared Order/Judgment without any change, and by not even glancing at Chen’s Pleadings immediately after the 7/15/10 hearing. See Bracey V Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997).

4) failed to recuse himself in the proceedings where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned: Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18b(b)(1) protects the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary by requiring a judge to recuse in any proceeding where “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” “The standard is ‘whether an objective, fully informed lay observer would entertain significant doubt about the judge’s impartiality.’” In re Walker, 532 F.3d 1304, (11th Cir. 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 144, 455(a) (judge’s “impartiality might be reasonably questioned) and Christo v. Padgett, 233 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000)). The judge’s intentions or motivations for engaging in the ex parte communications or acceptance of campaign contribution are irrelevant to the inquiry; rather, the inquiry is an objective one which asks whether the judge’s acceptance of $5,900.10 from the attorney and his law firm that are Plaintiffs in the proceedings before him would raise in the mind of a fully informed lay observer questions regarding his impartiality. The answer to that question here can only be “yes.” Furthermore, Judge Koetter was one of the defendants in Chen’s June 4, 2012 Section 1983 Civil Rights Action, which triggered his constitutional disqualification. See Juergen “Skipper” Koetter: U.S. v. Will says you are engaged in an act of treason! May I call you traitor, then? July 22, 2014 and other posts related to Judge Koetter.

5) did not follow statutory procedure by requiring Plaintiffs to prove existence of subject matter jurisdiction when Chen challenged the court’s lack of it. Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921) (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), See e.g., United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip., 55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir. 1995); Assumed Business or Professional Name Act; 1st & 14^th Amendments to the US Constitution; Open Courts Doctrine of Texas Constitution.

6) exceeded his statutory authority, denied Chen’s 1st Amendment right to access the courts for redress of grievances, deprived Chen of “life, liberty, property” guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution, disregarded the Open Courts Doctrine of Texas Constitution, and violated the Assumed Business or Professional Name Act, §71.201 (a) of the Business and Commerce Code and Chapter 13, Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code by willfully, erroneously, and  maliciously labeling him “a vexatious litigant”, charging him with filing “frivolous” lawsuits and prohibiting him from filing any new petitions in the State of Texas, among others.

7) violated due process in holding the July 15, 2010 hearing by ambush (lack of pretrial discovery thwarted justice, subverted, undermined, and impeded Chen’s fact-finding ability, and unfairly hampered the presentation of his counterclaims and affirmative defenses), and rendering the November 30, 2010 Summary Judgment for the factually and legally non-existent corporation, ARPI, which has had no standing since 6/5/1993 when its Assumed Name Certificate expired without any renewal. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019(193; Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill. 2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956); Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936).

8) committed fraud upon the court by acting in manner inconsistent with due process of law and acting unconstitutionally in entering the purported orders and final judgments despite ARPI’s lack of standing, the courts’ lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Attorney Randal W. Hill’s perjury. See In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill, App. 3d 393(1962).

9) committed fraud in the procurement of jurisdiction in conspiracy with Plaintiffs Terry J. Cox, Anita L. Koop, ARPI, David Roberts, and their attorneys, Kenneth Burch, Carl Haddard, Richard Morrison, et al., See Fredman Brothers Furniture v. Dept. of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202, 486 N.E. 2d 893 (1985).

10) misinterpreted NOTICES OF LIS PENDENS and was ignorant of the 87+ Texas precedents, e.g., (a) A notice of lis pendens is privileged even if filed in connection with a suit not lawfully supporting the filing. See Prappas v. Meyerland Community Improvement Ass’n, 795 S.W.2d 794, 796 (Tex. App. – Houston [14^th Dist.] 1990, writ denied); (b) The lis pendens filing was absolutely privileged, even if there was not statutory basis for the filing. Id. See also Manders v. Manders, 897 F.Supp. 972, 976 (S.D. Tex. 1995); (c) Prappas also concluded that the absolute privilege is not lost if the notice of lis pendens fails to include all required statutory elements. See Id. At 798. (See AMENDED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE BASED ON ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE AND QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE OF LIS PENDENS FILING filed in Case 2010-CR-0234 & Case 2010-CR-0235 on August 31, 2010.)  

11) founded the June 15, 2014 ORDER OF DISMISSAL on the VOID November 30, 2010 Summary Judgment without affording Chen an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way. See Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).

CONCLUSION

Tainted by judicial errors, Plaintiffs’ lack of standing, and the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction, each of the above seven Orders or Judgments is merely a piece of waste paper, an absolute nullity. See 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). “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.” 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 any time 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); City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510 S.W. 2d 141 (Tex. Civ. App. – Beaumont 1973); People ex rel. Brzica v. Village of Lake Barrington, 644 N.E.2d 66 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1994). It has also been held that “It is not necessary to take any steps to have a void judgment reversed, vacated, or set aside. It may be impeached in any action direct or[,] collateral.” Holder v. Scott, 396 S.W.2d 906, (Tex.Civ.App., Texarkana, 1965, writ ref., n.r.e.).

Paul Chen

JOHN DELAY RAINEY’S LAW: NO. 2 IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE ANY MANDATORY DUTIES AT WILL!

John D. Rainey aka John Delay Rainey

RAINEY’S LAW: 4 BASIC STEPS TO SLEEP ON THE LITIGANTS’ RIGHTS without fail — no ifs ands or buts about it EXCEPT FOR Paul Chen’s FURY!

RAINEY’S LAW APPLIED IN MY CIVIL ACTIONS AND THAT OF USA V. CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION.

NO.1 DELAY: DELAY, DELAY, DELAY ANY CASE AT WILL

Delay in justice is injustice. — Walter Savage Landor (30 January 1775 – 17 September 1864) English writer and poet.

NO. 2 IGNORE: IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE ANY MANDATORY DUTIES AT WILL!

Beware of him that is slow to anger; for when it is long coming, it is the stronger when it comes, and the longer kept. Abused patience turns to fury. — Francis Quarles (8 May 1592 – 8 September 1644) English poet most famous for his Emblems.

Can’t you see the fury in our expressions, Judge Delay?

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

Let’s see how Rainey ignored his mandatory duties in 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.

I. 6:05-mc-02 and V-06-78

In 6:05-mc-02 and V-06-78, he ignored his mandatory duties under 28 U.S.C. §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.” He violated §1915(d) by unlawfully imposing the Clerk’s duty to prepare summons on me after I was granted to proceed in froma pauperis under §1915(a).

Whether Rainey was ignorant of “shall = must” or simply ignored it, he violated the statute without the clerk’s service of process and presided over the proceedings without any subject matter or personal jurisdiction.

When I requested that my complaints in V-06-78 be reinstated, in the Order of 1/15/2008 he stated: “The court will neither reinstate Plaintiff’s complaints nor grant Plaintiff a court-appointed attorney regarding this matter.”

Rule 1-041(E)(2) provides that Plaintiff “may move for reinstatement of the case,” and, “[u]pon good cause shown, the court shall reinstate the case.” Since he violated his mandatory duties under 28 U.S.C. §1915(d), the reinstatement under Rule 1-041(E)(2) of Rules Enabling Act was mandatory, not discretionary.

With respect to his denial of “a court-appointed attorney” under 1915(e)(1), which provides: “The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” The word “may” made this a discretionary act on his part. This will be discussed in RAINEY’S LAW: 3. ABUSE DISCRETION. 

II. Two TRO Motions and other Petitions in 6:09-mc-11 Chen v. Cox

By delaying the emergency TRO Motions and other Petitions for 11.5 months, on July 12, 2010 the same day he received my subpoena to testify in the NOTICES OF LIS PENDENS case (10-6-29) in Port Lavaca, he cunningly evaded the Sheriff’s service under the pretense of attending a non-existent judicial conference, and denied all the Motions and Petitions in one single Order. See Document 18 :: Chen v. Cox et al :: 6:2009mc00011 :: Texas … 

According to GUIDE TO TRO and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN FEDERAL COURT 6) Procedure b) New Case: i. File in Clerk’s Office; ii. Will be assigned a judge for new case  and judge for TRO; and iii. Judge will decide on brief or set hearing within two days, if needed. See [DOC] GUIDE TO TRO and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN FEDERAL.

Compare the “two days” with 11.5 months’ delay, shouldn’t a judge like Rainey be removed or impeached? He has been wasting taxpayers’ money by sleeping on litigants’ statutory and constitutional rights. When I sued him, his co-conspirator, Janis Graham Jack, dismissed my case (610-cv-00056 Chen v. Rainey) with prejudice claiming judicial immunity without even serving Rainey summons under 28 U.S.C. §1915(d). When I sued her, she didn’t even assign the case to another judge. She simply dismissed my COMPLAINT with prejudice. Both crooked judges were without any jurisdiction, power or authority to render VOID Orders/Judgments against me and are civilly and criminally liable for violating my constitutionally protected rights to life, liberty, or property evidenced from the voluminous court records. Furthermore, Mr. Rainey and Crooked Janis Graham Jack, having repeatedly warred against the U.S. 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.

This is crooked judge Janis graham jack!Is that you, Mr. Rainey? Don’t cover your face! You have no place to hide on earth!

 

As a result of equitable tolling, all my causes of action are subject to mandatory reinstatement under Rule 1-041(E)(2) of Rules Enabling Act. 

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 70+ images linking to my BLOG. Have these given you sleepless nights, Skipper and John?

RAINEY’S LAW: NO.1 DELAY 2. IGNORE MANDATORY DUTIES 3. ABUSE DISCRETION 4. DENY RELIEF OR RESTITUTION

John D. Rainey aka John Delay Rainey:

RAINEY’S LAW: 4 BASIC STEPS TO SLEEP ON THE LITIGANTS’ RIGHTS without fail — no ifs ands or buts about it EXCEPT FOR Paul Chen’s FURY!

RAINEY’S LAW APPLIED IN MY CIVIL ACTIONS AND THAT OF USA V. CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION.

RAINEY’S LAW: 

NO.1 DELAY: Delay, delay, delay my Civil Actions: 6:05-mc-02 and V-06-78, two TRO Motions and other Petitions in 6:09-mc-11. In 6:05-mc-02 and V-06-78, I filed six Complaints comprising 85+ meritorious claims on and after April 18, 2005.  I was granted to proceed in forma pauperis after ten months’ waiting; however, no process has ever been served by the Clerk in accordance with 28 U.S. Code § 1915(d).

Though I asked him to recuse himself, grant a three-judge district court to hear my two TRO Motions, he flatly refused my request. To protect my legal and equitable interest, I filed notices of lis pendens in the state court, which caused the defendants Anita L. Koop and David Roberts to conspire with Sheriff B.B. Browning and ADA Shannon Salyer to commit false arrest, wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution by citing erroneous Penal Code. On July 12, 2010, I subpoenaed him and his case manager Ms. Joyce Richards to testify at the July 15, 2010 hearing in Port Lavaca. They evaded the sheriff’s subpoena service under the pretense of attending a judicial conference. The truth will come out once he is hauled into court through the discovery process. Meanwhile, Rainey rendered the purported MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER on July 12, 2010, the same day, he was subpoenaed. The VOID ORDER denied all my claims in the six complaints after five years’ delay without giving me any day in court, and the two TRO Motions after 11.5 months despite my numerous telephone calls and letters addressed to Ms. Richards.

Thus, DELAY: DELAY, DELAY, DELAY ANY CASE AT WILL is Rainey Law No. 1.

“Justice delayed is justice denied!” — William E. Gladstone (British Statesman and Prime Minister (1868-1894), and the most prominent man in politics of his time, 1809-1898)

Mr. Rainey: A judicial conference is a special event, isn’t it? How many judges participated in the July 15, 2010 Conference? How come the conference room is dark and empty except for the chairs and tables? Were you really there? Which seat was yours?

Tell us the truth because “The Truth Will Set You Free!” — John 8:31-32 English Standard Version (ESV)

TRUTH PREVAILS!

 

 Where were you on July 15, 2010, Mr. Rainey?

Sleeping in the conference room wasting taxpayers’ money or sitting on my rights in your chambers?

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

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?

Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly, John!

A Message From God: A Few Words of Advice to John D. Rainey, My Prodigal Son New International Version Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly. New Living Translation Look beneath the surface so you can judge correctly. ◄ John 7:24 ►     We are all cancer patients! I lost my wife to lung cancer. My son lost his mom!  Thelma Morgan sitting by her husband’s death bed! ********************************************************************************** “Even though they discovered the problem two months after installing, they knowingly disregarded safety and as a result emitted benzene, a known carcinogen, into the air, at the serious health risk of those in the community.” See Judge rules Citgo Petroleum owes victims nothing after 10 years of criminal pollution. This is intentional violation of the Clean Air Act. The victims are entitled to not only compensatory damages but also punitive damages to punish and deter the criminals for their reprehensible behavior. After the  jury’s conviction on June 27, 2007, the low income minorities have waited for seven years with an expectation of being made whole for their economic and non-economic losses.  Instead, “after a lengthy legal battle, nearby residents finally found out how much restitution they were to receive … NOTHING. Nada. Zip.” From January 1994 to May 2003, the 800+ Citgo’s pollution crime victims breathed benzene  See Benzene poisoning: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia, and were exposed to other toxic pollutants. Many developed “cancer of the brain, nose, colon, throat, prostate, breast, ovaries, and thyroid, as well as chronic lymphoma; various “heart problems,” including heart attacks, heart disease, and irregular heartbeat; chronic sinus infections and sinusitis; respiratory issues, including COPD, lung infections, asthma, bronchitis, upper respiratory infections, emphysema, pneumonia, and collapsed lung; general “stomach problems,” as well as gastroenteritis, severe diarrhea, and a flesh-eating bacterial infection leading to a hole in the abdomen; various mental health issues, including nervous breakdown, general “mental disorders”, anxiety, depression, stress, memory problems, and blackouts; lung, liver, kidney, thyroid, and eye “problems”; and nearly two dozen other health issues, including sclerma, epilepsy, chronic migraines, high blood pressure, fibromyalgia, diabetes, earaches, cysts in the breast and brain, kidney stones, hair loss, neuropathy, shingles, muscle spasms, brain tumor, cataracts, liver disease, anemia, tremors, chronic laryngitis, vocal cord “pallets”, and the inability to have children. See MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER USA V. CITGO 4/30/2014: [PDF] 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN … Rainey Violated the Judicial Process Article III of the Constitution of the United States guarantees that every person accused of wrongdoing has the right to a fair trial before a competent judge and a jury of one’s peers. Citgo, having corporate personhood in the United States, is recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. It can sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons. Having been accused of air pollution, it had the right to a fair trial before a competent judge and a jury of one’s peers. Unfortunately, a fair trial was only fair to the defendant but unfair to the crime victims. And the case was before an incompetent judge, though it was before an impartial jury. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution provide additional protections for those accused of a crime. These include: A guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. Rainey violated this guarantee to the crime victims, and deprived them of lives, liberty, or property without the due process of law.   In the MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER of 06-563 – USA v. CITGO Petroleum Corporation et al, despite his violations of Crime Victims Act and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, he unlawfully rendered a VOID Order seven years after the jury’s conviction of Citgo’s air pollution crimes. Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. In my cases, Rainey slept on my two TRO Motions for 11.5 months and denied all my July 12, 2010 without ever giving me a day in court, not to mention the denial of my demand for a jury trial. In his MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, his law clerk tried to help him cover up his crimes in violating 28 U.S. Code § 1915(d), and Rule 1-041(E)(2) of Rules Enabling Act with a lot of irrelevant arguments. Document 18 :: Chen v. Cox et al :: 6:2009mc00011 :: Texas … The courts only try actual cases and controversies — a party must show that it has been harmed in order to bring suit in court. Since 4/18/2005, I have filed six complaints in Civil Actions: 6:05-mc-02 and V-06-78, two TRO Motions and other Petitions in 6:09-mc-11. Rainey was assigned the cases, but he never had the Clerk serve process pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1915(d), and denied my petitions for reinstatement under Rule 1-041(E)(2) of Rules Enabling Act. Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and justices serve no fixed term — they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate. By design, this insulates them from the temporary passions of the public, and allows them to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns. Rainey’s misconduct is ripe for the House impeachment by the Senate conviction. He was allowed to apply the law with only justice in mind; however, his interpretation of “JUSTICE IS BLIND” is that it turned a blind eye to the rights of the poor and non-whites. The right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury. — The criminal trial was in compliance with this guarantee. However, Rainey unlawfully overturned the guilty verdict by awarding $0 restitution to the crime victims, who showed at least the above-listed illnesses resulting from breathing the toxic air since 1994 when Citgo installed the two tanks without covers, and knowingly concealed the environmental violations for ten years. The above post is partly derived from The Judicial Process The Judicial Branch | The White House http://www.whitehouse.gov › Our Government.   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?

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