|
|
 |
| |
Full Petition on
Writ of
Certiorari is
available
05-1431
U.S. Supreme Court
Kathreinlv.lMcNamara,
Kinsella,
et.al.
Petition on Writ of
Certiorari to
The Supreme Court of
the Unites States
Filed May 8, 2006
Summary of the
Petition
[verbatim
abridgment]
http://www.judgesabovethelaw.com/documents/everyones-complaint.php
Jeffrey R. Rosenberg
and
Daniel V. Kinsella,
of the Chicago law
firm
Schuyler, Roche &
Zwirner, P.C.,
are attorneys
employed by Michael
Moner. The attorneys
engaged in the
practice of
'padding' their
petitions for fees.
Their acts were
aided and abetted by
two judges in the
Circuit Court of
Cook County, Brigid
M. McGrath and Paddy
H. McNamara. All are
respondents.
The judges
supervising
petitioner's State
civil case ignored
evidence and
procedure,
obstructed the
record, retaliated,
manufactured facts
and ignored others,
dismissed valid
claims and defenses,
suborned perjury,
mischaracterized
pleadings, engaged
in ex parte
communication, did
not read
petitioner's
pleadings, refused
to hear petitioner's
motions, ignored
motions for findings
of fact or
conclusions of law,
and misapplied the
law. Petitioner
alleged these acts
were knowing and
intentional. They
are well supported
in the record.
Title 18 U. S. C. §
242
provides that judges
are liable for
criminal acts
committed under “color
of law.”
Petitioner moved the
Federal district
court for direct
access to the
Federal grand jury
to present his
evidence of the mail
frauds and other
crimes perpetrated
by the judicial and
attorney respondents
against petitioner,
pursuant to
Title 18
U.S.C. §
3332(a)
and
F.R.Civ.P.
6(a).
The the lower court
conspicuously
avoided the
well-pled assertion
of this right by
improper application
of the Rooker-Feldman
abstention doctrine.
In an unpublished
Opinion, the Seventh
Circuit reversed the
lower court's
application of
Rooker but
upheld dismissal
sua sponte
for failure to state
a cause of action.
It denied
appellant's request
for direct access to
the Grand Jury as
follows:
"...appellant sought
and was denied an
order compelling a
federal grand jury
to investigate
alleged crimes
committed by the
various defendants.
In challenging those
denials, he persists
with his frivolous
contention that he
is entitled to
appear before a
grand jury to
present his
allegations. See
Korman v. United
States, 486
F.2d 926, 933 (7th
Cir. 1973) (holding
that authority to
convene federal
grand jury is vested
in district court);
cf. Cook v.
Smith, 834 P.2d
418, 420-21 (N.M.
1992) (recognizing
New Mexico’s
procedure permitting
citizens to petition
for convening a
grand jury as rare).
Appellant admits
that the goal of his
proposed
investigation is to
lead to the
prosecution of the
individuals that he
has sued, but a
private citizen
lacks standing to
demand the
prosecution of
another. See
Linda R.S. v.
Richard
D., 410 U.S.
614, 619 (1973);
Johnson v. City of
Evanston, Ill.,
250 F.3d 560, 563
(7th Cir. 2001)."
This Writ for
Certiorari seeks to
test the application
of checks and
balances. It asks
the Supreme Court to
settle the intent of
Congress in
18
U.S.C. §
3332(a)
and to determine
whether the “public
interest” in
F.R.Civ.P.
6(a)
should be excepted
by those against
whom it is invoked.
Did Congress intend that the subjects of inquiry
(judges) be the
gatekeepers of
inquiry and if so,
would this sanction
a conflict of
interest against the
public interest?
Judges routinely
ignore
18 U. S. C. § 242.
They have given
themselves the power
to block all
investigations of
judicial corruption.
It is impossible to
get a criminal
complaint
against a
judge, past
a judge. Thus,
judges are above the
law.
The
"inalienable" civil
right to enjoy a
fair trial
exists at the
judiciary's
pleasure.
For the reason set
forth above, this
petition for a writ
of certiorari should
be granted.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
