N.H. HOUSE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES – MARIE MILLER PETITION

Fax. No. (603)271-6689

To: Attn: Paul Ingbretson, Chair.
House Redress of Grievances

PETITION HEARING
OCTOBER 20, 2011
ROOM 303 – 1:00 P.M.

I submit the following testimony, for the record, in support of Marie Miller’s petition.

I have followed this case and have first hand knowledge violations of procedural due process, constitutional rights, and judicial misconduct that have occurred in the case of NationStar Mortgage v. Marie Miller. I have seen the toll this has taken on Marie Miller’s health, life and family. In my humble opinion, this case is not complicated. NationStar lacks standing, therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to proceed. It’s apparent the court knew that NationStar failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and lacked standing, or the court would not have issued an order on June 26, 2009 (approx. one year into this case)giving NationStar 21 more days to produce original loan documentation.

On November 23, 2009, Judge Marguerite Wageling, who replaced Judge Brown in this case, granted Summary Judgment to NationStar with full knowledge of Judge Brown’s order, dated June 26, 2009. NationStar is in contempt of this order dated June 26, 2009 Contempt against NationStar is proven by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) a court order existed ordering the production of original mortgage note; (2) NationStar had knowledge of the order; and(3) NationStar failed to comply with said order.

I witnessed the violations of Marie Miller’s due process and the court’s partiality to NationStar. Due process requires a general matter opportunity to be heard at meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Citizens must be afforded due process before deprivation of life, liberty or property. Marie was denied this right. Relative to NationStar, they are in violation of ARTICLE X, Rule 1002. The court record proves that NationStar Mortgage and Harmon Law Firm have not only acted unethically and in bad faith, but has engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices and has perpetrated a fraud upon Marie and the court. (*NOTE – This appears to be common practice with Harmon Law Firm – under investigation by MA. A.G.) Furthermore, Atty. Joshua D. Shakun was NOT an attorney of record, yet allowed to file documents in this case. His filings in this case are null and void. Atty. Shakun just recently filed an Entry of Appearance into this case on July 1, 2011 which further proves non-compliance of the rules of procedure.

No trial was ever held in the lower court before Judge Kenneth Brown, nor Marguerite Wageling. Marie was denied her right to confront witnesses who made claim against her and denied her right to a trial in this matter.

I witnessed the Superior and Supreme Courts justices’ consistent non-compliance of their own rules of procedural due process, the non-compliance of the due process clause, the blatant disregard for the Rule of Law, the practicing of law from the bench in allowing NationStar to side-step the Rules of Civil Procedure which is an Obstruction of Justice, fraud upon Miller, trespass upon her deed/property, Abuse of Office and Official Oppression, pursuant to TITLE LXII 643:1. The Supreme and Superior courts did not apply the same standards to NationStar Mortgage as applied to Marie Another issue in point, the granting of NationStar’s Motion for Extension of Time in which to file their 3-page Brief. They needed an extension of time to file 3 pages??????

The court’s plain error has affected Marie’s substantive rights, Rule 16-A, Rules of Evidence,Rule 103(b) and 1001. Pursuant to Rule 16-A, all four elements of the plain error rule have been met: (1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be plain; (3) the error must affect substantial rights; and (4) the error must seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997). The court’s order dated March 24, 2011 constitutes plain error and is null and void.

Additionally, Miller’s Natural Rights as granted by our Creator and enumerated in the New Hampshire Constitution Art. 2 and Bill of Rights have been affected.

1. Miller’s right to possess and protect her property has been affected, Art. 2.

2. Miller’s right to obtain justice to remedy for injuries has been affected, Art. 14.

3. Miller’s right to face her accusers and to be fully heard in her defense in the deprivation of her property have been affected, Art. 15.

4. Miller’s right to trial by jury has been affected, Art. 20 and U.S. Constitution, 7th Amend.

5. Miller’s right to a trial as a matter of law and in the interest of justice is in violation of the U.S. Constitution Due Process clause, states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ” Due Process is a requirement of the U.S. Constitution. Violation of the United States Constitution by a judge deprives that person from acting as a judge under the law. He/She is acting as a private person, and not in the capacity of being a judge (and, therefor has no jurisdiction).

6. The obstruction of the administration of justice in the trial court, and rubber-stamped by the Supreme Court, has affected the preservation of Miller’s rights to life, liberty and property, Art. 35.

7. The U.S. Constitution Art. 6 para 2 clearly represents a contract and judges in every state shall be bound thereby and this contract was breached by justices in both Superior and Supreme Courts.

8. Am Jur vol. 16, constitutional law section, sec. 97…the constitution should be liberally enforced in favor of the citizen for the protections of their rights and property.

9. Am Jur 16, sec. 165: Since the constitution is intended for the observance of the judiciary as well as other parts of government, and the judges are sworn to support its provisions (as in Oath of Office), the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or countenance evasions thereof. Further, if the constitution prescribes one rule, and the statute another, it is the duty of the court to declare that the constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.

Despite Judge Brown’s Order dated June 26, 2009, Judge Marguerite Wageling and the Supreme court have allowed NationStar to continue with a fraudulent foreclosure against defendant Marie. Judge Wageling abused her power, violated the court’s own procedures, violated her oath of office and Canons, more specifically,
CANON 1: A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY;
2(A): A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY;

3B(2)(5)(8); C(1)(2)(3); D(1)(2): A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY.

(*Note – transcript, p. 34 line 20-21. I asked Judge Wageling if she could hear this case without being biased or prejudice. She believed she could. – Issuing a Summary Judgment with Judge Brown’s order before her proves more than just biased and prejudice by Wageling against Marie.) These actions CONSTITUTES Official Oppression (Title LXII Section 643:1).

The courts knowingly, willingly and recklessly issued an order without consideration of Miller’s rights, under color of law, and in violation of oaths of office. Judge Wageling lost her judicial function, has become a mere private person, and is liable as a trespasser for damages resulting from her unauthorized act.” Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948 (6th Cir. 1932) aff’d. Lynch v. Johnson, 420 F.2d 818 (6th Cir. 1970). Judge Wageling knew, or should have known, when she issued an unlawful summary judgment order on 11/23/09 that she had committed fraud upon Miller and the court, obstructed the administration of justice and violated Judicial Canons. There is no statute of limitations on fraud. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 251, 88 L. Ed. 1250, 64 S. Ct. 997 (1944).

A public servant, as defined in RSA 640:2 is guilty of a misdemeanor if, with a purpose to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office; or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office. – Superior and Supreme Court Judges are guilty of this.

Not only must this case be dismissed, the Recusal of Judge Marguerite Wageling from Miller’s case is warranted based upon the following grounds:

1. Judge Wageling is in direct conflict of interest.

2. Abuse of Power, Obstruction of Justice and Official Oppression (Title LXII Section 643:1)by Judge Marguerite Wageling who knowingly, willingly and intentionally issued an unlawful Summary Judgment against Miller with full knowledge of Judge Kenneth Brown’s Order dated June 26, 2009 ordering NationStar to produce original documents within 21 days.

3. Miller was forced into an appeal to the N.H. Supreme Court due to Judge Wageling’s order.

4. Judge Wageling cannot be impartial, unbiased, and unprejudiced when faced with her own Order against Marie Miller.

5. Judge Wageling was assigned to this case on 10/14/09 per Order of Robert J. Lynn, Chief Justice of the superior Courts. Justice Lynn is no longer Chief Justice.

6. An additional conflict of interest in this matter is that Justice Robert Lynn sits on the New Hampshire Supreme Court and ruled against Miller’s appeal of the judgment ordered by Judge Wageling whom Justice Lynn assigned to Miller’s case.

7. Judge Wageling should have disqualified herself from Marie’s Motion to Stay Writ of Possession as she is in direct conflict of interest.

8. Judge Wageling’s denial of Marie’s motion for her recusal flies in the face of justice and in defiance of procedural due process.

One more issue. The courts refused judicial review on Marie challenge to N.H.’s non-judicial foreclosure as unconstitutional defying the landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Any law in conflict with the U.S. Constitution is automatically null and void from inception.

Judges involved in the Miller case, including the William Miller case, are directly responsible for the irreparable harm inflicted upon the Miller family. I request that this committee take into consideration the misconduct of Strafford County Superior Court Judge Marguerite Wageling, and other justices involved, which commands impeachment.

Respectfully submitted,

Dorothy Lafortune
P.O. Box 187
Biddeford, Maine 04005

Published in: on October 31, 2011 at 9:58 pm  Comments (2)  

NORTH CAROLINA POLICE WARNED TO PUT THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY INTO SOMEONE ELSE’S NAME!

Post Oak Public Relations
postoak.pr@gmail.com
978 – 635 – 9586

For Immediate Release

10.27.11

North Carolina Police Departments all over the state have warned their officers to put their personal property (houses, land, cars and other assets) into someone else’s name because they may now be subject to lawsuits from the People of North Carolina.

The warning was issued in response to the recent ruling that upheld that the local Police Departments in North Carolina are classified as “private entities” and NOT connected to the state of North Carolina.

Judicial Review Judge, Paul C. Ridgeway, Wake County General Court Of Justice, Superior Court Division, upheld a lower court ruling that most Public Officials / Agencies are “private entities.” Judge Ridgeway upheld the earlier (1.17.11) ruling of lower court Judge J. Randall May in Class v. NORTH CAROLINA, Case No. 10 DOT 7047 (now known as 11 CVS 1559).

The police officers will now also have to fund their own Surety Bonds.

Judge Ridgeway’s September 15, 2011 ruling creates a conflict in the public’s perception of basic government legitimacy because Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr (who recused himself in August 2011) declared in Mr. Class’ 4.21.11 hearing that “the Defendants were NOT ‘private entities’ or ‘private contractors’ “, but were “public officials.”

Are the judges confused ? Are these “government” agencies and officials NOT what they’re portraying to their constituents ? Are they immune because they’re “private” ? Do we actually have government “agencies” and elect “Public” Officials OR do we deal with “Private Entities” ? Is the public being frauded ? So many questions ! So many conflicts !

Here’s some background:

Judge May’s original 1.17.11 ruling:
Page 1 http://min.us/mbmc4SfNoQ
Page 2 http://min.us/m9ygLN5Fe
Page 2A (marked for emphasis) http://min.us/myxFZuE3d
Page 3 http://min.us/mbrIPmoLma

Judge Ridgeway’s 9.15.11 ruling upholding Judge May is viewable at:
http://min.us/mbi7bovuy0

Mr. Class’ filing, that caused Judge Manning’s rambling recusal statement, that was the subject of the Ridgeway ruling, is viewable at http://min.us/m6M40HRrB

Judge Manning’s rambling recusal: http://min.us/muCmadmgF

Mr. Class’ original suit (Case No. 10 DOT 7047) accused the named North Carolina State departments and individuals with charges of Embezzlement of Federal funds from the local political subdivisions, and violations of the Right To Travel issue.

Mr. Class was acting as a Private Attorney General under provisions of an 1866 Federal Act, and was acting on behalf of all People, and political subdivisions “similarly situated” and affected by the charges in his Judicial Review.

Rod Class will be broadcasting live this Friday night (10.28.11) at 9:00pm Eastern on his Talkshoe channel at:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361

Mr. Class conducts twice weekly radio shows on Talkshoe and archives of previous shows are available at the above link.

Mr. Class may be contacted at itconstitutional@aol.com or his office 704-742-3123 for details regarding the implications of Judge Ridgeway’s ruling and the court’s behavior in this action.

The website for all things Rod Class, including other actions he has in play, is at http://rodclass.com. For a copy of one of the early filings that may have caused both court’s consternation: http://www.rayservers.com/blog/rod-class-traffic-filing

Mr. Class has posted all of his filings, and responses from the court, and the defendants, on the Internet at various sites for the benefit of those in their efforts and interactions with these purported “private entities” (contractors), and to ensure that these rulings stay in the public domain and do not disappear!

 

Published in: on October 27, 2011 at 10:17 pm  Comments (3)  

ROD CLASS INTERVIEW TODAY ON KCLX, KANSAS CITY

The program airs from noon to 1 p.m.on KCXL 1140 AM and 102.9 FM central standard time. They blanket the whole Kansas City area and surrounding metro.

Rod will open up AIB Radio and record it there also.

Published in: on October 27, 2011 at 10:03 am  Leave a Comment  

MICHAEL HOROWITZ NOMINATED FOR INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DOJ

DOJ Inspector General Plans to Resign
Glenn Fine, a top internal watchdog at the U.S. Justice Department for a decade, has submitted letters of resignation, saying he wants to “pursue new professional challenges.”

President Barack Obama nominated Michael Horowitz in July for inspector general of the Department of Justice. Horowitz worked for about 10 years at the department, including as chief of staff in the Criminal Division. 

DOJ Inspector General Nominee Discloses $9.3M Net Worth

INSPECTOR GENERAL MANUAL

In 2007 a criminal complaint was filed with DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine. Reply from OIG.  No action taken by U.S.A.G. Office.
 
 
More to come. Stay tuned.


 

THE SECURIZATION PROCESS A THRU D

More good info. Click here.

Published in: on October 25, 2011 at 8:56 pm  Leave a Comment  

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION ACT

On February 8, 2011, U.S. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) re-introduced the National Criminal Justice Commission Act (S. 306), which will create a blue-ribbon commission to look at every aspect of our criminal justice system with an eye toward reshaping the criminal justice system from top to bottom. He believes that it is time to bring together the best minds in America to analyze the criminal justice system in its entirety, to examine its interlocking parts, to learn what works and what does not, and make recommendations for reform.

View text of the new bill.

October 21, 2011  

We will not back down. We will keep fighting.

“This week Republican Senators blocked an important opportunity to make our criminal justice system more fair and effective. They filibustered legislation I introduced to create a blue-ribbon, bipartisan commission of experts charged with undertaking an 18-month, top-to-bottom review of the nation’s criminal justice system and offering concrete recommendations for reform.

Their inflammatory arguments defy reasonable explanation and were contradicted by the plain language of our legislation. To suggest, for example, that the non-binding recommendations of a bipartisan commission threaten the Constitution is absurd.”  Read more, click here.

 

 

Published in: on October 23, 2011 at 10:23 pm  Comments (2)  

REMOVAL OF JUDGES…….

………by state, click here.

Source:  The American Judicature Society

Published in: on October 23, 2011 at 6:06 pm  Leave a Comment  

TOP MAFIA FIGURE, TONY GAMBINO, SPEAKS OUT

“The grandson of Lucky Luciano, Gambino made a guest appearance Tuesday on Greg Szymanski’s radio show, The Investigative Journal on Liberty Radio. Tony Gambino of the infamous Gambino New York crime family said besides Mob Bosses, the outfits that benefit most from organized crime are the corrupt Vatican and U.S. government.”

Published in: on October 21, 2011 at 7:01 pm  Comments (1)  

CAFR1 NATIONAL POST

CAFR1 just got approved from YouTube for longer video uploads of over 15 min.

The following CAFR1 YouTube video is a very good information piece to share with all that you know and to post on different websites; chat boards; News Sites; etc.

It is of a presentation given by Walter Burien – CAFR1 at the 2010 Health and Freedom conference held in Ontario California. Click here.

THE “DESCRIPTION” INFO ON THIS YouTube VIDEO is as follows:

Walter Burien speaks to the health and Freedom Conference in California 2010. Government collective wealth by government institutional investment funds held globally. There is no need for taxation if administrative changes are made in government. Global investment return when looked at “collectively” from local and federal government is now greater than all taxation collected.

It is now possible to restructure government to pay for its “general purpose” expenses from investment return.

Mr. Burien suggests the establishment of TRF management accounts to phase out all taxation for the benefit of the people of this country. The city of Mesa, AZ has done this in a partial fashion for over forty years. From between 40% to 65% of their general purpose operating funds are satisfied from investment return and enterprise operations. The city of Mesa has one of the lowest city tax rate in the state of Arizona for this reason. **The City of Mesa Police Department has its own investment fund whereby the investment return subsidizes most of its operating budget.

Mr. Burien notes through the establishment of TRF (Tax Retirement Funds) the extra nine-yards can be set into motion to satisfy 100% of government’s general purpose operating expenses and then taxation will NOT be needed and then become a word of the past for our future generations.

The perfect point here is that the entire structure to manage the TRFs and performance records to show the complete validity of this happening is in place today from the managers who currently have managed government’s multi-trillion dollar institutional global investment funds which in their collective totals from all sources is standing as of 2007 at approximately 110 trillion dollars.

It is also noted that collective local and federal government’s gross income “globally” from all sources: Investment; taxation; and enterprise as of 2007 was 14-trillion-dollars with that amount being about equal to the GDP of the USA…. The reason this is possible is that government is bringing in a substantial portion of its gross income from global investments outside of the USA (ever wonder why job outsourcing and foreign trade has been so aggressive over the last two decades?)

ANS: It is “very” profitable to our own government’s “global” institutional investments held across the globe.

On a last and very important note: Government “promotes” debt at the front door and uses their own global investment funds to fund that same debt through the back door creating a holding grounds for their investment capital and a guaranteed rate of return on the same.

EXAMPLE: US Government may have several investment accounts in China with one having 300-billion dollars available for investment elsewhere. The state of California; NJ; NY; and IL have a bond issue collectively of 250-billion dollars that is now funded “from” that US Government institutional investment account in China. The headlines may read: “250-billion dollars comes from China to fund California; NJ; NY; and IL bond issues, China taking over more of US” but in reality the back door funding approach by US Government global investment funds was exercised again.. Get it? I hope so..

If a true audit of all US Local and Federal debt was conducted , that audit may just determine that 65% + of that debt held was “self-funded” by collective US government itself…

———————————————–

If you are having a large conference or gathering you wish me to speak at, please contact me and we will see if it can be arranged.

Sent FYI and for your use from,

Walter Burien – CAFR1
P. O. Box 2112
Saint Johns, AZ 85936

Tel. (928) 458-5854

_____________________

http://CAFR1.com and http://TaxRetirement.com

Published in: on October 21, 2011 at 6:37 pm  Leave a Comment  

WITHDRAW OF CONSENT – A GOVERNMENT OF FRAUD & DECEPTION

“The information contained herein is dedicated to the future of HUMANITY.”

A must read! Very interesting and informative. To view, click here.

Published in: on October 18, 2011 at 4:47 pm  Comments (2)  
%d bloggers like this: