DAVID MARTIN PRICE

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: ___________________________

HON. JUDGE KATHRYN H. VRATIL, in her

Official capacity as Chief

Judge for the United States District Court

for the District of Kansas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Defendant,

PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST

THE HON. KATHRYN H. VRATIL, AND THE

U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS, et al.

[Pursuant to FRCP Rule 65et seq.]

COMES NOW on this 17day of April 2009, the Plaintiff David Martin Price, appearing as a Pro Se Litigant, is filing a Petition for injunctive relief against the Hon. Kathryn H. Vratil, in her official capacity as Chief judge for the United States District Court for the District of Kansas and United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The Petition for injunctive relief is as follows:

1). The Plaintiff makes this petition for injunctive relief under the 1^st and 6^th Amendment of the United States Constitution, to redress grievances against the government in a proper venue and forum, without the chill effect, or interference by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with State of Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al.

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

This Court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction as the parties are either resident in the state of Kansas, work in the state of Kansas, or are an entity or business within the state of Kansas.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1). The Plaintiff is the victim of ongoing wrongful acts by state actors, under the color of law, in violation of his federally guaranteed constitutional rights, by United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with State of Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al.

2). The Plaintiff is a class of one under 42 USC § 1981 subjected to discriminatory animus by United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with State of Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al. [see ref Kansas Supreme Court Decision on Kansas Supreme Court Case # No. 96,481]

3). The Plaintiff has been prevented from work in interstate commerce including his right to prepare documents for litigants recognized by the U.S.D.O.J. [see ref Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice letter dated 02/04/05 on unauthorized practice of law]

4). This corruption continues by and through corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with state officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., even though the legislature refused to pass on unconstitutional law against these acts.

5). These corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with state officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., are now attempting to unlawfully take the Plaintiff’s second child, in a corrupt scheme to obtain federal funds, as well as, violate federal and state laws in terminating parental rights to Kansas children.

6). A class of thousands of Kansas Parents would benefit from the Plaintiff seeking justice under the civil rights laws in this Federal action.

7). The Plaintiff is not an attorney, and cannot represent a class.

8). These corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas Officials, actors, agents, and subcontracted agents, et al. subvert Federal Law by extorting Kansas’s license attorneys, with disbarment and retaliating against process servers, and witnesses, and civil rights actors. [see ref Attach 1]

9). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., have retaliated by unlawfully disbarring Bret D. Landrith for representation of the Plaintiff in an appeal of an illegal Adoption case. [see reference Shawnee County case numbers, 01 A 48, and 04 A 03, Kansas Appellant case numbers 90,035, and 97,099, Kansas Supreme Court case number 90,035] In re: Bret D. Landrith: PA 8893 and PA 9076

10). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., have prevented Donna Huffman from taking the bar due to her prevailing against Kansas SRS, in the Shawnee County state court ruling by the Honorable David E. Bruns under similar SRS misconduct experienced by the Plaintiff.

11). The African American Frank Kirtdoll, an associate of Plaintiff’s, was abused by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas and unable to obtain justice against the City of Topeka, Kansas because he did not have a lawyer even though he had colorable claims.

12). Frank Kirtdoll is the person referred by Magistrate O’Hara in the Kansas District Court when Magistrate O’Hara abused Bret Landrith for representing James Bolden’s civil rights claim. http://www.medicalsupplychain.com/pdf%5CBolden%20Hearing.wav

13). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., have retaliated against the Plaintiffs associate Janice Lynn King for serving process in the Plaintiffs Federal litigations.

14). The retaliation against Janice Lynn King in Shawnee County District Court Case No. 99D2559 is as follows;

a). Interfering with parental time of her children.

b). Interfering with custody of her children.

c). Interference of child support owed to Janice Lynn King, by order of the court, for over four years.

c). Interfering with Janice Lynn Kings ability for interstate commerce to make money for preparation of documents for victims in other states as per letter from U.S.D.O.J. and [Attachment 1 & 2]

15). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., unlawfully extort licensed attorneys to deprive Kansas Citizens of the representation of their choosing, as guaranteed by law.

16). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., unlawfully extort licensed attorneys in any opposition against the state or state actors who bring out or attempt to address violations of laws, rules, ethics, procedures, protocol, etc. by these corrupt Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al. [see Attach 1]

17). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., also caused the Plaintiffs other attorney [Craig Collins] to be compromised and once again deprive the Plaintiff of a fair representation under the color of law. [see ref 08JC000201, and Attach 1]

18). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., also caused the Plaintiff to be charged in Shawnee County case no 03 TR 3740, for a traffic violation when the Plaintiff was exempt by law, for any traffic violation under KSA 48-252et seq., due to the fact that the incident occurred within the perimeters and rules of a Military Movement. The Plaintiff found out the actions against him was due to the state’s not wanting to jeopardize or surrender any portion of Federal Highway funds allocated to the state of Kansas under the provisions of Homeland Security under the circumstances of the events, in which created this matter.

19). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., also caused the Plaintiff’s attorney [Craig Collins] to limit his representation, so that SRS, and the States subcontracted agencies could profit off of federal Title IV funds for adoptions and threats to terminate the Plaintiffs rights to his daughter, as well as, harming other Kansas Children and families. [see ref http://blip.tv/file/1199654]

20). The Plaintiff requires the services of an experienced civil rights attorney of his choosing.

21). This court under the direction of United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Chief Justice Kathryn H. Vratil can only prevent the Plaintiffs representation by an uncompromised attorney, by participating in the retaliation against the Plaintiff, s former attorney Bret Landrith, under the color of state law.

22). Bret Landrith was illegally disbarred in Kansas State Court, due to the fact he brought the African American James Bolden’s case cause for action to Federal Court, whereby the Kansas State Court’s judgment was facially a void and null judgment, also in violation the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the 14^th Amendment, in which guarantees equal protection, under the color of law.

23). Bret Landrith was illegally disbarred in Kansas State Court, due to the fact he brought out the illegal activity during the illegal adoption of the Plaintiffs only son, in which violated every state and federal laws prohibiting kidnapping of the Plaintiffs only son, including but not limited to; ICPC laws, CINC laws, etc., so the state could continue to profit from the Title IV funds for Adoptions, which is also in violation the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution and the 14^th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection, under the color of law.

a). The Plaintiff has evidence of the fraud during the adoption.

b). The Plaintiff has evidence he and his counsel were denied evidence during the adoption case.

c). It was the repeated attempts to lawfully retrieve the evidence guaranteed by controlling Kansas Supreme Court cases, in which caused the disbarment of Bret Landrith.

d). Evidence was brought up in the Disbarment Hearing of two different case files, including the file the Plaintiff was never allowed to see or defend against.

e). A state actor Stanton Hazlet refused to allow evidence entered, as well as, testimony at the disbarment hearing of Bret Landrith.

24). Bret Landrith was illegally disbarred in Kansas State Court, due to the fact he was associated with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has spoken out against misconduct of city officials of the City of Topeka, Kansas, in which is a violation of the Plaintiffs 1^st Amendment Right to free speech.

25). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., also caused the Plaintiff’s associate Mark Hunt to be retaliated against for his association with the Plaintiff, and testimony in a Federal action.

26). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., also caused the Plaintiff’s associate Melvin Johnson to be retaliated against for his association with the Plaintiff, and his participation in a Federal Action.

27). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., also caused the Plaintiff’s wife Rosemary Denise Price to be retaliated against for her testimony in Melvin Johnson’s case.

28). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., also caused the Plaintiff’s harm and retaliation, when they threatened to kill the family pet “Ewok” during a process service, for Rosemary Price’s deposition which had been attended days prior, in the early morning hours, when the Plaintiff put it on speaker phone and his wife and daughter heard the entire contents of the call.

29). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al. had caused the Plaintiff’s Wife Rosemary Denise Price from collecting all of her income from the United States Postal Service federal benefit, due to their act of libel in the Capitol Journal, on the Plaintiff.

30). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al. have caused and continue to cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs daughter, and continually will not address the prior issues they used in the original complaint, nor produce the evidence they used in the original complaint, in which the father has attempted to address several times to no avail, Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al. [see ref Case No: 08JC201, also Ted Stevens case WA]

31). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents; et al. have caused irreparable harm to the Plaintiff by using the UPL as reason for dismissal in Jackson County Court, in which denied the Plaintiff ability to collect on the Whistleblowers Act. [see Attachment 3]

32). The corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents; et al. have caused irreparable harm to the Plaintiff by using the UPL as reason for interference in Shawnee County Case # 07L 017423.

33). The United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas’s officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., have caused further injury to the Plaintiff, by violations of the Plaintiffs due process rights guaranteed by the constitution, in more than several cases, which the Plaintiff can clearly show.

34). The Plaintiff can show that instructions were given to law clerks in the state of Kansas Judicial Branches to dismiss any pleading or case the Plaintiff attempts to file.

35). The Plaintiff can clearly show that the former Kansas A.G. had prejudiced the case by placing in the newspaper [see ref Attach. 2], as well as, on the local news stations the act of libel, and the conspiracy, coercion of the abuse of corrupt United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al. was still continuing and harming the Plaintiff, in direct violation of the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights Sec 11: “The liberty of the press shall be inviolate; and all persons may freely speak, write or publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and in all civil or criminal actions for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury, and if it shall appear that the alleged libelous matter was published for justifiable ends, the accused party shall be acquitted.”

36). U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of State of Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., have denied the Plaintiff the constitutional right to redress his grievances on Baby C, as well as, the UPL case on both of the removals because the Plaintiff were unable to obtain an attorney because of the extortion over attorneys, when the constitutional questions of law should have taken precedence over all other matters, when the law had failed, instead the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas had placed sanctions on the Plaintiff, as a chill effect to violate the redress of his grievances, which would not have happened if the Plaintiff had an attorney and or the Kansas Attorneys were free to represent the Plaintiff without extortion and control by corrupt state of Kansas officials.

CLAIMS

1). The Plaintiff respectfully requests that Chief Justice Kathryn H. Vratil, in her official capacity as Chief Judge of the District of Kansas, be restrained from preventing the Plaintiff from being represented by an uncompromised experienced civil rights attorney.

2). The Plaintiff understands that Civil rights is exceedingly complicated especially to state claim that will survive a dismissal under 42 USC § 1983 for violations of the Plaintiffs rights as a class of one under 42 USC § 1981, as well as, violations of his 1^st, 6^th, and through 14^th Amendments against state officials.

3). The unconstitutional conduct by Kansas SRS, and Kansas’s officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., in which injured the Plaintiff also that has been used and is still being used to cause injury to thousands of other Kansas families, parents, and children, to profit these corrupt SRS, and Kansas’s officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., off of Federal Title IV funds, in which was originally put in place to protect families and children, as a money racket.

4). The Class would have to be represented by an attorney but no Kansas attorney can represent their interests without the above described extortion.

5). The Plaintiff and class of victims are in imminent danger of further violations from these Kansas’s officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., of repeated injury of federally protected constitutional guaranteed rights being violated.

6). The Plaintiff does not bring this action or claim under the civil rights laws of 42 USC § 1981et seq., instead the Plaintiff brings this action for injunctive relief pursuant to the 1^st and 6^th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

7). The Plaintiff prays that the court enjoin the Chief Justice Kathryn H. Vratil of Kansas District Court from being an instrument of the State of Kansas Officials corruption by enforcing under the color of state law, any prohibition against Bret Landrith representing the Plaintiff in Federal District Court in this matter, and thereby restore the color of law to this federal jurisdiction.

8). The Plaintiff prays that the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in joint participation with Kansas’s officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., will not give by instructions to the law clerks of the federal trial or appeals courts to dismiss any and all claims or pleadings filed by the Plaintiff, in violation of equal protection under the color of law.

9). The Plaintiff prays that Chief Justice Kathryn H. Vratil of Kansas District Court and the United States District Court for the District of Kansas be restrained from control by Kansas’s officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., and Chief Justice Kathryn H. Vratil and the United States District Court will not allow violation the Plaintiffs due process rights guaranteed by the constitution, in any more cases, in which the Plaintiff is a party.

10). The Plaintiff prays that the court enjoin the Chief Justice Kathryn H. Vratil of Kansas District Court from being an instrument of the State of Kansas Officials and U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, State of Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., and not deny the Plaintiff the constitutional right to redress his grievances on Baby C, as well as, the UPL case on both of the removals, so that the constitutional questions of law will take precedence over all other matters, and to prevent the corrupt influence of State of Kansas Officials over the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, State of Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., as well as, the law have corruptly used the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas had placed sanctions on the Plaintiff, as a chill effect to violate the redress of his grievances.

11). The Plaintiff prays that the court enjoin the Chief Justice Kathryn H. Vratil of Kansas District Court from being an instrument of the State of Kansas Officials and U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, State of Kansas officials, actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., and not sanction or place the chill effect upon the Plaintiff for redress of his grievances by continuing to prevent his attorney from representing him or practicing law in Kansas District Court. .

REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL

Designation of Trial shall be at U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, 500 State Ave., 259 U.S. Courthouse, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff David Martin Price, appearing as a Pro Se Litigant, is filing a Petition for injunctive relief against Judge Kathryn H. Vratil, in her official capacity as Chief judge for the United States District Court for the District of Kansas and the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, and prays for the relief sought within the contents of this document for the reasons set forth by the Plaintiff.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________,

David Martin Price

Plaintiff, Pro Se

3121 SE Fremont Street

Topeka, Kansas 66615

(785) 267-5132

iffocpresident@cox.net

Plaintiffs Attachment 1

Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009 9:54 PM

From: Craig E Collins craig@collinslawoffice.net

To: janicelynnking@cox.net

Subject: RE: Mary

______________________________________________________________________________

The Kansas Supreme Court’s Quo Warranto / UPL case decision and subsequent activities and then Heavenly’s abuse filling in early April 2008 certainly raised havoc with demonstrating living arrangement stability for the change to take place.

Published Tuesday, December 19, 2006 Plaintiffs Attachment 2

A.G.'s office jumped the gun

Judge's report mistaken for Supreme Court ruling

By Tim Carpenter
The Capital-Journal

Attorney General Phill Kline declared victory prematurely in the case of three Topekans accused of engaging in the illegal practice of law.

On Monday, Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Kay McFarland issued an order that attempted to set the record straight.

No final decision has been rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of David Martin Price, Rosemary Price and Janice King, all of Topeka. In fact, attorneys representing the trio and their association, Pro Se Advocates, have until Jan. 3 to challenge retired Judge Jack Lively's conclusions and recommendations contained in a report submitted to the Supreme Court.

The miscue surfaced in a statement Kline released Friday claiming the Supreme Court "declared" the three Topekans and Pro Se Advocates engaged in unauthorized legal work. In addition, the statement said, the high court "ordered" the three people and the organization to pay $6,550 in fines, legal expenses and restitution.

The court hasn't issued any such declaration or order.

Jan Lunsford, a spokesman for Kline, said the attorney general's office mistakenly believed Lively's report was final and that the case was "a win for us."

Told of McFarland's order on Monday, Lunsford said the attorney general's office was prepared to continue with the case.

"We welcome due process," he said.

Ron Keefover, spokesman for the Supreme Court, said justices would weigh Lively's report and subsequent filings before deciding the case. The court can accept or reject Lively's summary or call for oral arguments of the case, Keefover said.

In the report before the court, Lively found the three people violated the Kansas Consumer Protect Act by performing legal services in Shawnee County without a license during 2004 and 2005.

Plaintiffs Attachment 2

Lively proposed $550 in restitution be paid to the two people misled by Pro Se Advocates. In addition, Lively said, they should pay a $5,000 civil penalty to the state and $1,000 to reimburse Kline's office for investigation costs.

Tim Carpenter can be reached at (785) 296-3005 or timothy.carpenter@cjonline.com.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[ K.S.A. 60-205 ]

The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document in the above-captioned matter was deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed to:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of the Solicitor General

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001