IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF
KANSAS
November
24, 2009
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 09-2603
JTM/DJW
Filed November 24, 2009
3:54pm
HON.
JUDGE KATHRYN H. VRATIL, in her
Official
capacity as Chief Judge
for
the United States District Court for
the
District of Kansas
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.
Comes
now the Plaintiff Stewart A. Webb appearing pro se and in forma pauperis and files this action for Injunctive Relief
against the honorable chief judge of this court and the federal district court
for prospective injunctive relief , solely in equity under the United States
Constitution to allow me to have an uncompromised qualified legal counsel
represent me in the Kansas District Court for a civil RICO action I will file.
The
Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief for the following reasons:
1)
Stewart A. Webb seeking the order will suffer
irreparable injury unless the injunction issues,
The
attached affidavit of the plaintiff and accompanying links to evidence on his
web site www.stewwebb.com
show that the plaintiff is endangered by continuing extortion and retaliation
by the Millman Bush Criminal Enterprise which has corrupted USDOJ officials and
federal officials in the FBI and a who are actively seeking to injure and harm
the plaintiff.
2)
The threatened injury to Stewart A. Webb
outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction
may cause the opposing party,
No
injury to the parties including the United States Government and its officials
acting as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise can outweigh the pro se Plaintiff’s
interest in competent legal pleadings attaching the proof to the criminal
statutes privately actionable under the RICO and FCA statutes, the latter for
which the plaintiff must have an attorney and the former are too complex for
the vast majority of pro se Plaintiffs to adequately plead.
The
affidavit and the Plaintiff’s web site http://www.stewwebb.com have
evidence of injury, crimes and false claims against the federal government that
will not be addressed unless the Plaintiff has an attorney uncorruptible by the
Millman Bush enterprise.
3)
The injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest, and
The violations of federal criminal statutes described in
the Plaintiff’s affidavit and web site vindicate the only recognizable public
interest, the enforcement of the nation’s laws.
4)
There is a substantial likelihood that Stewart
A. Webb will eventually prevail
on the merits.
A hearing in this proceeding will determine that Bret
Landrith cannot be lawfully prevented from representing the plaintiff.
When directed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to
file an entry of appearance in SHELIA MANNIX v. STATE OF ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL LISA MADIGAN, et al. 7th Cir. Case no. 09-1468 , Bret Landrith
explained the unconstitutionality of the disbarment on its face and the
continuing bad faith of the State of Kansas actors who procured it through
extrinsic fraud visible in the order’s adoption of Kansas Attorney Discipline
agency misrepresentations and on the face of the Price adoption and Bolden
records:
“The
Kansas Supreme Court decision of disbarment on its face violated the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights. Subsequent to the order of
disbarment for bringing James L. Bolden’s action to federal court my briefs and
representation prevailed in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in reversing the
Kansas District Court’s dismissal of James L. Bolden’s racial discrimination
civil rights complaint against the State of Kansas agency the City of Topeka.
Despite efforts of State of Kansas officials
to disrupt the appeal by suspending me and making me defend my license during
the 10th Circuit briefing schedule and Kansas District Court
personnel refusing to delay the transfer of the record on appeal for
transcripts until an order had to be issued by the Court of Appeals to stop the
obstruction, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision Bolden v. City of Topeka. 441 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2006)
reinvigorated 42 USC Sec. 1981 as a cause of action against government
discrimination and real estate takings in Bolden
v. City of Topeka. 441 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2006). The decision has been
favorably cited by the Sixth Circuit in Coles v. Granville Case No.
05-3342 (6th Cir. May 22, 2006.
The State of Kansas continues to pursue
Bolden’s witness and my former client David Martin Price in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment and this conduct has to date resulted in federal court
intervention[1]. The
State of Kansas Attorney Disciplinary Administrator Stanton A. Hazlett can be
heard on the official audio recording of Kansas Supreme Court oral argument
emphasizing my association with my client David Martin Price and the First
Amendment protected conduct of Price as the reason to disbar me in violation of
the US Constitution. [2]
The state appellate judge, Hon. Lee A. Johnson signed the bench warrant to
arrest David Martin Price on July 21, 2009 depriving Price of his US
Constitutionally protected liberty interests despite the clearly established
law that the state court lost jurisdiction during the pendency of the removal
and the timely appeal of the remand order. Any action taken in state court after a written notice of
removal and before remand is of
no force or effect. See Crawford v. Morris Trans.,Inc., 990 So.
2d 162, 169 (Miss. 2008).
Pursuant to § 1446, “it has been uniformly
held that the state court loses all jurisdiction to proceed
immediately upon the filing of the petition in the federal court and a copy in
the state court.” Resolution Trust Corp. v.
Bayside Developers, 43 F.3d 1230, 1239(9th Cir. 1994); Moore v.
Interstate Fire Insurance, 717 F.Supp 1193 (S.D. Miss.1989); South
Carolina v. Moore, 447 F.2d 1067, 1073 (4th Cir. 1971). “Any further
proceedings in the state court in the removed action, unless and
until thecase is remanded, would be a nullity. 1A Moore’s Federal Practice § 0.168[3-8-4]. See
also, Caldwell v. Montgomery Ward and Co., 207 F.Supp. 161 (S.D.Texas
1962).
Kansas Attorney General Steve Six and Hon.
Lee A. Johnson are both responsible for knowing that it is also clearly
established that jurisdiction over a case passes from the district court to the
court of appeals immediately and automatically upon the filing of a notice of
appeal. Marrese v. Am. Acad. of
Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379 (1985); Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982);
WRIGHT, MILLER & COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: JURISDICTION 3d §
3949.1 at 39-40 (1999).
Hon. Lee A. Johnson was the same judge that
repeatedly issued orders denying my motions for access to Price’s parental
rights trial court and adoption records in In
the Matter of Baby C, Kansas State Court of Appeals Case No. 03 90035 A. I
had been retained in the appeal of the interstate adoption/parental termination
of David Martin Price’ infant son. I was denied the opportunity to produce the
same evidence in defense of my disbarment. Baby C was kidnapped under fraud and
sold to a couple in the State of Colorado. Price was never given access to the
adoption case which unlawfully preceded the termination of his parental rights
despite the clearly established right of a natural parent to have access to the
records to defend against termination under Kansas controlling precedent in Nunn v. Morrison, 608 P.2d 1359, 227
Kan. 730 (Kan., 1980) determining a nondiscretionary duty to make available SRS
records used to terminate parental rights.
The
Hon. Lee A. Johnson initiated the disbarment of me for seeking these records
and for asserting that Price as an American Indian not on a reservation was
still within the protection of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act. A position
the Kansas Supreme Court has now adopted in In The Matter Of A.J.S.,
Kansas Supreme Court Case No. 99,130 (KS
March 27th 2009).
The
State of Kansas also continues to pursue the process server in the federal
litigation relating to David Martin Price and the federal action to enjoin the
bad faith State of Kansas disbarment proceeding in over 7 years of retaliation.
See State of Kansas, Dept. of CSE v
Janice Lynn King , KS Dist. Case no. 09-4109-JAR removed to federal court
on August 2, 2009.
After
disbarment in 2005, I have been prevented repeatedly from obtaining employment
even in manual labor positions. This is despite the fact I moved to flee the
persecution and became a citizen of the State of Missouri. The State of Kansas
Office of Attorney Discipline acting through its state officials has made
repeated fraudulent representations to Missouri employers[3]
including between April 11 and April 30, 2007 during a failed scheme to entrap
me in a temporary clerical assignment with State of Kansas Attorney Discipline
Official Rex A. Sharp and his associate Isaac L.
Diel.
While
the continuing retaliation against my former client David Martin Price in
violation of 18 USC §§241 and 242 is at the direction of Kansas Attorney
General Steve Six, the State of Illinois is actively extorting prospective
legal representation of Price in Kansas State court extorting prospective legal
representation my former client Samuel K. Lipari in Missouri state and federal
courts. See Lipari v. Novation LLC,
Mo 16th Cir. Case 0816-04217, Proposed Third Proposed Amended
Petition at pages 125-127 describing Jerome Larkin, the Administrator The
Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission conduct to prevent a
licensed attorney from adequately representing Lipari’s witness Dustin Sherwood
in the W.D. of Missouri federal bankruptcy court [4]
and of an earlier attempt by the same attorney to compromise Lipari’s
prosecution of the Novation LLC hospital supply cartel.”
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 1st and 6th 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 federal officials, 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
federal FBI officials, 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 regarding his mistreatment by
the Millman Bush Crime family RICO enterprise, 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, federal officials, State of Kansas officials,
actors, agents, subcontracted agents, et al., as well as, the law have
corruptly used the U.S. District Courts for the District of Colorado, Missouri
and Kansas seeking to sanction or arrest 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, federal officials, 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.
WHEREFORE
the above stated reasons and accompanying evidence, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the
defendants be enjoined solely in equity from restraining the plaintiff’s
meaningful access to the court through the representation of Bret D. Landrith.
Respectfully
submitted,
______________________
Stewart A. Webb
Federal Whistleblower
Mail: P.O. Box 3061
Independence, MO. 64055
913 952-0846
[1] Federal judge intervenes in Kansas lawyering spat. Pittsburg Morning Sun August , 2009. http://www.morningsun.net/kansas/x1558727771/Federal-judge-intervenes-in-Kansas-lawyering-spat
[2] http://judicial.kscourts.org:7780/Archive/2005%20court%20hearings/Oct/94,333.mp3
[3] Lipari v. GE et al. W.D. of MO Case no. 07-0849-CV-W-FJG Racketeering Act Number Twelve (Attempted Extortion Over Petitioner’s Witness Bret D. Landrith ) see Amended Complaint Dated 12-07-07 at pages 54-56
http://www.medicalsupplychain.com/pdf/Lipari%20v%20GE%20et%20al%20Federal.pdf
[4] Available online at
http://www.medicalsupplychain.com/pdf/Lipari%20Third%20Motion%20For%20Leave%20to%20Amend%2004217.pdf