Civil 6

CIVIL CASE 97-1410

            CV 14-1    To Index

Leonard Van Zanten Riverside Ca.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT

IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA

 

 

Leonard Van Zanten

Case # CIV 97-1410

PLAINTIFF

PHX-RCB

Vs

 a), The Superior Court of the state of Arizona

COMPLAINT

       Maricopa county,

b)Judge William J. Schafer III

c)Judge  Rebecca A. Albrecht

d)Thomas A. Mc.Carthy

e) Margaret Loeb, State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Co, as subrogee for Margaret Loeb and Samuel Loeb, Arthur W. Vance, & Edmund D. Kahn, attorneys for Margaret Loeb Et, al.

DEFENDANTS

 

Violation of constitutional and common law rights

COMES now Plaintiff LEONARD VAN ZANTEN before this Honorable Court, and before God, the Almighty Judge, and before all men - charging defendants et, al, collectively and individually with judicial abuse, with perjury, with fraud, and with cover up of fraud.  With recklessness and hypocrisy on the part of the court and the judges.  With careless violation of constitutional rights, and of state, and moral, and common law and rights of the individual, as stated in rule 60 of the Federal, and state statutory.

Charges - Individually

Superior court of the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa, Phoenix AZ.  With reckless disregard of Constitutional rights, Moral laws, and Common laws and rights pertaining to the individual.  With condoning perjury and fraud and with covering up of the same.  In general with lawless behavior, with injury, with robbery, with malice, with hypocrisy, with contempt of the law, and with misuse of the name of God.

Judge William Schafer III: - With reckless disregard of constitutional rights, moral laws, and common laws and rights pertaining to the individual before the court.  With injury and harm, inclusive robbery to the plaintiff - by condoning perjury and fraud before the court and by covering up of the same.  And with malice in regard to charge plaintiff not to make a defense for himself.

Judge Rebecca A. Albrecht: - With violation of plaintiff’s judicial right's to be tried and judged according to the law by which he was made to swear in and before the court.  With reckless disregard of Constitutional rights, Moral laws, and Common laws and rights pertaining to the individual in and before a court.  With injury and harm, inclusive robbery, to the plaintiff- by condoning perjury and fraud before the court and by covering up of the same.

Thomas A. Mc.Carthy.  With violation of plaintiff judicial right's to be tried and judged according to the law by which he was made to swear in and before the court.  With reckless disregard of Constitutional rights, Moral laws, and Common laws and rights pertaining to the individual in and before a court.  With injury and harm, inclusive robbery, to the plaintiff.

Margaret Loeb, et, al, (Arthur W Vance law office of Edmund D Kahn attorneys for Margaret Loeb, Samuel Loeb, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.)  With reckless disregard of Constitutional rights, Moral laws, and Common laws and rights pertaining to the individual in and before a court.  With injury and harm, inclusive robbery, to the plaintiff through perjury and fraud before the court.  

CV 14-2

Leonard Van Zanten Riverside Ca.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT

IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Leonard Van Zanten  

PLAINTIFF                                                                       COMPLAINT,  

Vs;                                                                        CHARGES,  

The Superior Court of the state of Arizona,  CONTINUED  

Maricopa county   Thomas A. Mc.Carthy,

Judge William J. Schafer III, Judge Rebecca

A. Albrecht, Margaret Loeb, State Farm 

Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

As subrogee for Margaret Loeb and 

Samuel Loeb, Arthur W. Vance, & 

Edmund D. Kahn.  Attorneys for 

Margaret Loeb Et, al.

DEFENDANTS  

 

 Comes now Plaintiff Leonard Van Zanten, before this honorable Court and before God and all men enumerating the following complaint, charges, and the exposition thereof.

ISSUE - A (Violation of the oath)

Complaint:     Thomas A. Mc Carthy.  When on November 2 -1994 I came in vain to the office of Thomas A Mc.Carthy; this Arbitrator among other things caused me to swear an oath by the Almighty God.  Yet though we were under oath the Court’s Arbitrator himself showed gross contempt and disregard for the Oath or its precepts even though the same was clearly quoted and reiterated before him.

Accordingly, the Court’s arbitrator violated the very essence and ethics of the court in being true to itself and its word.  [Evidence Exhibit E, F, G, I, J]

Charges:     Wherefore; I the Plaintiff hereby charges the Court’s Arbitrator, Thomas A. Mc.Carthy, with hypocrisy and with contempt and blasphemy of the Name of God the Almighty Judge.

With hypocrisy and contempt of the Court (Superior Court of the State of Arizona), and of its procedure and its oath, and the law and precepts which are contained therein, making a mockery of the very essence of the Court and its ethics.

With violating the Court statutes by taking a false oath, and by judging contrary and in opposition to the law of the court in its own oath, which as such is the very essence of the Court and its ethics, as also previously recorded and detailed in exhibits E, F, I

ARGUMENT In the exponent; if I am to be judged by the hypocrisy and insanity of men, why then did they not cause me to swear by their own so called law that calls for men to lie and cheat and be a hypocrite - rather than causing me to swear by the law of God which is of truth and of integrity.  For then, in the very presence of the Truth I also expect to be judged in the same ethics and by the same law.

 

COMPLAINT:   The Superior Court, Judge William Schafer III, and Judge Rebecca Albrecht

As previously stated [exhibit A, B, E, F, G, I, L] The Court on several occasions took an Oath, to abide by the oath of the law of justice of the Almighty Judge by who’s Name the oath was taken, and that under penalties of Perjury.  And Judge William Schafer, as also Judge Rebecca Albrecht, were duly aware thereof, it being in the record.  Hence, the same was expounded to them [Exhibits A, B, F, G, I, L, O, V, AA, AB, AC] Yet they chose to ignore and violate the solemn oath, and the ethics and the precepts of the law and of the court, making a mockery of the Court and its whole judicial system.

And taking the Name of the Most High Judge in vain, they laughed at the Most High God, and mocked His precept.  Accordingly they showed themselves detestable, most irresponsible and degrading, as creatures devoid of knowledge, with no regard for judicial sanctity.

CHARGES:      I therefore, in the Name of the Almighty Judge - appeal to this higher Federal Court, to impose upon and charge the Superior Court of the state of Arizona, and its named judges that they reverse, cancel, or otherwise nullify the judgment exhibit AE, and AF, and abide by the oath taken, in which case the plaintiff in the case is pronounced guilty as in guilty of theft to the defendant in the case.

And should the court (judges) not wish to do so, and ignore the very cause of justice, behold, let it be known before God and all men that:

In the Name of Him who anointed me, I will surely requite them their insolence and injustice to their faces with pain and with regret upon their souls for all time to come, upon this court, and upon every court in this nation, and of every other nation and its judges and counselors one in all.  And not one of them shall ever judge again, or hold any position of importance into eternity.

And if any be found not in league with these but to serves the cause of justice, these will obtain mercy.

EXPONENT For I will not condone the mockery of the Name of my Father by whom they continually swear falsely, making sport of His name, holding the Most High Judge in contempt.  Nor will I condone the falsehood of their oath, which they practice in their courts.  

Listen therefore you judges: If you will judge men by a law of your own ignorance, then have them also swear (take an oath) by your law of ignorance, and not in contempt, and hypocrisy, as also blasphemously take an oath in the name of my Father the Almighty God.   

But if you will swear by the Almighty God, and take an oath of men by His Name, you had better abide by His law, and His precepts or you will suffer grievously, even by my hand as I in the power of the Almighty God swore to you.

ISSUE - B RECOUNT

On March 7 -1995, we had a date in court.  [Exhibit M]  My opponent, the plaintiff in the case however defaulted on that day with perjury and fraud before the court.  Since then Judge Schafer III failed to render judgment to the defendant in the case on the basis of the default.  And this same defendant in the case filed additional charges of perjury and fraud before the court against the plaintiff in the case, a new hearing date was placed for Aug 30 1995 [Exhibit P] which in turn was extended to Jan 11 1996 [Exhibit R]

Meanwhile, the plaintiff in the case, in order to evade the trial date and its consequent charges of fraud and perjury, - with the sanction of the court - utilized (so as to say) the back door of the court in manufacturing a judgment against the defendant in the case, which proceeded without knowledge or notice given thereof to the defendant in the case  

COMPLAINT:    WHY then - with the sanction of the court - was I cheated out of my day in court?  And, were my charges of fraud and perjury against my opponent ignored? 

And why did the court (its judges William Schafer II and Rebecca Albrecht) participate and sanction these fraudulent actions, and proceeded to cover up the fraud that had been committed before the court, siding altogether with the plaintiff in the case as if justice were of no account.  And to go as far as to order the defendant in the case not to make a defense for himself in these charges.  [Exhibit Z]

Constitutional law, (Amendment XIV)) clearly states that not anyone shall deprive any person of life liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  Ditto; Universal law (art 6 & 7)

And what person shall be ignorant of the laws regarding fraud and hypocrisy, or the violation of oaths be it in or out of the court?  Certainly not judges!

Yet why then, with this knowledge inbred in man did the court rob me of my day in court, in some underhanded way abandoning my cause?  Moreover is it not a very corrupt sense of justice when time and again judgment is pronounced against a man when the judges do not bother to even look at a man’s defense wherein the law and the circumstances are clearly defined?

While I had expected to receive a day in court, and on three occasions a court date was set, time and again in gross violation of the precepts of the US Constitution which guarantees a man his day in court, I was denied my day in court. 

And while I had charges of fraud and perjury against my opponent, and a date for trial had been set.  The judges (William Schafer III, and Rebecca A. Albrecht) allowed my opponents to manufacture a conviction against me through the backdoor of the court.

Query:    Is it then common for the courts to ransack a man through the backdoor?  If this be the case, then let here and now in all the courts of the land the front door, its main entrance be closed in with bricks, and sealed off from all the public, so men may clearly see that injustice rules the court.    

Did I not have a trial pending on Jan 11 1996?  A trial chiefly against my opponent for fraud and default?  Yet without informing me they took a round about way, as through the back door of the court bypassing the very trial that would have put their head on the chopping block.  And with the sanction of the court and its judges so manufactured a judgment against me, depriving me of my day in court and of all my rightful charges against them,

Since then these charges included fraud before the court, and misrepresentation with all the evidence being placed before the court, what sort of justice is it of the court to throw out these things, or to refuse to hear them while they were duly presented according to the format of the court? 

This indeed convicts the court and its named judges of fraud and gross injustice, and are so hereby charged before God and all men.

And by what law, or rule of the court is it for a judge (William Schafer III, Rebecca A. Albrecht) to charge a man not to make a defense for himself, [Exhibit Z] not to bring any charges against the person of my opponent, when the same had not only defaulted (according to law and court procedure - losing his case) but was under charges of fraud and misrepresentation before the court?

By in all it warrants me to state the reality of it all, to which anyone with eyes will concur.  That it simply is not done where a colleague (counselor) is let under by a small man who represents himself.

Or to state it simply and undeniably; “There is no justice for the poor, and; that by-in-large the Court honors criminals while it buries the victims.

Accordingly, it is publicly made clear that the common man whom and because he is not financially able to afford an attorney, is instantly at a loss.  His wishes are heard but not considered.  And his rightful claims and charges are simply dismissed, because to the judges (perhaps not all but to many nonetheless) he is no more than one of those pests who can’t afford an attorney.  

And we at the court, (so the Judge’s thoughts) we are not about to let an attorney bite the dust for one of his kind, we the judges are not about to accept charges of fraud from a mere peasant against one of our own colleague, If on the other hand he was rich enough to employ another attorney, then we would consider the case for the sake of his attorney.

This all boils down to; that in these American courts it is no different today as it was in the medieval times, where only the rich found justice, with the poor none, for which very reason many escaped to these United States.  In still other words; the courts in this nation turn only for the dollar bill, and justice will be executed only according to the amount thereof.

Yet though this may be so; I Leonard, I swear to you the courts, and to all the people, you have not on this occasion made a charge against a mere peasant, nor against one of your own kind, but you have brought a charge against the Almighty Lord - in bringing it against one of His own.  You do not know me, though you should have known me.  And what more shall I say to reveal myself?

Suppose you did this evil thing against your President Clinton, would not the people of the land cry for outrage against you?  Or would you even dare? 

Hear then O you judges and you counselors, for one greater than your President is before you, one of whom it is said, “he will trample upon rulers as a potter treads clay."  Shall he then fear for you judges who trample upon justice, and who have become judges of the law rather than for the law?

This you will have of me O you judges, who pervert justice, as I swore to you, I will appoint you as servants, and servants of servants, so you may never judge again, nor hold any position of importance.  Because being judges you abhorred the cause of justice.

And because you oppressed my people, the multitude to my score.  Therefore also when in my anger against you I, by the Almighty God swore to reward you, I applied it to all judges of all nations so that not one of these who abhorred justice might escape.  For as my Lord instilled within me - I do not have the respect of persons, but I will deal with everyone according to their works and to the words of their mouth.

 

COMPLAINT.  Margaret Loeb et al., Arthur W. Vance c/o Law Office Edmund D Kahn

On March 7 1995 the defendant in the case appearing in court, the plaintiff in the case defaulted by not appearing on the scheduled date and time.  Additionally, the above named plaintiff in the case in the day preceding March 7 1996 acted with fraud and misrepresentation before the court.  Making the court believe as if there were a settlement, when the same plaintiff in the case knew very well that such was not the case.  But rather the contrary because of which fraud the date and time in court were canceled without knowledge to the defendant in the case.  Nor did judge Shafer III have any cause to cancel said date and time without first obtaining evidence to the same.

 CHARGES.  I therefore hereby charge Arthur W. Vance, law office of Edmund D. Kahn, with perjury and fraud before the court, and with default.  And Judge Shafer III with sanctioning said fraud and perjury, and by covering up of the same.  The evidence of which is contained in exhibits L, N, N1, N2, N3, and O.

CONCLUSION.

If we examine Exhibits A, and B, the words written therein, which followed upon a host of previous arguments, we, or I will come to say:  “How much more clear can I be, or put it so that men may understand?” 

No, we, nor I have been unclear.  The sentiments clearly define the aspects of wisdom, and why then did these Judges not comprehend the wisdom of these words?  Shall we then again begin to question as if being blind?  Or not rather make the one and only right conclusion.

Or, shall it be a case of malice, wherein the respect for man, for justice, and for the Most High Judge by whose appointment (in the highest instance) they have their seating is at best lacking?

Copies of the foregoing mailed on this day ___to, Arthur W. Vance.  C/o Law office Edmund D. Kahn.  The Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Judge William Shafer III, Judge Rebecca A. Albrecht.  C/o Superior Court Phoenix AZ., & Thomas A. Mc Carthy.

 

CV 14-3

Leonard Van Zanten, Riverside Ca.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

Leonard Van Zanten                        / NO.  CV 97 - 1410

Plaintiff.                                             / REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Vs.                                                      /  For failure to state a claim,

The Superior court of the State     / Lack of service of process,

of Arizona, et al.                              /  Improper venue, and lack of

Defendants                                      / jurisdiction under rule 12 (b) ____________

COMES NOW Plaintiff Leonard Van Zanten in reply to defendant Arthur W Vance motion to dismiss;

Item 1: Plaintiff did in fact state a claim upon which relief can be granted to wit; “Page 2 of complaint lines 3 and 4, and Page 5 of “Complaint Continued” lines 9 through 17.  And for relief on Page 2 of “Complaint Continued” lines 11 through 14.

Item 2 Summons Filed-forwarded on _April__     ___- 1997____

Item 3: a) Case has been transferred to US DISTRICT COURT OF ARIZONA

 b) That complaint cited is not merely nor solely on Constitutional law, but Arizona law, and moral law, and common law as well as stated

Item 4.  Defendant Arthur W Vance shows lack of understanding and no feeling for the cause of justice in assuming or claiming that the price for justice is less than Fifty Thousand Dollars.  For is it then truly so that greed alone rules the court?

Is it indeed so that the term “Justice” is no longer the foremost issue of the court, it having been replaced by dollars and cents?

 And shall this then also be so even in the Federal Court, which presented me with a copy of its “CIVILITY AND PROFESSIONALISM GUIDELINES” (copy enclosed)

The value of Justice in monetary terms in all reality can not be expressed, it being priceless, even as King David by the Spirit of the Almighty God spoke saying “More to be desired than gold, even much fine gold, and sweeter also than honey, and that in keeping it is great reward.”

And also the Court in that copy of these GUIDELINES as I just mentioned, in its PREAMBLE states: “That in its purest form, law is simply a societal mechanism for achieving justice.”  And: “As officers of the court, judges and lawyers have a duty to use the law for this purpose".  And again:     “Unfortunately, many do not perceive that achieving justice is the function of law in society today".

Accordingly, defendant Arthur W. Vance seems to have lost sight of what the issue of the law might be, and should duly be reminded of the same.  And equally the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, which molded the law to suit their own, desires with no regard for justice.

I of course know the mind of men in how they think that the men (judges) of the higher Courts are like unto themselves also greedy for gain, and with no more regard for justice than themselves.  And also how they conceive that there is no God, and that true justice will never be executed but what they can take for themselves this day they call gain.

And accordingly they curse God, and make a mockery of His righteous precepts, as was the case with the defendants of this case - in which Arthur W. Vance (as one of its defendants) was a willing participant.

Yet worse than all of the above is when the Courts, (Men) take up to portray a law of justice, but then to act according to a law of no justice, to act by an abortion of law. 

For this is a gruesome facade in the courts where they make men swear by God and His great law of Justice, but render judgment according to their own law in violation of the very oath they caused the defendant to swear.

And to portray the reality of this.  The judge is seated on his chair behind the bench, and a defendant with his hand upon the written Word of God, swears to abide by the very precepts upon which his hand is laid.  Then the judge with no regard for the oath just taken, nor for its precepts, does in fact curse the God by which the oath was made, and in disrespect and mockery he goes about to judge the defendant according to a law and precept contrary to the oath.

This then not only being very wicked of the judge, but is known as hypocrisy, and most vile and disgusting since it proceeded not merely from a common man, but from a man much higher up in the ranks of society, from a judge of the people who because of his honored rank should by all means be an example of goodness and of justice and just verdict to the people.

Regarding defendant Arthur W. Vance as the smaller of the defendants in this case his crime was to utilize the court and its wicked ways to forge a winning solution for his client on an issue that in the interest and cause of justice cannot be granted him.   

The crime of defendant Arthur W. Vance is; that while he was sworn to abide by a law of justice, and himself having verbally admitted (transcript) that such was indeed the highest and most pure of al to abide by, yet for his own weakness and greed (or livelihood if you will) he abandoned that foremost sentiment of his profession, and went along with and resorted to criminal actions by means of which to get to his end.

REPLY TO AFFIDAVIT

 1 Plaintiff accepts that defendant Arthur W. Vance is a resident and citizen of the state of Arizona.

2. Plaintiff rejects that the acts complained of did not take place in the state of Arizona.  To the best of my knowledge last time that I past through Phoenix and Tucson, these cities were located in and part of the state of Arizona.  Unless therefore the state has recently been renamed or the cities moved the defendant is in error.

3.    Plaintiff rejects that complaint does not conform to rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure.

Reply to #1: Plaintiff’s call is for JUSTICE, a sum far greater than the worth of fifty thousand dollars, and not for GREED as defendant assumes.

Reply to #2: Plaintiff's call is for JUSTICE, and by the laws of these United States men are entitled to the receipt of justice.  For if this were not so then for what purpose are the courts?  And/or why should there be courts?  Nevertheless Plaintiff made his short statement to wit; Part “Complaint, Charges, Continued, page 2 part 5 CHARGES.

Reply to #3: The same reply to #2 applies here to #3, plaintiff calling upon the Federal Court for justice.

Dated this ______ day of April 1997

Leonard Van Zanten (Plaintiff)

CV-14-4

CV14-4

GRANT WOODS, Attorney General            

MARK D. WILSON, Assistant Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants, Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Judge William J. Schafer III, Judge Rebecca Albrecht, and Thomas A. McCarthy, Arbitrator

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN,                       /CASE NUMBER CV 97 RCB

Plaintiff.                                                         /

v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE         /MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

STATE OF ARIZONA, et al.,                      /AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

Defendants.                                                   /AND AUTHORITIES ___________________

 

Defendants, Thomas A. McCarthy, The Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, Judge William Schafer III, and Judge Rebecca A. Albrecht, by specially appearing counsel undersigned, move the Court, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the complaint in this matter for the following grounds:

Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

FACTS

Plaintiff Leonard Van Zanten was named as Defendant in Maricopa County Cause No.  CV94-05108, a subrogation claim on behalf of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and their subrogee, Samuel and Margaret Loeb.  See Exhibit A 1, Complaint; A 2, Answer.

The subrogation action arose from an auto accident.  Defendant Thomas McCarthy was assigned by the Court as arbitrator in that case pursuant to A.R.S. § 12 133(c) and Rule 2, Uniform Rules of Arbitration, and he entered an award for the Loeb, and against Mr. Van Zanten.  See Exhibit A 3, Notice of Decision of Arbitrator, A 4, Arbitration Award, A, Amended Arbitration Award.

On December 7, 1994, the award was appealed to the Maricopa Superior Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 12 133(h) and Rule 7, Uniform Rules of Arbitration.  During these proceedings, the Honorable Judge William Schafer III and the Honorable Judge Rebecca A. Albrecht entered various orders.  See Exhibit A6 through A 14 inclusive.  Plaintiff's contacts with all these defendants were in the context of judicial proceedings of the state of Arizona.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1. Lack of Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter.  A) Constitutional Basis.  Defendants are the Superior Court of Maricopa County, two Superior Court Judges of that Court, and an Arbitrator acting under assignment and appointment by the Superior Court of the State of Arizona pursuant to statute, A.R.S. § 12 133(c).

The Eleventh Amendment to the U. S. Constitution provides that: The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United Stares by citizens of another state . . .

The protection afforded by the Eleventh Amendment extends to state department boards and instrumentality's.  Ratledge v. Board of Regents, 660 F.2d 1345 (9th Cir. 1981) aff'd sub nom Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 7iD (I983).

In Arizona, the judicial power is vested in an integrated judicial department including the Supreme Court, intermediate appellate courts, a superior court, and other inferior courts.  Ariz. Constitution, art.  VI, § 1.  There is only one superior court in the state of Arizona.  State v. Flemming, 184 Ariz. 110, 907 P.2d 496 (1995).

Defendant's Superior Court, Judges Albrecht, Shafer and court appointed Arbitrator McCarthy are clearly sued in their official capacities.  Accordingly, the District Court has no jurisdiction in this matter because of the defendants' status as officers of the judicial department of the state of Arizona.

Plaintiff seeks relief from judicial determinations made by the Superior Court of the State of Arizona.  Federal District Courts have no jurisdiction to review final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings.  District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 1314, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983) Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir 1986).

Plaintiff's claims are impermissible collateral attacks on the determinations of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona.  Federal Courts, as courts of original jurisdiction, may not serve as appellate tribunals to review errors allegedly committed by state courts.  MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 543 (9th Cir 1987) citing: Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 196, 90 S. Ct. 1739, 1748, 26 L.Ed.2d 234 (1970).  (''[L] ower federal Courts possess no power whatsoever to sit in direct review of state court decisions.")  B) Diversity

District courts have original jurisdiction in civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $ 50,000 and is between citizens of different states.  28 U.S.C 1332

Plaintiff does not allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.  Therefore any attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court based upon diversity is inappropriate.

2. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

As indicated above, defendants are state officers or entities, and, pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, are not subject to federal jurisdiction for matters of this nature.

3. Improper Venue

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, where an action is based on diversity (28 U.S.C. § 1332) venue is proper only (l) in a

4 Although it is not clear, it appears that the relief plaintiff seeks from the federal court is to "reverse, cancel or judicial district where any defendant resides if all the defendants reside in the same state; (2) in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) a judicial district where defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction if there is no district otherwise in which the action may be brought.  In this case all of the defendants are situated or residents of Maricopa County in the State of Arizona.  The defendants did not cause an act or event to occur in California which is claimed to be the basis of this action, and no allegation to the contrary is alleged.  Plaintiff has simply filed his action in the wrong venue if the other bases for dismissal of the Complaint are not accepted by this Court.

4. Failure to State a Claim for Which Relief Can Be Granted

Plaintiff's complaint is divided into two issues: Issue A is submitted as "Violation of Oath".  In it, plaintiff charges defendant McCarthy with: "hypocrisy and with contempt and blaspheming of the name of God . . . (I 2 of complaint.)

Plaintiff also charges defendants Superior Court and Judges Shafer and Albrecht with "ignor(ing) and violat(ing) the solemn oath," "making a mockery of the Court," "taking the name of the Most High Judge in vain, laugh(ing) at the Most High God."  (I 4 of complaint.)  Otherwise nullify the judgment" rendered in the underlying action.  (Plaintiff's complaint 5 Charges.)  Plaintiff apparently is contesting the resolution of the underlying lawsuit.  Federal District Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain this action.  Court of Appeals v. Feldman, extra.  Plaintiff's remedy, if he has one, was to appeal the underlying judgment to the appellate courts of the State of Arizona.

Issue B of plaintiff's complaint alleges in paragraph 12 that plaintiff was "denied his day in court".  Plaintiff previously admits however that the originally scheduled hearing date was reset.  (A 8.)  Plaintiff's complaint is inconsistent on its face.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's complaint is obviously fatally flawed.  It articulates no comprehensible claim for relief was improperly served and is outside the jurisdiction of this Court.  The action should be dismissed with prejudice.

Mark D. Wilson Assistant Attorney General

An original and one copy delivered by hand this 5 day of August, 1997, with: Clerk of the United States District Court U.S. Courthouse & Federal Building 230 North 1st Avenue, Room 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85007

Respectfully submitted this ____ day of August 1997.

GRANT WOODS Attorney General

 

CV-14-5

  CV 14-5

  Leonard Van Zanten Riverside Ca

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leonard van Zanten                       / Case number  CV 97-1410 rcb

Plaintiff                                             /

Vs.                                                     / REPLY TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO

The Superior court of the state       / DISMISS COMPLAINT.

of Arizona, et al., And                    /  of  MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

Defendants                                      / AND AUTHORITIES ________________

 

COMES NOW PLAINTIFF Leonard Van Zanten in redress to defendant's motion to dismiss complaint.  And move the court to consider the arguments and definitions of the plaintiff as presented, and incorporate the additional extensions to the complaint as hereby attached.

That counsel for the defense by definition is in error regarding the lack of Jurisdiction.  That by virtue of the Laws of These United States this DISTRICT COURT of the United States does have jurisdiction over the subject matter, and ditto personal jurisdiction.

That the venue is not at all improper.

That plaintiff did not fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted.  That plaintiff's complaint is relevant to U.S. Constitutional law seeking the protection of U.S. Law against violations of the same by the named defendants and to include the State of Arizona

OUTLINE, FACTS,  & CLAIM

(The real truth)

Presenting a brief outline rather than once again going through the entire history, and to recap the same afterwards.  Plaintiff was sworn in by and before the Superior Court of the State of Arizona.

As then the Superior Court of the State of Arizona by its constituents did not regard the oath but rendered judgment in violation thereof, they consequently placed themselves in jeopardy with the laws of the United States guaranteeing the individual rights to a fair trial. 

As then the same was appealed within the State of Arizona, plaintiff was given a date in court within the Superior Court of the State of Arizona.

When therefore plaintiff appeared at that date within the court for the trial, his opposition defaulted (did not show).  Plaintiff then on the spot demanded of the court judgment in his favor through and by default.

This then not being issued by the Court, plaintiff filed a formal motion for default, together with charges of fraud and perjury, and demand for restitution from and against his opposition.

As then by law and procedure of the court the default should have been granted, instead; the judges for the Superior Court of the State of Arizona upon plaintiff's motion set another date for trial.

This trial however never came to pass, nor were plaintiff charges of fraud and perjury before the court, by and through which plaintiff opposition defaulted, ever entertained, but rather they were covered up, destroyed by the named judges of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona.

And judgment was rendered against plaintiff without due process of law, as in without plaintiff knowledge and right to a defense, which plaintiff by relevant motion merely managed to delay.

Consequently plaintiff was in addition to the foregoing evils, cheated out of his day in court, and out of his right to bring just charges against his opposition before the court.

REDRESS TO MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Redress to: Lack of Jurisdiction over the subject matter

A) Constitutional basis.

Counsel for the defense erroneously utilizes the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to invalidate this District Court of the UNITED STATES to make it appear as if it lacks the jurisdiction granted to it by the Constitution of these United States.  Wherefore now plaintiff is bound to go through a lengthy definition regarding these points, and I beg the Court as also Counsel for the defense to bear with me.

In the U.S. Constitution as in all description relevant thereto, there is a difference in STATES as compared to UNITED STATES.  The first meaning "Individual States", as in local states having a lesser authority to the latter as UNITED States, as the law of all States, and Superior to all States, or also meaning or referred to as FEDERAL.

If then the court and counsel for the defense will notice how in the Eleventh Amendment it states quote;  "The Judicial power of the UNITED STATES" by, "One of the UNITED STATES" unquote, as in contrast to by, One of STATES.

Meaning, that; A FEDERAL Judge can not be called upon to sit in judgment of a case of any citizen in suit of law with another FEDERAL judge or Authority.  It does not mean to extend the same to STATE Authorities, or otherwise the Eleventh Amendment would have read accordingly, as in "One of States", rather than United States.

Where then in the Eleventh Amendment it reads; "By citizens of another State, or any Foreign State," it means all states individually as well as citizens of any country or nation.

We must realize that our founding fathers could not very well have written; "By citizens of the United States, for then no one could in any way oppose any Federal official, as by example the lady that currently has a suit or complaint against our President Clinton could by virtue of the law of the Constitution not file any suit against him.  For are we not all, of all states, citizens of the UNITED States?

As then there is United States, and Citizens of the United States, these in the first are the Federal government, its officials to govern, and in the latter, the people of the nation (all States) in subject to said government.

If now by further example a FEDERAL judge is in suit with a citizen of the same State in which the Federal District is located, shall it then be allowed for another Federal District judge to sit in judgment thereof, while if that citizen happened to reside in a neighboring State, it would not be allowed?

For the point in the Eleventh Amendment is one of Authority where the lower authority shall not sit in judgment of the higher authority, or the equals against one another.

If by still further example, a Federal judge or official is not in any suit with a Citizen of any one state, with whom else shall he be in a suit of law?  Those left out are the officials of the FEDERAL Government, since the Amendment clearly states "UNITED STATES".

If now the court and counsel for the defense will turn with me to ARTICLE Vl of the US CONSTITUTION it reads as follows: 

"The Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or that shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding (in spite of)

And furthermore; ARTICLE III section 2 of the U.S. Constitution as follows;

"The judicial power (of the United States) shall extend to all cases.  In law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which!  Shall be made under their authority, to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls.  To controversies to which the United States shall be a party to controversies between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state,  (etc)"

Note therefore how in Article VI it does not say; "Laws of the STATES", but of the "UNITED STATES", and again not; "The Authority of the STATE, or; "STATES", but  "OF THE UNITED STATES shall be . . ." And how judges in every State shall be bound thereby.

Wherefore when any judge of any State court acts in violation of U.S. Constitutional law they have placed themselves in jeopardy thereof and are consequently answerable thereto.

If then as the counsel for the defense wishes to allege or imply that the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to reprove State officials in violation of U.S. Constitutional law, then what jurisdiction shall it have over its own?

And if Counsel for the defense wishes to direct the plaintiff to the appellate of and within the State of Arizona to seek refuge.  The fact of the matter is, that plaintiff did approach the appellate.  Plaintiff did appeal within that State, and it is the appeal wherein the named violations of basic human rights were committed, wherefore the plaintiff next resorted to refuge in the Higher Federal Courts.

For as such since counsel for the defense so noted that the defendants; Superior Court, Judges Albrecht, Shafer and the Court appointed Arbitrator McCarthy are sued in their official capacities as officers of the judicial department of the state of Arizona.  The plaintiff hereby and in formal presentation (hereto attached) is naming the State of Arizona as added defendant in the case, and also as such the judicial department of the State of Arizona.

Finally note how Article VI of the U.S. Constitution reads; "Any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding," indicates that whatever law a state may accept or adopt as law shall be to the scrutiny and be within the judicial jurisdiction of the United States should the same be in contrary to the laws of the United States.

Wherefore also the plaintiff has called upon Federal Authority charging the State of Arizona and its Courts and its named officials with a false oath by and through which they denied the plaintiff of his basic human and Constitutional rights, the comprehensive details of which are stated further on, and under.  "COMPLAINT ADDITIONAL" (attached)

As then counsel for the defense attempts to justify her misconception in the stature of the Eleventh Amendment by saying Quote "The protection afforded by the Eleventh Amendment extends to state department boards and instrumentality’s. " unquote.

She is in contradiction of, and violating the Eleventh Amendment as well as Article Vl, and Article Ill of the US Constitution, since clearly the U.S. Constitution is not contradictory within itself, but rather a profound work of men with the rights and dignities of all men at heart in the wisdom awarded them.

And where counsel for the defense continues to bring in verdicts from the past, as such to invoke common law, one such to wit; Rutledge V. Board of Regents, 660 F.2d 1345  (9th Cir. 1981) aff'd sub nom Rush V. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719 (1983).  This is not valid, and as such inappropriate since common law when in contradiction with statutory law cannot override the latter.

For how may a case that at the onset appears as a miscarriage of justice come to override the austere of the U.S. Constitution?

Just because the counsel in the defense in the U.S. Constitution in that particular case lacked the knowledge or the austere if you will to properly present the authority of the U.S. Constitution and was defeated by an argument however illogic to the contrary, does not make it valid or a basis for common law, and much less therefore to override or invalidate the austere of the U.S. Constitution.

What in essence it comes down to is the law of the Most High Judge wherein  "One of lower authority shall not sit in judgment of one of higher authority", or those of equal authority against one another.

For as in such cases; a citizen, as one of lower authority, in suit with one of high authority should prevail by and with the use of another of equal authority, then in the essence the one of lower authority has judged the one of high authority which is not allowed, in violation of Constitutional law, as well as the most Supreme law, the law of the Most High Judge.

And so we see how well this U.S. Constitution was written.

B) Redress to DIVERSITY.

I did not name a monetary figure as compensation for the wrong done against me, nor for the moral nor judicial violations of the defendants, but simply asked for truth and justice.

I do not want money, but since it seems that those of the court can-not comprehend justice without monetary funds attached, and to bow to the intellect of men, I shall name a token value of no less than Fifty Million dollars as requisite for and in this cause of justice

Redress to: LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

As described in the foregoing according to the Articles III and Article VI and the Eleventh Amendment as also the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, this court as one of the inferior courts of the Supreme court of the United States, is awarded personal jurisdiction.

And defendants as State officers, and the State of Arizona itself as such are subject to this District Court as also provided for in Article III Section 1, Quote: "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Count, and in such inferior courts as the congress from time to time ordain and establish." unquote.

Redress to: IMPROPER VENUE

Counsel for the defense is in error to claim that the basis for the action was in the State of California.  Neither did plaintiff at any time or place claim the action to have taken place in the State of California.  But rather the action, which the defendants caused, was, is, and has been at all times within the State of Arizona, and within the cities of Phoenix and Glendale, within the Superior Court of the State of Arizona.  Plaintiff has made no other claim, nor made any other allegations, even as the same is obvious and translatorial from the Complaint filed.

CAUSE                    Redress to: Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

As stated previously herein and in the Complaint, the Judges and Arbitrator of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona caused one of either two things however way one wishes to look at it.

They caused the plaintiff to swear by a false Oath, the Oath of the law of God, since they did not proceed, nor intended to judge the plaintiff by that same Oath.

Since then they themselves did simultaneously swear that same Oath they consequently swore falsely and hypocritically in gross violation of moral and U. S. Constitutional law, as such for one, the Fourteenth Amendment

Or; They the Judges and Arbitrator of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona while forcing the plaintiff to swear lawfully and correctly by an Oath morally sanctioned in and by the U.S. Constitution did themselves swear falsely to the same oath with no intention or any scruples for that matter to keep the Oath as in to consider and render a verdict accordingly.

It is plain and simple that if the State of Arizona by its officers is causing me to swear by the Name and Law of the Almighty God, and themselves swear by it and Him, they had better judge me according to that law and not within their hearts say: "To hell with that law I will judge as I see fit and do according to my own insight and instructions, be it in contradiction of the law by which we swore or not"

Have they not then robbed a man of his moral and U. S. Constitutional right to a fair trial, aside of the fact that they are conducting themselves hypocritically?

For had they not themselves sworn by the same Oath, they would not be hypocritical.  But since they did, and did not intend to adhere to it so they caused themselves to stink before the lofty intend and precepts of the U.S. Constitution, and the men who wrote it, and before all men.

And so I shall once again reiterate the basis on which this was seated; In all of the arguments and exhibits of the case it is without question and admitted to by the plaintiffs of that case themselves (CV 94-05108 Loeb v Van Zanten) that said plaintiffs made a promise which they failed to keep by and through which defendant (plaintiff) this case) as also plaintiffs themselves sustained damages.

According to the law According to the law therefore by which this plaintiff was made to swear the precept is "That if one makes a promise and then fails to keep it, it shall be a theft".  (Law of the Almighty God as noted in the exhibits)

The State of Arizona therefore by its officers in once swearing by that excellent Law of the Most High has no alternative but to (in that particular case) render judgment in favor of the defendant in that case.  Or, if they so wished mediate a mutual settlement.

Since therefore the State of Arizona by its appointed officers did not follow the Oath upon which it freely swore, nor followed its precepts they placed themselves in contempt of Court, and in contempt of the authority of the U. S Constitution and its Fourteenth Amendment.

DEFAULT CLAUSE

As plainly described in the relevant exhibits the plaintiffs (defendants in this case) on March 7 1995 defaulted in not showing up for the trial set for that date.  Yet more underhandedly that plaintiff did so through fraud and perjury before the court, in telephoning the clerk of the presiding Judge not more than half of a day before to cancel the trial on the basis that a settlement was reached while full well knowing that there was no settlement nor any settlement forthcoming. 

And naturally not informing this plaintiff of the lie he had made to the court by consequence of which the trial was called off, he caused this plaintiff to come from California to Phoenix AZ for nothing, at which Judge William Shafer III among other conversation told this plaintiff to file with him a formal claim charging undue cost etc.

This plaintiff however is contesting the then action of Judge William Shafer III.  First of all in blindly accepting the contention of the then plaintiff.  No evidence was presented to him, nor was there any evidence forwarded to him at the time when this plaintiff (I) was present for the trial, and the hour for the trial had already passed.

Consequently Judge Shafer should not have canceled the trial and at my presence should have granted me judgment by default.

Since therefore Judge Shafer did not do so at the time, and upon my motion awarded a new trial date, I forgave him to that extend.  When however among still other things that trial date was ultimately taken away from me I came to charge Judge Shafer, and later on in conjunction therewith Judge Albrecht, with aiding and abetting the crime of fraud and perjury of my opponent.

Furthermore; this plaintiff is hereby on record that the exhibit A attached to defendants motion to dismiss complaint and memorandum of points and authorities is false, and a forgery, since the same was not signed by Arthur W. Vance on February 27 of 1995, but rather after the fact, after the hour of the trial on March 7 1995, and as such is absolutely vain and worthless.

Since again according to the evidence presented at the time, and by exhibits in the case file that agreement would only have held true if Arthur W. Vance had signed and forwarded the same to me on or before Friday March 3 1995 which did not occur even though I made repeated calls to his office regarding the same

ISSUE B.  .  Counsel for the defense alleges that plaintiff is inconsistent on its face, by plaintiff haying admitted that the originally scheduled hearing date was reset, while again complaining that he was denied his day in court.  But then my dear counsel for the defense - when or where was that date ever held?  And what happened to the complaint and charges on which that trial date was based?

Did not plaintiff submit Exhibit L on the basis of which that new trial date was set?  Which then later being rescheduled your exhibit A was for Jan 11 1996.  While then in my absence and without my knowledge my opponent with the sanction of the court managed to produce a judgment against me, and plaintiff continued to maintain and hold on to his trial date, it was to no avail as may be noted from your exhibit A, third paragraph.

That now these things were intentional, and with unprofessional behavior on the part of the judges is also partly clear from paragraph two of the same exhibit.  For how can any one from Exhibit L, and from all that came afterwards possibly conclude that I was doing all this for the mere minute counterclaim which judge Shafer instructed me to file in the first place?

CONCLUSION

CLAIM:   Plaintiffs claim, as stated in the complaint' is simply, That plaintiff was not awarded a fair trial under the laws of the U. S. Constitution neither in the court nor in the appellate by virtue of the Oath as noted in the complaint, and as herein before outlined

That by the rule of the Court and by common law plaintiff should have been awarded judgment by default, since therefore, as noted herein before and in the complaint, this did not occur due to misbehavior on the part of the State of Arizona in its appointed official, the State and its appointed officials are liable to the U.S. Constitution in its Fourteenth Amendment, to wit; "Equal protection under the laws."

That indeed, as herein before stated, and in the complaint, by manipulation of my opponent in the sanction of the court this plaintiff was cheated out of his day in court, and out of his right to bear and conclude charges before the court.

That finally for the foregoing miscarriage of justice plaintiff claims a token enumeration of Fifty Million ($ 50,000,000,00) Dollars.

And that upon being awarded the same plaintiff will wave the sum since for the very principle thereof and in obedience to the Most High Judge plaintiff will not accept a dime from any.

RELIEF

Plaintiff's only concern for relief is for right justice; to overturn the judgment made against him.  And for the court to admonish the named judges that the same may stand corrected, and not to practice the same in future cases or upon other citizens.

And to award plaintiff the enumeration as in section D herein above stated as a matter insisted upon him by the Courts.

Respectfully submitted this ______day of September 1997

 Leonard Van Zanten (Plaintiff)

CV-14-6

GRANT WOODS, Attorney General    Cynthia Ray, State bar No. 012555

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN,           /NO.  CV97-1410 PHX  RCB  

Plaintiff,                                             / DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN

vs.                                                       /SUPPORT OF MOTION TO  

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE  / DISMISS  

STATE OF ARIZONA, et al.,  

Defendant ________________________________________________

In response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff attempts to amend his complaint by adding the State of Arizona as an additional defendant and by requesting damages in the amount of $50 million.  Both requests are without merit.

The Eleventh Amendment Bars Suit Against the State of Arizona.

The Eleventh Amendment has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court as prohibiting actions against the state by one of the state’s own citizens.  Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S.1, 10 S, Ct. 504, 505, 33 L.Ed.2d 842 (1890).  Although the state may consent to a suit in federal court and wave its immunity, Welch v. State department of highways and Public transportation.  107 S.Ct 2941, 2945, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987), the State of Arizona has chosen not do so.  Ronwin v. Shapiro, 657 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir, 1981) See also Finocchi v. Corbin.  925 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir, 1991).  As such, Plaintiff request to add the State of Arizona as a party defendant is meritless.

Defendants are entitled to Absolute Judicial Immunity from Plaintiff’s Request for Damages

Few principles of law are more well established than the immunity of judges for judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of their courts.  See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wal.) 335, 1872.  It is now well settled that 42 U.S.C.  1983 did not abolish the doctrine of judicial immunity.  Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547,545-55 (1967).

Judicial immunity applies “however erroneous the act may have been and however injurious its consequences may have proved to the Plaintiff".  Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199-200 (1985) (quoting Bradley, 80 U.S. at 347).  Judicial immunity applies even when a Judge is accused of acting maliciously or corruptly, for it “is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences.”  Pierson, 386 U.S. at 544 (quoting Scott v. Stansfield, L.R. 3 Ex. 220, 223 (1868)

A judge loses immunity only for acts performed in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction", Bradley, 80 U.S. at 351, or for acts that are not “judicial” in nature.  Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 360 (1978).  To determine whether jurisdiction exists, courts focus on whether the judge was acting clearly beyond the scope of subject matter jurisdiction.  Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 1986).  The scope of a judge’s jurisdiction should be construed broadly to effectuate the policies supporting immunity.  Id.

The factors relevant in determining whether an act is judicial “relate to the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectation of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity."  Stump 435 U.S. at 362.  It also has been said that judicial acts are those involving the performance of the function of resolving disputes between parties, or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights.  Atkinson-Baker & Associates, Inc, v. Kolts, 7 F.3d 1452, 1454 (9th Cir. 1993)(Quoting Antoine v. Byers & Anderson.  Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2167, 2171 (1993)).

\All of the allegations here clearly fall within the protection of absolute immunity.  All of the alleged actions taken by Judges Schafer and Albrecht and arbitrator Mc Carthy were in their judicial capacity, for which they cannot be sued.  This result does not change simply because the Plaintiff is unhappy with the proceedings.  Otherwise, the judiciary would be concerned more about avoiding lawsuits, and less about justice.  The Plaintiff’s attempt to add a damage claim against the individual defendants is also frivolous

Conclusion.

Based on the reasons set forth in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and the foregoing Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 16th day of September 1

997,

GRANT WOODS Attorney

CV 14-7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN                 /No.  CV 97-1410 PHX RCB  

Plaintiff,                                                   /  PLAINTIFFS’  FINAL REPLY IN  

vs.                                                          /  DEFENSE OF HIS COMPLAINT.  

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE      /

STATE OF ARIZONA, et al.,               /

Defendant                                              /________________________________

 In final response to Defendants arguments, Plaintiff submits to the court that: Defendant’s arguments to invalidate this Court of the United States as having jurisdiction over the matter, and its allegations that the individual States and the Judges thereof as such to be immune from prosecution by and under the laws and precepts of the U.S. Constitution, - fails to provide evidence that is factually based upon the laws and precepts of the U.S. Constitution, and therefore as such are invalid.

The plaintiff submits that for all reality defendants in their counsel for the defense has rendered the U.S. Constitution of no value, of no effect, and as an instrument that bears no judicial sanctity.

And that in the essence thereof defendants are (either knowingly or ignorantly) perpetrating treason against the United States.  For as I the plaintiff was sworn-in; “To at all times uphold the U.S. Constitution, and to defend it and this nation from all enemies within and without."  Should plaintiff (or anyone) therefore do any different - the same would be a betrayal of trust or confidence, which is  “treason".

And; that by argument counsel for the defense has placed the judges one and all above the law  - rather than as officials to judge by and uphold the law.

The plaintiff in reference to the foregoing is however not as such charging the defendants with treason but certainly with ignorance in the laws and precepts of these United States towards the cause of justice for which it stands.

BY EXAMPLE

As for example; in the days of Christ Jesus the lawyers and judges of the Jews by the use of their own precepts made the laws of the Lord  {their constitution by which their nation was governed} of no effect – so - counsel for the defense by its own interpretation, and by leaning on the precepts of others has in effect made this U.S. Constitution null and void as an instrument of law.

FACTS

For clearly - while the arguments and the sanctity of the plaintiff are both based upon, and refer to the very word, the precepts of that Constitution, Counsel for the defense on the other hand does not, and has not at any time based its arguments on the same.

a).  Defendants have not made any defense based upon the precepts of Article VI, which clearly states  And judges in every state shall be bound thereby" which follows to say: “Anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

b).  Nor upon Article III of the same - to show the Jurisdiction of this court.

c).  Nor based upon the wording and the intend of the Eleventh Amendment which the plaintiff defined and reiterated in his previous arguments.  For again; if Article III, and Article VI grants jurisdiction, and one will say; “but the Eleventh Amendment does not", shall not then this U.S. Constitution be contradictory in itself?

d). Nor have the defendants at any time produced any defense that the defendants (judges) were either acting or not acting under and by the law by which they were sworn to the laws of these United States, which among other things guarantees to the individual the right to a fair trial.

e).  Nor have the defendants made any defense to show how the plaintiff may or may not have been guilty in the incident which caused this suit of law to come forth in the first place.

f).  Nor have the defendants made any defense to show how plaintiff may have received the equal protection of the laws afforded by the laws of the Constitution of these United States, - - but rather the contrary to elevate the judges above the law, and immune from responsibility to the law by which they judge and are to judge.

g).  By the same token, this plaintiff for argument sake, - in the sentiments of the defendants, - may pronounce the judgment levied against him as null and void, since judges, one and all are not legal as such.  For how can anyone judge any person by any precept of any law when he levies himself not liable to the same law?  Does not our Constitution, as also common law teaches quite the contrary?

h).  Or if {as counsel for the defense proposes} judges in their official capacity to be immune - - to what purpose did our founding fathers write in regarding equal opportunity under the law?

I). If in fact our Constitution is anything of value, and if in fact Judges and the likes may be immune, then by law - as by abortion of law - everyone inclusive this plaintiff may be immune, and no-one can or may be judged for anything.  And so I ask you; do we not realize what a mess we make of things, when even a single one of us is pronounced immune?

j). Do you think that the Almighty God and Judge is immune from the law?  Quite the contrary, He is foremost bound by His own Law, for if this were not so He could free us all if He wished to, but by His own law He must punish us according to our inequities.

k).  Or if counsel for the defendants wishes to reiterate that it means judges in their official capacity.  Then what do you think that the Almighty God is not acting in His official capacity?  Or do you think that I the plaintiff have not been acting in my official capacity as a judge and teacher?  My appointment may not have been of men but rather of a higher Court, and how then do you judge me - an official of a higher Court?

l). I however am not placing myself above the law, for if I should be immune from anything that I pronounce upon others, then what right to I have to judge others in the first place?  Should I not as such be a worthless judge and person as well?  No, but just as it is written in the words of wisdom;   A just man judges himself first.”  And; “The righteous person condemns and punishes himself for any infraction that he has made of the law".  How righteous then shall you judges {defendants} be to allocate immunity unto yourselves?

m).  Nor have the defendants made any issue or shown any arguments to prove the merit or ineffectiveness of the law by which the judges (defendants) placed themselves under oath.  For to state that;  “It shall be for the welfare of the people that judges be immune", - is a statement so absurd to the intelligence of man, that it hardly warrants a reply.

n).  Moreover, Counsel for the defendants utilizes more than ill reasoning to state; Part II, Page 3, 4-5.  “Otherwise, the judiciary would be concerned more about avoiding lawsuits, and less about justice.”  Since quite clearly immune judges do not have to be concerned about justice, wherefore and whereby the term “justice” does not, or need not enter into their profession, As then it was said; “That the word “Justice” does not exist in their dictionary,” I can now speak with the defendants; “Why should it be?”

o).  But how is our knowledge, and to what depth is our understanding, for if judiciaries were to bear responsibility for themselves under the law, they instead would be far more apt to render justice, and that would in fact be to the benefit of the public.   

Or have you people forgotten the foremost sentence that all judges and lawyers should know, and learn before all else to wit, as it was said of the Most High Judge.  “Bring justice into the world - and all deeds of inequity will end.”     

So you see, if indeed you brought justice into the world, beginning with yourselves, you the judges would be able to play golf much more often.

p).  The meaning and the act of justice is foremost on my mind, since I am bound to judge a multitude of people.  You the judges of this world judge a mere handful of people, and be your judgment right or wrong - what is that to you, since being immune, no-one can call me to account for it, so you ill conceive.  In other words, there is no pride or honor in your calling.

q).  But my fear is of the Almighty Judge who thought me worthy to judge an endless multitude, His expectation of me being a righteous conduct, and not to place myself immune from or above the law by which I am to judge.  And I shall not disappoint Him, not even for my life, 

For I regard it my honor and my solemn duty before God and before all these many peoples who are at my mercy to render justice to each and everyone of them, and never once to fail in righteous judgment.  Nor can I fail, for He who taught me is perfect above all.

r).  And should I fail to render perfect justice to anyone would not He who taught me call me on it - seeing how He appointed me, and am pronouncing judgment in His Name?  Most certainly.  And should I go as far as to consider myself immune, He would destroy me, but not before I would ask Him to destroy me for such foul arrogance.

For no person is ever above the law or immune, even when in his official capacity his word is law, and there be no appeal nor escape from his sentence.

s).  And will I now receive ignorance for an reply as if there are always people who will contest even a right verdict?  I tell you - you have never tried a right verdict, for unless one judges himself first and becomes righteous - no righteous judgment can come from him, since the root being evil and corrupt, no tree that is corrupt can bring forth that which is good.  And even though you may have rendered a just verdict to many - yet I will condemn you as being evil since the root was evil, and whatever good came was not of you.

t).  You may hate me since I am reproving you, or envy me since you cannot comprehend my speech.  Nevertheless I certify to you now, that in the day to come the people in their whole multitude will not accuse me of injustice, but they will love me and adore me acknowledging that my judgments are in righteousness and in truth. 

For even as I will trample upon kings and princes they will nonetheless acknowledge that my judgment on them is just and fair.  So then you judges should be - as imitators of the Most High Judge and of His appointed servants He brings before you as an example.              

FINAL ARGUMENT.

It is obvious that I am both teaching and questioning the integrity and the validity of the judgment of the court’s by its judges in their first as in the appellate as sanctioned by moral code, as well as by the high laws of the land, its constitutional law.

And I am grieved to discover how the constituents of the courts by and through precepts of their own making have made the grand law of these United States of no effect.

I can hardly believe that ever in my days I would have to read the sentence as stated on page 2, lines 7-13 of “Defendants reply in support of motion to dismiss".  For how can anyone in one and the same sentence speak of “immunity to apply” - with - “however erroneous” or “however injurious”?

And shall this not this be an insult to all the people of this great nation that: “However malicious or corrupt a judge may be - it be for the best interest of the people”?  I submit to you, to all the people, the courts, and its judges, that by these sentiments you are more than clearly in violation of all moral and constitutional law

And where counsel for the defense notes: “The Eleventh Amendment Bars Suit Against the State of Arizona, with its consequent argument, plaintiff counsels the counsel for the defendants to read the Eleventh Amendment once again, for as she has stated - so it is not.  And that even the Supreme Court does not have the authority to twist or corrupt these basic human laws and rights written into the Constitution.  Are not we as a nation accusing other nations of violating basic human rights?  Are we then hypocrites or what?

CONCLUSION

I now am growing weary of these debates and argument with you.  For like as in some other country its constitution by its seven rulers in eight years was rewritten seven times - and I having made a vow some thirty seven years ago - I wonder to what constitution did I make this vow, and does it yet exist?  And is this in fact still the United States, or should I call it by another name?

Let me then conclude to put an end to this long-term labor, and say to you: Do unto me as you wish by argument or by sentence, as you like.  But allow me to inform you that because of these and other things you, this nation, will before long have war upon you, and afterwards I will pronounce judgment upon the victor so that it too may fall.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this _____ of October 1997

Leonard Van Zanten  {Plaintiff}

CV 14-8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA  

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN                     /No.  CV 97-1410 PHX RCB

Plaintiff,                                                      /

vs.                                                                / MOTION TO SET FOR TRIAL.  

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE          /

STATE OF ARIZONA, et al.,                   /

Defendant                                                 /____________________________

COMES NOW Plaintiff respectfully requesting of the Court to consider the arguments and validity of the Plaintiff and defendants, and to judge between them to either Dismiss the case to the wishes of the defendants,

Or to set for Trial.

Or judgment for the Plaintiff - according to the plaintiff.

Yours this _______day of October 1997

Leonard Van Zanten Plaintiff

 

CV 14-9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

LEONARD VAN ZANTEN, Plaintiff,               CIV 97-1410 PHX RCB

v.                                                             

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE                   JUDGMENT

 STATE OF ARIZONA, et al.,

Defendants _______________________________________

Decision by Court.  This action came for consideration before the Court.  The issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED ADJUDGED that having this Court granting Defendants' motions to dismiss; Plaintiff take nothing.

This complaint and action are hereby dismissed.

DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 7th day of February, 1998.

RICHARD H. WEARE Clerk of Court/DCE

By: Deputy Clerk CIV 21 (7/94) FEB 07-1998

O R D E R

Before the court are two motion to dismiss.  The first, filed by Defendant Arthur Vance, argues that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.  The second, filed by the remaining Defendants, argues that the court lacks subject matter and personal jurisdiction, and that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.  Both matters are fully briefed.  As explained below, the court concludes that both motions are well taken.  Accordingly, it will dismiss the complaint

The remaining Defendants include Thomas A. McCarthy, the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, Judge William Schafer III, and Judge Rebecca Albrecht.

BACKGROUND

This action arises as a result of an automobile accident, and litigation resulting from such accident.  Plaintiff was named as a defendant in a subrogation claim on behalf of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and its subrogates, filed in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona.  The Superior Court assigned the matter to an arbitrator, Thomas McCarthy.  McCarthy entered an award against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff appealed the award to the Superior Count.  During the pendency of the appeal, both Judge William Schafer III and Judge Rebecca A. Albrecht entered various orders in the matter.  Ultimately, judgment was awarded in the same amount as the arbitration award.

Plaintiff then chose to file this action in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division.  The matter was transferred to the District of Arizona in July, 1997.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's complaint appears to be essentially an appeal from the Superior Court judgment.  Its contents consist, almost entirely, of arguments surrounding the actions of individuals in regard to the state court matter.  The complaint does not request damages, but rather it seems to request that the judgment of the Superior Court be overturned.  Therefore, because the matter is

Plaintiff's complaint is not an easy document to decipher.  However, the essential nature of the complaint revolves around Plaintiff's belief that the state court outcome was unjust, and his desire to have the outcome overturned.  Plaintiff does on the other hand, request monetary relief in his response to the motion to dismiss.  Essentially an appeal and the majority of the Plaintiff's complaint focuses on judicial or official action, this court clearly lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter.

First, United States District courts lack the authority to review a final judgment of a state court.  (3) District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, ago (gth Cir. 1986).  This doctrine applies even when the challenge to the state court decision involves a federal question.  Worldwide Church' 805 F.2d at 890.  Thus, Plaintiff cannot appeal his state court judgment to this court.  However, even if Plaintiff did not intend his action to be a direct appeal, or to challenge the state court's judgment, this court still lacks jurisdiction.

Plaintiff indicated that his suit is before this court based on diversity jurisdiction.  However, diversity jurisdiction requires full diversity (i.e., no defendant resides in the same state as plaintiff) and requires that the amount in controversy be at least $75,000.  28 U.S.C. §1332.  Plaintiff has not requested

Plaintiff looks to Article III to argue that this court may review a decision of a state court.  Apparently, Plaintiff relies on the reference to inferior courts for this assertion.  Article III provides Congress with the authority to create federal courts that are inferior to the Supreme Court of the United States.  As a district court, a federal court that is inferior to the Supreme Court, the power of this court stems from Article III.  While Plaintiff is clearly confused about the purpose of the Article, it is not this court's responsibility to enlighten Plaintiff about the tenets of constitutional law.  It should suffice to explain that Article III does not vest any power in district courts to review the state law based decisions of state courts.  Any damages in his complaint, nor is there any other indication that Plaintiff could meet this latter requirement.  Plaintiff has indicated that he seeks fifty million dollars in his response to the motions to dismiss, and in a subsequent document he calls a Complaint Additionally However, not only is this procedurally flawed, because the demand is absent from the complaint and he did not properly file an amended complaint, it is most likely not a good faith estimate.  The original state court proceeding resulted in a judgment of just over $8000 against Mr. Van Zanten.  The complaint seems to request relief from this judgment.  This amount is clearly insufficient to create proper diversity jurisdiction.  Thus, this court has no subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action.

Furthermore, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the majority of the Defendants.  The eleventh amendment bars suits against states in federal court.  (5) Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.

Although Plaintiff indicated on his civil cover sheet (the complaint does not clearly address jurisdiction) that the matter was before this court based on diversity of jurisdiction, Plaintiff also suggests that his cause of action arises from the 14th amendment of the constitution.  This fact might suggest that a federal question is involved, invoking this court's jurisdiction.  The court need not be concerned with this possibility, however, because there is ample cause to dismiss this complaint even if Plaintiff had indicated that diversity was based on a federal question.

Plaintiff also argues that the eleventh amendment is not meant to protect the states from suit in a federal court, but rather it is meant to protect the federal government and its officials from such suit.  He bases this assumption on the language of the amendment.  Plaintiff is clearly mistaken.  Again, a basic tenet of constitutional law is that states are protected by the eleventh amendment from suits in federal court.  However, in contrast, federal court is the appropriate forum for a suit against the United States or one of its agencies.

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984).  A state may consent to suit.  In addition, Congress may explicitly act to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity.  Attascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S.  234, 24243 (1985)(superseded by statute on other grounds).  The State of Arizona and the Superior Court of the State of Arizona are clearly protected by the eleventh amendment.  Because Defendants McCarthy, Schafer, and Albrecht are sued in their official capacity they are also protected by eleventh immunity.  See Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 472 (9th Cir. 1992).  6

In addition, Defendants Schafer, Albrecht and, most likely, McCarthy, are shielded by judicial immunity.  Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199200 (1985).  Judicial acts involve the resolution of disputes between parties.  So long as a judges actions are judicial in nature, unless such actions are clearly outside of the jurisdiction of the court, a judge has absolute immunity even if his or her actions are erroneous.  Id.  Thus, because the Plaintiff bases his claims on judicial acts, Defendants are immune.  

(Insert   They are of course outside of their juristiction since they did not judge by the precepts set forth by them to judge by.  (See "Introduction))

Moreover, even if both personal and subject matter jurisdiction existed; the complaint simply fails to state a claim.   (Insert  "Liar") Plaintiff complains of a violation of oath", hypocrisy and with contempt and blaspheming of the name of God, in Making a mockery of the Court" and several other obscure violations.  (Insert  "you only are obscure")  He simply states no cause of action under the Fourteenth Amendment, or any other source that this court could redress.  Accordingly, the court will dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff also attempts to add the State of Arizona and Arizona's judicial department in his Complaint Additional.  The Eleventh Amendment protects these parties as well.

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Vance's Motion to dismiss  (doe. 11).  The clerk is directed to enter judgment and terminate the case as to Defendant Vance.

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants', McCarthy, the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, Judge William Schafer III, and Judge Rebecca Albrecht, Motion to Dismiss (doe.  12). The clerk is directed to enter judgment and terminate this action.

DATED this __ day of February, 1998.

Robert C. Broomfield United States District Judge