Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Federal Magistrate Acts as Counsel for State Defendants! Unbeeeeelievable!!

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 1, 2012





      Eric Williams, Propria Persona Plaintiff


      v. case No. 3:11-CV-03001-




      COUNTY OF MARION Defendants










      1. I, Eric Williams, the Plaintiff in this case, pursuant to U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1), do hereby present my written objections to this Magistrate Judge's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (hereinafter "MJ"or "MJRAR" or "RAR").


      2. This Objection is filed under duress due to the failure of the District Judge to grant me the reasonable sixty day continuance I had timely requested.


      3. There is no possible way that I can properly address the many erroneous conclusions presented by this MJ in his RAR, garnered by him through his multiple inappropriate ex-parte communications with two defendants in this case, County of Marion and Judith Bearden, by either this MJ or his Clerk, Ashley Bowen.


      4. However, of even more significance is the unrevealed and undeclared political decision implicit in this MJ's RAR, wherein he continually makes reference to me as though it has already somehow been determined that I am subject to the political dominion of the United States and or of Arkansas, which determination has not been addressed and cannot be addressed by the judicial branch of the United States or of Arkansas, but which must be resolved by the Executive Branch of Arkansas, which I have been endeavoring to do since the very beginning of this impasse back in 2002.


      5. The fact the Executive will not respond only serves to establish that I am correct in my analysis of the birth certificate issue.


      6. Accusing this MJ of surreptitiously engaging in a political determination he does not have standing to address might seem like a stinging accusation. After all, the common understanding is, that under the constitutional system of separated powers supposedly prevailing in the United States, the Judicial System is supposed to operate outside the realm of politics. Its principal function in this system of "checks and balances," or so everyone is led to believe, is to check the excesses of the political branches.


      7. Court cases are purportedly decided according to objective and neutral principles of law, not the ideological values of this MJ or any other judge or by influence of prevailing public opinion. The very legitimacy of the Judiciary, many argue, depends on this separation of law from politics.


      8. Additionally, the wording, content and general tenor of this MJ's RAR clearly indicate he is functioning more as the self appointed Counsel of and for the defendants rather than functioning properly, as a neutral judicial officer!


      9. This is particularly evident in this MJ's totally erroneous determination in regard to the wording and intent of Arkansas Codes, § 5-1-109, wherein this MJ's conclusion is exactly opposite of the clear wording and intent set forth therein, as I more fully address in my Brief in Support of this Instant Objection, filed concurrently herewith and incorporated herein, in full, by reference.


      10. And I must state here that my Brief filed concurrently herewith does not set forth all of the relevant points in regard to this MJ's comments in regard to A.C.A. § 5-1-109, due to insufficient time being allowed by this Court for me to properly address all the issues.



      11. Although there are three defendants in this case and this MJ, acting on their behalf as their self appointed defense counsel, has "researched" and presented his arguments in regard to their exposure to suit separately, however, the facts this MJ ignored clearly indicate all three of the defendants are exposed to being sued based on two totally separate issues (1) due to the undeniable fact that the State of Arkansas has not presented one shred of evidence that I have ever willingly, knowingly and intentionally, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit myself to the political authority of the artificial political entity, State of Arkansas, of which two of the defendants are officers of and the third a sub political entity thereof.


      12. The second fact establishing the exposure of the defendants named herein to suit by me being the fact that the Arrest Warrants I was arrested under had expired more than two years prior to my arrest, notwithstanding the totally absurd erroneous convoluted manipulated reasoning presented by this MJ in his comedy show RAR, which I totally expose in my Supplemental Brief filed concurrently herewith.


      13. (It must be noted here again, that my political status as a separate Sovereign entity was forced upon my by the State of Arkansas through its failure to perform its duty to those over whom Arkansas claims political jurisdiction, specifically, being Arkansas failure to provide a means whereby those individuals who insist on being truthful, may be issued a driver license - once more, I have never ever refused to apply for or be issued an Arkansas driver license).


      14. In his RAR this MJ states on page 9 thereof, under "Injunctive relief" that Under the United States Constitution, the State of Arkansas is protected from any manner of suit or relief by an immunity inherent in the Federal Constitution, including the Eleventh Amendment, however this MJ is in error in this assertion, due to this MJs failure to understand and acknowledge the Political status of this Plaintiff.


      15. The United States Constitution, Article III, Section Two, provides as follows, (in relevant part): "The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ... to all Cases; ... to Controversies ... between a State ... and foreign States ... "


      17. As I have never knowingly and intentionally relinquished the individual Sovereignty I was born with I contend that I fall under the Constitutional category of a foreign State (that does not constitute a claim that I am a foreign state).


      18. The Eleventh Amendment to the Federal Constitution provides as follows, and most certainly does not accord Arkansas immunity from suit by this Plaintiff: "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 States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."


      19. Please take note that the Eleventh Amendment does not preclude a suit instituted by those among the Posterity of the People of the United States class, as such class established themselves in the Preamble, among which Posterity I claim my Political Status!


      20. Once more, as I have never ever knowingly and intentionally relinquished the individual Sovereignty I was born with I have not entered into the political status of a citizen of any of the Fifty States that comprise the Federation known as the United States of America.


      21. As I very clearly stated in my Complaint, particularly in the Supplemental Supporting Brief #1, titled, "PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM - WHO I AM AND WHO I AM NOT", I claim my Political Status to be of the Posterity of the People of the United States as they proclaimed themselves in the Preamble to the Federal Constitution, I claim to be of the Posterity of the Rebels of July 4, 1776!


      22. Please take note that there is no mention what-so-ever in Article III or in the Eleventh Amendment pertaining to the People of the United States. Please take further note that the Preamble to the Federal Constitution proclaims (in relevant part) that the purpose of the Constitution Ordained and Established thereunder, was/is for the purpose of enabling the People of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to Themselves and to their Posterity. There is no mention therein of any such application to citizens of the United States, created in the First Article of the Federal Constitution.


      23. Yes, I am aware of the SCOTUS decision in the Dred Scott case - however Dred Scott was totally nullified by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.


      24. The Thirteenth Amendment clearly prohibits citizenship by birth as it is self evident that citizenship is an acknowledgment of a political subservience to a political superior, and the Fourteenth Amendment is the government's work around, to enable the government to indoctrinate children, freeborn, fraudulently in government controlled schools, to believe they attained the subservient status of United States citizenship by birth.


      25. Such children are also fraudulently taught that the Fourteenth Amendment declares citizenship by birth, which any proper student of English grammar will know is not true, that is, U.S. citizenship by birth is clearly absent from the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, due to the explanatory clause, "... , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...".


      26. And, as a minor but relevant aside, no one has ever been born in the United States, such being a totally artificial entity that does not physically exist - please take note that I most certainly do not claim that the United States does not exist.



      27. COMES NOW Eric Williams, Plaintiff in the above entitled case, to request Mandatory Judicial Notice be taken by this Court, pursuant to Rule 201(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FREv"), of the following irrefutable facts pertaining to the Natural condition of human beings:

      1.) No human infant has cognitive ability to take notice or any of the facts of its birth;

      2.) No Birth Certificate includes information through which it could be determined which human infant's birth it was created in regard to;

      3.) Due to the circumstances pertaining to the creation of a birth certificate there is no possibility that the infant upon whose birth it was created could claim an ownership interest in said document or in regard to any information entered thereon;

      4.) Due to the circumstances of the creation of a birth certificate there is no possible way any of the information entered thereon at the time of its creation could provide any meaningful identification information needed in order for the State to create positive identification for the purpose of issuing a driver license to a driver license applicant;

      5.) At the time a birth certificate is created there is no information entered thereon that would serve to identify who it was that created the document or who it was that owned the name entered thereon;

      6.) That the Thirteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and Section Twenty-seven of the Arkansas Constitution both prohibit involuntary servitude;

      7.) That a claim of citizenship constitutes the acknowledgment by such claimant of the claimant's political subservience to a political superior;

      8.) That at the time of a child's birth the child is politically independent with no birth acquired obligation of political fealty to any political entity;

      9.) That the State of Arkansas has no authority to require an individual of sixteen years of age who has not volunteered himself into a condition of political subservience to the State of Arkansas to have a driver license in order to operate his own automobile;

      10.) That in order for the State of Arkansas to gain authority over an individual in order for the State of Arkansas to have authority to require that individual to obtain a driver license prior to operating his own automobile, the State of Arkansas must, through some means, entice the applicant to voluntarily enter himself into a condition of political subservience to the State of Arkansas;

      11.) That under Arkansas Code, Title 18, Chapter 28, Section 202, the State of Arkansas becomes the owner of the names on all birth certificates recorded in the State of Arkansas five years after the said names are last accessed by their original owner;

      12.) That when an applicant for a driver license presents a birth certificate in order to be issued a driver license the applicant must first be issued the applicant's "true legal name", without which, the state has no standing to require the applicant to apply for a driver license or to in any way comply with the statutes enacted by the state legislature.


      28. And, additionally, I further request Mandatory Judicial Notice be taken by this Court, again pursuant to FREv Rule 201(c)(2), of the following irrefutable facts pertaining to the artificial nature of the State of Arkansas:

      1.) That prior to July 4, 1776, all political authority wielded in the then Thirteen Colonies of North America was derived from the Monarch of the British Empire, King George III ("KJIII");

      2.) That on July 4, 1776, upon the presentation of the Declaration of Independence ("DOI") the previous political authority of KGIII, ceased to exist in that land area which had prior thereto been under the dominion of KJIII;

      3.) That upon the publication of the DOI all individual designations of political status of any description or authority under KJIII immediately ceased to exist and all the former subjects of KJIII became politically equal with none, or any combination thereof, having any political dominion over any other individual or combination thereof;

      4.) That is, that on July 4, 1776, all former subjects of KGIII became individually politically sovereign over their own individual person with no political obligation of political subservience to any political entity that might be created by any of them, absent their individually determined freewill agreement (See acknowledging dicta of CJ John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia 2 Dal/US 419 - prompter of the Eleventh Amendment);

      5.) That prior to July 4, 1776 there was no country known as the United States of America and no politically sovereign independent states existing on the east coast of North America;

      6.) That the creation of the Thirteen Political States and of the United States of America came as the result of the intellectual activity of the humans involved and that although it may very well be a natural act for humans to organize a government that such political organizations are not and were not created by an independent unilateral act instigated by Nature;

      7.) That the DOI clearly acknowledges and proclaims that each individual man and woman is born free and independent with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the DOI further provides and recognizes the natural right of people, when dissatisfied with the mode of government they are subjected to, that such people have the natural right to disassociate themselves from such association and form an association according to their individual inclinations;

      8.) That the provisions of the DOI do not indicate that it takes more than one individual to determine he does not desire to associate with or be subject to the political dominion of those who are bent on controlling every aspect of his private life, as currently is the condition of those individuals claiming to be citizens of the United States.


      29. The Fundamental. Basic, Primary Issue in the Arkansas state courts and in this instant law suit, is the Political Relationship between Arkansas and myself. This is in question due to the failure and refusal of the State of Arkansas to provide a means whereby a driver license applicant who does not have a birth certificate to present to the State, in order to be issued an Arkansas driver license could be issued such license; And, in conjunction with the foregoing, as an equal and parallel issue, being the refusal of the State of Arkansas to explain how the State acquires political subservient servitude of individuals born free and politically independent (as is proclaimed in Section 2 of Article 2 of the Arkansas Constitution, where it proclaims that "All men are created equally free and independent ... To secure these rights governments are instituted ... deriving their just power from the consent of the governed."), while the State at the same time maintains its compliance with the Federal Constitution's Thirteenth Amendment and Section Twenty-seven of Article Two of the Constitution for the State of Arkansas; both of which deny the ability of Arkansas to command any individual into a condition of servitude, political or otherwise - so how does Arkansas work around these several constitutional barriers? And why will Arkansas not answer that most reasonable question?


      30. Please let this court be advised, I have never ever refused to apply for or be issued an Arkansas driver license, it is Arkansas who has failed to provide a reasonable alternative to its birth certificate requirement that has prevented me from being issued an Arkansas driver license! (All alternate means of issuance set forth in the Statutes of Arkansas are based on the presentation of a birth certificate in order to acquire such alternate means).



      31. The apparent preconceived bias of this MJ is most clearly revealed in his comment near the bottom of page 4 of his RAR, where he gratuitously wrote: "The Arkansas General Assembly obviously felt that it was not appropriate to allow a defendant to fail to appear for court, avoid arrest, and then have the benefit of having the original charges dismissed."


      32. Although I contend that this MJ's analysis of the Arkansas statute of limitation provisions is ludicrous and more than somewhat convoluted, and exactly opposite to the actual wording of that provision, I would generally agree the foregoing snip might reasonably apply to an accused who fit into the unique mold cast therein by this MJ (which I contend does not exist in the Arkansas statute of limitations provisions, but only in the biased mind of this MJ), and I would agree with the MJ's view on this if an accused had indeed failed to appear and then worked diligently to avoid arrest in order to allow the statute of limitations to expire so that such an accused could avoid facing the original charges lodged against him, however, in this case such an analogy does not apply to me.


      33. I had most certainly not failed to make myself available to the Arkansas District Court as this MJ totally misrepresents in his mind boggling RAR, for trial on August 12, 2005, and neither did I take any evasive actions to avoid arrest on August 12, 2005 or thereafter, as I set out in mind numbing detail in my Supporting Brief #4, filed with my Complaint, together with exhibits and other relevant documents filed concurrently therewith, and incorporated therein by reference, totaling some 340 pages.


      34. The relevant Supporting Brief #4, setting forth my conduct on August 12, 2005, is incorporated herein by reference. It seems abundantly clear that this MJ did not bother to read this Supporting Brief prior to coming to the erroneous presumptions he entered into his highly prejudicial RAR, which I am not able to properly address herein due to the time limitations improperly and unreasonably imposed upon me by this inconsiderate Court!


      35. Additionally, in regard to this MJ's erroneous presumption stating or at least strongly implying, that I had striven to avoid arrest during the years the statute of limitations was running, I hereby incorporate from my Complaint in this instant case, Supporting Brief # 2, in its entire 19 pages as all are relevant, but particularly the information in subparagraphs 1 through 5, on page 12 thereof, wherein I present details of five encounters I had with Arkansas Law Enforcement where, in none of those incidents did any of the police officers find any 2005 or 2006 County of Marion warrants for my arrest in their State Police Arrest Warrant database.


      36. It is clear to me, that due to his intense bias against me that this MJ was not able to read this exhibit or comprehend that such events totally negated his preconceived presumption that the reason I was not arrested during the running of the statute of limitations was because I had intentionally skillfully avoided any contact with any Arkansas law enforcement.


      37. Yes, I hid from law inforcemt by hiding myself it the Basxter County jail for six days so no Arkansas law enforcement officer would be able to find me on the streets of Arkansas - GET REAL!!!


      38. If this MJ's analysis of the wording of the Arkansas statute of limitations was to be applied to all arrest warrants then no arrest warrants would ever expire, that is, according to the reasoning of this MJ, there is no statute of limitations for arrest warrants in Arkansas!


      39. The bias of this MJ against me is further evidenced by the fact that he instructed his Law Clerk, Ashley Bowen, to contacted the clerks of the District and Circuit courts of the County of Marion, requesting that they furnish documents needed by this MJ to enable him to perform his self apointed role as Counsel for the defendants.


      40. In a letter faxed to the District Court Clerk, Martha Moore, Ms.

      Bowen simply requested docket sheets. I went to both clerk's offices on February 10, 2012 wherein I was furnished a copy of Ms. Bowen's letter by District Clerk Martha Moore who informed me that she had faxed only two pages to Ms. Bowen.


      41. However, the Circuit Court Clerk, Dee Carlton, informed me she only talked to Ms. Bowen on the telephone and had not asked for or received a fax request from Ms. Bowen, and that Ms. Bowen had only requested docket sheets during that first call. The Circuit Clerk informed me she sent two pages of docket sheets to Ms. Bowen, and sent nothing else, indicating she had not sent the additional 13 pages I showed her that I had received from this MJ with his RAR. But then the Circuit clerk also informed me that Ms. Bowen had

      called again later and talked to another Circuit Clerk who had faxed additional papers to Ms. Bowen.


      42. I was then informed that the second clerk that had faxed papers to Ms. Bowen was not in the clerk's office at the time I was making the inquiry on Friday, February 10, 2012.


      43. According to this MJ's RAR, on the bottom of page 2 thereof, this MJ indicates he had obtained docket sheets from the Marion County Clerk, attached thereto as Exhibits A1-A13, while the number of exhibits provided to me were numbered A1-A14.


      44. It is obvious that the exhibits included with the MJRAR include substantially more than mere docket sheets, especially since the two docket sheets from the Circuit Clerk had been reformatted so that both docket sheers were presented on one exhibit, Exhibit A1.


      45. The question begged by this MJ's request is what significance or need would there be for this MJ to review docket sheets? And why did the Circuit Clerk send additional documents?


      46. Could it be that the purpose of this MJ's request was intended to be a hint to the County of Marion clerks that this MJ wanted documents that would serve to bolster this MJ's predetermined decision to construct justification to recommend that my Complaint be dismissed?


      47. How can it possibly be appropriate for a MJ to contact defendants to initiate an ex-parte request that defendants provide him with documents pertaining to a case he is adjudicating, with no notice to the Plaintiff?


      48. If this MJ wants to act as counsel for the defendants then he should first resign as a CMJ of the Federal Court!


      49. The foregoing begs the question. Who else did this MJ or his Clerk call requesting information that would bolster his determination to construct a Recommendation that my case be dismissed?


      50. Who would it be that would be best positioned to provide this MJ with documents from this voluminous case file that would serve best to help this MJ construct his predetermined dismissal recommendation? It is my clear understanding that Asa Hutchinson is still on this case as counsel for all three defendants, and that Asa Hutchinson has previously been a prosecutor for the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas??? And that the questionable integrity of Asa Hutchinson is fairly widely known.


      51. I want a subpoena issued for the telephone records of Ms. Ashley Bowen and Chief Magistrate Judge James R. Marschewski for the dates January 27 through February 2, 2012, inclusive.


      (Please note that I more fully address the issue of Judicial Immunity in my supporting brief filed concurrently herewith. I apologize for any duplication but due to the time constraints imposed upon me by this court I simply do not have time to more properly organize my pleadings).


      52. In order for me to address the issue of Political Jurisdiction in the Arkansas courts the first pleading I filed was a motion for an Evidentiary Hearing which Judge Bearden characterized as a Preliminary Hearing. That hearing supplanted the Arraignment proceeding that had been originally scheduled for that day. That hearing dragged on for seven months comprising four court hearings until the charges against me were dismissed by Judge Webb because I had brought to his attention that the warrants he was proceeding under had expired at least two years prior to the day I was arrested.


      53. An Arraignment was never conducted in the Arkansas courts and a plea was never entered in that matter. Moreover, the proceedings in the Arkansas courts were conducted entirely in Administrative mode, never in judicial or prosecutorial mode as was acknowledged by Defendant Judge Bearden during a colloquy she participated in during the preliminary/evidentiary hearing of November 23, 2009, as is more fully set forth on page 16 of Exhibit #1 (and audibly on exhibit 1a), concurrently filed herein with my Complaint.


      54. The Fundamental Basic issue in those four hearings was the issue of Political Jurisdiction. Please see Exhibit 8 filed with my Complaint wherein I set forth twenty examples of previous appellate court case rulings establishing that once jurisdiction is challenged the court cannot move forward to a prosecution of the factual issues until the issue of jurisdiction is established; and that the court cannot simply claim jurisdiction, jurisdiction must be properly established with factual evidence, properly proved.


      55. There are many different aspects of jurisdiction, the most common being subject matter and personal. Both of the foregoing presume Political Jurisdiction has been established, which is rarely raised, however, in the case at hand, pertaining to me, addressed in the Arkansas courts subject hereof, the only jurisdictional issue addressed was Political Jurisdiction and such issue was addressed only in administrative mode, never in judicial or prosecutorial mode as has been erroneously represented by this MJ in his RAR!


      56. I contend that it is totally impossible for any court of Arkansas to determine the political jurisdiction of Arkansas over an individual who has not volunteered to submit himself to the political dominion of the state of Arkansas, as is clearly implied in the closing words of Section 2 of Article 2 of the Arkansas Constitution, "... from the consent of the governed".


      57. This is why I Served a Request for Admissions on Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, State Senator Johnny Key and Representative Monty Davenport, but the primary official with the responsibility to address this issue would be and is, Governor Mike Beebe.


      58. However true that may be, the point here is that until the Executive of Arkansas establishes it has properly established that it has political dominion over me, honorably acquired, in full conformance with the Federal Constitution's Thirteenth Amendment and Sections Two and Twenty-seven of Article Two of the Arkansas Constitution, it would be totally impossible for any lesser official of Arkansas to have authority to require me to conform to any Arkansas rules. Please understand that the foregoing is not stated from any manner of rebellion, it is stated as a matter of Natural and Constitutional Law!


      59. When Arkansas purports to establish a requirement that all drivers apply for and be issued a driver license Arkansas thereby imbues itself with a requirement to provide a means whereby every applicant who is otherwise qualified may be issued such a license.


      60. As I stated in my Complaint, I have never ever refused to apply for or be issued an Arkansas driver license. When I relocated to Arkansas in the year 2000 I immediately presented myself to the Revenue Office in Yellville where I attempted to apply for a driver license however the clerk refused to issue such license to me because I am unable to and refuse to present a document I know I do not know was created as a record of my birth, and, more to the point, heretofore no Arkansas official has been willing or is willing or able to present me a reasonable explanation as to how Arkansas acquires such dominion over anyone, or why Arkansas requires such a spurious document as a birth certificate to be presented by a driver license applicant, when there is no information what-so-ever on that document that contributes any information what-so-ever to the establishment of positive identification, or which could connect that document to the applicant absent the "voluntary" unsupportable claim of the applicant.


      61. Why do the clerks of the Arkansas Revenue Offices never ever ask a sixteen year old driver license applicant if the applicant can present proof that the birth certificate being presented by the applicant was created at the time of the applicant's birth?


      62. Please be reminded that it was Arkansas that has refused to establish a means by which I could be issued a driver license without my knowingly committing perjury and at the same time voluntarily relinquishing the condition of Freedom with which I was born, as is purportedly protected under Section 2 of Article 2 of the Arkansas Constitution.


      63. I contend that due to the fact that Arkansas has intentionally failed and refused to provide me a means of being issued an Arkansas driver license without me committing perjury and/or giving up every aspect of freedom I was born with, that Arkansas has thereby voluntarily abdicated any possible claim it might have reasonably had to require me to procure an Arkansas driver license or to exercise political dominion over me in any manner.


      64. How is the foregoing not a reasonable position under the circumstances presented?


      65. I contend that the forgoing totally forestalls any manner of judicial immunity that Defendant Bearden might otherwise be entitled to because before the judiciary of the State of Arkansas can have authority to proceed judicially over anyone (wherein judicial immunity would automatically attach) the Executive Branch of Arkansas must first comply with Sections Two and Twenty-seven of Article Two of its own Constitution by negotiating some manner of contractual agreement with the individual, which is what I have been attempting to do since I relocated to Arkansas in the year 2000.


      66. I contend that Arkansas uses the "voluntary" presentation of a birth certificate by a driver license applicant to surreptitiously comply with the Constitutional restraints herein mentioned, without Arkansas properly informing the driver license applicants of how they are being manipulated, as is more fully set forth in my 45 page Supporting Brief #6 filed concurrently with my Complaint which is hereby incorporated herein, in full, by reference.


      (Please note that I more fully address the issue of Prosecutorial Immunity in my supporting brief filed concurrently herewith. I apologize for any duplication but due to the time constraints imposed upon me by this court I simply do not have time to more properly organize my pleadings).


      67. I hereby contend that the self same arguments presented in paragraph 52 through 66, herein above, modified as appropriate to reflect application to Defendant Kenford Carter, likewise establish that Mr. Carter has no refuge in any manner of immunity.


      68. Additionally, I contend that the MJ in this matter has stumbled when he contended in his RAR that Defendant Carter on January 20, 2010 appeared in the Circuit Court of the County of Marion where this MJ contends that Defendant Carter filed a nol pros motion that was ignored by Judge Webb, when Judge Webb elected instead to grant my Motion to Dismiss.



      69. I contend that the foregoing statement of this MJ serves once again to demonstrate the bias and prejudice of this MJ against me because Defendant Kenford Carter had nothing what-so-ever to do with any of the proceedings in the Circuit Court. The name of the Deputy Prosecutor in the Circuit Court was Christopher Carter, which I was careful to point out in the 340 pages I filed concurrently with my Complaint, which it is clear that this MJ did not read much more than the first page or two thereof, and indexes of the exhibits and supportive briefs, but instead, relied on information he improperly garnered from the clerks of defendant Bearden and County of Marion and elsewhere when he appointed himself as Counsel for the Defendants.


      70. If this Court permits, I will file extended written objections to this MJRAR I will set forth therein additional evidence of this MJ's bias against me and more fully and properly address the errors in his RAR.



      (Please note that I more fully address the issue of the lack of

      Immunity of the County of Marion in my supporting brief filed concurrently herewith. I apologize for any duplication but due to the time constraints imposed upon me by this court I simply do not have time to more properly organize my pleadings).


      71. I hereby contend that the self same arguments presented in paragraph 52 through 66, herein above, modified as appropriate to reflect application to Defendant County of Marion, together with additional information I present in my Supporting Brief filed concurrently herewith, likewise establish that the County of Marion has no refuge in any manner of immunity, and as is further evidenced in the fact that County of Marion allowed its clerk to communicate information in a totally inappropriate ex-parte communication with this MJ initiated by this MJ.




      72. Therefore, based on the reasons set forth herein above and in Plaintiff's Supporting Brief referenced and incorporated herein, Plaintiff requests that the Magistrate Judge's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION be Stricken in the interest of Justice and as a matter of Law, and that the defendants' motions to dismiss should be denied or, in the event that the Judge in this matter needs more information to justify such dismissal, that this Plaintiff be accorded an appropriate extension to allow this Plaintiff to create and file a more comprehensive objection to this MJ's RAR, And, additionally, that the judge assigned to this case read the entire case file, including all exhibits and Supporting Briefs filed concurrently with the Complaint, and that this Plaintiff be accorded any and all other just and proper relief to which this Plaintiff might be entitled.






      Eric Williams, Propria Persona


      Call me at: 720-675-7230

      On Skype: legalbear

      Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

      Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:


      My blog: legalbearsblog.com

      Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com

      (formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.