Plaintiff brought the current action as the 41st action against Defendants Moores in some 4 years or less, including no less than 117 appearances by Moores in court or other enforcement in 5 years. Plaintiff did so for purely malicious and abusive reasons.
Between 2016 and 2017 Moores were served with variety of grading permit violations both made incorrectly, service was improper, and made against the incorrect party.
Several underlying violate conditions were alleged against individual private parties on two properties at both Elk Creek Road and Evans View in Pine Colorado and several were further alleged against business interests on each property.
Defendant further complained in a reciprocating complaint in 2016 to John Morris, Inspector for County that based on a particular number of complaints, that should have then triggered reciprocating complaints against those persons similarly situated who were either involved in similar activities, industries, actions or other.
Plaintiff declined to pursue those complaints and took absolutely no action against those parties as raised in reciprocating complaints by Defendants, instead strictly focusing on a deliberately, malicious and vexatious pursuit of Defendants in which Defendants have been held to a standard clearly disparate and much high fewer than those similarly situated. Such actions appear discriminatory and retaliatory given the clear causal connectionadn nexus to underlying complaints filed by Defendant following her obtaining the termination of a rogue officer involved in sexual misconduct and her subsequent claims filed against the department for the considerable damages they had inflicted don her, her family, business and her business interests.
Service of the alleged grading and related erosion control violations was made to persons with no title held in the land upon which the alleged offenses took place.
Arbitrary joinder of parties and motion to amend was made without the commensurate requisite jurisdictional authority (there was neither subject matter jurisdiction nor personal jurisdiction)
In 2017 following the amended complaint Defendants moved to have complaint moved into District Court and Counterclaimed against Plaintiff, Board of County Commissioners for thJefferson County Colorado, by and through Counsel, together with other agents and agencies both in their collective individual capacities and as the aggregate for fraud upon the Court, abuse of a person in position of power and other tortious actions that the Plaintiffs were and continue to be alleged to be engaged in strictly for the purposes of damaging Defendants.
In the late summer of 2018 Counsel for Defendants requested copied of alleged violations complaints upon which the complaints by and through their counsel. Plaintiff counsel responded indicating ‘…she was asking to be sued…’ (Mph added)
In Fall of 2018 Defendants were forced into arbitration and settled in god faith, unaware of the deception being perpetrated upon them, and given the extraordinary financial harms and damages they were incurring as a direct result of this and related actions Plaintiff was engaged in against them, doing so without being provided with the complete and accurate representation of the actual underlying jurisdictional basis and facts, which by and on its own represents a significant and outrageous violation of Defendants constitutional and other due process and isdeliverately deceptive and a fraud upon the court
Defendants continued to request and demand the stipulated evidence as central to the claim that the Plaintiffs made in this case, meanwhile having had her case removed from Destruct Count by Counsel, even as the Plaintiff continued its deceptive practices, its fraud and given that they were not being made available the full facts and evidence in this case.
In Summer 2019 Defendants were contacted by Planning and Zoning after numerous fruitless efforts to secure the evasive evidentiary materials, and having spent hundreds of thousands in legal fees, exhausted their resources, been exposed to multiple commensurate, equally frivolous and vexatious actions concurrently, and having incurred tens of millions in damages associated with the vexatious actions of plaintiffs, Plaintiff contacted Defendant asking Defendant to complete certain grading permit stipulations
Defendant was enraged at the sheer gumption of Plaintiff that Plaintiff would consider continuing its abuse after the sheer volume of atrocities and declined to do so, instead reiterating that Plaintiff was deceptively continuing to pursue actions without benefit of requisite jurisdictional authortoiries, amounting to a colossal fraud and abuse being perpetrated against Defendant snf the Court (who were it turns out in on the entire deal). Plaintiff was neither forthcoming nor responsive
In Fall (Oct through Nov/Dec) ongoing actions in the collective by Plaintiff had all but destroyed the Defendants lucrative mining company, forcing her to bankruptcy, as they had infect intended to do all along, and dong so buy continuing to force Defendants into expensive protracted litigation, where the Plaintiff, having unlimited resources as County and State funded, could easily exhaust and deplete the resources of the significantly underfunded female mine operator and related.
The strategy has had the required effect. Defendant in fact called Planning and Zoning in tears and demoralized, saying “make it right” over and over and over to Plaintiffs representative Pat O’Connell, prior to Christmas 2019. Pat acknowledged the abuse, the incredibly destructive and reckless manner that the Plaintiff has pursued the Defendant and responded that he would do so.
Defeat further at that time also notified Plaintiff of serious concerns she had regarding her safety and that of her family, what was left of her business etc, having ben made aware of significant corruption both at a County level and State level. Such corruption amongst public officials to include the revelation that Bill Hybl, ex CEA of the El Pomar Foundation between 2017 and 2018 and other was involved in a scheme to deny certain mining permit applications at the DIVISION of RECLAMATION MINING and SAFETY by paying off he Mined Land Board to deny these permits. Payments were made to unduly influence at a minimum the Colorado Land Trust, the Land Trust Board, certain members of the Division of Reclamation Minnie and d Safety and the Mined Land Board, responsible for promulgating and issuing enforcement actions against Mine Operators, including both Plaintiff and Defendant, through the State of Colorado. Under the 2007 CRS 32-34.5-112-215 et al (2007) (Supra)
Defendant indicate that she had just declined offer form :Lafarge at the same time as having her suspicions verified that this corruption and collusion was at play and that here was a significant connection and nexus to her operation in that the denials at a minimum affected the Hitch Rack application and the 112© permit application related to that application, and for which transit mx had expended at least $8 million in connection with the deal submittals and denials, and an additional $2.2 million in legal fees, and that she was now being encumbered with precisely the same enforcement action, being required to comply with the same 112© permit application, and was simply terrified given the whistle blower retaliation when was currently being exposed to at the County by and through the extraordinary retaliatory actions by Plaintiff, using repeated litigation as a techniques to silence, intimidate encumber etc, and what on earth or how pond earth was she supposed to then protect herself and her company from additional retaliation should it get out to the wrong people that she was aware of the criminal activities by persons intent on pursuing their own agendas, by those with a pecuniary or other similar interest, and for womb there were extremely powerful persons in a position of authority who could easily manipulate the legal process and more to enact their agenda in finishing the ongoing destruction that defendants had been subject to state.
After Christmas Defendant went and met with O’Connell both with and without her counsel, continuing to demand proof of the basis for jurisdiction to proceed. Plaintiff and Defendant reviewed Amanda and it became clear that there simply was no jurisdictional basis and the actions were purely malignant and intended to abuse and destroy
Defendant was appalled and issued scathing email entitled the t her ‘horses were starving’, using precisely the same language that the abuser whom she had blown the whistle upon in 2016 2017 had used on her, for which when reported to law enforcement, they declined to act
Instead, in a stunning turnaround, law enforcement to include the FBI pursued the Defendants, and Mrs. Moores, trespassing on her property and stating that they were there to ‘talk to her’ accusing her of ‘election interference’
Immediately after this Plaintiffs, after a failed series of phone calls and contacts in an effort to force Defendants once against, to comply with additional stipulations in the grading permit revisions, for which they might then be able to assert jurisdictional authority, instead attempted to seize two elderly horses located on property common to the grading complaint. In fact, the complaint asserted in the seizure, alleging animal cruelty and neglect, was by the very same attorneys involved in the deceptive practices and obfuscation under the grading permit complaint.
Once again, seizure was conducted in violation of law and in a reckless disregard for the facts, disregard of any ownership, failure to notify and joining defendants specifically with the intent to engage in a continuation on the ongoing endless cruel and barbaric pattern of hateful, outrageous behavior specifically to destroy Defendants and to drive the family apart.
The Plaintiffs action included filing animal cruelty and neglect charges alleging the horses were not being fed because there was hardly any hay at the barn. That happens when you have a place you are trying to sell and you have been buying hay numerous times during the week for some period of time and moreover, one horse, at the exceptional age of 32 years old, having had Cushing’s for at least 8 years, and having had a significant advancement in cancer who rapidly spread, was equivalent to well over 100 in human years. 32 years. 32 Fucking years and you bastards made me kill him. And then chop him into pieces
The Plaintiffs simply took the other horse. They declined to tell the Defendants her location, instead enforcing usurious and extremely expensive housing conditions., delaying hearings and failing to notify of hearings, assessing charges against Mr Moores, when he had absolutely nothing to do with the horses in any form a tall and dongs so for no reason at all other than to be malicious, and penalizing him, driving him into hospital for in excess of 12 days out of sheer stress and refusing to coordinate at all, refusing to notify him and engaging in a shell game to twist things around.
They went Tso far as to file a second restraining order against Mrs. Moores, with NO jurisdictional basis at all. Refusing to acknowledge the jurisdictional or statutory basis for doing so, and demanding excessive and usurious additional facial remedies from persons who simply had no connection with the action and with the horses, strictly to economically abuse. All the time, continuing to maintain the same pattern of deception and diversion tactics they have done in the grading complaint and other matters, refusing to provide ANY exculpatory materials and simply forcing the Defendants into a horrific position of financial destitution, killing their animals and eventually disposing of them
|NOTATION 1 It should be noted here that there is an alarming degree of predictability with which the Appellant can be assured that there is not a chance in Hell in which she ever will receive an unbiased or prejudice free hearing in any court in Jefferson County, having been engaged in whistleblowing against a Jefferson County employee and related, for which certain Jefferson County have assured her that they will never rest until they have destroyed her financially and otherwise. Following these comments, Appellant has been in the last 48 months or so, subject to a withering barrage of largely frivolous (baseless, having no basis for which litigation should reasonably proceed), litigation, including court appearances, tax actions, denial of appeals, denial of tax appeals, enforcement proceedings, and more, with a grueling and shocking degree of disparate and inequitable applications, totaling no less than 117 actions in the 48 month period (2.44 actions per month) (EXHIBIT A). These cases brought against Appellant in front of this Court are strictly to damage Appellant financially and economically per observations of the cumulative proceedings by an ANTI SLAPP expert and to cause constructive termination of Appellant. Both Appellee and Court were and remain aware of this. (G. Pring (retired) Sturm College of Law, Professor, Author Anti SLAPP Defense Pome (1984)) NOTATION 2: Of course it’s a well-documented waste of time to attempt to seek any form of recourse or protection from law enforcement or judiciary in Jeffco since even Appellants rape counselor in related (rape) case in re deputy in Jefferson County has stated ‘you cannot file charges ******, against an officer in Jefferson County nor anywhere else along the Front Range; they stick together…… you will never be able to (obtain justice with respect to the rape…’) (Name redacted since everyone is terrified of speaking out like Moores did, in regards to the rape and other infractions by Jeffco judiciary, JCSO and other Jefferson County agencies after seeing what happened to the Appellant) ** Note: No less than four (4) additional women came forward after the Moores reporting sexual malfeasance by officers (substantiated) and having seen the damages sustained by Moores and family following her complaints, each one has been subsequently silenced)|
State through Jefferson County Sheriff and Animal Control and Attorneys for County and Judiciary seized Animals without the requisite jurisdictional authority. Officers making affidavit for the State (JCSO) including Gary Whiting had an agenda to pursue arising from underlying case in which Moores Juliet was responsible for obtaining the termination of Officer Sensano in 2013/2014 for sexual assault.
Officer Whiteside misrepresented facts on the afdfaadavatit and committed fraud upon gate court in the complaint to Judge Moores, suggesting horses were starving and that he had reason to believe a crime was being committed when he knew very well that a) horses were indeed not starving, that b) Mrs. Moores had been exposed to considerable trauma by and through the rape, the decapitation of her husband and other, and had relied heavily upon the horses for therapeutic and other and had kept the horses for in excess of thirty (30) years and that c) both Defendants, their underage children and Mrs. Moores had been subject to additional assaults and false actions, including incarceration, lying on the stand to obtain a conviction (Officer Whiteside), lying to conceal relationships with those making unreported campaign contributions to Sheriff Shraders, and making dishonest statements regarding other matters strictly in order to derail Mrs. Moores political aspirations including run for Sheriff in Jefferson County as political candidate. In doing so Whiteside consorted with other parties at JCSO including Laurence, Taylor and unknown FBI agent and others to conspire to engage in a campaign to deliberately ruin destroy and otherwise harm the Defendants reputation, to cause positing’s at the Clear Creek Courant Newspaper, to conspire to refuse to assist or act in any way to mitigate losses or harms towards Defendants, to underreport or fail to investigate crimes at all, to deliberately engage in actions accusing the Defendants to be placed in harm’s way, to deliberately place the Decadents children in harm’s way, to refuse to provide or otherwise dishonestly conceal evidence exculpatory to Defendants, to be dishonest or contaminate evidence to refuse to provide exculpatory evidence and to conceal such evidence where it might benefit the Defendants and to otherwise engage I nations to demean harm intimidate silence and otherwise impugn Defendants with the intent of ultimately destroying the family unit, retaliating against Mrs. Moores for her role in reporting sexual malfeasance and her efforts to protect the people on the 285 corridor, to further engage and conspire to unlawfully attempt to place the Defendants in harm’s way with the intent on incarcerating Mrs. Moores and economically destroying her family, company and more, and the ultimately providing the business to her competitors and for the pecuniary benefit of the state and County interests.
Whiteside is one of several officers wen effecting service or otherwise appearing to further harm the Defendants at their place of business by declining to participate in site specific training pursuant to 30CFR Part 46. Appellant place of business is a mining operation in western Jefferson County. Every mining operation throughout the US is subject to provisions in 30 CR Part 46 et al.
Whiteside and other JCSO officers were responsible for repeatedly violating 30CFR Part 46 Service was made with one copy to Elk Creek Sand & Gravel LLC, and Moores was not served individually, nor at all. Individual acting on behalf of Appellee, by declining to participate in Site Specific Training, a mandatory supervening Federal requirments for all persons, regardless of status, upon entry, when disembarking at a permitted mine operation anywhere throughout the United States, render the service invalid and ergo, unenforceable.
Courts were notified over and over of the defects but simply disregarded the law, but continued, regardless, including Plaintiffs State engaging in a protracted vicious personal attack on the character and integrity of Defendants, publishing dilatory and outrageous libelous remarks in local newspapers
These attacks continue even today and have seriously impaired ability of Defendants to conduct business reasonably.
Defendant Moores Roger is neither notified correctly nor notified at all regarding any hearings or other and has simply been included in a broad gesture by Plaintiffs to further harm family and drive wedge between them as State continued its unabated attacks on Defendants
Defendant Moores Roger is unknown – there is nobody by this name in any connection to the horses or persons named herein
Defendants have been seriously harmed both physically and financially due to dishonest representations by Whiteside’s and others at JCSO
Defeats have been seriously harmed by Klymkowsky et al acting on behalf of the state whose dishonesty, lies and other serious infractions continue to this day in actions that are strictly invalid, for lack of jurisdiction, against Defendants without teconmmensurate jurisdictional framework there either
Appellant did raise a claim timely, in regards to the unpaid balance due to Elk Creek et al from Appellees, both before and during this case, which remains unaddressed at this time and for which the Appellees are still liable pursuant to statute. This matter remains open
Appellants assert that jurisdictional defects in claim by Appellees arise when Court failed to correctly interpret the prevailing Standard of Review in the Mined Land 1977 Act for which there are corresponding procedural defects giving rise to the jurisdictional defects issue at hand.
Courts have a duty to reverse judgements made without requisite authority and to make the injured party (APPELLANT) whole (Seaside, vacate and rollback sanctions)
ANALYSIS in STANDARD OF REVIEW
- ENFORCEMENT IS BARRED WHERE PROCEDURAL DEFECTS EXIST IN SERVICE (Gives rise to no Subject Matter and no Personal Jurisdiction over Parties)
Mining companies throughout the United States are governed as a matter of law by the 1978 Federal Mine Safety Act (the Act). The Act is the supervening Standard of Review in this matter. The Act supervenes State and local regulations and no person is exempt from conditions under the Act when accessing or otherwise entering a mine property. The Court is well aware of the nature of this supervening Federal law, in MSHA vs. Jefferson County (1978). Further the Courts, by and through their implicit relationship as a governmental agency (COUNTY), in MSHA (1978) have attempted to infer that given their authority as a government agency, they could exempt themselves from the requirments to comply with this Federal legal Standard of review. In MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration), Federal District Court held that County was in fact, subject to oreciciely the same standard of review and provisions as any other mine operator, and was not exempt (from penalties). Thus it is undeniable, and factually inviolate, that where the lower court may have disregarded and otherwise misinterpreted the prevailing Federal Standard of Review, that this error represents a serious Constitutional and Due Process Denial of Appellants fundamental protections under the Fifth, Sixth and Eight Amendments, which as they are raised in this matter, form the basis of a review and vacation of the underlying matter. Further, County and ergo Court, has sought to enforce such provisions over the appellant, while at the same time saying that it did not have to comply with such provisions. This is factually inaccurate and forms the basis for reversal.
Service was made incorrectly as the Appellee party making service declined to comply with the Provisions stipulated in the Act, specifically 30CFR Part 46.11. (Site Specific Training). Such provisions may not be waived for any reason, and exceptions are limited. As such, service was thus made in violation of supervening Rules under the 1978 Federal Mined Land Act 30CFR Part 46/47 etc (The Act).
Appellant has an inviolate right to be free from the defects in service of process. Service of Process shall be made upon each party listed as defendants. Furthermore, shall be made correctly to ‘….a (persons) place of business……..’ Service was never made to Moores, and thus the court did not have jurisdiction given that there was no personal jurisdiction over the Appellant Defendant. Moores did not appear as a party in this case. (DOESN’T HAVE TO IF NOT SERVED CORRECTLY) Service made to Appellant Defendant Elk Creek Sand & Gravel LLC, was made incorrectly as the process server Appellee, failed to comply with the supervening mandatory Federal Standard, site specific training, when serving Defendant Appellant, ergo their requirments to appear is waived also
Plaintiff Appellee asserted to Appellant that they have a significant amount of experience with gravel deliveries and are a contractor, demanding ‘contractor pricing, ad commensurate contractor delivery vehicle. Appellant reasonably relied upon their assertions. Delivery was by a subcontractor and defects in delivery to be addressed through a claim against carrier’s liability policy, also acknowledged by Appellees. Given their assertion that they had a level of ‘familiarity’ with ‘truck deliveries’ and that they had had ‘many (gravel) truck deliveries’ in the past, and then by declining to comply with the prevailing legal standard of Review at all mining operations, throughout the United States, there exists a critical defect in the personal and subject matter jurisdiction of the court over the Defendant Elk Creek. The jurisdictional defects arising from service of process defects in the underlying matter, de facto, invalidates any Order, Judgement or other issued by the lower Court. Where court, in error or otherwise, issues a ruling, the courts have held that the Order is VOIDABLE as a matter of law and shall be reviewed and vacated immediately, and any penalties, other assessed to be set aside and rolled back See also Restatements, Judgments ‘ 4(b). Prather void, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1574 defines a void judgement as “… One which has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally”. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App. 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. “One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree.”
A void judgement is tropically rendered by a court with no jurisdiction as in this case. In this case the Appellant is willing to confer the benefit of the doubt to courts actions, and suggest that court may be unaware that the requisite jurisdiction was not conferred, either of the subject matter or the parties. See: Information Network Vs. Mined Land, Colorado 10th District, (July 2019), Wahl v. Round Valley Bank, 38 Ariz. 411, 300 P.955 (1931) Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146 P. 203 (1914) Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 2d 278 (1940)
Despite procuring a judgement in violation of Defendants due process, the court had no jurisdiction over parties and other defects existed (three of the four requisite corners of a roll), the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shore bank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 Ill. 1999) County enforces property tax valuation and has had a significant amount of time during which it has levied an assortment of spurious and retaliatory charges against Defendants, from which jurisdiction is apparent. Since County proceeded I the full knowledge that they had declined to obtain the requisite authority to proceed, such procedure was in and of itself, formed the basis of intent and malicious
In this case the court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction and future entered an order which violated due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5-Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell, 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). In the case of Fed Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b) (4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const Amend. 5. Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985) judgement was entered in a manner inconsistent with due process, as in this case, where parties are denied Hearing. In cases such as these certiorari is appropriate
While courts have held that a void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, and may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it, it is prudent to ask the Court to consider issuing a finding of fact. The invalid judgement, with no inherent authority, is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. … It is not entitled to enforcement … All proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am Jury Judgments ” 44, 45.
- COLLATERAL ATTACK and Preservation of other Issues Raised Prior to Judgement in this Matter given NULLITY in the underlying matter
The judgement (enforcement action) is void for want of Personal Jurisdiction. In this case, an invalid enforcement, or one based upon jurisdictional defects, cannot be enforced and may be collaterally attacked at any time. In Ward. v. Terrier, 386 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1963). A void judgment is a simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects only. In this case service was never made correctly. Service is invalid, there is no Personal Jurisdiction, an issue raised timely and ignored by Court, thus also open to later collateral attack
Courts have long held that a VOID or VOIDABLE Judgement, UNENFORCEABLE, shall be immediately vacated, and that any judgement may be collaterally attacked at any time, where such unenforceability exists on the basis of NULLITY with specificity:
- NULLITY WHEN RIGHT TO BE HEARD is not accommodated: MAKES JUDGEMENT (I) VOID: (cannot be enforced by Court) or (ii) VOIDABLE (Court required to Nullify post [incorrect] judgement) for failure to Notify or make adequate arrangements to accommodate: (No Hearing for Defendant and No reasonable accommodations made for Hearing – DUE PROCESS VIOLATION: Court held Hearing and in doing so, when Appellants were never served correctly, violated the constitutional protections of Appellants to have a Hearing on the matter, and in doing so this renders the judicial determination of the matter to be void) The courts have held that this right is unassailable, and that every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question. Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. No Opportunity to Be Heard A judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not a judicial determination of his rights. Sabari ego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S Ct 461, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.)
- NULLITY BARRS SPECIFICIC PERFORMANCE BY COUNTY and COURT in COURT ORDER ISSUED FOR SANCTIONS, in the underlying matter as this is void for lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction as in *Elliot v. Pierson, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) and Personal Jurisdiction. Given the Jurisdictional defects herein the court order issued in Hearing is therefore UNENFORCEABLE as a matter of law. Higher courts have long recognized that under Federal law which applicable in all states, the U S Supreme Court stated that “if a court is without (the requisite) authority, its judgements and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, simply void, and form no bar to a reverie sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification (they cannot be justified); and all persons concerned in executing such judgements, are considered in law, as trespassers. “Elliot v. Pierson, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828).
- Preservation of Right to Raise Subject Matter Jurisdiction at Later Date and Preservation of Right to Raise Federal Jurisdiction and Pursue Federal Venue
Defendant Appellant has preserved her rights to raise Subject Matter Jurisdiction questions by raising these in front of the Court multiple times in both earlier related hearings (O’Riley vs Elk Creek, December 2018, in which same Court simply dismissed, incorrectly, when it misinterpreted the issue of prevailing Federal Law as the Legal Standard) and in other court pleadings in this matter (INTEROGATORIES August 2019, Other)
“…1. Defendant received pattern interrogatories on 2019-9-13 (served illegally failed to comply with 30CFR Part 46) …..”
Appellant Defendant further preserves her right to seek additional review in and further consolidate this and related concurrent matters, in a Federal Venue, having raised the issue of Federal jurisdiction prior to the Order (JUDGEMENT) being issued by the Court.
- Preservation of Right to Raise Cross Complaint of Non Payment
Defendant Appellant has preserved this issue as raised timely
- PENALTIES are EXCESSIVE USORIOUS VIOLATE EIGHTH AMENDMENT Bar to UNREASONABLE PENALTIES and FIFTH AMENDMENT BAR TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Under this legal standard the penalties enacted against Appellants Defendants, are barred by the Eighth Amendment Bar to Unreasonable Sanctions, and in addition, The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which protects from, and with specificity, the clause which bars the imposition of multiple punishments for the same offense. United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 109 S. Ct. 1892, 104 L. Ed. 2d 487 (1989). It is the fourth category that is at issue here.
The continued assault by Appellees given the order of court to allow for excessive and usurious penalties well in excess of what the court has determined as standard of review to be ‘penalties that are no longer re-directing but amount to financial abuse, as in this case, are a direct violation of the Appellants Fourth and Eighth Amendment Constitutional Protections, to be free from excessive and harsh penalties. Clearly forcing Appellants, where no jurisdictional authority exists, continually to answer protracted and expensive litigation, in denial of her due process and constitutional protections, and where there exists an appearance that (combined) actions by the Court are now strictly for the purposes of economically exhausting the Appellants, in retaliation for constitutionally protected actions by Appellants in earlier related actions and where there exists a clear causal connection and nexus, (reporting rogue police officer sexual misconduct which resulted in termination of officer, followed by retaliatory response by County officers and others acting under color of law), and where there exists a repeated pattern of the same infractions against Appellant Defendant by Court etc (repeated errors by court in interpretation of Federal Review Standard, repeatedly denying due process to Appellant in associated/connected related actions, and array of constitutional violations by officers of the court following her whistleblowing, who repeatedly engage in additional litigation, enforcement actions and more with flimsy pretexturally context at best, enacted simply to bury the Appellant in such a huge load of legal overhead, that this has the effect of depleting her resources, preventing her from pursuing any other work or otherwise protecting herself, causing her to be unable to respond to financial and economic matters and eventually constructively discharging and terminating her from her rock quarry, a matter in which the court can be shown to have a pecuniary interest that they declined to disclose), are de facto, excessive penalties to any reasonable man.
Moreover, they are double jeopardy in that Appellant is first sanctioned, unlawfully, at the lower court, and then sanctioned again (constructive termination), for the same alleged infraction, through continued retaliatory vexatious litigation and decisions by Court and Appellees
Defendant Appellant has the right to be free from excessive penalties, and sanctions promulgated by the Court, given underlying jurisdictional defects, together with actions by court to include offering legal advice to Appellees, and declining to provide the Appellant Defendant with a fair Hearing, are in and of themselves, due process violations, such that this taints the proceedings sufficiently, such that, and where taken in the context of similarly situated concurrent actions and decisions by same court against same Appellant Defendant, related matters, that the Court as in Abbot Vs. Perez, No 17-586, decided June 25, 2018 (Texas) (Supreme Court of the US), that the court ‘never intended ‘ for Defendant Appellants to proceed reasonably, and that the ‘intended effect’ was that Defendant Appellants continue to be subject to the ongoing litany of economic abuses
By failing to ‘intend’ nor providing for a reasonable Hearing for Appellants, by and through the excessive sanctions which clearly are, de factor, amount to finically abusive, well in excess of the intent of such sanctions to curb behavior by the penalized party, there exists the appearance of impropriety and a tainted legal process.
- CONTINUING TO PURSUE LEGAL ACTIONS and SANCTIONS against APPELLANT in disregard of Prevailing Legal Standard as UNENFORCEABLE as a matter of law, amounts to Per Se, ECONOMIC ABUSE, Where Appellants are DENIED DUE PROCESS, Where Persons acting in their INDIVIDUAL CAPACTITY, under color of Law continue to exert excessive sanctions barred as a matter of law, and where Appellants can demonstrate DAMAGES
Courts have long held that where penalty (SANCTIONS) are found to be VOID and UNENFORCEABLE as a matter of law, given serious and FACTUAL jurisdictional defects, (it is a fact that there is a supervening prevailing Federal Authority that Appellants failed to comply with such that this formed the basis of a significant jurisdictional defect) and where Judgment is a “void judgment” such that if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or that lacks inherent power to aggregate of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process (Court rendered judgement when it knew that it did not have the requisite jurisdictional authority to do so ) Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901, the judgement is VOID and must be vacated as a matter of law. (Instead of acting as a judge under the law, He/She is acting as a private person, and not in the capacity of being a judge (and, therefore, has no jurisdiction)).
Members of law enforcement and others, acting at behest of invalid and voidable ruling of court (judgement) serve interrogatories (also served incorrectly in violation of 30CFR Part 46/437 by law enforcement with Jefferson County who refused to comply with Site Specific Training Standards as promulgated in supervening Federal law at Mine Site, August 2019) an also serve a judgement upon the Banking Institution for the Appellant Defendant. In each case, these are held to be ‘aiding and abetting’ or further ‘…acting upon’ the ‘order of a judge (magistrate Shafer) and are considered in Klugh to be ‘equally guilty’. The state Supreme Courts have held that those who aid, abet, advise, act upon and execute the order of a judge who acts without jurisdiction are ‘…equally guilty…’, they are equally guilty of a ‘…crime against the U.S. Government…’
Continuing actions against parties, when there exists a clear indisputable factual basis as to the specific defects, and where there is a constitutional defect, forms intent, and more specifically, malicious intent, and opens the door to injured parties to pursue significant additional damages against both the Agency and individuals who insist upon such a course of action. The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law extend to judicial as well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228.
Damages (injuries including economic) to Appellant by actions by persons acting in their individual capacity, (including ongoing and related, as a result of Constructive termination, etc), including judgements are in excess of $700,000,000.00 to date. Damages to appellants due to actions by Appellees are in excess of $20,000.00 to date
The Appellant can demonstrate the elements necessary to construe intent, and more importantly, malicious intent, constructive termination resulting from actions arising as a result of intent and the requisite damages together with the necessary causal connection nexus between elements, for the purposes of forming a demonstrable complaint where persons continue to act in their individual capacity, unlawfully, and continue to inflict economic abuses, financial injuries on Appellants
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED
- Defendant Appellant seeks to have appellate Court decision reviewed, and handed back to lower court to be vacated. Further defendant Appellant seeks to have, in accordance with Standard of Review, any sanctions, penalties and other costs or actions associated with this matter, including pattern interrogatories, or other judgement, immediately vacated in accordance with statute, have earlier judgement SETASIDE, and roll back penalties and other (See pattern interrogatories response by Appellant Defendant in this matter)
”…2. Defendant has filed an appeal 9/4/19 (19CV190) and posted a cash surety bond in this matter Defendant attaches and incorporates her proof of filing received by the court in this regard (see Exhibit A) which were posted timely given date of filing of default by .
3. Plaintiff filed requesting pattern interrogatories when he was already notified regarding the appeal and as such is aware that there is additional action pending. This is consistent with a pattern of behaviors by Plaintiff. Defendant is concerned that Plaintiff has done so strictly to violate Defendants privacy……………”
- These economic abuses of the Appellant Defendant, the excessive sanctions and repeated vexatious litigation, by persons acting in their individual capacities and under color of law, and having waived any immunity protections provided to them, expose not only Appellees to serious sanctions but also those who ‘aid and abet them’, for which Appellants seek to preserve their rights to seek restitution.
- Appellant seeks to compel payment in full, for any and all unpaid balances due from Appellees to Appellants ($5081.00), court costs ($7912.00), damages and other sanctions as the court sees fit
- Lastly Appellant Defendant Seeks to compel statutory protections for which she is eligible, including injunctive relief to enjoin the Appellees, and those acting on behalf of or in concert with Appellees, to be permanently restrained, and to further immediately cease and desist additional frivolous litigation, and to stay any further vexatious or frivolous complaints against herself, her family and associated interests, given her status as a whistleblower, and given the conflict of interest, and abuse of authority, by those in a position of authority, pending a full and complete independent criminal investigation into activities by those at center of whistleblowing activities, and pursuant to statute, for protection of Appellant from any further damages and retaliatory actions during the course of such investigation and conclusion. Such continued actions are nothing less than harassment at this time and amount to SLAPP actions (Pome 1984), and an unconscionable violation of Appellant Defendants Constitutional protections, due process, security and privacy