Lehman v Nakshian
US Supreme court attempt to do away with
7thAmendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38.
First posted
Tuesday June 5, 2007 07:20
Updated
Friday August 3, 2007 07:14


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lehmanvoid/lehmanvoid.htm#roberts2





Here's the materials that went to Roberts and were returned





Here's just the first and last pages of letter copy sent directly, and received, by Roberts.


http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lehmanvoid/lehmanvoid.htm#suter3



Our void judgment motion was returned in this envelope.





----- Original Message -----
From: bill payne
To: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:07 AM
Subject: judicial misconduct at us supreme court complaint

 
Label/Receipt Number: 7007 0220 0002 4337 2876
Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 7:39 AM on July 17, 2007 in WASHINGTON, DC 20543.





Label/Receipt Number: 7007 0220 0002 4337 2883
Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 7:39 AM on July 17, 2007 in WASHINGTON, DC 20543.



Thursday July 12, 2007 07:00

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lehmanvoid/lehmanvoid.htm#suter2

Certified return receipt requested

General William Suter,Clerk
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, DC 20543

Dear General Suter:

You wrote on June 13, 2007
Under Article III of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of this Court extends only to the consideration of cases or controversies properly brought before it from lower courts in accordance with federal law and filed pursuant to the Rules of this Court.

Article III of the Constitution states

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power 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 all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--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 claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

We don't see "the jurisdiction of this Court extends only to the consideration of cases or controversies properly brought before it from lower courts in accordance with federal law and filed pursuant to the Rules of this Court."

Our MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VOID JUDGMENT clearly stated
3 Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. 2

"in any court" appears not to exclude the US Supreme court.

"Direct attack" appeared to be the most expeditious since Lehman v Nakshian No. 80-242 is properly before the supreme court.

We can, of course, try a collateral attack if you and Roberts don't do your jobs.

We do see "[T]he judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, ..."

And as required by the 6th Amendment to the Constitution that all member of the US Supreme Court were required to sign
"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

And you as clerk of the US Supeme Court were required to sign under 28 USC § 951. Oath of office of clerks and deputies states
Each clerk of court and his deputies shall take the following oath or affirmation before entering upon their duties: “I, XXX XXX, having been appointed XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of such court, and will faithfully and impartially discharge all other duties of my office according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God.”

Your wrote
In reply to your letter or submission referred to this office by the Chief Justice on June 6, 2007, I regret to inform you that the Court is unable to assist you in the matter you present.

We feel that it is regretable that chief justice Roberts chooses to violate his oath of office in writing by NOT voiding judgment which violates right of jury trial guaranteed inviolate by 7th Amendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38.

And we also feel it is regretable that you did not docket our MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION DIRECTED TO JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., CHIEF JUSTICE, ORDER VACATING LEHMAN V NAKSHIAN, and MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VOID JUDGMENT.

We believe that you violated your oath of office again in processing our filings.

First time you violated your oath of office was on June 22, 2004 when you did not docket our rule 22 writ petition to restore our civil rights. You attempted to convert our writ petition into an appeal of loss of our civil rights. Finally you returned our documents in damaged condition.

We feel that placing CIV NO 97 0266 SC/DJS before a jury is so important for possible peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters.

Assistant US attorney Jan Mitchell relied on voidable Lehman v Nakshian to show that trial by jury is not guaranteed inviolate by US Constitution. This is unconstitutional and must be voided.

We addressed reasons in our reply seen at http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nsalawsuit/nsalawsuit.htm#reply.

For this reason we are returning our motion to you to docket and a copy to chief justice Roberts.

We ask that chief justice Roberts act quickly to vacate Lehman v Nakshian so as to speed possible peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters.
When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary. 4

We ask that you two do your jobs as required by your oath of office.

Please return file stamped copy of motion and mandatory judicial notice by July 25, 2007 for our files.

Sincerely,


_________________________
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111


_________________________
Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108

Distribution

John G Roberts, Jr Certified, return receipt requested.
U.S. House of Representative Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

The supreme court judge, maybe minus Stevens, have in writing violating their oath of office because right of jury trial is guaranteed inviolate by 7th Amendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38. See

No. 06-484
In the Supreme Court of the United States


TELLABS, INCORPORATED AND RICHARD C. NOTEBAERT,
Petitioners,
v.
MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, LTD., et al.,
Respondents.



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WASHINGTON, DC 20543-0001

June 13, 2007

William H. Payne
13015CalledeSandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

RE: William H. Payne, et al.

Dear Mr. Payne:

In reply to your letter or submission referred to this office by the Chief Justice on June 6, 2007,I regret to inform you that the Court is unable to assist you in the matter you present.

Under Article III of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of this Court extends only to the consideration of cases or controversies properly brought before it from lower courts in accordance with federal law and filed pursuant to the Rules of this Court. The Court does not give advice or assistance or answer legal questions on the basis of correspondence. Your papers are herewith returned.

The Rules of this Court are enclosed.

Sincerely,

William K./Suter, Clerk By:

Ruth Jones
(202) 479-3022









Looks like Clarence Thomas's assistant opened, then sent to Jones.




The supreme court sealed out self addressed stamped envelope.






Wednesday June 6, 2007

Certified return receipt requested

General William Suter,Clerk
Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, DC 20543

Dear General Suter:

Enclosed is an original and two copies of MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION DIRECTED TO JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., CHIEF JUSTICE, ORDER VACATING LEHMAN V NAKSHIAN, and MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VOID JUDGMENT.

We enclose self-addressed stamped envelope.

Please return a file stamped copy to us.

Sincerely,
_________________________
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

_________________________
Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108

DRAFT
Tuesday June 5, 2007 08:09

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lehmanvoid/lehmanvoid.htm#motion
U.S. SUPREME COURT


LEHMAN
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

v.                                                         CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF                                                             APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.                                                             No. 80-242.

NAKSHIAN                                       Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(4)
MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
DIRECTED TO
JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., CHIEF JUSTICE

I. INTRODUCTION

1 New Mexico assistant US attorney Jan Elizabeth Mitchell attempts to use Lehman v Nakshian as case law to support overthrow of Right of jury trial guaranteed inviolate by 7th Amendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38. in RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VOID JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION DIRECTED TO DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO, SANTA FE CHIEF JUDGE MARTHA VAZQUEZ filed 5/29/2007.

II. BASIS OF MOTION

2 Lawyers for Nakshian failed to file to void judgment in Lehman v Nakshian for lack of jurisdiction either for reasons that they do not know the law, incompetence, stupidity or malicious reason to overthrow void judgment doctrine for benefit of the legal community.

III. ISSUES

3 Right of jury trial is guaranteed inviolate by 7thAmendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38.

IV RELIEF SOUGHT

4 Return filed stamped copy of this Motion within 10 working days.

5 Sign attached ORDER vacating Lehman v Nakshian judgment for lack of jurisdiction.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

_________________________
Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108

Date: ____________________

Pro se litigants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION DIRECTED TO JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., CHIEF JUSTICE was mailed to Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, David Hackett Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC 20543 certified - return receipt requested to respond within 14 working days if any oppose motion because STEWART, J., who delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and WHITE, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed and a dissenting opinion of MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ are all unable to respond.

__________________________

__________________________
Date

DRAFT
Tuesday June 4, 2007 07:57

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lehmanvoid/lehmanvoid.htm#order
U.S. SUPREME COURT


LEHMAN
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

v.                                                         CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF                                                             APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.                                                             No. 80-242.

NAKSHIAN                                       Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(4)

ORDER VACATING LEHMAN V NAKSHIAN

1  No. 80-242 judged by STEWART, J., who delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and WHITE, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ.,  joined. BRENNAN, J., filed is vacated for lack of jurisdiction to deny right of DEMANDed trial by jury.

Right of jury trial is guaranteed inviolate by 7thAmendment to US Constitution and 28 USC Rule 38.

The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties.

Therefore

The court or tribunal must have the power of authority to render the particular judgment.

is not met.


                                                                    _________________________
                                                                    John G Thomas, Jr
                                                                    U.S Supreme Court
                                                                   
                                                                   _________________________
                                                                   Date

DRAFT
Tuesday June 5, 2007 14:33

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/lehmanvoid/lehmanvoid.htm#notice
U.S. SUPREME COURT


LEHMAN
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

v.                                                         CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF                                                             APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.                                                             No. 80-242.

NAKSHIAN                                       Federal Rule of Civ. P. 60(b)(4)
MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE AND AUTHORITIES TO VOID JUDGMENT

1 COMES NOW, plaintiffs Morales and Payne to place this court on judicial notice of authorities of motion to vacate judgment in No. 80-242.

2 To be valid and enforceable, a judgment must be supported by three elements:

(1) the court must have jurisdiction of the parties;
(2) the court must have jurisdiction of the subject matter; and
(3) the court or tribunal must have the power of authority to render the particular judgment.

If the requirements for validity are not met, a judgment may be subject to avoidance. 1

3 Any judgment rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction, either of the subject matter of the parties, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or entered an Order which violated due process or was procured through extrinsic or collateral fraud, is null and void, and can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. 2

4 Such a judgment is void from its inception, incapable of confirmation or ratification, and can never have any legal effect. 3

5 A void judgment must be dismissed, regardless of timeliness if jurisdiction is deficient. 5

6 When rule providing relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is mandatory and is not discretionary. 4

7 The passage of time, however great, does not affect the validity of a judgment 6 and cannot render a void judgment valid. 7

8 The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process of law extend to judicial, as well as political, branches of the government, 8 so that a judgment may not be rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guaranties. 9

9 A court may not render a judgment which transcends the limits of its authority, 10 and a judgment is void if it is beyond the powers granted to the court by the law of its organization, even where the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. 11
1 See Peduto v. North Wildwood (DC NJ) 696 F Supp 1004, affd (CA3 NJ) 878 F.2d 725; In re Doe (NM App) 99 NM 517, 660 P.2d 607; Tice v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 284 Pa Super 220, 425 A.2d 782.

2 See U.S.Const.Amdt. V; F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4); CR 60(b)(5); Federal cases: Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985); Rubin v. Johns, 109 F.R.D. 174 (D.Virg.Is.1985); Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell, 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); Millikan v. Meyer, 311 US 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed.2d 278 (1940); Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (CA7 1999).

3 See Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 NE2d 1152 (Ind.1998); Thompson v. Thompson, 238 SW2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App. 1951); Lucas v. Estate of Stavos, 609 NE2d 1114, rehng.den., trans.den, (Ind.App.Dist.1 1993); Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So2d 577 (Ala.Civ.App.1985); In re Marriage of Parks, 630 NE2d 509 (Ill.App.Dist.4 1991); Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No.27, 453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R.Fed. 298 (CA1 1972); Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 485 F.Supp. 456 (M.D.Fla.1980); Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F.Supp. 205, recon.den., 149 F.R.D. 147, aff’d, 29 F.3d 1145 (N.D.Ill.1992); City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 234 P2d 319 (Cal.App.Dist.2 1951).

4 Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo.1994).

5 See Asher v. Van Brunt, 158 F.R.D. 278 (S.D.N.Y.1994).

6 See State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 63 Nev 249, 167 P.2d 648 (ovrld in part on other grounds by Poirier v. Board of Dental Examiners, 81 Nev 384, 404 P.2d 1); Monroe v. Niven, 221 NC 362, 20 S.E.2d 311.

7 See State ex rel. Smith v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 63 Nev 249, 167 P.2d 648 (ovrld in part on other grounds by Poirier v. Board of Dental Examiners, 81 Nev 384, 404 P.2d 1); Columbus County v. Thompson, 249 NC 607, 107 S.E.2d 302.

8 As to persons and agencies bound by due process, see 16A Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law §§ 742, 821-824.

9 See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 US 235, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, 78 S.Ct. 1228, reh den 358 US 858, 3 L.Ed.2d 92, 79 S.Ct. 10; Ladner v. Siegel, 298 Pa 487, 148 A 699, 68 ALR 1172.

10 See Royal Indem. Co. v. Mayor, etc., of Savannah, 209 Ga 383, 73 S.E.2d 205; Spencer v. Franks, 173 Md 73, 195 A 306, 114 ALR 263; Road Material & Equipment Co. v. McGowan, 229 Miss 611, 91 So.2d 554, motion dismd 229 Miss 630, 92 So.2d 245; Howle v. Twin States Express, Inc., 237 NC 667, 75 S.E.2d 732; Fitzsimmons v. Oklahoma City, 192 Okla 248, 135 P.2d 340; Robertson v. Commonwealth, 181 Va 520, 25 S.E.2d 352, 146 ALR 966; Reburg v. Lang, 239 Wis 381, 1 N.W.2d 759. The courts of a state may render only such judgments as they are authorized to do under the laws of the state. Mosely v. Empire Gas & Fuel Co., 313 Mo 225, 281 SW 762, 45 ALR 1223.

11 See People ex rel. Arkansas Valley Sugar Beet & Irrigated Land Co. v. Burke, 72 Colo 486, 212 P. 837, 30 ALR 1085; People v. Wade, 116 Ill 2d 1, 107 Ill Dec 63, 506 N.E.2d 954; Gray v. Clement, 296 Mo 497, 246 SW 940; Ex parte Solberg, 52 ND 518, 203 NW 898; Russell v. Fourth Nat’l Bank (Ohio) 102 Ohio St 248, 131 NE 726; Hough v. Hough (Okla) 772 P.2d 920; Farmers’ Nat’l Bank v. Daggett (Tex Com App) 2 S.W.2d 834; State v. Turner, 98 Wash.2d 731, 658 P.2d 658; Shopper Advertiser, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Revenue, 117 Wis 2d 223, 344 N.W.2d 115.
Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
William H. Payne
13015 Calle de Sandias NE
Albuquerque, NM 87111

_________________________
Arthur R. Morales
465 Washington St SE
Albuquerque, NM 87108

Date: ____________________

Pro se litigants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION DIRECTED TO JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., CHIEF JUSTICE was mailed to Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, David Hackett Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC 20543 certified - return receipt requested to respond within 14 working days if any oppose motion because STEWART, J., who delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and WHITE, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed and a dissenting opinion of MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ are all unable to respond.

__________________________

__________________________
Date

Sunday June 24, 2007 06:11 Weiss et al, if they don't immediately file to void supreme court judgment, are interferring with our legal project.

Bugmenot doesn't have a PACER login, so you will have to register to view Tellabs v Makor.

Supreme court envelopes have been moved into lehmanvoid.

Note what lawyers for MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, LTD., et al., have done.

Let's hope Weiss et al file for void judgment or their clients file for malpractice against Weiss et al.

The justices ruled 8 to 1 that investors had to show a likelihood of wrongdoing in the early stages of a case before it could proceed to trial.

No. 06-484
In the Supreme Court of the United States


TELLABS, INCORPORATED AND RICHARD C. NOTEBAERT,
Petitioners,
v.
MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, LTD., et al.,
Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit BRIEF FOR THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION AND THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

Not only does 06-484 appear to be void but at least 8 of the supreme court justices have violated their oath of office to uphold the us constitution since it looks like a jury trial was DEMANDED and paid for.

Read Wikipedia comments on oath of office.

Mr Larson

Looks to us that the us supreme court violated their oath of office for not upholding the 7th amendment to the us constitution. mbuden@sifma.org;kkeller@sifma.org;bveghte@sifma.org;jbunton@sifma.org

437 F. 3d 588, vacated and remanded.

06-484 lawyer information.

Lawyer Weiss may be playing lawyer games if, in fact, his clients DEMANDed and paid for a trial by jury and Weiss does NOT move to void judgment at the US supreme court. This is also damaging to us for it attempts to set a precident of voiding the 7th amendment to the US Constitution.

We emailed Weiss

http://www.prosefights.org/nmlegal/nsalawsuit/nsalawsuit.htm#reply

We hope you firm takes action on behalf of your clients to void judgment rather than playing "lawyer games."

regards

PACER gives

United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-04356

Plaintiff Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. Lead Plaintiff TERMINATED: 12/03/2002 represented by Keith M Fleischman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2002 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stephanie M Beige (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/03/2002 V. Defendant Tellabs, Inc.

Date Filed: 06/18/2002
Date Terminated: 03/02/2007
Jury Demand: Both

Date Filed # Docket Text 06/18/2002

1 COMPLAINT (Attachment(s); jury demand - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of Steven G. Schulman, Marvin A. Miller, Samuel H. Rudman, Jennifer Winter Sprengel, Lori Ann Fanning, Nadeem Faruqi and Guri Ademi as attorney(s) for plaintiff ( no summons(es) ( Documents: (1-1 through 1-3)) (gcy) (Entered: 06/19/2002)

06/18/2002 RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 6/18/02 in the amount of $ 150.00, receipt # 10620432. (gcy) (Entered: 06/19/2002)

01/30/2007 129 RECORD for certiorari transmittal form: Pursuant to a request from the Supreme Court of the United States filed on 1/26/07, I Gino J. Agnello, Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, do hereby certify that the foregong contains a true copy of: public docket sheet, briefs, Circuit Rule 28(j) Supplemental Authority, Final order/opinion/judgment, petition(s) for rehearing, answer(s) to petition(s) for rehearing, order(s) denying rehearing (order denying and modifying opinion). The original record on appeal has been returned to the Dsstrict Court upon issuance of this court's mandate. This court, by copy of this docoument requests that District Court to transmit the record directly to the Supreme Court. (vmj, ) Modified on 2/26/2007 (amb, ). Modified on 2/26/2007 (amb, ). (Entered: 02/06/2007)

02/26/2007 130 TRANSMITTED to the USCA for the Supreme Court for the United States the long record on appeal (U.S.S.C. 06-484) consisting of one box containing - four volumes of pleadings, two transcripts, two exhibits and four loose documents. (cdh, ) (Entered: 02/26/2007)

02/27/2007 131 Fed Ex tracking information of case mailed to the US Supreme Court #06-484 one box to Washington D.C. (842254598030) (cdh, ) (Entered: 02/27/2007)

03/02/2007 132 MINUTE entry before Judge Amy J. St. Eve :Case is stayed pending argument before the Supreme Court. Civil case terminated. Status hearing set for 6/25/2007 to stand. Mailed notice (tmh, ) (Entered: 03/03/2007)

04/24/2007 133 NOTICE by Adam R. Gonnelli of Change of Address (Gonnelli, Adam) (Entered: 04/24/2007)

06/19/2007 134 MINUTE entry before Judge Amy J. St. Eve :Status hearing set for 6/25/2007 is stricken and reset to 7/11/2007 at 08:30 AM. Case stayed pending a decision by the Supreme Court.Mailed notice (tmh, ) (Entered: 06/19/2007)

Incompetentce? Stupdity? Unintelligence? Poor educations? Or all?

http://www.the10b-5daily.com/archives/000801.html