Discussion 11112007 Commission on Retirement

8/14/2019 Discussion 11112007 Commission on Retirement

1/7

william duff Page 1 12/29/2008

COMM I SSI ON ON RETI REMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCI PLI NE12190 S. Mason Road, Suite 2012

St. Louis, Missouri 631313E-mail: jim.smith@ c o u r t s . m o . g o v (314) 966-1007 Facsimile: (314) 966-00764

5COM PLAI NT ABOUT A MI SSOURI JUDGE OR COURT COMM I SSI ONER6

789

Case # 07CY-CV06125 was filed seeking remedy for trespass with injury and trespass on the case as a10

Court of Record 1 proceeding according to the course of the Common Law 2 in Clay County, Missouri11

Circuit Court 3 and the Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert of Division 2 was assigned to hold it.12

13The case seeks damages against two private individuals for trespass with violence who were initially14

acting in their office as Kansas City Missouri police officers and who claimant claims vacated their15

office of authority by and through their acts that intruded into plaintiffs private domain (jurisdiction)16

for the purpose of restraining plaintiffs right of action without probable cause of attending crime and17

therefore acted in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority and short of statutory right. As such,18

defendants acted in their own private capacity and under color of State and local Law. Frazier issued 319

municipal citations to plaintiff to be heard in the municipal court of Kansas City. This suit proceeded20

1 A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independentlyof the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to thecourse of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v.Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J.See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.

2 This action proceeded according to the course of the common law by decree of the sovereign andhis suit and as described generally in Koffler, "COMMON LAW PLEADING," page80,and by Stephen, A Treatise on the Principles of Pleading InCivil Actions, c. I, Of the Proceedings in An Action, from ItsCommencement To Its Termination, 59, 60 (3rd ed. by Tyler,Washington, D. C. 1893).

3 COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority,consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing anddetermining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at timesand places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]

Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer
http://www.go2pdf.com/http://www.go2pdf.com/


2/7


against Frazier and Roth in their private capacities on that premise. All Documents filed in this case21

by plaintiff are testimony and offers of proof as if sworn to under affirmation in that proceeding22

according to the course of the common law, all evidence is in the filed papers and plaintiff has signed23

in verification thereto.24

25

Simultaneously, the action filed by Frazier proceeded in the Municipal Court of Kansas City: Judge26

Williams of court room A. Duff answered those charges and the clay county court issued an order first27

for the Municipal court to stay its proceedings and finally for the Municipal court to dismiss the action28

before it as the matter had been fairly settled in the Clay county court.. Williams ignored both orders29

and proceeded to find Duff guilty of two of the three charges brought.3031

The questions to be decided in the Clay county case are:3233

1. Were plaintiff actions a constitutionally protected activity? If yes;342. Were there any oaths agreements or applications for benefits, entered into by plaintiff that35

diminished the protectied nature of that activity? If no;363. Does the office of police possess authority to restrain by force a constitutionally secured37

activity? If no;384. Does the officer vacate the office of trust in order to perform the act of forcefully restraining39

such activity? If yes;405. Is the act/restraint a trespass? If yes416. Is Plaintiff injured by that trespass and due remedy and damages., if yes;427. Finally, what are the damages.43

44As such, the subject matter to be decided here is law. Defendants have admitted to the facts alleged,45

and the entire case proceeds upon the paperwork. Verbal testimony may be wholly unnecessary in46

order for the court to reach its conclusion especially where defendants have admitted the facts47

complained of by plaintiff, as here.48

49

All the above was established and proven up by plaintiff in the original action and the attending50

exhibits, filed on 6-15-2007 with return service made on 7-17-2007, as shown on the docket in this51

case and as is typical of a case proceeding according to the course of the common law. The52

Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert (ARG) had opportunity to question plaintiffs construction of the53

court and allocation of jurisdiction since that time but has remained silent on the matter until the 11-7-54

2007 hearing where only by implication did he contest. He merely ignored the substance of the action55

and injected rules and law foreign to that decreed in this case.56



3/7


57

Plaintiff filed, on 8-1-2007, motion to recover property taken by defendants and for stay of municipal58

court proceedings (administrative law) until such time as this superior court decided on the issue of 59

plaintiffs right of action. The right of action issue is the boundary separating appropriate statutory60

enactments (administrative law) and enforcement and enactments that exceed the authority of the state.61

(rule making and legislation that abrogate constitutionally secured rights) Recovery was sought in the62

form of Replevin as decreed in the law of this case 4, see Exhibit F. The court 5, on 8-1-2007, ordered63

replevin, w/o bond, of plaintiffs property and stay of the underlying municipal action and for the clerk 64

of this court to issue writ of execution on said replevin to be delivered to the sheriff. The court further65

invited the Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert and all parties to agree with the courts order or to show66cause why same should not stand 6. All were silent beyond the time allocated and there was no request67

for additional time. There was no objection to the order and there was no action taken by the68

magistrate or the clerk to fulfill the order. Plaintiff contends The magistrate had a duty attendant to his69

office to extend the judicial power to this case at law or to show cause why that power should not be70

extended. ARG did neither and we begin to find out why he did neither in the 11-7-2007 hearing. It71

therefore must be obvious to any reasonable man; the magistrate is injecting what he apparently72

believes is his discretion to operate the court under statutory jurisdiction and rules of court not73

previously decreed in this case. In doing so, plaintiff contends ARG is prejudicing plaintiffs case for74

the benefit of defendants, in that, his acts are against the weight of the evidence, not supported by75

substantial evidence, and erroneously declares or applies the law.76

77

4 The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law. [American BananaCo. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.]5 A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 188Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also,Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.6 Further, the magistrate, plaintiff, and defendants are invited to each file and serve on all otherinterested parties a brief no later than ten (10) days after receipt of this order to show cause to thiscourt why this order should not take effect or should be modified and notice of intent to file said brief must be filed within three (3) days of receiving this order either by email or by fax or by filing sameinto the record of this case. The court, mindful of the rights of the parties and the importance of fairplay, will liberally construe the arguments presented.



4/7


Defendant filed its first motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which was marked received by78

the clerk 8-20-2007 with copies in the case file marking it filed on 8-16-2007. Plaintiff has a certified79

copy of the entire case file through 8-16-2007 but this document is not included therein. Defendants80

second motion to dismiss replevin was filed 9-6-2007.81

82

The Court issued its order denying defendants first motion to dismiss and judgment in default on 8-24-83

2007, which included the paragraph shown in FN6, All were silent beyond the time allocated and there84

was no request for additional time.85

86

Plaintiff rebutted both Defendants motions to dismiss on 9-11-20078788

The court denied both defendants motions for cause shown on 9-11-2007 with the paragraph seen in89

FN6 thereon. All were silent beyond the time allocated and there was no request for additional time.90

91

The court then issued a second command on 9-12-2007, entitled PRECAEPE, for the court clerk to92

issue writ of execution on the stay order and the replevin order including a similar paragraph as in93

FN6, but adding clerk thereto. All were silent beyond the time allocated and there was no request for94

additional time. The clerk, magistrate or the parties took no action.95

96

Plaintiff, on 10-10-2007 noticed hearing for 10-17-2007, or as soon thereafter as the court could hear97

it, for case management conference. The filing was returned to plaintiff by Division 2 clerk who told98

plaintiff she does not set hearings that way. Further that plaintiff must contact clerk and get a hearing99

date before noticing the hearing. Plaintiff got the new date and re-noticed the hearing for 11-7-2007.100

Note: it was during this conversation that plaintiff was first made aware of an undercurrent functioning101

in the circuit suggesting that plaintiff was a belligerent. The clerk commented you have been102

belligerent since the first time you came into this circuit. This comment prompted plaintiffs next103

filing, Jurisdictional Statement-Restatement from the Action that being an attempt to explain what104

the clerk and others were obviously taking as belligerence.105

106

On the day of the hearing all were present and the record will show: The Honorable Anthony (REX)107

Gabbert of Division 2 called this case. As we rose to take our positions the bailiffs (2) closely108



5/7


surrounded the bench and one denied the Special Master appointed in this case into the bar. Plaintiff 109

and MAAG proceeded to the bench where the Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert of Division 2 asked110

MAAG to present arguments on defendants motions to dismiss. Plaintiff objected declaring the court111

had already ruled on those motions and that they had been denied. Plaintiff further declared the112

hearing was on plaintiffs motion for case management hearing. The Honorable Anthony (REX)113

Gabbert declared it was not, that he didnt do such hearings, that the hearing was on defendants114

motions to dismiss. Plaintiff objected and asked if the Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert of 115

Division 2 had read the documents filed in this case to which he responded that he had read all.116

During the hearing, the bailiffs appeared to make an uncommon effort to hover close around plaintiff.117

The Honorable Anthony (REX) Gabbert of Division 2 thereafter adjourned the hearing saying he118would take the motions under consideration. Plaintiff took the hovering activity of the two bailiffs as119

some evidence that the clerks belief in plaintiffs belligerence was shared by ARG and others in the120

circuit and that such unfounded belief serves to prejudice plaintiff.121

122

On 11-8-2007 an order purporting to originate by the court and stating you are hereby notified that the123

court duly entered the following: 08 Nov 2007 dismiss by Ct w/o prejudice upon review of the124

court, defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs petition are granted and cause is dismissed for cause as125

stated in both defendants motions. Clerk to notify plaintiff and defendants attorney. ARG. It126

therefore must be obvious to any reasonable man, the magistrate is injecting what he apparently127

believes is his discretion to operate the court under statutory jurisdiction (administrative law) and rules128

of court not previously decreed in this case. In doing so, plaintiff contends ARG is prejudicing129

plaintiffs case for the benefit of defendants, in that, his acts are against the weight of the evidence, not130

supported by substantial evidence, and erroneously declares or applies the law.131

132

The court, on its own motion, thereafter filed in this case a writ of error Quae Coram Nobis Residant133

vacating the hearing on defendants motion for cause shown and reversing the resulting magistrates134

order entered onto file and docket of this case. The court, further, admonished the magistrate not again135

to issue any ruling order or judgment respecting the instant case that did not have prior agreement by136

the court and further warning of contempt proceedings should the magistrate fail to adhere thereto. In137

addition, the court admonished the clerk for accepting the magistrates order of dismissal and placing it138

in the case file and on the docket of this case without leave of this court to do so.139



6/7


140

IN SUMMARY141

142

The entire record will show ARGs belief, by implication that plaintiff possesses of no right to life,143

liberty or property except as the State or its subdivisions define and declare. Such would not be144

unalienable in nature and therefore must be a void assertion in that all would be rule making or145

legislation abrogating rights secured by the controlling constitutions in opposition to Miranda, Hale v146

Henkel, Chisholm v Georgia, Yick Wo, Chicago v Collins, and countless other cases that declare the147

unalienable nature of plaintiffs unalienable right of action. Further, ARG did so without there being148

one shred of evidence in the record of this case that the state or its subdivisions possessed higher title149to plaintiffs life, liberty and property or that plaintiff had otherwise lawfully consented to such state150

authority. As such, ARG could only have made his decision from his own knowledge or belief which151

in and of itself voids his acts. Obviously, the magistrate is injecting what he apparently believes is his152

discretion to operate the court under statutory jurisdiction (administrative law) and rules of court153

foreign to and not previously decreed in this case, all of which would be administrative law not154

common law. In doing so, plaintiff contends ARG is prejudicing plaintiff and his case for the benefit155

of defendants, in that, his acts are against the weight of the evidence, not supported by substantial156

evidence, and erroneously declares or applies the law.157

158

Plaintiff has no problem with an out in the open and honest descent to his claims that bring about159

evidence and proof in support of arguments, but he vigorously objects to the innuendo and acts by160

implication that obviously seek to discredit said claims without proof (acts of despots). Those acts are161

not acts of an honest and respectable government or judiciary and must breach the controlling cannons162

in numerous ways. Plaintiff will leave this commission to identify the specific breaches being163

complained of here.164

165

Finally, the commission is informed that there is no appeal from the decision of a court of record166

proceeding according to the course of the common law. Therefore, plaintiffs only recourse to the acts167

complained of here are with this commission or in the federal courts under title 18 ss241 or 2.168

Plaintiff does not wish to be at odds with this judiciary but only seeks fairness, respect and open169

discourse in pursuit of justice and protection for the freedoms this judiciary is oath bound to protect.170



7/7


171

Wherefore, plaintiff, having no interest in arguing with the 7 th judicial circuit when that argument172

diminishes his real claims against defendants, and not wishing to start contempt proceedings against173

ARG and the Court Clerk, asks this commission to reign in this out of control judicial officer so that174

further waste of the scarce judicial resource is unnecessary and so that fairness and justice can prevail175

out in the open for all to see.176

177

Respectfully submitted178

179

William Duff 180816-429-5038181

[email protected]

108 NW 101 Pl Kansas City, Mo 64155183
