You are on page 1of 9

P RAY E R

FOR

R ELI E F

Armstr-ong prayS for a cammon-law right to ~titian far a Redress of a

Grievance secured as a First Amendment whereby the jurisdiction to petition

the Legislature concerning all matters of equity and final judgment from a court

of law that eY~sted at.the time of the Judiciary Act of 1789.and was preserved

by the Ninth Amendment. The excuse. that one has a right to appeal, cannot prevail among the JuCliciary for there is no such absolute right to secure to all citizens

the right to appeal to a National Appellate COurt to guarantee that Equal Protection of the La"" shall be enforced. The COnstitution was based upon the Separation

of Powers. However t because of Rule 10 of the Supreme Court, that Constitutional security 00 longer exists. There is no de.finitive. Constitutional Separation of Powers when the petition to be heard by the Supreme. Court is merely their prerogative.

'!'he district and appellate courts are merely statutory, and are not secured by the Constitution for the Legislature can just as easily close all the statutory courts leaving only the Supreme COurt~

The Judicial COnference is in.canpe.tent to preside over such issues for it is co.mpo.sed of judges who cannot sit in judgment over their own actions. Thus, since there is no independent body to turn to and petition for review, the only such right remaios preserved by the common-law right to petition the Legislature. It is true that such a gapping short-fall in the security of due process may bs corrected by creating a new National Cburt of Appeals to. ensure Equal Protection of the Law by reconciliation aaong the Circuit Court of Apr:ea1s. However, in the absence of such a reform appellate courts remain secure in ruling arbitrarily knowing that the odds are in their favor against Supreme Court review. Therefore, the Second Circuit can just treat citizens ruthlessly and intentionally refuse to vindicate any rights to carry-out extreme right-wing ~iews of justice that are rooted in calvanism where . any hurnani ty pri ncf, ples are only percet ved as weakness. or the re fusa 1 to act may

be simply disagreement with the Constitution~ taking the: view that G:wernment must

just win. Knowing that Circuit Courts are largely free to ignore the views in other

circuits and enforce law as they see it, deprives citizens of that absolute right

to Equal Protection an the. Law.

Armstrong thus pra.ys that it is time to investigate the Judiciary just once.

We- investigate the President, even impea~.lrim:D:r sexual conduct. But this has about as much impact upon the lives and iXSlaity as watching grass grow. Jefferson was

correct. The greatest danger to the survival of our society has always been the Judiciary. It is the most dangerous branch for if· it refuses to vindicate rights,

then they do not exist 00 rratter how loud the lamentations of Congress or even the Presioent. Cbngress can jump up and down on their soap-box, but it matters not

for the Judiciary tldll only enforce what it wants to. This is indeed treason and Jefferson was correct - the dissolution of our nation will. cane from judges who are

not elsct~d, rule thernsel yeS outside checks .and balances as if they were some sort

of ronarchy. It is time to pick-up the rug and for once just look. We owe that to all oUr children and cur: ~ty. We cannot sit idle and allow our way of life to ~

Armstrong prays for the aproinbnent of a special prosecutor who has no former affilation w.ith either the Justice Department or the Judiciary. This is not some

minor i.ssue. It should be a national election Lssue, But the. people ~lill never know

because. no one has ever lookecl into the Judiciary since the days of Jefferson.

Respectfully subnitted;

Dated·; May 8th, 2008 ,

Fort Di.x, New Jersey

Martin A. .Artr'Strong f/12518-050

F'CI Fort Dix Camp PO Box 2000

Fort DixT NJ 08640

r'

.... ~. ":"'" _.. ., .. - .. _. __ .. _ .

Application No. 08A1044

LJ. T.he Su:ore.me Court of the Dnited States

~ .

Ma.rti.n A. Amstrong

v.

Ccmrrr.dity Futures Tradi...""Jg' CCfmnissicn, et al

~ION FOR APro~"T o.F COUNSEL

-

DOE 'ill ~'i.J.'i ThDJNSTIT0T.ICNAL DENIAL OF O:X_il':rSEL OF' ODIrn

CUE 'ill AN n..LE'GAL .RETROACrIVE DISGOR.GEMEl).lT OF COL'NSEL DEL:IBE:RP..T.E DEt'IIAL OF. AN"Y C[:{JNSEL AND FORCING AN INDICI'EO OEFENJI>m TO RE:...~~"'T HIMSELF PBo SE PRETRIAL

vACATE AN DTJUNCTICN PRE'llEl'VTING A~"Y AlJJODIO\TION TO COVER-L'P THE COMPLETE .EREAKcoWN OF THE ROLE OF lAW, ~_N]) ill STAr ;"...LL JTJCGMENI'S

. PENDThG REVIHv OF ALL j\~PEALS FRO..~1 ALL PRCCEED~

PRESENIED PuPSUANT TO ROI.E 22.4

ro JUSTICE STEVENS

Suhnitted by:

Dated: AUGUSt 6th, 2009

;?crt Dix, New Jersey

Martii"'_ A4 ~~sb:ong #12518-050

rcr Fort Di.x Camp ro Eax 2000

:Fort Qu, MJ 08640

'--.,-. '---.~' ,-.-~~.--~- ---- -------~-----~---~

, .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, v.artin A. Armst.ronq, hereby declare under penalty of parjury pursuant to 28 USC § 17 4 6 T that a true and correct copy of this mot.Lon has been .served. upon

t.~~ J:(_):t.lcw~ .. parti~ __ by fiJ::~t _qlass._~a.gr ~~~. p:r::~~.(j ' _ _ .. __ . _ _ .

NanC'j Page.

COrrmxli ty Futun~s Trading Ccmnission 1155 21st street NW

Washington, DC 20581

Kat tharine B _ Gresham

Securi ties & Exchange C'armission 1 00 F Street NE

washingtonr tc 20549

-

fJ.1251 B-050

FCI Fort Dix Camp PO Box 2000

Fort Dix, NJ 08640

Dated: August 19th, 2009 Fort Dixl New Jersey

a:::!/ varxous interested member of the press Attorney General Eric Bolder,

All menbars of Senate Judiciary Committee H _ David Kob f Inspector General Of:fice

4

-----_ ... _---_ ... _---

... ,~ .. -.-~-----

.-. .... ~. _ ... - ----. - .. ----'------:----~----

.. __ ._. - '." '.--;----,,-~~--==-----,.,--,

~P~R-=E~S~· ~E~N~T~E=-·D----~------~----~

QUESTION

1 .} il]l1e..<1 b.~€: SB2 tiled a ci vi.I action a.fter the crim.inal case begins and its

statutory authority only a.uthor.ized such f.ilings and coc~ation tc ninstituterl

I±~ cr.irnin.al prosecution using equi ty never pe.t7I1.i. tted under Article III in

1789 r and t..':e US Attorney is in leaSf1,le by written agrESIJeI]t and conceded that

mere than 7 years of ci,r.il cont2ffi!:'t was nr:art of thIS! zeascn" the contempt was

maintained for the purpose of r:a.ying a possible criminal restitution tha t T.vaS

in the end .oot owed, and the ci ~1i1 action was used to r2:trG2.Cti vel y disgDIge

3 law firms denying ll....nnstrong C01..U1Sel of c.r..oiclS! in the criminal case , con tempt,

and any counsel at aJ.1 In the civil acti om; forcing Antstror:.g to defend h.irnae.If

depoai.t.tons fOst-indicbnent to cre-ate arrjunct.ions and t:,e conte.rnpt kncwing that

];:O$t-indi_c~t he wc~ci te for-::Erl to assert. 11':'5 risht to remai,n sil®l.'"J: 18 DOC

§3481 and then the district court to "adverse :..nferencesr, to cJ:"eate: ortler s when

t..1B SLJ.pr~ Court held an adven;e hJference 'rc.S O!ilX' allcwed wTJ.6Il there were 11[2.10 cr~ prcceedfnqs ... Fer..dingHBaxter v Palmigiano, 425 US 308T 3.17 (i 976),

t_;..,..er_ Si..'JC9 the Si_x'-LJ.I,..,~ Arn~dment applies for the "accused is 'guaranteed that he need

in court Gr out , 11 OS '; rNader· 388 OS 210r 225 (7967), the..'1 H an Indrct.ed defendant

enti lied to cour; ..sel when tl'..e government is using aimul.taneous proce.....~gs and

2 .) can Armstrong te enj oi.ned fran acres s the C'C1J.r'ts T",""hen t.h€ courts hava never l:e.fore adjudicated any claims including ~50nal and subject-matter jurisdiction? 3.} Is Armstrcng entitled to a stay of all jud911ents ~ng all appeals botn in

the civil and criminal cases ~Jding a.Lso revie\v by thi.s Court?

i

· .. -.- •• --:-::':'Y~.':'W'I ~ __

.. --------

Ques'- ,_ions Present.ed list of Parties

Table of Ccntent.s Table of Authorities Reason· "to Gi2Iit·- Relief

i

ii

iii iv

. .•

... _._ ._ .

.. .. rII{ • • • • .. ..' ...... - .... - -. •

vi

StatEment of the Case & M:ltion for Counsel & Stay of all proceedings. 1

Legal lL..rgurnents

1.)

The holding of. US v Gcnzalez-Lop:z must also apply in a civil action when brought by "b.i.e government and they move to pr.-Event counsal, earallel to a criminal case. en the. same factsr

allegations r & theory . . • • • - . . • • • • . . • •

II. ) Aalstrong lIKJve5 to vacate the inj unct.Lcn EIltered to preve.."1t him frcrn ever ch.allenging the rulings entered against him civ"illy t..~t is inconsistent with his right ·to appea.l., habeas co:t:pJS , a.r:ci FRCvP 60 (b) in the cr:imi.z.'1.a.l case. as well as the fact that a carve-out; in the· criird.nal case. allcwe:l A.,_JII5t.r·~..g to file suit against the Bureau of Prisons wTIere in part

8

similar issues arise

15

III.) Am$·b:ong has m.en de...IJ.i·ed .Equal protecticn of the Law and has been cent.ed a fair trial under Article III by the ccrnbfned court.s that allows chancery to invade. G. cr imir.:al prccaedi.nq subjecting Awnstrorig to D::Jt1ble Jeopardy by proc::eeding in

chac.C8r".t to eeny trial by juri' . . . . . . ~ . . . ~ . 1 5

P:rnyer for Reli ef

.. .. ... . .-

19

iii

Supreme Court Decisions

. '';~' -_ . - •...

P~..E
535 OS 654 (2002) 11
425 os 308 {1 976) i
58 US n2 (1 e~:)) 9
.-1-1. b ... 'OS 616 .. (1886) 10 - .. - - _. _ ...
En us 335 (1872 ) 9
373 OS 83 (1963) Sr9
487 ts 99 (1988 ) 11
430 us 337 (1977 ) 6,1'1
517 us 416 (19~6 J n
3')4 us 527 (1942) 3
71 os 277 ( 1866 ) 13
511 os 485 (199·1 ) S,12
532 GS 374 (2001.} 5,12
520 os 541 (1997 ) ]
322 US 487 (i 944) 13
540 DS 319 {20(4)
531 us 198 (2Q01) H
52"J us 308 ( 1999 ) 2r10~1",15
159- JS 113 { 1895 ) 9
435 as 475 (197·'3) 1..2
167 us 409 n89/) 7
369 us 599 (1962) 2,10
456 os 69,!- (1982) 9
304 DS 458 ( 193·3) 5,12
436 us 84 (1978 J 9
532 us 394 (2001 ) 5,1-2
333 us 56 (1948 ) 2;
377 us 201 (1964) i,1,12r14
37-3 us 52 {i 964) 13
466 us 522 (l9a4 ) ·2,10
506 uS 80 {T992) 6,8
288 US 123 ( 1933 ) 9
124 us 200 (18<38 ) 10
506 US 56 (1992 ) 9
466 TJS 668 (1984) B
481 os 412 (1 987) 2 Alabama v Sha': ton

Baxter "v Palmigj.anci Ecoth v Clark

··BOYd V us .. -

Bradley V Fisher B~ady v ~ilari1 Brasr-<lell If ill

'i! .. • .. .. .. • ..

Br3"Ner v Will.i.ams

Ca.ri;sle v us

Continental c.:,sual ty Co v LiS C..mrrnings '1 Mis<.icuri

c-ur-.:.is '.f us

Daniels v..r_IB ~ v ErJis.-.llz Feldrnar.. v os

Glovo?l;" v US

GrubQ I-lexicano ~l l,llia.nc9 Eorld Fur::d lin ten V Guyot

EDllJw.aY V ~~kans~s &iv<".=:y v Elli()tt

HutclleSOJ."""! V US

Insurance Co of Ire2.and 'I ~gnie Ces J3;:J,oxites

. "

Jdmson 'F Ze.!:'bst

KLllko V SUferiQ!:- Court:

Lac. ... awana County !)istrict Attorr1ey v Coss Maggio v zeitz

M=l.ssiah V ClS

Mur;;l' ... y v 'iVa terfr:y""~t Cornm I n tiY

.. .. .. . .. ~ ..

Pulliam v AJ.l. en

Republic National Bank v US

Regers "7 Guaranty Trust: Co Sawyer r In ra

~3oldal v Ccok county Strickl.an-] v Washington Tull v US

. .' .. .. . .. ~

.. . . . . ~

iv

~-------~-~ .. ~. --_._ .. ,-

-",",,~~- -, '.' --_-,-- ----._'"-"--- -------'-----,,-

os v cala:."""1fh--a

os v Kurdel

us v Manduj·;::tno

.... - tIS v"Salibe Bank. -Of· V-i_rsf-...nia ..

OS "iT Wade

walt&' v Naticnal _~ss = n of B.adiation SurviVDTIi

National Aooellate DecislODS

Amst..rcng v Guccio.i"Je D:iB6l1a I !n re

Dole ~resh F;::ui·t Co v Uni·ced B'Jrla":'..a Co Klein v Wilson Co

Silver ~ McCamey

~ . .'V- Anderson US v Dos:3

us v Coss

~JS "If Pas i.l.Las-Cast.anon

us v Swarz

Wes:t.ir~hoose

District Court Decisior£

41 4 ·US 3"18 (l97"4:-H :2)--- 5'18 US 140 (2006) 2.8

397 US ( 1970) 11 r 1 4

355 OS 339 (1958) 11

425 US 564 (1.976 ). 1-2
26 .us. _1. 00 ... (1828) 10
....... ~. -- _ ..
388 (IS 213 (1967 ) L, 12, 14
ne OS. 306 ( 1987) 12 Pages
470 t-3d C!9;_ (.2bL"I Cir 2006)
5"i3 F2d 955 (2nd eir 197~} 11
821 F2,j 106 (2:ld eli 1987) II
7 F2d 777 Ora Ci (' 1925) 9
221 F2d 873 (DC Ci.:- 1955) 13
553 F2d 1154 (8~:h Cir j 977) 6
545 .F2d 54.:3 (6th Cir 1976) 12
563 F2d 265 (6th Cir 1977) 12
525 F3d 884 (1 Ot.h Ci.-c 2008 J 3
283 F3d 76 (2nd Ci2:" 2002) 12
90 FJd [;.96 {3rd Cir 1996) 12
"Elages F a:Lmpnt ?c::c:ds V .~ Ial1?..r __ello

SE:C v PEr

us v PalTott

Mise

•. 301 E'SL.lW 84 FSupp2d 248 FSllFP

832 {SffiY 1969}' 9

443 (~:r 2000) 2T9r12 196 rn rc 1965) 13

Paces

Si.:r:- ~1i.ill"Lam ]31a.c.1(s'tone (C'arrrnentaries of the Iaw-s of Eng"~and) • . & •

SEX: St:9:E£ il.ccr)untir ... g Blllleti0 l'-b 99 1999 WL 1123073 [sa; !?el No SAB--99)

stata Decisior_

11 12

Pages

Blum v State ~f Mary.land

•.. "56 LBA 322r 84 Md 37ST 51 A 26 {19U1) 10

v

~----,·~·-·~---· .. ··~---...,..........---~_~~ea~so~_ ~n....J::!:::d:. -fPL_.~G~ran~~t~R:2OJ.:!:~~i~8:Ef ---,,.,..,...,,..._---=======

, .. _._-----

It is vital to the respect for the United States that review be granted fat:

this eff acts all wh.i. te collar cases because equi ty is being abu:;>s:l to such an. extent that those crimi.n.a.l charged with securf ties or ccm.:Tlcdi ti es· fraud no looSer

have evn the right to remain silent. Equity is being -wse(f·fa d.:Lsplace laWyers ~ .-- _ ... --

r.:ights, pri vil$9'es, and i.rrutuni t....ies (Exhibit A). Congres nev"Br authortized such

tarallel prosecut.icns rendering the entire Fc-eeral Rules of Crirnin.al. Prccedut:es

i..rrelevant.

ArmstrDng has l:::E:en PIDS€lCl1:ted p:.st- indict.llent ci, vill y, stri!;p:d of all

counaal , ar:d made to clef end en the. same facts ~ro se pmOing. in the criminal trial. Never at ccmmon law could chancery ~. ccmpal 51..'Ch discovery t..~t w-as a Lready pendi.nq at the King t s Bench, This case is a ccmplete breakdown of Article rn and if tlris Court fails to review this caser it is cor.demning all white cDllar corporate officers to a deni al, of the fai:t:" trial redllCi.1J.~ t.1.€lTI to less ri gh ts 'than even terrorists wI::!EIl at CC<ITn:Jn law t nev'Bl: could an ~CCUEed. ev"en testify volun"tar:i.ly, and that was allowed only ir~ 1878, but it ,vas to t:e the right 'of the acq1SeG. to not testifiy and that "WaS

to apply Iv::. thoLt exception to r\~J.l persons If pending trial f 1 B USC §3481 •

Arm5trcng has been subject~ to unbal.i.evabl,e treatment. w~o in their hl.:ttTLar."l capaci.ty courd andure being lccked inside. a high-rise jail inocor with no outside

compound foI:' mc;.re tran 7 ye.a.r.s and tlJ.6...<1 when he refuses to 9lea r he IDS thrown Intio solitary confd.nement; untii.L he is .tricked into pleading, told he carl argue for t.L-ne :Ser\o~ r tqld :=;0 qy- the COUr:'t I and th$"'L at senta"'1cing the C01m cl.a.ims no j urisdi ctaon,

If ~.marican citizens can t:e treated this way just; because they are corpcr'ate officers r thre...l'1 T"'TIY should any ci tiZB.."I"J. beecme a cClrfOt"ate officer· if he sl1l:".t""....nCers all right.s whatscever to Equal .Protection of the La.w?'

vi