OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

DOCKET No. 05F-18516 STATE OF NEW YORK: CITY COURT CITY OF BUFFALO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Plaintiff vs. Shane – Christopher: Buczek Defendant in Error.

______________________________________________________________________________

OBJECTION, ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL GROUNDS, TO JURY VERDICT, AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND TO VACATE VERDICT, VOIDab INITIO, AND DISMISS THIS CASE, WITH PREJUDICE

COMES NOW, Shane Christopher, family of Buczek Defendant-in-Error, living breathing, natural born human being, Shane a Sovereign of record apostille number 05-03248 One of The People, with full unlimited, unalienable Rights guaranteed in the Constitutions for the united States of America and in the Constitution for the State of New York, a respondent that captured the STRAWMAN and whose proper name is spelled in upper and lower case only, as illustrated on the new Birth certificates enclosed and mark Exhibits A & B for the Defendant-inError hereby strenuously objects to the unconstitutional and unfounded and improperly instructed jury verdict, moves this court, pursuant to the oath taken by the presiding judge “to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic”, to set aside the jury verdict, void ab initio judgment, and dismiss this case, with prejudice, for the following reasons, based in

Page 1 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

fact and law and Constitutionally supported precedence marked as items 1 through 37 within this document. 1. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that the Constitution for the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, as stated in the New York Constitution, Article II, and Section 1, However, the woman acting as judge in this action, one Sharon Lo Vallo and, pursuant to her oath, consistently denied this Sovereign Constitutional Rights of the defendant, should have been guaranteed therein and subordinated substantive Rights to procedural “due process of law”, which in fact she failed to secure, ended as an no due process at all. She has no Constitutional authority to deny the Constitution, to which She took an oath to defend, and to which She owes her temporary and limited, delegated authority, despite these facts, the Judge Lo Vallo denied the defendants Sovereign Rights to discovery, ignoring repeated discovery requests by Defendant in Error and issued orders to this Defendant and to other Defendants not to use or refer to the Constitutions, in any manner, and not to use other laws or their evidence to defend themselves, which is amounts to treason by Judge Sharon Lo Vallo and based on previous supreme court rulings, renders this court entirely defective in all aspects, and without any Constitutional authority or jurisdiction to hear any cases brought before it. This court may be termed and possibly is a treasonous court by her actions. 2. IT
IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT;

that as the Supreme Law of the land, the federal

Constitution takes precedence over and supersedes any and all state, county, local, court and federal laws, rules, regulations, codes and procedures. Yet, despite this, Judge Lo Vallo consistently denied and acted in opposition to the Constitutions and Rights guaranteed therein throughout this improper and prejudicial trial. Page 2 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

3.

IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT, that the Constitution for the united States is the highest authority in this Nation and no other authority of any type or form, whatsoever, including the claimed and temporary administrative authority by the metropolitan court and the treasonous acts of Judge Sharon LoVallo, is not a higher authority than the Constitution for the united States. Any action by LoVallo in opposition to the United States Supreme Court precedent setting findings is a violation of the established law and of my Constitutional Rights, and possibly treason on the part, as occurred in the above-specified case number.

4.

Further it should be noted and placed in and made part of public record. If, in fact, there is no public record, as the Judge LoVallo, stated in error in open court, before witnesses, then, that is further evidence of additional denial of my Rights of redress. Added her failure to uphold her public oath of office. Defendant Shane Christopher of the family of Buczek , a noticed and Sovereign of record, and the other Defendants repeatedly requested that this be a court of record, as required for any Constitutionallycompetent court, but Lo Vallo unconstitutionally denied this Court of Record which is a Sovereign Right as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.. ie., Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S.43 at
47 (1905 ) I remind the court, this case has been reviewed several times, never over turned.

5.

Further I remind the court of Kawananakoa v. Ployblank @ 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27S
Ct. 526, 527, 51L Ed.334 I remind this court of the supporting documents of that great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes comments and findings. ie. , “A Sovereign is exempt from suit not because of any formal conception of obsolete theory but on logical practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which his Rights Depends.” Again “Kawananakoa v. Ployblank” 205 U.S. 349,353, 27SCt. 526, 527, 51L, Ed334 (1907) “never reversed”

Page 3 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

The woman acting as judge, SHARON LO VALLO, and the woman acting as prosecutors, including female CHIEF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY in this case, one MOLLY JO MUSARRA and also, one FRANK CLARK, have sworn oaths to uphold the state and federal Constitutions, which oaths are required by law to be bound by valid surety bonds. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that those specified in paragraph 4, above, are required to abide by their oath of office in the performance of their official duties, especially, those before the court. However, by their own actions, as specified herein, and as noted on the public record, all three herein referenced acted in unison in opposition to their oaths, in contradiction to the Constitutions and opposed all our Rights guaranteed therein to “We the people” of which we are of the People an American, which is treason by the referenced three. It remains to be seen whether these unlawful actions are condoned by this court and by those with oversight responsibility, including the New York Supreme Court and the state Judiciary Committees, or whether these unconstitutional actions by the referenced three were done in their sole capacities, as private individuals, since they stepped outside their Constitutionally delegated authority and acted in perjury and prejudiced their oaths, which make them, personally and individually, fully liable for their wrongful actions, as established by law.. 6. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that the first duty of any public officer who has taken an oath of office to support the federal and state Constitutions, is to support and defend the Constitutions and not act in opposition to them as all public officers referenced herein have flagrantly done, in total defiance of the Constitutions and their oaths thereto. 7. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that pursuant to Section 10 public Officers law, the first duty of any attorney or Public Servant is to uphold and support the federal and state

Page 4 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

Constitutions, among them are the Rights of “We The People” yet, these referenced attorneys, by their own actions, have acted in opposition and contradiction to the Constitutions and to the Rights guaranteed to the aforementioned Sovereigns therein, which is perjury of oath, sedition, insurrection and treason. 8. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that in order for the STATE OF NEW YORK: CITY COURT
OF BUFFALO

to be a Constitutionally competent court with jurisdiction to try the

American people, it is required to act as an Article III court, in which the Constitutional Rights and due process of law are upheld. Yet, by the actions of the public officers Sharon Lo Vallo and Molly Jo Musarra acting as judge and the prosecutors, the Constitutions were denied, forbidden and treated with contempt throughout the entire proceedings in this court, which, again, is treason by all public officers involved, including, but not limited to all uniformed and plain clothed public officers, bailiffs, sheriff deputies and employees of the court, who witnessed the treason, but took no action to prevent it. in fact, openly disparaged the Defendants in Error for claiming their Constitutionally-guaranteed Rights, with the EX PARTE COMMUNICATION with the jury Sara Rebisz, Phil Andrew, Erica Harroun, Tyson Klinkbeil, Dawn Giroux and Don Zimmerman with Molly Jo Musarra and Sharon Lo Vallo. See “22 NYCRP 100.3 (B) (23)…

9.

IT

IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT;

that government officers, public officers, servants and

judges who have taken oaths to the Constitutions, including Lo Vallo, Musarra and Frank Clark, are required to abide by those oaths in their performance of official duties. However, as herein stated and as noted many times on the public record, all three failed to do so.

Page 5 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

10.

IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that all members of the jury which heard this case took oaths to defend the Federal and New York State Constitutions, are bound thereby, and must abide by those oaths in their performance of official duties as jury members; however in light of their verdict, each and every member, knowingly if fully informed by this same judge, defied their oaths to defend the Constitutions and may have committed treason, on the public record.

11.

IT

IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT;

that the federal Constitution, the Supreme Law of the

Land, and the 50 states Constitution and rulings by the United States Supreme Court are valid, supreme authorities. 12. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that when a Defendant in Error, in the instant case, does cite an authority to establish a lawful position, that authority stands as authority and cannot be overruled by any person, acting as judge, as in this instant case, the (possible treasonous) Judge Lo Vallo, did under the color of law. 13. IT
IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT;

that no one acting as a judge, as in this instant case,

Judge Lo Vallo, is a higher authority than the Federal and State Constitutions and rulings made by the Supreme Court of the United States; therefore, Judge Lo Vallo has no Constitutionally authorized power to deny, defy, subvert or overrule the Constitutions and Supreme Court, and the powers and Rights guaranteed therein to the People of America as in this instant case, Yet, Judge Lo Vallo consistently did so throughout this mockery of a trial. 14. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that JOSEPH A. FIORELLA, KEVIN J. KEANE, SHARON LO
VALLO

and acting as Chief Deputy District Attorneys, FRANK CLARK, ASSISTANT

Page 6 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

MOLLY JO MUSARRA and EUGENE ADAMS

are not higher authorities than the Federal

and N.Y. State Constitutions, to which they have sworn oaths, and thus have no constitutionally authorized power to oppose the referenced authorities, and having consistently done so, they opposed both Constitutions to which they swore an oath and to which they owe their limited, delegated authority. See U.S. vs. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th. Cir 1985) Judges removed from the bench. 15. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that, pursuant to a United States Supreme Court ruling: “Where Rights secured by the Constitutions are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; 16. It is an irrefutable fact; that the jury of 12, not ( 6 ) members as this claim exceeds $20.00 must be composed of the peers of the accused, in this instant case, the Defendants in Error. Yet, despite this requirement, the jury was not fully informed of their duties and responsibilities, they were not composed of the peers of defendants, which additionally makes this verdict a defective verdict, in defiance of lawful requirements. 17. IT
IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT;

that in America the defendant is innocent until proven

guilty by a jury of his peers, beyond a reasonable doubt. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that Defendant was not proven guilty by any valid evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt as most all defendants evidence was denied by this defected judge and was prevented the jury from being fully informed of all the evidence that should have made up this trail.

Page 7 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

18.

IT

IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT;

that the jury must reach its verdict based upon proof

against the defendant, beyond any reasonable doubt; yet, this requirement was never met by the state in this case and pertinent evidence beneficial to the accused was wrongfully and possibly prejudicially denied by the biased judge. 19. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that for a crime to have taken place the state must show intent, willfulness, malice and awareness to commit the crime. These requirement was not proven in this case, thus, the state failed to meet its burden of proof by denying documented evidence for the defendants, yet the jury contemptuously and unconstitutionally found Defendant guilty. Therefore, the verdict has no Constitutional or lawful validity, was rendered in defiance of the jury’s Constitutional oaths and the verdict must be overturned and void ab initio. 20. IT
IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT;

that the state, the prosecution, the court nor any others

acting as prosecutors or witnesses against defendants can tamper with the jury, the facts or place any person(s) on a jury to bribe, influence, coerce or threaten other jury members to act unlawfully and unconstitutionally in their role as jurors, pursuant to oaths taken, for the benefit of the state and to the detriment of Defendant. Such actions render the jury liable for its verdict and the court entirely defective and incompetent. 21. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that the presiding judge Sharon Lo Vallo, the ASSISTANT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MOLLY JO MUSARRA,

all members of the court and the

prosecution and all state witnesses against defendants are required, by the state Constitution and in compliance with the state Constitution, and pursuant to state statutes, to have valid surety bonds on file, for public scrutiny, and to have sworn oaths,

Page 8 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

bound by surety bond, to the Federal and State Constitutions. Yet, there is no evidence of valid surety bonds in compliance with above referenced statutes on file for the above referenced officers, pursuant to the Constitution and state statutes. Therefore, it is obvious to any reasonable human being of even modest intelligence and competence that since the above referenced officers fail these requirements, then, they have no lawful authority to serve in office, in any capacity, nor to conduct any duties of any office, and to do so is blatant fraud, IMPERSONATING A LAWFUL PUBLIC OFFICER, AND
TREASON AGAINST THE PEOPLE,

in the instant case, and against defendant and Shane

Christopher family of Buczek. 22. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that the surety bond is a condition precedent to office and without such surety bond there cannot be any duties of that office lawfully discharged. 23. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that anyone who has previously taken an oath and then acts in insurrection and sedition against the Constitutions, pursuant to the SELFEXECUTING

Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution,

vacates his office upon commission of these high crimes and /or treason and forfeits all benefits of that former office, including salaries and pensions. All of the public officers involved in this case have invoked these sections, as specified, above, and thereby have vacated their offices and have no lawful authority, whatsoever, to have engaged in any actions in the above referenced proceedings, and possibly many former proceedings. 24. IT
IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT;

that when crime and treason committed by public

officer(s) has been reported to any other public officer(s)/official(s) who have the authority and responsibility to stop or to correct that crime and does take no action

Page 9 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

against those who committed the crimes(s), those officers, pursuant to their sworn and bound oaths, who fail to take action, have condoned, aided and abetted those crimes, have conspired and colluded in the commission of or a felony cover up of those crimes, and have committed misprision of crime and possibly treason against the people of the State of New York and the city of Buffalo. 25. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that Public Servant Sharon Lo Vallo denied Motions filed by Defendant, let the record reflect one entitled Motion to Dismiss this case with Prejudice, and another that required the presiding judge, pursuant to her oath, to read all pleadings and rule only based in Constitutionally-compliant law and case law. In so doing, Judge Lo Vallo, despite constant, respectful requests from Shane Christopher, family of Buczek and the other Defendants, supplied absolutely no facts and law to support her unconstitutional rulings, and by her own rulings, on the public record, She denied the State and Federal Constitutions and all Rights guaranteed therein, including, but not limited to, due process of law and presentation of all evidence by Defendant in Error, Shane Christopher, family of Buczek. By her failure to support her rulings, judge Lo Vallo’s ruling, lacking factual and lawful support, are reduced to opinions, only, and opinions are not valid, or lawful reasons for any binding rulings or orders, whatsoever. 26. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that Judge Lo Vallo, by her own actions, all on the public record, and attested to by sworn affidavits of witnesses, filed with this court, committed treason, as herein alleged and referenced, and had no Constitutional and lawful authority to open or conduct this trial, whatsoever. Any action or any decision, ruling or

Page 10 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

verdict that resulted from this trial is invalid, without force of law or effect, whatsoever, and must be void Ab initio. 27. IT
IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT;

that when any officer(s) who has taken an oath and is

required to have a surety bond, in compliance with the state Constitution, acts in opposition of that oath and fails to obtain the required surety bond, that officer(s) acts in sedition and insurrection to the Constitutions and in treason to the People, vacates his office, and has no lawful authority to perform duties of her former office. 28. IT
IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT;

that when any government or public officers deny the

very Law of the Land, The Constitution of the United States the powers of and Rights guaranteed therein to the American people as in this instant case, Judge Sharon Lo Vallo denies the state constitution and uphold violations, by other public officers, of those referenced authorities, including treason, that all involved condone, aided and abetted the crimes committed, collude and conspire to do so, and when other crimes and treason are condoned by the entire government and judicial system, which is required to serve the public good, then, by the actions of all involved, hypocrisy is systemic, state imposed fascism is the “rule”, the Republic is dead and tyranny reins in the once free Nation called America, aided and abetted by all public officers involved in this utter miscarriage of justice and blatant insult to the lofty premises of this nation. 29. PURSUANT stated herein,

TO AND IN OPPOSITION TO ALL THE IRREFUTABLE FACTS

Judge Lo Vallo, Musarra and Fiorella, all prosecution witnesses, and the jury have, by their own actions in this case, all on the public record, perjured their oaths, failed to abide by and honor their oaths in the performance of their official duties, as specifically

Page 11 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

stated, in detail, in previous Motions, pleadings, notices and affidavits of treason filed with this court, denied the Constitutions, the powers of and Rights guaranteed therein to the people of American Citizens, in the instant case, Defendant in Error, and have, by their own actions, and immediately upon those actions, invoked the self-executing sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment, have vacated their offices, and have no Constitutional or lawful authority to serve in their offices and deal with Defendant, or anyone else, in any manner, thus, this verdict must be voided and this case must be dismissed, with prejudice. 30. Defendant was arrested without a warrant and without a complaint filed by a party allegedly injured by Defendant’s alleged actions, in violation of constitutionally guaranteed due process of law. Both defects abridged Constitutional Rights and created due process violations and perjury of oaths taken by the arresting officers, thus, the jury verdict, which obviously failed to consider these Constitutional Rights and due process violations, must be vacated, and all charges must be dismissed, with prejudice. 31. Pursuant to the irrefutable facts; stated herein, the jury witnessed crimes taken place by Judge Sharon Lo Vallo, Molly Jo Musarra, Frank Clark and the state’s witnesses, on the public record, including, but not limited to, possible treason, some of which are herein stated and referenced, yet, pursuant to their sworn oaths to the Constitutions, the jury made no efforts and took no actions to stop those crimes and treason, thus, due to these jury defects, the verdict must be overturned and set aside and this case must be dismissed.

Page 12 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

32.

PURSUANT

TO THE IRREFUTABLE FACTS;

stated herein, Public Servant Sharon Lo

Vallo denied at least two of the Defendant’s referenced Constitutional Rights, and then acted in direct opposition to the Constitutions and the powers of and Rights guaranteed therein to Defendants, all on the public record. The jury failed to hold Judge Lo Vallo accountable for her treason and crimes against the Constitutions and against Defendants, therefore this verdict must be overturned and the charges must be dismissed, with prejudice. 33. PURSUANT TO THE IRREFUTABLE FACTS, and: (a) despite Defendant’s lawful demands for discovery, no films supplied by CITY COURT OF BUFFALO NEW YORK, INC., the court of the incident, until after Defense rested, which films would have proven the defenses case, had the state’s allegations been correct; however, since defendants was correct, the state refused to produce the films; (b) no proof of defendant’s alleged guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, was demonstrated, whatsoever, by the state; (c) it was not shown or proven by the state that defendants acted willfully, intentionally and with knowledge and fore thought of any alleged incident, all of which are required for the jury to find them guilty of any criminal action; (d) defendant’s actions in the alleged incident which resulted in his unlawful arrest were fully authorized by the State of New York, by and through the corporate charter of These United States, since defendant is an officer of that corporation, the facts in support of this Judge Lo Vallo denied the Defendant’s Right to present as evidence, in full violation of due process of law and the defendant’s constitutionally guaranteed Rights. (e) It is apparent by the jury’s failure to abide by their oaths to the Constitutions and to uphold the defendant’s Constitutional

Page 13 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

Rights, while ignoring and / or upholding violations of his Constitutional Rights, then jury tampering may have occurred in this action by not allowing all the evidence. 34. The possible treasonous Public Servant Sharon Lo Vallo, as previously stated, issued orders to defendant Shane Christopher, family of Buczek and the other defendants which prohibited them to use the Constitutions, the law or their evidence in their defense during this grossly miss adjudicated trial, which in reality was a “Star Chamber tribunal”. The defendant in Error or any other American People has any lawful requirement, whatsoever; to obey an unconstitutional or unlawful order issued by any official or the possible treasonous Judge Lo Vallo in judicial practice. Pursuant to Black’s Law Dictionary, the definition of contempt, in part states, that contempt is a refusal or denial to abide by a LAWFUL ORDER. It is obvious that Judge Lo Vallo’s orders, which denied the constitutions, were not lawful. Judge Lo Vallo’s exceeded the scope of her temporary authority, and held defendant Shane Christopher, family of Buczek in contempt for refusing to abide by her possible treasonous, unlawful acts and orders, also those defendants are currently being held incommunicado, unjustly, against their will, in prison under $15,000.00 bond for allegedly defying Lo Vallo’s treasonous acts. Shane Christopher, family of Buczek did suffer from serious medical conditions and physical injuries, yet, in cruel and unusual punishment, the possible treasonous public servant judge Sharon Lo Vallo held them in defiance of Constitutional Entitlements. The Defendant in Error Shane Christopher family of Buczek, has reported being tortured while in this prison, and Shane Christopher, family of Buczek fears for their life and of reprisal from the City of Buffalo for defending their Constitutional Rights and defying these wrongful actions by these few unqualified servants .

Page 14 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

WHEREFORE, Defendant in Error, Shane - Christopher, family of Buczek, files this Objection and this motion with this court, and hereby prays that this court hears their Constitutional Rights, pursuant to the Constitutions entitlement and grants this Objection and Motion, thereby granting or denying of which will determine either all judge’s Constitutional allegiance or there continued treason, by these rulings, on the public record. Respectfully submitted

Signed__________________________________ by Shane - Christopher, family of Buczek, Authorized Representative, Sovereign Americans of record of the united States of America and without the UNITED STATES, as defendant in Error, as one of “We the People”.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that I have this day served the within and foregoing OBJECTION, ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL GROUNDS, TO JURY VERDICT, AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND TO VACATE VERDICT, VOIDab INITIO, AND DISMISS THIS CASE, WITH PREJUDICE to the Judge Sharon Lo Vallo by depositing a copy thereof, certified, postage prepaid, return receipt requested in the United States Post Service, properly addressed upon: THE HONORABLE JUDGE SHARON LO VALLO EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CITY COURT JUDGE PART 5 (FIVE) OF ERIE COUNTY NEW YORK 50 DELAWARE AVE. BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202

Page 15 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

THE CLERK OF THE COURT EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CITY COURT JUDGE PART 5 (FIVE) OF ERIE COUNTY NEW YORK 50 DELAWARE AVE. BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202 MOLLY JO MUSARRA ATTORNEY AT LAW ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY 25 DELAWARE AVENUE BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202 NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 ANDREWS STREET ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14604 THOMAS J. McINTYRE, Chief FOIA / PA UNIT CRIMINAL DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SUITE 1127, KEENEY BUILDING WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530-0001 DOJ MARSHALL JARRETT OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NORTH WEST 3266 WASWHINGTON, D.C. 20530

DIVISION OF APPEALS AND OPINIONS Solicitor General OAG The Capitol Albany, New York (518) 474-7330 STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE CAPITOL ALBANY, NY 12224 State of New York Court of Appeals 20 Eagle Street Albany, New York 12207-1095

Page 16 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

JoAnn M. Wahl, Clerk of the Court M. Dolores Denman Courthouse 50 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14604 (585) 530-3100

Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks Washington, DC 20219 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2109 New York, NY 10278-0090 ROBERT D. LONSKI, ADMINISTRATOR CLAUDIA S. SCHULTZ, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 670 STATLER TOWERS BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202 716-856-8804 FAX 716-856-0424 Mayor Byron Brown 201 City Hall, Buffalo, NY 14202 US BANKRUPTCY COURT - Buffalo Office Olympic Towers 300 Pearl St. Suite 250 Buffalo, NY 14202 (716) 362-3200 Western District of New York Paul R. Warren - Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN U.S. COURTHOUSE 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 857-8500 Thomas Asreen, Acting Clerk of Court

Page 17 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

H. Carl McCall State Comptroller Office of the State Comptroller Public Information Office 110 State Street, 15th Floor Albany, NY 12236 (518) 474-4015 THE WHITEHOUSE 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530 TEL: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461 president@whitehouse.gov

Verification
I, Shane – Christopher: Buczek, Sui Juris, Plaintiff On Counterclaim in the above entitled action, hereby verify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the Legal Fiction noted as UNITED STATES (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 (1). DATED: February 17, 2007

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
I, Shane – Christopher: Buczek, the undersigned, hereafter Affiant, a natural man, a living breathing soul, a sovereign in correct capacity as beneficiary to the Original Jurisdiction, being of majority in age, having a sound mind, competent to testify, a self-realized entity, a free man upon the land, my yes be yes, my no be no, do state that the truths and facts herein are of firsthand knowledge, true, correct, complete, certain and not misleading, so help me God.

Page 18 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

1. Affiant is of majority in age, has a sound mind and is competent to testify. 2. Affiant states that the facts herein are of first hand personal knowledge. 3. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves states that on December 26, 2005 SHANE CHRISTOPHER BUCZEK, received from ERIE COUNTY, BUFFALO, NEW YORK, DOCKET NUMBER 05F-18516 which is an offer to contract from HSBC Security Officer Detective ED COTTER of the BUFFALO POLICE DEPARTMENT, accepted under threat, duress, and coercion by the threat of being kidnapped, false arrest, treasonous court hearing, false conviction, etc. and believes that none exists. 4. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves states that on December 14, 2006 he received an offer of contract for conviction from JUDGE SHARON LO VALLO and THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, CITY COURT JUDGE PART 5 (FIVE) OF ERIE COUNTY NEW YORK and THE CLERK OF COURT OF THE CITY OF BUFFALO in which the court tried to make a legal determination against me without my permission. This offer is “Refused for cause without dishonor and, without Recourse to me” and I accepted her oath of office in this matter to protect my reserved rights in common law and commerce, which are unalienable and unprescriptable rights and believes that none exists.
5. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that

defendant-in-error, Shane – Christopher: Buczek, has ninety days from the day of conviction to rebut the presumption of conviction, and has a charge to discharge the balance of which has gone
unpaid and is now delinquent and believes that none exists.

6. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that
he received a lawful “trial by jury” of defendant in error’s peers with respect to the Republic laws of the United States of America but instead received a “jury trial” paid for by the State of New York which is a conflict of interest based on fraud and an error in legal jurisprudence originally begun by the Corporate Fiction Fascist Democracy known as the UNITED STATES and the socialistic think tank that conspires against American society at large known as “METRO 1313” and believes that none exists. 7. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that it is illegal to obtain and be in possession of an Apostille badge that is currently recognized in and by both the Hague Convention as Diplomatic Status and Geneva Convention of which is the subject matter of this case, and believes that none exist.

Page 19 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

8. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that
the City of Buffalo because of these actions is not in violation of international laws and believes that none exists.

9. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that the Prosecuting Attorney Musarra for this case has a current valid Oath Of Office but instead has been impersonating herself as a public official committing commercial injuries and torts against “We The People” and opening herself up to a distress of her private and public hazard bond of which there is question of whether she is even possession of these which every public official MUST have. If not then opening herself up to personal lawsuits and arrest, there is none and believes that none exists. 10. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that the entire city of Buffalo is so corrupt that the average person, living soul, cannot get a fair trial and the reason being that since all courts are under Admiralty / Maritime Law which makes all U.S. Citizens Debtors (guilty until proven innocent) before they enter the courtroom, considered federal employees and trustees of the trust created by the birth certificate and the social security adhesion contract signed into by non-disclosure and fraud as a teenager of which “We the People” continue to be Enemies of the State under TWEA (Trading With The Enemy Act), there is no fairness especially in the City Of Buffalo and believes that none exists. 11. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that Both the District Attorney Musarra and the Judge Lo Vallo did not know each other in any capacity before the trial which would be a “conflict of interest” because Defendant in Error was not open and available to the same cultivation of relationship and believes that none exists. 12. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that He is able to obtain a transcript of the trial as part of his Discovery for his case to be able to prepare for the case and defend himself properly and constitutionally and believes that none exists. 13. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that The conflict of interest and collusion doesn’t still continue with the facts that the owner of the Delaware North Security Company, Jeremy Jacobs, not only employees arresting officer Detective Ed Cotter but is also a heavy campaign contributor to the Lo Vallo run for judgeship and believes that none exists.

Page 20 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

14. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that all public officials connected with this case should not be removed from office and impeached for total misconduct and actions that are repugnant to the Federal and State constitutions and “We The People” of The United States of America and believes that none exists. 15. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that Defendant in error has even signed any contract or bond in agreement to be incarcerated and if there is no contract there is no meeting of the minds, Hale vs. Henkel, so if forced to contract at the barrel of a gun and the benefit and privilege of forced incarceration is placed upon the Sovereign American Apostilled Diplomat Shane – Christopher: Buczek then the relief for damages at the rate of $78,000.00 per hour as per Trezevant vs. Miami for illegal and unlawful incarceration without due process. (James C. Trezevant, Plaintiff – Appellant vs. CITY OF TAMPA, a municipal Corporation et. Al. Hillsborough County Board of Criminal Justice, et. Al.) and believes that none exists.
16. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that there is any lawful money of account being Gold and Silver to pay debt since the enactment of House Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933 but instead are forced to use Federal Reserve Notes by virtue of Public Policy which are not money but an evidence of a debt. If there is no money, there is no way to pay a debt, there is no State, there are no State borders according to the State Compact Act and believes that none exists.

17. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that
the court has not committed a tort and has not given me the remedy upon which relief can be granted and believes that none exists.

18. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that
the defendant-in-error can’t waive all benefits and privileges to the statutes and codes of which he is being prosecuted by and believes that none exists.

19. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that
these proceedings has failed to produce evidence of an injured party of which the State cannot be and believes that none exists.

20. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that
these proceedings has failed to produce an affidavit of verified complaint, or the existence of a complaining party and believes that none exists.

Page 21 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

21. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that
these proceedings has failed to produce an injured party onto the witness stand for testimony and believes that none exists.

22. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that these proceedings has failed to produce and to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and believes that none exists. 23. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that these proceedings has failed to produce an honorable ruling, therefore the court could rule only by an undisclosed presumption of an assumed intention, and this may be deemed the practice of witchcraft by a Satanic Cabal and believes that none exists. 24. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that these proceeding – and this court – has now lost all jurisdiction by it’s denial of due process and believes that none exists. 25. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that Shane – Christopher: Buczek did not have ineffective legal council that could have called forty-four witnesses when he called only four to oppose the District Attorney’s one and only witness, and believes that none exists. 26. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that ED COTTER did not identify himself as a Buffalo Police Officer, whipping out his official City Police Badge, when he was acting as a Security Guard, which is against New York State Law, and believes that none exists. 27. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that Defendant-in-error cannot waive his benefit and privilege of being prosecuted by the City of Buffalo and it’s copy written statutes and codes which is all this municipal corporation has to forcibly coerce innocent free sovereign Americans at the barrel of gun to use and believes that none exists. 28. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that the charges were verified and certified into the court record by Assistant District Attorney Musarra, and believes that none exists. 29. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that Sovereign American / defendant-in-error, Shane – Christopher: Buczek, knew beyond any

Page 22 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

reasonable doubt and that it was fully disclosed to him that under “METRO 1313”, every court that a Person appears in is nothing but an administrative tribunal operating under Admiralty / Administrative (military) law and is not a judicial court and the belief of the People that they are judicial courts. That these courts are governed by “private” or “non-positive” law and so, if every judge on the bench is aware of this are they not guilty of fraud and treason, and believe that none exists. 30. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that the Sovereign American, defendant-in-error, Shane – Christopher: Buczek, requires proof that his due process and his constitutional rights has not been violated of which if it cannot be proven then it will be deemed that you have violated those rights, which you, Judge Lo Vallo, Attorney Musarra, and the other partners in crime have violated those rights, which you took an oath (one hopes) to uphold, and now are in breach of this contract and your oath, becoming liable for damages, and believes that none exists. 31. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that Affiant is a “Vessel”, as it is defined in USC Title 18 Section 9; or “Water Craft” or other “Artificial Contrivance” used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water. Corpus Juris Secundum; Chapter 55, Section 9 (b), and believes that none exists. 32. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that is not in receipt of any document that verifies defendant-in-error is a “taxpayer” as defined by 26 U.S.C. or owes any income tax to the Treasury. [Spreckles Sugar vs. McClain, 192 US 397; Miller vs. Standard Nut Margarine, 284 US 498; Gould vs. Gould, 245 US 151], and believes that none exists. 33. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that Defendant-in-error is not in receipt of any document that verifies Affiant is a “person” as used within 26 U.S.C. [maxim – Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis ‘man’ is a term of nature; ‘person’ is a term of civil law.] [Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, “PERSON” Term may include artificial beings, as corporations….relating to taxation and the revenue laws, People vs. McLean, 80 N.Y. 254. A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is a legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributed.] , and believes that none exists.

Page 23 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

34. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that Defendant-in-error is not in receipt of any document that verifies Affiant is an “individual” as used within 26 U.S.C. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, “INDIVIDUAL” As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association: but it is said that this restrictive significant is not necessarily inherent in the world, and that it may in proper cases, include artificial persons, State vs. Bell Telephone Co., 36 Ohio St. 310, 38 Am. Rep. 583. A san adjective, “individual” means pertaining or belonging to, or characteristic of, one single person, either in opposition to a firm, association, or corporation, or considered in his relation thereto], and believes that none exists. 35. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that defendant-in-error is not in receipt of any document that verifies Affiant is a “strawman” as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary – seventh edition; as “a fictitious person”, “A third party used in some transactions as a temporary transferee to allow the principal parties to accomplish something that is otherwise impermissible”, and believes that none exists. 36. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that defendant-in-error is not in receipt of any document that verifies Affiant is a “legal fiction” which is define as – “an assumption that something is true even though it may be untrue, made especially in judicially reasoning to alter how a legal rule operates. The constructive trust is an example of a legal fiction. Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition.” , and believes that none exists. 37. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that defendant-in-error is not in receipt of any document that verifies Affiant holds the legislatively created office of “person”, “individual”, “legal fiction” or “strawman” within the government, and believes that none exists. 38. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that defendant-in-error is not in receipt of any document that verifies how Affiant is under subject matter jurisdiction of the city municipality and how it was achieved in detail and whether it was obtained by fraud and deceit when Affiant was under aged and without clear understanding with full disclosure of subject matter contractual agreements, and believes that none exists.

Page 24 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

39. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that defendant-in-error is not in receipt of any document that verifies Affiant is under subject matter jurisdiction achieved through “color of law” which is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition – “The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of a legal right. The term usually implies a misuse of power made possible because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of the state. State action is synonymous with color of law in the context of federal civil-rights statutes or criminal law”, and believes that none exists.

ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT OF GRIEVANCE AND PRAY FOR JUDICIAL REMEDY
Affidavit in Support of Petition/Complaint ss. For the Article III Impeachable Treasonous Felony of JOSEPHA A. FIORELLA KEVIN J. KEANE [judge] SHARON LO VALLO [judge] FRANK J. CLARK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY MOLLY JO MUSARRA, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

New York State Erie County

) )

1.

Grounds for Removal — Impeachment United States Constitution

§ 2.38 Removal of officials Laws shall be passed providing for the prompt removal from office, upon complaint and hearing, of all officers, including state officers, judges and members of the general assembly, for any misconduct involving moral turpitude or for other cause provided by law; and this method of removal shall be in addition to impeachment or other method of removal authorized by the constitution. § 4.17 Judges removable Judges may be removed from office, by concurrent resolution of both houses of the general assembly, if two-thirds of the members, elected to each house, concur therein; but, no such removal shall be made, except upon complaint, the substance of which shall be entered on the journal, nor, until the party charged shall have had notice thereof, and an opportunity to be heard. State of New York Constitution ARTICLE 1 sec.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,and 12 THE JUDICIARY § 9 REMOVAL OF JUDGES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ETC. Any judge of any court of record, the attorney general, or any prosecuting attorney may be removed from office by joint resolution of the legislature, in which three-fourths of the members elected to each house shall concur, for incompetence, corruption, malfeasance, or delinquency in office, or other sufficient cause stated in such resolution.

Page 25 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

But no removal shall be made unless the officer complained of shall have been served with a copy of the charges against him as the ground of removal, and shall have an opportunity of being heard in his defense. Such resolution shall be entered at length on the journal of both houses and on the question of removal the ayes and nays shall also be entered on the journal. ARTICLE V IMPEACHMENT § 1 IMPEACHMENT - POWER OF AND PROCEDURE. The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. The concurrence of a majority of all the members shall be necessary to an impeachment. All impeachments shall be tried by the senate, and, when sitting for that purpose, the senators shall be upon oath or affirmation to do justice according to law and evidence. When the governor or lieutenant governor is on trial, the chief justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. No person shall be convicted without a concurrence of two-thirds of the senators elected. § 2 OFFICERS LIABLE TO. The governor and other state and judicial officers, except judges and justices of courts not of record, shall be liable to impeachment for high crimes or misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office, but judgment in such cases shall extend only to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit, in the state. The party, whether convicted or acquitted, shall, nevertheless, be liable to prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment according to law. § 3 REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. All officers not liable to impeachment shall be subject to removal for misconduct or malfeasance in office, in such manner as may be provided by law. § 2 OFFICERS LIABLE TO. The governor and other state and judicial officers, except judges and justices of courts not of record, shall be liable to impeachment for high crimes or misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office, but judgment in such cases shall extend only to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit, in the state. The party, whether convicted or acquitted, shall, nevertheless, be liable to prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment according to law. 2. Pursuant to The Constitution of New York Article 1– The Judiciary, Sections Petitioners attest that The Buffalo City Court Judge JOSEPH A. FIORELLA willfully wars against the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Washington, and willfully violates New York’s Code of Judicial Conduct; that he engages in conduct that erodes public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system; that he fails to uphold his sworn duties as protector of the Constitutions of the United States and the state of New York; that he fails to uphold the laws of the Nation and the State; and that he fails to uphold and enforce the public policy of the state of New York. 3. The City Court of Buffalo Judge JOSEPHA A. FIORELLA willfully, knowingly, and intentionally deprives Petitioners of rights and privileges secured under the Constitution to all inhabitants and the people of the state of New York, thereby administering his office with willful Neglect of Duty under the Constitution of New York. Petitioners further allege that The City Court of Buffalo Judge JOSEPH A. FIORELLA did communicate ex parte and / or collude and conspire with other judges and officers of that Buffalo City Court and District Attorney FRANK J. CLARK including a solicitor in Erie County Superior court, to wit, MOLLY J. MUSARRA, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, to deprive petitioners of his due process rights to an impartial tribunal, a full and fair opportunity to present the case, and an impartial, speedy and proper resolution of the dispute before the court. 4. Under the Constitution of the state of New York, Article 1, IV, Section 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,and 12, a judge “has a duty” under his Oath of Office to support, obey and defend the Constitutions of the United States and

Page 26 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

the state of New York to preserve and to protect the rights and privileges of every individual and the people appearing before the court. 5. The Constitution of THE united states of America OATH OF JUDGES. Every judge of the supreme court, and every judge of a superior court shall, and every judge of the city courts before entering upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe an oath that he will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York, and will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of judge to the best of his ability, which oath shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state. No oath no JOB! 6. CANON 1 - Judges shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. An independent and City Court Judge judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. Judges should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of judicial conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this Code are to be construed and applied to further that objective. Comment Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this Code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law. 7. CANON 2 - Judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities. (A) Judges should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. (B) Judges should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence their judicial conduct or judgment. Judges should not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor should judges convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence them. Judges should not testify voluntarily as character witnesses. Comment Maintaining the prestige of judicial office is essential to a system of government in which the judiciary functions independently of the executive and legislative branches. Respect for the judicial office facilitates the orderly conduct of legitimate judicial functions. Judges should distinguish between proper and improper use of the prestige of office in all of their activities. The testimony of judges as character witnesses injects the prestige of their office into the proceeding in which they testify and may be misunderstood to be an official testimonial. This canon however, does not afford judges a privilege against testifying in response to a subpoena. 8. CANON 3 - Judges shall perform the duties of their office impartially and diligently. The judicial duties of judges should take precedence over all other activities. Their judicial duties include all the duties of office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply: (A) Adjudicative Responsibilities. (4) Judges should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, full right to be heard according to law, and, except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte or other communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding. Judges, however, may obtain the advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before them, by amicus curiae only, if they afford the parties reasonable opportunity to respond. Comment The proscription against communications concerning a proceeding includes communications from lawyers, law teachers, and other persons who are not participants in the proceeding, except to the limited extent permitted. It does not preclude judges from consulting with other judges, or with court personnel whose function is to aid judges in carrying out their adjudicative responsibilities. . (5) Judges shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. 9. C) Disciplinary Responsibilities. 2) Judges having actual knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct should take appropriate action. Judges having actual knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer should take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include informing the appropriate authority.

Page 27 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

10. CHARGES IN SUPPORT OF IMPEACHMENT/ TREASON: COUNT ME -- NEGLECT OF DUTY, MALFEASANCE, CORRUPT ACTS OR PRACTICES On or about: 1. December 27, 2005 No –answer Branch of Contract 2. December 30, 2005 No-Answer Breach of Contract 3. January17, 2006 4. January26, 2006 5. January 31, 2006 6. February 15, 2006 7. March 7, 2006 8. April 4, 2006 9. April 13, 2006 10. April 25, 2006 11. May 23, 2006 12. May 30, 2006 13. June 27, 2006 14. July 6, 2006 15. December 11,2006 - TRIAL 16. December 12,2006 - TRIAL 17. December 13,2006 - TRIAL 18. December 14, 2006 - TRIAL 19. December 14, 2006 Shane – Christopher: Buczek Kidnapped by Sharon Lo Vallo and Musarra!!!!! Molly J.

The City Court of Buffalo, New York Judge JOSEPH A. FIORELLA did refuse to acknowledge that he did ‘swear or affirm’ to support the Constitution of the United States and/or refuse to acknowledge that he did ‘swear or affirm’ to support the Constitution of the state of New York. A judge who refuses to discharge the duties of his office under the Oath of Office cannot be afforded jurisdiction and authority to discharge those duties with fidelity in accordance with that oath. Accordingly, that judge compromises and denies his Oath of Office, the equivalent act of “refusing to take the oath or affirmation”, and shall therefore forfeit his office under Article 1 Section.1,Article 2 Section.1,Article 4. Section 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Constitution of the state of United States. A judge who refuses to bond the action before his under the clear and unambiguous terms of her Oath of Office thereby refuses to protect and preserve the rights and privileges of individuals who may appear before the court with the expectation of a fair and impartial tribunal under the laws and Constitution of this Nation and this state of New York. That judge is at war with the federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The City Court of Buffalo, New York Judge JOSEPH A. FIORELLA refused to bond the action of Petitioners under her Oath of Office. A judge acting in such manner fails to discharge the duties of is office with fidelity, is a Neglect of Duty, Malfeasance, and/or Corrupt Act or Practice.

Page 28 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

11. COUNT II -- NEGLECT OF DUTY, MALFEASANCE, CORRUPT ACT OR PRACTICE Pursuant to the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canons 3. a judge should administer his duties in a manner that demonstrates and fosters impartiality, and eschews even the appearance of impropriety. Failure of a judge to conduct himself “at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” constitutes a Neglect of Duty and, under egregious circumstances may constitute a Corrupt Act or Practice. In the matter before the court, The City Court Judge JOSEPH A. FIORELLA acted in a prejudicial manner that undermines and erodes public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, contrary to the Code of Judicial Conduct. The initial actions by Judge FIORELLA gives rise to the inference of ex parte communications with the solicitor [opposing counsel], contrary to Canon 3.A.(4). The inference of ex parte communications are supported by the court’s administration of the summary judgment proceeding(s) contrary to Petitioner’s Land Patent. and in violation of the Clearfield Trust Doctrine by withholding the material information that the government’s demand for specific performance upon corporate statutes or corporation rules without the production of the said document defining the loss of sovereignty status of the government; defining that the government is not the subject-matterjurisdiction-holder–in-due course by the very use of the demanded federal reserve notes can not enforce the specific performance demands called statutes. See Article one of the united states Constitution Judge Florala’s actions imply an Impeachable Treasonous conspiracy that is so prejudicial and egregious as to constitute a Corrupt Act or Practice against the united States of America and the creditors of the United States [Annexed Exhibit 1 page 18 highlighted yellow]. In the administration of this matter, The City Court of Buffalo, New York Judge FIORELLA must be found guilty of a Neglect of Duty, Malfeasance, and Corrupt Acts or Practices. 12. Under the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1, “A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.” A court should maintain a higher standard of integrity such that even an “appearance of impropriety” is avoided, Canon 2. Failure to establish, maintain and enforce the highest standard of integrity and to avoid any “appearance of impropriety” erodes public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judiciary, in conflict with Canon 1 and Canon 2. Failure to administer the duties of one’s office in accordance with one’s Oath of Office constitutes a denial of that Oath of Office, requiring a forfeiture of that office pursuant to the New York Constitution and United States of America. This petition contains charges that The Buffalo City Court Judge FIORELLA and others similarly situated did willfully, knowingly, and intentionally deprives Petitioner of rights and privileges secured under the federal Constitution to due process under the law and equal protection of the law. The charges herein allege that Judge FIORELLA acted contrary to his Oath of Office, denied his Oath of Office, and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. Pursuant to the Constitution of the state of New York, failure to administer one’s duty in accordance with the Oath of Office constitutes a Neglect of Duty, an impeachable offense. When “Neglect of Duty” is or appears to be a pattern and practice, it becomes a Corrupt Act or Practice, a Malfeasance, rising to an impeachable offense. The office-holder must be removed from office. When shown to be true, the allegations set forth and made more specific in the attached Affidavits warrant an indictment for the impeachment of The City Court Judge FIORELLA from the office of Judge in the City Court of Common Pleas pursuant to Article 1 Section 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution for malfeasance, for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, and for conduct rendering her unfit for office, and to bind her over for trial before the Senate of the state of Washington for impeachment from that office at the earliest possible time. 13. Petitioners united States of America by and through Shane Christopher Family of Buczek, respectfully requests the opportunity to testify under oath to the charges brought forward against The City Court Judge FIORELLA to assist this Superior Court Judge House of Representatives find the truth and to correctly determine whether to bring an indictment for impeachment of The City Court Judge FIORELLA. This New York legislature has a duty to support, obey and defend the Constitution of this Nation and this state of New York, including checks and balances against the judicial branch of government pursuant to Article V, Sections 9. Petitioners respectfully asks this House of Representatives to support the Constitution of the United States and the rights of its people for redress of grievances secured under that Constitution, and to conduct an honest and complete investigation into the charges brought forward by Petitioner for the removal from office of The City Court Judge FIORELLA. 14. REMEDY For conduct at war with the Constitution of the state of New York and United States Constitution specifically Article 1, Section 2 and 3.The City Court Judge FIORELLA deserves to be removed from his office. For conduct at war with the Constitution of the United States, the supreme law of the land, to deprive the people of rights and privileges secured under the federal Constitution, The City Court Judge FIORELLA deserves to

Page 29 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

be removed from his office. For conspiring with others to deprive litigants and others of their rights under the federal and State Constitutions, The City Court Judge FIORELLA deserves to be removed from his office. For Neglect of Duty of his office, The City Court Judge FIORELLA deserves to be removed from his office. For Malfeasance in the discharge of the duties of his office, The City Court Judge FIORELLA deserves to be removed from his office. For the Impeachable Treasonous Corrupt Acts and Practices in the discharge of the duties of his office, The City Court Judge FIORELLA deserves to be removed from his office. For violating Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, The City Court Judge FIORELLA deserves to be removed from his office. Petitioners respectfully pray to the Washington House of Representatives to suspend The City Court Judge FIORELLA from occupying his office during this period of investigation, and then, upon a finding of the truth of these allegations, to issue an indictment for impeachment of The City Court Judge FIORELLA from the Office of Judge in the City Court of Buffalo, New York and to be tried for impeachment before the Senate of New York. Ratified December 15, 1791. The united States of America by and through Shane – Christopher, family of Buczek, Moffit Preamble and one of the people, herein, competent to testify herein, over the age of eighteen, by first hand conscious knowledge states the foregoing is true, correct, complete and not misleading, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth: Without prejudice

_____________________________________________________ Signed: /s/Shane – Christopher: Buczek, Authorized Representative Without recourse, UCC 1-308

PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Shane – Christopher: Buczek, Sui Juris certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “UNITED STATES”, that I am at least 18 years of age, a one of the people of the Florida Republic, and I personally served the following document(s): by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly address to the Following: cc: THE HONORABLE JUDGE SHARON LO VALLO EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CITY COURT JUDGE PART 5 (FIVE) OF ERIE COUNTY NEW YORK 50 DELAWARE AVE. BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202 Page 30 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

THE CLERK OF THE COURT EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CITY COURT JUDGE PART 5 (FIVE) OF ERIE COUNTY NEW YORK 50 DELAWARE AVE. BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202 MOLLY JO MUSARRA ATTORNEY AT LAW ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY 25 DELAWARE AVENUE BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202 NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT 400 ANDREWS STREET ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14604 THOMAS J. McINTYRE, Chief FOIA / PA UNIT CRIMINAL DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SUITE 1127, KEENEY BUILDING WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530-0001 DOJ MARSHALL JARRETT OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NORTH WEST 3266 WASWHINGTON, D.C. 20530 DIVISION OF APPEALS AND OPINIONS Solicitor General OAG The Capitol Albany, New York (518) 474-7330 STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE CAPITOL ALBANY, NY 12224 State of New York Court of Appeals 20 Eagle Street

Page 31 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

Albany, New York 12207-1095
JoAnn M. Wahl, Clerk of the Court M. Dolores Denman Courthouse 50 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14604 (585) 530-3100

Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks Washington, DC 20219 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacob K. Javits Federal Building 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2109 New York, NY 10278-0090 ROBERT D. LONSKI, ADMINISTRATOR CLAUDIA S. SCHULTZ, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 670 STATLER TOWERS BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202 716-856-8804 FAX 716-856-0424 Mayor Byron Brown 201 City Hall, Buffalo, NY 14202 US BANKRUPTCY COURT - Buffalo Office Olympic Towers 300 Pearl St. Suite 250 Buffalo, NY 14202 (716) 362-3200 Western District of New York Paul R. Warren - Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN U.S. COURTHOUSE 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 857-8500

Page 32 of 33

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

Thomas Asreen, Acting Clerk of Court

H. Carl McCall State Comptroller Office of the State Comptroller Public Information Office 110 State Street, 15th Floor Albany, NY 12236 (518) 474-4015 THE WHITEHOUSE 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530 TEL: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461 president@whitehouse.gov

Using a Notary on this document does not create an adhesion contract or alter my status, but is used for identification purposes and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction. County of Erie State of New York I certify that the above afore Affiant, Shane –Christopher: Buczek, known by me, by proper identification and having affixed his hand concerning the above and attached document, duly sworn and subscribed and affirmed before Me Notary Public in and for the State of New York this ________ day for the ________Month in the year of, Two Thousand Seven, A.D.

__________________________________ Notary Public Signature Name SEAL: My Notary expires: __________________________________ Notary Public Print Name

Page 33 of 33