ORNL ORICINAL mos 49 Sah TO> Beh ees MERRION IN THE suntan COURT OF OKLAHOMA APR -7 2023 Lasaio pene sme vane BENEFICIARY OF THE PUBLIC TRUST & ESTATE, EQUITY & TITLE HOLDER ace own l2 1213 LOWER COURT CASE No. CJ= 2022-2660 v. AUSTIN PIERATT & PIERATT LAW, PLLC ‘OKLAHOMA HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA CHILD, SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, ‘TRADERS SECURE INS. CO. GEICO SECURE INS. CO. AMERICAN MERCURY INS. CO. PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INS. CO. DEFENDANTS APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION. {1 .COMES NOW, Lamario Dewayne Stillwell, pro per (hereinafter known as Stillwell) asking this honorable court to accept this application to assume original jurisdiction and grant relief sought in Mr. Stillwell’s petition for writ of probibition pursuant to Okla. Art 7 § 4. Baby Fa, v. Oklahoma county Dist.court, 2015 OK 24, 48, 348 P.3d1080. Judge Donald Andrew's has EXERCISED JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER. The exercise of said powers is unauthorized under state and federal law. Judge Andrews has been the direct cause of injury to Mr, Stillwell, therefore he is asking this honorable ‘court to intervene. Stillwell is also seeking relief pursuant to Federal Rule of civil procedures 60 (B) (3).2 as incorporated into the United States Bankruptcy Rules under Rule 9024, any person may seek dismissal 1of 16of action and relief based on fraud upon the court. Also seeking dismissal due to violations that occurred regarding constitutional rights that exist under 18 U.S.C. § 2 deprivation of rights under color based on fraud upon the court. 442. Also, pursuant to U.S. 552a (b) (3) of the privacy act that states, “No agency shall disclose any record ‘which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or another agency, except under a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains unless the disclosure would be for a routine use as defined in subsection (a) (7) of this section and described under subsection (e) (4) (D), of 5 U.S.C.552a (b) (3).” as well as privacy laws under 45 CER, PART 160, and 164 of HIPAA laws for government agencies. Stillwell is also challenging this court's jurisdiction, responding to State Attomey Anthony L. Jackson's motion was made on March 27, 2022, for relief ot trial. ‘3. Stiliwell also responds to Austin Pieratt & Pieratt Law's response to a counter-motion for summary judgment. The case is being heard in the District Court of Oklahoma. In the case of Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-pier Co., 322 US 238, 245-246 (1944) they created the standard for fraud upon the court. In the case of Methyl Realty Corp. v. Esmark, Inc., 763 F.2d 826, 832 (7th Cir. 1985), (it contends that a rule 60 (b) (3) motion allows a party to overtum a final judgment based upon “fraud” so long as it is filed within one year from the date of judgment. In Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1338 (Sth Ci. 1978), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals declared that fraud on the court encompasses actions such as bribery of a judge or members of a jury, or the fabrication of evidence by a party in which an attorney is implicated. In Bullock v. United States, 763 £2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir, 1985), the court stated that fraud aimed at the judicial machinery itself constitutes a fraud upon the court, not fraud between the parties, false statements, or perjury. 4 4.1tis when the court or member is corrupted or influenced, ot influence is attempted, or when the {judge has not performed his judicial function. The court corrupted its impartial functions directly. (“Fraud on the court by an officer of the court and disqualification of.”) Stillwell is a party to a proceeding in the 20f 16District Court of Oklahoma County, Case CJ-2022-2660 in which he is being sued by Austin Pieratt for breach of contract and by the State of Oklahoma Child Support Enforcement (hereinafter known as CSS), that is alleging that Stillwell owes back child support, Other defendants, in this case, are our Traders Secure, American Mercury, Progressive Norther, and GEICO Secure Insurance companies, as well as the Oklahoma Healthcare Authority (hereinafter known as OKHCA). ‘{ 5. Presiding over this case in the District Court of Oklahoma County is Judge Donald Andrews. Judge ‘Andrews has used gross negligence and violated and encroached upon Stillwell’s civil rights under the First, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Constitutional Amendments. Rights, such as denying Stillwell a chance to redress grievances, denying due process, and denying Stillwell’s right to a fair and prompt ruling, Judge Andrews has also denied Stillwell’s equal protection under the law pursuant to U.S. v ‘Throckmorton, 98 US 61, which states that (officials and even judges have no immunity when they violate the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). 16. On the day of September 8th, 2022, Stillwell made a special appearance in front of Judge Donald ‘Andrews for a hearing that was set. As Stillwell was making his way to the judge's bench with all the other partes, Stillwell witnessed Mr. Pieratt speaking with Judge Andrews as he was passing papers across the bench for Judge Andrews to sign. Next, Stillwell witnessed Judge Andrews passing out the same papers to all the other defendants in this case, except for Stillwell. At the time, Stillwell was ‘unaware of what was truly happening, as this was the first court appearance in this case and being pro-SE. Stillwell now knows, after being notified by mail, that an ex-parte proceeding of the interpleader was being conducted without following the proper steps before implementing an interpleader. This is yet another example of fraud upon the court pertaining to this case. 4 7. Judge Andrew’s dismissal of the insurance companies with prejudice and the implementation of interpleaders thereby revoked Stillwell’s right to pursue Progressive Norther insurance company for bad faith because they violated multiple Privacy Act laws and disclosure laws. Also, for aiding and abetting insurance fraud and other violations. Judge Andrews has allowed all other parties to refuse to answer any 30f 16of the multiple declarations of facts Stillwell has filed in this case. During the September 8, 2022, court proceeding, when Judge Andrews communicated and exchanged paperwork with all other parties about interpleaders and did not include Stillwell in this exchange, is an example of ex parte proceedings. In practic, this bas been interpreted to require adequate notice of the request for judicial relief and an ‘opportunity to be heard concerning the merits of such relief. 8. A court order issued based on an ex parte proceeding, therefore, will necessarily be temporary and interim, and the person(s) affected by the order must be allowed to contest the appropriateness of the order before it can be made permanent. Judge Andrew willfully and knowingly picked up his pen to sign such an order to deprive Stillwell of his fundamental right to seek justice. Stillwell is the victim of a ‘motor vehicle accident, to no fault of his own. Judge Andrews is abusing his power that should be used to conduct fair proceedings and protect the victim but is being used instead to protect corporations and officers of the court. The Code of Conduct for judges to follow in the State of Oklahoma says that all Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives. They should aspire at all times to ‘conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competency. 4 9. Judge Andrews willfully and knowingly acted under the color of State and Federal law, meaning that he used his official position’s discretionary powers to break the law, Judge Andrews chose not to conduct a hearing of evidence before ordering interpleaders when he signed an order to dismiss with prejudice Progressive Northem Insurance's motion to dismiss to incorporate into the interpleaders. Stillwell was denied the right to redress grievances with Progressive Northem insurance company. The action was an attempt to suppress the truth by preventing Stillwell the opportunity to present his legal arguments and exhibits, Judge Andrews single-handedly produced fraud upon the court, which affected the judicial machinery by not allowing the judge to perform in his usual manner. 4of16$10. From the inception of this case, Judge Andrews and his unethical practices and policies are the direct reason why this case could never be adjudicated on its own merits, Stillwell also argues that Judge ‘Andrews exceeded his authority when he allowed false claims by Austin Pieratt and Anthony L. Jackson (CSS) to proceed with a cross-claim. Judge Andrews saw Mr. Pieratt's contract with Stillwell and knew when he allowed Mr. Pieratt continued with his false claim, that it was false. Concerning OKDHS and CSS, Judge Andrews allowed them to continue to pursue Stillwell for child support, when in fact, the State of Oklahoma Child support division failed to present the proper lien documentation which would ‘make their lien enforceable. “Berry v. Stevens, 1934 OK 167, 16, 31 P2d 950.” (Sutton v. David Stanley Chevrolet) The gist ofa fraudulent misrepresentation is the producing of a false impression upon the mind of the other party and, if this result is carried out through its accomplishments. 4 11. Stillwell challenged the jurisdiction of this court and was ignored. This court has refused to reschedule any of Stillwell's prior hearings that have been on the docket for over 8 months. This court also denies Stllwell’s legal right to a hearing without providing a reasonable cause. The court docket for December 2nd, 2022, lists all of Stillwell’s intended proceedings, as if Judge Andrews heard all of them on that day. When in fact, Judge Andrews held a hearing concerning Stillwell’s motion to disqualify. On every occasion when Stilwell has filed an action or request for a hearing date, the court would set the hearing two months away. Stillwell thought this was suspicious the first time, and when it happened again, he realized that this was extrinsic fraud committed by the court. By the court dates being set for two months away, it proves thatthe court was purposefully doing so to not allow any time left to file an appeal. ‘{ 12. On September 22, 2022, Judge Andrews made a controversial decision when he took Traders Insurance company's attorneys’ word that Stillwell had been “made whole”, instead of demanding proof from Traders Insurance that Stillwell was “made whole.” Stillwell, in fact, in his counter-motion for a summary of judgment, had proof that he was not “made whole” and that Traders Insurance had broken the Jaw, Judge Andrews failed to adjudicate this counter-motion and chose to disregard Stillwell's facts. Judge 5 of 16Andrews violated Stillwell’s rights as a claimant by not making Stillwell whole as far as not paying darhages. Stillwell’s truck was a total loss. Stillwell also has validated claims against Traders Insurance such as insurance fraud, Privacy Act violations, and by not following proper disbursement procedures when involving alien orders. However, Judge Andrews dismissed Mr. Stllwell’s arguments and proof and accepted the word of Traders attomey. Traders Insurance filed a motion to enforce the settlement, which shows them illegally forcing Stilwell into a fraudulent court proceeding, and breaking the law. 413. Mr. Stillwell cited section 237 of ttle 56 of the state of Oklahoma statutes, which says that the insurance industry shall follow the DHS/child support rules and report within the system they have implemented to report claimant information held by insurers with the Department of Child support database. Moreover, the statute requires the insurers to notify Child Support not less than ten business days prior to making any payment to such claimants after receiving notice of a match. Mr. Stillwell also cited section 135 of title 43 of the Oklahoma statutes, which says that the CSD shall send a court-ordered lien to the insurer, and they must follow the terms of the lien order and cut the appropriate checks and send to the entities specified in the order. The law also says that failure to abide by the lien order subjects the insurer to the whole lien amount and/or a fine. 1 14. Also, on September 22, 2022, Judge Andrews also ordered an interpleader for the American Mercury Insurance Company. American Mercury Insurance was not even in court that day. Instead, Judge ‘Andrews allowed Mr. Pieratt, Stillwell’s ex-attomey, to present an instrument for his signature. Mr. Stillwell was not made aware of this action until three hours after the court was over. Stillwell received an ‘email from Mr. Pieratt with the document endorsed with Judge Andrew's signature, along with a dismissal with prejudice. Then, with discovery, Stillwell was once again deprived of all his rights and this court has committed fraud. Gross negligence and all the parties have aided and abetted the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct, judges should strive to exceed the standards of conduct established by the rules and hold themselves to the highest ethical standards, and seek to achieve these aspirational goals, thereby ‘enhancing the dignity of the judicial office. Under Rule 2.11, a judge should disqualify himself or herself 6 of 16in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including, among other circumstances, when the judge has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer cor personal knowledge of facts that are in dispute in the proceedings. ‘15, Rule 2.11 (A) (2) in the Oklahoma judges code of conduct, states that @ person who has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding is within the third degree of relationship to the judge or the judge's spouse, or is known by the judge to be an officer, director, trustee, or managing partner of a party. A judge is subject to disqualification under this rule other than for bias or prejudice under Rule 2.11(A)(|) and may disclose on the record the basis of the judge's disqualification ‘and may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, outside the presence of the judge and court personnel, whether to waive disqualification. If following disclosure of any basis for disqualification other than bias or prejudice under Rule 2.11(A)(1), the parties and lawyers agree, without participation by the judge or court personnel, that the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to participate, the judge may participate in the proceeding, The agreement shall be incorporated into the record of the proceeding. 4 16. In applying Rule 2.11(A)(1) through (6), a judge's obligation not to hear or decide matters in which disqualification is required applies regardless of whether we filed a motion to disqualify. Rule 2.15 requires a judge to respond to allegations of judicial and lawyer misconduct, Rule 2.15 (A) states that a judge having knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial ‘question regarding the other judge's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority. Rule 2.15 (B) states that a judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority. Taking action to address known misconduct is a judge's obligation under Rules 2.15 (A) and (B). A report of misconduct by another judge or lawyer raises a substantial question regarding 7 of 16«that person's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness ifit involves a flagrant violation of this Code or rules of Professional Conduct. 17. According to these codes of conduct, Judge Andrews had an ethical duty to report Mr. Pieratt, Josh Holloway, and Mr. Jackson. Judge Andrews also had a fiduciary duty to step down from the case as well. PPieratt informed Mr. Stillwell that they had reached the child support negotiation settlement in the frst ‘motot vehicle accident and that they had ordered all settlement checks for both accidents. Mr. Picratt then stated at that point that they were just waiting for the checks to arrive. Mr, Stillwell asked what dollar amount CSS was requesting. He replied, “$14,096.48" and then sent drafts of the settlement breakdown for the first motor vehicle accident showing fraud on behalf of GEICO Insurance and Mr. Pieratt. { 18. It will also show the only money Mr. Stillwell has received from these accidents is his two med paychecks in the amount of $666.67 each. Mr. Pieratt gave them to Mr. Stillwell on 11/11/2021, but Mr. Pieratt dated the checks for 11/12/2021. Mr. Pieratt committed embezzlement by taking % out of each. ‘med paycheck. Mr. Stillwell would have received these checks no matter what, they were pre-paid on the insurance policy, and Mr. Pieratt had no right to take that money because it was something that was not ceamed by Mr. Pieratt, again, Mr. Stillwell would have gotten that money, regardless. On December 27, 2021, Pieratt informed Stillwell via text message that the checks had been delivered 4 19. On December 28, 2021, Mr. Stillwell met Mr. Pieratt at the Law Library of the Courthouse at Pierat's request. Mr. Pieratt attempted to get Mr. Stillwell to sign off on illegal settlement drafts, paying Pieratt more than the contract they both agreed to allow. Mr. Pieratt also committed fraud under the False Claims Act by illegally concealing the fact that the actual terms of the contract between him and Stillwell show he isto get "4 net recovery, not % gross, or 50% as he has previously claimed, Pieratt, Anthony Jackson, Josh Holloway, attorneys for GEICO Insurance, attomeys for Traders Insurance, attorneys for ‘American Mercury Insurance, and attorneys for Progressive Northern Insurance are all in violation of 37, CER § 11.18 (b). This law states, “By presenting documents (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) any paper, the party presenting such a paper, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, of 16is certifying that all statements made therein of the party's knowledge are true, all statements made therein on information and belief are believed to be true, and all statements made therein are made with the knowledge that whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the office, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device of material fact, or knowingly and willfully makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be subject to the penalties set forth under 18 U.S.C 1001 and any other applicable criminal statute, and violations ofthe provisions of this section may jeopardize the probative value of the paper. ‘{ 20. All defendants willfully and knowingly used false writing or documentation throughout this case. Examples would be by using the court seal to authenticate their fraudulent documents, exchanging Mr. Stillwell’s private information through emails with Mr, Picratt after knowing he had been terminated by Stillwell, and witnessing or partaking in fraudulent activities and not reporting it to the proper authorities. ‘On December 28, 2022, Stillwell met with Pieratt at the Oklahoma County courthouse library to sign settlement checks. However, Stillwell had noticed that Pieratt was trying to charge Stillwell 50% total gross recovery, plus over $4,000 of administration fees. This was understandably egregious to Stillwell because (1) the contract stated that Mr, Pieratt would receive % NET recovery, not $0% gross, and (2) PPieratt did not supply any documentation whatsoever itemizing proof of the work done for the funds that he was seeking. Stillwell then decided that Pierat's display of unethical behavior, not keeping Stillwell’s best interest in mind, and his fraud and deceitful acts of attempting to change his percentage of settlement from 1/3 of net recovery to 50% of gross, and then to % of gross recovery were too much and Stillwell verbally terminated Pieratt as his legal counsel immediately. Stillwell also sent a letter notifying Pieratt of the termination of his services. Stillwell also emailed all parties to notify them of Pieratt’s termination. 4 21. On December 30, 2021, Pieratt contacted Mercury Insurance to stop payment on a settlement check that had already been issued, claiming to have made a mistake on the settlement distribution. Pieratt did so AFTER his termination by Stillwell and did so without Stillwell’s approval or permission. This act of 16alone was insurance fraud, On January 5, 2022, Mr. Stillwell emailed the Director of CSS stating that CSS is breaking the law by communicating with Stillwell’s ex-attorney after knowing he had been fired. Stillwell demanded to speak with the attorney that would be overseeing his case. On January 5, 2022, the attomey for the State of Oklahoma Department of Human Services, Anthony Jackson (hereinafter referred to.as “Jackson"), via email, acknowledged that he was the appointed counsel for the State in Stillwell’s child support case. He acknowledged Pieratt’s termination in a statement he made to Stillwell. Jackson stated verbatim, “My understanding is that your former attorney has most recently said that your contract, with his firm calls for payment of attomey fees equal to 1/3 of the gross amount recovered.” Mr. Jackson also asked that Mr. Stillwell send him copies of his contract with Mr. Pieratt because Mr, Pieratt is claiming itis gross and Mr. Stillwell is saying NET recovery. He also requested copies of settlements that were made with OKHCA. This shows his deceitfulness because for him to have already made the proper request for CSS he would have to have already known all amounts being sought by the other parties. $22. On January 6, 2022, Jackson sent a mass emnail to CSS, OKHCA, as well as Stillwell’s prior attomey, Pieratt, whom Stillwell had terminated at this point, and Jackson was very much aware of said termination. Said email was worded to make fun of Stillwell’s attempts to make sense of what was happening with HIS cases that were generating funds for all parties involved. Knowing Pieratt was no longer involved in Stillwell’s cases and had been terminated by Stillwell, Jackson should have been communicating solely with Stillwell individually at that point and not with his PAST terminated attomey, Pieratt. Such communication is unethical and a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys on the part of Jackson and Pieratt 23. On January 7, 2022, Mr. Pieratt responded to Mr. Jackson’s email request for a draft to be drawn up. Mr. Pieratt sent back a draft. This was fraudulent because Mr. Jackson knew Mr. Pieratt was no longer Mr, Stillwell’s attomey, the new draft also had Mr. Pieratt’s formerly dropped attorney's fees reinstated and for fall gross recovery. On January 7th, 2022, Donna Auter WC/PI Insurance Intercept Coordinator for Child Support Services sent Stillwell another draft by email. It had an inflated child support amount 100f 16‘of $65,516 and said that this will only be a good agreement for one month. This will also show that they continued to ignore Stillwell’s request to discontinue communications with Mr. Pieratt and violated the Privacy Act Law by continuing to forward emails to Mr. Pierat 24. On January 3, 2022, and again on January 10, 2022, Stillwell — notified all interested parties via email that Pieratt had been terminated on December 28, 2021, and all communication with Pieratt regarding Stillwell’s case should be ceased at once. On January 20, 2022, Mr. Jackson again made notice that he knew Mr. Pieratt was no longer standing for Mr. Stillwell.-Mr. Jackson offered a fraudulent settlement of $55,000 because $43,869.28 was already negotiated and agreed upon on 11/23/2021. On January 24, 2022, Jackson and Stillwell were under negotiations under pretenses by him knowing that ‘Traders had already cut checks for motor vehicle one case on December 17, 2021, and illegally stacking both cases with Pieratt’s inflation fees. Stillwell would be remiss to say that in every illegal draft, while trying to negotiate with DHS, Mr. Jackson would always put the “gross” contract amount upon Mr. Pieratt’s request. '425.0n January 25, 2022, after speaking with Traders Insurance, Stillwell retracted all agreements made from negotiations between Stillwell’ prior attomey, Pierat, and Traders Insurance. On January 25, 2022, Mrs. Thompson from Traders Insurance emailed Mr. Stillwell the financial breakdown of the checks that ‘were issued by Traders Insurance. This shows that Traders did not abide by Oklahoma State Statute Title 56 section 237B-Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act. On January 31, 2022, Mr. Jackson by email said to Mr. Stillwell that he was going to file a legal action and let the court follow the law. Me. Stillwell has refused all negotiations because of fraud, stacking both cases when one was already rendered. Even after Pieratt said he would waive his administration fees, Mr. Jackson would include them on drafts. $26. On March 10, 2022, Jackson filed an illegal third-party petition for Stillwell to compel or comply in Case Number FD-2005-5739. This violated due process, violated Stillwell’s Ist, 9th, & 14 Amendment rights, and violated Stillwell’s civil rights. Jackson acted under the color of law in which he acted outside his authority and violated statutes of limitations. Mr. Jackson illegally stacked both motor vehicle cases 11 of 16together, instead of handling them separately. He also continued charging Pierat's waived attorney fees which were fraudulently enforcing Pieratt’s gross recovery fees when Net recovery is on the contract. On April 7, 2022, Stillwell filed an affidavit in Oklahoma County Case No. FD-2005-5739, outlining certain aspects of fraud and bad faith that relate to the facts of this case. On May 2, 2022, Stillwell filed a DOI ‘Waring of Denial of Rights. 4.27. On May 2, 2022, Stillwell filed two Affidavits in Oklahoma County Case No. FD-2005-5739, outlining facts that relate to this case. On May 31, 2022, Stilwell filed a proof of signature and undertaking agreement and the responsibility of the state under 42 USC Sec. 654(3), to supply proof of ‘undertaking/obligation agreement to which the state did not reply or take notice. On June 3, 2022, Stillwell appeared in court. The Judge rendered to enforce a lien in which there was no proof of the lien itself or undertaking. Special Judge Barry Hafer was not legally allowed to preside over a case such as Stillwell's, All parties, apart from Progressive, acted and were a party to fraud amongst many others. ‘J 28.0n June 10, 2022, a compliance case filed by Jackson was dismissed. By Jackson’s actions in bad faith as well as Pieratt acting in bad faith and unethically, what entitled these parties to file lawsuits and counterclaims against Stillwell? Every insurance company that is a party to this case, except Progressive, acted knowingly in bad faith and committed fraud and deprivation of rights against Stillwell. Conspiracy, ‘which is an intentional tort, “* consists of a combination of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means.” Schooner v. Archdiocese of Okla. City, 188 P3d 158, 175 (Okla. 2008) (quoting Brock v. Thompson, 948 P.2d 279, 294 (Okla. 1997). The essential elements are: "(1) two ‘or more persons; (2) an object to be accomplished; (3) a meeting of minds on the object or course of, action; (4) one or more unlawful, overt acts; and (5) damages as the proximate result.” ', (intemal quotation marks omitted); see also Roberson v. PaineWebber, Inc., 998 P.2d 193, 201 (Ok. CIV. App. 1999) “A conspiracy between two or more persons to injure another is not enough; an underlying unlawful act is necessary to prevail on a civil conspiracy claim.” $29. Austin Pieratt & Pieratt Law, PLLC colluded with other parties to further their interests while at the 120f 16same time acting against the interest of the defendant, Lamario Dewayne Stillwell, by informing third-party entities of confidential information about the defendant, Lamario Dewayne Stillwell, causing liens to be filed on the claim in addition to bringing in child support issues that would not have otherwise been raised but for the tortious conduct of Austin Pieratt & Pieratt Law, PLLC. Austin Pieratt & Pieratt Law, PLLC engaged in collusion with the State of Oklahoma Department of Human, services in a civil conspiracy to deprive Stillwell of his civil rights and the due process of law to retaliate against Stillwell for asserting his rights as he is entitled to under their constitutional rights. Based on the foregoing, Pieratt engaged in collusion with Third Party entities in breach of their agreement and obligations. ‘4 30. Mr, Stillwell responded to Anthony Jackson with child support enforcement. Stillwell has no binding contract with the state of Oklahoma, The state or any state attorey has not produced a lien or responded to any of Stillwell’s requests for proof of a claim or rebutted any affidavit. The maximum law states that an unrebutted affidavit stands. In commerce, an unrebutted affidavit becomes @ contract. ‘Therefore, whatever contracts the parties are assuming were made, are now void due to fraud. Mr. Jackson has committed multiple violations of state and federal laws. In response to Austin Pieratt, you are the one who breached our contract. You have also committed multiple violations of fraud, along with ‘embezzling insurance funds from your former client. JURISDICTION 31. Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910 (1974). “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1878). Under Federal law, which applies to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are considered nullified. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even before a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concemed executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers”, 13 of 16132. Gonza's judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of Failez.v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 33 Cal. 3d 359, 371, 374 (1983). Acts above redness and due process lack jurisdiction Elliot v. Piersol, | Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1878) Under Federal law, which applies to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are considered nullified. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even preceding a reversal in opposition to them. 4 33. They constitute no justification; and all persons concemed in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers”. Gonzajudicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of Failez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 33 Cal. 3d 359, (1983). Act over redness and due Process Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 (1943) Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take fon the characteristics of a mere private citizen where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concemed. 4 34. For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government.” What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when a corporate government uses paper, then the government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no different from private commercii ‘a mere private corporation. As such, the government then becomes A REBUTTAL TO THE FACTS WHICH PROVE THE COURT CANNOT OBTAIN PERSONAL JURISDICTION WITHOUT CONSENT BY THE DEFENDANT/FATHER. Clarify evidence that Mr. Stillwell is domiciled with territory boundaries of the “State” as defined under 42 USC Section 1301(a)(1) and 42 USC Section 410 and 42 USC Sections 651-669(b). Clarify evidence to support the fact that due processes of the law were afforded. Clarify evidence that MR Stillwell is a member of the uniformed.’ Main v. Thibaut, 100 S Ct 2502 (1980) THE MERIT TO CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION OF THE COURT REQUEST FOR RELIEF 1s of 1635. FRC RULE 60(B) provides that the court may relieve a party from a final judgment and sets forth the following six categories of reasons for which such relief may be granted: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by aan adverse party; (4) circumstances under which a judgment is void; (5) circumstances under which a judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which itis based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. FR.C.P, Rule 660(6)(1) -(b)(6). Stillwell is seeking the release of his full settlement money to be released to Stillwell and to dismiss all claims against the said settlement money and Stillwell with extreme prejudice. ‘amario Dewayne Stillwell, reserve all rights, Without prejudice, UCC1-1308 808 Kaylin Circle Blackwell, OK,74631 PH: 580-304-9045 lamariostillwell1 89%@gmail.com 15 of 16CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE * The undersigned certifies that on the 7th day of APRIL, 2023 a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served on the following by the method indicated: Austin S. Pieratt, Attomey at Law, was served by sending a copy by email addressed to: oktslaw@gmail.com in addition to First Class Mail addressed to: 512 NW 12th Street, Oklahoma City. OK 73103. Josh Holloway Deputy General Counsel for Oklahoma Health Care Authority, was served by sending a copy by email addressed to: josh.holloway@okhca.org in addition to First Class Mail addressed to: PO Drawer 18497, Oklahoma City, OK. 73154-0497. Gerard F. Pignato Braden W Mason and Ryan Whaley Attorneys for Defendant GEICO Secure Insurance Company. were served by sending a copy by email addressed to: jerry@ryanwhaley.com & bmason@ryanwhaley.com and in addition to First Class Mail addressed to: 400 North Walnut Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73104. Christine B McInnes and Michael G McAtee Attorneys for Defendant Traders Insurance Company, were served by sending a copy by email addressed to: mikem@meateeandwoods.com and christinem@mcateeandwoods,com in addition to First-Class Mail addressed to 410 NW 13th Street, Oklahoma City OK 73103 Kaitlyn O'Hara, Attomey for Defendant American Mercury Insurance Company, was served by sending a copy by email addressed to: AustinLegal@Mercurylnsurance.com in addition to First Class Mail addressed to BRETOI, LUTZ & STEELE P.O. Box 10790, Santa Ana, CA 92711-0790 ‘Anthony L, Jackson Attomey for State of Oklahoma Department of Human Services Child Support Services was served by sending a copy by email addressed to: Anthony.Jackson@okdhs.org in addition to First Class Mail addressed to PO Box 248822, ‘Oklahoma City, OK 73124-8822. Christopher C. King, Bradley E. Bowlby, Attomeys for Defendant Progressive Northem Insurance, were served by sending a copy by email addressed to kris king@tulsalawyer.org and brad bowlby@tulsalawyer.org in addition to First-Class Mail addressed to 1800 S. Baltimore Ave. Ste.550 Tulsa, OK. 74119 Lamario Stillwell h ae gh. Prgielcu Mtl - BE