SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES
~
DOCKET NO. 05-10875
~
TITLE~WRIT OF CERTIORARI
~
NOTTINGHAM TRUST MATTERS ~
V=2E
STATE OF INDIANA
MARION AND HOWARD COUNTIES
~
MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF ACTING JUDGE~WLLIAM K. SUTER
IN NOTTINGHAM TRUST MATTERS
~
PURSUANT TO
TO 28 U.S.C =A7=A7455 & 144
BIAS, PREJUDICE, KNOWLEDGE
~
PURSUANT TO
~
NON COMPLIANCE WITH TRUST LAW, CONTRACT LAW
~
PURSUANT TO:
~IC 30-4-3-11 LIABILITY OF THE TRUSTEE TO THE BENEFICIARY
~
THE TRUST LAWS ARE TRUST LAWS
AND IT IS A JUDICIAL CANON THAT THIS JUDGE HAS A DUTY TO BE FAITHFUL TO
THE LAW
~
MATTERS THAT REFLECT ADVERSLEY ON THE ACTING JUDGES IMPARTIALLY
JUDGE SUTER, ~CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL~
~FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST WHICH ACTING JUDGES VOTED HOW ON
DENIAL OF WRITE DOCKETED ON
MAY 11, 2006 AS NO. 05-10875
NON COMPLIANCE WITH INDIANA TRUST LAW
RECLUSAL SOUGHT~ACTING JUDGES IN VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE~TO UPHOLD
THE CONSTITUTION~, BILL OF RIGHTS, EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAWS,
14TH AMENDAMENT RIGHTS, ET AL, VIOLATIONS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION~
RECUSAL SOUGHT
UNDER THE STATUTES~CANON 2E, 3 OF THE JUDICIAL CANONS
STATES CLEARLY THAT A JUDGE SHALL "RESPECT AND COMPLY WITH THE LAW"
~
PURSUANT TO:
IC 30-4-3 Chapter 3. Rules Governing the Rights, Powers, Duties,
Liabilities, and Remedies of the Parties to a Trust ~ Rights of Parties
to a Trust
~
AS A BENEFICIARY IN A TRUST I CERTAINLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUSTICE FROM
THE LAW
~
THIS NON COMPLIANCE WITH TRUST LAW AND THE DENIAL OF OUR RIGHTS IN
DIRECT VIOLATION OF TRUST LAW
INDICATES BIAS, PREJUDICE, KNOWLEDGE AND AN HIDDEN AGENDA OF
OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE IN THIS MATTER
~
THIS IS IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT~ IN VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE~
~
AND NOT ~
~
WHAT A JUDGE IS SUPPOSED TO DO AS NOTED IN THE
SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ~
MISUSE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
MISREPRESENTATION
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
BLOCKING OF LAWFUL APPEAL
IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS
NON COMPLIANCE WITH INDIANA TRUST LAW
NON COMLIANCE WITH THE INDIANA UNIFORM PRUDENT INVESTOR NON
COMPLIANCE WITH THE INDIANA FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT VIOLATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
~
JUDGE DEITER OF THE PROBATE COURT IN MARION COUNTY HAS NEVER MET THE
BENEFICIARIES~WHO DO NOT LIVE IN INDIANA~
~HAD NO HEARING,
~NO TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD.
FALSIFICATION OF CASE SUMMARY HISTORY LIST
DELIBERATE ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
~
TIMELY FILED OBJECTIONS FILED IN PROBATE COURT NOT HEARD BY JUDGE
DEITER~
IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION
IC 30-4-3 Chapter 3. Rules Governing the Rights, Powers, Duties,
Liabilities, and Remedies of the Parties to a Trust ~ Rights of Parties
to a Trust
~
GROUNDS:
ISSUE NUMBER ONE~
~
THE OCC, THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY HAD TO COMPEL
THE
ACCOUNTING . THIS IS A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BY NATIONAL CITY BANK
~THIS IS IN BAD FAITH.
THIS VIOLATES THE TRUST AGREEMENT
AND VIOLATION OF INTENT OF THE WILL
~
THIS BREACH IS ALSO A NASD VIOLATION,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS
~
DULY NOTED:
JUDGE DEITER WHO HAD NO HEARING,
NO TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD,
~
AND HAS NEVER MET THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE NOTTINGHAM TRUST. AS
STATED TO THE COURT,
~
24 AND RULE 24(C)2
EFFECT OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS.
A PARTY PROCEEDING IN FORMA PAUPERIS:~
~
~ (1) IS RELIEVED OF THE
OBLIGATION TO PREPAY FILING FEES OR COSTS IN EITHER THE TRIAL COURT OR
THE COURT ON APPEAL OR TO GIVE SECURITY THEREFOR; AND
(2) MAY FILE LEGIBLY HANDWRITTEN OR TYPEWRITTEN BRIEFS AND OTHER
PAPERS.
~
THE CONTINUAL VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES OF FORMA PAUPERIS 24 C TO DISMISS
ALL COMPLAINTS IN
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS
14 THE AMENDMENT
COMPLAINT OF IMPROPER HANDLING OF FORMA PAUPERIS AND NON COMPLIANCE
WITH
LAW
~
AS A BENEFICIARY IN A TRUST I CERTAINLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE
COURT UNDER THE STATUTES
~
GROUNDS:MATERIAL FACTS IGNORED BY ACTING JUDGES BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY
DUTY~
IGNORED
~
THE OCC, THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY HAD TO COMPEL
THE
ACCOUNTING . THIS IS A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY ~THIS IS BAD FAITH THIS
VIOLATES THE TRUST AGREEMENT
VIOLATION OF INTENT OF THE WILL
~
GROUNDS:
ANYONE IN A TRUST CAN PETITION THE COURT TO TERMINATE THE TRUST, OR
PURSUANT TO VIOLATIONS OF THE WILL OR BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY DUTY,
NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION,
UNSUITABILITY OF AN INAPPROPRIATE BROKERAGE ACCOUNT
~
TRUSTEES DO HAVE DUTIES YOU KNOW
"EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW" MEANS "EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW"
~
TITLE 42.U.S. CODE =A7 1983 AND ARTICLE 111 =A7 2~UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
~
~VIOLATIONS OF PROTECTIONS OF FIRST, FIFTH, EIGHTH, NINTH AND
FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
~
MOTIONS FOR DISQUALIFICATION UNDER RECUSAL STATUTES PURSUANT TO =A7=A7
455 AND 144
BIAS, PREJUDICE AND KNOWLEDGE
~
GROUNDS:
MANDATORY JURISDICTION OF CURRENT INDIANA TRUST~YET TO BE TERMINATED IC
30 -4 -3- 24, IC 30 -4- 3- 25, IC 30-4- 3- 11, IC 30-4-3-22, IC
30-4-3-29
~
IC 30-4-3 Chapter 3. Rules Governing the Rights, Powers, Duties,
Liabilities, and Remedies of the Parties to a Trust ~ Rights of Parties
to a Trust
~
AS A BENEFICIARY IN A TRUST I CERTAINLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PETITION
THE COURT UNDER THE STATUTES
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
THE ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS ARE NOT FRIVOLOUS............
TRUST LAWS ARE TRUST LAWS
CONTRACT LAWS ARE CONTRACT LAWS IN VIOLATION OF 28 U.S.C. 1915 (E) (2)
(B)
GROUNDS:
THE ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS ARE NOT FRIVOLOUS NOR ARE, VIOLATIONS
OF
THE WILL, BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION AND
THE UNSUITABILITY OF AN INAPPROPRIATE BROKERAGE ACCOUNT ~NEITHER IS THE
INDIANA UNIFORM PRUDENT INVESTOR ACT FRIVOLOUS. THE EXCESSIVE EXECUTOR
FEE OF $35,000.
~
GROUNDS:
PURSUANT TO INDIANA TRIAL RULE 56(C)
"THE BURDEN IS ON THE MOVING PARTY TO PROVE THERE ARE NO GENUINE ISSUES
OF MATERIAL FACT.
BEIGER HERITAGE CORP. V. KILBEY, 676 N.E.2d 784, 785 (IND. CT. APP.
1997).
~
ISSUE 2:
VIOLATION~DULY NOTED
PURSUANT TO:
USE OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WITHOUT CONSENT BY DISTRICT COURT~VIOLATION OF
28 U.S.C. 636(c) AND FED. R. CIV.P.73
VIOLATION AND NON COMPLIANCE
WITH ~28 U.S.C. 636(c) AND FED. R. CIV.P.73 MOTION TO VOID AND OF
NULLITY IN ALL DISMISSALS~ REHEAR:RECONSIDERATION
~
TITLE 42.U.S. CODE =A7 1983 AND ARTICLE 111 =A7 2~UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION
~
~VIOLATIONS OF PROTECTIONS OF FIRST, FIFTH, EIGHTH, NINTH AND
FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
~
GROUNDS IN MATERIAL FACT AS PRESENTED~GROUNDS ARE MATTERS OF TRUST
LAW
~
GROUNDS:
ANYONE IN A TRUST CAN PETITION THE COURT TO TERMINATE THE TRUST, OR
PURSUANT TO VIOLATIONS OF THE WILL OR BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY BY
TRUSTEES,
NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION,
UNSUITABILITY OF AN INAPPROPRIATE BROKERAGE ACCOUNT
~
AS CLEARLY STATED IN INDIANA TRUST LAW~ANY PARTY TO A TRUST CAN
PETITION
THE COURT UNDER THE STATUTES~
~
TO TERMINATE THE TRUST~
TO GET ACCOUNTING~
TO COMPEL THE TRUSTEES TO DO THEIR DUTIES~ ON PROVISIONS OF THE WILL~
AND ET AL AS PRESENTED IN CHAPTER 3.
RIGHTS OF PARTIES TO TRUST> ~PRESENTED IN ALL COMPLAINTS
~
14th AMENDMENT~EQUAL PROTECTION LAWS~
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ~
PURSUANT TO INDIANA TRIAL RULE 56(C)
"THE BURDEN IS ON THE MOVING PARTY TO PROVE THERE ARE NO GENUINE ISSUES
OF MATERIAL FACT.
BEIGER HERITAGE CORP. V. KILBEY, 676 N.E.2d 784, 785 (IND. CT. APP.
1997).
~
RULES OF EVIDENCE VIOLATED BY ACTING JUDGE IN NOTTINGHAM TRUST MATTERS
~
THE MATERIAL FACTS IN THIS CASE
HAVE BEEN IGNORED BY
~
THE ACTING JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT~ IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF
EVIDENCE AND WHICH INDICATES BAD FAITH ON THEIR PART . OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE, NON COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY AND THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.
~
USE OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WITHOUT CONSENT BY DISTRICT COURT~VIOLATION OF
28 U.S.C.=A7 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ.P.73
~
THE OCC, THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY HAD TO COMPEL
THE
ACCOUNTING . THIS IS A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY ~THIS IS BAD FAITH THIS
VIOLATES THE TRUST AGREEMENT
VIOLATION OF INTENT OF THE WILL
~
CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL
~
THE EFFECT OF DISMISSING OF RIGHTS BY THIS JUDGE OR COURT IS ALSO TO
DISMISS ALL RIGHTS OF PARTIES TO A TRUST
~
IN VIOLATION OF TRUST LAW IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH TRUST LAW AND CONTRACT
LAW AND IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
~
IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE TO BE IN NON COMPLIANCE
WITH THE CONSTITUTION
~
DULY NOTED:
JUDGE DEITER WHO HAD NO HEARING,
NO TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD,
~
AND HAS NEVER MET THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE NOTTINGHAM TRUST. AS
STATED TO THE COURT,
~
JUDGE DEITER HAS A BAD FAITH HISTORY WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET
FROM WWW.LYCOS.COM AS "GUARDING THE GUARDIANS" IN WHICH JUDGE DEITER
TOOK MONEY VIA HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE RUTH LILLY CASE SCANDAL AS
REPORTED BY EYEWITNESS NEWS. THIS INDICATES A HISTORY OF BIAS AND
PREJUDICE AS WELL AS MORAL OBLIQUITY, FURTIVE DESIGN AND ILL WILL IN
WHICH A RECUSAL WAS MOTIONED FOR
~
IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION
AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS
14 THE AMENDMENT
COMPLAINT WITH NON COMPLIANCE
~
THE OCC, THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY HAD TO COMPEL
THE
ACCOUNTING . THIS IS A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY ~THIS IS BAD FAITH THIS
VIOLATES THE TRUST AGREEMENT
VIOLATION OF INTENT OF THE WILL
~
ALL COMPLAINTS AND PETITIONS ARE IN GOOD FAITH~SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE,
FACTS OF CASE,TRUST LAW, CONTRACT LAW , FILE STAMPED COPIES OF
DOCUMENTS
~
JUDGE DEITER HAS VIOLATED HIS OATH OF OFFICE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION
IN THIS MATTER AS WELL AS JUDGE DEITER BEING IN CONSTANT VIOLATIONS OF
JUDICIAL CANONS 3E, 2,
IN THIS MATTER AND IN AS MUCH AS JUDGE DEITER HAS ACTED OUTSIDE OF HIS
JURISDICTION AS A JUDGE AND IN CLEAR ABSENCE OF ALL JURISDICTION IN
VIOLATION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
~
DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS ARE ACTIONABLE UNDER 1983 DANIELS V. WILLIAMS,
474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986) SEE ALSO ZINERMON V. BURCH, 494 U.S. 113, 125
(1990).
AS THE PROBATE JUDGE. HE IS SUBJECT TO CIVIL LIABILITY UNDER =A71983.
AND WE SEEK BOTH DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST JUDGE DEITER
FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
~
AS CLEARLY STATED IN INDIANA TRUST LAW~ANY PARTY TO A TRUST CAN
PETITION
THE COURT UNDER THE STATUTES~ TO TERMINATE THE TRUST, TO GET
ACCOUNTING,
TO COMPEL THE TRUSTEES TO DO THEIR DUTIES, ON PROVISIONS OF THE WILL
AND
ET AL AS PRESENTED IN CHAPTER 3.
RIGHTS OF PARTIES TO TRUST ~PRESENTED IN ALL COMPLAINTS
~
IT IS THE "PEOPLE'S" COURT, NOT JUDGE DEITER'S COURT. AS STATED
CLEARLY,
THE COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE DEITER IS INDIVIDUALLY AS WELL AS IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS JUDGE OF THE PROBATE COURT, WE ARE NOT IN RUSSIA
YET
~
UNCONSTIUTIONAL
BLOCKING OF THE COMPLAINT CONINUES
~
IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS, AND THE CONSTITUTION
~
JUDGE DEITER IS IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE INDIANA UNIFORM PRUDENT
INVESTOR ACT, ACCOUNTING LAWS, DISCOVERY LAWS, RULES OF EVIDENCE. NO
"FAITHFUL TO THE LAW ~ALL OF THIS IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE~CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT
~
JUDICIAL CANONS 3E, 2, TO TAKE MONEY VIA HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH NATIONAL
CITY BANK AND THE RUTH LILLY SCANDAL AS REPORTED ON EYEWITNESS
NEWS.~ALL
IMPEACHABLE BY JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
~
ALL JUDGES ARE BOUND BY THE CONSTITUTION
~
IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE TO BE IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH
THE
CONSTITUTION
~
THEREFORE JUDGE DEITER ALREADY SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED
~
AND IS CONSTANT BAD FAITH,
ALL UNITED STATES CERTIFIED AND FIRST CLASS MAIL BY BENEFICIARIE
REFUSED
ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IN VIOLATION OF THE BILLOF RIGHTS
~
GROUNDS IN MATERIAL FACT AS PRESENTED~GROUNDS ARE MATTERS OF TRUST LAW
~
ANYONE IN A TRUST CAN PETITION THE COURT TO TERMINATE THE TRUST, OR
PURSUANT TO VIOLATIONS OF THE WILL OR BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY,
NEGLIGENCE,
MISREPRESENTATION,
UNSUITABILITY OF AN INAPPROPRIATE BROKERAGE ACCOUNT
~
RELIEF SOUGHT:
(ii) THE CLAIM IS AGAINST NATIONAL CITY BANK,~RIGHT TO RECOVERY
LAWYER'S
FEES, ACTUAL AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES~RIGHT TO MONEY PURSUANT TO IC
30-4-3-11
LIABILITY OF THE TRUSTEES TO THE BENEFICIARY IC 30-4-3-11(4)
~
MANDATORY JURISDICTION OF CURRENT INDIANA TRUST~YET TO BE TERMINATED IC
30 -4 -3- 24, IC 30 -4- 3- 25, IC 30-4- 3- 11, IC 30-4-3-22, IC
30-4-3-29
~
A CHANGE OF JUDGE FROM JUDGE DEITER WAS REQUESTED FROM THE BEGINNING
PURSUANT TO IC 30-4-6-3
IC 30-4-6
RIGHT TO A CHANGE OF JUDGE/VENUE(h)
~
TORTS OF INFLICTION ,
~
THESE CODES ARE IN ALL COMPLAINTS
PLEASE REVIEW
~
RIGHT TO DAMAGES FROM NATIONAL CITY BANK ~ CLEAR CLAIM
~
TIMELY FILED OBJECTIONS NOT HEARD BY JUDGE DEITER IN VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS
NEGLIGENCE , MISREPRESENTATION AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY, INAPPROPRIATE
AND UNSUITABLE BROKERAGE ACCOUNT BY TRUSTEES BY NATIONAL CITY BANK~LEE
SLADE AND KEVIN DUBBINK
NATIONAL CITY BANK WAS AND IS IN BAD FAITH.
~
RESPONSE TO
JUDGE COMPLAINTS
CLAIM AGAINST JUDGE IS NOT FOR MONEY BUT FOR ~OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
~CRIMINAL
~
~AND FOR RECUSAL PURSUANT TO RUTH LILLY SCANDAL AND TAKING MONEY FROM
HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH NATIONAL CITY BANK
DISQUALIFICATION UNDER RECUSAL STATUTES
PURSUANT TO 28=A7=A7 455 AND 144
BIAS, PREJUDICE AND KNOWLEDGE
~
"EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW" MEANS "EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW"
~
PURSUANT TO INDIANA TRIAL RULE 56(C)
"THE BURDEN IS ON THE MOVING PARTY TO PROVE THERE ARE NO GENUINE ISSUES
OF MATERIAL FACT.
BEIGER HERITAGE CORP. V. KILBEY, 676 N.E.2d 784, 785 (IND. CT. APP.
1997).
~
RULES OF EVIDENCE VIOLATED BY JUDGES IN NOTTINGHAM TRUST MATTERS ~
THE MATERIAL FACTS IN THIS CASE
HAVE BEEN IGNORED BY THE JUDGES WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF
EVIDENCE AND WHICH INDICATES BAD FAITH ON THEIR PART . OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE, NON COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY AND THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.
~
APPARENTLY, NOT EVEN READING THE COMPLAINT OR HEARING ANY OF THE ISSUES
OR EVEN AWARE OF THE FILE STAMPED COPIES OF THE TIMELY FILED
OBJECTIONS~JUST A COMPLETE DISREGARD OF THE MATERIAL FACTS AND TRUST
LAW
WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON WWW.IN.GOV
TRUST LAWS ARE TRUST LAWS
CONTRACT LAWS ARE CONTRACT LAWS
~
ALL COURT ACTION HAS DESTROYED THE TRUST~ IN VIOLATION OF TRUST LAW AND
CODES
VIOLATIONS OF THE WILL ~INTENT AND PROVISIONS NATIONAL CITY BANK WAS
AND
IS IN BAD FAITH. BREACH OF DUTY OF LOYALTY
VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
JUDGE DEITER IS IN BAD FAITH
JUDGE DEITER HAS AND CONTINUES TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE FAILURE TO FILE
DOCUMENTS
FAILURE TO FILE PETITIONS
EXCESSIVE EXECUTOR FEE OF $35,000
NOT HEARD BY JUDGE DEITER
~
NEGLIGENCE , MISREPRESENTATION AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY, INAPPROPRIATE
AND UNSUITABLE BROKERAGE ACCOUNT BY TRUSTEES BY NATIONAL CITY BANK~LEE
SLADE AND KEVIN DUBBINK
NATIONAL CITY BANK WAS AND IS IN BAD FAITH.
~
JUDGE DEITER HAD NO HEARING,
NO TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD,
AND HAS NEVER MET THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE NOTTINGHAM TRUST.
~
AS STATED TO THE COURT, JUDGE DEITER HAS A BAD FAITH HISTORY WHICH IS
AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET FROM WWW.LYCOS.COM AS "GUARDING THE
GUARDIANS"
IN WHICH JUDGE DEITER TOOK MONEY VIA HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE RUTH LILLY
CASE SCANDAL AS REPORTED BY EYEWITNESS NEWS. THIS INDICATES A HISTORY
OF
BIAS AND PREJUDICE AS WELL AS MORAL OBLIQUITY, FURTIVE DESIGN AND ILL
WILL IN WHICH A RECUSAL WAS MOTIONED FOR
~
GROUNDS:
TIMELY FILED OBJECTIONS NOT HEARD BY JUDGE DEITER IN VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS
NEGLIGENCE , MISREPRESENTATION AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY, INAPPROPRIATE
AND UNSUITABLE BROKERAGE ACCOUNT BY TRUSTEES BY NATIONAL CITY BANK~LEE
SLADE AND KEVIN DUBBINK
NATIONAL CITY BANK WAS AND IS IN BAD FAITH.
~
VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
MORAL OBLIQUITY
ACTING JUDGES
IN NOTTINGHAM TRUST
~
~ "IN BAD FAITH"
ALL COURT ACTION HAS DESTROYED THE TRUST~ IN VIOLATION OF TRUST LAW AND
CODES
VIOLATIONS OF THE WILL ~INTENT AND PROVISIONS OF
~
NATIONAL CITY BANK WAS AND IS IN BAD FAITH. BREACH OF DUTY OF LOYALTY
VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
JUDGE DEITER IS IN BAD FAITH
JUDGE DEITER HAS AND CONTINUES TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE FAILURE TO FILE
DOCUMENTS
FAILURE TO FILE PETITIONS
EXCESSIVE EXECUTOR FEE OF $35,000
NOT HEARD BY JUDGE DEITER
~
NEGLIGENCE , MISREPRESENTATION AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY, INAPPROPRIATE
AND UNSUITABLE BROKERAGE ACCOUNT BY TRUSTEES BY NATIONAL CITY BANK~LEE
SLADE AND KEVIN DUBBINK
NATIONAL CITY BANK WAS AND IS IN BAD FAITH.
~
DAMAGES TO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
DULY NOTED
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HAD NO JURISDICTION IN CASE. FRAUD UPON THE COURT NO
CONSENTING PARTIES.
MISREPRESENTATION
COMPLAINTS NOT HEARD OR EVEN READ
FAILURE TO FILE DOCUMENTS
FAILURE TO FILE PETITIONS
RIGHT TO MONEY
ALL THE LAW ALLOWS
PLUS EXTRAORDINARY WRIT, TORT DAMAGES. MENTAL ANGUISH DAMAGES TO HEALTH
TORTS OF INFLICTION
~
JUDGE DEITER HAS~A STATE OF MIND REFLECTING DISHONEST PURPOSE, MORAL
OBLIQUITY AND ILL WILL
~
ALL IN BAD FAITH
~
EVIDENCE
~
MONEY TAKEN BY JUDGE DEITER
VIA RUTH LILY SCANDAL
AVAILABLE WWW.LYCOS.COM
SEARCH~"GUARDING THE GAURDIANS"
AS REPORTED BY EYEWITNESS NEWS
WHO ALSO HE HAS NEVER MET IT SAYS
~
JUDGE DEITER HAS NEVER MET ANY OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE NOTTINGHAM
TRUST
~
ACTING IN BAD FAITH
PERJURY
NON COMPLIANCE WITH RULES OF EVIDENCE
FRAUD UPON THE COURT
MISUSE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
IT IS JUDGE DEITER WHOSE CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL INDICATES MORAL TURPITUDE
~
JUDGE DEITER HAS~A STATE OF MIND REFLECTING DISHONEST PURPOSE, MORAL
OBLIQUITY AND ILL WILL
~
MOTION FOR RECUSAL
OF ACTING JUDGES
MOTION TO VOID AND OF NULLITY
~
Pursuant to:
~
TITLE 42.U.S. CODE =A7 1983 AND ARTICLE 111 =A7 2~UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
~
IC 30-4-3 Chapter 3. Rules Governing the Rights, Powers, Duties,
Liabilities, and Remedies of the Parties to a Trust ~ Rights of Parties
to a Trust
~
14th AMENDMENT~EQUAL PROTECTION LAWS~
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
GOOD FAITH VS. BAD FAITH
~
14th AMENDMENT~EQUAL PROTECTION LAWS
~
MANDATORY JURISDICTION OF CURRENT INDIANA TRUST~YET TO BE
TERMINATED IC 30 -4 -3- 24, IC 30 -4- 3- 25, IC 30-4- 3- 11, IC
30-4-3-22, IC 30-4-3-29
~
A CHANGE OF JUDGE FROM JUDGE DEITER WAS REQUESTED FROM THE BEGINNING
PURSUANT TO IC 30-4-6-3
IC 30-4-6
RIGHT TO A CHANGE OF JUDGE/VENUE(h)
~
ADDENDUM:
IC 30-4-3-11
LIABILITY OF THE TRUSTEE TO THE BENEFICIARY WHICH IS WAY OVER $75,000 ~
AND WRIT OF EXTRAORDINARY DAMAGES
AND TORTS OF INFLICTION FROM
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
ELDER ABUSE
TORTS OF INFLICTION,
DAMAGE TO HEALTH
AND LIFE
~
THE OCC, THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY HAD TO COMPEL
THE
ACCOUNTING . THIS IS A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY ~THIS IS BAD FAITH THIS
VIOLATES THE TRUST AGREEMENT
VIOLATION OF INTENT OF THE WILL=20
~
Wherefore to Court,
John Nottingham
.
|
