Petition for Mandamus Void Sup
Content
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA
The People of State of Oklahoma, ex rel Chuck A, Figueroa , c/o _________________ Tulsa Oklahoma Petitioner -vHonorable Judge Millie Otey Tulsa District court, 500 South Denver,Room 112 Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74103 Respondent _________________________________________
] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
No. ___________
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus To Issue a Peremptory Writ
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Tulsa County Oklahoma ) )ss: )
I, Chuck A, Figueroa, hereinafter Petitioner, being duly sworn according to law, having first hand knowledge of the facts in this petition for Writ of Mandamus, and being competent to testify, do affirm that the facts herein are stated by the petitioner and upon reason and belief are true, correct, complete and not misleading:
JURISDICTION This Court has original jurisdiction to hear original actions in Mandamus. PARTIES
1 | Page
1. Petitioner is a natural person living peacefully in Broken Arrow,(Tulsa County), Oklahoma and under the Oklahoma Constitution and its laws. Petitionerd Party and witness, is flesh and blood son of Wanda Figueroa -Detainee ,and Petitioner and his mother Wanda Figueroa has been damaged by alleged judgment in alleged case rendered without jurisdiction to do so. Petitioner is making this petition without the aid of counsel and will support said petition with verification of the necessary and essential facts, and a Clerk certified the court docket as evidence of the record. 2. Respondent Honorable judge Millie Otey hereinafter Respondent is a person presumed to be a licensed member of the bar with an oath of office in the regards to her duties as judge. It is presumed that respondent is mandated by the cannon of judicial ethics in regards to her performance in her ministerial capacities in her role as a judge. The Respondent has failed to perform her required ministerial non discretionary function when asked to do so by petitioner. STATEMENT OF FACTS 3. This matter arises in connection with a issuing of a void judgment in the Tulsa District Court in the case afore stated. 4. Petitioner became aware of a cause being filed to unlawfully seize his mothers property by parties that have no jurisdiction to do so, as petitioners mother was kidnapped by Reginald Sharp Broken Arrow police and alleged Tulsa County Sheriffs deputy Pat Martin under arms over petitioner and petitioners mothers objections as petitioners mother tried to fend off the kidnappers violent seizure on
2 | Page
or about October 8th 2011. 5. Petitioners mother was subsequently hidden where petitioner has not seen nor heard from his kidnapped mother since October 8th 2011 6. Roughly 2 weeks after the second kidnapping, the first one was on or about September 22nd 2011, the parties involved closed Wanda Figueroa's bank account stole her funds and are having her social security sent to them under their control without the authority to do so. 7. On or about the first or second week of April Reginald Sharp and parties involved submitted fraudulent documents to Tulsa District court small claims court to steal Petitioners and petitioners mothers property, when petitioner became aware of the attempt by viewing the courts website it appeared to plaintiff that Reginald Sharp and parties involved are making an unwarranted attack on plaintiffs mothers and plaintiffs property by unlawful administrative process. 8. Petitioner noticed respondent of the unlawful attempt by a Legal Notice of Void Judgment and Ministerial Duty to Vacate Judgment and a Motion To vacate Void Judgment filed on or about the first week of April 2011. 9. Petitioner exercising his rights to defend property has made demand on respondent to vacate the void judgment as shown in exhibit “E”. 10. As set forth in defendant’s affidavit attached hereto,(exhibit “Z”) a hearing was held on April 27th 2011 on Petitioners motion to vacate void judgment at which Reginald Sharp failed to prove personal jurisdiction over detainee Wanda Figueroa from inception as challenged by Chuck,A, Figueroa, in fact, Reginald Sharp admitted in his own testimony at hearing held on April 27th 2011 that he never had
3 | Page
jurisdiction in the first instance over Wanda Figueroa. 11. Wanda Figueroa was unlawfully seized and subsequently transported to an unknown location. All parties involved in this unlawful action have failed to produce material fact sufficient to prove personal jurisdiction over detainee Wanda Figueroa from the original inception as required by law and as requested in Petitioner motion to vacate void judgment, void ab inition on the face of the record. 12. The Plaintiffs response to Petitioners motion to vacate Void judgment in it entirety constituted a fraud upon the court in that both the titled response “Plaintiffs response to Petitioner Motion to Vacate judgment” (see exhibit “B”)by design would omit the key word “Void” totally changing the entire legality of Petitioners motion to the district court, and that plaintiffs response to petitioner motion never once even attempted to show proof of jurisdiction over the party/ies involved in the first instance as challenged by and demanded by petitioner and kept rambling on about irrelevant fraudulent and misleading statements, never submitting material fact to prove jurisdiction from inception as challenged and demanded by petitioner, demonstrating the total absence of jurisdiction that renders said judgment void on the face of the record . Petitioner has challenged jurisdiction of alleged case from the beginning and was never answered by alleged plaintiff, as if they were and are never required to prove jurisdiction when challenged as they fraudulently attempted to address the hearing as only a motion to vacate judgment, not a motion to vacate “Void” Judgment.[emphasis added] 13. Said court is deprived of jurisdiction to render the judgment, making the judgment void on the face of the record.
4 | Page
14. Respondent in an absolute and total refusal to perform ministerial duty failed to exercise its inherent power to vacate the void judgment. 15. Respondent in violation of her ministerial duties and duties compelled by the cannon of ethics in regards to her office has flagrantly violated violated the laws when those laws absolutely require specific performance from the respondent to give the petitioner the relief sought. 16. Respondent has a clear legal duty to act pursuant to her oath of office, the cannon of ethics in reporting unethical conduct of attorneys that occur in her court and in her presence. 17. Respondent clearly observed the fraud upon the court in light of Alleged DHS counsel Yvonne fisher filing a deceptive fraudulent response “Plaintiffs response to motion to vacate judgment” designed to deceptively mitigate petitioners motion of vacate “Void” judgment to a non-void issue, in attempt to avoid the requirement to prove jurisdiction in the first instance, indicating that she is fully aware that alleged plaintiff never established jurisdiction in the first instance and was attempting to assist alleged plaintiff in continuing to unlawfully move forward in absence of jurisdiction and in violation of the law.[emphasis added] 18. Respondent knew or should have known that she had a ministerial duty to comply with the uncontroverted facts of the record and act accordingly thereto as requested in petitioners motion tho vacate void judgment. The motion to vacate as void included precedent case law on standing on jurisdictional void (see memorandum in support/brief overview of law of voids exhibit “D”). Mandamus is now the only remedy available requiring respondent to vacate pursuant to her inherent power and
5 | Page
compelling that function if the respondent fails to exercise that inherent power. 19. The vacation of a void judgment that is void on its face as requested of the respondent is not a discretionary act in that the judgment is void on its face and requires the ministerial act of vacating the same if requested to by any party affected thereby . 20. It should be further noticed by this court that petitioner was attacked by alleged sheriffs deputies by gunpoint on petitioners property as sheriffs deputies broke down petitioners front door by sheriffs deputies battering ram and drew pistols to petitioners head screaming at petitioner to lay on the ground in petitioners living room in petitioners home screaming at petitioner that petitioner will be shot if petitioner didn't fall and lay on the ground, screaming at petitioner that this is a eviction that the property and house now belong to the DHS and forcefully at gunpoint drove petitioner from his home, off the family property, showing petitioner no warrant, no valid documentary papers or anything. This happened 1 day before petitioners hearing to vacate void judgment as there was a controversy involving said alleged case and respondent was duly noticed of void judgment prior to armed invasion. Respondent on or about the 18th of April 18th 2011 set an hearing for petitioners motion to vacate void judgment to be heard on the 27th of April 2011. 21. Although respondent set hearing for petitioners motion to vacate void judgment for April 27th 2011, and there was an apparent controversy to be resolved, Tulsa County Sheriffs deputies were instructed to forcefully under arms invade petitioners home and under arms forcefully eject petitioner from his home using deadly force if necessary, which in fact nearly resulted in the death of petitioner. 22. The evidence shows that all judicial rulings regarding Wanda Figueroa were made
6 | Page
absence of jurisdiction in the first instance , without evidence of jurisdiction from the very beginning as petitioner has challenged jurisdiction from inception and the parties involved have refused to comply with petitioners lawful challenge and demand by refusing to issue/return writ of habeas corpus (on or about Nov 3rd 2010, exhibit H), refusing to respond to petitioners praecipes (Exhibits, P,Q,J,D), never responding to or refuting petitioners affidavits in support/Criminal Activity Report (Exhibits M, GL,U) , which now stand as fact. 23. The record shows that no evidentiary hearing was held requiring the alleged plaintiff to appear to validate the unlawful seizure and restraint of petitioners mother Wanda Figueroa as Petitioner has not seen or heard from his kidnapped mother since the second abduction on October 8th 2010, the first kidnapping was on or about September 22nd 2010 as petitioner fears that petitioners mother is in danger of life and limb as Petitioner has evidence that alleged plaintiffs have been forcing dangerous drugs in petitioners mothers body and in fact petitioners mother may be already dead from plaintiffs unlawful actions. 24. Plaintiff Reginald sharp admitted under oath when interrogated by Petitioner at motion to vacate void judgment hearing held on April 27th 2011, that plaintiff never established jurisdiction in the first instance over Wanda Figueroa on the face of the record. 25. The petitioner has a clear legal right and duty to request of the respondent to vacate the judgment as void. 26. Respondent has a clear legal duty in that both the law and her job required specific performance based on the face of the record.
7 | Page
27. The petitioner has a clear legal right and duty to request of the respondent to vacate t he judgment as void. 28. Respondent has a clear legal duty in that both the law and her job required specific performance based on the face of the record. PRAYER Wherefore petitioner prays that this honorable court will compel respondent to perform according to what the law or her office requires of her, by issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering respondent to vacate the judgment forthwith ordering respondent to discharge petitioners mother and make
restitution to the petitioner for the wrongful taking and any other costs the petitioner may have in regards to this matter and any other further relief that this court deems just and necessary under the circumstances . Further Petitioner saith naught by___________________________ Chuck A, Figueroa, Petitioner
Before me _______________________a Notary Public in and for Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma; appeared Chuck A,Figueroa who making himself known to me did affirm and subscribe hereto verifying the facts herein and the exhibits attached hereto on this the ___ day of May, 2011.
____________________________ Notary My commission expires _______________________ “Seal”
8 | Page
9 | Page
The People of State of Oklahoma, ex rel Chuck A, Figueroa , c/o _________________ Tulsa Oklahoma Petitioner -vHonorable Judge Millie Otey Tulsa District court, 500 South Denver,Room 112 Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74103 Respondent _________________________________________
] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
No. ___________
Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus To Issue a Peremptory Writ
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Tulsa County Oklahoma ) )ss: )
I, Chuck A, Figueroa, hereinafter Petitioner, being duly sworn according to law, having first hand knowledge of the facts in this petition for Writ of Mandamus, and being competent to testify, do affirm that the facts herein are stated by the petitioner and upon reason and belief are true, correct, complete and not misleading:
JURISDICTION This Court has original jurisdiction to hear original actions in Mandamus. PARTIES
1 | Page
1. Petitioner is a natural person living peacefully in Broken Arrow,(Tulsa County), Oklahoma and under the Oklahoma Constitution and its laws. Petitionerd Party and witness, is flesh and blood son of Wanda Figueroa -Detainee ,and Petitioner and his mother Wanda Figueroa has been damaged by alleged judgment in alleged case rendered without jurisdiction to do so. Petitioner is making this petition without the aid of counsel and will support said petition with verification of the necessary and essential facts, and a Clerk certified the court docket as evidence of the record. 2. Respondent Honorable judge Millie Otey hereinafter Respondent is a person presumed to be a licensed member of the bar with an oath of office in the regards to her duties as judge. It is presumed that respondent is mandated by the cannon of judicial ethics in regards to her performance in her ministerial capacities in her role as a judge. The Respondent has failed to perform her required ministerial non discretionary function when asked to do so by petitioner. STATEMENT OF FACTS 3. This matter arises in connection with a issuing of a void judgment in the Tulsa District Court in the case afore stated. 4. Petitioner became aware of a cause being filed to unlawfully seize his mothers property by parties that have no jurisdiction to do so, as petitioners mother was kidnapped by Reginald Sharp Broken Arrow police and alleged Tulsa County Sheriffs deputy Pat Martin under arms over petitioner and petitioners mothers objections as petitioners mother tried to fend off the kidnappers violent seizure on
2 | Page
or about October 8th 2011. 5. Petitioners mother was subsequently hidden where petitioner has not seen nor heard from his kidnapped mother since October 8th 2011 6. Roughly 2 weeks after the second kidnapping, the first one was on or about September 22nd 2011, the parties involved closed Wanda Figueroa's bank account stole her funds and are having her social security sent to them under their control without the authority to do so. 7. On or about the first or second week of April Reginald Sharp and parties involved submitted fraudulent documents to Tulsa District court small claims court to steal Petitioners and petitioners mothers property, when petitioner became aware of the attempt by viewing the courts website it appeared to plaintiff that Reginald Sharp and parties involved are making an unwarranted attack on plaintiffs mothers and plaintiffs property by unlawful administrative process. 8. Petitioner noticed respondent of the unlawful attempt by a Legal Notice of Void Judgment and Ministerial Duty to Vacate Judgment and a Motion To vacate Void Judgment filed on or about the first week of April 2011. 9. Petitioner exercising his rights to defend property has made demand on respondent to vacate the void judgment as shown in exhibit “E”. 10. As set forth in defendant’s affidavit attached hereto,(exhibit “Z”) a hearing was held on April 27th 2011 on Petitioners motion to vacate void judgment at which Reginald Sharp failed to prove personal jurisdiction over detainee Wanda Figueroa from inception as challenged by Chuck,A, Figueroa, in fact, Reginald Sharp admitted in his own testimony at hearing held on April 27th 2011 that he never had
3 | Page
jurisdiction in the first instance over Wanda Figueroa. 11. Wanda Figueroa was unlawfully seized and subsequently transported to an unknown location. All parties involved in this unlawful action have failed to produce material fact sufficient to prove personal jurisdiction over detainee Wanda Figueroa from the original inception as required by law and as requested in Petitioner motion to vacate void judgment, void ab inition on the face of the record. 12. The Plaintiffs response to Petitioners motion to vacate Void judgment in it entirety constituted a fraud upon the court in that both the titled response “Plaintiffs response to Petitioner Motion to Vacate judgment” (see exhibit “B”)by design would omit the key word “Void” totally changing the entire legality of Petitioners motion to the district court, and that plaintiffs response to petitioner motion never once even attempted to show proof of jurisdiction over the party/ies involved in the first instance as challenged by and demanded by petitioner and kept rambling on about irrelevant fraudulent and misleading statements, never submitting material fact to prove jurisdiction from inception as challenged and demanded by petitioner, demonstrating the total absence of jurisdiction that renders said judgment void on the face of the record . Petitioner has challenged jurisdiction of alleged case from the beginning and was never answered by alleged plaintiff, as if they were and are never required to prove jurisdiction when challenged as they fraudulently attempted to address the hearing as only a motion to vacate judgment, not a motion to vacate “Void” Judgment.[emphasis added] 13. Said court is deprived of jurisdiction to render the judgment, making the judgment void on the face of the record.
4 | Page
14. Respondent in an absolute and total refusal to perform ministerial duty failed to exercise its inherent power to vacate the void judgment. 15. Respondent in violation of her ministerial duties and duties compelled by the cannon of ethics in regards to her office has flagrantly violated violated the laws when those laws absolutely require specific performance from the respondent to give the petitioner the relief sought. 16. Respondent has a clear legal duty to act pursuant to her oath of office, the cannon of ethics in reporting unethical conduct of attorneys that occur in her court and in her presence. 17. Respondent clearly observed the fraud upon the court in light of Alleged DHS counsel Yvonne fisher filing a deceptive fraudulent response “Plaintiffs response to motion to vacate judgment” designed to deceptively mitigate petitioners motion of vacate “Void” judgment to a non-void issue, in attempt to avoid the requirement to prove jurisdiction in the first instance, indicating that she is fully aware that alleged plaintiff never established jurisdiction in the first instance and was attempting to assist alleged plaintiff in continuing to unlawfully move forward in absence of jurisdiction and in violation of the law.[emphasis added] 18. Respondent knew or should have known that she had a ministerial duty to comply with the uncontroverted facts of the record and act accordingly thereto as requested in petitioners motion tho vacate void judgment. The motion to vacate as void included precedent case law on standing on jurisdictional void (see memorandum in support/brief overview of law of voids exhibit “D”). Mandamus is now the only remedy available requiring respondent to vacate pursuant to her inherent power and
5 | Page
compelling that function if the respondent fails to exercise that inherent power. 19. The vacation of a void judgment that is void on its face as requested of the respondent is not a discretionary act in that the judgment is void on its face and requires the ministerial act of vacating the same if requested to by any party affected thereby . 20. It should be further noticed by this court that petitioner was attacked by alleged sheriffs deputies by gunpoint on petitioners property as sheriffs deputies broke down petitioners front door by sheriffs deputies battering ram and drew pistols to petitioners head screaming at petitioner to lay on the ground in petitioners living room in petitioners home screaming at petitioner that petitioner will be shot if petitioner didn't fall and lay on the ground, screaming at petitioner that this is a eviction that the property and house now belong to the DHS and forcefully at gunpoint drove petitioner from his home, off the family property, showing petitioner no warrant, no valid documentary papers or anything. This happened 1 day before petitioners hearing to vacate void judgment as there was a controversy involving said alleged case and respondent was duly noticed of void judgment prior to armed invasion. Respondent on or about the 18th of April 18th 2011 set an hearing for petitioners motion to vacate void judgment to be heard on the 27th of April 2011. 21. Although respondent set hearing for petitioners motion to vacate void judgment for April 27th 2011, and there was an apparent controversy to be resolved, Tulsa County Sheriffs deputies were instructed to forcefully under arms invade petitioners home and under arms forcefully eject petitioner from his home using deadly force if necessary, which in fact nearly resulted in the death of petitioner. 22. The evidence shows that all judicial rulings regarding Wanda Figueroa were made
6 | Page
absence of jurisdiction in the first instance , without evidence of jurisdiction from the very beginning as petitioner has challenged jurisdiction from inception and the parties involved have refused to comply with petitioners lawful challenge and demand by refusing to issue/return writ of habeas corpus (on or about Nov 3rd 2010, exhibit H), refusing to respond to petitioners praecipes (Exhibits, P,Q,J,D), never responding to or refuting petitioners affidavits in support/Criminal Activity Report (Exhibits M, GL,U) , which now stand as fact. 23. The record shows that no evidentiary hearing was held requiring the alleged plaintiff to appear to validate the unlawful seizure and restraint of petitioners mother Wanda Figueroa as Petitioner has not seen or heard from his kidnapped mother since the second abduction on October 8th 2010, the first kidnapping was on or about September 22nd 2010 as petitioner fears that petitioners mother is in danger of life and limb as Petitioner has evidence that alleged plaintiffs have been forcing dangerous drugs in petitioners mothers body and in fact petitioners mother may be already dead from plaintiffs unlawful actions. 24. Plaintiff Reginald sharp admitted under oath when interrogated by Petitioner at motion to vacate void judgment hearing held on April 27th 2011, that plaintiff never established jurisdiction in the first instance over Wanda Figueroa on the face of the record. 25. The petitioner has a clear legal right and duty to request of the respondent to vacate the judgment as void. 26. Respondent has a clear legal duty in that both the law and her job required specific performance based on the face of the record.
7 | Page
27. The petitioner has a clear legal right and duty to request of the respondent to vacate t he judgment as void. 28. Respondent has a clear legal duty in that both the law and her job required specific performance based on the face of the record. PRAYER Wherefore petitioner prays that this honorable court will compel respondent to perform according to what the law or her office requires of her, by issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering respondent to vacate the judgment forthwith ordering respondent to discharge petitioners mother and make
restitution to the petitioner for the wrongful taking and any other costs the petitioner may have in regards to this matter and any other further relief that this court deems just and necessary under the circumstances . Further Petitioner saith naught by___________________________ Chuck A, Figueroa, Petitioner
Before me _______________________a Notary Public in and for Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma; appeared Chuck A,Figueroa who making himself known to me did affirm and subscribe hereto verifying the facts herein and the exhibits attached hereto on this the ___ day of May, 2011.
____________________________ Notary My commission expires _______________________ “Seal”
8 | Page
9 | Page
