Concerned Citizens' Legal News

The Stones have been litigating from one claim after another for the violations of their constitutional and statutory rights to due process and equal protection.

Mind you, these are not the same claims, but different claims, because government misconduct produces new grievances therefore, new causes of action.

A letter from Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),  to Monsieur A. Coray, October 31, 1823, states the following, “Decency security and liberty alike demand that government official shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.  Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher, for good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.  Crime is contagious.  If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to come a law unto himself.  It invites anarchy.  U.S. v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438.

On April 28, 2009, the Stones filed with the bankruptcy court, an adversarial complaint against the Internal Revenue Service, Arizona Department of Revenue, Bankruptcy Judge James Marlar,  Chapter 13 Trustee Edward Maney, his supervisor, U.S. Trustee Ilene LaShinsky, and Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Paul J. McMurdie.

The complaint alleges causes of action for: False Proofs of Claims, Forfeiture or Discharge of Debts, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Defrauding Creditors, Corrupt Interference with Administration of Bankruptcy Estate, Abuse of Process, Interference with Business and Prospective Business, Concealment of Assets and Records, Bankruptcy Fraud, Willful Violations of Automatic Stay, Civil Rights Violations, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Injunctive Relief and RICO (racketeering).

After Judge Mary Murguia rendered her pre-filing injunction without due process of law, Stone very very hesitantly reentered bankruptcy.

Shirley said, no way would she subject herself to a bankruptcy judge’s tyranny again; but joined in the adversary complaint, as a party in interest, subjecting her to  the tyranny she thought she would avoid.

The Stones say that it was very devastating for them emotionally and financially to receive an order from a federal judge who so blatantly laced her order with venomous lies and deceit to defame and slander them. That although the signs were there that Murguia would ultimately rule against them, they did not expect the contempt that exuded from  the words in her order.

The record of the case provide that during the year Murguia had the case before her, she first abeyed, i.e. prevented the defendants from responding at their requests, to respond to their motions to find that the forcible detainer action was illegal.  Muirguia also prevented the defendants from having to answer the Stones’ motion for sanctions for contempt of court for misrepresenting that the eviction was legal according to Federal Judge Stephen McNamee and Tucson’s federal district judge David C. Bury.

Because the federal civil rights claim before McNamee and then Tucson’s David Bury were for civil rights violations based on claims of racketeering in the bankruptcy court before August 31, 2005, the Stones’ urgent requests for the federal court to help them recover their property were denied.

Judge McNamee ruled that the orders were not before that court, that the requests for help in recovering their belongings from the landlord could not be decided by his court.

Judge Bury came along afterward, stating again, that the orders of the forcible detainer action were not before that court, thus that court could not adjudicate the issue, because the federal court lacked jurisdiction on for the forcible detainer issue.

However, Judge Murguria ruled that they had ruled and ordered the case was already adjudicated without any due process of law or jurisdiction; therfore, as a matter of law, Judge Murguia’s vextious litigant, pre-filing injunction is void.

“Under settled legal principles, a judgment is void ab initio [from the beginning] if it has been procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud, or entered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties.”  Parrish v. Jessee, 250 Va. 514, 521 (1995).(Quoting Rook v. Rook, 233 Va.92, 95, 353 S.E.2d 756, 758(1987)).

So, on November 12, 2008, John filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition as the co-owner to “mandatory entitlement rights to pre-petition damages”, and listed the entitlement rights as assets of his estate.

Stone alleges that he entered the bankruptcy in good-faith to recover and collect on the entitlement rights for damages suffered, supported by a valid court order with the full intentions of paying all debts and realizing a surplus, not create new debts.

Stone tells the court that he and wife, non-debtor party in interest as well as their 2005 chapter 11 bankruptcy estate and others, jointly own the entitlement rights to damages suffered, but are being blocked access to court.

That they they dispute the tax claims and contend that whatever legitimate taxes they are found liable for, could have already been paid, if not for improprieties of the officials.

The Stones’ tax debt amounts to almost $200,000.00.

Stone says that trustee Maney was pressuring him to make a plan ignoring the entitlements and the damages for the willful stay violation that had transpired during the pending chapter 13.  Maney said that he had worked out a deal with the tax agencies to write off a good portion of the debt making his monthly payment on a plan, less than $200.00 a month for five years.

The Stones say, why should they have to pay anything when given the extreme outrageous misconduct of the U. S. and State of Arizona’s agents and or employees, the federal and state governments are liable for the misconduct, so the forfeiture and or discharge of the tax debts supposedly owed by the plaintiffs are authorized.

The Stones claim that the law provides that procedural and substantive due process requires redress before the debtor, estate, and party in interest are subjected to and held liable to pay debts they dispute and require redress in order to take personal property, property of the bankruptcy estate, or to secure future payments on income.

Stone tells the court that it should not be necessary for him to amend or make a plan to pay the creditors of the estate, when there are substantial money entitlements of over three-hundred million dollars, which are assets of this estate that have been deforced from the Stones and the bankruptcy estates.

The Stones declare that agents of the United States federal governement have deprived them  and family of property, liberty, and equal protection of the laws, now they have placed the burden of paying taxes, without the benefit of being born and raised american citizens, as per the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land..

The Stones say that they have never waived their fundamental rights to due process of law as guaranteed by the Constitution; but are being treated as slaves, taxed while being deprived of substantial constitutional and statutory rights.  See the IRS tax claim.