Concerned Citizens' Legal News

When Rev. John Stone reentered the bankruptcy system, this time individually under a chapter 13 plan, he knew he would be taking a chance of being denied the protection that bankruptcy law affords every citizen as a right.

“Bankruptcy law” is primarily comprised of the federal statutory law contained in Title 11 of the United States Code. One of the primary goals of the bankruptcy laws are to provide debtors with financial difficulty, an opportunity for a fresh start.

Shirley, John’s wife, refused to join John as a co-debtor, stating that there was no way she would subject herself to the tyranny of a corrupt bankruptcy system again; especially under a judge who had already violated them and had pre-assigned himself to any bankruptcy case filed by them, if and whenever filed.

Judge Marlar, had already proven himself to be bias and prejudice against the Stones during their 2005 chapter 11 when he closed the case to block the prosecution of the willful stay violations of that bankruptcy.  The violations came as the result of the forcible detainer eviction carried out without proper notice and a hearing.  The Stones were ambushed and ousted from the residence and deforced of all their belongs.

On August 30, 2005, just days before the eviction, the Stones requested that their chapter 11 be dismissed, alleging that fraud was being committed against them preventing the fair administration of their chapter 11.

Before dismissing the bankruptcy, Judge Marlar rendered the order lifting the stay for the landlord, September 6, 2005, and  on October 5, 2005, dismissed the chapter 11 bankruptcy with full knowledge of the unlawful eviction, robbery, and the violations of the automatic stay.

Judge Marlar was one of the co-defendants with President George W. Bush in the Stones’ federal complaint for bankruptcy racketeering, filed August 31, 2005 in the Phoenix federal district court case no. cv-05-2626 – Stone v Baum, et al.

There is too much to say about that complaint here, however we will provide an update in the near future.  Nevertheless, the relevancy of the 2005 bankruptcy racketeering complaint filed under cv-05-2626, is that it is directly tied to Judge Marlar’s misconduct and Judge Murguia’s fraudulent void order.

After the eviction, robbery and the denial of the federal court to stop the sale of their property, the Stones went back to Marlar with the willful violation of the automatic stay complaint filed against the landlord.  Judge Marlar miscontrued the complaint as a request to reopen when the bankruptcy was dismissed, not closed.

Case law provides that, “The word “reopened “ used in Section 350(b) obviously relates to the word “closed” used in the same section.  In our opinion a case cannot be reopened unless it has been closed. An order dismissing a bankruptcy case accomplishes a completely different result than an order closing it would and is not an order closing.”  In re, General business Systems v. North Am. Philips Corp.  699 F.2d. 965 (1983)

Judge Marlar first rendered an order denying to “reopen case”, then made a second order, ruling that the Stones failed to reopen their chapter 11 bankruptcy, therefore the complaint for willful stay violations was denied.

Proving Shirley’s point, since John’s chapter 13 filing on November 12, 2008, he’s had one violation of the bankruptcy stay after another, which have been ignored by the chapter 13 trustee Edward Maney, and ignored or dismissed by bankruptcy Judge James Marlar.

In fact, Judge Marlar has dismissed every adversary complaint that Stone has filed in this chapter 13 bankruptcy, including new violations not included in the complaints challenging orders pertaining to the forcible detainer transaction rendered by Judge Marlar, Federal Judge Mary H. Murguia, and many others as void for lack of jurisdiction and authority of law.

To block any other stay violation complaints from Stone, recently Judge Marlar annulled the bankruptcy stay.  Although he didn’t say so, the annulment has the effect of being retroactive to cover the past violations and to be able to disregard any new violations that may occur while the bankruptcy is pending.

Meanwhile, Marlar interceded the prosecution of the complaint against him and the other judges ordering a “show cause hearing” based on Judge Murguia’s pre-filing injunction.  Stone responded stating that the complaint attacked the injunction as void for lack of due process, and that Judge Murguia, as a federal judge, had no jurisdiction or authority of law, to render a vexatious litigant pre-filing injunction order as it pertains to the eviction.

Marlar stepped into the court after being served summon and complaint.  That meant that he was one of the defendants, a party with an interest in the outcome of the case.  Then Marlar, rendered the order as a judge in the same adversary, ordering the Stones to “show cause”, instead of following the laws and procedure and disqualify himself and appear as the defendant he was.

Judge Marlar moved forward and dismissed the first complaint the Stones filed against himself  in violation of the constitution and federal statute to protect himself and the others who were protecting themselves and others by usurpation of judicial power.

Case law provides specifically that, “. . . . no man ought to be a judge in his own cause, a maxim which appeals with such force to one’s sense of justice that it is said … to be a natural right so inflexible that an act of seeking to subvert it would be declared void. State ex rel, Parker v Vosloh, 222 Ind 518, 54 NE2d 650; State ex rel. Venn v Reid, 207 Or 617, 298 P2d 990.

This rule is embodied in the constitutions and statutes of many of the states which expressly provide that a judge shall not sit in cases in which they are interested.

However comprehensive may be the terms by which jurisdiction is conferred upon a judge, the power to decide his own cause is always a tacit exception to the authority of his office.  First Nat. Bank v McGuire, 12 SD 226, 80 NW 1074, 47 LRA 413, 76 Am St Rep 598.

Yet, Bankruptcy Judge James Marlar has stubbornly refuse to disqualify himself after several requests for two adversarial complaints, which named and properly noticed and served Judge Marlar the complaint showing that he was being sued.

A second complaint has been filed against Marlar in Stone v. Internal Revenue Service to forfeit or discharge the taxes.  The complaint alleges that the taxes should be forfeited or discharged because of the deprivations of fundamental rights to due process and equal protection as per the constitution, as well as bankruptcy fraud and blocking access to the courts by Judge Marlar and the others.

Before any of the defendants including Judge Marlar answered the complaint, Judge Marlar interceded and dismissed the second complaint against him and the others with prejudice, again acting as a judge. The Stones appealed.

After Judge Marlar’s attorney, Asst. U.S. Attorney Richard Patrick forum shopped for the right judge for the appeal, the appeal is now before federal district court judge, Judge Neil V. Wake.

Now that the Stones have appealed Judge Marlar’s decision on the taxes, he has appeared as a defendant, asking Judge Wake to dismiss the appeal based on Judge Murguia’s pre-filing injunction.  More on this litigation forthcoming.

Meanwhile, Judge Marlar is not the only judge who purposely failed to disqualify when they are parties to a lawsuit.

On June 24, 2009, Stone filed a complaint for sanctions against his probation officer, Kathleen Frazier and others, naming Maricopa Count Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz as an accomplice.

It’s pretty interesting to note that Judge Mroz who illegally tried to modify the terms of Stone’s probation with an extortion attempt threatening the Stones to shut down this website with an investigation and arrest, was assigned to the complaint for “extortion”, even though it was apparent Judge Mroz was a defendant.  See “Extortion to Shutdown Website”.

On the fifth day after Stone filed the extortion complaint, Judge Rosa Mroz dismissed the complaint telling Stone to sue them civilly.  This is a convenient ploy, one reasonably would expect that the pre-filing injunction would be used to block the Stones from prosecuting that claim as well.

Maricopa County Courts, including state and federal are persistent in depriving and blocking the Stones from their constitutional rights in retaliation for exercising their rights as per the constitution, statutes and other laws.

Courts, whose duty it is to administer the law, should not be obliged to proceed in the performance of their judicial acts with the knowledge that they are subject to civil actions for damages for wrongs, real or imaginary, which may be by any litigant deemed to have been commited by the judge within the exercise of his jurisdiction.  Gordon v. District Ct. 36 Nev 1, 131 P 134, 44 LRA NS 1078.