Subject of Previous Post Responds ...
The original post appeared on July 15th. Click HERE to read the original post. Scroll down to fast-foward to My Ignacio's e-mail to the contributor's of the SCF.
The case was dismissed, as cited in the Metropolitan News . Here is their article:
Man Unsuccessfully Sues Entire Ninth Circuit Bench for Conspiracy
By TINA BAY, Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed the dismissal of a Nevada man’s lawsuit accusing all of the Ninth Circuit judges of criminal conspiracy.
Tevis R. Ignacio failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction, the panel ruled. Ignacio filed suit in 2003 in the District of Nevada, naming as defendants “Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in their capacity as judges,” specifically identifying a number of individual judges, including Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder, both personally and in their official capacities.
Representing himself, Ignacio alleged that the circuit judges—along with various federal and California state judges, other government officials, and certain private individuals—conspired to dismiss the state and federal lawsuits he filed in the wake of his California divorce proceedings.
The divorce action ended in 1999 with a superior court judge denying him access to his minor son, on the grounds that Ignacio was bipolar with paranoid-psychophrenic tendencies. The judge also designated him as a “vexatious litigant,” which placed restrictions on his ability to file claims and appeals in California state court.
Ignacio’s post-divorce lawsuits began with a federal court action, filed in the Northern District of California, in which he attacked the vexatious litigant determination. After the district court’s 2002 dismissal of the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Ignacio moved to Nevada and there filed a similar state court action, which also failed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The 2003 lawsuit against the Ninth Circuit judges followed.U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro dismissed Ignacio’s complaint, which contained a long list of grievances regarding the California court’s determinations in his domestic dispute, on the basis that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
The Ninth Circuit agreed, holding that the panel—comprised of the chief judge and Judges Stephen S. Trott and Andrew J. Kleinfeld—could decide the appeal even though all three judges were parties to Ignacio’s lawsuit. Writing for the panel, Trott explained that the “rule of necessity,” which allows a disqualified judge to hear a case when it cannot be heard otherwise, applies where a litigant has indiscriminately sues all of the circuit’s judges.
“[A]n underlying legal maxim for the rule of necessity is that ‘where all are disqualified, none are disqualified,” Trott said.
“If all the judges of the Ninth Circuit are disqualified as a result of Ignacio’s complaint, he has eliminated the proper legal forum charged with reviewing the dismissal of his action,” the judge wrote, adding that a ruling disqualifying all circuit judges would encourage plaintiffs to sue wholesale all judges in a district or circuit until their cases get transferred.
Trott concluded that Ignacio’s suit amounted to a collateral attack on the California superior court’s divorce determinations, noting that the majority of his briefs focused on attacking individuals who were involved in the state court divorce action.
“The only plausible interpretation of [Ignacio’s] complaint,” Trott said, “is that he wishes for the dismissed cases—all having to do with what he perceives as problems with his [California] domestic dispute—to be reinstated.”Tevis, the subject of the post, has responded.
To whom it may concern,
You wrote an article below(copy of original post removed by editor). Let me set the record straight.
There are two sides to every story. I claimed under oath that these Judges under color of law and color of authority have and are covered up a criminal actions by Judges in the Santa Clara Courthouse. (Divorce Court)
The Divorce Judge (James Stewart) had people picketing outside his courtroom prior to me being forced before him. He and I had an argument about what I can and say to my son. (His mother had an affair which I found out about) I filed four motions, one was a claimed (170.6) of bias after that he claimed I was mental ill, and I was a vexatious litigant. (the law say you have to lose 5 cases) None of these motions were heard before he claimed I was vexatious. They have fixed transcripts and perjured themselves.
He refused to give me any of my half of the assets which was over $100,000 in stock. I ask for a attorney in court and he said "an attorney in this valley would not represent me." My ex-wife attorney sat in pro temp when his buddy took a day off. This guy was buddy-buddy with this judge. The Judge told me this the first time I meet him.
I filed a federal lawsuit because they placed me on this vexatious litigant list for calling this judge bias to his face instead of picketing out in front of his courthouse.
Think about it ... I filed a suit against the 9th Circuit and they changed the name when it came before them to "Ignacio vs. Armstrong" who dismissed that lawsuit. I had listed her below all the 9th Circuit Judges.
Why now does this case go public? It is not because of the "short title." This opinion is a cover-up. I ask that it be transferred to another Circuit. Nobody wants to see Court of Appeals Judges in jail.
I had to move out of state. I could say more but this is not the place. I would like to tell my son, but he was to young to understand how these people work. I just read some of the stuff said about me. I am a Private person. I am not mental ill and the doctor who said I was, saw me for one hour and I refuse to sign a waiver. (The judge knew this) I might of made mistakes, but I have not made the kind that get me in trouble that I can't get out of.
legal redux (editor insert: referring to the Legal Redux Blog) wrote this ...
Ruling in their own case, known in short as Ignacio v. Armstrong, three federal appeals judges affirmed a federal district court decision this Wednesday (July 12, 2006). The pro se plaintiff-appellant, Tevis R. Ignacio, had appealed after the district court dismissed his complaint "alleging that all the judges from the Ninth Circuit, other federal and state judges, public officials, and certain private individuals, conspired to dismiss Ignacio’s previous lawsuits." Specifically, Ignacio believed the Ninth Circuit judges “[we]re culpable for their conscious parallelism of their legal duties by their wanton negligence and ultrahazardous activities of dissmissing [sic] a/or complaint(s) in a criminal conspiracy.”
Facts: Ignacio was disallowed from visiting his young son post-divorce on a finding by a California superior court judge that "Ignacio was bipolar with paranoid-psychophrenic tendencies and that he refused to take medication." He became frenetic so that the court "designated Ignacio as a 'vexatious litigant' pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, sections 391, et seq., for repeatedly filing frivolous papers with the court. Ignacio’s designation as a vexatious litigant placed restrictions on his ability to file claims and appeals in California state court." In response, Ignacio sued the superior court judge, his ex-wife, and others, in one court after another, for conspiring to deny him justice. He also alleged the "vexatious litigant" rule was unconstitutional. By the time of the present case, defendants covered three pages and included California judges, district attorneys, senators, and former Governor Davis; the FBI, Dep't of Justice, and his wife's attorney; and conveniently, each member of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Issue: should the defendant-judges be disqualified from hearing the appeal? See 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(i) (providing that a federal judge "shall" disqualify him or herself when "a party to the proceeding").
Held: "[U]nder the 'rule of necessity,' ... we are not disqualified from deciding Ignacio’s appeal." The opinion drew support from United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 213
(1980) (holding that the rule of necessity is an exception to the recusal requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 455). Other alternatives considered were (a) bringing in judges from a different circuit, or (b) removing the case to a different circuit. These were deemed unnecessary because Ignacio's indiscriminate claim was facially intended to achieve this frivolous result.
Secondly, the opinion affirmed the district court's denial of subject matter jurisdiction over a state court decision. “As courts of original jurisdiction, federal district courts have no authority to review the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings.” Branson v. Nott, 62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir. 1995).
On substantive issues, the three-judge circuit panel held, Ignacio prayed no grantable relief. The only intelligible remedy would be reinstating the original divorce case, which the Ninth Circuit had no authority to do. Other than this, the filing read like a list of personal grievances.
The interesting part of the case, besides the sad details of Ignacio's machinations, is an analysis of three similar cases in the Ninth's sister circuits. What is the doctrine of necessity, and how far does it reach?
The first known case invoking the rule was an English case in 1430, "when it was held that the Chancellor of Oxford could act as judge of a case in which he was a party when there was no provision for appointment of another judge. Y. B. Hil. 8 Hen. VI, f. 19, pl. 6." (United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 213-14.) A later reporter summarized as follows: "If an action is sued in the bench against all the Judges there, then by necessity they shall be their own Judges." 2 H. Rolle, An Abridgment of Many Cases and Resolutions at Common Law 93 (1668) (translation).
How has the rule of necessity been interpreted in Ignacio? Let the Court speak for itself.
The rule of necessity is an ancient law that was part of the English common law and that has been traced back to 1430. See Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal Co., 10 Eng. Rep. 301, 313 (1852). The rule has been applied numerous times in state and federal courts in this country. See Atkins v. United States, 556 F.2d 1028, 1036-38 (Ct. Cl. 1977) (setting forth the history of the rule of necessity in this country).
* * *
The rule of necessity allows a judge, normally disqualified, to hear a case when “the case cannot be heard otherwise.” Will, 449 U.S. at 213. The case cannot be heard otherwise, when as pointed out by our sister circuits, a plaintiff has named all of the judges in a circuit as defendants. Thus, an underlying legal maxim for the rule of necessity is that “where all are disqualified, none are disqualified.” ... This maxim applies here. Ignacio has sued the judges of the Ninth Circuit—he has indiscriminately sued all. If all the judges of the Ninth Circuit are disqualified as a result of Ignacio’s complaint, he has eliminated the proper legal forum charged with reviewing the dismissal of his action. As this goes to the very purpose of the rule of necessity—not permitting a litigant to “destroy the only tribunal with power in the premises,” see Brinkley v. Hassig, 83 F.2d 351, 357 (10th Cir. 1936)—we hold that the rule should be extended to circumstances like this where a
litigant has named uncritically all the judges of this circuit.
To hold otherwise would allow and possibly encourage plaintiffs to impede the administration of justice by suing wholesale all the judges in a district or circuit until their case is transferred. ... Furthermore, we reject the contention that the ability to bring in judges from other circuits to hear the case precludes the application of the rule of necessity as this would be the pragmatic equivalent of having the case transferred out of circuit. As with the Tenth Circuit, we have reservations about giving litigants a veto right over sitting judges by providing them an improper means for getting their case transferred out of the circuit. (Citations omitted.)
Mr. Ignacio also sent this e-mail:
To whom it may concern,
I sued the U.S. 9th Circuit alleging that these judges are covering up for one another, in which this case they even take their names off the lawsuit. (short title) Why now is this breaking news? As long as I know my son will find out in the end who the good guys is, and who told the truth. if you read my side and let me have my say in court, I'd tell you this is a cover-up and they knew about it. This is not a justice system. It is a political system in the name of "Justice." The devil seems to rule in this court of law.
Here is there opinion. But does it say I had another lawsuit (Ignacio vs. Discover Bank) that was dismissed by the same 9th Circuit Court Judges on the same day. There is a lot more that I can testify too. But this is not the place to do it. (Like I claimed a 170.6 bias against Judge James W. Sterwart and he declared me a vexatious litigant and then said wrote his opinion that I was ill.)
If we all have to play by the same rules, I should be able to have my day in court. I don't think over the INTERNET is the right way to settle a court case. What good is this kind of Justice system? Should these Judges have to go to jail for conspiracy too? Is this not a cover-up?
Mr. Ignacio, we have posted your response to the post. Now go get your life in order.