Appendix — Cramer v. State Bar of Michigan
Supreme Court brief1984
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
no, $3-/58¥%
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1983
VIRGINIA CRAMER,
Petitioner, Plaintiff and Appellant
VS
STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN;
JOHN D, O'HAIR;
WILLIAM LEO CAHALAN;
RICHARD D, KUHN;
H, ROLLIN ALLEN, and All Members
of the State Bar of Michigan
Similarly situated,
Respondents, Defendants and Appellees
PETITIONER'S APPENDIX
IN CONJUNCTION WITH
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Virginia Cramer
Pro se Petitioner
27314 Clairview
Dearborn Heights,
Michigan 48127
February 1984 (313) 278-7286
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
PETITIONER'S APPENDIX
IN CONJUNCTION WITH
VOLUME I
A PPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
A PRENDIX
APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Order filed 11/21/83
U.S. Court of Appeals
Order denying stay of
Mandate, filed 12/27/83
Order, filed 5/4/83
U.S. Court of Appeals
Memorandum Opinion of
U.S. District Court
filed July 1, 1982
Order of Dismissal as to
O'Hair and Cahalan
filed July 7, 1982
Judgment dismissing
action with prejudice
State Bar of Michigan
and H, Rollin Allen,
Filed July 12, 1982
Order dismissing
Richard D, Kuhn
Filed 7/20/82
Memorandum opinion
U.S, District Court
filed 10/12/82
Order Amending oo
Opinion of 7/1/82, U.S.
District Court,
Filed 10/12/82"
6-25
26
31-32
A PPENDIX
A PPEND IX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
Order denying rehearing
O'Hair and Cahalan
U.S. District Court
filed 10/14/82
Order denying rehearing
as to State Bar of Mich.
U.S. District Court
Filed 10/19/82
Order denying rehearing
as to Richard D, Kuhn
U.S. District Court
Filed 10/21/82
Notice of Removal of
State Case #72-218-571-CZ
Petition, etc.
Filed 10/21/81
Petitioner's Complaint
U.S. District Court
Filed 10/21/81
Petitioner's motion to
Amend Petition for
Removal of State case,
Brief in support
U.S. District Court
Filed 1/15/82
Return on Service of Writ
Defendant, H.sRollin Allen
individually,
Filed 11/6 /Bi
Clerk's Entry of Default
against H.Rollin Allen,
individually
Filed 11/13/81
Motion for Judgment by
Default against H.Rollin
Allen, U.S. Dist. Court
Filed 1/22/82
ii
page
32-33
34-35
35-36
36-43
44-61
62-76
77
78-81
81-88
APPENDIX S
APPENDIX T
APPENDIX U
APPENDIX V
APPENDIX W
A PRENDIX X
APPENDIX Y
APPENDIX Z
VOLUME II = FETITIONER'S APPENDIX
Order denying "Remand"
page
of State case, -72-218-571-CZ
U.S. Dist. Court
Filed 10/18/82
Transcript of 6/5/81
Wayne Circuit Court
No. 72-218-571-CZ
Judge O'Hair
Transcript of 6/12/81
Wayne Circuit Court
No, 72-218-571-CZ
Judge O'Hair
Transcript of 6/17/81
Wayne Circuit Court
No, 72-218-571-CZ
Judge O'Hair
Transcript of 9/7/72
Wayne Circuit Court
No, 210-228
Judge T. Roumell
Transcript of 11/21/74
Wayne Circuit Court
No. 74-018-521-D0
Judge R.L. Olzark
Transcript of 3/26/76
Wayne Circuit Court
No, 74-033-912-D0
Judge C. Kaufman
Transcript of 10/31/80
No, 80-024-790-D0
Wayne Circuit Court
Judge O'Hair
iii
89-90
90-96
97-101
102-127
128-131
132-138
139-149
150-157
page
VOLUME II - PETITIONER'S APPENDIX
APPENDIX AA Amendments One, Four’ and
APPENDIX BB Amendments Six, Eight,
and Nine, U.S. Const. 159
APPENDIX CC Amendments Ten, Eleven
and Thirteen, U.S. Const. 160
APPENDIX DD Amendment Fourteen,
U.S. Const. 161
APPENDIX EE Stat. 42 USCA 1343 161-162
APPENDIX FF Stat. 42 USCA 1983,
1985 163-164
APPENDIX GG Stat. 42 USCA 1986 165
APPENDIX HH Stat. 42 USCA 1988 166
APPENDIX II Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, (FRCP
Rules 12(a)(b)(6
Rule 56 (c a)
APPENDIX JJ Michigan Const. of 1963,
Art I, Sec 13 169
e 167-169
APPENDIX KK Michigan Statutes
MCLA 600,1430
MCLA 600.1901
MCLA 600,1905 170
APPENDIX LL Michigan Statutes
MCLA 600.1912
MCLA 600,1815
MCLA 600,1711
Mich, General Court Rule
760.1 171
APPENDIX MM 59 Am Jur 2d, Parties,
at 1, 11, 192 172-173
iv
OLUME Ii -
APPENDIX NN
A PPENDIX OO
APPENDIX PP
page
PETITIONER'S A P PENDIX
Rules 865 and 866 (1976-77)
Mich, Gen. Court Rules 174-175
Rules Concerning the
State Bar of Michigan
(a self-interest group)
Rules 1, 5 and 16 175-176
Mich, Statute
MCLA 600,916 177
1
APPENDIX A
NO. 82-1855
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA CRAMER,
ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Ve
STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN; JOHN D,
O'HAIR; WILLIAM LEO CAHALAN; FILED
RICHARD D, KUHN; H, ROLLIN ALIEN;
ALL MEMBERS OF THE STATE BAR OF NOV 21,
MICHIGAN, 1983
Defendants-appe llees,
BEFORE: KEITH and CONTIE, Circuit Judges;
and POTTER,* District Judge
This appeal has been referred to a panel
of the Court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of
the Sixth Circuit. After examination of the
record and briefs, this panel agrees unani-
mously that oral argument is not needed,
Rule 34(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Pro-
cedure,
Plaintiff appeals the district court
judgments entered July 6, 12 and 20, 1982,
which dismissed plaintiff's action against
* The Honorable John W. Potter, District
Judge, Northern District of Ohio, sitting by
designation.
2
NO, 82-1855
e 2 «
all the named defendants. In the proceedings
below, the district court found plaintiff's
allegations of a civil rights violation to be
without merit and also denied the injunctive
relief sought by plaintiff. Maving carefully
examined the record and briefs, this Court
concludes the district court did not err in
its disposition of this case,
For the reasons stated in the district
court memorandum opinion filed July 1, 1982,
as amended October 12, 1982, it is ORDERED
that the Judgments of the district court be,
and they hereby are, affirmed pursuant to
Rule 9(d)(2), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
/s/ John P, Hehman
Clerk
ISSUED AS MANDATE: DECEMBER 29, 1983
COSTS: NONE
A TRUE COPY
Attest:
JOMN P, MEMMAN, Clerk
By /s/ Linda Brinson
Deputy Clerk
3
APPENDIX B
NO o 82- 1855
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA CRAMER,
FILED
Plaintiff-Appellant, DEC 27, 1983
vs
STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN;
JOHN D, O'MAIR; WILLIAM ORDER
LEO CAMALAN; RICNARD D.
KUEN; KM. ROLLIN ALLEN,
ALL MEMBERS OF THE STATE
BAR OF MICHIGAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Upon consideration of the
appellant's motion to stay the mandate;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion be
and hereby is denied.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
/s/ JOHN P, MEMMAN
Clerk
4
APPENDIX C
NO, 82-1855
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA CRAMER,
ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant,
Ve
STATE BAR OF MICMIGAN, et al.,
Defendant-Appellees, FILED
/ May 4, 1983
This cause comes before the court upon
the motion of appellees MH. Rollin Allen and
the State Bar of Michigan for leave to have
filed instanter their brief in the above-
captioned appeal.
The court has considered the appellees'
motion, and has considered appellant's
vigorous opposition thereto.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion be held
in abeyance for ten (10) days from the date
of this order. If a properly executed
corporate disclosure statement pursuant to
Rule 25, Rules of the Sixth Circuit, is
received from the appellees within that tim,
the motion to file the brief will be granted
and the appellant allowed fourteen (14) days
therefrom to submit a reply brief. Failure
to timely file the corporate disclosure
statement will result in denial of appellees'
motion to file their brief. Appellant's
request for punitive and special damages is
hereby denied.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
/s/ John P, Hehman, Clerk
May 4, 1983
6
APPENDIX D
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION-DETROIT
VIRGINIA CRAMER, Civil No.
Plaintiff, 81-73926
Vv.
STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.,
FILED
Defendants. 7-1-82
ne 4
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on seven
motions filed by the various parties to this
action. These motions are:
(1) Plaintiff's motion to amend petition
of removal;
(2) Plaintiff's motion for entry of Order
to show cause with temporary enjoin-
ing order and why preliminary or
permanent injunctive order should not
issue;
(3) Plaintiff's motion for judgment by
default against defendant H. Rollin
Allen and all other members of the
Michigan State Bar similarly situ-
ated;
7
Defendant State Bar of Michigan's
motion for entry of order remanding
case to state court;
Defendants Judge O'Hair and Judge
Cahalan's motion to dismiss;
Defendant Judge Kuhn's motion to
Gismiss or for summary judgment; and
Defendants State Bar of Michigan and
H. Rollin Allen's motion to dismiss
or for summary judgment.
A. Factual Background
The dispute in this action arose out of
the attempts of the State Bar of Michigan to
enforce an injunction it obtained in 1973
which prohibited Virginia Cramer from engag-
ing in certain acts found to be the unauthor-
ized practice of law. In order to understand
the posture of the matter now before the
Court, it is necessary to sort through the
flurry of pleadings submitted and set forth
the chronology of events preceeding the
filing of this action.
On September 27, 1972, the State Bar of
Michigan filed a complaint in Wayne County
8
Circuit Court against Harold Graham, Michael
Gordon, and Virginia Cramer, individually and
d/b/a Gordon-Graham & Cramer Associates,
alleging the defendants were engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law in violation of
MCLA 600.916, MSA 27A.916. State Bar of
Michigan v Cramer, et al., Civil Action No.
72-218-571-CZ. On January 5, 1973, a judg-
ment for plaintiff and an order granting
injunctive relief against defendants was
entered. Virginia Cramer subsequently was
found in contempt of that order a number of
times, and she appealed the matter, ultimate-
‘ly, to the Michigan Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court, in an opinion reported at 399
Mich 116 (1976), affirmed the finding of civil
contempt of April 23, 1973 and the January 5,
1973 injunctive order of Judge O'Hair of Wayne
County Circuit Court.
On motion of the State Bar of Michigan,
orders to show cause why Cramer should not be
held in contempt of the January 5, 1973 order
were issued on February 17, 1981 by Judge
O'Mair and March 13, 1961 by Judge Cahalan.
Cramer failed to appear on April 24, 1981,
which was the date noticed. Judge O'Hair
issued a bench warrant for her arrest on
April 29, 1981.
On May 5, 1981 Cramer filed a motion for
writ of mandamus with the Michigan Supreme
Court, on grounds unknown to this Court. She
filed a motion for a stay with the Supreme
Court on May 14 and some sort of supplemental
motion on May 28, On June 12, 1981, she filed
a motion to quash the arrest warrant with the
Supreme Court and asked for certain other
relief, also unknown to the Court. Cramer has
not supplied the Court with copies of these
various motions, only with copies of the
orders of the Supreme Court disposing of them
in favor of the State Bar.
Cramer was arrested on June 12, 1981 and
appeared before Judge O'Mair, who released
jer upon her filing a $1,000 cash bond, Judge
O'Hair set a hearing on the show cause for
June 17, 1981. However, since there were two
outstanding warrants for her arrest issued by
10
Judge Kuhn in Oakland County, Cramer was not
released, but was transported to the Oakland
County Jail, where she was kept in custody
over the weekend until she could appear
before Judge Kuhn on June 15, 1981.
On April 4, 1975, Judge Kuhn, an Oakland
County Circuit judge, had issued sua sponte
an order to show cause why Cramer. should not
be held in contempt for the unauthorized
practice of law in the case of Seaholm v
Seaholm, Civ. No. 74-114-277-DO. Cramer was
personally served with the order. When she
failed to appear on the noticed date, Judge
Kuhn issued a bench warrant on April 9, 1975.
Judge Kuhn issued a second order to show cause
in Horn v Horn, Civ. No. 75-121954-DO on May
8, 1975. Cramer would not accept personal
service, so the Judge ordered substituted
service, Cramer again failed to appear on
the noticed date, so Judge Kuhn issued another
bench warrant on July 24, 1975. These two
cases were divorce cases before Judge Kuhn
where it came to his attention that Cramer
11
had rendered some type of assistance to the
parties. Cramer appeared before Judge Kuhn
on the outstanding bench warrants on June 15,
1981. Judge Kuhn released her after examin-
ing her.
On June 17, 1981, Cramer appeared before
Judge O'Mair for the hearing on the order to
Show cause. She questioned the jurisdiction
of the court to issue the order claiming that
State Bar of Michigan v Cramer was last heard
in the Michigan Supreme Court, and since the
case had not been remanded, the State Bar
would be required to initiate new proceedings
to pursue the matter. Judge O'Hair ordered
the State Bar to file an amended motion which
set forth specific allegations of misconduct
that it intended to prove, and adjourned the
contempt hearing to August 11, 1981.
On June 26, 1981, the Michigan Supreme
Court denied Cramer's complaint for mandamus
and other relief. On July 13, 1981, she filed
a motion to quash service of the March 13,
1981 order to show cause in Wayne County Cir-
cuit Court, claiming that the court had no
12
jurisdiction to issue the order to show cause
or the bench warrant. On July 21, 1981 Judge
O'Hair sent Cramer a letter denying her
motion. On July 28, 1981, the Michigan Sup-
reme Court denied Cramer's motion for super-
intending control.
On August 11, 1981 Judge O'Hair found
Cramer in contempt of court for violating his
January 5, 1973 order, after conducting a
hearing on the matter in which Cramer partici-
pated, He ordered her to pay back the money
she had received from her "client" and ordered
that if she violated the January 1973 order
again after August 11, 1981, she would be re-
quired to spend 30 days in Wayne County Jail
as a deterrent to further violations of the
court's order, Cramer would not approve the
proposed judgment submitted by the State Bar,
so its counsel noticed a hearing on a motion
for entry of judgment for October 30, 1981.
Cramer filed this federal action on October
21, 1981. None of the parties has indicated
whether an order was ever entered by Judge
O'Hair finding Cramer in contempt, although
13
it is clear that he did so on the record at
the hearing on the show cause on August ll.
B. Fetition for Removal and Federal Complaint
On October 21, 1981, plaintiff filed a
‘petition for removal' of State Bar of Michi-
gan v Cramer, supra, There are a number of
reasons why plaintiff's attempted removal of
the state action filed against her in 1972
cannot be sustained. First of all, plaintiff
has not complied with the statutory require-
ments of 28 USC 1446 to establish a basis for
federal removal jurisdiction, Section 1446(b)
requires that the state action must be removed
within 30 days of the receipt of the pleading
or order rendering the action removable.
Plaintiff's complaint and petition for re-
moval appear to challenge the constitution-
ality of the issuance of the orders to show
cause why whe should not be held in contempt
and the bench warrants by Judges O'Hair and
Kuhn, Judge O'Hair issued the bench warrant
at issue on April 29, 1981. Cramer was
arrested and appeared before Judge O'Hair on
June 12, 1981. Judge Kuhn issued the show
14
causes and bench warrants at issue in 1975.
If for no other reason, plaintiff's attempt
to remove State Bar of Michigan v Cramer
fails because of untimeliness,
However, @ more basic defect exists to
defeat plaintiff's attempt to remove the
state action. The 1973 judgment of the Wayne
County Circuit Court against her was made
final by the order of remittitur entered by
the Michigan Supreme Court on January 20,
1977. It is, therefore, res judicata, and
this court has no authority to review that
judgment. Mestice v McShea, 201 F 2d 363,
364 (3d Cir. 1953). For these reasons,
plaintiff's motion to amend her petition for
removal will be denied,
Remand to Wayne County would be point-
less, as final judgment has been entered in
the 1972 action, so dismissal would be 4 more
appropriate remedy for the improvident removal
of this action, However, in addition to her
petition to remove the 1972 state action,
plaintiff has filed a separate complaint,
captioned Virginia Cramer v The State Bar of
15
Michigan, et al., in which she has made
adequate assertions of federal question juris-
diction. Named as defendants in her complaint
are the State Bar of Michigan, Wayne County
Judges John D, O'Hair and William Cahalan,
Oakland County Circuit Judge Richard D. Kuhn,
H. Rollin Allen, counsel for the State Bar of
Michigan, and "All Other Members of the State
Bar of Michigan similarly situated." She
alleges in her complaint that she was arrested
and imprisoned falsely in violation of the lst,
4th, 5th, 6th and 14th amendments and 42 USC
1983, 1985 and 1986. She seeks injunctive re-
lief and monetary damages and has demanded a
jury trial.
More specifically, plaintiff claims that
the Wayne County and Oakland Cuowity Courts
lacked jurisdiction to order her to show
cause why she should not be held in contempt
and to issue bench warrants enforcing such
orders. She claims they lacked jurisdiction
because the Michigan Supreme Court had not
remanded State Bar of Michigan v Cramer for
any further proceedings after rendering its
16
decision in 1976. She further asserts that
the orders and bench warrants were issued
without probable cause, She claims that she
suffered mental humiliation and anguish be-
cause of the alleged false imprisonment and
rude treatment while in custody.
C. Motions to Dismise or for Summary Judgment
Since plaintiff must show a "strong or
substantial likelihood or probability of
success on the merits" to obtain the prelim-
inary injunctive relief she seeks, the Court
first will turn to the various defendants!
motions to dismiss to determine whether they
have merit. Mason County Medical Ass'n v
Knebel, 563 F 2d 256, 261 (6th Cir. 1977);
Friendship v Michigan Brick, No. 80-1018 (6th
Cir, slip op. May 26, 1982). Prior to a dis-
cussion of defendant's motions, however, the
Court notes that H. Rollin Allen filed a
motion to dismiss jointly with the State Bar
of Michigan on November 17, 1981, four days
after the clerk's entry of default and only
26 days after being served with plaintiff's
complaint. The Court deems this a timely
17
responsive pleading and therefore will deny
plaintiff's motion for a default judgment
against Allen and will set aside the clerk's
entry of default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 (c).
l. Judges O'Nair and Cahalan's Motion to
Dismiss
Wayne County Circuit Court Judges O'Hair
and Cahalan have filed a joint motion to dis+-«
miss plaintiff's claims against them as fail-
ing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. The judges claim that they are pro-
tected from liability to plaintiff in this
action by the doctrine of judicial immunity.
The Court agrees and will dismiss plaintiff's
claims against these two defendants.
The doctrine of judicial immunity was
thoroughly discussed in the case of Stump v
Sparkman, 435 U. S. 349 (1978), in which the
Supreme Court held that a judge is immune
from liability for damages only when he has
acted in the "clear absence of all jurisdic-
tion." Id, at 357. More specifically, the
court held that:
18
"(T)he necessary inquiry in deter-
mining whether a defendant judge is
immune from suit is determining
whether at the time he took the
challenged action he had jurisdiction
over the subject matter before him.
- « « (T)he scope of the judge's
jurisdiction must be contrued broadly
when the issue is the immunity of the
judge. A judge will not be deprived
of immunity because the action he took
was in error, was done maliciously, or
was in excess of his authority; rather,
he will be subject to liability only
when he had acted in the "clear absence
of all jurisdiction."
Id. at 356-57 citing Bradley v Fisher, 13 Wall.
335, 351 (1872). A second consideration in
determining judicial immunity is whether the
judge was performing a "judicial act."
The court in Stump v Sparkman noted:
"The relevant cases demonstrate that the
factors determining whether an act by a
judge is a "judicial" one relate to the
nature of the act itself, i.e., whether
it is a function normally performed by a
judge, and to the expectations of the
parties, 1.e., whether they dealt with
the judge in his official capacity."
Id, at 362
Like the judge in Stump v Sparkman,
Judges O'Hair and Cahalan are judges of a
court of general jurisdiction of the State of
Michigan. Michigan Constitution, art. 6,
section 13, MCIA 600.601. Circuit courts in
19
Michigan have the power to find in contempt
of court parties to actions who disobey court
orders, MCLA 600.1701(5) and persons who
engage in the unauthorized practice of law,
MCLA 600,916. Furthermore, courts may assert
the contempt power to enforce civil remedies
obtained by parties. MCIA 600,1701(11). The
State Bar of Michigan had obtained an injunc-
tion in the previous state actions against
plaintiff from Judge O'Hair in 1973, order-
ing plaintiff to cease the unauthorized
practice of law, which was upheld by the Michi-
gan Supreme Court. In an attempt to enforce
this order, the State Bar applied to Judge
O'Hair for a show cause why plaintiff should
not be held in contempt of his 1973 order.
This procedure was in accordance with MCLA
600.1711 and MGCR 760, which provides as
follows:
"For contempts not committed in the
the immediate view and presence of the
court, upon a proper showing on ex parte
motion supported by affidavits, the
court shall either order the accused
y to show cause at some reasonable
ime, to be therein specified, why he
should not be punished for the alleged
misconduct, or shall issue a bench
warrant for the arrest of such party."
20
Issuing an order to show cause why a person
should not be held in contempt and a bench
warrant certainly are functions normally
performed by a judge. Plaintiff clearly
knew she was dealing with the defendant judges
in their official capacity. The Court there-
fore finds that in performing the acts plaint-
iff complains of, Judges O'Hair and Cahalan
were acting with jurisdiction and were engaged
in judicial acts. Therefore, they are absol-
utely immune from liability arising out of
plaintiff's claims and her claims against
them will be dismissed.
2. Judge Kuhn's Motion to Dismiss
Like Judges O'Hair and Cahalan , Judge
Kuhn is absolutely immune from liability
arising out of plaintiff's claims in this
case. MCLA 600.916 provides that any person
who engages in the unauthorized practice of
law is guilty of contempt of the circuit
court of the county in which the violation
occurred, Because of the testimony adduced
from parties appearing before him in divorce
21
cases in his court, Judge Kuhn suspected that
Cramer had violated this statute out of his
presence and rightfully, and with jurisdic-
tion under MCLA 600.1711 and MGCR 760,
issued the show causes and the subsequent
bench warrants at issue. Plaintiff's claims
against Judge Kuhn are without merit and will
be dismissed.
3. State Bar of Michigan and H. Rollin Allen's
Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment
Both the State Bar and Allen, its attor-
mey, Claim immunity from this civil rights
and false arrest action by virtue of the
doctrine of sovereign immunity provided by
the llth Amendment. Indeed, the Supreme
Court has held that suits for damages under
4O USC 1983 against a state agency are pro-
hibited by the llth Amendment. Alabama v
Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978), Quern v Jordan,
440 U.S. 332 (1979). Furthermore, there is
authority supporting the State Bar's conten-
tions that a state bar association as an
integral part of a state's juwiicial process
or a@s an agency of the state, cannot be sued
under 1983. See, e.g., Coopersmith v Supreme
Court, State of Colorado, 465 F 2d 993, 994
(10th Cir. 1972); Clark v State of Washington,
366 F 2a 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1966); Louis v
Supreme Court of Nevada, 490 F Supp 1174,
1180 (D. Nev. 1980); Silverton v Department
f Treasury, 449 F Supp 1004, 1006 (C.D. Cal.
1978). However the Court finds it unnecessary
to reach the issue of whether plaintiff may
maintain a 1983 suit against the State Bar of
Michigan. Assuming that defendants are amen-
able to suit under 1983, an examination of
plaintiff's complaint reveals that plaintiff
has failed to state a claim against either
the State Bar or Allen upon which relief can
be granted,
Allen and the State Bar of Michigan are
named in six paragraphs of plaintiff's comp-
laint. In paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4, plaintiff
asserts that “by the illegal conduct and
instigation" of Allen, Judges O'Hair and
Cahalan entered the illegal show cause orders
which resulted in her arrest. In paragraph
23
2.8 she claims that such acts were groundless
and malicious. In paragraphs 2.10, 2.11,
and 2.13, plaintiff claims that unidentified
acts of the State Far of Michigan and its
members were illegal, being in the absence of
jurisdiction and willful, wanton and malici-
ous.
Plaintiff's attack on the legality of
the show cause orders and bench warrant issued
by Judges O'Hair and Cahalan is based solely
on her contention that the judges acted with-
out jurisdiction. She makes no other claims
of deprivation of due process or of other
constitutional rights, e.g., inadequate notice
or lack of a fair hearing, As has already
been discussed at length, the judges and the
State Bar and its counsel Allen acted to
enforce an order of the court and a judgment
in defendant's favor as permitted by Michigan
law. Plaintiff has not shown that the show
cause orders and bench warrant sought by the
State Bar and Allen and issued by Judges
Cahalan and O'Hair were issued erroneously.
Plaintiff was arrested pursuant to a bench
24
warrant that she has not shown was invalid,
Therefore her claims of false arrest and false
imprisonment must fail.
Reading her complaint in its most favor-
able light, plaintiff's claim against Allen
is that he maliciously submitted groundless
applications for show cause orders to Judges
O'Hair and Cahalan which resulted in her
arrest. However, plaintiff has indicated that
she does not seek to pursue 4 Claim of malici-
ous prosecution or abuse of process in this
case, (Plaintiff's response to State Bar's
opposition to motion for default judgment at
17). The wrongful acts plaintiff ascribes to
Allen do not rise to the deprivation of con-
stitutional rights alleged in her complaint.
The Court finds that the facts alleged in
plaintiff's complaint fail to state a claim
against defendant Allen,
The Court likewise finds that plaintiff's
complaint fails to state a claim against the
State Bar of Michigan. Plaintiff merely
accuses the State Bar of engaging in illegal
25
acts and wanton and malicious wrongdoing with-
out identifying any specific misconduct. Such
conclusory allegations cannot survive a motion
to dismiss.
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, plaintiff's motion to
amend her petition for removal will be denied,
as will her motion for a preliminary injunction
and her motion for a default judgment. The
State Bar's motion for remand will be cenied
because the entire federal action will be dis-
missed for failing to state a claim. Remand
to Wayne County would be pointless, since
final judgment in State Bar of Michigan v
Cramer was entered long ago. Defendants State
Bar of Michigan, H. Rollin Allen, Judge O'Hair,
Judge Cahalan, and Judge Kuhn's motions to
dismiss will be granted. An appropriate order
shall be submitted.
/s/ Ralph M,. Freeman
United States
District Judge
Dated:
June 30, 1982
Filed July 1, 1982
26
APPENDIX E
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VIEGINIA CRAMER, Civil No.
Plaintiff, 81-73926
Ve
STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.,
FILED
Defendants. P 7/7/82
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANTS
JOHN D, O'HAIR AND WILLIAM LEO CAHALAN
JUDGES OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Being fully advised in the premises and
consistent with the Opinion rendered by this
Court on June 30, 1982,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
Motion of the Defendants John D. O'Hair and
William Leo Cahalan, Judges of the Third
Judicial Circuit, State of Michigan to
Dismiss is GRANTED; as to said Defendants
Plaintiff's action is therefore DISMISSED,
/s/ RALPH M, FREEMAN
U.S. DIST, COURT JUDGE
Dated:
July 6, 1982
Filed July 7, 1982
27
APFENDIX F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VIRGINIA CRAMER, Civil No.
Plaintiff, 81-73926
Ve
STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN, ET AL,
FILED
Defendants. : 7/12/82
JUDGMENT
This matter having come on for hearing
before the Court, the Court having had benefit
of argument of plaintiff, Virginia Cramer, and
a Memorandum Opinion dated June 30, 1982
having heretofore been issued;
NOW, THEREFORE,
IT IS ADJUDGED that:
FIRST: This action shall be, and the same
is dismissed, with prejudice, as to the STATE
BAR OF MICHIGAN and HM. ROLLIN ALLEN, for fail-
ure of Plaintiff to state a claim against said
Defendants.
SECOND: Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
Plaintiff's Petition for Removal is denied.
TIRD: Plaintiff's Motion for Prelimin-
28
ary Injunction is denied.
FOURTH: Plaintiff's Motion for Default
Judgment is denied,
FIFTH: Defendants, STATE BAR OF MICHI-
GAN and H. ROLLIN ALLEN shall be entitled to
recover costs from Plaintiff.
/s/ RALPH M, FREEMAN
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated:
July 9, 1982
FILED July 12, 1982
APPENDIX G
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VIRGINIA CRAMER, Civil No.
Plaintiff, 81-73926
V
STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN, ET AL,
FILED
Defendants. 7/20/82
ae
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANT,
RICHARD D, KUHN JUDGE OF TWE SIXTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (Oakzkand County)
Being fully advised in the premises and
consistent with the June 30, 1982, Opinion of
this Court:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant,
Richard D. Kuhn's, Judge of the Sixth Judicial
29
Circuit, Motion to Dismiss is granted and
Plaintiff's cause of action, therefore,
Dismissed as to said Defendant.
/8/ RALPH M, FREEMAN
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated:
July 20, 1982
FILED July 20, 1982
APPENDIX H
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION-DETROIT
VIRGINIA CRAMER, Civil No,
Plaintiff, 81-73926
Vo
STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN,
FILED
Defendant. y 10/12/82
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on
Plaintiff's motion for rehearing and to amend
and correct the memorandum opinion of June 30,
1982 and to vacate and set aside dismissals.
Rule 17(k) of the Local Rules of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan provides:
30
l. Time
Any motion to alter or amend a judg-
ment and any motion for rehearing or
reconsideration shall be served not
later than 10 days after entry of
such judgment or order.
2. No response and no hearing allowed
No response to the motion and no oral
argument thereon shall be allowed
unless the Court, after filing of the
motion, otherwise directs,
3. Grounds
Generally, and without restricting the
discretion of the Court, motions for
rehearing or reconsideration which
merely present the same issues ruled
upon by the court, either expressly or
by reasonable implication. will not be
granted. The movant must not only
demonstrate a palpable defect by which
the Court and the parties have been
misled but also show that a different
disposition of the case must result
from a correction thereof.
After reviewing the motion and "supplemental
matters to plaintiff's motion for rehearing,
amendment of opinion and vaction of dismissals"
filed by the plaintiff, the Court concludes
that plaintiff's motion merely presents the
same issues already raled upon by the Court.
The Court further concludes that plaintiff has
failed to show a palpable defect by which the
31
Court and the parties have been misled and
that a different dispostion of the case myst
result from & correction thereof.
Therefore, plaintiff's motion will be
denied. An appropriate order shall be sub-
mitted.
/s/ RALPH M, FREEMAN
United States
District Judge
Dated:
October 8, 1982
Filed: 10/12/82
APPENDIX I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION-DETROIT
VIRGINIA CRAMER, Civil No.
Plaintiff, 81-73926
Ve
STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN,
FILED
Defendant, 10/12/82
-
ORDER AMENDING MEMORANDUM
OPINION OF JUNE 30, 1982
At a session of said Court held in the
Federal Building in Detroit, Michigan
this 30th day of September, 1982
PRESENT: HONORABLE RALPH M, FREEMAN
United States District Judge
32
It is ORDERED that the memorandum opinion
in the above-styled case dated June 30, 1982
be and hereby is AMENDED by inserting the
word "not" before the word "immune" on Page
6, paragraph 3, line 3.
/s/ RALPH M, FREEMAN
United States
District Judge
Entered:
10/12/82
APPENDIX J
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION-DETROIT
VIRGINIA CRAMER, Civil No.
Plaintiff, 81-73926
Ve
STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN;
JOHN D, O'HAIR; FILED
WILLIAM LEO CAHALAN; 10/14/82
RICHARD D, KUHN;
H, ROLLIN ALLEN, et al.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING OF
ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF JULY 6, 1982 AS
TO DEFENDANTS JOHN D. O'HAIR AND
WILLIAM LEO CAHALAN, JUDGES OF THE
THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN
Being fully advised in the premises and
33
consistent with the Memorandum Opinion ren-
dered by this Court on October 8, 1982,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
the Motion of the Plaintiff for Rehearing of
the Order of Dismissal of July 6, 1982 as to
Defendants John D, O'Hair and William Leo
Cahalan, Judges of the Third Judicial Circuit,
State of Michigan is DENIED,
/3s/ Ralph M, Freeman
U. S. District Court Judge
Dated:
10/14/82
3h
APPENDIX K
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION-DETROIT
VIRGINIA CRAMER, Civ2l No.
Plaintiff, 81-73926
Ve
STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN;
JOHN D, O'HAIR; FILED
WILLIAM LEO CAHAIAN; 10/19/82
RICMARD D, KUHN;
H. ROLLIN ALLEN, et al,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REMEARING OF ORDER
OF DISMISSAL OF JULY 6, 1982 AS TO DEFEND-
ANTS THE STATE BAR OF MICMIGAN, A PUBLIC
BODY CORPORATE, H. ROLLIN ALLEN, ATTORNEY
FOR THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN, AND ALL
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE STATE BAR OF MICWIGAN
SIMILARLY SITUATED JOINTLY, SEVERALLY AND/
OR INDIVIDUALLY
Being fully advised in the premises and
consistent with the Memorandum Opinion ren-
dered by this Court on October 8, 1982,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
the Motion of the Plaintiff for Rehearing of
the Order of Dismissal of July 6, 1982 as to
Defendants The State Bar of Michigan, a Public
Body Corporate, H. Rollin Allen, Attorney for
the State Bar of Michigan, and All Other Mem-
bers of the State Bar of Michigan Similarly
35
Situated, Jointly, Severally and/or Individu-
ally, is DENIED.
/8/ Ralph M, Freeman
United States District
Court Judge
Dated:
10/19/82
APPENDIX L
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION-DETROIT
VIRGINIA CRAMER, Civil No.
Plaintiff, 81-73926
Vo
STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN;
JOHN D, O'HAIR:
WILLIAM LEO CAHALAN; FILED
RICHARD D, KUHN; 10/21/82
H. ROLLIN ALLEN, et al.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR REHEARING
Being fully advised in the premises and
consistent with the Memorandum Opinion ren-
dered by this Court on October 8, 1982;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff,
Virginia Cramer's, Motion for Rehearing and
to Amend and Correct the Opinion of June 30,
36
1982, and to Vacate and Set Aside Dismissals,
is denied as to Defendant, Richard D. Kuhn,
Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court of
Michigan. (Oakland County)
/s/ Ralph M, Freeman
U. S. District Court Judge
Dated:
10/21/82
APPENDIX M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION-DETROIT
VIRGINIA CRAMER NO, 81-73926
(defendant in State case)
Petiticier-Plaintiff, FILED _
vs Oct. 21, 1981
THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN, A
Public Body Corporate, and
JOHN D, O'HAIR, WILLIAM LEO
CAHAIAN, Judges of Third Judicial
Circuit, State of Michigan,
RICHARD D, KUHN, Judge of Sixth
Judicial Circuit, State of Micni-
gan, H, ROLLIN ALLEN, Attorney for
State Bar of Michigan, and All
Other Members of the State Bar of
Michigan similarly situated,
jointly, severally and/or individu-
ally,
Respondents-Defendants,
(continued next page)
37
THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN, STATE CASE
A Public Body Corporate, NO, 72-218-571-CZ
Wayne County,
Plaintiff 3rd Judicial
Vs Circuit
HAROLD GRAHAM, MICHAEL GORDON,
VIRGINIA CRAMER, Individually
and d/b/a Gordon-Graham & Cramer
Associates,
Defendants
a
NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF STATE CASE
TO: THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN, A Public Body
Corporate, JOHN D. O'HAIR, WILLIAM LEO
CAHALAN, RICHARD D, KUHN, H, ROLLIN
ALLEN, and All Others similarly situated.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-cap-
tioned Michigan State case is hereby removed
from the Michigan State courts, copy of
Petition for Removal attached hereto, having
been filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division=-Detroit, 231 W. Lafayette, Detroit,
Michigan (Federal Building) and that pursuant
to 28 USC 1446 (e) the Michigan State courts
shall proceed no further unless and until the
State case is remanded,
ae
/3/ Virginia Cramer
FILED: Defendant, Petitioner in propria
persona,
10/21/81 27314 Clairview
Dearborn Hts., Mich. 48127
(313) 278-7266
38
APPENDIX M_ (continued)
PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF CAUSE (State case No.
72-218-571-CZ) TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN-
SOUTHERN DIVISION, DETROIT
Now comes Virginia Cramer in propria per-
sona, Petitioner, and Petitions this Honorable
Court of the United States to remove State
case No. 72-218-571-CZ of the Wayne County
Circuit Court, State of Michigan, in which
said cause your petitioner was a Defendant,
as above-captioned, under which said (Wayne)
No. 72-218-571-CZ proceedings occurred on
June 12, 1981 and August 11, 1981, and prior-
ly, and as hereinafter shown, as follows:
1. Defendant-Virginia Cramer incorpor-
ates by reference herein her Complaint wherein
she enumerates the Federal questions involved
in this matter, including the Michigan Supreme
Court decision and/or opinions, Docket No.
56413, reported at 399 Mich 116-161, dated
December 30, 1976, and which was not remanded
for any further proceedings to the Wayne County
Circuit Court No. 72-218-571-CZ from which said
State case originates, and including but not
39
limited to specific denial of rights guaran-
teed by the United States Constitution, Amend-
ments Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth,
and denial of specific rights granted by the
laws of the United States, 42 USCA 1983, 1985,
1986 and 1988, and 28 USCA 1343.
2. Fetitioner-defendant Virginia Cramer
further alleges that the respondents herein-
named, by their initiation of recent and/or
current proceedings have acted illegally and
unlawfully, absent of due process, in violation
of the limitations of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constituion, without juris-
diction in specific matters as enumerated in
her complaint incorporated by refererce herein,
and in all probability many members of the
State Bar of Michigan will continue to act
illegally, unlawfully and/or wrongfully unless
the United States courts will grant relief to
your Petitioner-Virginia Cramer.
3. That this petition for removal is
founded on 28 USCA 1441 (a), (b), (c); 28 USCA
1443 (1) and (2) and 28 USCA 1446 (e), 28 USCA
1343; and 42 USCA 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988.
40
4, That the State case civil action No.
12-218-571-CZ was commenced in about Septem-
ber 1972 (about nine (9) years ago) in which
your Fetitioner-Virginia Cramer was then one
of the named-defendants therein, and therefrom
the State case was never remanded by the Michi-
gan Supreme Court, Docket No. 56413, reported
at 399 Mich 116-161, and the matter termin-
ated with an Order of Remittitur as a discon-
tinuance as of January 20, 1977.
5. That the attorney for the State Bar
of Michigan, Mr. H. Rollin Allen refuses to
cease and desist from illegally and wrongfully
initiating and pursuing unlawful proceedings
in the Wayne County Circuit Court No. 72-218-
571-CZ.
6. That the Wayne County Circuit Court
Judges, John D, O' air and William Leo Cahalan
have signed "Orders to Show Cause” initiated
by Mr. H. Rollin Allen, in the State case No.
72-218-571-CZ in the absence of jurisdiction
on February 19, 1981 and March 13, 1981.
7. That Wayne County Circuit Judge John
D. O'Hair issued a warrant for the arrest of
41
of Virginia Cramer on April 29, 1981, in the
absence of jurisdiction in the State case No,
72-218-571-CZ,
8. That on June 12, 1981, your petition-
er-Virginia Cramer was arrested by the Wayne
County Sheriff's deputies, in the State case
No. 72-218-571-Cz, in the abserce of jurisdic-
tion.
9. That on June 12, 1981, your petition-
er-Virginia Cramer was also illegally held in
custody by the Wayne County Sheriff's deputies
until she was illegally arrested by the Oak-
land County Sheriff's deputies on bench war-
rants issued by Oakland County Circuit Court
Judge Richard D, Kuhn, in the absence of juris-
diction,
10, That on June 12, 1981 (Friday), your
petitioner-Virginia Cramer was illegally de-
tained and transported to the Oakland County
Jail; she was finger-printed, deprived of her
property, dehumanized and jailed and shackled,
chained and handcuffed and brought before Judge
Richard D, Kuhn on Monday, June 15, 1981, in
the absence of jurisdiction, and then released
42
later on Monday, June 15, 1981.
1l. That on June 17, 1981, your petition-
er-Virginia Cramer was required to again be in
Judge O'Hair's courtroom on August 11, 1981,
in the absence of jurisdiction in the Wayne
County Circuit Court No. 72-218-571-CZ.
12. That the said Judge John D. O'Hair
(Wayne County Circuit Court) is bent upon a
course of enforcing a so-called "Judgment for
Plaintiff and Injunctive Order" which he
issued on behalf of the State Bar of Michigan
on January 5, 1973, but which orders nothing.
(See Exhibit A, attached hereto.)
13. That the Michigan State courts, at
all levels, in this matter, have denied your
Petitioner-Virginia Cramer (defendant in No.
72-218-571-CZ) the equal protection of the laws
in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and
Fourteenth Anendments to the United States
Constitution, and in deprivation of redress of
grievances and deprivation of civil rights, in
deprivation of rights under the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution, under color
of authority of the State of Michigan, in
43
deprivation of equal protection of the laws,
and in deprivation of due process,
14. That the said Wayne County Circuit
Court Judge John D. O'Hair orally ordered on
August 11, 1981, that your Petitioner-Virginia
Cramer shall be jailed for thirty (30) days
forthwith, in the absence of jurisdiction.
15. That your Petitioner-Virginia Cramer
has reason to believe that said Judge John D,
O'Hair will continue to act illegally and
cause to be enforced his oral pronouncement
of incarcerating your Petitioner-Virginia
Cramer for thirty (30) days, and in the absence
of jurisdiction in State case No. 72-218-571-
CZ.
16. That pursuant to 28 USCA 1446 (e) che
Michigan State courts shall proceed no further
unless and until the case is remanded,
WHEREFORE Petitioner-Virginia Cramer prays
that this Honorable Court remove the State
case to the United Sta**s District Court.
/s/ Virginia Cramer
FILED (Alleged Defendant )
w/ Affidavit Petitioner in propria
Oct. 21, 1981 persona
Ky
A PPENDIX N
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF. MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN .DIVISION-DETROIT
VIRGINIA CRAMER, | ACTION NO,
Petitioner-plaintiff, 81-73926
vs
THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN, FILED
A Public Body Corporate (not 10/21/81
publicly owned) and JOHN D,
O'HAIR, WILLIAM LEO CAHAIAN,
Judges of Third Judicial
Circuit, State of Michigan,
RICHARD D, KUHN, Judge of
Sixth Judicial Circuit, State
of Michigan, H. Rollin Allen,
attorney for State Bar of
Michigan, and All Other Members
of the State Bar of Michigan
Similarly situated, jointly,
severally and/or individually,
Defendants-Respondents,.
rs
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DAMAGES FOR FALSE
ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, FOR
INJURIES TO PERSON, PROPERTY AND
BUSINESS, AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
COMES NOW Petitioner-Plaintiff Virginia
Cramer in propria persona (alleged Defendant in
removed State case) and complains against the
above-named defendants in causes of action aris-
ing under the United States Constitution and
laws of the United States by statutory provi-
45
sions, pursuant to the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and 42 USCA 1983, 1985,
1986, 1988; founded on 28 USCA 1343, 28 USCA
1443, 28 USCA 1446, among other statutory
provisions, and she says as follows:
PREAMBLE
1. That in summary, the background of the
State case is set forth, in part, in State Bar
v Cramer, 399 Mich 116-161 involving a Do-it-
yourself plan; and said case was not remanded
to any other jurisdiction, dated December 30,
1976.
2. That in the interim, during the lapse
of time from 1972 through the current instances
in 1981, your Petitioner-Plaintiff-Virginia
Cramer has been subjected to various and numer-
ous experiences of scattered flashes of viol-
ence, of dehumanizing, humiliation, scape-
goating, hasseling, harassing, victimizing,
threatened acts, picked-on by thug-politics,
jailed five or six times, strangled and mangled
in a public elevator, harassed by telephone
calls all hours of day and night, subjected to
46
foul and vulgar language or no-voice-breath-
ing by callers on the telephone all hours of
night, shot-gun shells on "Cramer's" front
lawn of residence, intimidations with height-
ened tensions, ridiculed, demeaned, arrested
and threatened with arrest and jailings, by
members of the legal-mafia which is the secret
part of the organization known as the State
Bar of Michigan and operating within the State
Bar of Michigan and contrary to law, and
Plaintiff-Virginia Cramer complains and for her
causes of action says as follows:
I, JURISDICTION
1.1 Jurisdiction is founded under 42 USCA 1983,
1985, 1986, 1988; 28 USCA 1343, et seq., depri-
vation of civil rights under color of law, in
violation of First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Con-
stitution. That your federal Plaintiff-Vir-
ginia Cramer is a life-long resident of the
State of Michigan.
1.2 That the defendant-State Bar of Michigan
is a public body corporate within the State of
47
Michigan, with offices located in Lansing,
Michigan and Detroit, Michigan,
1.3 That the Defendant-Judge John D. O'Hair
is a member of the State Bar of Michigan and is
a Judge of the State of Michigan, Third Judicial
Circuit (Wayne County Circuit Court) and at all
times pertinent hereto.
1.4. That the Defendant-Judge William Leo Cahal-
an is a member of the State Bar of Michigan and
is a Judge of the State of Michigan, Third
Judicial Circuit (Wayne County Circuit Court)
and pertinent hereto.
1.5 That the Defendant Richard D. Kuhn is a
member of the State Bar of Michigan and is a
Judge of the State of Michigan, Sixth Judicial
Circuit (Oakland County Circuit Court) amd
similarly pertirent hereto,
1.6 That the Defendant H. Rollin Allen is a
member of the State Bar of Michigan and holds
himself out as attorney for the State Bar of
Michigan, and similarly pertinent hereto.
48
II, FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT
2.1 That the said Judge John D. O'Hair caused
the arrest and imprisonment of Plaintiff-
Virginia Cramer numerous and various times
under the guise of "Judgment and Injunctive
Order" dated January 5, 1973, and which said
Injunctive Order actually orders nothing.
(See Exhibit A, attached herein. )
2.2 That further on June 12, 19ci, Defendant-
Judge John D, O'Hair caused the arrest, deten-
tion, finger-printing and booking of Plaintiff-
Virginia Cramer and subjected her to illegal
and wrongful acts and impositions in depriva-
tion of her civil rights and constitutional
rights, in the absence of jurisdiction in Wayne
Circuit Court proceedings under Case No. 72-
218-571-CZ and which said case was never re-
inanded from or by the Michigan Supreme Court,
Docket No. 56413, reported at: 399 Mich 116-
161, State Bar vs Cramer.
2.3 That by’the illegal conduct and instiga-
tion of Defendant H. Rollin Allen, the Defend-
ant-Judge John D. O'Hair entered an illegal
4g
"Order to Show Cause" against Virginia Cramer
on February 19, 1981. (sic, February 17, 1981)
2.4 That by the illegal conduct and instiga-
tion of Defendant H. Rollin Allen, the Defend-
ant-Judge William Leo Cahalan entered an
illegal "Order to Show Cause” against Virginia
Cramer on March 13, 1981.
2.5 That by the Illegal conduct of Defendant-
Judge John D. O'Hair your federal Plaintiff-
Virginia Cramer was arrested and detained and
illegally taken into custody and held by the
Wayne County Sheriff's deputies, and where the
Wayne Circuit Court Judge John D, O'Hair was
without jurisdiction, on June 12, 1981.
2.6 That by the illegal conduct of Defendant-
Judge John D. O'Hair on June 12, 1981, your
federal Plaintiff-Virginia Cramer was again
illegally and falsely arrested, taken into
custody, detained and deprived of her civil
rights and freedom, in violation of the Four-
teenth Amendment to the United States Consti-
tution, transported into Oakland County by
50
Oakland County Sheriff's deputies, and booked,
fingerprinted, jailed, detained, and falsely
imprisoned on June 12, 13, 14 and 15, 1981, in
the Oakland County Jail under the guise of
bench warrants illegally issued by Defendant-
Judge Richard D. Kuhn.
2.7 That by the illegal acts of Defendant-
Judge Richard D. Kuhn, in the absence of juris-
diction, said bench warrants were issued in
the Oakland County Circuit Court on/or about
April 9, 1975 and July 24, 1975, instigated
illegally and without jurisdiction by Defend-
ant-Judge Richard D, Kuhn,
2.8 That such illegal acts of Defendant-Judge
John D, O'Hair instigated by attorney H. Rollin
Allen were groundless and malicious and causing
and/or accompanied by arrest and seizure of the
person, your federal Plaintiff-Virginia Cramer
herein.
2.9 That such illegal acts of Defendant-Judge
Richard D. Kuhn were groundless and malicious
and causing and/or accompanied by false arrest
51
and seizure and false imprisonment of the
person, your federal Plaintiff-Virginia Cramer
herein.
2.10 +hat such illegal acts in the absence of
jurisdiction by the members of the State Bar
of Michigan, as herein named, have caused
injury to your federal Plaintiff-Virginia
Cramer's business and well being and entails
unusual hardship and loss of reputation and
detriment to her health, constituting special
damages and injuries as suffered by Plaintiff-
Virginia Cramer,
2.11 That the illegal, willful, wanton and
malicious acts and wrongdoings of the members
of the State Bar of Michigan are inflicted
upon your federal Plaintiff-Virginia Cramer in
the absence of probable cause,
2.12 That the illegal, willful, wanton and
malicious acts and wrongdoings of Defendant-
Judge Richard D. Kuhn, & member of the State
Bar of Michigan, were effected and executed
52
in the absence of jurisdiction and without
probable cause.
2.13 That all of the illegal, willful, wanton
and malicious acts and wrongdoings of the
members of the State Bar of Michigan have been
committed and effected on behalf of themselves
and in the absence of a valid complaining
witness or real party in interest.
2.14 That under date of February 24, 1976
your federal Plaintiff-Virginia Cramer wrote
to Judge Richard D,. Kuhn, Sheriff Johannes
Spreen and Prosecutor Brooks Paterson, all
Oakland County officials and requested that
the invalid bench warrants pending against
Virginia Cramer be recalled, and however, her
request was obviously ignored, (See Exhibit
B, attached hereto.)
2.15 That the said invalid bench warrants
issued by Defendant-Judge Richard D,. Kuhn, in
the absence of jurisdiction, remained as a
lien on your federal Plaintiff-Virginia Cramer's
vehicle operating license from April 9, 1975
53
through and including June 12, 1981, the day
of illegal arrest. |
2.16 That during the said false imprisonment
on said June 12, 13, 14 and 15, 1981, your
federal Plaintiff-Virginia Cramer suffered
from nausea and headaches, was rudely treated
and unreasonably hassled by jail-attendants
and deprived of medical attention and personal
needs and while required to sleep on the floor
because of her illness while illegally and
falsely imprisoned,
2.17 That your federal Plaintiff-Virginia
Cramer was subjected to abuse, mental and
physical torment, mental humiliation, in the
absence of any charges against her, in the
absence of a complaining witness, in the ab-
sence of issuance of summons, in the absence
of probable cause, and in the absence of any
cause of action in the Oakland County Circuit
Court, but by the willful and wanton, malici-
ous meddling of Defendant-Judge Richard D,
Kuhn, in the absence of jurisdiction, and
without any justification.
54
2.18 That your federal Plaintiff-Virginia
Cramer has never submitted voluntarily to the
jurisdiction of the Oakland County Circtit
Court.
2.19 That during the dates of June 12, 13,
14 and 15, 1981, Plaintiff-Virginia Cramer was
fingerprinted, treated like a criminal, mugged,
chained, shackled and hendcuffed and suffered
severe physical discomfort, mental humiliation
and anguish; that the memory of said false
arrest and false imprisonment has caused her
loss of sleep, extreme nervousness and mental
distress,
III, CAUSE OF ACTION AND FEDERAL INTERVENTION
3.1 That on October 6, 1981, your federal
Plaintiff-Virginia Cramer was again threatened
with jailing for thirty (30) days and whereby
it appears to be contemplated that Defendant-
Judge John D. O'Hair is to enforce an injunc-
tive order which orders nothing, (See Exhibit
A, and see Exhibit D, attached hereto.)
3.2 That Exhibit D, attached hereto, is
instigated by attorney H. Rollin Allen and is
55
& proposed Judgment to jail Virginia Cramer
for thirty (30) days commencing October 30,
1981, to enforce the prior so-called "injunc-
tive order" of January 5, 1973, which actually
orders nothing. (See Exhibit A, attached
hereto. )
3.3 That your federal Plaintiff-Virginia
Cramer has ot suhmitted to the jurisdiction
of the Wayne County Circuit Court; that the
Wayne County Circuit Court is without juris-
diction in the absence of a remand in 399 Mich
116, Docket No. $6413, in the Michigan Supreme
Court.
3.4 That the Wayne County Circuit Court was
without jurisdiction on March 13, 1981, to
issue said “Order to Show Cause" in the State
case No. 72-218-571-CZ; that the Wayne County
Circuit Court was without jurisdiction on
April 29, 1981, to issue a bench warrant for
the arrest of Virginia Cramer,
3.5 That the Wayne County Circuit Court was
without jurisdiction on June 12, 1981 to arrest
56
and detain and book Virginia Cramer; that the
Oakland County Circuit Court was without juris-
diction to arrest, detain, book, and imprison
said Virginia Cramer.
3.6 That some of the members of the Scate Bar
of Michigan will continue and persist in act-
ing illegally unless they are restrained and
enjoined and pay the consequences for acting
illegally.
3.7 That 42 USCA 1983 provides as follows:
"Every person who, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,
or usage, of any State or Territory,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof
to the deprivation of any rights, privil-
eges, or immunities secured by the Con-
stitution and laws, shall be liable to
the party injured in an action at law,
suit in equity, or other proper proceed-
ing for redress,"
3.8 That 42 USCA 1985, et seq., provides for
recovery of damages occasioned by injury or
deprivation, against any one or more of the
conspirators in conspiracy to interfere with
civil rights, obstructing, or defeating, in
any manner, the due course of justice, with
57
intent to deny the equal protection of the
laws, or to injure any citizen or his property
for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to en-
force the right of any person to the equal
protection of the laws,
3.9 That 28 USCA 1443 provides for removal
of civil rights cases, civil actions, to the
district court of the United States, commenced
in a State court where it is pending:
"(1) Against any person who is denied or
cannot enforce in the court of such State
&@ right under any law providing for the
equal civil rights of citizens of the
United States, * * * ,
"(2) For any act under color of authority
derived from any law providing for equal
rights, or for refusing to do any act on
the ground that it would be inconsistent
with such law."
3.10 That 28 USCA 13243, provides for original
jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by
law to be commenced by any person:
"(1) To recover damages for injury to
his person or property, or because of
the deprivation of any right or privilege
of a citizen of the United States, by any
act done in furtherance of any conspiracy
mentioned in Section 1985 of Title 42;
* * * for redress of deprivation, under
color of any State law, statute, ordinance
58
regulation, custom or usage, of any right,
privilege or immunity secured by the
Constitution of the United States or by
any Act ot Congress providing for equal
rights of citizens or of all persons
ee rls
3.11 That the Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution prohibits illegal searches
and seizures; prohibits issuance of warrants
without probable cause, together with Michigan
Constitution of 1963, Article I, Section ll,
prohibiting illegal arrests and false arrests
and imprisonments.
IV, RELIEF
4,1 That this Honorable court has jurisdic-
tion to issue an immediate "Order to Show
Cause With Temporary Enjoining Order" and
pending a proper hearing in the matter, and
that your federal Plaintiff-Virginia Cramer
requests:
A. That the members of the State Bar of
Michigan, as applied, the said Defendants,
their agents, representatives, employees and
attorneys, be required to show cause before
this United States District Court why they
should not be preliminarily and permanently
59
restrained and enjoined from:
l. Harassing, hasseling, annoying,
molesting and/or otherwise interferring and/or
meddling with the trade and business of per-
sons exercising their constitutional right of
self-help and self-representation;
2. Denying and/or preventing access to
information, forms, instructions, documents,
typewriting assistance, filing assistance and
services to individuals seeking to exercise
their guaranteed constitutional right of self-
representation in the courts of the State of
Michigan;
3. Initiating or attempting to initiate
and/or assisting to initiate any proceedings
against Plaintiff-Virginia Cramer in the
absence of a complaining witness, in the ab-
sence of probable cause, and/or in the absence
of jurisdiction and/or in the absence of real
party in interest;
4, Harassing, hasseling, annoying, or
molesting any members of the general public
utilizing services of the trade and business
of Virginia Cramer, Plaintiff herein;
60
5. Engaging and/or assisting in engag-
ing in @ plot to prevent, interfere with,
restrict or preclude the proper effective-
ness in the aid of administration of justice;
6. Engaging and/or assisting in engaging
in a plot and/or conspiracy against or inter-
ferring with the trade or business of enabling
persons of the general public to exercise self-
representation;
7. Engaging in other condu@ or miscon-
duct contrary to the primary best interests
and protection of the general public with
regard to self-h?tlp and self-representation
and services therefor;
8. Enforcing or attempting to enforce a
judgment or Order which orders nothing.
4,2 That your federal Plaintiff-Virginia
Cramer be issued a preliminary and/or perman-
ent Judgment and Injunctive Order against the
State Bar of Michigan and its applicable mem-
bers as h. in prayed for,
4,3 That a jury trial be had as to all issues
61
80 triable by jury for the general speciai,
exemplary and punitive damages as warranted
and justified in this cause of action and that
your federal Plaintiff-Virginia Cramer be
awarded the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOL-
LARS ($100,000.00) for damages to be assessed
against the State Bar of Michigan and its mem-
bers as applicable.
WHEREFORE your federal Plaintiff prays
that this Honorable court:
A. Issue an immediate "Order to Show Cause
as prayed in Plaintiff's motion suomitted
hereto.
B. Grant such other and further relief as
may be consistent with the good conscience of
the Court.
C. Assess defendants with costs and danm-
ages as applicable and award such damages and/
or guch other relief to Plaintiff upon a pro-
per hearing and trial of the cause, (Jury
trial demanded. )
F TILED /s/ VIRGINIA CRAMER, Plaintiff
10/21/81 In Pro Per
w/Affidavit 27314 Clairview
w/Summons issued Dearborn Hts., Mich 48127
and All Defendants (313) 278-7266
personally served.
62
APPENDIX 0
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION-DETROIT
VIRGINIA CRAMER, NO. 81 73926
Petitioner-Plaintiff
vs Dated:
1/8/82
STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN;
et al
FILED
ee 1/15/82
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR REMOVAL
OF STATE CASE (WCCC 72-218-571-CZ)
AFFIDAVIT
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND PETITION
FOR REMOVAL
TO: THE ABOVE=-NAMED STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN and
its alleged attorney-H. Rollin Allen,
1565 City National Bank Bldg.,
Detroit, Michigan 48226
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the hearing
of the motion to remand said cause, alleged
Defendant Virginia Cramer will ask leave of
court to amend her petition for removal to
incorporate her denials of the allegations in
Plaintiff-State Bar of Michigan's motions for
Order to Show Cause, and further that the State
court lacked jurisdiction to issue such Orders
to Show Cause and further, lacked jurisdiction
action is involved, as more fully shown in the
63
in the State court to issue warrants for the
arrest of alleged Defendant-Virginia Cramer
and/or in the alternative, and more specific-
ally, that grounds for removal are that State
attached copies of Wayne County Circuit Court
and Michigan appellate courts!' documents,
pertinent and listed herein as follows:
1. Docket No. 56412, Michigan Supreme Court
DENIED leave to appeal prior to decision by
the Court of Appeals; Ordered to admit
defendant-Cramer to bail pending determination
of her appeal before the Court of Appeals or
until further order of the Court of Appeals.
Dated: November 6, 1974.
2. Docket No. 21921, Michigan Court of Appeals
(L.C. 72-218-571-CZ) granting plaintiff-appel-
lee's motion to restrain appellant from violat-
ing the lower court injunction, dated December
3, 1974. No opposition filed.
3. Docket No. 21921, Michigan Court of Appeals
(Wayne County Circuit Court #72-218-571-CZ,
dated May 29, 1975:
(Previously ordered remanded to Wayne
County Circuit Judge John D. O'Hair for
evidentiary hearing; hearing held on
March 31, 1975, Wayne Circuit Court)
Ordered by Michigan Court of Appeals to trans-
mit evidentiary matters to Michigan Supreme
Court.
4, Docket No. 56413, Michigan Supreme Court
GRANTED reconsideration of application for
leave to appeal prior to decision of Court of
Appeals in the matter of State Bar of Michigan
v Virginia Cramer, Court of Appeals No. 21921,
19075 and 16168 (effecting Wayne County Circuit
Court #72-218-571-CZ, dated June 5, 1975.)
5. See, decision and opinion of Michigan Sup-
reme Court, dated December 30, 1976, reported
at 399 Mich 116-161. NOT REMANDED to any other
jurisdiction. Docket No. 56413.
6. Remittitur of Michigan Supreme Court,
Docket No. 56413, entered December 30, 1976.
NOT REMANDED to any other jurisdiction.
65
7. Wayne County Circuit Court, No. 72-218-
571-CZ, Motion for Entry of an Order to Show
Cause (ex parte) dated February 19, 1981,
filed by H. Rollin Allen.
8, Wayne County Circuit Court, No. 72-218-571-
CZ, ex parte Order to Show cause, signed by
Judge John D, O'Hair, February 19, 1981.
9. Wayne County Circuit Court, No. 72-218-571-
CZ, ex parte Motion for Entry of an Order to
Show Cause and Order to Show Cause, filed and
presented by H. Rollin Allen; ex parte Order
to Show Cause signed by Judge William Leo
Cahalan, March 13, 1981.
10. Copy of Wayne County Circuit Court ex parte
"Order to Show Cause" entered on March 13, 1981,
stamped with name of Judge John D,. O'Hair (same
Order as the Original ex parte order signed by
Judge William Leo Cahalan).
11. Wayne County Circuit Court, No. 72-218-571-
CZ, Warrant for the arrest of Virginia Cramer,
Signed by Judge John D. O'Hair on April 29,
1981.
66
le. Transcript of Wayne Circuit Court, No. 72-
218-571-CZ, proceedings had before Judge John
D. O'Hair, June 5, 1981.
13. Wayne County Circuit Court, No. 72-218-571-
CZ, “Order for Bond" signed by Judge John D.
O'Hair, June 5, 1981.
14. Transcript of Wayne County Circuit Court,
No. 72-218-571-CZ, proceedings had before Judge
John D. O'Hair, Jure 12, 1981, Virginia Cramer
arrested,
15. Transcript of Wayne County Circuit Court,
No. 72-218-571-CZ, proceedings had before
Judge John D. O'Hair, June 17, 1981.
16. No. 72-218-571-CZ, Amended Motion for
Entry of an Order to Show Cause, filed by H.
Rollin Allen (date unknown). No response filed
by "Cramer",
17. Praecipe, Motion to Quash Service of
Process, Special and Limited Appearance in
Propria Persona, Notice to the Plaintiffs
(retroactive to December 30, 1976), Brief in
67
Support of Motion to Quash Service, Notice of
Hearing and Proof of Service, filed, July 13,
1981, styled as follows:
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY
OF WAYNE
THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN, Civil Action
& Public Body Corporate, and
Wayne Circuit Court Judge 72-218-571-CZ
John D, O'Hair, Wayne Circuit
Court Judge William Leo Cahalan,
H. Rollin Allen, Members of the
State Bar of Michigan, et al,
Plaintiffs
vs
VIRGINIA CRAMER (no case pending
in Wayne Circuit Court No. 72-
218-571-CZ, without a remand
by the Michigan Supreme Court)
(See attached copies, herein) Original Record
18, Letter from Judge John D, O'Hair, dated
July 21, 1981. "Motion to Quash Service of
Process" denied.
19. Wayne County Circuit Court, No. 72-218-
571-CZ, "Order for Return of $1,000.00 cash
bond deposited by Defendant" filed and signed
by Judge John D. O'Hair, August 11, 1981.
68
20. Proposed "Judgment" submitted for entry
in the Wayne County Circuit Court, No. 72-218-
571-CZ, for signature of Judge John D. O'Hair,
ordering "Cramer" to pay monies to witness-
William W. Neville who sought no such relief
from the Wayne County Circuit Court; further,
if "Cramer" fails to pay said monies she is
to be jailed in the Wayne County Jail. Also,
see Letter by H. Rollin Allen, dated October
5, 1981.
21. See, affidavit of William W. Neville,
filed in No. 81-73926, November 13, 1981,
confirming that he sought no monies from
"Cramer" and sought no relief from the Wayne
County Circuit Court, and that H. Rollin Allen
was unauthorized to represent William W,
Neville-witness,
22. Removal of State case, filed October 2l,
1981, together with New Complaint with some
new and different parties, Summons issued,
All new federal-def*#ndants personally served,
69
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF "REMOVAL"
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Michigan Supreme Court decided the
matter of State Bar v Cramer on December 30,
1976 and issued a remittitur discontinuing
the litigation on January 20, 1977. There was
no remand to any other jurisdiction. This
case is reported at 399 Mich 116-161.
On/for about February 17 or 19, 1981,
attorney H,. Rollin Allen on behalf of the
State Bar of Michigan filed an ex parte
motion for order to show cause in the Wayne
County Circuit Court, No, 72-218-571-CZ (the
same original case which was terminated, as
above, in the Michigan Supreme Court by remit-
titur (without any remand) on January 20, 1977)
An ex parte "Order to Show Cause" against
Virginia Cramer was forthwith issued by (Wayne)
Judge John D, O'Hair, but Virginia Cramer wa:
not served and she was not evading service;
she had no knowledge of the ex parte motion
initiated by Mr. H. Rollin Allen.
On/for about March 13, 1981, attorney H.
70
Rollin Allen again filed an ex parte motion
for order to show cause against Virginia
Cramer and forthwith on March 13, 1981, an
ex parte "Order to Show Cause" was issued and
signed by (Wayne) Judge William Leo Cahalan,
case No. 72-218-571-CZ (terminated in the
Michigan Supreme Court on January 20, 1977,
as above-shown), The alleged "Defendant-
Cramer" was served with the second ex parte
"Order to Show Cause" issued March 13, 1981,
and attempted to reach Mr. H. Rollin Allen
numerous times but he failed and neglected to
respond to "Cramer's" messages, "Cramer" did
not appear in the Wayne Circuit Court on
April 24, 1981, the date set for"showing
cause" of whatever. On April 29, 1981,
(Wayne) Judge John D. O'Hair issued a warrant
for the arrest of Virginia Cramer, Virginia
Cramer was arrested on June 12, 1981.
The ex parte "Order to Show Cause" and
an Amended motion for Order to Show Cause are
still pending in the Wayne County Circuit
Court, No. 72-218-571-CZ. Jurisdiction in
the Wayne County Circuit Court is not waived.
71
Upon being arrested by the Wayne County
Sheriff's office on June 12, 1981 "Cramer" was
required to post $1,000.00 cash bond for her
release, or be jailed. "Cramer" posted said
bond, but she was not released; she was held
in custody and detained for several hours and
then transferred into the custody of the Oak-
land County Sheriff's deputies (in Wayne
County), and then, she was transported from
the Wayne County Jail by the Oakland County
Sheriff's deputies to the Oakland County Jail,
where she was ircarcerated on June 12, 13, 14
and 15, 1981, on two (2) warrants for her
arrest, issued by Oakland County Circuit Court
Judge Richard D. Kuhn, Cases No, 74-114277 and
75-121954,.
"Cramer" was never served with process as
to the three (3) warrants (Wayne) No. 72-218-
571-CZ; (Oakland) 74-114277 and 75-121954.
No summons was issued; no complaints and no
amended allegations were made against Cramer,
The "removal" action of the State case
pending in the Wayne County Circuit Court
together with "Cramer's" new complaint filed
72
in the federal district court adds the Judges
Jonn D, O'Hair, William Leo Cahalan and Rich-
ard D. Kuhn as well as adding H. Rollin Allen,
jointly, severally and/or individually.
The Wayne County Circuit Court is without
jurisdiction and had no power to adjudicate at
all.
The Oakland County Circuit Court is with-
out jurisdiction and had no power to adjudicate
at all.
The courts without jurisdiction also have
no jurisdiction to make error, Where the State
circuit courts have no jurisdiction the State
appellate courts acquire no jurisdiction,
Petitioner-Cramer's only remedy is in
the federal court, and removal of the State
matter (pending) and supplemental proceedings
that, in fact, involve independent controversy
with new and different parties may be removed
into the federal court.
Where removal of a State case is purely
statutory, the Federal court has a wide dis-
cretionary area in which to permit the removal.
73
The distinctions may be drawn in actions
in which the only ground for removal is the
defense that the "alleged defendant" could not
constitutionally be subject to the process of
the courts of the State. In the State cases
(above-shown) there are no complaining wit-
nesses against tne said Virginia Cramer. No
Summons was issued. No complaints were filed.
There was no amended complaint adding Virginia
Cramer to any suit. No service of process
was made upon Virginia Cramer. The basis of
jurisdiction contemplated by the provisions
of state statutes and Michigan General Court
Rules is binding upon the defendant in personam
only if said defendant has received notice by
service of process as provided in MGCR 1963,
1 1 thro 1 - None of these require-
ments for a binding jurisdiction upon "defend-
ant" Cramer in personam were met or even
attempted.
Further, another distinction may be drawn
where these supplemental proceedings of false
arrest and false imprisonment, among other
causes of action, involve independent contro-
74
versies with the adding of new and different
parties. Buford & Co. v Strother & Conklin,
CCD Iowa 1881, 10 F 406, 407.
The addition of new and different parties
and supplemental causes of action constitute
"state action" involvements and an undue
exertion of power prohibitive and violative
of the limitations provisions of the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution and where
also the due process provisions were ruthlessly
violated,
As to the ex parte "Order to Show Cause"
issued in the Wayne County Circuit Court
(pending) in No. 72-218-571-CZ, an individual
cannot be personally bound by processes in a
court which had no jurisdiction over him,
Hadad v Lewis (DC 1974) 382 F Supp 1365. A
court without jurisdiction has no power to
adjudicate at all. Buczkowski v Buczkowski
(1958) 351 Mich 216, 88 NW 2d 416,
In re Henry (an attorney), (1971) 32 Mich
App 654, 189 NW 2d 96, the court held, "The
compelling reason a court may not invoke
75
summary proceedings and punish for contempt
ore who fails to appear in court when required
is that the reasons for the absence of such
person may not be within the personal knowledge
of the judge. Another important reason is that
under such circumstances immediate punishment
is not absolutely essential to preserve the
power and dignity of the court nor to prevent
then and there an abuse of the court's orders.
Immediate punishment is not necessary to quell
a disturbance, nor to prevent then and there
an instant obstruction or interference with
the orderly administration of justice, It is
only when such narrow instances have occurred
and even then only under the very eye and face
of the Court that the due process of law re-
quirements must yield so as to permit the
court to invoke its summary contempt powers."
(See MGCR 908, Attorneys and counselors
are officers of the courts of this State and
as such are subject to the summary jurisdic-
tion of such courts.)
"Cramer" is not an attorney or counselor.
76
"In all other cases due process of law
requires that one enarase with contempt
be advised of the charges against him,
be afforded a hearing on those charges,
and thereby have a reasonable opportunity
to meet the charges by defense or explan-
ation." In re Henry, supra.
Further, the grounds for "removal", i.e.,
False Arrest and False Imprisonment (42 USCA
1983, et seq., civil rights and "State action",
among others) inhere in Petitioner-plaintiff-
Cramer's claim, rather than in a defense or
counterclaim,
WHEREFORE Petitioner-plaint iff-Cramer
prays that this Honorable federal court will
permit the "removal" of the State case No. 72-
218-571-CZ (Wayne Circuit Court).
/s/ Virginia Cramer, In Pro Per
Petitioner-plaintiff and
alleged defendant in the
State case,
Dated:
Jan. 8, 1982
77
A PFENDIX P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION-DETROIT
| NO. 81 73926
RETURN ON SERVICE OF WRIT FIED 11/6/81
I hereby certify and return, that on the
2lst day of October 1981, I received this
Summons and served it together with the comp-
laint herein as follows:
State of Michigan
County of Wayne ss.
SHERIFF'S RETURN
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY AND RETURN, that on
the 22nd day of October A.D. 1981, at Detroit,
in said County, I served a true copy of
SUMMONS , COMPLAINT, MOTION, NOTICE OF REMOVAL
upon H. Rollin Allen the defendant therein
named, by then and there delivering to said
defendant a true copy of the said documents.
WILLIAM LUCAS, Sheriff of
Wayne County
By /s/ Hezzie Morgan, Jr.
Dated: Deputy Sheriff
10/26/81
78
APPENDIX Q
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION-DETROIT
VIRGINIA CRAMER,
NO, 81-73926
Petitioner-Plaintiff,
Vs
THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN;
JOHN D. O'HAIR; wWcLLIAM LEO
CAHALAN; H. ROLLIN ALLEN;
et al.
FILED
ese slates 11/13/81
REQUEST FOR CIERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT
(of Defendant-H, Rollin Allen,
individually)
ENTRY OF DEFAULT
It appearing that the defendant H. Rollin
Allen, individually, is in default for failure
to plead or other wise defend as required by
law as to the Complaint filed on October 21,
1981, and served on said Defendant H. Rollin
Allen on October 22, 1981;
Default is hereby entered as against the
said Defendant H. Rollin Allen, individually,
this 13th day of November, 1981.
F ILED /s/ SARA F, FISCHER, Clerk
11/13/81
79
APPENDIX Q (continued) NO. 81 73926
TO: THE CLERK, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan -
Southern Division - Main floor -
Federal Building, Detroit, Michigan
Please enter the default of Defendant
H, Rollin Allen, individually, herein, pursu-
ant to Rule 55 (a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for his failure to plead or
otherwise defend as to the Complaint served
upon him on October 22, 1981 as appears from
the attached affidavit.
/s/ Virginia Cramer
Dated: Plaintiff-petitioner
11/13/81 In Pro Per
AFFIDAVIT OF FAILURE TO PLEAD OR 81-73926
OTHERWISE DEFEND IN SUPPORT OF
APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
(Defendant-H. Rollin Allen, individually)
Virginia Cramer, being duly sworn, deposes
and says:
1. That she is the Petitioner-Plaintiff
in propria persona and has personal knowledge
of the facts set forth in this affidavit.
2. That the plaintiff herein, on the 2lst
day of October, 1981, filed in this cause her
80
complaint against the defendants herein.
3. That examination of the court files
and record in this cause shows that the Defend-
ant H. Rollin Allen, individually, was served
by the Wayne County Sheriff - Civil Division
with a copy of summons, together with a copy
of plaintiff's complaint, on the 22nd day of
October, 1981. (photocopy of "Return of
Service" attached hereto.)
4, That more than 20 days have elapsed
Since the date on which the said Defendant H.
Rollin Allen individually was served with
summons and a@ copy of the complaint, excluding
the date of service,
5. That the defendant H. Rollin Allen,
individually, herein has failed to answer or
otherwise defend as to plaintiff's complaint,
or serve & copy of any answer or other defense
as to said complaint which he might have had,
upon the Plaintiff Virginia Cramer in propria
persona,
6. That this affidavit is executed by
affiant herein in accordance with Rule No, 55
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for
81
the purpose of enabling the Plaintiff herein
to obtain an entry of default against the
Defendant H. Rollin Allen, individually, for
his failure to answer or otherwise defend as
to the plaintiff's complaint.
/s/ Virginia Cramer, affiant
Short jurat Plaintiff in propria persona
Dated 11/13/81
APPENDIX R
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION-DETROIT
VIRGINIA CRAMER, Civil Action
Petitioner-Plaintiff, 81-73926
vs
THE STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN, a
Public Body Corporate, JOHN D, FILED
O'HAIR; WILLIAM LEO CAHALAN; 1/22/82
RICHARD D, KUHN; H. ROLLIN ALLEN;
All Other Members of the State
Bar of Michigan similarly situated;
Defendants-Respondents,.
_/
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
BY THE COURT
COMES NOW Virginia Cramer, Petitioner-
plaintiff, in propria persona, in the above-
entitled cause, and moves this court for a
82
judgment by default in the above-entitled
cause, and shows that the complaint in the .
above cause was filed in this court on the 2lst
day of: October, 1981; the summons and complaint
were duly served on the defendant, H. Rollin
Allen, on the 22nd day of October, 1981; that
no answer or other defense has been filed by
the said defendant individually; that H. Rollin
Allen should not be permitted to proceed in
this Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 54 (c) and 55 (a), (b) (2) and (c).
That default was entered in the civil
docket in the office of the clerk of this court
on the 13th day of November, 1981; that the
proceedings taken by the said defendant H,.
Rollin Allen since the default was entered are
highly irregular and improper and not in
accordance with court rules of this court; that
Mr. H. Rollin Allen improperly added his indiv-
idual signature to the pleading on behalf of
the State Bar of Michigan while having affixed
his signature as also the attorney for the
State Bar of Michigan;
83
That where the individual H. Rollin
Allen is in default for failure to plead and
defend pursuant to court rules, it cannot be
properly accepted that said individual may
tack himself onto other pleadings on behalf
of his "client" the State Bar of Michigan; and
the Court should not permit such deceptive and
irregular occurance which would be contrary to
court rules.
Further, in the pleading submitted by
defendant-attorney H. Rollin Allen on behalf
of his "client" State Bar of Michigan, while
improperly tacking his individual-self onto
said pleading after the Default was entered,
claims only the defense of "immunity", for both
himself individually and his "client" State
Bar of Michigan, which is an invalid defense
(which said pleading was received by "Cramer"
on November 18, 1981) and interposed the
problem of whether the pleading as such requir-
ed any reply by "Cramer" your petitioner-
plaintiff, and further highly improper by H.
Rollin Allen in that it is obvious that he
84
seeks to relitigate the State case matters
which are res judicata by the decision entered
in the Michigan Supreme Court on December 30,
1976, reported at 399 Mich 116-161.
The individual-defendant-attorney H. Rol-
lin Allen further has failed and neglected,
in accordance with court rules, to file any
pleading showing excusable neglect and/or a
meritorious defense as good cause. The only
defense claimed by H. Rollin Allen-individual-
defendant is "immunity" which is invalid and
he cites no law to support such "immunity"
defense, and which fails to fall within the
purview of a meritorious defense, in the
federal court.
That instead of answering to petitioner-
plaintiff's complaint which alleges, among
other things, false arrest and false imprison-
ment in the absence of due process, in the
absence of equal protection of the laws, by
"State action" involved, in the absence of
jurisdiction in the State case, and by
conspiratorial and invidiously discriminatory
process, conduct and misconduct, H. Rollin
I SOSEOQ SSS
85
Allen-individually and by his client-State Bar
of Michigan seeks to relitigate under the
State case (Wayne) No. 72-218-571-CZ, in the
State lower court where said lower court was
without any jurisdiction, as of January 20,
1977 and therefrom, to consider an ex parte
motion for order to show cause against "Cramer"
and where the case was termimted in the Michi-
gan Supreme Court without any remand by the
State high court to any court below,
WHEREFORE, your petitioner-plaintiff-
‘Cramer moves that this Honorable Court make
and enter a judgment in accordance with the
relief sought by plaintiff-Cramer as follows:
A, Issue an injunctive order against
Defendant-attorney H. Rollin Allen individually
and all other members of the State Bar of Mich-
igan similarly situated, their agents, repres-
entatives, employees and attorneys, permanent-
ly restraining and enjoining them from:
1. Harassing, hasseling, annoying, molest-
ing and/or otherwise interferring and/or meddl-
ing with the trade and business of persons
exercising their constitutional right of self-
ee ———eeS__a~Iasan xv
86
help and self-representations;
2. Denying and/or preventing access to
information, forms, instructions, documents,
typewriting assistance, filing assistance and
services to individuals seeking to exercise
their guaranteed constitutional right of self-
representation in the courts of the State of
Michigan;
3. Initiating or attempting to initiate
and/or assisting to initiate any proceedings
against Plaintiff-Virginia Cramer in the
absence of & complaining witness, in the ab-
sence of probable cause, and/or in the absence
- of jurisdiction and/or in the absence of real
party in interest;
4, Harassing, hasseling, annoying or
molesting any members of the general public
utilizing services of the trade and business
of Virginia Cramer, Plaintiff herein;
5. Engaging and/or assisting in engaging
in a plot to prevent, interfere with, restrict
or preclude the proper effectiveness in the
aid of administration of justice;
ee ee a
87
6, Engaging and/or assiting in engaging
in @ plot and/or conspiracy against or inter-
ferring with the trade or business of enabling
persons of the general public to exercise
self-representation;
7. Engaging in other conduct or misconduct
contrary to the primary best interests and
protection of the general public with regard
to self-help and self-representation and serv-
ices therefor;
8, Enforcing or attempting to enforce a
judgment or Order which orders nothing.
A. That your federal Plaintiff-Virginia
Cramer be issued a preliminary and/or perman-
ent Judgment and Injunctive Order against the
State Bar of Michigan and its applicable mem-
bers as prayed for in her Complaint,
B. That the Court enter its Declaratory
Judgment definitive of "state action" and
thet "state action" is involved and prohibited
within the meaning of the limitations of the
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution
Te ee
88
Where individual or group is actually official
arm of state and where individual action is
forced or commanded by the State in denying
access to the Courts unless individuals hire
lawyers or attorneys, and that "state action"
is prohibited where private discrimination is
encouraged by the State policy of requiring
individuals to hire lawyers or attorneys in
any proceedings under law and regulations of
the State, conspiratorially or otherwise.
C. That a jury trial be had as to all
issues so triable by jury for the general,
special, exemplary and punitive damages as
warranted and justified in this cause of action
and that your federal Plalntiff-Virginia Cramer
be awarded the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
($100,000.00) DOLLARS for damages to be
assessed against the individual-defendant-
H, Rollin Allen and/or other members of the
State Bar of Michigan similarly situated.
D. Grant such other and further relief as
may be consistent with the good conscience of
the court.
/s/ Virginia Cramer, Plaintiff
Dated: In Pro Per
Jan 21, 1982
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.