Prologue — Amaya v. Pitner (No. 05-1015)

—s SuoremaCe US.

No.: 04-2510 & 04 — 2603

In The OFFICE Ge nc eciit

Supreme Court of the United States

GRACIELA AMAYA, by and on

behalf of herself, and, JAIME

L. AMAYA, CARLOS J.AAMAYA,

TOMAS V. AMAYA, RYAN A-HANLEY, minors

Petitioners — Appellants — Plaintiffs

v.

JAY J. PITNER, WORLD SAVINGS BANK,

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, SUSAN WITCLIFFE,

MICHAEL GUOLEE, in official and personal capacities

Respondents — Appellees — Defendants

On Writ of Certiorari

To The United States Court of Appeals

For The Seventh Circuit

BRIEF FOR PETITIONER

Gracicla Amaya

544 E. Ogden Ave., Ste. 700-250

Miiwaukee, WI 53202

{414)243-8177

Pro Se

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Does a recorded lis pendens notice have the same

power as a recorded deed, conveyance and / or a land patent?

2. Can a recorded lis pendens notice be used to

circumvent the constitution?

3. Can a court deny the power and validity of a United

States land patent?

4. Can a court contradict its ruling to state they do not

have jurisdiction to review a state court judgment, yet review

the respondents argument, which is based entirely on review of

a prior owners state court judgment, not the petitioners state

court judgment, then rule in respondents favor based on review

of someone else’s state court judgment?

5. The 7" Circuit Court of Appeals stated review of state

court decisions in civil litigation is limited to the Supreme

Court’s certiorari power under 28 U.S.C. § 1254 and quoted

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 2005 WL

711586, No. 03-1696(U.S. 3/30/05). If this is so, then

shouldn’t the judgment have been ruled in Petitioners favor and

Respondents should be petitioning this court for writ of

certiorari if they chose to?

6. Does Rooker and Feldman doctrine apply when there

is a complete lack of any court proceedings, lawsuit and

appearances by an individual?

7. Can a pro se individual be denied the right to

represent her children and their claims?

8. Does immunity protect defendants if they act on

void judgments, void instruments or completely lack

jurisdiction?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . .

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . rer

CITATIONS OF ORDERS BY COURTS. .

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .

STATEMENT OF FACTS. .

ARGUMENT & MEMORANDUM OF LAW:

I]

Ill

IV

REASONS FOR A.LLOWANCE OF WRIT .

RELIEF REQUESTED . .

ORAL ARGUMENT IS NOT NECESSARY.

OPINION SHOULD BE PUBLISHED .

APPENDIX I .

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

U.S. CONSTITUTION: Page No.

Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution A

Sixth Amendment, U.S. Constitution A

Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution A

Article 1 Sec. 10, U.S. Constitution A

OTHER AUTHORITIES & STATUTES:

63C Am Jur 2d pg. 422, 423 A

Black’s Law Dictionary, 6" Ed. A

Wis. Stat. 706.08 4

CASES:

Arneson v. Jezwinski, 225 Wis. 2d 371, 592 N.W.2d 606 8

(1999)

Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974) 6,8

Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 PETER 436 A

Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 U.S. 394, 401 3

Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 542 (1971) 8

Belleville State Bank v. Steele, 117 Wis. 2d 563, S871, 345

N.W.2d 405 (1984)

5

.

Bernal v. Joeks Et al, 997 p.2d 1192; 2000 Ariz. App! LEXIS

il

4235317 Ariz. Ad.., Rep. 25 (AZ Crt. Of App. Filed 3/16/00) A

Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S., at 569-570, 577 4

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971) 8

Bradley, 13 Wall at 351 15

Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335, 347, 80 U.S. 335, 20 L.Ed. 15

646 (1871)

Caminetti v. U.S., 37 S.Ct. 192, 194 (1917)

Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266 (1978) 4

Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457,459 6

Cleveland Bd. Of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. $32, 541 84 L.

“Ed. 2d 494, 105 S. Ct. 1487 (1985) 7

County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 118 S. Ct. 1708,

1714 (1998) 7

Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 192, n. 10 (1984) 8

Esenwein v. Commonwealth, 325.U.S. 279, 281 3

Eternalist Foundation, Inc. v. City of Platteville, 225 Wis.2d

759, 593 N.W.2d 84 (1999) 947 7

Ex Parte Quirin, 63 S.Ct. 2, 10 (1942) 16

Fenn v. Holme, 21 HOWARD 481 9

Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87, 3 Led. 162 A

Gibson v. Chateau, 80 U.S. 92 9

Havens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533, note 3 3

iv

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 1

Hampton v. United States, 96 S.Ct. 1646, 1652 note 6 (1976) 7

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) 14

Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2375-2376 n. | (1994) 15

Henderson v. Mohave County, 54 F.3d 592 (9" Cir. 1995) 15

Hoagland Trust v. Emmet & Charlevoix Cty. Rd. Comm., No.

204409 Charlevoix Cir. Ct. LC No(s). 96-077818 C11 (MI Ct.

of App. rev. order eff. 01/00) A

Hogan v. Page, 17 L.Ed. 854 A

Howth v. Farrar, 94 F 2d 654 A

Huffman v. Fiola, 850 F.Supp. 833, 836 (N.D. Cal. 1994) I

Hugher v. Rowe, 101 S.Ct. 173, 175-176 (1980) I

In Interest of J.L.W., 102 Wis.2d 118, 306 N.W.2d 46(1981)13

In re Barshak, 106 F.3d 501, 506 (3 Cir. 1997) <a

J & S Corporation v. Mortgage Associates, Inc., 41 Wis. 2d

418, 164 N.W.2d 221 (1969) 5

Jane Monell v. D.S.S. City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98

S.Ct. 2018 (1978). 15

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019 (1938) 13

Kalb v. Feurerstein, 60 /s,/ct, 343m 308 U.S. 433, 84 L.Ed. 370

(1940) 5

Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1127 (9" Cir. 1996) 15

Vv

Kitowski v. U.S., 931 F.2d 1526, 1529 (11" Cir. 1991) 14

Klais v. Danowski, 373 Mich. 262, 29 N.W. 2d 414 A

Klais v. Danowski, 373 Mich. 281, 129 N.W. 2d 423 A

Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U.S. 74, 80 9

Lange v. Johnson, 204 N.W.2d 205 (1973) 13

Lynch v. Household Finance Corp., 405 U.S. 538 (1972) A

Mitchell v. City of Rockland, 45 ME 496 ~ 9

Mitchum v. Foster, 92 S.Ct. 2151 (1972) 12

Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5 Cir. 1994) 1

Moore v. Sims, 99 S.Ct. 2377, 2378 (1979) 10

Murphy v. Miller Brewing Co., 50 Wis. 2d 323, 184 N.W.2d

141 13

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306,

313 (1950) 7,8

Munger v. Beard, 79 Neb. 764, 113 N.W. 214 (1907) 5

Muskrat v. United States, 31 S.Ct. 250, 254 (1911) 17

Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 82 L. Ed. 288, 58 S.

Ct. 149 (1937) 7

Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 709 (1976) _ - 4

People v. Wade, 506 N.W.2d 954 (1987) 13

Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S 593, 599 (1972) &

vi

Public Citizen v. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 454 (1989) 6

Reynolds v. ° z:kton, 140 U.S. 254, 268 3

Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 96 L. Ed. 183, 72 S. Ct.

205 (1952) 7

Simon v. Craft, 182, U.S. 427 7

Soidal v. Cook County, 113 S. Ct. 538, 121 L. Ed. 2d 450, 61

U.S.L.W. 4019 (1992) - 10

Stella Hughes v. State of Washington, 389 U.S. 290 (1967) 7

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978) 14

Summa v. California, 466 U.S. 198 (1984) A

214N. SUPER 275 (Feb 14, 1990) A

T.W. by Enk v. Brophy, 124 F.3d 893, 895 (7"" Cir. 1997);

PARC. tic) 13

U.S. v. Beggeriy, 97 US 731 (1998) | A

U.S. v. City of Yonkers, 96 F.3d 600, 613(2™ Cir. 1996) 14

U.S. v. Coronado Beach Co., 255 U.S. 427 (1921) A

U.S. v. Debell, 227 F 760 (1915) 9

U.S. v. Stone, 167 U.S. 178 9

U.S. v. Vasquez-Rivera, 135 F.3d 172, 177 (1" Cir. 1998) 11

West v. Standard Oil Co., 278 U.S. 200, 73 L.Ed. 265, 49 S.Ct.

138 10

Younger v. Harris, 91 S.Ct. 746, 752 (1971) 10

vil

CITATIONS OF ORDERS BY COURT:

D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 2005 WL

711586, at *4-5, No. 03-1696 (U.S. March 30, 2005)

Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437, 438 (7 Cir.

2004)

J & S Corporation v. Mortgage Associates, Inc., 164 N.W.2d

221, 223-24 (Wis. 1969)

Navin v. Park Ridge Sch. Dist., 270 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7" Cir.

2001)

Newman v. State of Indiana, 129 F.3d 937, 942 7" Cir. 1997)

Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)

vill

REQUEST THIS COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE

OF THE FOLLOWING:

Comes now Petitioner, Graciela Amaya, untrained in the law,

unfamiliar with the local rules, without appropriate assistance,

without effective consul requests to have this and any future

pleadings be “liberally construed” according to the “Kerner

Doctrine”, Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519. Must be liberally

construed, especially where civil rights claims are involved.

Huffman v. Fiola, 850 F.Supp. 833, 836 (N.D. Cal. 1994) cite

Hugher v. Rowe, 101 S.Ct. 173, 175-176 (1980). Must be

liberally construed. Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5"

Cir. 1994)

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 and / or §

1251. The 7" Cir. stated in its opinion affirming the District

Cts. decision that this case is limited to the Supreme Court’s

certiorari power under 28 U.S.C. § 1254.(order, APPENDIX 1)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner Amaya filed the original action in the Eastern Dist.

Ct. of Southeastern WI around Nov. 19, 2003 and the amended

complaint on Nov. 25, 2003. The case was ordered dismissed

by the Dist. Ct. at the hearing held on June 6, 2004. The 7"

Cir. Ct. affirmed the Dist. Ct’s. decision on April 4", 2005.

Petitioner Amaya filed a petition for rehearing en banc which

was denied on July 8, 2005 by the 7" Cir. Cts. original panel.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On June 19, 2003 Petitioner, Amaya, recorded her quit

claim deed. (EXHIBIT 4)

2. On October 10, 2003, Respondents recorded their

sheriff deed. (EXHIBIT 3)

3. Respondents sheriff sale and recording of the sheriff

I

deed has no force because it was recorded after my quit claim

deed and without due process for Amaya. The deeds are prima

facie evidence by the dates and the names which clearly shows

my quit clai.a deed was recorded before their sheriff deed.

4. On November 14, 2003, Petitioners Amaya and family

were evicted from their property.

5. On November 25, 2003, Amaya filed her amended

complaint in United States District Court which stated

plaintiffs were deprived / denied their property without due

process of law, the takings clause, unreasonable seizures, and

equal protection of the laws. In addition, she requested her

pleadings be liberally construed.

6. Petitioner Amaya has a Land Patent on her property

dated 1843. The Land Patent is the highest evidence of title.

(EXHIBIT 5)

7. At June 2, 2004 hearing, the District Court reviewed

Bartkowiak’s case by allowing defendants pleadings to be

entered. In pleadings, in my motions to strike and responses

to defendants motions, I stated | didn’t know all the details of

Bartkkowiak’s case, nor was it appropriate to use my i

complaint for a lawsuit that should have been filed by the

defendants before taking my property.

8. The argument that federal courts do not have authority

to review state cases has no merit in regards to this case

because the facts of Bartkowiak’s case were reviewed. The

facts in Bartkowiak’s case did not need to be reviewed to

provide relief to Petitioner Amaya. The names and dates of the

deeds, the land patent, the writ (EXHIBIT 1) and the 24 hour

eviction notice (EXHIBIT 6) are prima facie evidence of the

lack of due process and e.,ual protection.

ARGUMENT & MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN

SUPPORT OF ARGUMENT:

I. Petitioner, Amaya, recorded her interest in her property

on June 19, 2003 before Appellees sheriff sale and

recording of their sheriff deed filed on October 10, 2003.

Once Amaya’s deed was recorded, it became legally

enforceable property, as detailed under Wis. Stat. 706.08.

—

Respondents argument fails due to Amaya’s constitutional

rights, jurisdictional requirements and immunities /

privileges obtained on Amaya’s Land Patent.

A. A court must have jurisdiction in order to create valid

judgments

1. Parties agree that there was never a lawsuit filed

against Amaya nor was Amaya involved in the proceedings

that was adjudicated years before Appellant — Plaintiff Amaya

filed her deed. The Respondents failed to acquire jurisdiction

over Amaya. Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by

actual service of processor personal appearance of the

defendant which is a simple question of fact. (See “conflict

of law” in the law dictionaries) Once jurisdiction is

challenged, it must be proven. Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533,

note 3.

2. There are three essentials to obtain jurisdiction to

adjudicate. They are as stated by the Supreme Court of the

United States: the court must have cognizance of the class of

cases to which the one to be adjudicated belongs ~econd, the

proper parties must be present; and third, the point decided

upon must be in substance and effect within the issue.

Petitioner Amaya, was the proper person for jurisdiction, due

to the filing of her deed and as the current owner of the

property. Jurisdiction is “The right to adjudicate concerning

the subject-matter in the given case. To constitute this there

are three essentials: First, the court must have cognizance of

the class of cases to which the one to be adjudicated belongs;

second, the proper parties must be present; and third, the point

decided upon must be in substance and effect within the issue.”

Reynolds v..Stockton, 140 U.S. 254, 268.

3. These jurisdictional requirements were not met before

the seizure of my home. Therefore; the judgment, the sheriff

deed, the writ were of no standing. As the Supreme Court of

the United States stated void judgments and/or void deeds are

of no standing in any court. Wisconsin's courts had no

jurisdiction to make such a decree binding upon appellant.

Baker v. Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 U.S. 394, 401; Esenwein v.

3