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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0818%3A0

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Prologue
- **Published:** January 1, 2005

## Text

—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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0818%3A0. Public record. Not legal advice.