By Bill Price
Your Honor, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38: Jury Trial of Right (a) Right Preserved states:
“The right of trial by jury as declared by the seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by statute of the United States shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.”
The Defense will now call Mr. Webster to the stand. Mr. Webster do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? “I do”. Mr. Webster, can you tell the Court and this distinguished jury what the definition of the word inviolate is?”
Answer: “Not violable; too sacred to suffer or be allowed to suffer violation …unimpaired; unbroken; as a custom kept inviolate”.
In your unabridged opinion, do you think this word has any meaning that would substantially deviate from that which you have stated? “No, I do not!” Thank you, Mr. Webster. That will be all for now, you can step down now sir.
Your Honor, members of the jury, the Plaintiff (DOJ), has charged the Defendant with causing great harm to these United States. Included in the Justice Department’s averments against Charles F. Conces, is Conces’s alleged interference with the government’s ability to collect income taxes. A very serious charge! Defendant, Conces, denies these allegations and has demanded a jury trial as his inviolate right under FRCP 38 and the 7th Amendment to the U.S Constitution. What will your verdict be, ladies and gentleman of the jury? Is the Defendant, Charles F. Conces, entitled to a trial by jury? Judge Quist disputes the Defendant’s constitutional rights and has proclaimed, on the authority vested in his Inferior District court for the Western District of Michigan that Conces shall not be afforded any benefit from Federal Rule 38, or the 7th Amendment: “… where controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of a jury trial shall be preserved…”
Members of the jury, you have heard from the Rules of Civil Procedure. You have heard from the 7th Amendment. You have heard Mr. Webster’s testimony and finally you have heard the Defendant’s own denials of the government’s allegations. It appears that the Hon. Quist’s unverified estimate of the damage in controversy is the only impediment to a trial by jury for the Defendant Conces. Judge Gordon J. Quist has stated for the record that the United States has suffered $19.99 or less in damages. Ladies and gentlemen, STOP… this is a serious matter…not a time for laughter… Will your Honor please bring the court to order? Who threw that pie at judge Quist? No more raspberries from the audience and get those whoopee cushions out of here!
Back to Reality
Our government is spending big dollars on these cases like the case against Brown’s in Concord. In the Conces case, Four or five U.S Attorneys, a Magistrate judge, (Ellen Carmondy) clerks, court reporters, U.S. Marshals, County Jail personnel etc. etc. Wait till the media finds about this ridiculous waste of money and manpower. Will Judge Quist ever be in trouble? When you’re done laughing consider this… what will happen if the people find out? Now, that’s no laughing matter. The Conces case is just one of thousands. People react to gross and prolonged injustice differently. The Italians demonstrated this with Benito Mussolini after WWII. The people had reached their limit; the fascist dictator was left hanging upside down for all to see after he was beaten to death by the public. I never read about any indictments for the brutal beating and the gruesome public demonstration of Mussolini‘s battered body. In Germany the judges were put on trial for crimes against humanity as a more civilized public reaction. (Watch “JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBURG”. One of the best movies you will ever see).
I see judges all over this land committing crimes against humanity.
Charles F. Conces has been deprived of his liberty for a full month for $19.99 worth of damage. We the people find the actions of Judge Gordon J. Quist, U.S. District Judge in the Western District of Michigan of Michigan to be totally outside of the conduct outlined in the Code of Conduct for federal judges. Gordon Quist is a renegade impersonating a federal judge. I’m sure the judges in Rome thought things would never change, too.
When and if a jury is seated in the civil action of the United States v. Charles F. Conces, they will eventually discover something very troubling. There is no delegation order evoking the statute necessary for filing a civil suit against Defendant, Conces.
“There was no violation, because there was no civil lawsuit. There was no lawsuit because there was no Authorization to commence.”
IRC Sec.7401; AUTHORIZATION: “No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty or forfeiture, shall be commenced unless the secretary (of the Treasury) authorizes the proceedings and the Attorney General or his delegate directs that the action be commenced.”
I have a suggestion. Let’s quit fooling ourselves with hopes of new procedures. They are not going to fix this problem. I went to my first Lawman meeting in several months and I heard people talking about new “procedures”, 100%, the silver bullet. Now I’m hearing about a new lawyer. I’m sure he’s a great guy. Most people willing to get involved usually are. I wish him well, but wake up folks. If he prevails it will be for one of three reasons… an enlightened jury, the judge hearing his case is not in the club, or we are approaching the threshold of public awareness and are finally having an effect. The judicial system in this country has been hijacked. Criminals like Judge Bell, Judge McKeague, Judge Quist Judge Dawson ect. etc., are not going to change because of new procedures or a new lawyer comes to town. These judges went over to the dark side sometime ago. I don’t know about your district, but the Western District of Michigan is a good place to avoid for pro se litigants.
I’m attaching one of the certified letters I sent to the Congressional Judiciary committee Chairman, the Hon, Sensenbrenner. Mr. Sensenbrenner never replied to my letters, thus committing an act of fraud through silence. Along with the attached letter, I included exhibits “A”, “C” and “D”, which were letters from Internal Revenue Disclosure Officers Gregory Turner, of Detroit, and Lisa Spinks, of Seattle. Both of these disclosure officers stated that they had conducted searches for an employee named Stephen P. Warner. “Mr. Warner” had sent my employer Ford motor Company a letter on IRS stationary instructing Ford to levy my wages. Ford complied. As it turned out “Mr. Stephen P. Warner” is not an employee of the Internal Revenue Service. Judge Bell’s denial was predicated on FRCP 60 (b) 3 and 4. Bell stated that his hands were tied. He couldn’t consider this new evidence because it was not reported within a year of his previous judgment against me. That’s right, Bell, but you forgetting something: “Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda, 384 US 436, at 491.
“Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments” U.S. V. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are provided by the U.S. Supreme Court and are essential to a litigant’s due process when in the judicial arena. They are a necessary guide and allow for orderly procedure, but they are not law. This is why Decisional Law or Case Law, such as the above Supreme Court rulings do not have to compete with court rules in our Inferior courts. These rules are being used to trump Supreme Court rulings. Mr. Bell and his colleague’s perniciously use court rules as traps to interfere with a litigant’s Constitutional rights. Mr. Bell is an imposter. There is no Chief Judge for the Western District of Michigan. Bell is a felon, not a judge. Read the Hon. Bell’s rap sheet below.
Our most important job right now is to warn the public…The judges are coming, the judges are coming!!!
Bill Price
Michigan Lawman Committee for the Public Interest
State Chairman, William M. Price National Chairman, Charles F. Conces
4406 Oakely Rd., Stockbridge, Mich. 49285 9523 Pine Hill Dr., Battle Creek, Mi. 49017
Wayne County Wayne County Wayne County Ingham County Oakland County
Harold H. Dunn David Nagy Patricia MacGillivray Stephen C. Caviness David Norris
September 12, 2005
Chairman Sensenbrenner:
My Congressman Mike Rogers asked you as the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to investigate my report of crime regarding U.S. District Court Judge Robert Holmes Bell, chief judge for the Western District of Michigan. Congressman Rogers stated to me that he forwarded my letter to you with a request that you investigate the claims made in my report, and included a copy of such request with his response to me.
Actually, I wrote two letters to Congressman Rogers. Since the Hon. Rogers did not specify which letter he forwarded I am providing you with both letters. The letter of July 8, 2005, which I presume was the letter sent to you, dealt exclusively with Judge Bell’s criminal actions. The letter of August 11, 2005, was devoted only in part to Judge Bell.
Congressman Sensenbrenner, I will do whatever I can to expedite the investigation into our allegations of Judge Bell’s felonious activity. Judge Bell perjured his oath, violated the code of conduct for U.S. Judges, deliberately misapplied Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ignored precedence law, granted favorable treatment to influential parties and committed other felonious acts such as fraud, acceding to fraud, accessory after the fact and conspiracy.
The Hon. Bell refused to allow Discovery in my cases as well as in other cases that I am personally aware of. Others in our public interest group received similar treatment from the Hon Bell and are ready to testify to the facts in their cases. The primary reason for my rule 60(b) motion referred to in my July 8, letter (See the enclosed letter of July 8th) was that new evidence was discovered showing that fraud had been perpetrated on Judge Bell’s court by the Defendant, Ford Motor Company. Under FRCP 60(b) 2 and 3 relief from judgment can be sought by a party when new evidence or fraud is discovered.
As you already know, “Discovery” provides the means by which litigants exchange information, thus preventing judgments made in absence of knowable facts. Without Discovery the party in possession and control of crucial documents, data and compilations could easily control the outcome of a court case. That is why the Supreme Court when writing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure wrote the following:
FRCP Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of disclosure
(a) Required Disclosures; Methods to Discover Additional Matter.
(1) Initial Disclosures. Except in categories of proceedings specified in Rule 26(a)(1)(E) or to the extent otherwise stipulated or directed by order, a party must, without awaiting discovery request, provide to the other parties:
(B) a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents, data compilations, and tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless solely for impeachment.
“If discovery could uncover one or more substantial factual issues, plaintiff was entitled to reasonable discovery to do so prior to district court’s granting of motion for summary judgment. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 56 (e), 28 U.S.C.A.” Williamson v.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 815F. 368 (5th Cir. 1987).
(For the sake of clarity, the writer of this letter, William M. Price, from this point forward will be referred to as “the Plaintiff”).
An impartial judge would have demanded that the parties fulfill their obligations to disclose under FRCP 26. Judge Bell not only failed to carry out his duty in this regard, he actively interfered with the Discovery process in Plaintiff’s case (#5:03 CV-0106) by denying Plaintiff’s MOTION FOR PERIOD OF ENLARGEMENT. The Plaintiff filed that motion in order to temporarily delay the Court’s decision concerning the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, at least until, “all the documents, data, compilations, and tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses,...” had been exchanged according to Rule 26.
Judge Bell failed to demand that the Defendant (Ford Motor Company) disclose, knowing that the Plaintiff, William M. Price, would be deprived of crucial evidence. The Plaintiff’s complaint and exhibits alleged that the Defendant was concealing evidence of its wrongdoing by refusing to reveal pertinent documentation. It is now known that Judge Bell allowed the Defendant to continue its concealment of a fraudulent document. Exposure of the fraudulent document, known to be under the Defendant’s possession and control would have, for reasons of fraud, forced an immediate end to the proceedings. Judge Bell knowingly and maliciously denied the Plaintiff’s Due Process through manipulation of court rules in order to favor the Defendant. The Hon. Bell routinely deprives litigants of their due process in this way. Other members of our public interest group are ready to testify concerning Bell’s actions in this regard. I call your attention to the following Supreme Court ruling:
“Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda, 384 US 436, at 491.
The record clearly shows that in case (5:03 CV- 0106), the Hon. Bell aided the Defendant in concealing a fraudulent document and then refused to acknowledge that document when such was presented to the Hon. Bell approximately a year and a half later, in the Plaintiff’s MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT according to Rule 60 (b) 2 and 3. Chairman Sensenbrenner, through the Plaintiff’s own investigative effort, the fraudulent document was finally produced. It took over a year to procure said document (See the attached exhibits “A”, “C”, and “D”). Judge Bell then selectively used a stipulation in a court rule to thwart this Pro-Se Plaintiff’s effort at gaining justice by denying the Plaintiff’s Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment, thus rejecting the accompanying evidence in exhibits “A”, “C”, and “D”, and stating that such motion and evidence of fraud was frivolous: “Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment is utterly frivolous…Motions under rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time…furthermore, it is completely without merit”
Judge Bell’s ruling in case (5:03 CV 0106) directly contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court:
“Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments” U.S. V. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61.
“Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters” Nudd V. Burrows, 91 U.S. 426.
Mr. Chairman you will not need to rely on my statements or Judge Bell’s statements for a determination in this investigation. The record reveals the entire truth. The record in this case will prove the truth in the statements made in this letter.
The record reveals that in (case # 5:03 CV-0106) the Hon. Bell perjured his oath, acceded to fraud, committed an act of conspiracy as defined in 18 USC § 241 “Conspiracy against Rights”, ignored precedence law, granted favorable treatment to the Defendant, violated cannons 1 and 2A of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, suborned perjury (See attached exhibits “A” and “B”) and is an accessory after the fact.
Judge Bell is a danger to the people he has sworn to serve. The Hon. Bell has inflicted immeasurable harm on our court system. My cases are only the tip of the iceberg and many citizens in the Western District of Michigan have told me that they wish to testify against this judicial blight sitting behind the bench in our Western District of Michigan.
As chairman for the Michigan Lawman Committee for the Public Interest, the task of bringing forth this issue, for those who have been directly affected by the mayhem caused in Judge Bell’s courtroom, has been given to me. The public’s confidence in our court system here in the Western District of Michigan has been severely shaken by Judge Robert Holmes Bell.
The enclosed letter of July 8th 2005, will serve as William M. Price’s opening statement to begin this investigation. It is our Public Interest Committee’s recommendation that the accused Robert H. Bell be removed from the bench until such time as he is thoroughly investigated by your committee. We believe that this preliminary action is justified by the easily verified, competent evidence already in existence. To allow Bell to continue on the bench in light of this evidence and the record which bears it out, is to subject the citizens in the Western District of Michigan to more judicial torture.
Sincerely,
William M. Price
Notary: The above signed has appeared before me and properly identified himself. He has presented an original and two copies of this four page letter and retains the copies for his records.
Enclosures: A five page letter, the letter July 8, 2005, including exhibits and Judge Bell’s ruling, the letter of August 11, 2005, sent by William M. Price, to Congressman Mike Rogers.
Cc Congressman Mike Rogers
Here's the email we sent out off of Aaron's original email: 
Jack Cafferty sounds off on the stories crossing his radar. Write in to answer Jack's hourly questions, and watch to see if he reads your response.
(click on image for addresses)
PLEASE WRITE TO Ed & Elaine!
Business Speaker
