Supreme Court of the United States

No. In The Supreme Court of the United States William J. Vajk Petitioner V. Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra Bridget Mary McCormack David F. Vivano Richard Bernstein Elizabeth Clement Respondents PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI To The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals William J. Vajk Petitioner pro se 5113 US Highway 2 Iron River MI 49935 (906) 265-2198 RE IVEP 3 - 2OB F LERK Questions Introductory Statement: In the US District Court the underlying case was dismissed on jurisdictional issues and never litigated on merits but despite that the 6'Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a verdict on the merits while lacking jurisdiction in this case where no party in either Court had an "opportunity to be heard" on those merits. The 6' Circuit held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine finding by the District Court was invalid but in an internally inconsistent ORDER affirmed the District Court judgment to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the same basis on October 26, 2017 and reaffirmed the finding on November 21, 2017. In doing so, the Circuit Court effectively altered the judgment of the District Court to benefit nonappealing parties. Your Petitioner is not confused. During the tenure of this case before the 6' Circuit, one of the original defendants, Joan L. Larsen, was nominated to a seat on the bench before which she was a defendant, and after the confirmation process she was commissioned to a seat on the 6th circuit as a judge sharing cases for a lifetime with the judges charged with deciding her own case. Inquiries regarding the identity of the judge issuing the decision of the panel was stonewalled by the Clerk for obvious reasons. Once the Ms. Larsen was nominated, the 6' Circuit Court could never be an impartial and disinterested tribunal for this case. For the reasons above, three of the following questions have to do with the substance of the case, and the fourth is dedicated to the loss of impartiality arising out of a defendant's appointment to the same bench as her judges. The questions follow: Does a Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to rule on any merit based issues in a case that was denied all litigation in the District Court. Does the ORDER issued by the 6t Circuit Court of Appeals in this case that relies entirely on substantive internal inconsistency fulfill the due process requirement to "do justice to each litigant?" May a Court of Appeals ignore a decisive jurisdictional issue, timely raised, that, as has been ignored in this case, will lead to piecemeal litigation if left unresolved? Does a Court that has a defendant assigned a seat on that bench preserve the appearance and reality of fairness? Parties: Petitioner is William J. Vajk, pro Se, the plaintiff in the District Court case and the Appellant in the case before the 6'Circuit Court of Appeals. Appellees before the above named Circuit Court were Robert Young, Stephen Markman, Brian Zahara, Bridget McCormack, David Vivano, Richard Bernstein, and Joan L. Larsen. Larsen is replaced before this Court by successor Respondent Elizabeth Clement because Joan Larsen was nominated, confirmed, and sworn in as a judge in the 6' Circuit Court of Appeals during the pendency of this case in the Court below. Corporate Disclosure: There is no corporation associated with Petitioner. It Table of Contents Title Page Introductory Statement 1 Questions 1 Parties 111 Corporate Disclosure 111 Table of Contents iv Table of Authorities vi Appendix Contents iv, A Jurisdiction 1 Concise statement of the case 1 Statutory Provision 2 Constitutional Provision 3 Direct and Concise Argument 3 Opinions, Orders, and Findings of Fact 5 District Court History 6 Court of Appeals History 7 Nitty Gritty 9 First Question Details 11 Second Question Details 15 Third Question Details 17 Fourth Question Details 18 In Summary 18 Epilog 19 Reasons for Granting of the Writ 20 Appendix Contents: District Court Memorandum & Order 6/28/2016 B District Court Judgment 6/28/2016 District Court Denying Motion to Vacate 3/30/2017 J 6" Circuit Order Oct 26, 2017 Fol 6 th Circuit Denial for Rehearing Nov 21, 2017 S iv Table of Authorities Anderson v City of Bessimer City, North Carolina 470 US 564 (1985) 3 Bonham's Case 8 Co. Rep 107, 77 Eng. Rep. 238 (1610) 13 Clark v. Mitchell 425 F.3d 270 (2005) 14 Code of Conduct for United States Judges Passim Cohen v Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp 337 US 541 (1949) 12 Deakins v Monaghan 448 US 193 (1988) 4 Desist v United States 394 US 244 (1969) 4,18 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 34(a) 9 Grannis v Ordean 234 US 385 (1914) 3,10 Greenlaw v United States 128 S.Ct. 2559 (2008) 3,7 Madison v Marbury 5 US 137 (1803) 10 Marshall v Jerrico Inc 446 US 238 (1980) 8,9 Michigan Court Rule 7.206(E)(3)(b) Passim Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Passim United States v Apfelbaum 445 US 115 (1980) 4 United States v Bass 404 US 336 (1971) 14 United States v Schooner Peggy 5 US 103 (1801) 15 28 USC 1254 2 28 USC 1291 2 42 USC 1331 2 42 USC 1983 2 V Jurisdiction: The initial anonymous judgment by the 6' Circuit Court of Appeals was entered on October 26, 2017 with the denial for petition for rehearing entered on November 21, 2017. Concise statement of the case: In the US District Court the underlying case was dismissed based on the judicial allegation of jurisdictional issues and never litigated on merits. Despite that the 6' Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a verdict on the merits where no party had an "opportunity to be heard" on any merits. During the pendency of this case before the 6' Circuit, one of the original defendants, Joan L. Larsen, was nominated to a seat on the bench before which she was a defendant, and after the confirmation process she was commissioned to a seat on the 6th circuit as a judge sworn in on November 8, 2017, destined to be sharing cases for a lifetime on panels with the judges charged with deciding her case at that time. Once the Larsen was nominated, no judge of the Circuit Court could ever be a member of an impartial tribunal that in this case that should have been referred, without a judgment, to the Supreme Court for disposition or reassignment. Larsen and the members of the panel assigned to this case engaged in multiple violations of the ode_of_Conduc for_United tate s_Judges. Whether Larsen disclosed her defendant status before the 6' Circuit has driven inquiry by your Petitioner to Senator Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but in the period this Petition is being written and is due for filing, predictably no answer will be forthcoming. The United States Postal Service has marked the letter delivered, but as this is written, the return receipt disappeared. Petitioner did not become aware of defendant Judge Larsen's new status as a proposed, later a factual member of the 6' Circuit, until January 26, 2018 while writing this petition and searching for possible reasons the panel engaged in behavior so outrageous as to be shocking to the conscience. As an officers of the Court, the judges on the 6' Circuit Panel, and Counsel for the defendants, as well as Judge Larsen herself, had a duty to inform your petitioner of pertinent changes in the status of this defendant and exparte communications, and each of those individuals was cognizant of their duty. Statutory Provision: In the District Court was under 42 USC 1331 and 42 USC 1983 and jurisdiction in the 6' Circuit Court of appeals is under 28 USC 1291. This Petition for a Writ of Certioari is brought before the Court in compliance with 28 USC 1254(1). Constitutional Provision: Petitioner has been deprived, in conflict with the United States Constitution, of rights secured under the Fifth Amendment, to wit: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;". Direct and Concise Argument amplifying the reasons relied on for Allowance of the Writ: The 6' Circuit Court of Appeals has departed from the accepted course of judicial proceedings to such an extent that requires the exercise of this Court's supervisory power. Statutory basis for federal jurisdiction is found in the paragraph with the bold paragraph header Statutory Provision above. For brevity, departures from an accepted course of judicial proceedings are provided in a numbered list below: The Circuit Court ruled on unadjucated merits denying Petitioner's "right to be heard" aspect of due process. Grannis v Ordean 234 US 385, 394 (1914). 44 ... appellate courts must constantly have in mind that their function is not to decide factual issues de novo." Anderson v City ofBessemer City, North Carolina 470 US 564 573 (1985). And "...an appellate court may not alter a judgment to benefit a nonappealing party." See Greenlaw v United States 128 S. Ct. 2559, 2564 (2008). Deviance from that principle was thinly disguised here. The judgment proffered by the 6th Circuit Court is logically internally inconsistent, affirming the lower court's decision that it had just denied. See United States v Apfelbaum 445 US 115, 126(1980). Despite Petitioner's request that the appellate court find on a decisive jurisdictional issue of legislative immunity of the defendants left unresolved by the district court and timely raised in the Court of Appeals, the 6' Circuit failed to issue such a finding thus encouraging piecemeal litigation which, unlike the problem in Deakins vMonaghan 448 US 193,204 (1988), is, in this case, laid directly at the hands of the federal courts.

Load more