Court Case

Anthony P. Keyter vs. 230 Government Officers

On December 20, 2004, a civil suit was filed in the US District Court of Western Washington (Case No. 3: 04cv5867), against 230 malfeasant government officers. The case sought to redress harm and loss caused as a consequence of their violations of statutory duties; violations of the criminal statutes; and, violations of the common law rights of a citizen. The court was also petitioned to compel the delinquent government officers to perform their duties to the public and the plaintiff. Amongst the defendants are high level Washington State officials: legislators, four (4) police chiefs and several police officers, county prosecutors, the present and past Attorney Generals, the Secretary of State, and the present and former Governors of Washington State. Also implicated in the case, and included as defendants, are the Chief Justice and several other judges from the Washington State Courts.

The case has been characterized by a significant level of criminality by judicial officers, defense attorneys, and defendants alike, in order to shield the 230 malfeasant government officials from criminal and civil prosecution. For example, the defendants in the case committed numerous counts of perjury in their efforts to have the case prematurely dismissed before trial. Furthermore, defense attorneys for Washington State Officials (former Attorney General Christine Gregoire, her successor Rob McKenna, and their Assistants), acted ultra vires and in conflict of interest. They were compelled by law to prosecute the defendants for crimes committed, yet defended the malfeasant officers in this civil suit based on those very same crimes - a conflict untenable in law.

Further criminal charges were filed with the court against the defendants and their attorneys for perjury and other violations associated with the conduct of the case in the District Court.

Judge R.J. Bryan, who initially presided, was removed from the case following a motion to disqualify him for failing his judicial duties to address the crimes perpetrated by defendants. He was replaced by an out-of-state judge from Montana, Judge Charles C. Lovell. An additional motion was submitted to disqualify Judge Lovell for rendering criminal assistance to the defendants by:

1. Allowing defendants' perjury to stand in Court.
2. Allowing motions submitted illegally to be heard (and granted) by the Court.
3. Allowing defendants' counsel, who were acting ultra vires and in conflict of interest, to continue their unlawful representation.
4. Failing to perform his legally mandated duties in terms of the criminal statutes, amongst them misprision of felony (18 USC 4).
5. Failing to compel defendants, who were in breach of the law, to obey the law and do their duty to society and the state.
6. Failing to issue warrants for the arrest of the defendants in terms of Rule 4 of Federal Criminal Procedures.

District Court Judge Lovell ruled on his own disqualification, finding himself innocent of any prejudice or wrongdoing, and dismissed the case without addressing the underlying crimes. In his judgment the judge perjurously and fraudulently misrepresented the facts of the case on 47 counts in order to provide legal respectability to his illegal ruling.

The case was presented on appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Its sojourn through the 9th Circuit was likewise marred by an all-out effort by 9th Circuit judges to protect the malfeasant officers from criminal and civil prosecution. The 9th Circuit judges denied all motions and injunctions presented by the plaintiff; criminally neglected to address the deluge of crimes presented to the court; affirmed the illegal District Court ruling and dismissed the case.

In an endeavor to find restitution and have the crimes addressed by the judicial system, the case against the 230 malfeasant government officers was appealed in the United States Supreme Court on August 14, 2006. The Supreme Court was further requested to compel the malfeasant officials to obey the laws which they are in breach of, and to do their duty to the state and to society. Once more, the Supreme Court was put to the test to see whether the highest judicial authority in America would bring justice to bear upon law-breaking officials, or whether the Supreme Court justices would likewise join in with the illegal protection of the 230 criminal, but unassailable, government officials. Once more the institutions of the American nation were put to the test to see whether the institutions could or would deal with an insurrection against the laws and the authority of the United States - an insurrection perpetrated by its senior officials. Both the Supreme Court and the nation's institutions failed spectacularly.

On October 27, 2006, the Supreme Court Justices fraudulently and illegally denied the case. They fraudulently decided the case without the benefit of 4 pertinent documents which had been corruptly removed from the case records. The actions of the Supreme Court Justices were illegal on several grounds, including failure to perform peremptory judicial duties to tend to the underlying crimes committed by the Respondents. Criminal charges were filed in the case against the Justices for violating several criminal statutes. These charges, together with another round of criminal charges against the Respondents, were also illegally removed from court records.

A petition for rehearing was filed on November 16, 2006, in order to address these crimes and secure due process of law. However, the Justices denied the petition on January 5, 2007, despite having no legal capacity to rule on the case because of their direct involvement in the criminal misconduct in the case.

As demonstrated in every phase of this case, the lawlessness amongst state and federal officials runs deep. However, the protection of one another against prosecution is absolute. The malfeasant officers involved are the very officials entrusted to enact the laws, enforce the laws, and administer the laws. They are the governors, legislators, policemen, prosecutors, and judges - in whom we have readily placed our welfare.

With this impasse, the fatal flaws in the government/judicial system of the United States stands acutely exposed.

Selected Court Documents in the cases:

United States District Court, Western District of Washington - Case No. 3: 04cv5867
United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Case No. 05-35717
United States Supreme Court - Case No. 06-284

1. Certiorari (US Supreme Court)
2. Rehearing (US Supreme Court)
3. Motion for Urgent Injunction (US Supreme Court)
4. Motion to Disqualify Justices (US Supreme Court)
5. Appeal Brief (Court of Appeals)
6. Motion to Disqualify Judge Lovell (District Court)
7. Brief in Opposition to Dismiss (District Court)
8. Complaint (District Court)