Click here to enter your name.
Click here to enter your address.
Click here to enter your city, state and ZIP code.
CLERK OF THE
11TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
56 FORSYTHE ST. NW
ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 30303
DATE: Click here to enter month (#)./Click here to enter day (#).20Enter year.
Certified Mail Number Click here to enter Certified Mail Number.
To the Honorable Chief Judge Ed Carnes,
Greetings.
I amClick here to enter your name..
This cover letter is not my complaint, but it is a vital part of my notice to you.
Enclosed herein are one Original and three copies of my Two-Page Notice of Complaint form, and attached to them are my Original and three copies of my formal, written, Official Complaint in the form of a Sworn Affidavit against one of your Federal Judges, per 28 USC 351(a) and Rule 3(c)(1), Rule 6(a), Rule 6(c)(1), and Rule 14(b).
I request that if you believe I have somehow failed or neglected to properly “form a complaint”, that you implement RULE 11 and proceed in your proper capacity anyway.
I am aware that there are numerous methods and means by which complaints of this nature can be easily dismissed, based on the list showing in 28 USC 352.
HOWEVER, I want to encourage you to deeply investigate this matter, as the IRS has most recently been forced by Congress to disgorge MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in cash and property that they have been unlawfully seizing under COLOR OF LAW, sometimes totally without Judicial channels, and at other times using false charges of STRUCTURING through the Judicial system, enforcing portions of statutes against people, companies and ministries that the original Acts of Congress were NEVER intended to attack.
Please understand I am exercising my inalienable, Constitutionally protected, First Amendment Right of Redress by and through this letter and the enclosed Sworn Affidavit of Criminal Complaint.
In regard to your Breyer Committee Rule 10(b) addressing “Orchestrated Complaints”, I find it disconcerting, even troubling that it is categorized under “Abuse of Complaint Procedure.”
When I happen to find, read, examine and weigh the same evidence that others have found, read and believe, regardless of how many or how few that may be, and we separately and individually act on that information, I do not appreciate that the effect or impact has been pre-programmed to be marginalized by some focus group’s, self-written, self-serving policy.
I am choosing to complain and redress this government body, whether dozens, hundreds, thousands or millions of other people complain and redress, or even if NOBODY ELSE DOES.
I find it unreasonable that unified denouncements of criminal conduct committed by public servants are supposed to somehow be "less than” believable or that they should have “less impact” merely because those truths become widely known and the gross egregiousness of them compels a larger outpouring of an insistence on corrective action to be taken, versus a lesser one.
Does MY complaint that may be similar to or even EXACTLY like others, BECOME WORTHLESS or NULLIFIED simply because theirs’ got to your desk
before mine does, as - maybe complaint number 101, or complaint number 3,796 for instance? NO!
Does the fact that my Sworn Affidavit of Criminal Complaint that may even be number 17,483 about the same CRIMES of Due Process Deprivation by the same Judge, somehow justify nullifying or dismissing it? NO!
Does it change the truth of ONE word of a later filing? NO!
Do Complaints that are exactly like others become UNTRUE, from say, numbers 51 and UP? NO!
Or is this 11th Circuit’s “magic number” closer to 20?
How many complaints actually constitute “many”?
The Rules did not define the word or give it a number, therefore the Rules apparently leave it “open to interpretation”, thus leading to arbitrary and capricious selection of a “magic number” in each Circuit Chief’s head.
Why would a few RANDOM complaints against one Judge about different issues be any “better qualified” to be received than many complaints from many people across America who file similar, if not exact complaints against the same Judge over the EXACT SAME set of events and crimes? THEY SHOULDN’T BE.
Volumes of “Model Pleading Forms” have been created for Lawyers to actually PRODUCE consistency, uniformity, normal standardization and ease in recognition and application, AND YOU KNOW THIS.
But enough discourse about challenging the “policy” concerning Orchestrated Complaints; Let’s get back to the main issue.
You have been given power to dismiss “merits related” complaints. Good.
I find that your Rule 3 states the following:
“Conversely, an allegation - however unsupported - that a judge conspired with a prosecutor to make a particular ruling is notmerits-related, even though it “relates” to a ruling in a colloquial sense.”
My Sworn Affidavit of Criminal Complaint to you is therefore not merits-related, because it most assuredly includes the allegation that Judge Rodgers conspired with the three prosecutors named therein, to guarantee the illicit convictions of the Hovinds in Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR.
Your rules state: “If the evidence of misconduct is clear and convincing and no informal resolution is achieved or is feasible, the chief judge must identify a complaint.”
Sworn Affidavits of Criminal Complaints have sufficed in Federal and State Courts for DECADES to provide clear and convincing allegations against millions of people to initiate criminal prosecutions, ending in millions having to serve prison time for those crimes.
Because my Complaint is in the form of a Sworn Affidavit, even though your rules do not require it, and the issue NOT being merits-related, then a Special Committee MUST be appointed, per your Rule 11.
I fully expect that you admonish Judge Margaret Catherine Rodgers that under Rule 3(h)(1)(G), she is NOT to retaliate against me in any manner or degree for my involvement in the complaint process, and that if attempted by her or any other agent, agency, subordinate or officer, it may constitute cognizable misconduct against her and a Federal Felony under 18 USC 1513 Retaliation and 18 USC 371 Conspiracy against them for doing so.
I ask that you bypass the informal resolution process due to this case’s “high visibility” now that we the people of America have become more fully educated as to the true, full nature and scope of the fraud on court that I personally believe was intentionally received and allowed by Judge Rodgers.
I recognize that per your Rule 11, “An allegation of fact is ordinarily not “refuted” simply because the subject judge denies it,” and in this case, if you recognize that this is “my words against Judge Rodgers’ words”, and “there is simply no other significant evidence of what happened, then there must be a special-committee investigation.”
I therefore ask that at bare minimum, you appoint a Rule 14 Special Committee after you read my Sworn Affidavit and invite some kind of response from Judge Rodgers.
While it is true that there are other actors involved in this issue, and that the Judge did not act alone, I nonetheless am required by my love for America, and my hatred for abuse of official power, and 18 USC 4, Misprision of Felony, to complain to you against Margaret Catherine Rodger's acts in the Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR.
Although my Complaint is also against other non-judicial people involved with the Judge, (only two of whom are still living), I already know your concern in this Judicial Complaint system nonetheless, is “only with regard to the judge” in my allegations against Judge Margaret Catherine Rodgers per Rule 8(d) which states, “the clerk must accept the complaint under these Rules only with regard to the judge and must so inform the complainant.”
However, because I am already aware of this, as a cost savings measure to you, I hereby WAIVE the requirement for the Clerk to have to mail me a Notice that the Complaint will only address the actions or inactions of the “covered” Judicial person, and not the “others.”
I am alleging Fraud on Court and Deprivation of Due Process against the Prosecutors for writing and filing it, and I am alleging Fraud and Deprivation of Due Process against the Judge in Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR by her accepting it and then taking on Subject Matter Jurisdiction when the Court had already been STRIPPED of its Jurisdiction based UPON the very Fraud on Court that CREATED the Due Process Deprivation to begin with.
That collusion resulted in an incorrect ruling but that end ruling is NOT the source or origin of this complaint, it was only the end result of the original Fraud and Deprivation of Due Process that I am complaining of.
I am also alleging Conspiracy on all four actors, that is, the three Prosecutors and Judge Rodgers working together to accomplish a criminal endeavor.
Because I am alleging Conspiracy, among other allegations in the enclosed Sworn Affidavit, and because the D.O.J. website “Criminal Resource Manual Section 652” states that Conspiracy is in the class of offenses that can be considered ONGOING, please consider your Rule 13(b) duties, regarding my complaint against Judge Rodgers.
Since my affidavit included with this cover letter is being sworn to under the penalties of perjury, I fully expect that any counter-affidavit to this complaint you may receive from Judge Rodgers is to also be sworn to under the penalties of perjury, for the potential review by the Judicial Council, Judicial Committee or Senate of the United States.
I do not undertake this complaint frivolously or lightly.
I am aware the Margaret Rodgers will be given due process during this matter, and that she will be allowed, if she chooses, to have me subpoenaed to testify in person before the Judicial Council or Judicial Committee, and possibly even before the U.S. Senate,as to how and why I truly believe that she has committed numerous Federal Felony Deprivations of Due Process and other crimes against the Defendants in 3:06CR83/MCR, in which case I would need travel and hotel funds provided by the Court per Judicial Conduct Rule 14d and 28 U.S.C. § 1821.
Nonetheless, my answer would then be as it is now, today.
I want you to understand that I am incensed beyond measurable capacity for the FRAUD that was created and used against the Hovinds and the Christian Ministry in Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR by the three Federal Prosecutors, and by the full, knowing, willing acceptance, ratification and validation of said FRAUD by Judge Margaret Catherine Rodgers.
That is why I am also choosing to tandemly exercise my Redress to all three of my Legislative Congressional Representatives with this information as well.
I have absolutely NO CONTEMPT OF COURT because the Court is an EXTENSION OF MY lawfully delegated powers from we the people, down to Congress, down to the Court System through *Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution that then flows down to this District Court, and thus, there is no possible way that I could be in Contempt of MY COURT.
However, I make a clear, delineated distinction between the Court and the Case, between the Court and the Judge, and between the Judge when they are properly acting in their Lawfully Delegated JUDICIAL Capacity and when they act OUTSIDE that lawful capacity in some other form of Communistic Equity, Fourth Branch Administration, Satanic Ministry or Ultra Vires Treason and AS SUCH I am in ABSOLUTE COMTEMPT of the egregious, unconstitutional, criminal, ultra-vires, treasonous, flagrant disregard for the Rule of Law committed by Judge Margaret Catherine Rodgers against the Hovinds in Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR.
My complaint against Judge Margaret Catherine Rodgers is based upon the evidence revealed to me, that is now posted in an eight video series available at kenthovindisinnocent.com.
Please now read my Sworn Affidavit, and serve Ms. Rodgers with a copy of my complaint per 28 USC 351(c). Please be sure to include a copy of my Sworn Affidavit with it.
I await my copy of your 28 USC 352(b)(2) Written Order with interest.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
x______
*The Supreme Court said in Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, (1921) that: "The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, ' 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules respecting the territory belonging to the United States."