Knights
in Dirty Armour II
Chapter
xx
FILED
SUPREME COURT
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
MAY 22 2006
MICHAEL S. RICHIE, CLERK
IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Gilda Marie Schoonover
]
Petitioner
]
]
vs.
]
Case No. # 103374
]
The Oklahoma
Court
]
of Criminal Appeals
]
Application For The Writ of
Mandamus
1
Comes Now the Petitioner,
Gilda Marie Schoonover, Pro-se, an inmate within the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections, currently housed at the Mabel Basset
Correctional Center, 29501 Kickapoo Road, McLoud Oklahoma, under the
direct care, custody and supervision of Millicent-Newton Embry,
Warden, and moves this honourable Court to issue it’s Writ of
Mandamus,
instructing and ordering
the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the Respondent, to issue
it’s writ of Mandamus ordering the Respondent to accept the Appeal
of a wrongful decision and order from the District Court of Mayes
County, the State of Oklahoma, the honorable Dynda Post sitting of
an Application for Post-Conviction Relief for reason and authority
to wit:
The Petitioner is a lay
person and untrained and unskilled in the ways and mechanics of the
law, therefore she hereby invokes her protections of a Pro-se
litigant obtained through Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519
[1972]
And Hall v.
Bellmon,
As same was drafted and
prepared with the help of an Inmate Legal Research
Assistant.
And let it be known herein
that I have authorized and appointed my husband, John E. Schoonover,
as my lawful Attorney-In-Fact by the execution of my Power Of
Attorney on the 24th day of October,
2005.
2
History of the
Matter
On the 16th day
of November, 1999, this Petitioner was charged, along with her
husband, John E. Schoonover, by Information in the Mayes County
District Court of Murder In The First Degree. The cause for the Warrant of
Arrest, as well as the cause at Preliminary hearing to bind both Ms.
Schoonover and her husband to trial by the District Court was,
without question, blatantly false.
Following trial to a jury
the defendants were both found guilty and the trial Court, following
the Jury’s recommendation, sentenced both to life with possibility
of parole, even though the State, through Charles Ramsey, [Assistant
District Attorney] publicly confessed, “I haven’t a clue to what
happened in that house” in the incident at
bar.
An appeal was taken and
both defendants were ordered re-tried. A second trial was held to a
jury in Mayes County, the honorable Judge
Dynda Post sitting.
3
John E. Schoonover was
found Not Guilty of the charge at bar, but the Court wrongly allowed
the charge of Accessory After The Fact to be entered after all
evidence had been presented, as well as closing arguments; for this
wrongful charge, the verdict of Guilty was returned, but later
overturned by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, leaving Mr.
Schoonover without conviction.
The Defendant/Petitioner,
Mrs. Schoonover, was found guilty of the charge of Murder in The
First Degree and again sentenced to life in
prison.
From this, again direct
appeal was taken and said conviction and sentence was affirmed. Following affirmation the
Petitioner filed her Application for Post-Conviction Relief pursuant
to 22 O.S. 1080 et. Seq. which was signed and executed by John E.
Schoonover, acting under law as her lawful Attorney-In-Fact, such
power gained from the Power of Attorney Document executed October
24, 2005.
4
This Application was denied
wrongfully, as the Court failed to reach the merits of the matter
and the Petitioner timely filed her Notice of Intent to appeal said
decision with the District court, said pleading executed by John E.
Schoonover as Attorney-In-Fact, and she filed her Petition In Error
with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, hand delivered and
executed by her Attorney-In-Fact, John E. Schoonover, in a timely
fashion.
Following a delay in
adjudication of over three months Ms. Schoonover filed a Motion for
Summary Disposition, as the Attorney General had failed to respond
and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had failed to
rule.
Within days, the Oklahoma
Criminal Appeals declined jurisdiction for alleged improper
signature, that being the signature of John E. Schoonover, the
Petitioner’s Attorney-In-Fact, which was accompanied by her
notarized Power Of Attorney.
5
Jurisdictional
Statement
This Petitioner comes
before this Honourable Court as the highest Court in the State of
Oklahoma and as such, the Court
over all judiciary of this State! As such, this Court is the
proper venue to hear and order the relief herein sought, namely the
Writ of Mandamus ordering the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to
vacate it’s Order denying Post-Conviction Relief due to ‘improper
signature’ and to accept the legal signature of John E. Schoonover
acting as Attorney-In-Fact, a clear legal duty. See Oklahoma
Constitution Article F sec. 4.
Further, the Oklahoma
Statutes at Title 12, 2001, Sec. 952, (b) (z) references the Supreme
Court’s Jurisdiction, and gives jurisdiction of:
“An order that discharges,
vacates , or modifies, or refuses to vacate or modify a provisional
remedy which affects the substantial rights of a party; or grants,
refuses, vacates, modifies or refuses to vacate or modify an
injunction; grants or refuses a new trial; or vacates or refuses to
vacate a final judgment.”
6
Therefore, this Court has
jurisdiction to grant relief herein sought.
Argument and
Authority
For one to qualify for the
Writ of Mandamus per rules of the Court, a Petitioner must show the
following:
1. She has a clear right to
relief sought.
2. The Respondent has failed to
perform a
plain legal duty not involving an exercise
in
discretion, and;
3. The adequacy of
Mandamus, and the
inadequacy of other relief.
See Woolen v.
Coffman, 676 P.2d 1375, 1377 [Okl. Cr. 1984]
Mandamus has further been
ruled an appropriate vehicle to ensure due process, a protection
that without this Court’s Order, would be denied this
Petitioner.
See: Waldron v. Evans, 861
P.2d 311, 313,[Okl. Cr. 1993]
7
In the instant matter at
bar it is clear all requirements are met. The Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals wrongly denied acceptance of the Petitioner’s
Application for signature.
The Application was lawfully signed and executed by the
Petitioner, through John E. Schoonover, her lawful Attorney-In-Fact,
authorized through her lawfully executed Power Of
Attorney.
The Oklahoma Statutes at
Title 58, Chapter 17A cites the Uniform Power of Attorney Act,
sections 1072.1 and 1072.2 being the applicable authority in this
matter.
Further defining Power Of
Attorney the Petitioner refers the Court to In Re Matter of
Rolater’s Estate, 542 P.2d 219 [Okl. App..
1975]:
“Power of Attorney refers
to instrument authorizing another to act as one’s agent or
attorney-in-fact, as distinguished from attorney at
law.”
8
In Re Matter of Rolater’s
Estate,
Id, further states:
“Instrument Creating Power
of Attorney will be strictly construed.”
Under authority of all the
above it is without question that John E. Schoonover, acting as
agent or Attorney In Fact, authorized by properly executed Power of
Attorney, had authority to legally sign any and all legal documents,
including the Application for Post-Conviction relief that is the
matter here at bar, and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals was
obligated to accept Mr. Schoonover’s signature, acting as agent or
Attorney In Fact, for this Petitioner. To not accept the valid
Power of Attorney and signature by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals would be stating that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
is above the law.
Others are authorized to accept as valid such
transactions.
Surely the Oklahoma Court
of Criminal Appeals is not above the law. For further argument of this
prayer the Petitioner refers this Court to her unanswered prayer to
“Set Aside and Vacate,” attached. {Exhibit
A}
9
In closing argument
concerning the validity of a Power of Attorney and the signature of
one so designated Mrs. Schoonover need go no farther than Title 60,
Okl. Statute at sec. 299.1
“Under
Common Law”
“The common law of powers
is hereby declared to be the law of this state, except as modified
by statute.”
The common law of powers
makes clear that the Post-Conviction execution that in the matter
here at bar was properly executed, and no statute has modified
same.
From the above it is clear
that one, the petitioner validly executed her Post-Conviction
Application through her Attorney In Fact [not next of friend] and is
therefore entitled to relief herein sought.
It is further clear that
the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had no discretion in
accepting the Power of Attorney and signature of Mrs. Schoonover’s
Attorney In Fact.
10
Draper v. State, 621 P.2d
1142 [Okl. App. 1980] speaks to this:
“Mandamus does not lie to
control an action that allows discretion, unless discretion has been
abused.”
And
further:
“A difference of opinion is
not an abuse of discretion.
Where there is room for two opinions, an action is not
arbitrary or capricious when it is executed honestly upon due
consideration even though it may be believed that an erroneous
conclusion has been reached.”
There is, first, no
discretion of the courts, in this case the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals, in accepting statutory authority beyond such
statutes constitutionality.
In this case no Constitutional bars, either state or federal,
exist, therefore no discretion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals existed to not accept a signature allowed by statute. No difference of opinion
exists when a statute is so plain.
11
Simply put, Oklahoma Court
of Criminal appeals, the Respondent, failed to perform a plain legal
duty and accept the Application as legally signed, executed, and
presented.
Finally, there can be no
question that Mandamus is the only remedy, all other avenues having
been exhausted.
Conclusion and
Prayer
The Petitioner has long
sought a fair hearing on her matter and on it’s merits. She has diligently sought to
give birth to Justice, but there have been undertakers in the
delivery room throughout this ordeal.
Herein she has shown where
she has a clear right to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeal’s
acceptance of her Attorney In Fact’s execution of her
post-Conviction Relief in her behalf. She has shown the failure of
the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in accepting such. She has displayed the fact
that Mandamus is the only remedy in the search for
Justice.
12
Therefore, premises
considered, it is so prayed this Honourable Court issue it’s Writ of
Mandamus against the Respondent to vacate it’s order of April 10,
2006 and accept as genuine and lawful the Power Of Attorney,
Attorney in Fact execution and signature.
It is so
prayed.
Respectfully submitted,
John
Schoonover for
Gilda Marie Schoonover 404171
C1A/118
29501 Kickapoo
McLoud Oklahoma
74851
I certify that an exact
copy has been hand delivered to the office of the Attorney General,
Drew Edmondson.
13
Attachment
1
Affidavit signed by Gilda Marie Schoonover
Notarized
May 5, 2006 / Power Of
Attorney Notarized October 24.
Attachment
2
Petitioner’s “Objection To Dismissal” signed
by
Gilda Marie Schoonover,
Notarized 13 April, 2006 that was not accepted by the Court
Clerk.
Attachment
3
Copy of denial by
OCCA.
http://www.knightsindirtyarmour.com/
This Motion was dismissed
for the most frivolous of reasons as outlined following our MOTION
TO RECONSIDER, that follows:
14
{June
26, 2006}
IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Gilda Marie Schoonover
]
Petitioner
]
]
vs.
]
Case No. # 103374
]
The Oklahoma
Court
]
of Criminal Appeals
]
Petition / Prayer For
Reconsideration
Comes Now the Petitioner,
Gilda Marie Schoonover, Pro-se, an inmate within the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections, currently housed at the Mabel Basset
Correctional Center, 29501 Kickapoo Road, McLoud Oklahoma, under the
direct care, custody and supervision of Millicent-Newton Embry,
Warden, and humbly prays this honourable Court to reconsider it’s
decision in the above styled and numbered matter for reasons
herein:
1.
This Petitioner filed a timely appeal from an adverse ruling
in a Post-Conviction Relief Application from the District
Court of Mayes County, the honorable Judge
Dynda Post presiding.
15
This appeal was filed personally and by hand delivery by the
Petitioner’s husband, John E. Schoonover on January 3, 2006, and
accepted by the Clerk of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, and
was signed by the Petitioner’s husband acting as her Attorney In
Fact through Power of Attorney.
2.
Following adequate time, this Petitioner, by the same means
and signature, filed her Motion for Summary Disposition with the
Court of Criminal Appeals on April 4, 2006.
3
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
ruled the Appeal void and unacceptable due to the form of signature,
that is to say the signing by her Attorney In Fact from the Power of
Attorney, on October 24, 2005.
The OCCA failed to reach
the merits of the Appeal and simply dismissed for signature as noted
above.
4.
From this ruling of dismissal due to signature this
Petitioner filed her Application for Mandamus with this Honourable
Court, hand delivered and signed by her Attorney In Fact, John E.
Schoonover and the proper filing fee was rendered by check on May
22, 2006.
5.
This Court was asked to rule only on the validity of the
signature, executed by John E. Schoonover, Attorney – In – Fact,
that was presented to the OCCA and ruled
invalid.
16
6.
This Honourable Court declined jurisdiction citing State
ex rel. Henry v. Mahler, 786 P.2d 82, the Oklahoma Constitution
at Article 4 Section 7, stating the OCCA, by Article 4 Section 7,
has jurisdiction over Criminal matters.
Your honors, this
Petitioner has no fault with this ruling had she asked this Court to
rule on matters of Criminal law, or her Criminal Appeal as presented
to the OCCA. The
Oklahoma Constitution does in fact give the OCCA original
jurisdiction to rule on and in all Criminal matters, and this Court
has further upheld such separation in such cases as Mahler,
supra, and others.
However, the Petitioner has
not asked, in the matter here at bar, for this Honourable Court to
usurp the authority and jurisdiction of the OCCA, and rule on any
criminal matters before the OCCA. Rather, she asked in the
pleading for this Honourable Court to assume jurisdiction for the
purpose of:
1.
Ruling on the validity of the signature by the Attorney In
Fact, as the Power Of Attorney Document is a legal and binding
contract and, as such, “When entered into freely, and voluntarily,
shall be held
sacred and shall be enforced by the Courts of Justice, and
we are not lightly to interfere with this freedom of contract.” United
States S.Ct. as cited in Dufford v.
Nowakoski, 4 A. 2d 314, 125 N.N.E. 262 {1939}
2.
Should the signature be valid, to return the matter to the
OCCA with instructions to rule on the criminal matters as presented
to them on the merits of the Appeal.
17
Neither of these prays
propose that this Court interfere in a criminal matter in any
way. What the pleading
does is ask this Court to enter judgment on the validity of a
signature that the OCCA ruled invalid. This is clearly a civil
matter, not a criminal matter, and should have been, and should be
treated as such. The
validity of any signature is a civil matter. The appointment by Power Of
Attorney of an Attorney –In - Fact and the validity of such is
clearly a civil matter.
Again, this Petitioner has
not asked this Court to violate Article 4 Section 7 of the Oklahoma
Constitution and rule on merits of a criminal nature, only on the
signature’s validity as shown above as that of a licensed
Attorney-In-Fact, licensed as such by the Power Of Attorney
contract.
The first question, that of
the validity of the signature, was apparently answered by this
Court’s acceptance of the same signature as
valid.
This Court must have
misinterpreted this lay-person’s pleading to have ruled as it did
citing Article 4 Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution and Mahler,
citing no jurisdiction for criminal matters. It is long held a Pro Se
pleading be given broad latitude as to form. See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519 [1972] and
Hall v. Bellman, 935 F2d, 106 10th Cir.
[1991].
18
Therefore, this Honourable
Court having accepted as valid the signature in question, it is now
humbly and respectfully prayed, premises considered, that this
Honourable Court reconsider it’s order of June 12, 2006, and accept
it’s jurisdiction in the pleading, said pleading being of a civil
nature, and return the matter to the OCCA with instructions to
accept the valid signature of John Schoonover as Attorney In Fact
for Gilda Marie Schoonover and accept their [Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals] jurisdiction and rule on the Criminal Appeal on
the merits of the Appeal as presented.
It is so prayed as a matter
of Justice and to uphold the dignity of the State of Oklahoma.
Respectfully Submitted,
Signed:
Gilda Marie
Schoonover
Gilda Marie
Schoonover
Pro Se
I certify that an exact
copy has been mailed to Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of
Oklahoma.
Signed:
John
Schoonover
John Schoonover, U.S.N. Ret.
Attorney In Fact, for
Gilda
Marie Schoonover, 404171
MBCC 20501
Kickapoo Road
McLoud Oklahoma
74851
http://www.knightsindirtyarmour.com/
This
Motion was dismissed with no explanation.
19
The Supreme Court of the
State of Oklahoma responded June 12, taking
only three weeks to write the order:
“The Petitioner’s
application for the writ of mandamus, treated as an application to
assume original jurisdiction for a writ to the Court of Criminal
appeals, is denied. State ex rel Henry v.
Mahler, 1990 OK 3 786 P.2d 82. DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME
COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 12TH day of June,
2006.”
Having an understanding of
the writ asked for one is perplexed at how five educated judges can
conclude that we asked that they “assume original jurisdiction” of
anything! I was taught
during adolescence not to “assume” anything as, as the word itself
is composed of three words that makes an ass [out of]
u [and] me!
I do not appreciate them treating me like an ass. I have intelligence. I do not like it being
insulted. I would think
that they would have greater dignity.
Henry v. Mahler
concerns a criminal matter
and sentencing. The
Supreme Court is a civil court and does not assume jurisdiction over
criminal matters. They
did, however, in fact, “assume original jurisdiction” in Mahler and then
dismissed Mahler’s plea.
After the case was filed in the Supreme Court the issue was
moot due to action “by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals when
it issued its Order of Reconsideration.”
From the other side of
their mouth they “do not consider this matter [Mahler] to be
moot.” They quote the
OCCA, that this issue is “properly a matter for the Oklahoma Supreme
Court,” as it is “an administrative procedure.” Just as is the case at
bar!
20
They conclude their denial
of relief for Mahler with this statement:
“Parties may not
circumvent the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal
Appeals by filing an original action in this Court when they
disagree with that Court’s rulings.”
The “Power Of Attorney”
that designated John Schoonover as “attorney in fact” for Gilda
Marie Schoonover is a legal binding contract. So what does The Supreme Court say
about contracts?:
“We are not unmindful that
‘public policy requires . . . that men of full age and competent
understanding shall have the utmost liberty of contracting, and that
their contracts when entered into freely and voluntarily, shall be
held sacred and shall be
enforced by the courts of justice,’ and that we are not lightly
to interfere with this freedom of contract.”
Quoted from Rafferty v.
Nowakoski, A.2d 314, 125 N.J.E. 262, {1939}, when I was two
years old. It is not a new
law!
It is clear in our plea
that we did not ask the
Supreme Court of Oklahoma to “assume original jurisdiction” in the
criminal matter. Two
young friends not yet graduated from Junior High School that have
read the plea clearly understood what we asked for, how can the
Supreme Court not understand that all we have asked them to do is to
compel the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to abide by the above
law concerning contracts; specifically that of Power Of Attorney
that the Supreme Court itself complied with or they would not have
accepted the plea to cow to the OCCA and improperly deny it!
Judge Post would not do her
duty and designated Charles Ramsey to write ‘her’ opinion of the
Post Conviction Relief for her.
The OCCA made a rule to
circumvent the legal document of Power Of Attorney so they would not
have to shoulder any responsibility!
21
The Supreme Court of
Oklahoma “does not understand” what we have asked for, which is that
the law be upheld, so writes that they “assume” something not fact
and thus “denied” their responsibility to uphold the Law of
Oklahoma, the Law of the other 49 States, the Law that is centuries
old and considered sacred
by the Supreme
Court of our country and all of the provinces under the Crown around
the world!
“Our judicial system may
not be the greatest, but it’s all we have.”
Whose fault is that!!! Certainly not the Quakers
who, when they see a problem, “Can not walk away in
ignorance.”
Six million Jews saw a
problem and did not unite against Hitler.
I am not asking that six
million individuals stand up for Justice. I am not trying to save six
million innocent people.
I writing this for that 10% Janet Reno says are Wrongfully
Convicted. For one, in
particular, that is absolutely and totally innocent! One who has been tortured by
our State for over five long years who has done absolutely nothing
to spend one single hour behind bars.
That one, with a life
sentence, will die in a cage behind prison walls an innocent woman
because the Supreme Court of Oklahoma ‘covers’ for the Oklahoma
Court of Criminal Appeals who ‘covers’ for The Honorable Judge Dynda
Post who ‘covers’ for her Charles Ramsey who protects his George
Klatt who not only perjured the Probable Cause Affidavit and is the only one who
could have inflicted the multiple fractures Charles Ramsey lamented
to the jury for Benjamin’s brains to “bulge, squish and gush out the
top of his head” and who could be responsible for the slaughter of
Laura Bible and the Freeman family. Who knows how many
others?
Unfortunately, this is not
an isolated case. Most
Pro-se attempts at getting Justice from our courts are dismissed for
such reasons as “an i is not crossed or a t not dotted,” words
misspelled or, as in this case, they don’t like how Marie signed the
appeal; they don’t like that no words are minced, it exposes
corruption of their colleagues in the lower
courts.
22
I received a personal
letter from one of the judges: “It is improper for you to file
complaints simply because you do not like our decision.” Hell! The decisions I attacked are
wrong and against the law!
It is
against the law to pervert Justice!
I receive another letter
from one of the judges:
“It is improper for you to contact us to talk about your
case. You must do this
through your attorney.”
I do not have an
attorney! The judge has
placed a barrier between me and Justice!
This is common for Pro-se
applicants. They are
Pro-se because they cannot afford an attorney; thus cannot buy
Justice. For this
reason most Pro-se applicants fail for frivolous reasons.
This ‘Pro-se’ advocate is
also not afraid to call a spade a spade.
Judge Post is not an
isolated rogue.
Unfortunately.
An “isolated case” would be retiring Judge Thompson from
Sapulpa
Oklahoma who got caught
exposing himself and playing with sex toys while on the bench.
Lets focus on him and cover
the front pages with his trial and it makes it easier to gloss over
and sweep under the carpet the others, like Judge Post, who pervert
the law. Taking it into
their own hands and writing the rules as they go along. Making criminals out of
innocent people. Judges who know certain defendants are innocent and
advise that a “nolo contendere” plea is the same as a “not guilty”
plea. Then
threatening their manufactured criminals if they make any attempts
at seeking Justice. “Be
careful what you ask for” is the comment of one judge who further
added, “If you appeal [my decision], you will have to post bond or
go back to jail.”
23
Appropriate advice from a
judge to an innocent beaten down and defeated indigent defendant who
has languished in a condemned jail for months because reasonable
affordable bail was not assessed would be to make an “Alford”
plea. But then the law
would be upheld and no outlandish income fines would be levied;
there would not be one more “State manufactured felon.”
Oklahoma already has the proud
status of having the largest women’s prison in the world. The highest population of
women prisoners per capita
of any state.
Are Oklahomans so ignorant that we simply raise more women
criminals than anyone else in the world? I hardly think so. With the help of our Dirty
Knights, we manufacture criminals. That is good business for
the lawyers, good business for the prosecutors, good business for
the judges. Rather
expensive for tax payers.
We spend more on criminals [both real and State manufactured]
than we spend on school children.
Do we not have enough real
criminals that we don’t have to manufacture innocent ones?
I filed the “MOTION TO
EXHUME THE TRUTH” in the Mayes County District Court July 3,
2006.
If Benjamin is exhumed and
there are multiple fractures as Charles Ramsey lamented to the Jury
that could not have been accidental, we have the radiologist MRI
that shows NO such fractures when Benjamin was admitted to St.
Francis. They were
manufactured by a Knight in Dirty Armour while Benjamin was a
patient at St. Francis.
There is no question what Dirty Knight was with Benjamin
immediately after surgery by Dr. Fell and the hour of Benjamin’s
death.
If Benjamin is exhumed and
there are no multiple
fractures as Charles Ramsey tricked Dr. Barton into testifying about
and no fractures for
Charles Ramsey to tell the jury of Benjamin’s “Brains bulging,
squishing, gushing out the top of his head for forty five minutes”
then we know Charles Ramsey is a liar that would send an innocent
woman to prison to die.
24
It is difficult for me to
fathom that our Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals would not want to
get to the bottom of this in the interest of Justice.
It is difficult for me to
fathom that our Oklahoma Supreme Court would not enforce the age old
Power Of Attorney law and compel the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals to rule on the merits of the appeal in the interest of
Justice.
Justice
is relegated to the rumble seat
to
favour the comfort of colleagues.
God bless our Oklahoma
Knights in Dirty Armour.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
July 4
2006
This cocklebur will not go
away. I am preparing a
Federal Appeal to the Northern District Court of Oklahoma in
Tulsa. Hopefully I can find an
attorney with knowledge and balls to stand up for Justice and help
me with my quest for Justice for Little Insignificant
Marie.
http://www.knightsindirtyarmour.com/
John
Schoonover, knightsindirtyarmour@yahoo.com
25
Back / Next /
Home | 
