July 30, 2013

Writ of Mandamus for Recusal/Judicial Notice-Liability of the Court WITH INTENT TO IMPEACH etc .

Rescind my signature(s)  & Demanding recusal of Magistrate for docket #'s - 1:12 cv 2385, 1:12 cv 2738, 1:13 cv 1213 & 1:13 cv 2956 et al

Now comes the above Title, Noble : Stanley Aristilde El-Bey appearing specially and not generally for the sole purposes of respectfully notifying this courtroom and Magistrate( Allyne R Ross )that they may become personally liable for the results of this case and demands to recuse Magistrate  _______________________ from the above entitled matter under 28 USCS Sec. 455

( (a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.(b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1)Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(3)Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy), and Marshall v Jerrico Inc., 446 US 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980).

\"The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law.\"

The above is applicable to this court by application of Article VI of the United States Constitution and Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976).

\"State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law.\"

See: Quo Warranto Affidavit of Fact - Conditional Acceptance to Color -of-Law Dismissal fraudulently   filed April 11, 2013

 

\"Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judges impartiality...to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified. Liteky v US,114 S.Ct 1147,1162(1994)

The above mentioned Judge has in the past deliberately violated other litigant\'s personal liberties and/or has wantonly refused to provide due process and equal protection to all litigants before the court or has behaved in a manner inconsistent with that which is needed for full, fair, impartial hearings.

The United States Constitution guarantees an unbiased Judge who will always provide litigants with full protection of ALL RIGHTS. Therefore, Petitioner respectfully demands said judge recuse themselves in light of the evidence attached as Exhibit 1 detailing prior unethical and/or illegal conduct or conduct which gives Petitioner good reason to believe the above Judge cannot hear the above case in a fair and impartial manner.

I now ask for the record that that a lawful determination be made as to whether or not a magistrate can sit in his official capacity as a magistrate in this case ,and act as counsel over the objections of the alleged accused.

 

\"An exception to the rule of judicial immunity exists which is founded on the distinction between excess of jurisdiction and the absence of all jurisdiction where an act is done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction and this is known to the judge there is no immunity.\"   Johnson v MacCoy 278 f2d 37(9th Circuit 1960)

Kenney v Fox 232 F2d 288       Rhodes v Houston 202 Fed Sup

 

Petitioner further states for the record that he has never knowingly volunteered or waived any personal jurisdiction in the instant matter(s), therefore Petitioner hereby provides Judicial Notice that should he be ultimately prevail in his arguments he will hold the court and magistrate personally liable, as the above cases indicate he is entitled.

Because the Constitution does not directly provide for damages, Petitioner must

proceed under one of the civil rights statutes that authorizes and award of damages, for alleged

Constitutional violations.  F.3d 1296 (6th Sanders v. Prentice-Hall Corp. Sys. 178 Cir. 1999).

 

Pleadings in all cases filed are being held in Propria Persona, wherein pleadings are to be considered

without regard to technicalities.  Propria, pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards

of perfection as practicing lawyers.  Haines v. Kerner 92 Sct 594, also See Power 914 F.2d

1459 (11th Cir 1990)

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT.  GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY!!!

Rescind my signature(s)  & Demanding recusal of Magistrate for docket #'s - 1:12 cv 2385, 1:12 cv 2738, 1:13 cv 1213 & 1:13 cv 2956 et al   [ last docket #'s are related for they are the same matter with 2 docket #'s - Corrosive tactics by said caveat actor posing as public servant at District Court EDNY ] this document includes my signature along with 9 other national\'s ssignatures on the siaid document ddemanding the recusal and impeachment of the caveat actor  DBA Judge at district Court ENDY. I would like to send in copy of the writ for your records what is your address (international location outside of north america

tdonnyc@gmail.com