Welcome to our Docket Watch
Here you can view the actual documents as they are filed with the court and be able to decide for yourself if the arguments have any merit.
To view a case – click on the Title, you will be redirected to the Docket, once there you can review the entries in the case including Orders from the court and notations regarding hearings.
From the Docket, to view a document – click on the number, the .pdf document will load for you to read or download if you like.
All Dockets and their documents are in .pdf format and you will need the free ADOBE reader to view them.
FEDERAL CASES from US District Courts and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
|Citizens for Fair Representation, et al. v. Alex Padilla|
Case No. 2:17-cv-00973
On Appeal Case No. 18-17458
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
|Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller||The great experiment and promise of Independence - “We The People” – launched the American Revolution that led to The United States of America, was based on the fundamental founding organic principle of “No taxation, without Representation - Give me Liberty, or give me death.” Sadly, this paramount principle of representation - that the people themselves provide the basis for governmental sovereignty and legitimacy - has been abridged by California.|
This case is about the dilution of your vote and lack of representation in the state of California.
|Docket updated: 10/29/2019
|Scott E. Stafne v. Zilly|
Case No. 2:17-cv-01692
US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle
|Honorable Michael H. Simon||Are federal “Senior” Judges Article III Judges as required by the constitution? |
US Constitution Article III is supposed to assure the people that judges get paid by the government for the exercise of judicial power. In Booth v United States, the Supreme Court observed:
It is scarcely necessary to say that a retired judge's judicial acts would be illegal unless he who performed them held the office of judge. It is a contradiction in terms to assert that one who has retired in accordance with the statute may continue to function as a federal judge and yet not hold the office of a judge. 291 U.S. 339, 350 (1934)
|Docket updated: 5/28/2019|
|Eugene Martin LaVergne, et al. v. U.S. House of Representatives, et. al.|
Case No. 1:17-cv-00793
US District Court for the District of Columbia
|Honorable Cornelia T. L. Pillard|
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Honorable Randolph D. Moss
|Was the Article the First was actually ratified changing the number of representatives from each state to the US House of Representatives?|
Eugene Martin LaVergne, author of "How 'Less' is 'More': The Story of the Real First Amendment to the United States Constitution" and three other United States citizens filed a complaint on April 28, 2017 to void a new FCC rule affecting their privacy. Their theories for invalidating the rule are significant in that they seek, among other things, an order requiring archivists of the States of Virginia, Connecticut, and Kentucky to provide notice to the Archivist of the United States regarding the actions taken by each State Legislature with regard to approving the first of the original twelve amendments proposed after adoption of the Constitution. According to the plaintiffs such notice will confirm that 12 of the legislatures of the 15 states comprising the United States in 1792 ratified the Amendment known as Article the First and that as a result became a part of this nation's organic law.
The complaint alleges that this ratified amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that the number of members of the House of Representatives be increased to accommodate each State's growing population. This, of course, is consistent with our founders' goal that the House be formed in such a way as to represent and protect the people from such governmental tyranny as had previously been overthrown.
Scott Stafne did not write this complaint.
|Docket Updated: 9/25/2018|
|Cervantes v. Deere et. als|
Case No. 18-35366
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
|Can judicial power be exercised without concern for the facts? An interesting case regarding the imposition of sanctions based upon false assumptions and disregard for the record. The questions posed are:|
1. Did the district court err by not following the Panel’s remand instructions to explain the “reasonableness” of its award of sanctions against Stafne and Webb in light of Rule 11’s deterrence objectives?
2. Did the district court err by not following this Court’s remand mandate requiring that it explain what fees and costs were reasonable to impose on Stafne and Webb under the circumstances of this case? and
3. Did the district court commit constitutional error by transferring all of defendant attorneys fees and costs to Stafne and Webb based on the court’s erroneous and unexplained presumption that they were reasonable?
|Docket Updated: 9/21/2018|