Free Motion to Strike - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

I
lk »·.. b
_)§_ FILED ___ LODGED
__ RECEIVED __ COPY
1 Charles August Schlund, H1
sszc N. scum Drive Dat: S13 EDGE
2 Glendale, AZ 85302
(602) 670-2017 cream u s cisrancr count
3 Plaintiff in Pro Per BY DISTFIIGT UF mglzggléggw
4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
6
CHARLES AUGUST SCHLUND, III
7 CIV 03-1590-PHX VAM
Plaintiff, (Honorable Virginia A. Mathis)
8 J
vs. ) NOTICE AND MOTION TO
9 ) STRIKE WORDS FROM
NOVEMBER 21, 2005 ORDER AND
10 GEORGE W. BUSH, an individual, et al., JUDGIVIENT DATED NOVEMBER
22 2005.
ll Defendants. g ’
I 12 Charles A. Schlund, 111 ("PlaintiIEf` Schlund”) hereby files his Notice and Motion to Strike the
13
inappropriate, irrelevant, prejudicial, biased, and fabricated words and facts from the November 21,
14
1-5 2005 Order issued and entered by the Honorable Virginia A. Mathis, United States Magistrate Judge,
16 and Judgment In A Civil Case dated November 22, 2005 as follows. References to the words and
1 '7 phrases to be stricken are followed by page and line numbers where they are denoted in the aforesaid
1 8 order, which is incorporated into the Judgment as follows.
1 9
1. Plaintiff Schlund objects and moves to strike "Cou1t I:•elieves" (ld. p. 2, ln. 14),
2 0
2 1 "President Bush and his predecessors" (p. 1, ln. 15), "implanted a mind control device" (p. 1, ln. 16),
22 "in his head" (p. 1, ln. 16), and “used to torture him" (p. 1, ln. 16). Plaintiff objects and moves to
23 strike the aforesaid words and phrases on the grounds that no such allegations were alleged in
2 4 Plaintiff s Verified Complaint. Nor were these words or phrases used in any ofP1aintifF s pleadings or
2 5 motions before the Court. Such words were fabricated by the Defendant through his undersigned
2 6
counsel and then picked up by the Court and attempted to be used by a fraudulent misrepresentation
2 7
2 8
l
Case 2:03-cv-01590—VAIVI Document 54 Filed 12/22/2005 Page 1 of 4

I
1 ofthe facts as alleged to support the improper order dismissing Plaintiff s case, with all due resp ect to
2 the Court. The Court is respectfully requested to take mandatory judicial notice of its own records
3 and Plaintiffs pleading in the docket and the record under Federal Rules of Evidence 201, and
A; Plaintiff specifically requests an evidentiary hearing and afforded the opportunity to be heard, as
6 required under F.R.E. Rule 20 l(a), which shall constitute a continuing request to make the record on
7 appeal.
8 2. Plaintiff objects and moves to strike "alleged co-conspirators" (p. 1, hi. 17), "The third
9 issue seems to arise from prior dismissals of Plaintiff s Complaint" (p. 1, lns. 19-20), "P1ainti1f s initial
ij Complaint was dismissed as it was defective" (p. 1, lns. 21 -22), "Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
12 that is equally defective" (p. 1, lns. 23-24), and the entire paragraph thereof (p. 1, Ins. 21-26).
13 Plaintiff` objects and moves to strike the aforesaid on the grounds Plaintiff s Complaint was not
14 defective and was appropriate under the Rules of Civil Procedure at the initial stage of pleading.
15 Plaintiffs Verified First Amended Complaint was coherent in substance and easy to understand,
1 6 sufficient to place Defendant on notice ofthe nature of Plaintiff s allegations under the pleading rules.
ig These statements in the Order only serve to set up a pretext by the Court attempting to give the
19 appearance it has acted objectively, fairly, and impartially, without the influence of this high level
2 O Defendant and those in his chain of command, including those appointed and in relation to those who
2 1 are appointed to the United States District Court Bench.
22 3. Plaintiff objects and moves to strike "dismissed with prejudice" (p. 2, lns. 4-5, p. 2,
;3 lns. 7-S). Plaintiff objects and moves to strike on the ground that dismissal of his case with prejudice
2; violates his due process, equal protection, and right to a jury trial guaranteed under the United States
2 6 Constitution, especially since Plaintiff has reasonably complied with each and all of the procedural
2 7 requirements enunciated under the Rules of Procedure for pleading his case at the initial pleading
2 B
2
l
Case 2:03-cv-01590—VAI\/I Document 54 Filed 12/22/2005 Page 2 of 4

i `
1 stage, which is to be liberally construed towards the ends of justice on the substance merits of the
2 substance of his claims, with the court not placing form over substance to dismiss with prejudice,
3
violating his said rights.
4
5 4. Plaintiff objects and moves to strike "as moot" (p. 2, ln. 10), “as moot" (p. 2, ln. 12)
6 and "as moot" (p. 2, ln. 14). Plaintiff continually objects and moves to strike the aforesaid on the
7 grounds Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary injunction Against Torture and Perpetual Invasion of
B Privacy, Ex-Parte Motion for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order to Preveni Torture and
9 Perpetual Invasion of Privacy, and Motion for Hair Analysis Test are not moot. Eacli and all ofthe
ILO
said motions were proper under the Rules of Procedure, in form and content, and were totally
11
1 2 justified under the factual circumstances, supported by proper affidavits under penalty of perjury and
1 3 other related evidence, and justified under Ninth Circuit and United States Supreme Court Authority
14 for the Court to at least set the motions for hearing, consider the evidence, and rule impartially, I
15 ob`ectively, and in fairness so a record can be made for urposes of a peal in the event they were
J P P
16
denied. Further, each motion is not moot on the grounds it contains relevant evidence under the
ll.'7
Federal Rules of Evidence, including but not limited to Rule(s) 101, 102, 103(a)(1) [Rulings on
18
19 Evidence], [Objections And Motions To Strike Inappropriate Evidentiary Matter Contained In An
2 [3 Order Or Judgment], 104, 201, and Rule 401, 402, 403, and 404, which the Court is requested to
2 1 take judicial notice of under Rule 201 (Id.) Each motion denied as moot constitutes a violation of
22 Plaintiff s due process, equal protection, and fairness as mandated under Federal Rules of Evidence
23
Rule 10l and 102.
24
2 5 The Court is respectfully requested to take mandatory judicial notice of its own November 21,
26 2005 Order and Judgment in Civil Case dated November 22, 2005 incorporating same into said
2 7 judgment in considering this Motion to Strike and Plaintiff s continuing objection to the Court’s lack
2 8
3
Case 2:03-cv-01590—VAI\/I Document 54 Filed 12/22/2005 Page 3 of 4

Y 5 A is 1
1 of impartiality, bias, all giving the appearance of impropriety and having a chilling effect on the
2 public’s trust in the integrity of the Court by rendering all such motions moot without formal
3
consideration and an evidentiary hearing provided for under the law.
4 _. *
5 . 1
6 Dated; Decembeiyg, 2005 By: 1
Charles August Schlund, III
7 Plaintiff in Pro Per
8
9 ORIGINAL hand-delivered this 2-3 day
Of December, 2005 to:
10
Clerk of the Court
ll U.S. District Court of Arizona
12 401 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85009
13
and
14
COPIES ofthe foregoing mailed this
15 2,.5 day of December, 2005 to:
16 . .
Mr. Richard G. Patrick
17 Assistant U. S. Attorney
United States Attorney General’s Office
18 Two Renaissance Square
19 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408
2 0 (602) 514-7760 (Fax)
(602) 514-7500 (O)
2 1 Richard.patrick@us do j. gov
2 2 Attorney for Defendant
23
By ..
24
25
2 6
27
28
4 l
Case 2:03-cv-01590—VAIVI Document 54 Filed 12/22/2005 Page 4 of 4 . -

Case 2:03-cv-01590-VAM

Document 54

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01590-VAM

Document 54

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01590-VAM

Document 54

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01590-VAM

Document 54

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 4 of 4