In The United States District Court For The District Of Columbia BRET D. LANDRITH, SAMUEL K. LIPARI Plaintiffs vs.

Hon. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., Chief Justice of the United States Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 12-cv-01916-ABJ

RULE 11 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Comes now the plaintiffs, BRET D. LANDRITH and SAMUEL K. LIPARI, appearing pro se and make the following motion for sanctions under Rule 11. STATEMENT OF POINTS 1. Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. committed the specific conduct alleged

below to violate subdivision (b) of Rule 11 when USA Ronald C. Machen Jr., Chief Civil ASA Daniel F. Van Horn, and ASA Claire Whitaker signed and filed the Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 on 4/22/2013 as Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR.s representatives and agents. 2. The Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 expressly

states at page 2 that it incorporates by reference the challenged contentions, allegation, and denials of the earlier Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #9 that Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR was given notice in the plaintiffs Amended Complaint Doc. # 11 at pages 22-40, 74- 102 and plaintiffs 04/08/2013 Response To Order Of The Court Doc. # 13 that he is required to withdraw and correct.

1!

A. Material Misrepresentations to the Tribunal 3. On 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss

pleading, Doc. #14 Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., USA Ronald C. Machen Jr., Chief Civil ASA Daniel F. Van Horn, and ASA Claire Whitaker knowingly made again the misrepresentation in Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 9) that ..there is no support in McBryde for their proposition that this Court is authorized to impose injunctive relief on the Chief Justice. Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. (Doc. #9 at pg. 7). 4. On 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss

pleading, Doc. #14 Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., USA Ronald C. Machen Jr., Chief Civil ASA Daniel F. Van Horn, and ASA Claire Whitaker knowingly misrepresented the plaintiffs original and amended complaints through omission of ( Doc. 1 Pg. 22) Neither plaintiff has appeared before the defendant in his capacity as a judge or justice for the purpose of intentionally misrepresenting the application of In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir.) to procure a dismissal through fraud on the court as the compliant alleges District of Kansas USA Barry R. Grissom procured a dismissal of the W.D. of Oklahoma defendants. 5. On 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss

pleading, Doc. #14 Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., USA Ronald C. Machen Jr., Chief Civil ASA Daniel F. Van Horn, and ASA Claire Whitaker knowingly misrepresented the plaintiffs original and amended complaints through omission of expressly states ( Doc. 1 Pg. 22) Neither plaintiff has appeared before the defendant in his capacity as a judge or justice and in Count I The defendant is liable to the plaintiffs for prospective injunctive relief restraining his ministerial and executive administration of

2!

the Judicial Conference of the United States, where the Chief Justice Hon. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. functions in a ministerial capacity as the chief executive ( Doc. 1 Pgs. 22-23) to give notice that In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir.) is inapplicable. 6. On 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss

pleading, Doc. #14 Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., USA Ronald C. Machen Jr., Chief Civil ASA Daniel F. Van Horn, and ASA Claire Whitaker knowingly misrepresented the plaintiffs original and amended complaints as seeking relief from rulings by judges through the false statement Nothing that the Chief Justice does in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Judicial Conference relates in any way to controlling the manner in which federal judges rule. 28 U.S.C. 331-32. Thus, there is no injuryinfact that is connected to the Chief Justices conduct Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. (Doc. #9 at pg. 8) 7. On 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss

pleading, Doc. #14 Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., USA Ronald C. Machen Jr., Chief Civil ASA Daniel F. Van Horn, and ASA Claire Whitaker knowingly made the material factual misrepresentation to this court (Doc. #9 at pg. 8) that he has nothing to do with judicial misconduct policy, when the complaint and amended complaint seeks to modify the way judicial ethics complaints are published, a decision he made in the exercise of his administrative capacity power in response to Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 A Report to the Chief Justice The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee Stephen Breyer, Chair September 2006. 8. On 4/22/2013 in Doc. 14 at page 3Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., USA

Ronald C. Machen Jr., Chief Civil ASA Daniel F. Van Horn, and ASA Claire Whitaker

3!

knowingly misrepresented to the tribunal that the plaintiffs seek to have the court order a state admissions committee on how to conduct its proceedings. B. Extrinsic Frauds In An Attempt to Obstruct Justice 9. Since filing the original complaint, the defendant through his agents has caused

the disruption of the plaintiff SAMUEL LIPARIs business to enter the home healthcare market through his business Medical Supply Line and caused him to lose the server hosting he was in contract for at Nexcess.net, L.L.C., 21700 Melrose Ave., Southfield MI 48075. 10. Since filing the original complaint, the defendant through his agents has caused

the prevention of email communications via The Go Daddy Group, Inc. Company Information. 14455 N. Hayden Rd. Scottsdale, AZ, 85260 to new contacts by the plaintiff SAMUEL LIPARIs in his business to enter the home healthcare market through his business Medical Supply Line. 11. Since filing the original complaint, the defendant through his agents has caused

the disruption and cut off of Internet communications of the plaintiff SAMUEL LIPARIs nephew Ryan J. Lipari. 12. Since filing the original complaint, the defendant through his agents has caused

the disruption and cut off of SAMUEL LIPARIs celluar prepaid phone on January 24, 2013, the wireless carrier H2O was shut off (despite being prepaid). LIPARI made several efforts to regain service through technical support who were unfamiliar with any other instance where prepaid services would be cut off. 13. Since filing the original complaint, the defendant through his agents has caused

the disruption and cut off of BRET LANDRITHs celluar phone on the wireless carrier

4!

AT&T on January 24, 2013 was also shut off preventing communication with SAMUEL LIPARI and his friends and associates most of the business day. STATEMENT OF AUTHORITIES Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. and his counsels conduct in signing and filing on 4/22/2013 the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 is sanctionable under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11. The conduct is a separate and subsequent act from the misrepresentations by Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. and his counsel in the Motion to Dismiss Doc. #9 addressed as the basis of an independent claim by the plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint Doc. # 11. Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JRs filing of the false representations to this court on 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 to procure a dismissal through extrinsic fraud is an act of knowing participation with federal officials with private and state actors in 15 U.S.C. 1,2 (Sherman Act) criminal conduct and violations of the Civil Rights Acts 18 USC 241, 242, and 245 with state officials, injuring the plaintiffs. Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. and his counsel s intentional misrepresentations were made to this court on 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 to cause invite Judge Amy Berman Jackson to commit fraud on her own court and obstruct justice. See Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514 generally and at 540-1 (3rd Cir., 1948).

5!

Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. and his counsel s lack of candor to the tribunal in knowingly misrepresenting the application of the controlling precedent and misrepresenting material facts to this court is a violation of Rule 11 and the rules of professional ethics governing this jurisdiction: Rule 3.3 of the local rules prohibits a lawyer from knowingly "offer[ing] evidence that the lawyer knows to be false," D.C. R. OF PROF. CONDUCT 3.3(a)(4) U.S. v. Bruce, 89 F.3d 886, 319 U.S. App. D.C. 245 at 894 (C.A.D.C., 1996). Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. and his counsel s intentional misrepresentations were made to this court on 4/22/2013 in the pleading Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss pleading, Doc. #14 after the falseness of the material facts and misrepresentations of law were made known to the defendant. This intentional and knowing misrepresentation can require the forfeiture of Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR.s defenses as a sanction. See generally U.S. v. Shaffer Equipment Co., 11 F.3d 450 (C.A.4 (W.Va.), 1993). CONCLUSION Whereas for the above reasons the plaintiffs request that the court sanction Chief Justice JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. and his counsel and grant the relief sought in the plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. Respectfully submitted,

_____________________ Bret D. Landrith Plaintiff appearing pro se

6!

_____________________ Samuel K. Lipari Plaintiff appearing pro se CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The plaintiffs hereby certify that they have served the defendant and the defendants counsel by US Mail on April 24, 2013. Hon. Chief Justice John G. Roberts 1 First St NE Washington, DC 20543 Ronald C. Machen Jr. United States Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Daniel F. Van Horn Chief, Civil Division United States Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Claire Whitaker, Assistant United States Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W. E-4216 Washington, D.C. 20530

_____________________ Bret D. Landrith Plaintiff appearing pro se Apt. 209, 5308 SW Tenth St. Topeka, KS 66604 bret@bretlandrith.com 1-913-951-1715

_____________________ Samuel K. Lipari Plaintiff appearing pro se 803 S. Lake Drive Independence, MO 64064 saml@medicalsupplyline.com 1-816-365-1306

7!

April 24, 2013 Hon. John G. Roberts Chief Justice United States Supreme Court 1 First St NE Washington, DC 20543 RE: D.D.C. 1:12-cv-01916 LANDRITH et al v. ROBERTS Rule 11(c)(2) Notice Honorable Sir, This letter regards your misrepresentations to the District of Columbia, District Court where you are a defendant. On 4/22/2013 you filed a Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #14 that expressly incorporates by reference misrepresentations of material facts and law from your Motion to Dismiss Doc. #9 contradicting facts and controlling precedent to which you had legal notice. The plaintiffs Amended Complaint Doc. # 11 at pages 22-40, 74- 102 and plaintiffs 04/08/2013 Response To Order Of The Court Doc. # 13 state the specific and knowing misrepresentations of the applicable precedent and the material misrepresentations of facts of matters before the district court regarding the district courts prior exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over prospective injunctive relief and declaratory relief claims under the constitution against a higher federal appeals court chief judge in a private individual redress action in McBryde v. Committee to Rev. Cir. Council Conduct, 83 F.Supp.2d 135 at 149 (D.D.C., 1999). Doc. # 11 and # 13 gave you specific details of your knowing use of the extrinsic fraud of your agents to openly procure a dismissal through Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514 at 540-1 (3rd Cir., 1948) fraud on the court. You have twenty one days from service of this letter to withdraw the challenged defenses, contentions, and denials and to appropriately correct the same, or within another time the court sets. Sincerely,

_____________________ Bret D. Landrith Plaintiff appearing pro se

_____________________ Samuel K. Lipari Plaintiff appearing pro se

RULE 11 Motion Exb. 1

April 24, 2013 Ronald C. Machen Jr. United States Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 RE: D.D.C. 1:12-cv-01916 LANDRITH et al v. ROBERTS Rule 11(c)(2) Notice Honorable Sir, This letter regards your misrepresentations to the District of Columbia, District Court where you represent the defendant. On 4/22/2013 you filed a Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #14 that expressly incorporates by reference misrepresentations of material facts and law from your Motion to Dismiss Doc. #9 contradicting facts and controlling precedent to which you had legal notice. The plaintiffs Amended Complaint Doc. # 11 at pages 22-40, 74- 102 and plaintiffs 04/08/2013 Response To Order Of The Court Doc. # 13 state the specific and knowing misrepresentations of the applicable precedent and the material misrepresentations of facts of matters before the district court regarding the district courts prior exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over prospective injunctive relief and declaratory relief claims under the constitution against a higher federal appeals court chief judge in a private individual redress action in McBryde v. Committee to Rev. Cir. Council Conduct, 83 F.Supp.2d 135 at 149 (D.D.C., 1999). Doc. # 11 and # 13 gave you specific details of your knowing use of the extrinsic fraud of your agents to openly procure a dismissal through Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514 at 540-1 (3rd Cir., 1948) fraud on the court. You have twenty one days from service of this letter to withdraw the challenged defenses, contentions, and denials and to appropriately correct the same, or within another time the court sets. Sincerely,

_____________________ Bret D. Landrith Plaintiff appearing pro se

_____________________ Samuel K. Lipari Plaintiff appearing pro se

RULE 11 Motion Exb. 2

April 24, 2013 Daniel F. Van Horn Chief, Civil Division United States Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 RE: D.D.C. 1:12-cv-01916 LANDRITH et al v. ROBERTS Rule 11(c)(2) Notice Honorable Sir, This letter regards your misrepresentations to the District of Columbia, District Court where you represent the defendant. On 4/22/2013 you filed a Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #14 that expressly incorporates by reference misrepresentations of material facts and law from your Motion to Dismiss Doc. #9 contradicting facts and controlling precedent to which you had legal notice. The plaintiffs Amended Complaint Doc. # 11 at pages 22-40, 74- 102 and plaintiffs 04/08/2013 Response To Order Of The Court Doc. # 13 state the specific and knowing misrepresentations of the applicable precedent and the material misrepresentations of facts of matters before the district court regarding the district courts prior exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over prospective injunctive relief and declaratory relief claims under the constitution against a higher federal appeals court chief judge in a private individual redress action in McBryde v. Committee to Rev. Cir. Council Conduct, 83 F.Supp.2d 135 at 149 (D.D.C., 1999). Doc. # 11 and # 13 gave you specific details of your knowing use of the extrinsic fraud of your agents to openly procure a dismissal through Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514 at 540-1 (3rd Cir., 1948) fraud on the court. You have twenty one days from service of this letter to withdraw the challenged defenses, contentions, and denials and to appropriately correct the same, or within another time the court sets. Sincerely,

_____________________ Bret D. Landrith Plaintiff appearing pro se

_____________________ Samuel K. Lipari Plaintiff appearing pro se

RULE 11 Motion Exb. 3

April 24, 2013 Claire Whitaker, Assistant United States Attorney 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 RE: D.D.C. 1:12-cv-01916 LANDRITH et al v. ROBERTS Rule 11(c)(2) Notice Honorable Madame, This letter regards your misrepresentations to the District of Columbia, District Court where you represent the defendant. On 4/22/2013 you filed a Renewed and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #14 that expressly incorporates by reference misrepresentations of material facts and law from your Motion to Dismiss Doc. #9 contradicting facts and controlling precedent to which you had legal notice. The plaintiffs Amended Complaint Doc. # 11 at pages 22-40, 74- 102 and plaintiffs 04/08/2013 Response To Order Of The Court Doc. # 13 state the specific and knowing misrepresentations of the applicable precedent and the material misrepresentations of facts of matters before the district court regarding the district courts prior exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over prospective injunctive relief and declaratory relief claims under the constitution against a higher federal appeals court chief judge in a private individual redress action in McBryde v. Committee to Rev. Cir. Council Conduct, 83 F.Supp.2d 135 at 149 (D.D.C., 1999). Doc. # 11 and # 13 gave you specific details of your knowing use of the extrinsic fraud of your agents to openly procure a dismissal through Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F.2d 514 at 540-1 (3rd Cir., 1948) fraud on the court. You have twenty one days from service of this letter to withdraw the challenged defenses, contentions, and denials and to appropriately correct the same, or within another time the court sets. Sincerely,

_____________________ Bret D. Landrith Plaintiff appearing pro se

_____________________ Samuel K. Lipari Plaintiff appearing pro se

RULE 11 Motion Exb. 4

May 21,