In furtherance of the conspiracy and scheme to obstruct justice and to perpetrate a fraud upon the court and the American

People,  Circuit Judges Smith, Garza and Stewart did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate, and  agree with

each other to: 

(a) ignore, conceal and disregard material and established facts that require a different result;

(b) ignore, conceal and fail to consider Supreme Court holdings relevant to and controlling the facts and issues that would

require a different result;

(c)  intentionally make false and fraudulent misstatements of the controlling facts relied on as a basis for their decision,

 when the true facts require a different result; 

(d)  intentionally cite patently false, fraudulent and fabricated statements of Supreme Court holdings as a basis for their

 result driven decision;

(e) intentionally cite cases, as a basis for their decision, that are not relevant or controlling of the facts and circumstances

of the case being decided;

(f)  intentionally ignore, conceal and fail to address and consider numerous substantial  and legitimate issues and questions

presented on appeal that require a different result.

                                                               INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION 

   Plainly, this misconduct violated  18 U.S.C.§ 4; 18  U.S.C. §§1505, 1506  and 18 U.S.C. § § 241, 242.  Furthermore, it is

highly prejudicial to the public trust in the integrity and legitimacy of the judiciary and the judicial processes; and, the effective, 

expeditious and proper administration of the business of the courts.

                                                                          DISCUSSION 

    Criminal acts in the administration of justice and judicial misconduct and nonfeasance prejudicial to the proper,

effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts are important matters of grave public concern! 

  This unlawful activity must be thoroughly investigated and appropriate action taken.  The American People must know and be

assured that the Constitution and the  laws protecting their fundamental rights, privileges and immunities are strictly enforced

and that the Council vigorously investigates reports of misconduct in the administration of justice; and  that the Council 

effectively disciplines misconduct in the administration of justice.   

                                                                     THE COURTS' DUTY TO

                                                    UPHOLD AND ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION

  The Supreme Court has explicitly held: “ Upon the state courts, equally with the courts of the Union, rests the obligation to

guard and enforce every right secured by the Constitution.”   Robb  v. Connolly, 111 U.S. 624, 637, 4 S. Ct. 544 , 28 L.Ed.

542, (1884); Mooney  v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, HN 4 (1935); Ex parte Royall,  117 U.S. 241 (1985).

                                                               COURTS' DUTY TO STATE THE LAW

  It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is;  those who apply the law to

particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret the law; if two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide

on the operation of each.  This is the very essence of judicial duty.  Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803);

United States v. Dickson 40 U.S. 141, 10 L. Ed 689 (1841)

                                                                        FRAUD UPON THE COURT

                                                                   BY AN OFFICER OF THE COURT   

   "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does,

or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not

perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R.,

387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced

by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

                                                                                    CLEARLY  

                          “No fraud is more odious than an attempt to subvert the administration of justice”.

                  Mr. Justice Roberts in   Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.  v, Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.238 (1944). 

 “Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,” Nudd v. Burrows (1875), 91 US 426, 23 Led 286, 290; 

particularly when “a judge himself is a party to the fraud.”     Cone v. Harris (Okl. 1924), 230 P. 721, 723. Windsor v.

McVeigh (1876), 93 US 276, 23 Led 914, 918. 

                                                  POWER AND DUTY TO INVESTIGATE FRAUD 

                                                        IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE            

“[HN1] - The inherent power of a federal court to investigate whether a judgment was obtained by fraud, is beyond

question. The power to unearth such a fraud is the power to unearth it effectively.  A federal court may bring before it by

appropriate means all those who may be affected by the outcome of its investigation. If the rights of parties are to be adjudicated

in such an investigation, the usual safeguards of adversary proceedings must be observed. If the court finds after a proper

hearing that fraud has been practiced upon it, or that the very temple of justice has been defiled, the entire cost of the proceedings

could justly be assessed against the guilty parties. Such is precisely a situation where for dominating reasons of justice a court

may assess counsel fees as part of the taxable costs.

  A court cannot deprive a successful party of his judgment without a proper hearing.”  Universal Oil Products Co. v.

Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 1946 U.S. LEXIS 3153 (U.S., June 10, 1946, Decided)

                                          PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY

                                                          AND THE JUDICIAL PROCESSES 

  The Council must take effective and meaningful action in order to ensure and maintain public faith  and confidence in the

integrity and legitimacy of the judiciary and the judicial processes. 

                                                  TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

  The essential elements of public confidence are transparency and accountability.  Public confidence in the judiciary cannot

exist without the core principle of judicial accountability.  Judicial accountability cannot exist without the core principle

of judicial transparency.  The principles underlying the requirement of transparency and accountability in judicial acts, actions

and activities are embodied in these fundamental principles that have guided the United States since its founding.  

  Transparency requires judicial decisions, orders and judgments to be made public and supported by controlling facts and

 a reasoned and rational analysis of the facts and controlling law; or a rational reason for a change in the law.  

  Plainly, arbitrary and unsupported judicial acts destroy the public’s confidence in the judiciary and judicial processes. 

transparency relating to the judiciary serves to increase public knowledge about the judicial system and decreases the

opportunities for corrupt practices.  Transparency also bolsters judicial independence; because, judges can demonstrate to

the public that they are acting in accordance with the facts and the law. Judges must be required to support their acts, actions,

decisions and judgments with a honest,  rational and reasoned analysis of the supporting facts and controlling law.

                                    A CLEAR NEED FOR THE COUNCIL TO EXERCISE ITS POWERS

  These outrageous and unlawful activities in the administration of justice must be dealt with, by the Council, in a prompt,

meaningful and effective manner.   The American People have the fundamental right to demand integrity, transparency, 

accountability,  legitimacy and reliability in the administration of justice.  

   The Council’s prompt, meaningful and effective action is essential to public confidence in the integrity and legitimacy of the

judiciary, the judicial processes and the Rule of Law.  

   Congress has stated that if the judiciary fails to act against judges accused of misconduct Congress could strip them of

authority to police their own ranks.  I.e.,  “ If the judiciary will not act…Congress will begin assessing whether the disciplinary

authority delegated to the judiciary has been responsibly exercised and should continue.”    Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.

Chairman of the Judiciary Committee 

  For the foregoing reasons, complainant respectfully asks and urges the Council to promptly and thoroughly investigate the

intentional and felonious acts and omissions described in this complaint and to take appropriate, effective and meaningful action. 

                                          WE EITHER ARE OR WE ARE NOT A NATION OF LAW

Respectfully submitted,

Guy Sparkman