Buczek 20070506 Motion Vacate Void Judgement Hockey Game Case

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT
DOCKET No. 05F-18516
STATE OF NEW YORK: CITY COURT )

CITY OF BUFFALO )
)
)
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK )
Plaintiff )
)
vs. )
)
Shane – Christopher: Buczek )
Defendant in Error. )
______________________________________________________________________________
OBJECTION, ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL GROUNDS, TO JURY

VERDICT, AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND TO VACATE VERDICT, VOIDab
INITIO, AND DISMISS THIS CASE, WITH PREJUDICE
COMES NOW, Shane Christopher, family of Buczek Defendant-in-Error, living
breathing, natural born human being, Shane a Sovereign of record apostille number 05-03248
One of The People, with full unlimited, unalienable Rights guaranteed in the Constitutions for
the united States of America and in the Constitution for the State of New York, a respondent that
captured the STRAWMAN and whose proper name is spelled in upper and lower case only, as
illustrated on the new Birth certificates enclosed and mark Exhibits A & B for the Defendant-in-
Error hereby strenuously objects to the unconstitutional and unfounded and improperly
instructed jury verdict, moves this court, pursuant to the oath taken by the presiding judge “to
defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic”, to set aside the jury verdict,
void ab initio judgment, and dismiss this case, with prejudice, for the following reasons, based in
Page 1 of 33
fact and law and Constitutionally supported precedence marked as items 1 through 37 within this
document.
1. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that the Constitution for the United States is the Supreme
Law of the Land, as stated in the New York Constitution, Article II, and Section 1,
However, the woman acting as judge in this action, one Sharon Lo Vallo and, pursuant
to her oath, consistently denied this Sovereign Constitutional Rights of the defendant,
should have been guaranteed therein and subordinated substantive Rights to procedural
“due process of law”, which in fact she failed to secure, ended as an no due process at
all. She has no Constitutional authority to deny the Constitution, to which She took an
oath to defend, and to which She owes her temporary and limited, delegated authority,
despite these facts, the Judge Lo Vallo denied the defendants Sovereign Rights to
discovery, ignoring repeated discovery requests by Defendant in Error and issued orders
to this Defendant and to other Defendants not to use or refer to the Constitutions, in any
manner, and not to use other laws or their evidence to defend themselves, which is
amounts to treason by Judge Sharon Lo Vallo and based on previous supreme court
rulings, renders this court entirely defective in all aspects, and without any Constitutional
authority or jurisdiction to hear any cases brought before it. This court may be termed
and possibly is a treasonous court by her actions.
2. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that as the Supreme Law of the land, the federal
Constitution takes precedence over and supersedes any and all state, county, local,
court and federal laws, rules, regulations, codes and procedures. Yet, despite this,
Judge Lo Vallo consistently denied and acted in opposition to the Constitutions and
Rights guaranteed therein throughout this improper and prejudicial trial.
Page 2 of 33
3. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT, that the Constitution for the united States is the highest
authority in this Nation and no other authority of any type or form, whatsoever,
including the claimed and temporary administrative authority by the metropolitan court
and the treasonous acts of Judge Sharon LoVallo, is not a higher authority than the
Constitution for the united States. Any action by LoVallo in opposition to the United
States Supreme Court precedent setting findings is a violation of the established law
and of my Constitutional Rights, and possibly treason on the part, as occurred in the
above-specified case number.
4. Further it should be noted and placed in and made part of public record. If, in fact,
there is no public record, as the Judge LoVallo, stated in error in open court, before
witnesses, then, that is further evidence of additional denial of my Rights of redress.
Added her failure to uphold her public oath of office. Defendant Shane Christopher of
the family of Buczek , a noticed and Sovereign of record, and the other Defendants
repeatedly requested that this be a court of record, as required for any Constitutionally-
competent court, but Lo Vallo unconstitutionally denied this Court of Record which is
a Sovereign Right as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.. ie., Hale v. Henkel 201 U.S.43 at
47 (1905 ) I remind the court, this case has been reviewed several times, never over
turned.
5. Further I remind the court of Kawananakoa v. Ployblank @ 205 U.S. 349, 353, 27S
Ct. 526, 527, 51L Ed.334
I remind this court of the supporting documents of that great Supreme Court Justice
Oliver Wendell Holmes comments and findings. ie. , “A Sovereign is exempt from suit
not because of any formal conception of obsolete theory but on logical practical
ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on
which his Rights Depends.” Again “Kawananakoa v. Ployblank” 205 U.S. 349,353,
27SCt. 526, 527, 51L, Ed334 (1907) “never reversed”
Page 3 of 33
The woman acting as judge, SHARON LO VALLO, and the woman acting as prosecutors,
including female CHIEF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY in this case, one MOLLY JO
MUSARRA and also, one FRANK CLARK, have sworn oaths to uphold the state and federal
Constitutions, which oaths are required by law to be bound by valid surety bonds.
IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that those specified in paragraph 4, above, are required to
abide by their oath of office in the performance of their official duties, especially, those
before the court. However, by their own actions, as specified herein, and as noted on
the public record, all three herein referenced acted in unison in opposition to their
oaths, in contradiction to the Constitutions and opposed all our Rights guaranteed
therein to “We the people” of which we are of the People an American, which is
treason by the referenced three. It remains to be seen whether these unlawful actions
are condoned by this court and by those with oversight responsibility, including the
New York Supreme Court and the state Judiciary Committees, or whether these
unconstitutional actions by the referenced three were done in their sole capacities, as
private individuals, since they stepped outside their Constitutionally delegated authority
and acted in perjury and prejudiced their oaths, which make them, personally and
individually, fully liable for their wrongful actions, as established by law..
6. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that the first duty of any public officer who has taken an
oath of office to support the federal and state Constitutions, is to support and defend the
Constitutions and not act in opposition to them as all public officers referenced herein
have flagrantly done, in total defiance of the Constitutions and their oaths thereto.
7. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that pursuant to Section 10 public Officers law, the first
duty of any attorney or Public Servant is to uphold and support the federal and state
Page 4 of 33
Constitutions, among them are the Rights of “We The People” yet, these referenced
attorneys, by their own actions, have acted in opposition and contradiction to the
Constitutions and to the Rights guaranteed to the aforementioned Sovereigns therein,
which is perjury of oath, sedition, insurrection and treason.
8. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that in order for the STATE OF NEW YORK: CITY COURT
OF BUFFALO to be a Constitutionally competent court with jurisdiction to try the
American people, it is required to act as an Article III court, in which the Constitutional
Rights and due process of law are upheld. Yet, by the actions of the public officers
Sharon Lo Vallo and Molly Jo Musarra acting as judge and the prosecutors, the
Constitutions were denied, forbidden and treated with contempt throughout the entire
proceedings in this court, which, again, is treason by all public officers involved,
including, but not limited to all uniformed and plain clothed public officers, bailiffs,
sheriff deputies and employees of the court, who witnessed the treason, but took no
action to prevent it. in fact, openly disparaged the Defendants in Error for claiming
their Constitutionally-guaranteed Rights, with the EX PARTE COMMUNICATION with the
jury Sara Rebisz, Phil Andrew, Erica Harroun, Tyson Klinkbeil, Dawn Giroux and Don
Zimmerman with Molly Jo Musarra and Sharon Lo Vallo. See “22 NYCRP 100.3 (B) (2-
3)…
9. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that government officers, public officers, servants and
judges who have taken oaths to the Constitutions, including Lo Vallo, Musarra and
Frank Clark, are required to abide by those oaths in their performance of official duties.
However, as herein stated and as noted many times on the public record, all three failed
to do so.
Page 5 of 33
10. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that all members of the jury which heard this case took
oaths to defend the Federal and New York State Constitutions, are bound thereby, and
must abide by those oaths in their performance of official duties as jury members;
however in light of their verdict, each and every member, knowingly if fully informed
by this same judge, defied their oaths to defend the Constitutions and may have
committed treason, on the public record.
11. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that the federal Constitution, the Supreme Law of the
Land, and the 50 states Constitution and rulings by the United States Supreme Court
are valid, supreme authorities.
12. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that when a Defendant in Error, in the instant case, does
cite an authority to establish a lawful position, that authority stands as authority and
cannot be overruled by any person, acting as judge, as in this instant case, the (possible
treasonous) Judge Lo Vallo, did under the color of law.
13. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that no one acting as a judge, as in this instant case,
Judge Lo Vallo, is a higher authority than the Federal and State Constitutions and
rulings made by the Supreme Court of the United States; therefore, Judge Lo Vallo has
no Constitutionally authorized power to deny, defy, subvert or overrule the
Constitutions and Supreme Court, and the powers and Rights guaranteed therein to the
People of America as in this instant case, Yet, Judge Lo Vallo consistently did so
throughout this mockery of a trial.
14. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that JOSEPH A. FIORELLA, KEVIN J. KEANE, SHARON LO
VALLO and acting as Chief Deputy District Attorneys, FRANK CLARK, ASSISTANT
Page 6 of 33
MOLLY JO MUSARRA and EUGENE ADAMS are not higher authorities than the Federal
and N.Y. State Constitutions, to which they have sworn oaths, and thus have no
constitutionally authorized power to oppose the referenced authorities, and having
consistently done so, they opposed both Constitutions to which they swore an oath and
to which they owe their limited, delegated authority. See U.S. vs. Murphy, 768 F.2d
1518, 1531 (7th. Cir 1985) Judges removed from the bench.
15. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that, pursuant to a United States Supreme Court ruling:
“Where Rights secured by the Constitutions are involved, there can be no rule making
or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436;
16. It is an irrefutable fact; that the jury of 12, not ( 6 ) members as this claim exceeds
$20.00 must be composed of the peers of the accused, in this instant case, the
Defendants in Error. Yet, despite this requirement, the jury was not fully informed of
their duties and responsibilities, they were not composed of the peers of defendants,
which additionally makes this verdict a defective verdict, in defiance of lawful
requirements.
17. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that in America the defendant is innocent until proven
guilty by a jury of his peers, beyond a reasonable doubt. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT;
that Defendant was not proven guilty by any valid evidence, beyond any reasonable
doubt as most all defendants evidence was denied by this defected judge and was
prevented the jury from being fully informed of all the evidence that should have made
up this trail.
Page 7 of 33
18. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that the jury must reach its verdict based upon proof
against the defendant, beyond any reasonable doubt; yet, this requirement was never
met by the state in this case and pertinent evidence beneficial to the accused was
wrongfully and possibly prejudicially denied by the biased judge.
19. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that for a crime to have taken place the state must show
intent, willfulness, malice and awareness to commit the crime. These requirement was
not proven in this case, thus, the state failed to meet its burden of proof by denying
documented evidence for the defendants, yet the jury contemptuously and
unconstitutionally found Defendant guilty. Therefore, the verdict has no Constitutional
or lawful validity, was rendered in defiance of the jury’s Constitutional oaths and the
verdict must be overturned and void ab initio.
20. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that the state, the prosecution, the court nor any others
acting as prosecutors or witnesses against defendants can tamper with the jury, the facts
or place any person(s) on a jury to bribe, influence, coerce or threaten other jury
members to act unlawfully and unconstitutionally in their role as jurors, pursuant to
oaths taken, for the benefit of the state and to the detriment of Defendant. Such actions
render the jury liable for its verdict and the court entirely defective and incompetent.
21. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that the presiding judge Sharon Lo Vallo, the ASSISTANT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MOLLY JO MUSARRA, all members of the court and the
prosecution and all state witnesses against defendants are required, by the state
Constitution and in compliance with the state Constitution, and pursuant to state
statutes, to have valid surety bonds on file, for public scrutiny, and to have sworn oaths,
Page 8 of 33
bound by surety bond, to the Federal and State Constitutions. Yet, there is no evidence
of valid surety bonds in compliance with above referenced statutes on file for the above
referenced officers, pursuant to the Constitution and state statutes. Therefore, it is
obvious to any reasonable human being of even modest intelligence and competence
that since the above referenced officers fail these requirements, then, they have no
lawful authority to serve in office, in any capacity, nor to conduct any duties of any
office, and to do so is blatant fraud, IMPERSONATING A LAWFUL PUBLIC OFFICER, AND
TREASON AGAINST THE PEOPLE, in the instant case, and against defendant and Shane
Christopher family of Buczek.
22. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that the surety bond is a condition precedent to office and
without such surety bond there cannot be any duties of that office lawfully discharged.
23. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that anyone who has previously taken an oath and then
acts in insurrection and sedition against the Constitutions, pursuant to the SELF-
EXECUTING Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution,
vacates his office upon commission of these high crimes and /or treason and forfeits all
benefits of that former office, including salaries and pensions. All of the public officers
involved in this case have invoked these sections, as specified, above, and thereby have
vacated their offices and have no lawful authority, whatsoever, to have engaged in any
actions in the above referenced proceedings, and possibly many former proceedings.
24. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that when crime and treason committed by public
officer(s) has been reported to any other public officer(s)/official(s) who have the
authority and responsibility to stop or to correct that crime and does take no action
Page 9 of 33
against those who committed the crimes(s), those officers, pursuant to their sworn and
bound oaths, who fail to take action, have condoned, aided and abetted those crimes,
have conspired and colluded in the commission of or a felony cover up of those crimes,
and have committed misprision of crime and possibly treason against the people of the
State of New York and the city of Buffalo.
25. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that Public Servant Sharon Lo Vallo denied Motions filed
by Defendant, let the record reflect one entitled Motion to Dismiss this case with
Prejudice, and another that required the presiding judge, pursuant to her oath, to read all
pleadings and rule only based in Constitutionally-compliant law and case law. In so
doing, Judge Lo Vallo, despite constant, respectful requests from Shane Christopher,
family of Buczek and the other Defendants, supplied absolutely no facts and law to
support her unconstitutional rulings, and by her own rulings, on the public record, She
denied the State and Federal Constitutions and all Rights guaranteed therein, including,
but not limited to, due process of law and presentation of all evidence by Defendant in
Error, Shane Christopher, family of Buczek. By her failure to support her rulings,
judge Lo Vallo’s ruling, lacking factual and lawful support, are reduced to opinions,
only, and opinions are not valid, or lawful reasons for any binding rulings or orders,
whatsoever.
26. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that Judge Lo Vallo, by her own actions, all on the public
record, and attested to by sworn affidavits of witnesses, filed with this court, committed
treason, as herein alleged and referenced, and had no Constitutional and lawful
authority to open or conduct this trial, whatsoever. Any action or any decision, ruling or
Page 10 of 33
verdict that resulted from this trial is invalid, without force of law or effect, whatsoever,
and must be void Ab initio.
27. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that when any officer(s) who has taken an oath and is
required to have a surety bond, in compliance with the state Constitution, acts in
opposition of that oath and fails to obtain the required surety bond, that officer(s) acts
in sedition and insurrection to the Constitutions and in treason to the People, vacates
his office, and has no lawful authority to perform duties of her former office.
28. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that when any government or public officers deny the
very Law of the Land, The Constitution of the United States the powers of and Rights
guaranteed therein to the American people as in this instant case, Judge Sharon Lo
Vallo denies the state constitution and uphold violations, by other public officers, of
those referenced authorities, including treason, that all involved condone, aided and
abetted the crimes committed, collude and conspire to do so, and when other crimes
and treason are condoned by the entire government and judicial system, which is
required to serve the public good, then, by the actions of all involved, hypocrisy is
systemic, state imposed fascism is the “rule”, the Republic is dead and tyranny reins in
the once free Nation called America, aided and abetted by all public officers involved
in this utter miscarriage of justice and blatant insult to the lofty premises of this nation.
29. PURSUANT TO AND IN OPPOSITION TO ALL THE IRREFUTABLE FACTS stated herein,
Judge Lo Vallo, Musarra and Fiorella, all prosecution witnesses, and the jury have, by
their own actions in this case, all on the public record, perjured their oaths, failed to
abide by and honor their oaths in the performance of their official duties, as specifically
Page 11 of 33
stated, in detail, in previous Motions, pleadings, notices and affidavits of treason filed
with this court, denied the Constitutions, the powers of and Rights guaranteed therein
to the people of American Citizens, in the instant case, Defendant in Error, and have,
by their own actions, and immediately upon those actions, invoked the self-executing
sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment, have vacated their offices, and have no
Constitutional or lawful authority to serve in their offices and deal with Defendant, or
anyone else, in any manner, thus, this verdict must be voided and this case must be
dismissed, with prejudice.
30. Defendant was arrested without a warrant and without a complaint filed by a party
allegedly injured by Defendant’s alleged actions, in violation of constitutionally
guaranteed due process of law. Both defects abridged Constitutional Rights and created
due process violations and perjury of oaths taken by the arresting officers, thus, the jury
verdict, which obviously failed to consider these Constitutional Rights and due process
violations, must be vacated, and all charges must be dismissed, with prejudice.
31. Pursuant to the irrefutable facts; stated herein, the jury witnessed crimes taken place
by Judge Sharon Lo Vallo, Molly Jo Musarra, Frank Clark and the state’s witnesses, on
the public record, including, but not limited to, possible treason, some of which are
herein stated and referenced, yet, pursuant to their sworn oaths to the Constitutions, the
jury made no efforts and took no actions to stop those crimes and treason, thus, due to
these jury defects, the verdict must be overturned and set aside and this case must be
dismissed.
Page 12 of 33
32. PURSUANT TO THE IRREFUTABLE FACTS; stated herein, Public Servant Sharon Lo
Vallo denied at least two of the Defendant’s referenced Constitutional Rights, and then
acted in direct opposition to the Constitutions and the powers of and Rights guaranteed
therein to Defendants, all on the public record. The jury failed to hold Judge Lo Vallo
accountable for her treason and crimes against the Constitutions and against
Defendants, therefore this verdict must be overturned and the charges must be
dismissed, with prejudice.
33. PURSUANT TO THE IRREFUTABLE FACTS, and: (a) despite Defendant’s lawful demands
for discovery, no films supplied by CITY COURT OF BUFFALO NEW YORK, INC., the
court of the incident, until after Defense rested, which films would have proven the
defenses case, had the state’s allegations been correct; however, since defendants was
correct, the state refused to produce the films; (b) no proof of defendant’s alleged guilt,
beyond a reasonable doubt, was demonstrated, whatsoever, by the state; (c) it was not
shown or proven by the state that defendants acted willfully, intentionally and with
knowledge and fore thought of any alleged incident, all of which are required for the
jury to find them guilty of any criminal action; (d) defendant’s actions in the alleged
incident which resulted in his unlawful arrest were fully authorized by the State of New
York, by and through the corporate charter of These United States, since defendant is
an officer of that corporation, the facts in support of this Judge Lo Vallo denied the
Defendant’s Right to present as evidence, in full violation of due process of law and the
defendant’s constitutionally guaranteed Rights. (e) It is apparent by the jury’s failure to
abide by their oaths to the Constitutions and to uphold the defendant’s Constitutional
Page 13 of 33
Rights, while ignoring and / or upholding violations of his Constitutional Rights, then
jury tampering may have occurred in this action by not allowing all the evidence.
34. The possible treasonous Public Servant Sharon Lo Vallo, as previously stated, issued
orders to defendant Shane Christopher, family of Buczek and the other defendants
which prohibited them to use the Constitutions, the law or their evidence in their
defense during this grossly miss adjudicated trial, which in reality was a “Star Chamber
tribunal”. The defendant in Error or any other American People has any lawful
requirement, whatsoever; to obey an unconstitutional or unlawful order issued by any
official or the possible treasonous Judge Lo Vallo in judicial practice. Pursuant to
Black’s Law Dictionary, the definition of contempt, in part states, that contempt is a
refusal or denial to abide by a LAWFUL ORDER. It is obvious that Judge Lo Vallo’s
orders, which denied the constitutions, were not lawful. Judge Lo Vallo’s exceeded the
scope of her temporary authority, and held defendant Shane Christopher, family of
Buczek in contempt for refusing to abide by her possible treasonous, unlawful acts and
orders, also those defendants are currently being held incommunicado, unjustly, against
their will, in prison under $15,000.00 bond for allegedly defying Lo Vallo’s treasonous
acts. Shane Christopher, family of Buczek did suffer from serious medical conditions
and physical injuries, yet, in cruel and unusual punishment, the possible treasonous
public servant judge Sharon Lo Vallo held them in defiance of Constitutional
Entitlements. The Defendant in Error Shane Christopher family of Buczek, has reported
being tortured while in this prison, and Shane Christopher, family of Buczek fears for
their life and of reprisal from the City of Buffalo for defending their Constitutional
Rights and defying these wrongful actions by these few unqualified servants .
Page 14 of 33
WHEREFORE, Defendant in Error, Shane - Christopher, family of Buczek, files this
Objection and this motion with this court, and hereby prays that this court hears their
Constitutional Rights, pursuant to the Constitutions entitlement and grants this Objection and
Motion, thereby granting or denying of which will determine either all judge’s Constitutional
allegiance or there continued treason, by these rulings, on the public record.
Respectfully submitted
Signed__________________________________
by Shane - Christopher, family of Buczek, Authorized Representative, Sovereign Americans of

record of the united States of America and without the UNITED STATES, as defendant in Error,
as one of “We the People”.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that I have this day served the within and foregoing OBJECTION, ON
CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL GROUNDS, TO JURY VERDICT, AND MOTION
TO SET ASIDE AND TO VACATE VERDICT, VOIDab INITIO, AND DISMISS THIS
CASE, WITH PREJUDICE to the Judge Sharon Lo Vallo by depositing a copy thereof,
certified, postage prepaid, return receipt requested in the United States Post Service, properly
addressed upon:
THE HONORABLE JUDGE

SHARON LO VALLO
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CITY COURT JUDGE PART 5 (FIVE)
OF ERIE COUNTY NEW YORK
50 DELAWARE AVE.
BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202
Page 15 of 33
THE CLERK OF THE COURT

50 DELAWARE AVE.
MOLLY JO MUSARRA
ATTORNEY AT LAW
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
25 DELAWARE AVENUE
NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 ANDREWS STREET
ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14604
THOMAS J. McINTYRE, Chief

FOIA / PA UNIT
CRIMINAL DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
SUITE 1127, KEENEY BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530-0001
DOJ
MARSHALL JARRETT
OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NORTH WEST 3266
WASWHINGTON, D.C. 20530
DIVISION OF APPEALS AND OPINIONS

Solicitor General OAG
The Capitol
Albany, New York
(518) 474-7330
STATE OF NEW YORK

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE CAPITOL
ALBANY, NY 12224
State of New York

Court of Appeals
20 Eagle Street
Albany, New York
12207-1095
Page 16 of 33
JoAnn M. Wahl, Clerk of the Court

M. Dolores Denman Courthouse
50 East Avenue
Rochester, New York 14604
(585) 530-3100
Comptroller of the Currency

Administrator of National Banks
Washington, DC 20219
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza, Room 2109
New York, NY 10278-0090
ROBERT D. LONSKI, ADMINISTRATOR

CLAUDIA S. SCHULTZ, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
670 STATLER TOWERS
716-856-8804
FAX 716-856-0424
Mayor Byron Brown

201 City Hall,
Buffalo, NY 14202
US BANKRUPTCY COURT - Buffalo Office

Olympic Towers
300 Pearl St. Suite 250
Buffalo, NY 14202
(716) 362-3200
Western District of New York
Paul R. Warren - Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN U.S. COURTHOUSE
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
(212) 857-8500
Thomas Asreen, Acting Clerk of Court
Page 17 of 33
H. Carl McCall
State Comptroller
Office of the State Comptroller

Public Information Office
110 State Street, 15th Floor
Albany, NY 12236
(518) 474-4015
THE WHITEHOUSE
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530
TEL: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
president@whitehouse.gov
Verification
I, Shane – Christopher: Buczek, Sui Juris, Plaintiff On Counterclaim in the above entitled action,
hereby verify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without
the Legal Fiction noted as UNITED STATES (federal government), that the above statement of
facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge,
and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 (1).
DATED: February 17, 2007
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
I, Shane – Christopher: Buczek, the undersigned, hereafter Affiant, a natural man, a living
breathing soul, a sovereign in correct capacity as beneficiary to the Original Jurisdiction, being
of majority in age, having a sound mind, competent to testify, a self-realized entity, a free man
upon the land, my yes be yes, my no be no, do state that the truths and facts herein are of
firsthand knowledge, true, correct, complete, certain and not misleading, so help me God.
Page 18 of 33
1. Affiant is of majority in age, has a sound mind and is competent to testify.

2. Affiant states that the facts herein are of first hand personal knowledge.
3. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves states
that on December 26, 2005 SHANE CHRISTOPHER BUCZEK, received from ERIE COUNTY,
BUFFALO, NEW YORK, DOCKET NUMBER 05F-18516 which is an offer to contract from
HSBC Security Officer Detective ED COTTER of the BUFFALO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
accepted under threat, duress, and coercion by the threat of being kidnapped, false arrest,
treasonous court hearing, false conviction, etc. and believes that none exists.
4. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves states
that on December 14, 2006 he received an offer of contract for conviction from JUDGE
SHARON LO VALLO and THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, CITY COURT JUDGE
PART 5 (FIVE) OF ERIE COUNTY NEW YORK and THE CLERK OF COURT OF THE
CITY OF BUFFALO in which the court tried to make a legal determination against me without
my permission. This offer is “Refused for cause without dishonor and, without Recourse to me”
and I accepted her oath of office in this matter to protect my reserved rights in common law and
commerce, which are unalienable and unprescriptable rights and believes that none exists.
5. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that
defendant-in-error, Shane – Christopher: Buczek, has ninety days from the day of conviction to
rebut the presumption of conviction, and has a charge to discharge the balance of which has gone
unpaid and is now delinquent and believes that none exists.
he received a lawful “trial by jury” of defendant in error’s peers with respect to the Republic laws of the
United States of America but instead received a “jury trial” paid for by the State of New York which is a
conflict of interest based on fraud and an error in legal jurisprudence originally begun by the Corporate
Fiction Fascist Democracy known as the UNITED STATES and the socialistic think tank that conspires
against American society at large known as “METRO 1313” and believes that none exists.
7. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves that it
is illegal to obtain and be in possession of an Apostille badge that is currently recognized in and by both
the Hague Convention as Diplomatic Status and Geneva Convention of which is the subject matter of this
case, and believes that none exist.
Page 19 of 33
the City of Buffalo because of these actions is not in violation of international laws and believes that none
exists.
the Prosecuting Attorney Musarra for this case has a current valid Oath Of Office but instead has
been impersonating herself as a public official committing commercial injuries and torts against
“We The People” and opening herself up to a distress of her private and public hazard bond of
which there is question of whether she is even possession of these which every public official
MUST have. If not then opening herself up to personal lawsuits and arrest, there is none and
believes that none exists.
the entire city of Buffalo is so corrupt that the average person, living soul, cannot get a fair trial
and the reason being that since all courts are under Admiralty / Maritime Law which makes all
U.S. Citizens Debtors (guilty until proven innocent) before they enter the courtroom, considered
federal employees and trustees of the trust created by the birth certificate and the social security
adhesion contract signed into by non-disclosure and fraud as a teenager of which “We the
People” continue to be Enemies of the State under TWEA (Trading With The Enemy Act), there
is no fairness especially in the City Of Buffalo and believes that none exists.
Both the District Attorney Musarra and the Judge Lo Vallo did not know each other in any
capacity before the trial which would be a “conflict of interest” because Defendant in Error was
not open and available to the same cultivation of relationship and believes that none exists.
He is able to obtain a transcript of the trial as part of his Discovery for his case to be able to
prepare for the case and defend himself properly and constitutionally and believes that none
exists.
The conflict of interest and collusion doesn’t still continue with the facts that the owner of the
Delaware North Security Company, Jeremy Jacobs, not only employees arresting officer
Detective Ed Cotter but is also a heavy campaign contributor to the Lo Vallo run for judgeship
and believes that none exists.
Page 20 of 33
14. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or proves
that all public officials connected with this case should not be removed from office and
impeached for total misconduct and actions that are repugnant to the Federal and State
constitutions and “We The People” of The United States of America and believes that none
exists.
Defendant in error has even signed any contract or bond in agreement to be incarcerated and if
there is no contract there is no meeting of the minds, Hale vs. Henkel, so if forced to contract at
the barrel of a gun and the benefit and privilege of forced incarceration is placed upon the
Sovereign American Apostilled Diplomat Shane – Christopher: Buczek then the relief for
damages at the rate of $78,000.00 per hour as per Trezevant vs. Miami for illegal and unlawful
incarceration without due process. (James C. Trezevant, Plaintiff – Appellant vs. CITY OF
TAMPA, a municipal Corporation et. Al. Hillsborough County Board of Criminal Justice, et. Al.)
and believes that none exists.
there is any lawful money of account being Gold and Silver to pay debt since the enactment of House
Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933 but instead are forced to use Federal Reserve Notes by virtue of Public
Policy which are not money but an evidence of a debt. If there is no money, there is no way to pay a debt,
there is no State, there are no State borders according to the State Compact Act and believes that none
exists.
the court has not committed a tort and has not given me the remedy upon which relief can be granted and
the defendant-in-error can’t waive all benefits and privileges to the statutes and codes of which he is
being prosecuted by and believes that none exists.
these proceedings has failed to produce evidence of an injured party of which the State cannot be and
these proceedings has failed to produce an affidavit of verified complaint, or the existence of a
complaining party and believes that none exists.
Page 21 of 33
these proceedings has failed to produce an injured party onto the witness stand for testimony and believes
that none exists.
these proceedings has failed to produce and to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and
these proceedings has failed to produce an honorable ruling, therefore the court could rule only
by an undisclosed presumption of an assumed intention, and this may be deemed the practice of
witchcraft by a Satanic Cabal and believes that none exists.
these proceeding – and this court – has now lost all jurisdiction by it’s denial of due process and
that Shane – Christopher: Buczek did not have ineffective legal council that could have called
forty-four witnesses when he called only four to oppose the District Attorney’s one and only
witness, and believes that none exists.
that ED COTTER did not identify himself as a Buffalo Police Officer, whipping out his official
City Police Badge, when he was acting as a Security Guard, which is against New York State
Law, and believes that none exists.
that Defendant-in-error cannot waive his benefit and privilege of being prosecuted by the City of
Buffalo and it’s copy written statutes and codes which is all this municipal corporation has to
forcibly coerce innocent free sovereign Americans at the barrel of gun to use and believes that
none exists.
that the charges were verified and certified into the court record by Assistant District Attorney
Musarra, and believes that none exists.
that Sovereign American / defendant-in-error, Shane – Christopher: Buczek, knew beyond any
Page 22 of 33
reasonable doubt and that it was fully disclosed to him that under “METRO 1313”, every court
that a Person appears in is nothing but an administrative tribunal operating under Admiralty /
Administrative (military) law and is not a judicial court and the belief of the People that they are
judicial courts. That these courts are governed by “private” or “non-positive” law and so, if every
judge on the bench is aware of this are they not guilty of fraud and treason, and believe that
none exists.
that the Sovereign American, defendant-in-error, Shane – Christopher: Buczek, requires proof
that his due process and his constitutional rights has not been violated of which if it cannot be
proven then it will be deemed that you have violated those rights, which you, Judge Lo Vallo,
Attorney Musarra, and the other partners in crime have violated those rights, which you took an
oath (one hopes) to uphold, and now are in breach of this contract and your oath, becoming liable
for damages, and believes that none exists.
that Affiant is a “Vessel”, as it is defined in USC Title 18 Section 9; or “Water Craft” or other
“Artificial Contrivance” used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on water.
Corpus Juris Secundum; Chapter 55, Section 9 (b), and believes that none exists.
that is not in receipt of any document that verifies defendant-in-error is a “taxpayer” as defined
by 26 U.S.C. or owes any income tax to the Treasury. [Spreckles Sugar vs. McClain, 192 US
397; Miller vs. Standard Nut Margarine, 284 US 498; Gould vs. Gould, 245 US 151], and
33. Affiant has neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence that demonstrates or
proves that Defendant-in-error is not in receipt of any document that verifies Affiant is a
“person” as used within 26 U.S.C. [maxim – Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis
‘man’ is a term of nature; ‘person’ is a term of civil law.] [Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised
Fourth Edition, “PERSON” Term may include artificial beings, as corporations….relating to
taxation and the revenue laws, People vs. McLean, 80 N.Y. 254. A person is such, not because he
is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is a legal subject or
substance of which the rights and duties are attributed.] , and believes that none exists.
Page 23 of 33
that Defendant-in-error is not in receipt of any document that verifies Affiant is an “individual”
as used within 26 U.S.C. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, “INDIVIDUAL” As
a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group class, and also, very
commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or
association: but it is said that this restrictive significant is not necessarily inherent in the world,
and that it may in proper cases, include artificial persons, State vs. Bell Telephone Co., 36 Ohio
St. 310, 38 Am. Rep. 583. A san adjective, “individual” means pertaining or belonging to, or
characteristic of, one single person, either in opposition to a firm, association, or corporation,
or considered in his relation thereto], and believes that none exists.
that defendant-in-error is not in receipt of any document that verifies Affiant is a “strawman” as
defined in Black’s Law Dictionary – seventh edition; as “a fictitious person”, “A third party
used in some transactions as a temporary transferee to allow the principal parties to accomplish
something that is otherwise impermissible”, and believes that none exists.
that defendant-in-error is not in receipt of any document that verifies Affiant is a “legal fiction”
which is define as – “an assumption that something is true even though it may be untrue, made
especially in judicially reasoning to alter how a legal rule operates. The constructive trust is an
example of a legal fiction. Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition.” , and believes that none
exists.
that defendant-in-error is not in receipt of any document that verifies Affiant holds the
legislatively created office of “person”, “individual”, “legal fiction” or “strawman” within
the government, and believes that none exists.
that defendant-in-error is not in receipt of any document that verifies how Affiant is under
subject matter jurisdiction of the city municipality and how it was achieved in detail and whether
it was obtained by fraud and deceit when Affiant was under aged and without clear
understanding with full disclosure of subject matter contractual agreements, and believes that
none exists.
Page 24 of 33
that defendant-in-error is not in receipt of any document that verifies Affiant is under subject
matter jurisdiction achieved through “color of law” which is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary,
Seventh Edition – “The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of a legal right. The
term usually implies a misuse of power made possible because the wrongdoer is clothed with
the authority of the state. State action is synonymous with color of law in the context of federal
civil-rights statutes or criminal law”, and believes that none exists.
ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT OF GRIEVANCE

AND PRAY FOR JUDICIAL REMEDY
Affidavit in Support of Petition/Complaint

New York State ) ss. For the Article III Impeachable Treasonous
Erie County ) Felony of JOSEPHA A. FIORELLA
KEVIN J. KEANE [judge]
SHARON LO VALLO [judge]
FRANK J. CLARK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
MOLLY JO MUSARRA, ASSISTANT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY
1. Grounds for Removal — Impeachment United States Constitution

§ 2.38 Removal of officials
Laws shall be passed providing for the prompt removal from office, upon complaint and hearing, of all officers,
including state officers, judges and members of the general assembly, for any misconduct involving moral turpitude
or for other cause provided by law; and this method of removal shall be in addition to impeachment or other method
of removal authorized by the constitution.
§ 4.17 Judges removable
Judges may be removed from office, by concurrent resolution of both houses of the general assembly, if two-thirds
of the members, elected to each house, concur therein; but, no such removal shall be made, except upon complaint,
the substance of which shall be entered on the journal, nor, until the party charged shall have had notice thereof, and
an opportunity to be heard. State of New York Constitution ARTICLE 1 sec.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,and 12
THE JUDICIARY
§ 9 REMOVAL OF JUDGES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ETC.
Any judge of any court of record, the attorney general, or any prosecuting attorney may be removed from office by
joint resolution of the legislature, in which three-fourths of the members elected to each house shall concur, for
incompetence, corruption, malfeasance, or delinquency in office, or other sufficient cause stated in such resolution.
Page 25 of 33
But no removal shall be made unless the officer complained of shall have been served with a copy of the charges
against him as the ground of removal, and shall have an opportunity of being heard in his defense. Such resolution
shall be entered at length on the journal of both houses and on the question of removal the ayes and nays shall also
be entered on the journal.
ARTICLE V
IMPEACHMENT
§ 1 IMPEACHMENT - POWER OF AND PROCEDURE.
The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. The concurrence of a majority of all the
members shall be necessary to an impeachment. All impeachments shall be tried by the senate, and, when sitting for
that purpose, the senators shall be upon oath or affirmation to do justice according to law and evidence. When the
governor or lieutenant governor is on trial, the chief justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. No person shall be
convicted without a concurrence of two-thirds of the senators elected.
§ 2 OFFICERS LIABLE TO.
The governor and other state and judicial officers, except judges and justices of courts not of record, shall be liable
to impeachment for high crimes or misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office, but judgment in such cases shall extend
only to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit, in the state. The party,
whether convicted or acquitted, shall, nevertheless, be liable to prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment
according to law.
§ 3 REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.
All officers not liable to impeachment shall be subject to removal for misconduct or malfeasance in office, in such
manner as may be provided by law.
§ 2 OFFICERS LIABLE TO.
The governor and other state and judicial officers, except judges and justices of courts not of record, shall be liable
to impeachment for high crimes or misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office, but judgment in such cases shall extend
only to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit, in the state. The party,
whether convicted or acquitted, shall, nevertheless, be liable to prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment
according to law.
2. Pursuant to The Constitution of New York Article 1– The Judiciary, Sections Petitioners attest that The
Buffalo City Court Judge JOSEPH A. FIORELLA willfully wars against the Constitution of the United States, the
Constitution of Washington, and willfully violates New York’s Code of Judicial Conduct; that he engages in
conduct that erodes public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system; that he fails to uphold his sworn duties
as protector of the Constitutions of the United States and the state of New York; that he fails to uphold the laws of
the Nation and the State; and that he fails to uphold and enforce the public policy of the state of New York.
3. The City Court of Buffalo Judge JOSEPHA A. FIORELLA willfully, knowingly, and intentionally
deprives Petitioners of rights and privileges secured under the Constitution to all inhabitants and the people of the
state of New York, thereby administering his office with willful Neglect of Duty under the Constitution of New
York. Petitioners further allege that The City Court of Buffalo Judge JOSEPH A. FIORELLA did communicate ex
parte and / or collude and conspire with other judges and officers of that Buffalo City Court and District Attorney
FRANK J. CLARK including a solicitor in Erie County Superior court, to wit, MOLLY J. MUSARRA,
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, to deprive petitioners of his due process rights to an impartial tribunal, a full
and fair opportunity to present the case, and an impartial, speedy and proper resolution of the dispute before the
court.
4. Under the Constitution of the state of New York, Article 1, IV, Section 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,and 12, a
judge “has a duty” under his Oath of Office to support, obey and defend the Constitutions of the United States and
Page 26 of 33
the state of New York to preserve and to protect the rights and privileges of every individual and the people
appearing before the court.
5. The Constitution of THE united states of America OATH OF JUDGES. Every judge of the supreme
court, and every judge of a superior court shall, and every judge of the city courts before entering upon the duties of
his office, take and subscribe an oath that he will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution
of the State of New York, and will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of judge to the best of his ability,
which oath shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state. No oath no JOB!
6. CANON 1 - Judges shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
An independent and City Court Judge judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. Judges should participate in
establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of judicial conduct, and shall personally observe those
standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. The provisions of this Code are
to be construed and applied to further that objective.
Comment Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and
independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or
favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this Code.
Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this
responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does
injury to the system of government under law.
7. CANON 2 - Judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their
activities. (A) Judges should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that
promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. (B) Judges should not allow
family, social, or other relationships to influence their judicial conduct or judgment. Judges should not lend
the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor should judges convey
or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence them. Judges should
not testify voluntarily as character witnesses. Comment Maintaining the prestige of judicial office is essential to
a system of government in which the judiciary functions independently of the executive and legislative branches.
Respect for the judicial office facilitates the orderly conduct of legitimate judicial functions. Judges should
distinguish between proper and improper use of the prestige of office in all of their activities. The testimony of
judges as character witnesses injects the prestige of their office into the proceeding in which they testify and may be
misunderstood to be an official testimonial. This canon however, does not afford judges a privilege against testifying
in response to a subpoena.
8. CANON 3 - Judges shall perform the duties of their office impartially and diligently. The judicial
duties of judges should take precedence over all other activities. Their judicial duties include all the duties of
office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply: (A) Adjudicative
Responsibilities. (4) Judges should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or that
person's lawyer, full right to be heard according to law, and, except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor
consider ex parte or other communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding. Judges, however,
may obtain the advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before them, by amicus
curiae only, if they afford the parties reasonable opportunity to respond. Comment The proscription against
communications concerning a proceeding includes communications from lawyers, law teachers, and other persons
who are not participants in the proceeding, except to the limited extent permitted. It does not preclude judges from
consulting with other judges, or with court personnel whose function is to aid judges in carrying out their
adjudicative responsibilities. . (5) Judges shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.
9. C) Disciplinary Responsibilities. 2) Judges having actual knowledge that a lawyer has committed a
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct should take appropriate action. Judges having actual knowledge that a
lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to the
lawyer's fitness as a lawyer should take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include informing the
appropriate authority.
Page 27 of 33
10. CHARGES IN SUPPORT OF IMPEACHMENT/ TREASON: COUNT ME -- NEGLECT OF

DUTY, MALFEASANCE, CORRUPT ACTS OR PRACTICES On or about:
1. December 27, 2005 No –answer Branch of Contract
2. December 30, 2005 No-Answer Breach of Contract
3. January17, 2006
4. January26, 2006
5. January 31, 2006
6. February 15, 2006
7. March 7, 2006
8. April 4, 2006
9. April 13, 2006
10. April 25, 2006
11. May 23, 2006
12. May 30, 2006
13. June 27, 2006
14. July 6, 2006
15. December 11,2006 - TRIAL
18. December 14, 2006 - TRIAL
19. December 14, 2006 Shane – Christopher: Buczek Kidnapped by Sharon Lo Vallo and Molly J.
Musarra!!!!!
The City Court of Buffalo, New York Judge JOSEPH A. FIORELLA did refuse to acknowledge that he did
‘swear or affirm’ to support the Constitution of the United States and/or refuse to acknowledge that he did ‘swear or
affirm’ to support the Constitution of the state of New York. A judge who refuses to discharge the duties of his
office under the Oath of Office cannot be afforded jurisdiction and authority to discharge those duties with fidelity
in accordance with that oath. Accordingly, that judge compromises and denies his Oath of Office, the equivalent act
of “refusing to take the oath or affirmation”, and shall therefore forfeit his office under Article 1 Section.1,Article 2
Section.1,Article 4. Section 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Constitution of the state of United States. A judge who refuses to
bond the action before his under the clear and unambiguous terms of her Oath of Office thereby refuses to protect
and preserve the rights and privileges of individuals who may appear before the court with the expectation of a fair
and impartial tribunal under the laws and Constitution of this Nation and this state of New York. That judge is at
war with the federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The City Court of Buffalo, New York Judge
JOSEPH A. FIORELLA refused to bond the action of Petitioners under her Oath of Office. A judge acting in such
manner fails to discharge the duties of is office with fidelity, is a Neglect of Duty, Malfeasance, and/or Corrupt
Act or Practice.
Page 28 of 33
11. COUNT II -- NEGLECT OF DUTY, MALFEASANCE, CORRUPT ACT OR PRACTICE

Pursuant to the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canons 3. a judge should administer his duties in a manner that
demonstrates and fosters impartiality, and eschews even the appearance of impropriety. Failure of a judge to conduct
himself “at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary”
constitutes a Neglect of Duty and, under egregious circumstances may constitute a Corrupt Act or Practice. In
the matter before the court, The City Court Judge JOSEPH A. FIORELLA acted in a prejudicial manner that
undermines and erodes public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, contrary to the Code of Judicial
Conduct. The initial actions by Judge FIORELLA gives rise to the inference of ex parte communications with the
solicitor [opposing counsel], contrary to Canon 3.A.(4). The inference of ex parte communications are supported by
the court’s administration of the summary judgment proceeding(s) contrary to Petitioner’s Land Patent. and in
violation of the Clearfield Trust Doctrine by withholding the material information that the government’s demand for
specific performance upon corporate statutes or corporation rules without the production of the said document
defining the loss of sovereignty status of the government; defining that the government is not the subject-matter-
jurisdiction-holder–in-due course by the very use of the demanded federal reserve notes can not enforce the specific
performance demands called statutes. See Article one of the united states Constitution Judge Florala’s actions imply
an Impeachable Treasonous conspiracy that is so prejudicial and egregious as to constitute a Corrupt Act or
Practice against the united States of America and the creditors of the United States [Annexed Exhibit 1 page
18 highlighted yellow]. In the administration of this matter, The City Court of Buffalo, New York Judge
FIORELLA must be found guilty of a Neglect of Duty, Malfeasance, and Corrupt Acts or Practices.
12. Under the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1, “A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.” A court should maintain a higher standard of integrity such that even an
“appearance of impropriety” is avoided, Canon 2. Failure to establish, maintain and enforce the highest standard of
integrity and to avoid any “appearance of impropriety” erodes public confidence in the integrity and independence
of the judiciary, in conflict with Canon 1 and Canon 2. Failure to administer the duties of one’s office in
accordance with one’s Oath of Office constitutes a denial of that Oath of Office, requiring a forfeiture of that office
pursuant to the New York Constitution and United States of America. This petition contains charges that The
Buffalo City Court Judge FIORELLA and others similarly situated did willfully, knowingly, and intentionally
deprives Petitioner of rights and privileges secured under the federal Constitution to due process under the law and
equal protection of the law. The charges herein allege that Judge FIORELLA acted contrary to his Oath of Office,
denied his Oath of Office, and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. Pursuant to the Constitution of the state of
New York, failure to administer one’s duty in accordance with the Oath of Office constitutes a Neglect of Duty, an
impeachable offense. When “Neglect of Duty” is or appears to be a pattern and practice, it becomes a Corrupt Act
or Practice, a Malfeasance, rising to an impeachable offense. The office-holder must be removed from office.
When shown to be true, the allegations set forth and made more specific in the attached Affidavits warrant an
indictment for the impeachment of The City Court Judge FIORELLA from the office of Judge in the City Court of
Common Pleas pursuant to Article 1 Section 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution for malfeasance, for violating
the Code of Judicial Conduct, and for conduct rendering her unfit for office, and to bind her over for trial before the
Senate of the state of Washington for impeachment from that office at the earliest possible time.
13. Petitioners united States of America by and through Shane Christopher Family of Buczek, respectfully
requests the opportunity to testify under oath to the charges brought forward against The City Court Judge
FIORELLA to assist this Superior Court Judge House of Representatives find the truth and to correctly determine
whether to bring an indictment for impeachment of The City Court Judge FIORELLA.
This New York legislature has a duty to support, obey and defend the Constitution of this Nation and this state of
New York, including checks and balances against the judicial branch of government pursuant to Article V, Sections
9. Petitioners respectfully asks this House of Representatives to support the Constitution of the United States and
the rights of its people for redress of grievances secured under that Constitution, and to conduct an honest and
complete investigation into the charges brought forward by Petitioner for the removal from office of The City Court
Judge FIORELLA.
14. REMEDY For conduct at war with the Constitution of the state of New York and United States
Constitution specifically Article 1, Section 2 and 3.The City Court Judge FIORELLA deserves to be removed from
his office. For conduct at war with the Constitution of the United States, the supreme law of the land, to deprive the
people of rights and privileges secured under the federal Constitution, The City Court Judge FIORELLA deserves to
Page 29 of 33
be removed from his office. For conspiring with others to deprive litigants and others of their rights under the
federal and State Constitutions, The City Court Judge FIORELLA deserves to be removed from his office. For
Neglect of Duty of his office, The City Court Judge FIORELLA deserves to be removed from his office. For
Malfeasance in the discharge of the duties of his office, The City Court Judge FIORELLA deserves to be removed
from his office. For the Impeachable Treasonous Corrupt Acts and Practices in the discharge of the duties of his
office, The City Court Judge FIORELLA deserves to be removed from his office. For violating Canons 1, 2, and 3
of the Code of Judicial Conduct, The City Court Judge FIORELLA deserves to be removed from his office.
Petitioners respectfully pray to the Washington House of Representatives to suspend The City Court Judge
FIORELLA from occupying his office during this period of investigation, and then, upon a finding of the truth of
these allegations, to issue an indictment for impeachment of The City Court Judge FIORELLA from the Office of
Judge in the City Court of Buffalo, New York and to be tried for impeachment before the Senate of New York.
Ratified December 15, 1791.
The united States of America by and through Shane – Christopher, family of Buczek, Moffit Preamble and one of
the people, herein, competent to testify herein, over the age of eighteen, by first hand conscious knowledge states the
foregoing is true, correct, complete and not misleading, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth:
Without prejudice
_____________________________________________________
Signed: /s/Shane – Christopher: Buczek, Authorized Representative
Without recourse, UCC 1-308
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Shane – Christopher: Buczek, Sui Juris certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the
United States of America, without the “UNITED STATES”, that I am at least 18 years of age, a
one of the people of the Florida Republic, and I personally served the following document(s): by
placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first class United States Mail, with
postage prepaid and properly address to the Following:
cc:
THE HONORABLE JUDGE

SHARON LO VALLO
50 DELAWARE AVE.
Page 30 of 33
THE CLERK OF THE COURT

50 DELAWARE AVE.
MOLLY JO MUSARRA
ATTORNEY AT LAW
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
25 DELAWARE AVENUE
NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

400 ANDREWS STREET
ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14604
THOMAS J. McINTYRE, Chief

FOIA / PA UNIT
CRIMINAL DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
SUITE 1127, KEENEY BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530-0001
DOJ
MARSHALL JARRETT
OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NORTH WEST 3266
WASWHINGTON, D.C. 20530
DIVISION OF APPEALS AND OPINIONS

Solicitor General OAG
The Capitol
Albany, New York
(518) 474-7330
STATE OF NEW YORK

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE CAPITOL
ALBANY, NY 12224
State of New York

Court of Appeals
20 Eagle Street
Page 31 of 33
Albany, New York

12207-1095
JoAnn M. Wahl, Clerk of the Court

M. Dolores Denman Courthouse
50 East Avenue
Rochester, New York 14604
(585) 530-3100
Comptroller of the Currency

Administrator of National Banks
Washington, DC 20219
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza, Room 2109
New York, NY 10278-0090
ROBERT D. LONSKI, ADMINISTRATOR

CLAUDIA S. SCHULTZ, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
670 STATLER TOWERS
716-856-8804
FAX 716-856-0424
Mayor Byron Brown

201 City Hall,
Buffalo, NY 14202
US BANKRUPTCY COURT - Buffalo Office

Olympic Towers
300 Pearl St. Suite 250
Buffalo, NY 14202
(716) 362-3200
Western District of New York
Paul R. Warren - Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN U.S. COURTHOUSE
500 Pearl Street

New York, NY 10007
(212) 857-8500
Page 32 of 33
Thomas Asreen, Acting Clerk of Court
H. Carl McCall
State Comptroller
Office of the State Comptroller

Public Information Office
110 State Street, 15th Floor
Albany, NY 12236
(518) 474-4015
THE WHITEHOUSE
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530
TEL: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
president@whitehouse.gov
Using a Notary on this document does not create an adhesion contract or alter my status,
but is used for identification purposes and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.
County of Erie
State of New York
I certify that the above afore Affiant, Shane –Christopher: Buczek, known by me, by proper
identification and having affixed his hand concerning the above and attached document, duly
sworn and subscribed and affirmed before Me Notary Public in and for the State of New York
this ________ day for the ________Month in the year of, Two Thousand Seven, A.D.
__________________________________
Notary Public Signature Name SEAL:
My Notary expires:
__________________________________
Notary Public Print Name
Page 33 of 33

Buczek 20070506 Motion Vacate Void Judgement Hockey Game Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buczek 20070506 Motion Vacate Void Judgement Hockey Game Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE AND VOID JUDGMENT

DOCKET No. 05F-18516

STATE OF NEW YORK: CITY COURT )

OBJECTION, ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL GROUNDS, TO JURY

COMES NOW, Shane Christopher, family of Buczek Defendant-in-Error, living

and possibly is a treasonous court by her actions.

Rights guaranteed therein throughout this improper and prejudicial trial.

above-specified case number.

witnesses, then, that is further evidence of additional denial of my Rights of redress.

IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that those specified in paragraph 4, above, are required to

individually, fully liable for their wrongful actions, as established by law..

Constitutions and to the Rights guaranteed to the aforementioned Sovereigns therein,

which is perjury of oath, sedition, insurrection and treason.

OF BUFFALO to be a Constitutionally competent court with jurisdiction to try the

their Constitutionally-guaranteed Rights, with the EX PARTE COMMUNICATION with the

9. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that government officers, public officers, servants and

committed treason, on the public record.

are valid, supreme authorities.

treasonous) Judge Lo Vallo, did under the color of law.

no Constitutionally authorized power to deny, defy, subvert or overrule the

throughout this mockery of a trial.

14. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT; that JOSEPH A. FIORELLA, KEVIN J. KEANE, SHARON LO

constitutionally authorized power to oppose the referenced authorities, and having

which additionally makes this verdict a defective verdict, in defiance of lawful

guilty by a jury of his peers, beyond a reasonable doubt. IT IS AN IRREFUTABLE FACT;

wrongfully and possibly prejudicially denied by the biased judge.

unconstitutionally found Defendant guilty. Therefore, the verdict has no Constitutional

verdict must be overturned and void ab initio.

members to act unlawfully and unconstitutionally in their role as jurors, pursuant to

referenced officers, pursuant to the Constitution and state statutes. Therefore, it is

office, and to do so is blatant fraud, IMPERSONATING A LAWFUL PUBLIC OFFICER, AND

Christopher family of Buczek.

EXECUTING Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution,

State of New York and the city of Buffalo.

and must be void Ab initio.

dismissed, with prejudice.

allegedly injured by Defendant’s alleged actions, in violation of constitutionally

dismissed, with prejudice.

defendant’s constitutionally guaranteed Rights. (e) It is apparent by the jury’s failure to

requirement, whatsoever; to obey an unconstitutional or unlawful order issued by any

official or the possible treasonous Judge Lo Vallo in judicial practice. Pursuant to

refusal or denial to abide by a LAWFUL ORDER. It is obvious that Judge Lo Vallo’s

public servant judge Sharon Lo Vallo held them in defiance of Constitutional

WHEREFORE, Defendant in Error, Shane - Christopher, family of Buczek, files this

allegiance or there continued treason, by these rulings, on the public record.

by Shane - Christopher, family of Buczek, Authorized Representative, Sovereign Americans of

THE HONORABLE JUDGE

THE CLERK OF THE COURT

NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

THOMAS J. McINTYRE, Chief

DIVISION OF APPEALS AND OPINIONS

STATE OF NEW YORK

State of New York

JoAnn M. Wahl, Clerk of the Court

Comptroller of the Currency

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ROBERT D. LONSKI, ADMINISTRATOR

Mayor Byron Brown

US BANKRUPTCY COURT - Buffalo Office

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Thomas Asreen, Acting Clerk of Court

Office of the State Comptroller

and belief, so help me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 (1).

DATED: February 17, 2007