PETITION TO VACATE VOID JUDGMENT

Ex-parte

In reference to case number 13-4099EX-REL UNITED STATES ANTONIO RASHAAD DOVINE VS UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Mr. Dovine is operating in sui juris status and is in propria persona. This ex-parte
request is made to this court as-king this court to vacate the VOID Judgment passed by the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, made by a kangaroo jury after a kangaroo trial
and a VOID sentence passed by Louise Flanagan against Dovine, Antonio R. on February 4
th
2013. Mr.
Dovine has been involuntarily committed to USP LEE in Virginia, under the Racketeering Chapter of title
18 United States Code.

The judgment is not Voidable but Void when the judgment is made lacking subject matter and personal
jurisdiction of the matter. The law is clear that even if jurisdiction is presumed to be had, it is lost when
substantial rights of the accused are violated.

1. The unclean hands of the United States Attorney and court and members of the court,
including but not limited to the bar members, the clerks, the court reporters and the judges
and magistrates, and the jurors and witnesses.
2. There is no petition in the record of the case.
3. The courts committed fraud in the procurement of jurisdiction by filing and possibly
adjudicating the case in the Western District and then transferring it to the Eastern District
and simulating a kangaroo trial.
4. The judge did not produce an Oath of Office from Chambers when requested and to date
there appears to be no oath on held in her chambers as required. Her own clerk admitted
that the oath is not available at the clerks office or at the judges chambers.
5. The petitioner Mr. Dovine is not an employee or citizen of the United States or The State of
North Carolina, as the term citizen and employee would cause one to be subject to the
authority and rules and codes of the United States. Statutory jurisdiction only exist if there is
a valid contract with all the principles making the contract a valid legal and lawfully binding
contract. The statutory jurisdiction as well as the subject matter jurisdiction remains
unproven on the record. Despite the fact that the accused never plead guilty or not guilty but
appropriately challenged jurisdiction and demand that jurisdiction be proven for and on the
record before he would be able to properly address the bill and the charges.
6. The true meaning of jurisdiction is Oath Spoken, and unless you can produce for and on the
record a valid binding and legitimate oath of office on file with the Secretary of State of North
Carolina, United States of America etc where Mr. Dovine took an oath of office, then it is
proven fact in law and on the record that the Court does not have in personam jurisdiction
over the living breathing sentient body, spirit or mind of the Petitioner.

7. Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction, either of the subject
matter or the parties. Wahl v. Round Valley Bank 38 Ariz , 411, 300 P. 955(1931), Tube City
Mining & Millng Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146p 203(1914); and Millken v. Meyer, 311 U.S.
457, 61 S. CT. 339,85 L. Ed. 2d 278 (1940).
with subject matter jurisdiction is that it can never be presumed, never be waived, and cannot
be constructed even by mutual consent of the parties. Subject matter jurisdiction is two part ;
the statutory or common law authority for the court to hearthe case and the appearance and
testimony of a competent fact witness, in other words, sufficiency of pleadings.

8. Subject matter failings are usually the following:
(1) No petition in the record of the case, Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118,122 (1930).
9. (2) Defective petition filed, Same case as above.
10. (3) Fraud committed in the procurement of jurisdiction, Fredman Brothers Furniture
v. Dept. of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202, 486 N.E. 2d 893(1985)
11. (4) Fraud upon the court, In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill, App. 3d 393(1962)
12. (5) Judge does not follow statutory procedure, Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143
(1921)
13. (6) Unlawful activity of a judge, Code of Judicial Conduct.
14. Violation of due process, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019(193 ; Pure Oil
Co. v. City of Northlake , 10 Ill.2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956); Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros.,
363 Ill 25 (1936), ( If the court exceeded it's statutory authority. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278
F. Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)
15. any acts in violation of 11 U.S.C. 362(a),IN re Garcia, 109 B.R. 335 (N.D> Illinois, 1989).
Where no justiciable issue is presented to the court through proper pleadings,
Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App 3d 701, 637 N.E. 2d 633 (1st Dist. 1994)
Where a complaint states no cognizable cause of action against that party, Charles
v. Gore, 248 Ill App. 3d 441, 618 N.E. 2d 554 (1st. Dist. 1993)
where any litigant was represented before a court by a person/law firm that is
prohibited by law to practice law in that jurisdiction
16. The United States of America is not a country and is the stile (style) of the government
created by the constitution of 1789. The United States of America is named as the
Plaintiff in a Civil matter being adjudicated as a criminal case cannot be a victim in any
case as it does not exist in real life to be injured or harmed. United States of America
was called to the stand and did not admit, when asked who in the court has a claim
against the Defendant the record will show that no one had a claim, thus no cause, no
claim, no case.
17. Lack of Service, No summons or properly served pleadings were ever submitted to the
petitioner.
18. There was no pre-trial hearings which violated another constitutionally protected due
process rights of the accused.
19. The true nature and cause was not made known to the accused and the accused was
denied right to counsel.
20. The search and seizure constitutionally protected rights of the accused were not
protected, upheld, and were blatantly violated and disregarded by the arresting officers
at the Raleigh Police Department, the US Marshall Service, the IRS, and the holding
facilities, jails, USP LEE members. There is/was no probable cause to arrest the
petitioner on the night of May 3 2011, the seizure of the Petitioners body and person by
the US Marshall Service based on an arrest warrant issued by a clerk of court and not by
magistrate or judge and not after a Probable Cause hearing or summons served on the
accused and refused by the party summonsed to appear having been executed and on a
Memorandum from the United States Attorney at the DOJ in Raleigh NC.
21. The so called Attorney who was put on the case, his reason was a conflict of interest,
any conflict of interest, was always a conflict and he should have removed himself
before making any type of filing or even speaking with the petitioner regarding the case
or defenses, strategies etc. Any bar member appointed to this case, especially one who
has a title of Nobility and has given up United States of America citizenship and
allegiance is to the Crown and by the true 13
th
amendment and are barred from courts
in America.
22. When the court is engaged in profiting and gaining financially from a case there can be
no real justice and no real adjudication based on the law and the appearance of
impartiality, fairness, unalienable rights and Bill of Rights, human rights, birthrights, and
rights which are not enumerated. Thus when the court acts outside of its scope and in a
capacity which does not display the very appearance of fair dealings the proceedings are
Null and Void.
23. The Jury was convened unlawfully and from invalid venue. The jury was unqualified as
US citizens to be seated on a jury in North Carolina.
24. Not only is the code in title 18 section 1951 void for vagueness, the terms that define,
whoever and commerce are ambiguous and therefore void due to the ambiguity the
code begins with the term whoever and in the definition section under the same it
defines whoever as a specific group of entities and the term includes is used which is a
limitation term. Therefore things not specifically named are excluded unless they are of
the same type. Hobbs Act robbery comes under the Racketering chapter 95 in the USC
Title 18 otherwise known as RICO. The alleged acts do not constitute or resemble any
type of organized crime or criminal enterprise.
25. Title 18 of the U.S.C. is prima facie law and the petitioner formally challenged the
validity and requires the complete de jure law as originally passed by both the house
and senate and signed into law by the President of the United States of America de jure.
26. The prison sentence passed by Louise Flanagan is VOID and the petitioner dutifully and
honorably Demand this court to Vacate Immediately and without further delay or
distress or process.
27. The impartiality of the judge and the prosecutor and also the Attorneys who all are paid
out of appropriated funds and because of their membership with the bar they all stand
to gain from a conviction and prison sentence.
28. The fact that the prosecutor did not have a bond in this case and did not provide the
letter and receipt from the OID and money order issue from the Secretary of Puerto Rico
as the rule so states reflects the attempt to make the defendant responsible for the
bond and the defendant did not agree to stand in a surety or give bond for the benefit
of the prosecutor.
29. The fact that the records have been altered and misleading this court as this case was
not heard in or at Raleigh and this is a requirement. Raleigh is the proper venue and no
stipulation was made or agreed to either in fact or implied.
30. There is no evidence and the petitioner believes none exist showing where a judge or
magistrate ordered the grand jury investigation based upon an affidavit by a victim.
There is no complaint, there is no sworn affidavit, there is no summons or valid warrant
issued for the arrest and confinement of Mr. Dovine
31. The IRS is an unnamed indispensable party, the Secretary of Treasury is also an
unnamed indispensable party, the ATF is also an unnamed indispensable party, the
Customs Board and Patrol is an unnamed indispensable party and there is a strong
possibility of more unnamed unknown indispensable parties.
32. The district court is not constitutional court. Therefore the court lacks jurisdiction and
authority unless consented to by all parties. There is NO CONSENT GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED. The accused is not a juvenile, nor delinquent, does not
acknowledge fictions nor consent to be governed by fictional, corporate, acting under
color of law and authority pretended to be granted by the governed.
33. The accused has the right to be a person recognized by the law with privileges and
benefits of the person. Accordingly he has not delegated or granted powers to the
federal government or The State, and is entitled to equal protection, due process, to be
indicted by a lawfully drawn Grand Jury, present his case on his own behalf or to be
represented by counsel, entitled to bail in all cases when death is not the penalty,
entitled to face his accuser, entitled to a defense, entitled to have witnesses on his
behalf be subpoenaed, entitled to have a true and clear and concise statement of the
accusation, the indictment did not give definitions to terms, the indictment did not read
the charge out as it is in the code, verbatim or otherwise. The regulation known as the
CFR is essential to the code having any foundation is omitted from the indictment, thus
misleading the jury and the defendant as to what is being charged and to whom the
code is applicable to be enforced against. The indictment appears to be an information
signed and submitted by the prosecuting attorney only, and not by an impartial,
properly qualified and lawfully drawn grand jury. There was no return in open court or
to a magistrate or judge of an indictment and no judge or magistrate authorized or
signed the arrest warrant giving authority to the US Marshal Service to arrest the
petitioner.
34. All of the four (4) court forced attorneys have done things to hinder the petitioner from
having a fair, speedy trial, they have impaired any and all defense, have refused to raise
issues that have merit and that are grounds for dismissal, vacation of judgment.
35. The exclusionary rule was not enforced adequately and the exclusionary rule is one of
utmost importance to an accused and is remedy that must be afforded when procedural
violation occur. The initial arrest was unwarranted and there was no probable cause for
the initial arrest. The petitioner gave a coerced confession and other information to the
police which then gave cause to have warrants issued. The confession was thrown out,
however the information which led to evidence which incriminated the petitioner
further was part of the poisonous tree as well and should have been thrown out as well.
Any competent learned man of law who recognized the confession was coerced
therefore would have asked for all of the evidence obtained thereafter to be excluded
as well.
36. The petitioner is entitled to be brought into a constitutional tribunal under the laws of
His Sovereign and to be tried before a jury of His Peers.
37. No man or woman has made a claim against the petitioner and The United States of
America has not made a claim of injury or damage in which the petitioner may answer
to.
38. The framework of laws and rules that govern the administration of justice in cases involving
an individual who has been accused of a crime, beginning with the initial investigation of the
crime and concluding either with the unconditional release of the accused by virtue of
acquittal (a judgment of not guilty) or by the imposition of a term of punishment pursuant to
a conviction for the crime.


39. At trial, a criminal defendant has a number of constitutional rights, including the right to
counsel, the right to a public trial, the right to a trial by jury, the right to a fair and impartial
trial, the right to confront witnesses in court, the right to compulsory process to obtain
witnesses, and the privilege against self-incrimination. Violation of any of these rights may
result in the reversal or vacation of a conviction on appeal.

40. There are exceptions and nuances to most of the procedural trial rights. Under the Sixth
Amendment, if a defendant is indigent, or unable to afford an attorney, the court will appoint
an attorney. This right applies only for felony charges and cases in which actual imprisonment
may be imposed. Accordingly, an indigent who [is not represented by
counsel at trial] may not be sentenced to incarceration, regardless of
whether conviction of the offense warrants incarceration (Scott v. Illinois,
440 U.S. 367, 99 S. Ct. 1158, 59 L. Ed. 2d 383 [1979]
41.
42. A criminal defendant has the right to an attorney from the first critical stage of the criminal
process through the end. An attorney must be present at the request of the defendant during
such events as interrogation, lineup identifications after charges have been filed, preliminary
hearings before the court, trial, and sentencing.