Typical for sovereign citizen nuts, paranoia and ignorance of the law.
-----
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-idd-1_11-cv-00606/pdf/USCOURTS-idd-1_11-cv-00606-0.pdfMilton Gerard Esquibel comes to this Court for troubles that began years ago with the divorce of Esquibel’s mother, Gladys Esquibel, from Esquibel’s father, Augustin Esquibel. First Am. Compl., Dkt 20-21. Around the time the divorce was filed, in early 2008, Esquibel became worried about how Gladys was acting, and met with his father to discuss his concerns. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Esquibel was convinced that Gladys was mismedicating his father, stealing from him, and attempting to acquire Esquibel’s inheritance. Id. ¶¶ 11-13, 19-23.
Over the next few months
Esquibel became progressively more volatile in voicing his concerns about his mother’s conduct: reporting his concerns to the police, id. ¶¶ 30- 32;
sending letters to the state attorney general and governor, id. ¶ 33; and sending “proof” to local and state newspapers and TV stations, id. ¶ 34. Esquibel’s efforts later became
confrontational when he sought out Attorney General Wasden at the Association of Counties Conference and questioned him about “what to do when corrupt officials
such as the sheriff and prosecutor would not prosecute.” Id. ¶¶ 59, 61-63. Following the disturbance, Esquibel was asked to leave. Id. ¶¶ 62-63.
Esquibel’s actions took another dramatic turn in August 2009 while he was
attending a hearing for his parents’ divorce case. See id. ¶¶ 93, 95. Esquibel wanted to present Judge Hodges with certain evidence, which in Esquibel’s mind was conclusive
Case 1:11-cv-00606-BLW Document 44 Filed 04/23/12 Page 2 of 22
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
evidence of the fraud Gladys was perpetrating on his father. Id. ¶¶ 93-94. However, because Esquibel was not a party to the case—and presumably because the evidence was not pertinent to the proceedings—Judge Hodges declined to entertain such evidence. See
id. ¶¶ 96.
Precisely what happened next is unclear from the complaint; however, it is
known that Esquibel was ultimately escorted from the courthouse and criminal charges were filed against him because of his conduct. Id. ¶¶ 99-108.
Esquibel objected to the ensuing criminal trial. See id. ¶¶ 105-201. Esquibel
contends that the criminal complaint and supporting affidavit were perjured, id. ¶¶ 107-08, that he was never properly brought before the court, id. ¶¶ 110-117, 125-29, 137-39, that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction, id. ¶¶ 135-36, 142-143, and that the ensuing litigation was fundamentally flawed, id. ¶¶ 138-202. Paramount among the perceived flaws was Esquibel’s inability to bring his chosen defense. Id. ¶¶ 147, 202.
Although Esquibel sought to justify his conduct by providing evidence of the alleged fraud, id. ¶¶120-121, the judge “continued pettifogging with denials,” calling “such defense frivolous.” Id. ¶¶ 147, 202. Esquibel claims these flaws “constitute[d] fraud…perpetrated upon the court.” Id.¶ 109.
At the conclusion of the allegedly flawed trial, a jury found Esquibel guilty. Id. ¶
390. A decision Esquibel appealed. Id. ¶¶ 203-219. When Esquibel’s appeal was
dismissed, he concluded that “all Justices of the SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO failed in their supervisory” role. Id. ¶ 219.
Case 1:11-cv-00606-BLW Document 44 Filed 04/23/12 Page 3 of 22
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
The final stage of Esquibel’s tale begins with his arrest by Ada County some
months later. See id. ¶ 220. Esquibel first alleges that the underlying warrants—one from Ada County and one from Cassia County—were invalid, but he fails to describe the errors in detail. Id. ¶¶ 215-22. The warrants’ problems, while nebulous, were allegedly enough to makes the associated arrest and imprisonment invalid. Id.
....Esquibel now comes before this Court as a pro se plaintiff, alleging that multiple state and private actors have either failed in their legal duties or actively sought to denyEsquibel’s constitutional rights – including his right to due process of law. Id. ¶ 149-212,
393-452. Esquibel named numerous state and local entities for their ties to the alleged wrongdoing, and went through a list of individuals who are allegedly individually responsible. Id. ¶¶ 417, 420. Among those allegedly responsible are Prosecutor Al Barrus, Attorney General Wasden, Sheriff Randy Kidd, Judge Hodges, and Judge Robinson, to name a few.
Although “[e]ach of the said Defendant are being sued in the personal-capacity (individual-capacity),”id. ¶ 417, none was provided service of process or captioned as a defendant. ....Although the Court has now dealt with claims against many of the state entities, Esquibel claims that various actors are individually liable for their actions. Esquibel, however, does not list those defendants in the caption, and he did not serve the individual defendants....
Here, there is no evidence that Esquibel even attempted to serve the individual defendants.....Throughout his judicial travails, Esquibel often found his name in the news. He now seeks redress for reputational harm the state caused. But
Esquibel has committed a small but crucial error; he has not named a defendant that made any slanderous statement.
While Esquibel repeatedly alleges defamation by various newspapers, he never claims that any of the statements were made by any named defendant. Id. ¶ 119, 148, and 213-
14.
