)

i Defendants. )
\

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED.PETITION AND COMPLAINT IN THE NATURE

OF A SUIT FOR DEPRIVATION OF FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS - 42
USC 1983 / JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT /VOIRDIRE OF THE COURT /
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE RULE 201 MANDATORY
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS

I. Individuals William W. Spinalie and Johnny Butzly conspired under color of

law to deprive Kenney Kincaid and Colleen Kincaid of federally protected rights clearly
articulated at United States Constitutional Amendments Five and Seven specifically
applying to the private prior agreement and conspiracy of Mr. Spinalie and Mr. Butzly
under authority of United States Constitutional Amendment Fourteen and the common
law authorities of U. S. v. Price, 383 U.S. 787(1966), and U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745
(1966).
II. Mr. Spinalie and 1\.1r: Butzly deprived the Moores of their Constitutional right
not to be deprived of property without due process of law and Constitutional right to
petition court for redress. Kenney Kincaid and Colleen Kincaid brought suit to quiet title
to property in Washington County, Oklahoma by contracting with the State of Oklahoma
through it's political subunit, Washington County. Before the Moores could have their
day in court, Spinalie and Butzly succeeded in removing the case to a private venue and
subjected the Moores to a sham proceeding which deprived the Moores of access to
court, to a just review of their petition in a court of competent jurisdiction. The acts
conspired to and committed by Spinalie and Butzly deprived Kenney Kincaid and
Colleen Kincaid of the fruit of their contract with the state of Oklahoma. The economic
value of the property which the Moores were deprived of was not less than two hundred
twenty-five thousand dollars ($225,000). Additionally, Kenney Kincaid and Colleen
Kincaid suffered aggravation, emotional anguish, loss of time away from personal
activities, and inconvenience. The sham proceeding of Spinalie and Butzly was done with
the intent and effect of defrauding Kenney Kincaid and Colleen Kincaid of their rights,
the fruit of their contract with Oklahoma, and to intentionally afflict the Moores with

115
emotional anguish, to inconvenience and aggravate them, and to treat them as something
less than human.
ill. The conspired to acts of Spinalie and Butzly injured Kenney Kincaid and
Colleen Kincaid financially, socially, and emotionally. Private individuals Spinalie and
Butzly are blameworthy and fully liable under United States Supreme Court rulings
which illustrate that private individuals are within reach of 42 USC 1983 when acting
under color oflaw.
Jurisdictional statement
IV. This court has jurisdiction over both the parties to this action as well as the
subject matter: (a) Kenney Kincaid and Colleen Kincaid have filed a paid petition
(complaint; (b) respondents William W. Spinalie and Johnny Butzly are in receipt of
notice and have had opportunity to answer; (c) Kenney Kincaid and Colleen Kincaid
have articulated this court's authority to act under 42 USC 1983 and the common law
doctrines established under U. S. v. Price, 383 US. 787(1966), u.s. v. Guest, 383 U.S.
745 (1966), Kohler v. Kline and Kline, Inc., 38 P.3d 257, 2002 OK CIV APP 4
(Okla.App. 09/18/2001), Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 581 P.2d 31, 1978 OK
99 (Okla. 06/27/1978), Hawkins v. Hurst 467 P.2d 159, 160 (Okl. 1970); Fowler v.
Goldfeder, 418 P.2d 317, 319 (Okl. 1996); Stevens Expert Cleaners & dyers, inc. v.
Stevens, 267 P.2d 998, 1000 (Okl. 1954), Stump v. Sparkman, 435 US. 349, 98 S. Ct.
1099,55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978), Bradley v. Fisher, 80 US. (13 Wall.) 335, 20 L. Ed. 646
(1872), and Rankin v. Howard, 633 F. 2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. Denied, 451 U.S. 939,
101 S. Ct. 2020, 68 L. Ed. 2d 326 (1981); (d) Kenney Kincaid and Colleen appear in this
action and testify to their injuries.
Voir dire of the court
V. Kenney Kincaid and Colleen Kincaid request this court verify compliance
with 5 use 3331. Kenney Kincaid and Colleen Kincaid request this court explain how
material can rise to the level of evidence admissible at trial absent presentment by and
through a competent witness.

VI. Mandatory judicial notice under authority of Federal Rules of Evidence Rule
201· Triable issues of fact

116
 1. December 14, 2001, Kenney Kincaid and Colleen Kincaid filed a petition in
,
I

Washington County, Oklahoma numbered as CJ-2001-659 attached as exhibit "A." The

petition sought relief of trespass to the Moores' property.
2. February 10, 2002, Johnny Butzly, responded to a paper proffered to Mr. Butzly by
William W. Spinalie. Mr. Butzly refused to allow Kenney Kincaid and Colleen Kincaid to
enter court. Mr. Butzly made no effort to reach the merits of the Moores' complaint. Mr.
Butzly remarked that the paper proffered by William W. Spinalie was all he needed to see.
3. February 10, 2002, William W. Spinalie worked a fraud on the court by advancing a
writing which he knew was false with the intent that Johnny Butzly rely on the false writing
to deprive Kenney Kincaid and Colleen Kincaid of property and rights without due process
of law. A copy of Kenney Kincaid and Colleen Kincaid's response to the false document
proffered by William W. Spinalie is attached as exhibit "B."
4. February 10, 2002, Johnny Butzly, willfully acceded to the fraudulent document
proffered by William W. Spinalie and acted with intent and result of depriving Kenney
Kincaid and Colleen of property without due process of law; and also, Mr. Butzly deprived
the Moores of their Constitutional right to petition by depriving Kenney Kincaid and Colleen
Kincaid of access to court. Johnny Butzly undeniably declared his intentions by his notation
on a so-called minute record. See exhibit "C."
5. William W. Spinalie had a duty to his client to inquire of Johnny Butzly, Butzly's
instruction as to whether Mr. Butzly would be preparing an order or whether William W.
Spinalie should prepare a "journal entry of judgment." Spinalie and Butzly must be
considered intelligent, educated and trained in the law, and with many years of experience
knew that the pronouncement of "judgment" by Butzly had to be memorialized within the
term of court. Butzly and Spinalie also knew that memorializing a final order would present
Kenney Kincaid and Colleen Kincaid with right of appeal wherein honest review would find
the "judgment" facially void.
6. The hostility evident in the paper of William Spinalie and the open display of animus
by Johnny Butzly on February 10, 2002 clearly denied the Moores remedy. See exhibit "D."
This court wants authority to determine that citizens must exhaust remedies by repeatedly
subjecting themselves to anger-driven, hate-filled abuse where records verify citizens have
already been refused right of access to that forum.

117
 7. Many weeks after the non-judicial, extra-legal abuse conspired to and committed by
(
Spinalie and Butzly, the Moores exercised their federally protected right to remedy under 42

USC 1983.
8. The merits of the underlying cases including the Washington County case are not at
issue before this court: (1) this court wants subject matter jurisdiction to try any of the
underlying litigation and (2) Kenney Kincaid and Colleen Kincaid, in this amended
complaint notice this court of two undeniable acts, which taken together illustrate a pattern of
fraud by Spinalie and Butzly:The first predicate act of fraud is articulated in items two, three,
and four of this judicial notice. The second predicate act of fraud was composing an a void
order. See exhibit "E." Together these acts demonstrate the practice of "pigeonholing" - the
evil and deceitful black art of blocking a pro se litigant from going forward on their claim
and preventing them from appealing as well.

Argument and authority

VIT. The plenary power of Oklahoma State district courts must be exercised
within the term of court which is thirty days from the pronouncement of judgment. If the
power of court to render judgment is not invoked within the term of court (thirty days
from the pronouncement of judgment) the court wants subject matter jurisdiction over the
cause excepting limited jurisdiction articulated at Oklahoma Statute Title 12, Sections
1031 & 1038. See Kohler v. Kline and Kline, Inc., 38 P.3d 257, 2002 OK CIV APP 4
(Okla.App. 09118/2001), Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 581 P.2d 31,1978 OK
99 (Okla. 06/2711978), Hawkins v. Hurst 467 P.2d 159, 160 (Okl. 1970); Fowler v.
Goldfeder, 418 P .2d 317, 319 (Okl. 1996); and Stevens Expert Cleaners & dyers, inc. v.
Stevens, 267 P.2d 998, 1000 (Okl. 1954).
VITI. It is clear that a judge who acts in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction
may be held liable for his judicial act. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S. Ct. 1099,
55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978) and Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 20 L. Ed. 646
(1872). A judge's private, prior agreement to decide in favor of one party is not a judicial
act. Rankin v. Howard, 633 F. 2d 844 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. Denied, 451 U.S. 939, 101 S.

118
r> Ct. 2020, 68 L. Ed. 2d 326 (1981). Judge is deprived of immunity where the judge
/ willfully accedes to fraud. Cite omitted.

REMEDY SOUGHT
IX. Ideals of substantial justice and fair play require that William W. Spinalie and
Johnny Butzly compensate Kenney Kincaid and Colleen Kincaid according to the
standard damages for fraud or six-hundred, seventy-five thousand dollars ($675,000.00).
Since no reasonable theory of apportionment arises, William W. Spinalie and Johnny
Butzly should be held jointly and severally liable.

JURy TRIAL DEMANDED

Prepared and submitted by:

Kenney Kincaid Colleen Kincaid
706 Fairlane Drice
Boomtown, Oklahoma 74000
918-555-0000

AFFIDAVIT

I, Kenney Kincaid, of lawful age and competent to testify, being first duly sworn,
upon oath state as follows:

1. February 10, 2002, at an alleged hearing for alleged judicial determination on papers
William W. Spinalie submitted to Johnny Butzly, Mr. Butzly refused to allow me to enter
his court.
2. February 10,2002. Johnny Butzly refused to allow me to say anything.
3. February 10, 2002, Johnny Butzly stated that the papers proffered by William W.
Spinalie were all he needed to see.
4. February 10, 2002, Johnny Butzly made it perfectly clear to me that my case in
Washington County was, as they say in the vernacular, "dead in the water."

119