Bauhaus v Ok Crf-73-24,, "Order Denying eleventh application for post conviction relief” filed by Judge Harris, 3-16-07, p3

“Blanket Denial of P-C-R, Petitions in Error and Writs". These documents simply reassert

Petitioner's claims from prior Applications for Post-Conviction Relief, make personal

attacks upon the prosecutor and trial court judge, and reiterate a fantasy-life set of

background "facts".

On May 30, 1997, Petitioner filed his Sixth Application for Post-Conviction Relief

alleging that exculpatory evidence was withheld from him during his trial, and he has only

now come into custody of this evidence. Petitioner's claimed exculpatory evidence is a

police artist's sketch of the perpetrator as well a a description by a witness which indicates

that the suspect is "clean cut." Petitioner offers as contradictory evidence a booking photo

of himself which he alleges was taken three days after the murder which he alleges shows

that he is not "clean cut." On August 7,1997, Petitioner's Application for Post-Conviction- Relief was denied.

On October 1, 1997, and Order was signed denying Seventh Application for Post-

Conviction-Relief.

On September 4, 1998, Petitioner's eighth Application for Post-Conviction-Relief was

denied. Petitioner appealed the court's ruling and on November 13, 1998, Petitioner's the

denial of Petitioner's eighth Application for Post-Conviction-Relief was affirmed.

On March 5, 1999, Petitioner filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus/ Application for Post-

Conviction-Relief On November 9, 1999, Petitioner's Ninth Application for Post-

Conviction-Relief was denied. Petitioner appealed the courts ruling and on January 24,

2000, Petitioner's appeal was dismissed.

On July 13, 2000, Petitioner filed an Application for Equal Protection/Tenth

Application for Post-Conviction-Relief. Petitioner's tenth Application for Post-Conviction-Relief was denied.

JAMES BAUHAUS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case# 96-CV-0929-SEH

DAN REYNOLDS, ) 07 - CV-275-GKF pjc

)

Respondent. )

ORDER

On September 12, 2007, Petitioner, a state inmate appearing pro se, filed a "Pet. for Rule

60(B)(3)(6)Hearing" (Dkt.#51).' Along with his motion Petitioner sent a QuikTrip money order,

No. 08-760027554, in the amount of $5.00.

As an initial matter, Petitioner is advised that there is no fee for filing a Rule 60(b) motion in an existing case. The Court finds, therefore, that Petitioner's original QuikTrip money order in the amount of $5.00 shall be returned to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

A review of the Court's docket for this case reveals that by Order filed Match 31,1998 (Dkt.# 41), the Court denied Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner appealed and on August 5, 1998, the Tenth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. See Dkt. # 46. The United States Supreme Court denied Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari on December 7, 1998.

(Footnote:The Court notes that the case number designated by Petitioner on his motion is "98-CV-929-H.” After reviewing the docket sheet for Case No. 98-CV-929, as well as the history of Petitioner's case filings, the Clerk of Court determined that Petitioner has mislabeled his motion and that the appropriate case number is 96-CV-929-SEH )

Despite the rulings in this case, Petitioner has continued his efforts to obtain habeas corpus summarized Petitioner's unsuccessful efforts to obtain relief from his murder conviction entered by the State of Oklahoma, as follows:

Mr. Bauhaus was convicted in 1974 of murder and was sentenced to life

imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Bauhaus v.

State, 532 P.2d 434 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 972 (1977). In

1996 he filed his first § 2254 habeas petition, which was denied by the district court.

We denied his request for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

Bauhaus v. Reynolds, 153 F.3d 726 (10th Cit. 1998) (unpublished). In 1998, he

sought authorization from this court to file a second or successive § 2254 habeas

petition. We denied his request. Bauhaus v. State, No. 98-5196 (10th Cit. Apr. 1,

1999) (unpublished order). He sought authorization again in 2000 and that request

was also denied. See Bauhaus v. State, No. 00-5146 (10th Cir. Sept. 18, 2000)

(unpublished order).

(Dkt. # 50). The record for this case also reveals that after this Court denied habeas relief, Petitioner filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment (Dkt. #47) and a petition for writ of error coram nobis (Dkt. # 48). Those motions were denied for lack of jurisdiction (Dkt. # 49).

Petitioner has also filed other petitions for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. Petitions filed

in Case Nos. 98-CV-725-TCK and 00-543-TCK were transferred to the Tenth Circuit for

authorization and a petition filed in Case No. 00-CV-813-JOE was dismissed based on Petitioner's failure to obtain authorization from the Tenth Circuit prior to filing the petition.

Petifioner has now filed another Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, again asserting he has "newly discovered" evidence of a conspiracy involving the Tulsa Police and the FBI, "newly discovered" evidence supporting his claim of prosecutorial misconduct, and that under Slaughter v. Oklahoma, he is entitled to take an "fMRI brain-scanning lie-detection test." In light of Petitioner's repeated attempts to obtain habeas relief both by filing motions in this case as well as by filing other petitions, as discussed above, the Court finds that the instant Rule 60(b) motion constitutes a second or successive habeas corpus petition under the Antiterroism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). See Gonzalez v Crosby, 125 S.Ct. 2641 (2005) (finding that a motion for relief from judgement, seeking to advance one or more substantive claims, qualified as a "second or successive habeas petition"); see also Lopez v. Douglas, 141 F.3d 974 (10th Cir. 1998); Felker v. Turpin, 101 F.3d 657, 661 (11th Cir. 1996) (stating that "Rule 60(b) cannot be used to circumvent restraints on successive habeas petitions"). As a result, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion. Lopez, 141 F.3d at 975-76. Petitioner is required to comply with the AEDPA's relevant provisions and must obtain prior authorization from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals before filing a second or successive petition in this district court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

When a petitioner fails to comply with § 2244(b)'s gatekeeping requirement, the District

Court should transfer the second or successive habeas petition to the Court of Appeals in the interest of justice pursuant to28 U.S.C.§1631. Coleman v United States, 106 F.3d 339 (10th Cir.1997). Therefore, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1631 and 2244(b)(3)(A), the Court finds that Petitioner's "pet. for Rule 60(B)(3)(6) hearing," construed as a second or successive habeas corpus petition, should be transferred to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for authorization.

ACCORDINGLY, IT I$ HEREBY ORDERED that:

l. Petitioner's "Pet. for Rule 60(B)(3)(6) Hearing" (Dkt. # 51) is transferred to the Tenth

Circuit Court of Appeals as a second or successive petition for writ of habeas corpus filed

without prior authorization.

2. The Clerk shall return the QuikTrip money order, No.08-760027554, in the amount of $5.00, to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

DATED this 17th day of September, 2007.

CLAIRE V. EAGAN, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

(Ed note: follows the Petition for Rule 60(b)(3)(6) petition)

US FED N DIST CT TULSA OK

James Bauhaus Cs # F-1973-24

Tulsa County, OK 96-cv-929-SEH

Petition for Rule 60 B (3) (6) Hearing

This petition asks for nothing more than a hearing or correction of three (3) errors in Tulsa's computer database "History of Case".

Please notice the official, signed police reports B & C containing two (2) separate police artist's sketches of the perpetrator and three (3) separate witnesses' descriptions of the perpetrator in Which all three (3) witnesses agree that the killer's hair was short and brown. Please also notice the middle, Tulsa World newspaper photograph of me dated 10-24-1972.

Now please see the underlined portions of judge Harris' ruling on page three in which he repeats the evidentiary errors of his prosecutor as if all this evidence were "a sketch", "a description" and "a book-in photo".

Clearly there are two (2) Sketches, not one, three (3) descriptions, not one, and a newspaper photo, not a "book-in photo". All these exhibits were, and are, clearly marked. I have continually complained of this deletion and subtraction of innocence-proving evidence since it originated years ago in my third PCR effort's ruling in 1996. Tulsa authorities have ignored each request, (see ex. six in your records).

Now I ask you to order Tulsa County to correct their computer database "History of Case" so that my further appeals can be ruled on Honestly, with ALL the evidence.

So Prayed,

James Bauhaus

JAMES BAUHAUS )

)

Petitioner, )

)

V. ) Case No. 96-CV-0929-SEH

)

DAN REYNOLDS, )

Respondent.

ORDER

This is a closed habeas corpus case. On February 26, 2008, Petitioner, a state inmate

appearing pro se, filed a "Petition for Rule 60(B)(3)(6) Hearing" (Dkt. # 55). In a prior Order

entered in this case, see Dkt. # 52, the Court summarized Petitioner's many unsuccessful efforts to obtain relief, in both federal and state courts, from his murder conviction entered in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CRF-73-24. In this most recent motion, Petitioner asks the Court to conduct a hearing to correct three (3) errors in Tulsa County's computer database so that his "further appeals can be ruled on honestly, with ALL the evidence." See Dkt. # 55. He cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), (6) as authority for his request.

The Court has ruled in this case, see Dkt. # 41, that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he is "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides a mechanism for a litigant to obtain relief from a final order under only the limited grounds. In the motion before the Court, Petitioner does not seek relief from the judgment entered against him in this matter. Instead, he asks that this Court direct correction of alleged errors in the state court record. Neither Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) nor the habeas statutes provide authority for this federal court to enter the relief sought by Petitioner in his nost recent motion, i.e., correction of alleged error in a county’s database. Therefore, the “petition for a Rule 60 (b)(3)(6) hearing” shall be dismissed for lack of authority.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's "Petition for Rule

60(b)(3)(6) Hearing" (Dkt. # 55) is dismissed for lack of authority.

DATED this 4th day of March, 2008.

CLAIRE V. EAGAN, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

US FED N DIST CT TULSA OK

James Bauhaus Cs # F-1973-24

Tulsa County, OK 96-cv-929-SEH

REQ FOR EN BANC HEARING

This is a murder conviction that was clearly obtained solely

through use of perjury, fraud and evidence theft. State actors are

now caught in the act of deliberately destroying innocence-proving

evidence, (see exhibits 1-5 in your records and posted on www.james

bauhaus.org, 4bauhaus@quik.com, because I can not afford the copy

costs and postage to send the hundreds of pages of documents and

proof from these 44 lawsuits in eight courts over thirty-five years

of trying to get justice and fairness). Prosecutor Jerry Truster is

now caught in the act of deliberately lying to jurors about this blood

to obtain conviction of a teenager whom he knows to be innocent, (see

tr. p. 241, ex. N). In fact, he was fired for perpetrating the frauds

in this case, (ex. O). Worse, a culture of corruption was documented

in Tulsa's police/prosecution operations, (ex. P). The state's sole

convicting evidence, two eyewitnesses, are now proven, by official,

signed police reports, to both be liars in their identifications of

me at trial, (ex. B and C). There is now no evidence at all left to

link this murder onto me, due to these liars being finally exposed.

After decades of monumental struggle, proof of these many rotten

deeds were finally unearthed and appealed. Justice was blocked with

semantics and technicalities, along with other devices, (see entire

case on netsite). Previously Judge Eagan demonstrated her bias against

me by fining me a large sum for mistakenly, ignorantly filing a "fri-

volous" lawsuit trying to get an honest and fair ruling. Recently

she refuses to use her rule 60 B authority to correct errors and frauds

in the record by claiming that my attempts to use rule 60B to get clear,

obvious falsehoods cleansed from the court records is an attempt to

obtain habeas relief. It is not. Even so, I was forced to narrow the

scope of my rule 60 B attempt to try only to get three of the most

glaringly obvious errors corrected. This time Judge Eagan refuses to

use her rule 60 B authority by claiming to have "no authority" to

correct errors in the state's "History of Case".

This is the very definition of unfair when the state can simply

destroy all the physical evidence and subborn perjury, then lie to

jurors in order to obtain a false conviction, then pretend that all

the protections against this injustice are unavailable. Every ratio-

nal, intelligent citizen knows that the states are Constitutionally

required to comply with federal law. Fed. R. of Civ. Pros. 60 B ex-

pressly gives Judge Eagan the right, and the duty, to correct errors

and frauds perpetrated on citizens by state actors. No case is "clo-

sed" where proof of such wholesale fraud continues to surface. Judge

Eagan's Order is simply wrong and contrary to law and the Constitution.

The facts remain:

Error, perjury, fraud and evidence theft are proved in this case

beyond a shadow of any doubt by the state's own signed, official

records, (ex. 1-5, H and C, O, P).

Rule 60 B is THE method that the federal judiciary created TO re-

medy error, perjury, fraud and evidence theft in court records, (see

text of rule 60 B).

The three errors of fact that I have submitted for correction (ex.

B and C) are plain to all and impossible to miss.

The authority is there (rule 60 B). The duty is there (constitu-

tional "guarantee" of "fair" trial with "due process" and "equal pro-

tection").

If there is ANY rule of law, these three glaring errors must be

corrected. Courts who let such gigantic, monsterous frauds persist

are not involved in justice or fairness. Were I a judge, I would

consider this case a personal affront to my vocation and be very ashamed

even after I fixed this travesty.

So Prayed

James Bauhaus

CONTINUE EDIT AND PROOFREAD HERE

Case 4:96-cv-00929-seh Document 59 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/14/2008 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JAMES BAUHAUS,

)

Petitioner, )

)

V. ) Case No. 96-CV-0929-SEH

)

DAN REYNOLDS, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

By Order filed March 4, 2008 (Dkt. # 57), the Court denied Petitioner's "Petition for Rule

60(B(3)(6) Hearing' (Dkt. # 55), after finding that Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

did not provide authority for the Court to enter the relief requested by Petitioner. On March 13,

2008, Petitioner filed a pleading entitled "Req. For En Banc Hearing" (Dkt. # 58). Petitioner is

advised that neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules of this Court provide for "en have" review of a ruling.' To the extent Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Order filed

March 4, 2008, the Court finds no basis for reconsidering the prior ruling. Petitioner's request shall be denied.

ACCORDINCLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's "Req. for En Banc

Hearing" (Dkt. # 53), adjudicated as a motion for reconsideration, is denied.

DATED this 14th day of March, 2008.

CLAIRE V. EAGAN, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .

US 10th CIR CT OF APPS DENVER CO

James Bauhaus

v f-73-24

Tulsa County 96-cv-929-seh

PET FOR ROLE CIV PROC 60 8 (3)(6) HEARING

This petition asks for nothing more than a hearing or correction

of three errors in Tulsa County's "History of Case". Please notice

the official, signed, police reports exhibit B 6 C containing two sep-

arate police artist's sketches of the perpetrator and three separate

witnesses' descriptions of the perpetrator in which all three witnesses

agree that the killer's hair was SHORT and BROWN. Please also notice

the middle photo, from the Tulsa World newspaper dated 10-24-1972.

Now please see the underlined portions of Judge Harris' rulings on

page three in which he repeats the evidentiary errors of his prosecu-

tor as if all this evidence were "a sketch", "a description" and "a

book-in photo", which are also used by ex federal judge Sven Eric Holmes

in HIS denial of this case filed 3-31-98.

Clearly there are two sketches, not one, three descriptions, not

one, and a newspaper photo, not a "book-in photo". All these exhibits

were, and are, clearly marked. I have continually complained of this

deletion and subtraction of innocence-proving evidence since it origi-

nated years ago in the third PCR effort in 1996. Tulsa county author-

ities have ignored each request, (see ex. six in your records and on

www.jameabauhaus.org). Now I ask you to order Tulsa county to correct

their “History of Case" so that my future appeals can be ruled on

honestly, with ALL the evidence.

Judge Eagan has it both ways. Of my penultimate rule 60 B attempt,

she dodged by switching titles, saying, "YOU ask for too much! This

makes your petition a Habeas Corpus!" She then sends it to the 10th

circuit judges, who approve her denial. I try again to access rule 60

B, and she dodges the opposite way, saying, "YOU ask too little! This

leaves me no authority". Exactly like the legal whipsaw "difference"

between a state Habease corpus and the state Post conviction relief ap-

peal, and other legal technicalities, rule 60 B is a wildly jinking

legal target that is impossible to hit without money or influence.

In answer to her 2nd denial, this is a murder conviction that was

clearly obtained through use of perjury, fraud and evidence theft.

State actors are now caught in the act of deliberately destroying

innocence-proving evidence, (see ex. 1-5 in your records and posted on

my site, duet o the fact that I can not afford the copy costs and postage

to send the hundreds of pages of documents and proof from these 44

lawsuits in eight courts over thirty-five years of trying to get fair-

ness and justice.) Prosecutor Jerry Truster is now caught in the act

of deliberately lying to jurors about this blood to obtain conviction

o£ a teenager whom he knows to be innocent. (see tr. p. 241, ex. N).

In fact, he was FIRED for perpetrating the frauds in this case, (ex.0).

Worse, a culture of corruption was documented in Tulsa's police/prose-

cution operations, (ex. P). The state's sole convicting evidence, two

eyewitnesses, are now proven, by official, signed police reports, to

both be LIARS in their identification of me at trial. (ex. B and C):

there is now NO EVIDENCE AT ALL left to link this murder to me, due to

these liars being finally exposed.

After decades of monumental struggle, proof of these many rotten

deeds were finally unearthed and appealed. Justice was blocked with

semantics and technicalities, along with other devices, (see entire

case on netsite). Previously Judge Eagan demonstrated her bias against

me by fining me a large sum for mistakenly, ignorantly filing a "fri-

volous" lawsuit trying to get a fair and honest ruling. Recently she

refuses to use her rule 60 H authority to correct errors and frauds in

the record by claiming that my attempts to use rule 60 B to get clear,

obvious falsehoods cleansed from the court's records is an attempt to

obtain habeas relief. It is not. Even so, I was forced to narrow the

scope of my rule 60 B attempt to try and only get three of the most

glaringly obvious errors corrected. This time judge Began refuses to

use her rule 60 B authority by claiming to have "no authority" to cor-

rect errors in the state's history of case.

This is the exact definition of unfair when the state can simply

destroy all the physical evidence, subborn perjury, then lie directly

into the faces of jurors to obtain false conviction, then pretend

that all the protections against these injustices are unavailable.

Every rational, intelligent citizen knows that the states are CONSTI-

TUTIONALLY REQUIRED to comply with federal law. Fed. R. Of Civ. Proc.

60 H expressly gives judge Eagan this right, and the duty, to correct

errors and frauds perpetrated on citizens by state actors. No case is

"closed" where proof of such wholesale fraud continues to surface.

Judge Eagan's Order is simply wrong and contrary to law and the Con-

stitution. The facts remain:

Error, perjury, fraud and evidence theft are proved in this case

beyond a shadow of any doubt by the state's own signed, official

records, (ex. 1-5. B, C, O and P).

Rule 60 B is THE method that the federal judiciary created TO remedy

error, perjury, fraud and evidence theft. (see text of rule 60 B).

The three errors of fact that I have submitted for correction (ex.

B and C) are plain to all and impossible to miss.

The authority is there, (rule 60 B). The duty is there (Constitu-

tional "guarantee" of "fair" trial with "due process" and 'equal pro-

tection"). .

The rights-thefts in this case were perpetrated decades before the

judiciary ran to their elite, legislative brethren with Christmas lists

of illegal judges' workload-scotching, citizens' rights-abolishing, US

Constitution-raping laws such as the 1996 accelerated death penalty/

habeas corpus chop-off act, the prisoner lawsuit-limitation act, the

two patriot-killing acts, the snoop on Americana act and various other

stealthy provisions. Each one is an EX POST FACTO law, and, am such,

is SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN by the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Citizens can

not run to the legislature and be suddenly handed everything we ask

for. There are no "checks and balances" when elite, gluttons of privi-

lege are permitted to do so. Judge Eaqan uses this new (il)legal tech-

nology to deny ma an en banc hearing. Judges had the legislature enact

these illegal laws that chop off en banc rights in order to prevent

possibly honest judges from over-ruling them. Like delinquent children

hiding fire beneath their blankets, lazy or dishonest judges hide in-

justice from their peers. More proof of injustice here is the unac-

ceptable stench that has prevented all 44 judges involved in the crime

of this case from publicly publishing any of their rulings. Just as

DNA technology flipped the rock on standard, routine courtroom corrup-

tion, however, so will FMRI lie detection force an explosion of honesty

and integrity where now exists mostly only graft, greed and self-

interest. Though vastly outnumbered, honest judges should hurry this

process along.

If there is ANY rule of law, these three GLARING errors must be

corrected. Courts who let such gigantic, monstrous frauds persist

are not involved in justice or fairness. Were I a judge. I would con-

sider this case a personal affront to my profession and be very ashamed

even after I fixed this ludicrous celebration of flagrant, unspeakable

fraud!

So Prayed,

James Bauhaus

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

Office of the Clerk

Byron White United Slates Courthouse .

Denver, Colorado 80257

(307) 844-3157

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Douglas E. Cressler

Clerk of Court Chief Deputy Clerk

April 4, 2008 .

James Bauhaus

88367

LCF-LAWTON

Lawton Correction Facility

8607 SE Flowermound Rd .

Lawton, OK 73501-0000 ..

Case No. 07-5141 .

Dear Mr. Bauhaus:

The court received from you today a document styled as a "Pet For Rule Civ Proc 60 B

(3) (6) Hearing" sent in connection with Case No. 07-5141.

Please be advised that the court decided the appeal in Case No. 07-5141 on October 23,

2007 and a petition seeking rehearing was denied November 21, 2007. Our rules expressly

prohibit filing successive requests for reconsideration. See Tenth Circuit Rule 40.3. Further,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 is not applicable to an appeals court-it is a rule governing procedure in a

federal district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

The document you tendered cannot be accepted for filing and the court will take no

action on it. Case No. 07-5141 is fully at end. We regret we cannot be of greater assistance.

Sincerely,

Douglas E. Cressler

Chief Deputy Clerk