Jean Keating

[Weathervane]

Hey guys,
Been a while, hope you all are going just dandy. Been well myself, thanks! Anyway, I've got this cousin who's knee-deep in conspiracy theories. Everything from chem-trails to 911 was a controlled demolition. Lately he's been posting videos like this one... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ev-sThKK7E
About this guy Jean Keating. I'm sure he's got to have a reputation in our circles here, but my attempts at finding anything on the web to debunk this person has turned up nada. Maybe he's an internet strawman and that's why he's google-proof (at least from the skeptics). So, here I am once again. Can anyone provide any solid links, articles, reports, etc., that can disprove this guys alegations about the DTCC, The Black Pope, birth certs, etc that I can repost on FB?
As always, great to visit, and sorry Ive been a stranger.
WTHRVN

[Prof]

Great to hear from you!

I doubt that anyone has taken the trouble to rebut Keating; the theories are a mishmash of UCC, admiralty, strawman, and "sale of birth certificate" stuff, with a little really strange stuff about CUSIP thrown in. If you want to rebut, there are probably some prisoner cases where Keating's material is discussed.

If I have time today, I'll look.

If you want to rebut, the best thing is for you to show the acquaintance the Keating material side by side with the section of the UCC that is cited.

I also think that she is a he, but can't say why I think that.

[Prof]

Here's a case that looks like it deals with the Keating theories:

Contreras v. Wischkaemper
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 4643167
E.D.Ark.,2008.
October 17, 2008 (Approx. 2 pages)

A prisoner's complaint against his former attorney was dismissed because it did not state facts that entitled him to relief. It was not possible to say with certainty the nature of the claim. It might have been one for contract violation, legal malpractice, or a case in admiralty. The prisoner had the burden of sparing the Court the guesswork.

Ruben Olvera Contreras, Forrest City, AR, pro se.

John Wesley Hall, Jr., Law Offices of John W. Hall, Jr., Little Rock, AR, for Defendant.


ORDER
J. LEON HOLMES, Chief Judge.

*1 The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young, and the objections filed. After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects.


PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
H. DAVID YOUNG, United States Magistrate Judge.

INSTRUCTIONS
The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Court Judge J. Leon Holmes. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than eleven (11) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.


If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include the following:


1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.



2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.



3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge.


From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.


Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:


Clerk, United States District Court



Eastern District of Arkansas



600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149



Little Rock, AR 72201-3325



DISPOSITION
Ruben Olvera Contreras, in federal custody in Forrest City, Arkansas, brings this action against Bill Wischkaemper, a Texas attorney who represented Mr. Contreras on the criminal charges which resulted in his incarceration. The complaint was originally filed in state court, and removed to this Court by the defendant. The complaint consists of the following:


* Three pages of an “Amended Complaint Bill in Equity.” This document is purportedly “Within Admiralty” and “By Special Visitation.” The document claims that Contreras is a resident of Arkansas and that Wischkaemper does business in Texas and Arkansas. Contreras indicates that he has established a “judgment in estoppel” via a Certificate of Protest, and asks this Court to order Wischkaemper to pay him $5,000,000.00.



*2 * Attached to the amended complaint is a “Protest Notice,” in which Ruben Olvera Contreras is described as a “ship or vessel.” This document seems to indicate that an affidavit was submitted in November of 2007. The affidavit apparently declared that Wischkaemper attacked and damaged the “vessel” and failed or refused to respond to a request to pay for the damages to the “vessel.” As a result of this failure to respond, the “Protest Notice” seeks restitution of $5,000,000.00. The notice is notarized by Jose M. Moreno on January 8, 2008, in Fresno, California.



* Also attached to the amended complaint is a “Notice of Dishonor” dated January 23, 2008. This document, also notarized by Mr. Moreno, appears to state that Wischkaemper, by “silence,” failed to respond to the “Protest Notice.”



* Finally, the plaintiff attaches a “Commercial Affidavit” to the amended complaint. This document, dated November 13, 2007, and addressed to Bill Wischkaemper, indicates that Wischkaemper represented Contreras in his criminal proceedings in Texas and that Contreras was dissatisfied and asked for a refund of funds paid by Contreras. Citing the Uniform Commercial Code, the affidavit further notifies Wischkaemper that unless he responds to the affidavit within ten days “means you assent to this Commercial Affidavit in the sum certain: Five Million united States Dollars.”



Mr. Wischkaemper, through counsel, seeks dismissal of the case and has filed both a motion to dismiss and a supplemental motion to dismiss. In the motion to dismiss, the defendant asserts the following justifications, among others, for dismissal: Failure to state facts entitling plaintiff to relief-Complaint makes no sense; Fraud on the court; Lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant; Failure to state facts entitling plaintiff to relief-no actual innocence was or can be pled; and failure to state facts entitling plaintiff to relief-judicial estoppel. In the supplemental motion to dismiss, the defendant offers expanded support for his argument that the complaint constitutes fraud on the Court:


The use of UCC filings by prisoners is presumptively fraudulent, as several courts have found, often in the context of plaintiff filing a complaint and the court dismissing under PLRA. See, e.g., Bartz v. Van De Graaf, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53769, 2008 WL 2704882 (D.Vt.2008) (prisoner sued over his conviction):



Bartz's claim that he is entitled to relief on the basis of liens arising out of his prosecution is clearly without merit. Indeed, “[t]he abusive practice of prisoners filing baseless liens and/or UCC financing statements for the purpose of harassment and credit impairment of the alleged debtor (almost always a state or federal official involved with securing the prisoner's incarceration) is well documented.” Hudson v. Caruso, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60276, 2007 WL 2363308, at *5 (parenthetical in original) (collecting cases); United States v. Martin, 356 F.Supp.2d 621 (W.D.Va.2005) (prisoner filed fraudulent UCC financing statements naming himself as the secured party for a $108,000,000.00 debt owed him by various government officials); United States v. Brum, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21208, 2005 WL 1606584 (E.D.Tex. July 1, 2005) (prisoner filed fraudulent liens and UCC financing statements against the judge and prosecutor involved in his criminal conviction).



*3 Bartz's complaint and numerous other filings show no evidence of any actual bonds or legitimate security interests. Instead, his filings are replete with unsupported and conclusory statements which, he claims, show a right to relief. The idea that a criminal conviction would give rise to enforceable liens against both the prosecution and defense counsel, and that enforcement of those liens would result in release of the plaintiff and substantial money damages, is “wholly incredible.” See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (“finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”). The complaint in this case is, therefore, DISMISSED as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I); McGann v. Commissioner, 96 F.3d 28, 30 (2d Cir.1996).


Accord: Rodriguez-Isona v. Rendell, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32072, 2008 WL 1787548 (M.D.Pa.2008). Courts have also held that prisons can search and seize and confiscate bogus UCC materials from prisoners' cells. See, e.g., McNeil-El v. Diguglielmo, 271 Fed. Appx. 283 (3d Cir .2008); Frazier v. Diguglielmo, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49546, 2008 WL 2661126 (E.D.Pa.2008); Roberts v. Obradovich, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31438, 2008 WL 1781001 (W.D.Mich.2008).


4. Therefore, plaintiff is not before in the court in good faith or with clean hands.



5. While there are other grounds to dismiss this case, defendant urges the court to dismiss on this ground, too, to show disapproval of the practice of using bogus UCC documents to create civil liability where none exists. The fact it has happened here could be the tip of the iceberg. We do not know how many other inmates in Forrest City FCI have attempted this, but the court should put an end to it here.


Docket entry no. 4, pages 2-3.


The plaintiff has submitted a response to the motions to dismiss, although the pleading is confusing and not responsive to the issues raised by the defendant.


We recommend that the petition be dismissed for a variety of reasons. First, the plaintiff does not state facts entitling him to relief as required under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12. It is not possible to say with certainty the nature of the claim Mr. Contreras is attempting to advance. It is possible that the case may be one for contract violation, or for legal malpractice, or perhaps a case in admiralty. However, the plaintiff bears the burden of sparing the Court the guesswork on this issue. Second, there is no personal jurisdiction of the respondent FN1 and dismissal is proper on that basis. Finally, to the extent that Mr. Contreras is attempting to use the Court to validate a fictitious lien of some sort, this constitutes a fraud on the Court, and the case should be dismissed on this basis.


FN1. See affidavit of Bill Wischkaemper, indicating that he has “no contacts with the state of Arkansas, own no property in the state of Arkansas and am not licensed to practice law in the state of Arkansas.” Attachment to docket entry no. 4.



Based on the foregoing, we recommend that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice and the relief requested be denied.


IT IS SO ORDERED.

[Weathervane]

Thanks Prof.

[Dezcad]

I found one case filed by Jean Keating challenging state foreclosure proceedings which did not end well for him. Case 5:09-cv-02195-AG-MAN - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I'm not 100% certain that this is the same "Jean Keating" you asked about but there are clues found within the case leading to the conclusion that it is the person in that Youtube video:

-Keating filed this case as an ex relator also listing the "People of California" as Plaintiffs;
-He refers to himself as "Jean Blaine:Family of Keating";
-He refers to the Trading with the Enemy Act;
-Asserts that he is not a "US Citizen"
-Alleges the mortgage was paid by a draft Order under the UCC.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA; DEVON WOOD;
JEAN KEATING AS EX RELATORS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BANK OF AMERICA; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; RECONTRUST
COMPANY, N.A.; as alleged TRUSTEE; MERS; and DOES 1-1000,
Defendants.

Case No. EDCV09-02195 AG (MANx)
Honorable Andrew J. Guilford

JUDGEMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

To all interested parties:

This Court, having entered its July 13, 2010 Order Denying Plaintiff Jean Keating’s Motion for Reconsideration and Granting Defendants’ Motion for Attorney Fees, hereby enters judgment in accordance with that Order as follows:

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. The Plaintiffs shall recover nothing;
2. This action is dismissed on the merits; and
3. Defendants shall recover their costs of this action from Plaintiff Jean Keating,including attorney’s fees in the sum of $73,187.30.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 16, 2010 ___________________________________
Honorable Andrew J. Guilford

[Imalawman]

Hey guys,
Been a while, hope you all are going just dandy. Been well myself, thanks! Anyway, I've got this cousin who's knee-deep in conspiracy theories. Everything from chem-trails to 911 was a controlled demolition. Lately he's been posting videos like this one... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ev-sThKK7E
About this guy Jean Keating. I'm sure he's got to have a reputation in our circles here, but my attempts at finding anything on the web to debunk this person has turned up nada. Maybe he's an internet strawman and that's why he's google-proof (at least from the skeptics). So, here I am once again. Can anyone provide any solid links, articles, reports, etc., that can disprove this guys alegations about the DTCC, The Black Pope, birth certs, etc that I can repost on FB?
As always, great to visit, and sorry Ive been a stranger.
WTHRVN

Wow, that guy sounds dumber than a sack of hammers. He said that a strawman is a legal principal known as "a uh, homo, uh...uh...strawus..so when they create a homo strawus..."

[wserra]

Hey, WV, welcome back. Get it? "Back"?

Ahem.

Although the present incarnation of the board doesn't have a discussion on Keating, I recall him making an appearance in our commentaries. He's been around a while. He's a garden-variety "all is commerce", "strawman", UCC paytriot. Matter of fact, I'm moving this thread to the "Sovereign" forum, since that's where these guys tend to wind up.

This page purports to be a transcript of one of his seminars, and skimming through it is a lot less painful than listening to him drone on for hours. It also tells you all you need to know:

What goes on in the courtrooms go back to Edward the First - it's called Statute Merchant
...
When you go into court on a criminal charge, it's CIVIL NOT CRIMINAL. There's a book out called the "Jurisdiction and Practice of the Law of Admiralty" by John E. Hall; it's based on "Clerk's Praxis". The Clerk's Praxis was a clerk of the court of registrar of the Court's Arches under the King's Bench.
...
What's going on in the courtroom is that they are suing you for a debt collection . . . The reason for the "Penal Sum" is if you don't pay the Debt, you go into "Default Judgment". That is what is going on in the courtroom. That is why all of these guys are sitting in prison wondering what's going on.
...
It's just a smoke screen to cover up what they are doing with Mercantile Civil Law and what they used to do when they arrest people with a warrant and brought the person into court and made them sign a Bond to release until the civil suit commenced. It actually says "Civil Suit" in "Clerks Praxis".
...
Who is the Surety? Straw man is the Surety so you put the Straw man down as the Surety and you put yourself down as the Principal

He couldn't make any less sense if he picked random words from the dictionary, and that's just from the first couple of pages (out of 35).

WV, just ask whoever thinks this guy has seven functioning brain cells to cite (title, court, docket) a single win based on his stuff. In all likelihood, you won't get an answer. If you do, and you can't track it down yourself, post the info here.