John S. Barth v. Adam Buckley, et al.

Are the 120 paragraphs of detailed factual statements in the Complaint and Appendix, together with numerous public record exhibits of defendant perjuries and abuses of office, sufficiently detailed to rise above mere “speculation,” the perjury of the lower court? The questions of fact are readily decided: a. Did defendants Buckley and Panos commit perjury in the original case? b. Did magistrate Bowler commit perjury and abuse of public office in the original case? c. Did these perjuries and abuses of office have the effect of violation of plaintiff rights under Amendments V and XIV to Due Process of Law, to Equal Protection of Law, and against the taking of property without compensation? The Plaintiff demands full compensation and removal of the corrupt lower court judges.

Are matters of perjury at trial and abuse of trial process res judicata, when no such claims were even possible in the prior case, and only one of four defendants is common to the cases?

Will this Court grant absolute immunity to a magistrate proven on public record to have committed extreme perjury and abuse of judicial office? Shall the US accept its constitutional responsibility for her actions? Will this Court order the Court of Federal Claims to accept tort claim jurisdiction as provided by the Tucker Act? vra'lan s ,* PARTIES

Plaintiff John Barth is the owner of land at 4 Lynn Street, Peabody, Essex County, Massachusetts (Peabody Assessor Map 102 Lot 255 shown in Appendix B and Exhibits 6-8 and 42-49), hereinafter "property of Plaintiff' or "subject property." Although appearing pro se, the Petitioner is very able to argue the issues. The Plaintiff is also prosecuting theft of $120 million in conservation funds by Florida politicians and a state judge who turned out to be of one party. That case has been blocked by Republican judges for two years. This is the motive of Bowler and the First Circuit in using false pretexts to injure and deny rights of the Plaintiff.

Defendant City of Peabody ("city”) is a municipality of Massachusetts which unlawfully denied permission to continue the established residential use of the property by rebuilding a home there, using zoning ordinances under state law that exempts the rebuilding of homes.

Defendant Adam Buckley is a wholly dishonest city lawyer who made extreme perjuries in the original case.

Defendant Jason Panos is an extremely dishonest city zoning board chair responsible for unlawful application of the city zoning ordinance, the sole ZBA vote against the rebuilding of the home, who made extreme perjuries as witness for defendant city in the original case.

Defendant Marianne Bowler is a dishonest magistrate who made perjuries and abuses of office to obstruct justice throughout the original case, for benefit to her political party, knowing that the plaintiff is prosecuting its racketeering crimes in another case. u