SUMMARY CLOSURE

Arizona State ]

] ss.

Gila county ]

NOW COMES this Petitioner, Walter J. Burien, Jr., who does execute this SUMMARY CLOSURE Per ARCAP Rule 3 and request for ORDER, and does affirm for reinstatement after mandate that the statements made herein are true, in substance and in fact, and does give to this Court and all parties to this action his;

PRESENTMENTS

1. Petitioner, Walter J. Burien, Jr., from the beginning and throughout this action in writing and in testimony given, made it clear that;

2. Petitioner, Walter Burien, CFTC FED ID#2140 gave up his Federal license as a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) in the year 1992 and has been ineligible to operate as a CTA or hired commodity broker since 1992 until present 2008, and if he did so he would be committing a felony in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 17: Commodity and Securities Exchanges PART 4 - COMMODITY TRADING ADVISORS, and;

a. That the State of Arizona through their representative State Attorney Generals Paula Cotitta and Kristin Wurr and private attorney Troy Brown retained by respondent sought and justified the ruling of the lower court with it being stated by them that “Petitioner was a CTA so he can operate as a CTA and thus he is assed an income of $35,000 per year” retroactive as of 01/01/06 based on this premise being exerted by these parties, and;

b. This ruling of the court with Petitioner, Walter Burien not licensed or circumstantially capable to be a CTA, and not licensed to work for any financial institution in the commodity trading industry, on the part of the lower court and or the attorneys involved who exerted that Petitioner was to work as a CTA when it was known to them he was not licensed to do so is; coercion by the court ex Commissioner David Arrow and attorneys Paula Cotitta, Kristin Wurr, and Troy Brown representing Respondent, that Petitioner, Walter Burien was being coerced to commit a felony. Additionally, coercion by an individual on another individual to commit a felony is a felony (emphasis added): and;“Coercion”: A relationship in which a person is subjected to physical force (or the threat of it) in order to compel him to submit to the choices of another person. The separation of a person from his rightfully achieved without his voluntary consent. Any course of action calculated to inflict physical injury, regardless of whether or not the action succeeds in its intent”,

c. Petitioner, in good faith will have the belief that the court nor the attorneys involved with this action were aware that they were knowingly, willingly, and intentionally committing a serious felony, and;

d. With clear disclosure now being brought forward and notice hereby given by Petitioner through USPS CONFIRMATION MAIL to the Court, Attorneys previously or currently involved with this action, Petitioner requires that they promptly upon receipt of the disclosures contained herein, individually and if applicable for the State of Arizona, withdraw in writing their objection to vacating the lower courts decision as moved by Petitioner. If not done by them, for “any” reason; excuse; delay tactic; or argument, then in all light they will be acknowledging by lack of their own action, or actions of delay, to now and furthermore be; knowingly, willingly, and intentionally participating with the commission of a felony as disclosed herein and brought forth, and;

e. In this event of an intentional felony being committed by the attorneys involved with this case and associated cases, I with the help of others will move the US Attorney’s Office to indict; arrest; and prosecute the individuals that upon clear disclosure having been given herein, have and are in standing; intentionally, knowingly, and willingly committing a felony(s) applicable to coercion to commit a felony. Additionally I and others will seek their removal from public office and suspension from practicing law in the State of Arizona or any other State for having intentionally, knowingly, and willingly participated in perpetuating the commission of a serious felony, and;

f. Petitioner, as of the custodial interference being played out on November 23^rd 2005 until present was not in a practical position to hold accountable any party that were coercing him to commit a felony. Petitioner since 2005 was in the process of barely meeting survival needs, dealing with severe and prolonged depression from the circumstances of the abduction of his son, and was forced out of financial circumstance to benefit from food stamps with his financial standing verified by the Arizona department of DES from 2005 till present, and;

g. In March of 2008 Petitioner’s circumstances began to improve to a point of passing over an indigent status so he has actively sought to get in writing from the divisions of the US Attorneys office and US Attorneys from the CFTC that they would; indict, prosecute, and seek expedient convictions of “any” party who was coercing this Petitioner, Walter J. Burien, Jr. to commit a felony, specifically; operating as a CTA when not authorized by license to do so in compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 17: Commodity and Securities Exchanges PART 4 — COMMODITY TRADING ADVISORS. Petitioner has learned it requires much time and effort to get it in writing from US Attorneys that they will enforce violations of the law by indictment and prosecution of “any” party doing so, but Petitioner has now secured in writing from three US Attorneys from three different divisions of the US Attorney’s Office that they will do so, and;

h. Petitioner has sent a copy of this document for Judicial oversight authority intervention to Maricopa Superior Court Judge Edward Bassett; Arizona Court of Appeals Chief Judge John C. Gemmill; and Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Judge Barbara Rodriguez Mundell in compliance with U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, PART 1, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 4: MISPRISION OF FELONY: “Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to a Judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both”, and;

3. Petitioner brings forward as is applicable to this case and this matter that: Governments, and the government officials, persons, or entities that represent them, do and will automatically lose any qualified immunity they may have previously enjoyed, upon the commission of any act necessarily done outside the lawful scope of the matter in question. See, e.g., Burns v. Reed, 111 S.Ct. 1934; Monell v. Dept. Of Social Services, 98 S.Ct. 2018; U.S. v. Lanier, 117 S.Ct. 1219; Koon v. U.S., 116 S.Ct. 2035, Dennis v. Sparks, 101 S.Ct. 183; and, etc. and;

4. Petitioner brings forward as is applicable to this case and this matter that: Per 26 USC § 7214(a) (1) & (2) clearly warn that:

“(a) Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents.

Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States —

(1) who is guilty of any extortion or willful oppression under color of law; or

(2) who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of any duty; ...shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. ...”

5. Petitioner, Walter J. Burien, Jr., for an extensive period of time has been confronted with the actions of representatives from DES / CSSA that can be construed when examined under clear light as being in clear contempt of 18 USC § 3231, 28 USC § 1340, 28 USC §, 42 USC § 666, and 28 USC § 1443 whereby multiple and severe improprieties; erroneous judgments; statutory fraud on the part of DES / CSSA and the court were committed relevant to the DES / CSSA current ATLAS cases 000137781901 and 000052775001. It was noted several times in Petitioners pleadings that it appeared (he and others knew) this was being done to “cause intentional harm and severe damage” to this Petitioner, and;

6. Petitioner brings forward in 2 (f.) above that he was suffering from “severe and prolonged depression” since the abduction of his son on November 23^rd 2005. Said sever depression was specifically and directly caused by;

a. The custodial interference if not kidnapping of his son John Joseph Burien on November 23^rd 2005, contrary to standing Maricopa County Superior Court custody orders, and;

b. The circumstances that resulted when he resisted the misguided custodial interference (kidnapping) of John Joseph Burien that led that day to charges lodged against Petitioner in NJ, then subsequently his 48 days in the county jail, then his eight months waiting in his RV while in an indigent status parked in a NJ parking lot for resolution of the NJ charges, with substantial money being borrowed by him for resolution thereof, and;

c. The uncertainty of the condition, well being, and environment of his son, John Joseph Burien then age six , and;

d. Upon resolution of the charges that were pending in NJ on August 4^th 2006, his filing with the local Maricopa Superior court an EMERGENCY ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE for custody and visitation issues, to have the original and all copies returned to him the following month with it noted a fee applied before it would be accepted, whereby he filed with the court a request for fee deferral being in an indigent status on public assistance, and then to have the fee deferral request a month latter denied, then Judge Flores ruled “abandoned” several months later on Petitioner’s EMERGENCY ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE with the original and copies originally filed being in his possession after refusal for acceptance twice from the court. Judge Lisa Flores, a prior AG for CPS, an agency in Arizona, having a branch thereof located in the city of Prescott, Arizona that branch of CPS directly participated with the custodial interference played out in NJ. It is documented on the NJ DYFS records that CPS Prescott Office worker Donna Goldman, having no contact with Petitioner or his son for over five years, in her effort to influence the abduction of John Joseph Burien, maliciously told Tasha Gresham of NJ DYFS per Petitioner having custody of his son “the Judge did not know what he was doing” and “Walter is an unfit father”. With out this prompting from Arizona State caseworker(s) from the Prescott Office of CPS to NJ DYFS, John Joseph Burien would not have been abducted on November 23^rd 2005, and;

e. On 04/20/06, a hearing was held in the Maricopa Superior Court before ex Commissioner David P. Arrow. Petitioner made an appearance by phone from NJ. Defamatory remarks and jokes were made between Troy Brown, Judge Arrow, and Paula Cotitta about this Petitioner while he was not present but as recorded on the hearing audio, one fabrication and falsehood after another intentionally were presented by Troy Brown, Paula Cotitta in cooperation with Commissioner Arrow. Petitioner upon exposure to this environment felt as if he were a road kill with a group of jackals fighting over him on who would score the biggest bite. The conduct that took place by Troy Brown, Paula Cotitta, and Commissioner Arrow throughout this hearing, upon any legitimate ethical panel or judicial review would in most probability mitigate their disbarment as attorneys. A complete audio record of this hearing was filed by Petitioner and it can be listened to on demand with a media player and or downloaded from http://CAFR1.com/Audio/DPArrow.mp3 (case sensitive) Petitioner filed notice of appeal by mail on the same day after the hearing, and;

f. Petitioner upon review of the original three Judges assigned to this Court of Appeal action, Petitioner noticed the court in March 2007 of a clear conflict of interest with Judge Michael J. Brown and his law firm Brown and Brown being in an adversarial circumstance to this Petitioner per a property dispute in Saint Johns, AZ and Judge Brown in fact through his Brown and Brown Trust owning property as an adjoining neighbor to Petitioner’s property in Saint Johns, was not removed by the presiding Judge, or senior case Judge Hall, nor did Judge Brown voluntarily recluse himself from the case, but went forward to be the sole drafter of rulings per this matter before the court. Subsequently, and ostentatiously on April 8^th 2008, his law firm Brown and Brown sent this Petitioner an offer in writing to buy Judge Brown’s adjoining forty acre property, parcel No. 203-60-002 for $20,150, and;

g. When Petitioner called his son at Respondent’s residence where he stayed with Darlene and Pete Fuller from January 2005 until present the call was put on speakerphone and monitored by them, and if Petitioner’s son said, “come and get me” they hung the phone up on him. If he asked me a question or I asked him a question they hung the phone up on him. When Petitioner tried to reach his son through a phone call each day from January of 2005 until March of 2008, four out of five times the phone at the Fuller’s house was picked up and then hung up. And;

h. Between January of 2005 and March of 2008 when I did reach my son to speak with him, I could tell that his speech had severally deteriorated and I could hear him being prompted numerous times to say to me by Darlene Fuller, Pete Fuller, or Debbie the mother; “Tell him grandpa has a gun and he will shoot him if he comes here” ; “Your are a bad man because you were in jail and the police will arrest you if you come here.” ; “You are not my father, you are just Walter, you are not my dad anymore” ; “You can never see me again until I am an adult” ; “the Judge said you can not see me.” ; “Mom, Grandpa, and Grandma hate you.” And more recently in the last six months; “I can’t see you because you put your pee-pee in my cheeks and did bad things to me.” I personally do not think the Mom and grandparents the Fuller’s comprehend the damage that they are doing to the children and that what they are doing in this type of fabricated brainwashing and other acts to numerous to mention here amounts to gross child abuse on their part that could end them and those perpetuating these event in prison for a very long time, convicted on numerous charges. Petitioner kept a recording and digital record from January 2006 until present of these calls that clearly is heard in the background the prompting of my son by the individuals noted. A complete record of all calls made, received, or denied was kept by this father through his digital phone service of VONAGE. On these numerous calls when answered, if John Joseph Burien was having a hard time repeating what he was told to say, his sister, my now seven-year old daughter who has been in the custody of and prompted by the mother since an infant would jump into the conversation and parrot what John Joseph was supposed to have repeated, and;

i. That every attempt by the father to have supervised visitation since August 2006 requested by him through cooperation of the mother, with offers of law enforcement officers being present, or party(s) of the mother’s choosing to supervise visitation with his children at holiday, in general, or special occasions was denied this father by the mother. Petitioner has not seen his son since November 23^rd 2005, the day he was abducted, and;

j. The mother, Debbie Watton (Burien) after having been found responsible for the reckless endangerment of the infant John Joseph at hearing before the court was ordered by the court, Judge Barbara Rodriguez Mundell, on February 28^th 2000, to have supervised visitation and sole custody was granted to the father. Supervised visitation of the mother continued for six months from March of 2001 until the father moved the court to discontinue supervised visitation for the mother in August of 2001. This Father’s normal actions towards allowance of the mother in seeing our son John Joseph, he never denied the mother visitation when she requested once, and continuously cooperated with visitation thereafter for the next five years as the father maintained custody. Petitioner notes that the ninety-two [92] docket notations and related minute entries, Maricopa case DR2000-090543 from its inception on January 27^th, 2000 as viewed at and through the courts online public website are not shown from before 06/18/01, and;

k. Petitioner was not availed with any information as to his son’s health, education, or circumstance from any party from 11/23/05 until present and the only conversations that took place with the mother upon many attempts were three conversations of less than five minutes where the mother offered no communication of detailed meaning per the children, when asked by the father and;

l. Petitioner has learned from an outside interested party that his son has been enrolled in a special ed class for the last two years and he has observed through phone conversations, the continued erosion of John Joseph’s speech and sound state of cognitive thinking. John’s current level of speech and mental development being by observation substandard to where he was at in his speech development when he was abducted from the father on 11/23/05, over two and a half years ago, and;

m. All of the above circumstances led to the severe and prolonged depression inflicted by circumstance on this father where remedy sought by the father was of no avail. The Petitioner has diligently worked to improve his circumstance to a point where he would have the adequate resources available to regain custody of his children and then for them to be in a good and healthy physical and emotional environment with him; hold those accountable that have perpetuated the emotional abuse of his children; or who have effected fraudulent orchestration of events to violate the standing court orders on November 23^rd 2005 for the abduction of John Joseph Burien; and have intentionally since November of 2005 denied the children and this father with a normal, if not any good relationship with each other even though this was diligently pursued by this father.

n. If current circumstances continue to improve, this father the Petitioner, Walter J. Burien, Jr. will be able to facilitate the remedy he seeks for the benefit of himself and his children and at that time will move the Maricopa Superior Court to effect that remedy he has sought with cause.

7. Petitioner, in good faith will have the belief that up until this time that it was not intentional participation of the court per the issue of: "Did Appeals Court condone or approve the violation of precedence set in McNALLY by not ordering Respondent(s) to answer the questions presented by Petitioner, and was that not collusion by the Appeals Court in fraud perpetrated by the Attorneys and Respondent in the lower court?" 1. According to McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 372 (1987), "Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit - and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir. 1985) - includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud." (Emphasis added)

Jurisdiction and Venue

1. For the various forms of relief that the Petitioner seeks, the Court of Appeals in consideration of ARCAP Rule 3 has jurisdiction and venue over all subject matters herein and they are properly held within this Honorable Court, and guidance must be taken from the same matters arising, under any or all of the provisions as stated here or previously stated.

CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT

1. For the Arizona Court of Appeals to reinstate and then vacate the lower court ruling and appropriately vacate or modify prior rulings of the court as applies, and;

2. Grant summary judgment as requested by Petitioner where applicable to this action and within the scope and purview of the Arizona Court of Appeals Div. 1.

Petitioner prays for the requested relief by ruling of the Court.

Respectfully submitted this 11^th day of June 2008.

___________________________________________________

Walter J. Burien, Jr., Pro Se

VERIFICATION

STATE OF ARIZONA )

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS

COUNTY OF GILA )

Before me the undersigned authority on this day personally appeared Walter J. Burien, Jr., who after being duly sworn, did depose and state:

"My name is Walter J. Burien, Jr., I am over twenty-one (21) years of age, have never been convicted a crime of moral turpitude and am competent to make this affidavit. I am the Petitioner in the foregoing affidavit of SUMMARY CLOSURE Per ARCAP RULE 3 and request for ORDER by affidavit and all statements, allegations, denials contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief

Walter J. Burien, Jr.

Given under my hand and seal this 11^th day of June 2008

______________________________ ______________________________

Notary Public, In and For the State of Arizona Name of Notary - Printed

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Four copies of the foregoing SUMMARY CLOSURE and request for ORDER mailed this 11^th day of June 2008, USPS NEXT DAY EXPRESS MAIL # EQ 906018185US, TO:

Court of Appeals

In And For State of Arizona

(Filing Counter) Clerk of the Court

1501 W. Washington St.

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

AND COPY SENT this 11^th day of June 2008;

USPS PRIORITY MAIL – DELIVERY CONFIRMATION # 03070020000175226469, TO:

Chief Judge John C. Gemmill

Court of Appeals

In And For State of Arizona

1501 W. Washington St.

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

[NOTE] Commissioner David Arrow – address unknown - No longer with the court,

digital audio record of complete hearing (73 minutes) in file and or available to download or

to listen to via a media player at: http://CAFR1.com/Audio/DPArrow.mp3

AND COPY SENT this 11^th day of June 2008;

USPS PRIORITY MAIL – DELIVERY CONFIRMATION # 03031910000089175063, TO:

Judge Barbara Rodriguez Mundell

Maricopa Superior Court – Old Court Building

125 W. Washington St. Suite 510

Phoenix, Arizona 85003

AND COPY SENT this 11^th day of June 2008;

USPS PRIORITY MAIL – DELIVERY CONFIRMATION #23013460000172769377, TO:

Judge Edward Bassett

Maricopa Superior Court

222 E Javelina Ave.

Mesa, Arizona 85210

AND COPY SENT this 11^th day of June 2008;

USPS PRIORITY MAIL – DELIVERY CONFIRMATION # 03070020000175226438, TO:

Debbie C. Watton – C/O Fullers

14825 N Deer View Trail

Prescott, AZ 86305-5745

AND COPY SENT this 11^th day of June 2008;

USPS PRIORITY MAIL – DELIVERY CONFIRMATION # 03070020000175226445, TO:

Troy Brown

1757 E. Baseline Road, Suite 130

Gilbert, AZ 85233

Attorney for Respondent: Debbie Burien (Watton)

AND COPY SENT this 11^th day of June 2008;

USPS PRIORITY MAIL – DELIVERY CONFIRMATION # 03070020000175226452, TO:

Paula Cotitta

AZ Attorney - CSSA

1255 W. Baseline Suite 200

Mesa, Arizona 85202

Attorney for Respondent: Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES)

AND COPY SENT this 11^th day of June 2008;

USPS PRIORITY MAIL – DELIVERY CONFIRMATION # 03071790000435646692, TO:

Kristin Wurr

Assistant Attorney General

P. O. Box 6123, Site Code 775C

Phoenix, Arizona 85005

Attorney for Respondent: Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES)

by___WJB

Court of Appeals

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY Per ARCAP Rule 3

Respondent / Appellee

_____________________________