jsc paul wooten--'what's good for the goose is good for the gander'--why are you writing decisions that are inconsistent, bias & without legal logic?

in the jim couri-john siebert case jsc wooten reminds the parties that on 12-12-05 jsc harold beeler issued a injinction order. such order PRECLUDED ALL PARTIES & JOSEPH M. BURKE esq from filing in any court any motions, lawsuits, complaints or any kind of proceedings without the parties seeking such permission by telephonic conference call with all parties on the phone.from dec 2005 the only person who complied with this order is jim who sought & obtained permission to bring a seperate action againse siebert & his pc for a 2003 agreement, a case still pending. all other motions made by burke, siebert or jim were made without obtaining this mandated permission. therefore ALL such motions were improper & even if decided by any judge because of 'judicial error' by the judge not being aware or apprised of the beeler injunction, all such motions &/or decisions were improper & must be vacated, set aside & dismissed.these are jsc wootens words substantially in his recent decisions----except wooten only targets jim & not burke or siebert. wooten has ignored the injunction & its mandates as it relates to ALL motions made by ALL parties & joseph m. burke. this is highly suspect, bias & corruption at work---as wooten surely cant pick& choose ---the beeler order enjoins allparties & joe burke---thus jsc wooten all motions & flawed decisions made or issued bypassing the injunctions mandates are improper & must be vacated, set asside & dismissed----not jist jim couri's-----judge wooten you are fooling no-one it's thie to follow the law & stop injuring jim couri by these & other acts of ambush & railroading----would you send a family member to sex vulture siebert for medical care?-----see scamraiders