Zach Rusk

865 S Main Street

Debtor

United States Bankruptcy Court

*
ZACHARY RUSK,
* COMBINED MOTION TO STRIKE AND
MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, SANCTIONS
Petitioner.
* UTBC-UT 23-20383 In re: Rusk

* Judge Peggy Hunt

By and through filing Derek Buetler’s fraudulent, frivolous, fictitious and vexatious

filings, Buetler violates 7-1(b)(1)(A), Rule 12(f)2, Rule6(c), etc. Derek Buetler is a pathological

liar and has filed perjurious documents. Rusk even informed Buetler of such in written

communications with his office. Buetler knew full well what he was doing and had every

intention to do so. Derek Buetler is a pathological liar with clear and evident criminal intent.

COMES NOW Petitioner Zachary Rusk (“Petitioner”, “Debtor” or “Rusk”) respectfully

files upon this court his Motion to Strike Buetler’s February 2025 filings and to hold Derek

Buetler in CONTEMPT forthwith, so that Buetler does not continue his behavior of felonious

harassment and inundating the courts of law with FRIVOLOUS and unreal allegations against
his victims. Buetler has caused, and continues to cause financial and emotional harm to his

victims, extreme stress on an already stressed judiciary, and extreme waste of time for every

single person involved. Buetler makes fraudulent, reckless, dangerous, wasteful, blanket, full-

throated, delusional, unintelligible, painfully lazy, and conclusory claims devoid of evidence of

fact and fails to provide any specific, thread-bare allegations to support his claims littered in

nefarious intent in order to deflect from his threats to Rusk via his most recent phone call.

Buetler failure to address FDCPA violations by the alleged creditors, including Price Rite,

Intermountain Health, Jason Armstrong, Thomas Roseen, et al., which Rusk has written and

provided evidence of to Buetler, in addition to written requests to file for a hardship discharge.

Evidence incriminates Derek Buetler. Derek Buetler also advised Rusk to wait to file a

42USC1985 petition until after January 20 2025. Buetler failed to answer Rusk’s around three

calls to his office between 4/10/23 to the day before thanksgiving of 2024, hoping Rusk would

die from the treatment he experienced for exercising his rights to get it to stop.

No different than a number of the alleged creditors and agents thereof, likewise with a many

Utah and Montana Attorneys, Officers and Judges, Derek Buetler has no integrity and is a

pathological liar in continued pursuit of criminal defamation and malicious harassment of Rusk

in concert with the afore-noted gross wrongdoers and liabilities outstanding. Buetler’s fraudulent

filings are frivolous and vexatious, as well as conclusory, devoid of evidence of fact, as well as

rule 11, 60 violating. I have sought that Dereks office address, defer and curtail his, his office

staffs and creditors (including their unceasing perjury in other courts as defendants) violations of

law including in 2023, his failure to communicate during 2-3 communication attempts between

April 10 2023 and the day before thanksgiving of 2025, via phone, while the FDCPA violations
continue unaddressed and undeterred as duly noted in communications, also in writing, with

Buetler. I shall be filing a motion to strike and motions for sanctions within rule 11, 60 and

others, as necessary. I have requested Derek file for a hardship discharge writing a number of

times to Derek Buetler and his office.

Derek also “opened the door”. All evidence must be admitted including evidence

incriminating him, alleged creditors, and officials in Utah, Montana, ninth and tenth circuits of

the United States federal court system. This would include every single communication with all

respective evidence attached and communicated therein, phone calls and emails included.

Buetler admitted to recording his calls, including those in which he threatened me, and it is a one

party consent state.

In addition to himself, Buetler admitted malpractice of Christopher Glouser, David

Castleberry, Kass Harstad, Byron Martin, Stuart little, Strong and Hanni, Snell and Wilmer, Ben

Darrow, David Merchant, John Schuman, Rich Marrow, Marlene, Same Hensi, Jason Armstrong,

among others, and defamatory and fraudulent statements by Robert Shelby, Tina Campbell, Paul

Warner, Dustin Pead, Blanche, Stewart, Steve Rusk, Montana’s Supreme Court Justices, federal

judges, et al. Buelter’s office staff have lied to Rusk repeatedly to Rusk and admitted their

attempt to cause him harm, to cover up for Buetler, including Mason, Cameron, Shelli, et al.

A declaration in support and proposed order are attached.

Dated on this February 6th Day in the year of 2025.

/s/ Zachary Rusk

in propria persona
Zach Rusk
865 S Main Street
Logan, Utah 84321

Debtor

United States Bankruptcy Court

*
ZACHARY RUSK, * DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
COMBINED MOTION TO STRIKE AND
Petitioner. MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, SANCTIONS
* UTBC-UT 23-20383 In re: Rusk

* Judge Peggy Hunt

DECLARATION

1. I, Zachary Rusk, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and Utah Code § 78B-18a-101, et seq, based on
my personal knowledge, I make the following 2nd affidavit/declaration:
2. I am a natural person residing in the United States at 865 South Main Logan, Utah 84321.
3. I hereby state that the information submitted in my Combined motion to strike and for
sanctions is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge. I also confirm in and of the same that
the material information here and there is both accurate and complete, and relevant information
has not been omitted.
4. First in 2022, and again in or around February of 2023, attorney Derek Buetler advised me to

file for chapter 13 bankruptcy to help curtail the malicious harassment I have been subjected for
at least fourteen years by liabilities outstanding in Utah and Montana, ninth and tenth circuits.

5. In or around February 2023, Ashley Carrol filed a fraudulent filing in DV 16-23-78 and lied

about me in her pursuit to continue the in concert with the unceasing perjury of Jason Armstrong,

Christopher Glouser, Adam Tashman, the Roseen family, Quinn Ellingson/David Ferguson,

Steve Rusk, et al., in order to obstruct justice and their personal accountability, coupled with that

of other officers, attorneys and judges, not withstanding some of the alleged creditors and agents

thereof.

6. In or around April 10, 2023, Utah Unified Police Detective Monte D Kartchner filed a false

declaration falsely indicating I was in Montana between March to April 2023.

7. On July 13, 2023, under Joanna Sagers, Utah Third District Court’s Blanch admitted Monte D

Kartchner lied and committed purjury, but stated “if we don’t give Montana what they want, they

wont give us what we want”.

8. On July 14 2024, Gallatin County Montana’s Detention Sgt Lower and Bozeman Police

Officer Alexander human trafficked me to Montana in violation of federal law under USC Article

IV, section II, clause II, USC Article VI Claus II, Michigan v. Doran (1978) controlling case law.

9. In addition to Utah’s Third District Court’s Blanche and Montana’s 18th Judicial District

Court’s Peter Andrew Bruener’s, post likewise acumen of Utah’s First District Court’s Walsch

and Tony Bearndt, as well as Jeris Kendal of Utah State University office of Equity, admitted

express violations to when reciting these laws on Aug 3, 2023, November 16, 2023, May 11,

2023, coupled with his admission of malicious harassment against me on 7/3/2024.

11. Evidence shows through others, Thomas Roseen admitted his crimes in that he ‘kept going’

and Steve Rusk admitted his criminal intent through likewise in Gallatin County Detention
Center Audio while calling his dead wife a ‘Snape’ re: evidence in DV 16-22-236, when Peter

Andrew Bruener violated Rusk’s statutory/compulsory rights, coupled with incriminating

evidence against alledged creditors Thomas Roseen, Jason Armstrong, and others as in evidence

of DV 16-23-78, 2:22-cv-24, 2:24-cv-54, 2:23-cv-402, 3/7/23 2:15-cv-853, CL 21-107/109, SM

21-33, among others.

10. I was forcefully enslaved, assaulted a numbers of times by officers including O. Shields,

Biggs, et al, as camera and audio show for simply exercising my rights, or freezing while afraid

for my livelihood, while Continually threatened, told I would be raped, fingers cut off,

maliciously harassed for reading my bible, etc., while denied adequate medical care, food,

housing and clothing, and denied release until the day before Thanksgiving of 2024, around a

year and a half later. Audio/Video including in Gallatin County Detention Center show this and

panic attacks. Note apod video including outside and inside alpha pod 201 and 203, and “Beau”

from Salt Lake County Jail in Delta three pod.

11. My hearing for continued Social Security Disability Benefits was in October of 2024, as the

record of evidence also shows in DV 16-23-78.

12. I was denied access to this hearing among all the occurrences of deprivation of rights,

derelictions of duty, etc.

13. During such time I was also threatened with my fingers being cut off if I were to continue to

sue or exercise my rights to petition for redress to get it to stop., including the unceasing perjury

and criminal defamation. David Mulligan in apod admitted that if I give up the incriminating

evidence, they will let me go. Inmate that goes by last name Armstrong in apod admitted that its.

a lose-lose but then later in apod that he didn't know anything when people demanding
information about what he or I knew, having been told I know too much, and I know too many.

Murphy inappropriately alleged, unsolicited, ‘you know a lot of judges, dont you’.

14. Evidence shows that attorneys and judges (in Utah, Montana, Ninth and Tenth Circuits) in

my cases admit to being pathological liars, acting in concert with the pathological liars of the

Salt Lake County Jail, Gallatin County Jail Staff, Utah’s Unified Police, Bozeman Police

Department and Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office.

15. Derek Buetler on his recent call to me, threatened me and advised me to not file a

42USC1985 petition until after January 20 2025, and only to sue Montana.

16. Evidence shows I was caused a heart condition, seizure activity, herniated disks pressing on

nerves, from stress positions, and sleep deprivation.

17. The evidence shows my durable medical equipment was broken by Gallatin County Staff and

they fail to remedy and indemnify to this day.

18. I remain denied a new prescription for a new sleep apnea device despite multiple doctor

visits, and accordingly I continue to suffer from moderate to severe sleep apnea, untreated due

tot he behavior and criminal acumen and nefarious maliciousness of the afore and hereinafter

noted remaining unaddressed and undeterred.

19. I am seeing a physical therapist, while denied surgeries and waiting for a new sleep study in

which I remain denied access to this day. I am required to have a new sleep study to obtain a new

sleep apnea device the providers admit but blame insurance for their denial or delay in approving

the sleep study. Durable Medical equipment providers require a prescription for the around

$8,000 device as to my complex or central sleep apnea.

20. The healthcare chains (including Intermountain Health, University of Utah, Alpine
Orthopedics, et al) in Utah and Montana (including Bozeman Deaconess Hospital, Bridger

Orthopedic, et al.) have multiple culpable liabilities outstanding who have made patently false

statements in my property (including via my HIPPA protected medical records, not excluding

new ones in which I remain denied, coupled with all the Brady violations, post numerous

requests in writing long ago) remaining unaccountable while obstructing expeditious and

effective access to adequate medical care for substantial maladies, injuries and damages I’ve

continued to sustaine in the continued absence of swift effective and expeditious (28USC351(a)

related, included) Justice and weaponization by these liabilities outstanding of the third branch of

government in our United States.

21. DV 16-22-236 record of evidence shows that Joanna Sagers/Toomey are implicated from

fourteen years ago as to pathological lies and malicious harassment including by Colton Chase

Christensen in concert with the Kirk Cullimore’s in 2:16-cv-204, Utah Congress, among others.

Dated on this February 6th Day in the year of 2025.

/s/ Zachary Rusk

in propria persona
Zach Rusk
865 S Main Street
Logan, Utah 84321

Debtor

United States Bankruptcy Court

*
ZACHARY RUSK, * PROPOSED ORDER ON MOTION TO
STRIKE AND MOTION FOR CONTEMPT,
Petitioner. SANCTIONS
* UTBC-UT 23-20383 In re: Rusk

* Judge Peggy Hunt

INTRODUCTION

Debtor Zachary Rusk (“Petitioner”, “Debtor” or “Rusk”) filed a Motion to Strike and

Motion for Contempt, coupled with a declaration against Attorney Derek Buetler. Derek Buetler

is a pathological liar.

Derek Buetler insists on using and abusing the judicial system to maliciously

HARASS Rusk in retaliation of Petitioner for engaging in constitutionally protected activities.

Derek Buetler’s behavior of inundating the courts of law with FRIVOLOUS and unreal

allegations against his victims, especially, has caused, and continues to cause financial and
emotional harm to his victims, extreme stress on an already stressed judiciary, and extreme

waste of time for every single person involved. Courts are burdened by the Buetler’s frivolous

and unceasing perjury in his fanciful leaps in logic and imaginary foes. The legal system

becomes burdened by this frivolous conduct of Derek Buetler and anyone who simply comes

into Derek Buetler’s wobbly orbit. Derek Buetler has apparently engaged in frivolous legal

actions for years now, free to proceed without any concern for personal accountability. It is

disturbing because this court may soon be inundated with petitions from his other victims once

they find this out and seek redress from this court, as well. And that number continues to

multiply, until this court takes appropriate remedial and corrective action against Derek

Buetler and his firm, Buetler Law.

While Derek Buetler does this, innocent people in the communities where Derek

Buetler and his clients and alleged creditors reside, find themselves strung out by legal

procedure, sometimes for years, with little to no help available from the community at large

and at terrible financial and emotional cost. Petitioner now begs this court for a remedy from

Derek Buetlers VIOLENTLY frivolous use and abuse of the third branch of government by

rendering judgement as to a hardship discharge in the debtors favor and holding Derek

Buetler in CONTEMPT of Court.

Derek Beutler, while not properly answering to the very serious claims and evidence

against him, attempts to make very serious allegations against his victims. A victim would feel

the need to take the allegations very serious and provide (certain) law enforcement with facts that

show the allegations Derek Buetler makes are simply not true. It is not enough that law

enforcement can and is obligated to determine there is probable cause for Derek Buetler’s
PURJURY, criminal acumen and nefarious maliciousness. Derek Buetler will never stop

making FALSE allegations (“making up stories”, “spreading lies”, etc.) against people over

fully imagined and manufactured fraudulent, deflectionary, criminally defamatory, reckless,

damaging and injurious statements in violation of law and the rights of his client. This has been a

constant theme with attorneys in Utah and Montana, ninth and tenth circuits, as to their

admissions of intending to file fraudulent pleadings in order to obstruct justice and redress to

their victim, Rusk — due to their fear of accountability and the plethora of evidence piled up

against them for fourteen years as to their criminal intents with regard to 28USC1927 circuit split

re: 42USC1985 while trying to crucify Rusk. They would do it again to even Jesus, if he were

here.

Furthermore, according to 3-1-501(d), Derek Buetler is in open CONTEMPT of Court.

Derek Buetler has DECEIVED the Courts and is ABUSING the process of law. Derek

Buetler will continue to abuse the legal system and consume his his intentionally lawless

behavior. Therefore, this Court should hold Derek Buetler in criminal CONTEMPT of

Court, INCARCERATE him to punish him for his chosen and intentional lawless behavior.

Rule6(c)

Derek Buetler has practically fails to deny the claims made against them. Instead Derek

Buetler HARASSES and files FRIVOLOUS and VEXATIOUS cases and filings against his

own client, and victims, as well as anyone he views as an opponent regardless of his mental

state, while helping the other side do the same despite pocking payment from his clients

account. Under Uniform Rule6(c), a failure to file an answer is an admission that the motion is

well taken. An answer includes either an admit or deny to each factual statement, while restating
the statement of fact that he is responding to.

Rule 12(f)2

The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,

immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter (including and especially perjury, which further

renders the INCONTROVERTIBLE fact that Derek Buetler has no leg to stand on). Derek

Buetler also admitted Jason Boren and Michael Hepworth committed malpractice in the Fidelity

Investments case, along with other attorneys.

While AIDING AND ABETTING his COLLUDERS and CORROBORATORS in

doing the likewise, Derek Buetler insists on baselessly lodging FRIVOLOUS and

VEXATIOUS filings. A proceeding is said to be vexatious when the party bringing it is not

acting bona fide, and merely wishes to annoy or embarrass and HARRASS his opponent or

client, or when it is not calculated to lead to any practical result. (Black’s Law Dictionary.)

Derek Buetler is a VEXATIOUS litigant.

45-5-220. Stalking -- exemption -- penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of stalking if the
person purposely or knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person and
knows or should know that the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to:
A. fear for the person's own safety or the safety of a third person; or
A. suffer other substantial emotional distress.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
B. "Course of conduct" means two or more acts, including but not limited to acts in which
the offender directly or indirectly, by any action, method, communication, or physical or
electronic devices or means, follows, monitors, observes, surveils, threatens, harasses, or
intimidates a person or interferes with a person's property.
C. "Reasonable person" means a reasonable person under similar circumstances as the
victim. This is an objective standard.
(c) "Substantial emotional distress" means significant mental suffering or distress that may but
does not necessarily require medical or other professional treatment or counseling.
(3) This section does not apply to a constitutionally protected activity.
(7) Attempts by the accused person to contact or follow the stalked person after the accused
person has been given actual notice that the stalked person does not want to be contacted
or followed constitutes prima facie evidence that the accused person purposely or
knowingly followed, harassed, threatened, or intimidated the stalked person.
45-5-221. Malicious intimidation or harassment relating to civil or human rights --
penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of malicious intimidation or harassment when,
because of another person's race, creed, religion, color, national origin, or involvement in civil
rights or human rights activities, the person purposely or knowingly, with the intent to terrify,
intimidate, threaten, harass1, annoy2, or offend3:
a. causes bodily injury to another; (b) causes reasonable apprehension of bodily injury in
another; or (c) damages, destroys, or defaces any property4 of another or any public
property.
Retaliation Is a Form of Harassment or Discrimination. Fear of retaliation should not
prevent you from making a valid complaint or participating in an investigation of your
complaint. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or
to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause
alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or
to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Merriam Webster defines the verb as “to make timid or fearful; frighten; especially to
compel or deter by or as if by threats.” We start to get to the root of the underlying issue,
however, when you look up the word “intimidating” in the same dictionary: “causing a loss of
courage or self-confidence; producing feelings of fear or timidity.”
A person must show that they were subjected to unwelcome and unwanted conduct based
on protected conduct, "In order to constitute harassment, the conduct must be unwelcome in
the sense that the [person] did not solicit or incite it, and in the sense that the [person] regarded

1 Ananswer or plea is called “frivolous” when it is clearly insufficient on its face, and does not controvert the
material points of the opposite pleading, and is presumably interposed for mere purposes of delay or to
embarrass the plaintiff. (Blacks Law)
2 A proceeding
is said to be "vexatious" when the party bringing it is uot acting bona fide, and merely wishes to
annoy or embarrass his opponent, or when it is not calculated to lead to any practical result. (Blacks Law)
3 "Examples of Stalking in Montana include Making false accusations.” https://www.findlaw.com/state/montana-
law/montana-stalking-laws.html Montana Stalking Laws Created by FindLaw's team (https://www.*ndlaw.com/
company/our-team.html) of legal writers and editors | Last updated June 20, 2016
4 Rights to Sue and Causes of Action in Common Law are referred to as a "chose", and are considered an asset,
therefore property. Also see Prudential Standing.
the conduct as undesirable or offensive." Morton v. Steven Ford-Mercury of Augusta, 162 Fed.
Supp. 2d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bales v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 143 F.3d 1103,
1108 (8th Cir. 1998)).5
To establish pretext, evidence must be presented that state reasons for actions are false
‘by showing weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in
the proffered reasons for the actions which could lead a reasonable fact-finder to label the
asserted reason unworthy of credence.” See Rekstad v. First Bank System, Inc, 30 Fed. Appx.
842, 846 (10th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In other words,
evidence must be provided that the person didn’t really believe it’s proffered reasons for action
and thus may have been pursuing a hidden [discriminatory, harassing, and/or retaliatory]
agenda.”
"Retaliatory actions are broadly defined to harassing behavior” — What are
Discrimination, Harassment, Harassing Conduct https://www.doi.gov › anti-harassment ›
definitions
Chose (pronounced: /ʃoʊz/, French for "thing") is a term used in common law tradition to
refer to rights in property, specifically a combined bundle of rights.[1] A chose describes the
enforcement right which a party possesses in an object. The use of chose extends from the
English use of French within the courts.[2] In English and commonwealth law, all personal
things fall into one of two categories, either choses in action or choses in possession.[3] English
law uses a chose to refer to a bundle of rights, traditionally relating to property which may be
utilised in certain circumstances. Thus, a chose in action refers to a bundle of personal rights
which can only be enforced or claimed by a chose-holder bringing an action through the court to
enforce the action. In English law, this category is enormously wide.[4] This is contrasted with a
chose in possession which represents rights which can be enforced or acquired by taking physical
possession of the chose. This may be, for example a legal mortgage.[5] Both choses in
possession and choses in action create separate proprietary interests. What differs between each
is the method in which each chose may be enforced. This is dependent on the possessory nature
of the reference object.[6]
Alternative, historical uses includes a chose local, a thing annexed to a place, such as a
mill; a chose transitory, something movable that can be carried from place to place.[citation
needed] A chose in action or thing in action[7][8] is a right to sue. It has been made trite law,
since Torkington v Magee, that a chose in action is a legal expression used to describe all
personal rights of property which can only be claimed or enforced by action. It is therefore a

5 "[l]f the nature of an [persons’] environment, however unpleasant, is not due to [constitutionally protected
activity], [s/he] has not been a victim of ... [harassment and/or discrimination] as a result of that environment." Stahl
v. Sun Microsystems Inc., 19 F.3d 533, 538 (10th Cir. 1994).
categorisation of interests in assets, the enforcement of which cannot be secured without the use
of a court.[4] It is an intangible property right recognised and protected by the law, that has no
existence apart from the recognition given by the law, and that confers no present possession of a
tangible object.[9] Since incorporeal assets such as claims for repayment of debts, or assigned
rights in contracts cannot be subject to possession, they cannot be categorised as choses in
possession.[10] In certain circumstances, the chose in action creates a separate proprietary right,
independent from the property in which it may reference.[11] This new property can be subject
to charges or can be assigned. For example, a right to enforce and receive payment for a debt,
obtain money by way of damages for breach of contract, or receive recompense for a wrong is a
chose in action. Two consequences result from this, firstly, they are claims which cannot be
executed by the chose-holder without the enforcement of legal proceedings. Second, these
examples may be themselves assigned, novated, or otherwise used by the chose-holder.[12] If the
economic value of the asset is the right to sue. Historically, documents which represented a title
to a chose in action of a particular kind, such as bonds or other documentary intangibles were
themselves chose in possession because, similar to promissory notes they were negotiable and
thus could be physically seised. That is to say, they were transferred solely by delivery of the
document themselves. Today, most bonds and other financial instruments have been
dematerialised and are issued as a single global note.6
CONCLUSION.
Derek Buetler must be held in CONTEMPT. Derek Buetler’s recent filings could not be more

bad faith and without good cause.

ORDER
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prayer for judgment is granted as follows:

1. A declaration affirmatively holding Derek Buetler in CONTEMPT; and for mandatory

injunctive relief directing Derek Buetler’s compliance with all laws, statutes, rules, et cetera;

2. A declaration affirmatively stating the obligation of Derek Buetler compliance with all laws,

statutes, rules, et cetera;

3. Permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Derek Buetler from violating any laws, statutes,

rules, et cetera, again;

6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chose
4. Declaration that Derek Buetler’s actions constitute a public nuisance and order for Derek

Buetler to abate the nuisance;

5. A declaration that Derek Buetler is a vexatious litigant; &

6. Granting debtor a hardship discharge.

ISSUED under the seal of the court: Official signature appears at the top of the first page.

Made and entered this ______ day of ________________, 20____

_________________________________________
JUDGE Peggy Hunt