Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Beverley M. Harris, Petitioner v. The Bozzuto Group, et al.
Supreme Court briefMay 8, 2020
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATE
Supreme Court, U.S.
FILED
MAY 0 8 2020
No:
19_8689
_____ ,/*x s> jrs. 'iffy
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
DR. BEVERLEY M, HARRIS
Petitioner,
v.
THE BOZZUTO GROUP ET. AL.
Respondents
On Appeal from the United States Appeals Court
For the Third Circuit
THE APPELLANT / PETITIONER, PRO SE LITIGANT IN WANT OF A PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF
NEWARK NEW JERSEY PER CURIAM PUBLISHED OPINION AND RELEVANT
APPENDICES
Dr. Beverley M. Harris, Pro Se
205 16th Street NE, Apt 7, Washington DC 20002
(718)913-2249
RI6INA
■received
m'' z®
<btat2 anxiny am aoimam ammoz am hi
\<}A
IA'w
2imAHfivi YajHman ,m
/lanoriuKl
.V
,-IA ,T3 <IU05I0 OTU5XG8 am
imvhnoc\k‘j%
Jifjo'3 fclssqqA
balin’.! «b raoil issqqA nO
twoirM/HriTsrlliol
A 5ICH KOniTS^ A 30 THAW Hf TKAQITU HB 0513 JUHOn i f;“.( \ 1A A.11333/. -1HT
qoTMtioo rmmo zu/m cmroRj mi w:-hy3>i < >t lhajioit slhd 30 rmw
'IMAV3JHH OKA 'AOV/AMi CRH8I JH< J*T MAtilift Ml YH231IL W3K A'AhWm
oi3',ernaH .M
:iQ
mm OQ noJgni/iacW J.JqA ^ArmfA Ml !0£
\eM£rf:!Q(8[V)
■ QavTioaa 1
I KK ? t m !<
! %r>
j
-jHr ;?r
}
i«yoo^gg|j
■
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
A. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Whether the Court should resolve the following questions for which the Federal District
Court, Newark New Jersey rejected/denied Petitioner’s evidences and amendments,
conducted no discovery and trial, denied her motion for In Forma Pauperis (IFP) 5 days after
filing her case (Appendix C), and closed the case. Then dismissed the case twice, (DE 103 —
Appendix D) and DE 135 - (Appendix K). and granted Summary Judgement to
Respondents, (denying Petitioner Procedural Due Process protections) based in part, on nonlitigants’ (Intervener’s) motion and Respondent/FBI motion for dismissal based on “lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim”; but in fact the Court does have
Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Petitioner did “State a Claim”. The questions for this Court?
1. Should Federal law enforcement officers (FBI) ask a US Citizen to spy on another Federal
Agency, the Department of Defense, knowing of the consequences to violating the 18 U.S.C.
§§ 792-798 and Article 106a of UCMJ and the Espionage Act of 1917' (which, in essence
would create another contravention of the Court’s holding, see USA v. Ana Montes
10
(2009)1
2. Should Federal Law Enforcement Officers illegally conspire (see Dombroski v. Dowline 459
F. 2d 190 (7th Cir. 1972), and Griffin v. Breckenridse. 403 U.S. 88 (1971) with medical
person(s) and provide “tracking” device to be implanted in a U.S. Citizen’s body, without
reasonable cause, a warrant, and without his /her knowledge and/or consent, and in violation
of the Fourth Amendment, pursuant to Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agent 403 U.S. 388
(1971)“ constitute an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment....” and
Schloendorff v. Society ofNew York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914) and 42 U.S.C. §
10
1985?.
i
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
3. Whether or not Federal Law Enforcement Officers conspired (see Dombroski v. Dowlins.
459 F. 2d 190 (7th Cir. 1972) and Griffin v. Breckenridse. 403 U.S. 88 (1971, assisted and
provided biomedical deadly devices to a foreign medical person to be illegally implanted in
a US Citizen’s head without probable cause, a warrant from a US Judge and permission
from the foreign country’s law enforcement official without consent from the Petitioner, all
of which are in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments. Title 18, U.S.C
Section 241- Conspiracy, see See Schloendorffv. Society ofNew York Hospital Justice
Cardozo, and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), including, U.S, Code Section 249 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevent Act, Title 18, U.S. Section 242
- Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, Title 18, Section 245 - Federal Protection (42
U.S.C. § 1983ected Activities, and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Asents 403 U.S. 388
(1971). Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347,351, Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735,740,
Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132,149, and the United Nation Chart, Article 15 Freedom from torture or cruel inhuman or degrading... -the United States, see Christiane
Foiling v (no name given), (2011) and whether or not the Respondents/FBI had the right to
make Petitioner a “Targeted Individual” “Persons now being called Targeted Individuals are
already implanted with the [Wireless Body Area Network] WBAN and are being tortured
and killed. It is being used to “punish” people.. .Nuerostimulators can cause pain all day
long...”, (see New Wireless Medical Healthcare Operated by Cell Phone Includes A
Multitude ofImplant. News Release, Date November 1, 2018. Citizens Asainst Harmful
Technology. CitizenAHT(a),profonmail.com) (Appendix A & B). without Petitioner’s
11
knowledge and/or consent?.
ii
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
4.
Did Federal Law Enforcement Officers engaged in deliberate and malicious felonious
defamation of character of a U.S. Citizen that deprives that individual from “life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness” under The Fifth Amendment, Fourteen Amendment ratified 1868
called the Due Process Clause, Title 28 Part VI Chapter 181 §4104 and 114.18 U.S. Code §
242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law, see New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan. 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and Jane Doe v United States Department ofJustice, et al.,
753 F.2d 1092 243 US.App.DC. 354 No. 84-5006?.
13
5. Did the U.S. District Court err in not finding that Plaintiff/Petitioner Fourth Amended
Complaint met the pleading requirements of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and
related cases, because that complaint did not relied on allegations of hypothetical possibilities,
conclusional assumptions, and unsupported insinuations of discriminatory intent that, but
consistent with Petitioner’s liability, that stated plausible claims”; grant Summary Judgement
to Respondents based, in part, on (a) motion from “intervenor” stating that this Court has no
Subject Matter Jurisdiction, see 2 CFR § 92.66 - Procedures in the use of “Letters Rogatory”.
But in fact, Subject Matter Jurisdiction is conferred upon by this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C §
1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1332, U.S.C. § 702,42 U.S.C. § 1983,42 U.S.C.§ 1985,
and 42 U.S.C §1986 and the U.S. Constitution to the case1, (b) denying all of Petitioner’s
evident and motion to add other violators of her Constitutional Rights, (c) denying Petitioner
Discovery Process, and a Trial and no factual evident presented to the Court by Respondents
as to why Summary Judgement was warranted, see See Barth v. Sulpiclo Lines, Inc., 932 F.2d
1540 (5th Cir. 1991) and the case of Caperton v. A.TMassey Coal Co., Inc. 556 U.S. 868
(2009). Could this a denial based on a perceived impairment departure from settled principles
See explanation below.
iii
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
and eventful occurrence of a negative impact, intentional contravention to not maintain the
reality of equitableness and appearance ofjudicial fairness which is essential?.
15
B. PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Plaintiff/Petitioner in the U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey
Dr. Beverley M Harris, pro se,
Defendants/Respondents in the U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey:
The Bozzuto Group, Thomas Bozzuto, Founder of the Bozzuto Group; Toby Bozzuto,
Operating Officer, Bozzuto Group Partners of the Bozzuto Group, David Curio, Regional
Manager, The Park Apartments; Michelle Demetriou, Manager the Park Apartments.
William Barr, U.S. Attorney General, in his individual and Official capacities, U.S.
Department of Justice. Christopher Wray, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and
UNKNOWN AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Interveners in the U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey:
Stuart Bradie, in his individual and Official capacity as Chief Executive Officer of KBR, Inc.;
Dr. Stefan Gress, Dermatologist, in his individual and official capacity, Munich Germany
C. TABLE OF CONTENTS AND TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES
1. Table of Contents
A. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
i
B. PARTIES INVOLVED...............................
IV
C. TABLE OF CONTENTS AND TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
IV
1.
Table of Contents
v
2.
Table of Cited Authorities
,v
D. CITATION TO OPINION BELOW
1
E. BASIS FOR JURISDICTION
1
F. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED
1
G. STATEMENT OF CASE
.4
H. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
iv
999
.20
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
I. OPINION OF DISTRICT COURT:
SEE OPINION BELOW
1
2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
a. Cases
Anastoffv. United States (8th Cir. 2000)..........................................................................
17
Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 III. 140,143 (1921)................................................................
16
B & C Investments, Inc., v. T & MNat. Bank& Trust, 903 P.2d 339 (Okla. App. Dov. 3,
1995).......................................................... t......................................................................
16
Barth v. Sulpiclo Lines, Inc., 932 F.2d 1540 (5th Cir. 1991).............................................
17
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 U.S. at 555)................................................................
11
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971)_............................................. 18,4,12
Bracy v. Warden, U. S. No. 96 - 6133 (June 9, 1997)........................................................
16
Caperton v. A.TMassey Coal Co., Inc. 556 U.S. 868 (2009)............................................
17
Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 149.....................................................................
13
Chicago v. New York, 37F.Supp. 150................................................................................
17
Christiane Foiling v (no name given), (2011)^....................................................................
13
City of Canton v. Harris....................................................................................................
19
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 33 U. S. 541, 545 - 46 (1949),............................
.22
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821...............................................................
22
Davis v. Monroe County Board ofEducation, 526 U.S. 629 (1999).................................
10
Frizzell Carrell Woodson v. U.S., No 18-1755 (3:18-cv-00281-HEH)..............................
1
Jane Doe v United States Department ofJustice, et al., 753 F.2d 1092 243 U.S.App.D.C. 354 No.
14
84-5006..........................................................................................................
Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, SONY 1994 158 F. R. D. 278........................
16
Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347,351......................................................
12
Latana v. Hopper, 102 F.2d 188....................................................................
21, .17
Monroe v. Pape,.............................................................................................
10
Morton Intline. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 460F. 3d 470, 476 (3dCir. 2006)
2
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. 376 U.S. 254..............................................
14
v
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NL Indus, Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9the Cir. 1986)
A
Patsy v. Board ofRegents.............................................................................
10
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1971) (6th Cir. USCA).....................................
.20
Reidv. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957...................................................................
5
Rosemondv. Lambert, 469 F.2d 416.............................................................
21,.17
Schloendorffv. Society ofNew York Hospital Justice.....................................
5,.12
Sherar v. Cullen, 481F. 2d 946 (1973)..........................................................
,20
Sims v. Aherns,271SW 720 (1925).”.............................................................
20
State v. Dvorak, 574 N. W.2d492, 254 Neb. 87 (1998)...................................
16
State v. LaPier, 961 P.2dl274, 289 Mont. 392,1998 MT174 (1998)...............
16
Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P.2d 389...............................
21,17
The People v. Brewer, 328 El. 472, 483 (1928)...............................................
16
USA v. Ana Montes (2009)............................................................................
,4,. 10
Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U. S. 348, 41S. Ct. 116 (1920)
17
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank -..........
11
b. Statutes
5 U.S.C. § 552a, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA
19
5 U.S.C. § 552, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
19
18, U.S.C Section 241- Conspiracy Against Rights, U.S, Code Section 249 - Matthew Shepard
and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevent Act,
4
18, U.S. Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
12,.4
Title 18, Section 245 - Federal Protected Activities
4
18 U.S.C. §§ 792-798 and Article 106a of UCMJ and the Espionage Act of 1917
10
18, U.S. Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law,
12
18, Section 245 - Federal Protected Activities
.4
18, U.S, Code Section 249 - Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevent Act. 12
vi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
18 U.S.C. 802 - during an investigation
6
28 U.S.C. § 453 Oath of Justices and Judges and adjudicative duty pursuant to
,22
28 Part VI, Chapter 181,§4101 addresses Defamation.................................................
6
28 U.S.C § 1291...........................................................................................................
,2
28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders......................... ,22
28 U.S.C. § 1332, grants the district court’s jurisdiction in an action that meets two basic
conditions..................................................................................................................
15
28 U.S.C § 1346 (b)....................................................................................................
.20
28 U.S.C. § 2101(e).......................... .........................................................................
1
28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Privacy Act................................................................................
19
42 U.S.C. § 1988(a).....................................................................................................
12
42 U.S.C. § 1983,42 U.S.C.§ 1985, and 42 U.S.C §1986 ............................................. 18,6
50 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq, the Declaratory Judgement Act...............................................
11
403 U.S.C. 388 1999 (1971)........................................................................................
11
C. Rules
2 CFR § 92.66 - Procedures in the use of “Letters Rogatory”,
8
Rule 15, Brief in Opposition; Reply Supplemental Brief...,
Cover
CONSTITUTIONS
First, Fourth, Fifth, Eight, and Fourteen Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.. 19
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Texas Civil Code, Tex Trans. Code § 521.032 (cl (2007 S.B. 11 F)
6
United Nations Chart, Article 15
19
OTHER CITATIONS
New Wireless Medical Healthcare Operated bv Cell Phone Includes A Multitude ofImplant,
News Release. Date November L 2018, Citizens Asainst Harmful Technology.
CitizenAHT(a).vrofonmail. com)........................................................................................... ,6
vii
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
,6
Brain Implant Victim Tips
APPENDIX.
Appendix A: New Wireless Medical Healthcare Operated by Cell Phone_,
vii..6
Appendix B; Brain Implant Victims Tips
vii,.6
Appendix C: US District Court, Newark Docket Entry Report
.2
Appendix D: Docket Entry (DE-103) Ruling - Case Dismiss Order
i,.2
Appendix E: DE 92 Motion to Respond
2
Appendix F: DE 2, Denial of In Forma Pauperis Motion, Case Closed..
.. .^..
2
Appendix G: Appeals Court, Third Circuit Dismissal
.2
Appendix H: LETTER ORDER, U.S. District Court, Newark
.3
Appendix I: Petitioner’s Motion for Rental Resume from Bozzuto Group
,3
Appendix J: Petitioner’s Motion to Cease and Desist Torture
.3’
Appendix K: Desist - District Court’s Order to Dismiss Case
,„1
Appendix L: DE 136, Petitioner Motion to Appeal to The Appeals Court, Third Circuit
.4
Appendix M: CAT SCAN Showing Tracking Device in Petitioner’s Leg.
6
Appendix N: MRI of the Deadly Devices in Petitioner’s Head
6
Appendix O: CAT SCAN Showing edited Scan by VA Doctor.
8
Appendix P: CAT SCAN made by Walter Reed Medical Hospital
8
Appendix Q: DEjE 73, Letter Rogatory...
15
Appendix R: National Institute of Health (NIH)
.23
Appendix S: Photos of Bozzuto Group’s Cameras and Brackets in Petitioner’s Apartment.....22
Appendix T: Petitioner Identification, Retirement Document, etc
last pages
Appendix U: Document Shown Petitioner detained by Trinitas Medicals Center, Elizabeth, NJ
viii
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
For more than 7 hours without her know/Consent. She went to have a CAT SCAN,,,
Appendix V: Petitioner placed on “Watchlist” by Respondents/FBI
Last Pages
Appendix W: Documents showing Respondents/FBI lied to Senator Cory Booker....Last Pages
Appendix X: Congresswoman Eleanor Norton’s Response about assisting Petitioner..Last Pages
vu
i
This Act "made it a crime for anyone to convey information intended to interfere with U.S. armed forces'
prosecutions of war effort....."
ix
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OPINION OF THE COURT
Any subject judicial officer significant, extensive, and unjustified effectible
influence associated therewith, should sustain absolute judicial immunity under the law,
thereupon the judicial record relied upon illustrates clear non - judicial acts taken without
any arguable basis, knowingly without employing defining elements of prerequisite
service of process upon all legal parties, to constitute clear adjudicative - jurisdiction over
the legal parties and or subject - matter thenceforward, pursuant to an invoked appellate
examination of adjudicative decree could be deemed invalid on settled Constitutional
Grounds, a perceived impairment departure from settled principles and eventful
occurrence of a negative impact, intentional contravention to not maintain the reality of
equitableness and appearance ofjudicial fairness which is essential” (see Frizzell Carrell
Woodson v. U.S.. No 18-1755 (3:18-cv-00281-HEH). The opinion will show the
...intentional contravention to not maintain the reality of equitableness and appearance of
judicial fairness which is essential”
There were three Notices of Judgment rendered; one was closed (DE 2) on 11
June 2018, and two were dismissed and terminated on 24 April 2019 (DE 103) and 11
February 2020 (DE135), respectfully, by the United States District, Newark, New Jersey.
The first published per curiam opinion, closed the case five (5) days after the case
that was filed with the Court on 6 June 2018 after Petitioner discovered 3 cameras in the
apartment1, she had rented from the Bozzuto Group in Roselle New Jersey. The Court
1 Petitioner did not motion the Court to obtain key(s) to the equipment room of her apartment until more
than a month after she had filed the case based on the cameras she found in her apartment, which the
Court has not published, to date.
1
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
denied her motion to file as an In Forma Pauperis (IFP) (DE 2) (Appendix O. The
Court’s opinion was states as:
“Order that Plaintiffs application to proceed without prepayment of fees or cost is
DENIED; and it is further Ordered that the Clerk shall close this case
Order
payment in the amount of $400 or a revised application to be proceed in forma pauperis.
Signed by Judge Madeline Cox Arleo on 6/11/2018 (JB,) (Entered 6/12/2018)2
The second opinion (DE 103) (Appendix D), was rendered on 24 April 2019
based on motion (DE 92) (Appendix El for lack of subject Matter Jurisdiction and
Failure to State a Claim, from U.S. Attorney Ben Kuruvilla, representing Jeffery
Sessions, Christopher Wray and FBI) and ,(DE 26) (Appendix F) motion on the same
cause from the Bozzuto Group. The Order stated: “Motion dismissed; that Based on the
foregoing, Defendants ‘motions to dismiss are GRANTED. Because this is the first
dismissal, it is without prejudice to submission, within 60 days, of a properly supported
motion to amend the Complaint ***CIVIL CASE TERMINATED
byjudge
Madeline Cox Arleo 4/24/2019. (Id,) Entered: 04/26/2019)”3
Petitioner filed an appeal with the Third Circuit Court in Philadelphia PA, Case No. 193143, (Appendix Gl. but the_Appeals Court dismiss the appeal. Opinion of the Court: “Lack of
appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily the proceedings in a district court must be final as to [] all
causes of action and parties for a court of appeals have jurisdiction over an appeal under 28 U.S.C
§ 1291. Morton Int’l Inc, v. A.E. Staley Mfs. Co.. 460 F. 3d 470. 476 (3d Cir. 2006). Here
2 The reason for this harsh ruling by Judge Cox Arleo was because, somehow, a comma was placed in the
incorrect place on the form even though the document and income statements clearly showed that the
Petitioner‘s retired income was below the required income for IFP status
3
2
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Harris’ third amended complaint remains pending, and the case is therefore not final.. .in
her filings in this Court, those requests are denied.. .Judge Richard L. Nygaard”
In between the second opinion and the final opinion, dated 11 February 2020 (DE
135). The Court made another ruling (LETTER ORDER) dated 5 December 2019
(Appendix HI began by addressing Petitioner‘s motion (DE 130) (Appendix I) to the
Court for an order to have her prior landlord Bozzuto provide rental information to the
leasing offices in Maryland where Petitioner is seeking to obtain an apartment. Then the
Court addressed Petitioner’s motion to plead with the Court to have the FBI Cease and
Desist the 24/7 torturing (DE 131) (Appendix J) and DENIED both motions. The
extreme violation of Petitioner’ Eight Amendment Rights, cruel and unusual punishment
continues to date with increased pain.
However, the Court’s overall opinion was focused on appeasing the Defendants’
motion for Summary Judgement, which was granted on 11 February 2020. The Court
went further to state “.. .Plaintiff is therefore ordered not to file any additional motions
without permission from the Court, and no additional motions while the motions to
dismiss are pending, Plaintiff’s motions at ECF Nos, 130 and 131 are both DENIED...”.
These types of orders were never directed to the Defendants throughout this case
proceedings.
On 11 February 2020, the District Court rendered aa “Letter Order [DE 135]
fAppendix K] granting [110] Motion to Dismiss; granting [127] Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction; [128] Motion to Dismiss; granting [129] Motion for Summary
Judgement, etc. ***CIVIL CASE TERMINATED*** Signed by Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo
3
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Petitioner filed an appeal to the United Appeal Court, Third Circuit, in
Philadelphia immediately on 14 February 2020, Case Number 20-1362 (DE 136)
(Appendix L)
E. BASIS FOR JURISDICTION
The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2101(e ) to review the final
judgment of the Federal District Court of Newark, New Jersey.
F. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED
18 U.S.C. §§ 792-798 and Article 106a of UCMJ and the Espionage Act of 1917
Title 18, U.S.C Section 241- Conspiracy Against Rights, U.S, Code Section 249 - Matthew
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevent Act, Title 18, U.S. Section 242 —
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, Title 18, Section 245 - Federal Protected Activities,
and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Azents 403 U.S. 388 (1971, and the United Nation Chart,
Article 15 - Freedom from torture or cruel inhuman or degrading...-the United States The Fourth
Amendment to the Constitution prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const.
amend. IV. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides
that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
G. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The material facts alleged in this complaint are of critical importance because the Court
must presume such facts to be true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. NL Indus. Inc, v. Kaplan.
792 F. 2d 896. 898 (9the Cir. 1986).
4
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Petitioner’s Involvement with the FBI - Petitioner became involved with the FBI in
2003 when she was employed by the U.S. Air Force, Andrews Air Force Base, as Civil Service
Contract Specialist on the U.S. Air Force-1 contracting team She was introduced to the FBI by
the Air Force Office of Special Investigation (OSI), case number ADOSI file# 331-C-J21B2958032341357. Period: 22 Aug - 20 Jan 04, Title 18 U.S.C. 802, during an extortion
investigation
The OSI contacted the FBI, since it was a civilian case. Petitioner was asked, by the FBI
to “go undercover” and she did. The Case went to trial, June 2004, at the Baltimore Federal
Court, Maryland and the FBI lost the case. Immediately, Petitioner noticed that the FBI was very
angry with her.
Approximately three weeks after the trial, Petitioner, was fired from her new job at the
General Services Administration (GSA), Boston, Massachusetts, without cause.
Then, Petitioner noticed a pattern of firing, without cause and could not understand. In 7 years,
Petition was fired from 7 jobs as follows:
a.
In June 2006 from McDewitt, a Canadian NASA subcontractor in Houston TX
b.
In August 2007 from the New York Port Authority, New York City
c.
In August 2008 from the University of Phoenix
d.
In December 2008 from L-3 Communication, Inc, Waco Texas
e.
In June 2009 from KBR, Inc., Iraq, Middle East
f.
In January 2011 from the US Army, Camp Arifjan Kuwait Middle East.
After the firing from GSA, Petitioner, relocated to Cypress Texas, in 2006 and accept a job with
McDewitt, a Canadian Company contracted with NASA Houston Texas. She was fired after less
than a month, without cause.
In September 2002 Petitioner accepted a Contract Specialist job with the U.S. Air Force
at Andrews AFB and experienced extortion by her Manager. So, Plaintiff contacted the OSI who
5
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
in turn contact the FBI since this was a civilian issue. The case went to trial the Baltimore
Maryland U.S. District. The FBI, reportedly, lost the court case and was upset with Petitioner
without any explanation. That led to the beginning of retaliatory actions against Petitioner from
the FBI.
The Retaliation continues to date. It includes violation of Petitioner's Constitutional
Rights and rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985,1986,12203, violation of 28 U.S.C, and
supplemental state claim actionable under Texas Civil Code, Tex Trans. Code § 521.032 (cl
(2007 S.B. 11 F) State Privacy Law; and United Nations International Charter, Articles 5, 7, and
15.
Respondent’s/FBI first conspiracy to illegally implant devices in Petitioner’s body began
with the KBR, Inc. company’s management in Iraq, Middle East in January - February 2009.
And continued with Dr. Stefan Gress, a Munich Germany Dermatologist, as follows:
a.
Arrangement with KBR, Inc and Dr. Garland Gossett, Houston Texas to illegally
implanted a "tracking" device in Plaintiff right leg (Appendix MI: providing the
opportunity to track Petitioner 24/7 anywhere, worldwide
b.
Conspired and arranged with Dr. Stefan Gress, Dermatologist, Munich Germany
to illegally implant 44 devices (Appendix N) into Petitioner's head; (1) a torture coil
attached to a Capacitor, lethal device capable of killing Petitioner instantly with electrical
stimulation
How these devices work: (Appendix A & B> ... a Wireless Body Area Network
(WBAN), a system of multiple implantable electronic sensors which relay the electronic
signals of the body, including brainwaves, to remote computers... The WBAN is a twoway
4 Petitioner had originally stated that there were 3 devices in her head but in fact there are 4 devices.
6
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
radio system which can send radio frequencies to an implant system to ask it (called a
“query”) to send back recorded biological activity... This allows person’s electrical signals
from their brain and body...which can interpret what a person is thinking, seeing, hearing
and feeling, and can monitor the functions of their heart, lungs, liver, kidney and other
organs and chemistry. The twoway system can also send frequencies to (1) stimulate
nerves, muscles, and body organs to cause pain, vibrate, heat5 up or die and (2) perform
torture as if the person was being suffocate, choke, cramp, burned and electronically raped
or (3) cause heart attacks and strokes. It can be used for health monitoring or depending
on intentions of ser - torture and death”; the latter is the intentions of Respondent/FBI to
cause the death of Petitioners because she had refused to SPY ON THE U.S. ARMY, while
in Kuwait, Middle East.
Petitioner is experiencing items 2 and 3 above showing the barbarous and
inhumane torture that Respondents/FBI is willing to inflict on an innocent BLACK United State
Citizen, without cause. These types of hateful person such as Dr. Josef Mengele, of Auschwitz
Germany inflicted on innocent people, during the period 1943 -1945, and should be used against
I any society, specifically in the Unites State, in 2020, where everyone is guaranteed, Life,
Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Most importantly, this District Court of Newark, Petitioner is convinced, knew about this
atrocity and condone it. The Respondent/Bozzuto Group also condoned and participated in
providing the means for the FBI to watch Respondent suffer from the excruciating pains by
installing cameras in her apartment in Roselle New Jersey. This act of compliance by the
(m
5 This is what is occurring to Petitioner, is such immense way that she has to constantly taking excessive
measures (cold bathe, drinking cold liquid, avoiding hot food and keeping the air condition running in her
apartment), in order to keep her body temperature normal.
7
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Bozzuto Group should cause concern as to the Safety and Security of this Country’s Military
Forces, as the Bozzuto Group focuses on placing their apartment, around the nation, in areas
where Military Forces are plentiful, such as Bethesda, and area in Virginia. Should this Country
be worried about the Bozzuto Group? Petitioner, as a Military Veteran and someone who has
served this Country for more than 31 years, (Active Duty, Civil Services, and with Defense
Contractors), believes that we should very concerned about the Bozzuto Group.
Other conspirers, that need to be mention are:
a) The Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Hospitals in East Orange, Manhattan
and the Bronx New York, because they too were aware of the planned merciless
killing of Petitioner. On several occasions, the East Orange VA contacted
Petitioner telling her to come in “to prep for surgery...” Yet, never informed
Petitioner what was the problem when she inquired. In fact, that Hospital went as
far as to EDIT A CAT SCANN (Appendix O)
b) The Walter Reed VA Medical Hospital hid the CAN SCAN result, by producing
photos that Petitioner could not see any details (Appendix PI
c) Dr. Bill Yung, Westchester Medical Center, who made the MRI, removed 2
slides that would have shown more details. Even so, Dr. Yung informed
Petitioner, after he had discovered that she had obtains the slides showing the
“coil”, “Capacitor, and the device” in her left eye, his response was “Everything
is Normal”; very shocking!!
The Cochlea in the left eye:
/
8
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(2) a "cochlea" a visual device implanted in her left eye capable of providing
Respondents the opportunity to see everything Petitioner sees. This device vibrates,
restricts her vision, and delivers pain in the eye.
The illegal placement of these devices in Petitioner’s body is inhumane" as defined by Human
Rights Laws, and Webster's Dictionary; she is an experiment of Respondent/FBI and their coconspirers.
Respondents have been denying Petitioner from having any rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness by telling her friends, family, intimate friends that she is a child molester, prostitute,
insane, a liar, and most recently, a terrorist, none of which is true
These some of her Constitutional Rights being denied:
a. The FBI has and still is following Petitioner everywhere6, to every place she lives, as they are
today. She lives at 205 16th Street NE, Washington DC and three (3) FBI Agents resides next
door with adjoining wall between the apartment; the same was true when she resided at the
Bozzuto Group’s apartment in Roselle, New Jersey.
b. Blocking all Petitioner’s communications system, 24/7
c. Blocking any and all possibilities for Petitioner to gain employment
d. Blocking all effort for Petitioner for obtaining residency where they are not able to be next
door.
e. Follow/monitoring her 24/7
f. Most importantly, continuous painfully torturing Petitioner 24/7
6 For example, Respondents/FBI followed Petitioner to the “Protest March outside the White House, on
Saturday 6 June 2020, and sending young teenagers to sil/stand next to her in conversation in order that
they can make claim that she is molesting the young child/children. The FBI is desperate to take
Petitioner in custody in order remove the devices and/or kill her. Most importantly, they are concerned
about Petitioner’s taking her case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
9
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
QUESTIONS BEFORE THIS COURT:
Can Respondent/FBI have asked Petitioner to Spy on US Army?
In 2009 through 2011, Petitioner was employed by the US Army at Camp Arifjan,
Kuwait. She was there on a special assignment to work with the 89th Logistic Group and the US
Army Auditing Agency to create a “wartime” Standard Contracting Unit. Camp Arifjan is a
“Combine Force” oversea Post consisting of all branches of the military and the various DoD
law enforcement agencies and other federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. During
that period, Petitioner would meet with all the various units, agencies, etc.in order to develop the
“Contract Coordination Unit”. She met Gregori Miceli, an FBI agent.
There was some DoD financing investigation being conducted by the Army Auditing
Agency and Petitioner participated as needed.
Agent Miceli apparently had discovered information about the investigation and was
aware of Petitioner’s role as a Contract Specialist. So, Agent Miceli asked if Petitioner to provide
him information on the Army’s activities in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 792-798, and Article 106a
of UCMJ and the Espionage Act of 1917* and in contravention of the Court’s opinion in the case
of USA v. Ana Montes (2009). Petitioner said NO, explaining to him the “military is my family”
In the case of Ana Montes, the FBI investigated this case and heard what Magistrate Judge
Ricardo Urbina explained to her that she had let down her family and her Country, the USA.
Petitioner was very surprised that Agent Miceli would have asked her to commit such crime
against the DoD.
Illegal Tracking device implanted in Petitioner’s Right leg - In January 2009,
Petitioner accepted an Air Traffic Controller position with the KBR, Inc, DoD Contractor to go
to Iraq. In February 2009, Petitioner was sent back to Houston Texas where she was residing,
by KBR, Inc.; no reason given. Within a week, Petitioner would sooner learn that she was
10
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
scheduled to have a colonoscopy test, “as part of a flight physical” at the St Joseph Hospital in
Houston, instead of the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Hospital, as a Disabled Veteran She
would later discovery (in April 2017) that a “tracking” device was illegally implanted in her right
leg without her knowledge and/or permission,
In the case of, Schloendorffv. Society ofNew York Hospital Justice Cardozo stated:
“Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be
done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's
consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages” In addition, the noted medical
author, Dr. Fletcher stated in his book on the intersection of medicine and morals: “[W]e may
say that in general we can validly assert our right as patients to know the medical facts about
ourselves. Several reasons have been given for it, but perhaps the four fundamental ones are:
a. First, that as persons our human, moral quality is taken away from us if we are denied
whatever knowledge is available.
b. second, that the doctor is entrusted by us with what he learns, but the facts are ours, not
his, and to deny them to us is to steal from us what is our own, not his;
c. third, that the highest conception of the physician-patient relationship is a personalistic
one, in the light of which we see that the fullest possibilities of medical treatment and
cure in themselves depend upon mutual respect and confidence, as well as upon
technical skill; and,
d. fourth, that to deny a patient knowledge of the facts as to life and death is to assume
responsibilities which cannot be carried -out by anyone but the patient, with his own
knowledge of his own affairs”
Illegal Tracking devices implanted in Petitioner’s Head - When the FBI conspired with Dr
Gress in Munich Germany, to illegally implanted the 4 devices in Petitioner’s head without her
11
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
knowledge and/or permission, they violated her Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eight Amendments
Right and UN Charter, Articles 15 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment,
The Title 18, U.S.C Section 241- Conspiracy Against Rights, U.S, Code Section 249 - Matthew
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevent Act, Title 18, U.S. Section 242 - Deprivation
of Rights Under Color of Law, Title 18, Section 245 - Federal Protected Activities, and Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Asents 403 U.S. 388 (1971. and the United Nation Chart, Article 15 Freedom from torture or cruel inhuman or degrading... -the United States governs provides
protection for individuals who suffer such indignancy. See Schloendorffv. Society ofNew York
Hospital Justice Cardozo stated: “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right
to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation
without his patient's consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages” In addition,
the noted medical author, Dr. Fletcher stated in his book on the intersection of medicine and
morals: “[W]e may say that in general
Respondents/FBI also violated Petitioner’s Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In the case of
Reid v. Covert. 354 U.S. 1 (1957), the opinion of the Court, “the Court’s core holding of the
case is that U.S. Citizen, civilians abroad have the right to Fifth and Sixth Amendments
Constitution protection” Unfortunately, Petitioner did not receive that protection from
Respondents/FBI.
Dr. Gress and German medical practices are guided by Medical Codes and Pledges: its
“Special Medical Procedures are guidelines to how to treat patients. The Medical Procedures
states “In the case of special medical measures or procedures that give rise to ethical problems,
and in connection with which the Chamber of Physicians has formulated recommendations
regarding establishment of their indications and implementation, physicians must observe
12
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
these recommendations.” Further, in the case of Christiane Vollins v (no name given), (2011),
the Regional Court of Cologne Germany ruled that “The doctor had no good reason for failing
to provide full diagnostic information”. Dr. Gress, apparently, never followed these guidelines
and/or procedures when he illegally implanted these deadly devices in Petitioner’s head.
Having these devices in her body, Petitioner has completely lost any expectation of
privacy and the Rights to life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; a completed deprivation of
all Rights, most importantly, her Fourth Amendment Right.
"The Fourth Amendment protects not only property interests but certain expectations of
privacy as well. Katz v. United States. 389 U. S. 347.351. Thus, when an individual “seeks to
preserve something as private,” and his expectation of privacy is “one that society is prepared to
recognize as reasonable,” official intrusion into that sphere generally qualifies as a search and
requires a warrant supported by probable cause. Smith v. Maryland. 442 U. S. 735. 740. The
analysis regarding which expectations of privacy are entitled to protection is informed by
historical understandings “of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when [the
Fourth Amendment] was adopted.” Carroll v. United States. 267 U. S. 132.149. These
Founding-era understandings continue to inform this Court when applying the Fourth
Amendment to innovations in surveillance tools.
Defamation that leads to Deprivation - Title 28 Part VI, Chapter 181,§4101 addresses
Defamation and 114.18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law. The term
“defamation" means any action or other proceeding for defamation, libel, slander, or similar
claim alleging that forms of speech are false, have caused damage to reputation or emotional
distress, have presented any person in a false light, or have resulted in criticism, dishonor, or
condemnation of any person. It also outlined the 2 types of defamation: libel and slander.
13
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
In 1964, the court issued an opinion in New York Times Co. v.
Sullivan. 376 U.S. 254 (1964) dramatically changing the nature of libel law in the United
States. In that case, the court determined that public officials could win a suit for libel only if
they could demonstrate "actual malice" on the part of reporters or publishers. In that case,
"actual malice" was defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was
published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". This decision was later
extended to cover "public figures", although the standard is still considerably lower in the case
of private individuals”
Similarly, in the case of Jane Doe v United States Department of Justice, et al., 753 F.2d
1092 243 U.S.Adv.D.C. 354 No. 84-5006. the Court argued that point, “Taking the plaintiffs
factual allegations as true, we now find that the stigmatizing nature of the Department's charges,
her discharge, and the subsequent foreclosure of future employment opportunities, including
government job opportunities, combined to deprive Doe of a constitutionally protected liberty
interest in reputation without due process" This parallels the same situation. Petitioner has seen
deceptive documentation stating that she is a prostitute posted in her Background file, (In
District Court File), and a document from Respondents/Bozzuto’s attorney referring to
Petitioner as a “sex offender” (In District Court File), and public document stating that I am a
“terrorist” Since September 2019 to March 2020, Petitioner has had applied for more than 1,280
jobs and have been consistently rejected. The same hold true for finding an apartment to call
home; more than 30 within the last two (2) months; been rejected in every case7
y
7 The Respondents/FBI consistently defaming Three FBI agents move into the apartment next door where
Petitioner resides and was given a key to her apartment by the Landlord/SCF Management. The FBI goes
into Petitioner’s apartment on a constant basis when she is away and because of the “tracking” device in
14
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No Due Process - the US District Court, Newark New Jersey - The District Court
granted Summary Judgement to Respondents and Intervener pursuing to 28 U.S.C.. ..Section
1331, which states: “provides that the District Courts have original jurisdiction in all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”; this District
Court has, “Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular
type or cases relating to a specific subject matter.. .must be distinguished from personal
jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment against a particular defendant,
..., its rulings or decrees cannot be enforced upon that party, except by comity8; i.e., to the
extent that the sovereign which has jurisdiction over the party allows the court to enforce them
upon that party9. In accordance to 2 CFR § 92.66 - Procedures in the use of “Letters
Rogatory”.
The Petitioner submitted Letter Rogatory twice,(DE- 61) (Appendix O) and an amendment
(DE 78), to the Court during the period. In both cases, the Court denied10 them.
Further, “the enabling statute for diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, grants the district
court’s jurisdiction in an action that meets two basic conditions:
a) Complete diversity requirement. No defendant is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff.
b) Amount in controversy requirement. The matter in controversy exceeds $75,000”'1
her right leg they know when to illegally enter her apartment. Even Petitioner’s bank destroyed her credit
report with lies from FBI.
8 In law, comity is "a practice among different political entities (as countries, states, or courts of different
jurisdictions)" involving the "mutual recognition of legislative, executive, and judicial acts."
9 https://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/subject-matter-jurisdiction#cite_notel
10 The District Court DENIED all 15 Motions, except the second IFP motion, submitted to the Court
during the proceeding.
11 These case meet these requirements
15
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
In furtherance, subject - matter jurisdiction fails: if a judge does not follow statutory
procedure, and where the judge does not act impartially. Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 III. 140,143
(1921), Bracv v. Warden. U. S. No. 96 - 6133 (June 9.1997) (underline emphasis). Notably,
Lack of subject - matter jurisdiction is a non - waivable defect which may be raised at any stage
of the proceeding.” State v, LaPier. 961 P.2d 1274. 289 Mont. 392. 1998 MT174 (1998).
Holding any Ruling made in absence of subject - matter jurisdiction is a nullity." State v. Dvorak,
574 N. W.2d 492. 254 Neb. 87 (1998). Further, judgments entered where court lacked either
subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process
of law, must be set aside". Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, SONY 1994158 F. R. D. 278.
Personal jurisdiction the manifest right to control individual within the territorial boundaries
clearly established by constitutional law. The purpose of notice to assert constitutional power and
give statutorial notice of pendency of a legitimate action exercising jurisdictional analysis must
be provenly a reasonable minimum precedential contact existence as a threshold matter by
preponderant evidence and not by making nonfrivolous allegations. Second, if it could not
legally hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power
can add nothing to its authority, it had no authority to make the findings." The People v. Brewer.
328 III. 472. 483 (1928) without specific finding ofjurisdiction by the court in an order
judgment, the order or judgment does not comply with the law and is void. The finding can
not be merely an unsupported allegation. A Decision is void on the face ofjudgment roll when
from four comers of that roll, it may be determined that at least one of three elements of
jurisdiction is absent: (1) jurisdiction over the parties, (2) jurisdiction over the subject matter, or
(3) jurisdictional power to pronounce particular judgment that was rendered". B&C
16
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Investments. Inc., v. T& MNat. Bank& Trust, 903 P.2d 339 (Okla. Add. Dov. 3, 1995). Settled
in Anastoffv. United States (8th Cir. 2000) "The judicial power of the United States is limited
by the doctrine of precedence.") The law is well - settled that a void order or judgment is void
even before reversal. "Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power
delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, thenjudgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and this
even prior to reversal." Valiev v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U. S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116
(1920). Further Once Challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist."
Stuck v. Medical Examiners. 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P.2d 389. Therefore, in this precedent adoption,
"The burden shifts to the Court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert. 469 F.2d 416. and
to justify constituted limited jurisdiction, "Courts must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts
related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopver. 102 F.2d 188: Chicago v. New York.
37F.Suvd. 150. This ministerial duty is reflected in relevant case law and the Judicial Code of
Conduct which provides a judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those
in which disqualification is required or recusal is appropriate.
2. Whereas, an evidenced claim of a Statutory Matter. Given for a measurable equity component
relative to the ascribed indigence benefit elements afforded, and the appearance of impropriety
set forth self - executing ministerial judicial recusal and or conducive to invoking automatic
federal disqualification provisions.
Petitioner Believes that the district court judge was biased, and it was more probable than
not she/he had an interest in the outcome of the case, and in doing so deprived the petitioner of
procedural and substantive due process. See Barth v. Sulpiclo Lines, Inc.. 932 F.2d 1540 (5th
Cir. 1991) and the case of Caperton v. A.TMassey Coal Co.. Inc. 556 U.S. 868 (2009) held “that
17
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
due process requires recusal. Recusal is required 'where the probability of actual bias on the part
of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.'. Here, the district court
judge and respondent's attorney went to the same law school and graduated the same year. The
probability is too high for the district court judge to not have an interest in the petitioner's case.
Petitioner also believes this is the same occurrence as the US Attorney representing the
FBI Respondents and the Judges; offices buildings are next to each other, where meetings can
easily be made.
Under the Section 1983, Due Process, Petitioner believes that the District Court did not
pursue her case in compliant with “due process” procedures when she abruptly “closed” in
March 2019 and again in February 2020 case without any reason(s) and or justification. In
essence, the Court is deliberately “depriving Petitioner from attaining and enjoying given rights
to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” without due process.
Further, Petitioner believes that this Court’s agenda does not reflect her cause of action in
her complaint, same of which was used in the Bevins v Unknown Agent. The District Court did
disagreed and denied Petitioner’s amended complaint that set forth the following:
a), the Bivens: Means conspired to violate, 4th Amendment, Unreason able Search and
Seizure; violation of (42 U.S.C. § 1983,42 U.S.C.§ 1985, and 42 U.S.C §1986)
b). Bivens: Means conspiracy to violate 5th and 14th Amendments, Due Process Rights; in
violation 42 U.S.C.§ 1983,42 U.S.C § 1985, and 42 U.S.C. §1986
c). Bivens: Means conspiracy to violate, 8th Amendment, Cruel and Unusual
d). Punishment; in violation of (42 U.S.C. § 1983,42 U.S.C § 1985, and 42 U.S.C§1986)
and violates UN Nations §1986) and violates UN Nations 1986 and other inhuman
articles
18
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
The case of City ofCanton v. Harris has resulted in mother landmark changes. The Supreme
Court has more recently applied the “deliberate indifference” standard to cases outside of the
prison context, involving a public school’s failure to do anything to control student sexual
harassment12. It is hardly far-fetched to apply the same standard where social service or housing
benefits are denied as a result of government’s “deliberate indifference”.
Finally, The Due Process Clause of Article VI of the Constitution requires that some type of
judicial forum be available for Plaintiff to challenge the lawfulness of designation or status
Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and Pleadings
" The Rule argues that "an objection that an opponent's point is irrelevant or invalid, while
granting the factual basis of the point are no longer satisfied by “an unadorned the-defendantunlawfully-harmed me a accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly 550 U.S. at
555). Now, neither a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” nor “naked
assertions [of fact] devoid of further factual enhancement” is sufficient to withstand dismissal.
To satisfy the new standard under Twombly and Iqbal, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 57 0). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads enough
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant".
Despite claims by the Respondents and Intervener, Petitioner did also seek a declaratory
judgement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, die Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50
U.S.C. § 1801, et seq, the Declaratory Judgement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, as well as directly
under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eight, and Fourteen Amendments to the Constitution of the United
12 Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999).
19
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
States, and the United Nation Article 15 and with regard to those Dependents sued in their
individual capacities, the U.S Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Bivens v. Six Unnamed
Agents of the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation. 403 U.S.C. 3881999 (1971s).
Plaintiff have clearly provided factual and undisputable evidence during the District Court
process. Petitioner defense on behalf a pro se’s effort in any case points to:
Puckett v. Cox. 456 F. 2d 233 (1971) (6th Cir. USCA) “It was held that a pro se complaint
requires a less stringent reading that one drafted by a lawyer in accordance Justice Black in
Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section)”. Further in the case of Sherar
v. Cullen. 481F. 2d 946 {1973) “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because
of his exercise of Constitutional Rights” and in case Sims v. Aherns,271 SW 720 (1925).”The
practice of law is an occupation of common rights.
REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
If there is a case13 to be heard now here, in the home circuit of the Chief Justice for The
U. S. Supreme Court, which no other legal avenues constitutionally means exists, within an
inherent forum of redressability and immediacy, as a matter of law, for this unresolved remedial
28 U.S.C § 1346 (b) standing civil action brought forth there against the proper Defendants,
members of Agencies of the United States of America. 28 U.S.C. § 1332, U.S.C. § 702,42
U.S.C. § 1983,42 U.S.C.§ 1985, and 42 U.S.C §1986), and other non-United States Government
related individuals, is this case.
This case perfect posture given to the conferred consideration of reviewability of departure
by the district court panel decisions set out in substantial error, offers an ideal vehicle to resolve
m
13 Violation of First, Third, Fourth Eight, and Fourteenth Amendments, and violation of the United
Charter, Article 15.
20
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
the five questions left open heretofore, emphasizing Constitutional jurisprudence of the First,
Fourth, Fifth, and Eight, Fourteenth Amendments infringements, clearly at issue in connection
with this case particular, the challenged constituted limited jurisdiction, the usurpative judicial
sua sponte dismissals, and the judicial ministerial self - executing recusal I legal
disqualifications.
Wherefore, Petitioner is Dr Beverley Maud Harris, not just a Black Woman, “but a natural
person in truth and in law, the original Plaintiff pro se litigant, of clear tangible or intangible
rights afforded, as such citizenry immutable liberties, privileges and immunities, having appealed
the unfavorable ruling as well as the Appellant pro se litigant, save effortfully in a manner as
such prescribed therefor, do effect, in jurisprudential spirit and in jurisdictional fact heretofore,
respectfully petition this Supreme Court, as the purposed Appellant / Petitioner, pro se litigant,
for a writ of certiorari that is both unique and important, pursuance to supervisory review of the
United States District Court of Newark, New Jersey”
Further Once Challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist."
Stuck v. Medical Examiners. 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P.2d 389. Therefore, in this precedent adoption,
"The burden shifts to the Court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F.2d 416, and
to justify constituted limited jurisdiction, "Courts must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts
related to the jurisdiction asserted." Latana v. Hopper. 102 F.2d 188: Chicaso v. New York
37F.Supp. 150. This ministerial duty is reflected in relevant case law and the Judicial Code of
Conduct which provides a judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those
in which disqualification is required or recusal is appropriate.
Whereas, an evidenced claim of a Statutory Matter. Given for a measurable equity
component relative to the ascribed indigence benefit elements afforded, and the appearance of
21
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
impropriety set forth self - executing ministerial judicial recusal and or conducive to invoking
automatic federal disqualification provisions. The leading court case on pleadings is Conley v.
Gibson.
This case perfect posture given to the conferred consideration of reviewability of departure
by the district court panel decisions set out in substantial error, offers an ideal vehicle to resolve
the five questions left open heretofore, emphasizing Constitutional jurisprudence of the First,
Fourth, Fifth, and Eight, Fourteenth Amendments infringements, clearly at issue in connection
with this case particular, the challenged constituted limited jurisdiction, the usurpative judicial
sua sponte dismissals, and the judicial ministerial self - executing recusal I legal is qualifications.
The invoked judiciary ministerial ethical obligations binding under 28 U.S.C. § 453 Oath of
Justices and Judges and adjudicative duty pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (b): Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Coro.. 33 U. S. 54L 545 - 46 (1949), is to interpret and apply law to
specific situations and not define law which is the responsibility of the legislature.
Whereas, any wholesale attempt to limit Supreme Court review of constitutional questions
would itself be unconstitutional.
As Chief Justice Marshall voiced in Cohens v. Virginia. 19 US (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821). It is
most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it
must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure,
because it approached the confines of the constitution. We have no more right to decline the
exercise ofjurisdiction, which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the
other would be treason to the constitution. Id. at 404. Therefrom Article III and Marburv v.
Madison 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). it is mandatory within the scope of authority the power or
22
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
manner of the federal court’s adjudicators exercise of a conferred corollary duty to provide a
constitutional adjudicative forum competence to dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly,
and efficiently, in administering of relevant laws nexus to the cognizable facts of the interested
legal litigants equal under the law sustained by constituted Plea Adjudicative jurisdiction, that
must be decided at its earliest opportunity and before allowing the litigation to proceed to impose
juxtaposition of a attendant claim brought forth by statutory authority and its due process
maintenance is essential to the impartial and equal administration ofjustice.
WHEREAS: It is Petitioner’s hope that this Court will grant an emergency order to have
Petitioner remove these deadly devices, as she is unable to get assistance from any medical
facility because of Respondents’/FBI continuously blocking the effort. For example, on 26 May
2020, Petitioner went to the National Institute Health, in Bethesda Maryland for medical advice
and assistance in find a Neurologist. Petitioner asked to speak with a Neurologist as it did
advertise that the Neurologist is open on Tuesday and Thursday from 1 PM to 5 PM. Petitioner
arrived at the Clinic, at approximately 2:30 PM, she spoke with a young lady and explained that
she wanted to speak with a Neurologist about an emergency situation. As she sat and waited for a
response, she was approached by a huge man nametag shows his last name as Ruiz. He walked
up into my face and started to rudely interrogate Petitioner. He asked, “how did you get in here?”
I showed him my authorization Temporary badge (Appendix R). Then he yelled in Petitioner’s
face and said, “get out of here before I call the security guard to throw you out?”. These are the
type of reception Petitioner always get when she reaches out for help,
In essence, Petitioner is here to ask this Supreme Court of the United States, at the
highest level of our Judicial System, to save her life and not let the FBI make the decision as to
whether she lives or dies
23
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
H. CONCLUSION
The Petitioner requests that the Court grant the petition for writ of certiorari.
By:
Dr. Beverley M/Harris
205 16th Street NE, Apt 7
Washington DC 20002
Phone: (718) 913-2249
8 June 2020
24
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.