Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Dale J. Richardson, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the District of Colorado

Supreme Court briefJun 23, 2021

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Appendices

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Volume I of VI

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

June 23rd, 2021

TABLE OF APPENDICES

VOLUME I

Appendix A

Judgment from the United States District Court District of Nevada

Appendix B

116a

Application for Return of the Child

VOLUME n

Application for the Return of the Child (continued)

416a

Appendix C

Dale Richardson Asylum from Torture by Freemasons

543a

Appendix D

Ellen G. White Expose of the Freemasons

560a

Appendix E

602a

Supreme Court of Canada

Appendix F

735a

Federal Court of Canada

VOLUME m

Federal Court of Canada (continued)

831a

Appendix G

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan Corruption,

868a

VOLUME IV

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan Corruption (continued)

1246a

Appendix H

Federal Court of Canada

1299a

VOLUME V

Federal Court of Canada (continued)

1661a

Appendix A

Judgment from the United States District Court District of Nevada

Case 2:20-cv-02218-JAD-DJA Document 3 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

KAYSHA DERY RICHARDSON,

Case No. 2:20-cv-02218-JAD-DJA

Petitioner

Order Dismissing Habeas Petition

[ECFNo. 1]

ATTORNEY GENERAL of the UNITED

STATES, et al.,

Respondents

Immigration detainee Kaysha Dery Richardson petitions for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,1 seeking review of her immigration proceedings. On initial review

under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,2 I find that her petition is plagued by

jurisdictional defects, so I dismiss the petition without prejudice.

Background3

Richardson is a citizen of Canada with Metis indigenous heritage.4 She filed the petition

on December 8, 2020, to challenge her continued detention at the Nevada Southern Detention

Center in Pahrump, Nevada.5 Upon entry to the United States, on October 1, 2020, she was

detained by the U S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of

Homeland Security (“DHS”). Richardson then filed an application for asylum or withholding

from removal based on her race, religion, and political position. An asylum officer interviewed

her and determined that she did not establish a credible fear of persecution.6 The petition alleges

ECF No. 1. Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee when filing the petition. ECF No. 1-8.

2 All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

3 This procedural history is derived from Richardson’s allegations and exhibits.

4 The Canadian government recognizes the Metis as a distinct indigenous people, See First Nations

People, Metis andlnuit in Canada: Diverse and Growing Populations, Statistics Canada (Mar. 20, 2018),

https://wwwl50.statcan.ge.ca/nl/pub/89-659-x/89-659-x2018001-eng.htm.

5 Richardson did not sign the petition herself. Instead, it was signed and submitted by “her advocate ‘any

person’ Robert Cannon.” See ECF No. 1 at 10.

(’Id. at 93-97.

Case 2:20-cv-02218-JAD-DJA Document 3 Filed 01/27/21 Page 2 of 6

that the asylum officer refused to consider evidence she provided and failed to examine all

relevant considerations. She appealed the negative finding of credible fear to an immigration

judge (“IJ”), but no decision was issued by the time her petition was filed.7

Richardson alleges that the petition arises under the United States Constitution, the

Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”),8 the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and

the United Nations Refugee Convention. She claims that her detention is arbitrary, unlawful,

and violates the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments. In the prayer for relief, Richardson asks

the court to assume jurisdiction over this matter, order respondents to release her on her own

recognizance, and grant any other relief deemed proper for both her and “her advocate ‘any

person’ Robert Cannon.”9

I take judicial notice of the status of the proceedings in Richardson’s immigration case

.12

before the Las Vegas Immigration Court.10 On December 17, 2020, the IJ affirmed DHS’s

decision regarding asylum or withholding from removal. Richardson has yet to appeal that

decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) or file a petition for review in the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,11 and no future hearings are currently scheduled.

Discussion

As an initial matter, I find that the petition was improperly submitted by Robert Cannon

as Richardson’s “advocate ‘any person.’”12 Pro se parties may not pursue claims on behalf of

7 ECF No. 1 at 4 (“It has been forty-three (43) days since the credible fear of persecution interview and

the Petitioner has had no review of determination by an immigration judge and no guarantee that she ever

will.”).

8 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq,

9 ECF No. 1 at 10.

10 See, e.g., Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (courts may take “judicial notice of the

agency’s own records”) (citing Using v. I.N.S., 124 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 1997)). Automated case

information may be accessed online at https://portal.eoir.justice.gov/InfoSystem/Form?Language=EN.

111 also take judicial notice of the Ninth Circuit’s online docket records. See Harris v. County of Orange,

682 F.3d 1126, 1131—32 (9th Cir. 2012). The Ninth Circuit’s docket records may be accessed at

www.pacer.gov. As explained in this order, the Ninth Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over any petition

for review arising from the Las Vegas Immigration Court.

12 ECF No. 1 at 10.

Case 2:20-cv-02218-JAD-DJA Document 3 Filed 01/27/21 Page 3 of 6

others in a representative capacity.13 Only a licensed attorney—an active member of the State

Bar of Nevada admitted to practice under the Nevada Supreme Court Rules— is authorized to

represent a client in Nevada.14 In federal courts, “the parties may plead and conduct their own

cases personally or by counsel.”15 No rale or statute permits a non-attorney to represent any

other person, a company, a trust, or any other entity.16 Cannon will not be permitted to engage in

the unauthorized practice of law by purporting to represent or act on behalf of Richardson.

Moving forward, Camion is prohibited from submitting documents on Richardson’s behalf, and

Richardson must plead and conduct her own case personally.

Turning to initial review, Habeas Rule 4 requires the assigned judge to examine a habeas

petition and order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to

relief17 This rule allows courts to screen and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, vague,

conclusory, palpably incredible, false,18 or plagued by procedural defects.19 Federal district

courts may grant a writ of habeas corpus when a person is “in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”70

But Congress has restricted judicial review of immigration matters.21 To accomplish

“streamlined judicial review,” the REAL ID Act of 200522 eliminated the district courts’ “habeas

13 See, e.g., Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661,665 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases); Russell v.

United States, 308 F.2d 18,79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“A litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority

to represent anyone other than himself.”).

14 Guerin v. Guerin, 993 P.2d 1256, 1258 (Nev. 2000) (citing NRS 7.285); Martinez v. Eighth Jud. Dist.

Ci., 729 P.2d 487,488 (Nev. 1986) (an individual “has no right to be represented by an agent other than

counsel in a court of law”).

15 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (emphasis added).

16 Jackson v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 586, 596 (D. Nev. 2011).

17 See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019).

18 Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases).

'9 See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F,3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998).

2,128 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).

21 Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050,1052 (9th Cir. 2005); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5)

(notwithstanding § 2241 or any other habeas provision, “a petition for review filed with an appropriate

court of appeals ... shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal”).

22 Pub. L. No. 109-13 Div. B, 119 Stat. 231.

Case 2:20-cv-02218-JAD-DJA Document 3 Filed 01/27/21 Page 4 of 6

jurisdiction, including jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, over final orders of deportation,

exclusion, or removal” and made “the circuit courts the ‘sole’ judicial body able to review

challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal.”23 In addition, matters involving

the Attorney General’s “discretionary judgment” are generally precluded from judicial review.24

Dismissal of a § 2241 petition is appropriate where the petition challenges orders of deportation,

exclusion, or removal.23

District courts retain narrow habeas jurisdiction to review “bond hearing determinations

for constitutional claims and legal error” following administrative exhaustion.26 The Ninth

Circuit has outlined the proper procedure for challenging immigration bond determinations.27

Once a non-citizen has received a bond hearing before an IJ, she may appeal the IJ’s decision to

the BIA,28 If the non-citizen “is dissatisfied with the BIA’s decision, [s]he may then file a

habeas petition in the district court, challenging continued detention.”29 The district court’s

decision on the habeas petition may be appealed to the Ninth Circuit.30 In a case by non-citizen

who does not follow this course and thus fails to exhaust administrative remedies before

pursuing habeas relief, “a district court should ordinarily dismiss the petition without prejudice

or stay the proceedings until the petitioner has exhausted administrative remedies, unless

23 Alvarez-Barajas, 418 F.3d at 1052.

24 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). The 1NA explicitly exempts asylum determinations from the jurisdictional bar

over discretionary decisions, but judicial review occurs in the courts of appeal—not in the district court

on a § 2241 habeas petition. Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972, 979 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)), abrogated on other grounds as stated by Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673, 678

(9th Cir. 2010).

25 Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2006).

26 Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 516-17

(2003)).

27 Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Casas-Castrillon v. Dep’t of

Homeland Security, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008)).

28 Id.

29 Id.

30 Id.

Case 2:20-cv-02218-JAD-DJA Document 3 Filed 01/27/21 Page 5 of 6

exhaustion is excused.”31 This exhaustion requirement is subject to waiver in certain instances32

but is “ordinarily not optional. »33

Richardson’s petition does not clearly allege whether she seeks to challenge a removal

order, denial of asylum and withholding from removal, indefinite detention, or a bond

determination.34 However, jurisdiction is not proper for any such challenge. The Ninth Circuit

is the sole judicial body with jurisdiction to entertain a petition for review addressing removal,

withholding of removal, or asylum. Although this court has jurisdiction to the extent Richardson

seeks review of a bond determination, the petition does not allege or demonstrate administrative

exhaustion, i. e., that Richardson moved for bond in the Las Vegas Immigration Court, an IJ

issued a decision, Richardson appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA, and the BLA issued a

decision. Instead, the petition and exhibits indicate that Richardson sought review of the asylum

officer’s negative credible-fear determination. This was insufficient to exhaust any detention or

bond claims. 35 Richardson may not pursue habeas relief regarding detention or bond until both

an IJ and the BIA have considered her claims. The petition does not seek waiver of exhaustion,

nor does the record demonstrate that waiver is appropriate. Accordingly, I dismiss the petition

without prejudice.

Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner Kaysha Dery Richardson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1]

is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. A certificate of appealability is DENIED, as jurists of reason would not find dismissal

31 Id. at 1160 (noting that a § 2241 petition may be properly pursued “[o]nce the BIA renderfs] its

decision”); Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 1000 (9th Cir. 2004) (habeas jurisdiction under “§ 2241 is

ordinarily reserved for instances in which no other judicial remedy is available”) (citation omitted).

32 Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2017).

33 Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F,3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001).

34 See generally ECF No. 1.

35 See Leonardo, 646 F.3d at 1160 (citing Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 2003) (a

petitioner “must exhaust administrative remedies before raising .. . constitutional claims in a habeas

petition when those claims are reviewable by the BIA on appeal”)).

Case 2:20-cv-02218-JAD-DJA Document 3 Filed 01/27/21 Page 6 of 6

of the petition to be debatable or wrong.

3. Robert Cannon is prohibited from submitting any future documents on Richardson’s

behalf, and Richardson must sign and submit any future documents personally.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is instructed to:

1. MAIL a copy of this order to:

a. Kaysha Dery Richardson

Nevada Southern Detention Center

2190 East Mesquite Avenue

Pahrump, Nevada 89060

b. Robert Cannon

1102 Ave. L North

Saskatoon, Canada S7L 2S1

2. UPDATE the docket to reflect the Nevada Southern Detention Center as Richardson’s

current address.

3. ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT dismissing this action, and CLOSE THIS CASE.

Dated: January 27, 2021

U.S. District Judgfe-JdnniferA/Dorsey

Kaysha F.N. Dery

1292 95th Street,

North Battleford, SK S9A 0G2

Tel:

Email:

1 306 441-7010

kaysha.dery@gmail.com

February 28, 2021

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Richardson H. Chambers Courthouse

1626 229-7250

Tel:

125 South Grand Avenue

Email:

questions@ca9.uscburts.gov

Pasadena, CA91105

To the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS,

I, Kaysha F.N. Dery, a Canadian citizen an Mferis card holding citizen, was

hindered from exercising my CHRISTIAN DUTY by those who conspired to restrict my

physical and religious liberty. I was punished for my father DALE J.S. RiCHARDSON’s

whistle-blowing of the mismanagement of the Covid emergency in SASKATCHEWAN,

and I fled to the UNITED STATES for safety as I was being tortured by the CANADIAN

government.

Despite the fact that I am being arbitrarily detained and tortured in the UNITED

States, I more scared of Canada as I was detained, isolated, and tortured in a

maximum security prison for the criminally insane without cause and my father

DALE was strapped to a bed and drugged against his will for his CHRISTIAN BELIEFS

and for agreeing with certain elements of the political opinion of the JESUIT

affiliated CARLO MARIA VlGANd, Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana, about how the

mismanagement of' the Covid emergency is being used to build a world without

freedom through the dissolution of social order: Solve et Coagula as the MASONIC

adage teaches.

Attached to this transmittal is a petition for writ of certiorari with me as the pro se

applicant and motion to extend in a habeas corpus matter which relates to genocide,

crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression. The appendices, filing fee, and

additional copies will be mailed to this Court shortly.

Sincerely,

X fCovpAjty.

KayshaTf.N. Dery

Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit

In The

United States Court of Appeals

February 28, 2021

10a

No.

3fn ®f)e

fKntteb States Court of Appeal

KAYSHA F.N. DERY

Pro Se Applicant,

Attorney General of the United States;

U.S. Department of Homeland Security;

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

Scott Robinson, ZCH 193;

Nevada Southern Detention Center;

and Brian Koehn.

Respondents.

Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Kaysha F.N. Dery

1292 95th Street,

North Battleford, SK S9A 0G2

1 306 441-7010

Tel:

Email: kaysha.dery@gmail.com

11a

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Are the INDIGENOUS PEOPLES and METIS subject to the Immigration and

Na tionality Act?

2. Do the INDIGENOUS Peoples and Metis have the right to be represented in

government and to petition congress for a redress ofgrievance?

3. Is evicting an INDIGENOUS PERSON and METIS from the UNITED STATES a

restriction of their liberty and a form of illegal confinement?

4. Is it constitutional to detain a person under any law that is not criminal law?

5. Is it constitutional for a person or persons to be deprived of life, liberty, or

property by IMMIGRATION COURT when the same is not part of the United

STATES judicial branch responsible for the due process oflaw!

6. Given the common law nature of the Privilege of Writ ofHabeas Corpus, does

a corrupt court constitute a suspension of the Privilege of Writ ofHabeas

Corpus for person or persons held within its jurisdiction?

7. Is suspending the Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus for any reason and by

any means not permitted by the United States Constitution an act of treason

or the invariable pursuit of the OBJECT?

THE GREAT WRIT

The Great Writ, known as the Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus, is

guaranteed by the United States Constitution except in the case of Rebellion or

12a

Invasion for the prevention or speedy relief of a person or persons seized or

imprisoned without due process of law and the Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus

upholds and is endorsed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which

purports that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”.

The Privilege of Writ ofHabeas Corpus guarantees that “You shall have the

body” and when an Application for a Writ ofHabeas Corpus is submitted to a court,

justice, or judge on your behalf, the same shall forthwith direct the Writ to any

person who has seized or imprisoned you, such person must bring or cause your

body to be brought before the same within three days, unless distance requires

additional time, for an investigation into the lawfulness of your seizure or

imprisonment. Before slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment except for

parties duly convicted for crime, the Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus was often

applied to alleged slaves claiming freedom held by private parties.

The Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus is a CHRISTIAN right that guards the

Life and Liberty of all people inside and outside of the UNITED STATES. Any person

or persons who attempts to suspend or worse abolish this CHRISTIAN right are ANTI

CHRISTIAN and seek to abolish true CHRISTIANITY.

SUSPENSION OF THE GREAT WRIT

Canada and the United States arbitrarily suspended the Privilege of Writ

ofHabeas Corpus and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that were

purportedly violated as part of a conspiracy to cover up the mismanagement of the

13a

Covid emergency in both jurisdictions to commit coordinated crimes of genocide,

crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression. The Pro Se Applicant and

ROBERT A. Cannon (“Robert”) have been hindered from exercising all remedies

under both jurisdictions beyond reason for investigations into such coordinated

crimes which are the most serious crimes of concern to the international community

as a whole and CHRISTIANS and CATHOLICS everywhere given the involvement of the

United States District Court for the District of Nevada and the Supreme

Court of the United States.

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada located at

333 Las Vegas Blvd. South Las Vegas, NV 89101 received by mail an Ex Parte

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the morning on December 7 of last year

submitted by ROBERT on behalf of and with the prior consent of the Pro Se

Applicant, the Pro Se Applicant received notice of an upcoming immigration hearing

that the afternoon. Such petition was officially filed the following day on December

8 of last year as a civil case with the case number of 2:20-cv-02218-JAD-DJA and

was misinterpreted as pro se legal representation under the name KAYSHA Dery

RICHARDSON and was suspended in violation of 28 U.S. Code § 2243 under the guise

of the following: “Due to this court's extremely heavy case load this review process

may take several weeks.” Such suspension in cooperation with the Pro Se

Applicants subsequent deportation ordered by JUDGE GLEN BAKER of IMMIGRATION

COURT would allegedly render the Writ of Habeas Corpus moot.

iii

14a

The Supreme Court of the United States located at One First St NE,

Washington, DC 20543 received by open Sling in person an Ex Parte & Pro Se

Original Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus on December 28 of last year

submitted by ROBERT on behalf of the Pro Se Applicant which purported the

foregoing suspension in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF

NEVADA. Such application was never accepted under the guise of the following: (1)

the original application for writ of habeas corpus was interpreted as an

extraordinary writ instead of original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and §

2242, (2) the application was not formatted as an extraordinary writ, (3) the

application would need a motion for forma pauperis despite the $300 filing fee being

provided as a cheque, (4) only an attorney can file habeas corpus for a detainee

which contravenes the foregoing codes, and (5) the ex parte application must be

served on the Respondents; these egregious lies in contravention to all forms of law

and subsequent return of documents and cheque by the court clerk constitute

suspension and an attempt to keep evidence of treason and terrorism out of court.

After failing to unlawfully deport the Pro Se Applicant which is a Metis card

holding citizen, JUDGE JENNIFER A. DORSEY of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT of Nevada proceeded to hear the petition for a writ of habeas

corpus on January 27 of this year and dismissed it. JUDGE JENNIFER A. DORSEY

recognized that “Richardson alleges that the petition arises under the United States

Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), the United Nations

Convention Against Torture, and the United Nations Refugee Convention. She

15a

claims that her detention is arbitrary, unlawful, and violates the Fourth, Fifth, and

Eighth Amendments. In the prayer for relief, Richardson asks the court to assume

jurisdiction over this matter, order respondents to release her on her own

recognizance, and grant any other relief deemed proper”; however, the judge ignored

her claim under the UN Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a METIS card holding

citizen and her claim that she was not given her immigration hearing within seven

days pursuant to 235(b) (1) (B) (iii) (III) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which

both qualify the Pro Se Applicant for immediate release. JUDGE JENNIFER A.

DORSEY also ignored purports of UNITED NATIONS Convention against Torture and

Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the “UN Torture

Convention”) violations relating to the credible fear of persecution interview process

not being a competent authority and thereby acquiesced. JUDGE JENNIFER A.

DORSEY claimed that the Pro Se Applicant was challenging the order of removal

which is at no point was purported; the Pro Se Applicant received her final order for

deportation on December 17 of last year which is reasonably demonstrable as a

result of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. JUDGE JENNIFER A. DORSEY “took

judicial notice of the status of the proceedings in Richardson’s immigration case

before the Las Vegas Immigration Court”, a status that did not exist at the time of

filing. JUDGE Jennifer A. Dorsey proceeded to order the Pro Se Applicant to “sign

and submit any future documents personally” to which this appeal applies.

Such suspensions and dismissal in cooperation with final deportation orders

of the Pro Se Apphcant would yet again hinder an official investigation into the

16a

events surrounding the mismanagement of the Covid emergency relating to the Pro

Se Applicants arbitrary, unconstitutional, and unlawful detainments in both

CANADA and the UNITED States for whistle-blowing the mismanagement of the

Covid emergency. The Pro Se Applicant is currently being held in indefinite

detention under the guise of the Immigration and Nationality Act which this

petition for a writ of habeas corpus disproves.

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE

The Ex Parte and Pro Se Original Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus

submitted to the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES documented and

demonstrated by example “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing

invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce” the people of the UNITED

STATES OF America and those abroad “under absolute despotism”. The long train of

abuses and usurpations included without limitation the following:

(1) the genocide of CHRISTIANS, BLACK-CANADIANS, persons with disabilities,

METIS, and other INDIGENOUS PEOPLES which includes without limitation killing

them, causing them serious bodily and mental harm, deliberately inflicting on them

conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in

part, imposing measures intended to prevent births, and the forced transfer of their

children to other peoples;

(2) crimes against humanity including murder, extermination, enslavement,

deportation or forcible transfer of populations, imprisonment and other severe

17a

deprivations of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international

law, torture, sexual assault, enforced sterilization, and persecution based on

political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender and other grounds

universally recognized as impermissible under international law, enforced

disappearance of persons, the crime of apartheid, and other inhumane acts of a

similar character intentionally causing great suffering, and serious injury to body

and to spiritual, mental, and physical health; and

(3) the crime of aggression by MASONIC conspirators in planning, preparation,

initiation and execution of the mismanagement of the Covid emergency, to exercise

control over or to direct the political or military action of the UNITED STATES against

its own people and other CHRISTIAN nations, of an act of aggression which, by its

character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the CHARTER OF THE

UNITED Nations, specifically the invasion, attack, blockade, and bombardment of

other nations by armed forces.

PARTIES

This Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court ofAppeals for the Ninth

Circuit is on an Ex Parte Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus proceeding in which

the Pro Se Applicant is the Petitioner before the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF Nevada. The Pro Se Applicant is a federal prisoner in

indefinite detention and in the physical custody of the Respondent BRIAN KOEHN,

warden of NEVADA SOUTHERN DETENTION CENTER in Pahrump, Nevada which is

vii

18a

contracted by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY to detain alleged aliens

such as the Pro Se Applicant. The Respondents SCOTT ROBINSON, ZCH 193 from the

Chicago Asylum Office in the State of Illinois or his supposed successor

COLLAZO is a custodial official acting within the boundaries of the judicial district of

the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The Respondent

SCOTT Robinson, ZCH 193 is an asylum officer under the authority of U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is under the authority of U.S.

Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is under the authority of U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, which is under the authority of the

Attorney General of the United States. The Pro Se Applicant is under the

direct control of the Respondents and their agents and pursuant to the Respondents

Scott Robinson, ZCH 193’s and Judge Glen Baker’s orders, the Pro Se Applicant

remains indefinitely detained.

The Pro Se Applicant is KAYSHA F.N. DerY which is a federal prisoner in

indefinite detention and in the physical custody under the colour of authority of the

United States which has suspended the Privilege of Writ ofHabeas Corpus in its

highest court, the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES as part of a conspiracy to

cover up the mismanagement of the Covid emergency. She is a national and citizen

of Canada and a citizen of the Metis federation of Saskatchewan who was taken

into custody when seeking refugee on October 1 of last year at the SWEETGRASS

PORT of Entry in MONTANA: (i) on the basis of being METIS with ancestral

homeland in MONTANA under UNITED NATIONS Declaration on the Rights of

viii

19a

Indigenous Peoples (the “UN Rights of Indigenous Peopled’) which is not legally

binding and upon refusal, (ii) subsequently by applying for asylum with credible

fear ofpersecution from the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH which is the

centrally governed international church she attends, the corrupt courts, and the

corrupt national police force. She was detained by the Respondents under the guise

of unsuitable travel documentation despite providing a Canadian passport and

MlSTIS citizenship card among various other forms of identification.

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction for this Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1291, § 2241, and §

2242 and article I, § 9, clause 2 of the United States Constitution. This action arises

under the United States Constitution, the UN Torture Convention, the UN Refugee

Convention, and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Pro Se Applicant is

presently in custody under color of authority of the UNITED STATES and such

custody is in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

This Court may grant relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or the All Writs Act, 28

U.S.C. § 1651; however, this petition shall not be construed as a means to acquire

monetary relief, and the Pro Se Applicant reserves the right to seek relief for her

arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional detainment which is in violation of

international instruments binding in the UNITED STATES.

20a

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED............... ,................................

THE GREAT WRIT...............................................................

SUSPENSION OF THE GREAT WRIT...............................

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE....,,

,.vi

PARTIES.... ............................................................................

,vn

JURISDICTION

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

A. Engineering Reimagined....................................................

B. Criminal Negligence......... ............................... ...................

...3

C. The July 23rd Terrorist Attacks..............,........... .............

D. Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum.................... .................

E. A Metis Plea for Safety and Asylum............ .....................

F. Another Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum........... ........

G. Extreme Prejudice........... ........................................... ......

H. The Extraordinary Condition............................................

I. The Supreme Court of the United States........................ .

....22

J. Another Another Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus

,.24

K. Petition to Congress.,..... ......................................... ..........

L. More Extreme Prejudice....... ........................................... .

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE APPLICATION.

21a

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL:

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, § 2241, and § 2242 and article I, § 9, clause 2 of

the United States Constitution, the Pro Se Applicant KAYSHA F.N. Dery, a national

and citizen of CANADA and a citizen of the METIS federation of SASKATCHEWAN, with

ancestral in the STATE OF MONTANA, respectfully requests a judicial review of her

petition for a writ of habeas corpus to overrule the suspension of the Privilege of

Writ of Habeas Corpus as part of a MASONIC conspiracy to cover up the

mismanagement of the Covid emergency which is an act of treason against the

UNITED States in the invariable pursuit of the OBJECT and article I, § 9, clause 2 of

the United States Constitution both authorizes and compels the upholding the

Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus.

CATHOLICS and Christians have had their rights and freedoms, specifically

the Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus, the free exercise of RELIGION, and the

unalienable rights to LIFE, Liberty, and pursuit of HAPPINESS, taken by the

MASONIC conspirators through the mismanagement of the Covid emergency, as

predicted by the JESUIT affiliated CARLO MARIA VlGANO, Titular Archbishop of

Ulpiana, when he alleged that such mismanagement has furthered the dissolution

of the social order so as to build a world without freedom: Solve et Coagula, as the

MASONIC adage teaches. The supposed presidential elect JOSEPH R. Biden, has

advocated further measures to be enforced in the name of the Covid emergency and

the United States District Court for the District of Nevada has endorsed his

claim by suppressing evidence of its mismanagement.

22a

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Engineering Reimagined

Dale J.S. Richardson (“Dale”) and his daughter Kaysha F.N. Dery (known

as the Pro Se Applicant, hereinafter “KAYSHA”) sought opportunity to minister

Seventh-Day Adventist Church doctrine to the Battlefords and surrounding

Indigenous communities (see Appendix A on page la and Appendix C on page 39a).

On April 1, 2020, DALE founded DSR KARIS CONSULTING INC. (“DSR KARIS”), a

Canadian federal corporation pursuant to the Canada Business Corporations Act

which is a distinct natural person under subsection 15(1) of the same, to further

this ministry, specifically in the field of mechanical engineering.

DSR KARIS, named after his infant daughter KARIS K.N. RICHARDSON

(“KARIS”), sought to help local businesses with their Covid response by installing

safe Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning systems that mitigate the spread of

contagions, an essential service, and build a future for his children (see Appendix D

on page 46a); DALE would do anything for his children (see Appendix B on page 4a).

DSR KARIS was pursuing opportunities to help educate Indigenous persons and

women in the field of engineering and offered its essential services at cost to all notfor-profits and houses of worship in the Battlefords and surrounding areas in an

effort to help faith communities open their doors again, this is engineering

reimagined (see Appendix AC on page 372a). Unfortunately, due to a series of

coordinated efforts by unscrupulous persons, this ministry was hindered (see

Appendix Z on page 295a).

23a

Criminal Negligence

DSR KARIS was hindered by the criminally negligent recommendations for

Covid response from the SASKATCHEWAN HEALTH AUTHORITY which motivated

businesses, already cash-strapped from the global shutdown, to hire unqualified

professionals to install Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning systems to

mitigate the spread of contagions, such systems were not effective from an

engineering perspective and threatened the safety of the general public (see

Appendix AF on page 388a and Appendix AM on page 443a). After repeated pleas to

the SASKATCHEWAN Health Authority to have a qualified engineer review its

recommendations, on July 7, 2020, DSR KARIS notified INNOVATION CREDIT UNION

about the criminal negligence requesting that it fulfill its fiduciary duty to its

members by notifying them of the same as it related to the Non-Disclosure

Agreement that exists between them (see Appendix BX on page 776a). INNOVATION

CREDIT Union responded by conspiring to limit DSR KARIS’s access to INNOVATION

CREDIT Union and its members by ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE intervention

which was a breach of the Non-Disclosure Agreement (see Appendix BZ on page

798a). In response to a complaint of uttering threats made against Dale, he

provided evidence to the contrary and on June 16, 2020, the RCMP attempted to

return part of that evidence without conducting a proper investigation (see

Appendix BY on page 794a). DSR KARIS made a complaint and provided evidence to

the Royal Canadian Mounted Police about the criminal negligence under

24a

sections 219 and 220 of the Criminal Code of Canada which to its knowledge was

never investigated (see Appendix AN on page 447a).

While DSR KARIS was pursuing the foregoing, its Chief Executive Officer,

Dale, was being persecuted by the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH in collusion

with his wife KIMBERLY A. RICHARDSON (“KIM”) for adhering to its doctrine (see

Appendix E on page 57a, Appendix AB on page 364a, Appendix AE on page 379a,

Appendix AL on page 442a, and Appendix AK on page 436a) and his infant

daughter KARIS was kidnapped by his wife KlM on June 1, 2020 under threat of

ROYAL Canadian Mounted Police intervention and tortured as a person and third

person under 269.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada (see Appendix AJ on page 435a

and Appendix AN on page 447a). The members responsible for such persecution

advocate MASONIC dogma in the church (see Appendix BU on page 745a) and have

ties to the SASKATCHEWAN HEALTH Authority, even possessing the influence to

hire Dale's daughter KAysha as a permanent employee and peace officer at

SASKATCHEWAN Hospital where she was tortured under 269.1 of the Criminal Code

of Canada. KAYSHA made complaints to the CANADIAN UNION OF Public

EMPLOYEES about workplace safety, having prior knowledge of the criminal

negligence being the Chief Communication Officer of DSR KARIS, and about

discrimination against those of INDIGENOUS and METIS descent in her workplace to

which she belongs as she identifies as EUROPEAN, CARIBBEAN, and METIS (see

Appendix AP on page 482a and Appendix AQ on page 483a). Such discrimination

based on race by employees of SASKATCHEWAN HOSPITAL inflicts severe mental pain

25a

and suffering on such minorities in their care and is torture under 269.1 of the

Criminal Code of Canada as all permanent employees of SASKATCHEWAN HOSPITAL

are peace officers and officials under the same.

In the interest of the general public, DSR KARIS with its low socioeconomic

status, sought remedy by pro se legal representation against the SASKATCHEWAN

HEALTH Authority for its criminal negligence under sections 219 and 220 of the

Criminal Code of Canada with INNOVATION CREDIT UNION and the ROYAL

CANADIAN Mounted Police as joint respondents for conspiracy and accessory after

the fact under sections 465(1) and 463 of the Criminal Code of Canada and with the

Seventh-Day Adventist Church as a joint respondent for its members affiliation

with the Saskatchewan Health Authority and their relentless persecution of its

Chief Executive Officer, DALE, and Chief Communication Officer, KAYSHA, which

seemingly happened in response to investigations into the SASKATCHEWAN Health

Authority, Innovation Credit Union, and the Royal Canadian Mounted

Police.

DSR KARIS submitted a pro se originating application in the COURT OF

Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan in the Judicial Centre of Battleford on

July 16, 2020 which sought the following:

1. orders for an investigation into INNOVATION CREDIT UNION under The Credit

Union Act, 1998, a Saskatchewan statute;

26a

2. orders for the ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE to stop preventing DSR

Karis from contacting CONSTABLE SEKELA, the lead investigator for its

complaint; and

3. protective orders against the respondents as they had been threatening the

officers of DSR KARIS,

The in chambers date for such application was scheduled for July 23, 2020

(see Appendix AO on page 476a).

The July 23rd Terrorist Attacks

After many failed attempts by the SASKATCHEWAN HEALTH AUTHORITY and

Royal Canadian Mounted Police to intimate and coerce Kaysha and her father

DALE from attending the hearing on behalf of DSR KARIS under the guise of the

Covid emergency and self-isolation, KAYSHA and her father DALE decided in the

interest of the general public and CHRISTIANS and CATHOLICS everywhere to attend

the hearing on behalf of DSR KARIS to expose the mismanagement of the Covid

emergency in Saskatchewan (see Appendix AR on page 487a).

On July 23rd, 2020 at approximately 10:00 AM CST, Dale, the power of

attorney for DSR KARIS, was detained under The Mental Health Services Act and

KAYSHA, the Chief Communication Officer for DSR KARIS, was detained under The

Public Health Act, 1994 while acting on behalf of DSR KARIS. DALE and KAYSHA

were both detained at the same time and place by six ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED

POLICE officers and the COURT DEPUTY SHERIFF for different reasons with no

27a

declared warrant in front of the COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN IN

the Judicial Centre of Battleford minutes before they were to attend a hearing

for DSR KaRIS to expose the mismanagement of the Covid emergency in

SASKATCHEWAN (see Appendix AZ on page 547a and Appendix BA on page 556a). As

predicted by CONSTABLE Read during the unlawful arrest, JUSTICE R.W. ELSON

adjourned the hearing; it was adjourned sine die, meaning it could not be reopened

without the consent of the respondents.

While DSR KaRIS was pursuing the foregoing litigation, Dale’s wife filed for

divorce under the legal counsel of PATRICIA J. MEIKLEJOHN of MATRIX Law GROUP

LLP, the partner of CLIFFORD A. HOLM who was one of the influential persons

advocating MASONIC dogma in the church (see Appendix AI on page 433a). The in

chambers date for such divorce petition was scheduled for July 23, 2020 on the

same docket seemingly as punishment for pursing litigation on behalf of DSR KARIS

against the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, the Saskatchewan Health

Authority, Innovation Credit Union, and the Royal Canadian Mounted

POLICE for the mismanagement of the Covid emergency in SASKATCHEWAN. JUSTICE

R.W. ELSON also presided over Dale’s divorce case and on July 22, 2020 requested

that his wife KlM draft an interim order for the hearing the following day; JUSTICE

R.W. ELSON granted this interim order while DALE was absent, as he was detained

for mental health, which gave his wife KlM possession of their house and DSR

KARIS’s corporate records and registered office and gave her custody of KARIS (see

Appendix AY on page 540a). Later that day, KlM with her family and in the

28a

presence of the ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE came and took possession of

DSR KARIS’s property except for its corporate phone from its only remaining agent

through intimation and coercion by armed ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

officers (see Appendix BL on page 634a).

When the foregoing Masonic conspirators discovered DSR KARIS’s articles of

incorporation, specifically the share transfer restrictions clause, they realized their

egregious failure (see Appendix AD on page 375a). The shares could only be

transferred upon consent through resolution by the sole director of DSR KARLS,

DALE, and declaring him mentally insane was of no consequence, the shares could

not be transferred to KlM. DSR KARIS offers essential services and interfering with

or causing a severe disruption to an essential service is terrorist activity under

subsection 83.01(l)(b)(ii)(E) of the Criminal Code of Canada and every person who

knowingly participates in carrying out terrorist activity is guilty under 83.18(1) of

the same. Since July 23, 2020, DSR KARIS has been unable to conduct its essential

services, and the MASONIC conspirators have sought to cover up their crime.

Dale and Kaysha were both tortured by peace officers and officials under

section 269.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada and the UN Torture Convention

binding in CANADA during their arbitrary, unconstitutional, and unlawful

detainment. DALE was taken to BATTLEFORDS MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE and was

Strapped to a table by ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE while SASKATCHEWAN

Health Authority officials drugged him against his will. Dale was administered

29a

drugs against his will whenever he asked for the warrant for his detainment which

was finally given to him after a few days of detainment (see Appendix AT on page

499a). DALE was admitted to BATTLEFORDS MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE on July 24,

2020 for “paranoid religious, persecutory and grandiose delusions” (see Appendix

AU on page 501a and Appendix AV on page 504a) and it was determined by biased

medical professionals that he must be tied to a table and drugged to cure him.

CONSTABLE Burton said “cause it’s a little different—Saskatchewan health care

compared to Manitoba” in response to Dale’s mother AGATHA Richardson saying

“You should see his feet, I mean we don’t restrain people like that” and that he had

been there for 7 years or so (see Appendix AX on page 532a). After being

interrogated at BATTLEFORDS UNION HOSPITAL for hours, KAYSHA was taken by

Royal Canadian Mounted Police to Saskatchewan Hospital, where she was

also employed as a peace officer and had active complaints against through

CANADIAN Union of Public Employees regarding discrimination and occupational

health and safety issues with its Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning

systems (see Appendix BB on page 563a). KAYSHA was detained while her union

meeting was outstanding and she has never had the opportunity to meet with the

union since, but is still a permanent employee and peace officer at SASKATCHEWAN

HOSPITAL. Dale and Kaysha were only released from detainment after an

Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum was filed for them.

30a

Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum

Robert A. Cannon (“Robert”) made repeated attempts to file an Application

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum for DALE and KAYSHA against the

Saskatchewan Health Authority and Royal Canadian Mounted Police, first

ex parte and after with notice with overwhelming evidence of their arbitrary,

unconstitutional, and unlawful detainment which included video, audio, and

documentary evidence; the application was submitted to a different judicial centre

than Battleford, the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan in the

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon in accordance with its court rules as it was closest

to Robert’s residential address. Robert’s third amendment to the Application for a

Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum was served to the SASKATCHEWAN HEALTH

Authority, but the Royal Canadian Mounted Police refused service for such

application and stated that Robert’s evidence would not be added to the ongoing

criminal negligence investigation unless he was a witness, in which case he would

have to attend the Battlefords ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE detachment, the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment responsible for Dale’s and

KAYSHA’s detainment (see Appendix BD on page 576a). At the time, Robert did not

feel comfortable leaving the jurisdiction of the Saskatoon police where the ROYAL

Canadian Mounted Police have no jurisdiction. KAYSHA was released before the

third amendment and DALE was released shortly after the third amendment was

served to the SASKATCHEWAN HEALTH AUTHORITY which is responsible for

31a

Saskatchewan Hospital, Battlefords Union Hospital, and Battlefords

Mental Health Centre.

ROBERT with Dale and KAYSHA proceeded to attend the hearing for the

foregoing application supposedly scheduled for Aug 18, 2020 to request that an

investigation be conducted into their arbitrary, unconstitutional, and unlawful

detainment. They were denied entry to the hearing as the registrar claimed that the

such application did not exist, after such was disproven then claimed that it was

never served, and after such was disproven then claimed that it was unfiled despite

proof of the dependent notice of expedited procedure being filed (see Appendix BE

on page 579a). After these incoherent discussions with the registrar, Robert, Dale,

and KAYSHA proceeded to flee the jurisdiction of Saskatchewan without delay.

ROBERT later filed by mail the fourth and fifth amendments to the

Application fora Writ ofHabeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum which added Dale’s

infant daughter KARIS and his affiliate Chrity who punished for associating with

him during his detainment to those applied for, additional respondents, and orders

from the application by DSR KARIS for July 23, 2020 that was judicially interfered

with (see Appendix BF on page 583a and Appendix BG on page 592a). JUSTICE N.D.

CROOKS presided over this application on September 10, 2020 and dismissed the

matter in the first hearing on technicalities and without hearing the evidence in

court, despite purporting that she reviewed the evidence in her official capacity,

JUSTICE N.D. CROOKS ordered Robert to pay costs which is expected in an

32a

Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum if it is determined by the

justice to be frivolous and vexatious (see Appendix BK on page 631a). On September

22, 2020, ROBERT filed an appeal to JUSTICE N.D. CROOKS’s decision in the COURT

of Appeal for Saskatchewan (see Appendix BN on page 642a). Given the

corruption demonstrated in the COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN, the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police which is the national police force, and the

SEVENTH-DAY Adventist Church which is a centrally governed international

church, KAYSHA did not feel safe in CANADA anymore and decided to seek refuge in

her ancestral homeland in the STATE OF MONTANA on October 1, 2020.

On October 5, 2020, JUSTICE J.A. SCHWANN of the COURT OF APPEAL FOR

SASKATCHEWAN ruled that Robert’s lawful application for dispensing with service

which was interpreted as ex parte would not be permitted despite the overwhelming

evidence of corruption and she ordered that ROBERT would need to serve the

respondents appeal books to proceed with the hearing which would take multiple

months (see Appendix BO on page 646a); such order constitutes a suspension of

Writ of Habeas Corpus which is permissible in CANADA as the Canadian Charter of

Rights and Freedoms permits human rights violations if they are to such

reasonable limits prescribed by la w as can be demonstrably justified in a free and

democratic society.

33a

A Metis Plea for Safety and Asylum

On October 1, 2020, ROBERT accompanied KAYSHA as she fled to the U.S

Canada Border at the Sweet Grass port of entry seeking refuge under the Jay

Treaty and asylum in the UNITED STATES from the persecution and torture she was

subjected to in CANADA, KAYSHA brought her Canadian passport, Metis citizenship

card, marriage certificate (see Appendix F on page 61a), many other forms of

identification, and over a thousand pages of documentation with her to the border

as part of her plea. After KAYSHA was refused entry to the U.S. on the basis of being

Metis, she subsequently filed an approximately 1214-page asylum application with

over 5 gigabytes of media and video footage of the events discussed in the previous

sections (see Appendix W on page 264a).

Upon being provided the foregoing information and Kaysha’s claim for

asylum, the officials of the United STATES at the border isolated KAYSHA by

escorting ROBERT off of the premises and began threatening KAYSHA with being

taken into custody for applying for asylum and attempted to coerce her into

returning to CANADA without filing the same. KAYSHA, fearing for her life, did not

yield to their threats or coercion and filed for asylum and was subsequently taken

into custody where she was detained arbitrarily, unconstitutionally, and unlawfully.

She was immediately placed in an expedited removal on the grounds of unsuitable

travel documentation (see Appendix Y on page 282a). KAYSHA was first held in

custody at the U.S.-Canada border in the STATE OF MONTANA, then transferred to

the Jefferson County Jail in the State of Idaho, then finally transferred to

34a

Nevada Southern Detention Center in the State of Nevada and was held in

custody in the State OF UTAH during such transfer.

The asylum officer, SCOTT ROBINSON, ZCH 193, from the CHICAGO ASYLUM

OFFICE in the State of ILLINOIS, conducted KaySHA’s credible fear ofpersecution

interview and made his decision on October 15, 2020 alleging that she was credible,

but did not believe that she had credible fear of being persecuted by her centrally

governed international church, the corrupt courts, or the corrupt national police

force again in CANADA despite her having filed for asylum from them, that her

infant sister is still detained by their authority, and evidence that those of Metis

descent are persecuted in CANADA (see Appendix X on page 268a). KaYSHA was not

given her prompt review of determination by an immigration judge within seven (7)

days which is required by the Immigration and Nationality Act and was not given

such review of determination until after an Ex Parte Petition fora Writ of Habeas

Corpus was submitted on her behalf and filed on December 8, 2020.

Another Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum

On November 27, 2020, ROBERT submitted by mail from CANADA an Ex Parte

Petition for a Writ ofHabeas Corpus on behalf of KAYSHA to the UNITED STATES

District Court for the District of Nevada at 333 Las Vegas Blvd. South Las

Vegas, NV 89101 (see Appendix K on page 141a); such mail was suspended by

CANADA Post, the primary postal operator in CANADA, under the guise of the Covid

emergency and was not received until December 7, 2020 at 11:38 AM MST (see

35a

Appendix L on page 160a); that very day in the afternoon, KAYSHA received word

that she had been given an immigration hearing date that Thursday, December 10,

2020 and that she would likely be deported. The petition was filed the day after it

was received on Tuesday, December 8, 2020 as a civil case with the case number of

2:20-cv-02218-JAD-DJA and was misinterpreted as pro se legal representation by

KAYSHA instead of ROBERT (see Appendix M on page 163a) and was suspended

under the guise of the following: “Due to this court's extremely heavy case load this

review process may take several weeks” (see Appendix N on page 165a).

On Thursday, December 10, 2020 and fifty-six (56) days after KAYSHA’s

credible fear ofpersecution interview, KAYSHA’s review of determination was

conducted by the JUDGE LINDSAY ROBERT which sought to uphold SCOTT ROBINSON,

ZCH 193’s credible fear findings and deport KAYSHA without reviewing the

evidence, however, KAYSHA’s lawyer LAWRENCE J. LlTMAN (“JAY”) argued that

KAYSHA needed a continuance for the evidence to be reviewed and JUDGE LINDSAY

ROBERT reluctantly granted such continuance and subsequently referred the case to

JUDGE Glen Baker, a judge with a better reputation. The following Tuesday on

December 15, 2020, JAY presented much of the information and evidence provided

in this application to JUDGE GLEN BAKER and KAYSHA testified of the facts that

pertained to her (see Appendix P on page 175a). The judge was reluctant to give his

decision in the court room and purported that he would review all the evidence in

his official capacity and make his final decision at a later time.

36a

KAYSHA’s deportation was finalized on Thursday, December 17, 2020 a week

after her first immigration hearing, when JUDGE GLEN BAKER concluded that (1)

she had not been physically harmed during her arrest and thereby had not been

tortured and did not qualify under the UN Torture Convention, and (2) she did not

qualify under any of the five bases enumerated in section 101(a)(42) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act which are race, religion, nationality, membership

in a particular social group, or political opinion (see Appendix Q on page 198a).

Given the information and evidence provided in this application, much of

which was provided to JUDGE Glen BAKER, his conclusions appear unfounded as

the evidence provided delineated the apartheid system which is CANADA, the

resulting genocide of those in KAYSHA’s racial groups METIS and BLACK-CANADIANS,

Canadian justices exercising extreme prejudice,, and how KAYSHA was primarily

psychologically tortured but also physically tortured in such system as she was

taken to a maximum security prison for the criminally insane without cause by the

national police force and held there in isolation for eight days as punishment for

seeking remedy in court on behalf of a federal corporation. JUDGE Glen Baker’s

primary argument for deporting KAYSHA was that she could seek remedy for

unlawful arrest in CANADA. KAYSHA is awaiting deportation. Jay advised KAYSHA’s

father DALE that her deportation would cause the Ex Parte Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus to be moot. The petition was fourteen hundred eighty two (1482)

pages spread over seven (7) volumes, each of which was titled; “Book of Torture”.

While KAYSHA was seeking asylum in the UNITED STATES, KAYSHA’s father DALE

37a

remained in CANADA to continue the litigation on behalf of DSR KARIS and the legal

battle for custody of his infant daughter Karis who was kidnapped by his wife Kim

which was later endorsed by the courts with extreme prejudice.

Extreme Prejudice

KAYSHA’s father DALE was released from BATTLEFORDS MENTAL HEALTH

CENTRE on August 7, 2020 fifteen (15) days after being abducted. The draft order

granting custody of his infant daughter KARIS to his wife KlM was issued on July

23, 2020 which meant that he had to appeal such draft order by August 22, 2020

unless granted a motion to extend pursuant to the rules of the Court of Appeal for

Saskatchewan. When DALE was released he was still suffering side-effects of the

drugs administered to him against his will in BATTLEFORDS MENTAL HEALTH

CENTRE as can been seen in the slurred language in his first meeting with DEREK

ALLCHURCH (“Derek”) in which Derek admitted to negligence (see Appendix AW on

page 505a).

On September 18, 2020, DALE on behalf of DSR KARIS submitted a Statement

of Claim and Motion under Action No. T-1115-20 to the FEDERAL COURT OF Canada

which purported with evidence that the conspirators including the ROYAL CANADIAN

Mounted Police, the Saskatchewan Health Authority and others committed

various crimes as part of terrorist activity and that DSR KARIS needed protection

and remedy for such (see Appendix BP on page 654a). The hearing for the motion to

permit DALE to represent DSR KARIS under Rule 120 of the court and grant interim

38a

relief was dismissed and struck without leave to amend on October 5, 2020 despite

evidence demonstrating that this case was a special circumstance to permit DALE to

represent under Rule 120 and evidence of criminal activity (see Appendix BQ on

page 692a).

On October 7, 2020, DALE submitted a motion to extend and draft notice of

appeal to the COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN on October 8, 2020 for the draft

order granted by JUSTICE R.W. ELSON on the basis that DALE was detained and

recovering from drugs administered to him against his will during the appeal period

and KaRIS was not given fair representation (see Appendix BH on page 608a).

JUSTICE J.A. CALDWELL presided over such motion on October 28, 2020, and

concluded with extreme prejudice that granting the motion to give KARIS fair

representation in an appeal was prejudice to KlM despite Dale’s extraordinary

circumstances and the infant Karis being taken away from her father, her primary

caregiver, without fair representation (see Appendix BI on page 615a).

On November 13, 2020 and following KAYSHA’s arbitrary, unconstitutional,

and unlawful detainment in the United States in violation of international

instruments binding in the same, DALE on behalf of DSR KARIS filed a Statement of

Claim under the case number T-1403-20 in the FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA with

motion to allow him to represent under Rule 120 of the court against the MASONIC

Grand Lodge of Saskatchewan, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, various

courts in Saskatchewan, and the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES and

39a

his agents which delineated a conspiracy by MASONS and those who believe or

support those who believe MASONIC dogma to cover up the mismanagement of the

Covid emergency; the court refused to accept the affidavit of service which is proof

of service and thereby declared the application to be abandoned on December 8,

2020 under the guise that it lacked proof of service (see Appendix AA on page 336a).

On November 26, 2020, DALE attended a hearing to revisit custody of KARIS

in which JUSTICE J. ZUK presided. JUSTICE J. ZUK exercised extreme prejudice and

was hostile towards; DALE seemingly as punishment for seeking remedy against the

court. JUSTICE J. ZUK accepted an affidavit by KlM which was demonstrated to be

perjured by DALE as the sole evidence upon which to uphold JUSTICE R.W. ELSON

orders despite much evidence that demonstrated that KARIS should be in Dale’s

care. JUSTICE J. ZUK attempted to construe DALE as mentally ill and refused to

accept new evidence to the contrary which he was permitted to do. After suspending

his decision, JUSTICE J. ZUK finally concluded that KARIS should be in Kim’s care on

December 11, 2020 (see Appendix BY on page 749a and Appendix BW on page

761a).

Dale contacted COMMISSIONER LUCKI of the ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED

POLICE which referred DALE back to the jurisdiction that tortured him (see

Appendix BJ on page 626a and Appendix BC on page 571a). DALE included

constitutional questions in one of his federal cases which questioned the

constitutionality of statutes which where used to torture him (see Appendix BR on

40a

page 705a). The ATTORNEY GENERALS of SASKATCHEWAN and CANADA and the

Registrar of the the COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN conspire to remove the

constitutional questions from both the COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN and

the Federal Court of Canada (see Appendix CD on page 876a). Dale was

eventually disfellowshiped by the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH (see Appendix

BU on page 745a).

The Extraordinary Condition

On October 23, 2020, ROBERT on behalf of WlSEWORK CONSULTING INC.

(“WlSEWORK”), a Canadian corporation pursuant to the Canada Business

Corporations Act, proceeded to the STATE OF DELAWARE to assist DSR KARIS with

filing a certificate of incorporation for DSR KARIS NORTH CONSULTING INC. (“DSR

KARIS NORTH”) without providing legal advice. DSR KARIS planned to have KAYSHA

handle the documentation and to sign the certificate of incorporation in the STATE

OF DELAWARE, but was forced to have Dale sign them remotely as this process was

delayed by her arbitrary, unconstitutional, and unlawful detainment in violation of

international instruments binding the UNITED STATES as part of a conspiracy to

cover up the mismanagement of the Covid emergency.

On October 28, 2020 and under the instruction of DSR KARIS, WlSEWORK

mailed the certificate of incorporation from the Post Office at 55 E Loockerman St

in the City of Dover in the State of Delaware to the DELAWARE SECRETARY OF STATE

with an affidavit of extraordinary condition affirmed by ROBERT in accordance with

41a

Delaware General Corporations Law. The DELAWARE SECRETARY OF STATE acting

on behalf of the State OF DELAWARE was to make a conclusive determination as to

whether the extraordinary condition existed and whether it hindered the filing of

the corporation (see Appendix V on page 261a).

On November 2, 2020 at approximately 4:03 PM EST, the representative of

the Delaware Secretary of State acting on behalf of the State of Delaware

called DSR KARIS, the incorporator, to notify it that the affidavit of extraordinary

condition would not be reviewed, and in so doing violated Delaware law to cover up

the mismanagement of the Covid emergency (see Appendix U on page 254a).

If the State of Delaware complied with 8 Del. C. 1953, § 103(i), the

affidavit of extraordinary condition would require the DELAWARE SECRETARY OF

STATE to make a conclusive decision on whether the abduction of DSR KARIS

North’s Chief Communication Officer, Kaysha, as part of a conspiracy to coyer up

the mismanagement of the Covid emergency in SASKATCHEWAN, was a revolution or

insurrection, or rioting or civil commotion in the localities of the PROVINCE OF

Saskatchewan in the Country of Canada and the State of Illinois, State of

Montana, State of Idaho, State of Utah, and State of Nevada in the Country

of the United States.

The refusal of the STATE OF DELAWARE to accept or make a conclusive

decision as to whether the extraordinary condition existed and whether it hindered

the filing for incorporation, and its failure to legislate a method to appeal the

42a

unlawful denial of its SECRETARY OF STATE, hindered DSR HARIS NORTH from

seeking remedy from parties that violated its constitutional and statutory rights as

its filing date can no longer be corrected under 8 Del. C. 1953, § 103(i) and thereby

hindered DSR KARIS NORTH from developing critical infrastructure which is

international terrorism.

The Supreme Court of the United States

KAYSHA on behalf of DSR KARIS NORTH, the newly founded Delaware

corporation, submitted an Ex Parte & Pro Se Petition For Extraordinary Writ to the

Supreme Court of the United States in the case of DSR Karis North

Consulting Inc. v. State of Delaware under original jurisdiction; she did so

while in custody at NEVADA SOUTHERN DETENTION CENTER and her lawyer JAY

witnessed her signature and mailed high priority such petition on her behalf from

the City of Las Vegas in the STATE OF NEVADA on December 7, 2020. The mail for

such application was suspended for unknown reasons and received on December 10,

2020, however, ROBERT delivered the required 40 copies to the SUPREME COURT OF

THE UNITED STATES in person on December 9, 2020 under open filing on behalf of

WlSEWORK CONSULTING CORP., a Delaware corporation, on behalf of DSR KARIS

NORTH. The petition contained the respectful request for the following remedy in

the form of an alternative writ:

to compel President Donald J. Trump in his official capacity to

declare the mismanagement of the Covid emergency by MASONIC

conspirators to be a national emergency, as the same extends to the

43a

STATE OF Delaware and The Biden Plan to Combat Coronavirus by

the supposed presidential elect JOSEPH R. BlDEN, which threatens the

legitimacy of this presidential election and by consequence threatens to

deprive persons in the United States of America of CHRISTIAN RIGHTS

AND FREEDOMS, among them the free exercise of RELIGION and the

unalienable rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, and pursuit of HAPPINESS.

This extraordinary writ was requested as the STATE OF DELAWARE lacked the

executive power to fix the damage it caused to the AMERICAN people and DSR KARIS

NORTH by hindering an investigation into and covering up the mismanagement of

the Covid emergency, which was crucial to the general public and the electoral

college making an informed decision in this presidential election (see Appendix R on

page 201a).

Clara Houghteling (“Clara”) on behalf of Clerk Scott S. Harris of the

Supreme Court of the United States, filed the petition on December 15, 2020

purporting that it was received on December 14, 2020 and arbitrarily refused to

accept the petition purporting that no remedy was specified and that individuals

■ could not file pro se for a corporation or business entity, but she cited no rules for

the same as no relating rules exist (see Appendix S on page 228a). In so doing, the

Clerk exercised judicial authority which is beyond the scope of its office in an effort

to cover up the mismanagement of the Covid emergency to build a world without

freedom: “The Clerk receives documents for filing with the Court and has authority

to reject any submitted filing that does not comply with these Rules” under Rule

1(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, adopted April 18, 2019.

44a

Another Another Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus

After sunset on Thursday December 24, 2020, ROBERT submitted an Ex Parte

& Pro Se Original Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus on behalf of KAYSHA to the

Supreme Court of the United States and personal delivery thereof was effected

on Monday December 28, 2020; the same was a successive original application and

such application purported the suspension of the first application for writ of habeas

corpus by the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA due to

its “extremely heavy case load”. The first application was misinterpreted as pro se

legal representation by KAYSHA instead of ROBERT which also constituted

suspension. The successive application made it explicitly clear that ROBERT was the

applicant. There is no law of any kind that forbids successive applications for writ of

habeas corpus by the same or other applicants for KAYSHA as she has never been

sentenced by any court for any crime anywhere in the world.

Robert was unable to get in contact with the case analyst responsible for his

name in the alphabet, CLARA, as she has yet to reciprocate contact by phone as of

February 28, 2021. ROBERT was able to contact case analyst SUSAN of the SUPREME

COURT of THE United States on January 6, 2020 and received a letter from CLARA

allegedly sent on December 31, 2020 in which she refused to accept the original

application for writ of habeas corpus under the guise of the following: (1) the

original application for writ of habeas corpus was interpreted as an extraordinary

writ instead of original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and § 2242, (2) the

application was not formatted as an extraordinary writ, (3) the application would

45a

need a motion for forma pauperis despite the $300 filing fee being provided as a

cheque, (4) only an attorney can file habeas corpus for a detainee which contravenes

the foregoing codes, and (5) the ex parte application must be served on the

Respondents', these egregious lies in contravention to all forms of law and

subsequent return of documents and cheque by the court clerk constitute

suspension and an attempt to keep evidence of treason and terrorism out of court

(see Appendix T on page 235a).

Such refusal and subsequent return of documents by CLARA purported by

SUSAN constitute suspension by the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES as

CLARA is the only case analyst ROBERT can apply through given the procedure of

such Court according to SUSAN. When ROBERT purported to SUSAN that CLARA

broke the law, she replied: “its our rules”. In so doing, the Clerk exercised judicial

authority to suspend the CHRISTIAN right of Privilege of Writ ofHabeas Corpus

which is beyond the scope of its office in an effort to cover up the mismanagement of

the Covid emergency to build a world without freedom, a world without

CHRISTIANITY (see Appendix H on page 74a).

Petition to Congress

On Monday January 4, 2020, ROBERT, a UNITED STATES citizen living abroad

in CANADA, attempted to exercise his first amendment right to petition congress for

a redress of grievance and delivery thereof to the visitor entrance of the Cannon

building of the US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES guarded by OFFICER PARKER and

46a

Officer Lee of the United States Capital Police. Robert was instructed by

Officer Parker that due to Covid only employees would have access to any of the

government buildings in the capital and that ROBERT would be be required to

contact his representative in the US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; ROBERT

explained that he was a nonresident living abroad that did not have a

representative in CONGRESS and that the only way for him to petition congress was

by delivering it to the US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES directly.

OFFICER Parker ignored Robert and instructed him to google a phone

number and call someone and that he should do so outside. ROBERT purported that

he was simply there to exercise his first amendment rights to petition and needed to

effect delivery directly; OFFICER PARKER began threatening ROBERT with the

statement “Do you want to be arrested?” to which the answer was obviously “No”.

When ROBERT asked under what grounds could a person be arrested for when

trying to exercise their first amendment rights to petition, OFFICER Lee responded

with “Our rules”, a seemingly common trend. At no point did either OFFICER

PARKER or OFFICER Lee provide any viable means for ROBERT to exercise his first

amendment rights as a citizen living abroad. Eventually, OFFICER LEE turned to

OFFICER Parker and said I’m just going to do it, I’m going to arrest him. OFFICER

Lee approached Robert and said put your hands behind your back to which

ROBERT replied “Why?” having never been told that he was going to be arrested.

OFFICER Lee replied because it was resisting arrest, an arrest which was never

purported by anyone at any point to the knowledge of ROBERT.

47a

ROBERT was processed and held in captivity for between 23 and 24 hours,

until the afternoon of Tuesday, January 5, 2020 when it was purported that the

charges were dropped and he was released; ROBERT was never given the

opportunity to stand before a judge probably because his arrest was in violation of

international, declarational, constitutional, statutory, and common law and if he

stood before a judge and pled his case, the judge would be authorized and compelled

to issue warrants for the arrest of OFFICER PARKER and OFFICER LEE and conduct

an investigation into his petition and ensure that the petition was submitted to

CONGRESS before Wednesday, January 6, 2020 as it purported various crimes which

related to JOSEPH R. BlDEN and the presidential election (see Appendix G on page

62a).

ROBERT was required to retrieve his belongings including without limitation

the petition from another location and was unable to submit his petition on January

5, 2020; he was also scared to be arrested again if he attempted delivery on January

6, 2020 so decided to allow delivery by email and mail which would arrive at a later

time given the mail service suspended his mail again. ROBERT being detained in

this manner and not given trial constitutes arbitrarily detention to prevent him

from petitioning CONGRESS in person before Wednesday, January 6, 2020. ROBERT

was arbitrarily detained and denied access to a Bible under the colour of authority

of the UNITED States attempting to exercise the constitutional right to petition for

redress of grievance to CONGRESS with respect to and citing the Ex Parte & Pro Se

Original Application for Writ ofHabeas Corpus which was arbitrarily rejected by

48a

Clara of the Supreme Court of the United States. Dale mailed a petition for

Congress on January 13, 2020 (see Appendix I on page 111a). Dale later petitioned

the Parliament of CANADA for the same (see Appendix J on page 135a).

More Extreme Prejudice

After failing to unlawfully deport KAYSHA which is a METIS card holding

citizen, JUDGE JENNIFER A. DORSEY of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT of Nevada proceeded to hear the petition for a writ of habeas corpus on

January 27, 2021 and dismissed it. JUDGE JENNIFER A. DORSEY recognized that

“Richardson alleges that the petition arises under the United States Constitution,

the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), the United Nations Convention

Against Torture, and the United Nations Refugee Convention. She claims that her

detention is arbitrary, unlawful, and violates the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth

Amendments. In the prayer for relief, Richardson asks the court to assume

jurisdiction over this matter, order respondents to release her on her own

recognizance, and grant any other relief deemed proper”; however, the judge ignored

her claim under the UN Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a METIS card holding

citizen and her claim that she was not given her immigration hearing within seven

days pursuant to 235(b)(l)(B)(iii)(III) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which

both qualify KAYSHA for immediate release.

Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey also ignored purports of United Nations

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

49a

Punishment (the “UN Torture Convention”) violations relating to the credible fear

of persecution interview process not being a competent authority and thereby

acquiesced. JUDGE JENNIFER A. DORSEY claimed that KAYSHA was challenging the

order of removal which is at no point was purported; KAYSHA received her final

order for deportation on December 17, 2020 which is reasonably demonstrable as a

result of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. JUDGE JENNIFER A. DORSEY “took

judicial notice of the status of the proceedings in Richardson’s immigration case

before the Las Vegas Immigration Court”, a status that did not exist at the time of

filing. JUDGE Jennifer A. Dorsey proceeded to order KAYSHA to “sign and submit

any future documents personally” claiming that ROBERT was involved in the

“unauthorized practice of law” for filing for an application for a writ of habeas

corpus on behalf of KAYSHA (see Appendix O on page 166a).

On January 26, 2020, ROBERT received notice of an upcoming hearing for the

appeal to the first habeas corpus in CANADA suspended by JUSTICE J.A. SCHWANN

and submitted four months prior on September 23, 2020; the appeal was to be heard

on March 1, 2020 and ROBERT would be given four hours to present the case. On

January 29, 2020, ROBERT attempted to file an Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Appeal

to the Supreme Court for Writ of Habeas Corpus which purported the prejudice

demonstrated by JUSTICE J.A. SCHWANN and JUSTICE J.A. CALDWELL of the COURT

OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN and requested the habeas corpus to be referred to

the Supreme Court of Canada; otherwise, the Court of Appeal for

Saskatchewan would have to decide whether to put Justice J.A. Schwann and

50a

JUSTICE J.A, CALDWELL in prison. Such motion was denied by JUSTICE RALPH K.

OTTENBREIT purporting that he did not have the authority to file it (see Appendix

CB on page 820a). Under the instruction of JUSTICE RALPH K. OTTENBREIT, ROBERT

served and filed a Motion to Adduce Fresh Evidence for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

which included such request to refer the case to a higher authority and included

evidence of the involvement INNOVATION CREDIT UNION in the July 23rd Terrorist

Attacks as INNOVATION CREDIT UNION stood the most to gain from the fraudulent

orders of JUSTICE R.W. ELSON (see Appendix CC on page 857a).

JUSTICE JEFFERY KALMAKOFF was caught exercising extreme prejudice and

misrepresenting the law in an attempt to avoid the responsibility of his position and

his responsibilities under the UN Torture Convention, he failed many many times.

Please refer to the Appendix CE on page 884a for the motion which

delineates the fraudulent activity of the FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA and Appendix

CA on page 816a for one of the relating petitions to the privy council letter on

February 1, 2020.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE APPLICATION

The United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit has

jurisdiction of this Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court ofAppeals for the

Ninth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, § 2241, and § 2242 and article I, § 9, clause 2

of the United States Constitution and is both authorized and compelled to judicially

review the suspension of writ of habeas corpus, which relates violations to treaties,

51a

federal treason, the constitutionality of IMMIGRATION COURT as a whole, the

invariable pursuit of the OBJECT, and the genocide of CHRISTIANS.

It is indisputably clear that the Pro Se Applicants right to the Privilege of

Writ of Habeas Corpus is not subject to the Immigration and Nationality Act of

1952, nor the MASONIC interpretation of 50-percent blood quantum from 1928 both

created after the conception of the United States Constitution in 1796 which

guarantees the right of the Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus, especially

considering the Jay Treaty of 1795 existed at the time of its conception which the

Pro Se Applicant is the posterity of and thereby applies to.

It is indisputably clear that the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF Nevada suspended the Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus which

resulted in the concealment of the mismanagement of the Covid emergency in

Canada and the United States. The United States District Court for the

DISTRICT of Nevada has suspended and terminated the Privilege of Writ of Habeas

Corpus indefinitely based on lies and the misprision of treason which is not

permitted by the United States Constitution. This suspension resulted in an

investigation not being conducted into the mismanagement of the Covid emergency

and how it pertains to the Pro Se Applicants abduction and the genocide of

Christians.

It is indisputably clear that the suspension of the Privilege of Writ of Habeas

Corpus for any reason or any means not permitted by the United States

52a

Constitution as a part of a conspiracy to cover up the mismanagement of the Covid

emergency is an act of federal treason and the invariable pursuit of the OBJECT

which is a matter of national and international importance.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNTONE

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM

The Pro Se Applicant alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing.

The Pro Se Applicants detainment violates her rights guaranteed under the

United States Constitution including without limitation:

Amendment IV rights: security ofperson,

Amendment V rights: nor be deprived oflife, liberty, or property,

without due process oflaw, and

Amendment VIII rights: no cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

COUNT TWO

TREATY CLAIM

The Pro Se Applicant alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing.

The Pro Se Applicants continued detainment violates the United States

Constitution and the following UNITED NATIONS treaties:

Article 2, 3, 7, 10, 22, 26, and 33 of the UN Rights ofIndigenous

Peoples,

53a

Article 1 and 3 of the UN Torture Convention,

Article 3 and 4 of the UNITED NATIONS Convention Relating to the

Status ofRefugees (the “UN Refugee Convention”).

COUNT THREE

STATUTORY CLAIM

The Pro Se Applicant alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing.

The Pro Se Applicanfs continued detainment violates the United States

Constitution, the UN Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UN Torture Convention, the

UN Refugee Convention, and the Immigration and Nationality Act

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Pro Se Applicant prays that this Court grant the following relief:

(1) review this matter that includes purports of genocide, crimes against

humanity, and the crime of aggression;

(2) release the Pro Se Applicant on her own recognizance with their

personal effects', and

(3) grant any other relief which this Court deems just and proper in

accordance with applicable law for the Pro Se Applicant.

Awaa

mO.T[lT!tuSg)J<a9p-KqF.<»f5i

mOL IM- 908 l

zoo ¥6S ms ‘pwppiwg tsmn

leMismsssez?

Asaa -K^vnserx

‘p^piqni Aj|nj};iadsa>|

vfQ

55a

BOOK OF TORTURE

EX PARTE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

VOLUME I OF VII

UNITED STATES NEVADA DISTRICT COURT

CASE NO.

NOVEMBER 27, 2020

56a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

CASE NO.

BETWEEN:

Kaysha Dery/Richardson, a Canadian and Metis citizen with no criminal record in any

country located at 1292 95th Street, North Battleford, SK S9A 0G2 with ancestral homeland in

the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in the Country of Canada and the State of Montana

in the Country of the United States.

(hereinafter the "Petitioner")

-and 1. Attorney General of the United States;

2. U.S. Department of Homeland Security’;

3. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

5. Scott Robinson, ZCH 193;

6. Nevada Southern Detention Center; and

7. Brian Koehn.

(hereinafter each a "Respondent", collectively, the "Respondents")

EX PARTE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

VOLUME I OF VII

November 27, 2020

ROBERT CANNON

1102 Ave L North, Saskatoon, SK CA S7L 2S1

Tel:

306 480-9473

Email:

robert.cannon@usask.ca

"ANY PERSON" FOR THE PETITIONER

57a

-2TO:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Justice, National Security Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530

Tel:

202 514-2007

Email:

nsd.public@usdoj.gov

Fax:

202 514-5331

AND TO:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

245 Murray Lane, SW, Washington, DC 20528-0075

Tel:

202 282-8000

AND TO:

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, MS 2260, Washington, DC 20529-2260

AND TO:

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

500 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024

AND TO:

SCOTT ROBINSON, ZCH 193

Asylum Officer, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

500 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024

AND TO:

NEVADA SOUTHERN DETENTION CENTER

2190 East Mesquite Avenue, Pahrump, NV 89060

Tel:

775-751-4500

Fax:

775-751-8763

AND TO:

BRIAN KOEHN

Warden, Nevada Southern Detention Center

2190 East Mesquite Avenue, Pahrump, NV 89060

Tel:

775-751-4500

Fax:

775-751-8763

58a

-3EX PARTE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

This is an ex parte petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking release

from her arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional detainment which is in violation of international

instruments binding in the United States and protection from being detained again in like manner. The

Respondents have detained and tortured the Petitioner since October 1, 2020 when the Petitioner

attempted to enter as a proven Metis citizen (see page 7 for the Metis card and identification and page

162 for A Metis Plea for Safety) and subsequently filed a 1214-page asylum application with over 5

gigabytes of media and video footage (see page 295 for the asylum application) which demonstrated

that she, a card holding Metis citizen in Saskatchewan (see page 5 for the reissued Metis card), was

seeking remedy on behalf of a corporation in the local superior court and was abducted, detained, and

tortured by the court Deputy Sheriff, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which is the national police

force, and the Saskatchewan Health Authority (see page 430 for the kidnapping gallery and watch

"Video of Dale Richardson and Kaysha Dery Arrested In Front of the Court House.mp4" in "Affidavit

of Robert Cannon July 27th Exhibits" on the USB flash drive). The Petitioner sought asylum or

withholding of removal based on race, religion, political position with respect to the mismanagement of

the Covid emergency (see page 1319 for transnational terrorist financing report and page 1339 for the

engineering technical report), and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter the "U.N. Torture Convention") which is

binding in the United States.

The asylum officer, Scott Robinson (ZCH 193), which conducted the Petitioner's credible fear of

persecution interview and made his decision (see page 77 for the Record of Determination for the

asylum interview) on October 15, 2020 under section 235(b)(l)(B)(iii)(l) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act, he alleged that she was credible (see page 82 for the Record of Determination for the

asylum interview'), but did not believe that she had credible fear of being persecuted by her centrally

governed international church, the courts, or the national police force again in Canada despite her

having filed for asylum from them, that her infant sister is still detained by their authority (see page 17

for the Kidnapping of the Petitioner's infant sister Karis Richardson, page 365 Justice R.W. Elson

orders, and page 712 for the habeas corpus appeal books), and evidence that those of Metis descent are

persecuted in Canada (see page 115 for the National Inquiry Into Missing and Murdered Indigenous

Women and Girls); the asylum officer is not a competent authority and did not take into account all

relevant considerations as he intentionally did not consider the evidence provided in the 1214-page

asylum application with over 5 gigabytes of media and video footage. This policy and practice is a

direct violation of Article 3 of the U.N. Torture Convention. The Petitioner immediately appealed the

decision under section 235(b)(l)(B)(iii)(III) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which guarantees

her a prompt review of determination by an immigration judge within seven (7) days. It has been fortythree (43) days since the credible fear of persecution interview and the Petitioner has had no review of

determination by an immigration judge and no guarantee that she ever will.

The moment the Petitioner, which has no criminal record, was taken into custody at the border for

claiming asylum, her amendment IV: security ofperson, amendment V: nor be deprived of life, liberty,

or property, without due pmcess of law, and amendment VIII: no cruel and unusual punishments

inflicted rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution (hereinafter the "U.S. Constitution”)

were violated making her detainment arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional. The moment officials

of the Un ited States at the border began threatening the Petitioner with being taken into custody for

applying for asylum and attempting to coerce her into returning to Canada without filing asylum, such

59a

-4ojficials began torturing her under Article 1 of the U.N. Torture Convention as they were punishing her

for providing evidence that the Canadian government tortured her. The continued physical and

psychological maltreatment of the Petitioner throughout her arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional

detainment (see USB flash drive the audio recordings of the Petitioner while in Ne vada Southern

Detention Center) which is in violation of international instruments binding in the United States

constitutes torture under Article 1 of the U.N. Torture Convention and is in violation of article 3 and 4

of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status ofRefugees (hereinafter the "U.N. Refugee

Convention") with respect to non-discrimination and religious rights. The moment that the asylum

officer, Scott Robinson, ZCH 193, affixed his signature to the Record of Determination for the credible

fear interview, the Petitioner's arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional detainment was in violation of

Article 3 of the U.N. Torture Convention as the asylum officer is not a competent authority and did not

take into account all relevant considerations. The moment the clock struck twelve on October 23,2020

seven (7) days after the credible fear interview, the Petitioner's arbitrary, unlawful, and

unconstitutional detainment which is in violation of international instruments binding in the United

States was definitely no longer justifiable under the Immigration and Nationality Act or any other act.

The Petitioner is a passport holding Canadian citizen and card holding Metis citizen in Saskatchewan

with no criminal record in any countries and such citizenship documentation was provided to the

officials at the border; the Petitioner has travelled to the United States many times, given the USCanada borders’ relaxed legislation with respect to cross border travel between Canada and the United

States and she is not a flight risk or a risk to the community. The Petitioner has demonstrated that she is

a professional with ongoing obligations both in Canada and the United States (see page 1274 for the

affidavit of extraordinary condition), these obligations make the Petitioner easy to locate. The

Petitioner, being Metis, has ancestral homeland in both Saskatchewan and Alberta in Canada and

Montana in the United States.

CUSTODY

1. The Petitioner is in the physical custody of the Respondents Attorney General of the United

States, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Scott Robinson, ZCH 193 or his supposed

successor Collazo, Nevada Southern Detention Center, Brian Koehn in Pahrump, Nevada. At

the time of the filing of this petition, the Petitioner is detained at the Nevada Southern

Detention Center in Pahrump, Nevada. The Nevada Southern Detention Center contracts with

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to detain aliens such as the Petitioner. The

Petitioner is under the direct control of the Respondents and their agents.

JURISDICTION

2. This action arises under the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Torture Convention, the U.N. Refugee

Convention, and the Immigration and Nationality Act. This Court has jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. 2241, article I, § 9, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the

Petitioner is presently in custody under color of authority of the United States and such custody

is in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. This Court may grant

relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651; however, this

petition shall not be construed as a means to acquire monetary relief, and the Petitioner

60a

-5reserves the right to seek relief for her arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional detainment

which is in violation of international instruments binding in the United States.

VENUE

3. Venue lies in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, the judicial district in

which the Respondents Nevada Southern Detention Center and the Brian Koehn reside and

where the Petitioner is detained pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).

PARTIES

4. The Petitioner Kaysha Dery/Richardson is a national and citizen of Canada and a citizen of the

Metis federation of Saskatchewan who was taken into custody when seeking refugee on

October 1, 2020 at the Sweetgrass Port of Entry in Montana: (1) on the basis of being Metis

with ancestral homeland in Montana under United Nations Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples (U.N. Rights ofIndigenous Peoples) which is not legally binding and upon

refusal, (2) subsequently by applying for asylum with crediblefear ofpersecution from the

Seventh-Day Adventist Church which is the centrally governed international church she

attends, the courts, and the national police force. She was detained by the Respondents

pursuant to 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act prior to October 23,2020;

however, since the Respondents failed to provide a review of determination by an immigration

judge by October 23, 2020, she is being held pursuant to no law, her detainment is entirely

arbitrary, unlawful, and unconstitutional and is in violation of international instruments

binding in the United States.

5. The Respondent Scott Robinson, ZCH 193 is an asylum officer under the authority of U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is under the authority of U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services, which is under the authority of U.S. Department of Homeland Security,

which is under the authority of the Attorney General of the United States. Respondents Scott

Robinson, ZCH 193 or his supposed successor Collazo is a custodial official acting within the

boundaries of the judicial district of the United States Court for the District of Nevada.

Pursuant to the Respondents Scott Robinson, ZCH 193’s orders, the Petitioner remains

detained.

6. The Respondent Brian Koehn is the warden of the Nevada Southern Detention Center in

Pahrump, Nevada. He is the Petitioner's immediate custodian and resides in the judicial district

of the United States Court for the District of Nevada.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

7. The Petitioner has exhausted her administrative remedies to the extent required by law.

8. She has/w//y cooperated with the Respondents in asylum application and appeal process and

has not delayed or obstructed the same save complaints about being maltreated with respect to

her health resulting in allergic reactions and infringement of religious freedom with respect to

diet.

61a

-69. The Petitioner’s only remedy is by way of this judicial action as the Respondents have been

uncooperative.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

10. The Petitioner is a national and citizen of Canada and a citizen of the Metis federation of

Saskatchewan who was taken into custody when seeking refugee on October 1, 2020 at the

Sweetgrass Port of Entry in Montana;

(1) on the basis of being Metis with ancestral homeland in Montana under U.N.

Rights ofIndigenous Peoples which is not legally binding and upon refusal,

(2) subsequently by applying for asylum with credible fear ofpersecution from the

Seventh-Day Adventist Church which is the centrally governed church she attends,

the Saskatchewan courts, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which is the

national police force

11. The officials of the United States at the border threatened the Petitioner with being taken into

custody for applying for asylum and attempted to coerce her into returning to Canada without

filing asylum. The Petitioner was denied her vegan diet throughout her arbitrary>, unlawful, and

Unconstitutional detainment which is in violation of international instruments binding in the

United States; the food she was provided by the Nevada Southern Detention Center caused her

allergic reactions and violated her religious beliefs. The Petitioner is a Seventh-Day Adventist

which should be eating vegan at this time in earth’s history in accordance with the Spirit of

Prophecy which advocates healthy eating; the prison Chaplin was uncooperative and denied her

beliefs demonstrating that he believed that he understood her religion’s health message better

than her. This is torture.

12. The asylum officer, Scott Robinson, ZCH 193, conducted the Petitioner’s credible fear of

persecution interview and made his decision on October 15, 2020 under section 235(b)(1)(B)

(iii)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. He alleged that she was credible, but did not

believe that she had credible fear of being persecuted by her centrally governed church, the

Saskatchewan courts, or the national policeforce again in Canada despite her having filed for

asylum from them, that her infant sister is still detained by their authority, and evidence that

those of Metis descent are persecuted in Canada. The Petitioner immediately appealed the

decision under section 235(b)(l)(B)(iii)(III) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which

guarantees her a prompt rev iew of determination by an immigration j udge within seven (7 )

days.

13. It has been forty-three (43) days since the credible fear of persecution interview and the

Petitioner has had no review of determination by an immigration judge and no guarantee that

she ever will.

14. The Respondents’ decision to detain the Petitioner is a crime and arbitrary. There is no better

time for the Court to consider the merits of the Petitioner’s request for release.

62a

-7AFF1DAVIT AND OTHER EVIDENCE TO BE USED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION

15. Affidavit of "Any Person" Robert Cannon

16. Reissued Metis Card

17. Identification Provided to the United States

18. The Kidnapping of Karis Richardson

19. Royal Canadian Mounted Police Arbitrary Detainment Pictures

20. Federal Court T-1403-20: Statement of Claim

21. Record of Determination for Asylum Interview

22. National Inquiry Into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls

23. A Metis Plea for Safety

24. 1-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal

25. Habeas Corpus Appeal Book: Volume I

26. Habeas Corpus Appeal Book: Volume II

27. Habeas Corpus Factum of the Appellant

28. Delaware Title 8 Documents

QUESTIONS

29. Is an application for writ of habeas corpus, where a person has been arbitrarily, unlawfully,

and unconstitutionally detained by a government agency in violation of international

instruments binding in the United States when they have committed no crimes, a civil or

criminal matter?

30. Do judicial branches enjoy sovereign immunity, or can they be held liable for committing

crimes including without limitation the forced transfer of children and the persecution of

Christian, black, indigenous, and disabled women?

31. Do Metis have rights to their ancestral homeland in the United States?

63a

-8CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT ONE

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM

32. The Petitioner alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 31 above.

33. The Petitioner’ detainment violates her rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution including

without limitation:

Amendment IV rights: security ofperson,

Amendment V rights: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process

of law, and

Amendment VIII rights: no cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

COUNT TWO

TREATY CLAIM

34. The Petitioner alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 33 above.

35. The Petitioner's continued detainment violates the U.S. Constitution and the following United

Nations treaties:

Article 2, 3, 7, 10, 22, 26, and 33 of the U.N. Rights ofIndigenous Peoples,

Article 1 and 3 of the U.N, Torture Convention,

Article 3 and 4 of the U.N. Refugee Convention.

COUNT THREE

STATUTORY CLAIM

36. The Petitioner alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 35 above.

37. The Petitioner’s continued detainment violates the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Rights of

Indigenous Peoples, the U.N. Torture Convention, the U.N. Refugee Convention, and the

Immigration and Nationality Act.

64a

-9PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this Court grant the following relief:

1. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;

2. Issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering the Respondents to release the Petitioner on her own

recognizance with all her personal effects including without limitation her Canadian passport,

Metis citizenship card, and other identification documents, asylum and detainment

documentation, cell phone, purse, and clothing, and

3. Grant any other relief which thi s Court deems just and proper in accordance with applicable

law for both the Petitioner and her advocate/"any person" Robert Cannon.

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT CANNON

1102 Ave L North, Saskatoon, SK CA STL 2S1

Tel:

306 480-9473

Email: robert.cannon@usask.ca

"ANY PERSON" FOR THE PETITIONER

Robert Cannon

VERIFICATION QF "ANY PERSON" J

L Robert Cannon, hereby certify that I am familiar with the case of the named petitioner and that the

facts as stated above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief

Robert Cannon

Affirmed before me at the City of Chestenftere, in the Province of Alberta, in the Country of Canada,

this 27th day of November, 2020.

Notary Public

£ <0 /

l-t; NOTARY

PUBLIC

ANDREW G. KEIKSTEAD

Barrister, Solicitor and Notary Public

•\^L\

^•

65a

-iTABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME T

Affidavit of "Any Person" Robert Cannon.

Reissued M6tis Card.

Identification Provided to the United States

The Kidnapping of Karis Richardson.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Arbitrary Detainment Pictures,

Federal Court T-1403-20: Statement of Claim

.33

Record of Determination for Asylum Interview....................... ....................

National Inquiry Into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls

115

VOLUME IT

A Metis Plea for Safety.

162

1-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal

,295

1-589 Form.

296

Federal Court T-l 115-20: Statement of Claim.

.....309

Federal Court T-l 115-20: Notice of Motion,

,333

Habeas Corpus Judgement of Justice Crooks, dated September 10, 2020,

Federal Court T- l 115-20: Affidavit of Dale Richardson

Corporate Litigation Battleford.

..... 356

359

....378

Originating Application 5th Amendment.

378

Draft Interim Order.

388

Notice of Expedited Procedure...............

392

Originating Application 4th Amendment.

..394

VOLUME ITT

Originating Application 3rd Amendment.

404

Originating Application 2nd Amendment.

.414

66a

-iiOriginating Application 1st Amendment.

...422

Originating Application

.430

Corporate Communication Statement of Dale Richardson.

.436

Affidavit of Robert Cannon.

.603

VOLUME IV

Corporate Statement of Dale Richardson.

Habeas Corpus Appeal Book: Volume I.

Cover.

Pleadings,

.608

.712

...... 712

,720

Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum....... ..................

.720

Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Without Notice.

722

Judgement of Honourable Mr. Justice G. CURRIE............... ......................

726

Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Without Notice.

727

Judgement of Honourable Mr. Justice Currie...............................................

730

Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum.

731

Notice of Expedited Procedure.

734

Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum.

,735

Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum.

.745

Notice of Expedited Procedure................. ...........

......... 755

Application for Dispensing Service Without Notice.

.... 757

Judgement of Justice Crooks...... ......................................

.763

Notice of Appeal......................... ................................. .

766

Application for Dispensing with Service Without Notice,

..770

Judgement of J.A. Schwann............. ................................

.......778

Notice of Constitutional Questions...................................

786

67a

- iii VOMJME V

Exhibits (none formally marked on the record).

796

Affidavit of Robert Cannon.

,796

Habeas Corpus Appeal Book: Volume II

...983

Cover.

983

Exhibits (none formally marked on the record) (continued).

991

Affidavit of Robert Cannon.

.991

Affidavit of Personal Service.

1007

Affidavit of Kaysha Dery.

1009

VOLUME VI

Affidavit of Agatha Richardson.........

1040

Affidavit of Astra Richardson-pereira.

1042

Affidavit of Deron Thompson............

1045

Affidavit of Dale Richardson.

1048

Corporate Statement of Dale Richardson.

1080

Affidavit of Agatha Richardson, affirmed August 26, 2020.

1098

Affidavit of Astra Richardson-pereira................. ................

1102

Affidavit of Deron Thompson..............................................

1106

Affidavit of Dale Richardson..... .

1109

Corporate Statement of Dale Richardson.

1148

Affidavit for Dispensing Service.

1153

Affidavit for Dispensing Service.

1182

Affidavit of Service of Constitutional Questions

.,1210

Habeas Corpus Factum of the Appellant.............. .................

1241

Delaware Title 8 Documents.

1274

Affidavit of Extraordinary Condition, affirmed October 28, 2020

1274

68a

-ivVOUJME vn

The masonic conspirators...........

.1278

Transnational Terrorist Financing,

1319

Forged Federal Court Form.

1337

The Engineering Technical Report.

1339

69a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

CASE NO.

BETWEEN:

Kaysha Dery/Richardson, a Canadian and Metis citizen with no criminal record in any

country located at 1292 95th Street, North Battleford, SK S9A 0G2 with ancestral homeland in

the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in the Country of Canada and the State of Montana

in the Country of the United States.

(hereinafter the "Petitioner")

- and 4. Attorney General of the United States;

5. U.S. Department of Homeland Security;

6. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;

7. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

8. Scott Robinson, ZCH 193;

9. Nevada Southern Detention Center; and

10. Brian Koehn.

(hereinafter each a "Respondent", collectively, the "Respondents")

AFFIDAVIT OF "ANY PERSON" ROBERT CANNON

November 27, 2020

ROBERT CANNON

1102 Ave L North, Saskatoon, SK CA S7L 2S1

Tel:

306 480-9473

Email: robert.eannon@usask.ca

"ANY PERSON" FOR THE PETITIONER

70a

-2TO:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Justice, National Security Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.G. 20530

Tel:

202 514-2007

Email: nsd.public@usdoj.gov

Fax:

202 514-5331

AND. TO:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

245 Murray Lane, SW, Washington, DC 20528-0075

Tel:

202 282-8000

AND TO:

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, MS 2260, Washington, DC 20529-2260

AND TO :

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

500 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024

AND TO:

SCOTT ROBINSON, ZCH 193

Asylum Officer, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

500 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024

AND TO:

NEVADA SOUTHERN DETENTION CENTER

2190 East Mesquite Avenue, Pahrump, NV 89060

Tel:

775-751-4500

Fax:

775-751-8763

AND TO:

BRIAN KOEHN

Warden, Nevada Southern Detention Center

2190 East Mesquite Avenue, Pahrump, NV 89060

775-751-4500

Fax:

775-75L8763

Tel:

71a

’

1184

-o

1“'

l\J.

il o

Z ■

<■>

SJi'i ' ■ *»

isy?z>o. o

II Pf f

S . Vl-AV

-g

A5‘

S»<*

i y .**/«<;

■S!

ilS^MPI

e {

mMBBSSt

A Z

? ‘

A' m

' g

slPBPPW

^fcl

HMI m

3l<m£

- m i^a y-yy y

w-m

■■

lit iJ-i

x.^-i.-r.. >; y

..* i.. _

' :W«SS^H4iMSI

Csrji' !

a.. "■?■ xs

#1:^.,.,,.,.............

<?«» we *v ,<• iiiSsiiei

j^v

y>y>^ %r^y>

>r^»J

-Saskatchewan fJ< dinvi±lnenu’

• M

kEIII

"““Hlftaia

INgiMwr ife-.':

aM •■'-■;

yyHht-

S* •■„■«,.;■

jSiSfe-£eSp

w*..

fvftTiS NATION - SASKATCHEWAN

;

^^cj^.photo Renewal Date: 22/09/2025

Card Issue Date. 05/10/2020

efes»B, wascitaanip* Rh-oto Renewal Date: 05/10/20251

@jj

xy-

s.:

72a

Mr. President,

September 10, 2020

As the Posterity of the United States of America by treaty and blood right, a Metis citizen living

in Canada, I believe that all women are created equal, that they are endowed by the LORD with certain

unalienable Rights, that among these are Life and Liberty free from any kind of discrimination. In

Saskatchewan, Mr. President, me, my father, and the corporation we represent sought to relieve the

suffering of minorities including Metis, Indigenous, Black Canadians, and biracials thereof. However,

Mr. President, our efforts were hindered as my father, my 19-month old sister, and I were detained by

agents and affiliates of Saskatchewan law enforcement, health authorities, courts, the law society, and

other professional associations in violation of international law.

In accordance with Saskatchewan law, an application for hebeas corpus ad subjiciendum, or

unlawful detainment, was filed on my, my father, my sister, and our affiliate's behalf and my father, our

affiliate, and I were subsequently released, but my 19-mOnth old sister is still being detained. I fear for

Our future, Mr. President, for the future of all religious and racial minorities that have a right to Life and

Liberty in the United States of America by treaty and blood right. The agents held me hostage against

my will in a maximum security prison under the guise of the Covid emergency.

The Canadian government has met our pleas for refuge with silence, Mr. President, hereby I

request your intervention as this matter now threatens two of your own, me, a Metis Citizen and our

affiliate, a Status Indian. Our Life and Liberty are in jeopardy, Mr. President, as these agents of the

Saskatchewan government have physically and psychologically tortured us on Canadian Soil. These

agents, no these terrorists seek to commit genocide against the religious and racial minorities to which

two of your own belongs.

Enclosures:

Exhibit A: U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Canada: First Nations and Native Americans

Exhibit B: Akins v. Saxbe, 380 F. Supp. 1210 (D. Me. 1974)

Exhibit C: The Jay Treaty 1794

Exhibit D: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Exhibit E: Metis Nation Saskatchewan Citizenship Verification Letter

Exhibit F: Kaysha Dery Photo ID Redacted

Exhibit G: Application for Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Highlights

Exhibit H: Originating Application for Judicial Review Highlights

Exhibit I: Documents for Service on USB Flash Drive

Regards,

Kaysha Dery

73a

First Nations and Native Americans | U.S. Embas...

https://ca.usembassy.gov/visas/first-nations-and-na...

Exhibit A

I U.S. Embassy & Consulates

v in Canada

First Nations and Native Americans

The Jay Treaty, signed in 1794 between Great Britain and the United States, provides that

American Indians may travel freely across the international boundary. Under the treaty and

corresponding legislation, Native Indians born in Canada are entitled to freely enter the United

States for the purpose of employment, study, retirement, investing, and/or immigration.

In order to qualify for these privileges, eligible persons must provide evidence of their American

Indian background to at the port of entry. The documentation must be sufficient to show the

bearer is at least 50% of the American Indian race. Generally such evidence would include either

an identification card from the Ministry of Indian and Northern Affairs or a written statement from

an official of the tribe from which you or your ancestors originate, substantiated by documentary

evidence (tribe records and civil long form birth certificate bearing the names of both parents).

Such a statement would be on the tribe’s official letterhead and should explicitly state what

percentage American Indian blood you or your parents possess, based on official records. You

should also provide photographic identification, such as a driver's license or passport, and a

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)-compliant travel document. WHTI makes special

provisions for First Nation travelers.

This is the official website of the U.S. Embassy and Consulates in Canada. External links to other Internet sites should not be

construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

1 of 1

2020-09-08, 10:16 p.m.

74a

Akins v. Saxbe, 380 F. Supp. 1210 (D. Me. 1974)::

https://Iaw.justia.com/cases/federal/district-court...

JUSTIA

Exhibit B

Laws & Legal Resources.

Akins v. Saxbe, 380 F. Supp. 1210 (D. Me.

1974)

US District Court for the District of Maine - 380 F. Supp. 1210 (D, Me. 1974)

June 20,1974

380 F. Supp. 1210 (1974)

Andrew AKINS et at., Plaintiffs,

William SAXBE et al., Defendants.

Civ. NO. 2031 N. D.

United States District Court, D. Maine, N. D.

June 20,1974.

*1211 *1212 David C. Crosby and Thomas N. Tureen, Calais, Me., Robert N. Moore, Jr., Houlton,

Me., for plaintiffs.

Peter Mills, U. S. Atty., Portland, Me., Anthony S. Borwick, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.

C., for defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE COURT

1 of 16

2020-09-08, 4:35 p.m.

75a

Akins v. Saxbe, 380 F. Supp. 1210 (D. Me. 1974)::

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-court...

That no stipulations in any treaty subsequently concluded by either of the contracting

parties with any other state or nation, or with any Indian tribe, can be understood to

derogate in any manner from the rights of free intercourse and commerce, secured by

the aforesaid third article of the treaty of amity, commerce and navigation to the

subjects of his Majesty and to the citizens of the United States, and to the Indians

dwelling on either side of the boundary line aforesaid; but that all the said persons shall

remain at full liberty freely to pass and repass by land or inland navigation, into the

respective territories and countries of the contracting parties, on either side of said

boundary line, and freely to carry on trade and commerce with each other, according to

the stipulations of the said third article of the treaty of amity, commerce and navigation.

The provision of Article III of the Jay Treaty relating to duties was incorporated in various tariff acts

until 1897, but the Article III language granting Indians the right to enter duty free was not included

in the Tariff Act of 1897, 30 Stat. 151, and it has not been included in any subsequent tariff act.

Although the exact time when duties were first charged on goods brought across the border by

Indians is not known, in 1937, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held in United States v,

Garrow, 88 F.2d 318 (C.C.P.A.), cert, denied, 302 U.S. 695, 58 S. Ct. 14, 82 L. Ed. 537 (1937), that

Article III of the Jay Treaty had been abrogated by the War of 1812, and that the right of Indians to

enter duty-free, insofar as it had been created by statute, lapsed in 1897 when the Article III

language incorporated *1214 in previous tariff acts was not renewed. Relying on the court's ruling

in Garrow, the Secretary, through the Bureau of the Customs, has been levying customs duties on

goods brought into the United States by Indians, including these plaintiffs.

Immigration officials evidently recognized a right in Canadian-born Indians to cross the

International Boundary and to remain in the United States free from the usual restrictions placed on

aliens until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 153, at which time

the Department of Labor began deporting Canadian-born Indians who had entered the country

without registering as aliens and without obtaining immigrant visas. Following a successful court

challenge to the Department's policy. United States ex rel. Diabo v. McCandless, 18 F.2d 282

(E.D.Pa.1927), aff'd, 25 F,2d 71 (3rd Cir. 1928), Congress, in 1928, enacted legislation, currently

codified (as amended) as 8 U.S.C. § 1359, which provides as follows:

Nothing in this subchapter [dealing with immigration] shall be construed to affect the

right of American Indians: born in Canada to pass the borders of the United States, but

such right shall extend only to persons who possess at least 50 per centum of blood of

the American Indian race.

4 of 16

2020-09-08, 4:35 p.m.

76a

Exhibit C

The Jay Treaty - November 19,1794

INAD Publication #QS-1355-000-EE-A2

THE JAY TREATY

1794(1)

TREATY OF AMITY COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION

Concluded November 19,1794; ratification advised by the senate with amendment June

24,1795; ratified by the President; ratifications exchanged October 28,1795; proclaimed

February 29,1796.

ARTICLES:

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

Amity.

Withdrawal of forces;

privileges of settlers.

Commerce and navigation;

duties.

Survey of the Mississippi.

St. Croix River

Indemnification by

United States.

Indemnification by Great

Britain.

Expenses.

Land tenures.

Private debts, etc.

Liberty of navigation

and commerce.

West India trade; duties.

East India trade; duties.

Commerce and Navigation.

XV.

XVI.

XVII.

XVIII.

XIX.

XX.

XXI.

XXII,

XXIII.

XXIV.

XXV.

XXIV.

XXVII.

XXVIII.

Discrimination on vessels,

imports, etc.

Consuls.

Capture or detention of

neutrals.

Contraband.

Officers passengers on

neutrals.

Pirates.

Commission from foreign

states.

Reprisals.

Ships of war.

Foreign privateers.

Prizes.

Reciprocal treatment of

citizens in war.

Extradition.

Limitation of Article

XII; ratification.

His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, being desirous, by a treaty

of amity, commerce and navigation, to terminate their difference in such a manner, as,

without reference to the merits of their respective complaints and pretentions, may be the

best calculated to produce mutual satisfaction and good understanding; and also to

regulate the commerce and navigation between their respective countries, territories and

people, in such a manner as to render the same reciprocally beneficial and satisfactory;

they have, respectively, named their Plenipotentiaries, and given them full powers to treat

of, and conclude the said treaty, that is to say:

His Britannic Majesty has named for his Plenipotentiary, the Right Honorable William

Wyndham Baron Grenville of Wotton, one of His Majesty’s Privy Council, and His Majesty's

77a

Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and the President of the said United States,

by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, hath appointed for their

Plenipotentiary, the Honorable John Jay, Chief Justice of the said United States, and their

Envoy Extraordinary to His Majesty;

Who have agreed on and concluded the following articles:

ARTICLE I.

There shall be a firm, inviolable and universal peace, and a true and sincere

friendship between His Britannic Majesty, his heirs and successors, and the United States

of America; and between their respective countries, territories, cities, towns and people of

every degree, without exception of persons or places.

ARTICLE II.

His Majesty will withdraw all his troops and garrisons from all posts and places within

the boundary lines assigned by the treaty of peace to the United States. This evacuation

shall take place on or before the first day of June, one thousand seven hundred and ninetysix, and all the proper measures shall in the interval be taken by concert between the

Government of the United States and His Majesty's Governor-General in America for

settling the previous arrangements which may be necessary respecting the delivery of the

said post: The United States in the mean time, at their discretion, extending their

settlements to any part within the said boundary line, except within the precincts or

jurisdiction of any of the said posts. All settlers and traders, within the precincts or

jurisdiction of the said posts, shall continue to enjoy, unmolested, all their property of every

kind, arid shall be protected therein. They shall be at full liberty to remain there, or to

remove with all or any part of their effects; and it shall also be free to them to sell thejr

lands, houses or effects, or to retain the property thereof, at their discretion; such of them

as shall continue to reside within the said boundary lines, shall not be compelled to become

citizens of the United States, or to a take any oath of allegiance to the Government thereof;

but they shall be at full liberty so to do if they think proper, and they shall make and declare

their election within one year after the evacuation aforesaid. And all persons who shall

continue there after the expiration of the said year, without having declared their intention of

remaining subjects of His Britannic Majesty, shall be considered as having elected to

become citizens of the United States.

ARTICLE III.

It is agreed that it shall at all times be free to His Majesty's subjects, and to the

citizens of the United States, and also to the Indians dwelling on either side of the said

(boundary line, freely to pass and repass by land or inland navigation, into the respective

territories and countries of the two parties, on the continent of America, (the country within

the limits of the Hudson's Bay Company only excepted.) and to navigate all the lakes, rivers

and waters thereof, and freely to carry on trade and commerce with each other. But it is

understood that this article does not extend to the admission of vessels of the United States

78a

instructions will be given accordingly to the Collector of the Customs where the respective

vessels are.

I have the honor to be, &c.,

GEO: HAMMOND, Esq.

TH: JEFFERSON.

ADDITIONAL ARTICLE.(8)

It is further agreed, between the said contracting parties, that the operation of so

much of the twelfth article of the said treaty as respects the trade which his said Majesty

thereby consents may be carried on between the United States and his islands in the West

Indies, in the manner and on the terms and conditions therein specified, shall be

suspended.

1796.

EXPLANATORY ARTICLE TO THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE TREATY OF NOVEMBER

19,1794, RESPECTING THE LIBERTY TO PASS AND REPASS THE BORDERS ANDTO

CARRY ON TRADE AND COMMERCE.

Concluded May 4,1796; Ratification advised by Senate May 9,1796.

Whereas by the third article of the treaty of amity, commerce and navigation,

concluded at London on the nineteenth day of November, one thousand seven hundred

and ninety-four, between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, it was

agreed that is should at all times be free to His Majesty's subjects and to the citizens of the

United States, and also to the Indians dwelling on either side of the boundary line, assigned

by the treaty of peace to the United States, freely to pass and repass, by land or inland

navigation, into the respective territories and countries of the two contracting parties, on the

continent of America, (the country within the limits of the Hudson's Bay Company only

excepted,) and to navigate all the lakes, rivers, and waters thereof, and freely to carry on

trade and commerce with each other, subject to the provisions and limitations contained in

the said article: And whereas by the eighth article of the treaty of peace and friendship

concluded at Greenvillle on the third day of August, one thousand seven hundred and

ninety-five, between the United States and the nations or tribes of Indians called the

Wyandots, Delawares, Shawanoes, Ottawas, Chippewas, Putawatimies, Miamis, Eel River,

Weeas, Kickapoos, Piankashaws, and Kaskaskias, it was stipulated that no person should

be permitted to reside at any of the towns or the hunting camps of the said Indian tribes, as

a trader, who is not furnished with a licence for that purpose under the authority of the

United States: Which latter stipulation has excited doubts, whether in its operation it may

not interfere with the due execution of the third article of the treaty of amity, commerce and

navigation: And it being the sincere desire of His Britannic Majesty and of the United States

that this point should be so explained as to remove all doubts and promote mutual

satisfaction and friendship: And for this purpose His Britannic Majesty having named for his

Commissioner, Phineas Bond, Esquire, His Majesty's Consul-General for the Middle and

Southern States of America, (and now His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires to the United

States,) and the President of the United States having named for their Commissioner,

Ojibwe, Ojibwa, Chippewa, or Saulteaux are an Anishinaabe people in what is currently

southern Canada and the northern Midwestern United States

79a

Exhibit D

United Nations

DECLARATION

on the RIGHTS

of INDIGENOUS

PEOPLES

United Nations

Article 2

Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other

peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind

of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that

based on their indigenous origin or identity.

Article 6

Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.

Article 7

1. Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and men

tal integrity, liberty and securin' of person.

2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom,

peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to

any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly

removing children of the group to another group.

80a

Article 8

1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be

subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.

2. States shail provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and

redress for:

(a) Any action, which has the aim or effect of depriving; them

of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values

or ethnic identities;

(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing:

them of their lands, territories or resources;

or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;

(d)

Any form of forced assimilation or integration;

(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite

racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

!Article 9.

Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right to belong to am

indigenous community or nation, in accordance with the traditions,

and customs of the community' or nation concerned. No discrimina

tion of any kind may arise from the exercise of such a right.

Article 10

Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or

territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and

informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after

agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with

the option of return.

Article 11

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize thencultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain,

protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of

their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts,

designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts

and literature;

2, States shall provide redress through effecti ve mechanisms, which

may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous

peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spir

itual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent

or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.

Article 22

1. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs

of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with dis

abilities in the implementation of this Declaration.1

2. States shall take measures, in conjunction with indigenous peoples,

to ensure that indigenous women and children enjoy the full protection

and guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination.

81a

Article 24

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines

and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of

their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous indi

viduals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to

all social and health services.

2, Indigenous individuals have an equal right to die enjoyment of

the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States

shall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressively

the full realization of this right.

Article 26

1. Indigenous peoples have the tight to the lands, territories and

resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or other

wise used or acquired.

2. Indigenous peoples have the light to own, use, develop and

control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by rea

son of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use,,

•as. well as those which they have otherwise acquired.

3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands,

territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with

due respect to die customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the

indigenous peoples concerned.

Article 28

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can

include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equita

ble compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which drey

have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which

have been confiscated., taken, occupied, used or damaged without

their free, prior and informed consent.

Article 33

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own iden

tity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions.

This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain

citizenship of the States in which they live.

2. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures

and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with

■.their own procedures.

82a

Article 37

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observ

ance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive

arrangements concluded with States or tlieir successors and to have

States honour and respect such treaties, agreements and other con

structive arrangements

2. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as diminishing

or eliminating the rights of indigenous peoples contained in treaties,

agreements and other constructive arrangements.

Article 38

States, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples,

shall take the appropriate measures, including legislative measures,1

to achieve die ends of this Declaration.

Article 39

Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to financial and

(technical assistance from States and through international coopera-,

.tion, for the enjoyment of the rights contained in this Declaration.

Article 40

Indigenous peoples have the right to access to arid prompt decision

through just and fair procedures for die resolution of conflicts and ;

disputes with States or other parties, as well as to effective remedies;

•for all infringements of their individual and collective rights. Such

;a decision shall give due consideration to the customs, traditions,

rules and legal systems of the indigenous peoples concerned and

international human rights..

Article 42

The United Nations, its bodies, including the Permanent Forum on,

(Indigenous Issues, and specialized agencies, including at the couth •

try level, and States shall promote respect for and full application of;

'the provisions of this Declaration and follow up the effectiveness of

this Declaration.

83a

Exhibit E

Y8R&.

'Metis

Nation

utejk 7™^ Saskatchewan

Wednesday, September 09, 2020

Dear: Kaysha Dery,

Thank you for applying for Metis Nation - Saskatchewan Citizenship (MN-S). MN-S Citizenship Registry has created

a database to register all Metis citizens through a secure, efficient, standardized and objectively verifiable process.

Applicants are required to meet the four parts of Article 10 of the Constitution of the Metis Nation - Saskatchewan.

"Metis means a person, who self identifies os Metis, is distinct from other Aboriginal peoples, is of historical Metis

Nation Ancestry and is accepted by the Metis Nation."

The four parts are as follows:

Metis means a person, who self identifies as Metis...,

The first part of the definition is met by signing a self-declaration on the Metis Citizenship application form.

Is distinct from other Aboriginal Peoples,

The second part of the definition is met by signing a letter requesting Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to check their registry to

find if the applicant.is registered as a Status Indian. In order to receive a MN-S Citizenship card an applicant cannot belong to any other

Aboriginal groups recognized in the Canadian Constitution 1982 Section 35 these groups are Indian, Inuit and Metis, They cannot be

recognized as Inuit or Indian.

Is of historical Metis Ancestry...

There must be proof of the applicant's ancestral connection to the Metis Homeland. This is demonstrated by providing a family tree

with supporting documentation. The supporting documentation must show generation to generation connection to a historic Metis

person in the historic Metis Homeland. The historical Metis homeland means the area of west central North America used and

occupied as the traditional territory of the Metis or Half breeds as they were known.

And is accepted by the Metis Nation.

The applicant can either belong to one of the Metis Locals or belong to the Metis Nation-Saskatchewan provincially.

This letter is to acknowledge that you, Kaysha Dery have self-identified as being a Metis person and have applied for

MN-S Citizenship. You, Kaysha Dery have met all the previously listed criteria and will be receiving MN-S Citizenship.

Your MN-S Citizenship number is #12188.

If you require further information or have questions about the MN-S Citizenship Registry process, please contact the

MN-S Citizenship Registry office.

Thank you,

Tammy Vallee

Registrar, MN-S Provincial Citizenship Registry

209-2121 Airport Dr. I Saskatoon, SK | S7L 6W51 Ph 306:343.83911 Tf 1.833.343.83911 Fx 306.343.8398 | Registry@mnsregistry.ca

The Metis Nation—Saskatchewan represents Metis Citizens living in Saskatchewan, As such, the MN-S strives for the political, legal and constitutional

recognition, and guarantee of the rights of Our People; including the right, to a land arid resource base, seif -government and self-government institutions.

84a

Exhibit G

Dale Richardson

From:

Attachments

Dale Richardson

July 9,2020 2:06 AM

urgent-action@ohchr.org

CP@ohchr.org

Crimes Against humanity

M icrosoft Outlook - M emo Style email june 8th 2020.pdf

Importance:

High

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Good day,

DSR Karis Consulting Inc. ("Corporation") has suffered from the systemic racism and discrimination based on

race, sex, religion, disability, and socioeconomic status in Canada and subsequent unlawful torture of its Chief

Executive Officer ("CEO"), Dale Richardson, and Chief Communication Officer ("CCO"), Kaysha Dery, in

violation of human fights and fundamental freedoms pursuant to:

The list of Human Rights abuses that are in direct violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights that Mr.

Richardson and those associated to him are being subjected to which include and are not limited to:

i. Article 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,12,17,18,19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, and 30.

This does hot include the rights of the child that Mr. Richardson's daughter is being deprived of which includes

but is not limited to the following articles of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child:

ii. Article 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,14,15,16,17,18,19, 27, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37 and 39.

The violations of Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol includes but is

not limited to:

iii. Article 4, 5, 8, 9,10,11,12,13,15,16,17,19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 30

The Corporation hereby issues a complaint on behalf of Dale Richardson, Karis Richardson, Kaysha Dery, and

other underrepresented groups including Metis, Indigenous, black Canadians, and biracials thereof against the

persons described in the events hereafter.

On Feb 16 and 17, Clifford Holm, Gary Lund, Ciprian Bolah, Dawn Lund, Mazel Holm, and Jeannie Johnston as

individuals and as representatives of the Battlefords Seventh-Day Adventist Church started the torture of Dale

Richardson and Kaysha Dery which would continue for nearly five months; many appeals were made to and

unlawfully ignored by all governance in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church including without limitation

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

and the other twelve divisions, Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada, Alberta Conference, ManitobaSaskatchewan Conference, and Battlefords Seventh-Day Adventist Church.

On June 29, Robert H. McDonald, on behalf of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of

Saskatchewan ("APEGS"), attempted to unlawfully coerce the Corporation into releasing confidential

85a

information by the misapplying of The Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act, 1997 ("EGPA") in a

demand for such information.

On June 30, the lawful activity of the Corporation was limited by the unlawful torture of its representative,

Dale Richardson. The representative was served a petition, in which alleged perjury occurred, for divorce,

custody, supervised access, child support and maintenance, guardianship over children's property, and lawyer

fees and the Court Of Queens Bench of Saskatchewan registrar of the petition was Kathleen Christopherson

and the lawyer was Patricia J. Meiklejobn of Matrix Law Group.

On July 3 and before incriminating himself for torture, Const. Burton as a representative of the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police ("RCMP") started a criminal negligence investigation on the Saskatchewan Health

Authority ("SHA") and its representatives with the Corporation as a complainant.

On July 7 and 8, Chantelle Thompson, Jennifer Schmidt, Mark Clements, Chad Gartner, Brad Appel, Ian

McArthur, Bryce Bohun, Kathy lrwin> Jason Panchyshyn, and Cary Ransome conspired with Const. Cartier as a

representative of the RCMP to limit the lawful activity of the Corporation by the torture of its representative,

Dale Richardson, and the criminal negligence of the SHA. The evidence of this conspiracy has been attached to

this email named Microsoft Outlook - Memo Style email june 8th 2020.

More information to follow.

Kind regards,

Dale Richardson, MET, TT (AB)

Chief Executive Officer

DSR KARIS Consulting INC.

North Battleford, SK

dale.richardson(5>dsrkarisconsulting.com

Tel 306 441 7010

86a

THIS FORM SHOULD BE COMPLETED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN TRAINED BY THE COURT

Cour

Finale

Internationale

International

Criminal

Court

Surname of victim

Application form for individuals

RichsrdSOfl

First and/or other names of victim

Dale James Sadat

I Any names bv which th* victim Is commonly known can be given here

Gender

Date of birth or age .46

-------------------

| th case the applicant does not know their dale of birth, approximate age can be given

Victim application number __ fm

If previoushr applied, please give the application number

Nationality _-Canadian____ „___ __________ __

Ethnic group

C.3 h b.b.630

What process is the victim applying for?

□

| Please ttefc both boxes if you want to participate in the proceedings as well as reparations In case of a conviction

0 PARTICIPATION

0 REPARATIONS (in case of a conviction)

2. What happened to the victim? Describe the events in as much detail as possible

This indudes any crime that may have been committed against family members of the vktlm and as a result of which the victim suffered harm. If you do riot have enough space tofulfy describe what happened to

you, you may use a separate piece of paper on whkh you shall append your name and signature

The attached documents will outline the history of the crimes committed. It consists primarily of emails and copies of _

text nwssa^-cbi^unications. There is also a link to video evidence and audio recoi^g^ffiaFspeairto-this"miittef.as

welirTITe^muriici^airprdvinciar'ahd federalievels^df^^the govWnmehf have'been'apprised'of^theSe"eventsT6r^6meTirfieres-well as-local,-conferencer union,-divisional and-general-conference- levels of the Seventh»Day Adventisttrfiurchr-T-heyhave-all-stood-by~in-silence,~The-footof-the-issue-started.with-religious-persecution.by-the-Seventh-Day.Adventist---------church. The members of the Battlefords Seventh-Day Adventist began to discriminate against me because of theological differences. The official teachings of the church are what is the accepted teachings as votes on by the general

conference of Seventh-Day Aaventi^r,,Ahy'teichihg> bu^ide> 6f'this 'i8 in violation of cnurch "policy and it is not reoognized"because1t"hasTiotbeen‘acceptedby1he~worldchurch:in~essence7landihose~around“me~were"targeted "because

we-heldto-the-aGcepted-teaGhingsofthe-Seventh-Day-Adventistchurch.-Moreinformationon-emailattachments. -----------

3. when did these event(s) occur?

From documentation in 2020, possibly earlier._____________________________

4. Where did these event(s) occur? . North.Bottleford. Saskatchew.30 C303d3________ ___ _

5, Who does the victim believe is responsible for these event(s)?

Will answer on the next pages

6. What type of personal harm has the victim suffered? . wji[jeSCnbe^On Jiexj^gage

Please provide a detailed description of the harm as well as the Impact on the Individual, family and community level. If a box is ticked, the corresponding harm should be detailed in the description. You may tick

more than one box. if you do not have enough space to fully describe the harm, you may use a separate piece of paper on which you shall append your name and signature

\r>

TYPES OF HARM

DESCRIPTION

[~~| PHYSICAL INJURIES

Such as (chronic) pain, .wounds, scars, omputatton toss

or limited use of o limb, body organ or function. Victims

may have also contracted Injections or diseases os a

result of the harm suffered. These may include Joss of

sight/hcaring or sexually transmitted d'ecoses, etc

g] PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM

Such as anguish, anxiety, onger, sadness, Jeor, low self

esteem vulnerability, shame, isolation, nightmares,

aggression or distance from relatives, sleeping or eating

disorders, alcohol or drug addiction, complaints or

concerns related to experiences of sexual violence,

memory loss, lack of concentration, etc.

X] LOSS OF OR OAMAGE TO PROPERTY

anguish, torture, anxiety, depression, intimidation, coercion, harassir^t7T6i^reTb'myfam^ilyand'T8 month old daughter, distance from

relativesrisolationrhelplessnessrhopelessnessrdepressionTfearr—

shame,-humiliation,-------------------------------------------------------------------loss of vehicle, tools, money

Such os the loss, aomage or destruction of the victims'

home(s) or other property Including tend!, business,

money, animals, crops, merchandise, household goods,

dothtng, car, boat, motorbike, etc

1x1 OTHER HARM

The victim may have experienced order types oj harm such

as toss of income or other support connected to livelihood,

loss offinancialprovider, lost opportunities /business,

economic; educational, famfTtal, etc), stigmatization, break

up offamily unit, Inability to work, unwanted pregnancy,

displacement gender- spedfk harm, etc

loss of income, incalculable loss of opportunities relating to substantial

torture and other such oppressive tactics that affected my ability to act

^“Cffiefwg^eutiyirofficw^T)SRKan§~C6TTsultingTnc7My”giradg§

suffered-and-elasses-had-to-be-dropped-as-a-resultr-Family-unit-has-—

been severed. More on the following pages.

2019 JOINT APPLICATION FORM V02 L (ENG] - INDIVIDUAL

87a

in the event of a conviction (and if resources are available), what form of reparations would you like to claim?

| Please see the examples listed below for potential guidance. You may Indicate multiple examples of reparations. Reparations can only be awarded in the event of a conviction

EXAMPLES OF REPARATIONS

DESCRIPTION

[JC] FINANCIAL COMPENSATION

Compensation for damages without limitation; The Human rights violations and applicable UN charter violations listed in the attached docUmWitsT'th^'iggre^iQu^psychoIogicardaimagesTesQltihg^froWthehl

and the criminal violations, and the severdamage to-human dignity:....

Refers to monetary compensation for damages. This may

tndude compensationfor material, physical or

psychological harm.

Pel RESTITUTION

rctum/reconstruction ofspedfleiost/destruaedproperty,

Refers to awards that seek to restore the victim »rhe

piece that they were,In before the commission of crimefs).This may indude the return to place ofresidence, the

the reinstatement ofprevious employment, or the

restoration of right (such os education support, etc)

[X~| REHABILITATION

>■

Refers to measures such os medical and psychological

care for wounds, sickness, disease or onyform of

psychological harm. Also refers to legal and sodaI

. services.

measures as sent to the Battlefords SPA church when informing them

of their illegal activity, return lost economic benefits resulting from iilegalactivity7all6wihgthe1awfulOp'eratibhdfallchurcfrassefs~asset

out by the official accepted church doctrines as laid out in the bible —

and the writings of Fllen White, whom is accepted hy the church_____

Medical and psychological care as prescribed with my religious values.

~Seventh-DayAdv¥htM

carein"heaiththat“alrgns"withmyreligiousbeliefs:

OTHER FORM OF REPARATIONS

establishing the truth, apologies, judicial and legal reforms to ensure

May include ony type ofaward the victim considers most

appropriate to address and repair the harm suffered. This

moyindudei Income generating activities, establishment

_»

•

_»

... ,

-h3S- H3pp606Cl-d4lfinQ -tn6 -Ci3rk-3QGS. Pf0Qf3fnS~t0- U8-@St3bliSH6Cl~tO-SUP“

port the prosperity of Black Canadians. Persons of Bi-Racial Descent.

visible minorities, disabilities, more protection from religious persecutlon. more on next page.

«r.

DOES THE VICTIM CONSENT TO PROVIDING THE PERSONAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION FORM TO THE COURT'S TRUST FUND FOR VICTIMS?

□ yes

□ no

Reparations may be dispersed through the.Court's Trust Fund for Victim* (TFV)

To be completed only if a person is acting on behalf of the victim:

cr.

1 Victim is a child

| Victim is a person with a disability

Relationship to victim _______________________________________________________________________

ji Please provide

copies of proof of Identify of Hie personacting on behalf of the vtolm and a

I Victim is an adult and gives consent

for someone to act on their behalf

Consenting victim muststgn below or attach a declaration •

please see instructions

Details of person acting on behalf of victim:

Surname

First name

Signature of person acting on behalf of the victim

Oate

Date of birth/age

jm.

Location

l/T

IN SUBMITTING THIS APPLICATION THE VICTIM ACKNOWLEDGES WITH THE SIGNATURE THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED

HEREIN IS ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF THE VICTIM’S KNOWLEDGE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE TRUTH OF ITS CONTENT

Signature of the yictim/person acting on behalf of the victim

Date

Location

2019 JOINT APPLICATION FORM V02 L (ENG] - INDIVIDUAL

88a

Personal information

If applicable, why does the victim want to participate in the Court proceedings?-------------------------------------------------------- ——______-_______—

There has been a deliberate attempt to suppress the victim from speaking. The. victim was attempt

ing to speak the truth, and it was suppressed. This is unacceptable.

Does the victim have reasons to be concerned about security, including that of his/her family, as a result of

interaction with the Court?

xf]Yes

Ino

Ifyes, please explain

information given on the another page.

10. Victim's marital status _

11.

Married

Number of children the victim has

II] Total number of dependents the victim has

12.

Specify disabilities the victim has, if any

13. Specify language(s) spoken by the victim

ADHD, Generalized anxiety disorder, Major depressive disorder

English

14.

Specify occupation the victim has, if any

Mechanical Engineering Technologist, Power of Attorney

►—

15. LEGAL REPRESENTATION:

If yes, please provide the name and contact details of the lawyer

II]

Has the victim chosen a lawyer to represent him or her in the proceedings before the Court? Q] Yes

Does the victim have financial resources to pay for a lawyer?

[□ Yes

pi NO

| X~| No

III] Does the victim have concerns being represented by a lawyer/legal team that also represents other victims in the

proceedings?

□] Yes

□] No

If yes, please explain

]

IV] Characteristics and qualities that the victim considers necessary in a lawyer representing them in the proceedings

integrity, honesty, true to duty, pursuit of the truth, value religious freedom, compassion, value for f

the magna carta.

Vl-lf thevictim is unrepresented:

QNo

Does the victim wish to choose a lawyer from the List of Counsel before the Court?

ill

^“

(an independent office of lawyers within the Court, representing victims in proceedings)

...................

Does the victim wish to be represented by a lawyer from the Office of Public Counsel for Victims at the Court?

□ Yes

CL.

.. ~

□ Yes

□ N°

2019 JOINT APPLICATION FORM V02 L [ENG] - INDIVIDUAL

89a

CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE VICTIM:

Address

1292„95th-Street.North.Battlefor.d,SK, ..Canada

S9A 0G2

Phone number(s) or other ways to contact the victim 1-306-441-4626, 1-306-441-7010

dalejsr74@outlook.com, dale.richardson@dsrkarisconsulting.com

Name of interpreter, if any_______________________ ______________________________________

Contact information of the person or organization who assisted in filling in this form (if applicable):

Surname' _____ ____________ _________ _

First name

Name of the organization (if applicable)_

Oft

Phone number(s) and email (if applicable)

Address

The following documents should be attached to this application form, as applicable. Please tick the boxes of all documents included with

this application:

*Sjjcopy of proof of identity of the victim

□ Copy of proof of identity of the person acting on behalf of the victim

□ Declaration giving consent for someone to acton behalf of the adult victim

i/i

D Copy of proof of kinship

CD Copy of medical records or other documentation that prove the personal harm suffered by the victim, including names and contacts of

individuals who could corroborate the victim's reparation claims (if relevant and immediately available at no cost to the victim)

some of this information will be contained in

the documentation attached to the email. The

rest will be supplied when permissable.

•x

2019 JOINT APPLICATION FORM V02 L [ENG] - INDIVIDUAL

90a

TITLE: WORKPLACE INCIDENT REPORTING 8c INVESTIGATIONS

X —1001 - Appendix G

Prairie North Health Region

yPrairie Norths*

Jafe*. HcxlihRcgji

OH&S WORKPLACE INCIDENT REPORT

SECTION A: To be completed by the INDIVIDUAL Worker who experienced the incident orconcem. (Worker to complete all areas and forward

to their StipervisorfManager Immediately/before end of shift!

______

_ _____________________________________ _

(Note: Harassment Incidents are to be documented on "Harassment Complaint Form", 600d(A) AppendixA

and delivered to Human Resources)

WORKER’S INFORMATION:

Job Tills:

Name:Kaysha Dery

Food Service Worker

Home Based Facility:

Sask Hospital

DepUPm' and Nutrition services

Rating where mdders occurred:

Exsci tocetfon toettem Occurred (urn. room]:

Saskatchewan

Unknown

SPECIFIC INCIDENT DETAILS:

Dale of Incident: |

t»

Reported to Immediate Supervisor:

___________D Yes H tjo______

Witnesses/Others Involved In Incident:

Treatment Provided:

IS None

| Erne of day :

Date reported: D

M__ Y

Client involved: gj no □ Yes (If Yes complete COSR)

Name of Immediate Supervisor at time of Incident:

SHA involved

□ First Aid

I □ Seen by a Healthcare provider

INJURY SUSTAINED TO: (Please Specify the Body Part Injured)

CAUSE OF INCIDENT:

□ TIR:

Specify;

□ Tmnsfcrnnp

D tiffing

□ RepostBoftlng

| DatefUme Treated/Assessed: D

Exposures

O BendmglCBrnbing/CnMlinglReaeMrtg/Twtsttng

□ Slip, Trip, Fan

O Contacttvffliotjjocts/oquipment

□ Contact wftft tot objeelsfsiibstences

□ Harmful Substancos/Envlronmems

D Ccugtit In, on, under, between

□ Repetitive

motion

□ Equipment Fstura

□ Electrical Curient

O Vlsiencc/Abu.w/Aggr«s!on

Q Hszaftfou* Chemical

□ Motor Vehicle

Accident

□ Airborne Contaminant

Q Surgical Sharps

O Olhor Sharps

O 8Jood/B<xfyFlulcM05wth8n Needs sSdi)

5 □Citefrt Q Object

Needle Stick: type & brand of device:

□ Needte stick DCtean QUsed

3 □ OtherCause of Incident (if not apeeiliedebove-descdbe):

Potential health Hazard

Give a detailed description of the Incident WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY & HOW. et *oopiease tsicn tterm psp-t»mnpmi rhh »«sc^

an. TherT&itmum reculredinfonmalbn; What taste were you doing and wiry? Were others involved in the task vrfth you? Whit happened th*i cento have or did eaase you term? Ustodsfinq

tralrtfTtq, education, safe wort practlee*, PP£ (Controls) that are In place to keep you safe in this task?

Aerosol generation procedure guidelines area potential health and safety hazard to all employees across the SHA. While this has

not caused an incident yet the potential for harm is high based on faulty information. There is attached information supplied with the

permission of DSR Karis Consulting Inc. A representative of DSR Karts Consulting Inc. and myself were at the BUH to request my

records and his and they were questioned about foe Aerosol generation procedures and they responded by stalling and then call

ing foe RCMP who did nothing. The RCMP have 4 active investigations that the SHA are implicated in. Two complaints of criminal

negligence and their agents have also been implicated In two separate Investigations of torture pursuant to section 269. When noti

fied of the Implications of its agents the SHA remained silent. This is a severe health and safety risk since it places my life in jeop

ardy. Since foe documentation provided by the SHA has incomplete information to the mixing factor, it Is impossible to determine

foe safety of Its facilities or any other health care operated by or under the jurisdiction of foe SHA. Every Union that operates within

foe SHA should bring this complaint forward as it poses a substantial risk to all employees of this union and any other as well as to

the general public. This is an extreme hazard that no worker should be subjected to. The SHA has not been forthcoming with any

Information that affects foe healthy nd^ safety of Its^workgs or the^general public. The criminal activities of foe SHA that pose asubMore on attached sheet.

WORKER RECOMMENDATIONS (to prevent a similar incident):

Only return to work when the situation is rectified, due to the significant risk that Is posed to the workers.

SAFETY ALERT/STOP THE LINE -Worker:

Was a TEAM Moment taken to add ress the safety Issue? □ Yes SB Ne If yes, who was Involved?,

Was Ihe safety issue fixed or managed? □ Yes B) No

If yes, what actions were taken?_____

If no, was the issue escalated? □ Yds Qj bo

Woiker Signature:

March 2017

QH&S-PNHRfi 149

if yes, iowhom?

Date: , ftp.? MJ&^'JLjSoLO

Page 1 of 3

91a

COURT RLE NUMBER

QBG NO. 921 OF 2020

COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN

JUDICIAL CENTRE

SASKATOON

APPLICANT

ROBERT CANNON

RESPONDENTS

ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED

POLICE; AND

SASKATCHEWAN HEALTH

AUTHORITY

AFFIDAVIT OF KAYSHA DERY

I, Kaysha Dery, in the City of Saskatoon, in the Province of Saskatchewan, swear that:

1. I am the Chief Communication Officer (CCO) at DSR Karis Consulting Inc. (the company) and

the eldest daughter and coworker of Dale Richardson (my father), and I have personal and

professional knowledge of the matters and facts deposed to in this affidavit The information set

out in this affidavit is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, except where stated to be on

information learned from someone else and where that is stated, I believe the information to be

true.

2. My father has always been a very compassionate individual with a high sense of justice which

drives his desire to help people. This caused him to champion DSR Karis Consulting Inc. and

its ideals. He saw the affects of Covid on the world and the great loss to our community and

wanted to give back based on his professional knowledge in mechanical engineering

technology.

3. My father has a wife named Kimberley Richardson and a younger daughter named Karis

Richardson. He sought to do what's necessary as any man would and protect, provide and serve

his family through his occupation. This is something that not only the community could benefit

from but something that his wife could be proud of and his two daughters could respect and

look up to. He sought to teach good morals, ethics, hard work and care for giving back to the

community through the company (See Exhibit A). He continued to focus on the best interest of

his family while establishing the company.

Page 1

92a

4. As the CCO, I was part of the following process and was privy to the information pertaining to

it. My father as a representative of t

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

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.