Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Alejandro Evaristo Perez, Petitioner v. LinkedIn Corporation

—T-U*

No.

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Alejandro Evaristo Perez,

Pro Se Petitioner

v.

Linkedln Corporation,

Responder

To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth

Circuit (#21-15234)

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

PRO SE PETITIONER:

ALEJANDRO EVARISTO PEREZ

9233 WESTHEIMER, #405

HOUSTON, TX 77063

(214) 762-0075

aleiandro.evaristo.perez@gmail.com

RESPONDER:

JASON SKAGGS, ATTORNEY

530 LYTTON AVENUE

2nd FLOOR

PALO ALTO, CA 94301

(650) 617-3226

iason.@skaggsfaucette.com

l?/7-2

1

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The

original

questions

were

“Whether

the

excommunication of an Honorable US War Veteran (and

paying customer) by Fallen Federal Judges and unpatriotic

Corporatistas for the evil Chinese Communist Party is a

California Anti’S LAPP violation or Federal Treason? And

how many thousands of Americans have to die from a CCP

bioweapon pandemic developed in the Wuhan P4 Virology

Center before Fallen Federal Judges acknowledge it as a

‘Topic of Public Issue/Interest’? And did such suppression aid

the CCP’s bioweapon pandemic further infesting and killings

thousands of Americans?”

Now,

we have

additional

questions before the US Supreme Court, because the original

questions were rejected in malice when Rule 40 (Veterans,

Seamen, and Military Cases) was violated when rejecting

multiple “Motion For Leave To Proceed As An Honorable Us

Veteran”.

Additional questions arise like “Do we need

Martial Law to enforce Rule 40 and elected real Patriotic

11

Federal Judges via a bipartisan effort?”; “Why is the US

Supreme Court hating on US War Veterans and hating on

Rule 40?”; “Why have the Fallen Judges and Traitors not

peacefully settle and simply accept the generous terms of

surrender?” The additional questions can only be answered

by US President Joseph Biden; and thus, the new questions

are technically out of the scope of the US Supreme Court.

Please note the US President Joseph Biden’s White House

has been informed of the Pro Se Party’s requests for Martial

Law.

After raising the settlement/damages/pardon to

$256BN due to the multiple “Rule 40” insults, docket

mismanagement, many failed negotiations, and US Code

violations, the Pro Se Party (the Honorable US War Veteran,

and Honorable US Army Officer) presents the original

questions via this petition to the corrupted US Supreme

Court. What will the violators of Rule 40 have to say about

the original questions? Will they have a mighty revelation,

change of hearts, and finally apologize for over 2 years?

Ill

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS

US Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit

21-15234

Alejandro Evaristo Perez, Pro Se Appellant. Linkedln

Corporation, Appellee

Date of Final Opinion: November 18, 2021

California Northern District (CAND) Federal Court

5:20-cv-07238-EJD

Alejandro Evaristo Perez, Pro Se Plaintiff v. Linkedln

Corporation, Defendant

Date of Final Opinion: February 05, 2021

Texas Southern District (TXSD) Federal Court

4:20-cv-02188

Alejandro Evaristo Perez, Pro Se Plaintiff v. Linkedln

Corporation, Defendant

Date of Final Opinion: October 7, 2020

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS

in

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

vi

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

1

OPINION BELOW

1

JURISDICTION AND INTERESTED PARTIES...... 1

STATUTES & CASES PROVISIONS INVOLVED.....2

INTRODUCTION & OATH

10

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

14

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

23

CONCLUSION

25

APPENDIX & ADMIN REQUIREMENTS

27

V

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinion by the Fallen Judges who censored the US War

Hero for the Chinese Communist Party, who used Obsolete

Case Law, and used Sex-Related case law, (November 18,

2021)

la

Opinion by the Fallen Judge Edward Davila who censored

the US War Hero for the Chinese Communist Party, who

used Obsolete Case Law, and violated the Actual Language

of the Law, (February 05, 2021)

4a

The Denial Of Combined Petition For Panel Rehearing and

Rehearing En Banc by the Fallen Judges who Censored the

US War Hero for the Chinese Communist Party, who failed

to entertained the Pro Se Plaintiff, and used Sex-Related

caselaw, (March 03, 2022)

17a

VI

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

US CODES

5 U.S.C. § 3331

2, 10, 14, 15, 25, 29

18 U.S.C. § 2381

2, 3, 6, 10, 12 - 19, 22 ■ 25

28 U.S.C. § 1654

3, 29

California C.C.P. § 425.16(a)

3 - 6, 12-23, 25

California C.C.P. § 425.16(c)

3 ■ 6, 12-23, 25

US FEDERAL CASES

Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Steve Sisolak, Et Al,

Supreme Court, No. 19A1070 (2020)

4, 5, 10, 28

Alejandro Evaristo Perez v. Linkedln Corporation,

9th Circuit, No. 21-15234 (2021)

iii, 5, 6

CAND, 5:20-cv-07238-EJD (2020)

iii, 1, 5, 21, 27

TXSD, 4:20-cv-02188 (2020)

iii, 2, 6, 27

Schneider v. TRW, Inc.,

9th Circuit, 938 F. 2d 986, 992, (1991)

5, 6, 12, 22

Vll

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

US FEDERAL CASES

Haines v. Kerner,

Supreme Court, No. 70-5025 (1972)

7, 28

Resnick v. Hayes,

9th Circuit, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (2000)

7, 28

McKinney v. De Bord,

9th Circuit, 507 F.2d 501, 504, (1974)

7, 28

Faretta v. California,

Supreme Court, No. 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

7, 8, 28

USA v. Automated Medical Laboratories,

8, 26

4th Circuit, 770 F.2d 399 (1985)

USA v. Cincotta,

1st Circuit, 689 F.2d 238, 241-42 (1982)

8, 26

State Of Oklahoma v Shriver,

US Supreme Court, No. 21-985 (2022)

8, 29

JUDICIAL RULES

Sup. Ct. R. 40

5, 9, 16, 27, 28, 29

1

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Alejandro Evaristo Perez, the Pro Se Petitioner, respectfully

petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the unjust

judgment of Fallen Federal Judges that happen to work in

the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Federal

District Court of the Northern District of California.

OPINION BELOW

The opinion of the Fallen Judges (App. la) in the Ninth

Circuit is reported at 9th Cir. 21-15234 as mentioned in the

Table of Authorities. The opinion of the district court (App.

4a) is reported at CAND 5:20-cv07238-EJD.

JURISDICTION & INTERESTED PARTIES

The Ninth Circuit entered judgment on March 03,

2022, and denied a timely combined petition for panel

rehearing and rehearing en banc on March 03, 2022 (App.

17a). This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section

1254(1) “Courts of appeals; Certiorari; Certified Questions”.

2

Alejandro Evaristo Perez is the Pro Se Petitioner. IAW US

Supreme Court Rule 29.6 “corporate disclosure statement”

on 14 August 2020 in TXSD 4:20-cv02188 with a Certificate

of Service, the Responder, Linkedln Corporation, declared

that it is a Delaware corporation that is a wholly-owned

subsidiary

of Microsoft

Corporation,

a publicly-held

corporation. Microsoft has no parent company, and no

publicly held corporation owns more than 10% of its stock.

STATUTES & CASES PROVISIONS INVOLVED

5 U.S.C. § 3331

Military Officer Oath

“support and defend the Constitution of the United

States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”

18 U.S.C. § 2381

Treason

“giving enemies aid and comfort within the United

States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall

3

suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five

years and fined under this title but not less than

$10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office

under the United States.”

28 U.S.C. § 1654

Appearance personally or by Counsel

“In all courts of the United States, the parties may

plead and conduct their own cases personally or by

counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively,

are permitted to manage and conduct cause therein.”

California C.C.P. § 425.16(a)

California’s Anti-SLAPP Law (a)

“ ... The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the

public interest to encourage continued participation in

matters of public significance,

and that this

participation should not be chilled through abuse of

the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be

4

construed broadly.” [same legal text as the 2015

version]

California C.C.P. § 425.16(e)(3)&(4)

California’s Anti-SLAPP Law (e)(3)&(4)

“As used in this section, ‘act in furtherance of a

person’s right of petition or free speech under the

United States or California Constitution in connection

with a public issue’ includes^ ... (3) any written or

oral statement or writing made in a place open to the

public or a public forum in connection with an issue of

public interest, or (4) any other conduct in furtherance

of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or

the constitutional right of free speech in connection

with a public issue or an issue of public interest.”

[same legal text as the 2015 version]

Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Steve Sisolak, EtAl,

Supreme Court, No. 19A1070 (2020)

5

“This is a case about the CCP’s COVTD19 bioweapon

pandemic and the Supreme Court denying a request

from Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley to hold religious

services on the same terms as other facilities in the

state (such as casinos). The Court intervene due to

‘Public Safety’ to reduce the

CCP bioweapon

pandemic’s dead tolls.” Also, approved format for

booklets. Odd format violates margins of Rule 33(c),

yet the petition was accepted by the US Supreme

Court on July 08, 2020 and requested to be responded

to on July 09, 2020 by the Fallen Justice Kagan, who

is a Rule 40 violator (Veterans, Seamen, and Military

Cases). Original Petitions followed this format.

Alejandro Evaristo Perez v. Linkedln Corporation,

9th Circuit, No. 21-15234 (2021)

CAND, 5:20-cv-07238-EJD (2020)

“Pro Se Party appeals Judge’s 2015 California AntiSLAPP Decision due to both substantive flaws and

6

procedural flaws like

obsolete case, law,

gross

misrepresentation of the law, flawed arguments,

avoided addressing the CCP’s COVID19 bioweapon

pandemic as a topic of public interest, and incorrect

motion usage. The Fallen Judges’ PREJUDICE and

these corrupt actions can constitute Federal Treason

for both Fallen Judges and unpatriotic Defendants.”

TXSD, 4:20-cv-02188 (2020)

“The excommunication of an Honorable US Military

Officer from a Social Media Platform on behalf of the

Chinese Communist Party is not ‘Free of Speech’

violation, because the US Constitution limits the US

Federal Government, not US Corporations, even if

COVID19 bioweapon pandemic was created by the

Chinese Communist Party as part of the ‘Unrestricted

Warfare’ Multi Domain Doctrine.”

Schneider v. TRW, Inc.,

9th Circuit, 938 F. 2d 986, 992, (1991)

7

“4 Elements Criteria for Intentional Infliction of

Emotional Distress (IIED). (l) the defendant must act

intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct

must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct

must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.”

Haines v. Kerner,

Supreme Court, No. 70-5025 (1972)

“Pro Se Party’s pleadings, requests, and motions

should be entertained by all Federal Judges.”

Resnick v. Hayes,

9th Circuit, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (2000)

“Pro Se Party must be construed liberally.”

McKinney v. De Bord

9th Circuit, 507 F.2d 501, 504, (1974)

“Every reasonable or warranted factual inference in

the Pro Se Party favor.”

Faretta v. California

Supreme Court, No. 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

8

“Pro Se Parties (ex. criminal defendants) have both a

constitutional

and

statutory

right

to

self­

representation in any Federal Court.”

USA v. Automated Medical Laboratories,

4th Circuit, 770 F.2d 399 (1985)

“parent corporations can be convicted of subsidiary’s

actions, even in attempts to disassociate or escapegoat employees.”

USA v. Cincotta,

1st Circuit, 689 F.2d 238, 241-42 (1982)

“criminal liability imposed on the corporations where

the agents are acting within the scope of his

employment.”

State Of Oklahoma v Shriver,

US Supreme Court, 21-985 (2022)

Sample format booklet offered by US Supreme Clerk

Redmond Barnes to follow on 30 November 2022. The

9

US Supreme Court has accepted other formats is proof

of corruption and violations of Pro Se caselaw.

Sup. Ct. R. 40

Rule 40. Veterans, Seamen, and Military Cases.

“A veteran suing under any provision of the law

excepting veterans from the payment of fees or court

costs, may proceed without prepayment of frees or

costs of furnishing security therefore and may

(optional) file a motion for leave to proceed on

papers...”. Pro Se Party is an Honorable US War

Veteran and an Honorable US Army Officer, and filed

two motions! which the Court intentionally rejected

and insulted the US War Hero.”

The Table of Authorities and the above are a snapshot and

synopsis as a reminder to our Supreme Court Justices of

following Statutes, Rules, and Case Law. To be fair, the Pro

Se Petitioner will mention that the Pro Se Petitioner

removed the Responder’s obsolete caselaw and Fallen

10

Judges’ “out of scope” caselaw in order to facilitate the

communication and avoid their legal ruses. It is very

offensive to cite “sex-related” caselaw when this case is about

an excommunication of an Honorable US War Veteran on

behalf of CCP when warning about the CCP’s bioweapon

pandemic that is killing thousands of Americans and

infesting millions more, which is the topic of public interest.

It would be ideal to talk about caselaw that is relate to

COVID19 bioweapon from the P4 Wuhan Laboratory like

recent “Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Steve Sisolak, Et

Al, Supreme Court, No. 19A1070 (2020).”. The Supreme

Court intervene in the name of “Public Safety”, so

why

not our Federal case?

INTRODUCTION & OATH

On May of 2020, the Responder committed treason

against the Pro Se Petitioner (a US Army Officer with an

ETS for the year of 2059; and an Honorable War Veteran)

11

when destroying the Pro Se Petitioner’s Linkedln Profile on

behalf of the evil Chinese Communist Party in order to stop

any criticism and warnings of the COVID19 bioweapons

created by Peter Daszak, a DARPA-Grant Reject, with the

financial assistant from Anthony Fauci (NIH director) and

the CCP’s P4 Wuhan Virus Laboratory. As of 01 December

2022, the COVID19 bioweapon created by Peter Daszak

within the CCP territory has killed over 6.6 million civilians!

and thus, a “Topic of Public Issue” and “National Security”

in US soil. In the US alone, the CCP’s COVID19 bioweapon

pandemic has killed over 1,088,349 American Citizens and

infested over 98,673,988 American Citizens.

The Pro Se

Petitioner is a cool US Army Officer, Honorable War Veteran

with a good heart, and, by coincidence, also a DARPA-Grant

Reject for “Ghosts Invisibility Program: Invisible Equipment

via Mesh Video Streaming for Invisible Cloaks, Armors,

Drones, and Vehicles” as part of a modern military multi

domain doctrine (BAA - HR001118S0028 # FP-30). American

12

Author Mark Twain did claim that the “truth is stranger

than fiction”. For those reasons, our good hearted Pro Se

Petitioner

prefers

to

“construed

broadly”

the

new

California’s Anti-SLAPP Law claims as peaceful civic

remedy and avoid hurting unpatriotic unethical treasonous

Americans (the Responder and our Fallen Judges). Thus,

treasonous Responder violated the new California’s AntiSLAPP Law (e)(3) & (4) by excommunicating the Pro Se

Petitioner's Linkedln account on behalf of the evil Chinese

Communist Party. The Responder’s treacherous actions are

the reasons the Pro Se Petitioner claimed the new

California’s Anti-SLAPP Law violations with “Intentional

Infliction of Emotion Distress” (IIED) as the “Course of

Action” as a civic remedy. The IIED claims are based on 4

Elements Criteria set in “SCHNEIDER V. TRW, INC.”. On

November of 2020, our Fallen Judge Canby, our Fallen

Judge Tashima, and our Fallen Judge Miller affirmed the

our Fallen Judge Davila’s Federal Decision of favoring the

13

treacherous Responder’s case based on obsolete law, obsolete

case law, flipping narratives, displaying complete disregard

for actual language of the law, openly violated the “shall be

construed broadly’ mandate in the new 2015/2022 AntiSLAPP laws, and technically cheating the Pro Se Petitioner

from a peaceful civic resolution. How far have our Fallen

Judges lowered themselves? Regardless of the treasonous

Responder’s excellent legal rhetoric (the art of persuading

Judges by telling them what they want to hear, instead of

what is morally right and just), the end result is still the

destruction and excommunication of the Pro Se Responder’s

Linkedln Profile on behalf of the evil Chinese Communist

Party, which is fundamentally wrong. It is true that

harming,

excommunicating,

and

denying

services

to

Honorable American Heroes or any American in US soil on

behalf of the evil Chinese Communist Party is wrong. If the

Fallen Judge William C. Canby, the Fallen Judge Atsushi

Tashima, our Fallen Judge Eric D. Miller, and Fallen Judge

14

Edward J. Davila continue to fail the “shall be construed

broadly’ mandate required in the new California AntiSLAPP laws and continue to use illegal ruses (ex. quoting

obsolete case law from 2006), then the Pro Se Petitioner will

be force to recommend to any Federal District Attorney

Office enforce the US Code 18 Section 2381 “Treason” to all

and any parties who showed PREJUDICE and agreed in

aiding the enemies of the United States of America in

excommunication activities. What else is an US Army Officer

with an ETS of 2059 supposed to do with arrogant CCP

saboteurs regardless of civic post? In 2009 and as

commissioned by the President of the United States Barack

Obama, the Pro Se Petitioner pledged the Oath of

Commissioned Officers. Pro Se Party is fulfilling his Oath.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On 23 NOV 2021, the Pro Se Petitioner politely

petitioned our unethical Responder, Fallen Judge Canby,

15

our Fallen Judge Tashima, our Fallen Judge Miller, and our

Fallen Judge Davila via petition of en bank and for panel

rehearsing. The petition offered another chance of a positive

change of heart, align with the new California Anti-SLAPP

laws, and to apologize to their cool US Army Hero.

Otherwise, the Pro Se Petitioner will be forced by sacred oath

to hand any treacherous parties to the Federal District

Attorney Offices to enforce the US Code 18 Section 2381

“Treason”, since he has been in oppression for over 700 days

on behalf of the CCP. Those horrible actions are unpatriotic,

offensive, and, above all, Federal treason.

Instead of

apologizing, on 03MAR2022, the Fallen Judges fell to lower

standards by voting the denial of the petitions and refusing

change their treasonous decisions. Those treasonous action

can constitute aiding the CCP bioweapon pandemic and

disinformation IAW with ‘Unrestricted Warfare” Multi

Domain Doctrine. USAF Ret. General Robert Spalding

address the CCP’s military doctrine in his Amazon book,

16

“Stealth War” (2019), which includes censorship in US soil

via bribing US Corporations and even retaliating against US

celebrities that accepted the existence of Taiwan as an

Independent Republic. IAW United States Court Of Appeals

For The Ninth Circuit's "After Opening Your Appeal What

You Need to Know PRO SE Appeals Guide (December 2019

edition), the Pro Se Petitioner has 90 days from that denial

order or new decision to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to

hear the case via Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Pro Se

Petitioner did so with the time frames repeatable only to be

insulted with Rule 40 violations, US Code violations, caselaw

violations, and docket mismanagement. Therefore, our brave

Pro Se Petitioner provides a Notice of Petition for Writ of

Certiorari to our sad Fallen Judges, who refused to change

their dark hearts. The Pro Se Petitioner requests the

resignation of our Fallen Judges, continues to offer to

peacefully settle, and places the question of “California AntiSLAPP Laws and Federal Treason?”on the hands of the

17

unreliable Supreme Court, who self-proclaim that they are

the brightest minds of the Land when their actions prove

otherwise. The Pro Se Party is open to Martial Law, because

he is enraged the oppression (IIED) and the illegal ruses.

CHOICE l: California Anti-SLAPP Law Violation (e)

3 & 4? The Pro Se Petitioner is assuming that he is talking

with the brightest minds in the Land, so let’s focus get down

to business. What are the PROS and CONS that Californians

have with their new Anti-SLAPP Laws? So... let’s do some of

that “shall be construed broadly” mandated by our

Californianos? Especially when compared to Texas AntiSLAPP laws, which are very strict in scope. Yes, only about

“Motions to Strike” for Texans and thus jailed already for

treason by such treasonous actions.

PROS of California Anti-SLAPP Laws: (l) Happier

Informed Californians, because they technically have the

best “Free Speech” Tort Defense Armory regard Public

Issues; (2) Less unpatriotic Californians in Federal jails for

18

treason, because these laws are an alternative tort remedy

to Federal crime of treason. This benefit is technically why

the Responder and the Fallen Judges are not in jail right now

by the DAs. So yeah, it’s a real benefit for them are currently

experiencing) (3) Increase Efficiency of California Courts by

removes Censorship-Focus lawsuits (lawsuits meant to chill

free speech and create chaos over free speech).

(4)

Californians can be proud they are leading the Free World

with the highest standards of Free Speech in protection and

administrative cleansing in order to focus on more important

topics.

CONS of California Anti’SLAPP Laws: (l) Lack of

Enforcement. Laws are only work when enforced. The Fallen

Judges in California do not want to enforce their own new

Anti-SLAPP laws due to monetary concerns, lack of

patriotism, and due to catering to unethical corporatists,

instead of been faithful to their own high standards. (2) Open

Scones confuses lesser minds. The multiple declarations,

19

“shall be construed broadly” mandate, and “Topics of Public

Interest” in the new California Anti-SLAPP Laws are very

open in scope and open to interpretations, which can create

confusion for lesser minds. In comparison, Texas AntiSLAPP laws are strictly in scope and confined to “Motions to

Strike”, which is the false argument that the Responder and

the Fallen Judges are making to the detriment of the new

California Anti-SLAPP laws. Lesser minds that are confused

on “open scopes” will swim to familiar shores. However, the

Responder and Fallen Judges failed, because they are

comparing a cheap row boat to a luxury yacht. Will the

Fallen Judges make all Californians trade their luxury

yachts for cheap row boats in the “Seas of Treason”?

Anti-SLAPP Law Topics Avoided: The 2015 and 2022

California Anti-SLAPP Laws are practically the same

regarding Section 425.16(a) and (e). Our beloved Californios

could have changed their Anti-SLAPP Laws and try to mimic

the Texan’s Anti-SLAPP Laws, but did not. Our Californians

20

doubled'down on “shall be construed broadly” in both the

2015 version and the 2022 version against the Fallen Judges.

The Responder and the Fallen Judges intentionally ignoring

the 10 points below.

1.

Attacking US Customers in US soil on behalf of

the enemies of the United States is fundamentally

wrong and dangerous to all Americans.

2.

Anti-SLAPP Laws changed in 2015 and 2022,

which supersede prior laws and supersede obsolete

caselaw. In fact, the Californians Legislation keep the

same language of the law with its "Construe Broadly"

mandate.

3.

The Responder quoted the obsolete version of

Anti-SLAPP Laws and obsolete cases to attack

Appellant’s 2015 & 2022 Anti-SLAPP Claims.

4.

“Motions to Dismiss” does not equal “Motion to

Strike”.

21

5.

The Responder filed the wrong motion (a

Motion to Dismiss) citing "Anti-SLAPP are Motions to

Strike" false logic. The Petitioner claims are still alive.

6.

The multiple motions in CAND District Court

Docket validate that the Petitioners logic of "AntiSLAPP Law Armory" with multiple declarations and

“Open Scope” mandate of "Construe Broadly".

7.

This Case is a “Matter of 1st Impression”

regarding the new Anti-SLAPP Summary Judgement

with a real Public Issue of a Global Pandemic.

8.

The new Anti-SLAPP "Language of the Law"

and its “Open Scope” mandate of "Construe Broadly"

are above the Responder's obsolete caselaw, “Only a

Motion to Strike” misinterpretations, and false limits.

9.

The District Court Judge ignored obvious facts,

limited the new California Anti-SLAPP laws, and

jeopardized US National Security.

22

10.

IIED - Intentional censoring of US military

communities to help the enemies of the United States

to facilitate a global pandemic does exceed all bounds

tolerated by a civilized society based on “SCHNEIDER

V. TRW, INC.”.

CHOICE 2- Federal Treason? If excommunicating an

Honorable US War Veteran for the evil Chinese Communist

Party is not a violation of the new California AntrSLAPP,

then the other option is Federal treason, which is the scope

of Criminal Law. If the Supreme Court agrees that the

wrongful actions by the unethical Responder and the Fallen

Judges are treason by aiding the evil Chinese Communist

Party during a bioweapon deployment via censorship of

Honorable US War Heroes warning about the CCP’s

bioweapon pandemic, then the Pro Se Petitioner will hand

the traitors to the District Attorneys to be prosecuted under

Criminal Law.

23

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The US Supreme Court may want to avoid the jailing

4 Fallen Judges and (x) number of unpatriotic Corporatistas

(starting with Ryan Roslansky, the CEO of Linkedln) for

treason while simultaneously reinforcing New California

Anti'SLAPP Laws, which is currently the Free World’s “Free

Speech” highest standards and most diverse Tort Armory

regard Public Issues and Topics of Public Interest. IF THE

SUPREME

COURT

DENIES

THIS

RIGHTEOUS

PETITION. THE PRO SE PETITIONER WILL ASSUME

THAT THE UNETHICAL RESPONDER AND THE

FALLEN

JUDGES’

WRONGFUL

ACTIONS

ARE

FEDERAL TREASON. THAT THE SUPREME COURT

DOES NOT WANT TO WASTE THEIR TIME ON

TRAITORS. AND THAT THE PRO SE HAS EVERY RIGHT

TO HAND THE TRAITORS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS TO BEGIN CRIMINIAL

24

PROSECUTION FOR TREASON ON TREASONOUS US

CIVILIANS. If the Supreme Court is uncomfortable with

choices presented, then please take your grievances to US

President Joe Biden and/or US President Barack Obama

who commissioned the Pro Se Petitioner as a US Army

Military Officer in 2009 with an ETS date of 2059. US

Senator

John

Cornyn

(Texas

Republican)

[Dallas_Office@cornyn.senate.gov] and US Congresswoman

Lizzie

Fletcher

(Texas

[Fletcher.Office@mail.house.gov]

Democrat)

have

been

informed

regarding Linkedln’s oppressive activities and our sad

Fallen Judges, since they are the Petitioners’ civilian

jurisdictional leadership due to current location (Houston,

TX - District 7). The DAs (ex. Kim Ogg, Dan Satterberg, Jeff

Rosen,

George

Gascon)

da@dao.hctx.net,

jrosen@dao.sccgov.org, and

have

been

inform

via

smckee@redmond.gov,

25

prosecuting.Attorney@kingcounty.gov,

and

info@da.lacounty.gov.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court has to decide on the “California

Anti’SLAPP Law violation or Federal Treason?” question.

Did the Responder and Fallen Judges commit Federal

Treason or a California Anti'S LAPP Law violation when

excommunicating our Heroic Pro Se Petitioner for the evil

Chinese Communist Party and aided the CCP bioweapon

pandemic? If the petition is denied, the Pro Se Petitioner

will assume the correct choice is Federal Treason and

demand the jailing of the Fallen Judges and treasonous

Responders’ stakeholders as required by US Military Officer

Oath, Presidential Commission, and vows to God, the

Creator of the Universe. After all, God, the Presidents of the

United States of America, and the vow of the US Military

Officer Oath are above the Fallen Judges and unpatriotic

26

Responders.

Ideally, the Responders and Fallen Judges

would apologize profusely, resign, never hold office, return

the Pro Se Petitioner’s Linkedln Account with all 7,000

consenting contacts, and reward the Pro Se Petitioner the

$256BN check for his patience, coolness, and good-heart. Or

$128BN for 50 years in jail for excommunicated an

Honorable US Army Officer for the evil Chinese Communist

Party and intentionally aiding the CCP’s bioweapon

pandemic that has killed millions. 100 years in jail if no

reparations are provided. In accordance with “USA V.

AUTOMATED MEDICAL LABORATORIES” 770 F.2d 399

[1985] and “USA V. CINCOTTA”, 689 F.2d 238, 241-42

[1982], the list of traitors with criminal liability as follows:

Linkedln

Corporation,

Microsoft

Corporation

(Parent

Company who failed to correct subsidiary), Traitor Ryan

Roslansky

(Linkedln’s

CEO),

Traitor

Satya

Nadella

(Microsoft’s CEO), Traitor Bill Gates (Microsoft’s Cofounder

[1st employee] with Microsoft Shares), Traitor Jason Skaggs

27

(evil legalist), Traitor Steve J. Mitby (evil legalist), Traitor

Megan Bibb Rapp (evil legalist), Traitor Edward J. Davila

(Fallen Judge), Traitor Atsuchi Tashima, Traitor Eric D.

Miller (Fallen Judge), and Traitor William C. Canby (Fallen

Judge). The Rule 40 Violators should immediately resign to

avoid similar dark fates of traitors. The Pro Se Petitioner

provides safe passage if taken.

APPENDIX & ADMIN REQUIREMENTS

Any Appendixes and additional documents are the

different decisions and administrative items are in uploaded

in the Ninth Circuits’ PACER-CM/ECF System and other

cases associated in the CAND and TXSD. The Pro Se

Petitioner requires the US Supreme Court to obey our US

Codes, our US Supreme Court Rules, caselaws, and in the

Table of Authorities. All Pro Se Party’s petitions, pleadings,

requests, and motions should entertained by all Federal

Judges, which is the Pro Se Party’s Constitutional and

28

Statutory Right. These “Pro Se Friendly” case law (Haines v.

Kerner,' Resnick v. Hayes! McKinney v. De Bordi Faretta v.

California)

and

waivers

includes

all

paperwork,

administrative requirements, docketing, and processing.

These case law includes applies to US Supreme Court Rule

29 “Filing and Service of Documents! Special Notifications!

Corporate Listing”! Rule 33.2 “Document Preparation:

Booklet Format! 8 1/2 - by 11 inch Paper Format”, Rule 34

“Document Preparation: General Requirements”, and the

use of Rule 40 “Veterans, Seamen, and Military Cases” to

comply for Rule 38 “Fees” and Rule 43 “Costs”. The petition

meets the limits of the “under 40 opaque, unglazed white

pages” with around 4,904 words IAW Rule 33. Appendices

updated IAW Court’s September 20, 2022 feedback to match

previously approved appendices of match "CALVARY

CHAPEL

DAYTON VALLEY V

STEVE

SISOLAK"

(19A1070) format which violates margins of rule 33(c), yet

the petition was accepted by the US Supreme Court on July

29

08, 2020 and requested to be responded to on July 09, 2020

by the Fallen Justice Kagan, who is a Rule 40 violator. The

Pro Se Party and Court communicated on November 14,

2022 regarding uploading the petition, but Court failed

without real feedback. On 30 November 2022, the Court

violated US Code Title 28, § 1654 by denying the Pro Se

Party access to file on their own Federal docket and

attempting to change formats via “State Of Oklahoma v

Shriver” booklet sample. The Pro Se Party tries to comply.

As required by US Supreme Court Rule 33.2, the

original of any such document shall be signed by the party

proceeding Pro Se or under any other applicable federal

statute (ex. Title 5 U.S. Code 3331 “Military Officer Oath”).

God bless America,

By:

Alejandro EvarisK) Perez

PRO SE

Date

TITIONER, US VETERAN, ARMY OFFICER,

AUTHOR, INNOVATOR, MAN AFTER GOD’S HEART