Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Diana Ingrid Reismann Sexton, Petitioner v. Fort Bend County, Texas, et al.

Supreme Court briefJul 17, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No.

3fn tlje Supreme Court of tfje Unttefc States

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

CASE 23-0838 HONORABLE TEXAS SUPREME COURT

CASE 14-23-00411-CV HONORABLE FOURTHEENTH

COURT OF APPEALS

CASE 22-DCV-296547 240th DISTRICT COURT

Diana Reismann Sexton,

Petitioner

1795 N. Fry Rd., # 249

Katy, Texas, 77449

346-479-5453

dianareismann@gmail.com

Attorney Salvatore LoPiccolo,

for Fort Bend County et al.

Respondent

401 Jackson St. 3rd floor

Richmond, Texas 77469-3110

281-341-4555

Sal.lopiccolo@fortbendcounvtx.gov

FILED

JUL 1 7 2024

OFEJC

THE

<MTf

RECEIVED

JUL 2 3 202^

ffilPRFME COURT LLSt

II. QUESTIONS OF THE CASE

1) May a case demanding relief to a dual citizen with

dominant nationality as an alien and her child, injured

by US naturals who committed tortures, fraud and

violations of international treaties such as the

Convention Against Torture, Tortures under U.S.C.18

§2340A, Alien Tort statue 28 U.S.C. § 1350, violation of

the Vienna Convention, Monell U.S.C. 18 §1983, Qui

Tam claims 18 U.S.C. § 286, 18 U.S.C. § 287, 31 U.S.C. §

3729 et seq; when the cruel and unusual punishment

was committed by more than twenty-one Fort Bend

County employees into an extraterritorial jurisdiction of

Houston area, without a clear government, be partially

dismissed for sovereign immunity after the County

Court produced a tampered a court order and fraudulent

proceeding?

2) Is United States considered a foreign state under

international treaties and U.S.C. 28 § 1605—1607 in the

case of a legal migrant from other nation who is

tortured, deprived of her own child and property by U.S.

naturals government employees, right after a legal

migrant naturalized in the receiving nation but remains

dual citizen with dominant nationality as an alien?

3) Can an Associate Judge of a County hear a case when

United States committed a jus cogens to be elicit a

violation of international rights to the UN Convention

Against Torture for abusive and fraudulent actions

against both jus soli of other nation by Fort Bend

County, Texas government employees, or the case it

should be transferred to Federal Court?

IV. LIST OF PARTIES

Diana Reismann Sexton, Petitioner Pro se litigant

1795 N. Fry Rd. # 249, Katy, TX 77449

Mobile phone 346-479-5453 dianareismann@gmail.com

Attorney Salvatore LoPiccolo, for Fort Bend County et al. Respondent

401 Jackson St. 3rd floor, Richmond, Texas 77469-3110

Work phone 281-341-4555 Sal.lopiccolo@fortbendcounvtx.gov

V. RELATED CASES

23-0838 filed in the Honorable Supreme Court of Texas

14-23-00411- CV filed in the Honorable Fourteenth Court of Appeals

22-DCV-296547 filed in the 240th Fort Bend County District Court of Texas

VI. TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER OF THE CASE

II.

QUESTIONS OF THE CASE Rule 14.1.(a).....................

III.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE Rule 14.(g) (i)......

IV.

LIST OF PARTIES OF THE CASE Rule 14.1.(b)(i)........

RELATED CASES.............................................................

VI.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Rule 14.1.(c).............................

VII.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Rule 14.1.(c).......................

..5, Appendix A, C

VIII. OPINIONS AND ORDERS IN THE CASE Rule 14.1.(d)

.Appendix A

IX.

JURISDICTION Rule 14.1.(e)...........................................

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND TREATIES Rule 14.1.(£).5, 6, 7, 8

XI.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Rule 14. l.(g)

XII.

ARGUMENT OF THE CASE Rule 14.1.(h)..

12 to 31

XIII. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI Rule 14.1.(h)..31

XIV. CONCLUSION..........................................................................

XV.

PROOF OF SERVICE...............................................................

XVI. APPENDIX................................................................................

XVII. OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES WASHINGTON DC 20543, GUIDE

FOR PROSPECTIVE INDIGENT PETITIONERS FOR

WRITS OF CERTIORARI, AFFIDAVIT AND

PETITION.......................................................................

XVIII. MISCELANEOUS Rulel4.1.(h)(vi)...............................

XVI INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Honorable Fourteenth Court of Appeals, dismissal August 29th, 2023, by Panel

Consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant. Opinion delivered Per Curiam,

Memorandum Opinion and Mandate to the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County.

APPENDIX B- Judge Surendran Patel and Judge O’Neil Williams tampered court

order of the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County of Texas, partial dismissal,

originally was signed only by Judge Surendran Patel on January 4th, and Judge O’Neil

Williams added his signature on January 12th, 2023, with the whole order changed. Of

what he verbally ordered to be changed.

'•

M \

APPENDIX C- Honorable Fourteenth Court of Appeals Index and letters back and forward

on regard.of the existence of Court Reporter Records requested by petitioner and denied by

court District Court 240th. The Clerks statements are inconsistent on regard of informing

that they have the Court Reporter Records and then they do not have it and insisting with

the payment for such records with a sworn statement of indigency filed in the lower court.

APPENDIX D: Honorable Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Response to Motion to Subpoena

Duces Tecum to 240th Court to provide court reporter records, dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction, August 29th, 2023, by Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and

Poissant.

APPENDIX E: Honorable Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Memorandum Opinion denied

prior brief was filed August 29th, 2023, by Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer,

and Poissant. Opinion delivered Per Curiam, Memorandum Opinion and Mandate

to the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County.

APPENDIX E: Honorable Supreme Court of Texas, Notice of Petition of review filed

request of response November 07th, 2023.

APPENDIX F- Honorable Supreme Court of Texas, Motion for re-hearing denied, April

19th, 2024.

APPENDIX G- Honorable Texas Supreme Court, Certification of true and correct

copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas for Petition for Review, denied on

March 1st, 2024, and Motion to exceed word count is granted.

Motion for Rehearing of Petition for Review, denied on April 19th, 2024, signed by

the Honorable Supreme Court of Texas Clerck Blake A. Hawthorne, April 19th,

2024.

V. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain..

Doe v. Qi

Filartiga v. PenaTrala, 577 F. Supp. 860 (E.D.N.Y. 1984)

Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 59 (1996)

Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 345 (1880)

C. Wright, The Law of Federal Courts § 48 (4th ed. 1983). 3. 209 U.S. 123 (1908)

Ex parte Young, “ ifgovernment officials attempt to enforce an unconstitutional law,

sovereign immunity does not prevent people whom the law harms from suing those

officials in their individual capacity for injunctive relief’

McDONOUGH v. SMITH No. 18-485. Argued April 17, 2019—

Decided June 20, 2019898 F. 3d 259, reversed and remanded JUSTICE

SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner Edward

McDonough alleges that respondent Youel Smith fabricated evidence

and used it to pursue criminal charges against him. McDonough was

acquitted, then sued Smith under 42 U. S. C. $1983. The courts below,

concluding that the limitations period for McDonough’s fabricated

evidence claim began to run when the evidence was used against him,

determined that the claim was untimely. We hold that the limitations

period did not begin to run until McDonough’s acquittal, and therefore

reverse.

SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST v. DRIEHAUS 525 Fed. Appx. 415,

reversed and remanded No. 13—193. Argued April 22, 2014—

Decided June 16, 2014

JUSTICE Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioners in

this case seek to challenge an Ohio statute that prohibits certain

“false statements” during the course of a political campaign. The

question in this case is whether their pre-enforcement challenge to

that law is justiciable—and in particular, whether they have alleged

a sufficiently imminent injury for the purposes of Article III. We

conclude that they have.

Petitioners in this case have demonstrated an injury in fact sufficient

for Article III standing. We accordingly reverse the judgment of the

United States Court ofAppeals for the Sixth Circuit and remand the

case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including a

determination whether the remaining Article III standing

requirements are met. It is so ordered,

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DAVID

THOMPSON, ETAL., v. HEATHER HEBDON, Executive Director of

the Alaska Public Offices Commission, ETAL. No. 19—122. Decided

November 25, 2019 on petition for writ of certiorari to the united

states court of appeals for the ninth circuit PER CURIAM. Alaska law

limits the amount an individual can contribute to a candidate for

political office, or to an election-oriented group other than a political

party, to $500 per year. Alaska Stat. §15.13.070(b)(1) (2018).

Petitioners Aaron Downing and Jim Crawford are Alaska residents.

In 2015, they contributed the maximum amounts permitted under

Alaska law to candidates or groups of their choice but wanted to

contribute more. They sued members of the Alaska Public Offices

Commission, contending that Alaska’s individual-to-candidate and

individual-to-group

contribution

limits

violate

the First

Amendment.in light of all the foregoing, the petition for certiorari is

granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the

case is remanded for that court to revisit whether Alaska’s

consistent

with

our First

are

contribution

limits

Amendment precedents. It is so ordered... 15

No. 21-908 US Writ of Certiorari 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). “There is

no doubt that fraud requires intent. The question in this case is

whose intent counts”, a “willful and malicious injury bv the debtor to

another entity or to the property of another entity, ” id. § 523(a)(6);

and Section 523(a)(2)(A) carves out from the rule of discharge debt

“for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or

refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained bv fraud.” 11 U.S.C. §

523(a)(2)(A). The question, of course, is whose fraud counts. If the

rest ofsection 523is any indication, it must be that of the “individual

debtor” herself.

City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389-90 (1989.) a

municipality is liable for failure to train its police force where the

plaintiffproves that the municipality acted recklessly, intentionally,

or with gross negligence, and that the lack of training was so reckless

or grossly negligent that deprivation ofpersons’ constitutional rights

“JUSTICE WHITE delivered

was substantially certain to result.

the opinion of the Court. In this case, we are asked to determine if a

municinalitv can ever be liable under 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 for

constitutional violations resulting from its failure to train municipal

employees. We hold that, under certain circumstances, such liabihtv

is permitted bv the statute. ”,

McMahon v. Hodges, 225 F. Supp. 2d 357, (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (writ of habeas

corpus granted September 26, 2002)

VIII. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PORVISIONS AND RULES INVOLVED

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:

1st Amendment, “right to speech, rights to petition to the Government for redress of

Grievances”.

4th Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and

effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants

shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly

describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”

5th Amendment, “punishment without due process and right of property not seized

without a just compensation”, "[njo person shall be ... deprived oflife, liberty or property

without due process of law! nor shall private property be taken for public use, without

just compensation."

7th Amendment, “ the right to a jury trial”.

8th Amendment, “cruel and unusual punishments”.

9th Amendment, “about the right not enumerated in the Constitution is

not exhaustive and the people retain all rights not enumerated in the

Constitutioif

11th Amendment: “a suit against an official is not a suit against the government,

but for the purpose offinding state action to which the Constitution applies”

14th Amendment: “[njo State shall make or enforce any law which shall

abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States! nor

shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without

due process of law! nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the

equal protection of the laws”

STATUE

28 U.S. Code § 455 - “Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate

judge: (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United

States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.Ob) He shall also disqualify

himself in the following circumstances :(l) Where he has a personal bias

or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed

evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;...”

28 U.S. Code § 144 - Bias or prejudice of judge

28 U.S.C. § 1350 Alien Tort Statue “committed in violation of the law ofnations or of

a treaty of the United States."

28 U.S.Code § 1654 of pro se litigants “The right to appear pro se in a

civil case in federal court is contained in a statute.

42 U.S.Code § 1983 Monell

28 U.S. Code § 1738A - Full faith and credit siven to child custody

determinations (a)The appropriate authorities of every State shall

enforce according to its terms, and shall not modify except as

provided in subsections (0, (g), and (h) of this section, any custody

determination or visitation determination made consistently with

the provisions of this section by a court of another State. (b)As used

in this section, the term—(l)“child” means a person under the age

ofeigh teen. 28

Sec. 51.014. APPEAL FROM INTERLOCUTORY ORDER refers to

politically subdivided land or municipality, and the area is an

extraterritorial jurisdiction of Houston, creating a constitutional

gap.

Code of Conduct for United States Judges^ Cannon 2A, 2B, 3A,

28 U.S. Code § 2101 - Supreme Court; time for appeal or certiorari;

docketing; stay (a)A direct appeal to the Supreme Court from any

decision under section 1253 of this title, holding unconstitutional in

whole or in part, any Act of Congress, shall be taken within thirty

days after the entry of the interlocutory or final order, judgment or

decree. The record shall be made up and the case docketed within

sixty days from the time such appeal is taken under rules

prescribed by the Supreme Court. (b)Any other direct appeal to the

Supreme Court which is authorized by law, from a decision of a

district court in any civil action, suit or proceeding, shall be taken

within thirty days from the judgment, order or decree, appealed

from, if interlocutory, and within sixty days if final. (c)Any other

appeal or any writ of certiorari intended to bring any judgment or

decree in a civil action, suit or proceeding before the Supreme Court

for review shall be taken or applied for within ninety days after the

entry of such judgment or decree. A justice of the Supreme Court,

for good cause shown, may extend the time for applying for a writ of

certiorari for a period not exceeding sixty days.(d)The time for

appeal or application for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment

of a State court in a criminal case shall be as prescribed by rules of

the Supreme Court. (e)An application to the Supreme Court for a

writ of certiorari to review a case before judgment has been

rendered in the court of appeals may be made at any time before

judgment. Win any case in which the final judgment or decree of

any court is subject to review by the Supreme Court on writ of

certiorari, the execution and enforcement of such judgment or

decree may be stayed for a reasonable time to enable the party

aggrieved to obtain a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court.

The stay may be granted by a judge of the court rendering the

judgment or decree or by a justice of the Supreme Court, and may

be conditioned on the giving of security, approved by such judge or

justice, that ifthe aggrieved party fails to make application for such

writ within the period allotted therefor, or fails to obtain an order

granting his application, or fails to make his plea good in the

Supreme Court, he shall answer for all damages and costs which

the other party may sustain by reason of the stay. (g)The time for

application for a writ of certiorari to review a decision of the United

States Court ofAppeals for the Armed Forces shall be as prescribed

by rules of the Supreme Court. (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 961',

May 24, 1949, ch. 139, $106. 63 Stat. 104; Pub. L. 98-209

$ 10(b). Dec. 6, 1983, 97Stat. 1406; Pub. L. 100-352. $ 5(b). June 27,

1988, 102 Stat. 663; Pub. L. 103-337 div. A. title IX.

$924(d)(1)(C). Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2832.)

28 U.S. Code § 1253 - Direct appeals from decisions of three-judge

courts Except as otherwise provided by law, any party may appeal

to the Supreme Court from an order granting or denying, after

notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any

civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be

heard and determined by a district court of three judges. (June 25,

1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 928.)

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES- SUPREMACY CLAUSES

VIENNA CONVENTION Art. 35th, 36th recording consular communications

and retention of consular correspondence.

CONVENTION AGAISNT TORTURE, CRUEL ,DREGRADING AND UN-HUMAN

PUNISHMENT.

UNITED STATES SIXTH PERIODIC REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION PURSUANT TO THE SIMPLIFIED

REPORTING PROCEDURE, April 05, 2022.

OTHER

UNITED NATIONS, REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW

COMMISSION ON THE WORK OF ITS FIFTY-THIRD SESSION

RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR INTERNATIONALLY

WRONGFUL ACTS

Article 8. Conduct directed or controlled by a State The conduct of a

person or group ofpersons shall be considered an act ofa State under

international law if the person or group ofpersons is in fact acting on

the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that State in

carrying out the conduct. Commentary (l) As a 28 1738 A general

principle, the conduct of private persons or entities is not

attributable to the State under international law. Circumstances

may arise, however, where such conduct is nevertheless attributable

to the State because there exists a specific factual relationship

between the person or entity engaging in the conduct and the State.

Article 8 deals with two such circumstances. The first involves

private persons acting on the instructions of the State in carrying out

wrongful conduct. The second deals with a more general situation

where private persons act under the State’s direction or control. 153

Bearing in mind the important role played by the principle of

effectiveness in international law, it is necessary to take into account

in both cases the existence ofa real link between the person or group

performing the act and the State machinery.

University of Miami- Interamerican Law Review, “Dual Nationality,

the Myth of Election, and a Kinder, Gentler State Department” H.

Ansgar Kelly (1-1-1992)

“The Charming Betsy canon” International Customary Law•'

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the main judicial body of

the United Nations, and it settles disagreements between member

states of the United Nations. Under Chapter II. Article 38 of the

Statute of the International Court of Justice. international customs

and general practices ofnations shall be one of the court's sources of

customary international law is one of the sources of international

law. Customary international law can be established by showing

and(2) opinio

practice

(l) state

juris.

(On application to United States naturalization processes for

children born overseas)

L*'

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF

CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at___________________________________________

or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported;

or, [ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at___________________________________________

or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported;

or, [ ] is unpublished.

[X ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court Texas Supreme Court to

review the merits appears at Appendix C_ to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

there was no opinion for its dismissal__

or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported;

or, [ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals appears at

Appendix. A to the petition and is

[ ] reported at____ Memorandum Opinion Appendix A__________

[X] has been designated for publication but is not yet

reported; or, [ ] is unpublished.

or,

III. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The extraterritorial jurisdiction of Houston in Fort Bend

County, Texas has an unclear and corrupt government ruled by

Fort Bend County, which fraudulently accused its residents of

false crimes as a matter of oppression. This case is an example of

the abuse of the two-tier judicial system used against normal

citizens in an area with no government and ruled by the County.

Petitioner contends that an appointed Associate Judge shall not

dismiss part of a case against the County and its involved

employees for violation of international treaties in which dual

citizens with dominant citizenship as aliens were injured, because

it violates both, the due process clause of V and XIV Amendment,

and international treaties.

VII. JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a). The date on

which the highest state court decided my case was 04/19/2024 attached at Appendix

IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner and her child are dual citizens of Argentina and

United States, the child born in Argentina and petitioner was

primary caretaker of the child since birth. Petitioner was a legal

migrant for twelve years with a status as a housewife, with no

access to money which is retained by her spouse. Petitioner sold

her house and transferred the money to her spouse prior entering

to United States, that money is retained by her spouse as well the

joint community property. Petitioner spouse’s lawyers did not

follow court’s mandatory mediation rule 3.a. prior divorce hearings

and committed aggravated perjury to Federal Judge Terence Kern

with the purpose to obtain the child custody for the father, leaving

literally petitioner in the streets only with $1,000.-. On August of

2019 the petitioner reported irregular situations in that court to

FBI agents at FBI Houston building, her child testified to an agent

“I wanted to five with her" /sic/ [referring to his mother]. The

agents directed petitioner to return to the court and explain to the

judge the situation. On 09/18/2019 Petitioner arrived minutes late

during the tropical Storm Imelda, with her child, to a hearing for

the child custody. The petitioner had a motion to confer in

chambers for the child prepared for free by Judge Janet Heppard

as Director of University of Houston Law School, and petitioner

informed the Judge she went to the FBI. Right after that

statement Petitioner was battered by the 505th court bailiff Jose

Falcon without any judicial orders, warrants or warnings, who

acted in official capacity by his own, after talking with Attorney

Christian Becerra who was present in the court room and left.

Petitioner had previously consulted Judge Becerra as a lawyer

during his political campaign and could not pay his $5,000. -fees,

and Attorney Christian Becerra made a defamatory statement

against Judge David Perwin, the sitting judge on Petitioner divorce

case and former partner of Attorney Christian Becerra.

Petitioner did not know anyone in that area and was not

aware of the previous commercial relationship between Judge

Perwin and Judge Becerra. Defendant Falcon committed

aggravated perjury and fraudulently accused petitioner. Later,

other sheriff deputies joined in adding other fraudulent complaints,

literally building up cases against petitioner with the purpose to

make her look as an unfit parent for the custody of her own foreign

child. These Fort Bend County employees—whom petitioner refer

to as the respondents—injured and deprived Petitioner of her

Constitutional rights of equal protection under the law, XIV

Amendment, due process clause, her parental rights and tortured

petitioner with unusual, cruel, degrading punishments without a

due process of law. Petitioner was permanently injured by the

tortures committed resulted in a violation of international treaty at

which United States is signatory and are prohibited illegal actions

under the US Constitution.

The involved public employees committed public fraud and

modified the narrative of the events, tampered with the evidence

and court records to cover up their fraudulent actions. District

attorneys Emiliano Fragoso and others knowingly prosecuted false

claims, because the evidence and the video released by the sheriff

did not show any of the allegations stated by defendants; in turns,

show their inconsistent actions according to their narrative and the

inexcusable tortures applied to petitioner who suffered permanent

injuries. The County Attorney and Sheriff Office refused to provide

all full evidence at which petitioner is entitled, they have provided

partial tampered evidence, but any independent investigation was

provided, according to the Istanbul Protocol which includes-

“The right to be free from torture is firmly

established under international law. It is also rooted

in international humanitarian law, international

criminal law and in customary international law.

Furthermore, the prohibition of torture is a jus

cogens norm of international law, binding on all

States even if they are not party to treaties

containing the provision. Because of its jus cogens

status, the prohibition of torture is absolute and non

derogable and cannot be limited under any

circumstances

All false accusations have been dismissed; however,

petitioner was subject of tortures, cruel and derogatory and

unusual punishments and permanently injured by twenty-one

county employees, who also injured and threatened the child, and

violated both aliens their constitutional and international rights

granted under international treaties.

Petitioner is a pro se litigant suing defendants Fort Bend

County as [a persona] according 42 USC 1983 Monell and its

employees involved on illegal and unconstitutional actions against

petitioner and her child which violates several international

treaties, United States Federal laws, Texas State laws.

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

The petitioner consulted many lawyers but could not pay

their “upfront fees” or the lawyers did not want to take the case for

dual nationality. Only one lawyer has kindly provided a model of a

case to Petitioner who wrote her claim against respondents

following that model. Petitioner filed the case timely, considering

the public fraud committed with a statue of limitation of 5 years

and tortures with no statue of limitation for the international

violations of prohibited act of tortures.

Between the time of the incidents and the time of the filing

the case against respondents, two of petitioner’s new computers

were intruded and destroyed, as well as her possessions and her

car from where the defendants stole the child Argentine Federal

Identifications. Petitioner held on her computers medical records of

Argentine military personnel and commanders as part of her

twenty years job in the Argentine Government, which in any way

is jurisdiction of any of the respondents who never not even holding

and showing any warrant for such search and seizure. The acting

Judge Maggie Jaramillo acted recklessly and knowingly on a

fraudulent case sustained by the aggravated perjury of a court’s

bailiff defendant Falcon for three years by his inconsistent

allegations.

In a small town everyone knows each other, and the judicial

system is corrupt, there are not independent decisions. The private

attorneys hired were acquitted to the Judge, cashed the retained

fee to only reset the case a couple of times. The acted public

defender lawyer is friends with Judge Becerra and other local

politicians who acted in the case, she is also been sued by

petitioner not only committed perjurious statements and produced

ex-parte communications with Judge Carter and petitioner’s

spouse, and derived the case under a Fort Bend County mental

health services scam where she could have jurisdiction and control,

where people is literally assaulted by mental health contractors or

deputies, expecting receive money.

123

124

125

126

127

128

Respondents and about twelve Judges committed an act of

public fraud moved by their political greed, instead of by the law

and due process, knowing the allegations were fraudulent over

both innocent aliens, with the purpose to elapse the child age and

to be indoctrinated by the school. The child, and petitioner are

being retained into United States for sixteen years by false

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

migratory promises, financial abuse and the fraud committed by

respondents against petitioner, without a possibility to return and

visit their family in Argentina, Judge Morgan intentionally refused

to rule on petitioner’s spouse to release her sole apportion of money

to pay a lawyer. Petitioner never saw the level of corruption in a

government.

The County Attorney for respondents took one hundred days

to answer Petitioner lawsuit and he alleged “sovereign immunity”

and moved to dismiss the case “for failure to state the claim” which

is false and is evidence of how the judicial system is moved by the

lawyer’s actions who are friends or acquaintances of the Judges,

and then the judges sign whatever the attorneys ask, because

petitioner claim was clearly stated and written by a lawyer who

helped petitioner but remains anonymous.

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

The Associate Judge of 240th district court O’Neil Williams,

who was appointed by Fort Bend County Judge KP George,

previously acted as a judge in the fraudulent case of defendant

Falcon against petitioner and he dismissed the case and denied

any copies to petitioner. For three years the case was a mystery,

and the petitioner did not have access to it. The evidence was

tampered and changed until recordings done by petitioner, stored

on her iPhone and I cloud, which exceeds petitioner knowledge.

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

Judge Williams acted on petitioner’s hearing of 01/04/2023

hearing verbally ordered to change some parts of the claim, exactly

pages 16, 20, 22, 23, 30, 32, 33, 35, and the order was sent to

petitioner on 01/04/2023 only signed by other Judge Surendran

Patel, who never heard the case, Judge O’Neil Williams never

signed the order. Later, the petitioner received an order to dismiss

in which stated to change the whole complaint and was signed by

both Judges, Williams and Judge Patel, with a date of 01/12/2023

for Williams and 01/10/2023 for Patel.

The County Attorney served the petitioner with a tampered '

order which required the petitioner to modify the whole complaint,

different from what Judge Williams stated. A County Attorney is

NOT a judge, and he shall not change at their will an order of a

Judge, in addition to committing a public fraud act in the judiciary

system.

166

167

168

169

170

' 171

The respondent Sheriff Fagan’s office provided tampered

evidence and records violating TPC§37.09, of deputies who

committed tortures to plaintiff and her child. Petitioner had

videorecorded under 1st Amendment the sheriff office front desk

which at request of a file copies for a new case they draft the

narrative at the moment by the front desk and then commits to

129

130

131

132

133

134

172

173

send the file by email. In other words, the paperwork is completed

afterwards and at the request of a party.

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

Defendants kept intentionally the child away from

petitioner, without a due process of law, and interfering with the

divorce due process pending with Judge Kali Morgan (23-7137 USC

Writ of Certiorari denied, rehearing GVR returned) both cases this

petition of a Writ of Certiorari and the case 23-7137 are linked by

the same defendants and the same judges of such corrupted

network, and by the fraud intentionally committed to punished

petitioner for fraudulent claims with the purpose to keep petitioner

and the minor separated to each other and without communication

to each other, and abuse the minor with injuries and to brain wash

the minor against petitioner and deprive de minor of visiting his

family in Argentina for sixteen years.

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

“The Article 1 of the Convention against

Torture defines torture (for the purposes of the

Convention) as- any act by which severe pain or

suffering,

whether physical or mental,

intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes

as obtaining from him or a third person information

or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a

third person has committed or is suspected ofhaving

committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third

person, or for any reason based on discrimination of

any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by

or at the instigation of or with the consent or

acquiescence of a public official or other person

acting in an official capacity.”

200

201

202

203

204

205

The petitioner was forced to sign papers without reading,

was violently battered, inflicted intentional pain, videorecorded

naked forced to be naked or shower in front of lesbian or male

respondents deprived to sleep, deprived exit, deprived

communicate, injected unauthorized shots, kept in isolation

threatened with injure and arrest her child, among other tortures.

206

207

208

What kind of Nation is this that holds a County with a

government which abuse and torture normal citizens and commits

fraudulent judicial actions against their tax payors?

209

210

211

212

213

214

Petitioner appealed the partial dismissal of the case for the

level of fraud because, the now Judge Christian Becerra was

deleted from the video evidence in defendant Falcon fraudulent

claim, the sheriff office deleted the part of his involvement showing

that he talked to defendant Falcon right before he battered

petitioner and build up a case.

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

Judge Christian Becerra recklessly and knowingly acted as

Judge in Defendant Falcon fraudulent claim, knowing he was

previously a petitioner consulted lawyer and he was very aware of

the situation. A total of twelve judges acted on defendants’

fraudulent claims against petitioner and most of them are Judges

friends with the County Judge KP George, showing also the waste

of budget multiplied by twelve just for one citizen.

222

223

224

225

226

227

Respondents and their lawyers committed an act of public

fraud, including sending a fraudulent letter to the Honorable

General Attorney Ken Paxton stating that Petitioner was

convicted, and petitioner was never convicted of nothing, not even

in front of a jury, showed to FBI agents and the Honorable Texas

Supreme Court the certified letters from the District Clerck.

228

229

230

231

Respondents also committed violations of the Vienna

Convention art. 36 by recording consular communications of the

Argentine Consul and confiscating mail directed to the Argentine

Consul.

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

Respondents committed prohibited act of tortures according

to the Convention Against Torture and Human and Degrading

Treatment United Nations General Assembly Resolution 39/46 of

10/12/1984, signed by United States on 04/18/1988 and Section

2340A of Title 18, United States Code: “prohibits torture

committed by public officials under color of law against persons

within the public official's custody or control”, and the government

violated the Istanbul protocol for fail to provide an independent

“OHCHR (Office of the Human Rights

investigation,

Commissioner, UN) in 1999 following the Manual on the Effective

Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”. For local

claims violation are: alien tort claims 28 U.S. Code § 1350 - Alien’s

action for tort and Monell under color law 42 US Code §1983 and

Qui Tam Claims False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 — 3733.

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

All the incidents were reported to FBI agents on August of

2019 who directed petitioner to inform her situation to the 505th

district court Associate Judge Cindy Aguirre, but petitioner was

limited by respondent Falcon battery to petitioner. The dismissal of

this part of the case will wash out the involvement of Judge

Christian Becerra on his intention of destabilize his former partner

in business Judge Perwin of bench for Judge Kali Morgan and the

evidence he was in the court day the date petitioner was brutally

battered.

256

257

The petitioner was lately tortured by other respondents

government employees and the county mental health specialists

258

259

260

261

who fraudulently produced a false medical reports literally by only

looking at petitioner, which fits in qui tam claims for exceeding

their professional boundaries, and not provided a scientific based

evaluation as petitioner had passed before with standardized tests.

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

Petitioner has medical and psychiatric clearence signed by

the Argentine Ministry of Defense, Argentine Coast Guard for been

a professional diver, in United States by a Psychologist for been a

Rescue Diver, documents shown on his hand to Federal Judge

Terence Kern, who only asked petitioner “can you get a job?”/sic/ he

never ordered child support or nothing, the narrative on court

reporter records and dockets it is an act of administrative fraud.

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

The mental health in Fort Bend County is a scam system of

false allegations which the county employees use to obtain benefits

such as training, or to avoid criminal charges for some criminals or

to punish citizens they do not agree with their corrupt government.

18 U.S. Code § 286 - Conspiracy to defraud the Government with

respect to claims. Respondent’s false mental health allegations

were already dismissed by Honorable Judge Horowitz, and

defendants used such allegations to torture petitioner and other

people petitioner was a witness and reported the incidents in

writing to FBI agents. The tortures, injuries and degrading

treatment were committed on key dates related to religious

holidays or universal celebrations just for fun such as Jew New

Year, Rosh a Shana, International Woman’s Day, Ramadan,

Halloween, and others.

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

Judge Williams partially dismissed the claim without

hearing the petitioner side, and without completing the proper

discovery; he ordered some changes to the claim. The dismissal

order served to petitioner stated to change the whole claim and

was signed by another judge who did not hear the case, which was

a fraudulent tampered order. Petitioner appealed such fraudulent

order. The petitioner is not a lawyer and took time to research the

public fraud issue and appealed.

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals determined the appeal was

extemporaneous, however the order is a public fraudulent

instrument produced by the Fort Bend County Attorney and

Judges over an act of public fraud and was committed by its

employees, and signed extra temporally by judges one who did not

hear the case, and the other Judge who did not sign such order on

01/04/23 date of service.

298

299

300

Petitioner challenges the dismissal, the appeal for the

dismissal, and the denial of the Texas Supreme Court, because it

results a judicial ruling over an administrative fraud committed by

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

a public entity as sheriff, prosecutor and judicial branch, which

showed tampered evidence and produced a fraudulent order to

dismiss a claim of violation of international treaties, resulted in a

fraudulent action done by a government which injured an alien, an

alien child and a consul of Argentina. The order should not state

whatever a Judge never pronounced resulted in a public fraud 18

U.S.C. § 1001, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 - 3733, and it should not have

taken lightly, should have been properly investigated of why an

area in United States act in such fraudulent enterprise network

which operates to harass, and injure legal residents altering

judicial proceedings in opposition of what is established by the fifth

and fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

X. ARGUMENT OF THE CASE

The Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868, the

Fourteenth Amendment “expandted] federal power at the expense

of state autonomy” and thus “fundamentally altered the balance of

state and federal power struck by the Constitution.” Seminole

Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 59 (1996); see also Ex parte

Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 345 (1880). Section 1 of the Amendment,

for instance, bars the States from “deprivting] any person of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law” or “denyting] to

any person ... the equal protection of the laws.”

The Federal rights exist, and this case is also an issue of

clarity of the United States credibility on regard of Convention

Against Torture signed by United States but not practiced inland

where normal citizens are detained and tortured by ignorant law

enforcement who omits people’s international rights and duties of

dual citizens for both nations under an international treaty.

Although the tortures statue is meant for outside the US their

government must not command tortures inland, because the

Supremacy Clause for the Convention Against Torture (CAT)

specifically prohibit such cruel, degrading and unhuman

treatment. Whether inland or outside it is a prohibited act, a mere

county sheriff must not apply a prohibit act, and a mere district

judge must not ignore a prohibit act, because government

employees represent the nation and their actions in full capacity

are clearly prohibited by the US Constitution or a Supremacy

Clause International Treaty. 28 U.S.C. § 1350 Filartiga v. PenaIrala, 577 F. Supp. 860 (E.D.N.Y. 1984)

The Petitioner and the child born in Argentina, had

dominant nationality in Argentina for petitioner and the child is

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

retained into United States under financial abuse and public fraud

committed by respondents. The child had his fife organized into a

safe environment, and family in Argentina, and his U.S. natural

father refused to stay in petitioner’s own house with the baby and

he returned to Houston, Texas to set the forum. The child since

birth and until 09/18/2019 was under the petitioner’s care he lived

with the petitioner. The father of the child visited intermittently

the baby and naturalized the baby American citizen at 10 days of

life at the U.S. embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Petitioner was

not allowed by U.S. authorities to observe the naturalization

ceremony for her baby- Betsy cannon of US law on international

jurisdiction may apply over following the Nation’s transparency

naturalization process for children in front of both parents fulfilling

requirements under another flag. The child at birth was issued

Federal Argentine mandatory Identifications such National

Registration ID card, Argentine Passport, Tax ID Card, Federal

Police ID Card, birth Certificate. Such child identifications under

the Argentine law must be renewed at 8 years old at 14 years old to

allow the child vote at 16 years old in mandatory elections to not be

delinquent.

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

On 09/18/2019 on Jew New Year, and during the tropical

Storm Imelda, respondent Falcon separated the child from his

primary custodian petitioner and was left by himself in a

mediation room according to indications of Falcon. Falcon battered

the petitioner and respondents Cardenas refused to provide

information of the child and illegally inquire petitioner. They

refuse to allow a phone call to the Argentine Consul. DOES

threatened petitioner with an ICE deportation order, after been

naturalized American. Judge Aguirre never ordered anything; she

remained quiet after the petitioner stated she went to the FBI.

Petitioner was permanently injured by defendant Falcon and other

DOES. Defendant Falcon in this sequence 1) separated the child from

petitioner and placed the child in a medication room, without any judicial

orders, 2) he talked to Judge Cristian Becerra and 3) battered petitioner and

after talking with judge Becerra, and after petitioner stated “I went to the

FBI” Petitioner entered three time to the court room and if defendant Falcon

had a Capias Order, should not had allowed petitioner entering and exit the

court room three times, the tampered Capias order was added in the court

records three years after defendant Falcon battered petitioner. Judge Cindy

Aguirre remained quiet and never produced any Capias order, notification or

any warnings, neither defendant Falcon. Defendant Falcon, testified to the

DA perjurious allegations and the DA filed a case against petitioner.

According to defendant Ojuri paralegal Crystal Gonzales, she stated “they

wanted to know how the bond system works ’’/sic/ Apparently these politicians

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

including Judge O’Neil Williams and District Attorney Brian Middleton had

made public declarations in a newspaper about investigation the “local

bonding system” for a future reform and extended an invitation to some

attorneys and their clients, extending their political testing scam over people

in different situations. A test of a legal system using humans is a cruel,

unusual and degrading punishment, not authorized and experimental practice

into United States comparable to war crimes.

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

On 03/08/2020 On International Woman’s Day, the child

Argentine identifications were stolen by or with the help of

respondents who acted in a private parking lot of Me Donalds in an

extraterritorial Jurisdiction of Houston on when Respondent

Cardenas teased petitioner with a stunt gun to retrieve or aide to

retrieve the child Argentine federally issued identifications, which

respondents Fort Bend County Sheriff has any jurisdiction over.

The U.S. Secretary of State had informer petitioner the United

States has any jurisdiction over foreign identifications and should

be in case of terrorism he surrendered to a Federal Judge.

Defendant Green aided to retrieve from petitioner the child’s

Federally Issued Argentine identifications, by torturing petitioner

and defendant Ojuri held an ex parte communication with Judge

Temeika Carter, who lately acted in the case, “stated that

Defendant Green was confused and used poorjudgement. ”

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

There is a diversity jurisdiction, recognized by U.S. consul

Anthony Wayne in full capacities, sending child’s CRBA Certificate

of birth Abroad and U.S. Passport to petitioner’s house in Buenos

Aires, Argentina. Petitioner’s spouse initiated the migratory

process under a K-3 visa, and on 06/24/2008 at entering to US

Bush airport attempted to leave with the baby, and he was

escorted back by airport officers. Petitioner sole apportion of money

is retained by her spouse along with joint community property.

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

Petitioner lived in United States for twelve previous years

under a permanent residency, green car holder, and naturalized

American on July 24th of 2019; five days later, petitioner’s spouse

files for divorce and petitioner is served with a petition for divorce

in front of her witness on 08/02/2019. Petitioner’s spouse left the

marital house for two months until respondent’s lawyer committed

aggravated perjury to a U.S. judge to obtain a quick temporary

court order filed under rule 190-2 to benefit respondent with all

joint assets and the child custody. The child was always since birth

under petitioner care. Former Judge David Perwin’s court rule 3.a. and

3.b. stated there was mandatory mediation before a hearing and any prior

mediation was completed at that time not even having an independent

431

432

433

434

435

mediator. Defendant Falcon aided petitioner’s spouse lawyers’ side by acting

in individual capacity to separate the child from petitioner in a fraudulent

divorce process, because if there was a rule not fulfilled by the other part the

actions of the divorce should be voided and the primary custody returned to

petitioner.

436

437

438

439

On 08/29/2020, 09/30/2020 and 10/31/2020 the petitioner was

battered by rest of respondents and DOES, leaving permanent

injuries to petitioner.

440

441

442

In the same manner, with respondents’ government employees who

tortured petitioner and filed fraudulent cases against petitioner following

political motives.

443

444

445

446

A fraud is a fraud in English or Spanish and a due process should not

be construed over a fraud, either the Fourteenth Court of Appeals and the

Texas Supreme Court, with the provided evidence should have be aware of

the fraud committed by government employees against petitioner.

447

448

In the same manner a court ruling over a fraudulent process must be

voided.

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

The District or County Attorney or the Sheriff Office must not deny

or share the evidence to a pro se litigant part including the reporter records,

because the judicial system is one part of the division of powers and the fraud

in the local government acts under the preemption doctrine where the federal

law over the state law. The 6th Amendment on the Supremacy Clause clearly

states that Judges in every State must follow the Federal Government

Constitution, and an International Treaty has the hierarchy of Supremacy

Clause. All of the respondents in this case and judges involved are American

lawyer who shall not ignore such violations over an alien, while intentionally

depriv of parental rights, property rights and torture petitioner just to punish

and deny equal access to law and justice to pay a lawyer with her own

property, because it also violates the 5th Amendment of depriving own

economic resources to intentionally violate self-incrimination.

462

463

Petitioner did not immigrate to a banana republic, United Stated shall

have equally protected petitioner and her child of such abuse.

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

In addition, on “No. 21-908 US Writ of Certiorari 11

U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). “There is no doubt that fraud requires

intent. The question in this case is whose intent counts”, a

“willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity

or to the property of another entity,” id. § 523(a)(6)/ and

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

Section 523(a)(2)(A) carves out from the rule of discharge debt

“for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or

refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by” fraud.” 11

U.S. C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The question, of course, is whose fraud

counts. If the rest of section 523 is any indication, it must be

that of the “individual debtor” herself.

XI. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The first reason for granting this petition is the fact that

United States on its Sixth report Submitted to the UN under

Article 19 of the CAT is false, because petitioner case happened

between 2019 and 2021, and in the U.S. report sent there is any

mention of petitioner case which happened inland. United Stated

write on 2. of its report

The absolute prohibition of torture is of

fundamental importance to the United States. The

United States has long recognized that the

prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm of

international law, from which no derogation is

permitted, reflecting the condemnation of torture by

the international community ofStates as a whole”

United States is recognizing the prohibition of such acts

under international law, to [the international community] as a

result the argument of the respondent attorney under “sovereign

immunity’ is false, unapplicable and prohibited, because on the

second part of United States report on 2. United States writes:

“The Convention is a means by which States

party to it advance this end. As stated in its

Preamble, the object and purpose of the Convention

is “to make more effective the struggle against

torture ... throughout the world.” It has been

observed that “[t]he States parties to the Convention

have a common interest to ensure, in view of their

shared values, that acts of torture are prevented and

that, if they occur, their authors do not eniov

impunity.” To this end, the United States is

committed to performing its obligations under the

Convention.”

United States recognized the acts of torture are prohibited

and in petitioner’s case were done by U.S. naturals to dual

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

citizens with dominant nationality as an Alien, ergo any of the

Judges on respondents fraudulent cases against

twelve

petitioner, which were dismissed, did not considered the facts

from petitioner side as an Alien, because were not raised by the

defense properly for prohibited acts and the ignorance of the

international law applicable to petitioner, which is evidence of the

lawyers lack of defense and their actions were to cash the money.

On petitioner complaint timely filed, the statue from the

CRM 1-499 in 20. Torture (18 U.S.C. 2340A) does not specify a

limitation time under the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

and the international law, as a result the acting Judge Williams

erred his ruling for dismiss part of petitioner case, omitting acts

United States recognizes as prohibited under international law

typified as lessa humanita crimes.

The Argentine Government and his Consul in Houston

were very aware of the situation explained by phone, in person, by

email, and in a written letter. The petitioner also sent a letter to

the Interamerican Court of Human Rights explaining the facts of

her case and called the Prosecutor of the International Criminal

Court under the Rome Code, which both Courts United States is

not a member. In the same manner, Petitioner sent her

complaints about the issue to the President Biden by a written

letter, to the Department of Justice by an online form completion,

to FBI by an online form completion, in person complaint, by

phone call complaint, by email and by written letter. Petitioner

had provided plenty information to FBI agents on regard of the

public administrative fraud in petitioner’s cases in Fort Bend

County Courts with evidence of tampered court documents and

dockets as an example of signatures of Judge O’Neil Williams and

Surendran Patel 240th District Court in Fort Bend County,

partial Dismissal, signed by Judge Surendran Patel on January 4*,

2023. The signature of Judge Oneil Williams was never signed and was

added afterwards. The County Attorney served Petitioner with another

order which was completely changed and signed by Surendran Patel on

January 10th and O’Neil Williams on January 12th of 2023 and now, the

Index of the court has been changed and amended its fillings, showing

the original order sent on 01/04/2023 to petitioner was amended only for

defendant Andrea Field with a signature of Judge O’Neil Williams

signed on 01/03/2023 and Judge Surendran Patel on 06/12/2023 within

five months difference between each other, and when the original order

was never signed by Judge O’Neil Williams, which was the point of

petitioner argument for the appeal, having an order signed by a judge

who never heard the case.

In addition the Fourteenth Court of Appeals had sent

559

560

561

562

563

564

565

566

567

568

569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576

577

578

579

580

581

582

583

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591

592

593

594

595

596

597

598

599

600

601

602

several letters to petitioner on regard of having Court Reporter

records, that needed to be paid with an affidavit of Indigency and

later sent a letter informing that there were any Court Reporter

records, completely inconsistent.

In second instance, the Department of Justice cannot

ignore on its report to the United Nations, petitioner case which

was informed to pertinent authority in United States, then Judge

Williams erred on his dismissal and subsequent fraudulent order

in an attempt to cover their County employees prohibited actions

against petitioner and to intimidate petitioner because is a pro se

litigant.

United States on the same report explains on its point 5.

the territoriality issue stating, “As another example, information

is provided regarding relevant U.S. practice regardless of whether

the practice falls within the territorial scope of the Convention as

a legal matter.” Considering that United States has

extraterritorial jurisdiction areas inland and overseas which are

codified as in this case example in the local government body

chapter 42, there is an area inland in which the government

absorbed by the Counties Harris and Fort Bend in which the

respondent actions occurred, in which [the] government applies

selectively its power to cash taxes, but deprive equal protection

under the law, and omitting part of the laws that are

Constitutionally and internationally sustained, and this was the

failure of the County to provide specific instruction on the

applicability of the law over actions of their employees over the

petitioner and [other people] with international rights. The

County on its self-discovery sent a bunch of old policies which are

not applicable over an undefined extra jurisdictional area, did not

included any policy specifically over actions over dual or multiple

citizens Aliens with guaranteed international rights. A Mere

contract with the Sheriff for patrolling is not enough to grant

what in an extra jurisdictional area deprives, equal protection

under the law to basic granted full rights to vote, water, services,

health, protection, etc. because the taxes are paid, and as a result

the government must to provide the equal legal frame and a fair

trial granted under the Constitution and the international

treaties, otherwise is a preemption. If a pro se litigant is forced to

follow all the courts rules, then the local lawyers and judges must

to do it too, there is no room for fraud under Constituents tax

dollars.

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

630

631

632

633

634

635

636

637

638

639

640

641

642

643

644

645

646

Finally, United States on its reply in 9 states “The United

States again confirms its view that where the text of the CAT

provides that obligations apply to a State Party in “any territory

under its jurisdiction,” including Article 16 of the CAT, such

obligations extend to “allplaces that the State Party controls as a

governmental authority.”5 We have concluded that the United

States currently exercises such control at the U.S. Naval Station

at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and over governmental proceedings

conducted there, and with respect to U.S.-registered ships and

aircraft. 6 Section 1045 of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, enacted in November 2015, P.L. 114-92,

129 Stat. 978, restricts interrogation techniques to those found in

the Army Field Manual 2 22-3, which requires humane treatment

of all captured or detained personnel and explicitly prohibits

cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Section 1045 also

provides that the International Committee of the Red Cross

(“ICRC”) must be notified and given prompt access to any

individual detained in any armed conflict in the custody or under

the effective control of agents of the U.S. Government or held

within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department,

agency, contractor, or subcontractor of the U.S. Government,

consistent with DoD regulations and policies. Officers, employees,

and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), DHS,

and other Federal law enforcement agencies are limited to

authorized non -coercive techniques. ”

And, on its reply in 10. States:

“All U.S. detention facilities are operated consistent with

obligations under U.S. domestic and international law and policy.

Individuals are in all circumstances to be treated humanely,

consistent with U.S. domestic law, international legal obligations,

and U.S. policy whenever such individuals are in the custody or

under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent

of the U.S. Government or detained within a facility owned,

operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United

States', and such individuals are not to be subjected to any

interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to

interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in the Army

Field Manual, 2-22.3, without prejudice to authorized noncoercive techniques of Federal law enforcement agencies. U.S.

domestic law further provides that this Army Field Manual must

remain publicly available and comply with the legal obligations of

the United States. All of the techniques listed in the Army Field

Manual must be applied in accordance with the requirements for

)

647

648

649

650

651

652

653

654

655

656

657

658

659

humane treatment

660

On its report for 15. For the same report United States

explains^

“The United States strongly condemns violence against

women and takes aggressive action to prosecute alleged

perpetrators and provide services to victims. In 2020, the U.S.,

Congress passed legislation to amend and strengthen the law

criminalizing female genital mutilation, which became law in

January 2021. The DOJ Office on Violence Against Women

(DOJ/OVW) administers 19 grant programs, authorized by the

Violence against Women Act (VAWA) and subsequent legislation,

designed to reduce domestic violence, dating violence, sexual

assault, and stalking by strengthening services to victims and

holding offenders accountable. Grants are available to states,

territories, units of local government, Tribal governments, local

Tribal and territorial courts, victim service providers, state and

Tribal coalitions, and governmental rape crisis centers. These

grants support training and services to end violence against

women/ improve criminal justice responses to domestic violence,

dating violence, sexual assault and stalkingpromote outreach

and services to underserved populations,’ and improve training

and services to end violence against individuals with disabilities.

For FY 2020, OVW awarded over $489,000,000 in Federal

funding. Grants to Tribal governments also assist their exercise of

special domestic violence criminaljurisdiction. For FY2020, OVW

awarded $3,266,458 under the Grants to Tribal Governments to

Exercise Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction

Program. Since 2015, DOJ has implemented the Tribal Access

Program, which provides Federally-recognized Tribes direct

access to Federal databases, enabling Tribes to submit orders of

protection and therefore potentially disqualify domestic violence

offenders from obtaining firearms.”

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668

669

670

671

672

673

674

675

676

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

685

686

687

688

689

690

Considering both statements result of the normative

United States said had comply under international law for CAT,

resulting in a clear obligation the nation requires its employees to

comply; as a result respondents must not be unaware of such

normative, neither their lawyer and/or the Judge should have

had a clear understanding of what was prohibited prior

dismissing part of petitioner case in which defendant Falcon was

videorecorded with a surveillance camera battering petitioner

with other DOES, confidentially later employees of the Sheriff

Fagan, who was best friend of Judge Christian Becerra.

691

692

693

694

695

696

697

698

699

700

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

721

722

723

724

725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

Petitioner is a Straight Female White- Hispanic dual

Citizen with Alien dominancy, and was tortured by Fort Bend

County government employees, who apparently missed almost

half billion dollars on training from Constituents tax dollars to

made understand respondents ignorance that they cannot do

whatever they think they can do under sovereign immunity,

because they failed to observe the international law at which they

need to comply upon their actions as a Nation. Any independent

investigation or assistance was provided to Petitioner, and her

demand of relief results in a just and necessary for the brutality

at which petitioner was exposed, and for her permanent injuries

committed for respondents, as a matter of testing their own

corrupted judicial system according public declarations of the

District Attorney Brian Middleton and the same Judge O’Neil

Williams.

With the recent overturn of the Chevron doctrine in Lover

Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) The Supreme Court held

“that it was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act

(ABA) and gave unelected government officials too much

authority.” In the same manner, an appointed Judge who lost

elections should have provided petitioner equal access to law and

justice to hear her side before dismissed, and a continuance with

a fair trial specifically because the complaint described tortures

respondents applied on petitioner.

6 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1864) “The Charming Betsy canon exists in

a radically changed world-a world in which the doctrine

unquestionably has more coverage and arguably is under more

stress. It may be an exaggeration to say that "globalization makes

everything international," but "well known developments have

radically increased the number of cases that directly implicate

foreign relations" and everyone agrees that international legal

norms increasingly "address substantive matters of our political

and economic life traditionally reserved to exclusive domestic

jurisdiction." In 2016, Justice Stephen Breyer published a book

dedicated to exploring the issues and challenges of a world in

which our Supreme Court "must increasingly consider foreign and

domestic law together, as if they constituted parts of a broadly

interconnected legal web."

Simply put, in an era in which there are international legal

norms

everything from

children's

education

chlorofluorocarbons, a doctrine that says that federal statutes

"ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any

735

736

737

738

739

740

741

742

743

744

745

746

747

748

749

750

751

752

753

754

755

756

757

758

759

760

761

762

763

764

765

766

767

768

other possible construction remains" is more and more likely to

conflict with other interpretative canons, including the 468 U.S.

837 (1984)

Chevron

doctrine's

deference

agency

determinations... Upon boarding the Charming Betsy, Captain

Murray learned that Shattuck had been born in Connecticut and

reasonably concluded that the shin was actually American.

Murray seized the Charming Betsy, disposed of its perishable

cargo, and sent the ship to Philadelphia for adjudication under

the Non-Intercourse Act. But in Philadelphia. the Danish consul

sousht recovery of the ship as the property ofa Danish subject. ...

contrary to customary international law....

769

XII. CONCLUSION

In petitioner’s case the respondents violated the Art 36 of

the Vienna Convention, recording consular communications of the

Argentine Consul Alejandro Garcia, confiscated correspondence of

60 pages with facts directed to the Argentine Consul, confiscated

petitioner ‘s child Argentine Federally issued identifications to

retain the minor in United States, and applied tortures to

petitioner and her child as a matter of punishment without a

trial, which all consist in violations of international treaties.

Under Chapter II. Article 38 of the Statute of the

International Court of Justice, international customs and general

practices of nations shall be one of the court's sources of customary

international law is one of the sources of international law.

Customary international law can be established by showing

(l) state practice and (2) opinio juris. Article 38) on its point c) the

existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a

breach of an international obligation 5) Declarations made under

Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International

Justice and which are still in force shall be deemed, as between the

parties to the present Statute, to be acceptances of the compulsory

jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for the period

which they still have to run and in accordance with their terms.

770

771

772

773

774

775

776

777

This petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted because

Judge Williams and Patel, committed an act of public

administrative fraud, violated petitioner’s due process, he

established and interlocutory appeal to elapse and dismiss the claim

he had already had knowledge of the case by ruling a dismissal in

defendant Falcon fraudulent claim against petitioner, and in

petitioner complaint, he dismissed without following the

778

779

780

International standards of the law for violations of rights granted

by international treaties, violation of a fair trial, and adequate

treatment of petitioner and her child as an Alien.

781

782

783

784

785

786

787

788

For all argument exposed above petitioner respectfully

request to grant this petition of a writ of certiorari and request the

Honorable Justices dispense any English mistake. All explained is

true. Respectfully submitted,

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.