Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Dale Scott Heineman, Petitioner v. United States

No.

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Dale Scott Heineman.

Petitioner,

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Ninth Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Dale Scott Heineman

2775 Fremont Street, #2008

Las Vegas, Nevada 89104

Phone: 510-265-9836

Petitioner in pro se

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered

from this Court and lower appeal courts, along with

constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding

whether or not the trial court or the circuit court has

jurisdiction to try the merits of this case.

This case involves a sitting United States District

Court Judge and certain government prosecutors

whose acts and actions show a failure of faithful

allegiance to the law and process have violated and

continue to violate Petitioners protected due process

right for a redress of grievances by and through the

First Amendment of the Constitution of the United

States of America and in violation of their respective

Oaths of Office.

Furthermore, there are two doctrines that conflict

with each other found in this case affecting every court

in this country. These doctrines are known as the

doctrine of equitable maxim and the doctrine of the

object principle of justice. Equitable maxim created by

this court, which the lower court used to dismiss this

case, sits in direct violation of the object principle of

justice also partially created by this Court and

supported by other appeal courts and constitutional

provisions.

These conflicts call for the supervisory power of this

Court to resolve these conflicts, which has not, but

should be, settled by this Court without delay.

1

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Petitioner Dale Scott Heineman is a_ people

representing himself and is a Defendant in a criminal

proceeding in the trial court.

Respondents are a party to this action as Plaintiffs

specifically:

William H. Alsup, Senior Judge for the Northern

District of California, San Francisco Division

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General

Ismail Ramsey, U.S. Attorney

David Hall, Assistant U.S. Attorney

James E. Keller, Assistant U.S. Attorney

Nikhil Bhagat, Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case Number 05-cr-00611WHA

ill

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED... eeeceeeteeeeeeeneeees i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ......0.....ceceeeseeeees li

TABLE OF CONTENTS... eee eee eeseeseeeeeeseeeeeeees lil

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. .....0....ccceeseeeceeeeseneeeeneeees iv

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS... eeeceeeeceneeseeeneeeeeeee 1

JURISDICTION . ........ csnnsscscarconnmenmvananoensonacmamessencennenanch 1

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONG..........:cccceeeseeeeees 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.....00.. 0. ceeceeseseeeeeeeeeee 4

CONCLUSION... eee eeececenseccetenceeeenceeeessersnseseneeees 20

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A: Ninth Circuit Order, September 17,

Appendix C: Order Re Defendant’s Notice of Appeal,

August 30, 2024.000.......cccccccccseeececeeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees App 8a

Appendix D: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, September 11, 2024.............. cece eeeeeees App 5a

Appendix E: Petitioner’s Notice of Non-Responsive

Order issued on September 11, 2024, Regarding

Demand for Proof of Jurisdiction Regarding Case

Number 05-cr-00611WHA, September 14, 2024

CORRE EERE RRR Ree eee ROH eee eee ee HEHEHE ee eee eB ee Be eee erenneenesene

Appendix F: Notice for Demand for Proof of

Jurisdiction Regarding Case Number 05-cr-

00611WHA, September 14, 2024.........0.0000.. App 35a

Appendix G: Complaint for Show Cause, filed in the

Northern District Court of California, September 3,

1V

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Executor-Dale-Scott-Heineman- native-inhabitant-ofthe-original-jurisdiction; one of the creators of

government “by” “for” and “of” the People, one of the

We-the People.

Declaration of Independence....................5 Cert. pg. 10

Articles of Confederation the Enabling Act 7 Stat 13

documented, accepted, and established by the

Continental Congress of 1778........... App pgs. 37a, 39a

Northwest Territorial Ordinance #1

seuceuassewctseccevatses App pgs. 23a,38a,39a,50a,52a,53a,113a

Constitution of the United States 1787 (originalorganic-national-charter):

Article I, Sec. 9, Cl. 3

a Cert. pg. 1; App pgs. 37a,50a,52a,56a

Article ITI, Sec. 1

beseceeeeceesaaeeaaaeeeeees Cert. pg. 2; App pgs. 38a,50a,52a,56a

Article III, Sec. 2

WiREUEERS cceceecenessenaes Cert. pg. 2; App pgs. 38a,50a,52a,56a

Article III, Sec. 3

ies danaweawsnenrannndiwions Cert. pg. 3; App pgs. 38a,50a,52a,56a

Article IV, Sec. 4

piraswavamewanewuuasaenniss Cert. pg. 3; App pgs. 38a,50a,52a,56a

Article VI, Sec. 2

ee Cert. pgs. 3,8,10; App pgs. 38a,50a,52a,56a

Bill of Rights:

Amendment 1

ee Cert. pgs. 1,1,18; App pgs. 38a,50a,52a,56a

Amendment 2.................00005 App pgs. 38a,50a,52a,56a

Amendment 9

boseeseeceeees Cert. pgs. 10,11,17; App pgs. 38a,50a,52a,56a

Amendment 10.................26+ App pgs. 38a,50a,52a,56a

Black’s Revised 4 Edition, (pgs.788,789 )

RC GSS RATE U RR ATRG sb 5a SbAS SaURRURARA TNs Nakenemsensenesenencens App pg. 64a

Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence sec. 379-399 (5t» Ed.)

Creation of THE UNITED STATES Inc.

DC Organic Act of 1871, 41 Stat 419 (204

Constitution) created THE UNITED STATES, Inc., a

municipal corporation for the District of Columbia

and its territories, possessions, enclaves, States,

Bebruainyy2il,, PSA uccesssmacaenssawennuananssmias! App pgs. 114a

Acts of Congress

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 104 Stat 327

Cane He RMON eRNRRONRNREREER Wtasie Ssae «omecsssmisaise sooe App pgs. 38a,50a,52a

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) 60 Stat. 237

WobSNGadeSRENOSSSH> -> 0 0-cecncerecccccceacscncrers Cert. pg. 5; App pg. 58a

Mandatory Victims’ Rights Act, 110 Stat. 1227

ee App pgs. 48a,70a

Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 59,

28 U.S.C. §§ 1867(€), On. eeeececeesesescseeeeeee App pg. 63a

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 100 Stat 3207

budeeceseeccecccevessecececesseuseseeeecensuneceseeeeseeeceeeeeaeees App pg. 58a

Doctrines

Object Principle of Justice......... Cert. pgs. 1,8,13,15,20

Doctrine of Equitable Maxim............. Cert. pgs. 1,18,20

Rules and Procedure

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCrP):

FRCrP Rule 6(f).............. Cert. pg. 5; App pgs. 59a,60a

FRCrP Rule 6(¢).............. Cert. pg. 5; App pgs. 59a,61a

FRCrP Rule 6(b)(1)......... Cert. pg. 5; App pgs. 59a,62a

FRCrP Rule 6(e)(F)(ii)....Cert. pg. 5; App pgs. 59a,63a

FRCrP Rule 7(c).............. Cert. pg. 5; App pgs. 48a,79a

Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE)

FRE Rule 901................cccccesesseseeeeeeeeeeeeeees App pgs. 66a

Regulations

Code of Federal Regulations

5 CFR Ch. XVI, Subch. A, Pt. 2604

Sadeis ti uuaeGusaFeaaNeTaWe Rs URIURCEONT Sac «0 App pgs. 60a,65a

28 CER part 35........cccccceeseceeceeeeeeeneneeeeeeees App pg. 87a

28 CFR section 42.1(b)(2).........csceeeeeeeeeeees App pg. 87a

28 CFR section 42.203(e).......ccccceccceeeeeseeee App pg. 87a

28 CFR part 35 (Title II Department of Justice)

bonececcueeuseececececsececeaueensusessseeccessueeeecesececeeseeeees App pg. 87a

28 C.F.R. sec. 36.206..........c.cccceesseesseeseseveees App pg. 87a

29 CFR, Part 18 Subpart B................ App pgs. 60a,65a

United States Code Service

5 U.S. Code sec. 552

Fee Cert. pg.5; App pgs. 38a,50a,52a,58a,60a,65a

5 U.S. Code sec. 552a

benessneneceeeeceeees Cert. pg.5; App pgs. 50a,52a,58a,60a,65a

5 U.S. Code sec. 7811... cceeesensnereeeenee App pg. 82a

18 U.S. Code sec. 20...........cccceeeeeeeeeeeees App pg. 68a,85a

18 U.S. Code sec. 241.0... ccc ccceeeeeceeees App G, passim

18 U.S. Code sec. 242..........ccccccceceeeeeeeees App G, passim

18 U.S. Code sec. 871........cccceeeeeeeeeeeeeees App G, passim

18 U.S..Code sec. 401(8).......cccccccseesceeeeeeees App pg. 57a

18 U.S. Code sec. 1001................ccceceees App G, passim

18 U.S. Code sec. 1201.00.00... ccccccceeseeceeeeeeeeees App 84a

18 U.S. Code sec. 1841......... eee App G, passim

18 U.S. Code sec. 1343.............cccceeeeeeeeeeees App pg. 57a

18 U.S. Code sec. 1344........... cc ceeeeeeeeeeee App pg. 57a

18 U.S. Code sec. 1349... eee App G, passim

18 U.S. Code sec. 1512... eee App pgs.738a,74a

18 U.S. Code sec.1918.............:cccceeeeeeeeee App G, passim

18 U.S. Code sec. 2072....... App pgs. 46a,58a,85a,115a

28 U.S. Code sec. 544.0... ecceeeeeeeeeeeeees App pg. 82a

28 U.S. Code1867(€)........cccccccscessessesseseeseeees App pg. 63a

28 U.S. Code sec. 1867(f).......ccccccceccceseeeseees App pg. 63a

42. U.S. Code sec. 122038........... cc ecceseeeeeeeeees App pg. 87a

Supreme Court

Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440 (1982)

Se e+ ++ Ale» Se “Eee SES GRIRGT- SENGISREIGE -RGIOSERGSISSERISSSSEEEEEREEEE App pg. 87a

Gowdy v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 385 Ill. 86, 92,

52 N.E.2d 255 (1948)... eee App pgs. 38a,51a,53a

Greg’s v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971)

yoiieg ius Ges uulg AUSOES SWCUSSNESUUURUESS «.<sccececececesccceseecees App pg. 87a

Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533, 94S. Ct. 1872 (1974)

ee ees See Cert. pg. 5; App pg. 67a

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

Fi oEaccormisnieeenacencaoaeemnwneneoeene-e- 2 App pgs. 38a,51a,52a

Johnson v. Yellow Cab Co., 321 U.S. 383, 387

Joint Refugee Committee v. McGrath National

Council Of Friendship, 341 U.S. 123, 71 5.Ct. 624, 95

L.Ed. 817 (1951)... oeeccecccccecceseescesecesceeseeeeees Cert. pg. 19

Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co., 290

U.S. 240, 245.............scsscesccoeees saeaanneseusbetwetones Cert. pg. 7

Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 187, 1 Cranch 187, 2 L.

Ed. 60, (1803)

App pgs. 20a,38a,39a,51a,52a,56a,82a83a

Old Wayne Mut. I. Assoc. v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8,

27 S.Ct. 236 (1907).....cecccceeeeeeee App pgs. 38a,51a,52a

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 U.S. 3 Dall.

54 (1795) oc ceececeeseecesseeeeeees App pgs. 38a,51a,52a,54a

Precision Co. v. Automotive Co.

ee ee Cert. pg. 5,6

Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.Ed. 608, 617

CE 0):) ae App pgs. 38a,51a,53a

Steinfeld v. Hoddick, 513 U.S. 809, (IL

1994) ooo. eeeeececcsecesescessecsescsesssesesesceesssestsceeseaes App pg. 94a

Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S.

348, 41 S.Ct. 116 (1920)

es App pgs. 30a,38a,40a,51a,52a

Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L.Ed. 1170,

1189 (1850)... eeeeeeceeeeeees App pgs. 38a,51a,52a

Circuit Court

Basso v. Utah Power and Light Company, 495 F.2d

906, 909 (10th Cir. 1974)... App G, passim

Council Of Federated Organizations v. MIZE, 339

F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1964)... .eeeeeeeeeseeeees Cert. pg. 19

Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27,

453 F.2d 645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass.

NT) sanrosmanne Blue nsonaeatiee ala Toe Bes Teaemcseness App pg. 97a

Holstein v. City of Chicago, 29 F.3d 1145 (N.D. II.

1992)... ccccccccccsececsesssscssesssssssessessssevseseseneaeenss App pg. 98a

United States v. Bennett, 621 F.3d 1131,1137-1139

(Oth Cir, 2010)... cee ceeecececcecceececeseeeeeees App pg. 68a

United States v. Bullock, 448 F.2d 728, 729 (5th Cir.

10a 5 5 oS 2 App pgs. 38a,52a,53a,60a,115a

United States v. Holzer, 816 F.2d 304, 307 (9th

Cir.1987)....ccccececeeeesesceeseceseeceees App pgs. 51a,53a,56a

District Court

Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 485

F.Supp. 456 (M.D. Fla. 1980)..........eeee App pg. 97a

Holstein v. City of Chicago, 803 F. Supp. 205

LO EEL LEK EERE SORE ANNGREENCRGELaeUROCURONNNE: -------a:-+-- App pg. 98a

Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985)

Sheinas sists sa siteds eves cewerseieusoneeseeswendtmeserseencaseaShs- App pgs. 99a

Tirad Energy Corp. v. McNell, 110 F.RD. 382

(S.D.N.Y. 1986).....cecccccccsecsecseseeseseeseeeeeee App pg. 98a

State Supreme Court

Automatic Feeder Co. v. Tobey, 221 Kan. 17, 558 P.2d

101, 104 (1976) .....eceseseseceeeseseesesesesseseseseeeees Cert. pg. 19

Brainerd Dispatch Newspaper Co. v Crow Wing

County, 196 Minn. 194, 264 N.W. 779, 780 Sup.Ct. of

Mnt (1986)........:...00:+0+0-osisuaunanaanineines.« App pg. 64a,65a

Brent Brown Dealerships v. Tax Com 'n, MVED,

2006 UT App........cceccceccccccceseeceseeeeeeeeeees Cert. pg. 19,20

Brimhall v. Mecham, 27 Utah 2d 222, 224, 494 P.2d

B25, 526 (1972)... cesceccescessescececesceeceeeeecenees Cert. pg. 19

Capital Federal Savings Bank v. Bewley, 795 P.2d

1051 (Okla. 1990) wcsssisccassssncussssecssecovsueeias. App pg. 107a

Cockerham v. Zikratch, 619 P.2d 739 (Ariz. 1980)

sneausilsaetasaenantuaneeaveasetasueeadessieUEbEETEETa.o0seceeeenee App pg. 1lla

Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of

Denver, 330 P.2d 1116 (1958)... App pg. 100a

Georgia Department v. Sistrunk, 291 S.E. 2d 524,

526, 249 Ga. SupCt, 543 (1982)

sei SSCONGNWHRASESRINAESEERs oo00eeseecccecececceeeees App pgs. 38a,52a,53a

Hallford v. Industrial Commission, (1945) 63 Ariz. 40,

159 P.2d 305 scsssuvccccusmsscusansavswseeovssoneaecssis App pg. 96a

Henderson v. Henderson, 59 S.E. 2d 227, (N.C. 1950)

Dee eee 2 Se AEB ee ea SSS STS SEES App pg. 106a

In Re Estate of Jones, 858 P.2d 983, 985 (Utah 1993)

A A en Cert pg. 19

In re Worthen, 926 P.2d at 876 (Utah 1996)

BOSSI Sees ceeeessesssnssecessnaceanasccesccesssssssscsegsas’ Cert pg. 19

Johnson v. McDonald, 170 Okla. 117, 39 P.2d 150

SupCt of Ok (1984) ....cecceecceeecesceseeeseeeees App pg. 65a

Lange v. Johnson, 204 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. 1973)

sett aaticl bedi nllsucessasesssaccenemnasexeerssomnesasnens- App pg. 105a

Matson v. Matson, 310 N.W.2d 502 (Minn. 1981)

si ss pica SiieSie Rak RES NSSS Neue GagNSaANe oRSES Ae swyseseeepsees -- App pg. 105a

Mills v. Richardson, 81 S.E.2d 409, (N.C. 1954)

ee rT App pg. 106a

People v. Wade, 506 N.W.2d 954 (III. 1987)

beveceaeeueeeeeaeeeecceseeuseeeeeseeeeueescesscsesessesceusseecs App pg. 101la

Rook v. Rook, 353 S.E. 2d 756, (Va. 1987)

BSGONSEURRSCEL---.-00cecscseeseserececovscscccensuacecuacens App pg. 91a,110a

State v. Richie, 20 S.W.3d 624 (Tenn. 2000)

See OUT UU SAUL Lea eC CLs TEST RTELDUSNEUNS Se RNESRESENEL-+0++0c000000 App pg. 107a

State ex rel. Dawson v. Bomar, 354 S.W.2d 763,

certiorari denied (Tenn. 1962)

Wine waue guna ce capeenuneienbuevaKtbackdsaiinakostasseenseuiaeersecd: App pg. 108a

State v. Walker, 267 P.3d 210, 217-218 (Utah 2011)

ee Cert pg. 15

State ex rel Nagle v. Sullivan, 40 P. 2d 995, 997,

SupCt of Mt (1935)... eee App pgs. 38a,52a,53a

State Ex Rel. Z.C., 2007 UT 54... Cert pg. 14

Underwood v. Brown, 244 S.W. 2d 168 (Tenn. 1951)

REE COTE TTTE RTT CRC TCCECTT RTT App pg. 108a

Ward v. Terdere, 386 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1963)

avis aveduathuesuusUansuveubuvessisuvescusaNeorNeNesAeNNTeRTiECests. App pg. 100a

Vargus v. Greer, (1943) 60 Ariz. 110,131 P.2d 818

re oe App pg. 96a

State Appellate Court

Allcock v. Allcock, 437 N.E.2d 392(IIl. App. 3 Dist.

5) 5) re App pg. 102a

B & C Investments, Inc. v. F & M Nat. Bank & Trust,

903 P.2d 339 (Ok. App. 106, 1995)

2 App pg. 93a

City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 234 P.2d 319 (Cal.

App. 2 Dist. 1951)......ccccccecceeeeeseeeeeeeeeee App pg. 99a

City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510 S.W.2d 141 (Tex. Civ.

App. - Beaumont 19738)........0cceeeeeeeeeee App pg. 109a

Dusenberry v. Dusenberry, 625 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. App.

1 Dist. 1993).......cccccccceseeecceeseesscsscessesseeeees App pg. 104a

Graff v. Kelly, 814 P.2d 489 (Okla. 1991)

peaeennia Sone eE Fg UE SE ES App pg. 107a

Eckel v. McNeal, 628 N.E.2d 741 (Ill. App. Dist. 1993)

SS LS Oe App pg. 10la

Hays v. Louisiana Dock Co., 452 N.E.2D 1383 (III.

App. 5 Dist. 1983)... eeeeceeceseeeeeeeees App pg. 103a

In re Adoption of E.L., 733 N.E.2d 846 (Ill. App. 1

Dist. 2000).......ccccceeccessesesceesseseeees App pgs. 91a,llla

In re Estate of Steinfield, 680 N.E.2d 801 certiorari

sis Wess ce sissies dts oanrataa ewes ea ue Guapebinasusawauuetucweeaneese has App pg. 94a

In re Marriage of Parks, 630 N.E.2d 509 (IIL. App. Ct.

1994) .ooceccccccccccesseesscesscecsceesceesersrsesscesseeeees App pg. 102a

Irving v. Rodriquez, 169 N.E.2d 145, 27 Ill. App. 2d

7G ES) 610) eee App pg. 112a

Jenkins v. Weis, 868 P.2d 1374 (Utah App. 1994)

Sait eS baie a Ne eRKS CEPT COTT Ra REERUEIETEn wns anveveceneenes Cert. pg. 19

Kelly v. Kelly, (1975) 24 Ariz. App. 582, 540 P.2d 201

be eeeseeeseeecccecccesessenseeceeceececcecceeeceeneeneuueneeeceeees App pg. 96a

Lloyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So. 2d

577 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).........c:ccceceseseees App pg. 99a

Lucas v. Estate of Stavos, 609 N .E. 2d 1114,

rehearing denied, and transfer denied (Ind. App. I

Gist. 1993) csisssssssweasspeacarespewsessceussse-..+.ceee+ees App pg. 104a

People ex rel. Brzica v. Village of Lake Barrington,

644 N.E.2d 66 (111. App. 2 Dist.1994)

ssissiseiasusvdvesiauidededeveisdinasenesisesantiuanswounsveransnatens App pg. 94a

People v. Rolland, 581 N.E.2d 907, (Ill. App. 4 Dist.

1991)... eeceeeceeeeeeeseceecsessessssesesseseseesseeses App pg. 103a

People v. Sales, 551 N.E.2d 1359, 195 IIL. App. 3d.

160 (1990)... cece ececcesseeesceecesseeeseeseseeees App pg. 102a

Richardson v. Mitchell, 237 S.W. 2d 577, (Tenn. Ct.

App. 1950)... cee ccceeeeeeeesceseeeecessceseeseeeeenees App pg. 109a

Richins v. Delbert Chipman & Sons Co., 817 P.2d

382, 385 (Utah App. 1991)

SSSERESSSET SEE ¢ESGGREWEIGE| SG CEG SO « GGG SSR Son Sa“ sna. +z Cert. pg. 19

Senchez v. Hester, 911 S.W.2d 178, (Tex. App. -

Corpus Christi 1995).........:cccccecssesseeeeeeeeees App pg. 95a

State v. Blankenship, 675 N.E.2d 1303, (Ohio App. 9

Dist. 1996)..........cccccccesscssceseseevesesseessceees App pg. 106a

State ex rel. Turner v. Briggs, 971 P.2d 581 (Wash.

App. Div. 1999)........cccccccccesccsssessesesseesseseees App pg. llla

Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 N.E.2d 1152 (Ind. 1998)

cs shichsicaeigetnse lane Settause HRERRKER REE REISE - App pg. 104a

Thompson v. Thompson, 238 8.W.2d 218 (Tex. Civ.

App. Waco 1951)... .ccccecsesessecesceseeseeeseeeees App pg. 110a

Workman v. Nagle Constr., Inc., 802 P.2d 749, 753

(Utah App. 1990).......ccccccceececeeseeeeeeeeees Cert. pg. 19

State Cases

Crockett Oil Co. v. Effie, 374 S. W.2d 154 (Mo. App.

L964) eee ceeccescsscesceseesesccssecascescneseseeesees App pg. 93a

Goldstein v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of US., 160

Misc. 364, 289 N.Y.S. 1064, 1067

(1936) .o.ecescccccsessscescsssscscscesessesseecseeasenseceesees App pg. 65a

Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y. 1994, 158

FP LR.D. 2:78 wasssscasssiesspatisectsaessesessencesvssssessecen- App pg. 95a

Joiner v. Joiner, 87 S.W.2d 903, 914, 915 (Tex. Civ.

App. 1985).....0c.ccccccccscsscescseceesecesesseceeeseesees App pg. 65a

Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307, (Colo.1994)

isp bet ALAC INARA RNDISRRARSLTL «5: « I App pg. 95a

1

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dale

Scott Heineman, Defendant-Appellant, No. 24-5342,

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Order

dated September 17, 2024.

United States of America v. Dale Scott Heineman, et

at., No. 05-cr-00611WHA, U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of California for Orders entered:

August 28, 2024; August 30, 2024; September 11,

2024.

Complaint for Show Cause no. cv24-06207 filed

September 3, 2024, for failure of the District Court to

directly and honestly address the due _ process

violations and violations of procedure.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is found under Rule 14.1(e)(i) for review

of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals order dated

September 17, 2024, case no. 24-5342.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Amendment 1 of the Constitution of the United

States: “Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting...the right of

the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

Government for a redress of grievances.” Article I, Sec.

9, Cl. 3 of the Constitution: “No Bill of Attainder or ex

2

post facto Law shall be passed.” Explanation: A bill of

attainder is a way that a legislature acts as a judge

and jury, declaring that a person or group of people are

guilty of a crime and stating the punishment.

Article III, Sec. 1 of the Constitution: The judicial

Power of the United States, shall be vested in one

supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the

Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts,

shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and

shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a

Compensation, which shall not be diminished during

their Continuance in Office.

Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution: The judicial

Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,

arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the

United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be

made, under their Authority:—to all Cases affecting

Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls:—to

all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to

Controversies to which the United States shall be a

Party:—to Controversies between two or more

States;—between a State and Citizens of another

State,—between Citizens of different States,—

between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands

under Grants of different States, and between a State,

or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or

Subjects.

3

Article III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution: Treason

against the United States, shall consist only in levying

War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies,

giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be

convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two

Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in

open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the

Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason

shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except

during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article IV, Sec. 4 of the Constitution: The United

States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a

Republican Form of Government and shall protect

each of them against Invasion; and on Application of

the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the

Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic

Violence.

Article VI, Sec. 2 of the Constitution: “This

Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which

shall be made Pursuance thereof...shall be the

supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every

State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the

Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary

notwithstanding.”

4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case comes before this honorable Court upon

the denial from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit, No. 24-5342, Order dated September 17, 2024,

for lack of jurisdiction to hear this instant matter that

involves William H. Alsup William H. Alsup, Senior

Judge for the Northern District of California, San

Francisco Division; Merrick Garland, United States

Attorney General; Ismail Ramsey, United States

Attorney; David Hall, Assistant United States

Attorney; James E. Keller, Assistant United States

Attorney; Nikhil Bhagat, Assistant United States

Attorney who have collectively and continually

violated Petitioner-Appellants’ protected due process

beginning from the original indictment dated

September 27, 2005, case number 05-cr-00611WHA to

the superseding indictment dated February 16, 2006,

to the present day in the matter of a Form 12 hearing

beginning April 9, 2024, wherein Petitioner-Appellant

raised jurisdictional challenges of personum and

subject matter in the form of a demand for show cause

that was filed prior to Petitioner-Appellant’ first

appearance of June 11, 2024.

Judge Alsup verbally denied Petitioner-Appellant’

demand for show cause during the June 11, 2024

hearing and further expressed such denial in Judge

Alsup’ Order dated September 11, 2024 in violation of

Petitioner-Appellant’ protected due process right to

challenge jurisdiction at any stage of the proceeding.

5

Upon inspection of the record of case no. O5-cr-

O0O611WHA it is shown by and through the

Administrative Procedures Act — Administrative Law

5 U.S.C. §§ 552, 552a, and Petitioner-Appellant’

Complaint for Show Cause filed September 3, 2024,

that Respondents utterly failed to follow the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure Rules: 6(b)(1), 6(o),

6(e)(F)Gi), 6(), Rule 7(c). (see Appendix 4)

Furthermore, “The law requires proof of jurisdiction

to appear on the record of the administrative agency

and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans_v.

Lavine, 415 U.S. 533, 94 S. Ct. 1372 (1974), no

jurisdictional statement is discoverable in, on, or for

the record and when the question of jurisdiction is

raised by Petitioner-Appellant, Judge Alsup and these

U.S. Attorneys remain nonresponsive, silent, in

violation of Petitioner-Appellant’ protected due

process rights and in violation of the law.

Judge Alsup and these U.S. Attorneys have decided

that Petitioner-Appellant does not have an unfettered

Constitutionally protected right of due process

including the right to petition the court for redress

making it clear that the court is closed to Petitioner-

Appellant. The United States Supreme Court has

declared in the case of Precision Co. v. Automotive Co..,

324 US 806, that under the doctrine of equitable

maxim, courts may shut their door to the demise of one

party while favoring the opposing party.

6

Judge Alsup and these U.S. Attorneys have gone

beyond shutting it’s door against Petitioner-Appellant,

when Judge Alsup prosecutes from the bench,

dispenses legal advice to guide the prosecution during

trial, permits these U.S. Attorneys to legislate from

their desk divining chargeable criminal offenses such

as “debt elimination” absent any statutory guidance or

authority whatsoever, including witness tampering on

two (2) occasions before trial, tampering with material

evidence that proves no harm could be caused by

Petitioner-Appellant’ business model.

The equitable maxim doctrine as stated by the

United States Supreme Court allows a trial court to

close its door against one of the parties in its court

disregarding any pleadings that party has filed. When

a court closes its door against a party in court it favors

the other party making the court biased. This type of

door shutting also undermines any controlling case

law, including Federal and State Constitutional

provisions, thus circumventing the right of due process

and the right to petition. The case of Precision states

“The guiding doctrine in this case is the equitable

maxim that” he who comes into equity must come with

clean hands.” This maxim is far more than a mere

banality. It is a self-imposed ordinance that closes the

doors of a court of equity to one tainted with

inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in

which he seeks relief, however improper may have

been the behavior of the defendant. That doctrine is

rooted in the historical concept of court of equity as a

vehicle for affirmatively enforcing the requirements of

Ci

conscience and good faith. This presupposes a refusal

on its part to be “the abettor of iniquity.” Bein v.

Heath, 6 How. 228, 247. Thus while “equity does not

demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives.”

Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216, 229, as to other

matters, it does require that they shall have acted

fairly and without fraud or deceit as to the controversy

in issue. Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator

Co., 290 U.S. 240, 245; Johnson v. Yellow Cab Co., 321

U.S. 383, 387; 2 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (5th

Ed.) §§ 379-399.

The doctrine of equitable maxim, as stated by the

United States Supreme Court, provided the platform

for Judge Alsup and the prosecution to shut its door

against Petitioner-Appellant by claiming that

Petitioner-Appellant came to court with unclean

hands as a violator of the terms of supervised release

all-the-while ignoring Petitioner-Appellant?’ Demand

for Show Cause that shows gross violations of due

process of law and procedure, from the beginning. Nor

did Judge Alsup or the prosecution respond to

Petitioner-Appellant’ Proof of Jurisdiction. Judge

Alsup gave a passing comment regarding Petitioner-

Appellant’ Proof of Jurisdiction in his September 11,

2024 Order stated, “This filing is, like the others,

without merit and does not deserve extended

discussion.” The United States Attorneys would not

and did not answer Petitioner-Appellant’ Demand for

Show Cause or the Petitioner-Appellant’ Proof of

Jurisdiction— both supported by documents that on

their face clearly and factually prove that it is not

8

Petitioner-Appellant who came to court with unclean

hands, rather the government.

Not only did the United States Supreme Court

unjustly allow Judge Alsup to disregard Petitioner-

Appellant’ unfettered Constitutionally protected right

of due process and to petition for redress, but Judge

Alsup was given unjust power to disregard the

doctrine of The Object Principle of Justice.

The doctrine of The Object Principle of Justice is the

supreme Law of the Land, Article VI, Sec. 2 of the

Constitution of the United States. It sets in motion to

provide the most just, limited, highly effective, easy to

understand, highly respected and dearly admired

system of justice.

Additionally, this doctrine stops the precarious

nature of our courts, their jobs would be much easier

with less stress, and parties in court would have a

strong sense on how the court is going to rule thus

promoting settlements to high degree and greatly

discouraging lawsuits.

The Object Principle Of Justice is founded under the

origination of our rights and is protected by the 9th

Amendment of the United States Constitution which

states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of

certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or

disparage others retained by the people.” The

Constitution cannot be construed by any means, by

any law, by any power, by any court of law on earth to

)

deny or disparage our rights. This is how the

Constitution is to be interpreted. These rights that

cannot be violated are identified in the second clause

of the Declaration Of Independence, it states: “We hold

these truths to be self evident, that all men are created

equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,

Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These self-evident rights are God _ given—

unalienable, therefore you cannot give them away and

nobody can take them from you, not even a court of

law. People may have the means to violate, disparage

or construe your God-given rights, but this does not

mean they took your rights away.

No Constitution or any agency erected by man,

including courts of law, can ever be construed as being

the author, giver or interpreter of our God-given

rights. With these rights we erect agencies to protect

these rights, “That to secure these _ rights,

governments are instituted among Men, deriving their

just powers from the consent of the governed...”

Declaration Of Independence. id. The Utah State

Supreme court recognizes that judges have not the

right to construe or disparage our rights. In the case of

American Bush v. City Of South Salt Lake, 2006 UT

40 140 P.3d. 1235 the Utah State Supreme Court

stated that “In considering State constitutions we

must not commit the mistake of supposing that,

because individual rights are guarded and protected

by them, they must also be considered as owing their

10

origin to them. These instruments measure the powers

of the rulers, but they do not measure the rights of the

governed.... [A state constitution] is not the beginning

of a community, nor the origin of private rights; it is

not the fountain of law, nor the incipient state of

government; it is not the cause, but consequence, of

personal and political freedom; it grants no rights to

the people, but is the creature of their power, the

instrument of their convenience. Designed for their

protection in the enjoyment of the rights and powers

which they possessed before the constitution was

made, it is but the framework of the political

government . . It presupposes an organized society,

law, order, property, personal freedom, a love of

political liberty, and enough of cultivated intelligence

to know how to guard it against the encroachments of

tyranny”. (emphasis added)

Courts of law are governed by and subject to the

consent of the people (Amendment 9), and judges are

bound to the United States Constitution by Article VI,

Sec. 2 of the Constitution which states, “This

Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which

shall be made Pursuance thereof; . . .shall be the

supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every

State shall be bound thereby.” And Article III states

“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts,

shall hold their Offices during good Behavior’. Also

known as the ‘Good Behavior Clause’.

Under our God-given rights we seek to do business

with each other, and in the occasion that there is a

11

disagreement, we have the right to find somebody to

hear our disagreements - to help us settle the matter,

in this matter courts were created, to hear these

arguments. So “We The People” have created courts

with the agreement that if you go, or are compelled to

go to court, you are subject to its decision without

violating the 9th Amendment.

The Constitution recognizes that it cannot construe

or disparage our rights or create a court of law that

can construe or disparage our rights (this is also selfevident). This means that because Judges are bound

by the Constitution, they cannot ever at any time

inflict the law or their interpretation of law upon the

parties in court. The judge must base his decision on

the parties interpretation of the law. It is the peoples’

right to seek a judge to referee their argument; they

cannot give rights to a judge which they don’t have

themselves. They cannot ever at any time require a

judge to become the giver of their rights or to tell them

what they are. They can only give the judge the right

to referee their interpretation of what they claim their

rights are. All courts of law are required as a matter

of law to follow this, when judges take the oath of office

they have sworn to do this.

Once a party invokes legal authority in court the

court cannot violate it or enter in its own arguments

which would add to the arguments already in flow.

Basically speaking, when a party goes to court he

argues what his rights are while the opposing party

produces an argument that disagrees, herein the

12

court bases his decision on the arguments before him.

If controlling legal authorities, or the law invoked bya

party in court, first become subject to the court's

judicial determination or interpretation, then the only

rights you have is what the court states it to be which

you cannot know beforehand, this makes our courts

precarious and produces uncertainty in our courts, for

how can you rely on the law to protect your rights?

This makes a party in court subject to the court

because the court is now the ultimate holder of your

rights instead of it being the protector of them. How

can this be just?

Under the doctrine of equitable maxim, which is a

self-imposed doctrine that allows a court to shut its

door against one whom comes to court with unclean

hands, or against one who uses the courts for a

wrongful purpose, it allows a court to strip away the

law or any legal authority from a party who uses it to

hide their wrongful acts, this stripping power is

inherently wrong for two reasons: 1) this striping

power (or the power to shut its doors) puts the court

back into the first position of determining or

interpreting legal authorities which is unjust and

produces uncertainty making the court the giver of

your rights instead of the protector of them, and 2) this

striping power puts the party that it favors safely

behind the court—this party is protected by the court

which the opposing party cannot penetrate; there is no

justice served in allowing a party to hide behind a

court.

13

When a party is allowed to hide behind the court it

prejudices the opposing party and forces the opposing

party to argue with the court. A court that positions a

party to argue with the court becomes unjust, this is

because the court and the opposing party are not on

the same equal ground, unless the court agrees to

share in the liability of the case and becomes equal to

the party that it protects which it cannot do and still

be a judge.

For argument purposes, let's say the equitable

maxim doctrine forbids a person from being unjustly

enriched by the law which creates a reason why a

party cannot hide behind the law and allows a court to

shut its door against such party. Under The Object

Principle of Justice it still becomes the responsibility

of a party in court to demonstrate to the court how the

law is unjustly enriching the other party, or that the

party has unclean hands. The court cannot invoke any

doctrine or any kind of judicial determination against

any party that may become unjustly enriched by the

law. It is up to one of the parties in court to present an

argument that overcomes this. Again, under the

doctrine of The Object Principle of Justice the court

cannot ever help one party to the demise of the other

party without prejudicing the demising party.

Codes of judicial conduct, like the one in Utah, seem

to all echo the following theme; Utah Canon 2.2 of the

Code Of Judicial Conduct state that “A judge shall

uphold and apply the law,* and shall perform all

duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.”

14

*COMMENT - [1] “. ..a judge must interpret and apply

the law without regard to whether the judge approves

or disapproves of the law in question. [2] When

applying and interpreting the law, a judge may make

good-faith errors of fact or law. Errors of this kind do

not violate this Rule.”

This Canon violates the doctrine of The Object

Principle of Justice. The moment the judge makes any

kind of interpretation of the law it has helped one

party to the demise of the other party, it has

prejudiced that party it demised and has positioned

the demised party to argue with the court. This

becomes a direct argument between the party it has

prejudiced and the court while the winning party

becomes protected by the court's own volition. More

likely than not, if you argue with the court you will

upset the court and you will lose.

The case of State Ex Rel. Z.C., 2007 UT 54 identifies

how the court has the broad discretion to protect The

Object Principle of Justice, it states “...consequences,

manifestly contradictory to common reason, they are,

with regard to those collateral consequences, void. I

lay down the rule with these restrictions; though I

know it is generally laid down more largely, that acts

of parliament contrary to reason are void. But if the

parliament will positively enact a thing to be done

which is unreasonable, I know of no power that can

control it: and the examples usually alleged in support

of this sense of the rule do none of them prove, that

where the main object of a statute is unreasonable the

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-39]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]