Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Latressa Railback, Petitioner v. City of Des Moines, Iowa, et al.

Supreme Court briefJan 5, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

FILED

JAN 0 5 2024

IN THE

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

iLniitalE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Latressa Rail back

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

STATE OF IOWA et al

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

IOWA SUPREME COURT

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Latressa Railback; Living Woman

(Your Name)

3423 S.W. 8TH STR.

(Address)

DES MOINES, IOWA; POLK COUNTY, 50315

(City, State, Zip Code)

515-423-1654

(Phone Number)

FEDERAL QUESTIONS (Rule 14(1 )(a))

As a natural-li ring woman, personal jurisdiction fall sunder Natural Rights or federal common law, which is within the purview of federal law under

the US Supreme Court, and regarding subject mztfter jurisdiction. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution declares: "In all cases involving

Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."

Additionally, the issue of lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any stage and in any fo im during the proceedings, asafQimed in Lloyd v.

State. 251 N.W.2d55J (Iowa 1977), which challenged the Iowa district court’s jurisdiction over the case. Iowa Rule 1.281 applies to expedited civil

actions when the total damages claimed arc $75,000 orlcss,cnsuringjurisdiction remains in the district court. Claims surpassing this amount arc

typically not subject to this rule. The U.S. Federal Rules ofEvidcncc201 arc applicable.

In addition to the pattern of events alleged in this case, reports show that there have been many others with, sometime*, similar allegations resulting in

serious injuries. Reports suggest that since 2013, there have been around 119 police-involved deaths in Iowa, with 94-95 involving people of color, the

youngest being 16 years old; numerous reports allege excessive force, with the youngest case reportedly being a 13 -year-old girl mishandled by a male

officer: and racial profiling regarding People with brown or darker skin tones. If, as reported, Iowa attorney gen era l hadnot prosecuted any officer in

force-related cases since 2004, thisraisesconcemsaboutpotential conflicts of interest and a lack of public official diligence in holding alleged

perpetrators accountable, and could be perceived as injustices; as a result, the State and Governor had been added to the case.

Did the Iowa District Court have the authority to presided over the case once consent, which is required by 5 U.S.C. 556(6)(7), was revoked by way of

requests for Morion to Change Venue/Jurisdiction and due to lack ofjurisdiction and possible vested interest, allegedly, where original and concurrent

jurisdiction is presumed to be in the Supreme Court (Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2), and identity (Fed Rule 26), Jury Trial (5th, 6th, 7th, and 14th

amendments), Injunctive Relief, among others, were allegedly denied whenrequested by the Plaintiff. Although video footage of the apparent home

invasion and the dateftime of the incident were submitted to the PoliceDepartment/OPS. and forwarded, presumably, to the legal department; however;

the principal defendants remain unidentified, and the case was prematurely proved onthc 73 rd day after submission to court, although 90 days plus an

extension is allowed according to the plain language of the Iowa Rule 1.302(5), and there was no certificate of service in accordance with Iowa Court

Rule 1.442(7).

While both the U.S. Constitution and the Iowa Strte Constitution claim to be the supreme law of the land, the Supremacy Clause in Article VT seems to

give federal law precedence overstate law, as seen in United Staesv.Hermis, 79 MJ. 370. This case affirms that the Constitution ensures criminal

defendants have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. Moreover, "The right of access is founded on the Due Process Clause and

guarantees the righuopresenttoacourtof law al legations concerning the violation of constitutional rights," as established in Smith v. Maschner, 899

F.2d 940 at947 (10th Cir. l 990). Given thatthe defendants have constitutional rights and a guaranteed present (heir allegations, shouldn’t the exculpable

be afforded the same guarantees when violations are presumed to have occurred?

As it relates to the previous question If the SupremeCourl has determined certain actions to be criminal and punishable by law in previous cases, it

could be argued that die Iowa court may haveerred in denying a case when constitutional law is implicated, as seen in Godfrey v. State and Bivens v.

Six Unknown Named Agents. In common law legal systems, blackletter laws are established legal rules that are certain and indisputable. Blackletter

law is clcarandwdl-known, encompassing wdl-cstablishod case law and the fundamental components of a legal subjoct. As it relates to the previous

question, essentially, it pertains to legal concepts that arc ancient, significant, and unquestionable.

6. ■jp-fudges must recuse theireelves in any proceeding where their impartiality could be reasonably questioned. Recusal ismandatal when the likelihood of

actual bias by thejudge is constitutionally intolerable. "When a judge acts outside oftheir jurisdiction, they are engaging in acts of treason.” This is

stated inUSv. Will, 449US 200,216,101 S.Ct,471,66L.Ed.2d392,406(1980) and Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404,5 L.Ed 257

(1821). A judge loses absolute immunity from damage actions only when acting outside all jurisdiction or performing a non-judicial act, as per

Schuckerv.Rockwood, 846F.2d 1202. Any justice: judge, or magistrate must recuse themselves in any proceeding where their impartiality could be

reasonably questioned. Recusal ismandated when the likelihood of actual bias by thejudge or decision-maker is constitutionally intolerable.

There was neither an implied nor an explicit contract; the plaintiffs submission was merely to secure a docket number to initiate the process. However,

the defendants remain unidentified, and the case advanced more swiftly than llie rules permit forjudicial oversight. According to 5 U.S.C. 556(d)(6)(7),

the consent of all parti <s maybe necessary for a judge to oversee a case Furthermore, alleged conflicts of interest ough l to result in disqualification due

to vested interests. Consent is usually a crucial element in lawful contracts. Judges and justices are required to be bonded, hold current oaths, and,

where relevant keep foreign registrations to practice law up-to-date. The Iowa district court is obligated to adjudicate cases based on their merits, with

evidence presented supporting the facts of the ease. Recusal is implied when necessary.

A written request forrecusalof a judge due to possible conflicts of interest concerning the Merit Selection System that allows the Governor to hire

judges in the stateof Iowa; and also for a presumed lack ofjurisdiction, which may inply that there was no consent for thejudge or court to preside

over the case. As determined in Melo v. U.S., 505 F.2d 1026, the proceedings must stop if the court finds it doesnot have jurisdiction. If a judge refuses

to recuse themselves, thereisan established procedure to ensure the substantive and procedural due process of law is maintained as it relates to the

previous question, considering that the district court judge was hired as judge by a defendant in the case and likely wotked alongsideother defendants

in the case, does this create an unfair advantage or disadvantage in this case; or conflict of interest, and should thejudge have recused.

"A court does not have diejurisdiction todetemiine its ownjuris diet ion, as a fundamental issue in any case before a tribunal in its power to act, and a

court must have the authority to decide that question initially," as stated in Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, Furthermore, "Jurisdiction

can be challenged at anytime, and once challenged, it cannot be assumed and must be decided," according to Main v.Tliiboutot. "Once challenged,

jurisdiction cannot be assumed; it must be proven to exist," as held in Basso v, Utah Power & Light Co. "Acourt cannot confer jurisdiction where none

existed and cannot makea void proceed mg valid. It is clear and well-established law that a void order can be challenged in any court," as stated in Old

Wayne Mutual Life Association v. McDonough. Additionally, "The lawrequiresproofofjurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative

agency and all administrative proceedings," as required by Hagans v. Lavine.

10.

When thetrial proceeded neither die plaintiff nor their representatives were present because the petition had been withdrawn, the court lacked

jurisdiction and the electronic filing system may have had issues with its links. Can there bean £x Parle meeting without the plaintiffs or any

representatives for the plaintiffs?

11.

A trial cannot proceed without the proper parties present, and not only were thePlaintiffnot present, but the principal alleged Tortfeasors have not beat

identified, as required by Iowa Rule 1.201,1.401 and 1.405(1). If the principal defendant remains unidentified, a response cannot logically beprovidod.

Furthermore, Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(6) and Federal Rules 1 Oand 43 require the defendant's presence or a pica/admission, making the identification of

the defendant crucial. In situations where only thejudge and the defendant's attorneys arc present, without witnesses or evidence, the testimony could

be contested as hearsay or lacking direct knowledge. Additionally, such testimony would likely be inadmissible if a Motion/Notice for Discovery had

been issued, requiring the attorneys to disclose the identi ly of the principal defendant Brady violations could be a concern, and adverse inference might

apply if proceedings begin without identifyingthe accused, especially given previous complications.

12.

Accountability is mandated for govemmaitemployeesormerrbeis if constitutional or federal I aw is breached. Misconduct can result in the loss of

qualified immunity. Therefore, itisimperative tohold government errployees or members accountable if they violate constitutional or federal laws.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act also necessitates that records be kept for all federal employees, including oaths and bon ding information.

13.

When a government officer intentionally damages property by entering without urgent need, consent, notification, or a warrant, especially if armed, it

could endanger unaware homeowners. Such conduct might be deemed burglary, whichhas led to fatalities in (lie past. If (his co mpromises someone's

reputation, mental, emotional, physical, spiritual, and financial health, it couldbe seen as creating an injured party, as per the U S Supreme Court's

rulingthat a crime requires an injured party and no penalties can be imposed for exercising constitutional right s(Sherarv. Cullen, 481 F.2d 945). This

is in line with the principles established in Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623,659-60.

14.

Home invasions disrupt pcauc and may viol ate the intruder's oeth or contract ifthey have broken established laws. Justice Louis D. Brandds, inGilbcrt

v. Minnesota (1920), stated thatthe First Amendment protects the privacy of the hotre. As seen in Bivens vs. Six Unknown Fed Narcotics Agents, 403

U.S.388 (1971). and Godfrey vs. State, 962 NW.2d84,96(lowa 2021), regarding the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 14th amendments and thestateequivalent,

allegedly; furthermore, remedies for violations ofBlack letter law, the Bill of Rights/Constitution, and statutory violations can be sought. The Second

Amendment and various state and local laws uphold the principle ofprotectrng one's property from intruders, potentially leadingto perilous situations

forunsuspectinghomeowners, and qualified immunity may belost under 1 l th amendment.

15.

Furthermore, the caseshould arguably have been transferred to an appropriate jurisdiction when it involved the governor and the state, especially in

instance of constitutional violations and when the dispute exceeds $75,000, as the Iowa district court may not have jurisdiction. Tampering with

evidence is a criminal acl under 18USC 1512.subjecUolegalconsequences.Tlie IowaDislrici Court’s removal of submissions could be perceived as

an attempt tohidealleged eirors and rights infringements. Such conduct could be viewed as a violation, potentially leadingto the dismissal and

punishment for violators, further, the justices who werenot revealed to the plaintiffs until post-trial, possibly violated the plaintiffs’ constitutionally

protected due process rights. The governor's appointment of all judges andjustiocs, reportedly granting one a salary 128% above their peers, could

indicate a conflict of interest.

16.

The lawsuit seeks $288 million fromthe State of Iowa/Ambassador.the C'ityof Des Moines, and its subdivisions, includingthe Police Department.

Neighborhood Services, and the City Attorney's Office, as well as from die accused employees in both their official and personal capacities for direct

and/or indirect damages'injuries. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (22U.S.C. 61 1 et seq.) requires records for all federal employees, including

oaths and bondingderails.

17.

Given that the officer parked down die street, consistent with the direction they entered the property, despite available pa-king closer to the residence,

and circumvented the front door withoutnotifying the occupants or obtaining consent, this could imply premeditation or priiua fade evidence of actus

reus and mens rea The Second Amendment, along with supportive state and local laws, grants individuals the right to protect their property against

intruders.

18.

Government employees arc generally obligated to report searches, seizures, or inspections, and failure to do so could be perceived as a breach of

fiduciary duties or as deceptive behavior. Illegally obtained data may be deemed the tainted "fruit of the poisonous tree." If a city attorney uses

unclaimed or undelivered certified notices as cridcncc.it could suggest that the attorney had knowledge that a violation of due process may have

ensued. Likewise, subnrittinghomc surveillance footage to the legal department as evidence could result in a Brady violation if the material is

beneficial. Attorneys must disclose unconstitutional actions, and failure to do so may result in penalties, iueluding compensatory andpunitived tuntges,

as well as legal fees, as outlined in I 8 U.S.C 2382.

19.

The described eventsmay be perceived as retaliatory: Since June 2023, police officers in both maikedand unmarked vehicles have reportedly parked in

front ofthe plaintiffs home and on their typically quiet street between 20 to 50 rimes allegedly. Theca se was fi led in May 2023 with the Iowa district

court, and officers have been obsaved speeding away to evade video orphoto evidence. The most recent incident occurred in 2024, additionally, city

workers taped the trash/recycling bins and placed them in the center ofthe driveway, the household’s water supply was cutoff, and the supervisor has

declined to issue a truebdl to confirm the total amount owed, which may have been taxed or settled by other means. Furthermore, child support

payments, currently die household's sole income, have been allegedly withheld. On August 8th, 2024, an additional incidentinvolved 10-15 large trash

vehicles driving consecutively down die plaintiffs street, which could have potentially cause damage to the road, which may have a weight limit. These

actions, among others, are claimed to harass the household members who are attempting to hold the Iowa government accountable for purported crimes

against them after initiation of case LA CL 155681.

20.

After receiving a voicemail on January 20,2023, about an upcoming lawsuit, and following the dispatch of a preservation letter on January 3,2023, the

City Attorney is accused of creating case DMCICI009795 on Febtuary 15,2023, possibly as a retal iatoiy measure. Prosecuting an individual without

informing them and bypassing due process is illegal and maybe deemed malicious prosecution. This matter is significant because it appears the judge

may not have addressed the allegations in the petitioner perhaps adjudicated the incorrect case, potentially DMC1G009795; additionally, given that on,

or about, June 30,2023, the petition for LACL155681 was allegedly retracted by the district court/cleik and was not refiled until August 2023, it is

unclear which petition was used.

21.

As a homcowncnncwlycstablishedsmallhomobascd business owner sinccapproximatcly 2021,homcschoolcrfor about ten years, and a single

parent, the Appellant has endured significant hardship due to this case. It lias impacted their life, liberties, property, pursuit of happiness, reputation,

spiritual, mental, emotional, physical well-being, and financial stability, among others. Having exhausted all avenues through "Find A Lawyer" and

"Google Search" without securing representation, the Petitioner was compelled to self-represent as Attomey-in-Fact/Pro Se/Sui Juris. This has been

particularly challenging for the Appellant, who lacks legal expertise after a 20-yearcareer in Healthcare They have suffered physical symptoms like

migraines, joint aches, and eye strain, and mental challenges such as anguish, anxiety, and depression, causing significant disruptions in their life,

liberty, pursuitofhappiness, property enjoyment, security, and normalcy. Moreover, homeschooling and new business initiatives have suffered, with

household finances strained by decreased income and expaisesffomprinting, certified mail, and other case-related costs. Despite extensive efforts,

video evidence, and documented pursuit ofjustice for alleged criminal acts by government officials, rights violations, damage to real property, and

community reputation through presumed slander and fraud, as detailed in the petitions, a conprdiensive investigation under federal and slate laws is

warranted.

22.

Regarding the previous question, 42 U.S.C. 1983,1985, 1986, and 18 U.S.C. 241,242.245. among others, do provide remedies for violations of the

U.S. Constitution and forconspiracy when acts arc carried out by government officials under the presumption of law. Additionally, it is accurate that

judges, justices, and other government employees have a fidueiiry duty to thcU.S. Constitution, which encompasses the Bill ofRights, thereby

establishinga fiduciary duty to the people.

23.

Given that home surveil lance footage, complete with date and time, was purportedly submitted to the police and communicated to the legal depaitmait

through email/text exchange, it seems reasonable to contend that identifying details should have been revealed in accordance with Iowa Rules 1.500

and 1.503(1). as well as Federal Rile 26. Typically, all parties have the right to be informed of the judge or justice presiding over their case before the

trial begins. Not disclosing this information until after the hearing could infringe upon both substantial and procedural due process of law. Moreover,

under 18 U.S. Code 505, a judgment is usually not enforceable without a judge's or justice's signature, which authenticates the court's order. If the

attorneys and court refused or denied the plaintiffs Motion for Discovery, it could constitute a violation of due process if the request for information

was denied.

LIST OF PARTIES (Rule 14(b)(1))

□

All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

(X) All parties do not appear in the caption of the case onthe cover page. A list ofall parlies to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

Plaintiff/s / Advocate on behalf of the Injured Party

•

Latrcssa Railback (Living/Breathing/StandingMajority (Iowa Rule t .225))

Attorney in Fact/Advocate

Class ofOne/Act ofOne

Pro Se Representative

Sui Juris

Defendant/s / in their official and/or official/personal capacities, the Alleged Conspirators areas follows:

Tortfeasors:

CO- Conspirator 1: JOHN POE.Policeman:

CO- Conspirator 2: JANE DOE. City inspector:

CO- Conspirator 3: Joshua Raleigh. C'itv inspector:

CO- Conspirator 15: CITY ATTORNEY Jeffrey Lester on behalf of Molly Tiacy, assistant Ci tv Attorney for the City ofPes Moines, who Is accusedof

conspiring with Joshua Raleigh to create a case against the homeowners.

Employer / Supervisors:

CO- Conspirator 4: Supervisor of JOHN DOE. Unknown

CO- Conspirator 5: Supervisor of JANE DOE. Unknown

CO- Conspirator 6: Supervisor of Joshua Raleigh, Chris Heilskov

CO- Conspirator 15: Supervisor of Molly Tracy. Jeffrey Lester

Municipalities / Leaders:

CO- Conspirator 7: MAYOR Thomas Michael Franklin Cownic

CO- Conspirator 8; CITY OF DES MOINES

CO- Conspirator 9: CITY MANAGER Scott Sanders

CO- Conspirator 10: DES MOINES POLICE DEPARTMENT

CO- Conspirator 11: CHIEF OF POLICE Dana Winge-rt

CO-Conspirator 12: DES MOINES NEIGHBORHOOD INSPECTION DIVISION

CO- Conspirator 13: CITY DIRECTOR Chris Johansen

CO- Conspirator 14: DES MOINES LEGAL DEPARTMENT

CO- Conspirator 15: CITY ATTORNEY Jeffrey Lester/ Molly Tracy

CO- Conspirator 16: STATE OF IOWA (DUNS/Bradstreet 828089701 Business Entity)

CO-Conspirator 17: GOVERNOR Kimberly Reynolds

RELATED CASES

Latressa Rail back et al v State oflowa et at; NO. LACL155681; District Court Tor Iowa, Folk County. Judgement entered July 2 8,2023.

Latressa Railback et atv State of Iowa et al; NO. 23-1276; Appeal Court for Iowa; Polk County7, Judgement entered Decern here 29,2023.

Latressa Railback et ai vs State of Iowa et al; NO. 23-1276; Supreme Court for Iowa: Polk County-, Judgement entered January 26,2024.

{

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Rule 33.2 and 14.1(c))

OPINIONS BELOW.

JURISDICTION.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

APPENDIX:

•

APPENDIX A.:

•

Order 8: ORDER NO. 23-1276 December 29,2023

APPENDIX B.: IOWA DISTRICT COURT Order No. LACL155681

.4-12

Order 1: ORDER TO DEFER CERTAIN COSTS May 18,2023 (Appendix A(l))

Order 2: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL July 5,2023 (Appendix A(2))

Order 3: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE July 5,2023 (Appendix

A(3))

Order 4: ORDER STAYING DEADLINES July 20,2023 (Appendix A(4))

Order 5: ORDER GRANTING STATE OF IOWA AND KIMBERLY KAY REYNOLDS’

MOTION TO DISMISS July 20,2023 (Appendix A(5))

Order 6: ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MOTION July 20,2023 (Appendix A(6))

Order 7: ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE July 28,2023; 09:57 AM

(Appendix A(7))

Order 8: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND MOTION FOR

HEARING August 15,2023 (Appendix A(8))

APPENDIX C.:

13-14

Order 9: PRECENDENDO NO. 23-1276 January 26,2024

Order 10: BILL OF COSTS NO. 23-1276 January 26,2024

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES (Rule 332 and 14.1(c))

CASES LAW

Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents. 403 U.S. 3B8 (1971)

3,4,

Bond v United Slates. 529 U.S. 334 020001...........................................

BURNIKEL v. City of Des Moines, Iowa, Defendant. (2018)........

Butz v. Economou. 438 U.S. 478 . (1978).........................................

Courtney Saunders v. Kyle Thies, et al21 -2180...............................

DAVID M. POWERS v. STATE OF IOWA (2017)NO. 16-1650).

7, 10,18

Fugenschuh v. Minnehan et al 4:2020cv00227.................................

Godfrey v. State. 962 N.W.2d 84. 96 (Iowa 20211..........................

.3,4

Jared Clinton v. Ryan Garrett, No. 21 -2763 (8th Cir. 2022)............

Johnson v. Zerbst. 304 U.S. 458 (1938).............................................

KLEIN v. Burlington Police Department and Iowa Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal

Investigations, Intervenors-Appellees. (2021)No. 20-0657

.32

Mapp v. Ohio. 367 U. S. 643 G 9611.....................................

McDonald v. United States. 335 US. 451,455 (1948)..........

Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999).............

Nordgren v. Milliken, 762 F.2d 851,853 (10th Cir. 1985).......

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 US 606,121 S. Ct. (2001)......

Quarles, 158U.S. 532 ; Motes v. United States, 178 U.S. 458

Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666,67 S.Ct.

1409

,24

Schuckerv. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202.................................

3,10,18

Sloman v. Tadlock. 21 F.3d 1462,1469-70 (9th Cir. 1994)

Smith V. Des Moines Public School System (1996)............

Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940 at 947 (10th Cir.l 990)....

13,20

Strickland v. Washington. 466 U.S. 668 (1984)...................

Tracy Rhoads EtAlVDMPD (1996)....................................

United States v. United States Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. Of Mich. 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972) ...4

Valenzuela-Gonzales v. United States, 915 F.2d 1276, 1280 (9th Cir. 1990).

7,9,44

Williams v. City of Burlington, 516 F. Supp. 3d 851........................................

STATUES AND RULES

1 st amendment/ Article 1 Section 20...

4th amendment/ Article 1 Section 8....

5th amendment/Article 1 Section 1....

6th amendment/ Article 1 Section 9....

7th amendment....................................

8 th amendment./ Article 1 Section 17.

9th amendment....................................

14th amendments/ Article 1 Section 6

.A, 5,14,17,19,31

4,14, 17, 19,29,31

4.14.17.19.29.31

4.5.14.17.19.29.31

. 4,14,17,19,31

. 4,5,14, 17,19,29,31

,. 4,5,14, 17,19,31

.4, 5,14,17,19,23,28,31

FEDERAL:

Rule 10...................................................................

Rule 43...................................................................

18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)........................................

Article III Section 2, Clause 2.2...........................

Article VI. Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

.32

•

Blacks Law Dictionary Dig. 50, 17, 29; Broom, Max. 178, Maxims of Law, Black’s Law Dictionary 9th

Edition, page 1862

.24

Blacks Law Dictionary Irayner Max.482. Maxims of Law, Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition page

1862

Blacks Law Dictionary 1 S. & R. 58. Maxims of Law Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition page

1866

CAT;CCRP;CERD; Civil Rights Act 1964

Pg- 28

5 U.S.C.556 ..............................................

....pg. 18

5 U.S.C.3331

.... Pg- 2 7

5 USC 105(c)(2)

.... pg.33

10 USC 919b

.... Pg 28

13 USC 212

..... pg-33

15U.S. Code § 7215

.... pg. 23

18 U.S.C 371 ...........

..... Pg- 28

18U.S.C. 1001 CRM 910

..... pg-28

18U.S. Code § 3621

....... pg.3,11

18 U.S.C. § 241 pg.

....... Pg-28

18 U.S.C. § 242 pg..

...... pg-28

18 U.S. Code § 245

........ Pg- 29

18 U.S.C. 1091

........ pg 32,33

18 USC 1512

......... Pg-31

18 USC 1951

......... Pg-32

18 USC 2071

...........Pg-30

18 U.S.C. 2381

...........Pg 33

18 U.S.C. 2383

............ Pg 27

18 U.S.C. 2384

............. Pg 32

25 CFR 11.401

.............. Pg-28

28 CFR 8S.3fa¥9V

............pg- 36

28 CFR 85.3(aR91

.......... pg. 22, 198

28 CFR 85.3(b¥3)(ii) ..

............ pg- 36

29 U.S. Code §: 1452 ..

........... Pg- 29

31 U.S. Code § 3729 ....

............ Pg-30

31 U.S.C. 3802('aKl)(21

............ pg- 36

42 U.S.C. section 1983

pg. 18,22,32

42 U.S. Code $ 1985

• Pg-28

42 U.S. Code § 1986

...pg. 18,32

42 U.S. Code § 2000d-7

.. pg. 36

42 U.S.C. 3614id)(l i(Ci(ii)

. pg.36

Civil Rights Act of 1964 T42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq

. pg. 36

People v. Spencer, 219 A.D.2d 259 (1993)...................

...pg. 36

Sec 810. [42 U.S.C. 3610]................................................

... pg. 39

Sec. 811. [42 U.S.C. 3611] U.S. Code § 892 - Art. 92.

... pg. 39

SUBCHAPTER A—PROBATION (S3 3601 - 36081 .

. pg. 11

SUBCHAPTER B—FINES

PgH

3611 - 361.51

SUBCHAPTER C—IMPRISONMENT m 3621 - 3626)

SUBCHAPTER P—.RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT SYSTEM.

pg. 11

3631 - 36351 ...pg. 11

U.S. Const., amend. XIV

pg.10

STATE:

Code:

669

10,20

Court Rule:

51:2.11, Iowa Rule 51

Rule 51:2.7...............

1.281.........................

1.201.........................

1.302(5).....................

1.401.........................

1.405(1).....................

1.442(7)....................

1.500.........................

1.503(1).....................

5.802.........................

6.9037(1)...................

6.903 (6)....................

....27

... 27

... 18

... 18,19

.... 18,19

...17, 18,19

18,19

Iowa Code Chapter:

Rule 8.3

•pg- 18, 19

63.10

••Pg 27

Rule 65.10

-pg-28

Iowa Rule 69.2

pg 22,23

216.11a

..pg.28

613A,

■ pg-23

613.19

pg. 23

670.1(4)

•Pg-23

670.8 ....

• pg- 23

685.2

• pg. 23

669.1

.. pg. 23

669.19

... pg. 23

669.4(2)

...pg. 23

670.2 ....

.... Pg- 23

685.2

.... Pg- 23

702.11

.....Pg-31

703.1

.... Pg-28

703.3

..... Pg- 28

705.1

...... Pg- 27

706.1

...... Pg- 28

706.3

...... pg- 30

706a

....... pg-28

708.4

...... pg-28

708.7

....... Pg-29

713.3

........ pg-28

713.6a

........ Pg-28

714.(8X9).

....... pg.3 0

714.10

....... Pg-27

715c

......... Pg-27

716.7(2)(a),

........ Pg-29

716.8........

......... Pg-29

716.11

......... pg-30

716.12(f).

......... pg.30

718.6......

........ Pg-30

719.3

...pg.30

720.1

...pg. 28

720.2

pg.30

720.3

Pg-30

720.5

pg.30

720.6

•pg-30

721.1

•pg.29

721.10

•pg.27

723.4

.pg.28

726.6(4)....

■Pg-28

729a(2).....

.pg.28

805.9(3(c))

■pg.ll

808.6........

•Pg-31

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

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

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

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 to review the merits appears at

Appendix __A__ 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 _ LOWER COURT/ IOWA DISTRICT COURT

court

appears at Appendix B

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

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

[ is unpublished.

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was _____ _________________

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date: ____________

, and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including_______

(date) on

(date)

in Application No. __ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

[

For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was January 26,2024 .

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix _A____

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

______________________ , and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including____

(date) on

(date)in

Application No. __ A

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

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED Rule 14.1(f)

FTCA, ITCA, FALSE CLAIM ACT Civil Rights, Fair Housing Act, Fraud Civil Remedies Act,

false claim act, 11ED, treble, libel, tamperingwith evidence, tampering with victim, Punitive

damages, economic and noneconomic, compensatory, speculative, special, constitutional torts.

Commercial tort/businesses, statutory respectively, retaliation, pain and suffering and actual

property damages; and others for both federal and state respectively.

This action seeks maximum declaratory judgment and remedy in the form of restitution for

damages, statutory damages, torts and others. Additionally, adjudication as prescribe by law for

each respective violation and tortfeasor in accordance with Iowa Code Ch. 901; 18 U.S.C. Section

1031; 2016 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual - Sentencing Table (ussc.gov); 18U.S. Code §

3621 - SENTENCING: RANGE FROM ZONE B TO D (4-43) OF THE ‘POINT’ SENTENCING

TABLE; 18 U.S. CodeChaoter229-Subchaptcr A—probation (68 3601 - 3608). Subchanter B—

fines ('§§ 3611 - 3615), Subchapter C—ini prison merit ($6 3621 - 36261 Subchapter D—risk And

Needs Assessment System

3631 -3635).

The Incident:

It was held by the Supreme Court that there is “a guaranteed right to access to a court of law

regarding Constitutionalrights” (Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940 at 947 (10th Cir.1990), and “may not be

denied the right to inform on violation of federallaws” (Quarles, 158 U.S. 532; Motes v. United States, 178

U.S. 458), nor should there be “roadblocks in accessing” crucial orpertinent data. (DAVID M. POWERS

v. STATE OF IOWA (2017) NO. 16-1650). The Appellants seek a remedy for each violation, valuing each

deprived liberty at $5,000,000, liberties that were established at the time of the incident and are now

secured in the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution. All individuals with a fiduciary duty are

bound thereto by oath or contract.

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Aeents. 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

“The term “Bivens action” comes from Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. 403 U.S. 388

(1971). in which the Supreme Court held that a violation of one’s Fourth Amendment rights by

federal officers can give rise to a federal cause of action for damages for unlawful searches and

seizures.” (Bivens action | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu))

“A Bivens action generally refers to a lawsuit for damages when a federal officer who is acting in

the color of federal authority allegedly violates the U.S. Constitution by federal officers acting.”

(Bivens action | Wex | US Law I LIT / Legal Information Institute fcomell.eduVI

Godfrey v. State. 962 N.W.2d 84. 96 flowa 20211

Supreme law-constitutionality of acts. Section 1. “This Constitution shall be the supreme law of

the State, and any law inconsistent there with, shall be void. The General Assembly shall pass all

laws necessary to carry this Constitution into effect.” (The Constitution of the State of Iowa)

“Godfrey states the State of Iowa deprived Godfrey of equal protection of the laws in violation of

article 1, section 6 by discriminating against Godfrey.”

“This case has come before this court on interlocutory appeal on two occasions. On the first

occasion, we addressed the issue of immunity for state employees underthe Iowa Tort Claims Act.

See Godfrey v. State (Godfrey I), 847 N.W.2d 578. 582-83 (Iowa 2014). On the second occasion,

we addressed whether Godfrey could sue for monetary damages for violations of the Iowa

Constitution. See Godfrey v. State (Godfrey 11), 898 N.W,2d 844. 871-72 (Iowa 2017). A

majority of this court held the due process and equal protection provisions of the Iowa

Constitution were self-executing and a plaintiff could assert a claim for monetary damages for

a lleged violations of the same.”

•

Federal: 4th Amendment, State: Article 1 Section 8: Unlawful search/seizure

State: Article 1 Section 8

Bond v United States. 529 U.S. 334 120001

“A United States Supreme Court Fourth Amendment case that applied the ruling of Minnesota v.

Dickerson to luggage, which held that police may not physically manipulate items without a

warrant without violating the Fourth Amendment.”

Mappv. Ohio. 367 U. S. 643 119611

“Holding that the Fourth Amendment, and particularly the exclusionary rule, is applicable to

states through the Fourteenth Amendment”

b. “Holding that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution

is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court"

c. “Holding that states are bound by the same Fourth Amendment principles as the federal

government”

McDonald v. United States. 335 US. 451,455 (1948)

1. “The seizure was in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the seized articles were not admissible

in evidence against McDonald, and his conviction cannot be sustained.” Pp. 255 TJ. S. 452-456 ”

2. “A search without a warrant is not justified unless the exigencies of the situation make that

course imperative.” Pp. 2.35 TJ. S. 454-456.”

United States v. United States Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. Of Mich. 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972)

a. “Remarking that "physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the

Fourth Amendment is directed”

b. “The Fourth Amendment does not contemplate the executive officers of Government as neutral

and disinterested magistrates.”

c. “Holding that there is no warrant exception for "domestic security" surveillances but explicitly

stating that the Court had "not addressed, and express[ed] no opinion as to, the issues which may

be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents”

• Federal: 5th Amendment, State: Article 1 Section 1 Due Process

State: Article 1 Section 1

Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents. 40.3 U.S. 388 (1971) Judge-written summaries of this case:

“Holding that a violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights by federal officers can give rise to a

federal cause of action for damages”

b. “Fourth Amendment confines officer executing a warrant "strictly within the bounds set by the

warrant"

c. "Historically, damages have been regarded as the ordinary remedy for an invasion of personal

interests in liberty.”

Butz v. Economou. 438 U.S. 478 . (1978)

•

“Stating that, for purposes of immunity law, there is no distinction between suits brought against

state officials under Sec. 1983 and suits brought directly under the Constitution against federal

officials”

“Noting that qualified immunity covers "mere mistakes in judgment, whether the mistake is one of

fact or one of law”

“Concluding that agency officials performing functions analogous to those of a prosecutor are

entitled to absolute immunity with respect to such acts”

Federal: 6,h amendment, State: Article right to confrontation clause

State: Article 1 Section 9

Johnson v, Zerbst. 304 U.S. 458 (1938)

a. “Holding that waiver of a constitutional right "is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or

abandonment of a known right or privilege”

b. “Describing assistance of counsel as "one of the safeguards of the Sixth Amendment deemed

necessary to insure fundamental human rights of life and liberty”

c. “Sixth amendment bars defendant's conviction if the accused is not represented by counsel "and

has not competently and intelligently waived his constitutional right" apparently."

• Federal: 8th amendment, State: Article cruel and unusual treatment

•

State: Article 1 Section 17

Strickland v. Washington. 466 U.S. 668 (1984)

a. “Holding that to establish prejudice, a defendant must showthat the result of trial would have been

different”

b. “Explaining that "strategic choices made after thorough investigation of law and facts relevant to

plausible options are virtually unchallengeable”

c. “Stating that "a verdict or conclusion only weakly supported by the record is more likely to have

been affected by errors than one with overwhelming support”

• Federal: 9th amendment, State: Article disparagement/defamation

•

Federal: 14lh amendment, State: Article equal and fairaccess to the lawand justice system

•

State: Article 1 Section 6

•

Federal: 1s< Amendment, State: Article 1 Section 20: Retaliation / Case DMCICI009795

Sloman v.Tadlock-21 F.3d 1462,1469-70 (9th Cir.1994)

a. “Explaining that the reasons forthe existence of the qualified immunity doctrine “do not...

suggest that a judicial determination at [the trial] stage is necessarily better than a jury verdict”

(emphasis in original)

b. “Noting a jury might be “best suited to determine the reasonableness of an 18 SHEPARD V.

QUILLEN officer’s conduct in light of the factual context in which it takes place”

c. “Recognizing a claim under the First Amendment where a police officer “used his official powers,

specifically his power to warn, cite, and arrest, to retaliate against [the] exercise of... free speech

rights”

• Federal: 1st Amendment, State: Article 1 Section 20:

• State: Article 1 Section 20

FEDERAL

Alleged Tampering With Victim and Harassment (See: District Court in this petition)

•

Allegations against government employees in Polk County, Iowa, are asfollows (FEDERAL):

o 18 U.S. Code § 2383

“Whoever incites, sets on foot, a ssists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the

authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined

under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding

any office under the United States.” (Tune 25.1948, ch. 645. 62 Slat. 808 : Pub. L. 103-322. title

XXXIII. §330016< 1. Wl.l Sept. 13. 1994. 108 Star, 2147 .1 1994-Pub. L. 103—322 substituted "fined

under this title" for "fined not more than $ 10,000".

18U.S.C. §242

“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any

person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any

rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United

States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien,

or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined

under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injur)' results from the

acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or

threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” (June 25,1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696: Pub. L. 90284, title I.S 103(b). Apr. 11,1968.82 Stat.75: Pub. L. 100-690.title Vll. 8 7019. Nov. 18, 1988,

102 Stat. 4396: Pub. L. 103..322. title VI. S 60006161. title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b), title

XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994.108 Stat. 1970.2109.2113.2147: Pub. L. 104-294. title

§§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996. 110 Stat. 3507. 35114

18U.S.C. §241

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State,

Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or

privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having

so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises

of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege

so secured—They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include

kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated

sexualabuse,or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of

years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.” (June 25,1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696:

Pub. L, 90-284, title 1.1? Hl.Va i. Apr. 11,1968. 82 Stat. 75: Pub. L. 100-690. title Vli. 8 701 8fat.

(b)(1), Nov. 18,1988,102 Stat. 4396: Pub. L. 103-322. title VI. S 600061a S. title XXXII,

§§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13.1994. 108 Stat. 1970.2109.

2113,2147; Pub. L. 104-294. title VI. §§ 604(b)(l 4)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11,1996, IIP St nt. 3507.

3511.)

18 U.S. Code § 245 (2)(b)

“Whoever, whether ornot acting under color of law, by force orthreat of force willfully injures,

intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with— any person

because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been—

(B)participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity

provided or administered by any Slate or subdivision thereof; shall be fined under this title, or

imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in

violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a

dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than

ten years, orbothj.]”

42 U.S. Code § 1986

“Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and

mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or

aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be

committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused

by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such

damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such

wrongful neglect or refusalmay be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of anyparty

be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall

have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit

of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the

next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained

which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.” (R.S. § 1981.)

Thompson v. Bohlken, 312 N.W.2d 501,504 (Iowa 1981)

42 U.S. Code § 1985

(1)PREVENTING officer from performing duties

“If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or

threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the

United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officerof the

United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be

performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the

duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, orto injure his property so as

to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;”

(2)OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE; INTIMIDATING PARTY, WITNESS, OR JUROR

“If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or

threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from

testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or

witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence

the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, orto injure

such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully

assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire

for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of

justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws,

orto injure him orhis property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any

person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;”

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

“If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on

the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or

class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under

the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or

Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection

of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any

citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner,

toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or

Vice President, orasa Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person

orproperty on account of such support oradvocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this

section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of

the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of

having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured

or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or

deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.” (R.S. § 1980.)

42U.S.C. section 1983

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any

State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the

United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured

in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action

brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity,

injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief

was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to

the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.” (R.S.

§ 1979: Pub. L. 96-170. $ 1. Dec. 29. 1979. 93 Stat. 1 284: Pub. L. 104-31 7. title III. 8 309icl.

Oct. 19,1996. 110 Stat. 3853.1

42 ITS. CodeS 1981

" In an action brought by a complaining party under section 706 or 717 of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000e-5, 2000e-l 6] against a respondent who engaged in unlawful intentional

discrimination (not an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact)

prohibited under section 703,704, or 717 of the Act [42 U.S.C. 2000e-2, 2000e-3,2000e-l 6],

and provided that the complaining party cannot recover under section 1981 of this title, the

complaining party may recover compensatory and punitive damages as allowed in subsection (b),

in addition to any relief authorized by section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from the

respondent. (b)COMPENSATORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES (l)DETERMINATION OF PUNITIVE

DAMAGES A complaining party may recover punitive damages under this section against a

respondent (other than a government, government agency or political subdivision) if the

complaining party demonstrates that the respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice or

discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights

of an aggrieved individual. (2)EXCLUSIONS FROM COMPENSATORY DAMAGES Compensatory

damages awarded under this section shall not include backpay, interest on backpay, or any other

type of relief authorized under section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000e5(g)], (3)LlMITATIONSThe sum of the amount of compensatory damages awarded under this

section for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss

of enjoyment of life, and othernonpecuniary losses, and the amount ofpunitive damages awarded

under this section, shall not exceed, for each complaining party—

(A)in the case of a respondent who has more than 14 and fewer than 101 employees in

each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $50,000;

(B)in the case of a respondent who has more than 100 and fewerthan 201 employees in

each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $100,000;

and

(C)in the case of a respondent who has more than 200 and fewerthan 501 employees in

each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $200,000;

and

(D)in the case of a respondent who has more than 500 employees in each of 20 or more

calendarweeks in the current or preceding calendaryear, $300,000.

(4)Construction

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the scope of, or the relief available under,

section 1981 of this title.

(c)JURY TRIALlf a complaining party seeks compensatory or punitive damages under this

section—

(1)any party may demand a trial by j ury; and

(2)the court shall not inform the jury of the limitations described in subsection (b)(3).”

29 U.s; Code §: 1452

“Any person who fails, without reasonable cause, to provide a notice required under this subtitle or

any implementing regulations shall be liable to the corporation in anamountupto $100 for each day

for which such failure continues. The corporation may bring a civil action against any such person in

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or in any district court of the United

States within the jurisdiction of which the plan assets are located, the plan is administered, or a

defendant resides or does business, and process may be served in any district where a defendant

resides, does business, or may be found.” (Pub. L. 93-406. title TV. § 4302. as added Pub. L. 96-364.

title I.S 104(21 Sept. 26,1980, 94 Stat. 1263.1

31 U.S.C. §3729

(a)LlABlLlTY FOR CERTAIN ACTS.—(1) IN GENERAL—’’Subject to paragraph (2), any person

who—(A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment

or approval; (B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement

a false or fraudulent claim: (C) conspires to commit a violation of subparagraph (A),

(B), (D), (E), (F), or (G); is liable to the United States Government fora civil penalty of not less

than $5,000 and not more than $10,000, as adjusted by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation

Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note; Public Law 104—410 11 T>. plus 3 times the amount

of damages which the Government sustains because of the act of that person.”

42 U.S. Code § 2000d-7

(a)GENERAL PROVISION (1) “A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the

Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal court for a violation of section 504 of the

Rehabilitation. Act of 1973 l~29 U.S.C. 7941. title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 [20

U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [42 U.S.C. 6101. et seq.], title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or the provisions of any other Federal statute

prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance. (2) In a suit against a State

fora violation of a statute referred to in paragraph (1), remedies (including remedies both at law

and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available

for such a violation in the suit against any public or private entity other than a State, (b)

EFFECTIVE date The provisions of subsection (a) shall take effect with respect to violations that

occur in whole or in part after October 21, 1986.” (Pub. L. 99..506. title X., § 1003. Oct. 21. 1986,

IQOStat. 1845.1

STATE PROVISIONS

Count 1 - U.S. Const., amend. XIV

Count 2 - Personal liability Chapter613.19

Count 3 - Chapter 613 A

Count 4 - Chapter670.1(4)

Count 5 - Chapter 670.8

Count 6 - Chapter 685.2

Count 7 - Chapter 669.1

Count 8-Chapter669.4(2)

Count 9-670.2

Compensatory loss of Possible wages Iowa Code § 668.3

Iowa Code 706 Actual Damage

FTCA: Intentional torts 28 U.S.C. 6271-2680 28 U.S.C. 6 1346

OTHER STATUTORY VILATIONS

See The incident.

INVESTIGATION

An investigation request should be initiated.

o 15 U.S. Code § 7215

o 805.9 (3)(c)

SENTENCING

The following can be referenced for Sentencing

18 U.S.C. Section 1031

POSTSENTENCE ADMINISTRATION 18 U.S. Code Chapter 229 h. SUBCHAPTER A—PROBATION 188 3601 -36081

SUBCHAPTF.R B—FTNF.S 168 361 1 -361 51

j. SUBCHAPTER C—IMPRISONMENT (68 3621 - 36261

k. SUBCHAPTER D—RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 188 3631 - 36351

l. Ch. 901 Judgment and Sentencing Procedures

Imprisonment of a convicted person 18 U.S. Code § 3621 - SENTENCING: RANGE FROM ZONE B TO

D (4-43) OF THE‘POINT’ SENTENCING TABLE; and 2016 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines ManualSentencing Table (ussc.gov)

•

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

This Affidavit of Truth has been prepared by, or on behalf of, Latressa Railback, affiant and living woman,

who is of sound mind and having first-hand knowledge of the facts alleged in this affidavit. The affiant

affirms an oath underpenalty of perjury that the statements are presumed to be true and correct to the best

of my knowledge, and in accordance with Federal and State laws, statutes, rules and/or others, allegedly.

/Railback: Latressa D/ August 12, 2024, Attorney-in-Fact/Pro Se Representation: Latressa Railback; 3423

S.W. 8TH STREET, DES MOINES, 1A [50315],

INTRODUCTION

STATUS

The Maxims of laws, which should govern this case provides that every wrong deserves a remedy as in the

following opinions:

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 US 606, 121 S. Ct. (2001) - “The US Supreme Court ruled that

Municipalities cannot exert any acts of ownership or control over property that is not owned by

them.” (Quotations added and possible omissions)

Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999) - “Plaintiff awarded $8 million for Code

Enforcement’s illegal trespass and restriction of his business; and another $1.45 million for

aggregation of forced sale.” (Quotations added and possible omissions).

Maxims Of Laws to Be Applied to This Case: LACL155681

My God says that I am under Natural Laws as outlined in the Constitutions and in accordance with

the respective Maxims of Laws listed below:

God and Religion

Court Appearance

Scriptural

Judges and Judgment

Law

Governments and Jurisdiction

Right and Wrong

Accidents and Injury

Servants and Slaves

Crime and Punishment

Common Sense

10 Maxims of Commercial law

Property and Land

Possession

20 Maxims of Equity

Fictions

Consent and Contracts

Court and Pleas

Fraud and Deceit

Miscellaneous

U.S. FederalRules Of Evidence 201

ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE “Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

(a) SCOPE. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact, (b)

KINDS OF FACTS THAT MAY BE JUDICIALLY NOTICED. The court may judicially notice a

fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:

(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or

(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot

reasonably be questioned.

(1) may take judicial notice on its own; or

(2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the

necessary information.

(d) TIMING. The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding.

(e) OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the

propriety of takingjudicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed. If the court takesjudicial

notice before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still entitled to be heard.

(f) INSTRUCTING THE JURY. In a civil case, the court must instruct the jury to accept the

noticed fact as conclusive. In a criminal case, the court must instruct the jury that it may or may

not accept the noticed fact as conclusive. (As amended Apr. 26,2011, eff. Dec. 1,2011.)”

federal rules of evidence december 1 2022 O.pdf I'uscoims.aovWmiotarinns added)

Federal Diversity

•

Amount Sneingfor: .H2RR Million

Foreign Subject: State of Iowa/Ambassador; City of Des Moines, and its municipalities: Police

Department, Neighborhood Sendees/Neighborhood Division, City Attorney; and the named

defendants in their official capacities

o FARA Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U.S.C 611 et seq.) Should be on file for all

government employees

At the federal level the American government has always been a separate foreign international

maritime jurisdiction operated under contract to provide two services: (1) protect the national

trust assets, and (2) perform governmental services for the Several States—which in terms of

international law is all recognized sovereign nations.

SPECIAL APPEARANCE and PERSONAL JURISDICTION

The appellant should be seen in special appearance as:

ii.

iii.

iv.

Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant

Attorney in Fact

Pro Se representative

Sui Juris

The appellant’s personal jurisdiction is:

Federal Common Law

Latressa Railback, A living and self-representing woman is subject to the Most High's Natural

Laws, which may be upheld by the United States and State Constitutions through the Bill of Rights. She

seeks to appear specially as an Advocate, Attorney-in-Fact, Pro Se Representative, Sui Juris, and in Propria

Persona. Presuming she is capable of managing her own affairs, Ms. Railback is not under any known

power or guardianship, as acknowledged, and she waives no rights, reserving all. "Fraud upon the court

occurs when the judicial machinery itself is compromised, such as when an attorney,an officerof the court,

commits fraud or materially misrepresents facts to the court. Such fraud renders the court's orders and

judgments void." (Quotations modified and omissions possible) 1520,1711 (1976); codified at 42 U.S.C. §

405(c)(2)(C)(i) (the 1976 Act). "Hon. Stephanie K. Seymour, now Senior Judge for the Tenth Circuit, has

observed that the right of access to the courts is 'fundamental to our system of government' and 'is well

established as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.'" Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d at 947,

Nordgren v. MiUiken, 762 F.2d 851,853 (10th Cir. 1985).

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The petitioner alleges that their case comprised of allegations of violations, presumably, under

color of law, which may violate Constitutional and federal laws, according to those outlined in this brief.

“It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of

a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by

officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile

justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or

protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Additionally, the controversies are between

States.

“Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases involving:

•

the United States government,

•

the Constitution or federal laws, or

controversies between states or between the U.S. government and foreign governments.”

Federal Courts & the Public [ United States Courts riiscourts.aov) (Quotations added and possible

omissions)

ArtIII.S2.C2.2 Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction “Although Congress may allow the lower

federal courts to hear cases subject to Supreme Court originaljurisdiction, the legislature can

neither expand nor contract the constitutional grant of original jurisdiction to the Court.” Supreme

Court Original Jurisdiction 1 U.S. Constitution Annotated I US l.aw I LI i / Legal Information

Institute fcomel1.edu') (Quotations added and possible omissions) Article 111, Section 2, Clause 2:

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a

State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Supreme Court Original

Jurisdiction I II.S. Constitution Annotated I US Law I LIT / l.e-ga 1 Infomration Institute

fcomell.edu) (Quotations added and possible omissions); Held: “the question of lack of subject

matter jurisdiction can be raised in any manner and at any stage of the proceedings.” Llovd v.

State. 251 N.W.2d 551 (Iowa 1977). (Quotations added and possible omissions)

SECTION 1: IOWA COURT/S Rule 14.1(g)

IOWA DISTRICT COURT: LACU55681; TRIED: July 28, 2023;

etnlv. STATE OF

eta I DAVID

; Judj?

for the 5th Judicial District Court of Iowa, in Polk County

No Consent Given

For the record, on the record, and let the record reflect/show that:

The appellant has not waived any rights, including personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and

has not given consent for the Iowa district court or its presiding judge to oversee the case. The petition was

apparently withdrawn by the district court; thus, when the case was transferred, there was no active petition

as it had been retracted around 6-30-2023. Consent is a mandatory requirement as per 5 U.S. Code §

556(b)(6)(7). Tt is presumed that deletions were made by the Iowa district court or its clerk. Not all

documents were preserved, but three separate PDFs were saved atdifferenttimes: 11/26/2023,12/3 1/2023,

and 01/03/2024. A screenshot shows that the judge denied the Motion to Recuse on 07-05-2023, which

may suggest that the petitioner's consent was never given as required.

No Established Contracts

There was no established contract between the Petitioner and the Iowa Judicial Branch, Iowa

district court, Iowa appeal court, nor Iowa supreme court. If a contract was established based on the

submission of the documents, then a request for the judge to recuse and Motion to Change

Venue/Jurisdiction, would have presumably nullified the contract. “Anaturalman orwoman may stand

upon their unalienable rights, and are entitled to carry on their private business in their own ways according

to the law. Their power to contract is unlimited, and they owe no duty to the State or their neighbors to

divulge their business, or to open their doors to investigation. Their Rights live permanently in the “law of

the land”, antecedent to the organization of the State, and requiring concerns to be addressed by “due

process of law”.” Declaration of Independence. “A contract is an agreement between parties, creating

mutual obligations that are enforceable by law. The basic elements required for the agreement to be a

legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance: adequate

consideration: capacity: and legality.” cm ract

.aw

■eea

(comell.edu) The House Conference Report to the 1976 Act spoke directly to the broadened statutory

language, stating: [The Senate amendment] makes a misdemeanor the willful, knowing, and deceitful use

of a social security number for any purpose .US. Attorneys’ Bulletin Vol 53 No 01. Social Security Fraud

(iustice.gov) (Quotations added and possible omissions)

OUTLINE OF SUBMISSIONS/RtiTRACTIONS

The petitioner's submissions to the electronic court system, EDMS, appearto have been altered, as

evidenced by the available pdfs. There are allegations that these submissions were removed by an

individual with access to the judicial electronic filing system, not by the petitioner. Below is a list of

submissions that seem to have been deleted. This action is presumed to conceal, alter, eliminate, or destroy

evidence that supports claims of due process violations by Towa courts and systemic corruption, purportedly

in violation of 18 USC § 1512 and the Constitution:

•

6-9-23 a. Appearance Luke Desmet, Defendants

6-13-23 a. Motion to Amend due to continued harassment after submission of legal documents to

District Court, which had become regular (video footage and photos available forreview(Flash

drive)), Plaintiff/s b. Return of Service, Plaintiff/s

6-14-23 a. Appearance by Michelle Wiederander, Defendants b. Retraction of Jury Request for

unclear reasons, Clerk c. Amended Petition Submission, Plaintiff/s d. Motion for Discovery,

Plaintiff/s

6-15-23 a. Amended Petition Submission, Plaintiff/s b. Retraction of Petition for unclear reasons,

Clerk

6-26-23 a. Motion to Dismiss Stanley Thompson, Defendants

6-27-23 a. Motion to Dismiss Luke Desmet, Defendants

6-29-23 a. Amended Petition, Plaintiff/s b. Retraction of Amended Petition, Clerk c. Notice of

Discovery Request, Plaintiff/s

6-30-23 a. Motion, Plaintiff/s

7-5-23 a. Motion to Transfer Venue Denie

The presumed deleted data may be supported by the orders submitted by the Iowa district court as follows:

•

Order 1: ORDER TO DEFER CERTAIN COSTS May 18,2023 (Appendix A(l))

•

Order 2: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL July 5, 2023 (Appendix A(2))

•

Order 3: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE July 5,2023 (Appendix

A(3))

•

Order 4: ORDER STAYING DEADLINES July 20,2023 (Appendix A(4))

•

Order 5: ORDER GRANTING STATE OF IOWA AND KIMBERLY KAY REYNOLDS’

MOTION TO DISMISS July 20,2023 (Appendix A(5))

•

Order 6: ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MOTION July 20, 2023 (Appendix A(6))

•

Order 7: ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE July 28, 2023; 09:57 AM

(Appendix A(7))

•

Order 8: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND MOTION FOR HEARING

August 15,2023 (Appendix A(8))

PROCEEDINGS

Iowa District Court:LACL155681; TRIED: July 28, 2023; Latressa Railhaek et al v. STATE OFTOWA et

aJ Appendix A(l-7)

Iowa Appeal Court: 23-1276, REJECTED: December 29,2023, The court did not accept the case;

Appendix B

Iowa Supreme Court: 23-1276, REJECTED: January 26, 2024, The court did not accept the case.

Appendix C

SECTION 1(A) IOWA DISTRICT COURT

Docket Number: LACL155681; Case Caption: Latressa Railhaek et al vs STATE OF IOWA et al. hut was

presumably changed by the court to: LATRESSA D. RATT.RACK Plaintiff VS. JOHN DOF.- CITY OF

DES MOINES. JEFFREY D. LESTER. JOSHUA RALEIGH. JANE DOE. DF.S MOINES POLICE

DEPARTMENT. THOMAS MICHAEL FRANKLIN COWNIE. NEIGHBORHOOD INSPECTIONS

D1V. CHRIS JOHANSEN. JOSHUA RALIEGH SUPERVISOR OF CITY OF DES MOINES. SCOTT

SANDERS. DANA WINGERT Defendant

The Iowa District Court/Court/S:

The following are alleged concerning the Iowa district court:

On May 15,2023, a civil action seeking monetary damages was initiated by or on behalf of the plaintiffs to

secure a docket number and commence the legal proceedings.

“Initially, the Brady rule was only applicable if the defendant made a pretrial request for specific

information which the prosecution denied. In United Slates r. Baslev. however, the Sun re me

Court eliminated this request requirement and stated thatthe prosecution has a constitutional duty

to disclose all material, favorable information in their possession to defendants regardless of

whether it is requested. This duty is breached regardless of whether that information is withheld

intentionally or unintentionally.” Brady rule I Wex 1 US Law I HI / Legal Information Institute

fcomel1.edu') (Quotations added and possible omissions).

•

5th Amendment: “The Fifth Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal

and civil legal proceedings. In crimina I cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to

a grand jury, forbids “double jeopardy.” and protects against self-incrimination. It also

requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty

or property” and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private

property for public use.’Tifth Amendment I U.S. Constitution [ US Law | LII / Legal

Information Institute fcomell.edu)

6th Amendment: “The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants,

including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right

to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the

charges and evidence against vou.”Sixth Amendment I U.S. Constitution I US Law I LIT /

Legal Information Institute tcomell.edu)

7th Amendment: “Amendment VII. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy

shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried

by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to

the rales of the common law.” Seventh Amendment I U.S. Constitution I US Law I LIT / Legal

Information Institute fcomell.edu')

14th Amendment: “Bia s or prejudice either inherent in the structure of a trial system or

imposed by external events can infringe a person’s right to a fair trial. Thus, as in the civil

context,! procedural due process requires criminal cases to be overseen by an unbiased judge

and decided by an impartial jury.” Impartial. Judge and Jury 1 Constitution Annotated 1

Congress.go v [ Library of Congress

U.S. Constitution, Article 3, section 2, Clause 2 “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other

public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court

shall have original Jurisdiction."Article 3 Section 2 Clause 2 I Constitution Annotated |

Conaress.iJ.ov I Library of Congress

Iowa Rule 1.500 “Duty to disclose; required disclosures.”

Iowa Rule 1.503 “In general. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not

privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it

relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any

other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of

any books, documents, or other tangible things, the identity and location of persons having

knowledge of any discoverable matter, and the identity of witnesses the party expects to call

to testify at the trial.’’Rule 1.503 - Scope of disco very. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.503 I Casetext Search

+ Citator

Iowa Rule 1.442(7)) “clarifies that all documents served or filed shall include a certificate of

service[;][.]”

Fed. Rule 10 “(a) Caption; Names of Parties. Every plea ding must have a caption with the

court's name, a title, a file number, and a Rule 7(a) designation.”

Fed. Rule 26 “(A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(aVl )(.B ) or as otherwise

stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide

to the other parties: (i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each

individual likely to have discoverable information—alongwith the subjects of that

information—that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the

use would be solely for impeachment)-^.]”

Fed. Rule 43 “(a) IN OPEN COURT. At trial, the witnesses’ testimony must be taken in open

court unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, these rules, or other rules

adopted by the Supreme Court provide otherwise. "

Iowa Rule 1.201 “Real party in interest. Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the

real party in interest.”

Iowa Rule 1.401 “There shall be a petition and an answer; a reply to a counterclaim

denominated as such; an answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a cross-claim; a

•

cross-petition, if a person who was not an original party is summoned under the provisions of

rule 1.246; and an answer to cross-petition, if a cross-petition is served.”

Iowa Rule 1.405 “The answer shall show on whose behalf it is filed, and specifically admit or

deny each allegation or paragraph of the pleading to which it responds, which denial may be

for lack of information. It must state any additional facts deemed to show a defense.”

Iowa Rule 6.903 “(3) Appellee's brief. The appellee must file a brief or a statement waiving

the appellee's brief."

Rule 1.281 governs "expedited civil actions" in which the sole relief sought is a money

judgment

Rule 802. The Rule Against Hearsay. Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following

provides otherwise: a federal statute; these rules; or. other rules prescribed by the Supreme

Court.

•

5 U.S. Code § 556 (c) “Subject to published mles of the aaencv and within its powers,

employees presiding at hearings may—

o (6)hold conferences for the settlement or simplification of the issues by consent of the

parties or by the use of alternative means of dispute resolution as provided in subchapter

IV of this chapter;

o (7)infoim the parties as to the availability of one ormore alternative means of dispute

resolution, and encourage use of such methods;

o (8)require the attendance at any conference held pursuant to paragraph (6) of at least one

representative of each party who has authority to negotiate concerning resolution of

issues in controversy .’’(quotations, bold and underlining added)

•

“In legal ethics, ex parte refers to improper contact with a party or a judge. Ethical mles

typically forbid a lawyer from contacting the judge or the opposing party without the other

party's lawyer also being present. A breach of these mles is referred to as improper ex parte

contact.” ex parte I Wex I US Law I LT1 / Legal In formation institute fcoineil.edu) (quotations

and underlining added)

•

Rule 8.3 Maintaining The Integrity of The Profession

This case is presumed to be Criminaland Civil, and of broad and public importance. A de novo

and Summary Judgement is sought and should be granted in accordance with the respective laws and

statutes outlined in this, and the other, petition/s, which were established at the time of the alleged home

invasion that resulted in damage to real property, reputation, liberties, life, spiritual, mental, emotional,

physical, and financial well-being. Additionally, the homeowners newly erected small home-based

businesses whose grand openings were supposed to be June 2023, and being that no attorney was willing to

accept the case, the homeowners had to neglect the businesses so-as-to prepare their case as Pro Se/Sui

Juris, which hascompletely disrupted thenormalcy forthe homeschooling single-parent home who are now

in financial distress due to the events alleged in this, and the other, petition/s. A Grand Jury Trial is being

requested under the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution if Summary

Judgement or Consideration/Settlement is not met.

The case whose remedy is fargreater than $75,000, and whose defendants comprise of the Stateof

Iowa and Governor, respectfully, and included violations of blackletterlaws such as the Bill of Rights,

which are secured within the Constitution/s. This, along with possible vested interests, should have been

grounds for disqualification according to the laws and rules. The petition had been retracted on or about 630-2023, and it was not resubmitted until August 2023 therefore could not have been tried by the judge.

There were also requests fora juty trial, motions, and notices for discovery to identify the principal

tortfeasors (as per Iowa Rule 1.500 and 1.503), injunctive relief, and it was moved on the 73rd day;

however, according to Iowa Rule 1.302(5), there is a 90-day period, with a possible extension, to identify

the defendants, who remain unnamed in this instance. Iowa Rule 1.201 stipulates that the real party must

have standing, and that plea dings and answers are required, suggesting that the tortfea sors should be

identified in accordance with Rules 10,43, and Iowa Rule 6.103. Beyond the potential breach of local court

rules, the Iowa district court/judge may have also infringed upon the Bill of Rights, the United States

Constitution, and the Constitution of the State of Iowa concerning substantive and/or procedural due

process. When the case was presented to the Iowa district court, the petitioner's intention was merely to

obtain a docket number to initiate the lawsuit process, which first entails submitting an antilitem to the

Department of Management (Iowa 669) when the State of Iowa and/orthe Govemorare named parties.

Requests were made forthe case to be reassigned to the appropriate jurisdiction.

“The right of access is founded on the due process clause and guarantees the right to present to a

court of law allegations concerning the violation of constitutionalrights.” Smith v. Maschner.899

F.2d 940 at 947 (10th Cir.1990).

“There can be no case without the defendant being identified.” See, e.g., Valenzuela-Gonzales v.

United States. 915 F.2d 1276,1280 (9th Cir. 1990)”. “Iowa Rules U) and 43 require the defendant

to be physically present in court for the arraignment. /Rule 10. Arraignment I Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure I US Law I LII / Legal Information Institute tcornel).edull. (Quotations added)

“Adverse inference is a legal inference, adverse to the concerned party, drawn from silence or

absence of requested evidence.” Adverse inference - Wikipedia (Quotations added)

Fiduciary Duty “A fiduciary accepts legal responsibility for duties of care, loyalty, good faith,

confidentiality, and more when serving the best interests of a beneficiary. Fiduciary duty refers to

the relationship between the fiduciary and the principal or beneficiary on whose behalf the

fiduciaiy acts. Strict care must be taken to ensure that no conflict of interest arises to jeopardize

those interests.” What Is a Fiduciary Duty? Examples and Types Explained (investopedia com!

(Quotations added)

Judge David Neimark; Iowa District Court

The allegations regarding possible conflicts of interests are primarily due to the Merit Selection

System, which allows the Govemorto select who becomes judge or justice in Iowa. All judges and justices

that were assigned to the case, were hired by the Governor and are presumed to be employed by the State of

Iowa, which may be conflicting when they’re named in a case. Further, the justices in the appealand

supreme court/s were not made known the Petitioner until afterthe case was tried, which may have violated

due process of law. Moreover, None of the judges/justice presented their respective credentials, such as:

Oaths of Office, Oath of Administration, Constitutional Oath, Bond information, Foreign Entity

Registration (5 U.S.C. 3105), and others to prove that they had the lawful authority to practice law in the

state of Iowa at the time of the trial, and now.

After learning that judge David

was assigned to case LACL155681, a brief investigation

was conducted, and it was found that he had been hired by, and may have had personal and/or professional

affiliations with, defendants in the case. Judge was hired as judge by a defendant in the case to work on

behalf of another defendant in the case in 2019, and was president of the Polk County Bar Association,

which comprises of government employees, judges, and others according to the “About Page”, which

support the allegations concerning vested interest. According to reputable sources, published news reports

appear to convey that possible vested interests and abuse of power concerning the Governor, may have

occurred before; which presumably supports the claims in this ca se. Reportedly, the Governor, during her

second operating while intoxicated arrest within an eight-month span, allegedly used her

personal/professional affiliation with a judge, Gary Kime, to bail her out, or assist her with here legal

issues.

“An assistant Warren County attorney latercharged Reynolds with second-offense operating while

intoxicated, noting Reynolds had been convicted of her first offense eight months prior. But the

same day, the prosecutor amended the charge to first-offense operating while intoxicated,

without giving a reason for the change.” Iowa removes files that exposed governor's persona 1

info 1 AP News (quotations added) (underline and bold added)

“The second-offense charge would have been an aggravated misdemeanor, which means it was an

“infamous crime” under state law that could have disqualified Reynolds from voting and holding

public office. Instead, she pleaded guilty to the lesser charge a month later and went on to be

elected to the state Senate, lieutenant governor and governor.” Iowa removes files on governor’s

drunk driving arrest that exposed personal info - Chicago Tribune and Iowa removes files that

exposed governor's personal info I AP News (quotations added)

The damages included: a wooden gate/door weighed down, causing dragging and requiring lifting

for operation; a double shed door that appears to have been pried open, resulting in split wood; harm to a

five-year-old plant,a centerpiece of the backyard; and a car door left open, potentially draining the battery.

Furthermore, the presence of police on and around the plaintiffs property has led to disparagement and

defamation of the living woman and her offspring within her community, possibly damaging the dwellers’

reputations. The video evidence captures the primary defendants approaching and entering the property on

foot from their vehicles, which were parked at a considerable distance, even though parking was available

directly in front of the residence, allegedly. In Victoriano v. City of Waterloo, 984 N.W.2d 178,182 (Iowa

2023), the defendants'attorneys or the judge cited the case, claiming that "The statute mandates that failure

to meet heightened pleading requirements results in dismissal with prejudice" asperlowa Code 670.4A(3).

However, according to The maxim "Time cannot render va lid an act void in its origin" is cited, referencing

Digest 50,17,29; Broom's Maxims 178, from Black's Law Dictionaiy, 9th Edition, page 1862. The Iowa

District Court did not have jurisdiction over the case.

The Iowa supreme court may have also had vested interests concerning the Governor. The Iowa

supreme court has ruled that felonies, in relation to the changes made to votingrights, and not aggravated

misdemeanors, constitute loss of voting rights; whereas fore previously it had been unlawful and/or illegal

to hold office with these charges. These changes allegedly would have ensured that the Governor would

qualify for office, with an aggravated misdemeanor. However, according to Iowa Chapter 69.2, “Every civil

office shall be vacant if... (f.) The conviction of the incumbent of a felony, an aggravated misdemeanor, or

of any public offense involving the violation of the incumbent’s oath of office.” This may indicate that the,

now, governor may not have qualified for office had the law been followed presumably.

“The Iowa Supreme Court overruled prior precedent in 2014 and declared that only felonies, not

aggravated misdemeanors, trigger the loss of votingrights.” Iowa, removes files on governor's

drunk driving arrest that exposed personal info - Chicago Tribune

Iowa Chapter 69.2 “What constitutes vacancy —hearing— appeal. 1. Every civil office shall be

vacant if any of the following events occur: f. The conviction of the incumbent of a felony, an

aggravated misdemeanor, or of any public offense involving the violation of the incumbent’s oath

of office.” Election Law Content fiowa.govl (Quotations added and possible omissions)

The first OWI, for unclear reasons, was reportedly deleted by the prosecutor in thatOWi case,and

the Governor plead to a lesser charge. However, all traces of the arrests were deleted, alter or concealed

from the public according to reports, although the Confidentia 1 Records Rule under Iowa Rule 22.7, states

that “current and prior arrests and criminal history data shall be public records.” This information, further,

supports that there may be vested interests concerning the courts in Iowa and the Governor and/or

government body; however, according to Black’s Laws Dictionary: “Time cannot render valid an act

void in its origin.” Dig. 50,17,29; Broom, Max. 178, Maxims of Law, Black’s Law Dictionary 9th

Edition, page 1862. (quotations added) After the jurisdiction was challenged the case should have been

reviewed to confirmed according to due process.

“An assistant Warren County attorney later charged Reynolds with second-offense operating while

intoxicated, noting Reynolds had been convicted of her first offense eight months prior. But the

same day, the prosecutor amended the charge to first-offense operating while intoxicated, without

giving a reason for the change.” Iowa removes files on governor’s drunk driving arrest that

exposed personal info - Chicago Tribune” (quotations added)

“The following public records shall be kept confidential, unless otheiwise ordered by a court, by

the lawful custodian of the records, or by another person duly authorized to release such

information: Criminal identification files of law enforcement agencies. However, records of

current and prior arrests and criminal history data shall be public records." Iowa Rule 22.7

(quotations and underline added)

Iowa Chapter 69.2 “What constitutes vacancy —hearing— appeal. 1. Evety civil office shall be

vacant if any of the following events occur: f. The conviction of the incumbent of a felony , an

aggravated misdemeanor, or of any public offense involving the violation of the incumbent’s oath

of office.” Election Law Content (iowa.gov') (quotations added)

An election crime is generally a federal crime if:

•

The ballot includes one or more federal candidates

•

An election or polling place official abuses their office

•

The conduct involves false voter registration

The crime intentionally targets minority protected classes

•

The activity violates federal campaign finance laws. Election Crimes and Security — FBT

It is unclear if the conduct alleged against the governor constitutes criminal behavior, election

fraud, fraudulent practices and/or fiduciary breaches; however, this information, presumably prove that

there may be some questionable behaviors and connections or misuse of power and authority; which

appears to conflict with justice. Many individuals in the community, and those barred from

drivinz/traveline for the same offenses, apparently did not have equal access to, and protection under, the

same laws; which may violate the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“The Declaration of Independence says that we not only have the right but we also have the duty

to alter or abolish any government that does not secure our unalienable rights, including life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The Declaration of Independence savs we have the right to

overthrow the government 1 Learn Liberty (quotations added)

SECTION 1 (B) IOWA APPEAL COURT

Docket Number: 23-1276, December 29,2023,

This court did not preside over the case. Case Caption: Latressa Railback et al vs STATE OF IOWA et

The Iowa Appeal Court did not accept the case. Appealable as a matter of right (Iowa Code 6.102(2)) had

not ensued. The Petitioners were not made aware of the Appeal Court judges, until after they tried the case.

This may have deprived the appellants of an opportunity to investigate the individual assigned to the case,

which may have impeded substantive due process of Law under 5th, 6th and/or 14th amendments, to name

a few.

Aliened Reason for Denial:

Allegations were made that the incorrect alphabetical orderforthe Table of Authorities was

submitted.

a. The Plaintiff allege that the rules were presumably followed.

Allegations were made that the petition was submitted late.

There was a two-day holiday, thankgiv'ng eve and day, which was observed by the

court. The plaintiff also took advantage of the break; additionally, assistance was

required from the clerk due to error in the electronic system to submit the petition,

allegedly.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary:

•

“Things invalid from the beginning cannot be made valid by subsequent act.” Irayner

Max. 482. Maxims of Law, Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition page 1862. (Quotations added

and possible omissions)

“A thing void in the beginning does not become valid by lapse of time.” 1 S. & R. 58.

Maxims of Law Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition page 1866. (Quotations added and

possible omissions)

“Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin.” Dig. 50,17,29; Broom, Max. 178,

Maxims of Law, Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition, page 1862. (Quotations added and

possible omissions)

Before the alleged errors by the Appellant, it appears the Iowa district court may have erred in

trying a case involving the State of Iowa and the Governor/Ambassador as parties, which potentially

included violations of the Bill ofRights, Constitutional law, Federal law, and treaties. The SupremeCourt

holds original jurisdiction over such cases. There was a request for removal of the case to the appropriate

venue/jurisdiction and for the judge's recusal, which was denied, possibly indicating that consent (5 U.S.C.

556(b)(6)(7)) for the court to try the case was not granted.

“A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, fora basic issue in any case before a

tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first

instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549,91 L. ed.

1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409. (Quotations added)

Additionally,

•

“Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time” “once challenged, cannot be assumed and must

be decided.” Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S Ct. 2502 (1980)

“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Basso v. Utah

Power & Light Co. 395 F 2d 906, 910

“A court cannot confer jurisdiction where none existed and cannot make a void proceeding

valid. It is clear and well-established law that avoid order can be challenged in any court”

OLD WAYNE MUT. LIFE ASS'N v. MCDONOUGH, 204 U.S. 8,27 S. Ct. 236 (1907).

(Quotations added)

“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency

and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v. La vine 415 U.S. 533.

SECTION 1 (C) IOWA SUPREME COURT, 23-1276, JANUARY 26,2024

This court did not preside over the case. Case Caption: T.atressa Railhack et al vs STATE OF IOWA et al.

but was presumably changed by the court to: T.ATRESSA R AIT.BACK. Plaintiff-Annellant vs. CITY OF

DES MOINES. JOSHUA RALEIGH. STATE OF IOWA. KIMBERLY REYNOLDS. JEFFREY LESTER.

SCOTT SANDERS. DANA WINGERT. FRANKLIN COWNIE. CHRIS JOHANSEN.

NEIGHBORHOOD INSPECTIONS DIV. And DES MOINES POLICE DEPARTEMTN. DefendantsAppellees.

The Iowa Supreme Court declined to hearthe case. The justices assigned to the Iowa Supreme

Court were not disclosed to the petitioners until after the trial, potentially depriving the Pro Se

representative of the chance to obtain their fiduciary credentials, such as oaths of office, administrative

oaths, and public official bonds. These documents are necessary to verify the judges' or justices' legal

authority and qualification to practice law. The causes of action/claims were not addressed during the tria 1,

and none of the real parties had standing as required by Iowa Rule 1.201. Furthermore, the principal

tortfeasors were not identified. Moreover, there were no pleadings, answers, or arraignments for the claims,

which are mandatory according to Iowa Rules 1.400 and 1.405.

Justice David jm|,' Iowa Supreme Court

Justice David

was promoted twice within a three-year span by one of the defendants in the case

in 2019 and 2022, and is employed by the State of Iowa, which may create a conflict of interest for those

who may want to redress these individuals. Justice

alleged salary is reportedly 127% higher than the

average judge/justice in his same position and seniority, which is 169% higher than the median salary for

this job position reportedly. This information regarding salary rates may be relevant because a study

conducted by researchers at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, found that an employee

who is gratified with their employers, will comply with demands to stay in their good graces. Justice May

is accused of neglecting to disqualify himself from the case; due to possible vested interests.

The article reads:

“Researchers at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania randomly divided

university fundraisers into two groups. One group made phone calls to solicit alumni donations in

the same way they always had. The second group — assigned to work on a different day —

received a pep talk from the director of annual giving, who told the fundraisers she was grateful

fortheir efforts. During the following week, the university employees who heard her message of

gratitude made 50% more fundraising calls than those who did not.” Harvard Medical School

(2021 Ufhe Psychological Effects of Workplace Appreciation and Gratitude - Emereenelics (in ref.

to “Giving thanks can make you happier-Harvard-Health’").

Justice Christopher

|; Iowa Supreme Court

Justice Christopher

|, was also promoted by the governor, who is a defendant in this case,

which may impose an unfair advantage/disadvantage.

“The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First,

as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second,

due to its power of j udicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of

government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by

striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic

government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue

advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a

majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of

speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.” About the Supreme Court I United States

Courts fuscourts.gov) (Quotations added and possible omissions)

SECTION 1 (D) Possible Tampering With Court Documents/Evidence

The Petitioners were able to save a PDF copy of the submissions that were made to the EDMS,

electronic filing system. This is relevant because data was apparently gradually deleted, presumably, to

hide facts, which may include denial of presumed lawful requests, such as: Jury Request, Motion for

Change of Venue/Jurisdiction, Motion/Notice forDiscovery, request forthejudge to recuse due to alleged

vested interest and other. Screenshots were obtained on November and December of 2023; and January

2024, and apparently shows gradual a Iterations/deletions to the filings in the electronic filing system. A

block was then place on the account, which prevent the Plaintiff from accessing court files alleged, and the

links led to the login page apparently. The Iowa district court is alleged to have altered the title of the case

to reflect the all-caps name, presumably, whether than the natural living woman allegedly and the Iowa

supreme court change the title to a different name.

•

Attachment 1 is a copy of the EDMS on 11 -26-23

•

Attachment 2 is a copy of the EDMS on 12-13-23

•

Attachment 3 is a copy of the EDMS on 1 -29-24

•

Document with title “Latressa Railback et al vs STATE OF IOWA et al”

SECTION 2 POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Recusal/Disqualification Rule 51:2.7 and Iowa Rule 51.2.11 (A)

Iowa Rule 51:2.11 “(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the

judge's impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following

circumstances:(l) The judge has a personal bias orprejudice concerning a party ora party's

lawyer, or personal knowdedge* of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.”

“[Ajcting under color of [state] law” “misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law [a«4]

[was] made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.”

Thompson v. Zirkle, 2007 U.S. Dist. (N-D Ind, Oct 17, 2007)

Motion Forjudge To Recuse

According to the “Missouri Plan” or “Iowa's Merit Selection Process” “Iowa justices and judges

are selected using the merit selection and the com mission then nominates the individuals whom it finds best

qualified and sends their names to the Governor for final selection,” In this case, there appears to be a

conflict of interest because, like the Iowa district court judge, these justices were also hired, promoted

and/or both by a defendant in this case. Additionally, published data states that one of the justices has a

128% higher income than others in his same position, which would create vested interests accordingly.

Research conducted by Havard Medical has shown that employees are loyal to their employers if

beneficial.

SECTION 3 BACKGROUND/THE INCIDENT

Breach Of Duty Under Color Of The Law

The defendants are accused of abusing their authority by intentionally defying Constitutional laws

and policies during their unauthorized entry onto private property, unlawfully, and without consent, notice,

warrantor alert to theowner, which hasbeen proven to be deadly in many cases. The Plaintiff/s argue that

the officers completely disregarded the law and their respective oaths (63.10)(5 U.S. Code § 3331); and

rebelled (18 U.S. Code § 2383, CLASS C FELONY) against Constitutional laws when they entered the

property. The officer/s are alleged to have committed fraudulent practices (714.10) when they breached the

homeowner’s security (715C) misused the government's resources to acquire the homeowner'spersonal data

(721.10) and solicited (705.1) the assistance of each other to inspect/search the property by any means

necessary. When the officers parked down the road, they conspired to commit a forceable felony (706.1,

CLASS C FELONY), and to elude the fact that they were present at the property, which indicates possible

premeditation and aiding and abetting (703.1 &703.3 AGRMISD). The officers allegedly knowingly and

willfully (18U.S.C. § 1001 CRM 910 CLASS D FELONY) conspired I8U.S.C. §371 MTSD to deprived

the household members (42 U.S. Code § 1985)of their liberty, equality and greatly disrupted and interfered

(216.11A) with life, while in the scope of duty, constituting legal actions against them (18 U.S. Code§ 242,

MISD; 18 U.S. Code § 241, MISD), and they violated the homeowners' rights (729A.2).

Additionally, the officer/s is/are presumed to have been armed when they entered the property,

and their decision making may have questionable in that moment, which was dangerous and reckless (25

CFR § 11.401) to living individuals, including children and pets (10 U.S. Code § 919b - Art.

11 9b)(726.6(4)), and could have resulted in serious injury or death. The Plaintiff/s were present when the

officers entered the property with intent to commit a crime and compounding felonies (720.1), thus

committing burglary in the first degree according to the elements of the statute (713.6 A, 713.3)(706A).

disorderly conduct (723.4) occurred but unaware of their presence, comprised of a homeschooling parent

who has newly erected home-based businesses. The officer's Prohibited Actions caused willful injury

(708.4 CLASS D FELONY) And was grossly negligent and could have resulted in fatality like in the

following cases: Breonna Taylor; Autumn Steele, and many others, as outlined in the evidence.

Additional Statutory Violation/s:

Federal: 5 U.S. Code § 3331, Iowa Code 18 U.S. Code § 241, MISD; 18 U.S. Code § 242, MISD;

18U.S.C. §371 MISD; 18U.S.C. § 1001 CRM 910, CLASS D FELONY; 18 U.S. Code § 2383;

25 CFR § 11.401, CLASS C FELONY; 42 U.S. Code § 1985

State: 63.10; 216.11A; 703.1; 705.1; 706A; 706.1, CLASS C FELONY; 708.4 CLASS D

FELONY; 714.10, AGR MISD; 715C; 721.2; 721.10; 723.4;. 729A.1; 729A.2

Violation Of Ratified Treaty Acts/Discrimination

It is alleged that the officers deprived the homeowners of theirnaturalrights and discriminated

against them. The members of the household, being the only Copper Colored People on that street, are

suspected to have been targeted due to their race, gender, and/or familial status. Documented accounts

suggest that government officials have faced numerous accusations of similar nature, which constitute

violations of Human Rights, CERD, CCPR, and rights against discrimination.

Additional Statutory Violation/s:

Federal: CAT; CCRP; CERD; Civil Rights Act 1964; Human Rights; 15 U.S. Code 7215; 31 U.S.

Code § 6711; 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq; 42 U.S. Code 3631

Constitutional Law

Under the 4th amendment (U.S. Con.), and Article 1 Section 8 (State), the officers violated the

Constitution by entering private property without consent, warrant, or other, and failed to give notice (29

U.S. Code §: 1452), endangering the dwellers. The officers parked down the street and walked to the home.

The distance from the gate to the road is approximately 60 feet. The officers are alleged to have trespassed

(716.7(2)(a)) upon the land and chattel, causing damage to property (716.8) estimated to be nearly $2,500 $5,000.00 as of November 2022; which has likely increased due to the 66% recession. The wooden gate

that separates the front and back yards now droops and drags, which is a physical burden caused by

criminal, reckless and Prohibited Actions allegedly commenced by government officials while undercolor

of the law within the scope of duty. It was also discovered that the owner's second car was tampered with,

and the door was left ajar, likely causing the batteiy to die. Additionally, the shed doors have unfamiliar

damage that looks like an attempt to pry the doors open forcibly.

The officers harassed (708.7) the homeowners and violated federally protect activities (18 U.S.

Code 245, MISD) and committed felonious (721.1) and nonfelonious misconduct. The temporary

conversion of the property has led to tortuous interference, and the homeowners were deprived of due

process and the Confrontation Clause under the 5 th amendment (U.S. Con.) and Article 1 Section 1 (State).

The Plaintiff/s were never confronted by anyone claiming a nuisance, which deprived them of rights under

the 6lh amendment (U.S. Con.) and Article 1 Section 9 (State). The homeowners were treated in a cruel and

unusual manner, which is prohibited undeT 8th amendment (U.S. Con.) and Article 1 Section 17 (State).

The officers put the household members in a false light causing them to look like fugitives or criminals

before their neighbors, which was humiliating and disparaging, which is prohibited under the 9th

amendment. The homeowners were deprived of equal protection of the law when the police officer assisted

the inspector in commencing criminal conduct instead of interrupting or ceasing the Prohibited Actions.

Subsequent to the event, documents obtained under Chapter 22 from the Open Records Division

revealed that the officer failed to document the search and is alleged to have deliberately concealed it, a

violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2071. Despite this, the compromised evidence was sent to legal authorities

around 10-13-22. Multiple attempts to reach the City of Des Moines/Neighborhood Inspection and ICRC

were unsuccessful, leading to an electronic complaint to the Police Department. The department contacted

the homeowners back on 12-30-22, receiving video evidence and a verbal statement. Requests for the

perpetrator's identity to initiate criminal and civil actions were not provided to the Pro Se representatives. A

preservation letter was filed on 1 -3-23, and the case was promptly transferred to the Legal Department by

Ryan King of OPS, as indicated by text/email records. No response followed a voicemail left on 1-20-23,

and on 3-3-23, an unenveloped subpoena was improperly delivered to the mailbox. This subpoena, related

to caseDMCICI009795, and appeared to have been retaliatory, and issued three weeks after the plaintiffs'

voicemail. Joshua Raleigh and Molly Tracy, city attorney, conspired (706.3) to obstruct justice (719.3) by

creating case DMCICI009795, and is alleged to have used tainted fruit of the poisonous tree in the case to

maliciously prosecute (720.6) the homeowners. There was no other witness to confront the Plaintiff/s in

accordance with the Confrontation Clause and the data was falsified with no photographic evidence to

support the claims, though the inspector has three years of experience (31 U.S. Code § 3729). He is alleged

to have falsely represented records (31 U.S. Code § 3729;) (720.5), and knowingly Reports or causes to be

reported 718.6 perjured data 720.2, CLASS D FEL, 720.3, CLASS D FEL; 716.11 & 716.12 f., which was

fraudulent practices (714.8/9).

An inspector wa s found to have carried out approximately five separate inspections without prior

notice or consent, thus depriving the homeowners of their rights to life, liberty, enjoyment of property

without interference, and due process. During the trial on April 12,2023, Mr. Raleigh confessed to visiting

the neighbors five times and acknowledged that he failed to inform the homeowners as legally required.

Moreover, his actions were slanderous and humiliating. Allegedly, government employees started to harass

the homeowners around this period. Trash/recycling bins were left up the street, in the street, or even taped

shut and placed at the center of the driveway for reasons that were not clear. The case was put on hold, and

the plaintiffs managed to upload the documents with assistance. Once the documents reached the district

court, the police department began to regularly station themselves in front of the homeowner's property,

appearing to frown and grimace at the home, thereby tampering with the victims/witnesses (18 U.S. Code §

1512, CLASS C FELONY). Video footage captured at least five instances involvingthe officers, but the

homeowners claimed there were many more unrecorded incidents. According to the law, this is also

considered retaliation, as the officers allegedly earned out the inspections and searches by force, which

goes against established law (808.6). In addition, the accused tortfeasors initiated forcible felonies as

defined in Iowa Code 702.11. The officers were aware of each other's unlawful actions and neither

intervened norreported the incidents, suggesting an intent to concealthe information.

Additional Statutory Violation/s:

Federal: 1st; 4th; 5th; 6[h; 8,h; 9th; 14th Amendment 10 U.S. Code § 919b - Ait. 119b; 10 U.S. Code §

932 Art. 132; 18 U.S. Code 245, MISD; 18 U.S. Code § 1512, CLASS C FELONY; 18 U.S. Code

§ 2071; 25 CFR § 11.401; 29 U.S. Code § 1452; 31 U.S. Code § 3729; 42 U.S.C. 1983, FELONY

State: Article 1 Section 1; Section 8; Section 9; Section 17; Section 6; Section 20; 216.11;

702.11; 703.3; 706.3, CLASS C FELONY; 708.7; 708.11; 713.3; 713.6A; 714.8/9; 716.4;

716.7(2)(a); 716.8; 716.11 & 716.12; 718.6; 719.3; 720.1; 720.2, CLASS DFEL; 720.3, CLASS

D FEL; 720.5; 720.6; 721.1; 726.6(4); 808.6

Negligence

Subsequentto the petition's filing, there were incidents that seemed to constitute harassment of the

household members by police and city employees, involving interference with trash/recycling bins and

prolonged vehicle presence outside the home, possibly to thwart the plaintiffs' efforts to capture video or

photographic proof (notably on February 13, 2024, at 10:20 p.m., North bound, heading west on Caulder).

A review of select home surveillance footage by the homeowners suggests potential tampering with a

victim/witness, potentially in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c), and behavior that could be deemed

retaliatory, actions which are also against Constitutional and federal laws. In addition to the pattern of

allegation alleged in this case, similar allegations have been previously made against the City of Des

Moines and other cities in Iowa (listed below), which is why the Stateof Iowa and Governor has been

named in this case allegedly. The pattern of reckless conduct appears to occur regularly, and apparently

depicts the culture of the environment, dates back at least five years. The patterned behaviorhas allegedly

resulted in excessive force, unfair treatment, and even murder.

KLEIN v. Burlington Police Department and Iowa Department of Public Safety, Division of

Criminal Investigations, Intervenors- Appellees. (2021) No. 20-0657 Murder of mom of three

(PE31 JESSIE HILL)

Williams v. City of Burlington, 516 F. Supp. 3d 851Man of Color killed by Iowa Police (PE32

MARQUIS JONES)

Fuuenschuh v. Minnehan et al4:2020cv00227 Man racially profiled by Des Moines police (PE33

DOMECO FUGENCHUH)

Jared Clinton v, Rvan Garrett. No. 21 -2763 18th Cir, 20221 Man racially profiled by Des Moines

police (PE35 JARED CLINTON)

Courtney Saunders v. K.vle Thies. et al 21 -2180 for unreasonable search and seizure (PE36

COURTNEY SAUNDERS)

BIJRNIKEL v. City of Des Moines. Iowa. Defendant. 1201 81 excessive force (PE38AOFFICER

GREG WESSEL (2018))

Tracy Rhoads Et Al V DMPD, City of Des Moines Sexual assault, Genderism, Retaliation (PE43

JESSICA B ASTI AN)

SmithV. Des Moines Public School System n996Vpein4 Female Employee Of Des Moines

Police Department False Statement); and many others, which are presented as evidence.

Moreover, the cases of Breonna Taylor, Philando Castile, and Alton Sterling, among others, have

shown that home invasions by armed officers can result in life-threatening and fatal outcomes as in the

following reports:

IA Cop Mistakenly Shoots Mom-Of-3 While Aiming For The Family Pop - YouTube:

Police officer moments after shooting Iowa mom:'I’m going to prison1

Idesmoinesrepister rnmt

b) IA Burlington. Iowa settles fatal nolice shooting suit for S5 million - YouTube Fatal Iowa

police shooting: Additional body camera footage released fdesmoinesregister.com')

c) CA Anned man shot and killed bv Hemet officers in own backyard - YouTubeArmed

man shot bv officers in Hemet backyard (foxla.com'l

d) TX Cops Fatally Shoot Unanned Black Man In His Own Backyard - YouTubeSteohon

Clark settlement: Children of man killed bv Sacramento police will get $2.4 million I

CNN

e) TX Texas Police Officer Fatally Shoots Unarmed Black Man In His Yard I NBC Nightly

News -YouTubeTexas man fatally shot bv police during mental health check, family

calls for officer's arrest tnhcnews.com

f) TX Family Demands Answers After Austin Police Shooting Leaves Man Dead On His

Own Porch - YouTube'He did nothing wrong1: Family of Texas entrepreneur fatally shot

by police say he was defending his home (hbcnews.com3

g) UT Interaction with Salt Lake City police aftercon shot dog - YouTubeUtahns unset over

cop shooting doe make emotional appeals to Salt Lake City Council - The Salt Lake

Tribune fsltrih.com')

h) OK Oklahoma Officers Charged With Manslaughter In Fatal Shooting Of Unanned

Black Man - YouTubeReinstatement ordered for Oklahoma officers who fatally shot

unarmed Black man I AP News

Additional Statutory Violation/s:

Federal: 13U.S. Code § 212, MISD; 18U.S. Code § 1091; 18 U.S. Code § 2331(5); 18U.S.

Code § 2384, FELONY; 42 U.S. Code § 1986

COMMERCE/BUSINESS

The Plaintiff/s argue that they have been attempting to get justice, and the home-based businesses have

been neglected causing financial hardship on the presumed innocent homeowners; which has resulted in

spiritual, physical, mental, and emotional disturbance. Additional Statutory Violation/s: Federal: 18 U.S.

Code § 1951.

SECTION 2: INJURED PARTY:

As a homeowner, new small-home-based business owners (Since 2021 approx.), homeschooler

(approx. 10 years), and single parent, the Appellant have suffered, greatly, as a result of this case, which

has affected their:

•

Life

Liberties

Property

Pursuit of Happiness

Reputations

Spiritual wellbeing

Mental wellbeing

Emotiona 1 wellbeing

Physica 1 wellbeing, and

Financial stability, to name a few.

After exhausting all options through "Find A Lawyer" and "Google Search" without finding any

willing representation, the Petitioner had no alternative but to self-represent as Attomey-in-Fact/Pro Se/Sui

Juris. This hasproven especially difficult forthe Appellant, who, aftera 20-year career in Healthcare, lacks

legal expertise. They have experienced physical symptoms such as migraines, joint aches, and eye strain, as

well as mental challenges including anguish, anxiety, and depression, leadingto substantial disruptions in

their life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, enjoyment of property, security, and normalcy. Additionally,

homeschooling efforts and new business ventures have been impacted, with household finances stretched

thin due to reduced income and expenses incurred from printing, certified mail, and other case-related

costs. Despite extensive efforts, video evidence, and a documented pursuit of justice for alleged criminal

acts by government officials, rights infringements, damage to Real Property and community reputation

through presumed slander and fraud, as outlined in the petitions, a thorough investigation under federal and

state laws is justified.

SECTION 2: DAMAGE

Actual Damage

Gate: Repair/Replacement: Approximately $5,000 (ballpark); “Gates are built from scratch and

quotes could change.”

•

Justus Fencing

Invisible Fence of Central Iowa

Des Moines Steel Fence Co., Inc.

Shed door:

•

Amazon $180 (X2) plus tax and labor

Home Depot $140 (X2) plus tax and labor

Lowe’s $349.00 plus tax and labor

Car Battery:

•

Batteries Plus $159.99 plus tax and labor

Advances Auto 169.99 plus tax and labor

AutoZone $149.99 plus tax and labor

Plant:

•

Destruction of five-yearold plant $500.00

Reputation Libel/ Defamation/ Slander:

•

Humiliation in their community

o @$500,000 respectively for each incident

Financial:

Disruption of Life

Interference which interrupted home-based businesses

o $ 1,000,000 @ $250,000 each business

Mental:

Insecurity

Intimidation

Depression

Anxiety

Insomnia

Stress

o @$500,000 respectively for each offense

Emotional:

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

o @$1,500,000 respectively for each offense

Physical:

•

Case preparation related pains such as: headache, eyestrain, bodily pains, others

o @$ 1,500,000 respectively for each offense

•

Cause of low vibrational frequencies

o @$ 1,000,000 respectively

Spiritual:

Statutory Damages:

•

Original Petition Table ($50,000,000 presumably)

Constitutional Tort:

FEDERAL: $5,000,000.00 each violation/ each offender

STATE: $5,000,000.00 each violation/each offender

Failure To Give Notice:

$100.00 for each day up to now $50,000.00

therapy/chiropractic/medical care $250,000

Life insurance $1,000,000 (X2) for each victim Total $2,000,000.00

Speculative:

Special:

Statutory: (ALL)

Approximately $50,000,000

Compensatory:

@ $ 10,000 PER MONTH PER BUSINESS

$ 1,500,000.00 EACH TORTFEASOR

•

JOHN DOE,

- JANE DOE,

■

Joshua Raleigh

■

Molly Tracy

Others/separate possible case

Punitive:

Privacy Act Violation

Willful misuse or disclosure of personal 5 U.S.C.105(c)(2), Ethics in Government Act of 1978, unlawful

acquisition or use of public reports:

Total $11,000.

Concealment 5 U.S.C. App. 4 104(a), Ethics in Government Act of 1978, fa lsification orfailure to file

required reports

Total $11,000.

Noneconomic

$15,000,000.00

Economic

$15,000,000.00

False Claims Acts 31 U.S.C, 37291a! False Claims Act; FN3 Violations 28 CFR 85.3tnWl

Min $13,508, Max $27,018.

31 U.S.C. 38021a )(T1. Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, violation involving false

claim: Total $5,500

31 U.S.C. 3802faV23. Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, violation involving false

statement: from $5,000 to $5,500.

42 U.S.C. 36.14(d¥.l YCh Fair Housing Act of 1968, as amended (Pattern or Practice

Violation): (i) The civil monetary penalty amount fora first order $75,000; (ii) The civil

monetary penalty amount fora subsequent order$150,000

42 U.S.C. 361.4fd.¥l YCViH Fair Housing Act of 1968: subsequent violation 28 CFR

85.3fbV3¥ii! $230,107

■

TREBLE X3

Fraud

SECTION 3: DUTIES Off THF. COVff.RNMF.NT BODY

“The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charted powers to the state;

but the individual’s right to live and own property are naturalrights for the enjoyment of which an

excise cannot be imposed.” Redfield v. Fisher 292 P. 813, 819 (1930)

STATE OF TOWA/C1TY Off DES MOINES

States are legally obligated to safeguard and advance human rights, which encompasses the right

to social security, ensuring individuals can exercise their rights without discrimination. The state's

responsibility extends to social protection and human rights. The 10th Amendment stipulates that powers

not granted to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved for the States

orthe people. This is outlined in the U.S. Constitution's Tenth Amendment, as annotated in resources

provided by Congress.gov and the Library of Congress.

GOVERNOR

Article IV, Section I of the Iowa Constitution states that the supreme executive power shall be

vested in a chief magistrate, titled the Governor of Iowa. The Governor is an elected constitutional officer,

the head of the executive branch, and the highest state office in Iowa. According to Article IV, Section 8,

the Governor's duties include transacting all executive business with government officers, both civil and

military, and requesting written information from executive officers regarding their duties. Section 70A.8

of the Code specifies the Governor’s duty regarding state accounts. Additionally, the Governor is required

to maintain a journal in the executive office, recording each official act, except in emergencies when the act

is performed outside the office, in which case the entry should be made as soon as possible. This includes a

military record of acts perfonned as commander in chief. Furthermore, Article IV, Section 9, titled

"Execution of Laws," mandates that the Governor ensure the laws are faithfully executed.

MAYOR

According to the Municode Library under Sec. 2-169 “Head of city for service of civil process”,

the mayor shall be recognized as the official head of the city by the courts and officers of the state upon

who service of civil process may be made.

CTTY OF DF,S MONF.S/ MANAGER

Article 3, Section 86-42 of the Municode Library declares that the City of Des Moines and the Des

Moines Police Department are dedicated to the unbiased and equitable treatment of all individuals. The

City Manager is tasked with organizing city departments and officers in relation to administrative services

and functions of the City's subdivisions, such as the Police and Neighborhood Services Departments, as

detailed in Section 2-203 of the Municode Library. The City Manager appoints public information officers

to oversee public affairs staff in delivering public services, disseminating information, handling citizen

complaints, broadcasting city meetings, and promoting city facilities as per Section 2-204. The City

Manager is obliged to attend all city council meetings unless excused and may participate in discussions

but has no voting rights, as per Section 2-56.

DES MOINES POLICE DEPARTMENT/CHIEF of POLICE

Chief of Police, have an obligation to supervise and direct the police department, be responsible to

the city manager for police department functions, and the Authority to prescribe rules and regulations, as

outlined in the Municode Library, under Sec. 86-27.-Chief of police. Some of the duties of the Chief of

police are outlined in the Municode Library under Sec. 86-27. Article 3, under Sec. 86-42 in the Municode

Library', it states that, “The City of Des Moines and the Des Moines Police Department shall be committed

to the unbiased, equitable treatment of all.

DES MOINES NEIGHBORHOOD INSPECTION DIVISION/DIRECTOR

In the Municode Library, underSec. 90-61(b)(1), it states that the Director is responsible for the

professional implementation of the policies, programs, and plans adopted by the housing services board and

for representing the position of the board with regard thereto; and under (5) in the same section, it states

that he is also responsible for Supervision of the division of housing services and its employees, and for (6)

[a]ll municipal housing agency operations and activities, and (8) other duties assigned by the city manager.

Sec. 2-924. - Divisions enumerated.

DES MOINES CITY ATTORNEY/CITY ATTORNEY

The city attorney shall: (1) Supervise and be responsible for the performance of all the duties of the legal

department. (2) Exercise supervisory power over the other officers and employees of the legal department

in all matters pertaining to the duties of their office. (3) Promptly account for all moneys received by him

or her belonging to the city or received in his or her official capacity and pay the moneys into the city

treasury. (4) Have full and complete authority to require any city employee to render any service necessary

at any time or place in order to carry out the duties of his or her office.

SUPERVISORS; Iowa Code 703.4 Responsibility of employers.

POLICY

According to policy, notification to the owners [Z>e/ore]entering their property, is required according to Sec.

61-19, under “Notices” (a) Notice to abate a violation shall be given prior to city action to abate a

violation, except that in the event of an emergency,

Sec. 60-196.-Public nuisance notice procedure.

(a) The owner(s) shall be notified in writing.

A city inspector and city attorney on behalf of the assistant city attorney were added as a result

concerning the following: Sec. 810. [42 U.S.C. 3610] (a) (2) (A) A person who is not named as a

respondent in a complaint, but who is identified as a respondent in the course of investiga tion, may be

joined as an additional or substitute respondent upon written notice, under paragraph (1), to such person,

from the Secretary.

REASON FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

There is a guaranteed right to present to ta court of law allegations concerning the

violation of constitutional rights, which was held in Smith v. Maschner,899 F.2d 940 at 947 (10th

Cir.1990). When jurisdiction was challenged concerning the judge's authority to try the case

considering that the court rules had not been followed, which may have violated constitutional

laws regarding due process and equal access to the laws. More over, the case comprised of

individuals/entities such asthe State oflowa and the Governor and where the Money Demand was

greater than $75,000. The district court/clerk may have altered and/or deleted files to hide errors or

unfair treatment during the course of the trial and appeals, which maybe unlawful. Once

challenged jurisdiction must be determined and a judge or court does not have the authority to

determines is own jurisdiction presumably, and therefore due process had not been followed.

Additionally, the principal accused tortfeasor remain unknown, although video, and a statement,

were provided. Years have passed and the requested dash, lapel, and body camera footage have

perhaps been destroyed. When the case was moved earlier than the rules allow, it deprived the

petitioners of a fair change at justice, and the petition had been removed by the clerk, and

therefore could not have been available for proceedings. “A thing void in the beginning does not

become valid by lapse of time.” 1 S. &R. 58. Maxims of Law Black’s LawDictionary 9th

Edition page 1866. (Quotations added and possible omissions) Therefore this Writ should be

granted.

NOTICE OF INTENT TO COLLECT MONEY DAMAGE FOR VIOLATIONS AND DAMAGE

Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is noticed to agent. The Appellant am attemptingto

contact you concerning this legal matter. The Appellants are attempting to settle outside of court. Please

contact me concerning this matter within two weeks or by 8-26-2024. The amount sought is $288 million,

which is consistent with violations, damages, staturory damage, and restitution.

I attest or affirm that this information is compliant with laws concerning penalty of peijuiy under federal

and state laws.

Thank you.

/Railback: Latressa D./autograph

8-12-2024

Latressa Railback Attomey-in-Fact Latressa4@yahoo.com

3423 SW 8™ STREET; DES MOINES, IOWA, 50315; 515-423-1654

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Date:

r* mi

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.