Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Xena Ames, Petitioner v. Federal Express Corporation

____ 2515214

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES-=-

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

MAY 1 6 2025

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTARARI TO THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT

CASE 23-1804

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTARARI

XENA AMES

10090 EAGLE EYE WAY

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46234

M 2 9 2025

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1.) Whether the denial by the District Court and Appellant Court of compulsory

process violated petitioners rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United

States Constitution.

LIST OF PARTIES

The Petitioner is Xena Ames and 2 juveniles at the time of this case was 16 &17

years old. This case has been ongoing since 2013 the dates of the allegations. The

children’s initials D.A (2) are being provided to protect their identity and the

confidentiality of juvenile’s. This falls under the Indiana law in the city of

Indianapolis, Indiana.

•

Companies: FEDEX, COMMONWEALTH, THE DEPARTMENT OF

VETERAN AFFAIRS, 718™ BATTALION MILITARY & DISABLED

AMERICAN VETERANS

• Individuals: Jocelyn Miller, Tamika Dickerson, Jornette Holmes, David

Murtland & Barbara Hutchinson, Mildred Craig and Xenisha Hawkins

RELATED CASES

• Department of Veteran Affairs HIPPA Violation 200J-0583-2012101769 6/12

• U.S EEOC Eric Shinseki v. Xena Ames No. 470-2013-00080X Date 11/12/13

2

Rehearing Order: 11/5-6/2013 Location: Richard Rodebush V.A Medical

Center 1481 West 10th St. Room C-1051 (first floor C-Wing) Indianapolis,

Indiana, (not real case).

State of Michigan Probate Court Oakland County No: 2017-378, 193 -DE

Petitioning the court to be representative Mildred Craig Attorney Thav, Ryke

&Associates LLC.

State of Michigan Probate Court Oakland County No: 2017-378, 193 -DE

(Inventory Sheet) Jornette Holmes

State of Michigan Probate Court Oakland County No: 2017-378, 193 -DE

petition to remove personal representative Jornette Holmes- Denied

State of Indiana 49D11-2106CT-018457 Aaron E. Haith Attorney

Marion County Superior Court 49D11-2106CT-018457 Default Judgement

United States District Court Southern District of Indiana i:21-cv02652MPBKMB

Final Judgement states “case is resolved” (error) l:21-cvO2652-MPB-KMB

United States District Court Southern District of Indiana l:19-cwO4282-JRSMPB

Petition for expedited trial 11-09-20 l:i9CV-4282-JRS-MPB - Denied

No evidentiary Hearing was ever offered, could have resolved issues years

ago.

United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit l:21-cwO2652-MPB-

KMB

3

• United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit 1:19-cwO4282-JRSMPB

• United States District Court Southern of Indiana 05-05-2025 l:25-cw00869-

SEB-MG

•

EEOC Charging NO. 470-2025-00145 Commonwealth Filed 10-08-24

Retaliation

•

EEOC Charging NO. 470-2025’00145 Commonwealth Filed 07-25-24 Hostile

work environment.

• Indiana Department of Labor Date: 1/6/2025 case no. 24-28293 Wages

•

Protective Order on David Murtland and Jocelyn Miller l:21-cwO2652-JPH-

DML- Denied my Attorney did not appear.

• Hendrick County Sheriff Department ORI IN 03200600 Fraudulent charges

•

Hendrick County Sheriff Department HP 210002643-001 Nathan

Hibschiman

•

Hendrick County Communications Center Call # 172501299

•

Hendricks Police Case # HP230002952-001 Burglary

•

Hendricks County Mortgage Payments $29,000 Wells Fargo Bank

•

Complaint of Judicial Misconduct or Disability Letter attached Tort Claim

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINION

BELOW

4

JURISDICTION,

11

CONSTITIONAL AND STATUTORY

12

PROVISIONSINVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE

CASE

.....................................................................................................

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE

WRIT

CONCLUSION

...... 40

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDICE A United States District Southern District Of Indiana Pages (139)

APPENDICE B United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit Pages (15)

APPENDICE C Marion County Superior Court Pages (23)

APPENDICE D Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Pages (34)

APPENDICE E Department of Veteran Affairs Pages ( CD)

APPENDICE F Hendrick County Sheriff Department Pages (13)

APPENDICE G MISCELLANOUS DOCUMENTS PAGES ( 32)

5

> APPENDICE H FAMILY COURT DOCUMENTS PAGES (29)

APPENDICE I LIFE INSURANCE DOCUMENTS PAGES (1)

APPENDICE J INJURY TO PETITIONER PAGES (21)

APPENDICE K COMMONWEALTH PAGES (37)

APPENDICE L CEASE AND DESIST LETTERS ( 5)

APPENDICE M BLACKMAIL LETTER FROM FEDEX (2 ) IT S 2 LETTERS

APPENDICE N COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY ( 6)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

PAGE NUMBER

CASES

Douglas v. U.S Dist. Court, 495 F. 3d 1062 , 1065’66 (9th Cir. 2007)...............Page 14

Security & Law enforcement employees. Dist., Council 82 v. Carey, 737 F.2nd 187,

Page 15

205 (2d Cir 1984)...........................

Matter of Attorneys in violation of judiciary law &469-a, 54 AD3d 9,10........ Page 15

St. Paul, Minn., Legis. Code & 292.02 (1990).......

6

Page 16

We granted certiorari, 501 U.S. 1204 (1991)...................................................... Page 16

Roper, 543 U.S., at 569, 125 S. Ct. 1183............................................................. Page 17

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S 735 740, 99 S. Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220............ Page 17

Fullilove v. Kuznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980)...........................................................Page 18

Gaston County v. United States, 395 U.S. 295 (1969)....................................... Page 18

Sealfori v. United States, 332 U.S 575,579......................................................... Pagel8

United States v. Kramer, 289 F. 2d. 909, 913.................................................... Page 18

Berne, E. (2011), Games people play: The basic handbook of transactional analysis.

Tantor audio.................................................................................................... Page 18-19

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 371, 130 S ct. 1473, 176, L. Ed. 2d.254....Page 20

Strikland v. Washington, 466 U.S 668 (1984)....................................................Page 20

Gannett Co. v. Depasquale, 443 U.S 368, 389(1979)........................................ Page 21

Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153. 176-177 (1979).................................................... Page21

Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S 335 (1980)...................................................................Page21

Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S, at. 344........................................................................ Page22

Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S, 104, 109 (1985)........................................................ Page 24

7

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept, of Social Serv, 489 U.S. 189, 196 (1989). in

turn quoting Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S 344, 348 (1986) .......................... Page 24

Whalen v. Roe 429 U.S.589, 599-600,197 S. Ct. 869. 876-77, 51 L. ED 2d 64

(1977)....................................................................................................................... Page25

Florida Star v. B.J. F, 491 U.S, 524 (1989); Smith v. Daily mail; Landmark

Communications, Inc v. Virginia, 435 U.S 829 (1978)....................................... Page 25

Westinghouse, 638 F. 2d at 577 & N. 5............................................................... Page 26

Egan v. United States, 137 F. 2d, 369, 378......................................................... Page 28

Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922,....... Page 28

Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A 318 F. 3d 113, 129-30 (2d Cir. 2003)....................... Page 29

Alexander, 532 U.S at. 286*87, 121 S. ct. 1511.................................................. Page 30

Reg v. Mear, 4 Cox C.C 423; 2 Den. C.C 79; Reg v. Howell, 4 F & F................Page 30

Kruelewitch v. United States, 336 U.S 440; Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S, 604.

Pp. 353 U.S. 399-402............................................................................................ Page 31

Guitierrez v. Lynch, 826 F 2d. 1534, 1536 (6th Cir. 1987).................................Page 32

Am. Timber & Trading Co. First Nat’l Bank, 690 F.2d 781, (9th Cir. 1982)...Page 34

United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S 1. 12, 97 S. Ct. 2476, 53 L.ed.2d 538

(1977)...................................................................................................................... Page 34

Commonwealth v. Louis Constr. Co Inc. 343 Mass. 600...............................Page 34*35

8

Stapleton v. Commonwealth, 123 Va. 825, 96, S. E. 801................................... Page 35

United States v. Katz, 271 U.S. 354, 355-356J Gerbardi v. United States, 287 U.S

112, 121, 122.............................................................................................................. Page36

Clune v. United States, 159 U.S. 590, 594- 595...................................................... Page36

Heike v, United State, 227 U.S. 131, 144................................................................. Page36

United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 253................................. Page36

United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S 78, 88......................................................... Page36

States v. Bucur, 194 F 2d. 297 C.A 7th Cir. (1952)............................................. ,„„.Page36

STATUES AND RULES

28 U.S.C Section 1254 (1)......................................................................................Page 12

All-Writs Act, 28 U.S.C &1651: (1)..................................................................... Page 13

Fed. R. Civ. P Rule 12 (a) (1)................................................................................ Page 15

Fed R. Civ P. Rule 55............................................................................................ Page 15

The privacy act of 1974 (5 U.S.C & 552a)........................................................... Page 19

Fed. R. Civ P. # 38................................................................................................ Page 23

38 USC 902............................................................................................................ Page 23

9

28 U.S. Code & 4101.................................... Page 24

18 U.S Code & 16..................................... -Page 24

18 U.S.C &1513...................................... Page 24

18 U.S.C & 1030................................................................................................... Page 24

42 U.S.C &&1320d-5, d-6......................................................................................Page 26

5 U.S.C & 552 (B) (6).................................... Page 26

18 U.S.C & 241....................................... Page 26

18 U.S Code &&2255..................................................................................................Page27

18 U.S.C &1962 (a) -(d)........................................

Page 28

18 U.S.C & 1964..........................................................................................................Page29

18 USC & 1591 (e) (2).................................................................................................page30

Under 21 U.S Code && 841....................................................................................... Page30

18 U.S.C & 241 Civil Rights Conspiracy......................................................

Page 31

18 U.S.C & 241 Civil Rights Conspiracy.................................................................. Page31

42 U.S.C & 1983......................................................................................................... Page32

10

18 U.S.C &1111 title 18..............................................................................

Page 36

18 U.S.C &&1961-1968..................................................................................

Page 37

18 U.S Code & 2340 (1) (2).................................................................................. Page 37

18 U.S Code & 24.........................................................

Page 37

18 CFR & 706.210..........

Page 37

18 U.S Code & 1030 5 (a) (b) (c)................................................................................ Page38

18 U.S Code & 249-Hate Crime Acts........................................................................Page38

18 U.S Code Chapter 31 Part 1..........................

Page 38

OTHER

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) Organized Crime..................................... Page 15

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

11

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgement

below. Xena Ames petitions for a writ of certiorari to the United Supreme Court in

this case.

OPINIONS BELOW

Motion for reconsideration, Summary Judgement, or a motion for a new trial. Due

to the reveal of new information and significant mistakes made by lower courts all

need an interlocutory review. Ineffective Counsel provided inadequate

representation. Due to those two reasons, the petitioner is asking for review. Also

review the whereabouts of Morgan Stanley, MetLife & USAA. These accounts are

missing, and police have been called to help.

The letter on company letter head is

blackmail to the policies, (proof).

The opinion of the District Court of Southern Indiana was filed on

10-21-19 Case number l:19-CV-4282-JRS-MPB (No appeal) DeniedlO-15-21 Case

number l:21-cw2652 -MPB-KMB.

Denied.

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this court to review the case on petition for Writ of Certiorari

rest upon 28 U.S.C Section 1254 (1).

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion on the

following case:

12

24-1804 12-19'2024 (no representation in a criminal case) Denied

This cases was denied, and an interlocutory review needs to be done, as ineffective

counsel play a role as well the courts allowed petitioner to proceed in criminal case

alone.

Legal Counsel was still assigned to the case, due to time constraints and

the request to courts to assign an attorney to petitioner was denied. The docket

sheets are attached.

CONSTITIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant part:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and

public trial, by an impartial jury”. The harassed shall enjoy the right to a speedy

and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime

shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by

law.

Indiana Psychiatric privilege statue •'

In Indiana, the psychiatric privilege statue, IC 25-33-1-17 protects the

confidentiality of communications between a psychologist and their patients. Police

Officers are not allowed to try to have petitioners benefits removed as a form of

“retaliation”. Records are not to be reviewed unless it has something to do with

petitioners case.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

13

The Appellant Court and the District Court handling of this unprecedented matter

one way or the other will have ramifications far beyond the instant case if this does

not get resolved immediately. For the reason detailed below, if this Court declines

to intervene, the effect will be to allow the District Court to operate outside of, and

in contradiction to, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The petitioner is

requesting and petitioning the court to a hearing to get trial testimony of six (6)

eyewitnesses to the abuse that the petitioner and her “children” have endured.

Review and summary reversal are warranted here, the district erred in both cases

presented and did not hold petitioners counsel accountable for withholding the

petitioners case.

The petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari under the All-Writs Act, 28 U.S.C

.&1651: (1). The party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as a

direct appeal, to attain the relief that she desires. (3) The District courts order is

clearly erroneous as a matter of law. (4) The District Court order is an oft repeated

error or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules. (5) The district courts

order raise new and important problems, or issues of law of first impression.

Douglas v. U.S Dist. Court, 495 F. 3d 1062 , 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2007),

I.

Argument- The lower courts stated petitioner did not follow the rules of

procedure, so I will highlight the facts the district court manifested a

persistent disregard for the federal rules.

14

This Case involves several different scenarios Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(AEDPA) Organized Crime engaging in illegal activities like theft, padding of files,

harassment, fraud, Banks, hate crime, baiting, robbery, intimidation, delinquent

debtors, cybercrime, child enticement, sex advances to cause permanent injury,

bodily injuries to me and my child (burning out my hair & more), employment

history, VA Medical Records, “protection” payments, phone & personal privacy.

The District Court persistently disregarded the Federal Rules, the petitioner first

amendment rights, without the Due Process guaranteed by the fifth and fourth

amendment.

The process in which this organized crime is operated, and the affiliates to make it

work. High authority officials to get involved there must be 4 main sources before it

grows and goes worldwide to other members, in order for the police officer to

conduct business he must get an order from leadership. 1,) a family lodge member

in a different state, 2.) a fraternal lodge member 3.) the fraternal order of the police,

is receiving an order to cause harm to petitioner and child and respondents are

being promised “pay”. How would the police know petitioner unless informed. 4.)

Trainee who is the girlfriend to police officer. Security & Law enforcement

employees. Dist., Council 82 v. Carey, 737 F.2nd 187, 205 (2d Cir 1984). It’s easy for

officers to get away with harassment as they hide behind the employer who takes

the lawsuit and penalty. Once harassment begins and petitioners hire attorneys

this is when attorneys withdraw, cases get delayed and dismissed by having a

counselor-at-law. Matter of Attorneys in violation of judiciary law &469~a, 54 AD3d

15

9,10. The District Court, under the federal rules, each defendant is required to file

a responsive pleading within 21 days of being served.

FED. R. CIV. P Rule 12 (a) (1). Since FedEx holds the liability of this case, they

never had the other defendants respond, if no responsive pleading is forth coming

Petitioner may request “ Entry of Default” and then file a motion for a Default

Judgement. Fed R. Civ P. Rule 55.

The District Court had the authority and indeed the duty to order targeted

discovery on the petitioners. “Evidence” in this case prior to the entry of a case

management plan, if there is one. The District Court erred when they didn’t offer

an “evidentiary hearing” even if they didn’t like submission from the petitioner, no

hearings of any kind was conducted to reduce and relive stress and resolve these

issues. More damages pursued as the cases was denied. The District Court is

attempting to defraud the judicial process and is not fair to the petitioner. By

falsely contenting that the law authorizes Discovery prior to a scheduling Order,

and by deceptively inserting “they have” in place of “it has” into an otherwise

legitimate citation from the United States Supreme Court. Such actions show that

the District and Appellant Court has no regard for the Federal Rules.

The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed a motion because baiting and subliminal

messages arouses anger, causes resentment, inflicts injury or intends to incite

immediate violence, it makes the petitioner a clear target. Subliminal messages are

a non-speech element of communication.

16

St. Paul, Minn., Legis. Code & 292.02 (1990). The Minnesota Supreme Court

granted certiorari because they felt the ordinance compels governmental interest in

protecting the community against bias-motivated threats to public safety and order,

ibid. We granted certiorari, 501 U.S, 1204 (1991). The petitioner is asking the

Supreme Court to grant this Certiorari and allow this case a chance.

1. The District Court erroneously dismissed Petitioners claims with

prejudice and stated it was resolved.

The District Judge dismissed claims that involved children and death and stated

that the claim was resolved. Causing my child great agony without him being

aware of why this is all happening. Training young minds is superior in psychology

as it’s the best way to manipulate someone to do what you ask, its “Control” for the

future. My son has been harassed since middle school and even in his college years,

respondents have stalled his education, giving him poor grades or taking away

honor roll privileges. The district court is the founding court to make a ruling, and

the court never had and will never have the opportunity to learn which, if any of the

petitioners claims was meritorious. Due to this erroneous dismissal the District

Court and Appellate Court cases were never adjudicated, and because petitioner

never had the chance to prosecute, the order of dismissal with prejudice was clearly

erroneous and must be modified and heard in the Supreme Court.

As adults we know that children are vulnerable and that their self-esteem can be

easily diminished. Children are more in peril to negative influences and outside

17

pressures including family and peers. Roner, 543 U.S., at 569, 125 S, Ct. 1183.

Respondents revealed that my son was a reproduction of a rape from the petitioners

military career, how could you know that unless a family member orchestrated the

rape and allegedly confessed there wrongdoing. The Fourth amendment protects

not only property interest but certain expectations of privacy as well as it generally

qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable cause. Smith v.

Maryland, 442 U.S 735 740. 99 S. Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220.

Respondents continue their harassment through employment because the fraternal

lodge member and police work as one, it’s easy to manipulate family to intervene.

The fraternal order members are then frustrated that the petitioner is still pursuing

a lawsuit, so they pass this to another race of members, this is enlarging the scope

of the harassment. In this case we confront once again the tension between the

Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of equal treatment to all citizens, and the use of

race-based measures to ameliorate the effects of past discrimination on the

opportunities enjoyed by members of lodges and their affiliates. Fullilove v.

Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980) We are at this point the harassment it is getting

out of hand and uncontrollable, that everyone they are spreading this information

to wants to be a part of the game, of all races. Gaston County v. United States, 395

U.S. 295 (1969).

The petitioner has tried to work hard on these jobs to be fired

even when protected by the EEOC. Allegedly the DAV representative is involved

and is related to the respondents in The Department of Veteran Affairs. Nothing

can stop these respondents from outrageous behavior, because they continue to get

18

away with it, builds their confidence to do more. The respondents have harassed

petitioners consecutively for over a decade, with no justice, even when the petitioner

provides proof. This approach requires the court to “examine the record of a prior

proceeding”. This case needs to be viewed with an eye to all circumstances of the

proceedings and not just in the jurisdictions in which the fraternal order and police

govern the city and cooperate office is in Chicago to manipulate. Sealfori v. United

States, 332 U.S 575, 579.

As a rule of federal law, the burden of proof falls on the petitioner to prove their

case in a judgement in a criminal case. Throughout my brief petitioner will stick

with the facts and provide evidence as a whole. “United States v. Kramer, 289 F.

2d. 909, 913.

The goal is to chip away at your self-esteem making you more susceptible to be

controlled, no money, no friends, no job and no benefits. Berne, E. (2011), Games

people play: The basic handbook of transactional analysis, Tantor audio. In order to

be successful in these different forms of harassment you must be watched 24 hrs. a

day, 365 days a year. The respondents even watched the petitioner during shower

time as they made fun of the medical deodorant that she used and even caused

petitioner to get fired as a taunting tool on her “JOBS”.

The respondents studying

their victims and in the process train new members to learn how the job is done to

gain “CONTROL”. Attempting to spy, watching people in their homes, intruding

19

upon cameras and watching in restrooms at work or at home is an invasion of

privacy. The privacy act of 1974 (5 U.S.C & 552a).

In my Writ of Certiorari, I will talk about these different scenarios and how they

apply to my life and why the petitioner is seeking relief and justice.

II.

Ineffective Counsel & Breach of Confidentiality

Every attorney is charged with the duty of knowing the standard of character which

he must meet in order to become and remain a member of the bar. Specifically, he

can be charged with knowledge of that fact. As guaranteed by the sixth

amendment counsel made errors that was so fundamentally wrong that counsel was

not functioning as an expert attorney at law. Prejudice requires that there was a

probability that counsels unethical errors resulted in the case being prolonged and

not pushed through properly and if they were done properly would have resulted in

a different outcome. Allowing pertinent data and information to be thrown out,

without any rebuttable. [Case number i:i9-CV-4282-JRS-MPB (No appeal)]. Not

responding assists the defendants to thrive in their case as the petitioner has to

suffer the consequences and continue to be harassed. Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S.

356, 371, 130 S ct. 1473, 176 L.ED.2d.254. Due to the incompetent advice of

counsel, petitioners would have had a right to a trial if pursued properly by

attorney. In present case counsel withdrew himself as his advice and reluctant &

erroneous ability to follow through allowed a case to sit on the docket from 2021 to

2024 being instructed to withdraw by the district judge.

20

The Supreme Court states that the right to effective counsel plays a crucial role in

the adversarial system embodied in the Sixth Amendment, since access to counsels

skills and knowledge is necessary to accord petitioners and defendants the ample

opportunity to meet the case of the prosecution to which they are entitled.

Strikland v. Washington, 466 U.S 668 (1984).

All respondents was sent cease and

desist letters, with petitioner even representing herself in a protection order

hearing that counsel stated he would not be in attendance of. Counsel again proves

that he is ineffective

The petitioner contends that her counsel erroneous advice and lack thereof,

resulted in the petitioner to enduring damages, loss of pay, harassment, job loss,

relationships, and more. Petitioner argues that her first case should be reinstated

as the judge stated everything was resolved.

Based on the unmitigated negligence of petitioners trial counsel in failing to conduct

discovery on the opposing side to get the answers needed in regard to the case.

Solutions and resolutions are resolved in deposition,' the petitioner was never given

this opportunity. The District Court did not address this conduct as witnesses and

respondents testimony play a very important part in this case. The petitioner was

deprived of ineffective counsel.

During the Discovery process petitioners discovery notes was revealed to the

respondents, resulting in more harassment and revealing personal information.

The petitioners discovery notes was never turned over to the respondents so that

21

respondents attorney could ask questions to assist in the case. Moreover, pretrial

and interrogatories are not public components of a civil trial, this information is not

to be used as a public source of information. Discovery were not open to the public

Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S 368, 389 (1979). In general, they are conducted

privately as a matter of modern practice. Protective order prevents a party from

disseminating information obtained through use of the discovery process. However,

the law office shared information to the opposing side, resulting in more harm and

endangerment to the petitioner and her family. The petitioner was deprived of

ineffective counsel. Herbert v, Lando, 441 U.S. 153. 176-177 (1979).

Council violated petitioners Sixth Amendment rights by conflict of interest,' this

affected council performance to assist petitioner effectively. With Council working

with opposing attorney on personal cases, is a direct conflict of interest adversely

affected his representation. Meaning that, favoritism went towards the opposing

side verses assisting his client. Cuvier v, Sullivan, 446 U.S 335 (1980). It’s a

reasonable probability that counsel’s unprofessional and egregious behavior are the

direct result that the case could have gone differently. Attorneys have an ethical

obligation to advise the court of any problems and that his declaration to the court

are made under oath. Joint representation of conflicting interest is inherently

suspected, as both attorneys was fully aware of the discovery process and did not

interview witnesses to get the answers that was needed while at the district court

level. Due to this conflict of interest, this actually affected the adequacy of his

representation and sealing his lips in critical matters that would have given the

22

petitioner a better outcome. The sixth amendment protect us against an ineffective

attorney, as well as a conflicted one. The petitioner was deprived of ineffective

counsel.

Counsel allowed case 49Dll’2106*CT_018457 to remain in Marion Circuit/ Superior

Court since 11/22/2021. A motion for default judgement was filed on respondents

and due to ineffective counsel, the attorney withdrew from this case and there was

never a hearing. If this case would have gone to trial, petitioner would have

received justice in 2021. Due to ineffective counsel, this resulted in petitioner losing

her job and also having to put her house on the market because of financial strain.

Overall, it has been long recognized that the right to counsel is the right to effective

assistance of counsel. Cuvier v. Sullivan, 446 U.S, at 344. Because the right to

counsel is so fundamental to a fair trial, the Constitution cannot tolerate trials in

which counsel is unable to assist petitioners to obtain a fair decision on the merits,

as a direct result the courts will continue to be full.

III.

RIGHT TO PRIVACY and “Fraternal Order “ Members

The United States Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury. The sixth

amendment gives criminal defendants the right to a jury trial. Fed. R. Civ P. # 38.

During the time that the petitioner had her trial with the Department of Veteran

Affairs, no real trial was conducted and because of that action and HIPPA violation

is the reason that this harassment continues today. The respondents are not held

accountable for their actions so they feel they can continue to harass with their

23

interrelation and affiliation with the Fraternal Police. The respondents are not

using their resources to the police properly as they have bargaining tools they use to

get the information and harassment they want. This is not the first time that the

respondent has used these resources to cause damage to others. 38 USC 902

enforcement and arrest authority of department police officers. Veteran Affair

officers assisting respondents to get to Congress to help remove Veterans benefits.

The letter on company letter head is an outpouring for help from 1 of the

respondents as Allegedly respondent or her friend has herpes and is trying to find a

way to get paid by stating that they received a disease from the petitioner and there

blaming this “alleged rape” as the reason they are affected. The respondent job was

to make the petitioner seem like a lady of the night so the fraternal officer - who

allegedly has a real symptom would have sex with petitioner. The letter on

company letter head was supposed to be proof that petitioner had a disease as a

way for respondents to get paid as they have no recollection of where their alleged

diseases came from. This is violation to the petitioner personal privacy as they

culminate and skim to make up lies to defame the petitioner. 28 U.S, Code & 4101.

Due to respondents position in the order, this is calculated as abuse of power. 18

U.S Code & 16 -crime of violence. The respondent violated the petitioners email

account and began speaking with employees of the petitioners military unit, getting

information from Bonita Gaston, whom petitioner was direct supervisor of in the

military. Ms. Gaston was dishonorably discharged from the military, due to

petitioner being an Army Officer a report of misconduct was submitted, which is

24

resulting into retaliation. This retaliation and a violation of the petitioners privacy

is all part of an organized crime. 18 U.S.C &1513, Many things was in the

petitioners personal email account and the respondent took the information and

shared the information. 18 U.S.C & 1030 (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act -CFAA).

The respondent went as far as contacting my biological daughter to sway her for

information_and to cause an illegal act, the illegal act is supposed to be used in the

future on my child exactly how they tortured me. Fraternal member concerned

about my past friendship in Ohio and retailing also concern about pregnancy.

The Due Process of the Fourth Amendment provides that no “State” shall “deprive

any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” Miller v, Fenton,

474 U.S, 104, 109 (1985. Due process Clause was intended to prevent officials “from

abusing their powers or employing it as an instrument of oppression”. (Quoting

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept, of Social Serv, 489 U.S. 189, 196 (1989). in

turn quoting Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S 344, 348 (1986).

In 2013 to current petitioner became a member of this lodge investigations was

done on petitioner by the “fraternal order of the police”. Some officers are aware,

and some are not as they all are not affiliated to the lodge. (This is the connection)

Petitioners, supervisor of the lodge went as far as requesting information on

petitioner that breaks The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania two’pronged analysis of

privacy under that states constitution. (1). One is the individual interest in

avoiding disclosure of personal matters, and another is the interest in independence

25

in making certain kinds of important decisions. “Whalen v. Roe 429 U.S. 589, 599600{197 S. Ct. 869. 876-77, 51 L. ED 2d 64 (1977).

Once the petitioner became affiliated to one lodge then personal attacks became

prevalent by repeating information from petitioners personal “email account” and

then putting information on a “USB stick” and sending the information as form of

harassment. Listening to phone conversations and watching petitioner. That

proposition is unexceptionable, and it has been applied in various cases that have

found insufficient the asserted state interest in preventing publication of truthful,

lawfully obtained information. Florida Star v. B. J, F, 491 U.S, 524 (1989); Smith v.

Daily mail; Landmark Communications, Inc v. Virginia, 435 U.S 829 (1978), The

purpose of doing this was because of the HIPPA lawsuit at the VA Medical Center.

This was retaliation and an attack against petitioner. The lodge supervisor was

angry that her and her friends from the V.A got into trouble for illegally accessing

the veterans medical records. After lodge supervisor access was revealed to her

immediate supervisor she was then terminated from her DFAS government position

and was moved to another location within the government. Veterans medical

records are on a need-to-know basis for medical professionals. HIPPA provides both

civil and criminal penalties for improper disclosures of medical information.

42 U.S.C &&1320d~5, d~6. That’s where the medical deodorant plays apart, in the

employment harassment.

26

In determining whether information is entitled to privacy protection, the intimate

or personal information is justified by the expectation that it will not be subject to

public scrutiny Westinghouse, 638 F, 2d at 577 & N. 5. Medical information is

entitled to privacy protection against disclosure. The Freedom of information Act,

5 U.S.C & 552 (B) (6) medical information may be accorded special treatment under

various rules and statues in recognition of its confidential character. This has

become personal as other lodge members was upset about conflict that happened on

the job and reported that information to the lodge supervisor in efforts to gain

control or to ostracize petitioner. The lodge supervisor then “launched an attack” on

petitioner that resulted in harassment and medical record violations. 18 U.S.C &

241 Civil Rights Conspiracy.

During that time petitioner was in a relationship with a lodge member that ended

abruptly and after the relationship ended petitioner had no communication with

lodge members until special events. The respondents then went as far as trying to

find out if petitioner was pregnant and started asking FedEx employees if they

knew the answer, such an intrusion of privacy. Petitioner and ex have sense then

communicated and feel that our personal business has nothing to do with the

respondents as they continue to intrude upon the petitioners personal information.

The respondent was such in dislike of the petitioner that this resulted in petitioners

hair being burnt out and causing damages, as we know that women hair is their

glory. 18 U.S Code &&2255 civil remedy for personal injuries. The hair injury is

also a traumatic situation with my boys as well. Someone in leadership is

27

responsible for this launched attack on me and my children and burning out my

hair and damaging their hair follicles at a young age is a traumatic injury.

The

respondent actually traumatized the petitioner, as these type of events continue to

happen to causing harm to petitioner by taking away her beauty with body

dysmorphia (stomach) face (dentist) & hair.

At common law defamation tort were

never addressed, as petitioner has been trying to get respondent in court for years.

Especially after learning about the “torture” my terminally ill mother went through

before she died, due to the respondents.

Overall, the very fact that one gives his affirmative acquiescence to the object of a

conspiracy may in many cases be doing “something in furtherance of it”. Actions

that indicate acceptance can legally bind a party to a transaction. A particular

person participating in a conspiracy may be proved where his approval of the plan

stimulates the activities of others to carry out the conspiracy, even though his

participation does not involve and overt act, such as the handing of bribe money to a

public official. It is in the province of the jury to determine from the evidence

whether a particular respondent had crossed that line. Attorneys and police are no

exemption to the rule. Egan v. United States, 137 F. 2d 369, 378. In this current

case, there is ample evidence that there is a conspiracy, and each participant agreed

to participate in a plot against the petitioner. The petitioner is applying for

emotional distress, economic damages- “loss of earnings and attorney fees. Due to

“Tort Claims” this also caused personal injury. Those harms were “plainly

28

derivatives of my emotional distress” and thus “personal injuries to the petitioner

and her children.

V. Organized Crime and Fraternal Police Officers

The Fraternal Police Officer is the connection to this case as this case is

pre mediated and falls under Organized crime. In 1970, Congress enacted the RICO

to combat “organized crime and its economic roots”. Russello v. United States, 464

U.S 16,26 (1983). As RICO’s statutory findings explained, “organized crime in the

United States {was} a highly sophisticated, diversified, and widespread problem.

Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, 922.

Congress solution was to attach hefty civil and criminal penalties to “racketeering

activity” which RICO defines to “encompass dozens of state and federal offenses”

including mail and “wire fraud”. RICO specifically prohibits four racketeeringrelated offenses like receiving any income... from a pattern of racketeering activity

or participating... in the conduct of an enterprises affairs through a pattern of

racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C &1962 (a) -(d). Those acts are federal felonies

punishable by up to 20 years in prison. RICO also creates a civil cause of action for

private plaintiffs to recoup treble damages and attorney’s fees from wrongdoers.

Id &1964. “RICO” standing” it is simply an element of civil RICO claims. Lerner v.

Fleet Bank, N.A 318 F. 3d 113, 129-30 (2d Cir, 2003), RICO plaintiffs injury must

have been proximately caused “by reason of’ the defendants RICO violation. Id at

269. The defendants are responsible for causing RICO in which, this resulted in

29

the loss of income and being unable to pursue employment opportunities, that loss

of income was “indirect” or secondary effect of my personal injuries. RICO requires

that the plaintiff be “injured in business or property by reason of’ the defendants

racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C & 1964 . Injury can be wrong, or damage done to

another, either in his person, rights, reputation, or property. Personal injuries are

the antithesis of injuries to business or property. Under tort law, the typical

recovery is a personal injury case includes medical expenses, loss of wages and pain

and suffering and emotional distress. Officers from both facilities.

As we learned earlier in the case that there is a “motive”, in order for all

participates to be a part of this case it must be worthwhile. The goal was to get the

company fraternal police officer to gain my trust by telling me information in

relations to the respondents that are in the fraternal order. My supervisor/officer

informed me that the organizational ladies are the ones harassing me, as well as

informed me of the insurance policies left to me that the lodge members was trying

to retrieve. Having me fired from my job and baiting me to FEDEX is considered

coercion, scheming and plotting that started immediately after my mother died in

2017. 18 USC & 1591 (e) (2).

After being informed about the life insurance

policies, the petitioner called to check on them to be told they were removed. The

supervisor would constantly ask me to split the funds in half and walked over to me

and told me that we are going to ok. Shortly thereafter there was 2 letters, and

both are a HIPPA violation. HIPPA provides both civil and criminal penalties for

improper disclosure of medical information. Alexander, 532 U.S at. 286~87, 121 S.

30

ct... 1511. This letter was created for “blackmail” to obtain funds and the letter was

leverage, so that respondents could steal. A conspiracy to accomplish what an

individual is free to do may be a crime. Reg v. Mear, 4 Cox C.C 423; 2 Den, C.C 79;

Reg v. Howell, 4 F & F. and even more plainly a person may conspire for the

commission of a crime by a third person. Planting evidence and tampering with

evidence is an obstruction of justice crime and can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor.

Under 21 U.S Code && 841 prohibited Acts A. Petitioner has a scare on her

bottom that was created as false evidence that the respondents created as a

manipulation tool and form of blackmail, this is considered padding files. The point

of putting the scare on my bottom was to make it look like petitioner had herpes.

This was done twice as the spot on petitioner bottom is excessively bruised from

pictures submitted.

Since Respondents girlfriend was in training, it is my belief that she was an

accessory to a crime and assisted in the process. This is classic criminal conspiracy

when two or more people come into agreement about a crime, and one of the

respondents over act to further the agreement this is criminal conspiracy. 18 U.S.C

& 241 Civil Rights Conspiracy.

The 4th Amendment to the United States protects individuals from unreasonable

searches and seizures by the government. Fraternal police coming in my home

taking documents, using neighbors to put rats in petitioners’ home and causing

damage and causing panic from homeowner is conspiracy. Stealing funds and giving

31

others the authority to torture and cause pain to the petitioner for an organized

crime and retaliation. When you are part of an organization and you pass

communication from one person to another in hopes to cause injury to the petitioner

that is criminal conspiracy. 18 U.S.C & 241 Civil Rights Conspiracy.

If a respondent pulls a gun on petitioner in efforts to cause harm or to threaten,

this is conspiracy. Petitioner was threatened in the workplace with a gun and that

employer is being added as well as the respondents are in collaboration with each

other in the effort to cause harm to the petitioner or wanting the petitioner to cause

harm to herself as this is a violation that was mentioned previously about medical

records violations. Another issue in this case is life insurance policies that have

been stolen with evidence showing that the accounts are real respondents have

attained the evidence and withholding it from the rightful owner. Keeping evidence

as a secret and trying to cover it up to prevent detection and punishment is

conspiracy. Kruelewitch v. United States, 336 U.S 440; Lutwak v. United States.

344 U.S, 604. Pp, 353 U.S. 399~402. Being aware of funds and asking for half for

either yourself or others is a crime. Under Penal Code 32 PC, it is a crime for a

person to harbor or aide a person whom he knows has committed a felony and do so

in order to protect him from arrest or conviction.

Respondents abuse of their authority on the job and police presence to plant

evidence on petitioner for retaliatory purposes violated the petitioners substantive

due process rights. Guitierrez v. Lynch, 826 F 2d. 1534, 1536 (6th Cir. 1987).

32

Petitioner feels violated as the Fraternal Officer never introduced himself as an

officer of the law, before telling this information in regard to this case. In Indiana if

a police officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity it is good practice to

identify themselves during interactions to ensure transparency and accountability.

Due to the fact that this Fraternal Officer was “hired” to investigate, it was his job

to inform me that he would be intruding upon my privacy and investigating me.

The district court did not take into consideration that the police officer made sexual

advances towards the petitioner and that the injuries that was caused was

premediated act to get petitioner in bed. The petitioner is making a claim of sexual

harassment under 42 U.S.C & 1983. What was the reason for getting the petitioner

in bed, and was he instructed to do so? The point of having sex was to cause harm

and taunt and tease afterwards. With team leader as a witness that the

supervisor/police officer was looking for someone to have a good time with sexually.

(TL-Dustin). The petitioner felt uncomfortable in the workplace as the manager/

police would play psychological games by standing by the pole and smiling and

staring. When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation,

ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or persuasive to alter the conditions of

the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment Title VII is

violated. When going to the restroom as supervisor had visual in the stalls and

knew the color of my panties. By reasons of respondents conduct, plaintiff was

deprived of her rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Fourth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, (b) subjecting plaintiff to an

33

illegal search and seizure (c) depriving petitioner of her constitutional protected

rights (c) engaging in conduct of abuse of power and authority which shocks the

conscience. The respondent gave the petitioner the information that she is privy of,

by locating her daily and following her path in the workplace. The company

cameras should be able to see this as the petitioner asked for an internal

investigation to be done.

In light of these liberal pleading standards, the district court misconstrued

petitioner’s complaint and is asking the Supreme Court to review complaint and

evidentiary documents. The district court or appellant court even with evidence

shown made no sufficient factual averments that the claimant may be entitled to

some relief the petitioner has been harassed since 2013 to current. Am. Timber &

Trading Co. First Nat’l Bank, 690 F,2d 781, (9th Cir. 1982).

The Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part that the right of the people to be

secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures, shall not be violated. “It is beyond dispute that a vehicle is an “effect”

as that term is used in the amendment. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S 1. 12,

97 S. Ct. 2476, 53 L.ed.2d 538 (1977). We hold that the Government installation of a

GPS device on a targets vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicles

movement, constitute a “search”. The petitioners vehicle was brought from Atlanta

Georgia (family) to Indianapolis, Indiana, there is or was a device that told

respondents of the petitioners location so that they could continue their harassment

34

outside the home. The petitioner was watched 24/7 365 days out of the years, the

police officer was informed to watch petitioner to intimidate and make sure she

wasn’t getting the money from the Life Insurance Policies.

The appellant Court did not give the petitioner a reason for the denial and when the

petitioner called for explanation the receptionist stated that no explanation has to

be given. Without a thorough explanation as pro-se, how am I able to fix the

deficiencies. Petitioner asked the court to assign an attorney, and it was denied.

Petitioner is asking the Supreme Court of the United States to review my petition

and grant petitioner a Writ of Certiorari.

VI.

Fraternal Family Members & Positions of Power

In Commonwealth v. Abbott Engr. Inc 351 Mass, 568, In the Abbott case there was

a member that was related by family, and way before the conspiracy could start

there had to be agreement from family members to participate in this conspiracy as

they hold the motivating factor in this case. Commonwealth v. Louis Constr. Co

Inc. 343 Mass. 600, in which stockholders was convicted of larceny. In this case we

have family members who obtained executorship of an estate to be a part of a

conspiracy. The petitioner was the Executor of the Estate, being the youngest girl

of 5 my mother put me in charge of the Estate. The older siblings were very upset

because they was not considered and didn’t like that things wasn’t going as fast as

they liked. When business was not done to their liking the fraternal family member

and fraternal lodge sister made a connection to spy on petitioner. As my mother

35

was getting sicker she was removed from her home in Michigan and brought to

Indiana, and no assistance or visits from family members and or patient advocate.

I was in contact with the family member and told her that there was things that

needed to be done first before any pay outs to family, bills and etc. have to be paid

first. There is a protocol that has to be followed after someone dies and the

petitioner followed the directions of the WILL of the Estate.

The lodge members want the petitioner locked up in jail so that she can lose her

benefits and get revenge for their friends. FedEx employees had nothing to do with

my mother’s estate, and they had no right to escalate the situation by reporting and

aggravating family members about something they didn’t understand. FedEx

employees should not have gotten involved. This is also about revenge and getting

the petitioner locked up in jail. Now we can accept that the proposition of the

substantiated offenses are merged all into one as a conspiracy. This is when death

happens to be in control. Stapleton v. Commonwealth, 123 Va, 825, 96, S. E, 801.

There are of course instances where a conspiracy charge may not be added to the

substantive charge. One is where the agreement of two persons is necessary for the

completion of the substantive crime and there is no ingredient in the conspiracy

which is not present in the completed crime. United States v. Katz, 271 U.S. 354,

355-356? Gerbardi v. United States, 287 U.S 112, 121-122.

It is the power of

CONGRESS to separate the two or affix them together and add a penalty that is

well established. Clune v. United States, 159 U.S. 590, 594-595. A conviction for

the conspiracy may be had through the substantive offense. Heike v. United State,

36

227 U.S. 131, 144. A conspiracy is a partnership in crime. United States v. Socony-

Vacuum Oil Co,, 310 U.S. 150, 253. It has ingredients as well as implications,

distinct from the completion of the unlawful project. United States v. Rabinowich,

238 U.S 78, 88,

The respondents feel that policies that was left to beneficiary should be split in 5

ways, this is the reason for trying to gain control of the estate. However, a

beneficiary trumps a “Will” to an “Estate”. If the executor could have done it by

herself, what would be the need of the Police officer. Another embezzlement

situation, the use of an employee United States v. Bucur, 194 F 2d. 297 C.A 7th Cir.

1952).

TRAINING NEW MEMBERS TO CAUSE HARM IN FUTURE

This is premeditation to cause harm to a child in the near future, with him being at

least “six years younger” than the respondent and perpetrator, any mind

manipulation tactics is illegal. 18 U.S.C &1111 title 18 crimes and criminal

procedure. The respondents try to have control over your children and your

personal possessions, so they can try to control the petitioner. These activities are

distractions to the real issue that involves missing accounts as mentioned above.

This is organized crime 18 U.S.C &&1961-1968,

Due to the longevity of the crime, the respondents had no intentions on stopping the

crime. 18 U.S Code & 2340 (1) (2) Torture meaning that the respondents went as

far as trying to inflict pain on the petitioner as a means of retaliation by contacting

37

an employee at her last job at Commonwealth. To inflict severe physical or mental

pain or suffering to gain “ Control” or “ Suicide”.

Respondents went as far as using discovery notes from the attorney’s office and

attacking the Petitioner by stating that she was “Raped”. There is no chance for

resolution in this instance and no relief to appeal. This is a cats out the bag

situation, that the respondents have revealed to their Lodge friends, families and

more. The purpose of the torture is to cause shame and public awareness to their

target, the petitioner. The torture resulted in respondents using Doctors to cause

injury to the petitioner due to their power sources.

18 U.S Code & 24- Federal Health Care offense section 2, Torture doesn’t stop

there; it now affects you monetarily by respondents stealing money and having you

fired from your job.

The Respondents are responsible for removing petitioner from her job at Plainfield

Correctional Facility in lieu to start this harassment. 18 CFR & 706.210- Coercion.

The respondents Baited the Petitioners over to FEDEX so that they could use the 4

high profile white men who work for law enforcement and homeland security.

Petitioner would like the court to understand that constant reports was made to the

lower courts in regard to intrusions to petitioners’ home by watching on camera,

Facebook, hacking emails and listening to phone conversations. The electronic

Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) specially title I, is often called the Wiretap

Act. 18 U.S Code & 1030 5 (a) (b) (c) Fraud and Related activity in connection with

38

computers. Due to the illegal activities of the respondents this is considered a

classic “Employee assembly condemning Hate Crime”. EA-R3:

_employee_assembly_condeming _hate_crime_and any other form of racism,

religious and ethnic bias, Discrimination, incitement to violence and abuse of

veteran s medical records. 18 U.S Code & 249~Hate Crime Acts. Respondents used

Petitioners medical prescription as a weapon and caused the petitioner to lose

another job, using discriminatory tactics at Commonwealth Hotels. This is a new

charge but the same discrimination happening over and over again EEOC

Charging NO. 470-2025-00145 Commonwealth Filed 10-08-24 Retaliation. EEOC

Charging NO. 470-2025-00145 Commonwealth Filed 07-25-24. While on job at jobs

resulted in employees “scanning” “sniffing” the petitioner as a direct insult and

condemning manner to cause conflict in the workplace and again using medical

information from the respondents. The respondents effecting Petitioners business

and causing conflict on internet, which is part of a hate crime. 18 U.S Code Chanter

31 Part 1.

The petitioner is seeking the Writ of certiorari, the argument that the court of

appeals should have entertained an action in certiorari, notwithstanding the

District Court denial of the motion for certification, might have presented different

considerations.

39

The petitioner is seeking back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive

damages as well as injunctive relief, to prevent future damages. This document and

evidence will be given to the FBI.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The petition for writ of certiorari should be granted to clarify the important issues.

The decision of the district court and the appellant court erred in there over all

decisions in regarding to this case. Many times, these companies are aware that

the workers are incapable of hiring an attorney because of the wages. And the

EEOC typically hands out letters with the right to sue, knowing that eventually the

problem will go away because of lack of funds. Well employees should not have to

deal with discrimination “because of sex” as it has evolved through the

administrative process and adoption of reasonable person. It is and includes,

conduct of employer or supervisory personnel for which the employer is responsible,

which implicitly or explicitly communicates that an individual right to continued

employment is conditioned upon submission to unwelcomed sexual advances and

constant on the job harassment. Scarring petitioner with fake perceived illness to

taint their images for later manipulation. When an individual of either gender has

to leave her employment to escape unsolicited sexual harassment and watching in

the bathroom, verbal assault, she is the victim of employment discrimination based

on sex as proscribed by Title VII. The petitioner has severally harassed from 2013

to current and is looking for relief. The lower courts were unable to fulfill their

40

obligations, so I am throwing mercy on the court to grant my Writ Of Certiorari and

hold respondents responsible for their actions.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Xena Ames Pro-Se

March 2025

Signature

Date.

41