Petition for Writ of Certiorari — In Re David C. White, Petitioner

Supreme Court briefSep 29, 2025

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

FILED

2 9 2025

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED ST

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

GUPPEME COI4RT. U.S.

DAVID C. WHITE Petitioner

Respondents

FERC Chairman Willie L. Phillips, Rl, Commissioner Mark Christie

R2, Commissioner David Rosner R3, Commissioner Lindsay S. See R4

Commissioner Judy W. Chang R5

On Petition for an Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition, Mandamus by

Rule

20 to the United States Federal, Court the Ninth Circuit Docket 245811

Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition, Mandamus by Rule 20.

Respondents Counsel of Record

Danielle Mechling

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Tel: 202-502-8924

dan i e lie. mechling@ferc. gov

Petitioner David C. White

18965 NW Illahe St Portland, OR 97229

503-608-7611

QUESTIONS[S] PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Q(x)

1. Shall any hydroelectric dam be removed in the United States without

express consent of Congress, when the simple, scientific solution is

dam maintenance to include dredging to remove contaminated silt,

heat-scrubbing toxins, installing or repairing fish ladders, and

retrofitting for earthquake if needed?

2. Shall U.S. Courts persist in extreme bias against pro se or any litigant,

contrary to Loper Bright, especially in use of Administrative Law to

nullify Federal Law for Summary Judgment, by dismissing a case as

frivolous when defense fails to Appear, in collusion for obstruction of

justice?

3. Shall a judge who dismisses a case when Defense fails to Appear be

guilty of Misprision of Felony, having reviewed the felonies admitted by

abandonment of the Defense, and then doing nothing to adjudicate

them, in defiance of Loper Bright?

4. Shall the Circuit Court of Appeals violate its protocol for selecting a

unique panel of judges for each case tried when a litigant has

simultaneously presented two or more unique cases for review?

5. Shall “good behavior” in Article III, Section 1 be defined in part by

compliance with Federal Rules, Federal Laws and the U.S. Constitution

itself.

6. Shall the Circuit Court of Appeals refer a PETITION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF DISPOSITIVE ORDER to the same panel of

judges whose extreme bias in dismissing that very case is being

challenged by pro se, or any litigants?

7. Shall any Court dismiss a Complaint as frivolous when Defendants are

in default by the 21+1 day FRCP rule or have otherwise made public

confession of a crime such as killing hundreds of endangered fish?

8. Shall pseudo-scientists in an East Coast Agency be denied extraCongressional authority to order vandalism of West Coast dams (2008

Bi-Op), contrary to the opposition of West Coast scientists and local

stakeholders?

10. Shall judges in the Ninth Circuit persist in violation of Loper Bright, thus

denying citizens 14th Amendment equal protection under the law,

compared to citizens in other jurisdictions such as the Tenth Circuit, which

comply with Loper Bright, per their home page?

11. Shall a ruling of “frivolous” be rendered only after a thorough

investigation of case facts, rather than subjective Judicial Discretion.

12. If a case is found to be frivolous after thorough investigation, shall the

accuser be subject to the same penalty that he attempted to inflict on the

accused?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................... 4

OPINIONS BELOW................................................................................. 6

JURISDICTION.........................................................................................6

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................................................. 7

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT............................................... 11

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 13

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS...................................................................... 15

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED..... 27

CONCLUSION.........................

PRAYER FOR RELIEF..................................................................... .....36

APPENDIX.............................................................................................. 41

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Court Cases:

13) Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002): 12.

14) 22-451 June 28th, 2024 Federal Case number 22-451 in Loper Bright

Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce

that all courts shall no longer function as administrative law courts.

https://www.supremecourt.qov/opinions/23pdf/22-451 7m58.pdf 10, 11, 12,

14, 17, 23, 28.

Federal Law:

1) 18 USC 3 accessory after the fact 9, 13, 30.

2) 16 USCA § 1532(19); 9, 11.

3) 18 U.S. Code §41. 9, 11.

4) The Endangered Species Act of 1973.

https://www.fws.gov/laws/endangered-species-act/section-11.......... 9, 11.

5) 18 U.S.C. § 1001 False Statements, Concealment....9, 11, 23...

6) 29 CFR § 1606.8(1) -Harassment. 9, 11.

7) 28 U.S. Code §4101 Defamation 9, 11, 28.

9) 33 U.S.C. §1251 Clean Water Act, Section 404. 9, 11.

10) https://www.uscourts.gov/iudqes-iudqeships/code-conduct-unitedstates-judqes . 15, 22, 23, 28.

11) 28 U.S. Code § 455 (b), (1) 9, 11, 30.

13) 18 U.S.C. 4: Misprision of Felony 23.

15) 8 U.S.C. 4.

Constitutional Provisions:

8) Article III of U.S. Constitution, Section 1. 30, 31.

Article VI, Section 2 of U.S. Constitution.

Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution.

Amendment XIV of the U.S. Constitution.

(Table of Authorities Ends)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition, Mandamus by Rule 20.

Petitioner respectfully prays that an Extraordinary Writ to review the

judgement below be granted.

OPINIONS BELOW

ORDER FILED. (Sidney R. THOMAS, Jay S. BYBEE, Daniel P. COL

Upon a review of the record, the response to the court’s

October 11, conclude this appeal is frivolous. We

therefore deny appellant’s motion Entry No. 5), see 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a), and dismiss this appeal as frivolous

(court shall dismiss case at any time, if court determines

it is frivolous entertained in this closed case. DISMISSED.

[Entered: 11/20/2024

09/17/2024

ORDER FILED. Michael McShane

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge the final dismissal

in 3:24-cv-00755-JR, the federal rules preclude it. And to

the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge the licensing

decision made by FERC regarding the Klamath

Hydroelectric Project, this Court lacks jurisdiction. For

these reasons, the Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s request to

proceed IFP. The Application, ECF No. 2, is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with

prejudice and without leave to amend. Any outstanding

motions are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 17th day of September, 2024.

s/Michael J. McShane Michael McShane

United States District Judge

JURISDICTION

Date of order to review is 11/20/2024 in Docket 24-5811.

Basis for

Jurisdiction for this case is a federal environmental question. An

environmental disaster in the Klamath Basin has resulted from

Respondent’s licensee, Klamath River Renewal Corporation’s (KRRC)

willful destruction of the environment in violation of known stipulations and

restrictions of the FERC license. FERC cherry-picked data, ignoring an

approximate 80% public vote opinion poll and adamant public testimony

against illegal dam removal by 20).

Therefore, Respondents illegally gave KRRC a license to remove Klamath

River dams by the now obsolete Chevron Doctrine (back to 2005 by l.oper

Bright). This makes Respondents guilty of KRRC’s alleged crimes by

Accessory after the Fact 1).

Additional violations are: 18 USC 3, 16 USCA § 1532, 2) 18 U.S. Code §

41 3), Item 3 below, The Endangered Species Act of 1973, 4), 18 U.S.C. §

1001, 5), 18 USC 3, 29 CFR § 1606.8, 6), 28 U.S. Code § 4101,

7) 33 U.S.C. §1251, 9), 18 U.S.C. 1743, 28 U.S. Code § 455(b), (1) and

FRCP 16.

This Court has jurisdiction, over the subject matter of this Complaint,

because the illegal and unlawful actions of KRRC are violated Federal

Law, to include the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, PL 90-542, the Clean

Water Act, and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The

Respondents are complicit in these statutory violations by negligently

providing KRRC with its license.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER

LEGAL REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THIS WRIT

Allowance for this Writ is necessary -- indeed essential for survival of a

free people -- due to universal flaunting of the Supreme Court’s Roper,

Bright, Enterprise landmark decision of June 28, 2024 among judges of

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The questions posed for review are

not isolated incidents, but are violations ingrained in the culture and daily

routine of the Ninth Circuit judges. The violations strike at the very heart

of a just legal System and have frustrated citizens for decades. See

Q(2). In five unique, substantive lawsuits filed by Petitioner during 2024,

the same illegal stratagem for dismissal was executed by corporate

defense attorneys and the Court, in what seems to be a set of unwritten

“insider rules.” Statistically, that means the injustice is systemic throughout

the entire Ninth Circuit. This case is but one example, which presents a

unique opportunity for reform.

In the instant case the process unfolded

as follows:

1. To set the stage, Defendant refused to appear in the case during the

21+1 days of time allotted. Why would a rational person do that unless

aware that they are shielded by some unspoken, insider, protection

stratagem. See Q(7).

2. Plaintiff then filed for Summary Judgment by 10) after 21 plus 1 days,

per Federal Rules of Court Procedure FRCP 12.

3. With astonishing bias, the judge then declared the violations

frivolous and dismissed them by local Administrative Law, leaving

allegations of federal crimes committed un-investigated and un

adjudicated. See Q(3).

How long will we tolerate such distortions of justice to prevail under the

guise of Judicial Immunity? See Q(8). As in a family, it does no good to

lay down a rule if it is not subsequently enforced.

Specifically:

1. Federal Court in Portland, Oregon Systemic Denial of Due Process of Law:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Flaunting of Loper Bright Enterprises Landmark Decision

Acceptance of this Writ is necessary - indeed essential for survival of a

free nation -- due to universal flaunting of the Supreme Court’s Loper,

Bright, Enterprises landmark decision of June 28, 2024 by 1) among

judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Q(2). The judicial

process unfolded according to procedural rules known only to “court

insiders,” as follows:

To set the stage, Respondents refused to make any Appearance in the

federal case initiated in Portland, Oregon. Why would any rational actor

do this unless they were aware of being protected by some spoken or

unspoken stratagem of a dishonest judge? Sure enough, instead of

immediately granting Petitioner the Summary Judgment in compliance with

the 21+1 day federal rule, Petitioner was penalized by illegal dismissal

under Administrative Law. See Q(7). This is Collusion in Obstruction of

Justice, whether spoken or unspoken. See Q(2).

This same scenario has been played out in five unique, substantive

cases initiated by Petitioner in the past year. It’s the same kind of judicial

dishonesty that has frustrated countless other litigants in the Ninth Circuit

for decades. Hundreds, if not thousands, are longing for the Supreme

Court to exercise the authority and responsibility granted by the

Constitution to dismiss judges that are not living up to Article III standards

of “good behavior.” See Q(5).

On August 8th, 2024, Petitioner filed a Complaint against the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioners (FERC) which had unlawfully

issued Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC) a license to remove

four of the dams on the lower Klamath River. This was accomplished by

cherry picking data as part of a scheme to supplant federal

environmental law 12) which assumes and by implication requires

preservation of the dams. See Q(9).

As evidence of KRRC lawbreaking, Petitioner found more than nine

violations of environmental law in the FERC licensing document itself.

Judge McShane in the case 1:24-CV-1301-MC then misconstrued or

ignored this lawful evidence to claim that Petitioner was suing FERC in

conjunction with KRRC, resulting in Petitioner’s loss of the KRCC case.

This false correlation was legal duplicity and an egregious falsehood.

Respondent was simply referring to the FERC document as evidence.

Respondents were in Default by failing to respond to the Complaint.

This, even though Petitioner called and emailed to remind them and also

introduced the Complaint and Memorandum of Points Pleading which

proves FERC violated their own rules and federal law by illegal cherry-

picking data. This document was previously uploaded to this docket.

About 80% of local stakeholders didn’t want the dams removed.

FERC blatantly ignored overwhelming and vociferous objections of local

stakeholders in polling and sworn testimony against removal of the dams

in both Siskiyou County, California and Klamath County, Oregon. One-

doctor stands out, who testified that his wife died due to the Chromium 6

poisoning and his steady flow of patients likewise suffering the same

symptoms. And this leads to the final unresolved issue of deadly arsenic

deposits left lining the banks of the Klamath River by FERC’s

incompetent supervision of this project. This is an environmental

catastrophe more serious than the Exxon-Valdez oil spill of the last

century.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

Deadly arsenic deposits on the banks of the Klamath River must be

removed. But, the Federal Court illegally dismissed this case when

Respondents (FERC Commissioners) were in default by the 21 + 1 day

Rule and the court should have granted Summary Judgment. See Q(7). In

addition, the Federal Court did not provide the requested hearing to argue

the Complaint.

Thus, the Appeal was filed, but then three Ninth Circuit Court Justices

illegally dismissed the Appeal because they naively accepted the illegal

dismissal of the Federal Court instead of ruling on the illegal procedure.

The Federal Court judge had two Complaints pending against him at the

time in the Ninth Circuit for illegal judicial bias, violations of Judicial Code of

Conduct by 10) and illegal abuse of Administrative Law. Likewise, the three

Appeals Court Justices have similar Complaints and dockets filed in the

Ninth Circuit Court.

The Appellees abandoned these case issues by failure to make a

response to any pleading in Docket 24-5811 and Case 1:24-CV-1301-MC.

The judge’s subsequent dismissal makes this a Conspiracy in Obstruction

of Justice and such judges must be held liable for Misprision of Felony.

See Q(3). To nip future problems in the bud, the Court is urged to clarify

the definition of “good behavior” to include this kind of legal chicanery and

limit Judicial Immunity to Article III courts only. See Q(5) and Q(8).

The much-abused concept of “frivolous” must be removed from the realm

of subjective Judicial Discretion and rendered only after a thorough

investigation of the facts and law. See Q(11). At that point if the

accusation is found to be frivolous, the accuser should receive the same

judgment he sought to inflict on the accused See Q12).

To avoid future illegitimate dam removals, the Court is urged to declare the

2008 Bi-OP (Biological Opinion) null and void, based as it is on junk

science.

INTRODUCTION

This case is far from frivolous; it is a life and death matter that requires the

Court’s immediate attention due to deadly arsenic deposits on the banks

of the Klamath River. It involves the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) Respondents who illegally cherry-picked emotional

demands of upstream stakeholders exclusively by 20) and illegally

provided Klamath River Restoration Corp. (KRRC) (NCA9 Docket 24-5275)

a license to remove four dams on the Klamath River in Oregon and

California. SeeQ(1).

The emotional hue and cry from upstream users was, "Take out the Iron

Gate and let the river run free," but long-time resident Hoyt Johnson,

spoke reality: "They had a beautiful river and now it's just a big mud hole

all the way down."

Chemical testing of the silt behind the dams by the Department of Interior

in 2011 revealed levels of Chromium 6 and Arsenic a minimum of 40

times the EPA safe level. Having failed to perform adequate research,

and not bothering to read the chemistry test on the silt from the 20092011 Department of Interior study, KRRC released all of this

contaminated

silt at one time and without being heat-scrubbed. FERC failed to monitor

the work in progress and was oblivious to this.

KRRC washed their

hands of the damage their incompetency created by simply planting grass

in the contaminated silt, denying the scientific reality that the Arsenic does

not leach out. Consequently, we request that this Writ is increased to

$100 million, which is needed to remove toxic silt deposits on both banks of

the Klamath River for about 200 plus river miles.

These actions are in clear violation of the Federal Endangered Species

Act and Federal Clean Water Act of the U.S. Congress. Crimes also

include voluntary confession to wanton killing offish, including

endangered

Salmon without permits. See Q(7). This voluntary confession, containing

detailed facts about the number offish killed that only the accused could

know, is irrefutable evidence of guilt. The confession also contained an

assertion that Defendant knew ahead of time that these fish would be

killed, making it a premeditated crime. Judge McShane clearly did not

review the record as he claimed, or he would have seen and presumably

acted on this confession. But his commitment is to Administrative rules

over federal rules as required by Loper Bright Enterprises.

Following are specific Statement of Claims:

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

Class Action members of the Complaint are now subjected to millions

of dollars of private property damage due to future flooding, such as the

Columbus Day Storm of 1962, which resulted in about $60 million of

uninflated dollars before the Iron Gate Dam was activated. Also, wells

drying up, loss of environmental values of recreation and tourism, and a

return to intermittent water flow in the river. A retirement village built on

one of the reservoirs has lost at least 50% of its property value.

The silt left deposited on the sides of the river and all estuaries

downstream (and fish), are contaminated with 40-200 times the EPA limit

for Arsenic, according to a Department of Interior study in 2011. There are

also substantial amounts of Chromium 6 in the

deposits by a 2009 Department of Interior chemistry test on the silt behind

the illegally removed dams, that FERC ignored. See Chapter 3 in this link

to the study.

https://salmonprottectiondevive.com/CDM 20110119 Screening-LevelEvaluation-of-Contaminants-in-Sediments.pdf

3. People and scientists in Western states are being forced to remove

dams due to a 2008 “ivory tower” Biological Opinion which is now in

violation of Loper Bright Enterprise cancelation of the Chevron Doctrine.

Here we have academic fish biologists on the East Coast telling the

Northwest what to do with their dams with almost no input from the West

Coast. See Q(9). This scientific nonsense has depopulated endangered

Salmon species in violation of the Clean Water Act and Wild & the Scenic

Rivers Act, while ignoring the inexpensive solution of dredging and

repairing the fish ladders. As a life-long Chemical Engineer, with Biology

and Forestry training in college, Petitioner humbly asks the Supreme

Court to declare this Biological Opinion to be null and void. See Q(1).

https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Environmental-Stewardship/Fish/WVP-BiOP/

About Eighty percent of residents in Klamath County, Oregon and

Siskiyou County, California (each end of the river) voted overwhelmingly

to keep the dams. This is why in February 2023 Petitioner set up a table at

the only Grocery Store in Klamath Falls and distributed 500 documents

about the need to preserve the Klamath dams. Four Hundred Ninety-Nine

People agreed and only one person disagreed. FERC, therefore, illegally

cherry-picked data, flaunting Loper Bright, to illegally give KRRC a license

to destroy the environment in the Klamath Basin. Respondents’ Counsel of

Record Danielle Mechling admitted in a phone call that FERC didn't follow

their own rules for data collection. Petitioner believes this is why

Respondents have not appeared in any Court Proceeding since that time

because they know they are guilty. This, even though the Respondents

have been duly served in each case and pleading.

The 2018 baseline document for granting KRRC a license, was found to be

seriously compromised by mitigation and regulatory violations, resulting in

irreparable vandalism of federal property. See Q(9). The Supreme Court

has an obligation to prosecute and declare the 2008 Biological Opinion

null and void to prevent further damage, because the lower courts refused

to honor requests for a stop-work injunction subject to investigation.

Administrative Law is making a travesty of justice in the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals. The Court is urged to limit Judicial Immunity only to

Article III Judges. Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants no

such immunity to judges who fail to display “good behavior” by habitually

breaking federal law. See Q(5). The Circuit Court Complaint in Appendix

B contains this question: “have you filed a lawsuit against this Judge?”

This implies that Judicial Immunity is not absolute when a Court convenes

illegally under Administrative Law. See Q(2).

The FERC 2018 mitigation document is based on junk science:

https://salmonprotectiondevice.com/Klamath-river-MEMORANDUM-QFPOINTS-ferc.pdf

Public testimony of Physicians in a 2017 California Water Board public

hearing confirmed levels of poisonous substance in silt behind the dams

harmful to human and animal life. This signaled the need for dredging and

heat scrubbing poisons, which was being illegally by 14) ignored. See Q(1).

Starting at page 52 of the link above please read testimony of PhD

scientists who gave the Respondent licensee's far more colorful names

than the “pseudo-scientist” label we have ascribed to them.

FERC illegally by their own protocols (which they violated) and by

Loper Bright 14) failed to evaluate this testimony -- in which University

Professors called the Pseudo Scientists at KRRC names unfit to publish.

Unheeded, their exhortations resulted in untold damage to man and

environment in the Klamath River basin.

https://www.waterboards.ca.qov/waterriQhts/water issues/proqrams/water

quality cert/docs/lower klamath ferc14803/comments/qierak1.pdf

Advertising in the Klamath Falls Herald and News appears in Appendix

C. Local Stakeholders are signing up for this class action complaint.

End State of Claims

ARGUMENT

Rather than first dredging and heat-scrubbing on-site, KRRC --

Respondent’s license holder -- released the sludge/silt all at one time,

leaving Arsenic-laced silt on both banks for at least 200 river miles.

Respondent’s licensee killed no less than one herd of elk, and confessed to

killing more than 2000 fish, including endangered salmon. See Q(7). This

confession was recorded in a publication of record (OPB) but it was

ignored by the Courts, contrary to laws of evidence. This

highly toxic silt now covers both sides of the riverbank. It does not leach

out over time as Defendant pseudo-scientists have falsely claimed. By

contrast, KRRC Appellee’s license holder performed a sham test in the

mouth of tributaries, claiming

no poison whatsoever left in the river. KRRC, Respondent’s license

holder, has now attempted to cover up their crime by simply planting

grass that will be eaten by unsuspecting deer & elk, eventually to be

consumed, along with contaminated fish, by humans.

As a life-long Chemical Engineer, with expertise in hydrology and advanced

statistics, Petitioner is warning unequivocally that both sides of the Klamath

River Bank need to be scraped and heat-scrubbed to mitigate this assault

on both human and wildlife in the Klamath Basin. This is an EPA super

fund level environmental catastrophe. That’s why we need the Court’s help

to release the $100 million dollars, which is being denied by

scientifically naive, lower court judges.

The reason for this extraordinary Writ by Rule 20 is the unmitigated

damage to the Klamath River Area in Southern Oregon by Respondent’s

licensee. This is a clear violation of the Clean Water Act by 9). The silt on

the sides of the river is highly toxic with 40-200 times the EPA limit of

Arsenic, that does not leach out. Respondents are Accessary after the

Fact by 1) for laws violated by well-documented, clear and convincing

evidence. See Q(3).

The federal Judges in Ninth Circuit Court and Portland Federal Court were

never charged with Misprision of Felony for deliberately failing to

adjudicate these crimes and failing to honor a legal stop-work injunction.

See Q(3).

Public testimony warned of this disaster, by one doctor in particular who

lost his wife by Chromium 6 poisoning, and claimed to be flooded with

patients suffering the same symptoms. Respondents and their licensee

ignored these dire preliminary findings, contrary to the Scientific Method,

and “cherry-picked” data from ill-advised, upstream water users only.

The impetus behind radical dam removal in the Western states is an

illegitimate Biological Opinion (Bi-OP) in 2008, which now violates

Loper Bright’s cancelation of the Chevron Doctrine. See Q(2).

Petitioners' lifelong friend, Steve Cramer of Cramer Fish Scientists, had

testified before Congress every year and received annual funding for

Salmon research. This company is the “go to” source for Salmon

Research in the Northwest since 1985. Petitioner recalls Steve being very

upset when the BI-OP didn't invite him, the expert to testify. Steve called

the Bi-OP “a farce!” See Q(9). These are agenda-driven, fish biologists

on the East Coast -- oblivious to the common-sense dredging option --

presuming to order radical vandalism of Northwest dams, with virtually no

input from the Northwest. This scientific nonsense has killed endangered

Salmon species, violated the Clean Water Act, and left an environmental

catastrophe in its wake on the banks of the Klamath. Meantime, selfabsorbed, upstream stakeholders are congratulated by the Oregon

Governor for sighting of a single (contaminated) salmon, after rejecting

scientific solutions that would have benefited everybody.

https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Missions/EnvironmentalStewardship/Fish/WVP-BiOP/

Petitioner humbly asks the Supreme Court to rescind this eccentric,

agenda-driven, bureaucratic order to vandalize and destroy fully

capitalized, public property that benefits everybody, including the fish.

See Q(1).

Ignoring these facts, the lower courts proceeded with reckless disregard

for human life and the environment, to convene under authority of illegal,

local Administrative Law to dismiss this case as frivolous. See Q(7). They

illegally denied Petitioner’s urgent plea for an injunctive Restraining

Order. As the Court is well aware, under the Loper Bright Enterprises

ruling, Administrative Law is illegal and ALL courts must convene as a court

under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. By failing to do so, the lower Court

is criminally liable. See Q(8).

The Chevron doctrine is invalid. Therefore, the cherry-picking

data method of FERC (Respondents) was illegal and the lower court is

criminally liable for failing to adjudicate it by Loper Bright. See Q(8).

Federal and state agencies may no longer cherry pick data for their false

agenda like this glaring example of contumacy in defiance of Supreme

Court orders. Stare decisis must be vertical to the Constitution not lower

or sideways.

https://thelawisvourattorney.com/loper-briqht-enterprises/

Article VI, Section 2:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be

made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be

made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme

law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,

anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary

notwithstanding.

Fifth Amendment:

... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice

put in jeopardy of life or limb;... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law;

The unjust procedure described above (1-3) makes a mockery of federal

rules, the Constitution, and Loper Bright Enterprises, denying

Plaintiff his “day in court” and due process of law by "Judicial

Discretion." SeeQ(1).

Local Administrative Law must no longer be allowed to violate

Federal Rules, such as the 21+1 day deadline for making an appearance.

In the instant case, the judge refused to render the required Summary

Judgment by 10) for Plaintiff and dismissed the case, after Defendant

suspiciously failed to Appear within the 21 plus 1 day deadline. See Q(7).

The Court is urged to consider a more equitable definition of Judicial

Immunity to balance judicial protection with citizen's Constitutional

rights. These rights are currently vulnerable to the demonstrably

unjust legal collusion being practiced in the Ninth Circuit, such as

that of R2 in the instant case. See Q(8).

2. Federal Court in Portland, Oregon Systemic Denial of "Thorough

Investigation" for Frivolity:

English Common Law Under Alfred the Great:

And the judges shall investigate thoroughly; and if the witness is a

false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall

do to him just as he intended to do to his brother. Thus, you shall

purge the evil from among you” (Deut. 19:18,19).

The unjust procedure described above (1-3) denies the opportunity for a

“thorough investigation” of clear and convincing evidence of federal crimes

committed prior to a determination that the case is “frivolous.” See Q(2).

Introduction of frivolous cases would be severely reduced if the accuser

knew that he would be subject to the same penalty he sought to inflict on

his opponent if it was shown to be untruthful. See Q(12). Instead, the

determination of “frivolous” is based on the judge’s subjective impressions

as defined by the nebulous concept of “judicial discretion.” See Q(11).

this any different than a return to rule by “Divine Right of Kings” dressed up

in modern, judicial “trade jargon.” It was for this offense that Charles I of

England was executed. A ruling of "frivolous" must no longer be permitted

until all facts, felonies and federal law are thoroughly examined in light of

federal rules, law and the U.S. Constitution. See Q(11). Otherwise, we

end up with an avalanche of frivolous dismissals, such as Petitioner has

seen in the Ninth Circuit Court on five out of five substantive cases.

3. Federal Court in Portland, Oregon Systemic Denial of

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved

The lower court dismissals leave clear violations of the Federal Clean Air

and Federal Clean Water Acts of the U.S. Congress un-adjudicated.

Also, their contumacious refusal to forsake illegal Administrative Law has

left the confession to wanton killing offish including endangered Salmon

without permits un-adjudicated. See Q(7). Likewise, more than one case

of entire herds of elk have been reported trapped in the pools of

quicksand created by Respondent’s licensee. Local stakeholders tried in

vain to rescue these victims of FERC criminal lack of mitigation oversight.

See Q(3). Additional violations are: 18 USC 3, 16 USCA § 1532, 2) 18

U.S. Code § 41, 3) Item 3 below, The Endangered Species Act of 1973, 4),

18 U.S.C. § 1001, 5) 18 USC 3, 29 CFR § 1606.8, 6) 28 U.S. Code § 4101,

7), 33 U.S.C. §1251, 9, 18 U.S.C. 1743, 28 U.S. Code §455 (b), (1), and

FRCP 16.

4. Federal Court in Portland, Oregon Systemic Denial of Equal Protection of the

laws:

14th Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any

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

process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws.

The unjust procedure described (1-3) above makes a mockery of equal

protection under the laws among the states, and leaves well-documented

federal crimes un-adjudicated. Systemic refusal to adhere to Loper

Bright Enterprises denies citizens in the Ninth Circuit Court, rights enjoyed

by citizens in other Circuits where Loper Bright Enterprises is honored,

such as the Tenth Circuit. See Q(10).

Therefore, Ninth Circuit Judges, and all others, need to be held liable for

Misprision of Felony for refusing to thoroughly investigate evidence of

federal crimes due to their capricious and frivolous dismissals in violation

of federal rules. See Q(3).

The Tenth Circuit has already made the transition to Article III Court status

as seen on their home page (Appendix C). A Court order that directly

addresses this contumacy by judges in the Ninth Circuit is needed to help

secure their conversion to Article III court status in compliance with Loper

Bright. But the best way to secure compliance is to reserve judicial

immunity exclusively for Courts convened under Article III of the U.S.

Constitution and deny it to illegal Administrative Law Courts. See Q(8).

5. Federal Court in Portland, Oregon Systemic Denial of FRCP rules

for Court Process and Procedure:

Respondents abandoned these case issues by making no response

to any Complaint Pleading in Docket 24-5811 and Case 1:24-CV-1301-

MC. See Q(3).

The federal court was in error by not providing the requested hearing.

It was also in error by convening under illegal Administrative Law by 14).

By no stretch of the imagination was this ever a frivolous case. Only in the

mind of judges committed to illegal Administrative Law is this frivolous.

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The Corporation associated with Plaintiff in this case is

Salmonprotectiondevice.com a non-profit 501C3 research corporation.

There is no parent or publicly held company owning 10% or more of the

corporation’s stock.

LIST OF ALL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE

AND FEDERAL TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS

No state courts are involved. Illegal Orders are below. In each case the

Respondents were in default, having abandoned their defense, and, a

summ ary judgment(s) on the default was filed in the docket. Then the

Judge(s) illegally dismissed the cases. See Q(7). For case 3:24-cv-00755JR the court is correct in lacking jurisdiction to remove the debunked 2018

FERC document. However, the court did have jurisdiction to charge

Defendants in this action as Accessory after the Fact for KRRC’s crimes.

In addition, Judge McShane filed the order without leave to amend with no

legal standing.

ORDER FILED. (Sidney R. THOMAS, Jay S. BYBEE, Daniel P. COL

Upon a review of the record, the response to the court’s October 11,

conclude this appeal is frivolous. We therefore deny appellant’s motion

Entry No. 5), see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and dismiss this appeal as

frivolous (court shall dismiss case at any time, if court determines it is

frivolous entertained in this closed case. DISMISSED. [Entered:

11/20/2024]

ORDER FILED. Michael McShane

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge the final dismissal in 3:24-cv00755-JR, the federal rules preclude it. And to the extent Plaintiff seeks to

challenge the licensing decision made by FERC regarding the Klamath

Hydroelectric Project, this Court lacks jurisdiction. For these reasons, the

Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP. The Application, ECF

No. 2, is DENIED. Plaintiffs Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with

prejudice and without leave to amend. Any outstanding motions are DENIED

as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 17th day of September, 2024.

s/Michael J. McShane Michael McShane

United States District Judge

CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE

BASIS FOR JURISDICTION IN THIS COURT

Proposal for Judicial Immunity Reform

Judicial Immunity does not I should not exist in an illegal Administrative

Law Court, yet Ninth Circuit Judge(s) rely on it habitually to excuse their

unjust rulings. The question is, shall any Judge of an illegal

Administrative Law Court be privileged with judicial immunity in violaton of

Loper Bright? See Q(8).

Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution is mute on the subject, except

for the assumption of “good behavior,” which such a contumacious

Administrative Law judge is clearly lacking. See Q(5).

Article III https://www.law.comell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Compensation is pay and benefits, with a universal assumption, of “good

behavior” for acceptable performance of the “job description,” which in this

case is the Loper Bright Ruling. Why is a judge paid for habitual,

contumacious refusal to perform by the requirements of the Job

Description?

The Circuit Court Complaint Form, Section 3, in the Appendix asks : “4.

Have you filed any lawsuits against the judge? [ ] Yes

[X] No” This

implies that no judicial immunity exists in an Administrative Law Court in

which the judge refuses to comply with neither Loper Bright nor the U.S.

Constitution. See Q(8).

Petitioner humbly suggests the following:

A judge’s normal Article III Court decisions shall have Judicial

Immunity. However, violations of federal laws and court rules (as in the

wayward Judge of Article III, Section 1) shall not enjoy Judicial Immunity

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-1/qoodbehavior-clause-doctrine-and-practice).

This Court likewise has the Constitutional responsibility to police itself by

removing - or at least correcting -- the wayward judge in Appendix 1 who

has two Judicial Performance complaints pending against him see

Appendix 2. The other is in docket 24-6787.

Therefore, Petitioner requests a Supreme Court ruling that only courts

convened under Article III of the U.S Constitution have Judicial Immunity.

Illegal Administrative Law court judges do not have Judicial Immunity.

See Q(8).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER

LEGAL REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THIS WRIT

Judicial Misconduct In the Federal Court

On 11/20/2024 docket 11 in Docket 24-5811 Circuit Court Justices filed an

order and by extreme judicial bias and illegal Administrative Law

dismissed the docket which most certainly deserves to be remanded by

the U.S. Supreme Court, as in other recent decisions. This case ruling

was based on illegal bias 14) 15), 16), 17) and 19), illegal abuse of

Administrative Law 20), and failure to adjudicate clear and convincing

evidence of felonies. These Respondent licensees by 1) are guilty by

confession to killing more than 2,000 fish, some endangered species, as

un-adjudicated felonies in Docket 24-5275 (KRRC) of the Ninth Circuit

Court. These judges, therefore, deserve prosecution for Misprision of

Felony 18) and official Judicial Misconduct. See Q(3). The Complaint in

the Appendix is filed against the Federal Judge who with illegal bias 14)

15), 16), 17) and 19) and illegal Administrative Law by 20) illegally

dismissed the case. See Q(2). Also, failure to adjudicate felonies by

accessory after the fact 1) in the public

(OPB) confession by Klamath River Renewal (KRRC), the Defendant’s

licensee, of killing over two thousand fish, some protected species. See

Q3). The judges, (appeals case and lower court), therefore, deserve

prosecution for Misprision of Felony 18) and official Judicial Misconduct,

because the judicial system seems incapable of policing itself.

Defendant’s in (Docket 24-5275), deserve to be charged with 18),

Misprision of Felony.

Is voluntary “confession,” not the ultimate evidence of guilt? Why then did

the Courts ignore it? It follows that this appeal is emphatically not

frivolous, by virtue of the confession alone. See Q(7). Plaintiff filed case

1:24-CV-1301-MC against the Defendants for cherry-picking data based on

the now defunct Chevron Doctrine by 14) and their licensee for destroying

the environment in the Klamath Basin with arsenic-laced and chromium 6-

laced silt. A requested hearing was not provided. The final decision

of the judge was not based on the merits of the case facts. Rather, it was

based solely on the Judge’s bias and illegal beliefs by 14), 16), 17)

and 19) above. See Q(11). The well-documented felonies of licensee

were public confession to killing more than 2000 fish and a herd of elk

without permits, and releasing 5 million yards of silt from the Iron Gate

dam, which killed all aquatic life in 120 river miles. The Clean Water

permits specified a maximum of 1500 yards could be released at one

time. With dams removed, the Klamath River has been above flood

stage many times thus far this Winter. This will get much worse with the

spring snow melt. And it is only a matter of time before another notorious

“Columbus Day Storm” ravages the Klamath basin with no dam protection.

https://waterdata.usgs.gov/monitoringlocation/11530500/#dataTypeld=continuous-000650&period=P365D&showMedian=false

(https://thelawisyourattorney.com/loper-bright-enterprises/) is recognized

by the US Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Court as illegal Judicial

Misconduct.

https://thelawisyourattorney.com/judicial-bias-against-litigants-in-damremoval-cases/

CONCLUSION

Respondents illegally gave Klamath River Renewal Corp (KRRC) a license

to remove four dams. In turn their flawed mitigation document which

ignored the need to heat scrub the silt deposits, and their failure to

supervise destroyed the environment in the Klamath Valley of Washington.

Respondents violated the Loper Bright Supreme Court Opinion which

makes the Chevron Doctrine null and void to 2005, when they listened only

to upstream users.

Respondents are also therefore Accessory after the Fact for KRRC’s killing

of more than 2000 fish including endangered salmon, as well as a herd of

elk. KRRC also let out more than 5 million yards of highly contaminated silt,

laced with extremely high levels of arsenic and chromium-6. This is a

violation of the Clean Water Act because the toxic silt still lines the banks of

the Klamath River for no less than 120 river miles. Respondents’ Counsel

of Record Danielle Mechling admitted in a phone call that FERC didn't

follow their own rules for data collection. Petitioner believes this is why

Respondents have not appeared in any Court Proceeding since that time

because they know they are guilty. This, even though the Respondents

have been duly served in each case and pleading.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

PRAYER #1: Petitioner Pro Se hereby respectfully requests the Court to

provide relief and order FERC to provide funds ($100 Million) for cleaning

the poisoned silt left deposited on the sides of the river and all estuaries

downstream.

PRAYER #2: As a life-long Chemical Engineer, Petitioner humbly asks

the court to declare the 2008 Biological Opinion to be null and void.

PRAYER #3: Issue an official Court order that “first-line” resolution of

any problems associated with dams owned or regulated by the

government of the United States shall be 1) dredging behind the dam,

2) heat-scrubbing of silt dredged immediately on-site, 3) repair or

installation offish ladders, 4) chemical treatment of reservoir water 5)

retrofitting of dams for earthquake protection where necessary.

https://www.rivers.qov/rivers/rivers/sites/rivers/files/2023-07/section-7.pdf

PRAYER #4: Plaintiff Pro Se requests update of the definition of “Judicial

Immunity” by U.S. Supreme Court ruling that only Courts convened under

Article III of the U.S Constitution shall enjoy Judicial Immunity. Illegal

Administrative Law courts shall not have Judicial Immunity.

PRAYER #5: Petitioner Pro Se requests Issuance of an official Court

Order requiring all judges within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court to

Cease and Desist convening as Administrative Law Courts, thereby

flaunting Loper Bright. Repeat violators shall be dismissed after one

warning, consistent with the revised definition of “Judicial Immunity.”

PRAYER #6:

Issue an official Court Order that vandalism of publically

owned dams by removal shall not be a remedy for any problems

associated with dams owned or regulated by the government of the United

States apart from an act of Congress. Owners of privately owned dams

shall not be coerced by threat of lawsuit to remove their dams-and-anyPRAYER #7: Petitioner humbly requests the Court to order Respondents

(FERC) to embrace the overwhelming Water Board testimony against dam

removal and remove KRRC’s license immediately.

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterriqhts/water issues/programs/water

quality_cert/docs/lower_klamath_ferc14803/comments/gierak1.pdf

PRAYER #8: Petitioner humbly requests the Court to take

appropriate disciplinary action in light of the fact that such behavior of

Judicial bias and judicial discretion is subject to permanent removal of the

bar license and defrocking of any Federal Judge in violation of 14) 20-

1199

Loper Bright Enterprises, 15) Judges Code of Conduct by 10), Canons 2

and 3;

https://www.uscourts.gov/iudges-iudgeships/code-conduct-united-states

judges, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 5) False Statements, Concealment., 15) 18 U.S.

Code § 1621 - Perjury, by 16), and 28 U.S. Code § 455 (b)? (1)

PRAYER #9 Petitioner Pro Se hereby respectfully requests the Court to

add to this complaint, $100 million needed to replace the Iron Gate Dam

and the CopCo dam with fish ladders serving the retirement community

formerly located on the edge of the reservoir whose property values have

been decimated.

Restoration to the original condition is the lawful penalty for vandalism.

Kewit Construction shall be required to bear an equitable portion of the

expense (determined by the Court) because they were warned by

Petitioner of the illegal nature of their vandalism and proceeded anyway.

Kewit’s project supervisor has since been dismissed by the company,

presumably for his role in releasing the contaminated silt.

https://salmonprottectiondevive.com/CDM 2011 0119 Screening-LevelEvaluation-of-Contaminants-in-Sediments.pdf

PRAYER #10: Petitioner Pro Se respectfully requests the Court to vacate

the 3:24-cv-00755-JR final dismissal on 7/26/2024. This Federal Court

dismissal was based on KRRC legal counsel’s concocted ECF’s and

manipulation of case law and Federal Law.

PRAYER #11: Petitioner Pro Se respectfully requests the Supreme Court

to acknowledge standing based on Federal Environmental laws

broken with associated 7 Environmental Values denied to Petitioner

Pro Se, Class Action members, and the River itself. Likewise,

standing based on harms inflicted on Petitioner Pro Se resulting in

preparations taken to move out of state due to harms inflicted by

KRRC’s malfeasance.

.36

PRAYER #12: Petitioner Pro Se hereby respectfully requests the Court to

provide relief, and take judicial notice of the lethal environmental

consequences of Respondent’s licensee KRRC’s actions, which

require immediate mitigation. Rule Salmon Protection Device

remediation team to the task of project mitigation immediately, to

avoid further lethal environmental consequences from KRRC’s gross

negligence. Local courts have failed to

impede a crime in progress and are thus guilty of Misprision of Felony?”

PRAYER #13: Petitioner requests a Writ of Mandamus and a

Summary Judgment in Petitioner’s favor because Defendants are clearly

biased against Federal Environmental law, not doing what they are

legally required to do.

PRAYER #14

Petitioner Pro Se hereby respectfully requests the

Supreme Court to a ruling that FERC illegally by Loper Bright failed to

evaluate this testimony, in which University Professors called the Pseudo

Scientists at KRRC names unfit to publish, resulting in untold damage to

man and environment.

Https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/water_

quality_cert/docs/lower_klamath_ferc14803/comments/gierak1.pdf

PRAYER #15: Petitioner respectfully requests the Court to

award any other cost to the Petitioner Pro Se as the Court sees fit.

With a favorable ruling against FERC or the Federal Court, Petitioner Pro

Se will relocate to the Klamath Basin in California and supervise mitigation

of the environmental mess created and left unmitigated by KRRC.

Petitioner Pro Se’s home is for sale at 18965 NW lllahe St, Portland, OR

97229 | Zillow pending a favorable decision and the Court signatures

needed to satisfy the County Recorder. The devastation in the Klamath

Basin is akin to a war zone.

David White Pro Se 9/29/2025

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

The Extraordinary Writ of Prohibition, Mandamus by Rule 20 is needed so

Salmon Protection Device and Class action members can remedy the

massive environmental damage to the Klamath River Basin.

The Federal District Court in Medford, Oregon issued an illegal and biased

by 11) administrative law order saying Plaintiff in that action was suing

KRRC and Not the FERC defendants. Petitioner in the instant action

postulates Judge McShane didn't even read the complaint. Therefore,

Petitioner humbly asks the Court to review this illegal order with the review

based on the case facts herein in light of Mandamus and prohibition

against this administrative law Judge. Therefore the illegal orders below

must be vacated.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals illegal biased, administrative law order.

11/20/2024 11

Daniel P. COL

ORDER FILED. (Sidney R. THOMAS, Jay S. BYBEE,

Upon a review of the record, the response to the court’s

October 11, conclude this appeal is frivolous. We

therefore deny appellant’s motion Entry No. 5), see 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a), and dismiss this appeal as fri (court

shall dismiss case at any time, if court determines it is

frivolous entertained in this closed case. DISMISSED.

[Entered: 11/20/2024 0

Federal Court District of Portland Oregon illegal biased and administrative law

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.