Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Arthur Lopez, Petitioner v. United States

Supreme Court briefMay 4, 2026

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ORIGINAL

FILED

MAY 04 2026

No. 25A864

IN THE

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT I IS

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ARTHUR LOPEZ - PETITIONER

vs.

UNITED STATES - RESPONDENTS

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

United States Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ARTHUR LOPEZ P.O. Box 13081

Newport Beach, CA 92658 949.278.7793

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

1. Should Defendant United States be liable for

Takings Violations as provided by the United

States Constitution Fifth Amendment having

methodically and repeatedly taken plaintiff

Arthur

Lopez's

property

without

Just

Compensation?

2. Should Federal Judges within the U.S. Court

of Federal Claims and U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit be held to uphold

United States 28 U.S. Code § 455 and United

States Code of Conduct For Federal Judges to

ensure Unbiased Judges are seated on the

Bench for Criminal and Civil Case Litigation?

3. Should Political Activist Judges Be Precluded

from Executing Their Bias in Case Litigation?

iii

LIST OF PARTIES

[ X ] All parties appear in the caption of the case on

the cover page.

Arthur Lopez v. United States of America (U.S. Ct.

A.F.C. 2025-2047)

*Takings Violations Under The 5th Amendment of

the United States Constitution cases require the

United States of America as the only Defendant.

RELATED CASES

U.S. Court of Appeal For The Federal Circuit

Case # 24-1860 [Derived From U.S. Court of Federal

Claims Case # 23-cv-00620-SSS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

:.................................................. ii

LIST OF PARTIES

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

INDEX TO APPENDICES

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

OPINIONS BELOW

.............................................................................1

JURISDICTION

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

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONSINVOLVED

.............................................................................. 3

INTRODUCTION/ STATEMENT OF FACTS

............................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF THE

CASE................................................................. 8

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE

PETITION........................................................ 81

CONCLUSION

.................................................................................. 82

APPENDIX.......................................................... 83

APPENDIX A............................... Al -A8

APPENDIX B............................... B1-B93

APPENDIX C............................... Cl-Cll

APPENDIX C(A).......................... C(A)-1 - C(A)7

APPENDIX C(B).......................... C(B)-1 - C(B)15

APPENDIX C(C).......................... C(C)-1 - C(C)5

APPENDIX C(D)..........................C(D)-1 - C(D)17

APPENDIX C(E).......................... C(E)-1 - C(E)33

APPENDIX C(F)......................... C(F)-1 - C(F)1

APPENDIX C(G).........................C(G)-1 - C(G)24

APPENDIX C(H)........................ C(H)-1 - C(H)110

APPENDIX C(I).......................... C(I)-1 - C(I)3

APPENDIX C(J)......................... C(J)-1 - C(J)43

APPENDIX C(K).......................... C(K)-1 - C(K)45

APPENDIX D............................... D1-D30

APPENDIX E............................... El - El

PROOF OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A -United States Court of Appeal For

The Federal Circuit Case # 2025-2047 Order of

Affirmance and Dismissal December 10, 2025

APPENDIX B -United States Court of Federal

Claims Case # 25-cv-00145- Order of Dismissal and

Denial of Motion To Disqualify Judicial Officer —

August 20, 2025.

APPENDIX C: Judge Ryan Holte Association with

U.S. Patent, U.S. Military Counter Echo Solutions,

LLC and The Federalist Society + Teneo Network,

LLC

Articles:

(a) NPR-4/28/18

(b) People For The American Way — June 4, 2019

(d) Alliance For Justice — Sept. 2017

(e) Yale Daily News Articles — November 2024

(f) Teneo Network — “About” — February 2025

(g) ProPublica.org — March 2023

(h) United

States

Senate

Committee

for

the

Judiciary Questionnaire - 2019 - Judge Ryan Holte

(i) U.S. Court of Federal Claims — Judge Ryan Holte

Bio

(j) Newsweek News Release Pentagon Clandestine

Operatives — 2021

(k)

Leadership

Conference

Correspondence

February 25, 2020 related to U.S. Court of Federal

Claims Judge

Stephen Schwartz’s political actions, bias, extreme

right-wing activities, Federalist Society and articles

from Yale Daily News 2005.

APPENDIX D - U.S. Air Force Department of

Defense Civilian Agent Christopher Covarrubias Los

Angeles Sheriff Dept Arrest Correspondence for

Physical Assault on Female (5/12/2023, 5/26/2023)

and

Declaration

Christopher

Covarrubias

Superior Court of CA, L.A. County

APPENDIX E — U.S. Marine Corp Colonel Tip ton

+Civilian Spouse Julie Tipton attending July 17,

2015 ceremony @ Camp Pendleton (Plaintiffs son’s

Birthday 7/17) She was posted @ Plaintiffs Church-

Preschool as Principal

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Bias Judge:

1. Ward v. Village of Monroe, 409 U.S. 57

(1972)................................................ Page #23,24,27,28

2. Demodulation, Inc. v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl.

655 (2014)......................................................... page #28

3. United States v. Dickinson, 331 U.S. 745

(1947)............................................................... page #36

4. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510

(1927).............................................................. page #27

Parental Rights/Takings

5. Buddy Taylor v. United States, 959 F.3d 1081

(2020)........................... ................................. page #41, 42

6. Lassiter v. Dept, of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18

(1981).................................................................page #66

8. Shea v. Shea, 100 Cal. App. 2d 60

(1950)................... page #45, 53

9. Astrue v. Capato ex rel. B.N.C., 566 U.S. 541

(2012)........................................................ page #46,52

10. M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102

(1996).................................................... page #45,46,52,66

11. Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321

U.S. 158 (1944)............................................ page #46,52

12. Darlington v. Turner, 202 U.S. 195

(1906)....................................................... page #44, 46, 52

13. Guardianship of Joaquin, 168 Cal. App. 2d 99

(1959)..................................................................page #46

14. Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110

(1989).................................................................page #44

15. Stevenson’s Heirs v. Sullivant, 18 U.S. 207

(1820)..................................................................page# 66

16. Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762

(1977)................................................................ page #66

17. Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy

Names of Jesus and Mary, 268 U.S. 510

(1925)............................................................. page #65,66

18. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57

(2000)................................................................. page #66

Tolling:

20. Yuriy Prakhin v. U.S., 122 Fed. Cl. 483

(2015)............................................................ page #54,69

21. Fox Brandi R. v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,

35 Cal. 4th 797 (May 9, 2005), Supreme Court of CA

#512117................................................................ page #69

22. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US 662, 678

(2009).................................................................. page #74

23. Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal. 4th 383

(1999)................................................................... page #69

24. Amtrak v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101

(2002)............................................................... page #69

25. Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal. 4th

801................................................................... page #76

26. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania et al.,

588 U.S. _ (2019)...............................................page #80

Takings:

27. Peabody v. United States, 231 U.S. 530 I 231

U.S. 539;............................................................. page #35

28. Brewer v. Arizona Dream Act Coalition, U.S.

Supreme Court Case #16-1180 (9th Cir. 15- .

15307);............................................................... page #31

xiv

29. Del Rio Drilling Programs, Inc. v. United States,

146 F.3d 1358, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir.

1998);................................................................ page #42

30. Rith Energy, Inc. v. United States, 247 F.3d

1355, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001);..........................page #42

30. Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40

(1960);................................................................. page #43

31. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of

Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, California, 482

U.S. 304 (June 4, 1987);................................. page #58

32.. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505

U.S. 1003 (June 29, 1992); Foman v. Davis, 371

U.S. 178 (1962................................................. page #59

33. Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals, et al. v. United

States,378 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2004);...... page #6

34. Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 576 U.S.

page #82

350 (2015)

xvi

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Petitioner respectfully prays that for writ of

certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

Opinions below

The opinion of the United States court of appeals

appears at Appendix A to the petition and is

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court

appears at Appendix B to the petition and is

[ ] is unpublished.

JURISDICTION

The date on which the United States Court of

Appeals decided my case was December 10th, 2025.

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my

case.

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

of certiorari was granted to and including May 9,

2026 on March 10, 2026 in Application No. 25A864.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28

U.S.C. § 1254(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

United States Constitution Civil Rights

including 5th, 1th, 7th and 14th Amendments

Tucker Act of 1887, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)

US Title 28 USC 455

Title U.S. 28 USC 144 and 28 USC 47

U.S. Code of Conduct for Federal Judges

Canon 1—5

California Code of Civil Procedure (Tolling

Authority) - CCP

CCP § 352(a)

INTRODUCTION/ STATEMENT OF FACTS

This Petition derives from the defendant United

States deliberate repeated taking violations

under

the

5 th

Amendment

the

U.S.

Constitution.

Plaintiff-Petitioner has been a target for these

taking schemes for many years and specifically in

this instance the defendant has executed a taking

plaintiffs $500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million

Dollars Net after taxes plus royalties) property

asset related estate claims associated with this

real estate property, also known as 11540 Hoxie

Dr, Tustin, CA 92782.

Moreover plaintiff property asset related to his

claims against MUFG Union Bank, NA including

Royalties due for Their Theft of Trade Secrets,

were taken by the defendant’s premeditated

schemes involving several layers of agents

including

Civilian

staff

Department

Defense

the

Airforce

Christopher

Covarrubias, Civilian staff from the U.S. Marine

Corp (Camp Pendleton - Colonel Tipton spouse -

Julie Tip ton, and Civilian staff from the U.S.

Navy (Tom Norris included) and Civilian staff

from the U.S. Postal Service (tampering -

obstructing Mail delivery to U.S. Courts) Civilian

staff from the Pentagon - Homeland Security, and

Much More over several years time.

In fact, defendant United States was not satisfied

with taking without just compensation his

properties related to his private residence but,

also schemed and executed the taking of his

Biblical

named,

two

sons

and

two

gifted

daughters, which ongoing now for over 10 years.

Along the way they orchestrated the taking of

Plaintiffs Multi-Million Dollar Auto Supreme

Financing Business.

Moreover, this petition will disclose how civilians

within the defendant’s Congress even omitted a

Civil Cause of Action statute for the Theft of

Trade Secrets by foreign entities but instead only

providing a Criminal cause of action statute, Title

18 USC § 1832.

In addition, this petition also discloses how the

U.S.D.O.J. has been complicit in these taking

violations and how the judiciary has also

participated

these

orchestrated

taking

violations in assigning bias judicial officers judges to plaintiffs civil lawsuit cases relief

resulting in no possible

avenue

for equal

protection under law and all the while, the

defendant United States labels these takings

without just compensation as legal which in itself

also satisfies a prerequisite relief for taking

violations under the Tucker Act 5th Amendment

of the U.S. Constitution.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

To begin, the first abuse of discretion in this

matter

from

the

trial

court

involve

the

assignment of this case to a judicial officer who at

minimum presented the appearance of a conflict

of interest which plaintiff brought to the trial

court's review by Request for Reassignment of the

case to different judicial officer.

Excerpt of said motion follow these for clarity of

the severe appearance of a bias under which

plaintiff could not receive a fair trial and in

violation of 28 U.S.C. §455(a)(b).

The judicial officer is Judge Ryan Holte.

The Court erred in denied request for transfer of

case to a different judge.

The request was brought for transfer of case /

disqualification

Judge

Ryan

Holte

for

overwhelming good cause, abundant evidence,

and pursuant to several Federal statutes/codes.

First, Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a). “Disqualification

of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate Judge” states:

“Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the

United States shall disqualify himself (herself) in

any proceeding in which his (her) impartiality

might reasonably be questioned.”

In this case, this United States Code alone is

sufficient to have Judge Ryan Holte disqualified

given his enormous ties with the Defendant —

United States — Military. Not only with the U.S.

Air Force, having been employed as a law clerk in

2006, but also, Partner - General Counsel — Co9

Inventor for United States Military - (Army

included)

Contractor

Counter

Echo

Solutions

(See

Appendix C) from 2012 through present according

to the United States Senate Committee on the

Judiciary Questionnaire, completed by Judge

Holte as part of his appointment/nomination

processes as, see Appendix C- (h), recent as 2019.

Moreover, it is conceivable that financial benefits

may have been (or ever continue) derived by

Judge Holte as a result of the Patent, See

Appendix C, Registered Counter Echo Solutions

as its application may be for Military Defense

since. It is described as a form of countering

incoming projectiles to summarize. (See Appendix

C). In any regard, even without some form of

royalty arrangement,

Judge

Holte

acknowledges

being

employed/partner with Counter Echo Solutions

and the contractor describes itself under the

“About” link on their webpage as a U.S. Military

partner in providing a variety of advanced

technology solutions. Furthermore, given this

case specifically involves U.S. Military Civilian

Staff Takings Claims Plaintiff is of a strong

opinion

that

Judge

Holte’s

impartiality

definitely and reasonably questionable and as

such is subject to disqualification pursuant to 28

U.S.C.A. 455(a). Moreover, 28 U.S.C.A. 455(b)

goes on to state: “He [She] shall also disqualify

himself in the following circumstances:

(1.) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice

concerning a party, or personal knowledge of

disputed

evidentiary

facts

concerning

the

proceeding;

(2.) Where in private practice he served as

lawyer... has been a material witness concerning

it; See Appx C (h)(i)

(3) Where he has served in governmental

employment and in such capacity participated...

concerning the proceeding...

concerning the

merits of the particular case in controversy;

(4) He knows that he, individually, or as a

fiduciary... has a financial interest in the subject

matter in controversy or in a party to the

proceeding, or any other interest that could be

substantially affected by the outcome of the

proceeding;

(5) He or his spouse, ... “A judge should inform

himself about his personal and fiduciary financial

interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform

himself about the personal financial interests of

his spouse and minor children residing in his

household.”

Given these additional disqualifying criteria

under 28 USC 455(b) and Judge Holte’s long

association with defendant U.S.-Military, to wit:

i. ) employment with U.S. Air Force;

ii. ) Co-Inventor — Contractor/Partner of U.S.

Military weaponry technology;

iii. ) financial interest in party — U.S be it the

patented weapon system sale to U.S. as Partner-

Counsel of U.S.

Contractor “Counter Echo

Solutions” or derivatives from such, see appendix

C-(h),

C-(i),

(Patent adjusted Expiration

through 8/31/2034 -US20170115397A1, Patent

No. US 9,523,773 B2, US 10,338,226 B2, US

10,564,286 B2, US 11,067,696 B2, US 11,762,099

B2), or (iv) In Private Practices as General

Counsel for U.S. Contractor “Counter Echo

Solutions,” Association with U.S. lawyers in

transfer/sales of patented weapon system(s) to

defendant U.S. processes, and/or such lawyer

(judge) has been material witness concerning

matter in controversy (i.e. U.S. signal jamming

technology), or v.) has served in governmental

employment as counsel, adviser or material

witness concerning proceeding (any stage of

litigation matters) or expressed an (see appendix

C) opinion concerning the merits (i.e. U.S. signal

jamming technology for instance) of the case in

controversy (see appendix C) or (vi.) Judge Holte

knowing he individually, or as a fiduciary (i.e.

possibly Trustee of Will or Family Trust), or his

spouse or child has a financial interest in party -

defendant U.S. or in the subject matter, in

controversy, or any other interest that could be

substantially

affected

proceeding

issues

(ie

outcome

pertaining

the

signal

jamming technology).

More then, it would be beyond Plaintiff s reach to

gather all the associations Judge Holte has

engaged in with defendant U.S. -Military, but

given the undisputable facts related to Judge

Holte’s

role

Counsel,

Inventor,

Partner

Advisor, Patent beneficiary in U.S. Military

Weaponry Technology, U.S. employee (including

U.S. Air Force and as Partner of U.S. Contractor

— Exclusivity even Patent Expiration of 2036),

and possibly even Royalties still being derived; it

is abundantly clear that United States Title 28

U.S.C.A.§ 455 provides overwhelming authority

for (Recusal)

The Disqualification of Judicial Officer Ryan

Holte — Judge given this case specifically involves

Takings Claims related to the U.S. — Air Force,

Marines, Navy, and Their Civilian Staff and

more. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request for Judge

Holte’s recusal/disqualification pursuant to 28

USC § 455 should have been granted.

Next, the United States Code of Conduct for

Judges states:

•

Canon 1: “A judge should uphold the

integrity

and

independence

judiciary”

the

•

Canon

impropriety

“A

judge

should

and

the

appearance

avoid

impropriety in all activities”

•

Canon 3: “A judge should perform the

duties of the office fairly, impartially and

diligently”

•

Canon 5: “A judge should refrain from

political activity (compliance with the Code

of Conduct)

Despite these basic directives it appears Judge Holte

has

remained

with

least

two

political

organizations for many years:

1. ) The Federalist Society (Executive Committee of

its Intellectual Property Practice Group)

2. ) Teneo Network (alliance defending freedom —

deemed “hate” group — founded). See appendix C, C-

(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g).

In the association with the Federalist Society, some

of their parameters that can be understood in conflict

with the Code of Conduct pertain to its political

activism. For instance, the organization is known for

and boasts of its influence over certain politicians

and their selection of (political nominees) based on

political biases traits. This conflicts with Canon #2

at best giving the appearance of impropriety and

diminishing public confidence.

Moreover, Judge Holte has held an Exec. Committee

of its Intellectual Property Practice Group role @ the

Federalist Society with ongoing website presence for

advertisement of appearances to include the prestige

of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims as a banner title

(fedsoc.org) - Washington Hilton November 16, 2024

(Canon 2(B)). In itself this Exec. Committee role

promoting law may be viewed as harmless, however,

the fact the organization itself is promoting biased

activism

politically

with

Judge

Holte’s

full

knowledge, at minimum dilutes Equal Protection

under law as guaranteed by the United States

Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, especially

since the Federalist Society is not merely advocating

opposition to the persecution of lawyers and judges.

See “Canon 5 - A Judge Should Refrain from Political

Activity” (A) General Prohibitions.

A judge should not:

(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a Political

Organization; See appendix C-(e).

(2) make speeches for a political organization...

The Federalist Society hosts political events; in April

1982, it held its first event: a referendum entitled “A

Symposium on Federalism: Legal And Political

Ramifications”

Since

then,

the

political

evolution

this

organization has included former executive vice

president and current co-chairman, Leonard Leo,

advisor to certain politicians, at times, to pick

nominees for said politician(s).

Given these facts, without consideration to the

benefits of the nominee selections for politicians, The

Federalist Society, regardless of their mission

statement(s) publicly released, can and should be

accepted as a political activism organization. As

such, Judge Holte’s close associations at multiple

levels is in conflict with Canon 5 and cause for

disqualification / recusal from this case.

As to Teneo Network, founded by Alliance Defending

Freedom deemed a “Hate group” by The Southern

Poverty Law Center — See Appendix C-(d).

Moreover, the Chairman is also Leonard Leo

(propublica.org - posts 3/9/23 5 page; See Appendix

C-(g), article on the Radical Activism Organization

and its Chairman). Consequently, similar to the first

Judge Holte’s association with The Federalist

Society, the same bias, prejudices and violations of

Canon Rules under the Code of Conduct for United

States Judges are applicable here and as such

another

substantial

Recusal

ground for Judge

Holte’s

this

Case,

Disqualification

from

accordingly Plaintiffs Motion / Request should have

been granted. Third, See Constitutional Statutory

Provision 28 U.S.C.A. § 144 “Bias or Prejudice of

Judge” states: “Whenever a party to any proceeding

in a district court makes and files a timely and

sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the

matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice

either against him [her] or in favor of any adverse

party, such judge shall proceed no further there in,

that another judge shall be assigned to hear such

proceeding...

Despite how straight forward this Federal statute

reads on the subject of a United States Judge, it

references the District Court not a U.S. Federal

Claims Court, thus may be argued as not applicable

to Judge Holte. However, the statute specifically

references Bias or prejudice which is relevant to the

facts pertaining to this Motion and case and to Judge

Holte’s violations of U.S. Code of Conduct For Judges

and Title 28 USCA 455 and as such does serve to

reinforce the significance of upholding the U.S.

Constitutional Rights of Plaintiff-Litigants provided

by the Fourteenth Amendment as cited by the U.S.

Supreme Court in numerous case citation precedents

including: Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S.

57 (1972)

Moreover, this case involves Takings Claims under

the U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment involving

defendant United States Civilian Staff - Pentagon,

see appendix C-(j), deployed undercover domestic

civilian operatives and schemes by which the

Takings are accomplished.

Which also involve signal jamming technology just as

Judge Holte has consulted-advised, see appendix C,

defendant United States for many years, even

securing patents related to such. In fact, Judge Holte

also acted as General Counsel-Advisor-Witness, see

Appendix C-(h), during these discussions with

lawyers

representing

defendant United

States

pertaining to matters involved in this case.

With this backdrop and all of the conflicts Judge

Holte’s involvement in this case triggers under 28

USCA §455 and the U.S. Code of Conduct for Judges

and all of the precedent the Supreme Court of the

United States has unambiguously articulated in

Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972)

and many others,Plaintiff s Motion for Judge Holte’s

Recusal/Disqualification should have been granted.

Plaintiff also requested reassignment of this case to

a different judge pursuant to U.S. Court of Federal

Claims Rule 40.1.

In addition, Plaintiff requested the court take

Judicial Notice of Pending Appeal Case (#24-1860)

with the United States Court of Appeals For The

Federal Circuit which derives from the USCFC Case

#23-CV-0620 — Stephen Schwartz judge and involved

Chief Justice Elaine D. Kaplan, see Appendix C —(k),

who denied the Transfer of Case to a New Judge and

Reconsideration on 9/11/23. See appendix C-(k).

Therefore, Given Chief Justice Elaine S. Kaplan

remained as the designated Judicial Officer to review

Transfer of Case Requests/Motions under Rule 40.1

and Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 455 was also applicable for

this case related to its Transfer and with a previous

related case (albeit indirectly), Rule 40.2 The

transfer of case from Chief Judge Kaplan for the

requested transfer was also submitted in the Motion

given impartiality may be reasonably questioned

(455(a)) since the first case 23-0620 involved similar

Takings Claims issues as in this case. In addition,

maintaining Public Confidence in the impartiality of

the

court/judiciary

(Canon

2(A))

warrants

New/alternative Chief Judge having been assigned

for these aspects as well. In fact, Title 28 U.S.C. § 47

specifically provides the Disqualification of judge to

hear Appeal from the decision of a case OR issue

Tried by him (HER).

Hence with all due respect due to Judge Ryan Holte

and Chief Judge Elaine Kaplan Plaintiff Humbly

Petitions For Writ of Certiorari from This Supreme

Court for Relief Reversing the lower court's Abuse of

discretion Rulings and grant Plaintiff/Petitioner

Judgment for damages prayed of $500,000,000.00

Net after Taxes plus Royalties and the immediate

Reunification of Plaintiff and his children (minor 14

yr. old Luke).

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES

In Fact, the United States Supreme Court has held

in Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972):

“Petitioner was denied a trial before a disinterested

and impartial judicial officer as guaranteed by the

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

where he was compelled to stand trial for traffic

offenses before the mayor who was responsible for

village finances and whose court, through fines,

forfeitures, costs and fees, provided a substantial

portion of village funds, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510

(1927).

A statutory provision for the disqualification of

interested or biased judges did not accord petitioner

sufficient safeguard and it is of no constitutional

relevance that petitioner could later be tried de novo

in another court, as he was entitled to an impartial

judge in the first instance. P. 409 U.S. 59-62.

Moreover, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held in

Demodulation Inc. v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. 655

(No. 11-236C) February 10th, 2014: “That judge’s

recusal for appearance of partiality warranted

vacatur of substantive orders.” Also, “Thus, the

safest course is to vacate Judge Braden’s substantive

orders because Justice Must Satisfy the Appearance

of Justice.”

ASSIGNING BIAS JUDICIAL OFFICERS

TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE(S) PRESENTS A SERIOUS

QUESTION OF LAW AND INFRINGEMENT ON

14TH

RIGHTS

AMENDMENT

PROTECTION

UNDER

LAWS

AND

EQUAL

DUE

PROCESS

This Petition involves the recurring practice of the

Trial Courts assigning bias judicial officers to

Plaintiffs cases which presents a serious “Question

of Law”

since Plaintiff is

guaranteed

Equal

Protection under Law by the 14th Amendment of the

United States Constitution and having a bias

presiding judge (or even perceived bias judge)

deprives this 14th Amendment right/protection.

Moreover, United States 28 U.S. Code §455 states:

“(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the

United States shall disqualify himself in any

proceeding

his

which

impartiality

might

reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following

circumstances:

(1) where he has a personal bias or prejudice

concerning a party, or personal knowledge of

disputed

evidentiary

facts

concerning

the

proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice,

served...

concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer

has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) where

has

served

governmental

employment... concerning the proceeding... of the

particular case in controversy; Moreover, In This

Court of Federal Claims, in another instant case,

Presiding Judge Stephen Schwartz had advocated,

see Appendix C-(k), supported, argued and presented

opinions on matters related to the case repeatedly

related to Anti-Immigration (DACA) and Social

Security Benefits/Welfare Benefits and all benefit

spending as harmful. See Brewer v. Arizona Dream

Act Coalition, Supreme Court Docket No. 16-1180,

(U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Cir. Case #15-15307).

See Appendix C-(k).”

In another instance, Petitioner was compelled to

bring the following matter to this United States

Supreme Court following the U.S. Court of Federal

Claims Chief Judge Elaine D. Kaplan’s June 15,

2023 denial of Plaintiff s Request for Reassignment

of Case from Presiding Judge Stephen S. Schwartz

due to his bias in favor of defendant United States

and bias in favor of:

Anti-Immigration

causes

against

children

immigrants and in support of deporting adults who

entered the United States as children (DACA),

Appellant

U.S.

Citizen

whose

mother

immigrated from Mexico as a minor.

2. In addition, Judge Schwartz has clearly expressed

his bias in favor of Anti-Social Security cause(s),

stating: “Social Security is better left to the private

sphere” and conveyed arguments in opposition to

vital federal benefit programs.

He’s advocated: “All human beings are morally equal

in certain respects, but inequality of means and

resources is a natural aspect of human condition.”

He also advocated: “There is a powerful case to be

made that all government spending on social

security, welfare, medical insurance and the like is

harmful... Social spending programs—including but

not limited to Social Security and federal benefits,

Medical Benefits—are not the solution, but part of

the problem.” (Stephen Schwartz, The Yale Herald

Opinion, February 18, 2005), See Appendix C-(k).

Moreover,

Appellant

permanently

disabled

following falls in December 22, 2015, and October 22,

2020 after suffering traumatic injuries that included

temporary paralysis and several permanent spine

compressions, cervical stenosis and various other

spine permanent injuries.

As a consequence to these serious permanent

disabilities Appellant is not employed, under care of

several medical doctors and consulted-evaluated by

Spine

Specialist

Surgeon

Samuel

Bederman,

Surgeon Ankers.

Moreover, as of December of 2022 Appellant was

granted Social Security Disability Benefits - $1250

initially and increased to $1360 as of January 1st,

2026, but remains indigent.

In addition, to U.S. Court of Federal Claims Chief

Judge Elaine D. Kaplan’s denial of Transfer of Case

of June 15, 2023, she also denied Appellant’s Request

for Reconsideration on 9/11/2023 and furthermore,

barred any further filings for the case (#23-0620C).

II — Takings Violations under the V Amendment of

U.S. Constitution

In addition, in this Case,

The U. S's attacks involved the Taking of Plaintiffs

asset/property related interest in $500,000,000 net

after taxes plus royalties, relief case and Taking of

His Children for better than 10 years.

This Petition stems from one of latest attack against

Plaintiff by United States Takings violations see

United States Supreme Court Precedence in: United

States v. Dickinson, 331 U.S. 754 (1947) where they

stated: “When dealing with a problem which arises

under

such

diverse

circumstances,

procedural

rigidities should be avoided. All that we are here

holding is that, when the Government chooses not to

condemn land but to bring about a taking by a

continuing process of physical events, the owner is

not required to resort either to piecemeal or to

premature

litigation

ascertain

the

just

compensation for what is really ‘taken’.”

also stated after citing: Peabody v. United States,

231 U.S. 530, 539

“Of course, payment need not only be made for what

is taken, but for all that the Government takes. It

must pay. When it takes property by flooding, it

takes the land which it permanently floods as well as

that which inevitably washes away as a result of that

flooding.”

The defendant United States has engaged endless

number

of Civilian Asset Resources to

Take

Plaintiffs property but also to Take any and all

means

of obtaining Relief for these

Takings

violations.

These include Civilian Resources from the United

States Pentagon, Civilian Division of the United

States Air Force National Defense Department

including Christopher Covarrubias, civilian staff of

the United States Postal Service, U.S. Treasury,

civilian

staff with

the

United

States

Courts

Judiciary, civilian spouse of United States Marine

Corp. Colonel Tipton- Julie Tip ton, even involving

civilian staff of the U.S. Congress to exclude Civil

Cause of Action for Theft of Trade Secrets by (18 USC

1831/32)

Foreign

Entities

Banking

Conglomerate Japanese Mitsubishi UFJ (MUFG

Union Bank, N.A.).

Moreover, the United States has also recruited

civilian resources from outside the U.S. to target

Plaintiff in these Takings schemes.

However, domestically clandestine Pentagon assets

have been relentless in these processes for many

years to prolong the damage to Plaintiff. See

Appendix C-(j).

Plaintiffs minor children have also been taken by

these concerted Takings schemes carried out by the

United States.

Unfortunately, U.S. Dept, of Defense civilian (USAF)

Christopher Covarrubias has conspired to alienate

Petitioner’s children for over eight years to facilitate

the sponsoring of these Takings Violations, utilizing

associates to likes of Plaintiffs Children’s Mother —

Cheryl Lopez, brother-in-laws Robert Valdez and

Paul Figueroa.

He has used others who are staffed at Superior and

Appellate Courts as administrative staff to hamper

custody matters in Family Law Court in Orange and

also derail cases in Civil Unlimited Litigation where

Petitioner is Plaintiff.

In fact, a first cousin of brother-in-law Robert Valdez

is employed at Fresno County Superior Court

(Soledad Echeagaray).

In addition, two Family Law Court staff members

were also subjects of Civil Restraining Orders

Petitioner had petitioned under Superior Court of

CA, Co. of Orange Case #30-2022-01260365 and 30-

2022-01260360 (Perla Elias and Kristal Gorospe

respectively).

Furthermore, Petitioner has been targeted by other

U.S. staff associates in intentional harm and

physical assault on 10/7/2023 which was reported to

local police — Costa Mesa Police Dept. Case #23014764 and 23-014765 (Hit & Run and Physical

Assault Report respectively), the driver’s name

James Stanfield while the passenger, who committed

the assault, remains unnamed Costa Mesa Police

Department detectives.

Moreover, Petitioner continues to be harassed and

obstructed by way of cell/data remote interference to

stifle ongoing litigation and meeting court-imposed

deadlines for filings.

In fact, the physical assault on October 7, 2023,

involved extensive damage to cell phone Petitioner

was holding in his right hand before assailants strike

to Petitioner’s hand/wrist/arm. Additionally, on

August 24, 2023, Petitioner was targeted in another

hit and run incident involving a U.S. Post Office

white truck on the same day an Opening Brief was

due to the Court of Appeals on the matter against

this Covarrubias Brother-In-Law Robert Valdez. The

incident was reported to Santa Ana Police — Case

#2023-19348.

Please note Taylor v. United States, 959 F.3d 1081

(Fed. Cir. 2020) involving a Takings Claim where

plaintiffs alleged the U.S. government unlawfully

seized property...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,

stating: “We noted that the complaint involved the

Takings Clause and sought remedy under that

clause, and we concluded:

‘That the complaint suggests the United States may

have acted tortiously towards the Appellant does not

remove it from the jurisdiction of the Court of

Federal Claims’ id at 1353. We explained that, even

if the complaint’s tort characterization made the

complaint a ‘multipurpose’ one, the multipurpose

nature of the complaint did not deprive the Court of

Federal Claims of jurisdiction to entertain the

Takings Claim alleged therein’ id. 1354. In so ruling,

we applied to a tort-Taking overlap the dual wrong

rationale of Del Rio Drilling Programs, Inc. v. United

States, 146 F.3d 1358, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and

Rith Energy, Inc. v. United States, 247 F.3d 1355,

1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001). That precedent applies to this

case.”

Next, in this Case, Plaintiff has certainly stated

sufficient facts to state a claim for which this Court

has jurisdiction under the Takings Clause of the

United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment:

a.) Value of Property Asset related to Plaintiffs Case

against

MUFG

Union

Bank,

N.A.

al.

$500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Dollars Net

after taxes plus royalties) which was compromised by

defendants

orchestrated

purposeful

continuous

Takings Violations/Schemes with full empowerment

the

defendant’s

organized

agents/agencies

including Department of Justice, Defense, U.S.

Courts Administration, Law Enforcement, Judicial

Branches including Homeland (David Maggard Jr)

Security, U.S. Marshals and U.S. Post Office,

without just compensation.

b.)

Value

of Property/Asset/Personal

Property

Ongoing of Rights through Takings (10 years)

Violations/Schemes related to Plaintiffs Children

(Child)

Please see United States Supreme Court holding in

Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 (June 27,

1960): “Where terms of contract between contractor

and the United States showed conclusively that

contractor and not the United States, had title to

boat hulls under construction when materialmen

furnished

materials

contractor,

liens

materialmen could attach to boat hulls under

construction and manufacturing materials, and that

liens

gave

materialmen

compensable

property

interests.”

Just as in this case where Plaintiff is the sole

beneficiary/Plaintiff/Owner of the various Takings

Violations Cases involved/targeted by Defendant

U.S. including Plaintiffs Children. It should also be

noted that the Supreme Court of the United States

has deemed children a property solely belonging to

parents as Parental Right [14th Amend] as has the

State of California deemed children property of

parents (Shea v. Shea).

See:

Michaell H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989)

Darlington v. Turner, 202 U.S. 195 (May 14, 1906)

Astrue v. Capato, ex rel BNC, 566 U.S. 541 (2012)

MLB v. SLJ, 519 U.S. 102 (1996)

Pierce v. Commonwealth of Mass., 321 U.S. 158

(1944) and California Forum State Shea v. Shea, 100

Cal. App. 2d 60 (Oct. 23, 1950)

“Parental Right” CA adopted harsh rule that the

right of a fit and proper parent to have custody of his

child is in the nature of a Property Right and best

interests of child!

See also, Shea v. Shea, 100 Cal. App. 2d 60, (October

23rd,

1950), California Court of Appeal, First

District, Division One The Appellate Court holding:

"... The right of a fit and proper parent to have

custody of his child is in the nature of a Property

Right and Paramount to the Welfare and Best

Interests of the Child.” also, “California has, in effect,

adopted the harsh rule that the right of a fit and

proper parent to have the custody of his child is

somewhat in the nature of a Property Right” And,

Astrue v. Capato ex rel. BNC, 566 U.S. 541 (May 21,

2012) and, M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (Dec 16th,

1996) The Supreme Court holding: Choices about

marriage, family life, and upbringing of children are

among associational rights ranked as of basic

importance in our society, rights sheltered by 14th

Amendment

against

State’s

unwarranted

usurpation, disregard or disrespect.

And, Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321

U.S. 158 (January 31st, 1944) And in Meyer v.

Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, And, Darlington v. Turner,

202 U.S. 195 (May 14, 1906) Supreme Court Holding:

And, Guardianship of Joaquin, 168 Cal.App.2d

99First Appellate District, Division Two (February 18th, 1959) The Appellate Court holding: “A fit

parent is not to be deprived of his child’s custody

because he may be unable to furnish the child a home

with him; he still has the right to custody...”

The Defendant United States has spared no expense

@ Taking Plaintiffs Properties and then attempting

to cover it up. The Plaintiff is U.S. born Mexican

Heritage,

Catholic Christian-Male Heterosexual

Father of Four (2 Boys with Biblical names given to

them by Plaintiff and Two Daughters), Disabled and

59 years old, receiving Social Security Disability

Benefits as the only means of support financially

monthly.

Plaintiffs private Residence @ 11540 Hoxie. Tustin,

California 92782 (Now with an estimated value of $5

million dollars) provided for the financial basis for

the launching of his solely owned auto finance

company “Liberty Credit Corp.” after a 20 yr. career

with his previous employer (founded by Judaism

Heritage Canadian Family) based out of So. Ca. came

to an abrupt end in 2007 and which also operated in

the

subprime

auto lending industry.

In fact,

Plaintiffs business was established directly one floor

level below the Social Security Field Office in Santa

Ana, California in 2009 (at the time this fact seemed

insignificant).

However, in retrospect defendant United States was

already engaged in their Takings scheme upon

Plaintiff from the very onset.

Plaintiff s Home and Business Banking Relationship

had been Union Bank of California — later renamed

to MUFG Union Bank, N.A., et al as the parent

company based out of Tokyo, Japan Mitsubishi UFJ.

Then came the F.B.I. probe and U.S. Department of

Justice investigation against the bank, culminating

in a Multi-Million Dollar fine related to Money

Laundering violations. Then came new banking

relationship with H.S.B.C. Bank Plaintiff and his

family developed as he attempted to grow his

business from its very successful launch. But then

again came the FBI and the U.S. Department of

Justice, with another probe-investigation and multi

million dollar fine to the extent of placing former FBI

Director on board of directors.

Then came the establishment of MUFG Union Bank,

N.As Headquarters-Offices in New York City, New

York and their Reneging on Financing Expansion of

Lines of Credit as promised when they demanded

Plaintiffs Business Plan with Confidential Trade

secrets related to his Sub-prime Auto Finance

Business at the onset.

Then U.S. Trustee pushed Plaintiffs Home into

foreclosure by confiscating $53,000 Promissory Note,

which represented more than enough to cover

Mortgage Arrearage and then Plaintiff learned the

U.S. Congress omitted Civil Cause of Action under

the “Theft of Trade Secrets” Statute 18 USC §§

1831/32 preventing Plaintiff from obtaining Relief

for

MUFG

Union

Bank,

N.A.

implementing

Plaintiffs Trade Secrets into their Retail Banking

Operations

the

United

States

without

authorization, through the U.S. District Court. Then,

Plaintiff learned U.S. Airforce Dept, of National

Defense agent Christopher Covarrubias and two

brothers-in-law associates also targeted Plaintiff to

also take his Children and Child Mothers to further

prevent Plaintiff from obtaining Relief through Civil

Action against MUFG Union Bank, N.A. and derail

his case(s).

Next Came the United States Postal Service

Civilians creating unnecessary delays in mail

delivery so as to cause/facilitate the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals to derail Appeal case(s). In one

instance, the U.S. Postal Service took a week to

deliver

correspondence

from

Orange

County

California to San Francisco California, so as to allow

the Court to Dismiss Plaintiffs Case.

Then Came The United States Marshall Service who

provides security for the Supreme Court and screens

incoming mail and who have repeatedly destroyed

Plaintiffs filings with the Supreme Court. These

Schemes are ongoing!

It should also be noted that the Supreme Court of the

United States has also ruled certain rights related to

custody and child of parents as Property Rights, see

Darlington v. Turner, 202 U.S. 195 (May 14, 1906),

holding: and, also, Astrue v. Capato ex rel. BNC, 566

U.S. 541 (May 21, 2012), Also, M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519

U.S. 102 (Dec 16, 1996) holding: choices about

marriage, family life and upbringing of children, are

among associational rights ranked as of basic

importance in our society, rights sheltered by the

14th

Amendment...

and

also,

Prince

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158

(January 31, 1944) holding: “It is cardinal with us

that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside

first in the parents...”

In addition, Plaintiff clearly stated Takings claims

against defendant U.S. pertaining to the taking of

Plaintiffs children (4) for over 11 years now through

intentional takings schemes involving many United

States Civilian moving, clandestine parties and

associates.

These also include Marine; Colonel Tipton Civilian

Spouse Julie Tipton, Air Force Dept of Defense Agent

Civilian

Christopher

Covarrubias

and

Navy

(Civilian) associates the likes of Tom Norris and

many more.

The value of these Takings Violations exceed the

Relief sought through this action case. Moreover,

U.S. Pentagon also complicit as to the ongoing U.S.

covert action in this regard.

Also, numerous state and federal Appellate Courts

have held child-children as property right of parents

— see former State of California Appellate Court,

First District Division One Holding in “Shea v.

Shea”, 100 Cal. App. 2d 60 (October 23, 1950)

“California has in effect adopted the harsh rule that

the right of a fit and proper parent to have the

custody of his child is in the nature of a property

right and paramount to the welfare and best interest

of the Child.”

Moreover, Plaintiffs Takings Claims are not Time

Barred for an abundance of Tolling Authorities (see

Table

of Authorities

attached)

including

the

uncertainty doctrine

“Delayed Accrual” — see this Court’s ruling in Yuriy

Prakhin v. United States, No. 14-924L (July 29,

2015) 122 Fed. Cl. 483 holding: “Homeowner stated

facially

plausible

claim

that

the

justifiable

uncertainty doctrine delayed accrual of his Takings

Claim such that dismissal on limitations ground was

not warranted.”

Just as in this case, Plaintiff discovered U.S. Air

Force Dept of Defense Civilian Agent Christopher

Covarrubias’ direct involvement in these Takings

Claims, not until 2023 (possibly April 12th, 2023)

and the associate Cheryl Lopez, Crash landing of a

Red Air #203 Originating in Prostitution Haven

(including

under

the

age

prostitution)

Dominican Republic, occurred June 21st, 2022 -

Miami Int’l Airport. These monumental events

helped connect

the

U.S.

various

participants.

Moreover, the alternative 2nd Claims did not prove

fruitless and the extent of the U.S. Takings Damage

crystalized until October 2nd, 2023. Furthermore,

these events are actual facts (evidence) and not

implausible but very much plausible. Plaintiffs

Arthur Lopez has been repeatedly persecuted by

Defendant relentlessly to take his family including

four children, so as to profit, self-enrich unjustly, and

sponsor Takings Schemes and utilize Plaintiffs

children and mother (Cheryl Lopez).

The defendant has utilized whatever resources it

deems necessary including staff of Air Force jets to

promote these Takings Violations. Coast to Coast

California to Florida and beyond.

This case involves civilian Dept of Defense U.S. Air

Force agent

Christopher Covarrubias and his

brother-in-law including Paul Figueroa and Robert

Valdez, who resides only three miles away from his

“brothel for” home 1863 East 69nd Street, Los

Angeles, CA 90001, and Valdez’s 40 yr. residence in

a decrepit 500 sq. ft. apartment is located @6117

Woodward (Street/Avenue), Apt. G, Maywood, CA

90270, while Figueroa’s residence is 11761 Adelle,

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670.

They have colluded with Air Force Dept of Defense

Civilian Resources to utilize Cheryl Lopez as part of

this elaborate Takings Scheme. See Christopher’s

declaration filed with the Superior Court, County of

Los Angeles, see appendix D.

And also, Los Angeles Sheriff Department arrest

correspondence. These demonstrate the extent to

which Department of Defense agents would go to

cover up Takings Scheme. First the assault on his

former spouse Dominique Valdez when caught with

associate at their home.

Then, his declaration which misrepresents the facts

of his assault (Paragraph 10) and also uses as pretext

the cause for his actions his dismay for his spouse not

having a job as she was getting an education. This

language is precisely the pretext used by Plaintiffs

children’s mother Cheryl Lopez conveyed to Newport

Beach Police Officers November 2015 as cause for

her dismay and catalyst for the altercation that

resulted with Plaintiff (for which he was exonerated

of any wrongdoing).

These parallel events are a direct link between

Covarrubias, Dept, of Defense and Cheryl Lopez and

Robert Valdez/Paul Figueroa and Plaintiff Arthur

Lopez as a Target for the Takings Violations related

to his Children by Defendant U.S.A. — By breaking

Plaintiffs Family Unit, they could utilize Cheryl

Lopez to alienate Plaintiff and his children ongoing

for over ten years now.

Also, in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church

of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, California, 482

U.S. 304 (June 9, 1987), holding:

1) Claim that earlier California Supreme Court

decision had improperly held that just compensation

clause did not require compensation as remedy for

temporary

regulatory

‘takings’)

was

properly

presented; 2) Under just compensation clause, where

government has

taken property by land use

regulation, landowner may recover damages for

taking before it is finally determined that regulation

constitutes a ‘taking’ of his property.”

Also, see Lucas v. So. Carolina Coastal Council, 505

U.S.

1003

government

(June

29,

1992),

holding:

required

regulation

“Since

compensation

unless certain background principles prohibited use

as landowner intended...”

See Attached Parental Rights Precedence Points of

Authority.

Ongoing Interference w/ Due Process Plaintiff has

uncovered and conveyed to Appellate Court and the

Trial Court very significant “Conflict of Interest”,

standard operating procedures within the Trial

Court, United States Court of Federal Claims.

These conflicts not only exist within the intake clerk

of court

department which

has

the

past

lost/deleted new court filings from Plaintiff (related

to the Howard Supv), but also the repeated

occurrence of assigning bias judicial officers to

Plaintiffs cases, such as in strong political activists

against Social Security Benefits — Judge Stephen

Schwartz (Member of Federalist Society whose

founder provided guidance to political figures &

former Vice President of Federalist Society Chapter

in School); and Judge Ryan Holte, not only with

strong ties with Defendant — Military as Contractor

Counter-Echo Solutions (Partner-Counsel) but also

remained with at least two political organizations for

many years:

1. ) The Federalist Society (Exec. Committee of its

Intellectual Property Practice Group)

2. ) Teneo Network (Deemed Hate Group — founded

Alliance Defending Freedom)

Judge Holte who also worked as a law clerk for the

Trial Court Judge in this case, SR Judge Loren

Smith. These indisputable facts are all basis for

disqualification of a judicial officer under Federal

Law, Title 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the United States

Code of Conduct for Judges Canon 1-5.

In fact, Canon 2 states: “Judge should avoid

impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all

activities.”

As such, even SR Trial Court Judge Loren Smith

actions on February 28th, 2025 would at best appear

an act of impropriety given his quick dismissal order

(USCFC 23-1742) on the same day Plaintiffs Motion

to Transfer Case (due to Judge Ryan Holte’s conflicts

of interest under 28 U.S.C. § 455) given he was her

former law clerk. This apparent retaliatory act also

negated Plaintiffs request for leave to amend

complaint to possibly add legal theories, facts,

claims...

See U.S. Supreme Court holding in Foman v. Davis,

371 U.S. 178 (1962), “Leave to Amend should be

freely given...”

These facts also present abundant good cause to have

denied Defendant’s Motion To Brush This Case

Under The Rug for summary affirmance.

See, Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals, et al. v. United

States, 378 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

have

specifically

held

that

Tucker

Act

jurisdiction existed over a complaint that asserted a

Taking Claim notwithstanding that the complaint

also characterized the same government conduct as

tortious.

See Complete Points - Table of Authorities.

In this case clear claims involving U.S. divisions such

as Pentagon operatives, Homeland Security agents,

Department of Defense executing Takings Violations

without just compensation are included in the Initial

Complaint and furthermore the Trial Court failed to

permit Plaintiff to Amend Complaint (Rule 15, Fed.

Rule of Civil Procedure), Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.

178 (1962). It should also be noted that the trial court

was made aware of Plaintiffs Motion To Transfer

Case (Disqualify Judge Ryan Holte) on Active Case

25-145 on February 28th, 2025. On the same day the

Trial Court dismissed Case 23-1742 by Order of

Senior Judge Loren A. Smith, for whom Judge Ryan

Holte interned 2008-2009.

Moreover, it is conceivable that as Senior Judge

Loren A. Smith may also have been tasked with

transfer case decisioning.

In any event Plaintiff also filed a Motion To Transfer

Case 23-0620. From Judge Stephen Schwartz for

bias and the denial of said motion was cited as a basis

for the ensuing Appeal Case to Appellate court under

Case # 24-1860 which has proceeded to the United

States

Supreme

Court,

for

which

remains

unfinalized.

For these facts related to Defendant USAs Takings

violations, Plaintiff remains firm on the facts that

supports serious conflict of interest and bias

pertaining to Judge Ryan Holte (Stephen Schwartz)

which warranted them being recused from Plaintiffs

cases. As such, these facts make clear the necessity

to have this case petition for Writ of Certiorari

granted; Plaintiff reiterates his request for Relief as

prayed.

Next,

the

United

States

Constitution,

Fifth

Amendment does not in any way exclude minor

children as property of parent, father or mother for

that matter, nor does it provide a definition for

property. Moreover, children are generally legally

and morally the property of their parents at the very

least through the age of 18. Even pets and slaves

(when it was permitted) were regarded as property.

It’s considered normal for adults/parents to dictate to

their children what they should believe, what they

should wear and how they should act. Pierce v.

Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and

Mary. 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States held

in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). Also, in

Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977).

Also, in Stevenson’s Heirs v. Sullivant, 18 U.S. 207

(1820). Moreover, in M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102

(1996) “the interest of parents in their relationship

with their children is sufficiently fundamental to

come within the finite class of liberty interests

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Also, in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of

Durham City, 452 U.S.

18 (1981), the Court

characterized the parent’s interest as “commanding”,

indeed far more precious than any Property Right.”

455 U.S. at 774.

Furthermore, none of these Taking’s violations could

go on without full knowledge of the United States

Pentagon and Homeland security/FBI as matters

related to unconstitutional acts have been ongoing

for some time with numerous participants and

reported by plaintiff.

These schemes of “Takings” by the U.S. is not new

since the Bowman Act of 1883, ch. 116, 22 Stat. 485

addressed similar schemes of “Takings”.

In fact, throughout more recent events the U.S. has

been involved in several military conflicts one way or

another,

including

Ukraine

and

Middle

East

Nations.

Plaintiff and his children are Catholic Christians

with well documented religious events for which the

defendant has

sought to

compensation.

utilize without just

Therefore, the Truth is Plaintiff has very valid

Takings claims under the 5th Amend, of the U.S.

Constitution which is money mandating.

Violations by these I this defendant does not

invalidate Plaintiffs Takings claims. Neither do the

defendant’s Tort violations.

UNITED STATES TOLLING AUTHORITIES

Court of Federal Claims ruling in Yuriy Prakhin v.

United States, Defendant, 122 Fed. Cl. 483, July 29,

2015 - No. 14-924L; Holding: “The Court of Federal

Claims, Braden, J. held that homeowner stated

facially

plausible

claim

that

the

justifiable

uncertainty doctrine delayed accrual of his Takings

claim, such that dismissal on limitations ground was

not warranted.”

Also see California’s Supreme Court holding in: Fox

Brandi v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th

797 (May 9th, 2005), No. S121173 (and citing

Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal. 4th 383 (1999)

Ruling:

“(1) We conclude that, under the delayed discovery

rule, a cause of action accrues and the statute of

limitations begins to run when the plaintiff has

reason to suspect an injury and some wrongful cause,

unless the plaintiff pleads and proves that a

reasonable investigation at that time would not have

revealed a factual basis for that particular cause of

action, in that case, the statute of limitations for that

cause will be tolled until such time as a reasonable

investigation would have revealed its factual basis.”

Also

see

attached

Table

of Authorities

and

Memorandum In Support.

Just as in this present matter defendant’s Takings

scheme ongoing carried out in a clandestine created

justifiable uncertainty for delayed accrual and

suspension of the limitations period.

Firstly, further authority for tolling of the statute of

limitations is the Continuing Violations Doctrine

and Alternative 2nd Claims Doctrine, see United

States Supreme Court ruling in Amtrak v. Morgan,

536 U.S. 101 (June 2002) which held:

“A Title VII plaintiff raising claims of discrete

discriminatory or retaliatory acts must file his

charge within the appropriate 180- or 300-day

period, but a charge alleging a hostile work

environment will not be time barred if all acts

constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful

practice and at least one act falls within the filing

period; in neither instance is a court precluded from

applying equitable doctrines that may toll or limit

the time period.” pp. 108-122. Just as in this present

case, the defendant has continuously targeted

Plaintiff for Takings schemes whereby all Plaintiffs

property - assets, family, money, etc. has been taken

by defendant over many years time in clandestine to

avoid accountability and just compensation to

Plaintiff.

Hence Continuing Violation Doctrine justifiably tolls

the limitations period and where at least one

Takings act well falls within the 6 yr filing period,

having been discovered in 2023.

Also see California Supreme Court holding in

Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 801

(and

Table

of Authorities

and

Memorandum

attached).

The

Supreme

Court

concluded:

‘...

must

determine the scope of the “Continuing Violations

Doctrine.” That doctrine, described at greater length

below, allows liability for unlawful employer conduct

occurring outside the statute of limitations if it is

sufficiently connected to unlawful conduct within the

limitations period. Precisely as in this present case,

the defendant has continuously carried out Takings

Violations

against

Plaintiff

shield

associate(s). Moreover, the defendant continues to

carry out these schemes to this day, recently two Hit

+ Run Events against Plaintiff 8/24/2023 and

10/7/2023 (Reported to Santa Ana Police and Costa

Mesa

Police

respectively),

the

first

involving

Defendant - US Mail carrier and also Defendant U.S.

staff.

See Appendix D & E (Covarrubias- LA Sheriff Dept,

arrest reports and Declaration).

Furthermore, US Marine Corp Colonel Tipton’s, see

Appendix E, (civilian spouse Julie Tipton having

been posted @ Plaintiffs Church Parish School

—2018— as Principal) to preclude Plaintiff from

worshipping/attending mass; following his children

being revoked from attending school by breach of

contract.

All of which detail further takings schemes by the

defendant.

Moreover, Plaintiff cited sound tolling authority such

as Equitable Tolling — Continuing Violations I

Tolling

Doctrines,

Alternative

Claims

(2nd)

Doctrine, etc.; See ruling in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009), holding: “Whereby a Court

should accept the facts pleaded in the complaint as

true...”

Furthermore, Plaintiff has backed up the facts stated

in the complaint with evidence having provided

reference to letters to the U.S. Dept, of Justice,

names of former Marines, Navy and Air Force

agents/civilian,

specific

events

held

Camp

Pendleton, in support of claims related to Takings

Violations, reports to the F.C.C., local LA Sheriff,

local police, prostitution rings, taking ViolationsSchemes as the mechanism propelling in Takings

schemes by the United States-associates/staff etc.,

videos and more, all of which surpasses plausible

standard established by Bell Atlantic v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544 (2007),

Furthermore, alienating Plaintiffs four children by

those schemes also constitutes an illegal exaction by

the defendant under the Takings Clause of the U.S.

Constitution 5th Amendment.

So-called Illegal Exactions or unlawful Exactions are

an amorphous category of government activities with

two unifying characteristics:

(1) the government act in its sovereign capacity but

beyond its authority, and (ie.following reference

to letters to the U.S. Dept, of Justice — then

being revoked from attending school by breach

of contract.)

(2) its action enriches the Government at a

person's or organization expense;

In this case Plaintiff as a person, has also been

sole shareholder and founder of an auto finance

company "Liberty Credit Corp" which has also

been forced out of operation by the defendant's

schemes of "Takings" violations; all the while,

the defendant has been financially enriched, by

these unconstitutional Takings schemes to the

detriment of Plaintiff immeasurably. See the

attached points of authority and memorandums

in support.

To be

abundantly,

clear the

defendant

has

attempted

avoid

accountability for their Takings scheme by

operating in clandestine, and disguising then76

covert operations as lawful which in itself

satisfies a Takings claim prerequisite

Relief, is sought for these Takings Violations by U.S.

Civilian, State affiliate and civilian U.S. Air Force,

Marine Navy associates of Department of Defense

who have had a hand in these Taking schemes must

be held accountable by this court for the Takings

Violations without just Compensation as provided by

the 5th Amendment.

Also a continuance of this grave charade would be to

the detriment of Plaintiff and his children, see

Exhibit "C-J" which further supports the widespread

origin

covert

programs

being

carried

out

clandestinely just as Plaintiff has described for many

years without knowledge of previous reports being

issued on.

Furthermore, given the civilian branches signature

reduction of the defendant have been involved By

High Command, above Colonel, certain.

United States high command regulations — Pentagon

Dept being executed is also addressed by U.S.

Supreme Court precedent such as in "Horne v.

Department of Agriculture, 576 U.S. 350 (June 22,

2015)"

Holding:

1) Regulatory

reserve

requirement

was

physical "taking".

2) Failure to pay plaintiff (Drowers) violated the

Fifth Amendment "Takings Clause".

3) Retention of contingent interest in portion (of

raising) value did not negate government's

duty to pay just compensation.

4) Mandate to reserve raisins as condition to

engage in the market, was a per se Taking.

Moreover,

the

present

case

worsening

interference/prolonging Taking Violations include

defendant U.S.A, enlisting additional allies of foreign

governments in Israel, Ukraine, Philippines, Japan,

South Korea, United Kingdom, etc.; in fact, even

representatives have been afforded impunity in these

assaults upon plaintiff.

These domestic and foreign entities include publicly

traded

enterprises

and

their

staff

assisting

defendant in these Taking schemes by way of

obstruction, delays, severe efforts to compromise

deadlines and due process, as such exceptions to res

judicata by precedent established by the United

States Supreme Court in Taylor v. Sturgell U.S. 880

(2008).

Also see United States Supreme Court holding in

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al., 139

S. Ct. 2162, No. 17-647 (June 21, 2019), property

owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment Takings

claim when government takes his property without

paying for it and therefore may bring his claim in

federal court under §1983; at that time overruling

Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v.

Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172,105 S.

Ct. 3108, 87 L. Ed. 2d 126.aking.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Petition Should Be Granted To Uphold United States

Constitutional Civil Rights including 5th and 14th

Amendments - Takings Clause and Equal Protection

— Due Process Under Law, respectively.

Moreover, petition should be granted to maintain

neutral judicial officers on the bench for not only

criminal but also civil litigation cases as provided by

28 U.S. Code § 455 and United States Code of

Conduct for Federal Judges.

In addition, independence of the judicial branch

must be ensured and protected by preventing

individuals

from

manipulating

the

judge

selection/nomination processes.

Lastly, plaintiff is due just compensation for

defendants

Takings

Violations,

and

the

Reunification of Plaintiff and his 14 years son must

be permitted without any delay.

Petitioner seeks relief for Monetary Damages of

$500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Dollars Net

after Taxes) plus royalties equivalent to those due for

theft of trade secrets and also seeks immediate

reunification with minor child Luke Jesus and

restoration of parental rights taken.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: June 7, 2026

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.