Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Ceminchuk v. Obama

Supreme Court brief2010

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

reese NAY 12 2010

No. __OBRIOS OF T

THE CLERK

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

BARRY CEMINCHUK

Petitioner

Vs.

BARACK H. OBAMA

President of the United States

Respondent

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Barry Ceminchuk

etitioner

Address: Box 51047 RPO Highlands

Edmonton Alberta T5W 5G5 Canada

Phone: (780) 952-1792

Email: barryceminchuk@yahoo.com

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. The real question for this court is whether the

Supreme Court of the United States is part of the

scheme to protect politicians and a political party,

and to protect judges that protect politicians and a

political party, with judges rigging a court case by

ignoring precedents (many on-point cases, irreparable

harm, etc.) and relevant points (my political party,

etc.) with the issue of standing to protect stealing,

corruption, election rigging (18 United States Code

(U.S.C.), Elections Chapter crimes, Section 600 and

other laws), Bribery (Constitution Article II, Section

IV), money funnelling and kickback schemes using

race and gender preferences/set-asides to rig

government jobs and contracts (worth at least ten’'s

of billions of dollars per year) so corrupt politicians

and a political party can get votes and support and

funnel money to, and get kickbacks from, feminist

and ethnic special interest groups and beneficiaries

(which is the real reason, not the pretext)?

2. Whether people who had jobs and businesses

stolen from them, and those deterred from

applying/bidding, by the race and gender

preference/set-aside schemes, which are illegal and

unconstitutional and known, are to be compensated,

or if this is some third world country where people

are stolen from and so what, or in other words

whether this court ts part of the steal from Asian,

Mid-Eastern and White people and men crowd?

3. In the Appeals Court the issue arose that when

courts have been corrupted for political purposes,

that is when politicians and a political party (.e. the

Democratic Party) choose judges to protect their

stealing, corruption, election rigging, Bribery, money

funnelling and kickback schemes, which is also a

conspiracy to rig court cases and a conspiracy to

protect the actions and protect election rigging and

subvert the Constitution, and even though the judges

may be too unsophisticated or too dumb or both to

understand that they are actually pawns being used

by politicians (which is their problem), and judges

have been bought (person is given government job

(judgeship), payback is person protects politicians by

rigging cases), and judgeships are being sold to

special interest groups for votes and contributions,

whether those judges should be disqualified under 28

U.S.C. § 455 (a) from cases involving the actions that

they were given the judgeship to protect, or in other

words do judges work for the people or politicians

and a political party and can politicians choose

judges to protect their election rigging, etc.?

4. If these actions are going to continue, then

government jobs and contracts are political pawns

and all political parties are to have access to them,

will the court order that the Plaintiff get the same

benefits (from the Complaint; half the race and

gender set-asides and a payment for Goodwill for

past benefits, $100 Million (which is low considering

the large $ involved)), for the political party he will

start?

5. When is this court going to wake up and realize

what is really going on, that corrupt politicians and

thieves are trying to use the courts to protect their

corruption, etc. and to legitimize their corruption,

)

and to hide behind while they steal and rig elections:

6. For the preference mongers on this court (.e.

those who want to steal from Asian, Mid-Eastern and

White people and men, and those who say

discrimination is bad then want to discriminate

against people, and those who want to race and

gender “norm” (adjust scores to pass over people and

give jobs to lowered standard people)), will you give

ill

up your job, or are you like the silly, useless people

who want to steal but do not want it done to you, or

worse, too dumb to think that far?

7. ls Barry Ceminchuk (i.e. the Plaintiff) going to

continue to be defrauded by paying court filing fees

expecting a fair trial, and barred from court by judge

pals rigging court cases to protect stealing,

corruption, election rigging, Bribery, money

funnelling and kickback schemes of politicians, which

is the courts effectively barring the Plaintiff from

court (blocked cases by ignoring precedents and

issues with standing is the same as barring)?

8. All of which leads to the question of whether

mankind can govern themselves?

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Plaintiffs are Barry Ceminchuk and all the

victims of these actions. Defendant is the President

as he is responsible for all government departments,

agencies, etc. and Commander in Chief, involved with

these actions.

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Not applicable.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions Presented ................-. i

ee eee oe fore a Vas nde 6 oe a at Vv

Corporate Disclosure Statement ........... Vv

Table of Cited Authorities

pg re vill

Constitutional Provisions and Statutes .. ix

Citations of the Opinions and Orders Entered

ge eh ere l

Jurisdiction

Date of order sought to be reviewed py a Oe

Date of order respecting rchearing 5 eas woe

Statutory provision to confer jurisdiction .. 2

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved. 2

Statement of the Case

EG we 4 ow we-wl es 2

Bm. memmemiens of Facte 2... cet ees 4

C. Discussion of Questions Presented ... 26

Federal Jurisdiction in District Court Urry |

Reasons For Granting the Writ, This Is A

Question of Supreme Importance

ond the Court's Supervisory Power

3 re 48

I I ROT one el oe 50

Appendix

The Court Orders

re ee re ae ar eee ee l

Appeal Court Mandate ........ l

Appeals Court Rehearing ....... 5

Appeals Court Order ......... 7

District Court Order ......... 10

Constitutional Provisions and Statutes .. 18

ee a a a a aD 19

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

Adarand Const., Inc. v. Pena 115 S.Ct. 2097 ... 46

Ayon v Sampson 547 F.2d 446, 451 =... .... 30

Bulloch v. United States 768 F.2d 1115, 1121.. 39

Byrd vs. Rubin, District Court for the Southwestern

District of Louisiana, 1997 .......... 30

Caperton Et Al. v A.T: Massey Coal Co. inc. Et AL,

Supreme Court, 556 U.S. (2009). . 36

** Clarke v Sec. Ind. Assoc. 479 U.S. 388 .. 9,11,27

Clinton vy. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 .... 24

Connick v Myers 108 S.Ct. 1684, 1691 xs «ee

Conley v Gibson 855 U.S. 41, 4546 =... ..... 16

Com. of Pa. v Local Union 542, Int'l. Union of

Operating Engineers 469 FS. 329 ..... 14

Data Processing Service v Camp 897 U.S. 150... 9

Dynalantic Corp v Dept of Def. 115 F.8d 1012 ..14

** Equal Employment Opportunity v. United

Air Lines 560 F.2d 224, 282 ....... 71,13,27

Firefighters v. Cleveland 478 U.S. 501, 529 ... 24

** Florida General Contractors v. Jacksonville

508 U.S. 656, G66 ..... 6,8,11,13,14,15,27

** Gratz v Bollinger 128 S.Ct 2411 ... 11,15,16,19

Vill

Lujan yv. National Wildlife Fed. 497 U.S. 871... 6

** Lujan v. Def. of Wildlife 504 U.S. 555 .. 7,8,10,17

Monterey Mech. Co. v Wilson 125 F.3d 702,715 . 30

O'Donnell Con. v Dist. of Col. 963 F.2d 420. 9,16,27

** Parents involved in community schools v

Seattle School District No.1 and Crystal

D. Meredith, ... v Jefferson County Board

of Education 127 S.Ct. 2788 ........ 14

Ricci Et Al. V. Destefano Et Al., Supreme Court,

No. 07-1428, June 29, 2009 . . 17,32,42,46,50

Richmond v Croson 488 U.S. 469,499 ...... 30

Salinas v. U.S. 118 S.Ct. 469 _—...... 23,41

** Saunders v White 191 FS.2d 95, 137 .. 13,20,32

Taxman v. Board of Education of Township of

Piscataway 91 F.3d 1547 ............ 30

See ee IO ELD. FOF lk tt tt tt tt ee 12,13

U.S. v. Hood 343 U.S. 148, 151 ........... 25

U.S. v Virginia 116 S.Ct. 2264 .........4.4. 12

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Articles of Confederation ................ 18

Bribery ........... 4,23,26,27,33,34,46,47,49

Northwest Ordinance ..............00005% 20

i ta > 4 6k oa 8 ks oe eee 4]

ee See I on 6 6 hs 5 Oe 3,31

18 UA, SOOO GEG wc cee eee 3,26,31,46

18 U.S.C. Section 1961 et seq. (RICO) .... 18,28

Be Uta: Oe Ge) ne eee deeeens 33,37

OS UA, OR An ce cee cw it 31

Oe Us CE Dk os sb wie 0 6 eae bs ee 30

42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(j) .............. 29,43

California Election, Section 18520 ~=_.............. 23

CITATIONS OF THE OPINIONS AND ORDERS

ENTERED BY COURTS

United States District Court For the District of

Columbia, Memorandum And Dismissal Order, July

17, 2009.

United States Court of Appeals For the District

Of Columbia Circuit, Order, December 3, 2009,

denying motion to disqualify democratic party

appointed judges, and granting the motion for

summary affirmance.

United States Court of Appeals For the District

Of Columbia Circuit, Order, February 16, 2010,

denying Rehearing.

United States Court of Appeals For the District

Of Columbia Circuit, Mandate, March 12 2010.

JURISDICTION

The order swught to be reviewed is the Order of

December 3, 2009.

The order denying Rehearing is the Order of

February 16, 2010.

The statutory provision conferring on this Court

jurisdiction to review on a writ of certiorari the

judgment or order in question is 28 U.S.C. § 1254

(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS

INVOLVED

See cited authorities, and text is in the

Appendix.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. OVERVIEW

The facts material to consideration of the

questions presented are, this case is a claim for

(from the Complaint):

victims of race and gender preferences with

government jobs and contracts (set-asides), all who

lost jobs and/or contracts and those "deterred" from

applying/bidding, victims should be compensated,

money has been taken from decent hardworking

people, and

- also a claim for election rigging scams as

outlawed in the federal criminal code, 18 United

States Code (U.S.C.), Elections Chapter, sections 599

and 600, including promising (directly or indirectly

(code words, actually having preferences)) and/or

promoting race and gender preferences which is

promising jobs and contracts, and

- if these actions are not going to be stopped

then the Plaintiff requests that the government make

government jobs and contracts available for the

Plaintiff so he can set up a political party and get

the same benefits (government jobs and contracts for

support, votes and contributions), half the race and

gender set-asides and a payment for Goodwill for

past benefits, $100 Million (which is low considering

the large $ involved, the Plaintiff's unofficial

information is that set-asides are in the ten’s of

Billions per year).

In the Appeals Court the Appellant/Plaintiff

submitted a Motion To Disqualify Democratic Party

Appointed Judges raising the issue of the courts

being corrupted for political and election rigging

purposes by the Democratic Party stacking the

courts with judges that will protect their stealing,

corruption, election rigging, Bribery, money

funnelling and kickback schemes, which include the

actions in this case, and whether such judges should

be disqualified from cases in which they were chosen

to protect. The many points in the motion were not

disputed.

The District Court dismissed the case and the

Court Of Appeals granted the motion for summary

affirmance and denied the motion to disqualify

democratic party appointed judges and dented the

petition for rehearing.

B. STATEMENT OF FACTS

In the Complaint the Plaintiff mentioned his

extensive experience in the Information Technology

industry and research and development contracts and

“The Plaintiff is not dumb enough to spend the time

and money trying to get something that is not

available”. An Affidavit was also provided stating “4.

I am ready and able to pursue these.” and “5. I am

considering starting a political party and if such

actions are not stopped will expect the same

benefits.” And, again, if these actions are going to

continue the Plaintiff should have access to

government jobs and contracts to rig for votes and

contributions for the political party he will start.

Following are excerpts from court submissions

with standing, and that are being ignored:

AND AGAIN, THERE ARE OTHER STANDING

ISSUES NOT BEING ADDRESSED:

- ELECTION RIGGING, CRIMINAL CODE,

CORRUPTION, MONEY FUNNELLING, STEALING

AND THE PRETEXT POINT.

- MY POLITICAL PARTY, which clearly

confers standing.

- OTHER POINTS, public interest, many other

cases, government contracts and jobs are not political

pawns.

- Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

- Research and development ideas were

mentioned, along with discussion of some ideas.

- Specific contracts were mentioned in the

submissions, MacDill Air Force Base and NASA.

-and “'practice of racial discrimination

pervasively applied on a classwide basis."”

- The District Court also did not address the

issue that these actions should have been cleaned up

and the Plaintiff should not have to do any of this.

And the victims should be determined and

compensated at the expense of the government.

There are many case precedents being ignored,

including:

From the Complaint, heading STANDING the

main points that address the issue:

17. “To establish standing, therefore, a party

challenging a set-aside program like Jacksonville's

need only demonstrate that it is able and ready to

bid on contracts and that a discriminatory policy

prevents it from doing so on an equal basis.” Florida

General Contractors vy. Jacksonville (508 U.S. 656,

666 and 657). The Plaintiff is able and ready (see

Affidavit). Also, “whether one of the respondent’s

members has been, or is threatened to be, adversely

affected or aggrieved by Government action” (Lujan

v. National Wildlife Federation 497 U.S. 871, 889).

18. Also, “The courts have long recognized

that the failure of an individual to apply for a

position from which he would be discriminatorily

excluded does not defeat his claim.”, and “In any

event, Congress did not intend Title VII remedies to

be available only to those knowledgeable enough and

militant enough to have demanded and been refused

what was not available”. (Hqual Employment

Opportunity v. United Air Lines, 560 F.2d 224, 2382).

The Plaintiff is not dumb enough to spend the time

and money trying to get something that is not

available, the Plaintiff has also done corporate

planning.

19. The Plaintiff is also considering starting a

political party and has a website for such if required.

From the Petition for Rehearing:

4. The Order says “The district court properly

dismissed this action for lack of standing, because

appellant did not allege an injury in fact caused by

the appellee’s conduct and redressable by the court,

which are the “irreducible constitutional minimum”

requirements for standing. Lujan v. Defenders of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).”

5. 1 AGAIN point out that THE SAME

CITATION (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.

555, 560) is mentioned and explained in detail in the

Jacksonville case at 508 U.S. @ page 668, heading

“Point IIL”, and leads to the courts conclusion on

page 666 starting with “Singly and collectively, ...”

and “The injury in fact in an equal protection case of

this variety is the denial of equal treatment resulting

the imposition of the barrier, not the ultimate

inability to obtain the benefit.” ...“And in the context

of a challenge to a set-aside program, the “injury in

fact” is the inability to compete on an equal footing

in the bidding process, not the loss of a contract.” ...

“TO ESTABLISH STANDING, THEREFORE, (bold

and capitals added by me) a party challenging a set-

aside program like Jacksonville’s need only

demonstrate that it is ABLE AND READY (bold and

capitals added by me) to bid on contracts and that a

discriminatory policy prevents it from doing so on an

equal basis.” (Florida General Contractors v.

Jacksonville 508 U.S. 656, 666). THIS IS THE

APPROPRIATE STANDARD FOR STANDING WITH

THE DISCRIMINATORY CLASSIFICATION. And,

the many other cases mentioned. The discriminatory

policy is the admitted set-asides and preferences.

How many times do I have to say this?

7. The Appeals Court Order also says

"Appellant refers only generally to government jobs

and contracts and to his experience with Information

al yy

Technology and preparing bids for contracts. he

court does not seem to understand, or is trying to

ignore, the point that THE EXPERIENCE SHOWS

MY SKILLS, KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES,

WHICH SHOWS ABLE AND READY (as my

Affidavit said). With general, I also mentioned

SPECIFIC research and development and SPECIFIC

contracts and irreparable harm (again, “Plus

irreparable harm is being done to the plaintiff, see

O'Donnell Const. Co. v District of Columbia (963

F.2d 420) at pages 428 and 429, right hand column,

point [9].”).

8. And again, Clarke v Securities Industry

Association (479 U.S. 388) where a company that was

in the same business that was affected by a decision

had standing, “suffering injury from the competition”

(479 U.S. 388 @ 397), referring to Data Processing

Service v Camp (397 U.S. 150). Clarke, Footnote 13

on page 397 - 898, on page 898 says “We held that

data processing companies were sufficiently injured

by the competition that the Comptroller had

authorized to create a case or controversy.”.

The Plaintiff understands that lawyers probably

will not know this, but as discussed in the

Washington Times Editorial of May 4, 2010, “Cut the

Small Business Administration, Affirmative-action

agency wastes billions of taxpayer dollars”, that says

set-aside recipients “receive preferential treatment

and even sole-source access to lucrative federal

contracts”, besides the twisting of goals to quotas

and preferences, this is very valuable to people who

know how to bid on contracts and put together bids.

The Plaintiff is convinced he could build a significant

business if he had access to sole-source contracts.

Other quotes from the submissions:

The Lujan and MacArthur cases discussed in

the court order and the court saying “nebulous

allegations of hypothetical injuries based on federal

policies” fail to meet this standard.” are based on

issues and facts in the Lujan and MacArthur cases.

Again, this is ridiculous, grasping at straws to block

a case. The Lujan case involves some one who

“intends to return to Sri Lanka in tiie future and

hope(s) to be more fortunate in spotting the

endangered elephant and leopard.” (Lujan 504 U.S. at

563) and the MacArthur case involves records kept

by the FBI, where, from the case "president of

foundation challenged Federal Bureau of

Investigation's (FBI) retention of information about

him and foundation as violation of Privacy Act and

First Amendment.". These are indeed nebulous and

questionable claims. The Appellant’s claims and facts

and standing issues are completely different, again,

addressed in a specific case discussing standing

(Jacksonville 508 U.S. 656, 663 - 666). Standing is

also addressed in Gratz v Bollinger (123 S.Ct 2411,

2422 - 2423) where “intention is relevant to

standing”, “able and ready” and “denied him the

opportunity to compete”... . The Appellant could say

more about the Lujan and MacArthur cases but the

above is sufficient.

With the Clarke case, if you take the

Appellee's words "had established constitutional

standing as the trade association represented

persons directly affected by the regulations at issue”,

obviously all it takes to have standing is to be

"directly affected", that is, be in the business and

affected, the Appellant has spent many years in the

business of Information Technology and what used to

" r

be called "Data Processing". The Appellant explained

this many times, over and over. Points like this are

why the Appellant says things over and over.

Also the Virginia Military Institute case

involved a prospective student (U.S. v Virginia 116

S.Ct. 2264).

And, with U.S. v. Hays this was covered in the

Surreply in the District Court:

The Defendant mentions ““generalized

grievances’ against any policies of affirmative action

(like those Plaintiff attempts to raise) do not provide

standing. U.S. v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 743-44 (1995).”.

ANSWER: The Plaintiff has shown specific areas

applicable (above) and in the Complaint. The Plaintiff

points out that the Hays case is a racial

gerrymandering case brought by someone who lives

outside the gerrymandered district, which is a

different situation, in this case set-asides for example

are across the country and across industries and

even include subcontracts. Also, on page 745 the

Hays case says unless specific evidence is provided to

support the inference of being subjected to the racial

classification (gerrymandering in this instance) the

plaintiff would only be asserting a generalized

grievance. The Plaintiff has provided specific

evidence, and explained the points many times. And,

again the Fla. Contractors v Jacksonville case (508

U.S. 656) is a case specifically discussing standing

and injury in fact with set-asides. The 508 U.S. 656

case is also mentioned on page 745 of the Hays case.

There are also precedents that discuss

“deterred“ and “dissuaded”, and from the United Air

Lines case (Complaint p.18) @ 234 (“or were

dissuaded from applying’).

Also, “Thus, for a plaintiff seeking prospective

relief to suffer an injury for purposes of standing, he

only needs to demonstrate that he is ready and able

to apply (or be considered) for a benefit and that a

discriminatory policy prevents him from doing so on

an equal basis.” Saunders v White (191 FS.2d 95 @

102). This addresses the issue.

Plus, “All that was necessary was that the

plaintiff wished to be considered for the position.”

(Florida General Contractors v. Jacksonville 508 U.S.

656, 664). Plus “we emphasized that the plaintiffs’

injury was the "obstacle to [their] candidacy," 457

U.S., at 962 (emphasis added); we did not require any

allegation that the plaintiffs would actually have been

elected but for the prohibition." Florida General

Contractors v. Jacksonville (508 U.S. 656, 664-6685).

Also, “the complaint did not refer to any specific

contract or subcontract” at page 659.

Also, “One form of injury under the Equal

protection Clause is being forced to compete in a

race based system that may prejudice the plaintiff.”

(Parents involved in community schools v Seattle

School Dist. No.1 and Crystal D. Meredith, ... v

Jefferson County Board of Ed. 127 S.Ct. 2738, 2738).

Also, “Persons deterred from applying for

employment because of employer’s reputation for

discriminatory activity, where that reputation derives

from actual discrimination, can state a cause of

action and obtain relief (Com. of Pa. v Local Union

542, Int’]. Union of Oper. Engineers 469 FS. 329).

Also, “Rather Dynalantic’s injury is its lack of

opportunity to compete for Defense Department

contracts” and “causes a not insignificant portion of

its potential business opportunities to be foreclosed

to it clearly makes out an injury.” (Dynalantic Corp v

Dept of Defense 115 F-38d 1012, 1016). Also see point

II] on page 1015. This is the same point, a similar

error was made.

Standing is also addressed in detail in Gratz v

Bollinger (123 S.Ct 2411, 2422 - 2423) where

“intention is relevant to standing”, “able and ready”

and “denied him the opportunity to compete” and

‘

“But whether Hamacher “actually applied” for

admission as a transfer student is not determinative

of his ability to seek injunctive relief in this case.”

Notice whether applied is not determinative.

The Gratz case also says “It is well established

that intent may be relevant to standing in an Equal

Protection challenge. ... Likewise, in Northeastern

Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of

America v. Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, ... we

explained that “[tjhe ‘injury in fact’ in an equal!

protection case of this variety is the denial of equal

treatment resulting from the imposition of the

barrier, ... And in the context of a challenge to a set

aside program, the ‘injury in fact’ is the inability to

compete on an equal footing in the bidding process,

not the loss of contract.” Id., at 666. We concluded

that in the face of such a barrier, “[t]o establish

standing, a party challenging a set-aside program like

Jacksonville's need only demonstrate that it is able

and ready to bid on contracts and that a

discriminatory policy prevents it from doing so on an

equal basis.”

The Gratz case says applied is not

determinative and points to the Jacksonville case and

then “able and ready”. The Appellant has said the

same thing over and over. Clear error.

Also, government hiring and contracting 1s

clearly in the public interest (Meritorious

performance rather than political service, is a public

concern (Connick v Myers 108 S.Ct. 1684, 1691), and

“would serve the public's interest in maintaining a

system of laws free of unconstitutional racial

classifications" (O'Donnell Const. Co. v District of

Columbia 968 F.2d 420, 429).

Some quotes, “a complaint shall not be dismissed

for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of his claim that would entitle him to relief.”

( v Gibson 355 U.S. 41, 45-46) and again, "At the

pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury

resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice,

for on a motion to dismiss we "presume that general

allegations embrace those specific facts that are

necessary to support them."" (Lujan v. Defenders of

Wildlife 504 U.S. 555, 561).

The District Court also did not consider the

issues (pretext, summarily affirmed, etc.) from the

recent case, Supreme Court of the United States,

Ricci Et Al. V. Destefano Et Al., No. 07-1428, June

29, 2009. Relevant quotes are: “Therefore, the

decision below, which sustained the entry of

summary judgment for respondents, cannot be

affirmed unless no reasonable jury could find that.

the City’s asserted reason for scrapping its test—

concern about disparate-impact liability—was a

pretext and that the City’s real reason was

illegitimate, namely, the desire to placate a politically

important racial constituency.” (Justice Alite,

concurring opinion page 3, page 44 of pdf document).

Also, “The District Court threw out their case on

summary judgment, even though that court all but

conceded that a jury could find that the City’s

asserted justification was pretextual. The Court of

Appeals then summarily affirmed that decision. The

dissent grants that petitioners’ situation is

“unfortunate” and that they “understandably attract

this Court’s sympathy.” Post, at 1, 39. But

“sympathy” is not what petitioners have a right to

demand. What they have a right to demand is

evenhanded enforcement of the law—of Title VII's

prohibition against discrimination based on race.

And that is what, until today’s decision, has been

denied them.” (Justice Alito, in the last paragraph of

his opinion page 13, page 54 of pdf document). Also,

"Petitioners are entitled to summary judgment on

their Title VII claim" page 34, page 38 of pdf

document, end of Opinion of the Court.

Also the Articles of Confederation (the precursor

of the Constitution), Article XJ. Canada, asceding to

this confederation, and joining in the measures of

the United States, shall be admitted into, and

entitled to all the advantages of the Union. And

Article IV, Section 1 ... and shall enjoy therein all the

privileges of trade and commerce. This is not

disputed by the Defendant. Also, the RICO statutes

(18 U.S.C. Section 1961 et seq.) mention “interstate

or foreign commerce” (18 U.S.C. Section 1962). So

either the Articles of Confederation and/or the RICO

statutes are applicable.

Also, “It is a singular policy ... applied on a

classwide basis” (Gratz v Bollinger 123 S.Ct 2411 @

2426), and “and in view of ... the potential injury he

faced at the time of certification, demonstrates that

he may maintain the action" (@ 2415) and “'practice

of racial discrimination pervasively applied on a

classwide basis.'” (@ 2424) and “They sought to

certify a class consisting of all individuals who were

not members of an underrepresented minority group

who either had applied for admission to the LSA and

been rejected or who intended to apply for admission

to the LSA, for all academic years from 1995

forward. Id at 35-36. The District Court determined

that the proposed class satisfied the requirements of

the Federal Rules of Civil procedure, including the

requirements of numerosity, commonality, and

typicality. ... Finally, the District Court concluded

that petitioners’ claim was appropriate for class

treatment because the University's “'practice of racial

discrimination pervasively applied on a classwide

basis.'""“ (@ 2424).

In the court submissions the Plaintiff also

mentioned specific contracts and discussed research

and development ideas. The Plaintiff also mentions

he graduated from college (Northern Alberta

Institute of Technology) in Data Processing.

Again, the many other points in the submissions

are being ignored and with this case my political

party which clearly confers standing.

The District Court also said "been harmed by the

affirmative action policies of the United States", the

Plaintiff pointed out that with government,

affirmative action is to be trivial, benign actions that

do not affect the decision. Contracts are to be

tendered and hiring is to be based on merit.

Idiot/thieves try to twist it to steal from people.

Also, the Plaintiff said “What part of "it is

unconstitutional in every application and under every

set of conceivable circumstances", from Saunders v

White (191 FS.2d 95 @ 137 F.55), does the

Defendant not understand?”

There is also the issue that contracts are not to

be interfered with. See Northwest Ordinance, text in

Appendix, Constitutional provisions.

The Plaintiff also points out that the Democrats

just blindly and arbitrarily push quotas, which is

stealing from Asian, Mid-Eastern and White people

and men, which is absurd. They push contract set-

asides and job preferences across the country and

industries.

And to show what is really going on, from the

book entitled Creating Equal, My Fight Against Race

Preferences, by Ward Connerly, page 162, "As CCRI

inched onto their radar screen, most Democratic

Party bigwigs, in the words of state party chairman

Bill Press, decided that it was a potential

"Armageddon". They were locked into support for the

affirmative action status quo because it was the key

to maintaining the stranglehold on the black vote."

CCRI is the California Civil Rights Initiative,

Proposition 209. In other words, political pawns used

by politicians and a political party to get votes and

contributions.

The Plaintiff has also heard a speech by Mr.

Connerly where he mentioned these preferences are

used by politicians.

And with stealing education places from Asian,

Mid-Eastern and White children (displace them and

replace them with Latino and black children), a news

story said "The best-known example of efforts to

undermine Prop. 209's enforcement is the University

of California's refiguring of its admissions process in

ways that will boost black and Hispanic enrollment.

Connerly, a UC regent, told a meeting last summer,

"The Latino Caucus [of the state legislature] is very

blatant. They told us, ‘Either you get our people in or

we will cut your budget.” The university downgraded

the general aptitude SAT I test (which used to be

called the Scholastic Aptitude Test) in admissions.”

This is politicians coercing civil servants to steal

from people and to promote quotas.

The Plaintiff has also read a comment on

preferences that pointed out the absurdity of putting

people in situations they cannot handle and do not

have the skills to handle. This is also dangerous.

And, the politicians are really corrupt politicians

who will sell what could be your job to feminist and

ethnic groups for votes and kickbacks. People's jobs

are not to be used by corrupt politicians as a political

pawn for their personal and political and financial

benefit or for election rigging and kickback schemes.

In other words, the real source is these are being

used as political pawns by politicians and a political

party to get votes and contributions. This is

politicians stealing from people. And, California

Election law says:

Section 18520. A person shall not directly or

through another person give, offer, or promise any

office, place, or employment, or promise to procure

or endeavor to procure any office, place, or

employment to or for any voter, or to or for any

other person, in order to induce that voter at any

election to:

(a) Refrain from voting.

(b) Vote for any particular person.

person.

A violation of any of the provisions of this

section shall be punishable by imprisonment in the

state prison for 16 months or two or three years.

And there are the RICO (Racketeering Influenced

Corrupt Organizations) statutes, 18 U.S.C. Section

1961 et seq., and they include “bribery” and, as

explained in Salinas v. United States (118 S.Ct. 469)

on page 476, “any act ... involving bribery which is

chargeable under state law ...”. An example of a state

law would be the California Election law above.

Plus, not mentioned previously “(“The court

routinely recognizes probable economic injury

resulting from [government action] that alter

competitive conditions are sufficient to satisfy the

[Article ITI “injury-in-fact requirement]. ... It follows

logically that any ... petitioner who is likely to suffer

economic injury as a result of [governmental action]

that changes market conditions satisfies this part of

the standing test”).” (Clinton v. City of New York

24 U.S. 417, 4383).

A courts approval of a consent decree between

some of the parties therefore cannot dispose of the

valid claims of nonconsenting intervenors; if properly

raised these claims may be litigated by the

intervenor.... and, of course, a court may not enter a

consent decree that imposes obligations on a party

that did not consent to the decree. (Firefighters v.

Cleveland 478 U.S. 501, 529). Also, section 108 of the

1991 Civil Rights Act which says people are to be

warned and allowed to object and not consent (due

process).

The Plaintiff also points out that the Defendant

and the U.S. Attorneys are looking the other way

with an election rigging crime. This is inexcusable,

these people work for the people, not politicians and

not some political party that is rigging elections. The

Department of Justice is not to be political or protect

election rigging.

Also, "Certainly it was not unreal for Congress to

believe that the sale of influence in anticipation of

jobs was equally damaging to the proper operation of

the federal service and take steps to prevent it. It did

so in this Act. ... This Act penalized corruption."

(U.S. v. Hood 343 U.S. 148, 151).

As the Appellant/Plaintiff said in the Petition for

Rehearing “12. And, with the obvious intellect | am

dealing with here, I will not even try to explain merit

hiring and tendering of contracts and Breach of

Trust. Or that these people are stealing from decent

hardworking people. These concepts are too

complicated for some people.”

With the service of the Complaint on the U.S.

Attorney issue, what actually happened is the

Plaintiff sent multiple copies and the U.S. Attorney

is trying to ignore the fact that another copy with

the Summons was received. The Plaintiff repeatedly,

by letter, email and court submission tried to get the

U.S. Attorney to answer the question whether the

other copy containing the Summons was received.

The U.S. Attorney did not answer the question,

instead trying to focus on the copy sent to the Civil

Process Clerk. This really is not important, it is a

secondary issue but the Plaintiff just wanted to point

out the real story.

C. DISCUSSION OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. The real question for this court is whether

the Supreme Court of the United States is part of the

scheme to protect politicians and a political party, and

to protect judges that protect politicians and a

political party, with judges rigging a court case by

ignoring precedents (many on-point cases, irreparable

harm, etc.) and relevant points (my political party,

etc.) with the issue of standing to protect stealing,

corruption, election rigging (18 United States Code

(U.S.C.), Elections Chapter crimes, Section 600 and

other laws), Bribery (Constitution Article II, Section

IV), money funnelling and kickback schemes using

race and gender preferences/set-asides to rig

government jobs and contracts (worth at least ten’s of

billions of dollars per year) so corrupt politicians and

a political party can get votes and support and funnel

money to, and get kickbacks from, feminist and ethnic

special interest groups and beneficiaries (which is the

real reason, not the pretext)?

This is absurd. What is obviously going on here

is judges are blocking a case to protect politician’s

stealing, corruption, election rigging, Bribery, money

funnelling and kickback schemes. This is beyond

error, the Appellant/Plaintiff provided sufficient

evidence and multiple case precedents (Fla. Gen.

Contractors 508 U.S. 666, United, Clarke, O'Donnell

(irreparable harm), and many other cases) and other

legal issues with standing (what has become my main

point, my political party, etc), see Heading

STATEMENT OF FACTS above, and these were

pointed out many times, and they are being

deliberately ignored and are not even addressed by

the court. They are deliberately ignoring the points

to block a case to protect the politicians and the

actions in the case. Inexcusable, the courts are to be

fair and honest and not protect corrupt, election

rigging politicians. And, judges work for the people

not politicians or a political party. This should not

have to be said. And, corrupt politicians try to hide

behind government attorneys and hope a judge will

protect them.

And this is typical, people are stolen from and

then jerked around with ridiculous drivel to block

their cases and compensation. These actions should

be cleaned up and victims compensated at the

expense of the government. This case should be like

the asbestos cases, clean this up and compensate

people.

And, do not get angry at me for having the

brains to see what is really going on and the guts to

say it. Throughout history, tyrants and court jesters

and front-men (and women) have gotten angry with

those who are not fooled by their drivel and stand up

and speak out.

This is a serious, big time issue, with big time

serious implications. If the courts protect politician’s

corruption, election rigging, etc. then the courts are

lackeys of politicians and political operatives.

To allow these actions to continue is to

encourage corrupt politicians to run their schemes,

and the steal from Asian, Mid-Eastern and White

people and men crowd from feminist and ethnic

special interest groups trying to steal for themselves

to keep playing their games to steal. And to

encourage others to escalate election rigging actions,

if some one gets away with election rigging, then any

one can do anything.

Just so there is no misunderstarn ‘ng about what

is being discussed here, and especially for the

simpletons who can only think of one simple point,

there is a game being played to steal from people

using race and gender preferences, games like a

patchwork of contract set-asides across the country,

industries and even with state governments. This is

clear, intentional, known discrimination and in the

court submissions this is an undisputed admitted

policy by the Respondent/Defendant. And, it is an

absurd race and gender balancing and

proportionality game trying to ignore as said in the

Complaint, paragraph 5, 42 United States Code,

Section 2000e-2(j), Preferential treatment not to be

granted on account of existing number or percentage

imbalance.

Some quotes, "All persons, of either sex and any

ethnicity, are entitled to equal protection of the law.

That principle, and only that principle, guarantees

individuals that their ethnicity or sex will not turn

into legal disadvantayes as the political power of one

or another group waxes or wanes," Monterey Mech.

Co. v Wilson (125 F.3d 702, 715), and Ayon v

Sampson (547 F.2d 446, 451) which clearly says race

and gender are not to be used as a consideration and

"not to establish preferential hiring practices in favor

of those individuals who were previously the subjects

of discrimination." and Byrd vs Rubin, District Court

for the SW District of Louisiana, April 1997 that

ruled the IRS's “affirmative action" policies had

encouraged "institutional discrimination against

white male employees", and layoffs impose the entire

burden ... on individuals, often resulting in serious

disruption of their lives, and such burden is too

intrusive (7Vaxman v. Board of Education of Township

of Piscataway 91 F.3d 1547) and tried before and not

wlowed “would pive governments u license lo create a

patchwork of racial preferences based on statistical

generalizations about any particular endeavor"

(Richmond v Croson 488 U.S. 469, 499) and, an

article entitled “Jury throws book at library board”,

February 12, 2002, Washington Times, says: "It

seems that there is an assumption out there that it's

OK to discriminate against white people." They are

supposed to know no reverse discrimination. And 42

U.S.C. Section 1988 says “all persons”. And, tort of

intentional interference with prospective contractual

relations.

Also, as mentioned in the Complaint, p.11, these

actions exacerbate racial hatred. And they do.

Also, there are many criminal code sections

mentioned in the Complaint, p.5, especially 18 U.S.C.

Sections 599 and 600 (also in the USCS L.Ed books

the notes to 42 U.S.C. Section 1987, federal civil

rights law, also point to Section 600 and other

sections of the criminal code). Also, 18 U.S.C.

Sections 599, 600 are mentioned on pages 273 and

274 of the HOUSE ETHICS MANUAL, COMMITTEE

ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT, 110TH

Congress, 2d Session.

The Plaintiff mentions the inscription on the

entrance of the New York City Supreme Court

building, 60 Centre Street, Manhattan, says “THE

TRUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS THE

FIRMEST PILLAR OF GOOD GOVERNMENT”. Wise

words.

2. Whether people who had jobs and businesses

stolen from them, and those deterred from

applying/bidding, by the race and gender

preference/set-aside schemes, which are illegal and

unconstitutional and known, are to be compensated,

or if this is some third world country where people

are stolen from and so what, or in other words

whether this court is part of the steal from Asian,

Mid-Eastern and White people and men crowd?

On point case precedents and facts are being

ignored obviously so the election rigging, money

funnelling (of Billions of dollars) and stealing can

continue. The Appellant/Plaintiff knows the actions

are unconstitutional, and what these people try is a

"pretext" (Ricci case). The Respondent/Defendant is

also trying to ignore the Saunders v White (191

FS.2d 95 @ 187 F-55) case that says "it is

unconstitutional in every application and under every

set of conceivable circumstances", and continue these

actions, and avoid compensating the victims. Again,

these actions should be cleaned up and victims

compensated at the expense of the government.

What are these people, idiots too dumb to realize

they are stealing from decent hardworking people, or

thieves who just want to steal and not compensate

people? Who do these people think they are? They

obviously have to be told not to steal, and if you are

going to take from people you compensate them.

And, most people are considerate of others and do

not want special treatment and do not want to butt

in line and do not want to steal from people.

3. In the Appeals Court the issue arose that

when courts have been corrupted for political

purposes, that is when politicians and a political party

(ie. the Democratic Party) choose judges to protect

their stealing, corruption, election rigging, Bribery,

money funnelling and kickback schemes, which is also

a conspiracy to rig court cases and a conspiracy to

protect the actions and protect election rigging and

subvert the Constitution, and even though the judges

may be too unsophisticated or too dumb or both to

understand that they are actually pawns being used by

politicians (which is their problem), and judges have

been bought (person is given government job

Gudgeship), payback is person protects politicians by

rigging cases), and judgeships are being sold to special

interest groups for votes and contributions, whether

those judges should be disqualified under 28 U.S.C. §

455 (a) from cases involving the actions that they

were given the judgeship to protect, or in other words

do judges work for the people or politicians and a

political party and can politicians choose judges to

protect their election rigging, etc.?

In the Appeals Court the Appellant submitted a

Motion To Disqualify Democratic Party Appointed

Judges with the main point being that the

Democratic Party tries to stack the courts with judge

pals that will protect the actions in this case

(promising government jobs and contracts and steal

from Asians, Mid-Eastern, Whites and men) and

their stealing, corruption, election rigging, Bribery,

money funnelling and kickback schemes. There were

also many other points showing quotes to support

the point. One such point is:

10. Barry Ceminchuk has many quotes from

candidate speeches and from books and news stories,

some of which are:

A. The book "All Too Human a Political

Education", by George Stephanopoulos,

third paragraph on page 170, says:

“Ginsburg will get confirmed.

on]

She’ll be a reliable liberal vote.”.

A “reliable liberal vote” means adhere

to the doctrine and protect and push

the agenda, which she does, she is a

preference monger.

The points in the Motion are not disputed and

therefore the courts have been corrupted for political

and election rigging purposes. Courts are to be fair

and impartial and not tainted by political

manipulation.

This is a political party and politicians stacking

the courts with judges to protect the actions in this

case. This is also political party and politicians

conspiring to rig court cases and choosing the judges

in their cause. Politicians cannot be allowed to stack

the courts with judges that will rig court cases to

protect their election rigging, etc. and such judges

should be disqualified from cases which they were

chosen to protect if the guarantee of due process is

to be adequately implemented. This is very simple

and very basic to the Plaintiff.

Republicans seem to try to appoint honest

judges, Democrats choose judges that will protect

these actions and surreptitiously push an ideology.

That many of the Democrat judges are too

unsophisticated or too dumb or both to understand

they are pawns is their problem, some corrupt

politicians look for malleable dumb people or zealots.

It is the modus operandi of corrupt politicians to try

to use the courts to protect their corruption and to

legitimize their corruption, and to hide behind while

they steal and rig elections.

All judges take an oath to uphold the

Constitution and apply the law impartially, they work

for the people, not a political party. And judges are

to think of the integrity of the judicial process.

What should happen here is as in the Supreme

Court case, Caperton Et Al. v. A. T. Massey Coal Co.,

Inc., Et Al, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), decided June 8,

2009, from the Syllabus, page 1 of the pdf document,

which says:

“Held: In all the circumstances of this case,

due process requires recusal.”

There are many points made in the

Appellant/Plaintiff’s submissions to the Court of

Appeals, including some blunt words, following are

some quotes:

- As 28 United States Code (U.S.C.), Section

455 says: ”(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge

of the United States shall disqualify himself in any

proceeding in which his impartiality might

reasonably be questioned.”, non-disputed points of

courts being stacked with judges that will protect the

actions in the case clearly raises the question of

impartiality.

- The [Appeals] court said “Appellant has not

demonstrated that the court’s impartiality might

reasonably be questioned. See 28 U.S.C. § 455.”, I

am a reasonable person and | think only a moron or

a bought off judge would think that is acceptable to

stack the courts with lackey judges who will protect

election rigging, criminal code violations, corruption,

money funnelling, kickbacks, and stealing, and selling

judgeships to protect such (person gets judgeship

(sell), judge blocks cases (payback) and again, “That

many involved are too unsophisticated or dumb or

both to realize this is their problem.”).

- As I said “non-disputed points of courts being

stacked with judges that will protect the actions in

the case clearly raises the question of impartiality.” |

ask is there actually someone who is so dumb that

they dispute that? Really? What, I can set up a

political party and stack the courts with judges that

protect my election rigging? Have you not thought

what that means, like, and for the simpletons this is

an example oniy, someone could use violence against

opponents and have judge pals protect them? Knock

it off this looks dumb.

- I gather the evidence to show the courts are

being stacked to protect election rigging, stealing,

money funnelling and kickbacks, and the Appellee

has not disputed such, and some judges are actually

trying to protect the corruption of the courts. This is

dumb. Everyone is entitled to honest and fair and

smart judges if the guarantee of due process is to be

adequately implemented. As I said, any judge who

does not understand that or who is trying to ignore

it should resign immediately (again back to either

too dumb or blocking). And, judges are not to be

used hy corrupt politicians to hide behind.

- Therefore the Motion to Disqualify Judges

should be granted. It should also be extended to

include any lackey, in-the-pocket judge who wants to

rig a case and protect corrupt, election rigging

politicians and the stealing, money funnelling and

kickbacks.

- Besides, there should not be a problem here.

If the Democrat judges are honest they would not

mind that honest judges handle the case, and if the

Democrat judges want to rig the case they make my

point and should be disqualified.

Further points:

- Although I have not researched the topic I

mention honest services and thereby depriving the

public of honest adjudication services.

- Judicial conduct.

- The risk here is that that politicians will see

the courts as pawns to be used to protect their

corruption and election rigging and money

funnelling, etc. and anything goes. And, the public

will see the courts as a joke and lackey flunkeys of

politicians.

- From Bulloch v. United States (763 F.2d

1115, 1121) the court stated "Fraud upon the court is

fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery

itself ... It is where the court or a member is

corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or

where the judge has not performed his judicial

function — thus where the impartial functions of the

court have been directly corrupted.”

4. If these actions are going to continue, then

government jobs and contracts are political pawns and

all political parties are to have access to them, will the

court order that the Plaintiff get the same benefits

(half the race and gender set-asides and a payment for

Goodwill, $100 Million), for the political party he will

start?

From the Complaint:

3. If these actions are not going to be stopped

then the Plaintiff requests that the government make

government jobs and contracts available for the

Plaintiff so he can set up a political party and get

the same benefits (government jobs and contracts for

support, votes and contributions). Half the race and

gender set-asides and a payment for Goodwill for

past benefits, $100 Million (which is low considering

the large $ involved, the Plaintiff's unofficial

information is that set-asides are in the ten’s of

Billions per year).

As some may not know, Goodwill is an

accounting term for the value of a brand or name,

like “Democratic Party”, the name has a value that

has been increased due to election rigging actions.

And judges are to think of other political parties

and the integrity of the electoral process and the

Freedom of Association for political parties.

As part of the scheme is to appoint people to the

Justice Department to promote preferences (payback

for the ethnic and feminist special interest groups),

positions in the Justice Department should also be

added. The Plaintiff also points out that politicians

who think they are smart by appointing people to

push an agenda that includes crimes, are conspiring

for a crime by a third person, "Plainly a person may

conspire for the commission of a crime by a third

person.” (Salinas v. U.S. 118 S.Ct. 469, 477). The

Plaintiff also points out that attorneys can be

charged as Principals (18 U.S.C. Section 2).

5. When is this court going to wake up and

realize what is really going on, that corrupt politicians

and thieves are trying to use the courts to protect

their corruption, etc. and to legitimize their

corruption, and to hide behind while they steal and

rig elections?

The Plaintiff points out that there is a silly game

being played by the corrupt politicians and the steal

from Asian, Mid-Kastern and White people and men

crowd. They continuously steal and hide behind

government lawyers and judges and keep looking for

judges to legitimize their corruption and stealing.

While stacking the courts to protect the actions.

And they keep trying to change their story, over

the years, the steal from Asian, Mid-Eastern, Whites

and men crowd have tried twisting the civil rights

laws, role models, societal discrimination, balancing,

race and gender norming, soft quotas, goals, no

preferences, diversity, and many other games.

Apparently the latest scheme, and the Petitioner has

not researched this extensively, is to try to coerce

preferences with disparate impact lawsuits trying to

remove job requirements (like strength) to lower

standards (which they are not supposed to do),

ignoring the recent Supreme Court Ricci case, and if

required then ok, and 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2())

Preferential treatment not to be granted on account

of existing number or percentage imbalance, and no

adjusting tests, and what is supposed to be MERIT:

This is just their latest proportionality and balancing

game and trying to twist the civil right laws that

they have been trying for years whenever the

Democrats are in office (they appoint people to

promote preferences). And, they then take the

lowered standard, minimal standard people, passing

over better qualified white males and others.

This is absurd and even more absurd is that no

one seems to have realized this. it is just a game by

the corrupt and the thieves trying to steal from

people and promote preferences. And these are really

an election rigging, etc. scheme,

6. For the preference mongers on this court

(i.e. those who want to steal from Asian, Mid-Eastern

and White people and men, and those who say

discrimination is bad then want to discriminate

against people, and those who want to race and

gender “norm” (adjust scores to pass over people and

give jobs to lowered standard people)), will you give

up your job, or are you like the silly, useless people

who want to steal but do not want it done to vou. o:

worse, too dumb to think that far?

This 1s only for the judy discu ed, there are

some smart honest judges on this court. This ts

absurd, you preference monger have to be told

vehemently not to steal from people and not to

promote such. What, you steal from people and not

compensate them? What are you, some steal from

decent hardworking people thief? Or is this is too

complicated a thought for you?

You obviously think it is ae eptable LO displa t

me and people like me from jobs and steal our

business, and that. | do not matter. How dare you,

who do you people think you are? Obviously a

responsible adult has to straighten you out

When I was young people like you were laughed

al and ostracized, and in business we fire people like

you. You are preference monpgers, do not try your

self-deluding game of trying to divert the issue, you

are the people that support preferences, there have

been many cases that show you are for preferences

You might try to trick yourself into believing: you ar

not, but your actions indicate otherwise, there is

always some drivel. Also, any one that thinks the

Constitution says steal from Asian, Mid-Eastern,

White people and men is at the least silly.

And, you are the same as those that want to

discriminate against African-Americans, Jews, Irish,

etc. You just seem to think (although I doubt you can

think this far) that it is acceptable to discriminate

and displace people as long as it is against Whites,

or men, or Asians, or Mid-Eastern people.

Discrimination is bad unless you promote it. And,

you are actually worse, you are supposed to know

better.

And, you are propagating and exacerbating racial

hatred, "lo pursue the concept of racial entitlement -

even for the most admirable and benign of purposes -

is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the

way of thinking that produced race slavery, race

privilege and race hatred." (Adarand Constructors,

Inc. v. Pena 115 S.Ct. 2097, 2119 (1995)). Also “can

only exacerbate rather than reduce racial prejudice",

page 2113.

And, you should give up your job. Or, are you

those who want something done to some one else but

do not want it done to you? I have noticed people

like you do not want to give up your job.

And when you resign say the Petitioner, Barry

Ceminchuk can have your job, a Supreme Court

appointment, to use to get votes and kickbacks and

to protect his stealing, corruption, election rigging,

Bribery, money funnelling and kickback schemes. We

will then see how you like your job being used as a

political pawn for votes and kickbacks. What, oh, you

did not think of that?

And, the most important point is that Justice

Alito’s “pretext” point in the Ricci case is correct.

And, you do not seem to understand that these

preferences are actually an election rigging scam.

And, you do not seem to have the knowledge that

politicians are not to promise jobs or contracts to

special interest groups for support (i.e. votes) and

kickbacks (1.e. contributions), this is Bribery and

election rigging, there are election rigging rules and

crimes (18 U.S.C. Section 600 and other sections).

You should know this, it is not politics as usual.

And, you do not seem to realize you are being

used as pawns to protect the election rigging

schemes. That you are too unsophisticated or too

dumb to understand this is your problem. Anyone

that does not understand that there are sleazy

politicians and political consultants that will sell

anything and cheat in any way to get elected is

simply, at best naive and at worst dumb.

7. Is Barry Ceminchuk (i.e. the Plaintiff) going

to continue to be defrauded by paying court filing fees

expecting a fair trial, and barred from court by judge

pals rigging court cases to protect stealing,

corruption, election rigging, Bribery, money funnelling

and kickback schemes of politicians, which is the

courts effectively barring the Plaintiff from court

(blocked cases by ignoring precedents and issues with

standing is the same as barring)?

As my case is being rigged | have not been

treated fairly, and having paid the court filing fees I

have not received what was promised, a fair trial.

This is fraud. Another thought that seems to be too

much for the preference mongers.

And, my case being rigged to block the case is

the same as barring me from the court process, but

it is being done is a sneaky way with a false issue. If

the courts are going to bar me from the court

process then have the guts to say it, I am tired of

spending time and money on a rigged game.

All of which leads to the question of whether

mankind can govern themselves?

From the perspective of a systems analyst and

the system of government, if politicians and the

courts and the civil service are corrupt, anything

goes and mankind cannot govern themselves.

FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN DISTRICT COURT

The jurisdiction of the District Court is based on

28 U.S.C. § 1343, 1346, et seq.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

THIS IS A QUESTION OF SUPREME IMPORTANCE

AND THE COURT'S SUPERVISORY POWER IS

REQUIRED

The reasons for allowance of the writ are the

Courts have decided an important federal question in

a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this

Court by deliberately ignoring on-point precedents

and other standing issues (pointed out many times)

to protect politicians and rig an election rigging,

stealing, corruption, Bribery, money funnelling and

kickback case.

This case presents questions of supreme

importance in that the issues involved are serious,

big time issues, involving stealing, corruption,

election rigging,. Bribery, money funnelling and

kickback schemes and whether victims are

compensated and judges being chosen to protect such

actions and judges protecting politicians. If the

courts protect politician's corruption, election

rigging, etc. then the courts are lackeys of politicia.ss

and political operatives and sleazy politicians will see

the courts as pawns to be used to protect their

corruption and election rigging and money

funnelling, etc. and anything goes (which could

inevitably lead to intimidation of opponents and

possibly violence). And, the public will see the courts

as a joke and lackey flunkeys of politicians. Also, to

allow these actions to continue is to encourage

corrupt politicians and their political operatives to

run their schemes, and the steal from Asian, Mid-

Eastern and White people and men crowd to keep

playing their games to steal.

CONCLUSION

The Petitioner urges this Court to grant this

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Serious, big time issues.

Or, in the alternative summariy reverse this case

and refer it to an honest judge who has not been

corrupted by political manipulation (which is such a

basic principle it should not have to be said), and a

judge who understands the rule of law. Or, as in the

case Ricci Et Al. V. Destefano Et Al., Supreme Court,

No. 07-1428, June 29, 2009, grant summary

judgment in the Petitioner's favor ("Petitioners are

entitled to summary judgment on their Title VII

claim" page 34 end of Opinion of the Court, page 38

of pdf document).

Dated July _/ _, 2010.

Respectfully submitted,

Barry Ceminchuk

Box 51047 RPO Highlands

Edmonton, Alberta T5W 5G5 Canada

Phone: (780) 952-1792

Email: barryceminchuk@yahoo.com

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX

Tee RO Ce a Fee eh Ges ss 1

Appeal Court Mandate ........ 1

Appeals Court Rehearing ....... 5

Appeals Court Order ......... 7

District Court Order ......... 10

Constitutional Provisions and Statutes .. 18

UMCANEGS TTIVOIVOR gw kt ete cees 19

COURT ORDERS

COURT OF APPEALS MANDATE

Same as Appeals Court ORDER, with two stamps on

the first page, one saying "MANDATE" and one

saying "A true copy” and signed by the Deputy Clerk.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 09-5262 September Term 2009

1:08-cv-01742-EGS

Filed On: December 3, 2009

Barry Ceminchuk,

Appellant

Barack Obama,

President of the United States,

Appellee

BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Garland

and Brown, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary

affirmance, the response thereto, and the reply; the

motion to disqualify judges, the response thereto, the

reply, and the motion for leave to file a surreply; and

the motion to dispense with the appendix, it is

ORDERED that the motion to disqualify judges

be denied. Appellant has not demonstrated that the

court's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

See 28 U.S.C. § 455. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for

leave to file a surreply be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for

summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the

parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary

action. See ‘l'axpayers Watchdog, Inc, v. Stanley, 819

F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The

district court properly dismissed this action for lack

of standing, because appellant did not allege an

injury in fact caused by the appellee’s conduct and

redressable by the court, which are the “irreducible

constitutional minimum” requirements for standing.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61

(1992). Appellant refers only generally to government

jobs and contracts and to his experience with

Information Technology and preparing bids for

contracts. The district court also properly denied

appellant’s motion to strike the appellee’s motion to

dismiss, because appellant did not perfect service on

the United States until December 15, 2008, and

therefore the motion

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 09-5262 September Term 2009

to dismiss was timely filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4). It

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to

dispense with the appendix be dismissed as moot.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this

disposition will not be published. The Clerk is

directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein

until seven days after resolution of any timely

petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en

banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

Page 2

COURT OF APPEALS REHEARING

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 09-5262 September Term 2009

1:08cv-01742- EGS

Filed On: December 3, 2009

garry Ceminchuk

Appellant

Jorack Obama.

President of the United States.

Appellee

BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Garland

and Brown, Circuit Judge

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing, it is

ORDERED that the petition he denied

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s

Michael C. McGrail

Deputy Clerk

COURT OF APPEALS ORDER

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 09-5262 September Term 2009

1:08-cv-01742-EGS

Filed On: December 3, 2009

Barry Ceminchuk,

Appellant

Barack Obama,

President of the United States,

Appellee

BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Garland

and Brown, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary

affirmance, the response thereto, and the reply: the

motion to disqualify judges, the response thereto, the

reply, and the motion for leave to file a surreply; and

the motion to dispense with the appendix, it is

ORDERED that the motion to disqualify judges

be denied. Appellant has not demonstrated that the

court's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

See 28 U.S.C. § 455. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for

leave to file a surreply be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for

summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the

parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary

action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819

F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The

district court properly dismissed this action for lack

of standing, because appellant did not allege an

injury in fact caused by the appellee's conduct and

redressable by the court, which are the “irreducible

constitutional minimum” requirements for standing.

Lujan vy. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61

(1992). Appellant refers only generally to government

jobs and contracts and to his experience with

Information Technology and preparing bids for

contracts. The district court also properly denied

appellant’s motion to strike the appellee’s motion to

dismiss, because appellant did not perfect service on

the United States until December 15, 2008, and

therefore the motion

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 09-5262 September Term 2009

to dismiss was timely filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i). It

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to

dispense with the appendix be dismissed as moot.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this

disposition will not be published. The Clerk is

directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein

until seven days after resolution of any timely

petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en

bane. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

Pa ge 2

DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BARRY CEMINCHUK, |)

Plaintiff, ) Civil Action

Vv. ) No. 08-1742(EGS)

BARACK H. OBAMA! | )

Defendant. )

laintiff Barry Ceminchuk, proceeding pro se, brings

this action against the President of the United States

in his official capacity. Plaintiff, a resident of

Canada, alleges that he and a class of simuarly

situated individuals have been harmed by the

affirmative action policies of the United States. He

: The Complaint, filed on October 10, 2008,

named as defendant George W. Bush in his official

seeks an injunction barring affirmative action policies,

or, in the alternative, requiring defendant to make

“government jobs and contracts available for”

plaintiff. In addition, plaintiff seeks damages

consisting of “half the race and gender set-asides”

and a $100 million settlement for “past benefits.”

Since 1997, plaintiff has filed ten actions in

this Court seeking damages and injunctive relief

relating to the alleged harm he has suffered as a

result of U.S. affirmative action policies. Plaintiff has

filed these actions against numerous defendants

including, inter alia, the Secretary of Defense, Chief

Justice William Rehnquist, President George W.

Bush, and the Attorney General of the United States.

All of the previous cases brought by plaintiff have

been dismissed “because plaintiff failed to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted, failed to

allege standing to bring such an action or failed to

provide ‘a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ in

violation of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.” Ceminchuk v. Attorney Gen. Of the

capacity as the President of the United States. Barack H.

Obama was sworn in as President on January 20, 2009,

and is therefore substituted as named defendant pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

United States, Civ. No. 02-0229, Mem. & Dismissal

Order at 1 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 2002). Many of the

complaints filed in this Court, including the most

recent three cases, have been dismissed with

prejudice. See id. at 3; Ceminchuk v. Sec’y of Def.,

Civ. No. 01-2258, Mem. & Dismissal Order at 2

(D.D.C. Oct. 30, 2001); Ceminchuk v. Sec’y of Det.,

Civ. No. 01-1587, Mem. & Dismissal Order at 3

(D.D.C. July 23, 2001).

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on October 10,

2008, makes substantially the same allegations as

plaintiff has made in prior cases before this Court.

On December 29, 2008, the Clerk of the Court filed a

Return of Service of Plaintiff's Complaint and

Summons. Defendant filed a Notice of Correction of

Date of Service of Summons and Complaint on

January 5, 2009, stating that the complaint was

properly served on December 15, 2009, not on

November 6, 2008 as contended by plaintiff. On

February 11, 2009, defendant filed a motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). In

addition to filing a substantive response to

defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff has filed

three motions of his own: (1) a motion to certify a

class pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; (2

a motion to strike defendant’s motion to dismiss; and

(3) a motion for leave to file a surreply to

defendant’s motion to dismiss. All of the motions are

now ripe for decision by this Court.

Plaintiff moves to strike defendant’s motion to

dismiss on the basis that it was untimely filed. He

argues that defendant received plaintiff's compiaint

on November 6, 2008, and defendant was therefore

required to answer or otherwise respond to the

complaint by January 5, 2009. Pl.’s Mot. Strike Def.’s

Mot. Dismiss at 1. The record, however, makes clear

that defendant informed both plaintiff and this Court

that the complaint was not properly served on

November 6, 2008, because the initial documents

received by the U.S. Attorney of the District of

Columbia’s civil process clerk lacked an appropriate

summons. See Notice of Correction of Date of

Service of Summons & Compl. (filed Jan. 5, 2009).

Defendant’s notice is sufficient to demonstrate that

February 13, 2009, not January 5, 2009, was the due

date for defendant’s answer to the complaint. See

Guthery v. United States, 507 F. Supp. 2d 111, 115

(D.D.C. 2007) (holding that the plaintiff’s service of

process was deficient “because he does not appear to

have complied with the requirement in [Federal] Rule

fof Civil Procedure] 4(i)(1)(A) by having a copy of the

summons and complaint mailed via certified or

registered mail to the ‘civil process clerk’ at the U.S.

Attorney’s Office”). Plaintiff’s motion to strike is

therefore denied.

Turning to defendant’s motion to dismiss, the

Court agrees with defendant that plaintiff has failed

to allege an injury in fact sufficient to confer

standing. To satisfy the case or controversy

requirement under Article III, a plaintiff must show

that (1) he has suffered a concrete and particularized

injury that is actual or imminent not merely

conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly

traceable to the challenged action of the defendant;

and (3) the injury is redressable by a favorable

decision of this Court. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders

of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Plaintiff's

“nebulous allegations of hypothetical injuries based

on federal policies” fail to meet this standard. Def.’s

Mot. at 8; see, e.g., Lujan, 504 U.S. at 574

(reiterating the well established principle that “to

entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial

power to determine the validity of executive or

legislative action he must show that he has sustained

or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct

injury as the result of that action” (internal

quotation marks omitted)); J. Roderick MacArthur

Found. v. FBI, 102 F. 3d 600, 606 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

(“It is not enough for the [plaintiff] to assert that

[he] might suffer an injury in the future, or even that

[he] is likely to suffer an injury at some unknown

future time. Such ‘someday’ injuries are insufficient.”

(citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564)); see also Paige v.

Palm, 161 F. Supp. 2d 26, 29 (D.D.C. 2001) (holding

that a pro se plaintiff's complaint detailing “general

dissatisfaction with the validity of regulations” was

insufficient to establish standing). Indeed, the injury

alleged in plaintiff’s present complaint is even more

generalized than plaintiff's previous complaints that

have been dismissed for lack of standing. Compare

Compl. at 4-6, with Ceminchuk v. Attorney Gen. of

the United States, Civ. No. 02-0229 (D.D.C. Feb. 6,

2002).

Plaintiff's complaint is therefore dismissed pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.” And because plaintiff

2 On March 10 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to file

plaintiff's response to defendant’s reply in support of

defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint and

opposition to plaintiff’s motion to strike. This Court

granted in part and denied in part the motion, explaining

that “any arguments made in response to defendant’s

reply in support of its motion to dismiss” would be

disregarded because plaintiff had neither sought leave to

file a surreply nor shown that the filing of a surreply was

appropriate under the circumstances. See Minute Order

has been repeatedly advised that his failure to

comply with Federal Rule of Procedure 8(a) may

result in dismissal with prejudice, see, e.g.,

Ceminchuk v. Sec’y of Def., 01-1587, Mem. &

Dismissal Order (July 23, 2001), this action will be

dismissed with prejudice. See Brown v. Califano, 75

F.R.D. 497, 499 (D.D.C. 1977). Finally, the Court

notes that plaintiff has been “advised that further

repetitive filings [of the nature presented in his

complaint] may result in the Court’s entry of an

injunction against further filings.” Ceminchuk v.

Attorney Gen. of the United States, Civ. No. 02-0229,

Mem. & Dismissal Order at 3 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 2002)

(citing In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427, 431 (D.C. Cir.

1988)). The Court declines to enter such an

injunction at this time. Nevertheless, plaintiff is

undoubtedly on notice by this time that the Court

will not tolerate further filings of this nature.

For the foregoing reasons, it is by the Court

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to strike and

motion for leave to file a surreply are DENIED; and

(Mar. 17, 2009). Plaintiff then filed a motion for leave to

file a surreply, contending that defendant had raised new

arguments in its reply to the motion to dismiss. The

Court rejects this argument and, for that reason, denies

plaintiff leave to file a surreply. See

it 1s

FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion

to dismiss is GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to

certify is DENIED

AS MOOT; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint

is DISMISSED with prejudice. This is a final

appealable order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

SO ORDERED.

Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan

United States District Judge

July 17, 2009

Lewis v. Rumsfeld, 154 k. Supp. 2d 56, 60 (D.D.C, 2001)

(“The standard for granting a leave to file a surreply is

whether the party making the motion would be unable to

contest matters presented to the court for the first time

in the opposing party's reply.”). Moreover, the Court

notes that even if leave were granted, none of the

arguments presented by plaintiff in his surreply would

affect the analysis presented above.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Articles of Confederation, Article XJ. Canada,

asceding to this confederation, and joining in the

measures of the United States, shall be admitted

into, and entitled to all the advantages of the Union.

And Article IV, Section 1 ... shall be entitled to all

privileges and immunities, ... and shall enjoy therein

all the privileges of trade and commerce. The RICO

statutes (18 U.S.C. Section 1961 et seq.) mention

“interstate or forcign commerce” (18 U.S.C. Section

1962). So either the Articles of Confederation and/or

the RICO statutes are applicable.

There are many bribery and corruption statutes (see

below), Article I], Section IV, The President, Vice

President and all civil Officers of the United States,

shall be removed from office on Impeachment for,

and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high

Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article VI, The Senators and Representatives before

mentioned, and the members of the several State

legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,

both of the United Sates and of the several States,

shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support

this Constitution:

Northwest Ordinance (AN ORDINANCE FOR THE

GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORY OF THE

UNITED STATES NORTHWEST OF THEE RIVER

OHIO): Section 14. It is hereby ordained and

declared, by the authority foresaid, that the following

articles shall be considered as articles of compact,

between the original States and the people and states

in the said territory, and forever remain unalterable,

unless by common consent, to wit

Article Il. The inhabitants of said territory

shall always be entitled to And, in the just

preservation of rights and property, it is understood

and declared, that no law ought ever to be made o1

to have force in the said territory, that shall, in any

manner whatever, interfere with or affect private

contracts, or engapyements, bona fide, and without

fraud previously formed,

STATUTES INVOLVED

Krom the Complaint: p.5. This is brought pursuant to

42 ULS.C. Section 1985 (3) (Depriving persons of

rights or privileges) and/or many other laws

including Sections 1986, 1983, 18 U.S.C Section 1961

et seq., Bivens, the Fifth Gust compensation) and

Fourteenth Amendments and Bribery of the

Constitution, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 through 2000e-

16. Also Sections 320 and 101 of the 1991 Civil

Rights Act (Prohibition against racial discrimination

in the making and enforcement of contracts), and 18

U.S.C. Sections 2, 201, 210, 211, 241, 242 and 595

through 610. Also contempt is an issue, 42 U.S.C.

Section 1995. Sections especially applicable are:

18 United States Code, Section 2. Principals.

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United

States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or

procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which

if directly performed by him or another would be an

offense against the United States, is punishable as a

principal.

18 United States Code, Elections Chapter, Section

599. Promise of appointment by candidate

Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly

promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of

his influence or support for the appointment of any

person to any public or private position or

employment, for the purpose of procuring support in

his candidacy shall be fined under this title or

imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if

the violation was willful, shall be fined under this

title or umprisoned not more than two years, or both.

18 United States Code, Elections Chapter, Section

600. Promise of employment or other benefit for

political activity

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any

employment, position, compensation, contract,

appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made

possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress,

or any special consideration in obtaining any such

benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or

reward for any political activity or for the support of

or Opposition to any candidate or any political party

in connection with any gencral or special election to

any political office, or in connection with any

primary election or political convention or caucus

held to select candidates for any political office, shall

be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than

one year, or both.

18 United States Code Section 1961 et seq. (RICO):

Section 1961 includes “bribery” and, as

explained in Salinas vy. United States (118 S.Ct. 469)

on page 476, “any act ... involving bribery which is

chargeable under state law ...”. An example of a state

law would be the California Election law (see below).

Section 1962 mentions “interstate or foreign

commerce”.

28 U.S.C. § 455 (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate

judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in

any proceeding in which his impartiality might

reasonably be questioned ...

42 United States Code, Section 1987 Presecution of

violation of certain laws.

The United States attorneys, marshals, and deputy

marshals, the United States magistrate judges

appointed by the district and territorial courts, with

power to arrest, imprison, or bail offenders, and

every other officer who is especialivy empowered by

the President, are authorized and required, at the

expense of the United States, to institute

prosecutions against all persons violating any of the

provisions of section 1990 of this title or of sections

5506 to 5516 and 5518 to 5532 of the Revised

Statutes, and to cause such persons to be arrested,

and imprisoned or bailed, for trial before the court of

the United States or the territorial court having

cognizance of the offense.

The notes in the USCS L.Ed books to 42

U.S.C. Section 1987 point to Section 600 and other

sections of the criminal code.

42 United States Code, Section 2000e-2()),

Preferential treatment not tc be granted on account

of existing number or percentage imbalance.

Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be

interpreted to require any employer, employment

agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management

committee subject to this subchapter to grant

preferential treatment to any individual or to any

group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or

national origin of such individual or group on

account of an imbalance which may exist with

respect to the total number or percentage of persons

of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin

employed by any employer, referred or classified for

employment by any employment agency or labor

organization, admitted to membership or classified

by any labor organization, or admitted to. or

e 'e b

employed in, any apprenticeship or other training

program, in comparison with the total number or

percentage of persons of such race, color, religion,

sex, or national origin in any community, State,

section, or other area, or in the available work force

in any community, State, section, or other area.

California Election law, Section 18520 which says:

18520. A person shall not directly or through

another person give, offer, or promise any office,

place, or employment, or promise to procure or

endeavor to procure any office, place, or employment

to or for any voter, or to or for any other person, in

order to induce that voter at any election to:

(a) Refrain from voting.

(b) Vote for any particular person.

person.

A violation of any of the provisions of this

section shall be punishable by imprisonment in the

state prison for 16 months or two or three years.

18 U.S.C. Section 210. Offer to procure appointive

public office. Whoever pays or offers or promises any

money or thing of value, to any person, firm, or

corporation in consideration of the use or promise to

use any influence to procure any appointive office or

place under the United States for any person, shall

be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not

more than one year, or both.

18 U.S.C. Section 211. Acceptance or solicitation to

obtain appointive public office. Whoever solicits or

receives, either as a political contribution, or for

personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in

consideration of the promise of support. or use of

influence in obtaining for any person any appointive

office or place under the United States, shall be

fined under this title or imprisoned not more than

one year, or both.

Whoever solicits or receives anv thing of value in

consideration of aiding a person to obtain

employment under the United States either by

referring his name to an executive department or

agency of the United States or by requiring the

payment of a fee because such person has secured

such employment shall be fined under this title, or

imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This

section shall noi apply to such services rendered by

an employment agency pursuant to the written

request of an executive department or agency of the

United States.

18 U.S.C. Section 242. Deprivation of rights under

color of law. Whoever, under color of any law,

statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully

subjects any person in any State, Territory,

Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of

the United States, or to different punishments, pains,

or penalties, on account of such person being an

alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are

prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be

fined under this title or imprisoned not more than

one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from

the acts committed in violation of this section or if

such acts include the use, attempted use, or

threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or

fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not

more than ten years, or both; and if death results

from the acts committed in violation of this section

or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to

kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to

commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to

kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for

op’

any term of years or for life, or both, or may be

sentenced to death.

18 U.S.C. Section 601. Deprivation of employment or

other benefit for political contribution. (a) Whoever,

directly or indirectly, knowingly causes or attempts

to cause any person to make a contribution of a

thing of value (including services) for the benefit of

any candidate or any political party, by means of the

denial or deprivation, or the threat of the denial or

deprivation, of (1) any employment, position, or work

in or for any agency or other entity of the

Government of the United States, a State, or a

political subdivision of a State, or any compensation

or benefit of such employment, position, or work; or

(2) any payment or benefit of a program of the

United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a

State; if such employment, position, work,

compensation, payment, or benefit is provided for or

made possible in whole or in part by an Act of

Congress, shall be fined under this title, or

imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(b) As used in this section -

(1) the term "candidate" means an individual who

seeks nomination for election, or election, to Federal,

State, or local office, whether or not such individual

is elected, and, for purposes of this paragraph, an

individual shall be deemed to seek nomination for

election, or election, to Federal, State, or local office,

if he has (A) taken the action necessary under the

law of a State to qualify himself for nomination for

election, or election, or (B) received contributions or

made expenditures, or has given his consent for any

other person to receive contributions or make

expenditures, with a view to bringing about his

nomination for election, or election, to such office;

(2) the term "election" means (A) a general, special

primary, or runoff election, (B) a convention or

caucus of a political party held to nominate a

candidate, (C) a primary election held for the

selection of delegates to a nominating convention of

a political party, (D) a primary election held for the

expression of a preference for the nomination of

persons for election to the office of President, and

(E) the election of delegates to a constitutional

convention for proposing amendments to the

Constitution of the United States or of any State;

and

(3) the term "State" means a State of the United

States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the

United States.

42 U.S.C. Section 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with

civil rights (2) Obstructing justice; intimidating

party, witness, or juror. If two or more persons in

any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force,

intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any

court of the United States from attending such court,

or from testifying to any matter pending therein,

freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or

witness in his person or property on account of his

having so attended or testified, or to influence the

verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or

petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror

in his person or property on account of any verdict,

presentment, or indictment lawfwly assented to by

him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if

two or more persons conspire for the purpose of

impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any

manner, the due course of justice in any State or

Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal

protection of the laws, or to injure him or his

property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to

enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons,

to the equal protection of the laws;

(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

If two or more persons in any State or Territory

conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the

premises of another, for the purpose of depriving,

either directly or indirectly, any person or class of

persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of

equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or

for the purpose of preventing or hindering the

constituted authorities of any State or Territory from

giving or securing to all persons within such State or

Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two

or more persons conspire to prevent by force,

intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully

entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy

in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election

of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for

President or Vice President, or as a Member of

Congress of the United States; or to injure any

citizen in person or property on account of such

support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set

forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged

therein do, or cause to be done, any act in

furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby

another is injured in his person or property, or

deprived of having and exercising any right or

privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party

so injured or deprived may have an action for the

recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or

deprivation, against any one or more of the

conspirators.

42 U.S.C. Section 1988. Proceedings in vindication of

civil rights (a) Applicability of statutory and

common law. The jurisdiction in civil and criminal

matters conferred on the district courts by the

provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised

Statutes for the protection of all persons in the

United States in their civil rights, and for their

vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in

conformity with the laws of the United States, so far

as such laws are suitable to carry the same into

effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to

the object, or are deficient in the provisions

necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish

offenses against law, the common law, as modified

and changed by the constitution and statutes of the

State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such

civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is

not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of

the United States, shall be extended to and govern

the said courts in the trial and disposition of the

cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the

infliction of punishment on the party found guilty.

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.