Preview
HIRH Prince William Bullock 1]] Stewart© (ABA # 02803628) FILE D
c/o PO Box 694
SanJose, CA 95106 'ZIIIB FEB [3 A l0 l8
Tele: (408) 217-4426
ForPetitioner/Plaimiff 03%,?“ ?{FCTOHUER§%gRCTA
w
I
cou Y0.-
anygACLARA
Y L_DEPUTY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA — Civil Unlimited Division
10 191 N. First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
11
HIRH Prince William Bullock 1H ) Case N0. 18-CV-321862
Stewafl©’ thgnaflfral lwmg man’ )
12 Stewart /vs/ Barbadillo, et al
etltloner
)
l3 /vs/ .
Garry D. Barbadiuo, SBN 261799, (private )
1' FIRST AMENDED C°mP'?'"‘ f"
l4 Monetary Relief — By Petitioner
capacity);
Rajeev Kumar Madnawat, SBN 244855,
)
HIRH Prince William BuHOCk 1H
) Stewart©’s
(private capacity);
Timothy A. Griswold, SBN 258001, )2 .Petitioner HIRH Prince William
Bullock III Stewart©’s Complaint
(private capacity); 1
for Injunctive Relief (related case
Kenneth Cleon Brooks, SBN 167792, )
(private capacity);
inCounty of Santa Cla'ra, Case
) No. 17EA000128, Stewart v.
Defendants
Madnawat)
20 )3
Note to Court Clerk: 18 U.S. Code § )3 Petitioner HIRH Prince William
2] Bullock III Stewart©’s Complaint
2071 _c°ncea'ment removal or '
for Declaratory Relief )
22 mutilation efiera"
——g—-——¥. ‘
.Verification
(a) Whoever wnlIfuIIy and unlawfully 1: . .
23 S'SUPportmg Dedarat‘on as part Of
conceals removes mutilates )
-
Complaint
24 obhterates, or destro s, or attem ts to )
[California Code ofCiv11Procedure
25
do SO, or, with Wen); to do SO ?akes
-
)
§ 397, mandatory removal, not
and carries away any record,
26
-
)
discretionary; Ca11fom1a Ev1dence Code
ggoccuenfig'nntg’
or
rget‘fier 5%); filggpeor} §§ 451, 452(c), 452(d), California Penal
27
Code; §§ 76 FELONY threats against a
' ' )
ORlGINAL
28 Page 1 /2
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV-321862
deposited with any clerk or officer of public official (see police report SJ
)
any court of the United States, or in )#2017-173269507,453-,422-1 422 PC
any public office, or with any judicial or CRIMINAL THREATS Federal Rules
)
public officer of the United States, ofCivilProcedure,rule 7(b), 16,26thru
shall fined under this title or
be )
45; RICO Statutes, Threats Against
imprisoned not more than three years, )
Public Officials pursuant to California
or both. Penal Code; Harassing Calls; Title 28
)
USC § 1443; Title 18 USC §§ 241, 242,
)
1512; Title 42 USC §§ 1983, 1985,
) 1986, 1988] .
I.
Introduction and Opening Statement
This is an action brought by Plaintiff against federal officials acting under the
color of law, for civil rights violations, elder abuse including threats of battery and
threats against life, conspiracy, stalking, harassment, restraint of trade, racketeering
influenced corrupt organization; conspiracy to deprive civil rights; extortion under
color of law, and racketeering wire and mail fraud; fiaud through deception. At all
times relevant herein, the Defendants, all federal officials acting under the color of
law and outside the scope of their jurisdiction and authority, willfully caused Plaintiff
a damage and in so doing violated clearly established law as those laws apply t0
Plaintiffs rights protected under the Constitution, paflicularly under the 4m, 5m, 7m, 8m
19
and 14m Amendments. Be it known that each federal official herein has sworn an oath
20
of office in regards to their duties, and therefore each of the acts under color of federal
2|
law is in direct violation of their oath of office and equates to criminal conspiracy
22
under Title 42 U.S.C. section 1985. Further federal officials refused to protect
23
Plaintiffs rights as an elder disabled individuai; and the 4m, 5‘“, 8‘1‘ and 14m
24
Amendments of the federal Constitution 0f 1787, as previewed by the state.
25
Defendant Madnawat made threats of physical battery in harassing phone
26
voicemails, Defendant Gfiswold made death threats to go afier Plaintiff’s jugular,
27
28 Page 2 I 28
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV-321862
Defendant Barbadillo denied Plaintifi‘ s disabilities and protections under the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Act, refused to address Plaintiff’ s
name as established in official acts of government pursuant to FRCP rule 9(d), Cal‘ R.
of Evid. 452(c) and 453; Kenneth Cleon Brooks was the proximate cause of all the
harassment and threats against Plaintiff, as the first caller.
II.
Jurisdiction and Venue
1., Plaintiff brings this action pursuant t0 Title 42 U.S.C. sections 1.983, 1985,
1986, 1988;
10 2. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the American’s with Disabilities Act;
ll
3. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. sections 1964(a) and (c),
12 Racketeering civi1 remedies, including wire fraud, and mail fraud.
13
4. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.
l4 sections 1343(a)(1), 1343(a)(3) and 1343(a)(4), and;
15
5. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. section
16 1331 federal question mising out of the Constitution and the laws of the United
,
17 States, specifically involving the Supremacy Clause, and the 4m, 5m, 7th, 8m, and 14m
18 Amendments, and;
19 6. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to the 14m Amendment,
20 and;
21 7. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this court as a federal question pursuant to
22 Title 42 section 1983, and;
23 8. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this court as a federal question pursuant to
24
pursuant to Title 42 section 1985, and;
9. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this court, as a federal question pursuant to
25
26
pursuant to Title 42 section 1986, and;
27
28 Page 3 l 28
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV-321862
10. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction 0f this court, as a federal question pursuant to
pursuant to Title 42 section 1988, and;
11. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to the civil rights act of
1870;
12. P1aintiff invokes thejurisdiction. of this court pursuant to the state harassing
phone calls statutes, and;
13. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this court pursuant t0 the state harassing
phone calls statutes, 422-1 422 PC CRIMINAL THREATS, and;
14. Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this court pursuant to the state PENAL
10 CODE 76 FELONY threats against a public official (see police report SJ #2017—
ll 173269507, and;
12 15. At a11 times re1evant, a11 of the causes of action in this comp1aint were
committed within the geographical jurisdiction 0f this court.
14 III.
15 PARTIES
16 16. Plaintiff His 1mperia1 and Royal Highness Prince William Bullock HI
17 Stewajt©, aka HI&RH Prince William Bullock III Stewart ©, hereinafter referred to
18 as Prince William©, 0r Prince. At a11 times relevant herein, Plaintiff Prince William©
l9 has lived in the city of San Jose, in Ca1ifomia state.
20 17. Prince William© has lived in the California area since 1994.
21 1.8. Plaintiff has standing to sue 0n behalf and in the name of the UNITED
22 STATES, pursuant to his standing as a Private Attorney General, pursuant to the civil
23 rights statutes of Title 42 U.S.C.1988.
24 19. P1aintiff has standing to sue under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 0f
25 1945, an Act of Congress, which establishes Plaintiff, as a current or former UNITED
26 NATIONS OFFICER — due to his oath of office as a current or former Notary Public
27 of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation.
28 Page 4 I 28
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV-321862
20. Defendant Rajeev Kumar Madnawat, SBN 244855; hereinafier referred t0 as
Madnawat, at all times relevant to this complaint, was and is residing and working in
this judicial district. Defendant Madnawat, conducts business at 16 Coming Ave.,
#1 36, Milpitas, CA 95035. Madnawat is a member of the California branch of the
British Accreditation Registry (BAR) but is being sued in his private capacity,
21. Defendant Timothy A. Griswold, SBN 25800] ,
hereinafter referred to as
Griswold, at all times relevant to this complaint, was working in this judicial district.
Defendant Griswold, conducts business at l6 Corning Ave., #136, Milpitas, CA
95035 Griswold admits that he is employed as a JAG officer, for the US Air Force
Reserve, or California Air National Guard. Griswold is a member of the California
branch 0f the British Accreditation Registry (BAR) but is being sued in his private
l2 capacity,
l3 22. Defendant Garry D. Barbadillo, SBN 261799, hereinafter referred to as
l4 Barbadillo, at all times relevant to this complaint, was working in this judicial district.
15 Defendant Barbadillo, conducts business at 16 Coming Ave, #136, Milpitas, CA
l6 95035. Barbadillo is a member of the California branch of the British Accreditation
l7 Registry (BAR) but is being sued in his private capacity,
l8 23. Defendant Kenneth Cleon Brooks, SBN 167792, hereinafter referred to as
\9 Brooks, at all times relevant to this complaint, was working in this judicial district.
20 Defendant Brooks, conducts business at 16 Corning Ave., #136, Milpitas, CA 95035.
21 Brooks is a member 0f the California branch of the British Accreditation Registry
22 (BAR) but is being sued in his private capacity,
23 24. All parties are sued “jointly and severally.”
24 25. All parties who are unnamed or identified by their title, last name and place of
25 work, will be more fully identified as such information becomes available to the
26 Plaintiff. Those individuals are being sued in their private capacities and in their
27 public capacities until otherwise specified.
28 Page 5 I 28
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV-321862
26. At all relevant times, each Defendant was acting as the agent, servant, and
employee 0f every other Defendant.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA )
Comes now your Affiant: HI&RH Prince William Bullock III Stewart©.
27. Your Affiant makes these statements under oath.
28. Your Affiant states as follows:
29. Your Afiant makes this affidavit in the CITY OF SAN JOSE, COUNTY OF SANTA
IO
CLARA, on Jan. 22, 2018.
ll
30. Your Affiant states that the facts described herein describe events that have occurred
12
within the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
l3
3 1. Your Affiant states that my style, as recognized in official acts of government
14
pursuant to FRCP Rule 9(d), including acts of the U.S. Veterans Admjnistration, the
15
International Monetary Fund, the U.S. Dept. ofHousing and Urban Development, the
l6
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, the STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE
l7
SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR
l8
VEHICLES, is recognized as HI&RH Prince William Bullock III Stewart©.
\9
IV.
20
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
21
32. Your Affiant repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations and
22
other information in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as fully set forth herein.
23
33. Your Affiant states that he never met any of the four Defendants in the instant
24
case, prior to a call by Defendant Brooks and a series of calls and text messages by
25
Defendant Madnawat, on November 2 l 201 7. ,
26
34. Your Affiant states that the Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution of 1787,
27
called Article VI paragraph 2, establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law
28 Page 6 I 28
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV—321862
generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.
35. Your Affiant states that case law supporting the Supremacy Clause ofthe federal
Constitution of 1787 includes: McCulloc/z v. Magland, 17 US 316 (1819) If any one
proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be
this -- that the Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within
its sphere of action. This would seem to result necessarily fiom its nature. It is the
Government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all.
Though any one State may be willing to control, its operations, no State is willing to allow
others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily
10
bind’its component parts. But this question is not left to mere reason; the people have, in
express tenns, decided it by saying, "this Constitution, and the laws of the United States,
ll
which shall be made in pursuance thereof," "shall be the supreme law of the land," and by
requiring that the members ofthe State legislatures and the officers of the executive and
l3
judicial departments ofthe States shall take the oath of fidelity to it. The Government of
14
the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme, and its laws, when made
IS
in pursuance ofthe Constitution, form the supreme law ofthe 1and, "anything in the
l6
Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
17
36. Your Affiant states that the Supremacy Clause ofthe federal Constitution of 1787,
18
called Article VI paragraph 2, is a well established law.
l9
37. Your Affiant states that Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) states in relevant
20
part “that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other
21
departments, are bound by that instrument.”
22
38. Your Affiant states thatMarbuIy v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) is well established
23‘
case law that has never been overturned.
24
39. Your Affiant states that the Plaintiff relies on the 4m, 5th, 7m, and 14th Amendments
25
of the federal Constitution, which supersede all state law and local code, as authority for
26
this complaint.
27
28 Page 7 I 28
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV-321 862
40. Your Affiant states that the 4m, 5m, 7m, and 14m Amendments of the federal
Constitution, are each well established law.
41. Your Afliant states that the Plaintiff holds the title Pn'vate Attorney General, as
stated on his American BAR Association branch of the Bn'tish Accreditation Registry
(BAR) card.
42. The position of Private Attorney General was created by Title 42 United States
Code section 1988, voted in by the Congress of the United States.
43. Your Affiant states that the Plaintiff holds the title of LAWYER, as stated on his
American BAR Association branch of the Bn'tish Accreditation Registry (BAR) card.
10
44. Your Afiant states that the Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the above
mentioned federal laws, Constitutional, statutory and case laws, would be enforced and
l]
12
obeyed by each of the Defendants in this case.
45. Your Affiant states that each of the four Defendants in the instant case took an
oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of California.
14
15
46. Your Affiant states that the California BAR Association is the equivalent of a trade
union.
16
17
47. Your Affiant states that the Defendant members ofthe California BAR
Association are involved in RICO restraint of trade, of American BAR members.
18
48. Your Affiant states that the courts are in genera] paid for with public funds.
19
49. Your Affiant states that the state BAR associations have sought to establish
20
monopolies on state legislatures, state courts and judiciaries, and state executive branches
21
of government.
22
50. Your Afliant states that Defendants BarbadJ'Ho and Griswold in conversations after
23
the fact,excuse the commission of a felony threat by Defendant Madnawat against
24
Plaintifi Stewart, wherein Madnawat threatened to put his fist in Plaintiff Stewart’s
25
mouth.
26
27
28 Page 8 I 28
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV-321862
5 1. Your Affiant states that Defendant Griswold later threatened to g0 for Plaintiff
Stewart’s jugular, to his 3rd party process sewer (see Affidavit of McCash).
52. Your Affiant states that making threats against individuals because of claimed
violations of law is called “vigilanti-ism”.
53. Your Affiant states that Plaintiff Stewart is a California State Commissioned
Notary Public in good standing, as described in San Jose Police Report #SJ 2017-
173269507.
54. Your Affiant states that the United States Supreme Court has ruled, in Compton v.
STATE OF ALABAMA, 214 U.S. 1 (1909), a ruling that has never been overturned and
which is controlling upon this court and every court in California, that all state
10
commissioned Notary Publics in good standing are ex officio Magistrates, and ex officio
ll
Justices ofthe Peace.
12
55. Your Affiant states that Plaintiff Stewait holds the office of ex officio Magistrate,
and ex officio Justice of the Peace.
56. Your Affiant states that when Defendant Madnawat made threats to put his fist in
Plaintifl Stewart’s mouth, Defendant Madnawat became in violation of felony California
Penal Code 76 (see San Jose Police Report #SJ 2017-]73269507.)
57. Your Affiant states that when Defendant Griswold made threats that he was going
l9
to go after Plaintiff Stewart’s jugular (which is a death threat), to Plaintist process
20
server, Defendant Griswold became in violation of felony California Penal Code 76 (San
Jose Police Report #SJ 2017-173269507.)
21
22
58. Your Affiant states that when Defendant Barbadillo accepted money to threaten,
23
harass, intimidate, fiighten, terrorize, federal witness Plaintiff Stewart, Barbadillo became
24
an accessory, and in violation of California Penal Code 76 (see email fiom Brooks
25
offering to return the money to Barbadillo fiom Delaney).
59. Your Affiant states that when Defendant Brooks accepted money to threaten,
26
harass, intimidate, frighten, terrorize, federal witness PlaintiiT Stewart, Brooks became an
27
28 Page 9 I 28
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV-321862
accessoxy, and in violation of California Penal Code 76 (see email from Brooks offering
t0 return the money to Barbadillo from Delaney).
60. Your Affiant states that Plaintiff Stewart is a federal witness pursuant to Title l8
U.S.C. section 1512.
6]. Your Affiant states that when Defendant Madnawat made threats t0 put his fist in
Plaintiff Stewart’s mouth, Defendant Madnawat became in violation of RICO
(Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization) Title l8 U.S.C. section 1512.
62. Your Affiant states thét when Defendant Griswold made threats that he was going
to go after Plaintiff Stewart’s jugular (which is a death threat), to Plaintiff’s process
10
server, Defendant (‘n’iswold became in violation of RICO (Racketeering Influenced
Corrupt Organization) Title 18 U.S.C. section 1512.
ll
12
63. Your Affiant states that when Defendant Barbadillo accepted money to threaten,
harass, intimidate, fiighten, terrorize, federal witness Plaintiff Stewart, Barbadillo became
an accessory, and became in violation of RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt
Organization) Title 18 U.S.C. section 1512.
64. Your Affiant states that when Defendant Brooks accepted money to threaten,
l6
harass, intimidate, fn'ghten, terrorize, federal witness Plaintiff Stewart, Brooks became an
l7
accessory, and became in violation of RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt
l8
Organization) Title 18 U.S.C. section 1512.
l9
65. Your Affiant states that he never met nor heard of the Defendants Madnawat,
20
Griswold, Barbadillo and Brooks, prior to one threatening call from Brooks.
2|
66. Your Affiant states that Brooks is the believed proximate cause of a1] subsequent
22
threatening and .harassive behavior by the four attorneys and members of the Califomia
23
BAR Association against Plaintiff.
24
67. Your Affiant states that immediately after receiving the phone call fiom Brooks, a
25
series of four threatening voice mails and four threatening messages were made to
26
Plaintiff made by Madnawat.
27
28 Page 10 I 28
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV-321 862
68. Your Affiant states that in one of the calls from Madnawat, Madnawat threatened
to put his fist in Plaintiff‘s mouth.
69. Your Affiant states that Madnawat called Plaintiffs mother a whore.
70. Your Affiant states that Madnawat ridiculed Plaintiff's ancestry.
71. Your Affiant states that the four Defendants are believed to have acted in
conspiracy.
72. Your Affiant states that Gn'swold admitted in a phone call on or about January 5,
2018, that Brooks was present during the threatening calls made by Madnawat.
73. Your Affiant states that a1] of the Defendants share the same 1aw office address as
10
listed in their CalBAR membership lookups.
1]
74. Your Affiant states that Emy Snyder states that she introduced William Delaney,
1r., to the Milpitas attorneys.
12
75. Your Affiant is informed and believes that the four Defendants sought to poach
William Delaney, Jr., as a law client.
76. Your Affiant is informed and believes that William Delaney, Jr., sought to conceal
his failure to timely answer an unrelated court case.
l6
77. Your Affiant is informed and believes that William Delaney, Jr., misrepresented
l7
his relationship with Plaintiff Stewart herein to the Defendants in the case sub judice.
18
78. Your Affiant states that Plaintiff Stewart only made approximately two “special
l9
appearances” pursuant to the Special Rules of Admiralty rule 8(E) for Delaney’s
20
corporation, and n_ot as it’s attorney of record, out of sympathy for Delaney’s
21
predicament that he (Delaney) had no corporate attorney, was caught in a bind, and
22
falsely represented that he (Delaney) cou1d not afford a corporate attorney.
23
79. Your Affiant states that Plaintiff Stewart provided legal research for William
24
Delaney, Jr, because a minister Gene Paed, the son of William Delaney, Jr.’s girlfriend,
25
Emy Snyder, asked for assistance.
26
27
28 Page 11 I 28
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV-321862
80. Your Affiant states that William Delaney, Jr., is a convicted felon in the STATE
OF CALIFORNIA.
81. Your Affiant states that a convicted felon is considered a liar under the 1aw for the
purpose of testimony.
82. Your Affiant was threatened with a death threat by Defendant Gn'swo1d if P1aintiff
herein included Griswold in the case sub judice.
83. Your Affiant states that Defendant Barbadillo falsely claimed that Plaintiff herein
was not disabled and did not fall under the e1der abuse statutes, so as to get his officemate
Defendant Madnawat’s temporary restraining order dismissed and Defendant
Madnawat’s firearms released.
10
ll
84. Your Affiant states that the release of Madnawat’s firearms back to Madnawat
shocks the conscience.
12
85. Your Affiant states that he is a disabled service connected veteran with a fulltime
l3
live-in care giver.
86. Your Affiant states that Defendant Barbadillo is a witness to the instant case and
15
therefore cannot act as an attorney for Defendant Madnawat pursuant t0 the Attorney
16
Witness rule.
17
87. Your Affiant states that Defendant Barbadillo is accused of violations of law in the
18
case sub judice.
19
88. Your Affiant states that Defendant Barbadillo has an ethical conflict of interest in
20
defending Defendant Madnawat.
21
89. Your Affiant states that Plaintiff Stewart obj ects to Defendant Barbadillo acting as
22
an attomey for any other Defendant in the case sub judice due to disqua1ification for
23
cause, as a conflict of interest pursuant to the ethics code.
24
90. Your Affiant has experienced a 4th, 5m and 14m Amendment violation of due
25
process by Defendant Barbadillo acting in concert with the other Defendants and as an
26
attorney for other Defendants in the instant case, including setting hearings so as to not
27
28 Page 12 l 28
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV-321862
allow Plaintiff Stewart to adequately prepare his prosecution, and therefore Plaintiff has
an absolute right to be paid damages.
91. Your Affiant states that the STATE and its cohort of all other Defendants have
3rd
conspired and continued to harass Plaintiff Stewan and Plaintiff Stewart’s party
process sewer Tania Rosemary McCash, to discourage Plaintiff Stewan’s right to free
speech and right to due process.
92. Your Affiant states that the Defendants in the instant case worked in concert to
violate the above stated, well established laws, in order terrorize, frighten, harass,
threaten, and restrain trade.
93. Your Affiant states that the court may not reach for other definitions when a
definition is plain.
94. Your Affiant states the following law:
American Jurisprudence Book 16: Constitution Law Section
1 6Am Jur 2d:
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 97:
“Then a constitution should receive a literal interpretation in favor of the
Citizen, is especially true, with respect to those provisions which were
designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the Citizen in regard to
”
person and property. Bary v. United States — 273 US 128
“Any constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be
19
liberally construed in favor in the clearly intended and expressly
20
designated beneficiary”
21 (Note: Plaintiff herein is the Beneficiary of the US Constitution)
22
95. Y0ur Affiant states the following law:
23
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 98:
24
“While an emergency can not create power and no emergencyjustif/‘es
25 the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution or
States Constitutions. Public emergency such as economic depression
26
for especially liberal construction of constitutional powers and it has
27 been declared that because of national emergency, it is the policy of the
28 Page 13 / 28
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV-321862
courts of times of national peril, so liberally to construed the special
powers vested in the chief executive as to sustain an effectuate the
purpose there of, and to that end also more liberally to construed the
constituted division and classification of the powers of the coordinate
branches of the government and in so far as may not be clearly
"
inconsistent with the constitution.
(Note: No emergency has just cause to suppress the constitution.)
96. Your Affiant states the following law:
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 117:
“Various facts of circumstances extrinsic to the constitution are often
resorted by the courts, to aid them and determining its meaning, as
to,
previously noted however, such extrinsic aids may not be resorted to
l0
where the provision in the question is clear and unambiguous in such a
ll
case the courts must apply the terms of the constitution as written and
12
they are not at liberty to search for meanings beyond the instrument.”
l3
97. Your Affiant states the following SUPREME COURT case law which has never
14
been overturned:
15
Owen Independence 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 1398: (1982)
v.
16 Main v. Thiboutot 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 2502: (1982)
“The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color
l7
of law, of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the United
18 States and comes claims which are based solely on statutory violations
of Federal Law and applied to the claim that claimants had been
19
”
deprived of their rights, in some capacity, to which they were entitled.
20
21
98. Your Affiant states the following SUPREME COURT case law which has never
been overturned:
22
23 Bryars v. United States 273USR 28:
“Constitutional provisions, where the security of a person and property
24
are to be liberally construed, and it is the duty of the courts to be
25 watchful for the constitutional rights of the Citizen and against any
stealth encroachment therein. When a Federal Officer participates
26
officially with a state official in a search, so that in substance and effect,
27 it is theirjoint operation, the legality of the search and the use in
28 Page 14 I 28
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV-321862
evidence of the things seized is to be tested in Federal prosecutions as
”
it would be if the undertaking were conclusively the Federal agent.
99. Your Affiant states the following SUPREME COURT case law which has never
been overturned:
Boyd United States 116 USR 616:
v.
“The Court is to protect against encroachment of constitutionality or
secured liberty. It is equivalent to a compulsory production of papers, to
make the non - production of them a confession of the allegations which
ispretended t
hey will prove. The seizure of compensatory production of a man’s
private papers to be used in evidence against him is equivalent to
compelling him to be a witness against himself, violation of the fifth
amendment, and in a prosecution for a crime, penalty or forfeiture is
”
equally within the prohibition of the fifth amendment.
100. Your Affiant states the following SUPREME COURT case law which has never
been overturned:
Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425:
”An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no
duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal
”
contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed.
101. Your Affiant states the following TEXAS law which is foreig1 law, admitted
under the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution of 1787:
20
TEXAS CONSTITUTION Article 1 Section 19 states .'
2]
No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property,
22 privileges or immunities, orin any manner disfranchised, except by the
23
due course of the law of the land.
24 Texas State Law on Larceny & Extortion Section 31.01 (a) :
25
Creating or confirming by words or conduct, a false impression of law or
fact that is likely to affect the judgement of another, in the transaction
26
102. Your Affiant states that Plaintiff had no other taxable earnings in 2006.
27
28 Page 15 / 28
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV-321862
103. Your Affiant states that the Plaintiff possesses the status of an. American national,
Title 8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(21), with citizenship in the California Republic, as distinct from
the STATE OF CALIFORNIA municipal corporation.
104. Your Affiant states that the undersigned is not a UNITED STATES citizen.
105. Your Affiant had a reasonable expectation that the STA TE and or STA TE officials
I
would not violate Plaintiffs civil rights;
106. Your Affiant states that a1] named Defendants are each employees and/or agents of
'
the STATE.
107. Your Affiant states that all of the Defendants in this case, were given public notice
10
in the public record of Plaintist damage fee schedule.
l]
108. Your Affiant states that a11 the Defendants in this case, are attorneys.
12
109. Your Affiant states that attorneys search the public records all the time,
particularly someone that they intend to harass, threaten or sue.
1 10. Your Affiant states that the Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the
Plaintiff's civil rights to due process 4m, 5m, and 14m Amendments would not be violated.
111. Your Affiant states that the Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the Plaintiffs
civil rights to trial by jury 7m Amendment would not be violated.
1 12. Your Affiant states that the Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that the Plaintiffs
i
civil rights to equal protection 14m Amendment would not be violated.
‘9
71h
11.3. Your Affiant states that the 4”], 51h, and 14th Amendments, Amendment, 14m
20
.
Amendment, are well established law.
21
1 14. Your Affiant states that the federal RICO statutes for wire fraud, mail fraud, and
22
for fraud, are well established law.
23
115. Your Affiant states that there is a nexus between the Plaintiff and each of the
24
Defendants in the instant case through the Defendant’s violation, conspiracy to violate,
25
failure to enforce, or attempted deprivation of Plaintist rights as guaranteed by the 4m,
26
5m, and 14m Amendments, 7m Amendment, 14m Amendment.
27
28 Page 16 I 28
1st Amended Complaint Case #18-CV-321862
116. Your Affiant states that there is a nexus between the Plaintiff and each ofthe
Defendants in the instant case through the Defendant’s violation, conspiracy to violate,
failure to enforce, or attempted deprivation of Plaintist rights as guaranteed by the
federal RICO statutes for wire fraud, mail fraud, robbery; and for fraud.
117. Your Affiant states that the aforementioned laws guaranteeing the civil rights of
Plaintiff were violated when the Defendants, acting in concert, did threaten, terrorize,
3rd
insult, harass, fn'ghten, insult, and stalk, Plaintiff and Plaintiffs paIty process server.
118. Your Affiant states that all the Defendants should have had a subjective knowledge
that threaten, harass, frighten, insult, and terrorize, Plaintiff Stewart, was a violation of
each ofthe laws cited.
119. Your Affiant states that any objectively reasonable attorney would have known
that threaten, harass, frighten, insult, terrorize, Plaintiff Stewart, for either money from
William Delaney, Jr., or pursuant to vigilanti justice, was a violation ofthe elder abuse
statutes, was not reasonable, and was in violation of each of the aforementioned laws, and
therefore under similar circumstances not threaten, harass, fi'ighten, insult, the Plaintiff.
120. Your Affiant states that each and every one of the Defendants was operating under
16
color of law.
l7
12]. Your Affiant st