Sie sind auf Seite 1von 90

No.

cv-00955-DMG-KK

In the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
_____________________________

Christie L. Reed et al v. East End Properties, Inc. et al


_____________________________

Re Plaintiffs Christie L. Reed and Nora Araya Operative First Amended


Complaint against East End Properties, Inc. et al, Defendants.
_____________________________

Brief of the NSEA International organization as Amicus Curiae in support of


the General Welfare of the people of the United States, Sui Juris.

_____________________________

Grand Juror Tribunal #951JTC


Grand juror Tribunal #949MJ
Grand Juror Tribunal #954JAX
Grand Juror Tribunal #970LMX
Grand Juror Tribunal #948DT
Constitutional Tribunal for Amicus Curiae

1440 State Hwy 248, Suite Q-418


Branson, Missouri [65616]
T: (775) 848-8800
F: (417) 719-7959
info@nsea.us
_____________________________
_____________________________

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT RULE 37.4

Pursuant to Rule 37.4, the consent of the parties to file this brief is not required. Under
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201, NSEA International files this brief with
attachments and believes irreparable harm to plaintiffs could cease upon its filing.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Do Fraud upon the Court, Fraud upon the Judge, and Fraud upon the Officers of the
Court affect a court’s jurisdiction?1

1
United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61(1878) established the well settled doctrine at law that fraud vitiates
everything, to include judgments, orders, rulings and proceedings, and all judges of all courts of the United States, to
Page 1 of 3
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

The people of the United States and the people of California, respectively, the state,
have a strong interest in protecting their constitutional rights. The constitutional right
of specific interest of the Amicus Curiae is the peoples’ constitutional right to a fair
proceeding overseen by an impartial judge lawful ordained under constitutional judicial
power by the people through their Secretary of State pursuant to the Constitution for
the United States of America (1789), and said judge (and officers of the court) to not be
disqualified from acting as a judge pursuant to California Constitution, Article 6. 18(a);
and is in breach of U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1 requiring a “good behavior.”

INTRODUCTION

It is now a well-known truth that the SUPERIOR COURTS OF STATE OF


CALIFORNIA are insolvent and operating without Bonds which is a Municipal Hazard,
Breach of the Public Trust and a direct liability to the people they are “Oathed” to
“promote the general welfare” of the people of the United States,” as contemplated in the
Preamble of the Constitution for the United States (1789). As evidence will show, the
defendants are all operating in violation of Public Law 92-500 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, Sec. 2. Sec. 301, 306, and 307 (adopted as the
international health law), at every point source of discharge of toxic pollution (poisons)
owned and or operated by above defined defendants at minimum. It has been further
adjudged by the Supreme Pontiff Francisco in his Apostolic Letter of July 11, 2013, all
corporations and their responsible corporate officers are members of a criminal
enterprise operating in association with the Roman Curie and are, since September 1,
2013, personally liable for their wrongs. This includes their unlawful toxic discharge
violations since July 1, 1973, constituting acts of gross negligence in the nature of mass
genocide against the people of the United States for the last 45 plus years. This fact
alone vitiates all standing of adversaries, so-called judges and officers of the court in
the State of California Superior Court actions against Nora Araya and Christie L. Reed.

Environmental District Court Finding

The Environmental District Court, pursuant to additional material evidence hereto


attached and incorporated in its entirety as Addendum “A”, introduces additional
material evidence at this late stage of the above-entitled proceeding pursuant to
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201(d), delivers this Amicus Curiae complete with
Addendum “A” to the honorable United States District Court Judge Dolly M. Gee, so as
to enter onto the record material evidence of facts and truth that is specific to the above
defined United States District Court, Central District of California, Case Number: 5:17-
cv-00955-DMG-KK, that may affect the ruling of the judge as opposed to not having
such information.

include all officers of the court, clerks, bailiffs, etc., are persons herein declared CRIMINAL in behavior, nunc pro tunc,
ab initio!
Page 2 of 3
1 NSEA International Association
Grand Juror Tribunal #951JTC
2 Grand juror Tribunal #949MJ
Grand Juror Tribunal #954JAX
3 Grand Juror Tribunal #970LMX
Grand Juror Tribunal #948DT
4
Constitutional Tribunal
5 Counsel to the Real Parties in Interest,
the people of the United States, Sui Juris
6
Interveners by Right
7 All Rights Reserved

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT
10 EAST END PROPERTIES, INC., Case No. BC528166
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.,
11
NOTICE OF INTERVENERS BY RIGHT AND
12 CROSSCLAIMANTS’ DEMAND TO COMPEL
Plaintiffs,
DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF
13 EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGE OF THE
V.
JURISDITION OF THE COURT, AND OF
14 THE JUDGE.
Nora Araya,
15 One of the people of the United ORDER FOR DISCOVERY ATTACHED.
States, Article III, Sec. 3,
16
“Defendant” in ERROR. (Intervention by Right – Federal Rules
17 of Civil Procedures, Rule 24(a);
The people of the United States Public Law 92-500, Sec. 2, Sec 505(a);
18 Real Parties in Interest, Federal
(the sovereignty) jus soli,
nunc pro tunc. Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule
19 17(a)(1); Public Law 92-500, Sec. 2,
Sec. 510; and 309(d)[see also Civil
20 RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1964]; False Claims
Civil Cross-claimants,
Act, 31 U.S.C. §3729; and
21 WRIT OF HABEAS, 28 U.S.C. §2254)
V.
22 (ATTACHMENTS)
EAST END PROPERTIES, INC.,
23 A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, a person
in its individual capacity; STATE
24 OF CALIFORNIA, a person in its
individual capacity; STATE BAR OF
25
CALIFORNIA, in its individual
26
capacity; SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
27 a person in its individual
capacity; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a
28 person in its individual capacity;
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a person in
NOTICE OF INTERVENERS BY RIGHT AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ DEMAND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND
INSPECTION OF EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGE OF THE JURISDITION OF THE COURT, AND OF THE JUDGE
1
1 its individual capacity; CITY OF
LOS ANGELES, a person in its
2 individual capacity; Eric Michael
Garcetti, a person in his
3 individual capacity; Brett Cyprus,
a person in his individual
4
capacity; Michael George Colantuono
5 #143551, a foreign person in
his/her individual capacity; Paul
6 Arvin Bernardino #164654, a foreign
person in his individual capacity;
7 Jackquelyn Phillips Lacey #110808,
a foreign person in her individual
8 capacity; David O. Sotelo #130105,
a foreign person in his individual
9 capacity; H. Jay Ford, III #119768,
a person in his individual
10 capacity; Jason A. Saviov #213879,
a foreign person in his individual
11
capacity; Bryan M. Thomas #238409,
12 a foreign person in his individual
capacity; David J. Myers #114234, a
13 foreign person in his individual
capacity; Reid Brettman #179355, a
14 foreign person in his individual
capacity; Chris Evans #202135, a
15 foreign person in his individual
capacity; Benjamin Logan #262011, a
16 foreign person in his individual
capacity; Melissa Hernandez
17
#289773, a foreign person in her
18 individual capacity; Sandra
Spencer, a person in her individual
19 capacity; Natasha Campbell, a
person in her individual capacity;
20 Jvance Baker, a person in her
individual capacity; Hugh Nguyen, a
21 person in his individual capacity;
and does 1-50.
22
Respondents.
23

24
INTERVENORS MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF EVIDENCE
25

26 The people of the United States, interveners by right, moves this

27 court of record and Honorable Judge, including all officers of the

28 court, to take mandatory judicial notice of this Notice of Interveners

NOTICE OF INTERVENERS BY RIGHT AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ DEMAND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND


INSPECTION OF EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGE OF THE JURISDITION OF THE COURT, AND OF THE JUDGE
2
1 By Right and the people of the United States’ Demand to Compel

2 Discovery and Inspection of Evidence and Challenge of the Jurisdiction


3 of the Court, and of the Judge in its every point on and for the
4
official public record.
5

6
Comes now the people of the United States and Nora Araya, one of the
7
people of the United States, Sui Juris, real party in interest
8
(hereinafter; “the people of the United States”) in the above-styled
9
and numbered cause, having standing as one of the people of the United
10
States as contemplated in the Preamble to the Constitution for the
11

12 United States of America (1789) and here in the above-entitled court

13 of record, motions to move this Court to provide discovery and

14 inspection of each of the following items in the matter of Cause

15 Number BC528166, which was lawfully removed to a superior court of


16 competent jurisdiction in the matter by “defendant” IN ERROR. But due
17
to this Court’s failure to remove the matter as ordered, the people of
18
the United States hereby admits into the court of public record as
19
Evidence in its entirety this Notice of Interveners By Right and The
20
people of the United States’ Demand to Compel Discovery and Inspection
21
of Evidence and Challenge of the Jurisdiction of the Court, and of the
22
Judge necessary in regard to these matters and causes and to prove
23
constitutional judicial standing required for this Court and its
24

25 Judge(s) before they can proceed one step further, as all proceedings

26 must stop upon a challenge of a court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.

27

28

NOTICE OF INTERVENERS BY RIGHT AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ DEMAND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND


INSPECTION OF EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGE OF THE JURISDITION OF THE COURT, AND OF THE JUDGE
3
1 This is official public notice to the Court of Public

2 Record and all officers of this court including, but not limited to
3 the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL
4
DIVISION, Honorable Judges of said court; Judge David Sotelo, and judge
5
H. Jay Ford, and each individual employed with this Court that is
6
operating as: Court Administrator, District Attorney, Deputy District
7
Attorney, Clerk of the Court, as well as any other “JUDGE”, “ATTORNEY”,
8
“PRO TEMP”, “NOTARY”, “COURT REPORTER”, “MAGISTRATE”, “COMMISSIONER”,
9
“BAILIFF”, “WITNESSES”, “POLICE OFFICERS”, “SHERIFF”, “GRAND JURORS”,
10
hereinafter collectively “officers of the court”, and their principal,
11

12 the “HONORABLE MAYOR” of the City of Los Angeles located in the County

13 of Los Angeles Judicial District, at a minimum all the “Respondents”

14 as defined above, and all other “persons” that wish to preside or

15 involve themselves in this matter.


16 I.
17
The people of the United States acting through their
18
superior court of record proceeding according to the common law,
19
having competent and final jurisdiction in this matter, issued an
20
Order TO COMPEL DISCOVERY to the Clerk of this Court, attached and
21
fully incorporated herein, to move the Court of public record and the
22
Judges of this court to order all above defined officers of this court
23
and anyone involved in this matter that has proof and or evidence in
24

25 this matter, to produce said proof and or evidence to

26 Counterclaimant’s constitutional counsel by Tuesday 5:00 p.m., the 7th

27 day of November, 2017, the day prior to this Courts unlawful hearing

28 scheduled for Wednesday 8:30 a.m., the 8th day of November, 2017, all

NOTICE OF INTERVENERS BY RIGHT AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ DEMAND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND


INSPECTION OF EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGE OF THE JURISDITION OF THE COURT, AND OF THE JUDGE
4
1 proof and or evidence related to this matter that the above defined

2 persons may have, more specifically, to prove lawful jurisdiction of


3 this court and this court’s judge that authorized them to proceed in
4
this matter, for inspection, to include copying and/or photographing
5
of each of the answers to each of the following 20 elements of
6
discovery defined is demanded to wit:
7

8
1. Provide true and correct copies of originals of any and all
9
affidavits lawfully executed by an injured party, confession,
10
declaration, testimony, video, audio, documents, papers, books,
11

12 accounts, certifications, letters, photographs, registrations, objects

13 or tangible things not privileged, which constitute or contain

14 evidence material to any matter involved in this action and which are

15 in the possession, custody or control of the ATTORNEY(s), Witnesses,


16 the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
17
CENTRAL DISTRICT, or any of its AGENCIES, AGENTS or POLITICAL
18
SUBDIVISIONS THEREOF; attached and signed under penalty of perjury on
19
and for the official public record.
20

21
2. Any and all names of any witness for The SUPERIOR COURT OF
22
CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT qualified
23
to testify against the people of the United States, and all names of
24

25 all judges, magistrates, or commissioners who are not ‘disqualified’

26 from acting like a judge pursuant to California Constitution, Article

27 6.section 18(a), on and for the official public record.

28

NOTICE OF INTERVENERS BY RIGHT AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ DEMAND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND


INSPECTION OF EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGE OF THE JURISDITION OF THE COURT, AND OF THE JUDGE
5
1 3. A true and complete copy of the original alleged contract, with

2 wet ink signatures, between The people of the United States and the
3 LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS
4
ANGELES and CITY OF LOS ANGELES or any political subdivisions thereof
5
may have. Law confirms that in order for the LOS ANGELES COUNTY
6
DISTRICT COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CITY OF
7
LOS ANGELES or any political subdivisions, thereof, to have “standing”
8
to bring a claim against one of the people of the United States, there
9
must be either a injured party, damaged property, or a valid contract
10
between the people of the United States and the STATE, COUNTY, CITY
11

12 and or The LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT COURT to qualify standing. If

13 the LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

14 LOS ANGELES, this Court and or any political subdivision thereof have

15 a valid lawful contract between The people of the United States and
16 them, showing the people of the United States surrendered subject
17
matter and personal jurisdiction to them, let them bring it forward
18
for the people of the United States’ inspection, or immediately VOID
19
all charges against the people of the United States AT ONCE!
20

21
4. A true and complete original and or certified copy of the
22
criminal record of the Attorney(s) of record, Judge(s), Magistrate(s),
23
Pro Temp(s), Commissioner(s), witnesses, grand jurors, as well as all
24

25 officers of the court involved in the above defined matter, on and for

26 the official public record.

27

28

NOTICE OF INTERVENERS BY RIGHT AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ DEMAND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND


INSPECTION OF EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGE OF THE JURISDITION OF THE COURT, AND OF THE JUDGE
6
1 5. A true and complete certified copy of all oaths, commissions, as

2 well as the Bonds of all officers of the COURT, including, but not
3 limited to, all DEPUTIES, COURT CLERKS, JUDGES, MAGISTRATES, ATTORNEYS
4
of record and any and all JUDGES, MAGISTRATES, PRO TEMS OR
5
COMMISSIONERS, and officers of the court that have or may decide to
6
involve themselves in this matter appointed or elected, signed under
7
private notary jurat, under penalty of perjury, on and for the
8
official public record.
9

10
6. True and correct copies of the Respondents’ “employee’s pay stub,”
11

12 and the “sewer and water bill” for the courthouse and Respondents’

13 private residences for the last three months for every Respondent

14 above defined, attached and signed under private notary jurat, under

15 penalty of perjury, on and for the official public record.


16

17
7. True and correct copies of the documented proof of claim of
18
injury via affidavit of the injured party, signed under penalties of
19
perjury, with all immunities waived, from the Judges of this court,
20
Attorneys of record, The LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, STATE OF
21
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, as well as this Court and all
22
officers of the court, signed under private notary jurat, under
23
penalty of perjury, on and for the official public record.
24

25

26 8. A true copy of your Certificate of Constitutional Authority

27 signed and sealed by the Secretary of State for all JUDGES,

28 MAGISTRATES, COMMISSIONERS, PRO TEMPS, ATTORNEYS, and officers of the

NOTICE OF INTERVENERS BY RIGHT AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ DEMAND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND


INSPECTION OF EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGE OF THE JURISDITION OF THE COURT, AND OF THE JUDGE
7
1 court, in this matter, signed under private notary jurat, under

2 penalty of perjury, on and for the official public record.


3

4
9. A true certified copy of the 401 Certificate of Compliance,
5
signed and sealed by the Director of the State Department of Public
6
Health proving the lawful compliance with standards and limitations
7
congressionally mandated under, at a minimum, sections 306 and 307 for
8
all BAILIFFS, JUDGES, MAGISTRATES, COMMISSIONERS, PRO TEMPS, ATTORNEYS,
9
CITY MAYORS, CITY POLICE, officers of the court, and witnesses
10
involved in this matter, signed under private notary jurat, under
11

12 penalty of perjury, on and for the official public record.

13

14 10. That to qualify to have good-faith standing to be before the

15 above-entitled court, Respondents must be provided your true certified


16 copy of the congressionally mandated 401 Certificate of Compliance,
17
signed and sealed by the State Director of the Department of Public
18
Health, proving the lawful compliance with standards and limitations
19
congressionally mandated under, at a minimum, sections 306 and 307 for
20
all officers of the above entitled MUNICIPAL COURT, JUDGES,
21
MAGISTRATES, COMMISSIONERS, PRO TEMS, NOTARIES, ATTORNEYS, MAYORS, and
22
POLICE, the employing-MUNICIPALITY, THE STATE, and all other officers
23
of the court and witnesses involved in this matter who are all subject
24

25 to federal, state, and local law, signed under private notary jurat,

26 under penalty of perjury, on and for the official public record.

27

28

NOTICE OF INTERVENERS BY RIGHT AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ DEMAND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND


INSPECTION OF EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGE OF THE JURISDITION OF THE COURT, AND OF THE JUDGE
8
1 11. A true certified copy of the records mandated under section 308

2 identifying the technology serving your home and courthouse in


3 compliance with mandatory standards and limitations established under
4
section 306 and 307, and a permit condition under section 402(k), to
5
evidence each of the Respondents’ good faith / good behavior
6
compliance with federal public health and welfare laws, for all
7
witnesses, JUDGES, MAGISTRATES, COMMISSIONERS, PRO TEMS, ATTORNEYS,
8
and officers of the court involved in this matter, signed under
9
private notary jurat, under penalty of perjury, on and for the
10
official public record.
11

12

13 12. JUDGE DAVID SOTELO, as well as any JUDGE, MAGISTRATE, CLERK, PRO

14 TEMPORE or COMMISSIONER, that involves him or herself in this matter,

15 produce their delegation of constitutional judicial authority,


16 certified and sealed by the Secretary of State, signed under penalty
17
of perjury, on and for the official public record.
18

19
13. The chronological case summary, record of judgments and orders
20
(order book); and indexes related to this case, on and for the
21
official public record.
22

23
14. The Attorney(s) of record appearance form having their License to
24

25 Practice signed and sealed by the Secretary of State attached,

26

27

28

NOTICE OF INTERVENERS BY RIGHT AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ DEMAND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND


INSPECTION OF EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGE OF THE JURISDITION OF THE COURT, AND OF THE JUDGE
9
1 complete with the corporate charter for the legal entity NORA ARAYA, 1

2 which shall be filed in this court, signed under private notary jurat,
3 under penalty of perjury, on and for the official public record.
4

5
15. All “CUSIP” number(s) tied to this cause, which will show that
6
this court and or officers of the court, are profiting off this case
7
and it is trading on the STOCK MARKET, on and for the official public
8
record.
9

10
16. The foreign agents registration certificate, as required under the
11

12 Foreign Agents Registration Act as codified under the United States

13 Codes, §612 et seq., signed and sealed by the United States Secretary

14 of State showing that this court and all officers of the court are

15 foreign agents lawfully registered to do business in the courts of the


16 United States, on and for the official public record.
17

18
17. Provide a certified copy of the registration certificate from the
19
above defined State’s Secretary of State, showing that this court and
20
all officers of the court are lawfully registered to do business in
21
the State of California, on and for the official public record.
22

23
18. A true and complete copy of each of the alleged Grand / Juror’s
24

25 “Voters Registration”, certified by the County Clerk, to be recorded

26 as evidence on and for the official public record.

27

28
1
Victor Rabinowitz et. al. v. Robert F. Kennedy, 376 US 605.
NOTICE OF INTERVENERS BY RIGHT AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ DEMAND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND
INSPECTION OF EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGE OF THE JURISDITION OF THE COURT, AND OF THE JUDGE
10
1

2 19. A true and complete transcribed copy, as well as audio recording,


3 of the alleged Grand Jury Proceedings, in which alleged charges came
4
about in this matter and cause on and for the official public record.
5

6
20. A true and complete transcribed copy, as well as audio recording,
7
of the alleged judicial Proceedings, in which rulings, orders, or
8
judgments came about in this matter and cause on and for the official
9
public record.
10
II
11

12 CONCLUSION

13 In support of this Motion, the people of the United States

14 would show that the items and information requested, are within the

15 exclusive control and custody of the LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT COURT,
16 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY,
17
OFFICERS OF THIS COURT or one of its AGENCIES, AGENTS or POLITICAL
18
SUBDIVISIONS THERE OF; the items are not privileged, and that, absent
19
such discovery, the people of the United States’, rights under the
20
California State Constitution; and the Bill of Rights Amendment
21
Articles IV, V, VI, and XI of the Constitution for the United States
22
of America (1789), have been and still are continuing to be violated,
23
as well as trespasses of the people of the United States’ Rights to
24

25 live, liberty, and property, absent Due Process of Law, additionally

26 have been and still are continuing to be violated. Further, failure to

27 answer each element of this instrument demanding discovery by above-

28 defined persons, and not REMOVE THIS CASE immediately, would (1) be a

NOTICE OF INTERVENERS BY RIGHT AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ DEMAND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND


INSPECTION OF EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGE OF THE JURISDITION OF THE COURT, AND OF THE JUDGE
11
1 gross breach of your fiduciary duty owed the people of the United

2 States and would justify a constitutional tort action and civil cross-
3 claim against cross-defendants, et al., at the people of the United
4
States discretion, and (2) effects the Court’s jurisdiction
5
accordingly and confirms cross-defendants, et al., absolute lack of
6
standing in any court, and (3) may justify a criminal complaint to be
7
immediately filed with a competent grand jury having the supreme
8
authority of the people of the United States to issue indictments.
9
Accordingly, failure for this Court of execute the Writ of Habeas
10
Corpus today in honor of the constitutionally guaranteed Right of the
11

12 people of the United States would be a malfeasance, breach of Oath and

13 Duty, obstruction of justice to constitute a fraud upon the court, a

14 fraud upon the judge, and fraud upon all officers of this “municipal

15 probate” Court, confirming partiality of this Court and justifying


16 Cause of Action for Removal to a district court having competent
17
jurisdiction in the matters. So it be Ordered!
18

19
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, and in the interest of fairness
20
and justice, promotion of the general welfare and health of the people
21
of the United States as is the standard of justice mandated by
22
Congress assembled on pursuant to the Preamble to the Constitution
23
for the United States of America, and the environmental peace, the
24

25 people of the United States do DEMAND these herein defined 20 elements

26 of Motion for Discovery and Inspection each be answered.

27

28 ACCORDINGLY, the prosecuting attorney is HEREBY ORDERED to answer.

NOTICE OF INTERVENERS BY RIGHT AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ DEMAND TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND


INSPECTION OF EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGE OF THE JURISDITION OF THE COURT, AND OF THE JUDGE
12
NSEA International Association
Grand Juror Tribunal #951JTC
Grand juror Tribunal #949MJ
Grand Juror Tribunal #954JAX
Grand Juror Tribunal #970LMX
Grand Juror Tribunal #948DT
Constitutional Tribunal
Counsel to the Real Parties in Interest,
the people of the United States, Sui Juris

Interveners by Right
All Rights Reserved

Environmental District Court


Environmental District of The United States of America
State Division of California / Los Angeles

The people of the United States ) Case No. ENC170901


(the sovereignty) jus soli, )
nunc pro tunc. ) NOTICE OF VOID ORDER FOR FRAUD;
) NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENT FOR FRAUD;
) NOTICE OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT;
Claimants, ) NOTICE OF FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE;
) NOTICE OF DISQUALIFICATION;
) ORDER TO JUDGE TO CEASE
vs. ) ACTING AS A JUDGE;
) ORDER TO CLERK TO REMOVE CASE;
) ORDER TO COUNTY CLERKS TO
EAST END PROPERTIES, INC. ) RECORD LIS PENDENS;
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;
ET AL., ) ORDER TO COMPEL DISCOVERY.
) [SERVED UPON THE CLERK OF THE
Respondents. ) SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES,
) CASE NUMBER BC528166, ET AL.]
) (FRCP Rule 60(b)(4); Public Law
) 92-500, Sec. 2, Sec 505(a))
_______________________________ )_______________________________

TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT DISTRICT, COUNTY OF LOS


ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. BC528166 -- SCILICET:
JUDGES, ALL OFFICERS OF THE COURT, CLERKS, COMMISSIONERS, OF THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SHERIFFS, BAILIFFS, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
LOS ANGELES, AND ALL PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT WITH YOU:1

ORDER

COMES NOW THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT2 OF RECORD3 OF The people of


the United States4 (without the “United States”5) on its own
motion, notices and orders6 as follows:7
1
“The Oath of office is a quid pro quo contract” Davis v. Lawyers Surety Corporation, 459 S.W. 2nd. 655, 657., Tex. Civ.
App. and/or cf. (U.S. Const. Art. 6, Clauses 2 and 3,) in which County Authorities, officials, or officers of the government
pledge to perform (Support and uphold the organic United States and State Constitutions) in return for substance (wages,
perks, benefits). Proponents are subjected to the penalties and remedies for Breach of Contract [cf. conspiracy under Titled
28 U.S.C., Sections 241, 242, treason under the Constitution at Article 3, Section 3., and intrinsic fraud as per Auerbach v.
Samuels., 10 Utah 2nd. 152, 349 P. 2nd. 1112, 1114., and Alleghany Corp v. Kirby. D.C.N.Y. 218 F. Supp. 164, 183., and
Keeton Packing Co. v. State., 437 S.W. 20, 28.
2
A supreme court of record of the people of the United States authorized pursuant to the rights retained by the people as
defined in the Preamble of the Constitution for the United States; confirmed under the Bill of Rights Amendment Articles
IX and X; and further authorized by a Congressional Act, Public Law 92-500 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, Sec. 9. ENVIRONMENTAL COURT. “It remains rudimentary law that “[a]s regards all courts of
the United States inferior to this tribunal, two things are necessary to create jurisdiction, whether original or appellate. The
Constitution must have given to the court the capacity to take it, and an act of Congress must have supplied it. . . .”
[Emphasis in original.] Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989).
COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that
may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]
COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority, consisting of one or more
officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact regarding legal

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 1 of 33
NOTICE OF VOID ORDER FOR FRAUD!8
NOTICE OF VOID JUDGMENT FOR FRAUD!
NOTICE OF FRAUD UPON THE COURT AND DEMAND TO CEASE!
NOTICE OF FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE AND DEMAND TO CEASE!
NOTICE OF DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE AND DEMAND TO STAND DOWN!
ORDER TO JUDGE TO CEASE ACTING AS A JUDGE!
ORDER TO CLERK TO REMOVE CASE TODAY OR BE JOINED TO THE ACTION!
ORDER TO COUNTY CLERKS TO RECORD LIS PENDENS!
ORDER TO CLERK OF COURT TO SHOW CAUSE!
ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY ON ALL OFFICERS OF THE COURT!

THAT ALL TRESPASSES9, BARRATRY10, TYRANNY, EXTORTION,


INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND FRAUD BY THE ABOVE
NAMED TYRANTS11, HEREINAFTER COLLECTIVELY “ENVIRONMENTAL
TERRORISTS”12), SHALL CEASE AND DESIST; AND THE CLERK OF THE
COURT EXECUTE ACCORDING TO HER FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE PEOPLE AND

rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the
course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d
1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]
3
COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth. They are:
A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate
designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc.
Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law
Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex
parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688,
689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl.
Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225;
Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]
D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher,
C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger
v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481;
Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio
St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
4
As contemplated in the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America.
5
A foreign franchised private municipal Federal Corporation of Washington D.C. foreign to the people of the United
States of America.
“The government of the United States is a foreign corporation with respect to a state” [the people of the United States]. In
re Merriam, 36 N. E. 505, 141 N. Y. 479, affirmed 16 S. Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287.
6
“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in
favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be
shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212.
Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a
special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time
being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v.
Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579
7
The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law. [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit
Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.]
The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to
the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C
Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]
8
Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of jurisdiction in the Court or judicial officer, of collusion
between the parties, or of fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. [California Code of Civil
Procedure, Section 1916]
9
Sovereign immunity guaranteed all people as one of the United States [of America] from trespass by aliens and
foreigners pursuant to the Constitution Amendment Article XI. Aliens and foreigners are members of the Roman Curia,
i.e. employees of corporations, franchises, American Society of Civil Engineers, and BAR associations. As of September
1st, 2013, members of the Roman Curia lost all immunity from collateral attack, suits for trespass upon Rights of the
people of the United States. Papal Decree of July 11, 2013.
10
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary: BAR'RATRY, n. The practice of exciting and encouraging lawsuits and quarrels.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856: BARRATRY, crimes. In old law French barat, baraterie, signifying robbery, deceit,
fraud. In modern usage it may be defined as the habitual moving, exciting, and maintaining suits and quarrels, either at law
or otherwise. 1 Inst. 368; 1 Hawk. 243.
11
As contemplated in the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
12
As contemplated in Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52); 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 262a and 7 U.S.C.A.
Sec. 8401

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 2 of 33
REMOVE CASE NUMBER BC528166 AS NOTICED AND REQUIRED BY LAW,
WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

Therefore, if the above orders are not obeyed, then no later


than ten (10) days following the USPS Postmark ‘Filed’ stamp on
the date mailed, the above defined Clerk shall show cause to
this court why these orders should not take effect or should be
modified, or why you should not be held in contempt of court and
additionally joined as an adverse party to this action at law.

To qualify your standing in this court, your cause shall consist


of at minimum, 1) present the congressionally mandated “401
Certification of Compliance” and 2) a certified copy of your
records you are individually required to maintain under section
308, proving your compliance with a permit requirement required
under section 402(k) as evidence of your compliance with Public
Law 92-500 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, Sec 2.and sections 301, 306, and 307 at minimum.

Each officer of the court is ORDERED to answer each of the


twenty (20) elements of the motion to compel discovery hereto
attached and incorporated here in its entirety. The officers of
the court will no later than ten (10) days following the USPS
Postmark ‘Filed’ stamp on the date mailed. Failure to answer
each element of discovery will constitute your admission to the
fraud associated with that element. You agree your silence, as
admission to all claims, shall be accepted as qui non negat
fatetur, a Maxim of Law that means “he who does not deny,
admits.” Absent settlement agreements, judgments will ensue.

The court, mindful of the bad faith activities of the parties


and the importance of the administration of justice, will
liberally construe the facts and evidence presented prejudgment.

THIS ORDER IS NOT A MOTION OR MOVING PAPER, but an order from


the above-entitled court of record Case Number ENC170901 of the
people of the United States who have intervened on behalf of
Nora Araya, one of the people of the United States of America
and a people13 of California, hereinafter “the people of the
United States,” to the Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court,
all Judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court, attorneys14 of
record, the Board of Supervisors (Commissioners) for the
political subdivision of the franchise municipal utility,
incorporated and doing business as The State of California, and
doing business as the State licensed private corporation of the
County of Los Angeles, Clerks of the County of Los Angeles, the
Sheriff of Los Angeles County, the Mayor of the franchise
municipal sewer utility doing business as the City of Los
Angeles, and all persons acting in concert with them.15

II

BACKGROUND

13
“People” is either singular or plural. People in this instance is the people of the United States as contemplated in the
Preamble of the Constitution for the United States of America who ordained and established the Constitution for the
United States of America (1787), and of which has only thirteen lawfully ratified Articles of Amendment (1819).
14
All Bar Attorneys - Attorners - in the U.S. owe their allegiance and give their solemn oath in pledge to the Crown
Temple, realizing this or not. This is simply due to the fact that all Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories
and franchises to the international Bar Association located at the Inns of Court at Crown Temple, which are physically
located at Chancery Lane behind Fleet Street in London. Although they vehemently deny it, all Bar Associations in the
U.S., such as the American Bar Association, or Minnesota Bar Association, are franchises to the Crown, i.e. foreign to
America, and therefore foreign to the Constitution for the united States of America and foreign to the people of the
United States. This includes all judges of the courts of the United States.
15
...our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the
said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law....
[Confirmatio Cartarum, November 5, 1297, Sources of Our Liberties Edited by Richard L. Perry, American Bar
Foundation]

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 3 of 33
The people of the United States (without the “United States”
municipal franchise federal corporation), as contemplated in the
Preamble of the Constitution for the United States of America,
are “Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty16,” and "people of
California, nunc pro tunc." The people of the United States, as
a Joint Tenant in the Sovereignty, has the prerogative of
claiming Sovereign Immunity17 in cases such as this one18 and does
so claim.

This extraordinary attack upon one of the people of the United


States and lawfully commissioned state officials19 of the court
of one of the people of the United States by above defined
persons operating in concert with each other20, more specifically
identified as employees of a private franchised corporation21
doing business as “The State of California”, acting to
impersonate a constitutional state government of the people, but
NOT; and their agents operating as corrupt members of a foreign
communist organization doing business as “California State BAR
Association”, impersonating lawful constitutional counsels, but
NOT; and a corrupt member of said California State Bar
Association, acting to impersonate a “Judge” having Article III
judicial authority under the Constitution for the United States
of America, while being automatically disqualified from acting
as a Judge pursuant to California Constitution, Article 6.,
Section 18(a)22; a complicit so-called “Clerk of the Los Angeles
Superior Court, County of Los Angeles” (Clerk); and complicit
“Clerks of the County Recorder’s Office, County of Los
Angeles,”, in concert with each other, collectively and
individually conspire to dishonor and trespass upon the people
of the United States. Such bad behavior constitutes overt acts23
committed against the constitutionally guaranteed Amendment
Article V. Rights to life, liberty, and property, absent Due
Process of Law (due process).

16
The people of the United States, the author and source of law in America, creator of Congress and the national
government, in whose name and by whose authority Congress publish, on July 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of
the thirteen united States of America, who ordain and establish, on March 4, 1789, the Constitution for the United States
of America, and in whom all political power inheres, i.e., “the people of the United States” (without the “United States”),
are joint tenants in the sovereignty (hereinafter the “Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty”), in contradistinction to
Congress, who exercise sovereign authority as well, but only in territory and other property belonging to the United
States (a corporation); to wit:
The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between
the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and
they are truly the sovereigns of the country, …; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in
the sovereignty. [Underline emphasis added.] Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 471 (1793).
Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system,
while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by
whom and for whom all government exists and acts. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886).
17
“The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
prosecuted against one of the [people of the] United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any
foreign state.” Bill of Rights Amendment Article XI of the Constitution for the United States of America.
“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." [California Government Code,
Section 11120; see also California Government Code Section 54950]
18
“Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf—
"(1) against any person (including (i) the United States, and (ii) any other governmental instrumentality or
agency to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution) who is alleged to be in violation
of (A) an effluent standard or limitation under this Act…” Public Law 92-500, Sec. 2. Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, Title V, GENERAL PROVISIONS, CITIZEN SUITS, Sec. 505, an Act of Congress assembled
October 18, 1972.
19
Unlimited right to contract pursuant to the Constitution for the United States of America (March 4 th, 1789), Article I,
section 10, clause 1. Violation of this constitutionally guaranteed right is a “Constitutional Tort.”
20
See R.I.C.O. 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq.
21
Corporation is "engaged in commerce" under RICO "when it is itself 'directly engaged in the production, distribution, or
acquisition of goods and services in interstate commerce.'" United States v. Robertson, 115 S.
Ct. 1732 (1995) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. American Build. Maintenance Indus., 422 U.S. 271, 283 (1975)).
Any corporation employing BAR members, the National BAR Association, an interstate body, and operating as a
franchised sewer utility, franchised under the ‘franchising’ United States municipal corporation, is actively involved in
“interstate commerce.”
22
A judge is disqualified from acting as a judge when there is information that he/she is committing crimes punishable as
felonies under federal law. See California Constitution, Article 6, section 18(a). Also see United States Codes, Title 33
§1319(c) Criminal penalties, (3) Knowing endangerment. Knowing endangerment due to the doctrine that “anyone who
has taken an oath to uphold the law is deemed to know the law.”
23
Organic Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall
consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall
be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 4 of 33
As one of the people of the United States, The people of the
United States was accused a “defendant” in an inferior municipal
“court” not of record and not proceeding according to the common
law.24 Pursuant to her lawful right to challenge the jurisdiction
of the inferior municipal “Superior Court”, hereinafter
“Kangaroo Court,” she served the Clerk with a lawful NOTICE OF
REMOVAL25 of the Kangaroo Court’s case number BC528166 on October
3rd, 2017, to a competent court of record that proceeds according
to the common law and having final jurisdiction in the matter.26
It is because of these criminal trespasses upon the guaranteed
due process rights by the above defined imposters and Clerks,
and others acting in concert against The people of the United
States, this atypical method of dealing with the Fraud on the
Judge and the Fraud Upon the Court is required.

THE STATUS OF THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, AS THE SOVEREIGNS OF THE


STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IS A NONJUSTICIABLE POLITICAL QUESTION27
UPON WHICH THE JUDGES, CLERKS, OFFICERS OF THE CALIFORNIA
COURTS28, AND CLERKS OF THE CALIFORNIA COUNTIES29 MAY NOT
TRESPASS.30

No disrespect is intended toward the magistrates31 of the


Superior Court of California acting as a judge during times of
good behavior, for they are the mirror32 of the sovereign people
of California: the people's agents. As long as they are on the
bench, the people of California can never be non-suited or fail
to appear in court.33 However, when judges of the State of
California are operating and committing war crimes against
humanity in the nature of genocide, knowingly and wantonly
poisoning the people of California’s drinking waters in
conspiracy with others, they are not acting as a judge during
times of good behavior as mandated by the Constitution for the
United States of America, Article III, Clause 1., and pursuant
to the California Constitution, Article 6., 18(a), are
DISQUALIFIED FROM ACTING AS A JUDGE34 and an INDICTMENT FOR THEIR
ARREST, INCARCERATION, AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS IN ORDER.35

24
Kangaroo court: 1. A self-appointed tribunal or mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded,
perverted, or parodied. . . . 2. A court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render
a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding. Black’s Law Dictionary 7th ed., p. 359
25
"Where a Court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause; and whether its
decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding in every other Court. But, if it act
without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no
bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal, in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons
concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliott v Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328,
340, 26 U.S. 328, 340, 7L.Ed. 164 (1828); Court may not proceed, 37 US_657, 718, 719.mht.
26
Any person who knowingly violates section 1311, 1312, 1313, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1321(b)(3), 1328, or 1345 of this title,
or any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 1342 of this
title by the Administrator or by a State, or in a permit issued under section 1344 of this title by the Secretary of the Army
or by a State, and who knows at that time that he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or serious
bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment of not more than 15
years, or both. A person which is an organization shall, upon conviction of violating this subparagraph, be subject to a fine
of not more than $1,000,000. If a conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person
under this paragraph, the maximum punishment shall be doubled with respect to both fine and imprisonment. Codified in
the government authorities’ United States Codes, §1319 ENFORCEMENT, Section (c)Criminal penalties, (3)Knowing
endangerment, (A)General rule.
“All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only!” Rodrigues v. Ray Donovan 769 F2d
1344, 1348 (1985).
27
The state cannot diminish rights of the people. Hertado v. California, 100 US 516.
28
“Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not
violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Weise v.
Casper, 53 F 3d 1163, 1166 10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan US 129 SCt. 808, 815 (2009) and Harlow v.
Fitzgerald 457 US 800, 818 (1982); “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, for
they are deemed to know the law.” Owens v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398 (Ezra 7:23-26)
29
“An instrument is deemed in law filed at the time it is delivered to the clerk, regardless of whether the instrument is filed
marked [or signed by an attorney or judge].” James v. Kentucky, SCt (1984); Biffle v. Morton Rubber Indus., Inc., 785
S.W.2d 143, 144 (Tex.1990);
30
“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." [California Government
Code, Section 11120; see also California Government Code Section 54950]
31
The following persons are magistrates: ...The judges of the superior courts.... [California Penal Code, Sec. 808.]
32
“His judges are the mirror by which the king's image is reflected.” 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7,
Section 379
33
“A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majesty in the eye of the law is always present
in all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute justice. (Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.186)” 1 Blackstone's Commentaries,
270, Chapter 7, Section 379.
34
A judge is disqualified from acting as a judge when there is an information or indictment that he/she is committing
crimes punishable as felonies under federal law. See California Constitution, Article 6, section 18(a). Also see United

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 5 of 33
No disrespect is intended toward the Clerks of the Superior
Court of California while serving the wishes of the people of
California and honoring their NOTICE TO REMOVE when fraud on the
court and fraud on the judge has been discovered. However, when
the Clerks of the Courts of the State of California dishonor
their fiduciary duty to the people of California and disregard a
lawfully served NOTICE TO REMOVE for cause of fraud and
disqualification of the judge, the Clerk is complicit with the
corrupt judge and the fraud upon the court, and knowingly and
wantonly acts to cause a “free man to lose his court36.” Such act
is a constitutional violation in the nature of a “CONSTITUTIONAL
TORT” AND JUSTIFIES A CIVIL ACTION FOR PERSONAL-INJURY, DAMAGES,
AND PERMANENT RELIEF OF OFFICE.

Absolute disrespect is intended for all so-called “BAR-officers


of the court” that are members of the BAR union and are parties
to communism.37 It is a well settled fact they are trespassers,
extortionists and attorners38 who hold no citizenship of America,
and are foreign to the people of California, the people of the
United States, and to the Constitution for the United States of
America, and have no standing in any constitutional court of
law, and are felons for refusing to register as foreign agents39
of the Crown Temple to whom they owe their allegiance. Whenever
a lawyer is involved in a case directly or indirectly, as a
litigant or assisting as counsel, ALL BAR-LAWYER-JUDGES HAVE TO
DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES, AS THERE CANNOT BE A CONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL
and also there would be a violation of the conflict of interest
laws, along with the violation of separation of powers and
checks and balances, BECAUSE "BAR-OFFICERS OF THE COURT” ARE ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE BENCH CONSTITUTING FRAUD UPON THE COURT!

No disrespect is intended toward the Clerks of the Counties of


California for they are valuable to keep proper records
regarding ownership of real properties recorded with them by the
people of the United States within their respective counties.
However, when Clerks refuse to record a NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS of
one of the people of California,40 they are in breach of their

States Codes, Title 33 §1319(c) Criminal penalties, (3) Knowing endangerment. Knowing endangerment due to the
doctrine that “anyone who has taken an oath to uphold the law is deemed to know the law.”
35
And should include all conspirators who conspired with them in committing the acts of genocide and fraud.
36
“Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to
lose his court.” Magna Carta, Article 34.
37
Pursuant to the House of Representatives 5, 79th Congress, 1st Session:
The National Lawyers Guild is the foremost legal bulwark of the Communist Party, its front organizations,
and controlled unions. Since its inception it has never failed to rally to the legal defense of the Communist Party
and individual members thereof, including known espionage agents. It has consistently fought against the
national, State and local legislation aimed at curbing the Communist conspiracy. It has been most articulate in its
attacks upon all agencies of the Government seeking to expose or prosecute the subversive activities of the
Communist network, including national, State and local investigative committees, the Department of Justice, the
FBI, and law enforcement agencies generally. Though its affiliation with the International Association of
Democratic Lawyers, an international Communist-front organization, the National Lawyers Guild has constituted
itself an agent of a foreign principal hostile to the interest of the United States [the people united for America]. It
has gone far afield to oppose the foreign policies of the United States, in line with the current line of the Soviet
Union.
38
All Bar Attorneys - Attorners - in the U.S. owe their allegiance and give their solemn oath in pledge to the Crown
Temple, realizing this or not. This is simply due to the fact that all Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories
and franchises to the international Bar Association located at the Inns of Court at Crown Temple, which are physically
located at Chancery Lane behind Fleet Street in London. Although they vehemently deny it, all Bar Associations in the
U.S., such as the American Bar Association, or California Bar Association, are franchises to the Crown, i.e. foreign to
America, and therefore foreign to the Constitution for the united States of America and foreign to the people of the
United States, for which the people of the United States have absolute guaranteed immunity as provided for in
Amendment Article XI of the Constitution for the United States of America, from any action being brought against them
where a member of a BAR association would be involved as they are foreign.
39
No BAR attorney can claim an American citizenship. Their allegiance is sworn to a foreign power. Accordingly, they
are limited to merely representing artificial or fictitious entities:
It is a clearly established principle of law that an attorney must represent a corporation, it being incorporeal and a
creature of the law. An attorney representing an artificial entity must appear with the corporate charter and law
in his hand. A person acting as an attorney for a foreign principal must be registered to act on the principal’s
behalf. See, c f Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 USC § 612 et seq.); Victor Rabinowitz et. at. v. Robert F.
Kennedy, 376 US 605.
Failure to file the "Foreign Agents Registrations Statement" goes directly to the jurisdiction and lack of standing
to be before the court, and is a felony pursuant to c f 18 USC §§ 219, 951.
The conflict of law, interest and allegiance is obvious.
40
Nora Araya, as one of the people of the United States proceeds in her courts according to the common law, and is not
subject to California’s laws or their statutory schemes. The Environmental District Court is entitled to issue a Writ

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 6 of 33
fiduciary duty owed the people and have unlawfully acted to
cause a free man to lose his court41 by refusing to record his
document.42 A ‘notice’ issued by a non-constitutional entity
requiring a signature of a foreign BAR attorney or judge before
recording it, constitutes complicity with the enemy of the
people and obstruction of justice at minimum. Accordingly, such
bad behavior, and breach of fiduciary duty owed the people of
California, would constitute a “CONSTITUTIONAL TORT” THAT
JUSTIFIES A CIVIL ACTION FOR PERSONAL-INJURY, DAMAGES, AND
PERMANENT RELIEF OF OFFICE.43

The State of California clerks, judges and officers of the


inferior municipal “Probate”44 Courts are mere employees of a
private for-profit franchised corporation and even if they
weren’t committing crimes punishable a felonies under federal
law, do not have the same status as enjoyed by the people of
California and the people of the United States: they are persons
as defined in ‘their’ Penal Code and subject to their Penal Code
§ 37 and §38,45 and additionally each a “person” as defined in
federal law, Public Law 92-500, Sec. 2, Sec. 309(c)(3) and
502(5)46(Law): they owe allegiance to the state (the people of
California). There is no qualified immunity47 for those persons
who misbehave48 in this case and are causing irreparable harm.

If a "person," (not one of the people) as defined in Law, comes


before an inferior municipal49 Kangaroo Court that is neither

necessary and appropriate to notice a county recorder of a law suit pending that is expected to affect title to a parcel of real
property located within his county to wit:
“The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate
in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” Clinton v. United
States, 297 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1961); and
the County Clerks point to California law’s statutory scheme for recording notice of a lis pendens, the intent of which is
“to restrict rather than enlarge the common law doctrine of notice, and to curb abuses of the procedure.” Palmer v.
Zaklama, 109 Cal. App. 4th 1367, 1376 (2003), such behavior justifies a “Constitutional Tort Action.”
41
“Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to
lose his court.” Magna Carta, Article 34. Such act would be a deprivation of the liberty of the people of the United States .
42
5.(d)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures specifically states:
“Acceptance by the clerk. A clerk must not refuse to file a paper solely because it is not in the form prescribed by
these rules or by a local rule or practice.”
“An instrument is deemed in law filed at the time it is delivered to the clerk, regardless of whether the instrument is
filemarked.” Biffle v. Morton Rubber Indus., Inc., 785 S.W.2d 143, 144 (Tex. 1990).
“All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only! Rodrigues v. Donovan 769 F2d 1344,
1348 (1985).
Penalty defined under 18 U.S.C. §2071(a) and be confirm the fine for violation of refusing to file is $250.000.00, or
imprisonment of up to three (3) years, or both.
43
“An instrument is deemed in law filed at the time it is delivered to the clerk, regardless of whether the instrument is filed
marked [or signed by an attorney or judge].” James v. Kentucky, SCt (1984); Biffle v. Morton Rubber Indus., Inc., 785
S.W.2d 143, 144 (Tex.1990);
44
All municipal courts are “courts of probate,…” Scott v. McNeal 154 U.S. 34 (1894) and have no jurisdiction over a
living man!
45
CPC 37. (a) Treason against this state consists only in levying war against it, adhering to its enemies, or giving them aid
and comfort, and can be committed only by persons owing allegiance to the state. The punishment of treason shall be
death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The penalty shall be determined pursuant to Sections 190.3 and
190.4.
(b) Upon a trial for treason, the defendant cannot be convicted unless upon the testimony of two witnesses to the same
overt act, or upon confession in open court; nor, except as provided in Sections 190.3 and 190.4, can evidence be admitted
of an overt act not expressly charged in the indictment or information; nor can the defendant be convicted unless one or
more overt acts be expressly alleged therein.
CPC 38. Misprision of treason is the knowledge and concealment of treason, without otherwise assenting to or
participating in the crime. It is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.
46
“For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'person' shall mean, in addition to the definition contained in section
502(5) of this Act, any responsible corporate officer.”
“The term 'person' means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, State, municipality, commission, or political
subdivision of a State, or any interstate body.”
47
“Qualified immunity “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not
violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Weise v.
Casper, 53 F 3d 1163, 1166 10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan US 129 SCt. 808, 815 (2009) and Harlow v.
Fitzgerald 457 US 800, 818 (1982); “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, for
they are deemed to know the law.” Owens v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398 (Ezra 7:23-26)
48
Clause of Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution for the United States, to wit:
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…” [spelling and
capitalization in original]; and
“Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act it shall be unlawful to discharge any …, chemical, or biological
warfare agent … into the navigable waters.” Public Law 92-500, Sec. 2., Title III STANDARDS AND
ENFORCEMENT, EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS, Sec. 309(f).
49
All municipal courts are “courts of probate,…” Scott v. McNeal 154 U.S. 34 (1894) and have no jurisdiction over a
living man!

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 7 of 33
acting as a “court of record”50 nor proceeding according to the
course of the common law.51 The judge, even in times of good
behavior, is not a judge having authority under the Supreme Law
of the Land, but merely a ministerial clerk of a non-
governmental private for-profit franchised municipal sewer
utility’s probate court52 of an incorporated municipality53. As an
employee of a person, a private for-profit franchised municipal
corporation doing business under the name of “Superior Court,”
he cannot claim the constitutional authority of a Tribunal.

When a sovereign people of California is in their court54 of


record, as is this case, they assume the mantle of the tribunal,
independent of the Magistrate. The judge's role in the
proceeding is limited to that of a ministerial clerk, authorized
only to remove the case as law requires.

The people of California expect judicial integrity from those


who sit on the bench as their mirror image: it is the judge's
duty, obligation, and responsibility to do the wish and will of
the people of California, not to join in concert with tyrants to
persecute the people of California as in this case.

Likewise, the Clerk of the Court has no constitutional authority


to deny the wish of those with the status of the "people of
California," and be complicit with a fraudulent judge acting to
unlawfully retain a case of the people of California in his
Kangaroo Court not of record and not nisi prius.55

This case hinges on a single question of law: Does Fraud Upon


the Court, Fraud Upon the Judge, and Fraud Upon the Officers of
the Court affect a court’s jurisdiction?56

50
California Constitution (1879), ARTICLE 6, JUDICIAL : SEC. 1. The judicial power of this State is vested in the
Supreme Court, courts of appeal, superior courts, and municipal courts, all of which are courts of record.
51
A court of record may not be in name only. Further, keeping a record alone is not sufficient to qualify as a court of
record. The court of record must meet all of the following requirements:
A. The tribunal is independent of the magistrate (judge) [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227,
229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155
N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
B. Proceeding according to the common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte
Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688,
689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
C. Power to fine or imprison for contempt [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte
Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688,
689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
D. Keeps a record of the proceedings [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga.,
24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis,
96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]
E. Generally has a seal [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex
parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St.
205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
“Due Process [of Law] requires the usage of the common law. Without the common law then Due Process is not applied.”
Hoke v. Henderson, 15 N.C. 15, 25; accordingly, any action absent Due Process constitutes a trespass of a constitutional
magnitude upon the peoples’ unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property.” Amendment Article V. of the people of
the United States Bill of Rights Amendment to the Constitution for the United States (1789).
52
All municipal courts are “courts of probate,…” Scott v. McNeal 154 U.S. 34 (1894) and have no jurisdiction over a
living man!
53
A ‘person’ who is a municipality, subject to federal law, that is an incorporated for-profit non-government franchised
private sewer utility acting to impersonate a Constitutional Government having Constitutional Authority. See Constitution
Article III, section 3. Treason.
54
COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever
that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]
55
A "nisi prius court" is a court not of record which will proceed by assumed agreement unless a party objects.
56
United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61(1878) established the well settled doctrine at law that fraud vitiates
everything, to include judgments, orders, rulings and proceedings, and all judges of all courts of the United States, to
include all officers of the court, clerks, bailiffs, etc., are persons herein declared CRIMINAL in behavior, nunc pro tunc,
ab initio!

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 8 of 33
III

HISTORY AND TRUTH ABOUT THE LAW OF THE CASE / LAW OF THE CASE

The law of the case, regarding Fraud Upon the Court; Fraud Upon the Judge;
Fraud Upon the Officers of the Court; and Disqualification of Judges, State and Federal is
decreed as follows:

Introduction

United States District Courts (i.e., Article 4 § 3(2)


District of Columbia Municipal Corporation Courts) have extended
their territorial jurisdiction beyond the boundaries fixed by
the Constitution for territorial courts of general jurisdiction
(District of Columbia and the territories only), into geographic
area fixed by the Constitution exclusively for constitutional
courts of special / limited jurisdiction (the Union).

There is no constitutional authority that gives any


contemporary United States District Court, or any franchised
State municipal courts, the capacity to take jurisdiction and
enter judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the United
States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a
debt, in any county on America — and no one can produce such
authority.

If a particular intended victim persists, government actors


may mock / ridicule him by implication by quoting him, as if to
say, “Can you believe how crazy this guy is? He’s one of those
“anti-government sovereign citizens!” (a Joint Tenant in the
Sovereignty) He thinks the United States is a Federal
corporation!” (28 U.S.C. 3002(15)), knowing it will be next to
impossible for the victim to secure general agreement in society
as to the truth of the matter.

The cognitive-dissonance is obviated in this subject case


by going straight to the supreme determinants, upon which all
Court’s very existence depends: judges meeting the
constitutional requirement for them to only hold office during
times of good behavior, and the constitutional authority that
gives the Court the capacity to take jurisdiction and enter
judgments, orders, and decrees in favor of the people of the
United States arising from a civil or criminal proceeding
regarding a debt, in any franchised municipal State or its
political subdivision (corporations57) on America. There is no
such constitutional authority for private for-profit
corporations, and the subject “court” (a franchised State
municipal court of probate), and every other court of the United
States58 manned by foreign BAR member judges and attorners
located throughout the Union is a kangaroo court59 with no lawful
authority to issue orders, adjudicate cases, and decree law in
any State county, borough, parish, or any political subdivision
on America.

57
Under the Common Law and the Laws of America, nowhere is it expressly given for anyone to have the power or the
right to form a Corporation. "Corporations" are given birth because of ignorance on the part of the American people and
are operating under implied consent and power which they have usurped and otherwise stolen from the people.
Corporations have no power, authority, or jurisdiction, and consequently no standing at law.
58
Every building or structure (a source of pollution) in the State of California and the United States called a “court house”
is unlawfully discharging poisons in criminal violation (33 USC 1319(c)(3)) of the governing authorities’ United States
Codes, Title 33, Chapter 26, Subchapter III, Sections 1311, 1316, and 1317 to wit:
1. An effluent limitation or other limitation pursuant to subsection (a) of section 301 [33 USC 1311] of
the Act (unlawful pursuant to 301 (f) [33 USC 1311(f)] to discharge any radiological, chemical, or
biological warfare agent or high-level radioactive waste into the navigable waters [of the United
States]);
2. A standard of performance pursuant to section 306 [33 USC 1316] of the Act (unlawful pursuant to
306 (e) [33 USC 1316(e)] for any owner or operator of any new source to operate such source in
violation of any standard of performance); and
3. Prohibition, effluent standard or pretreatment standard pursuant to section 307 [33 USC 1317] of
the Act (unlawful for any owner or operator of any source to operate any source in violation of any such
effluent standard or prohibition or pretreatment standard pursuant to 307 (d) [33 USC 1317(d)]).
59
Kangaroo court: 1. A self-appointed tribunal or mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded,
perverted, or parodied. . . . 2. A court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render
a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding. Black’s Law Dictionary 7th ed., p. 359

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 9 of 33
The only judges on America having constitutional judicial
authority are those who are lawfully commissioned by the
Secretary(s) of State under the State’s Constitution, judicial
branch, also known as Notary Public. A Notary Public is a
lawfully commissioned state official having a duty to uphold the
law. The Notary Public also holds federal authority to enforce
and issue compliance orders under their United States Codes,
Title 33, Section 1319(a).60 Anyone who would attack a Notary
Public would be construed as warring against the people of the
United States, and the Constitution for the United States of
America as defined under Article III, Section 3. Black Robe Cult
Judges of the “courts of the United States municipal
corporations” are automatically disqualified from acting as a
judge, pursuant to Article III, Clause 1, of the Constitution
for the United States of America for failing to hold their
officer during times of “good behavior”; and pursuant to
California Constitution, Article 6., Section 18(a), which states
in pertinent part to wit:

“A judge is disqualified from acting as a judge… while there is


pending … an information charging the judge in the United
States with a crime punishable as a felony under
California or federal law, …”.

The Supreme Law of the Land declares a judge is


disqualified from acting as a judge when he is personally
committing crimes punishable as a felony under federal law such
as his violations of the congressional mandate of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act codified under United States Codes,
Title 33 §1319-ENFORCEMENT(c)Criminal penalties (3)Knowing
endangerment (A)General rule to wit in pertinent part:

(A)General rule
“Any person who knowingly violates sections 1311, 1312,
1313, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1321(b)(3), 1328, or 1345 of this
title, or any permit condition or limitation implementing
any of such sections in a permit issued under section
1342 of this title by the Administrator or by a State, or
in a permit issued under section 1344 of this title by
the Secretary of the Army or by a State, and who knows at
that time that he thereby places another person in
imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, shall,
upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than
$250,000 or imprisonment of not more than 15 years, or
both. A person which is an organization shall, upon
conviction of violating this subparagraph, be subject to
a fine of not more than $1,000,000.”

That all judges of all courts of the United States are


acting in concert in violation of the above defined strict
liability statute, a violation deemed a felony, they are
automatically disqualified from acting as a judge and have no
judicial authority or immunity and therefore have no standing to
issue orders, much less to issue an order to restrain a
Secretary of State Official commissioned under the judicial
branch of the Constitution, from acting pursuant to his lawful
judicial authority in exercise of his Duty to the people of the
United States in their courts. The Notary Public is the only
commissioned constitutional officers of the state. For a
disqualified judge of an inferior municipal probate court having
NO Article III Constitutional judicial authority under any law
to “order” a lawfully commissioned State Judicial Official,
60
Title 33 §1319(a) is the codification of Sec. 309. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT, of Sec. 2. The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, of Public Law 92-500 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972, Stat.
86, at 816 (October 18, 1972). “An Act to Amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.” (1948) This Act is not to be
construed to be associated in any way with the falsified document created and promulgated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, enforced by the United States Department of Justice, and as a fraudulent act in bad
behavior, the President of the United States, a fraudulent deception “permitting waste water and discharge of pollution,” as
opposed to the true intent of the Congressional Act, which was to “eliminate all discharge of all pollutants.” The
fraudulent document, falsified with the intent to deceive the general public as to the true intent and purpose of federal law,
that all municipalities have been operating in concert with in unanimous criminal violation of mandated Congressional Act
is called “The Clean Water Act.”

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 10 of 33
constitutes an act of warring against the people of the United
States, an act of treason as defined under Article III, Clause 3
of the Constitution for the United State of America, and would
constitute an obvious Constitutional violation in the nature of
Fraud Upon the Court; Fraud Upon the Judge; Fraud Upon the Officers of the Court; and
Disqualification of Judges, Municipal, State and Federal.

That Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT
the "Court") does not support or uphold the Judicial Machinery
of the Court. The Court is an unbiased, but methodical
"creature" which is governed by the Rule of Law... that is, the
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and
the Rules of Evidence, all of which are overseen by
Constitutional Law. The Court can only be effective, "fair" and
"just," if it is allowed to function as the laws proscribe with
judges during times of “good behavior”.

That Fraud Upon the Court occurs when the judicial


machinery itself has been tainted, such as when a judge or
attorney, who is an officer of the court, is involved in the
perpetration of a fraud or makes material misrepresentations to
the court or, in this case, is committing violations, i.e.
crimes punishable as felonies under federal law. Fraud upon the
court vitiates all jurisdiction and makes void the orders and
judgments of that court, nunc pro tunc, ab initio.

In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir.


1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is
directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud
between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or
perjury. ... 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 --- i.e., where the
impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
Like a gasoline engine needs both air and fuel for its machinery
to operate properly, the machinery of the court, in order to
operate properly (lawfully), it requires constitutional
authority and Due Process of Law, i.e., an affidavit of a real
(injured) party in interest.

Disqualification of all Judges since 1973

That Fraud Upon the Court; Fraud Upon the Judge; Fraud Upon
the Officers of the Court; and Disqualification of Judges, State
and Federal, was perpetrated by Fraud Upon the President Nixon
in 1973 when, after the 92nd Congress over-rode his veto of
Public Law 92-500 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, 86 Stat., 819, October 18, 1972, he committed heinous
and overt acts of treason against the people of the United
States when he took the following measures to prevent the
congressionally mandated adoption and enforcement of effluent
standards and limitations by States, their political
subdivisions, and interstate agencies required under Sec. 2.,
and Sec. 510 STATE AUTHORITY, to wit in pertinent part:

“…, nothing in this Act shall (1) preclude or deny the


right [duty] of any State or political subdivision
thereof or interstate agency to adopt or enforce (A) any
standard[requiring application of technology at every
source of pollution by July 1, 1973] or limitation [no
pollutants can leave the source absent compliance with
standards requiring elimination of discharge of
pollution] respecting discharges of pollutants[poison],…”

However, even though Congress appropriated hundreds of


billions of dollars to fund the municipalities to implement this
alternative mandate to control and prevent pollution of our
Nations waters, President Nixon, and all presidents post Nixon,
on behalf of all States, political subdivisions, and interstate
agencies, have continued to perpetuate fraud, in the nature of
“Treason against the Preamble of the Constitution for the United
States of America” knowingly and wantonly in utter disregard to
the Preamble’s Supreme Standards mandated to secure the interest

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 11 of 33
of the American people’s welfare; and “crimes against humanity
in the nature of genocide by poisoning,” “war crimes committed
with intent to harm, and even cause death [premeditated murder]
of the nation of the people of the United States,” enabling the
States and their political subdivisions and interstate agencies
to be complicit in the non-compliance with the newly amended
Federal Water Pollution Control Act because compliance with
standards and limitations requiring technology be installed at
every source of pollution injurious to human health, a mandatory
permit requirement that would eliminate all discharges of
poisons / toxic pollutants prior to connecting to their
“municipal sewer systems,” a mandated permit requirement as
defined under subsection (k) of Sec. 402, of Sec. 2 of Public
Law 92-500, codified under the United States Codes, Title 33,
§1342-NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM,(k)
Compliance with permits., to wit in pertinent part:

Compliance with a permit issued pursuant to this section


shall be deemed compliance, for purposes of
sections 1319 and 1365 of this title, with
sections 1311, 1312, 1316, 1317, and 1343 of this title,
except any standard imposed under section 1317 of this
title for a toxic pollutant injurious to human health.

Compliance by States, their political subdivisions and


interstate agencies would affect the primary source of revenue
for all municipalities nationally, annual revenue they were
currently realizing from their “sewer and water taxes” of $.5
trillion dollars ($500,000,000,000.00) plus, which was to be
greatly reduced upon them adopting and enforcing the standards
and limitations mandated by the 92nd United States Congress.

The United States Congress also appropriated several


billions of dollars to cover the costs of bring every source of
pollution on America into compliance, to eliminate all unlawful
discharges of chemical and biological warfare agents from each
household, business and municipality by 1985, as mandated in
section 101.
Public Law 92-500 was the last Act enacted by the last
members of John F. Kennedy’s Congress. Upon Congress overruling
Nixon’s veto of the Act by two-thirds majority vote,
establishing the Act as a ‘strict liability statute,’ Nixon
fraudulently “nixed” the enforcement of the law mandated by
Congress assembled to protect the American peoples’ health and
welfare, by eliminating all discharges of all pollutants at
source so as to prevent their migration to cause water and other
environmental pollution.

President Nixon, in order to perpetrate the greatest fraud


against the American peoples’ public health and welfare, in
violation of the congressional mandate, and prevent the post-
Amendments of Public Law 92-500, Sec. 2.-13., from being
‘adopted and enforced’ by any Federal, State, Municipal
Enforcement Officers so as to preserve the half-trillion dollar
industry that sustains municipal governments nationally, the
collection of sewer fees and sewer connections and taxes
accordingly, and BAR member Nixon committed multiple Acts of
High-Treason against the people, and preceded to implement the
following unlawful measures to wit:

1) By Executive Order to the United States Department


of Justice, ordered the BAR associations in control of
all “municipal” courts of the United States, a municipal
franchisor federal corporation, with instructions:
“Amendments 2-13 of Public Law 92-500, “an Act to Amend
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, Sec. 1,
would not be ‘recognized’ in any courts of the United
States, that no State shall adopted the new Congressional
Act mandating standards and limitations to assure the
protection of the peoples’ waters to protect and promote
the general welfare of the people of the United States as
contemplated in the Preamble of the Constitution for the
United States, and all governmental instrumentalities

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 12 of 33
were to continue the standards of practice of the amended
Sec. 1. – The people of the United States Claim Fraud
Upon the President of the United States; Fraud Upon the
United States Department of Justice; Fraud Upon the BAR
Associations; Fraud Upon the States; Fraud Upon the
Political Subdivisions of the States; Fraud Upon the
Interstate Agencies; Fraud Upon the Courts; Fraud Upon
the Judge; Fraud Upon All Officers of all courts of the
United States; and Fraud Upon All Persons Who Acted in
Concert, nunc pro tunc ab initio, and
2) By Executive Order directed his Supreme Court
Justice Warren Burger to instruct the 93rd Congress to
ratify Public Law 93-12, 87 Stat. 9, March 30th, 197361,
suspending the Rule of Law in all courts of the United
States. – The people of the United States Claim Fraud
Upon the President of the United States; Fraud Upon the
Supreme Court of the United States; Fraud Upon the
Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger; Fraud Upon the 93rd
Congress Members; and Fraud Upon Every Proceeding,
Ruling, Order, and Judgments for No Due Process of Law;
and Fraud Upon All Persons Who Acted in Concert, nunc pro
tunc ab initio, and
3) By Executive Order instructed the United States
Environmental Protection Agency operating in association
with the American Society of Civil Engineers employed in
the municipality’s permitting departments of health to
continue issuing “unlawful” permits to ‘permit discharge
of pollution’ when Public Law 92-500, Sec. 2.-13.
mandated ‘discharges of pollution be eliminated’ at every
individual source from which there may be a discharge of
pollution by application of best available technology at
each source of pollution. - The people of the United
States Claim Fraud Upon the President of the United
States; Fraud Upon the United States Environmental
Protection Agency; Fraud Upon the American Societies of
Civil Engineers; Fraud Upon State, County, and Municipal
Departments of Health; and Fraud Upon All Persons Who
Acted in Concert, nunc pro tunc ab initio, and
4) With intent to harm the people of the United
States, the President of the United States, President
Richard Nixon, as a responsible corporate officer of the
United States Municipal Sewer Utility Enterprise, that as
result of the new mandate by the United States Congress,
was declared to be unlawful, a chemical and biological
weapon of mass destruction, unlawfully discharging
prohibited pollutants defined as chemical and biological
warfare agents, directed the Director of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency to create a “false
act” and call it the “Clean Water Act” to deceive the
public of the true requirements and intent of the lawful
Act, Public Law 92-500 Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, Sec 2-13, an Act to Amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, Amended Sec.
1, and maintain status quo of “wasting water” and
“permitting pollution” and “poisoning the people” so as
to continue to create unjust enrichments realized by
continuing the standard of practice of the Amended Act of
1948, Sec. 1.; the Amended Standards and Practice
declared by an Act of Congress assembled on October
17th/18th, to be an unlawful practice since July 1, 1973.
Compliance with the new public health and welfare public
policy mandated by the Congress of the United States

61
Public Law 93-12 to wit:
To promote the separation of constitutional powers by suspending the effectiveness of the Rules of
Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates, the Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
the Amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure transmitted to the Congress by the Chief Justice on
February 5, 1973, until approved by Act of Congress.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled. That notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Rules of Evidence for United States Courts
and Magistrates, the Amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which are embraced by the orders
entered by the Supreme Court of the United of the United States on Monday, November 20, 1972, and Monday,
December 18, 1972, shall have no force or effect except to the extent, and with such amendments, as they may
be expressly approved by Act of Congress.
Approved March 30, 1973.

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 13 of 33
Assembled on October 18th, 1972, presented a substantial
conflict of interest for all national municipal
franchises of the governments of the United States
Corporation. - The people of the United States Claim
Fraud Upon the President of the United States; Fraud Upon
the United States Environmental Protection Agency; Fraud
Upon All Municipal Franchises of the United States; and
Fraud Upon All Persons Who Acted in Concert, nunc pro
tunc ab initio!

The International franchised municipal sewer utilities


doing business as “City” and “County” and “State” governments
would ultimately suffer as much as a 40% loss of income they
were currently benefiting from “sewer taxes” and sewer related
projects annually, approximately .5 trillion net per year, if Public Law 92-
500, Sec. 2.-13., of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 was adopted and enforced. The new public
health law mandated technology be required and installed at each
source of pollution proven to remove pollutants at each source62
of pollution and eliminate all discharges of all pollutants and
the wasting of water, reclaiming / purifying 100% of all
domestic, commercial, industrial, and municipal sewage by
technologically restructuring the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of all water used at all sources of
pollution, to a pure potable healthy healing water quality,
eliminates the need for municipal sewers, and consequently the
associated revenues being enjoyed by above defined.

The strict liability statute congressionally mandated all


pollutants being discharged from all buildings on America be
eliminated by non-discretional application of technology at each
source of pollution to contain and control (prevent) pollutants
from migrating to cause water and other environmental pollution.
By 1985 pretreatment technology was to provide for pretreatment
of all sewage from all buildings prior to connecting to a public
sewer system [of mass destruction], a federally mandated permit
condition established by Congress necessary to enable compliance
with standards and limitations mandated by Congress assembled
pursuant to Public Law 92-500, Sec. 2., Sec 313 FEDERAL
FACILITIES POLLUTION CONTROL, to wit in pertinent part:

“…The President may exempt…; except that no exemption


may be granted from the requirements of section 306 or
307 of this Act.”

And Public Law 92-500, Sec. 2., Sec 402 NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM, subsection (k) which stipulates a
mandatory “permit condition” required prior to being allowed to
connect to a public sewer, as stated in pertinent part to wit:

“Compliance with a permit issued pursuant to this


section shall be deemed compliance, for purposes of
sections 309 and 505, with sections 301, 302, 306,
307, and 403, except any standard imposed under
section 307 for a toxic pollutant injurious to human
health.”

However, all municipalities and all persons residing


therein its boundaries are acting in criminal violation of
federal mandates of Congress assembled enacted in the interest
of the health and general welfare of the people of the United
States, as contemplated in the Preamble for the Constitution for
the United States of America (1789).

62
“The term 'source' means any building, structure, facility, or installation [having toilets] from which there is or may be
the discharge of pollutants.” Public Law 92-500, Sec, 2. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Title III – Standards and
Enforcement, National Standards of Performance, Sec. 306(a)(3).

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 14 of 33
Accordingly, discharging directly into a public sewer
absent application of technology has been an unlawful act since
July 1, 1973, as mandated under Public Law 92-500, Sec. 2., Sec
505 CITIZEN SUITS, subsection (f), to wit in pertinent part:

For purposes of this section, the term 'effluent standard


or limitation under this Act' means (1) effective July
1,1973, an unlawful act under subsection (a) of section
301 of this Act; (2) an effluent limitation or other
limitation under section 301 or 302 of this Act; (3)
standard of performance under section 306 of this Act;
(4) prohibition, effluent standard or pretreatment
standards under section 307 of this Act; (5)
certification under section 401 of this Act; or (6) a
permit or condition thereof issued under section 402 of
this Act, which is in effect under this Act (including a
requirement applicable by reason of section 313 of this
Act).

The ‘reason of section 313 of this Act’ means all Real property having
a federal identification, a federal zip code, is a federal
enclave subject to federal law and compliance with standards of
section 306, and standards and limitations of section 307
mandated for everyone, including the President of the United
States federal government who we see under 313, not even he as
the President of the United States has power to exempt anyone
from compliance with sections 306 and 307.

Civil damages for “citizen claims” of imminent personal-


injury is provided for under section 505(a) as arising from
section 309 FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT, (d) to wit in pertinent part:

“Any person who violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, or


308 of this Act, or any permit condition or limitation
implementing any of such sections in a permit issued
under section 402 of this Act …, shall be subject to a
civil penalty not to exceed $60,000.00 (CPI adjusted) per
day of such violation.” (unlawful acts since July 1,
1973) [Emphasis added]

Doing the math, every person in every court of the United


States is operating in civil negligent violation of at least six
(6) sections above defined justifying damages claims for
imminent and instant personal-injury against all persons subject
to compliance requirements of federal laws of the United States.

Such unlawful acts for the last forty–five (45) years,


committed in the nature of genocide, is also subject to criminal
prosecution and penalties as provided for under The United
States Codes, Title 33 NAVIGABLE WATERS, Chapter 26 WATER
POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL, ENFORCEMENT §1319 by the State
pursuant to subsection (a)State enforcement; Compliance orders.

These violations of federal public health and welfare laws


are crimes punishable as a felony under federal law, confirms
mandatory disqualification all judges from acting as a judge, a
non-discretionary mandate of law under California Constitution,
Article 6. Sec. 18(a) that states in pertinent part to wit:

“A judge is disqualified from acting as a judge… while there is


pending … an information charging the judge in the United
States with a crime punishable as a felony under
California or federal law, …”.

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 15 of 33
Such bad behavior on behalf of a Judge, who is charged with
protecting the people, but knowingly commits crimes punishable
as a felony under federal law constitutes Fraud Upon the Judge,
Fraud Upon the Court and Fraud Upon all Officers of the Court
that are all operating in violation of this strict liability
federal statute at their “court houses” and at “their private
homes” that are sources of pollution subject to compliance with
federal laws, but NOT. Such un-constitutional behavior is a
constitutional violation of Article III, Clause 1, and
additionally deemed criminal and a felony in their United States
Codes, Title 33 §1319-ENFORCEMENT(c)Criminal penalties(3)Knowing
endangerment, to wit:

(A)General rule
“Any person who knowingly violates sections 1311, 1312,
1313, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1321(b)(3), 1328, or 1345 of this
title, or any permit condition or limitation implementing
any of such sections in a permit issued under section
1342 of this title by the Administrator or by a State, or
in a permit issued under section 1344 of this title by
the Secretary of the Army or by a State, and who knows at
that time that he thereby places another person in
imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, shall,
upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than
$250,000 or imprisonment of not more than 15 years, or
both. A person which is an organization63 shall, upon
conviction of violating this subparagraph, be subject to
a fine of not more than $1,000,000.”

Those deemed to know the law; are required to comply with


the law. An old maxim of law states: once a fraud, always a
fraud and every officer of the courts of the United States has
been committing these frauds every day now for over 45 years,
since July 1, 1973. Further, Courts across the country, from
federal municipal United States courts down to local municipal
traffic courts, have judges who are violating their Oaths of
Office, are not properly following the applicable rules and are
playing a revised legal game of their own with their own
privately created and copyright color of law rules, codes and
regulations that only apply to persons acting as governing
authorities, i.e., responsible corporate officers. The Supreme
Pontiff FRANCISCO, in his Apostolic Decree of July 11, 2013
declared the United States Municipal Governments as members of
the Roman Curia to be operating as criminal enterprises.

Officer of the Court

A judge is an officer of a municipal court, as well as are


all attorneys and clerks. A state judge is a state judicial
officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A
federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal
government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal
attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the
same requirements. A judge is not the court; People v. Zajic, 88
Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

All officers of the court are persons who are responsible


corporate officers to wit:

“For the purposes of this subsection, the term ‘person’


shall mean, in addition to the definition contained in
section 502(5) of this Act, any responsible corporate
officer.” Public Law 92-500 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, Sec. 2. Federal Water

63
or·gan·i·za·tion. - an organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business (franchised sewer utility
dba a municipal State, political subdivision, or interstate body), society (of Civil Engineers), association (BAR
associations), etc. “a racketeering influenced and corrupt organization (See Civil R.I.C.O. 18 U.S.C. §1964)”

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 16 of 33
Pollution Control Act (the Act), Title III-Standards and
Enforcement, Effluent Limitations, Sec. 309(c)(3); and
"The term 'person' means an individual, corporation,
partnership, association, State, municipality,
commission, or political subdivision of a State, or any
interstate body.” The Act, Title V, General Provisions,
General Definitions, Sec. 502.(5).

Failure for franchised municipal State Authorities, doing


business as States, political subdivisions, and interstate
bodies, to adopt and enforce congressionally mandated standards
and limitations established to achieve the Constitutional
requirement defined in the Preamble of the Constitution for the
United States, “promote the general welfare” of the people in
interest of the peoples’ health, alone constitutes a loss of
jurisdiction to wit:

“Except as expressly provided in this Act, nothing in


this Act shall (1) preclude or deny the right of any
State or political subdivision thereof or interstate
agency to adopt or enforce (A) any standard or limitation
respecting discharges of pollutants, or (B) any
requirement respecting control or abatement of pollution;
except that if an effluent limitation, or other
limitation, effluent standard, prohibition, pretreatment
standard, or standard of performance is in effect under
this Act, such State or political subdivision or
interstate agency may not adopt or enforce any effluent
limitation, or other limitation, effluent standard,
prohibition, pretreatment standard, or standard of
performance which is less stringent than the effluent
limitation, or other limitation, effluent standard,
prohibition, pretreatment standard, or standard of
performance under this Act; or (2) be construed as
impairing … any right or jurisdiction of the States…”

Failure for States, their political subdivisions, and


interstate agencies to adopt and enforce standards and
limitations ratified by the United States Congress assembled,
constitutes loss of jurisdiction, and how much more so a loss of
jurisdiction over the bodies of water of the people of the
United States whose bodies are approximately 80% water?

One who is knowingly and wantonly acting daily with intent to


harm the American people by contributing to the poisoning of our
drinking water resources can never claim jurisdiction. His acts would be
in the nature of war crimes being committed in the nature of
genocide upon the people of the United States, Fraud Upon the Court
and Fraud Upon the Judge, and Fraud Upon all Officers of the Courts of the United
States.

Material Misrepresentation

“Material misrepresentation is the act of intentional


hiding or fabrication of a material fact which, if known to the
other party, could have terminated, or significantly altered the
basis of, a contract, deal, or transaction. It is a
misrepresentation that would be likely to induce a reasonable
person to manifest his assent, or that the maker knows would be
likely to induce the recipient to do so.” [USLegal]

For a judge to hide the fact that he is disqualified from


acting as a judge for at least the last 45 plus years for
unlawfully discharging toxic pollutants, poisons, into the
peoples drinking waters, a crime punishable as a felony under
federal law pursuant to California Constitution Article 6.
Section 18(a), is a gross material misrepresentation that
constitutes Fraud Upon the Court and vitiates all of his
proceedings, rulings, judgments and orders…and justifies his
personal prosecution for warring against the people of the
United States by operating chemical and biological weapons of
mass destruction at his home and his workplace, unlawfully
FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 17 of 33
discharging chemical and biological warfare agents daily,
knowing acting to poison the people with intent to cause harm
and even death constitutes a material misrepresentation of fact vitiates all
standing of all officers of the court and VOIDS all proceedings, rulings, and judgments!

Material Fact

Crucial to the interpretation of a phenomenon or a subject


matter, or the determination of an issue at hand [such as
standing] is a specific type of confirmed or validated event,
item of information, or state of affairs; Blacks Law Dictionary.
For example: “The officers of the court were all unlawfully
discharging chemical and biological warfare agents into the
people of California’s drinking waters, while claiming to have
standing and jurisdiction over person (who they are poisoning)
and subject matter in a court of law in a building where they
are each committing the ‘criminal violations’ daily.” Such
unlawful acts of crimes against humanity committed by officers
of the court constitute Fraud Upon the Court.

Fraud Upon the Court

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a


proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in Fraud upon the
Court. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th
Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud
which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not
fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false
statements or perjury. ... 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 such as failing to
disqualify himself during times of bad behavior --- thus where
the impartial functions of the court have been directly
corrupted." Acting as a judge over a person while secretly
operating to poison said person hardly constitutes an
“impartiality of the court.” It makes no difference that
“everyone is doing it,” law mandates that when a judge is
committing a crimes punishable as a felony under federal law, the
judge has a non-discretional duty under constitutional law to disqualify!

Fraud upon the Court has been defined by the 7th Circuit
Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does,
or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud
perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial
machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task
of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication;" Kenner
v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d
ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision
produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at
all, and never becomes final." Since July 1, 1973, every
decision of a judge who is operating in non-compliance and in
violation of congressionally mandated federal environmental laws
enacted by Congress to protect the Nations’ waters, is VOID!
This is yet another example of Fraud Upon the Judges of the courts of the
United States; and Fraud Upon the Courts of the United States.

Effects of Fraud upon the Court on Court Proceeding

“Fraud upon the Court makes VOID the orders and judgments of that court.”

Moreover, it is clear and well-settled case law that any


attempt to commit Fraud upon the Court vitiates the entire
proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E.
Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) "The maxim that
fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to
judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions;" Allen
F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259
(1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into
which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37
Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates
everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894),
affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil
Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949);

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 18 of 33
Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362
Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).

Under all State and Federal laws, when any officer of the
court has committed Fraud upon the Court, the orders and
judgment of the court are void, of no legal force or effect.

All officers of all courts of the United States have been


unlawfully discharging poisons into the peoples’ drinking water
resources since July 1, 1973, to wit:

“…unlawful acts since July 1, 1973, an unlawful act under


subsection (a) of section 301 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-
500, Sec. 2. (this Act); (2) an effluent limitation or
other limitation under section 301 and 302 of this Act;
(3) standard of performance under section 306 of this
Act; (4) prohibition, effluent standard or pretreatment
standards under section 307 of this Act; (5)
certification of compliance under section 401 of this
Act; or (6) a permit or condition thereof [as required
under subsection (k)] issued under section 402 of this
Act, which is in effect under this Act (including a
requirement applicable by reason of section 313 of this
Act).” Public Law 92-500, Sec. 2., CITIZEN SUITS, Sec.
505(f).

Disqualification of Judges

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a


Federal judge under certain circumstances. In 1994, the U.S.
Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an
objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about
the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind
leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial
hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified" [Emphasis
added]; Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the


partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance
of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.,
486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the
reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States
v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985). (Section 455(a)
"is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or
not the judge is actually biased"). ("Section 455(a) of the
Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect
litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote
public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial
process."). That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires
a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which his or her
impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady,
888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d
532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that
the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he
believes that he has received justice."

The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the


principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice,"
Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960),
citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13
(1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party in a
matter, over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance
of justice.

"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need


not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is
obligated to recuse [himself] herself sua sponte under the
stated circumstances;" Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th
Cir. 1989).

Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself


even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 19 of 33
that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act
sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed;"
Balistrieri, at 1202.

Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves.


By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not
disqualify himself as required by law, then, the judge has given
another example of his "appearance of partiality" which,
possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge
[or Clerk of the Court] not accept the disqualification of the
judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of
partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None
of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by
law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void
as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.

Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is


violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution;
United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) "The
right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on
section 144, but on the Due Process [of Law] Clause" (A
constitutional Right guaranteed to all people of the United
States (without the “United States”) pursuant to the people of
the United States’ Bill of Rights Amendment Article V.)

Should a judge issue any order after he has been


disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of
his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the
Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce." The
judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the
judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge,
acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than
someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge
holding office during a period of good behavior).

Should the court not follow the law as to non-represented


litigants, such as appointing an attorney to represent a
litigant against the litigant’s will, then the judge has
expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, he
is disqualified.

However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law,


and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a
judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the
other courts on this subject. Notice that it states
"disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be
disqualified" under certain circumstances.

The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars


against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he
has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts
after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is
acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then
engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in
extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no qualified


immunity for their criminal acts. Since treason, barratry,
personage, interference with interstate commerce, and crimes
against humanity in the nature of genocide and Fraud Upon the
Court are criminal acts and crimes of war, no judge has immunity when
engaged in such acts.

Qualified Immunity

The qualified immunity doctrine protects government


officials from liability for civil damages "insofar as their
conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known;" Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 20 of 33
Statutory Right

Statutory Right Law and Legal Definition: “A statutory


right is a right granted under a statute, whether federal or
state. ... The written statutes can be used as authority to
govern resolving the disputes they address in many cases, rather
than case law or judge-made law, constitutional law, contract
law, etc.” (USLegal)

The people have a right to clean water; and to officers of


their courts who are not OUTLAWS / FELONS. Statutory protection
to that right is confirmed in the following statute to wit:

“Except as in compliance with this section and sections


302, 306, 307, 318, 402, and 404 of this Act, the
discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be
unlawful.” Public Law 92-500, Sec. 2. (the Act), Title
III-Standards and Enforcement, Effluent Limitations, Sec.
301.(a); and

“Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act it


shall be unlawful to discharge any …, chemical, or
biological warfare agent … into the navigable waters.”
The Act, Title III-Standards and Enforcement, Effluent
Limitations, Sec. 301(f).

Constitutional Right

The Constitutional Right Dictionary defines Constitutional


Rights as:

“A liberty or right whose protection from governmental interference is guaranteed


by a constitution.”

When all officers of the court are unlawfully discharging


chemical and biological warfare agents at the courthouse and
also at each of their homes, poisons into the peoples’ drinking
water resources, in knowing violation of federal law with intent
to harm, a constitutional violation in the nature of treason
against the constitution is obvious; and warring against the
people of the United States is their crime.

Officers of the Court are Outlaws / Felons - No Immunity

Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a


constitutional right to wit:

“Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a


constitutional right, for they are deemed to know the
law;” Owens v Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398 (Ezra 7:23-
26).

The California Constitution, Article VI., section 18(a)


states in pertinent part to wit:

“A judge is disqualified from acting as a judge… while


there is pending … an information charging the judge in
the United States with a crime punishable as a felony
under California or federal law, …”.

Information being available, every person acting as a judge


is committing a felony violation as defined in his United States
Codes as he is in-fact committing a violation of federal law
that justified a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of more
than a year, which constitutes a felony as defined in the
codification of Public Law 92-500 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, codified under the United States
Codes, Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters, Chapter 26,
Water Pollution Prevention and Control, Section 1319
Enforcement, (c) Criminal Penalties, subsection (3) Knowing
Endangerment, (A) General rule, in pertinent part to wit:

“Any person who knowingly violates sections 1311, …,


1316, 1317, 1318, … of this title, or any permit

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 21 of 33
condition or limitation implementing any of such sections
in a permit issued under section 1342[k] of this title …,
and who knows at that time that he thereby places another
person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily
injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of
not more than $250,000 or imprisonment of not more than
15 years, or both. A person which is an organization
shall, upon conviction of violating this subparagraph, be
subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000.”

Further, the Preamble to the organic Constitution for the


united States of America states in pertinent part to wit:

“We the people of the United States, in Order to form a


more perfect Union, establish Justice, … promote the
general Welfare, … do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.”

The failure of all the officers of every municipal court of


the United States to adopt and enforce standards and effluent
limitations mandated by congress assembled on October 18, 1972,
pursuant to their authority provided for under Article I,
Section 8 of the Constitution for the united States of America,
constitutes a “constitutional violation” and for judges,
constitutes a “criminal act” and is not to be construed as a
period of “good behavior” as required of them to hold officer
under the good behavior Clause of Article III, Section 1 to wit:

“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts,


shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…”
[spelling and capitalization in original]

All judges of the United States municipal courts, supreme


and inferior, are disqualified from acting as a judge for
failure to hold his office during good behavior, Fraud Upon the
Court; and all other officers of the supreme and inferior courts
of the United States municipal franchises lack standing in any
court for acting in collusion with other members of the State
BAR associations, members of the society of civil engineers
acting as regulators, and the executive administrations of the
municipalities and commissioners and other persons to perpetuate
the on-going poisoning of the American people so as to continue
the acquisitions of the unjust / unlawful enrichments for their
principals, the franchised municipal sewer utilities acting as a
lawful government, further perpetuating the Fraud Upon the Court since 1973.

Imminent Danger of Death or Serious Bodily Injury

Every officer of the court is deemed to know the law and


continues to act in violation of the law by unlawfully
discharging his pollution (human waste matter) into the
navigable waters, knowingly placing other persons and citizens
in imminent danger of death and or serious bodily injury by his
unlawful discharge of toxic pollutants (poison) due to his on-
going violations of sections 301, 306, and 307. Toxic pollutants
are defined under subsection 13 of section 502 to wit:

“The term 'toxic pollutant' means those pollutants, or


combinations of pollutants, including disease-causing
agents, which after discharge and upon exposure,
ingestion, inhalation or assimilation into any organism,
either directly from the environment or indirectly by
ingestion through food chains, will, on the basis of
information available to the Administrator, cause death,
disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic
mutations, physiological malfunctions (including
malfunctions in reproduction) or physical deformations,
in such organisms or their offspring.”

Richard Fuller is President of Pure Earth, which serves as


Secretariat for the Global Alliance on Health and Pollution
(GAHP), declares in pertinent part to wit:

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 22 of 33
“[A] Toxic pollution is contaminated water, … that is
harmful or poisonous. It includes … also sewage…. Toxic
pollutants can poison drinking water, the fish in rivers
and ponds, food grown on contaminated farmland, as well
as … homes, …. So if you live at a polluted site, you
could be exposed to these poisons every time you eat,
drink, wash, play or breathe. In fact, toxic pollution is
the largest cause of death in the world. Yet it is one of
the most underreported and underfunded global problems.”

The toxic pollutants that the judges and officers of the


court of the subject inferior court are personally daily
unlawfully discharging into the peoples’ drinking water
resources are defined in the NOTICE OF VIOLATION hereto attached
and incorporated herein in its entirety as EVIDENCE EXHIBIT 1.

Man-made and Man-induced Pollution

Every officer of the court, deemed to know the law, has


since July 1, 1973, been continuing to perpetuate the fraud upon
the court by individually committing acts in violation of the
law by unlawfully discharging his man-made and man-induced
pollution, as defined under subsection 19 of section 502, into
navigable waters (any waters of the United States - all waters
before use, during use, and after use), unlawfully discharging
toxic pollutants (poisons into the drinking waters) via flushing
their individual human fecal matter in the peoples’ drinking
water resource via a toilet located at a source, a building,
structure, facility or installation, i.e. home or building where
you live or work, “use,” and “flush” a toilet, etc., as defined
under subsection (3) of section 306) to wit:

“The term 'pollution' means the man-made or man-induced


alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and
radiological integrity of water.”

Man-made and man-induced pollution means unlawful discharge


of pollutants produced by the daily human excrement and
urination of man (to include women), commonly known in the waste
management industry as “conventional pollutants”, including but
not limited to, conventional pollutants that are classified as biological oxygen
demanding, suspended solids, fecal coliform, and pH of which the discharge of is prohibited.

Biological Oxygen Demand

Biological oxygen demand, commonly known in the United


States Wastewater Management Industry as “BOD”, is a measure of
the amount of molecular oxygen in milligrams required to convert
organic molecules contained in 1.0 liter of a water sample to
CO2. Microorganisms such as bacteria are responsible for
decomposing organic waste. When organic matter such as dead
plants, leaves, grass clippings, manure, sewage, or even food
waste (pollution) is present in a water supply, the bacteria
will begin the process of breaking down this waste. When this
happens, much of the available dissolved oxygen is consumed by
anaerobic (carcinogenic) bacteria, robbing other aquatic
organisms of the oxygen they need to live. BOD level is a common
metric for water pollution. The average BOD prohibited pollution
measure discharged daily per person is around .20 lbs, or an
average of 350 milligrams per liter (mg/l).

All sources of BOD are required by congressional mandate to


apply the best available demonstrated [pollutant] control
technology (BADCT) to contain and control unlawful discharges of
BOD pollutants at each building that may discharge man-made and
man-induced pollutants (that has a toilet) and failure to do so
constitutes a violation of standards and limitations of the Act,
a strict liability statute mandated by Congress assembled
pursuant to sections 301, 306, and 307 at minimum.

Suspended Solids

Total Suspended Solids, commonly known as “TSS”, is the


dry-weight of particles resulting from man-made and man-induced

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 23 of 33
pollution in the form of human waste excrement. The average
measure of prohibited pollution discharged daily per person in
on an average of around .20 lbs, or an average of 350 mg/l.

All sources of TSS are required to apply the BADCT


technology to contain and control unlawful discharges of TSS
pollutants at each building that may discharge man-made and man-
induced pollutants (that has a toilet) and failure to do so
constitutes a violation of standards and limitations of the Act,
a strict liability statute mandated by Congress assembled
pursuant to sections 301, 306, and 307 at minimum.

Fecal Coliform

Fecal coliform is an indicator of bacterial contamination


from humans. High levels of fecal coliform in the water can
affect the public health, economy, and environmental quality of
a community.

All sources of fecal coliform are required to apply the


BADCT technology as congressionally mandated, the National
Standards of Performance as mandated under section 306, required
to contain and control unlawful discharges of fecal coliform
pollutants at each building that may discharge man-made and man-
induced pollution (that has a toilet) and failure to comply
constitutes a violation of mandated standards and limitations of
the Act, a strict liability statute mandated by Congress
assembled pursuant to sections 301, 306, and 307 at minimum.

pH

PH is a measure of the hydrogen ion concentration of a


solution. Solutions with a high concentration of hydrogen ions
have a low pH and solutions with a low concentrations of H+ ions
have a high pH. A difference of one pH unit, i.e., from pH 2 to
pH 3, is a tenfold (10X) difference in H+ ion concentration. The
standard established by the current BADCT technology required by
section 306 for pH of pure water is 7.5 to 8.0. Solutions with a
pH less than that of the human blood of 7.35 is termed acidic
and solutions with a pH above 7.35 are termed alkaline. Man-made
and man-induced pollution is acidic in nature and the pH must be
recovered to an alkaline state utilizing technology prior to
discharge into a publicly owned treatment works so as to prevent
its migration to cause water and other environmental pollution.

All sources of chemical pollution, acidic pH, are required


to apply the BADCT technology to contain and control unlawful
discharges of acidic pH pollutants at each building that may
discharge man-made and man-induced pollution (that has a toilet)
and failure to do so constitutes a violation of standards and
limitations of the Act, a strict liability statute mandated by
Congress assembled pursuant to sections 301, 306, and 307 at
minimum to wit:

1. An effluent limitation or other limitation pursuant to


subsection (a) of section 301 of the Act (unlawful
pursuant to 301 (f) to discharge any radiological,
chemical, or biological warfare agent or high-level
radioactive waste into the navigable waters [of the
United States]);

2. A standard of performance pursuant to section 306 of


the Act (unlawful pursuant to 306 (e) for any owner or
operator of any new source to operate such source in
violation of any standard of performance); and

3. Prohibition, effluent standard or pretreatment


standard pursuant to section 307 of the Act (unlawful
for any owner or operator of any source to operate any
source in violation of any such effluent standard or
prohibition or pretreatment standard pursuant to 307
(d)).

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 24 of 33
Man-made and man-induced pollution into drinking water via
toilets is statutorily defined under subsection (f) of section
301 as “warfare agents” to wit in pertinent part:

“Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act it shall


be unlawful to discharge any …, chemical, or biological
warfare agent … into the navigable waters.”

That a person unlawfully discharging “warfare agents,”


i.e., poison, from his source (home or workplace) shall be
construed as committing war crimes as an “act of genocide.”

Act of Genocide

“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the


following acts committed with the intent to destroy...” (Article
II)

The definition of genocide requires that the perpetrator


have a specific state of mind: the “intent to destroy” a group.
The intent to destroy is distinct from a perpetrator’s
particular motive for the crime, like counter-insurgency. In the
absence of explicit evidence, intent can be inferred from facts
and circumstances that take into account the general context of
the crime, such as: preparation of other culpable acts
systematically and exclusively directed against the same group;
scale of atrocities committed; weapons employed; the extent of
bodily injury; and/or the repetition of destructive and
discriminatory acts.

Acts of Genocide can be considered genocide when (and only


when) they are committed with the intent to destroy a group
protected by the Convention: killing, causing serious bodily or
mental harm; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or
in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group.
"The International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons
Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian
Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since
1991" defined Genocide as committing any of five acts "with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial, or religious group" to wit:

The five acts: 1) killing members of the group (the


American people); 2) causing serious bodily or mental
harm to members of the group (the American people); 3)
deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to
bring about the group's physical destruction (imminent
danger of death or serious bodily injury); 4) imposing
measures intended to prevent births within the group
(population control of the American people); 5) forcibly
transferring children of the group to another group
(child trafficking). In addition to genocide, the
tribunal is authorized to punish conspiracy to commit
genocide, direct and public incitement to commit
genocide, attempted genocide, and complicity in genocide.

Some of these acts are more clearly defined than others.


For instance, the tribunals have elaborated on the act of
“causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.”
In the Akayesu case, the ICTR decided that the harm need not be
permanent or irremediable and can include torture, be it “bodily
or mental, inhumane or degrading treatment, persecution.” Crimes
of personage and barratry are also crimes against humanity.

Crimes against humanity were defined as any of nine crimes


directed against civilians during armed conflict: 1) murder; 2)
extermination; 3) enslavement; 4) deportation; 5) imprisonment;
6) torture; 7) rape; 8) persecutions on political, racial, and
religious grounds; 9) "other inhumane acts."

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 25 of 33
War Crimes

War crimes, or "violations of the laws or customs of war,"


include but aren't limited to: 1) using poisonous weapons or
weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering; 2) wanton
destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not
justified by military necessity; 3) attack or bombardment of
undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings; 4) seizing,
destroying, or willfully damaging historic monuments, works of
art and science, or institutions dedicated to religion, charity,
education, or the arts and sciences; 5) plunder of public or
private property.

A “war crime” is an inhumane act committed when a person


unlawfully discharges poison in any way, be it in wells, food,
or arms, i.e., public sewers (unlawful since 1985 as defined
under Public Law 92-500, Sec. 2., Sec. 101(a)(1)) being
unlawfully operated as chemical and biological weapons of mass
destruction across the Nations of America, using poison to
poison the people and the citizens of the United States, an act
prohibited pursuant to Articles 16 and 70 of the “General Orders
No. 100: The Lieber Code – INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD, to wit:

Art. 16. Military necessity does not admit of cruelty -


that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of
suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding
except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It
does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of
the wanton devastation of a district. It admits of
deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in
general, military necessity does not include any act of
hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily
difficult.

Art. 70. The use of poison in any manner, be it to poison


wells, or food, or arms, is wholly excluded from modern
warfare. He that uses it puts himself out of the pale of
the law and usages of war.

The members of “the government of armies of the United


States,” a “military industrial war complex,” (a franchised
municipality) which includes, but not limited to, all municipal
employees of the State, political subdivisions, to include all
persons acting as judges and officers of the courts, who
collectively and daily are committing heinous inhumane war
crimes against the American people in the nature of genocide by
poisoning the American peoples’ drinking water resulting from
their knowing and wanton failure to comply with the
congressionally mandated effluent standards and limitations
required of them to adopt and enforce to protect the American
people’s health and welfare. All municipal employees of the
State, political subdivisions, to include all persons acting as
judges and officers of the courts, have been for 45 years, since
July 1, 1973, acting with knowing intent to cause death and harm
of the American people of the federal environmental district of
the United States. Such behavior has been an unlawful practice
since July 1, 1973, as declared under subsection (f) of section
505, to wit:

For purposes of this section, the term 'effluent standard


or limitation under this Act' means (1) effective July
1,1973, an unlawful act under subsection (a) of section
301 of this Act; (2) an effluent limitation or other
limitation under section 301 or 302 of this Act; (3)
standard of performance under section 306 of this Act;
(4) prohibition, effluent standard or pretreatment
standards under section 307 of this Act; (5)
certification under section 401 of this Act; or (6) a
permit or condition thereof issued under section 402 of
this Act, which is in effect under this Act (including a
requirement applicable by reason of section 313 of this
Act).

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 26 of 33
IV

SUMMARY

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions


contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of
the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government
must be that an act of the legislature repugnant to the
constitution is void. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U. S. 137, 176
(1803).

We have no more right to decline the exercise of


jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not
given. The one or the other would be treason to the
constitution. Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257, 6
Wheat. 264 (1821).

The sovereignty of the United States resides in the people,


and Congress cannot invoke the sovereignty of the people to
override their will as declared in the Constitution. Perry v.
United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935).

The American Republic has been hijacked by Congress through


actual and constructive legislative fraud and connivance
therewith by others in government, effectuated through stealth
transmutation of “state, “State,” and “United States” into
statutory terms with a constitutionally opposite meaning and
thereafter concealing the true meaning and legal effect of said
terms in order to facilitate usurpation of exercise of
jurisdiction in extra-constitutional geographic area throughout
the Union; and Joint Tenants in the Sovereignty shanghaied
politically but unwittingly to the District of Columbia, falsely
and essentially unfathomably defined by Congress as the “United
States,” upon the making of a tax return and thereafter deemed,
as an alleged-but-imaginary resident of the District of
Columbia, to be “obligated to donate” (oxymoronic falsehood) a
substantial portion of their own respective property in the form
of income tax, collected, if necessary, by force and used
exclusively by the Secretary of the Treasury to make payments of
interest on debt incurred by the same hijackers and owed to a
private bank, the Federal Reserve—a fraudulent scheme of
incalculable proportions constituting, among numerous other
lesser crimes, treason to both the Constitution and their
creator, the American People, i.e., the Joint Tenants in the
Sovereignty.

 “Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than


its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its
disregard of the charter of its own existence…” Mapp
v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).

 Maxime paci sunt contraria vis et injuria. The


greatest enemies to peace are force and wrong.
BOUVIER’S, p. 2145.

 Legibus sumptis desinentibus, lege naturæ utendum est.


When laws imposed by the state fail, we must act by
the law of nature.

WHEREAS: For purposes of (a) alleged income tax and every


other kind of tax (such as unlawful sewer taxes) imposed on
nonresidents of the District of Columbia, and (b) observance of
the terms of every alleged contractual or quasi-contractual
relationship between a Joint Tenant in the Sovereignty and the
United States, as Congress define “United States” in Title 26
U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) and elsewhere in the United States Code to
mean the District of Columbia: Those Americans whose physical
and economic residence lies without the exterior limits of the
geographic area occupied by the District of Columbia are
neither residents of the District of Columbia nor subject of
any legislation that obtains within the District of Columbia,
such as Title 26 U.S.C., and any assertion or allegation to the
contrary is unsupportable in law and but another count of fraud;

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 27 of 33
and

WHEREAS: There is no evidence that any people of the United


States, other than those with a physical, economic, or other
factual presence in the District of Columbia, is a resident of
the District of Columbia; and

WHEREAS: It is fraudulent for any officer or elected


official holding a position of Public Trust to pretend that a
nonresident of the District of Columbia is a resident of the
District of Columbia; and

WHEREAS: “Lex est norma recti. Law is a rule of


right”; and

WHEREAS: “Jus et fraus numquam cohabitant. Right and fraud


never live together”; and

WHEREAS: “Quicquid est contra normam recti est injuria.


Whatever is against the rule of right is a wrong”, and

WHEREFORE: The purported 26 U.S.C. 6013 election facility


is a hoax and a wrong and evidence of actual and constructive
legislative fraud on the part of Congress and treason to the
Constitution on the part of Congress and all other Federal
officers and elected officials permitting or enforcing it, to
include all officers of the court and municipal employees.

WHEREFORE: Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence


of a want of jurisdiction in the Court or judicial officer, … or
of fraud.

WHEREFORE: For any court to exercise jurisdiction in a


particular geographic area, there is a requirement that the
Constitution must have given the court the capacity to take it;
to wit:

“It remains rudimentary law that “[a]s regards all


courts of the United States inferior to this tribunal
[the supreme court of the people], two things are
necessary to create jurisdiction, whether original or
appellate. The Constitution must have given to the court
the capacity to take it, and an act of Congress must
have supplied it. . . .” [Emphasis in original.] Finley
v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989).

COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place


where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue,
wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th
Edition, page 318.]

COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly


or indirectly under its authority, consisting of one or
more officers, established and maintained for the purpose
of hearing and determining issues of law and fact
regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof,
and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to
exercise its powers in the course of law at times and
places previously determined by lawful authority. Isbill
v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's
Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425.

Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be


served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free
man to lose his court. [Magna Carta, Article 34].

The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of


the sovereign makes law. American Banana Co. v. United
Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826,
19 Ann.Cas. 1047.

The following persons are magistrates: ...The judges of


the superior courts.... [California Penal Code, Sec.
808.]

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 28 of 33
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law
of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Constitution for
the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 2.

When an ministerial clerk who is an employee of an


incorporated private municipal agency, acts to impersonate a
judge absent Constitutional authority, it is Fraud Upon the
Court; and when officers of the so-called court who are not
tenants of the sovereignty as one of the people of the United
States but foreign agents having allegiance to the Crown Temple
BAR, a private foreign power…and enemy of the people of the
United States, claim “Constitutional sovereign authority” to be
a court on America, it constitutes Fraud Upon the Court.

WHEREFORE: A lawsuit that is authorized by the statutes of


Congress is not, in and of itself, sufficient to vest
jurisdiction in any municipal court of the United States; to
wit:

“So, we conclude, as we did in the prior case, that,


although these suits may sometimes so present questions
arising under the Constitution or laws of the United
States that the Federal courts will have jurisdiction,
yet the mere fact that a suit is an adverse suit
authorized by the statutes of Congress is not in and of
itself sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the Federal
courts.” Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505, 513
(1900).

WHEREFORE: All courts of the United States are federal


corporations, private franchised municipal administrative
agencies of which no corporate employee, i.e. every municipal
employee of the State and their political subdivisions, to
include all persons acting as judges and officers of the courts,
can acquire constitutional authority. All members of the BAR are
foreign to the sovereignty of the people of the United States,
as contemplated in the Preamble, and all acts or claim of
jurisdiction over living bodies of water of the people of the
United States, while daily committing acts to poison the people
in the nature of genocide, constitutes Fraud Upon the Court.

WHEREFORE: Article III of the Constitution creates the


Supreme Court and authorizes Congress to ordain and establish
inferior trial courts of special (or limited) jurisdiction, with
no authority to exercise general jurisdiction (territorial,
personal, and subject matter) anywhere in the Union, to wit:

“A Universal principal as old as the law is that a


proceeding of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity
and its judgment therein without effect either on person
or property.” Norwood v. Renfield, 34 C 329; Ex parte
Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

“Where a Court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide


every question which occurs in the cause; and whether its
decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until
reverse, is regarded as binding in every other Court.
But, if it acts without authority, its judgments and
orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable,
but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought,
even prior to a reversal, in opposition to them. They
constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in
executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in
law, as trespassers.” Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328,
340, 26 U.S. 328, 340, 7L.Ed. 164 (1828). Wherefore, “…if
the magistrate [impersonating a constitutionally
authorized judge] has not such jurisdiction, then he [or
her] and those who advise and act with him [or her], or

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 29 of 33
execute his [or her] process [such as a warden causing a
false imprisonment based on a void judgment; or clerk
acting complicit with a judge and refusing to remove a
case], are trespassers.” Von Kettler t.al. v. Johnson, 57
Ill. 109 (1870).

“No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can


have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the
jurisdiction of the Court or judge by whom it is issued;
and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is
nothing less than lawless violence.” Ableman v. Booth, 21
Howard 506 (1859).

“We (judges) have no more rights to decline the exercise


of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which
is not given. The one or the other would be treason to
the Constitution.” Cohen v. Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat.
264 and U.S. v. Will, 499 U.S. 200.

All municipal courts are “courts of probate,…” Scott v.


McNeal 154 U.S. 34 (1894), “The absolute nullity of
administration granted upon the estate of a living person
has been directly adjudicated or distinctly recognized in
the courts of many other states. French v. Frazier
(1932), 7 J. J. Marsh. 425; State v. White (1846), 7
Iredell 116; Duncan v. Stewart (1854), 25 Ala. 408;
Andrews v. Avory (1858), 14 Gratt. 229, 236; Moore v.
Smith (1858), 11 Richardson 569; Morgan v. Dodge (1862),
44 N.H. 255, 250; Withers v. Patterson (1878), 27 Tex.
491 497; Johnson v. Beazley (1877), 65 Mo. 250, 264;
Melia v. Simmons (1878), 45 Wis. 334; D’Arusment v. Jones
(1880), 4 Lea 251; Stevenson v. Superior Court (1882), 62
Cal. 60; Perry V. St. Joseph & Western Railroad (1882),
29 Kan. 420, 423; Thomas v. People (1883), 107 III. 517,
in which the subject is fully and ably treated.”

WHEREFORE: Congress defined “judgment” in Title 28 U.S.C.,


Chapter 176, Section 3002(8) as follows:
“Judgment’ means a judgment, order, or decree entered
in favor of the United States in a court and arising
from a civil or criminal proceeding regarding a debt.”

“A judgment rendered in violation of due process is


void.” Worldwide Volkswagon v. Woodsen, 444 U.S. 286,
291; National Bank v. Wiley, 195 U.S. 257; Penn0yer v.
Neff, 95 U.S. 714.

“No judgment of a court is due process of law if


rendered without jurisdiction in the court or without
notice to the party. The words “due process of law,”
when applied to juridical proceedings, as was said by
MR. JUSTICE FIELD, speaking to this Court, “mean a
course of legal proceedings according to those rules
and principals which have been established in our
systems of jurisprudence for the protection and
enforcement of private rights. To give such
proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal
competent by its Constitution – that is, by the law of
its creation – to pass upon the subject matter of the
suit, and if that involves merely a determination of
the personal liability of the defendant, he must be
brought within its jurisdiction by service of process
within the state or his voluntary appearance.”
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 95 U. S. 733; “And
such a judgment is wholly void if a fact essential to
the jurisdiction of the court did not exist.” Rose v.
Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 8 U. S. 269; “Upon the same
principle, a decree condemning a vessel for unlawfully
taking clams, in violation of a statute which
authorized proceedings for her forfeiture in the
county in which the seizure was made, was held by this
Court to be VOID, and not to protect the officer
making the seizure from a suit by the owner of the

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 30 of 33
vessel, in which it was provided that the seizure was
not made in the same county, although the decree of
condemnation recited that it was.” Thompson v.
Whitman, 18 Wall. 457. [emphasis added]

WHEREFORE: In Title 28 U.S.C. Judiciary and Judicial


Procedure, in the chapter and section that defines “court,”
“debt,” “judgment,” and “United States” (Chapter 176 Federal
Debt Collection Procedure, Section 3002), “United States” means
a Federal corporation (28 U.S.C. 3002(15)).

WHEREFORE: All “courts of the United States” are a Federal


corporation, and the ultimate parent Federal corporation, over
all other Federal entities of any kind - is the District of
Columbia Franchised Municipal Corporation; to wit:

“An Act to incorporate the inhabitants of the City of


Washington, in the District of Columbia,” ch. 53, 1
Stat., May 3, 1802; “An Act to provide a Government for
the District of Columbia,” ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, February
21, 1871; later legislated in “An Act Providing a
Permanent Form of Government for the District of
Columbia,” ch. 180, sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878,
to remain and continue as a municipal corporation
(brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the
Act of March 2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878,
Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the
District of Columbia . . . 1873–’74 (in force as of
December 1, 1873), sec. 2, p. 2); as amended by the Act
of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, sec. 1 (Title 1,
Section 102, District of Columbia Code (1940)).

WHEREFORE: Every appearance of “United States” in anything


and everything relating to “courts of the United States” means,
literally, District of Columbia Municipal Corporation; e.g.:

 “Congress of the United States” means, literally,


Congress of the District of Columbia Municipal
Corporation.

 “Title 28 United States Code” means, literally,


Title 28 District of Columbia Municipal Corporation
Code.

 “United States District Court” means, literally,


District of Columbia Municipal Corporation District
Court.

 “United States District Judge” means, literally,


District of Columbia Municipal Corporation District
Judge.

 “United States Attorney” means, literally, District


of Columbia Municipal Corporation Attorney.

WHEREFORE: In Federal civil and criminal proceedings, there


is no discretion for anyone to take “United States” any other
way.

WHEREFORE: The State Supreme Courts, the courts of appeals,


the superior courts, the municipal courts, and justice courts
are all franchised organizations of the United States District
of Columbia Municipal Corporation Courts (collectively “courts
of the United States”) and all their so-called “judges” are mere
ministerial clerks having no constitutional authority conferred
on them by Congress – Congress conferred no judicial authority
upon any contractors or employees of private corporations
operating in interstate commerce registered with Dun and
Bradstreet and trading their stocks and bonds on Wall Street.

WHEREFORE: Actors in government rely on cognitive


dissonance on the part of victims of the “fake courts” to
perpetrate the fraud, commit treason to the Constitution, and
subject the people to foreign District of Columbia municipal

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 31 of 33
law, is trespass upon the people of the United States’, Joint
Tenants in the Sovereignty of America as contemplated in the
Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America,
Rights to life, liberty, and property, absent due process of law.

WHEREFORE: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at Rule 60,


provide for relief in proceedings of the character of that of
the district court of first instance; to wit:

“(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or


Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may
relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
“. . . (4) the judgment is void;”

WHEREFORE: It is well settled that final judgments and


orders entered in a manner inconsistent with Due Process of Law
(fraud) — an unalienable Right guaranteed the people by the
Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution—are void; e.g.:

 “The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is


based, not on section 144 [of Title 28 U.S.C.], but on
the Due Process Clause. . .” United States v. Sciuto, 521
F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir., 1976).

 “A judgment is VOID if the court that rendered it . . .


acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.”
Margoles v. Johns, 660 F.2d 291 (7th Cir. 1981) cert.
denied, 455 U.S. 909, 102 S.Ct. 1256, 71 L.Ed.2d 447
(1982); In re Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation,
502 F.2d 834 (10th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S.
1034, 95 S.Ct. 516, 42 L.Ed.2d 309 (1975). “Mere error
does not render the judgment VOID unless the error is of
constitutional dimension.” Simer v. Rios, 661 F.2d 655
(7th Cir.1981), cert. denied, sub nom Simer v. United
States, 456 U.S. 917, 102 S.Ct. 1773, 72 L.Ed.2d 177
(1982).” Klugh v. United States, 620 F.Supp. 892 (1985).

 “[I]f a “judgment is VOID, it is a per se abuse of


discretion for a district court to deny a movant’s motion
to vacate the judgment.” United States v. Indoor
Cultivation Equip. from High Tech Indoor Garden Supply,
55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir.1995). A judgment is void and
should be vacated pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) if ‘the court
that rendered the judgment acted in a manner inconsistent
with due process of law.’ (citations omitted) . . .”
Price v. Wyeth Holdings Corp., 505 F.3d 624 (7th Cir.,
2007).

 “[D]enying a motion to vacate a VOID judgment is a per se


abuse of discretion.” Burrell v. Henderson, et al, 434
F.3d, 826, 831 (6th Cir., 2006).

“Fraud upon the Court immediately removes jurisdiction from


Judge and the Court, and it vitiates all decisions and rulings,
i.e., makes ineffective and invalidates every decision and
ruling from that point on. Any judge who commits Fraud upon the
Court is under mandatory, non-discretionary duty to recuse him
or herself from the case. Fraud upon the Court is illegal, and
every case that has had fraud involved can be re-opened at any
time as there are no statutes of limitation on fraud.” United
States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61(1878) established the well
settled doctrine at law that FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING!

V.

CONCLUSION

All judges of the municipal courts of the United States and


all other members of the municipal governments, collectively
“governmental instrumentalities” as defined under section (a) of
CITIZEN SUITS, Sec. 505, Sec. 2., of Public Law 92-500 Federal

FRAUD UPON THE COURT- FRAUD UPON THE JUDGE-ORDER TO REMOVE Page 32 of 33
NSEA INTERNATIONAL
An International Association - North America Environmental District
Investigative Report - Notice of Violation
State Enforcement and
Compliance Orders
[33 U.S.C.1319 (a)]

Persons Investigated: September 1, 2017

EAST END PROPERTIES, INC.


Care of BRETT CYPRUS
15740 PARAMOUNT BLVD. SUITE E
PARAMOUNT, CA90723

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INC.


Care of 1300 “I’ STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA95814-2919

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, INC.


Care of 180 HOWARD STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA94105

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DIVISION


Care of 111 N. HILL STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA90012

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, INC.


Care of KENNETH HAHN HALL OF ADMINISTRATION
500 W. TEMPLE ST. ROOM 358
LOS ANGELES, CA90012

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, INC.


Care of 200 N. SPRING STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA90012

Eric Michael Garcetti


Care of MAYOR’S OFFICE, CITY OF LOS ANGELES
200 SPRING STREE
LOS ANGELES, CA90012

Brett Cyprus
3641 PIRATE CIRCLE
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA92649

Michael George Colantuono #143551


Care of COLANTUONO, HIGHSMITH & WHATLEY, PC
420 SIERRA COLLEGE DRIVE, STE 140
GRASS VALLEY, CA95945

Paul Arvin Bernardino #164654


Care of OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, STATE BAR
180 HOWARD STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA94105-1617

Jacquelyn Phillips Lacey #110808


Care of LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
211 WEST TEMPLE STREET, SUITE 1200
LOS ANGELES, CA90012

NOTICE OF VIOLATION – CLAIM NO. ENC170901


Page 1 of 14
DAVID SOTELO, SBN 130105
Care of DEPARTMENT #40
SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES
111 N. HILL STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA90012

H. JAY FORD, III, SBN 119768


Care of RM 232
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
SANTA MONICA / WEST DISTRICT
1725 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA90401

JASON A. SAVIOV, SBN 213879


Care of ROUTH CRABTREE OLSEN, P.S.
1241 E. DYER ROAD, SUITE 250
SANA ANA, CA92705

BRYAN M. THOMAS, SBN 238409


Care of KUZYK LAW, LLP
1417 VIA ANITA
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA90272

DAVID J. MYERS, SBN 114234


Care of KUZYK LAW, LLP
1417 VIA ANITA
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA90272

REID BRETTMAN, SBN 179355


Care of KUZYK LAW, LLP
1417 VIA ANITA
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA90272

CHRIS EVANS, SBN 202135


Care of KIMBALL, TIREY & ST. JOHN, LLP
555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET, SUITE 3400
LOS ANGELES, CA90071

BENJAMIN LOGAN, SBN 262011


Care of KIMBALL, TIREY & ST. JOHN, LLP
555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET, SUITE 3400
LOS ANGELES, CA90071

MELISSA HERNANDEZ, SBN 289773


Care of KIMBALL, TIREY & ST. JOHN, LLP
555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET, SUITE 3400
LOS ANGELES, CA90071

SANDRA SPENCER
Care of COUNTY RECORDER’S OFFICE
12400 IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
NORWALK, CA90650

NATASHA CAMPBELL
Care of COUNTY RECORDER’S OFFICE
12400 IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
NORWALK, CA90650

JVANCE BAKER
Care of COUNTY RECORDER’S OFFICE
12400 IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
NORWALK, CA90650

HUGH NGUYEN
Care of COUNTY RECORDER’S OFFICE
12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA,
ROOM 101 AND 106
SANTA ANA, CA92701
NOTICE OF VIOLATION – CLAIM NO. ENC170901
Page 2 of 14
Re: All persons and the real properties owned or operated by
above defined persons claiming interest in the matter defined as
Case # BC528166 of the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT, EAST END PROPERTIES, INC., a California
Corporation vs. DAVID ALAN BOUCHER, etc., et al.

Notice of Violation – Notice to principal is notice to agent;


notice to agent is notice to principal.

ENVIRONMENTAL MARSHAL INVESTIGATION CONCLUDES AS FOLLOWS:

NSEA International (hereinafter “Administrator”), having authority


as contemplated in the Preamble of the Constitution for the United
States of America, “…, to promote the welfare of the people…”, is
an International Organization as contemplated pursuant to Public
Law 92-500 Federal Water Pollution Control Amendment of 1972 (Act),
Sec. 2, (FWPCA) subsection (c) of section 101, and that is further
authorized pursuant to section 505 (a) (1) and (2), requested for
an Environmental Investigation in regard to certain persons and
properties. Pursuant to this Environmental Investigation, the
below Environmental Investigator and Officer of the Environmental
District Court has investigated the County of Los Angeles, the City
of Los Angeles, the municipal courthouse buildings located within
the City of Los Angeles, and other subject Real properties (federal
enclaves) commonly known as, but not limited to:

(physical address of source) 8206 Shirley Avenue, Reseda,


California 91335, and land more fully described as follows:

(legal description) “LOT 56 OF TRACT 15991, IN THE CITY OF LOS


ANGELES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 484, PAGE(S) 10 TO 14, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDED OF SAID COUNTY.

TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 2105-017-017; and

(physical address of source) 16836 Marinabay Dr., Huntington Beach,


CA 92649, and land more fully described as follows:

N-TRACK: 8040 BLOCK: LOT: 116; APN : 178-652-03; and

(physical address of source) 3641 Pirate Cir., Huntington Beach CA


92649, and land more fully described as follows:

N-TRACK: 9168 BLOCK: LOT: 91; APN : 178-683-12.”

The Environmental Marshals’ investigation has concluded that the


above defined owners and or operators, as defined pursuant to
section 306 (a) (4) 1, are persons in noncompliance with Effluent
Standards and or Limitations, and the Suspected Violator(s) are
more specifically defined as federal “persons” defined under
subsection (3) of (c) of section 309 FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT, and
subsection (5) of section 502 DEFINITIONS of the above defined
congressional Act.

Effective July 1, 1973, to operate any source in violation of said


Effluent Standard or Limitation would be an unlawful act under
subsection (a) of section 301. These violations are further
defined under section 505 (f)) as a failure to meet water pollution
control requirements that are established under the FWPCA (Sec. 2
of which is codified by the United States pursuant to Title 33,
Chapter 26 WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL, §§ 1251 et.
seq.), and constitutes negligence resulting in imminent personal
1
"(4) The term 'owner or operator' means any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises a source.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION – CLAIM NO. ENC170901
Page 3 of 14
injury, if not serious personal injury. (Cf. Title 33 § 1319 (c)
(1) (B); and (c) (3) (B) (4) for definition of negligent personal
injury). Under environmental law, imminent harm to one constitutes
imminent harm to all. Accordingly, if above defined persons are
in-fact committing the unlawful discharge(s) pursuant to the
hereunder alleged violations, you and your source of pollution are,
at minimum, civilly liable for causing “negligent personal injury”
to the general public at large, collectively “the people”.

As detailed in this Notice of Violation, the Administrator’s


investigation has determined the building(s), structures, and
restroom facilities (hereinafter “sources”) located at legally
described above are in-fact new source(s) as defined pursuant to
section 306 (a) (2), a source(s) as defined pursuant to 306 (a)
(3), a building, structure, facility or installation, from which
there is daily unlawful discharge or discharges of pollution by
persons operating in violation of subsection (a) of section 301,
and more specifically, the Administrator’s investigation has
concluded the persons are operating in breach of a Standard of
Performance as defined pursuant to subsection (a) (1) of section
306. Said persons are owners or operators who are either jointly
or severally committing unlawful violations as defined pursuant to
subsection (e) of section 306, which states, “it shall be unlawful
for any owner or operator of any new source to operate such source
in violation of any standard of performance applicable to such
source.” The standard of performance applicable to your sources is
the best available demonstrated control technology as defined
within the Clean Water Standards and Regulations promulgated by
Administrator (See: http://nsea.us/clean-water-standards/).

Further as detailed in this Notice of Violation, Administrator has


additionally determined the building(s) of the Real estate legally
described above are additionally sources from which the above
defined persons are found to be committing daily unlawful
discharges of pollution consisting of prohibited toxic pollutants
in violation of subsection (a) of section 301, and more
specifically, of the Toxic and Pretreatment Effluent Standards as
defined pursuant to subsection (b) of section 307 by the above
defined owners or operators for failing to comply with “effluent
limitations resulting from the application of the best available
technology economically achievable for the applicable category or
class of point sources established in accordance with sections 301
(b) (A) and 304 (b) (2)…,” and further unlawful acts as defined
pursuant to subsection (d) of section 307, which states, “it shall
be unlawful for any owner or operator of any source to operate any
source in violation of any such effluent standard or prohibition or
pretreatment standard.” The effluent limitations applicable to the
category and class of the point source(s) of this investigation
result from application of the best available technology
economically achievable as defined within section 306, which the
Administrator had concluded is non-existent at the above defined
point sources.

Further, the above defined owner(s) and or operator(s) are further


found to be acting in violation of subsection (a) of section 301,
which states, “Except as in compliance with this section and
sections 302, 306, 307, 318, 402, and 404 of this Act, the
discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful,” and
is more specifically defined pursuant to subsection (f) of section
301 which states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act
it shall be unlawful to discharge any radiological, chemical, or
biological warfare agent or high-level radioactive waste into the
navigable waters.” According to the findings of this
investigation, the above defined persons, including their
employees, are operating in violation of several of the foregoing
unlawful violations.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION – CLAIM NO. ENC170901
Page 4 of 14
Law Governing Alleged Violations

This Notice of Violation arises under the nondiscretionary


constitutional requirements as contemplated within the Preamble of
the Constitution for the united States of America and the
congressionally mandated and strict liability [statutory]
requirements applicable to all persons [to include the private
municipal corporation dba United States Environmental Protection
Agency, every private incorporated State franchise (of the private
corporate United States Government) and each of their private
incorporated political subdivisions, to include at minimum, every
private incorporated political subdivisions, municipalities, and
all other licensed private corporation or entity thereof. (Cf.
FWPCA § 510)] that are subject to the public policy set forth
pursuant to Public Law 92-500 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendment of 1972, Sec. 2 – 13, and more specifically Sec. 2, Title
I-Research and Related Programs, sections 101 – 115; Title II-
Grants for Construction of Treatment Works, sections 201 – 212;
Title III-Standards and Enforcement, Effluent Limitations, sections
301 – 318; Title IV-Permits and Licenses, sections 401 – 405; and
Title V-General Provisions, sections 501 – 518; as lawfully amended
by enactment by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States in Congress Assembled, October 18, 1972.

Background of Law Governing Alleged Violations

The United States Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution


Control Act of 1948 because it found, in part, the “discharge of
pollutants, or combinations of pollutants, including disease-
causing agents, which after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion,
inhalation or assimilation into any organism, either directly from
the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains,
will, on the basis of information available to the Administrator,
cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic
mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions in
reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms or their
offspring” (Cf. FWPCA § 502 (13)). In order to assure the public
health and welfare was protected, it was necessary to cease all
discharges of pollutants into the Nation’s water. Accordingly,
Congress’ declaration of goals mandated “the objective of this Act
is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation’s waters…” (Cf. FWPCA § 101). Congress
made provisions in the Act to “encourage cooperative activities by
the States for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of
pollution, encourage the enactment of improved and, so far as
practicable, uniform State laws relating to the prevention,
reduction, and elimination of pollution” (Cf. FWPCA § 103). To
achieve this goal, Congress established a National Standard of
Performance mandating use of “technology, processes, operating
methods, or other alternatives, including, where practicable, a
standard permitting no discharge of pollutants” (Cf. FWPCA § 106).
Since 1991, the alternative technology that achieved such standard
permitting no discharge of pollutants practicable for nation-wide
application at all point sources of sources and new sources is
known as AES (Advanced Environmental Systems) technology (BADCT)
that is defined in the Clean Water Standards and Regulations of
Administrator.

The congressionally mandated effluent limitation guidelines


enforcement authorities, in this instance Administrator, have a
fiduciary duty in the interest of the public health and welfare to
“identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical,
physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, the degree
of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available for classes
NOTICE OF VIOLATION – CLAIM NO. ENC170901
Page 5 of 14
and categories of point sources (other than publicly owned
treatment works).” (Cf. FWPCA § 301 (b) (1) (A)). Note: Sources
operating unlawfully constitute a chemical and biological weapon of
mass destruction.

The term ‘publicly owned treatment works’ (POTW) means what are
commonly known as public sewers, sewer collection systems, sewer
plant, and other wastewater treatment facilities owned or operated
by States, counties, municipalities or any of their politically
owned subdivisions. POTWs are also defined as “navigable waters”
or “navigable waters of the United States”. (Cf. FWPCA § 301 (b)
(1) (A)).

The term ‘navigable waters’ means “waters of the United States…”


(Cf. FWPCA § 502 (7)).

The term ‘waters of the United States’ means “All waters which are
currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use
in the interstate or foreign commerce” (Cf. 40 CFR 230.3 PART 230-
SECTION 404 (b) (1) (i)). “Waters of the United States” and
“navigable waters of the United States” are synonymous.

NSEA additionally defines the term ‘waters of the United States’ to


include, but not be limited to, all (potable) public drinking water
supplies and resources coming into any building having a toilet,
urinal, drinking water fountain, sinks or bathing facilities;
sewage, i.e. gray water and black water, septage, and effluent as
waters which were used in the past. Administrator further declares
the term “susceptible to use in the interstate or foreign commerce”
to mean any water that is or has been used for which there is a use
charge / tax / fee charged, such as your tap water used for
drinking and flushing, and the term “were used in the past” as
water polluted with conventional pollutants and toxic pollutants
and discharged from toilets, sinks or bathing facilities which
constitute sewage for which there is a use charge / tax / fee
charged. It also is construed to mean any waters of any other
source, facility, or point source for which there was a charge /
tax / fee charged / collected by any political subdivision of a
state for a permit / license, use of, or services post use of.

The fact that public drinking water is water “currently used” of


which a charge / tax / fee will be payable to the public water
purvey and therefore constitutes the use of that water in commerce.
The fact that the (your) political subdivision charges a fee to
collect sewage, constitutes “water used in the past” that is used
in commerce. Accordingly, as household sewage, septage or as
referred to in the subject law, “effluent,” are waters used in the
past, defined as waters of the United States, then it is obvious
that the water used in the past that constitutes a sewage flow of
and in a municipal public sewer collection system, i.e. “publicly
owned treatment works” as commonly referenced within the herein
subject law, is also to be defined and interpreted to be navigable
waters. “Publicly owned treatment works” are treatment works that
are constructed / installed in a public utility right of way that
is owned or operated and maintained by a municipality. “Other than
publicly owned treatment works” means the innovative and
alternative pretreatment technology congressionally mandated to be
installed and serve each non-public private source (building,
facility, our structure, i.e. home or commercial building) to
contain and control all pollutants at the source “so they will not
migrate” (from said Real Estate properties into a publicly owned
right-of-way / publicly owned treatment works) “to cause water or
other environmental pollution.” (Cf. FWPCA §§ 105 (d) (2), and 201
(b)).

NOTICE OF VIOLATION – CLAIM NO. ENC170901


Page 6 of 14
The above defined persons, since July 1, 1977, have been
congressionally mandated to implement “the application of the best
control measures and practices achievable including treatment
techniques, process and procedure innovations, operating methods,
and other alternatives for classes and categories of point sources
(other than publicly owned treatment works).” (Cf. FWPCA § 304 (b)
(2) (A)). All persons are subject to the congressional mandate
which states, “not later than July 1, 1977, effluent limitations
for point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, (i)
which shall require the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available as defined … pursuant to section 304
(b) of this Act, or (ii) in the case of a discharge into a publicly
owned treatment works which meets the requirements of subparagraph
(B) of this paragraph, which shall require compliance with any
applicable pretreatment requirements and any requirements pursuant
to section 307 of this Act,” (Cf. FWPCA § 103 (b) (1) (A)), that
“will result in reasonable further progress toward the national
goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, as determined
in accordance with regulations issued…pursuant to section 304 (b)
(2) of FWPCA.” (Cf. FWPCA § 301 (b) (2) (A)).

Class and Category of Pollutants which Discharge of is Unlawful


(prohibited)

The three (3) types of pollutants generally referred to in


subsection (a) of section 301 of the FWPCA, which the discharge of
from any new source, source, or point source, as of the effective
date of July 1, 1973, pursuant to subsection (f) of section 505, is
unlawful (prohibited). Those prohibited types of pollutants of
which the discharge of is congressionally mandated
(nondiscretionary) to be subject to at-source control and
“confining pollutants so they will not migrate to cause water and
other environmental pollution” (Cf. FWPCA §§ 105 (d) (2), and 201
(b)), are 1) conventional pollutants, 2) toxic pollutants
(collectively referred to in the FWPCA as “any pollutant”, and 3)
hazardous substances, which takes in all other pollutants, that in
any amount, could imminently be hazardous to the public’s health
and welfare or to the environment. Pursuant to subsection (f) of
section 301, the three classes and categories above are classified
as biological warfare agents. Biological Warfare agents are
defined by the US National Library of Medicine-National Institute
of Health as “Biological Warfare agents are microorganisms like
virus, bacteria, fungi, protozoa or toxins produced by them, that
give rise to diseases in man, animals or plants, when deliberately
dispersed in an area. These agents can cause large-scale mortality,
morbidity and can incapacitate a large number of people in the
shortest possible time and have adverse effects on human health.
The use of biological warfare (BW) agents can be covert or overt
and they differ from conventional weapons by way of several unique
properties. The effects of these agents are not instantaneous and
require few hours to weeks [or even years] before the symptoms
appear in the affected population. These attacks require a release
of small quantity of viable material and are capable of self-
replication and can cause a disease outbreak in an area. Viruses
are capable of replication only inside a living cell and are
pathogenic to man, animals and plants. They consist of proteins and
nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) and multiply and spread much faster.
Bacteria are single-celled prokaryotic organisms and with a
definite cell wall. Fungi are unicellular or multicellular,
eukaryotic organisms and have no chlorophyll. Several fungal
species are known to cause diseases in plants and few of them in
humans as well. Toxins are secondary metabolites produced by
bacteria, fungi, algae, plants, fishes, crustaceans and molluscs
and are known to act in very low concentrations and can affect the
functioning of cells.”

NOTICE OF VIOLATION – CLAIM NO. ENC170901


Page 7 of 14
‘Conventional pollutants’ are defined pursuant to section 304 of
the FWPCA [as amended and codified in the United States Code as
Title 33 § 1314 (a) (4)] as follows in part, “…pollutants
classified as biological oxygen demanding (BOD), [total] suspended
solids (TSS), fecal coliform (disease carrying pathogen / disease-
causing agents), and pH (‘potential hydrogen,’ which in an acid
range of less than 7.35 in measurement constitutes a harmful
pollutant to the body).” BOD, TSS, fecal coliform and pH are all
pollutants discharged as human waste from toilets installed in
sources and are enabled to migrate to cause water and other
environmental pollution via a point source operating not in
compliance with the FWPCA at-source alternative technology
application requirements, a standard of performance as mandated
pursuant to section 306 of the FWPCA. The BADCT is the best
practicable control technology currently available (alternative
technology) due to the fact, it not only eliminates the
conventional pollutants defined as BOD, TSS, and fecal coliform,
but it is the only alternative technology that achieves a standard
of performance that biologically recovers the alkalinity of the
water to a pH measurement of 7.5 – 8.0 as promulgated by NSF
International on March of 1995. A pH value for water of 7.5 - 8.0
constitutes a “healing” water quality in compliance with section
302 of the FWPCA. Any value of pH in water less than “7.5” is
acidic and will contribute to the propagation of cancer and other
diseases in the body. “For purposes of this section, the term
‘effluent standard or limitation under this Act’ means (1)
effective July 1, 1973, an unlawful act pursuant to subsection (a)
of section 301 of this Act; (2) an effluent limitation or other
limitation pursuant to section 301 or 302 of this Act; (3) standard
of performance pursuant to section 306 of this Act;…” (FWPCA § 505
(f)). They are biological warfare agents as defined pursuant to
section 301 (f).

‘Toxic pollutants’ are pollutants injurious to human health. As


defined pursuant to subsection (13) of section 505 of the FWPCA,
“the term 'toxic pollutant' means those pollutants, or combinations
of pollutants, including disease-causing agents (pathogens), which
after discharge (from a toilet or other bathroom or kitchen
facilities of a source discharging pollution) and upon exposure,
ingestion, inhalation or assimilation into any organism (humans
drinking the toxic / poisoned water), either directly from the
environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains (as a
result of toxic water), will, on the basis of information available
to the Administrator, cause death, disease, behavioral
abnormalities, cancer, ….” [Emphasis added]

Toxic pollutants are pollutants that are not susceptible to


treatment by publicly owned treatment works. Accordingly, the
Congress of the United States mandated the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) pursuant to subsection (a)
(1) of section 307 of the FWPCA (as amended and codified in United
States Code, Title 33 § 1317 (a) (1)) to publish a list of such
(prohibited) toxic pollutants for which a pretreatment standard
would prohibit said listed toxic pollutants from being unlawfully
discharged into a publicly owned treatment works without first
being contained and controlled (eliminated) at their source subject
to congressionally mandated pretreatment effluent limitations as
defined pursuant to subsection (b) of section 307 of the FWPCA. In
order to accomplish this, it was mandated by Congress that “on and
after December 27, 1977, the list of toxic pollutants or
combination of pollutants subject to this chapter (Act) shall
consist of those toxic pollutants listed in table 1 of Committee
Print Numbered 95–30 of the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation of the House of Representatives, and the
Administrator (USEPA) shall publish, not later than the thirtieth
day after December 27, 1977, that list.”
NOTICE OF VIOLATION – CLAIM NO. ENC170901
Page 8 of 14
“List of (prohibited) Toxic Pollutants” (USEPA Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40 § 401.15 (1981)) are:
1. Acenaphthene; 2. Acroleino; 3. Acrylonitrile; 4.
Aldrin/Dieldrin; 5. Antimony and compounds; 6. Arsenic and
compounds; 7. Asbestos; 8. Benzene; 9. Benzidine; 10. Beryllium and
compounds; 11. Cadmium and compounds; 12. Carbon tetrachloride; 13.
Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites); 14. Chlorinated
benzenes (other than dichlorobenzenes); 15. Chlorinated ethanes
(including 1,2-di-chloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and
hexachloroethane); 16. Chloroalkyl ethers (chloroethyl and mixed
ethers); 17. Chlorinated naphthalene; 18. Chlorinated phenols
(other than those listed elsewhere; includes trichlorophenols and
chlorinated cresols); 19. Chloroform; 20. 2-chlorophenol; 21.
Chromium and compounds; 22. Copper and compounds; 23. Cyanides; 24.
DDT and metabolites; 25. Dichlorobenzenes (1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-di-
chlorobenzenes); 26. Dichlorobenzidine; 27. Dichloroethylenes (1,1-
, and 1,2-dichloroethylene); 28. 2,4-dichlorophenol; 29.
Dichloropropane and dichloropropene; 30. 2,4-dimethylphenol; 31.
Dinitrotoluene; 32. Diphenylhydrazine; 33. Endosulfan and
metabolites; 34. Endrin and metabolites; 35. Ethylbenzene; 36.
Fluoranthene; 37. Haloethers (other than those listed elsewhere;
includes chlorophenylphenyl ethers, bromophenylphenyl ether,
bis(dichloroisopropyl) ether, bis-(chloroethoxy) methane and
polychlorinated diphenyl ethers); 38. Halomethanes (other than
those listed elsewhere; includes methylene chloride,
methylchloride, methylbromide, bromoform, dichlorobromomethane);
39. Heptachlor and metabolites; 40. Hexachlorobutadiene; 41.
Hexachlorocyclohexane; 42. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene; 43.
Isophorone; 44. Lead and compounds; 45. Mercury and compounds; 46.
Naphthalene; 47. Nickel and compounds; 48. Nitrobenzene; 49.
Nitrophenols (including 2,4-dinitrophenol, dinitrocresol); 50.
Nitrosamines (nitrate/nitrite and nitrogen compounds); 51.
Pentachlorophenol; 52. Phenol; 53. Phthalate esters; 54.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); 55. Polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (including benzanthracenes, benzopyrenes,
benzofluoranthene, chrysenes, dibenz-anthracenes, and
indenopyrenes); 56. Selenium and compounds; 57. Silver and
compounds; 58. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD); 59.
Tetrachloroethylene; 60. Thallium and compounds; 61. Toluene; 62.
Toxaphene; 63. Trichloroethylene; 64. Vinyl chloride; 65. Zinc and
compounds. [44 FR 44502, July 30, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 2266,
Jan. 8, 1981; 46 FR 10724, Feb. 4, 1981] “For purposes of this
section, the term ‘effluent standard or limitation under this Act’
means (1) effective July 1, 1973, an unlawful act under subsection
(a) of section 301 of this Act; (4) prohibition, effluent standard
or pretreatment standards under section 307 of this Act; (Cf. FWPCA
§ 505 (f)).

‘Hazardous substance’ as defined under section 309 of the FWPCA (as


amended and codified under the United States Code as Title 33 §
1319 (c) (7)) is as follows in part, “the term ‘hazardous
substance’ means (A) any substance designated pursuant to section
311(b)(2)(A) of this Act, (B) any element, compound, mixture,
solution, or substance designated pursuant to section 9602 of title
42, … (D) any toxic pollutant listed under subsection (a) of
section 307 of the FWPCA ( Cf. section 1317(a) of this title), and
(E) any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with
respect to which the Administrator has taken action pursuant
to section 2606 of title 15.”

A list of “imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture” is,


but not limited to, as follows:

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2-


Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 1,1-
NOTICE OF VIOLATION – CLAIM NO. ENC170901
Page 9 of 14
Dichloroethane, 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 1,1-
Dichloropropene, 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene
(hemellitol), 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-
Trimethylbenzene, 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), 1,2-
Dichloroethane, 1,2-Dichloropropane, 1,3,5-
Trichlorobenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3-Butadiene, 1,3-
Dichloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropene, 17-beta-Estradiol, 2,2-
Dichloropropane, 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin), 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-TP
(Silvex), 2,4-D, 3-Hydroxycarbofuran, 4,4'-dde, 4-Androstene-
3,17-dione, Acenaphthene, Acenaphthylene, Acifluorfen
(Blazer), Alachlor (Lasso), Aldicarb, Aldicarb sulfone, Aldicarb
sulfoxide, Aldrin, alpha-
Lindane, Aluminum, Anthracene, Antimony, Atrazine, Barium, Baygo
n (Propoxur), Bentazon
(Basagran), Benzene, Benzo[a]anthracene, Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo[b
]fluoranthene, Benzo[g,h,i]perylene, Benzo[k]fluoranthene, Beryl
lium, beta-
BHC, Bromacil, Bromobenzene, Bromomethane, Butachlor, Butyl
benzyl phthalate, Cadmium, Carbaryl, Carbofuran, Carbon
tetrachloride, Chlordane, Chloroethane, Chloromethane, Chlorotha
lonil (Bravo), Chrysene, cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, cis-1,3-
Dichloropropene, Cobalt, Cyanide, Dalapon, DCPA mono- and di-
acid degradates, delta-BHC, Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, Di(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate, Di-n-butyl phthalate, Di-n-octyl
phthalate, Diazinon
(Spectracide), Dibenz[a,h]anthracene, Dibromomethane, Dicamba, D
ichlorodifluoromethane, Dichloromethane (methylene
chloride), Dieldrin, Diethyl phthalate, Dimethyl
phthalate, Dinoseb, Diquat, Endosulfan I, Endosulfan
II, Endosulfan sulfate, Endothall, Endrin, Endrin
aldehyde, Equilin, Estriol, Estrone, Ethinyl estradiol, Ethyl
tert-butyl ether, Ethylbenzene, Ethylene
dibromide, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Glyphosate, Heptachlor, Hepta
chlor epoxide, Hexachlorobenzene
(HCB), Hexachlorobutadiene, Hexachlorocyclopentadiene, Indeno[1,
2,3-cd]pyrene, Isopropylbenzene, Lindane, m- & p-Xylene, m-
Dichlorobenzene, Mercury
(inorganic), Methiocarb, Methomyl, Methoxychlor, Methyl ethyl
ketone, Methyl isobutyl
ketone, Metolachlor, Metribuzin, Molinate, Monochlorobenzene
(chlorobenzene), MTBE, n-Butylbenzene, N-Nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA), n-Propylbenzene, Naphthalene, Nitrite, o-
Chlorotoluene, o-Dichlorobenzene, o-Xylene, Oxamyl (Vydate), p-
Chlorotoluene, p-Dichlorobenzene, p-Isopropyltoluene, Para-para
DDT, Paraquat, Pentachloroethane, Pentachlorophenol, Perchlorate
, Perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS), Perfluoroheptanoic acid
(PFHPA), Perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHXS), Perfluorononanoic
acid (PFNA), Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), Perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA), Phenanthrene, Picloram, Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), Prometon, Prometryn, Propachlor, Propazine, Pyrene, Radi
um-226, Radium-228, sec-
Butylbenzene, Silver, Simazine, Strontium-90, Styrene, tert-Amyl
methyl ether, tert-
Butylbenzene, Testosterone, Thallium, Thiobencarb, Toluene, Toxa
phene, trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene, trans-1,3-
Dichloropropene, Trichlorotrifluoroethane, Trifluralin, Tritium,
Vinyl chloride, Xylenes (total)

Pollutant(s) being Unlawfully Discharged by above defined Person(s)


per Investigation

The current investigation has confirmed the above defined persons


are unlawfully discharging the following pollutants in violation of
an “effluent standard or limitation under this Act,” which Congress
has defined as an unlawful act pursuant to subsection (f) of
section 505 of the FWPCA. The hereunder Pollution Summary defines
NOTICE OF VIOLATION – CLAIM NO. ENC170901
Page 10 of 14
pollutants that are being unlawfully discharged by the above
defined person(s) as confirmed pursuant to the current
investigative report. They are, but not limited to, the following:

Hereunder find nineteen (19) total prohibited pollutants2 detected


allegedly being unlawfully discharged by the above-defined owners
or operators, i.e. persons, from the buildings of the Alleged
Violators’ homes and workplaces (sources of pollution) as
identified pursuant to the Administrator investigation. They are:

 [Conventional Pollutants] Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD),


Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Fecal Coliform (disease carrying
pathogen), and Potential Hydrogen (acidic pH);

 [Toxic and Hazardous Pollutants] Arsenic (cancer); Bromate


(cancer); Chromium (hexavalent)(cancer); Radiological
contaminants (cancer); Total trihalomethanes (cancer); Clorate
(cancer); Nitrate and nitrite (cancer); Nitrate (cancer);
Manganese; Selenium; Chloroform; Bromoform;
Bromodichloromethane; Cibromochloromethane.

[Unlawful discharge of more than one pollutant parameter shall be


treated as a single violation (See 33USC1319(c)(5))]

Civil Penalties for Alleged Violations of Unlawful Discharge of a


Pollutant(s) by above defined Person(s)

The Administrator investigation has concluded that the Cause of


Action and the appropriate civil penalties applicable to this
matter are defined in public policy pursuant to subsection (a) (2)
of section 505 of the FWPCA as follows:

"(d) Any person who violates section 301, …, 306, 307, … of


this Act …, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$10,000 per day of such violation.” Note: This civil penalty
established October 18, 1972, is subject to adjustment
pursuant to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), 1972 adjusted to
2017, which would calculate to approximately $56,500.00 per
day of such violation.

The Administrator investigation has therefore concluded the above


defined person(s) have been operating (their sources of pollution)
consistently in non-compliance, in breach of standards of
performance and effluent limitations mandated pursuant to the Act
to be applicable at all of their point sources (to include home(s)
and work place(s) (office buildings)), of which the Suspected
Violators are at least either an owner or operator of restroom
facilities, and are, at a minimum, unlawfully discharging
pollutants in violation of effluent standards and limitations as
defined pursuant to subsection (f) of section 505 as follows:

1. An effluent limitation or other limitation pursuant to


subsection (a) of section 301 of the Act (unlawful pursuant to
301 (f) to discharge any radiological, chemical, or biological
warfare agent … into the navigable waters [of the United
States]);

2. A standard of performance pursuant to section 306 of the Act


(unlawful pursuant to 306 (e) for any owner or operator of any
new source to operate such source in violation of any standard
of performance); and

2
https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/#.WYY6Ffnytdg.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION – CLAIM NO. ENC170901
Page 11 of 14
3. Prohibition, effluent standard or pretreatment standard
pursuant to section 307 of the Act (unlawful for any owner or
operator of any source to operate any source in violation of
any such effluent standard or prohibition or pretreatment
standard pursuant to 307 (d)).

Enforcement

Under the Supreme Laws of the united States of America as


contemplated in the Constitution for the united States of America
(ratified on June 21, 1788), Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause
2, the prerequisite to bringing any action against anyone in any
competent court of justice is to recognize their right to be
lawfully noticed. Accordingly this Notice of Violation is issued
with the intent to comply with rights guaranteed under Article V of
the Bill of Rights Amendment to the Constitution for the united
States of America, the right to be given notice and an opportunity
to answer in accordance with the due process of law.

The Administrator’s investigation into this matter is continuing.


The herein defined violations that Administrator believes, at this
point, are sufficiently supported by evidence to warrant the
allegations in this Notice of Violation. The Administrator may
find additional violations or additional related violators in this
matter who may also be committing above violations as the
investigation continues.

The Administrator is authorized to address this matter in the


Environmental District Court (court). The court is a district
court for the environmental district of the United State, a court
of record proceeding according to the common law and having
jurisdiction over all environmental matters occurring in the
environmental district of North America. It is a separate court
and court system from (and foreign to) the courts of the United
States. As a court of record, its adjudications cannot be heard or
overturned by any court of the United States, not even the Supreme
Court. Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203; cited by SCHNECKLOTH
v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973))

Authority for the peoples’ commissioning of the court is provided


primarily pursuant to the authority of the people contemplated in
the Preamble to the Constitution for the united States of America
(1787), establishing it is a duty of care to “promote the general
welfare to ourselves and our posterity.” The peoples’ authority
to commission the court was further defined in the Constitution for
the united States of America as authority and rights defined in
said Preamble retained by the people of the United States pursuant
to the Bill of Rights Amendment, Articles IX, X, and XI; two (2)
Acts of the Congress of the United States, the Naturalization Act
of 1802, 1 Stat., Ch 28., Pg. 153 (April 14, 1802), and the Public
Law 92-500 Federal Water Pollution Act Amendments of 1972, 86
Stat., Pg. 816 (October 18, 1972), Sec. 9. Environmental Court, and
Sec. 7. International Authority. Additional authorities for this
Court is defined as follows: COURT – “An agency of the sovereign
created by it directly or indirectly under its authority,
consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for
the purpose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact
regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of
applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its
powers in the course of law at times and places previously
determined by lawful authority.” Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App.,
92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page
425; and COURT – “The person and suit of the sovereign; the place
where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that
may be.” Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.

NOTICE OF VIOLATION – CLAIM NO. ENC170901


Page 12 of 14
The court was lawfully commissioned on July 11 th, 2013, by the
sovereign body politic and joint tenants of the sovereignty, the
people of the United States, as contemplated in the Preamble.

All people and citizens alike are authorized pursuant to Sec. 2,


and section 505 of the FWPCA, regardless of citizenship or the
amount in controversy, to redress their grievances in the
environmental district court of the people of the United States.
The Environmental District Court3, as a district court for the
environmental district of North America, competent to adjudicate
matters pertaining to the environment, is constitutionally
authorized to adjudicate and apply any appropriate civil penalties
as is provided pursuant to subsection (d) of section 309 of the
FWPCA. Cause of Action is provided for under subsection (a) of
section 505 “CITIZEN SUITS.”

The Administrator may seek, and the district court may order,
equitable remedies to further address the alleged violations as
provided for pursuant to subsection (a) of section 505 of the
FWPCA, and more specifically congressionally mandated as unlawful
acts, under subsection (f) of section 505 of the FWPCA.

This Notice of Violation is given pursuant to subsection (b) (2) of


section 505 of the FWPCA that provides for “such action to be
brought immediately after notification in the case of an action
pursuant to this section respecting a violation of sections 306 and
307 (a) of this Act.” This action is in respect to violations of
sections 306 and 307 (a).

Accordingly, the above defined owners or operators, person(s)


accused of the alleged unlawful discharge violations of chemical
and biological warfare agents as stated under section (f) of
section 301, shall be given a reasonable grace period of thirteen
(13) days, following the mailing date of this Notice of Violation
via USPS Priority Mail, to answer to the address provided on the
Notary Public’s Affidavit of Presentment.

Warning – Upon your failure to respond to this Notice of Violation


as defined in the Demand for Specific Performance hereunder, your
silence is your admission to all claims and will be accepted as qui
non negat fatetur and a final civil judgment will issue.
Additionally, the Court may, at its own discretion, convene a
tribunal of members of the Independent Grand Jury for a presentment
of an indictment for criminal violations under United States Codes,
Title 33, and section 1319 ENFORCEMENT, (C) CRIMINAL PENALITIES,
(3) KNOWING ENDANGERMENT, (A) GENERAL, to wit in pertinent part:

Any person who knowingly violates section 1311, 1312, 1316,


1317, 1318, 1321(b)(3), 1328, or 1345 of this title, or any
permit condition or limitation implementing any of such
sections in a permit issued under section 1342 of this
title by the Administrator or by a State, or in a permit
issued under section 1344 of this title by the Secretary of
the Army or by a State, and who knows at that time that he
thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or
serious bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a
fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment of not more
than 15 years, or both. A person which is an organization
shall, upon conviction of violating this subparagraph, be
subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000.

3
Authorized by Act of Congress, Public Law 9-500, Sec. 9. ENVIRONMENTAL COURT. The court was
commissioned on July 11, 2013, by the people and for the people administering justice to restore environmental
peace globally.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION – CLAIM NO. ENC170901
Page 13 of 14
If you wish to contest the violations, you will be required to
provide evidence of your compliance with the above defined
violations that will rebut the evidence supported by the
investigative report and testimony of the witness(s).

Note: BAR card attorneys are foreign to the people of the United
States and accordingly are not authorized to practice law in the
Environmental District Court, a court of record proceeding
according to the common law of America. Any involvement may
warrant their being joined to this action for civil damages.4

Civil Enforcement and Compliance

By:

Environmental Marshal - Investigations


Credential #951JTC

NSEA International

By:

Environmental Marshal
National Standards Enforcement Authority
Credential #948DT

I, Clerk of the Environmental Court, by my hand and seal, confirm the receipt of this
Investigative Report–Notice of Violation from the Environmental Marshals and NSEA
International that shall be recorded into the file of Case number ENC170901 as Evidence Exhibit
A for the people of the United States

Date: _________________ Seal of the Clerk

4
Public Law 92-500, Sec. 2, Sec. 309, "(d) Any person who violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, or 308 of this Act,
or any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of this
Act by the Administrator, or by a State, …, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $56,500.00 per day of
such [for each] violation.” [Note, CPI adjusted civil penalty to 2017] Those deemed to know law, are subject to the
maximum penalties that may be provided for by law when found guilty of acting in violation of law. (Maxim of
Law)
NOTICE OF VIOLATION – CLAIM NO. ENC170901
Page 14 of 14
Common Law Copyright NSEA International 2017 TM