LOatest legal work

This is my latest legal work against the government. Let me know what you think

JOHN DOE, SUI JURIS

Sovereign, One (Office) of We the People of the

Republic of Florida, a State

Plaintiff,

v.

BUREAU OF PRISONS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant.

________________________________/

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

(For the command of this author of this contract is for the interpretation of all words with the rules of the interpretation of the author, in present-tense, on a level geometric plane).

1. I am, John Doe, MD, SUI JURIS, one of THE PEOPLE of the STATE OF FLORIDA REPUBLIC and I am accorded rights by the Constitution of The United States of America. I am the Plaintiff in this action. In the above entitled court of record, Plaintiff files suit against THE BUREAU OF PRISONS of UNITED STATES:

Introduction

Applicable Definitions

2. The definitions of the legal terms used in this case are as follows;
1. COURT OF RECORD - At common law, any jurisdiction which has the power to fine and imprison, is a court of record. Salk. 200; Bac. Ab. Fines and Amercements, A. And courts which do not possess this power are not courts of record. See Court. 2. The act of congress, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, &c., approved April 14, 1802, enacts, that for the purpose of admitting aliens to become citizens, that every court of record in any individual state, having common law jurisdiction and a seal, and a clerk or prothonotary, shall be considered as a district court within. the meaning of this act. Bouvier SIXTH EDITION, REVISED VOL. I. A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. 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. "A 'court of record' is 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.
2. Sui Juris is defined in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition as; One who has all the rights to which a freeman is entitled; one who is not under the power of another, as a slave, a minor, and the like. 2. to make a valid contract, a person must, in general, be sui juris. Every one of full age is presumed to be sui juris
3. Judicial Cognizance Judicial notice or knowledge upon which a judge is bound to act without having it proved in evidence. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 760.] ;
4. Sovereign, We the People - 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.]; 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) His judges are the mirror by which the king's image is reflected. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7, Section 379. ;
5. Republican Government One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S. Ct. 573, 35 L. Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L. Ed. 627." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.

Law of the case

3. The law of the case is decreed as follows:
1. United States Constitution Article 1§9 -No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
2. United States Constitution Article 1§10 No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
3. Florida Constitution Article1 SECTION 10. Prohibited laws.--No bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
4. Florida Statute 876.07 Oath as prerequisite to qualification for public office.--Any person seeking to qualify for public office who fails or refuses to file the Oath required by this act shall be held to have failed to qualify as a candidate for public office, and the name of such person shall not be printed on the ballot as a qualified candidate. The oath taken by all Public Officials of the state of Florida reads, in part, as follows- "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida, that I am qualified to register as an elector under the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida, and that all information provided in this application is true."
5. Florida Statute 2.01 Re; Common law and certain statutes declared in force.--The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state. ;
6. 18 USC § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
7. ...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves..... [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.] ;
8. "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.
9. "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado v. California, 100 US 516.
10. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]; … the state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516.]
11. Act Establishing Florida Statehood, 1845 (From: An Act For The Admission of the States of Iowa and Florida Into The Union, 1845, Collection M81-22)… whereas the people of the territory of Florida did, in like manner by their delegates, on the eleventh day of January, eighteen hundred and thirty-nine, form for themselves a constitution and State Government, both of which said constitutions are republican,… Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the States of Iowa and Florida be and the same are hereby, declared to be
    States of the United States
12. "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.
13. Americans with Disabilities Act, (Title II) Public services, which include state and local government instrumentalities, cannot deny services to people with disabilities participation in programs or activities which are available to people without disabilities. For existing facilities, barriers to services must be removed if readily achievable. Miscellaneous (Title V) Includes a provision prohibiting either (a) coercing or threatening or (b) retaliating against the disabled or those attempting to aid people with disabilities in asserting their rights under the ADA.
14. "'...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 judgment 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.
15. "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
16. "We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2D 774 (CA2 1944)." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519.
17. An act of the court shall prejudice no man. Jenkins' Eight Centuries of Reports, 118; Brooms Legal Maxims, Lond. ed. 115; 1 Strange's Reports, 126; 1 Smith's Leading Cases, 245-255; 12 English Common Bench Reports by Manning, Granger, & Scott, 415
18. … relief that directly serves to bring end to present and continuing violation of federal law is not barred even though accompanied by substantial ancillary effects on state treasury . U.S.C.A. Cost. Amend. 11, Johnson v Collins, S.D. 1994, 875 F. Supp,1371
19. … in cases involving deprivation of constitutionally protected rights “affirmative” relief may be granted notwithstanding that the incidental effects is that the state will be forced to expend funds. Committee on Judicial Administration v Com of Mass. C.A.) 1973, 388 F 32d 1241
20. A federal prisoner have the right to sue the United States under for injuries sustained in prison under the provisions of the federal tort claims act . United States v Muniz, 374 U.S. 150, 83 S.Ct 1850 10 L.Ed 2d 805 (1963)
21. The liability of the United States under the provisions of the Federal Tort Claim Act is dependent upon whether a private individual under like circumstances would be liable under state law Simmons v Nash 361 FS 2d (3^rd Circuit)
22. Statute that is not ambiguous must be given its unambiguously intended effect by courts. Simmons v Nash 361 FS 2d (3^rd Circuit)
23. Federal prisoner could not be classified as “sex offender,” for purposes of statute requiring BOP to give notice of sex offender’s release, based on prisoner’s prior state conviction; classification could only be based on offense for which prisoner was currently serving sentence. 28 CFR 571.72. Simmons v Nash 361 FS 2d (3^rd Circuit)
24. BOP exceeded its statutory authority and inappropriately applied 4042 (c) by identifying him as a “sexual offender” Simmons v Nash 361 FS 2d (3^rd Circuit)
4. This lawsuit is a Declaratory Judgment action contesting classification of Plaintiff as a “sexual offender” by the Bureau of Prisons of the United States. Under 28 USC 1331 and 2201, The Federal Question at issue is whether the United States Government has immunity when acting to the detriment of Plaintiff under the “color of law” and not according to the law itself. It is incumbent on the government to know the law. The Defendant knows the law or should know the law as its very existence in fiction is absolutely dependent on the law. Government cannot exist without the law. If the Plaintiff, whose existence is a gift from the creator and not dependent on the largesse of the law is responsible to the “letter of the law” then certainly it is reasonable to expect Defendant to be held to the letter of the law, especially being comprised of constituents “learned” in the law such as the Attorney General himself, the top law enforcement official in the government.
5. An additional Federal Question is whether statutes passed by The Congress can supersede provisions of right’s guaranteed by The People; for The People; of The People of these United States, through the Constitution Bill of Rights amendments. The right to “due process of law” is one of these rights guarantees in the Constitution which reads in part that no prosecution of Defendant shall occur without “due process”. In subjecting Plaintiff to the negative consequences attendant to being placed on a “sexual offender list” without even a hearing as certainly lack of legal process. Another of these rights is for Plaintiff not to ever be subjected to ‘ex post facto” applications of the law. It is so important that it is mentioned twice in the United States Constitution at Article 1§9 and Article 1§10; and once in the Florida Constitution at Article 1 §10.
6. The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages of two-million dollars ($2,000,000.00) in compensation for Defendant taking his name and advertising it erroneously to the community as a “sexual offender” by “law”. There is no law that states Plaintiff should be registered as “sex offender” either in the State of Florida or United States Code. Additionally Plaintiff is seeking $2,000,000.00 to assist in the rehabilitation of his reputation destroyed by the Defendant; and an additional $2,000,000.00 for pain and suffering to Defendant purposely inflicted on Plaintiff by Defendant in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The total compensation Plaintiff is seeking is six million dollars ($6,000,000.00).

Parties

7. Plaintiff is Douglas E. Nalls, MD a freeman and one (Office) of the People of the Republican Government of Florida as established by An Act For The Admission of the States of Iowa and Florida Into The Union, 1845. Therefore, sovereignty is vested with Plaintiff and Plaintiff does not delegate his sovereignty to any other entity in this matter. Plaintiff is a real “flesh and blood man”, a product of the Creator God in His image and has proceeded into this world at the Creator’s behest and by His will. Plaintiff is not indebted to any man for his being or existence. Everything that Plaintiff consumes to maintain his existence is created by Plaintiff’s Creator. For the Creator’s blessing of Plaintiff, Creator requires that Plaintiff shall not worship any other God. Plaintiff is unlearned in the law and therefore the court is required to take judicial cognizance that it interprets Plaintiff’s pleading in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has been determined to be disabled by the Social Security Administration, in part due to psychiatric disabilities generated by being designated a “sexual offender” by Defendant, but does not receive any benefit from the government for unknown reasons. Defendant qualifies for considerations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
8. Defendant is a fiction seated in Washington, DC. Defendant is the product of men’s minds, including Plaintiff’ posterity. Plaintiff’s Creator requires that he shall not worship Defendant or shall exalt Defendant above himself. Defendant’s power is a product of Plaintiff, which Plaintiff takes back in these considerations. From the inception of Defendant, codified in The Constitution of the United States, Defendant’s powers were limited to guard against the seizure of government by despotic public officials. As an additional protection, all public officials assigned to carry out governmental functions were required to abode by an Oath of Office in which they swear to the Creator to uphold the Constitution of the United States on pain of condemnation with failure to do so. The Constitution is … 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.

Jurisdiction

9. This court of record has jurisdiction in this matter under 28 USC 1331 and 1332, federal questions and diversity issues. Also under 28 USC 1332, Plaintiff claims $6,000,000.00 in compensation from Defendant, exceeding the seventy-five thousand dollar ($75,000.00) threshold for the courts consideration. Other consideration warranting the consideration of the court are the provisions of 28 USC 2201 and 18 USC 242; and any other basis that the court determines applies to these circumstances.

Facts

10. Plaintiff was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 371on September 26, 2002. He was released on February 2005, at which time he was informed that he was required to register as a sex offender in Florida. Prior to his conviction and release for fraud in Florida, Plaintiff was convicted of two counts of a third degree sexual offense in Maryland, in 1987. Since April, 2005, Plaintiffs name and information has appeared on Florida's Online Sexual Offender/Predator Registration. The Ft. Lauderdale Police Department was notified of Plaintiffs registration, and required Plaintiff to register with the Ft. Lauderdale Sexual Offender Registry. The Ft. Lauderdale Police then circulated a flyer in Plaintiffs neighborhood and apartment building with Plaintiffs name and image. Plaintiff alleges that since then, he has had to endure threats and harassment, threatened eviction, and vandalism to his property.
11. Initially, Plaintiff petitioned District court in his original case (Case No. 00-684-CR-Dimitrouleas) for relief, since the wrongful misclassification of Defendant as “sexual offender” stemmed from that case, which was not a “sexual offender” case. In fact, it required Judge Dimitrouleas’ ruling to designate Plaintiff as “sexual offender”, by law. Judge Dimitrouleas denied Plaintiff’s petition without explanation, at one point stating, he lacked jurisdiction and that the case was closed. Plaintiff then filed suit against the Governor of the State of Florida, the Attorney General of the State of Florida, and the Commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in CASE NO. 06-20435-CIV-GOLD/TURNOFF. Plaintiff claimed that his designation and registration as a sex offender violates the ex post clause of the United States Constitution, and that he was denied due process of law in the improper designation and registration of him as a sex offender. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of having his name removed from sex offender registries. (Id. at ) He also sought five million dollars in compensatory damages for his physical and emotional injuries, pain and discomfort, and embarrassment and humiliation.
12. Plaintiff lawsuit, CASE NO. 06-20435-CIV-GOLD/TURNOFF, was denied by the court, stating, at one point, the defendants in that case had immunity. Having asked the court to bar prosecution of the case for failure to state a claim, those defendants have conceded the facts of that case, which are identical to this index case.

Standards

13. When considering Defendant’s motion, the court must construe the factual allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F., 3d 496, 498-99 (5^th Circuit 2000); In re Stac Elecs. Sec. Litig., 89 F 3d 1399, 1403 (9^th Cir. 1996). Only if no possible construction of the alleged facts will entitle Plaintiff to relief should the court grant Defendant’s motion. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S. Ct. 2229, 2232 (1984). If the factual allegations in the Plaintiff’s complaint support any legal theory that entitles Plaintiff to some relief, the court should overrule Defendant’s motion. By challenging prior complaints alleging it “failed to state a claim”, the prior defendants to Plaintiff’s actions have effectively admitted the facts of the complaint, including the government in Case No. 00-684-CR-Dimitrouleas. See Crowe v. Henry, 43 F. 3d 198,203 (5^th Circuit 1995). There remain no issues in dispute between the parties
14. Immunity is the province of The Sovereign. This country was founded as a democratic republic in which The Sovereign is The People themselves. Before tribunals, it is the delegated powers of The People that confers any immunity on government at all. Therefore, any consideration of finding immunity for crooked public officials who assume prosecutorial powers under the “color of law” is unacceptable and can not be continenced by this court to excuse illegal conduct as delineated in the law itself at 18 USC 242. If public officials are immune, then what does 18 USC 242 apply to and how does one access justice under it? Does 18 USC 242 serve just as window dressing propaganda for public official rule, as sovereign, over our lives (See Bivens) If it were not so, then the law as it is applies here.

Analysis

15. A case decided by the 3^rd Circuit Court of appeals is directly on point in the instant action. The case is Simmons v Nash 361 FS 2d (3^rd Circuit). In this case the facts resembled the facts in Defendant’s case except that plaintiff had not been released from prison prior to his action. Plaintiff filed for declaratory relief and it was granted. The court reasoned that statute that is not ambiguous must be given its unambiguously intended effect by courts. It stated (a) Federal prisoner could not be classified as “sex offender,” for purposes of statute requiring BOP to give notice of sex offender’s release, based on prisoner’s prior state conviction; classification could only be based on offense for which prisoner was currently serving sentence. 28 CFR 571.72. Finally the court concluded BOP exceeded its statutory authority and inappropriately applied 4042 (c) by identifying him as a “sexual offender” Simmons v Nash 361 FS 2d (3^rd Circuit).
16. The defendant in Simmons v Nash was not awarded any compensatory damages presumably because he was still in custody when the court ruled. This Defendant in the instant action has had to endure the humiliations, verbal attacks, neighbors threats of attack, threatened eviction, alienation of affection from domestic partner and family, vandalism, and other negative effects, consequent to The BOP classifying him as a “sexual offender/predator” (Florida’s online list makes no distinction), since he was first listed in April 2005. Plaintiff believes he was denied a kidney transplant for a fatal disease he has because social services evaluated his priority as “low” in part because he had been designated as a “sexual offender”. Plaintiff has been prescribed and taken psychiatric medication including “Abilify” and “Celexa” consequent of a severe depressive disorder he has been diagnosed with in part due to having been designated a “sexual offender” and the frustration of not having equitable due process considerations. By law, Defendant is deserving of the relief sought.
17. The law provides “… in cases involving deprivation of constitutionally protected rights “affirmative” relief may be granted notwithstanding that the incidental effects is that the state will be forced to expend funds. Committee on Judicial Administration v Com of Mass. C.A.) 1973, 388 F 32d 1241.” Also “…relief that directly serves to bring end to present and continuing violation of federal law is not barred even though accompanied by substantial ancillary effects on state treasury .” U.S.C.A. Cost. Amend. 11, Johnson v Collins, S.D. 1994, 875 F. Supp,1371. Further “…A federal prisoner have the right to sue the United States under for injuries sustained in prison under the provisions of the federal tort claims act . United States v Muniz,” 374 U.S. 150, 83 S.Ct 1850 10 L.Ed 2d 805 (1963

Conclusion

Wherefore, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for declaratory judgment and injunction against listing Plaintiffs name on any sexual offender list and in the sum of six million dollars ($6,000,000.00) in compensation to make Plaintiff whole again and obtain denied surgery,

Verification

Under penalty of perjury, I declare I have read the foregoing, and the facts alleged are true, to the best of my knowledge and beliefs.