Sarai Hannah Ajai is in her Ninth Preliminary Stage of writing her "COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS"...She has had enough of her neighbors and the Public at large with their identity thefts problems, female birth sex and gender identity verbal harassments against her authentic identity and privacy rights to be her own person dated 08-20-23
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
(Non-Prisoner Complaint)
1. This is a claim for continuous violations of the Plaintiff’s civil rights under the Fourth (4th), Fifth (5th), Sixth (6th), Eighth (8th), Thirteenth (13th) and Fourteenth (14th) Amendments, as protected by the Constitution and law of the United States are pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986 for an injunctive relief and damages in a civil cause of actions against the Defendants. The court has jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1343 based on Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986 including these Federal questions arises under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for a scientific constitutional law applications and reviews. The court jurisdiction exists under the Declaratory Judgment Act under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (a) and 2202. And, the Supplement jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state law claims is pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §1367.
2. Venue is proper in the District of North Dakota, Eastern Division under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) because:
(b)(1) all Defendants are residents of the state in which, the district is located;
(b)(2) the events or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in this District and, the Defendants conduct business in this District; or
(b)(3) if neither (b)(1) nor (b)(2) provides the appropriate venue than the venue is appropriate wherever there are personal jurisdictions over the Defendants.
The Plaintiff’s civil cause of action arises under:
1. the Fourth (4th) Amendment revealed, absence of the Plaintiff guarantee protection rights to be secure in: as her own person, houses or apartments, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizureshave been infringed upon.
2. the Fifth (5th) Amendment revealed, deprivations of the Plaintiff’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness rights have been deprived.
3. the Sixth (6th) Amendment revealed, absence of the Plaintiff rights to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations and to be confronted with the witnesses against her have been denied.
4. the Eighth (8th) Amendment revealed, the Defendants have been granted authority to employ deceptive methods, schemes, and manipulations of photographs and Personal Identifiable Information (PII) and/or DNA definitions to evaluate and alter the Plaintiff's female birth sex and gender identity profiles within a governmental and nongovernmental entities database systems. Through negligent, false, and fraudulent misrepresentations’ statements, the Defendants intentionally and inaccurately labeled the Plaintiff, as a male based on their subjective psychological perceptions and role preferences. This imposition of a male birth sex and gender identity upon the Plaintiff is a contradictory against her traditional female birth sex and female gender identity norms should have look and behave, has resulted in her enduring cruel and unusual treatments, thereby infringing upon the Plaintiff’s rights as a female regarding her birth sex and gender identity.
5. the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment revealed, the Defendants have unlawfully obtained access to the Plaintiff's genuine identification documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties, and identifiers without any evidence or legal justification. Moreover, the Defendants, either individually or collectively, have used a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical names, and in some instances, have even changed their own legal names to match the Plaintiff's legal name. This deliberate and willful action has enabled the Defendants to gain unauthorized access to the Plaintiff's legitimate North Dakota Real ID Driver License, and associating it with a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical named Defendants in a National Security background profile clearances. Due to the following enforced compulsory conditions of involuntary servitude upon her, and the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to liberty have been unjustly restricted or curtailed, resulting in the grievous and profound violations of her inherent identity, as a woman, encompassing both her female biological sex and deeply held gender identity. Moreover, the Plaintiff fundamental rights to be recognized and integrated within society has been callously undermined through the systematic implementations of discriminatory measures, akin to practices associated with identity segregations, gaslighting, scapegoating and propagandistic methods or schemes. These deplorable actions and treatments have effectively reached such an extreme that the Plaintiff’s very existence is erased or negated within her own genuine identification documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties, and identifiers, by an officials who are representing the governmental and nongovernmental entities.
6. the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment revealed, absence of the Plaintiff equal protection rights.
7. The Defendants, who serve as an employees of both governmental and nongovernmental entities at the local, state, and federal levels, have violated their fiduciary duties and breached their employment [contract] agreements. They have participated in the illicit trade of counterfeit or genuine documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties, and notarized instruments. Furthermore, the Defendants who have subscribed to a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical names to the Plaintiff’s legal name has/had unlawfully forged the Plaintiff's signatures onto an official documents, without her legal authorizations. These actions represent conspiracies against the Plaintiff's rights and are clear violations of numerous United States’ Federal statutes, including, but not limited to:
· the Real ID Act 2005 (relating to the H.R. 1268 sec. 202 et. seq.),
· Title 18 U.S.C. 241 (relating to a Conspiracy Against Rights),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1015(E) (relating to False Claim of Citizenship),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (relating to Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Identification Documents, Authentication Features, and information),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (relating to Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Access Devices),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (relating to Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1038 (relating to False Information and Hoaxes),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1071 (relating to Concealing a Person from Arrest and Aiding and Abetting a Person from Arrest),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (relating to Mail Fraud),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (relating to Wire Fraud),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1346 (relating to Honest Services),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1342 (relating to Fictitious Name[s] or Address[es]),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (relating to Financial Institution Fraud),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1510 (relating to Obstruction of Criminal Investigation[s]),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (relating to Tampering with Witness, Victim, or an Informant),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1513 (relating to Retaliating Against a Witness, Victim, or an Informant),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1542 (relating to False Statement in Application and Use of Passport),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1701 (relating to Obstruction of Mails Generally),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1702 (relating to Obstruction of Correspondence[s]),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1703 (relating to Delay or Destruction of Mails or Newspapers),
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 1708 (relating to Thefts or Receipts of Stolen Mails Matter Generally), and
· Title 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (relating to Unlawful Access to Stored Communications.
These violations demonstrate a breach of fiduciary duty by the Defendants, who had misused their employments’ positions within the governmental and nongovernmental entities, and have infringed upon the Plaintiff’s rights, as outlined in the relevant statutes.
Furthermore, it is imperative for the United States Congress to exercise its authority under the Interstate Commerce Act to prohibit oligarchy states, localities, and both governmental and nongovernmental entities from imposing involuntary servitude upon the Plaintiff through unlawful means, issuances, accesses, allocations, permissions, assignments, advocacies, granting, permitting, and disseminations of her genuine identification documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties, and identifiers. These actions were undertaken under a dishonest system, either by treating them as a[n] public domain or open-source templates or through involuntary solicitations of the Plaintiff's actual identification documents for unlawful trafficking purposes. The responsibility for these unlawful practices lies with the Defendant Administrators of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), who displayed a biased preference in favor of their Defendant recipients, allowing them to obtain subsidy programs or grants using fictitious, similar, or identical names to match the Plaintiff’s legal name that relates to the Plaintiff's identification details.
Moreover, the Defendants, in various contractual agreements’ contexts such as rental apartment units, employments, purchasing vehicles and educational pursuits, have engaged in the facilitations of fraudulent national security background check clearances. These clearances were conducted on individuals using fictitious, similar, or identical names to match the Plaintiff’s legal name, resulting in the overriding of legitimate investigative checks pertaining to the Plaintiff's identity. Consequently, the Defendants unlawfully, intentionally, and continuously misidentified or disidentified the Plaintiff's true identity, genuine identification documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties, and identifiers. These actions constitute unfair investigative and deceptive business practices, which flagrantly violates an established public policy due to their immoral, unethical, oppressive, malfeasance, misfeasance, unscrupulous, and significantly harmful nature. By falsely asserting that the Plaintiff is not the authentic or original person. Also, the Defendants have claimed that the Plaintiff’s actual identification documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties, or identifiers supposedly belong to a male birth sex or a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical named Defendants who supposedly shared similar characteristics, traits, or appearances, all without any legal proof or evidence or due process of the law.
I. The Parties to This Complaint
A. The Plaintiff(s)
Name: Sarai Hannah Ajai
B. The Defendant(s)
The relevant statutes governing the use of DOE ET AL are found in Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS) 67A Parties § 171, which pertains to cases involving unknown and fictitious names. The following legal cases provide insight into the benefits and principles behind Rule 9(h) and the tolling doctrine:
1. Rawson v. Jones, 816 So. 2d 367, 369 (Miss. 2001): This case highlights one of the advantages of Rule 9(h), which allows the Plaintiff who knows about her cause of action against the Defendants but is unaware of their true identity to designate a fictitious parties as the Defendants. This designation permits the Plaintiff to utilize the court's resources; in order to discover the true identity of the Defendants.
2. Hutchinson v. Fishing Engineering Corp, 153 A. 2d 594 (Del. Ch. 1959): In case involving a fiduciary duty, this case establishes that the court exercises restraint when applying the doctrine of laches, even in concurrent jurisdiction cases.
3. Freeman v. State, N.J. Super. 11, 31, 788 A.2d 867 (App. Div.): This case allows for the tolling doctrine to be applied by a court when one or more parties engages in overt trickery that induces the Plaintiff to delay the timely filing of a complaint.
4. Sousa v. Casey, 111 R.I. 623, 306 A.2d 186 (1973): The purpose of § 9-5-20 is to afford the Plaintiff the opportunity to toll the applicable statutes of limitations against fictitiously named Defendants upon filing a complaint.
In order to overcome the statute of limitations, the Plaintiff may designate the Defendants as a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical named persons based on the Plaintiff ignorance of the Defendants' true identity. The Plaintiff may then amend the complaint once the Defendants' actual identification documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties, or identifiers are discovered. By employing the concept of relation back to this amended complaint, the Plaintiff can avoid the time bar imposed by the statute of limitations. It is crucial for the Plaintiff to be unaware of the Defendants' identities, ignorant of the facts giving rise to the cause of actions against the Defendants, or unaware that the laws provide a cause of actions against these Defendants.
Provide the information below for each Defendant named in the complaint, whether the Defendant is a[n] individual, government agency, organization, or corporation. For an individual Defendant, include the person’s job or title (if known) and check whether you are bringing this complaint against them in their individual or official capacity, or both. Attach additional pages if needed.
Name: Doe ET AL
II. Basis for Jurisdiction
Under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, you may sue state or local Officials for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and Federal Laws.” Under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), you may sue Federal Officials for the violation of certain constitutional rights.
A. Are you bringing suit against (check all that apply):
B. Section 1983 allows claims alleging the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and Federal Laws.” Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If you are suing under section 1983, what Federal constitutional or statutory right[s] do you claim is/are being violated by state or local officials?
The Plaintiff alleges that certain government and nongovernmental Official Defendants has/had knowingly and willingly participated in activities where they favored certain Defendants, who were unlawfully issued, accessed, allotted, allowed, assigned, advocated, granted, permitted, disseminated, matched, linked, mapped, and subscribed to a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical names, to match the Plaintiff’s legal name. These Defendants, by engaging in a negligent, false, and fraudulent misrepresentations’ statements, either traded or possessed false or genuine identification documents, authentication features, or personal identification card properties. The Plaintiff's legal name is used by these Defendants to force the Plaintiff into a state of involuntary servitude invoking the Thirteenth (13th) amendment. The government and nongovernmental Official Defendants were aware that the Plaintiff's actual identification documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties, and identifiers belonged to her.
Furthermore, the government and nongovernmental Official Defendants within their individual and official capacities or duties had a fiduciary duty to treat the Plaintiff appropriately. They were obligated to provide honest services and represent the legitimacy of goods in transactions and contractual agreements. The Defendants who are using a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical names to match the Plaintiff’s legal name, intentionally, knowingly, and willfully engaged in the trafficking of false or genuine identification documents, authentication features, or personal identification card properties, thus creating identity issuance issues and problems through their false representations’ statements. The government and nongovernmental Official Defendants were aware of the Defendants negligent, false, and fraudulent misrepresentations’ statements and either knew they were false or recklessly made false statements with actual knowledge of the Plaintiff's rights pertaining to her genuine identification documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties and identifiers.
The Defendants, using a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical names to match the Plaintiff’s legal name, made negligent, false, and fraudulent misrepresentations’ statements that infringed upon the Plaintiff's rights regarding her identification documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties and identifiers. The Plaintiff relied on these Defendants, who shared her legal name, to tell the truth but instead encountered deceitful misrepresentations’ statements that disproportionately affected her economic situations, including housing, education, employment opportunities and benefits. As a result, the Plaintiff was forced into their compulsory conditions of involuntary servitude, not through physical shackles or handcuffs, but by the intangible use of her identification of goods and National Security Clearance background profile. The government and nongovernmental Official Defendants unlawfully issued, accessed, allotted, allowed, assigned, advocated, granted, permitted, matched, linked, mapped, or disseminated the Plaintiff's genuine identification documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties and identifiers to the Defendants with a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical names to match the Plaintiff’s legal name. These acts, performed under the color of law and invoking the Thirteenth (13th) amendment, resulted in the Plaintiff's identification of goods instrument slavery. Such slavery, caused by the Defendants who are /were trafficking in false or genuine identification documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties, or identifiers within their powers, is masked, concealed, camouflaged, or disguised, as a modern-day intangible slavery in the 21st century.
Furthermore, the Official Defendants who lack the privilege to infringe upon the Plaintiff's genuine identification documents, authentication features, and personal identification cards properties are/were involved in the following actions:
1. The Official Defendants utilized and included the Plaintiff's social constructs of gender practices to assign specific attributes, characteristics, or roles by a reason of her membership in a societal group of women and men. However, the Official Defendants who intentionally, knowingly, and willingly issued, accessed, allotted, allowed, assigned, advocated, granted, permitted, disseminated, matched, linked, mapped, and subscribed to the preferences of the Defendants with a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical names to match the Plaintiff legal name are treated and profiled them more favorably than the Plaintiff. These inherent participations has/had demonstrated malicious intents and premeditated criminal conducts on the behalf of the Official Defendants who possess individual and official capacities or fiduciary duties to:
a. prevent such injustices conducted by the Defendants with a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical names to match the Plaintiff legal name.
b. consider equitable relief in the form of a permanent injunction and restraining orders on behalf of the Plaintiff due to their intentionally, knowingly, and willfully participations in a said infringement conspiracies upon the Plaintiff’s identity instruments.
2. The Official Defendants deliberately and willfully engaged in a said conspiracies with the Defendants using a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical name to match the Plaintiff legal name; in order to unlawfully affix forged signatures onto notarized instruments or waive rights documents without the Plaintiff lawful authorities.
3. The Official Defendants had made negligent, false, and fraudulent misrepresentations’ statements from a said conspiracies which had accused the Plaintiff of suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, dementia, or memory losses symptoms; in order to deprive the Plaintiff of her constitutional rights. And, the Official Defendants acts aims to conceal their oligarchy malfeasance or misfeasance through their intentionally, knowingly and willfully participations in a said conspiracies with the Defendants because of their fictitious, similar, or identical name to the Plaintiff legal name. Also, their participations involved problems related to identifications trafficking, passive frauds, concealments, and conspiracies, thereby violating the Plaintiff’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses under the color of law (Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983). The relevant legal precedents include, O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 95 S. Ct 2486 (1975), Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 113 S. Ct. 2637 (1993) and Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 107 S. Ct. 515 (1986) supports the Plaintiff’s arguments.
4. The Official Defendants has/had allegedly accused the Plaintiff of being a homeless person, as defined by Title 42 U.S.C. § 11302. These negligent, false, and fraudulent misrepresentations’ statements implies that the Plaintiff supposedly either resides in the common area or garage of her stated residential permanent address, leading to fraudulent trespasses against her rental agency, Goldmark Property Management, Inc (“Goldmark”) when the Plaintiff has/had a legal rental apartment contractual lease agreements with Goldmark. And, the Official Defendants has/had also made negligent, false, and fraudulent misrepresentations’ statements suggesting the Plaintiff is purportedly living in a homeless shelters or on the public streets when the Plaintiff was not living in any shelters or the public streets. This means that the Defendant Officials may intentionally disregard the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to liberty based on her alleged homelessness status from the Official Defendants who had made negligent, false, and fraudulent misrepresentations’ statements revealed, absence of the due process of law. Consequently, the fictitious, similar, or identical named Defendants has/had engaged in an unlawful trafficking of fraudulent or forged identification instruments because of the Plaintiff alleged status is supposedly homelessness by the Official Defendants without her acknowledgement that her residential statuses are falsely reported, as homelessness. This means the Defendants can most often assume the Plaintiff’s identity, and identity instruments without providing any legal proof or evidence of documentations legitimacy problems through their false personations within the homeless shelters and/or Goldmark’s rental apartments’ properties. These negligent, false, and misrepresented investigative statements are part of the Official Defendants deceptive business practices. After, falsely claiming the Plaintiff residential status is homelessness without any valid reasons will eventually forces her to live onto the public streets due to their continuous false reportings to those governmental and nongovernmental entities, thereby violating the Plaintiff’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses under the color of law (Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Despite, the Plaintiff having years of documented legal rental receipts paid to four different rental agencies, which align with her bank statements are evidence for passing the United States National Security Clearance rental verification background checks.
The Defendants, through the use of fictitious, similar, or identical names to match the Plaintiff's legal name, have deliberately engaged in the unlawful trafficking of identification instruments. These instruments were issued, accessed, allotted, allowed, assigned, advocated, granted, permitted, disseminated, matched, linked, mapped, and subscribed to by the Official Defendants. Their purposes are/were to allow the Defendants to assume the Plaintiff's identity through false personations, resulting in a series of fixed, uniform, and unchanging incidents of identity theft activities. These actions infringed upon the Plaintiff's rights under the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment, causing her to experience enforced compulsory conditions of involuntary servitude problems. The Defendants' performance of identity thefts acts while utilizing genuine and forged or fraudulent identification instruments which are/were obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures without legal court jurisdictional procedures or probable causes are constituted, as violation of the Plaintiff's Fourth (4th) Amendment rights. Given the absence of any specific statutes granting the Defendants rights in titles, educational attainments, employments, housings and opportunities, or benefits using a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical names to match the Plaintiff's legal name. So, the Defendants has/had intentionally, knowingly, and willfully trafficked of the Plaintiff's genuine identification instruments implies a civil cause of actions. These actions directly implicate the Official Defendants authorities within their official capacities or duties, acting "under the color of law," as established in Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002), Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S. Ct. 2304 (1989), and Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989).
In instances where state or local government Official Defendants has/had acted under the apparent authorities to possess on behalf of their respective entities have caused the Plaintiff to be deprived of rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed and protected by the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment rights, as well as the first (1st) through the tenth (10th) Amendments to the Constitutional Doctrine of the Bill of Rights, which ensure the Plaintiff's rights not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, it is deemed unlawful. Moreover, the Official Defendants who has/had assisted the fictitious, similar, or identical names to match the Plaintiff's legal name, have intentionally, knowingly, and willfully engaged in the unlawful use of trafficked identification instruments. These Official Defendants have become intertwined and woven within our societal politics, as the Plaintiff spooky entanglements leading to a disconcerting situations where the Plaintiff, who possesses legitimate property rights to her genuine identification documents, authentication features, and personal identification cards properties or identifiers, experiences their unlawful misuse. Consequently, the Plaintiff becomes the deliberate target of the Official Defendants, who unjustly prefer and favor those individual Defendants with fictitious, similar, or identical names to match the Plaintiff's legal name. These subjective sex and gender identity psychological perceptions and role preferences stemming from the Official Defendants' extreme and excessive frustrations that the Plaintiff possesses accurate identification credentials and is not a male by birth, resulting in a deliberate intent to physical harm or eliminate her; in order to conceal human rights Habeas Corpus problems with the Plaintiff genuine identity from an absence of the due process of law.
Afterward, the Plaintiff finds herself trapped in an enforced compulsory conditions of servitude-like situations due to the Defendants' intentional associations of her genuine identification documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties, and identifiers with a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical names Defendants. The Defendants coexisted, cohabitated, or shared the Plaintiff's United States National Security Clearance verifications and background checks without her acknowledgements or lawful authorities, forcing her into an identities crisis.
Moreover, the Official Defendants have unlawfully, knowingly, and willfully, participated in a said identity theft conspiracies by providing misleading and false investigative statements to the governmental and nongovernmental entities’ Officials. The Official Defendants concealed the Plaintiff's genuine identification documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties, identifiers, DNA definitions or manipulated the governmental and nongovernmental entities database systems through deceptive practices of gaslighting and/or scapegoating schemes and methods.
And, the Defendants, with a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical names matching to the Plaintiff's legal name, trafficked in an unlawful identification instruments, which were heavily favored over the Plaintiff's genuine identity and identification of goods without any proof or evidence and due process of the law. The Official Defendants failed to match these instruments with the Plaintiff's forensic biometric profile, leading to continuous mistakes, misidentifying, disidentifying and confusion in her true-identity due to intentional mishaps, mistakes or misleading or false investigative statements caused by the Defendants who have changed their own legal names to match the Plaintiff.
Additionally, the Defendants subscribed their legal name changes to governmental and nongovernmental entity databases, resulting in the issuances, accesses, allocations, allowances, assignments, advocacies, granting, permissions, disseminations, linking, and mapping of unlawful identification instruments associated with the Plaintiff's genuine identity and identification of goods without her lawful authority or due process of the law.
As a consequence, the verification of national security background checks by governmental and nongovernmental entities databases, as a results:
1. The absence of proof or evidence from the Official Defendants, who unlawfully represented the Plaintiff in a jurisdictional court hearing without her acknowledgment, violated the Plaintiff's due process rights.
2. The databases compelled the Plaintiff into a servitude-like conditions of relational identity and identification instruments, forcing her to coexist, cohabitate, or share her genuine identification instruments with those Defendants possessing fictitious, similar, or identical names. This misidentified or disidentified of the Plaintiff, as the original person and intentionally disconnected the Plaintiff from her genuine identification documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties, and identifiers. This also triggered identity segregation against the Plaintiff's societal identity from the governmental and nongovernmental entities due from the Official Defendants, who used joint and constructive social liability schemes and methods in, a deceptive business practices, committing honest services fraud under the color of law within their official authoritative or fiduciary duties from their employment agreements or contracts.
These Official Defendants deliberately violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights to liberty:
a) In order to manipulate and/or appropriate protected class category quotas to the Defendants using the Plaintiff’s National Security Clearance profile,
b) in the Plaintiff’s biometric identification profile,
c) from the Plaintiff’s identity of goods evidence,
d) in the Plaintiff’s characteristics inherent values,
e) in the Plaintiff’s educational attainments,
f) in the Plaintiff’s DNA definitions, and
g) in the Plaintiff’s civil rights protections
in favor of Defendants with a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical names who unlawfully trafficked in an identification documents or engaged in false identification document issuance problems. The Official Defendants treated these Defendants more favorably based on their subjective psychological perceptions and role preferences profiles, all while disregarding the consequences of their actions in an identity conspiracy against the Plaintiff's constitutional rights to liberty under the color of law.
The Plaintiff's civil causes of action arise against the Official Defendants who have intentionally, knowingly, and willfully failed to question or challenge the authenticity of the Plaintiff's identification documents, authentication features, and personal identification cards properties or identifiers in any judiciary court systems, thus violating the due process clause doctrine. As stated in Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950) “many controversies have rage about the cryptic and abstract words of the ‘Due Process Clause’ but there can be no doubt that at a minimum the judiciary court systems require that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case must be provided.” Similarly, Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80 (1972) noting that the “central meaning of procedural due process” is the “right to notice and an opportunity to be heard…at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Likewise, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557-558 (1974), emphasizes that the “court has consistently held that some kind of hearing is required at some time before a person is finally deprived of his/her property interests.”
Despite these constitutional guaranteed rights, the Official Defendants unlawfully issued, accessed, allotted, allowed, assigned, advocated, granted, permitted, and disseminated absolute conditions considerations to enforced coexistence involuntary servitude upon the Plaintiff's genuine identification documents, authentication features, and personal identification cards properties or identifiers. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s complaints were intentionally denied from the governmental entities websites and judiciary court systems due from her failure to conform to gender construct stereotypes on to how she should look and behave, as the Plaintiff is a female from birth and her gender identity is female. The Plaintiff denial of her constitutional rights infringes upon her Sixth (6th) Amendment, prohibit any clandestine proceedings that could potentially promote the misuse of the justice system, and the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment, which prohibits enforced compulsory conditions of servitude from the Official Defendants who had acted under the color of law, and therefore, violated Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as established in Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945).
To sum up, the Plaintiff's civil cause of action case outlines multiple violations of her due process and constitutional rights by the Official Defendants concerning her genuine identification documents, authentication features, and personal identification cards properties or identifiers, which may have been exacerbated by gender-based stereotypes discriminations, leading to the Plaintiff involuntary servitude problems. Additionally, the actions of the Official Defendants were not legally justified and breached federal statutes.
NEW NINTH PRELIMINARY SECTION:
C. Plaintiffs suing under Bivens may only recover for the violation of certain constitutional rights. If you are suing under Bivens, what constitutional right[s] do you claim is/are being violated by Federal Officials?
The Plaintiff's civil cause of action arises under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), highlighting the significance of constitutional rights. The case emphasized the power of federal courts to issue injunctions against Official Defendants who violated constitutional rights, stressing the importance of empowering citizens to enforce these rights. Therefore, the Plaintiff alleges misconduct under Bivens. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that the Official Defendants unlawfully, intentionally, knowingly, and willfully confiscated, opened, lost, and distributed her legitimate sent and delivered ********************** (“****”) mail letters within the **** facilities jurisdictions to the public, and to a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical named Defendants ‘at-will’. These actions were intended to be used for public domain or open source, as a National Security Clearances documentations for them whom thinks he/she/they has actual legitimacy rights to the Plaintiff actual sent and delivered **** mail letters while the Official Defendants are/were acting under the color of Federal authority has/had made a warrantless searches and seizures. The Plaintiff contends that these actions are conducted under the color of Federal authority, constituted warrantless searches and seizures. Furthermore, the Plaintiff claims that the Official Defendants had acted without probable causes under his/her/theirs official authoritative, capacities or fiduciary duties by ways of causing her to be subjected and forced into a compulsory conditions of servitude problems under the Thirteenth (13th) Amendment and deprived of her constitutional rights to liberty under the Bill of Rights.
The Plaintiff raises a fundamental inquiry concerning the actions of the Official Defendants, specifically whether they were operating on behalf of the United States governmental entities in a manner consistent with "authorized acts," given the violation of the Plaintiff’s Fourth (4th) Amendment Rights by a said Official Defendants. It is noteworthy that the term "authorized" remains undefined within the Federal Criminal Code; however, the jurisprudence of Illinois has elucidated its interpretation. As exemplified in People v. Shinn, 5 Ill. App. 3d 468, 472, 283 N.E.2d 502, 505 (1972), citing People v. Young, 100 Ill. App. 2d 20, 23, 241 N.E.2d 587, 589 (1968), "authorized" has been construed as signifying an individual endowed with authority.
The matter of an Official Defendants’ compliance with their authoritative duties was addressed by the Supreme Court of Utah in State v. Gardiner, 814 P.2d 568, 574 (Utah 1991). This case pertinently considered whether an Official Defendants’ actions fell within the confines of their authorities and responsibilities. Similarly, in instances where the Official Defendants illicitly engaged in activities such as issuing, accessing, allotting, allowing, assigning, advocating, granting, permitting, disseminating, matching, linking, or mapping the fictitious, similar, or identical named Defendants to correspond with the Plaintiff's legal name, the concern emerges as to whether these actions transpired within the bounds of their official authoritative capacities or fiduciary duties, and notably, in the absence of judicial oversight in an adherence to due process of law.
In attempting to define the parameter of "scope of authority," reference was made to the United States v. Heliczer, 373 F.2d 241, 245 (2d Cir. 1967), a decision rendered by the Second Circuit. This pivotal case established that a pivotal criterion revolves around whether the Official Defendants performed duties that aligned with their official authoritative capacities or fiduciary duties, or alternatively, veered into personal endeavors or malevolent actions. It is incumbent upon this context to comprehensively ascertain whether the Official Defendants were engaged in the execution of their prescribed duties or whether their actions deviated into unauthorized and objectionable methods.
This consideration of the Plaintiff's allegations necessitates a meticulous examination of whether the Official Defendants operated within the parameters of their designated responsibilities or strayed into unapproved and potentially unlawful pursuits. The determination of whether the actions were "authorized acts" hinges on these delineations, underscoring the need for a thorough assessment of their duties, activities, and intentions.
And for this reason, the Plaintiff asserts that the Official Defendants have deliberately, knowingly, and willfully engaged in unconstitutional actions within the United States' jurisdictions. The Official Defendants goal appears to be amassing extensive authoritative powers for which enabling them to infringe upon the Plaintiff's constitutional rights to liberty with an almost godlike mind-set. This contrasts starkly with the actions of an unauthorized individual trespasser who lacks such official capacity when his/her violation of the Plaintiff's Fourth (4th) Amendment rights being of lesser magnitude. Furthermore, the Official Defendants have unlawfully, intentionally, knowingly, and willfully acted unconstitutionally in their official authoritative roles or fiduciary duties. This aims to advance the Official Defendants concealed agendas of secrecy and confidentiality which are jeopardizing the Plaintiff's National Security Clearance verifications by disregarding and/or invoking her actual identification documents, authentication features, personal identification cards properties, and identifiers belonged to her without justifiable causes from the due process of law. This enables the Official Defendants to facilitate the misuse for a[n] fictitious, similar, or identical named Defendants to which align them with the Plaintiff's legal name, exacerbating trafficking issues, whether genuine or deceptive:
• Counterfeit identification documents,
• False authentication features,
• Fraudulent personal identification cards, or
• Falsified notarized instruments.
These fraudulent actions include:
• personations,
• Fabricated identification documents,
• Illegitimate means of identifications,
• Production of falsified documents,
• Unauthorized Powers of Attorney,
• False Affidavits, or
• Fraudulent Waived Rights’ documents.
All of these actions carry prosecutorial consequences, as established by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
Comments
Post a Comment