(This document is not the actual filing or part of an actual filing. This, (and other documents to be published) is a synopsis presentation.
Introduction:
There can be no greater ‘controversy’ between the United States and a State (Title 28 Part 4 Section 81 1251. Original jurisdiction b(2)) than that of: offender versus victim.
The existence of a crime committed against the United States of America (its Judicial Branch in both the Fourth and Ninth Circuit district courts) and plaintiffs in civil cases by a state, or at the direction of an elected, appointed or contracted employee or representative of a state through a company performing as a state actor is the utmost definition of ‘All controversies between the United States and a State.”
As quoted in TEXAS v. CALIFORNIA Supreme Court of United States. Decided April 26, 2021.1 41 S.Ct. 1469 (2021) “In Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821), Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion for the Court famously proclaimed: ‘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.’ Id., at 404.”
As the review of a case based in Title 28 Part 4 Section 81 1251: Original jurisdiction b(2) is not exclusive to the Supreme Court. There are compelling and undeniable reasons why no other court can adjudicate the issues presented in the instant case. Title 28 Part 4 Section 1251. (2) All controversies between the United States and a State; U.S. Const., Art. III, § 2.
Discussion:
“Exclusive jurisdiction refers to power of a court to adjudicate a case to the exclusion of all other courts. It is the sole forum for determination of a particular type of case. Exclusive jurisdiction is decided on the basis of the subject matter dealt with by a particular court. ” [1]
The subject matter of the instant case is one that encompasses all federal District and Appeals courts in this nation.
When a person or an entity, private or government becomes the victim of a felony that person or entity cannot pass judgment over those accused of committing the felony or felonies without depriving one or all parties of the case, both victims and perpetrators of their Constitutional right to equal protection under the law and due process.
It is not due process to be judged by a court that has been a victim of one’s acts. It is not due process to be judged by a court that has the very same overwhelming need to remain impartial and protect the integrity of the court itself. Title 28 Part 4 Section 1251. (2) All controversies between the United States and a State;That applies to the District courts in both the Fourth and the Ninth Circuits as they are direct victims of felonies, as well as all other courts not within the venue applicable to those crimes. District and appeals courts acting in judgment over those who committed acts against the Judicial Branch would be creating appealable issues that would deprive not only the Judicial Branch but the civil case victims as well of both equal protection and due process.
The jurisdiction of the instant case can only rest with a Supreme Court Justice or the Supreme Court itself as there is no higher or ‘other’ venue in which to seek protection of the Constitution’s requirements to guarantee a fair hearing. The mere existence of a District or Appeals court in the calculation of non-exclusive jurisdiction voids the protections afforded to all parties in the instant case.
As 28 U.S. Code §47: Disqualification of trial judge to hear appeal: states, “No judge shall hear or determine an appeal from the decision of a case or issue tried by him.”
That must include the same prohibition to an entire collection of judges within a court when the court itself has suffered for the issue that took place before similar judges.
All judges in all district and appeals courts should, in accordance with 28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge A(5)iii “(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:”…”(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;” be disqualified from hearing the instant case as such a judge would be, through the third degree of relationship, substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding in whether the very court within which the judge sits is either compromised through crime or not. Any attack on ANY Court of the United States Judiciary Branch is an attack on the entire United States Judiciary Branch.
Quoted from 136 S.Ct. 1034 (2016) 194 L. Ed. 2d 545 NEBRASKA, et al. v. COLORADO. March 21, 2016. “The Constitution provides that “[i]n all Cases … in which a State shall be [a] Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”
The instant case is not between two states. It is not between a state and the federal government. yet it is grounded in crimes against the United States by a state. The state of Arizona is a “party” within the instant case as defined as a participant in acts against the United States. Only the Supreme Court can address that condition.
The instant case regards refusal to abide by the oath of office and refusal to defend the United States of America by prosecutors in both the Ninth and Fourth Circuits and their refusal to inform and thereby conceal and defraud courts to publish existing rulings. Since that refusal was within the confines of the circuits made victims by commission of felonies and the same circuits are victims of those acts neither circuit may hear the instant case.
The instant case also establishes opportunity in the defrauding of courts through the plaintiffs in the cases in which crimes were committed being self-represented. It is almost a foregone conclusion that no such criminal acts would be contemplated, let alone committed if bar admitted counsel had been prosecuting the civil cases. This is a systemic corruption of the Department of Justice, literally from sea to sea.
[1] https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exclusive-jurisdiction/