Affidavit and Declaration in Support

Case 2:24-cv-00295-JAD-EJY Document 12 Filed 02/17/24 Page 1 of 26
MR. CLAYTON-M. BERNARD-EX.

Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex.
10120 W. Flamingo Rd, Ste 4-215
Las Vegas, Nevada 89147
Tel: (702) 530-6740
Email: mr.claytonm.bernardex@gmail.com
Secured Party Creditor/ Beneficial Owner/

Attorney-in-Fact for MR. CLAYTON-M. BERNARD-EX.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
District of Nevada
Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex., Case No.: 2:24-cv-00295-JAD-EJY

Plaintiff(s),
AFFIDAVIT and DECLARATION
-V- in Support of Plaintiff VERIFIED
COMPLAINT ECF [2].
Las Vegas Township Justice Court
(aka) Las Vegas Justice Court,
an Entity;
Jessica Goodey, in her private, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Individual and official capacity;
Erica Adam Goodman (aka)
Eric A. Goodman, in his private,
individual and official capacity;
Jennifer Anna Dorsey (aka)
Jennifer A. Dorsey, in her private,
Gloria Marie Navarro
(aka) Gloria M. Navarro,
in her private, individual
and official capacity;
Richard F. Boulware, in his private,
Elayna J. Youchah, in her private,
Maximiliano D. Couvillier III, in his private,
Page 1 of 24

Daniel J. Albregts, in his private,
James C. Mahan, in his private,
Robert A. McQuaid Jr., in his private,
Robert C. Jones, in his private,
Larry R. Hicks, in his private,
Kent J. Dawson, in his private,
Andrew Patrick Gordon (aka)
Andrew P. Gordon, in his private,
Howard D. McKibben, in his private,
individual and official capacity
Vincent Cam Ferenbach (aka)
Vincent Ferenbach (aka)
Cam Ferenbach, in his private,
Christina D. Silva, in her private,
Anne R. Traum, in her private,
Nancy J. Koppe, in her private,
Craig Stephen Denny (aka)
Craig S. Denny, in his private,
Carla Balwin, in her private,
Miranda Mai Du (aka)
Miranda M. Du, in her private,
and et al,
Defendants.
Page 2 of 24
AFFIDAVIT and DECLARATION in Support of Plaintiff

VERIFIED COMPLAINT re: ECF [2]
Specially appearing Plaintiff Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex., Secured Party

Creditor, Beneficial Owner, Fiduciary, Executor, Attorney-in-fact, Diplomat hereby
files this Affidavit and Declaration in support of Plaintiff Verified Complaint ECF
[2], Affidavits and Attachments. .
Dated this 16th day of February 2024
Respec ully Submi ed by:
/s/ Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex., UCC 1-308, All rights reserved.

______________________________________________
10120 W. Flamingo Rd, Ste 4-215
Tel: (702) 530-6740

Attorney-in-Fact for MR. CLAYTON-M. BERNARD-EX.
Page 3 of 24
AFFIDAVIT
I, Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex, hereby depose and state as follows:
Introduction:
1. I am the Plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Las Vegas Township Justice
Court, Judge Jessica Goodey, Judge Eric Adam Goodman (aka) Eric A.
Goodman, District Court Judge Jennifer Anna Dorsey (aka) Jennifer A.
Dorsey, Judge Elayna J. Youchah, Judge Gloria Marie Navarro (aka) Gloria
M. Navarro, Judge Ricard F. Boulware, Judge Nancy J. Koppe, Judge
Brenda Weskler, Judge Andrew Patrick Gordon (aka) Andrew P. Gordon,
Judge Carla Baldwin, Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III, Judge Cristina D.
Silva, Robert A. McQuaid Jr, Judge Miranda Mai. Du (aka) Miranda M. Du,
Judge Anne R. Traum, Judge Howard D. Mckibben, Judge Craig Stephen
Denney (aka) Craig S. Denny, Judge Kent J. Dawson, Judge Deniel J.
Albregts, Judge James C. Mahan, Judge Larry R. Hicks, Judge Robert C.
Jones, Judge Vincent Cam Ferenbach (aka) Vincent Ferenbach; Cam
Ferenbach. The purpose of this affidavit is to provide a sworn statement in
support of my claims against the defendants.
Allegations:
2. Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983:
2. 1. Facts: The defendants, Las Vegas Township Justice Court, Judge

Jessica Goodey, Judge Eric Adam Goodman (aka) Eric A. Goodman, District
Court Judge Jennifer Anna Dorsey (aka) Jennifer A. Dorsey, Judge Elayna J.
Youchah, Judge Gloria Marie Navarro (aka) Gloria M. Navarro, Judge Ricard
F. Boulware, Judge Nancy J. Koppe, Judge Brenda Weskler, Judge Andrew
Page 4 of 24
Patrick Gordon (aka) Andrew P. Gordon, Judge Carla Baldwin, Judge

Maximiliano D. Couvillier III, Judge Cristina D. Silva, Robert A. McQuaid Jr,
Judge Miranda Mai. Du (aka) Miranda M. Du, Judge Anne R. Traum, Judge
Howard D. Mckibben, Judge Craig Stephen Denney (aka) Craig S. Denny,
Judge Kent J. Dawson, Judge Deniel J. Albregts, Judge James C. Mahan,
Judge Larry R. Hicks, Judge Robert C. Jones, Judge Vincent Cam Ferenbach
(aka) Vincent Ferenbach; Cam Ferenbach, deprived me of my constitutional
rights, including biased rulings and denial of due process during legal
proceedings.
2. 2. Legal Merits: The actions of the defendants potentially violate 42

U.S.C. § 1983, protecting individuals from deprivation of constitutional rights
by state actors. Biased rulings and denial of due process constitute clear
violations of this statute.
3. Violations of U.S.C. 241 and U.S.C. 242:
3. 1. Facts: I allege a conspiracy among the defendants to deprive me of my

constitutional rights, including intimidation and oppression during legal
proceedings.
3. 2. Legal Merits: Substantiated claims of conspiracy constitute violations of

U.S.C. 241, which criminalizes such acts. Additionally, international
deprivation of rights under color of law, as alleged, would breach U.S.C. 242.
Page 5 of 24
Precedent Case Laws for 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Conspiracy
Against Rights and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law):
1. United States v. Guest (1966): This case established that conspiracy to

violate civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 need not be shown by direct
evidence, but may be inferred from the circumstances.
2. United States v. Price (1966): In this case, the Supreme Court held that
conspiracy to intimidate voters and other forms of racial harassment are
violations of 18 U.S.C. § 241.
3. United States v. Lanier (1997): The Supreme Court held that a state official
violates 18 U.S.C. § 242 when they act (or fail to act) with a specific intent
to deprive an individual of their constitutional rights.
4. Copyright Violations under 17 U.S.C. § 501:
4. 1. Facts: The defendants engaged in copyright violations by using

copyrighted material without authorization or attribution.
4. 2. Legal Merits: Unauthorized use of copyrighted material by public

officials violates 17 U.S.C. §501, entitling me to damages and injunctive relief.
Precedent Case Laws for Beneficial Owner and Holder in Due Course
Laws for Copyright:
1. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989): This case

involved a sculptor who created a sculpture for a charitable
organization. The Supreme Court held that the sculptor was the
beneficial owner of the copyright, despite the organization
Page 6 of 24
commissioning the work, as the sculptor retained control over the

creation process.
2. Transfer Copyright Corp. v. Panoramic Music Co. (1969): In this case,

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a holder in due course of
a copyright assignment is subject to any defenses or claims that the
original assignor could assert against the copyright owner.
5. Jurisdictional Concerns and 28 U.S.C. § 1331:

5. 1. Facts: The defendants acted without jurisdiction in certain legal
matters, violating my legal rights.
5. 2. Legal Merits: Acting without jurisdiction undermines the fairness of

judicial proceedings. Assertion of jurisdictional violations questions the
court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Precedent Case Laws for Judges Acting Without Jurisdiction:
Mackay v. Uinta Development Co. (1939): This case held that a judge acts
without jurisdiction if they exceed their authority or act outside the bounds
of their prescribed duties. Any judgments rendered in such circumstances
may be void.
Stump v. Sparkman (1978): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a
judge is immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts performed in
their judicial capacity, even if those acts are in error or were done
maliciously.
Page 7 of 24
1. Doctrine of Subject Matter Jurisdiction:

 Case Law: Ex parte McCardle (1869): In this case, the Supreme
Court held that Congress has the authority to limit the appellate
jurisdiction of federal courts. This underscores the principle that
federal courts must have subject matter jurisdiction to hear and
decide cases.
 Legal Principle: Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,

meaning they can only hear cases authorized by the Constitution or
federal statutes. If a judge presides over a case outside of their
jurisdiction, it can lead to the invalidation of their rulings.
2. Personal Jurisdiction:
 Case Law: International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945):
This case established the minimum contacts standard for personal
jurisdiction. It held that a court can only exercise jurisdiction over a
defendant if the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the
forum state, ensuring fairness and due process.
 Legal Principle: Judges must have personal jurisdiction over the
parties involved in a case to render a valid judgment. Acting without
proper personal jurisdiction can result in the judgment being deemed
void.
3. Oath of Office:
 Legal Principle: Judges are required to take an oath of office,
wherein they solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution and laws of
the jurisdiction they serve. Any actions taken by a judge outside the
scope of their jurisdiction may constitute a violation of their oath.
Page 8 of 24
4. Void Judgment Doctrine:

 Legal Principle: A judgment rendered by a court lacking subject
matter or personal jurisdiction is generally considered void. This
means that it is as if the judgment never existed and can be
collaterally attacked or challenged even after the time for direct
appeal has passed.
5. Consequences for Judges Acting Without Jurisdiction:

 Judges who act without jurisdiction may face disciplinary action,
including censure, suspension, or removal from the bench.
 Litigants aggrieved by judgments rendered without jurisdiction have
the right to challenge such judgments through legal avenues,
seeking remedies such as vacatur or reversal.
6. Access to Information through U.S.C. § 552:

6. 1. Facts: The defendants obstructed access to information, impeding
transparency and accountability.
6. 2. Legal Merits: Denying access to information violates U.S.C. § 552,

ensures transparency in government actions.
7. International Implications of Diplomatic Immunity

U.S.C. § 254a et seq:
7. 1. Facts: I invoke Diplomatic Immunity under U.S.C. § 254a et seq,
suggesting potential international ramifications.
7. 2. Legal Merits: Diplomatic immunity may shield me from legal actions,

emphasizing the need to consider international factors.
Page 9 of 24
Precedent Case Laws for Diplomatic Immunity:

1. Samantar v. Yousuf (2010): In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed that
the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) does not grant individual
immunity to foreign officials for their official acts. However, specific
diplomatic immunity granted under treaties between nations must be
examined in each case.
2. Albright v. Oliver (1994): This case held that foreign diplomats enjoy
immunity from lawsuits for acts performed in their official capacity.
However, the scope of immunity may vary based on the specific
circumstances and applicable treaties.
8. Examination of Financial matters under 12 U.S.C. §

1829b:
8. 1. Facts: I allege breaches of financial responsibilities by the defendants,

made, implicating 12 U.S.C. § 1829b.
8. 2. Legal Merits: Violations of financial responsibilities breach 12 U.S.C. §

1829b, which establishes standards for individuals in financial institutions.
Conclusion:
I affirm the truth and accuracy of the forgoing statements and

hereby request the court to consider the evidence presented in support of
my claims against the defendants.
/s/ Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex, UCC 1-308, All rights reserved.
DATED this 16th day of February 2024
Page 10 of 24
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITES
Background:
Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex has initiated a lawsuit against the Las Vegas
Township Justice Court, Judge Jessica Goodey, Eric Adam Goodman (aka) Eric
A, Goodman, District Court Judge Jennifer Anna Dorsey (aka) Jennifer A. Dorsey,
Judge Elayna J. Youchah, Judge Gloria Marie Navarro (aka) Gloria M. Navarro,
Judge Ricard F. Boulware, Judge Nancy J. Koppe, Judge Brenda Weskler, Judge
Andrew Patrick Gordon (aka) Andrew P. Gordon, Judge Carla Baldwin, Judge
Howard D. Mckibben, Judge Craig Stephen Denney (aka) Craig S. Denny, Judge
Kent J. Dawson, Judge Deniel J. Albregts, Judge James C. Mahan, Judge Larry
R. Hicks, Judge Robert C. Jones, Judge Vincent Cam Ferenbach (aka) Vincent
Ferenbach; Cam Ferenbach seeking $500,000,000 in damages. This legal action
arises from alleged violations of federal statutes, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Conspiracy Against Rights 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242, 17 U.S.C. § 501,
28 U.S.C. § 1331, 5 U.S.C. § 552, 22 U.S.C. § 611, 12 U.S.C. § 1829b, U.S.C. §
3729, 22 U.S.C. § 254a et, and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1960, 31
U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316 – 5336. Through this lawsuit, Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex
aims to ensure accountability for the defendants’ actions and uphold civil liberties
while maintaining the integrity of the justice system.
Allegations:
1. Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983:
Facts: Judge Jessica Goodey, Judge Eric Adam Goodman (aka) Eric A.
Goodman, District Court Judge Jennifer Anna Dorsey (aka) Jennifer A. Dorsey,
Page 11 of 24
Judge Elayna J. Youchah, Judge Gloria Marie Navarro (aka) Gloria M. Navarro,
Judge Ricard F. Boulware, Judge Nancy J. Koppe, Judge Brenda Weskler, Judge
Andrew Patrick Gordon (aka) Andrew P. Gordon, Judge Carla Baldwin, Judge
Howard D. Mckibben, Judge Craig Stephen Denney (aka) Craig S. Denny, Judge
Kent J. Dawson, Judge Deniel J. Albregts, Judge James C. Mahan, Judge Larry
R. Hicks, Judge Robert C. Jones, Judge Vincent Cam Ferenbach (aka) Vincent
Ferenbach; Cam Ferenbach allegedly deprived Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex of his
constitutional rights, including biased rulings and denial of due process during
legal proceedings.
Legal Merits: The defendants’ actions potentially violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

which protects individuals from deprivation of constitutional rights by state actors.
The evidence of biased rulings and denial of due process supports Mr. Clayton-
M. Bernard-Ex’s claim under this statute.
2. Violations of U.S.C. 241 and U.S.C. 242:
Facts: Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex alleges a conspiracy among the judges to

deprive him of his constitutional rights, including intimidation and oppression
during legal proceedings.
Legal Merits: Substantiated claims of conspiracy constitute violations of U.S.C.

241, which criminalizes such acts. Additionally, international deprivation of rights
under color of law, as alleged, would breach U.S.C. 242.
3. Copyright Violations under 17 U.S.C. § 501:
Page 12 of 24
Facts: Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex claims the judges engaged in copyright

violations by using copyrighted material without authorization or attribution.
Legal Merits: Unauthorized use of copyrighted material by public officials

violates 17 U.S.C. §501. Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex has a valid claim for
damages and injunctive relief under this statue.
4. Jurisdictional Concerns and 28 U.S.C. § 1331:

Facts: Allegations suggest the judges acted without jurisdiction in certain legal
matters, violating Mr. Clayton-M. Benard-Ex.’s legal rights.
Legal Merits: Acting without jurisdiction undermines the fairness of judicial

proceedings. Assertion of jurisdictional violations questions the court’s authority
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
5. Access to Information through U.S.C. § 552:

Facts: Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex alleges obstruction of access to information by
the judges, impeding transparency and accountability.
Legal Merits: Denying access to information violates U.S.C. § 552, which

ensures transparency in government actions. Accountability in the legal process
is essential.
6. International Implications of Diplomatic Immunity

U.S.C. § 254a et seq:
Page 13 of 24
Facts: Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex invokes Diplomatic Immunity under U.S.C. §

254a et seq, suggesting potential international ramifications.
Legal Merits: Diplomatic immunity may shield Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex from
legal actions, especially under U.S.C. § 254a et seq, emphasizing the need to
consider international factors.
7. Examination of Financial matters under 12 U.S.C. §

1829b:
Facts: Allegations of breaches of financial responsibilities by the judges are

made, implicating 12 U.S.C. § 1829b.
Legal Merits: Violations of financial responsibilities breach 12 U.S.C. § 1829,

which establishes standards for individuals in financial institutions.
Conclusion:
Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex’s lawsuit raises significant concerns regarding justice

administration and constitutional rights protection. Evidence supports legal
claims, impacting both the defendants and the legal system. The court’s actions
will profoundly affect all involved, emphasizing the need for thorough examination
and appropriate legal proceedings.
Page 14 of 24
I AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THAT FORGOING IS TRUE AND
CORRECT. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746 AND 28 U.S.C. § 1621.
Dated this 16th day of February 2024
Respectfully Submitted by:

____________________________________________
10120 W Flamingo Rd Ste 4-215
Tel: (702) 530-6740

Attorney-in-Fact for MR. CLAYTON-M. BERNARD-EX
Page 15 of 24
DECLARATION
I, Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex, being duly sworn, hereby depose and state the
following facts in support of my claims against the Las Vegas Township Justice
Court and several judges in the federal court jurisdiction. The purpose of this
declaration is to present compelling evidence of racial discrimination, modern-
day slavery, and violations of constitutional rights in the state of Nevada,
particularly within the justice system.
Allegations:
Systemic Racial Discrimination and Modern-Day Slavery:
I allege that systemic racial discrimination and modern-day slavery practices are
rampant in the state of Nevada, especially within the justice system.
African American communities face disproportionate discrimination in various

aspects of life, including employment, education, housing, and encounters with
law enforcement.
Despite legislative efforts, racial disparities persist, hindering the socio-economic

advancement of African Americans and perpetuating cycles of poverty and
injustice.
Modern-day slavery manifests in forms such as forced labor, debt bondage, and
human trafficking, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities,
including African Americans.
Page 16 of 24
Legal Merits:
a. The Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution abolished slavery

and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. However,
contemporary forms of slavery violate the spirit of this amendment and constitute
a clear violation of constitutional rights.
b. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment mandates that no

state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Yet, systemic racial discrimination persists, constituting a violation of
constitutional rights.
c. Pursuant to diplomatic immunity and treaties between the United States and
Ethiopia, I assert my rights under the Haile Selassie Kingdom and Monarchy,
which includes protection against racial discrimination and violation of
fundamental human rights.
Precedent Case Laws for Racism Based on Skin Complexion:
1. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971): This case established the principle that
employment practices that disproportionately affect certain racial groups,
even if not explicitly discriminatory, can still be deemed illegal under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
2. Washington v. Davis (1976): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a
government policy or practice that has a disparate impact on racial
minorities is not unconstitutional unless it is proven to be intentionally
discriminatory.
Page 17 of 24
Precedent Case Laws for 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Conspiracy
Against Rights and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law):
4. United States v. Guest (1966): This case established that conspiracy to

violate civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 need not be shown by direct
evidence, but may be inferred from the circumstances.
5. United States v. Price (1966): In this case, the Supreme Court held that
conspiracy to intimidate voters and other forms of racial harassment are
violations of 18 U.S.C. § 241.
6. United States v. Lanier (1997): The Supreme Court held that a state official
violates 18 U.S.C. § 242 when they act (or fail to act) with a specific intent
to deprive an individual of their constitutional rights.
Precedent Case Laws:
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): This historic case established that African
Americans, whether free or enslaved, were not considered citizens and lacked
standing to sue in federal courts. While significant progress has been made since
then, racial discrimination and inequality persist.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court
declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, affirming the
principle of equal protection under the law. However, disparities in education and
other sectors persist, indicating ongoing challenges in achieving racial equality.
Muhammad v. City of Reno (2002): In this case, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that racial profiling by law enforcement violated the Equal
Page 18 of 24
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This precedent underscores

the illegality of discriminatory practices within law enforcement agencies.
Conclusion:
In affirming the veracity and precision of the preceding statements, I emphasize
the compelling evidence of racial discrimination, modern-day slavery, and
infringements upon constitutional rights in the State of Nevada. These
reprehensible practices systematically perpetuate injustices against Ethiopian,
Indigenous, Afro-Indigenous, African, and Original Mosaic Peoples communities,
directly contravening the foundational principles of equality and justice upon
which our nation stands. Therefore, I implore the court to meticulously weigh the
evidence presented in bolstering my claims against the defendants, thereby
ensuring accountability and rectifying the systemic inequities that plague our
society.
Respectfully Submitted by:

Tel: (702) 530-6740
Secured Party Creditor/ Beneﬁcial Owner/

A orney-in-Fact for MR. CLAYTON-M. BERNARD-EX.
Page 19 of 24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this 16th day of February 2024, I served a true and correct
copy of the forgoing Affidavit and Documents in support of Plaintiff Verified
Complaint ECF [2] and Affidavits through CM/ECF Electronic Filing system of the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia (or. If necessary, by U.S.
Mail, first class, postage pre-paid), upon the following:

Tel: (702) 530-6740
Secured Party Creditor/ Beneﬁcial Owner/
A orney-in-Fact for MR. CLAYTON-M. BERNARD-EX.
1. Las Vegas Township Justice Court

(aka) Las Vegas Justice Court, an Entity.
200 Lewis Avenue,
2. Jessica Goodey, in her private,

individual and official capacity.
200 Lewis Avenue, Department 6B
3 Eric Adam Goodman (aka)

Eric A. Goodman, in his private,
200 Lewis Avenue, Department 11
Page 20 of 24
4. Elayna J. Youchah, in her private,

333 Las Vegas Boulevard South
5. Jennifer Anna Dorsey, in her private,

333 Las Vegas Boulevard South
6. Gloria Marie Navarro

(aka) Gloria M. Navarro, in her private,
333 Las Vegas Blvd South
7. Richard F. Boulware, in his private,

8. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III, in his private,

9. Vincent Cam Ferenbach (aka);

Vincent Ferenbach; (aka)
Cam Ferenbach, in his private,
10. Andrew Patrick Gordon

(aka) Andrew P. Gordon, in his private,
Page 21 of 24
11. Daniel J. Albregts, in his private,

12. Robert A. McQuaid Jr, in his private,

13. Kent J. Dawson, in his private,

14. Larry R. Hicks, in his private,

15. Robert C. Jones, in his private,

16. Craig Stephen Denney

(aka) Craig S. Denney, in his private,
17. James C. Mahan, in his private,

18. Brenda Weksler, in her private,

Page 22 of 24
19. Cristina D. Silva, in her private,

20. Anne R. Traum, in her private,

21. Nancy J. Koppe, in her private,

22. Carla Balwin, in her private,

23. Miranda Mai Du (aka)

Miranda M. Du, in her private,
Page 23 of 24
Verification
Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, hereby makes
the following declaration: (1) he is a Plaintiff in the above titled stated on
information and belief.
/s/ Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex, UCC 1-308, All rights reserved.

Page 24 of 24

Affidavit and Declaration in Support

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Affidavit and Declaration in Support

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:24-cv-00295-JAD-EJY Document 12 Filed 02/17/24 Page 1 of 26

MR. CLAYTON-M. BERNARD-EX.

Secured Party Creditor/ Beneficial Owner/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex., Case No.: 2:24-cv-00295-JAD-EJY

individual and official capacity;

AFFIDAVIT and DECLARATION in Support of Plaintiff

Specially appearing Plaintiff Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex., Secured Party

Dated this 16th day of February 2024

Respec ully Submi ed by:

/s/ Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex., UCC 1-308, All rights reserved.

Secured Party Creditor/ Beneficial Owner/

2. Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

2. 1. Facts: The defendants, Las Vegas Township Justice Court, Judge

Patrick Gordon (aka) Andrew P. Gordon, Judge Carla Baldwin, Judge

2. 2. Legal Merits: The actions of the defendants potentially violate 42

3. Violations of U.S.C. 241 and U.S.C. 242:

3. 1. Facts: I allege a conspiracy among the defendants to deprive me of my

3. 2. Legal Merits: Substantiated claims of conspiracy constitute violations of

1. United States v. Guest (1966): This case established that conspiracy to

4. Copyright Violations under 17 U.S.C. § 501:

4. 1. Facts: The defendants engaged in copyright violations by using

4. 2. Legal Merits: Unauthorized use of copyrighted material by public

1. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989): This case

commissioning the work, as the sculptor retained control over the

2. Transfer Copyright Corp. v. Panoramic Music Co. (1969): In this case,

5. Jurisdictional Concerns and 28 U.S.C. § 1331:

5. 2. Legal Merits: Acting without jurisdiction undermines the fairness of

Precedent Case Laws for Judges Acting Without Jurisdiction:

1. Doctrine of Subject Matter Jurisdiction:

 Legal Principle: Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,

4. Void Judgment Doctrine:

5. Consequences for Judges Acting Without Jurisdiction:

6. Access to Information through U.S.C. § 552:

6. 2. Legal Merits: Denying access to information violates U.S.C. § 552,

7. International Implications of Diplomatic Immunity

7. 2. Legal Merits: Diplomatic immunity may shield me from legal actions,

Precedent Case Laws for Diplomatic Immunity:

8. Examination of Financial matters under 12 U.S.C. §

8. 1. Facts: I allege breaches of financial responsibilities by the defendants,

8. 2. Legal Merits: Violations of financial responsibilities breach 12 U.S.C. §

I affirm the truth and accuracy of the forgoing statements and

DATED this 16th day of February 2024

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITES

1. Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

Legal Merits: The defendants’ actions potentially violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

2. Violations of U.S.C. 241 and U.S.C. 242:

Facts: Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex alleges a conspiracy among the judges to

Legal Merits: Substantiated claims of conspiracy constitute violations of U.S.C.

3. Copyright Violations under 17 U.S.C. § 501:

Facts: Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex claims the judges engaged in copyright

Legal Merits: Unauthorized use of copyrighted material by public officials

4. Jurisdictional Concerns and 28 U.S.C. § 1331:

Legal Merits: Acting without jurisdiction undermines the fairness of judicial

5. Access to Information through U.S.C. § 552:

Legal Merits: Denying access to information violates U.S.C. § 552, which

6. International Implications of Diplomatic Immunity

Facts: Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex invokes Diplomatic Immunity under U.S.C. §

7. Examination of Financial matters under 12 U.S.C. §

Facts: Allegations of breaches of financial responsibilities by the judges are

Legal Merits: Violations of financial responsibilities breach 12 U.S.C. § 1829,

Mr. Clayton-M. Bernard-Ex’s lawsuit raises significant concerns regarding justice

I AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF