1 ONLINE VERSION

2
3 DISTRICT COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
4 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [Washington, D.C.]
5
6 ALIEN TORT STATUTE CLAIM
7
8 ARTICLE III
9
10
11
12
13 Tushkhumoc Xelup
14 C/O 2001 S. Michigan Ave #28M, Chicago
15 340 513 5300
16 tushkahumoc@gmail.com JURY TRIAL
17 PLAINTIFF,
18
19 V.
20
21 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
22 1401 Constitution Ave NW. Washington, DC 20230
23
24 UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, GINA RAIMONDO
25 1401 Constitution Ave NW. Washington, DC 20230
26
27 UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU
28 4600 SILVER HILL ROAD, SUITLAND, MARYLAND
29
30 VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES
31 2122 Kongens Gade; St Thomas, USVI 00802
32
33 U.S. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR, DEB HAALAND
34 1849 C Street, N.W.; Washington DC 20240
35
36 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
37 1849 C Street, N.W.; Washington DC 20240
38
39 ALBERT BRYAN, Governor, U.S. Virgin Islands
40 2122 Kongens Gade; St Thomas, USVI 00802
41
42 ALPHONSO G ANDREWS JR
43 Alexander A. Farrelly Justice Center
44 5400 Veterans Drive, Suite 1; St Thomas, USVI 00802
45
46 CHERYL ANN KRAUSE
47 DISTRICT COURT VIRGIN ISLANDS, St. Thomas and St. John Division
48 3013 Estate Golden Rock, Suite 219; St. Croix, VI 00820
49
50 US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
51 2707 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE; WASHINGTON, DC 20032
52
53 U.S. SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS
54 2707 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE; WASHINGTON, DC 20032
55 COLIN S. BRUCE
56 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
57 318 U.S. COURTHOUSE
58 201 S. VINE STREET; URBANA, IL 61802
59
60 CHRISTY CRAIG
61 NEVADA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
62 REGIONAL JUSTICE COURT
63 200 LEWIS AVENUE; LAS VEGAS, NV 89155
64
65 U.S.A., U.S. ET AL,
66 Individually, and as representatives of a defendant class
67 composed of all persons and entities et al
68 Defendants
69
70
71
72 VERIFIED COMPLAINT
73
74 I. Nature of the Action
75 Comes now, PLAINTIFF, Tushkahumoc Xelup, tribal and national citizen of the Maipuri Arauan
76 Nation of the Americas, (“Plaintiff”) bringing this Alien Tort Statute claim to resolve issues
77 related to PLAINTIFF’ status and role as Plenipotentiary for the people of the Maipuri Arauan
78 Nation (MAN) and where PLAINTIFF makes claim for environmental racism, forced identity,
79 official oppression, and denial of human rights, offenses which are in violation of international
80 human rights laws. PLAINTIFF receives post C/O 2001 S. Michigan Ave #28M, Chicago, Ill,
81 and can be contacted at (340) 513 5300, email, tushkahumoc@gmail.com.
82
83 PLAINTIFF is an indigenous Arawak inhabitant of American territory and operates official MAN
84 government office and staff, located at 1006 Estate Ross, St Thomas, Virgin Islands.
85
86 PLAINTIFF seeks claims against DEFENDANTS ET AL for interfering with and denying
87 PLAINTIFF’ right of Plenipotentiary authority with the citizens and members of the sovereign
88 indigenous Maipuri Arauan nation.
89 PLAINTIFF states that on February 6, 2015, the United States Commerce Department Inspector
90 General agreed that fraud had been committed against PLAINTIFF and ordered the UNITED
91 STATES COMMERCE DEPARTMENT AND CENSUS BUREAU to make changes and adjust
92 their records related to the identity of PLAINTIFF; as of today April 22, 2024, the agencies,
93 DEFENDANT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DEFENDANT USDC)
2
 94 and DEFENDANT UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU (DEFENDANT USCB) have not
95 adjusted their records to reflect American Aborigine as declared in the accepted complaint. See
96 EXHIBIT A (International Affidavit, pg. 12.)
97
98 In accordance with customary international law, PLAINTIFF’ filed a CONSTRUCTIVE
99 NOTICE and AFFIDAVIT of claims, and within those claims PLAINTIFF provided presumptive
100 inquiries, which DEFENDANTS USCD and USCB were obligated to respond, but did not
101 respond as required by law; their response did not follow the laws of AFFIDAVIT and therefore,
102 those inquiries and declared protections are affirmed in law. PLAINTIFF asked four presumptive
103 questions within EXHIBIT A (International Affidavit and Notice of Fraud 2015” located on
104 page 12 of the International Affidavit and Notice of Fraud 2015) and no response was given as
105 required by law.
106
107 The recompense that PLAINTIFF seeks, pales in comparison to the effects PLAINTIFF is
108 currently suffering, as a direct result of DEFENDANTS USCD and USCB failure to implement
109 the protections as ordered by the inspector General for DEFENDANTS USCD and USCB.
110
111 PLAINTIFF is an appointed Congressmember See EXHIBIT B (MAIPURI ARAUAN NATION
112 CHARTER) and citizen of the Maipuri Arauan nation, See EXHIBIT C (INDIGENOUS ID
113 CARD) having sworn oath to the nation’s Constitution See EXHIBIT D (M.A.N.
114 CONSTITUTION) and flag. PLAINTIFF is also signatory of international treaty between the
115 Maipuri Arauan nation and the Māori Wha-Atua nation of New Zealand. See EXHIBIT E
116 (INTERNATIONAL TREATY.)
117
118 PLAINTIFF, a foreigner and alien to the United States makes claim in accordance with the 1948
119 28 U.S.C. § 1350 statute defined as the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), which is a section in
120 the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign
121 nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by
122 the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.
123
124 PLAINTIFF herein request venue of organic Article III, which is the proper and only venue to
125 lodge Plaintiff’ Alien Tort Statute Claim under Jus Cogens, for crimes against the laws of nations.
126 PLAINTIFF has sought redress from all DEFENDANTS and no redress was provided.
3
127 PLAINTIFF provided communications to DEFENDANTS ET AL via Certified U.S. mail and
128 direct recorded filings and via personal engagement with members of the DEFENDANT class,
129 and PLAINTIFF will present proofs of all claims during Discovery or as may be required by
130 DEFENDANTS ET AL.
131
132 PLAINTIFF seeks remedy and makes claim against the various members of the DEFENDANT
133 class for violations which include Environmental Racism and Violations of Human Rights,
134 specifically, Plaintiff makes claims against DEFENDANTS, ET AL for Constructive Fraud,
135 Identity Theft, Unlawful Conversion, Economic Deception and Ethnic Cleansing, unlawful
136 possession of human beings to be used as human capital, as described in US President Bill
137 Clinton’ Executive Order 13037, for Violations of United Nations International Covenant
138 Convention on Political and Civil Rights, Article 1 1,3, Article 2 1, 3a, Article 3, Article 5 1,2,
139 Article 6 1,3, Article 9 1,2,5, Article 10 1, Article 12 2, Article 14 1, 3, Article 15, Article 26,
140 Conspiracy to deprive rights, Negligence, Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional
141 Distress causing irreparable mental injury.
142
143 PLAINTIFF states that DEFENDANTS ET AL’ actions of systemically forcing fraudulent
144 identity upon PLAINTIFF, has been designed to oppress PLAINTIFF and place PLAINTIFF in
145 a perpetual state of apartheid and disenfranchisement, which is evident by DEFENDANTS ET
146 AL’ efforts to violate PLAINTIFF’ rights.
147
148 DEFENDANTS ET AL have used Color of Law actions, threats, and other methods to oppress
149 and restrict PLAINTIFF’ international right and access to provide unrestricted services and
150 assistance to tribal citizens, tribes registered under the MAN government, repatriated members of
151 the National Association for the Advancement of Indigenous People (NAAIP.) This is in violation
152 of PLAINTIFF’ obligation and right to provide protections for the citizens of the sovereign
153 indigenous nation of Arawak people, in the capacity elected by the people of the MAN, to protect
154 and defend their rights, which are secured by international treaties, the MAN constitution, and the
155 Great Weaver of Creation.
156
157 Violations of criminal and civil international law liability arise from environmental harm that
158 threatens the right to life; environmental deprivations of rights have become customary

4
159 international law and indigenous peoples’ environmental rights are protected under customary
160 international law and such laws and remedies apply to PLAINTIFF.
161 PLAINTIFF provides that PLAINTIFF’ claims are founded under the Alien Tort Statute, where
162 PLAINTIFF makes claim for Environmental Racism and Violations of Human Rights, forced
163 racial designation, Apartheid, Destruction of safe and productive existence, Constructive Fraud,
164 Aggravated Identity Theft, Unlawful Conversion, Economic Deception and Ethnic Cleansing.
165 These claims fall fully under the jurisdiction of the Alien Tort Statute claims, Jus Cogens
166 inclusive, where international law prevails and lies in the organic Article III Constitutional Court
167 venue and jurisdiction; see MEMORANDUM OF JURISDICTION AND LAW.
168
169 POWER AND AUTHORITY
170
171 In 2015 PLAINTIFF became a beneficiary of identity claims filed against the United States
172 Commerce Department (DEFENDANT USDC) and the U.S. Census Bureau (DEFENDANT
173 USCB), after PLAINTIFF filed claims which were sent to and received by John H. Thompson,
174 Director, Foreign Trade Processing Unit Bureau, 1201 EAST 10TH Street, Jeffersonville, Indiana
175 47132 and Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce, United States of America, 1401 Constitution
176 Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20230, Certified Number: 7012 1010 0001 9134 1300. See
177 EXHIBIT A (INTERNATIONAL AFFIDAVIT AND NOTICE OF FRAUD 2015,) filed with
178 DEFENDANT USDC and DEFENDANT USCB. See EXHIBIT F (RESPONSE from IG.)
179
180 PLAINTIFF, as founder of the NAAIP and beneficiary to the claims filed against DEFENDANT
181 USDC and DEFENDANT USCB, PLAINTIFF distributed over 200 copies of the entire document
182 to international delegates and diplomats at a U.N. conference. All recipients pledged their
183 international support and recognition to NAAIP.
184
185 In 2016, PLAINTIFF attended the United Nations Indigenous Peoples Conference See EXHIBIT
186 G (U.N. VIDEO) and included in the NAAIP delegation, a total of sixteen disenfranchised tribes
187 of Rhode Islands, Maine, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. These tribes are registered members
188 of NAAIP and tribes of MAN. Those tribes included federally recognized members of the
189 Narraganset, Pokanoket, Mattakisett and other tribes reconstructed through NAAIP. On their
190 behalf, PLAINTIFF initiated a claim against the Rhode Island’s Department of Health for

5
191 negligence in the enumeration process of tribes in the state; this action resulted in all the tribal
192 families registered with NAAIP receiving federal “Native American Healthcare.
193 PLAINTIFF’ title designation of Director General, and now Prime Minister for MAN has
194 extended into Mexico, where MAN represents 1756 tribes, who are under the protection of MAN
195 congresswoman, Luciana Zavala Rodriguez, See EXHIBIT H (M.A.N. CONGRESSIONAL
196 MEMBERS.) MAN has extended throughout the Caribbean, including Haiti, Trinidad, Guyana,
197 and Brazil.
198
199 The tribes of NAAIP and MAN currently depend upon PLAINTIFF to speak on their behalf,
200 assist in developing and filing torts, provide assistance in all judicial related issues for protecting
201 and defending their national and indigenous rights; PLAINTIFF is responsible for every tribe of
202 MAN.
203
204 PARTIES
205
206 DEFENDANT 1
207
208 DEFENDANT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DEFENDANT
209 USDC) is an agency of the United States government and at all times relevant, it houses an
210 administrator who oversees day to day commercial activities of trade in various types of products
211 and goods for the purpose of enhancing the financial wealth building for DEFENDANT USA ET
212 AL. The administrator is and carries the title of United States Secretary of Commerce, the current
213 secretary is DEFENDANT GINA RAIMONDO (DEFENDANT RAIMONDO).
214
215 PLAINTIFF states, that on December 28, 2014, to fulfill the United Nation’s “2015 Sustainable
216 Development Agenda Deadline”, PLAINTIFF responded to the United States United Nation’s
217 “Salvage Claim,” filed by former President George Bush, to address the economic destruction,
218 which was allegedly caused by African Americans and Mexican Americans. The Salvage Claim
219 provided that all claimants against the United States, must file claims prior to the “2015
220 Sustainable Development Agenda Deadline”, and the “NAAIP Claim,” with PLAINTIFF listed
221 as a beneficiary, is the only indigenous Claim filed, by any entity, to meet the deadline. See
222 EXHIBIT A (INTERNATIONAL AFFIDAVIT AND NOTICE OF FRAUD 2015.) The

6
223 NAAIP filing preserved the rights of Petitioners of the claim to pursue claims beyond the “2015
224 Sustainable Development Agenda Deadline”.
225
226 PLAINTIFF states that communication was made in proper form of “Affidavit and Constructive
227 Notice”, which requires the recipient to respond in accordance with the laws of affidavits, see
228 MEMORANDUM of AFFIDAVIT CASE LAW.
229
230 PLAINTIFF states that on February 6, 2015, the Inspector General agreed with PLAINTIFF, that
231 fraud had been committed against PLAINTIFF and ordered the agencies to make changes and
232 adjust their records; See EXHIBIT F (RESPONSE from IG) as of today April 15, 2024, the
233 agencies, DEFENDANT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DEFENDANT
234 USDC) and DEFENDANT UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU (DEFENDANT USCB)
235 have not adjusted their records.
236
237 PLAINTIFF was born May 14, 1959, and was classified as “negro” in the official records and
238 files created, controlled, and determined by DEFENDANTS USCD USCB. Three years prior,
239 PLAINTIFF’ sibling, with the exact same parents, was classified as “Colored,” as was
240 PLAINTIFF’ mother, and PLAINTIFF’ great grandmother is unclassified and born at an Indian
241 holding camp in the state of Mississippi, called Potts Camp, to a Chickasaw native. According to
242 the Thomasina Jordan Act, “Colored” is a term designated for American inhabitants referred to
243 as Indian, a term which describes indigenous inhabitants of North America.
244
245 Due to the neglect and continued fraud committed by DEFENDANTS USDC and USCB,
246 PLAINTIFF has suffered continued governmental oppression and discrimination, false arrest,
247 aggravated kidnapping, barred from traveling at US airports, and barred from performing
248 PLAINTIFF’ role of Plenipotentiary.
249
250 REMEDY
251 PLAINTIFF herein seeks judgement, that DEFENDANTS USDC and USCB adjust their records,
252 as ordered by the Inspector General in 2015, and that they compensate PLAINTIFF in the amount
253 of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) per year for each year of identity fraud committed by
254 DEFENDANTS USDC and USCB against PLAINTIFF.
255
7
256 DEFENDANT 2
257
258 DEFENDANT UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, GINA RAIMONDO
259 (DEFENDANT RAIMONDO) appointed as Secretary for DEFENDANTS USDC, where she
260 operates as chief administrator. A key element of her responsibilities involves correcting fraud as
261 ordered by the Inspector General, who has the responsibility of identifying and correcting fraud
262 within DEFENDANTS USDC.
263
264 DEFENDANT RAIMONDO’ non action related to PLAINTIFF, aids in perpetuating crimes
265 against PLAINTIFF, which includes official negligence, aiding in actions related to human
266 trafficking, aggravated identity theft, and economic fraud, to enrich DEFENDANT USA ET AL.
267
268 REMEDY
269 PLAINTIFF as one of the beneficiaries of the NAAIP International Identity Claim, seeks
270 enforcement of identity correction, as ordered by the Inspector General for DEFENDANT USDC
271 and USCB, and PLAINTIFF declares that continued delays in providing remedy are a violation
272 of PLAINTIFF’ human rights, and PLAINTIFF seeks judgement against DEFENDANT
273 RAIMONDO, and asks that DEFENDANT RAIMONDO be ordered to resolve issues related to
274 PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF seeks damages as the court deems just. See EXHIBIT F (RESPONSE
275 from IG.)
276
277 DEFENDANT 3
278
279 DEFENDANT UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU (DEFENDANT USCB) is located at
280 4600 SILVER HILL ROAD, SUITLAND, MARYLAND, and officially registered as the Foreign
281 Trade Processing Unit Bureau, 1201 EAST 10TH Street, Jeffersonville, Indiana 47132, and at all
282 times related to this matter, DEFENDANT USCB has been an agency of DEFENDANT USA ET
283 AL and at all times relevant, it performs actions related to enumeration of people in the territories
284 of DEFENDANT USA ET AL. The administrators who oversee day to day enumeration activities
285 and commercial activities of trade in various types of products and goods for the purpose of
286 enhancing the financial wealth building for DEFENDANT USA ET AL, operates under the
287 authority of United States Secretary of Commerce, controlled by DEFENDANT RAIMONDO.
288

8
289 PLAINTIFF restates that on February 6, 2015, the Inspector General for DEFENDANT USDC
290 agreed with PLAINTIFF that fraud had been committed against PLAINTIFF and ordered the
291 agencies to make changes and adjust their records; as of today April 15, 2024, the agencies,
292 DEFENDANT USDC and DEFENDANT USCB have not adjusted their records. See EXHIBIT
293 F (RESPONSE from IG.)
294
295 REMEDY
296 PLAINTIFF shows that PLAINTIFF is in fact a beneficiary of identity claims filed against
297 DEFENDANT USDC and USCB. See EXHIBIT A (INTERNATIONAL AFFIDAVIT AND
298 NOTICE OF FRAUD 2015), and PLAINTIFF as one of the beneficiaries of the NAAIP
299 International Identity Claim, seeks closure of all identity correction issues, and declares that
300 continued delays are a violation of PLAINTIFF’ human rights, and PLAINTIFF seeks judgement
301 against DEFENDANT USCB, and asks that DEFENDANT USCB be ordered to resolve issues
302 related to PLAINTIFF.
303
304 DEFENDANT 4
305
306 DEFENDANT US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DEFENDANT USDHS)
307 located at 2707 Martin Luther King Jr Ave Se, Washington, DC 20032, where DEFENDANT
308 USDHS is a U.S. federal executive department agency responsible for public security.
309 Its missions involve anti-terrorism, border security, immigration and customs, cyber
310 security, and disaster prevention and management. The agency is directed and
311 administered by DEFENDANT ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS (DEFENDANT MAYORKAS).
312
313 Firstly, PLAINTIFF seeks injunction against prohibitions related to PLAINTIFF’ right to
314 movement, cease and desist, where there is no arbitration, no penalty should be applied.
315
316 In the interest of justice, PLAINTIFF herein makes a request for injunctive relief related to
317 PLAINTIFF’ United Nations convention “Right to Freedom of Movement,” enshrined in Article
318 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is also enshrined in Article 12 of the
319 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
320 1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the
321 right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

9
322 2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
323
324 PLAINTIFF herein provides evidence relating to PLAINTIFF travel history to and from Virgin
325 Island territories and, to and from the mainland territories. PLAINTIFF provides that travel from
326 the Virgin Island territories to the U.S. mainland has remained unhindered and uninterrupted until
327 recent.
328
329 PLAINTIFF assisted a citizen of MAN in filing tort; SAKATU v VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED
330 STATES, 1:23-cv-01601-CJN. PLAINTIFF states that since PLAINTIFF’ began assisting with the
331 tort against DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL (DEFENDANT USA ET
332 AL,) PLAINTIFF has experienced denial of his right to movement between U.S. mainland and
333 the Virgin Islands.
334
335 PLAINTIFF provides as evidence copies of tickets and travel information. See Exhibit I (PLANE
336 TICKETS AND INFORMATION.) PLAINTIFF has traveled to and from the Virgin Island
337 territories for an accumulative period of more than four years, without interruption, until the recent
338 filing of tort against DEFENDANT U.S.A. ET AL.
339
340 PLAINTIFF has provided numerous communications to DEFENDANT USDHS, but no response
341 was given. In those communication PLAINTIFF informed DEFENDANT USDHS and
342 DEFENDANT MAYORKAS that PLAINTIFF was sustaining, what appeared to be, targeted
343 oppression by DEFENDANT USDHS employees and DEFENDANT USDHS itself.
344
345 Last year when PLAINTIFF attempted to travel to Washington, DC to file suit, PLAINTIFF was
346 stopped and held by US CUSTOMS, which is an agency of DEFENDANT USDHS. And, for
347 more than forty-five minutes, PLAINTIFF was held and the Tort documents were examined and
348 photographed. The DEFENDANT USDHS employees were BESS, WILLIAMS, SMITHEN,
349 JOSEPH, SMITH, CHARLES was very hostile and threatened to come over the counter and beat
350 PLAINTIFF if PLAINTIFF did not “shut up;” the supervisor was QUETL.
351
352 PLAINTIFF seeks injunction for rights violations, causing the offense of Federal Identify Theft
353 Constructive Fraud and forced identity in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1028A - Aggravated
354 identity theft, sub C6, and Unlawful Conversion tampering with evidence, aggravated
10
355 kidnapping.
356
357 REMEDY
358 PLAINTIFF seeks rights to indigenous diversity inclusion as mandated by federal law put in
359 place by DEFENDANT USA ET AL. PLAINTIFF also seeks immediate development of
360 uninfringed, non-discriminative policy which recognizes PLAINTIFF’ indigenous rights to
361 movement and receive unencumbered services as provided to all travelers, and order
362 DEFENDANT USDHS to implement protections as mandated by law.
363
364 PLAINTIFF also seeks reimbursement of all expenses incurred by PLAINTIFF, i.e. refunds
365 PLAINTIFF for missed flights, hotel fees and lost wages during forced layovers caused by
366 DEFENDANT USDHS.
367
368 DEFENDANT 5
369
370 DEFENDANT U.S. SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ALEJANDRO
371 MAYORKAS (DEFENDANT MAYORKAS) is the appointed United States Secretary of
372 DEFENDANT USDHS with offices located at 2707 Martin Luther King Jr Ave Se; Washington,
373 Dc 20032 and St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. PLAINTIFF herein restates the same claims as
374 made against DEFENDANT USDHS, (DEFENDANT 4.)
375
376 DEFENDANT 6
377
378 DEFENDANT HAALAND is the current U.S. Secretary for the U.S. Department of Interior,
379 where she not only manages Indian affairs, but she controls how the inhabitants of the Virgin
380 Islands are classified, viewed, and treated. In the capacity as United States Interior Secretary,
381 DEFENDANT HAALAND has blatantly ignored the American Arawak inhabitants of the Virgin
382 Islands territory, perpetuating the diminished rights and freedoms of PLAINTIFF’ indigenous
383 rights.
384
385 PLAINTIFF sent numerous communications requesting clarification concerning indigenous
386 rights of Arawak in the territory under the policies of DEFENDANT DOI and administered by

11
387 DEFENDANT DOI employee, DEFENDANT HAALAND, but no communications has come
388 from neither DEFENDANT DOI nor DEFENDANT HAALAND.
389
390 PLAINTIFF has attempted on numerous occasions to file communications, property notices and
391 indigenous identity information to DEFENDANT VIUS, but PLAINTIFF is denied because
392 PLAINTIFF’ identification information is not accepted by DEFENDANT VIUS, who is under
393 the authority of DEFENDANT HAALAND and DEFENDANT DOI; See EXHIBIT C
394 (INDIGENOUS ID CARD.)
395
396 REMEDY
397 PLAINTIFF seeks rights to indigenous diversity inclusion, as mandated by federal law, put in
398 place by DEFENDANT USA ET AL. PLAINTIFF also seeks immediate development of policy
399 recognizing PLAINTIFF’ indigenous right as Plenipotentiary of MAN, to provide services for
400 citizens of MAN; an Order for DEFENDANTS ET AL to put in place immediate indigenous
401 protections, as mandated by law.
402
403 DEFENDANT 7
404
405 DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (DOI) is an agency of the United States
406 government, it protects and manages the U.S. natural resources and cultural heritage; provides
407 scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its trust responsibilities or
408 special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated Island Communities,
409 including Arawak.
410
411 DEFENDANT DOI is the agency that employs current U.S. Secretary for the U.S. Department
412 of Interior, who not only manages Indian affairs, but controls how the inhabitants of the Virgin
413 Islands are classified, viewed, and treated, including PLAINTIFF, who has maintained MAN
414 government office for four years in the territory of DEFENDANT VIUS.
415 In the capacity of designated agency for DEFENDANT USA ET AL’ interest in the territory,
416 DEFENDANT DOI is responsible party for all actions and prohibitions experienced by
417 PLAINTIFF, including PLAINTIFF’ right to engage in banking or any form of commerce.
418

12
419 DEFENDANTS DOI and HAALAND have blatantly initiated actions to deny PLAINTIFF’
420 rights, as an Arawak American inhabitant of the Virgin Islands territory, perpetuating the
421 diminishing rights and freedoms of PLAINTIFF.
422
423 PLAINTIFF sent numerous communications requesting clarification concerning indigenous
424 rights of Arawak in the territory under the policies of DEFENDANT DOI and administered by
425 DEFENDANT DOI employee, DEFENDANT HAALAND, but no communications has come
426 from either DEFENDANT DOI nor DEFENDANT HAALAND.
427
428 REMEDY
429 PLAINTIFF seeks rights to indigenous diversity inclusion as mandated by federal law put in
430 place by DEFENDANT USA ET AL. PLAINTIFF also seeks immediate development of policy
431 recognizing PLAINTIFF’ indigenous right as Plenipotentiary of MAN to provide services for
432 citizens of MAN, an Order for DEFENDANTS ET AL to put in place immediate indigenous
433 protections as mandated by law.
434
435 DEFENDANT 8
436
437 DEFENDANT VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES (DEFENDANT VIUS) is the
438 corporate insured institution, representing and housing the commercial government
439 administration, fulfilling the agendas of governing the people and lands of the United States
440 controlled islands, in the Virgin Islands territory. It is a municipal corporation organized and
441 existing under the laws of the United States and organized under the U.S. Congress approved
442 United States Virgin Islands Organic Act (USVI Constitution.)
443
444 DEFENDANT VIUS is bound by the laws as DEFENDANT USA ET AL and, therefore is
445 obligated to adhere to federal diversity policies currently used by DEFENDANT USA ET AL,
446 for all the territories controlled by DEFENDANT USA ET AL.
447 PLAINTIFF claims that PLAINTIFF is denied access to conferences, meetings, and other
448 gatherings where policy and rules, affecting PLAINTIFF’ role as Plenipotentiary, for the tribes
449 of MAN. International diversity and inclusion are violated by these actions of denial of access,
450 where policies are made that affects PLAINTIFF’ life.
451
13
452 PLAINTIFF sent official communications to DEFENDANT VIUS in February of 2024, making
453 the agency aware of PLAINTIFF’ Plenipotentiary indigenous standing, and the requirements of
454 implementing federal diversity policy mandates for agencies and governmental departments of
455 DEFENDANT VIUS.
456
457 PLAINTIFF has offered to provide different ways to support the indigenous tribes of the territory
458 that PLAINTIFF represents and protects. PLAINTIFF, in turn, requested meetings to discuss
459 implementation of diversity services with DEFENDANT BRYAN and several of the MAN tribal
460 chiefs. See EXHIBIT J (LETTER REQUESTING DIVERSITY MEETING.)
461
462 PLAINTIFF states that an official letter was hand delivered to DEFENDANT VIUS and sent via
463 certified mail. See EXHIBIT K (CERTIFIED MAIL SLIP.) PLAINTIFF never received a
464 response from DEFENDANT VIUS.
465
466 DEFENDANT BRYAN commits violations against the International Covenant on Civil and
467 Political rights, which is adhered to by DEFENDANT USA ET AL along with its government
468 agencies, which includes DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (DEFENDANT DOI),
469 which regulates the actions and policies administered and enforced by DEFENDANTS BRYAN
470 and VIUS. DEFENDANTS BRYAN and VIUS’ government encourages policies that deny
471 PLAINTIFF’ right to access protections to adequately serve the tribes of MAN and
472 DEFENDANTS BRYAN and VIUS denies PLAINTIFF’ human right to provide such service.
473
474 REMEDY
475 Therefore, PLAINTIFF seek to have the Court enforce and order the establishment of diversity
476 policies and programs for indigenous inclusiveness in all federally mandated programs for
477 indigenous inhabitants in US territory, where PLAINTIFF rights are violated due to a lack of
478 federally mandated diversity platforms and policies.
479
480 DEFENDANT 9
481
482 DEFENDANT ALBERT BRYAN (DEFENDANT BRYAN) Governor, U.S. Virgin Islands, is
483 an Oath sworn U.S. Constitutionally governed citizen of the United States, and in this capacity,
484 and at all times relevant to this complaint, is subject to authority as a citizen of DEFENDANT
14
485 USA, bound by its laws and jurisdiction, and at all times relevant to this matter, DEFENDANT
486 BRYAN was an elected administrator for DEFENDANT VIUS, operating under policies created
487 by DEFENDANT U.S.A. ET AL. and under the direct authority of the DEFENDANT
488 DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (DEFENDANT DOI) headed by DEFENDANT HAALAND;
489 according to Policies of the Revised Organic Act of 1954, and Codified in UNITED STATES
490 LAW, it clearly expresses at 48 U.S. Code § 1543. United States citizenship requirement for
491 government officials, “All members of the Legislature of the Virgin Islands, the Governor, the
492 Lieutenant Governor, all judges and all officials of the government of the Virgin Islands who
493 report directly to the Governor shall be citizens of the United States.".
494
495 PLAINTIFF claims that DEFENDANT BRYAN citizen of DEFENDANT USA ET AL is bound
496 by the laws of DEFENDANT USA ET AL and therefore is obligated to adhere to federal diversity
497 policies currently used by DEFENDANT USA ET AL for all the territories controlled by
498 DEFENDANT USA ET AL.
499
500 PLAINTIFF RESTATES claims levied against DEFENDANT BRYAN for DEFENDANT
501 VIUS. PLAINTIFF claims that PLAINTIFF is denied access to conferences, meetings, and other
502 gatherings, where DEFENDANT BRYAN makes policy and rules affecting the indigenous
503 inhabitants, that are represented and protected by PLAINTIFF, who is Plenipotentiary for the
504 tribes of MAN. International diversity and inclusion are violated by these actions of denial of
505 access, where policies are made that affects PLAINTIFF’ life.
506
507 PLAINTIFF sent official communications to DEFENDANT BRYAN in February of 2024,
508 making him aware of PLAINTIFF’ Plenipotentiary indigenous standing, and the federal diversity
509 policy mandate through the agencies and departments of DEFENDANT USA ET AL.
510
511 PLAINTIFF has offered to provide different ways to support the indigenous tribes of the territory,
512 that PLAINTIFF represents and protects. PLAINTIFF, in turn, requested meetings to discuss
513 implementation of diversity services with DEFENDANT BRYAN and enjoined with several of
514 the MAN tribal chiefs. See EXHIBIT J (LETTER REQUESTING DIVERSITY MEETING.)
515

15
516 PLAINTIFF states that an official letter was hand delivered to DEFENDANT BRYAN and sent
517 via certified mail. See EXHIBIT K (CERTIFIED MAIL SLIP.) PLAINTIFF never received a
518 response from DEFENDANT BRYAN.
519
520 DEFENDANT BRYAN commits violations against the International Covenant on Civil and
521 Political rights, which is adhered to by DEFENDANT USA ET AL, along with its government
522 agencies, which includes DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (DEFENDANT DOI),
523 which regulates the actions and policies administered and enforced by DEFENDANT BRYAN.
524 DEFENDANT BRYAN encourages policies that deny PLAINTIFF’ right to access protections,
525 that are designed for indigenous people, to adequately engage productively in society, and as a
526 member of the population in the territory, controlled by DEFENDANTS BRYAN and VIUS,
527 PLAINTIFF’ rights to access are denied.
528
529 REMEDY
530 Therefore, PLAINTIFF seek to have the Court enforce and order the establishment of diversity
531 policies and programs for indigenous inclusiveness in all federally mandated programs for
532 indigenous inhabitants in US territory, where PLAINTIFF rights are violated due to a lack of
533 federally mandated diversity platforms and policies.
534
535 DEFENDANT 10
536
537 DEFENDANT ALPHONSO G ANDREWS JR (DEFENDANT ANDREWS) Alexander A.
538 Farrelly Justice Center, 5400 Veterans Drive, Suite 1, appointed as a ministerial administrator by
539 DEFENDANT ANDREWS, is an Oath sworn U.S. Constitutionally governed citizen of the
540 United States, and in this capacity DEFENDANT ANDREWS is in fact an employee and citizens
541 of DEFENDANT USA, bound by its laws and jurisdiction, and at all times relevant to this matter,
542 DEFENDANT ANDREWS was a judicial administrator for DEFENDANT VIUS, operating
543 under policies created by DEFENDANT USA ET AL. Under direct authority of the
544 DEFENDANT DOI, headed by DEFENDANT HAALAND; Policies of the Revised Organic Act
545 of 1954, and Codified in UNITED STATES LAW, clearly expresses at 48 U.S. Code § 1543.
546 United States citizenship requirement for government officials, “All members of the
547 Legislature of the Virgin Islands, the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, all judges and all
548 officials of the government of the Virgin Islands who report directly to the Governor shall be
16
549 citizens of the United States.". Therefore, DEFENDANT ANDREWS can only be represented
550 by a licensed U.S BAR membered attorney, in his capacity as a U.S. citizen, operating under the
551 monitoring, direction of the DEFENDANT U.S.A ET AL.
552
553 On February 13, 2024, PLAINTIFF was contacted by a citizen of MAN, his name is Pyjai
554 Ympoka. Chief Ympoka sought assistance in determining why he was being continually
555 detained, for more than three years, without evidence or trial. In PLAINTIFF’ capacity as
556 Plenipotentiary, PLAINTIFF was asked by Ympoka to contact, the court appointed, counsel to
557 get a copy and review the files related to his case.
558
559 After delivering a ‘Judicial Notice’ to the court, detailing PLAINTIFF’ role and the actions of
560 refusal and due process violations of RONALD RUSSELL, RUSSELL LAW FIRM LLP, along
561 with a signed letter, from Ympoka, to Attorney RUSSELL, See EXHIBIT L (JUDICIAL
562 NOTICE;) PLAINTIFF received communication eight days later, where PLAINTIFF’ request
563 was denied by DEFENDANT ALPHONSO G ANDREWS JR.
564
565 PLAINTIFF was told by RONALD RUSSELL, RUSSELL LAW FIRM LLP, that PLAINTIFF
566 would be reported, to the court, and arrested for interfering with a MAN citizen, that PLAINTIFF
567 has full responsibility for. See EXHIBIT M (JUDGE ORDER STRIKING NOTICE.)
568 DEFENDANT ANDREWS denied PLAINTIFF’ right and obligation under law to aid in
569 protecting the rights of a tribal citizen of the Maipuri Arauan nation.
570
571 REMEDY
572 For these actions, PLAINTIFF seeks reimbursement of fees related to the filing of this tort, and
573 other remedy which reflect PLAINTIFF’ right to represent and provide protections for the people
574 of MAN, in addition, PLAINTIFF seek to bar DEFENDANT ANDREWS and DEFENDANT
575 VIUS ET AL’ actions which may operate in contradiction or opposition to the role of plenary
576 protections provided by international law.
577
578
579 DEFENDANT 11
580

17
581 DEFENDANT CHERYL ANN KRAUSE (DEFENDANT KRAUSE) is an Article III circuit
582 judge adjudicating in an inferior court venue, located in the Virgin Islands of the United States,
583 and all times related to this matter, DEFENDANT KRAUSE has overseen issues related to
584 former Rockefeller estate, referred to as ‘Caneel Bay.’ Issue arose recently after PLAINTIFF
585 was asked by tribal members of the Virgin Islands territory to intervene, on their behalf,
586 concerning Caneel Bay, also known as Cinnamon Bay.
587
588 PLAINTIFF, acting under plenary authority submitted communication to DEFENDANT
589 KRAUSE in the form of Judicial Notice. The communication to DEFENDANT KRAUSE was
590 denied on the grounds that PLAINTIFF was not a true claimant. See EXHIBIT N (JUDGES
591 ORDER OF DENIAL)
592
593 PLAINTIFF states that the rights afforded PLAINTIFF, in accordance with customary
594 international law and the Laws of Nations, were violated and the denying of PLAINTIFF’ right
595 to intervene and protect the human rights of the people of MAN, are systemic acts of apartheid,
596 which will undoubtedly lead to the diminishment and destruction of PLAINTIFF.
597
598 PLAINTIFF states and shows that DEFENDANT KRAUSE has determined, without any legal
599 authority, that PLAINTIFF has an international right and obligation to act upon all issues related
600 to citizens and tribes of MAN. See EXHIBIT O (PLENIPOTENTIARY LETTER)
601
602 In DEFENDANT KRAUSE’ capacity as Judicial appointee, DEFENDANT KRAUSE is an,
603 Oath sworn, U.S. Constitutionally governed citizen of the United States, and in this capacity
604 DEFENDANT KRAUSE is in fact an employee and citizens of DEFENDANT USA, bound by
605 its laws and jurisdiction, and at all times relevant, DEFENDANT KRAUSE had responsibility to
606 uphold Oath, to the organic Constitution for the United States of America, as a superior Article
607 III venue and not a mere inferior, territorial district court venue.
608
609 It is PLAINTIFF’ understanding that all judges of the territory of DEFENDANT VIRGIN
610 ISLANDS of the UNITED STATES (DEFENDANT VIUS), are individuals who must report to
611 DEFENDANT BRYAN, who reports to DEFENDANT DEB HAALAND (DEFENDANT
612 HAALAND, United States Secretary for U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (DEFENDANT

18
613 DOI), where DEFENDANT HAALAND not only manages Indian affairs, but she controls how
614 and where PLAINTIFF may protect or engage with the people of MAN.
615
616 Therefore, PLAINTIFF seeks to know the true and valid determination of DEFENDANT
617 KRAUSE, who is not allowed to operate under the appearance of an Organic Article III court as
618 defined herein; see attached MEMORANDUM OF JURISDICTION AND LAW.
619
620
621 REMEDY
622 For these actions, PLAINTIFF seeks reimbursement of fees related to the filing of this tort, and
623 other remedy which, reflect PLAINTIFF’ right to represent, and provide protections for the
624 people of MAN, in addition, PLAINTIFF seek to bar DEFENDANT KRAUSE and
625 DEFENDANT VIUS ET AL’ actions which may operate in contradiction or opposition to the
626 role of plenary protections, provided by PLAINTIFF under international law.
627
628 DEFENDANT 12
629
630 DEFENDANT COLIN S. BRUCE (DEFENDANT BRUCE,) is a U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
631 for the state of Illinois. DEFENDANT BRUCE is a United States Judge located at 318 U.S.
632 COURTHOUSE, 201 S. VINE STREET; URBANA, IL 61802 and all times related to this
633 matter, Ajoma Tyjakuwake was identified to the court as a citizen of MAN and DEFENDANT
634 BRUCE has overseen the issues related to Ajoma Tyjakuwake.
635
636 Recently after PLAINTIFF was asked by tribal citizen Ajoma Tyjakuwake to intervene on his
637 behalf concerning his rights, related to having a member of the indigenous community to
638 participate in the official Jury Pool, selected for his pending case. The request was denied by
639 DEFENDANT BRUCE because DEFENDANT BRUCE rushed to judgement and declared
640 MAN did not exist and proceeded to move the case forward, ending with guilty by jury.
641
642 PLAINTIFF, acting under plenary authority submitted communication to DEFENDANT
643 BRUCE in the form of Notice, which was given to DEFENDANT BRUCE by the attorney for
644 the citizen of MAN. The communication to DEFENDANT BRUCE was denied on the grounds

19
645 that PLAINTIFF was a fictitious element of society, and the Maipuri Arauan Nation did not exist.
646 See EXHIBIT P (JUDGES ORDER OF MAN)
647
648 PLAINTIFF states that the rights afforded PLAINTIFF in accordance with customary
649 international law and the Laws of Nations were violated with slanderous, defaming,
650 discriminating statements, officially made by DEFENDANT BRUCE on the record, and the
651 record should be retracted and removed permanently.
652
653 PLAINTIFF states that DEFENDANT BRUCE had no lawful or legal authority to make claims
654 related to PLAINTIFF and the denying PLAINTIFF’ right to intervene and protect the human
655 rights of the people, of MAN, are systemic acts of apartheid, and the slanderous statements were
656 placed on the court record to cause negative image for PLAINTIFF, which will undoubtedly lead
657 to the diminishment and destruction of PLAINTIFF.
658
659 REMEDY
660 For these actions, PLAINTIFF seeks reimbursement of fees related to the filing of this tort, and
661 other remedy which, reflect PLAINTIFF’ right to represent, and provide protections for the
662 people of MAN, in addition, PLAINTIFF seek to bar DEFENDANT BRUCE’ further actions
663 related to PLAINTIFF’ right to intervene, as Plenipotentiary, on behalf of Ajoma Tyjakuwake
664 who is a citizen of MAN. PLAINTIFF seeks damages for defamation as committed by
665 DEFENDANT BRUCE, actions which operate in contradiction and opposition to the role of
666 plenary protections, provided by PLAINTIFF under international law.
667
668
669 DEFENDANT 13
670
671 DEFENDANT CHRISTY CRAIG (DEFENDANT CRAIG) is a Las Vegas Superior Court
672 judge, located at NEVADA EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, REGIONAL JUSTICE COURT
673 200 LEWIS AVENUE; LAS VEGAS, NV 89155
674
675 On or about February 2022 PLAINTIFF received a request for assistance, from MAN tribal
676 citizen, in need of assistance, after he was stopped for not using a turn signal. MAN citizen, Lusa

20
677 Koi Yakaba, was detained by Las Vegas police, allegedly because his MAN identification was
678 not accepted by officers, at a traffic stop. SEE EXHIBIT C (MAN Identification.)
679
680 The same identification was later rejected by DEFENDANT CRAIG, as being a fictitious ID and
681 fictitious indigenous entity. PLAINTIFF instructed MAN Attorney General, Vanessa Fluker, to
682 issue an official communication. Attorney General Fluker is a citizen of MAN and is a registered
683 Michigan BAR attorney, who is also recognized by the state of Michigan; See EXHIBITS Q
684 (LETTERS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.) Attorney General Fluker filed official notice to the
685 court, of DEFENDANT CRAIG, as instructed by PLAINTIFF, and DEFENDANT CRAIG
686 responded to PLAINTIFF by further detaining the citizen of MAN.
687
688 PLAINTIFF states DEFENDANT CRAIG disregarded all communications and ordered the
689 MAN citizen be locked up in a mental institution; See EXHIBIT R (CRAIG COURT ORDER.)
690 PLAINTIFF believes these actions occurred due to negligence of DEFENDANT USDC and
691 USCB, who neglected to adjust its records as instructed by the Inspector General, which would
692 have protected PLAINTIFF’ rights, as Plenipotentiary.
693
694 REMEDY
695 For these actions, PLAINTIFF seeks reimbursement of fees related to the filing of this tort, and
696 other remedy which, reflect PLAINTIFF’ right to represent, and provide protections for the
697 people of MAN, in addition, PLAINTIFF seek to bar DEFENDANT CRAIG’ further actions
698 related to PLAINTIFF’ right to intervene as Plenipotentiary on behalf of Lusa Koi Yakaba, who
699 is a citizen of MAN. PLAINTIFF seeks damages for defamation as committed by DEFENDANT
700 CRAIG, actions which, operate in contradiction and opposition to the role of plenary protections
701 provided by PLAINTIFF under international law.
702
703
704 Demand for Relief
705
706 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF respectfully prays for an order:
707 1. Right to unencumbered use of ceremonial lands and the return of other vacant lands
708 subject to environmental decay and destruction.

21
709 2. Obligate DEFENDANTS ET AL to develop and implement diverse policies which
710 considers and enforces the rights of the indigenous inhabitants.
711 3. Implement policies reflecting the human rights and environmental interests of
712 PLAINTIFF, and hold DEFENDANTS ET AL accountable for historic inequities, in
713 such decisions of deprivation, against PLAINTIFF’s rights as mentioned above,
714 providing environmental justice in the right to participate as equal partners at every
715 level of decision-making including needs assessment, planning, implementation,
716 enforcement and evaluation of toxic ancestral lands inhabited by PLAINTIFF.
717 4. Awarding PLAINTIFF damages, and interest thereon, as described above in the
718 complaint.
719 5. Requiring the Defendants et al to disgorge the benefits they have received from their
720 illegal purchases, sale, and possessions of the subject, Arawak people, with interest.
721 6. Awarding such other and further relief, both special and general, at law or in equity,
722 as the Court may deem just and proper.
723
724 PLAINTIFF
725 “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
726 Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury.”
727
728
729
730 Tushkahumoc Xelup
731 Maipuri Arauan Nation
732

733 Executed on April 25th, 2024

734
735
736
737
738

22
739 EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A

740
741
742 EXHIBIT A
743

23
744
745
746 EXHIBIT A

24
747
748
749

25
750 EXHIBIT A

751
752
753

26
754 EXHIBIT A

755
756

27
757 EXHIBIT A

758
759
760
761 EXHIBIT A

28
762
763
764
765 EXHIBIT A

29
766
767
768 EXHIBIT A

30
769
770
771
772 EXHIBIT A

31
773
774
775
776 EXHIBIT A

32
777
778
779
780 EXHIBIT A

33
781
782
783
784 EXHIBIT A

34
785
786
787 EXHIBIT A

35
788
789
790
791 EXHIBIT A

36
792
793
794 EXHIBIT A
795

37
796
797
798 EXHIBIT A
799

38
800
801 EXHIBIT A
802
803

39
804
805 EXHIBIT A
806

40
807
808
809 EXHIBIT A
810

41
811
812 EXHIBIT A
813

42
814
815 EXHIBIT A
816

43
817
818
819 EXHIBIT A
820

44
821
822
823 EXHIBIT A
824

45
825
826
827 EXHIBIT A
828

46
829
830 EXHIBIT A
831
832

47
833
834 EXHIBIT A
835

48
836
837
838 EXHIBIT B
839

49
 EXHIBIT B

840
841
842 EXHIBIT B
843

50
844
845
846 EXHIBIT B
847

51
848
849
850
851 EXHIBIT B
852
853

52
854
855
856
857
858 EXHIBIT C
859

53
 EXHIBIT
C

860
861

862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872 EXHIBIT D
873

54
 EXHIBIT D

874
875 EXHIBIT D

55
876
877
878 EXHIBIT D
879

56
880
881 EXHIBIT D
882

57
883
884 EXHIBIT D
885

58
886
887
888
889 EXHIBIT D
890

59
891
892 EXHIBIT E
893
894

60
 EXHIBIT E

895
896
897
898
899 EXHIBIT E
900

61
901
902
903
904
905
906 EXHIBIT E
907
908

62
909
910
911
912
913 EXHIBIT E
914
915

63
916
917
918
919
920
921 EXHIBIT E
922

64
923
924
925
926
927
928 EXHIBIT E
929
930

65
931
932
933 EXHIBIT F
934

66
 EXHIBIT
F

935
936 EXHIBIT G
937

67
 EXHIBIT G

938
939
940
941
942 EXHIBIT G
943
944
68
945
946 EXHIBIT H
947

69
 EXHIBIT CONGRESS
H
Ana Lucia Zavala Rodriguez Tushkahumoc Haiawa Xelup Akuwa AtabeiRA Ishak Ticha Teo Tiwa Khan
Prime Minister of M.A.N. Shaktxium T’Shuni Maipuri Ishak Hachofak Maipuri Kaioga Anishinaabe Maipuri
Prime Minister of M.A.N.

Basar Manaseh Xelup Aretyry A’ka Ponokon. Pyjai Ainapo Ainaryto Apoje Ija Tyawakote
Shakxiuma T’Shuni Maipuri AkwawipeOewa Pyrenokon Maipuri Arauan Na on Kawpaw Shakx uma Maipuri
Wapanwi Maipuri

Aijoma Asaka Tyjakuwake Makurija Sakatu Saráme Hatchie Cheyenne Atowa Sorsoro
Tyjakuwake Maipuri Akawjo Typyne Kupa Hatchie Shakxiuma Maipuri AYEAYE SORSORO ARAWAK

Xi Whiteowl Hikia Nita Lusa Akawajo Akara Mingupiok Kaikusi Apoto

Xi Chin Maipuri Clan Chakchiuma Itchhasualgi Maipuri Mingupiok Boolitusha Shakx uma Kaikusi Tsalagi
Maipuri Maipuri

Zyriel Akawayo Hemali Lusa Kio Yakaba Lamhi Hutallay Ina Devi Hemali
Shakx uma Kaikusi Kami Trubian Village Lamhi Tustenuggeklukko Hemali Chahta
Akawayo Tribe

Sito Tainamorane Towaliga Sano Akawe Towaliga Jakuwa’to Konoko Dakariel Tahu
Towaliga Tsalagi Maipuri Towaliga Tsalagi Maipuri Konoko Xaymaca Maipuri Tvshka Ikhana Vba Shilombish
Clan

Benyahuda Benyah. Apotunka Irecha Ida Heróme Hvm’ken Kura’ma Waiporo Apotuna
Cha a- Yah. Tchefuncte Irecha Maipuri Maipuri Arauan Na on Epony Owara Apotuna Maipuri

Mi n ka Hashi Mala akachi Kohngai Ukum Ukum Wacamaw Tsalagi. Kaaba Ra El

Akkakoha I Bok Tsalagi Ukum Wacamaw Tsalagi Shax uma Maipuriel Shak aura Mushax uma Tsalagi Mukaaba
Maipuri

Hopoksa Ohoyo Mi N Ko Hanta U uchi Chucagua. Biyakak Ola Akarai Shukmalali CHOFATA OCHABA AKARAI
Haloka Chuka Hanta Chucagua Maipuri. Yakni Shukmalali Tribe Siriki Akarai Maipuri

Huni Sen Hotep El Kami Amore Darta Oconee

Hitchi Occumulgee Maipuri Apoke Tsalagi Oconee Maipuri

948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967 EXHIBIT I
968

70
 EXHIBIT
I

969
970
971
972 EXHIBIT I
973

71
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983 EXHIBIT J
984

72
 EXHIBIT
J

985
986
987

73
988 EXHIBIT J

989
990
991
992 EXHIBIT J

74
993
994
995 EXHIBIT J

75
 996
997
998
999 EXHIBIT K
1000

76
 EXHIBIT
J

1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028 EXHIBIT L

77
 EXHIBIT
L

1029
1030
1031 EXHIBIT L

78
1032
1033

79
1034 EXHIBIT L

1035
1036
1037
1038 EXHIBIT L

80
1039
1040
1041
1042 EXHIBIT L

81
1043
1044
1045 EXHIBIT L

82
1046
1047
1048
1049 EXHIBIT L

83
1050
1051
1052
1053 EXHIBIT L

84
1054
1055
1056
1057 EXHIBIT L

85
1058
1059
1060
1061 EXHIBIT L

86
1062
1063
1064
1065 EXHIBIT L

87
1066
1067
1068 EXHIBIT L
1069
1070 SEE EXHIBIT D FOR FULL M.A.N. CONSTITUTION

88
1071

1072
1073
1074 EXHIBIT L
1075
1076 SEE EXHIBIT E FOR FULL TREATY
1077
1078
89
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088 EXHIBIT M
1089
1090

90
 EXHIBIT
M

1091
1092 EXHIBIT M

91
1093
1094 EXHIBIT N
1095

92
 EXHIBIT
NL

1096
1097
1098 EXHIBIT O
EXHIBIT
O

93
1099
1100
1101
1102 EXHIBIT O

94
1103
1104
1105
1106 EXHIBIT O

95
1107
1108 EXHIBIT O
1109
1110 SEE EXHIBIT E FOR FULL TREATY
1111
1112
96
1113

1114
1115 EXHIBIT O
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121 SEE EXHIBIT D FOR FULL M.A.N. CONSTITUTION
1122
97
1123
1124
1125 EXHIBIT O
1126

98
1127
1128
1129

1130 EXHIBIT O
EXHIBIT
C 99
1131
1132
1133
1134

1135 EXHIBIT O

100
 EXHIBIT
C

1136

1137 EXHIBIT O

101
 EXHIBIT
C

1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146 EXHIBIT O
1147

102
1148
1149

1150 EXHIBITS O
EXHIBIT
D
103
1151
1152
1153

1154 EXHIBIT O

1155

104
 EXHIBIT
D

1156
1157 EXHIBIT EXHIBIT P
1158 P

105
1159
1160 EXHIBIT P
1161

106
1162
1163 EXHIBIT P
1164

107
1165
1166 EXHIBIT P
1167

108
1168
1169 EXHIBIT P
1170

109
1171
1172
1173 EXHIBIT P
1174

110
1175

111
 EXHIBIT
Q

1176
1177 EXHIBIT Q
1178

112
1179
1180
1181
1182 EXHIBIT R
1183 EXHIBIT R

113
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194 EXHIBIT R
1195

114
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203 EXHIBIT R
1204

115
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
116
1215 DISTRICT COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
1216 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [Washington, D.C.]
1217
1218 ALIEN TORT STATUTE CLAIM
1219
1220 ARTICLE III
1221
1222 Tushkhumoc Xelup
1223 C/O 2001 S. Michigan Ave #28M, Chicago
1224 340 513 5300
1225 tushkahumoc@gmail.com JURY TRIAL
1226 PLAINTIFF,
1227
1228 V.
1229
1230 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
1231 1401 Constitution Ave NW. Washington, DC 20230
1232
1233 UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, GINA RAIMONDO
1234 1401 Constitution Ave NW. Washington, DC 20230
1235
1236 UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU
1237 4600 SILVER HILL ROAD, SUITLAND, MARYLAND
1238
1239 VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES
1240 2122 Kongens Gade; St Thomas, USVI 00802
1241
1242 U.S. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR, DEB HAALAND
1243 1849 C Street, N.W.; Washington DC 20240
1244
1245 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
1246 1849 C Street, N.W.; Washington DC 20240
1247
1248 ALBERT BRYAN, Governor, U.S. Virgin Islands
1249 2122 Kongens Gade; St Thomas, USVI 00802
1250
1251 DOUGLAS A. BRADY
1252 Alexander A. Farrelly Justice Center
1253 5400 Veterans Drive, Suite 1; St Thomas, USVI 00802
1254
1255 ALPHONSO G ANDREWS JR
1256 Alexander A. Farrelly Justice Center
1257 5400 Veterans Drive, Suite 1; St Thomas, USVI 00802
1258
1259 RONALD RUSSELL
1260 RUSSELL LAW FIRM LLP
1261 29A KING CROSS STREET; CHRISTIANSTED, ST. CROIX 00820; VIRGIN ISLANDS, U.S.
1262
1263 US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
1264 2707 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE; WASHINGTON, DC 20032
1265
1266 U.S. SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS

117
1267 2707 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE; WASHINGTON, DC 20032
1268 GREENSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT
1269 14516 HWY 37; GREENSBURG, LA 70441
1270
1271 SCOTT PERRILLOUX
1272 DISTRICT ATTORNEY
1273 110 N BAY STREET # 204; AMITE, LA 70422
1274
1275 MOUNT MORRIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
1276 11649 N SAGINAW ST; MT MORRIS, MI 48458
1277
1278 SARA L. DARROW
1279 CHIEF JUDGE OFFICE
1280 218 U.S. COURTHOUSE
1281 201 S. VINE ST; URBANA, ILLINOIS 61802
1282
1283 COLIN S. BRUCE
1284 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
1285 318 U.S. COURTHOUSE
1286 201 S. VINE STREET; URBANA, IL 61802
1287
1288 STACEY K. HYDRICK
1289 DEKALB COUNTY COURTHOUSE
1290 DISTRICT 6
1291 556 N. MCDONOUGH STREET ROOM 6240; DECATUR, GEORGIA 30030
1292
1293 SHERRY BOUSTON
1294 DISTRICT ATTORNEY
1295 556 N. MCDONOUGH STREET ADMINISTRATIVE TOWER - SUITE 700
1296 DECATUR, GEORGIA 30030
1297
1298 ATTORNEY ROBERT BOOKER
1299 GA BAR ID # 639468
1300 368 W PIKE STREET SUIT 103; LAWREMCEVILLE, GEORGIA
1301
1302 ERIC A. GOODMAN
1303 DEPARTMENT ELEVEN
1304 LAS VEGAS TOWNSHIP JUSTICE COURT
1305 200 LEWIS AVENUE; LAS VEGAS, NV 89101
1306
1307 U.S.A., U.S. ET AL,
1308 Individually, and as representatives of a defendant class
1309 composed of all persons and entities et al
1310 Defendants
1311
1312 MEMORANDUM OF JURIDICTION AND LAW
1313
1314
1315 The “District Court for the United States of America, located exclusively in the District of
1316 Columbia” has not vacated its’ Article III Court authority or jurisdiction for Jus Cogen and
1317 because it has original jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution for the United States of
118
1318 America, Jus Cogen principals are applicable; Sosa v. Alverez- Machain,542 U.S. 692 (2004.)
1319 The Article III Court, established by the “Constitution for the United States of America” is a
1320 superior court and is not an inferior legislative territorial court and provides remedy for foreign
1321 nationals to the United States of America, as expressed and defined in O'Donoghue v. United
1322 States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933) 53 S. Ct. 740.
1323
1324 Jurisdiction is also established via Jus Cogens breach of a peremptory norm of international law,
1325 See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 264–68 (1977). Cf.
1326 RECHTSCHAFFEN & GAUNA, supra note 75, at 49–53 (discussing racism as a cause of
1327 environmental justice problems) and where Petitioner has protected status of the victim and is a
1328 member of a discrete and insular minority, United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144,
1329 153 n.4 (1938). See also Edward J. Erler, Equal Protection and Personal Rights: The Regime of
1330 the “Discrete and Insular Minority,” 16 GA. L. REV. 407 (1982), See, e.g., Soc. and Econ. Rights
1331 Action Ctr. for Econ. and Soc. Rights v. Nigeria, Communication No. 155/96, African
1332 Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2001), at paras. 44–48 (explaining that Nigeria has
1333 an obligation to refrain from interfering with rights, to ensure that others respect rights, and to
1334 fulfill its obligations under human rights regimes to protect rights and freedoms).
1335
1336 PLAINTIFF found and herein provides a clear description and location for information
1337 of ARTICLE III COURT in America, the Court of Article III, “DISTRICT COURT for the
1338 UNITED STATES Of AMERICA” as defined herein and states: UNITED STATES CODE
1339 “CHAPTER 5—UNITED STATES CODE, DISTRICT COURTS”; ending with the paragraph
1340 below: “HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES.” Pages 42 and 43 of Title 28 U.S.C., or you
1341 can also access Title 28 U.S.C. by going to http://uscode.house.gov/title_28.htm.
1342
1343 It is consonant with the ruling of the Supreme Court in O'DONOGHUE v. UNITED STATES,
1344 1933, 53 S.Ct. 740, 289 U.S. 516, 77 L.Ed. 1356, that the (then called) Supreme Court and Court
1345 of Appeals of the District of Columbia are constitutional courts of the United States, ordained and
1346 established under article III of the Constitution, Congress enacted that the Court of Appeals "shall
1347 hereafter be known as the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia" (Act of
1348 June 7, 1934, 48 Stat. 926); and also changed the name of the Supreme Court of the District of
1349 Columbia to "district court of the United States for the District of Columbia" (Act of June 25,
1350 1936, 49 Stat. 1921). In Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 1927, 47 S.Ct. 557, 274 U.S. 145,
119
1351 71 L.Ed. 972, the Supreme Court ruled: "* * * The parallelism between the Supreme Court of the
1352 District [of Columbia] and the Court of Appeals of the District [of Columbia], on the one hand,
1353 and the district courts of the United States and the circuit courts of appeals, on the other, in the
1354 consideration and disposition of cases involving what among the States would be regarded as
1355 within Federal jurisdiction, is complete." See also to the same effect Clairborne-Annapolis Ferry
1356 Company v. United States, 1932, 52 S.Ct. 440, 285 U.S. 382, 76 L.Ed. 808.

1357 The District Court for the United States of America, District of Columbia [Washington, D.C.] is
1358 the proper venue, which is in place to keep America great and PLAINTIFF has examined the
1359 statute law that created every United States district court and has found only one instance where
1360 Congress appeared to ordain and establish an Article III United States district court.

1361 In 1959, the U.S. Congress created an Article III United States district court for Hawaii but made
1362 no provision for Article III judges by specifically precluding the President from appointing them.
1363 The Code specifically provides for territorial judges for the Hawaiian Article III court. Title 28
1364 U.S.C.—Judiciary and Judicial Procedure have been enacted into positive law, so the Code shows
1365 the same kinds of courts as are found in the statutes. Chapter 5 of Title 28 U.S.C.—District
1366 Courts consist of Sections 81 through 144. The names of all 50 states of the Union will be found
1367 from Sections 81 to 131 and in addition, in Section 88 will be found the District of Columbia and
1368 in Section 119 Puerto Rico. The facts are presented supporting that a non-ARTICLE III court in
1369 any state of the United States cannot exercise Article III judicial power, therefore the DISTRICT
1370 COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the proper jurisdictional venue for
1371 PLAINTIFF’ claims.

1372 PLAINTIFF provides as an example of a fact: Title 28 U.S.C. is territorial law; this fact will be
1373 supported by material found in the notes to §91. Legal justice is available only from courts that
1374 have judicial power and inferior courts have no Article III, Section 2 judicial power whatsoever,
1375 and are legislative, i.e., Color of law constructs of jurisprudence.

1376 No United States district court (legislative) in any state may lawfully exercise Article III court
1377 power. The lawful jurisdiction of the federal district court (Article III) or courts is limited to those
1378 places where Congress has exclusive jurisdiction. It is also clear that federal judges and federal
1379 courts have been used in the past by the federal government to create the appearance of an Article
120
1380 III tribunal, but the transferring of an Article III judge to a state territory does not create an Article
1381 III court or jurisdiction. The federal courts within the several states, known as United States
1382 District Courts, are federal and territorial, in that these courts implement administrative law on
1383 territory exclusively under the jurisdiction of the United States of America Corporate / legislative, and
1384 not Congress Constitutional. ARTICLE III is the jurisdiction for this claim involving matters of
1385 environmental racism, apartheid and international fraud.

1386 The United States Supreme Court in two cases: Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1921) and
1387 Mookini v. United States, 303 U.S. 201 (1938) made it clear that a “district court for the United
1388 States” described a court created under Article III and a “United States district
1389 court” described a territorial court. The former identified a constitutional court of the United
1390 States exercising the judicial power of the United States and the latter merely identified a court
1391 for a district of the government of the United States.

1392
1393 Sarah Krakoff, Tribal Sovereignty and Environmental Justice, in Justice and Natural Resources:
1394 Concepts, Strategies, and Applications 161, 167 (Kathryn M. Mutz et al. eds., 2002) (noting the
1395 similarities between African American and Native American struggles for environmental justice);
1396 Kathryn M. Mutz, Mineral Development: Protecting the Land and Communities, in Justice.
1397
1398 The African Charter and the San Salvador Protocol provide the same principle on a regional
1399 level within Africa and the Americas, respectively, by recognizing the right to environment
1400 alongside the obligation of non-discrimination. Together, these concepts prohibit environmental
1401 deprivations of rights. African Charter, supra note 81, art. 2 (non-discrimination), art. 21 (right
1402 to environment); Organization of American States, Additional Protocol to the American
1403 Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights art. 3
1404 (obligation of non-discrimination), art. 11 (right to environment), Nov. 17, 1988, O.A.S.T.S. No.
1405 69 (entered into force Nov. 16, 1999) [hereinafter San Salvador Protocol]. The Restatement
1406 recognizes the existence of regional customary international law. Restatement (Third) of Foreign
1407 Relations Law of the United States § 102 cmt. e (1987).
1408
1409 The Apartheid Convention’s definition of “the crime of apartheid” includes any measure
1410 designed to divide the population along racial lines, including the expropriation of property and

121
1411 labor exploitation of a racial group. Both the Apartheid and Genocide Conventions prohibit the
1412 deliberate imposition on a racial group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical
1413 destruction. Such conditions would surely entail violations of social and economic rights, for
1414 example, the rights to life, health, housing, or food.
1415
1416 By prohibiting the larger wrong, therefore, the international community also sought to prohibit
1417 the lesser wrongs included therein. The Conventions thus seek to prevent environmental
1418 deprivations of rights, especially the rights to life, health, and property. Apartheid Convention,
1419 supra note 77, art. II(d) (expropriation of property), art. II (e) (labor exploitation). The Apartheid
1420 Convention limits its definition of group solely to racial groups, while the Genocide Convention
1421 contains a slightly broader definition.
1422
1423 Apartheid Convention, supra note 77, art. II(b); Genocide Convention, supra note 80, art. II(c)
1424 (defining “group” as shared national, ethnic, racial or religious origin). For a discussion of the
1425 intent requirements of the Apartheid and Genocide Conventions, see supra note 94. Apartheid
1426 and Genocide Conventions, establishes that discriminatory expropriation of, or interference with,
1427 property is a form of environmental racism.
1428 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)
1429 and the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid
1430 (Apartheid Convention). Stephens et al., supra note 9, at 203. These agreements are relevant to
1431 proving that racial non-discrimination is a norm of customary international law; however, as the
1432 Restatement cautions, it is only systematic racial discrimination, practiced by the state as a matter
1433 of state policy, that violates customary international law. Restatement (Third) of Foreign
1434 Relations Law of the United States § 702 cmt. i (1987); see supra notes 69–70 and accompanying
1435 text.
1436
1437 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, opened for
1438 signature Dec. 21, 1965, S. Exec. Doc. C, 95-2 (1978), 660 U.N.T.S. 195 (entered into force Jan.
1439 4, 1969) [hereinafter ICERD]; see Kevin Boyle & Anneliese Baldaccini, A Critical Evaluation of
1440 International Human Rights Approaches to Racism, in Discrimination and Human Rights. Racism
1441 135, 149 (Sandra Fredman ed., 2001) (noting that ICERD was the most widely ratified
1442 international human rights treaty until 1993, when the Convention on the Rights of the Child
1443 surpassed it). Notably, the ICERD imposes duties on States Parties that are “more than merely
122
1444 promotional,” Schwelb, supra note 1, at 1016, which adds to its authority. See Jeffrey M. Blum
1445 & Ralph G. Steinhardt, Federal Jurisdiction Over International Human Rights Claims, 22 Harv.
1446 Int’l. L.J. 53, 89 (1981) (noting that the most authoritative international norms are those that create
1447 immediate legal obligations, as compared to non-obligatory norms that merely encourage
1448 appropriate action).
1449
1450 Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States §§ 102(3), 102 cmt. i,
1451 Introductory Note to Part VII (1987); see Stephens et al., supra note 9, at 67 (noting that widely
1452 ratified international agreements, even those that are non-binding, may reflect a norm of
1453 customary international law); Blum & Steinhardt, supra note 76, at 89 (“Obligatory norms
1454 typically are expressed in numerous international instruments, including those that are most
1455 authoritative in that they reflect a broad consensus of states.”). This may be true even when
1456 agreements do not purport to codify customary international law. Restatement (Third) of Foreign
1457 Relations Law of the United States § 102 reporter’s note 5 (1987).
1458
1459 The SOSA NORM for Environmental Racism in International Law; environmental
1460 deprivations of rights are censured in both the Inter-American and African regional human rights
1461 systems and decried and defined most strongly by the Committee on Economic, Social and
1462 Cultural Rights CESCR. Protection against environmental racism targeted at indigenous peoples
1463 and their property rights is strong across the world, as evidenced by Inter-American, HRC, and
1464 CERD jurisprudence as well as Australia’s Mabo decision and its numerous successors in other
1465 countries. Similar protections have been extended to prevent discrimination in procedural
1466 environmental rights, with the Inter-American system, the HRC, and Botswana as examples.
1467 Judicial decisions evidence an especially strong protection of the right to property and procedural
1468 rights. The number of decisions suggests that the norm prohibiting environmental racism is widely
1469 accepted, as Sosa requires. By condemning concrete instances of environmental racism, these
1470 decisions suggest that the norm has definite content, thereby meeting Sosa’s first prong.
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
123
1479 DISTRICT COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
1480 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [Washington, D.C.]
1481
1482
1483
ALIEN TORT STATUTE CLAIM
1484 ARTICLE III
1485
1486
1487 Tushkhumoc Xelup
1488 C/O 2001 S. Michigan Ave #28M, Chicago
1489 340 513 5300
JURY TRIAL
1490 tushkahumoc@gmail.com
1491 PLAINTIFF,
1492
1493 V.
1494
1495 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
1496 1401 Constitution Ave NW. Washington, DC 20230
1497
1498 UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, GINA RAIMONDO
1499 1401 Constitution Ave NW. Washington, DC 20230
1500
1501 UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU
1502 4600 SILVER HILL ROAD, SUITLAND, MARYLAND
1503
1504 VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES
1505 2122 Kongens Gade; St Thomas, USVI 00802
1506
1507 U.S. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR, DEB HAALAND
1508 1849 C Street, N.W.; Washington DC 20240
1509
1510 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
1511 1849 C Street, N.W.; Washington DC 20240
1512
1513 ALBERT BRYAN, Governor, U.S. Virgin Islands
1514 2122 Kongens Gade; St Thomas, USVI 00802
1515 ALPHONSO G ANDREWS JR
1516 Alexander A. Farrelly Justice Center
1517 5400 Veterans Drive, Suite 1; St Thomas, USVI 00802
1518
1519 CHERYL ANN KRAUSE
1520 DISTRICT COURT VIRGIN ISLANDS, St. Thomas and St. John Division
1521 3013 Estate Golden Rock, Suite 219; St. Croix, VI 00820
1522
1523 US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
1524 2707 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE; WASHINGTON, DC 20032
1525
1526 U.S. SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS
1527 2707 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE; WASHINGTON, DC 20032
124
1528
1529 GREENSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT
1530 14516 HWY 37; GREENSBURG, LA 70441
1531
1532 SCOTT PERRILLOUX
1533 DISTRICT ATTORNEY
1534 110 N BAY STREET # 204; AMITE, LA 70422
1535
1536 MOUNT MORRIS POLICE DEPARTMENT
1537 11649 N SAGINAW ST; MT MORRIS, MI 48458
1538
1539 COLIN S. BRUCE
1540 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
1541 318 U.S. COURTHOUSE
1542 201 S. VINE STREET; URBANA, IL 61802
1543
1544 ERIC A. GOODMAN
1545 DEPARTMENT ELEVEN
1546 LAS VEGAS TOWNSHIP JUSTICE COURT
1547 200 LEWIS AVENUE; LAS VEGAS, NV 89101
1548
1549 U.S.A., U.S. ET AL,
1550 Individually, and as representatives of a defendant class
1551 composed of all persons and entities et al
1552 Defendants
1553
1554
1555 MEMORANDUM of AFFIDAVIT CASE LAW
1556
1557 "The law creates a PRESUMPTION, where the burden is on a party to prove a material fact
1558 peculiarly within his knowledge and he fails without excuse to testify, that his testimony, if
1559 introduced, would be adverse to his interests." Meier v CIR, 199 F 2d 392, 396 (8th Cir. 1952)
1560 quoting 20 Am Jur, Evidence Sec 190, page 193.;
1561
1562 PRIMA FACIE Prima facie (pronounced from Latin prīmā faciē) is a Latin expression meaning
1563 on its first appearance, or at first sight. The literal translation would be "at first face", prima
1564 first, facie face, both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first
1565 examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions,
1566 prima facie denotes evidence which – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular
1567 proposition or fact. The term is used similarly in academic philosophy.
1568
125
1569 Legal proceedings require a prima facie case to exist, following which proceedings may then
1570 commence to test it, and create a ruling. This may be called facile princeps, Cert Denied, 50 U.S.
1571 L.W. 2169; S.Ct. March 22, 1982. "Indeed, no more than (Affidavits) is necessary to make the
1572 Prima Facie Case; "Silence is a species of conduct and constitutes an implied representation of
1573 the existence of facts in question. When silence is of such character and under such circumstances
1574 that it would become a fraud, it will operate as an Estoppel." Carmine v. Bowen, 64 U.S. 932;
1575 "Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit… includes the deliberate concealment of
1576 material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation.
1577
1578 A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, and if he deliberately conceals material
1579 information from them, he is guilty of fraud." McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting
1580 U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307. Melorich Builders v. The SUPERIOR COURT of San
1581 Bernardino County (Serbia) 207 Cal.Rptr. 47 (Cal.App.4 Dist. 1984) “Uncontested Affidavit
1582 taken as true in Opposition of Summary Judgment.", "Silence can only be equated with fraud
1583 where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be
1584 intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior... This sort of deception
1585 will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately." U.S. v. Tweel, 550
1586 F.2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.
1587
1588 "Uncontested affidavit" moved the court to hear the case. United States v. Lopez, No. 07-3159
1589 (10th Cir. 03/04/2008). ..."finding uncontested affidavit of debtor's attorney that he provided
1590 telephonic notice of debtor's bankruptcy case sufficient to hold creditor in violation of § 362(h)."
1591 Johnson, No. 05-8089 (10th Cir. 08/28/2007). "Based on that uncontested affidavit, the court
1592 found that Col. Hardesty had personally and properly appointed Lt. Col. Harmon to Pvt. Wright's
1593 court-martial." Wright v. Commandant, USDB, No. 03-3214 (10th Cir. 04/09/2004).
1594 "According to the uncontested affidavit of Dennis Farrington, Vice President/Management
1595 Supervisor at Hill, Holliday, the commercial became obsolete as of September 30, 1984, when
1596 the new model Fords were introduced, and would not be "aired in any form after that date."
1597 Kazmaier's prayer for injunctive relief is therefore moot." Kazmaier v. Wooten, 761 F.2d 46 (1st
1598 Cir. 04/30/1985).
1599
1600 "Whether or not Thrift now has the original prescription forms submitted to UPA for
1601 reimbursement, Thrift submitted an uncontested affidavit stating that, as with Thrift's other
126
1602 claims, UPA failed to pay for the $3,456.07 owed to Thrift upon Thrift's submission of the original
1603 claim forms." Thrift Drug Inc. v. Universal Prescription Administrators, 131 F.3D 95 (2d Cir.
1604 12/11/1997) ..."the government conceded that a single sale was the only connection between the
1605 property and the predicate offense; on the day of the transaction the drugs were brought to the
1606 claimant's home at the insistence of the government informant; the uncontested affidavit of the
1607 claimant indicated that the drugs were present in the home for no more than a few hours; and
1608 there was no evidence that the house was used to store drugs. Id. at 1065. On these facts, the
1609 court found that there was no "substantial connection" between the claimant's home and the
1610 predicate offense." United States v. Premises and Real Property at 4492 South Livonia Road,
1611 889 F.2d 1258 (2nd Cir. 11/17/1989)
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616

127