Supreme Court, U.S.
`FILED
`OCT 0 * 2022
`
`OFFICE OF THE CLERK
`
`In The Supreme Court of the United States
`
`IN RE DANIEL KWAKU GBEDEMAH, Petitioner
`
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`(21-5154) (22-5088)
`AND
`THE-UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
`Respondents
`1 -20-mc-00128-UNA (Chief Judge)
`1 -21 -cv-00438-DLF (Junior Judge)
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`n
`• r\ n
`i
`^
`’ -' f-^'3
`\ .
`j '
`.
`; ■ L i Vi ui u*
`
`•. •
`
`... r
`r"’l
`% •■'i ;: .
`A .j
`
`i°:
`
`,*
`
`DANIEL KWAKU GBEDEMAH, PRO SE
`C/O PROSPER FOUNDATION
`126 MEA BELL WAY
`LAWRENCEVILLE-GA 30044
`
`J
`
`
`FILED
`OCT 0 * 2022
`
`OFFICE OF THE CLERK
`
`In The Supreme Court of the United States
`
`IN RE DANIEL KWAKU GBEDEMAH, Petitioner
`
`TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`(21-5154) (22-5088)
`AND
`THE-UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
`Respondents
`1 -20-mc-00128-UNA (Chief Judge)
`1 -21 -cv-00438-DLF (Junior Judge)
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`n
`• r\ n
`i
`^
`’ -' f-^'3
`\ .
`j '
`.
`; ■ L i Vi ui u*
`
`•. •
`
`... r
`r"’l
`% •■'i ;: .
`A .j
`
`i°:
`
`,*
`
`DANIEL KWAKU GBEDEMAH, PRO SE
`C/O PROSPER FOUNDATION
`126 MEA BELL WAY
`LAWRENCEVILLE-GA 30044
`
`J
`
`
`
`-1 -
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`
`
`1. Whether Congress implicitly or explicitly bar Petitioner a
`
`
`
`victim of “extrajudicial killings and torture” from
`
`seeking relief under the Torture victims Protection Act.
`
`2. whether a lower court can exhibit two judgments in a case,
`
`
`
`one judgment with constitutional authority and subject
`
`
`
`matter jurisdiction, hereinafter-deemed the Chief Judge
`
`
`
`ORDER, While the second an unconstitutional order,
`
`hereinafter-deemed the Junior Judge ORDER.
`
`3. Whether a lower court without subject matter jurisdiction,
`
`
`in jurisprudence can order an amendment in a complaint,
`
`when the lower court lack subject matter jurisdiction.
`
`4. Whether the Court of Appeals can summarily affirm a “void
`
`judgment” of a lower court without looking into its own
`
`Article III standing and justiciable issues of the case.
`
`5. whether the Clerks of the U.S District Court and the DC
`Circuit Court of Appeal perform fiduciary duties and if
`
`Clerks can corrupt the law, when Clerks swear oath to
`
`uphold the law.
`
`6. Whether this case implicate or circumvent “National
`
`Security” interest, or a “National Embarrassment” that
`
`manifest the injustice of denial of a forum to seek
`
`redress for “black sited” human rights violations. And
`
`whether 18 U.S.C.S. 242 is implicated.
`
`7. The question presented is whether a writ of mandamus shall
`
`issue directing the court of appeals to remand the case to
`
`the Chief Judge of the district court without delay.
`
`
`
`-n-
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
`
`Petitioner in this Court is Plaintiff in the United States
`
`District Court and Appellant in the court of appeals.
`
`Respondents in this Court is the united States court of Appeals
`
`for the District of Columbia Circuit and the United States
`
`District Court, District of Columbia. Respondents include all
`
`the Judges that acted in their official capacity as Judges of
`
`the D.c. Circuit Appeals Court and united States District Court;
`
`including the Clerks of court in their official capacity as
`
`record keepers in the District Court and Appeals court of the
`
`District of Columbia, without mentioning their names in
`
`compliance.
`
`
`
`-in -
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Petitioner DANIEL KWAKU gbedemah hereby disclose the
`
`following pursuant to this court’s order on interested Persons
`
`and Corporate Disclosure Statement: DANIEL KWAKU gbedemah ,
`
`is not aware of any association of persons, firm, law firm,
`
`partnership, and corporation that has or may have an interest in
`
`the outcome of this action - including subsidiaries,
`
`
`
`
`conglomerates, affiliates, parent corporations, publicly-traded
`
`
`companies that own 10% or more of a party’s stock, and all other
`
`
`
`identifiable legal entities related to any party in the case:
`
`Petitioner, however have sought amicus curiae from various human
`
`rights organizations, including the United Nations Human
`
`Rights Committee. Petitioner certify that I am unaware of any
`
`actual or potential conflict of interest involving the Chief
`
`Judge or Junior District Court Judge and clerks assigned to
`
`this case, and will immediately notify the Court in writing on
`
`learning of any such conflict. Petitioner further certify that I
`
`am aware of a conflict or basis of recusal of the Junior
`
`District Court Judge and Clerk of the District Court as follows:
`
`Petitioner filed a writ of mandamus against the Junior District
`
`Court Judge and Clerk in the DC Circuit Appeals court.
`
`Petitioner also filed a bias and recusal motion against the
`
`junior judge for usurping the chief. Judge and lack of judicial
`
`temperament. The junior judge lip-synced undetectable
`
`“espionage” one that the United States cannot bring before its
`
`grand juries for criminal prosecution, only to become a “void
`
`judgment.” A dereliction to report espionage to the AG or FBI.
`
`
`
`-IV-
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`The following proceedings are directly related to the case
`
`
`
`in this Court within the meaning of Rule 14.1(b)(iii): U.S.
`
`District Court for the District of Columbia, Daniel K. Gbedemah
`
`
`
`v. CIA, et. al. No. l:20-mc-00128-UNA,(Chief Judge)(Appendix
`
`“a”); Daniel K. Gbedemah v. CIA
`
`et. al. 1-21-cv -00438-(DLF)
`
`(Junior Judge)(Appendix “B” ); U.S. Court of Appeals for the
`
`D.C. Circuit, No. 21-5154, In re Daniel Kwaku Gbedemah, (per
`
`curiam) (Oct. 05, 2021)(Appendix “D" ); Daniel Kwaku Gbedemah
`
`v. CIA
`
`(per curiam)(Jul. 28, 2022)(Appendix “G ”). All opinions
`
`annexed in the appendix and numbered in compliance.
`
`
`
`Page
`
`1
`
`11
`
`in
`
`IV
`
`V-X11
`
`1 1
`
`1
`
`1
`2-3
`3-5
`5-6
`
`-v-
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Petition FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`OPINIONS TO REVIEW
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`FACTS OF THE CASE
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
`
`I. PETITIONERS’ RIGHT TO ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IS
`
`7-8
`CLEAR ............................................................
`8-11
`II. Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:
`ill. whether Executive Privilege Can Shield The wrongdoing
`11-17
`of Bio-terrorism
`
`IV. NO OTHER ADEQUATE MEANS TO OBTAIN RELIEF EXIST............ 17-18
`
`
`
`V. Whether Congress implicitly or explicitly bar
`
`
`
`Petitioner a victim of “extrajudicial killings and
`
`torture” from seeking relief under the Torture
`
`19-20
`
`
`Victims Protection Act....................................
`
`VI. whether this case implicates or circumvent
`
`“National Security” interest, or a “national
`
`embarrassment” that manifest the injustice of
`
`denying Petitioner the right to seek justice..
`
`19-25
`
`
`
`“VI -
`
`Vii- WHETHER A LOWER COURT WITHOUT SUBJECT-MATTER
`
`JURISDICTION CAN GRANT THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA
`
`IMMUNITY UNDER FSIA of 1976
`
`Viii. WHETHER THE “NUREMBERG CODE ” IS TORTURE
`
`UNDER THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
`
`IX. WHETHER IT WILL BE FUTILE TO AMEND A COMPLAINT
`
`25-28
`
`28-30
`
`BEFORE A COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION
`
`..30-31
`
`X.
`
`WHETHER JUDGES CAN PRACTICE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
`
`AND UNDERMINE THE RULE OF LAW BY DENYING PETITIONER
`
`JUSTICE PROTECTED BY LAW-TVPA and 18 U.S.C.S 242
`
`31-34
`
`XI. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS WARRANTED GIVEN THE URGENT
`
`CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`APPENDIX
`
`.34-36
`
`37
`
`1A-88A
`
`
`
`-VI1 -
`
`INDEX TO APPENDIX
`
`APPENDIX "A” ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE
`1A to 4A
`DISTRICT COURT ..........................................................
`
`APPENDIX “B" ORDER OF THE JUNIOR JUDGE OF
`5A to 12A
`THE DISTRICT COURT ............................................
`
`APPENDIX "C” “NUNC PRO TUNC ” FILINGS AFFIRMING
`CLERKS MISCHIEF, ORDER AND AFIDAVITS TO
`ISA to 17A
`SUPPORT ......................................................................
`
`21-5154
`APPENDIX “D ” MANDAMUS WRIT ORDER
`DC CIRCUIT APPEALS COURT ..................
`
`APPENDIX “E” APPEAL DOCKETING NOTICE TO THE DC
`CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CASE ASSIGNED # 22-5508
`
`18A
`
`19A to 28A
`
`APPENDIX “F” PETITIONER’S INITIAL SUBMISSIONS
`TO DC CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ............................29A to 32A
`
`FINAL ORDER DC CIRCUIT COURT OF
`APPENDIX “G ”
`APPEALS 22-5508
`
`33A to 34A
`
`APPENDIX “H ”SWORN DECLARATION OF THE
`REPUBLIC OF GHANA .................................... 35A to 37A
`
`APPENDIX “I” SWORN DECLARATION OF PETITIONER TO THE
`US SENATE, UNITED NATIONS, AND DC CIRCUIT
`38A to 44A
`COURT OF APPEALS ....................................................................
`
`APPENDIX “j" PUBLISHED FOIA CIA REPORT ON THE
`HEALTH MINISTER IN GHANA WHO CONDUCTED THE
`“bio-terrorism weapon of mass destruction experiments
`A "ROUGE AND CORRUPT" AGENT OF THE CIA AND THE REPUBLIC OF
`45A to 54A
`GHANA ........................................................................................................
`
`APPENDIX “K’ PUBLISHED FOIA CIA MEDICAL
`55A to 73A
`PROGRAM ..............................................................
`
`APPENDIX ”L" FOIA REQUEST OF PETITIONER
`74A to 77A
`TO THE CIA ......................................................
`
`APPENDIX “M" FBI COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER
`
`78A to 80A
`
`APPENDIX “N ” PUBLISHED PICTORIALS
`
`81A
`
`APPENDIX “0” Synthetic Poliovirus: Bioterrorism and
`
`Science Policy implications-................ 82A-88A
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`-viii-
`
`Cases
`
`American Civil Liberties Union v. C.I.A., 710 F.3d 422
`
`(D.C . Cir. 2013)(Merrick Garland)
`
`Babbitt v. United Farm workers Nat’l Union
`
`442 U.S. 289 (1979)
`
`24
`
`9
`
`Banco Nacional de Cuba v. sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 409 (1964)...16
`
`Barlow v. United States, 32 U.S. 404,411 (1833)...........
`
`Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S,
`
`, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008)
`
`Cheney v. United States Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367
`
`(2004)
`
`35
`
`13
`
`5,6
`
`Cohen v. Beneficial industrial Loan corp.,337 U.S. 541 (1949)...30
`
`8 1
`
`0
`34
`32
`
`Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of
`Denver
`
`330 P.2d 1116, certiorari denied 79 S.Ct. 609,
`
`359 U.S. 926, 3 L.Ed. 2d 629 (Colo. 1958).....
`Elliot v. Piersol,26 U.S. 328-340 (1828)...........
`Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578 (1943)
`Garcia v. United States
`469 U.S. 70, (1984)..
`
`Gen. Atomic Co. v. Felter, 436 U.S. 493 (1978)
`
`(per curiam) ...............................................................................
`
`6 5
`
`16
`
`34
`
`Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010)
`
`...........
`
`
`
`Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 736 (1977)
`
`In Re Leopold to Unseal Certain Electronic
`
`Surveillance Applications and orders, 964 F.3d 1121
`
`(D.C. Cir. 2020)(Merrick Garland)
`
`
`
`-IX-
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES-Continued
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247
`
`6,18
`(1895) ..................................................................
`
`Janove v. Bacon, 6 Ill. 2d 245, 249, 218 N.E.2d 706, 708 (1955)..10
`
`Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S.458, 58 S.Ct. 1019 (1938).
`
`Lujan v. Defenders of wildlife. 504 u.S. 555 (1992)..
`
`18
`
`8,9
`
`35
`Maine vs. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 122 (1980).......................
`
`Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803)
`
`Muckrock, LLC v. cent, intelligence Agency, 300 F. Supp.
`
`3d 108, (D.D.C. 2018)(KETANJI BROWN JACKSON)
`
`Neal v. united States, 516 U.S. 284, 295 (1996)
`
`Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982)
`
`13
`
`24
`
`16
`
`27
`
`15,17
`Opati v Sudan 590 US ___(2020)........................................
`
`35
`
`7 1
`
`5
`
`19
`
`Owen vs. City of independence, 445 U.S.622 (1980)..
`
`Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732-733 (1878).........
`
`Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004)
`
`Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc’y, 503 U.S. 429 (1992)
`
`32
`Roe v. Wade __US __(2022)...........................................................
`
`19
`Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. 441, 449 (1850)..........................
`
`Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 23 (2005)...........
`
`16
`
`Sprint Commc ’ns Co. v. APCC Servs.
`
`Inc.
`
`554 U.S. 269,(2008)....9
`
`8
`
`9 3
`
`2
`
`Steinfeld v. Hoddick, 513 U.S. 809 (1994)
`
`Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus
`
`573 U.S. 149 (2014)
`
`Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Rigsby, 241 u.S. 33 (1916)
`
`United States v. District Court, 334 U.S. 258 (1948)
`
`17,18
`
`
`
`-X-
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES-Continued
`
`Page(s)
`
`United States v. Fisher, 6 U.S. 358, 386 (1805)
`
`United States v. Fossatt
`
`62 U.S. 445 (1858) ..
`
`united States v. Lewis Libby (2003)........................
`
`36
`
`6,34
`
`3
`
`United-States v. Nixon 418 U.S.603 (1974).............
`
`11,13
`
`United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987)....
`
`
`Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 52, 69 S.Ct. 1347,
`
`93 L.Ed. 1801 (1949)
`
`29
`
`24
`
`18
`Will v. united States, 389 U.S. 90, 95-96 (1967)...................
`
`World-Wide Volkswagen corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)
`
`7
`
`22
`zubaydah v. CIA, __US __ (2022).....................................................
`
`Statutes, Constitutional Provisions, and Rules
`
`15
`
`
`5 U.S.C. § 552 ...............................................................................
`
`18 U.S.C. § 35 -imparting or conveying false information...
`
`
`22
`
`18 U.S.C. § 242- Deprivation of Rights Under
`
`Color of Law
`
`1,4 ,18,30,31,32,34,35
`
`
`
`18 U.S.C. § 287, False, fictitious or fraudulent claims
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1031
`
`Major fraud against the United States
`
`22
`
`22
`
`18 U.S. Code § 1035 - False statements relating to
`
`22
`health care matters ................................................................
`
`18 U.S. Code § 1038 - False information and hoaxes........
`
`21,22
`
`18 U.S. Code
`
`22
`§ 1621 - Perjury generally........................
`
`18 U.S. Code § 2332a
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2340(1).
`
`28 U.S.C. § 371(c)..
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1254
`
`28 U.S.C. §1350
`
`21
`
`26
`
`3
`
`30
`
`1,12,15,23,29,32
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES-Continued
`
`Other Authorities
`
`-XI -
`
`page(s)
`
`28 U.S.C. §1605A
`
`13,15,20,25
`..........................................................
`
`20
`28 U.S.C. § 1605A(h)(7)........................................................
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)
`
`1,5
`.......................................................
`
`4,
`Fed. R. Civil Pro.12(b)(1) ...............................................
`
`37
`Fed. R. Civil Pro. 15(c)......................................................
`
`4,7,37
`Fed. R. Civil Pro.60(b)(4) ...............................................
`
`16
`Federal Records Act of 1950.................................................
`
`National Research Act (Public Law 93-348) 45 C.F.R. 46
`
`1,13,32
`
`7
`U.S. Const. Amendment 5........................................................
`
`U.S Const, ill Section 2 clause 1
`
`U.S. Const, iv Section 2 clause 2
`
`74 C.F.R. 4893 (2009)
`
`8,9,13,27
`
`17
`
`26
`
`6, 8, 9, 14
`U.S. Const., art. Ill .....................................................
`35
`Black's Law Dictionary, sixth Edition, p. 1574.........
`Rights of Action, and Remedies:
`Donald H. zeigler,
`
`An Integrated Approach, 76 WASH . L. R EV. 67, 68 (2001)
`
`32
`
`Other Authorities
`(discussing implied rights)
`
`Peter L. Strauss, The Courts and the Congress:
`
`Raoul Berger “Constitutional Myth”.....................
`
`Should Judges Disdain Political History?,
`
`98 COLUM. L. REV. 242, 258 (1998).......................
`
`Stephen M. Shapiro et al., Supreme Court
`
`32
`
`36
`
`11
`
`35
`
`7,12,18
`Practice (10th ed. 2013) .....................................
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES-Continued
`
`Other Authorities
`
`-XH-
`
`Page(s)
`
`Susan stabile, The Role of congressional intent in
`
`Determining the Existence of implied Rights of Action,
`
`71 NOTRE DAME L. R EV. 861, 864 (1996)
`
`Tara Leigh Grove, The structural Safeguards of Federal
`Jurisdiction,,124 HARV. L. REV. 869, 888-916 (2011)...
`
`32
`
`19
`
`
`
`1.
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`Petitioner DANIEL kwaku gbedemah , pro se, respectfully
`
`i
`
`petition for writ of mandamus to the united States court of
`
`Appeals, for District of Columbia Circuit, requesting that the
`
`
`
`Districtlof Columbia Circuit be directed to remand this case to
`
`the chief Judge of the united States District Court, District of
`
`Columbia, for further proceedings consistent with
`
`Congressionally granted right to Justice under 18 U.S.C.S 242,
`
`28 U.S.C.S. 1350, and the National Research Act of 1974.
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`
`The US District Court Misc order l-20-mc-00128-UNA.
`
`(Appendix “A”). The US District Court order 1:21-cv-00438(DLF),
`
`(Appendix “B”). The per curiam mandamus order of the District
`
`of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals,(Appendix “D”). The per
`
`curiam final order of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of
`
`Appeals, (Appendix “G ”).
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`
`
`The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28
`
`U.S.C.S.1651.
`
`RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`
`The All writs Act
`
`28 U.S.C.S. 1651(a), provides: ‘‘The
`
`Supreme court and all courts established by Act of Congress may
`
`i
`
`issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their
`respective jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and
`principles of law.”
`
`
`
`2.
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`There is no clearer rule in jurisprudence that a court must
`
`
`
`have jurisdiction to enter a valid, enforceable judgment on a
`
`
`
`claim. Whenever jurisdiction is lacking, litigants, through
`
`
`
`various procedural mechanisms, may retroactively challenge the
`
`validity of a judgment. A judgment is a void judgment if the
`
`
`
`court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject
`
`matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent
`
`with due^process. A junior judge of the United States
`
`
`
`District court lack the jurisdictional authority to usurp
`
`power from the chief judge of the district court, lacking any
`
`assignment from the chief Judge. An appeals court panel
`
`
`
`trespassed its constitutional authorities by reviewing a void
`
`order of the lower court. The Appeals court mandate is to
`
`
`
`perform constitutional duties. Not to endorse or ratify
`
`
`
`unconstitutionality, without probing more.
`
`The lower court cannot have two ORDERS on a case, one
`
`
`
`order constitutionally valid, from the chief judge of the lower
`
`court. The second order, a void order issued by a junior judge,
`
`
`
`lacking constitutional authority. An appeals court panel
`
`
`
`trespassed its constitutional authority by summarily affirming a
`
`void judgment. The only constitutional order before this Court
`
`is the valid judgment of the chief Judge. Before the Chief
`
`
`
`Judge, there will be no futility in amendments. The proper
`
`
`
`jurist with constitutional authorities who was usurped. The
`
`Chief Judge have not issued any summons on the case. The junior
`
`Judge improperly issued simulated and mock summons. The effects
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`of lack of subject matter jurisdiction applies to summons. A
`
`
`
`court must have jurisdiction to rule on the summons of a case.
`
`A chief judge is the judge in regular active service who
`
`is senior in commission of those judges who are (1) 64 years of
`
`age or under; (2) have served for one year or more as a judge;
`
`and (3) have not previously served as chief judge. The "Rule of
`
`80" is the commonly used shorthand for the age and service
`as set forth in
`requirement for a judge to assume senior status
`Title 28 of the US. Code, Section 371(c). Beginning at age 65, a
`judge may retire at his or her current salary or take senior
`status after performing 15 years of active service as an Article
`III judge (65+15 = 80). A sliding scale of increasing age and
`decreasing service results in eligibility for retirement
`compensation at age 70 with a minimum of 10 years of service
`(70+10=80). Senior judges, who essentially provide volunteer
`service to the courts, typically handle about 15 percent of the
`federal courts' workload annually.” Id. See About Federal
`Judges: https://www.uscourts.gov/faqs-federal-judges.
`
`FACTS OF THE CASE
`
`Petitioner DANIEL KWAKU GBEDEMAH a victim of “bio
`terrorism” induced poliomyelitis filed a “sealed” complaint
`in the United States District Court district of Columbia.
`Petitioner filed the complaint “sealed” in compliance with
`United States v. Lewis Libby (2003)(grand jury indictments) at:
`https://www.justice.gov/archive/osc/documents/libby_indictment.
`Petitioner's sealed complaint was assigned to the chief Judge of
`the District Court and assigned case number l-20-mc-00128-(UNA).
`
`:
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The Chief Judge issued a valid and legally enforceable order
`
`denying the cause to proceed under “seal.” See Appendix “A”.
`
`Petitioner upon a motion for reconsideration assenting to
`
`proceed without “seal” as ordered by the Chief Judge, the Clerk
`
`
`
`in the lower court juxtaposed jurisdiction from the chief Judge
`
`to a junior judge, see Appendix “E”. chief Judges handle 15% of
`
`a courts case loads. Thus, there are no statutory bar impeding
`
`the chief Judge from reviewing a motion for reconsideration
`
`
`addressed to the Chief Judge. See Rule 60 Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, et. seq.
`
`
`
`The junior judge unconstitutionally began simulated trials,
`
`first by denying a motion for reconsideration meant for the CJ.
`
`See docket entries of the case at Appendix “E.” Next the junior
`
`judge began a protracted mock trial riddled by a controversial
`
`
`ruling on service of process, the court lip-synched the United
`
`States baseless Rule 12(b)(1) motion with dubious fictitious
`
`
`assertions, and defeated by Petitioner's affirmative
`
`
`
`
`declarations. The unconstitutional court copped out of
`
`simulation with a void order couched in lack of subject matter
`
`
`
`jurisdiction and unfoundable espionage. The mock court rained
`
`
`
`abuses in its void and unconstitutional order concluding,
`
`amending Petitioner's complaint would be futile, in spite of
`
`18 U.S.C.S 242. vectored with “trumpish” accolades.
`
`indeed, it would be futile to amend a complaint before a
`
`
`
`court that copped out for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`concede that because a court must have jurisdiction to amend a
`
`
`
`complaint, [NO] one can over come that futility in a mock court
`
`
`
`5.
`
`
`
`that usurped the constitutional authority of the chief judge in
`
`an ideological contest. Arguably imbibed in "liberal,
`
`and federalist” ideologies, in the blinded face of
`conservative
`
`It is egregiously wrong for the clerk and junior
`Lady Justice.
`
`
`
`judge so usurp constitutional authority from the Chief Judge who
`
`is also the senior judge. Tantamount to a “judicial-coup”
`
`mounted against the chief judge of the lower court
`
`aided by the
`
`clerk, indeed a writ of mandamus was filed by this Petitioner
`
`against the junior judge and clerk which propelled the case to
`
`this point. A biased clerk and judge. The Clerk failed to docket
`
`filed documents. See Appendix “c” and Appendix “M ”. The clerk of
`
`the lower court failed to perform a fiduciary duty. The clerk
`
`withheld filed exculpatory documents in the proceedings with
`
`intent to destroy the documents. See Petitioner's sworn
`
`affidavit under penalty of perjury. Appendix "c” and “D”.
`
`Clerks swear oath to uphold the laws. This Clerk broke the law.
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
`The Court may “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in
`the aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the
`usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). A writ of
`mandamus is warranted where “(1) no other adequate means exist
`to attain the relief [the party] desires, (2) the party’s right
`to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (B) the
`writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v.
`Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (quoting Cheney v. united States
`542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)) (internal quotation
`Dist. Ct.
`marks and alterations omitted). Mandamus is reserved for
`
`
`
`6.
`
`“exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation
`of power.} >>
`lower court "mistakes or misconstrues the decree of this court”
`
`Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380 (citation omitted), where a
`
`and fails to “give full effect to the mandate, its action may be
`
`controlled . . . by a writ of mandamus to execute the mandate of
`
`this Court.” Gen. Atomic Co. v. Felter, 436 U.S. 493, 497 (1978)
`
`(per curiam) (quoting in re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S.
`
`247, 255 (1895)); see also United States v. Fossatt, 62 U.S.
`
`445, 446 (1858) (“[w]hen a case is sent to the court below by a
`
`mandate from this court, ... if the court does not proceed to
`
`execute the mandate, or disobeys and mistakes its meaning, the
`
`party aggrieved may, by motion for a mandamus, at any time,
`
`bring the errors or omissions of the inferior court before this
`
`court for correction.”). Exceptional circumstances are present
`
`here, where two divergent ideologies have emerged from one
`
`district court with two opinions on a case. One decision by the
`
`
`
`chief judge, constitutionally sound on its face, lacking Article
`
`ill standing scrutiny. And the other a junior judge void order.
`
`And an appeals court that have affirmed a void order.
`
`Surmounting to acts of “failure to perform a constitutional
`
`
`duty.” Judges do solemnly swear (or affirm) to administer
`
`justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the
`
`
`
`poor and to the rich, and faithfully and impartially discharge
`
`and perform all the duties incumbent upon a Judge under the
`
`Constitution and laws of USA. As here, one judge copped out, the
`
`other faultless.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I. PETITIONERS’ RIGHT TO ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IS CLEAR
`Petitioner is entitled to a writ directing the D.C.
`Circuit to relinquish jurisdiction over this case and
`remand it to the district court for further proceedings
`consistent with this Court's prior opinions, because the
`appeals that came before the DC Circuit is a “void
`judgment” which have not been fully resolved in the US
`district Court, what this court “is asked to do by way of
`granting the writ of mandamus is to vacate a “void
`judgment” which have dubiously become the verdict of the
`and to render the kind of judgment on the merits of
`case
`the merits that the court of appeals could have rendered.”
`
`See Stephen M. Shapiro et al.
`
`Supreme court Practice §
`
`2.2 at 80 (10th ed. 2013). The Court can do so here. By
`
`“grant[ing] mandamus in a lower court nullified judgment,
`
`[it] effectively [stood] in the shoes of the Court of
`
`Appeals” and bring justice. “A judgment rendered in
`
`violation of due process is void in the rendering state
`
`and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere.
`
`Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732-733 (1878).” World-Wide
`
`Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980). Judgment
`
`is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked
`
`
`
`jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or
`Fed.
`
`acted in a manner inconsistent with due process
`
`Rules Civ. Procedure, 60(b)(4). A void judgment is a
`
`simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of
`
`
`
`jurisdictional defects only, in the court rendering it and
`
`
`
`8.
`
`
`
`defect of jurisdiction may relate to a party or parties, the
`
`subject matter, the cause of action, the question to be
`
`
`
`determined, or relief to be granted, Davidson ChevroletInc.
`
`v. City and county of Denver
`
`330 P.2d 1116, certiorari denied
`
`79 S.Ct. 609, 359 U.S.926, 3 L.Ed. 2d 629 (Colo. 1958). Void
`
`
`
`order may be attacked, either directly or collaterally, at any
`
`time, steinfeld v. Hoddick, 513 U.S. 809 (1994). Questions
`
`
`
`concerning justiciability as to Petitioner's due process right
`
`is significant in this suit, and the necessity and
`
`appropriateness of a remand to the US District court. The Chief
`
`Judge of the US District Court did not opine, Petitioner lack
`
`Article III standing in its order.
`
`Article ill. Section 2T Clause 1:
`II.
`
`The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and
`
`Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United
`
`States
`
`and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their
`
`
`
`Authority;-to all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
`
`Ministers and consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
`
`
`
`Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall
`
`be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States; between
`
`a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of
`
`different States,- between Citizens of the same State claiming
`
`Lands under Grants of different States, and between a state, or
`
`the Citizens thereof, and foreign states, Citizens or Subjects.
`
`in in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
`
`This Court established a three prong test in the determination
`
`of standing issues. The first prong of the Lujan test requires
`
`
`
`9.
`a litigant to allege (and ultimately prove) that he has
`suffered an injury-in-fact. According to this Court this key
`requirement has three components, obligating the litigant to
`
`demonstrate that he has suffered an injury that is
`
`
`
`concrete, (2) particularized, and (3) actual or imminent. 560-
`
`
`
`561. The Lujan test also requires that a plaintiff be able to
`
`
`
`show causation and redress-ability, which is sufficient to
`
`establish Article in standing, see Susan B. Anthony List v.
`
`Driehaus 573 U.S. 149, 158 (2014); Babbitt v. United Farm
`even
`Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979). Moreover
`
`if the DC Circuit limited its consideration on appeal only on
`
`
`
`“service of process” issues and excluded “justiciability”
`
`questions, it has still violated this Court’s mandate in Lujan.
`
`There is no way to reconcile the DC Circuit void opinion with
`
`this Court’s Lujan analysis, since the appeals Court already
`
`affirmed a void order on service of process. To the extent
`there is a difference [between the causation and redress-
`
`ability requirements of standing], it is that the former
`
`examines the causal connection between the asserted unlawful
`
`conduct and the alleged injury, whereas the latter examines the
`
`causal connection between the alleged injury and the judicial
`
`relief requested). See also Sprint Commc ’ns Co. v. APCC Servs.,
`
`554 U.S. 269, 288 (2008) ([T]he general ‘personal stake’
`
`Inc.
`requirement and the more specific standing requirements (injury
`
`
`
`in fact, redress-ability, and causation) are flip sides of the
`
`same coin. They are simply different descriptions of the same
`
`that
`judicial effort to ensure, in every case or controversy,
`
`
`
`10.
`
`concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues
`
`upon which the court so largely depends for i11umination.1)
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Only the
`
`Chief Judge on remand can make those determinations in the
`
`District Court. This court stated that if a court is "without
`
`authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullity.
`
`
`They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a
`
`recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to
`
`
`
`them. They constitute no justification; and all persons
`
`concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are
`
`considered, in law, as trespassers." Elliot v. piersol, 26 U.S.
`
`328-340 (1828), not even the DC Circuit Court of appeals has
`
`fully resolved the justiciable issues, the appeals court only
`
`rubber stamped a void judgment on service of process, which is
`
`equally void.
`
`Subject matter can never be presumed waived, and cannot be
`
`construed even by mutual consent of the parties. Subject matter
`
`
`
`jurisdiction is two part: the statutory or common law authority
`
`for the court to hear the case and the appearance and testimony
`
`of a competent fact witness, in other words, sufficiency of
`
`
`
`pleadings. There is subject matter jurisdictional failings,
`
`
`where a summons was not properly issued and where service of
`
`process was not made pursuant to statute and supreme Court
`
`Rules, janove v. Bacon
`
`6 Ill. 2d 245, 249
`
`218 N .E.2d 706, 708
`
`(1955). As here, no summons was issued by the Chief Judge, and
`
`no service of process was completed, and the DC Circuit Appeals
`
`court lack authority to do anything else beyond remanding the
`
`
`
`11.
`
`case to the chief Judge of the district court, wherefore,
`
`Petitioner meet the high threshold for a writ of mandamus
`
`ordering the DC Circuit Appeals court to confine its actions to
`
`precedents prescribed by this Court.
`
`EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE CAN'T SHIELD THE WRONGDOING
`III.
`OF (BIO-TERRORISM)
`This Court in united States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
`| held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the •
`purpose is to shield wrongdoing. The wrongdoing in this case is
`directly tied to the white House, involving two (2) former
`United-States Presidents. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and
`^ Richard Nixon. This Court is familiar with the executive
`
`privilege abuses of Richard Nixon. The term “executive
`privilege” is not in the U.S. Constitution, but it’s considered
`I an implied power based on the separation of powers laid out in
`
`Article II, which is meant to make sure one branch of
`government doesn't become all-powerful; executive privilege is
`j one way the legislative branch’s power over the executive is
`limited. For example, when Congress investigated George W.
`Bush’s firing of eight U.S. Attorneys in 2006, the White House
`I Counsel at the time, Fred Fielding, alluded to executive
`privilege in a letter referencing the “t
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
