Margaret Sue Bozgoz Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Retired Robert E. Bozgoz 3553 Burr Court Unit A Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-1239 March 29, 2021 Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested John G. Roberts, Jr, Chief Justice of the United States ‘Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543 Secretary of the Treasury U.S. Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania AVE NW Washington, DC 20220 ‘The Honorable Antony Blinken Secretary of State ULS. Department of State 2201 C ST NW ‘Washington, DC 20520 ‘The Honorable Merrick Garland Attomey General USS. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania AVE NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 The Honorable Lloyd J. Austin It Secretary of Defense U.S. Department of Defense 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1000 General Mark A. Milley Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Department of Defense 9999 Joint Staff Pentagon ‘Washington, D.C. 20318-9999 Subject: _ Petitioners Response to Supreme Court of the United States Denial of Writ Certiorari without following Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1 in violation of: 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause, and the 1990 ADA Act. Dear John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, Secretaries Yellen, Blinken, Attorney General Gariand and Gen MilleyPage 2 Response to Supreme Court of the United States Denial of Writ Certiorari without following Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1 in violation of 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause, and the 1990 ADA Act. Our case involves continuous, fraud, wastes, abuse, discrimination, and willful violation of 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause, and the 1990 ADA Act. On 29 Jan 2021, the petitioners submitted a Writ of Certiorari on time and as per Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1 (Exhibit 1 and 5). The Exhibits to the Writ of is found on the disk which we provided to your office last week Clerks Scott S. Harris and Susan Frimpong signed and denied the document without reviewing lower court judgement which was signed and denied by court clerks three times on: (1) 26 June 2020, (2) 26 Aug 2020 and (2) 29 Oct 2020 vs. three Judges (Exhibit 2). The main issue we have here is discrimination as the lower courts are collecting money and denying rights by using their court clerks while the District court and The Department of Justice are not recusing or stepping down from their position as per pro confesso On or about 10 Feb 2021, |, ADA Advocate M. Sue Bozgoz contacted [and audio taped] Court Clerk/Case Worker Susan Frimpong at (202) 479-3039 to inform her that she used the wrong void court order (e.g., 26 Aug 2020 vs 29 Oct 2020). See: https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeL3zIDL644 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfjXoxzVPIkqddMlvX0s_Pw Also, Court Clerk/Case Manager, Susan Frimpong also failed to investigate the facts. Specifically, she failed to note how the lower court ignored the petitioner's protest/reconsideration motion on 4 and 16 November 2021 in violation of 42 USC. 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause, and the 1990 ADA Act. Instead of during her job, Court Clerk/Case Manager, Susan Frimpong violated her oath of office by not accepting the timely writ and reasonable accommodations request, which is not only a federal crime, but also a violation of the following 42 U.S. Code § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other properPage 3 Response to Supreme Court of the United States Denial of Writ Certiorari without following Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1 in violation of. 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause, and the 1990 ADA Act. proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicabie exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia (R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96-170. § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104~317, title Ill, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.) 42 U.S. Code § 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights. (1) Preventing officer from performing duties If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof: or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, of to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties; (2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws. (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equalPage 4 Response to Supreme Court of the United States Denial of Writ Certiorari without following Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1 in violation of: 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause, and the 1990 ADA Act. privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. (RS. § 1980.) 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90-284, title |, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100-690, title Vil, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. |. 103-322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat_1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104-294, fitle VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.) 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of lawPage 5 Response to Supreme Court of the United States Denial of Writ Certiorari without following Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1 in violation of: 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause, and the 1990 ADA Act. Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90-284, title |, § 103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100-690, title Vil, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat_ 4396; Pub. L. 103. 322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104-204 title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.) Also, the lower court judges, Judge Griffith, Henderson and Katsas were placed on our Quo Warranto on 26 June 2020 for allowing their court clerks (Mark J. Langer, Michael C. McGail, Danie! Reidy and Manuel Castro) to issue, sign and give their opinions illegally. The lower court Judges were to step down from the bench as per pro confesso because the petitioners were denied the rights to a hearing on 26 June 2020, 26 Aug 2020 and 29 Oct 2020 and 16 Nov 2020 Furthermore, lower court Judge Thomas Griffith retired on 1 Sep 2020 see: https ://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=|udge+thomas+griffith. Therefore, he could not have signed the 29 Oct 2020 order. Your court clerk, Susan Frimpong is professional who took an oath of office. Professionals do not make mistakes or lie regarding checking the due dates correctly, hence the reason why she used the 26 Aug 2020 date verse the 29 Oct 2020 date to calculate the due day. See: https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeL 3zIDL644 Court Clerk/Case Manager Susan Frimpong actions are not only criminal itis in violation of 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause and the 1990 ADA Act and needs to be investigated as it cost us over $200.00 and hours of administrative hours See: https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=eel 3zIDL644 and Exhibit 1Page 6 Response to Supreme Court of the United States Denial of Writ Certiorari without following Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1 in violation of: 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause, and the 1990 ADA Act We have taken the liberty to include the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff as addressees as military action in required due to the constitutional rights violation and continuous fraud, waste, and abuse (e.g., RICO, void orders, kangaroo courts, mail fraud, ADA denial etc.) by the DC Courts at everyone level, VA HQs and the Department of Justice as the evidence shows (Exhibit 5). If the government especially the Department of Justice continue to play the administrative trickery games, they will be held accountable and liable for a preventable health issue and legal abuse syndrome (LAS). These people are professionals they know what they are doing WILLFULLY. Robert and | are disabled persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) specifically Titles Il and Ill. Sue is Robert's primary ADA Advocate and Chris King; J.D. is his secondary ADA Advocate. Sue's ADA Advocate is Christopher King, J.D. My ADA Clients are Jimmy Ryan (Jimmy's Family — Japan), Austin Bozgoz, Lance Fulgium and Jamie Fox (California) If you have additional questions or need to contact us, please call Sue at 410-858-0107 or email her at Margaret. Bozgoz@comcast net. Our fax number is 410-874-3907. If you are going to send a fax, please contact us ahead of time to ensure our fax is set to receive your documents. Very Respectfully Submitted, Date signed: 3/29/2021 if Margaret Sue Bozgoz, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Retired and ADA Advocate for Robert Bozgoz, Austin Bozgoz, Lance Fulgium, James Ryan, and James's “Jimmy” Ryan Date signed: 3/29/2021 Robert Bozgoz Date signed: 3/29/2021 Austin Bozgoz lack br Wes Date signed: 3/29/2021. 7 WT DA Meee ; bacahe) Lance Fulgium. Date signed: 3/29/2021. “7 4 James Ryan, WG PREY Date signed: 3/29/2021. James's “Jimmy” Ryan,Page 7 Response to Supreme Court of the United States Denial of Writ Certiorari without following Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1 in violation of: 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause, and the 1990 ADA Act. Enclosures ce: Solicitor General of the United States Room 5616 Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Paul Cirino and Joseph Finnigan: Assistant US Attorney for the District of Columbia Civil Process Clerk, US Attorney's Office 555 Fourth ST NW. Washington, DC 20530 Dr. Anne Klein, PhD 21100 Albrecht Shores Drive Pine City, MN 55063-4822 The Honorable Janet Yellen Secretary of the Treasury U.S. Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania AVE NW Washington, DC 20220 The Honorable Antony Blinken Secretary of State U.S. Department of State 2201 C ST NW Washington, DC 20520 The Honorable Merrick Garland Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania AVE NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 The Honorable Lloyd J. Austin III Secretary of Defense U.S. Department of Defense 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1000Page 8 Response to Supreme Court of the United States Denial of Writ Certiorari without following Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1 in violation of. 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause, and the 1990 ADA Act. General Mark A. Milley Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Department of Defense 9999 Joint Staff Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20318-9999Page 9 Response to Supreme Court of the United States Denial of Writ Certiorari without following Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1 in violation of: 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause, and the 1990 ADA Act. Supreme Court of the United States CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the _29 day of March 2021, | filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court. | certify that a true and correct copy of said PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO PAUL CIRINO’S STATUS REPORT- March, 22, 2024 ‘The Response was sent to all case participants in the following manner: U.S. Mail - Postage Paid Parties Served: Solicitor General of the United States Room 5616 Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Paul Cirino and Joseph Finnigan Process Clerk, U.S. Attorney's Office 555 Fourth ST NW Washington, DC 20530 Dr. Anne Klein, PhD 21100 Aubrecht Shores Drive Pine City, MN 55063-4822 Secretary of the Treasury U.S, Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania AVE NW Washington, DC 20220Page 10 Response to Supreme Court of the United States Denial of Writ Certiorari without following Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1 in violation of: 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause, and the 1990 ADA Act. The Honorable Antony Blinken Secretary of State USS. Department of State 2201 C ST NW Washington, DC 20520 The Honorable Merrick Garland Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania AVE NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 The Honorable Lloyd J. Austin III Secretary of Defense U.S. Department of Defense 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1000 General Mark A. Milley Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Department of Defense 9999 Joint Staff Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20318-9999 DATED this__27 day of larch, 2021 Signature: fe — Robert Bozgoz, Pro SePage 11 Response to Supreme Court of the United States Denial of Writ Certiorari without following Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1 in violation of: 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause, and the 1990 ADA Act. Exhibit Summary Exhibit A: Writ of Certiorari and proof of delivery dated 29 Jan 2021. The cost of the delivery to the Supreme Court was well over $200.00 Exhibit B: Reasonable Accommodations request under Titles Il and Ill (to expediate case and stop further WILLFUL Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS) Exhibit 2: 3 each void order signed and denied by Court Clerks dated: 26 June, 26 ‘Aug, and 29 Oct Exhibit 3: Supreme Court Clerks denial based on false information and Denial of Writ Certiorari without following Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1 in violation of. 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause, and the 1990 ADA Act. Exhibit 4: Request Military Support Due to Willful Constitutional Rights violation and intentional Legal Abuse (Domestic Crime) Exhibit 5: Rules, Regulation and Proof the Writ was timely. Youtube video of Court Clerk denying write via audio phone call: https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeL 3z1DL644Page 12 Response to Supreme Court of the United States Denial of Writ Certiorari without following Rules 13.1, 29.2 and 30.1 in violation of: 42 USC 1983, 42 USC 1985, 42 USC 1986, 18 USC 241, 18 USC 242, Supremacy Clause, and the 1990 ADA Act. Exhibit Summary Exhibit A: Writ of Certiorari and proof of delivery dated 29 Jan 2021. The cost of the delivery to the Supreme Court was well over $200.00= 1000-€¥S07 3G NOLONIHS¥M F 3N 133415 ASYLS | ‘SALVIS GALINN 3H 40 L¥NOD aWaYANS a | ye a a 5 fu 1000-€¥S0z 3G NOLONIHS¥M, SN 1331S LSuld 1 SALVAS G3LINN 3HL 4O 1YNOD 3W3udNS L000-€¢S0z 3d NOLONIHSWM AN L33U1S 181d | SBLVAS G3LINN 3H JO 1¥NOD aWauENS 1000-€yS07 30 NOLONIHSV/ | 3N L3ULS 1S SBLWIS GALINN 3HL 40 L¥NOD aWaAN: L000-ErS0z 30 NOLONIHSvM aN AS AS¥id L TS@5 hh24 OOOO OD oeDe WCE TE INR: Eb} Eevee)Ya se10ys IDBGNy OOLLZ | Ud ‘ulap euUy 4G E92h 2982 2000 oShe gape INWATASNNd OS6 “ MN LS WuINOY s¢¢ SAO eR a uobeyuag yes wor 6666 4 240 5 Aawiony savers payun sisswoou PIS JO SJaIYD JUIOL ULLYD HO eID 892015 UND B})—saivis GRINN HL JO W¥BNHD YOLONOS “|B DS3 jeRIWYDS WEIN IW ae al - “8 sein stmpagine| ce ein steese | Le = 8 e Ey wv a u = Fa e 7 BR EROR Rater Fie te} od. BRED T al (eerie lek re) pee aadCPU CRADLEROCK ‘6800, CRADLERODK WAY STE A COLUMBIA, MO. 21085-4335 (800)275-8777 1/29/2021 06:59 PH Proact Oty Unt Price Price Priority Mai1@ 1-Day 1 sito Washington, DC 20918 Weight: 5 ib 0.60 oz Expected Oel very Date Mon 02/01/2021 Certified Matte $3.60 Tracking "70200640000062495776 Return Receipt $2.85 Tracking # 9590 9402 5816 0034 0106 79, Total $17.85 Priority Mai 1@ 1-Qay 1 15.50 Hed FR Box Washington, 02 20001 Flat Rate Expected Del ivery Date Mor 02/01/2021 corti fied Mail $3.60 Tracking #: TOI 1S40U0N00gBEASAT Return Receipt $2.69 Tracking Ws ‘9990 9402 4770 B34a 5747 Se Total $21.95 Priority Mai 1® 2-Day 1 $16 Pine City, WN 5063 Wolght: 5'1b 0.80 02 Expected Qel ivery Date Tue 02/02/2001 Cortified Nai 1@ $3.60, Tracking #: Topd24s0000225624263 Return Receipt $2.85 Tracking # 9580 9402 4770 34d S645 81 Total $22.75 Prioeity Mat i® 1-Day 1 $15.50 Mod FR Box Washington, DC 20500 Flat Rate Expected Qel very Mon 02/01/2021 Certified Mai1® 5.00 Tracking "7o2072460000225624256 Return Receipt $2.65 Tracking # 9590 9402 5816 0034 0107 67 Total $21.95 Priority Mail® 1-Day 1 $21.90 Lg Flat Rate Box Washington, DC 20543, Flat Rate Expected Del ivery Date ‘Non 02/01/2021 Corti tied Mal 1® $3.60 Tracking "7o202450000225624294 Return Receipt $2.85 Teeking 4 9590 $402 4770 8244 5646 66 Total $28.95 Priority Matl@ 1-Day 1 $21.90 Ly Flat Rate Box Washington A onExpected Delivery Date Mon 02/01/2021 Corti fied Mat 18 $3.60 Tracking 70202850000225624270 Return Receipt $2.85 Tracking #: 9590 $402 4770 834A Siid6 04 Total $28.95 Prior ity Mai 1® 1-Day 1 $21.90 La Flat Rate Box Washington, OC 20543 Flat Rate Expected Del ivery Date on 02/01/2021 Corti fied Mai 10 $3.60 Tracking #: 70200640000062445875, Return Receipt $2.85, Tracking #: 9890 9402 5816 0034 C107 12 Total $20.55 Priority Mail@ 1-Day, 1 $24.00 ‘Washington, DC 20543 Weight: 20'Ib 8.2 oz Exoected Delivery Date Hon 02/01/2021 Corti tied Mai Té $9.60 Tracking “To2desioon0062448is37 Return Recel gt $2.95 Tracking # ‘9580 9402 8616 GUS 0X07 50 Total $30.45 Priority Mat® 1-Day 1 $21.90 La Flat Rate Box Washington, 0C 20543, Flat Rate Expected Del ivery Date Mon 02/01/2021 Certified Mal $9.60 Tracking "70200640000062445251 Return Receipt $2.85 Tracking #: 9590 9402 470 8944 5149 G2 Total $28.35 Grand Total: $228.95 Debit Card Remi tted $208.35 USPS ig experiencing unprecedented volune inereases and ini ted enployen availability due to the impacts of COVED-19. We appreciate your patience: Text your tracking nusber xo 28777 (2USPS) 16 get the latest status, Standard Messe: ‘afd Date rates way apply. You way alse visit waw.usps.com USPS Tracking or cal | "1-800-222-1811 Save this receipt ae evidence of insurance, For Information an T1Tina at insurance claim go to https: //awwusps.con/elp/clains hte ANT sales final on stamps ancl postage Thank you for your business UPN: 232090-5555 Receipt #: 840-22100425-1-944096-2oge sme mes A [& ssaso snow IvIsodIn The Supreme Court of the United States Margaret Sue Bozgoz, Austin Robert Bozgoz, Robert Erol Bozgoz, Lance Richard Fulgium, James Joseph Ryan, James Anthony Koki Ryan Petitioners, THE USA CORP, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LTD, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, etc., Respondents On Petition for Writ of Certiorari To the United States Supreme Court + PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI M. Sue Bozgoz Paul Cirino ADA Advocate AUSA for the Dist. of Col 3553 Burr Court Unit A Fort Meade, MD 20755 Elizabeth Prelogar 410-858-0107 Acting Solicitor General [email protected]i QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question #1: Whether THE USA CORP, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LTD, and THE U.S POSTAL SERVICE, ete., are corporations [with a charter] have been dissolved. Question #2: Whether the employees of THE USA CORP, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LTD, U.S. and POSTAL SERVICE, etc., violated THE USA CORP, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LTD and POSTAL SERVICE, etc., charter by denying the petitioners their constitutional rights, ignored the Federal Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and by interfering with the ADA Interference Act. Question #3: Whether the statute of limitation runs out based on orders signed by the DC Court of Appeals Clerk three times. Questions #4: Whether the court failed to provide Equal Protection under the law and put the plaintiffs [protected group] in harm's way willfully. Question #5: Whether the court denied the ADA Advocate the right to protect. Question #6: Whether the orders written and signed by the DC Court of Appeals Clerk on 26 June, 26 Aug and 29 Oct 2020 are unconstitutional. Question #7: Whether the court's actions interfered with Interstate Commerce. Question #8: Whether the courts actions [or inactions] are causing a preventable health issue to the Petitioners (Legal Abuse Syndrome)Question #9: Whether the court err by denying the ADA Advocate the right to publish the case under the ADA Act, Titles IT and III on 26 June 2020 as this is a publie interest case Question #10: Whether the Magnitsky Act, formally known as the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, is unconstitutional. Question #11: Whether the court’s order not to accept the petitioner's opposition after 29 Oct 2020 was unconstitutional. ‘Question #12: Whether the court violated constitutional and interstate commerce rights by charging a fee for an appeal then denying orders, safety measures and basic ADA Accommodations. ‘Question #13: Is it unconstitutional and a safety hazard to allow federal entities to investigate themselves as per executive order 12196? Question #14: Is Title III of the 1990 ADA Constitutional which states all man-made laws designed to deceive, can be changed so qualified ADA individuals receive equal access into any court (e.g., Air Jurisdiction, Water Jurisdiction, etc.), receive equal relief, protection, and treatment as per the constitution. Question #15: [s it constitutional for a foreign and domestic entity to steal an ADA Petitioner's (James Ryan's) Patents (2 each) without giving him relief duc?PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners to the Proceedings are Margaret Sue Bozgoz, Austin Robert Bozgoz, Robert Erol Bozgoz, Lance Richard Fulgium, James Joseph “Jimmy” Ryan, and James Joseph Ryan are all live breathing bodies acting as lawful persons (American State National and Freedom). Alll petitioners are protected under the 1990 ADA Act, Federal law, Titles Il, II], 42 USC 12203 ct seq, 3771 Crimes Victim and Global Magnitsky Act. ‘The Respondents in the District Court proceedings and DC Court of Appeals include: the United States of America, THE USA CORP, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LTD, U.S. and Postal Service, ete., in accordance Federal Tort Claims Act, Voncelle James, Robert Wilkie, Dr. Paul Lawrence, Margarita Devlin, Mike Frueh, Willie Clark, Ronald Burke, Angela Kendrix, Melvin Gerrets, Karen ‘Agee, Kevin Brown, French Bryant, Christopher Wunsch, Denise Williams, Angela B. Myers, Gary Richardson, Lois Scoon, Lakiaha Marie Anderson, Jada L Britt, Dr. Anne Klein, PhD, Gail M. Leary, Megan Brennan, James M. Byrne. Fred Haynes, Darryl Glen Blackwell, Amy Berman Jackson, Khalil James, Zuberi Bakari Williams, John McCarthy, Tracy D’Souza, J. Gray, Tawana Holland, Frances Deltoro, Judy Valois, Dr. Jyothi Racha, David Fitchitt, Dana Dizel, Daniel Spilsbury, Markisha Gross, Debra Dwyer, The UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Rand Lewis Gelber, Alan Burch, Jeremy Simon, Paul Mussenden, 4Matthew Bonner, Judy Jarchow Lane, Department of Justice, The US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Department of Justice, Attorney General DC, Karl Racine Department of Justice, Attorney General TX, Warren Kenneth Paxton Jr. Joan Weber, Robert P. Kirchhoefer, Tort Law Group, Noelle Clemmons, Ms. L. Wilson, Supervisor, Judge Randolph Moss, Mark Zuckerberg, FACEBOOK, The Honorable Joseph Wade Padgett, Henry "Hank" Crane, Natalie Paine, Timothy O'Brien, Deputy District Attorney, Treza Edward, Carol Burrowbridge, Honorable Karen LeCraft Henderson, Honorable Thomas B. Griffith, Honorable Gregory G. Katsas, Paul Cirino, Benjamin Louis Cardin, US Senator, Charles Albert "Dutch" Ruppersberger, The Honorable Mark Takano, Joseph Young, Caroline Kennedy, Former Japanese Ambassador, and Aaron Rand. RELATED CASES Marbury v. Madison, 1803 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 1964 Korematsu v, United States, 1944 Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 Powell v. Alabama, 1932Shenck v United States, 1919 Brown of Education v Board of Education of Topeka, 1954 The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act Otto Warmbier Case under the Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act Jamal Khashoggi Case under the Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act Reviewing International Child Abduction before the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organization of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, 115 Congress, Second Session, December 10, 2018iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED... PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING .. RELATED CASES TABLE OF CONTENTS ... TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .... PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ... OPINIONS BELOW . JURISDICTIONS ... STATUTES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ... CONCLUSION......cseseeseressess seen: APPENDIX DC Court of Appeals Docket and 3 and 16 November response App. | Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, ADA Interference Act, Titles II and Titles III... sanssseo Appel Opinion, United States Supreme Court in Tennessee v Lane, et al. S41 U.S. 509 (2004)... v- App.2Transcript Excerpt, United States District Court, Western District of Washington (June 28, 2017) ... «App. 3 3771 Vietims Criminal Rights Act.........++ App. 4 Initial Writ dated 18 May 2020 and Emergency Supplements a App. 5 Order Denying Writ, By DC Court of Appeals’ Court Clerk (26 June 2020) and response. App. 6 Order Denying Writ, By DC Court of Appeals’ Court Clerk (26 Aug 2020) and response. App. 7 Order Denying Writ, By DC Court of Appeals’ Court Clerk (29 October 2020) and response..... cases App. 8 Discussion of Significant Supreme Court Cas cee App. 9 Public International Notice ref: Governmental Service.......App. 10TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Allen F. Moore v, Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ‘Anderson v. Gus Mayer Boston Store, 924 F. Supp. 763, 771 (Ed. Tex. 1996) Brown of Education v Board of Education of Topeka, 1954 Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985) Kenner v, C.L.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968) Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1, 78S. Ct 1401 (1958). Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 Dunham v. Dunham, 57 MLApp. 475 (1894) Greenlaw v United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008) Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 1964 Kenna v US Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9 Cir. 2006) Korematsu v. United States, 1944 Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offuit v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct, 11, 13 (1954). Marbury v. Madison, 1803McDonald v Mabe (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 Led 608 Olmstead v L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 606 n.16 (1999) People v Zajic, 88 ill. App 3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980 7 People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 IL 354. 192 N.E. 229 (1934) Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972). Pennoyer v Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565 Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 Powell v. Alabama, 1932 Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, ,2 Led 608 Sawyer, 124 US 200 (1888) ‘Shenck v United States, 1919 Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ml.App. 79. 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949 Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989) Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill, 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935) Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 211 Ed 897 United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) University of Alabama v Garrett, $31 US 356 (2001) United States v. Isaacs, 493 F. 2d 1124, 1143 (7th Cir. 1974) United States v. Moussaoui, 482 F.3d 220 (4! Cir. 2007) United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir, 1996 10section 144, but on the Due Process Clause."). Windsor v McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 Led 914 ML Statutes, regulations, and rule: Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act of 2008 (ADAAA) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 18 U.S. Code § 3771. Crime victims’ rights 42 USC 12101 et seq 42 U.S.C. 12111(8) 42 U.S.C. 12111(9)(B) 42 U.S.C. 12111(d)(4)(B) 42 USC 126 Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1983 5 USC Code Section 556(d), Sec 557, Sec 706 541 USC 509 955 F3.3d 1196, 1221 (11 Cir. 2020) Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(@), Violence Against Women ActIn re Dean, 527 F. 3d 391 (5! Cir. 2005) In re Wild, 955 F.3d 1196 (11" Cir. 2020) Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Southern District Court for the Southern District of Florida, April 14, 2020. Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court West Palm Beach Division, Case No. 9:08-cv-807360 KAM Brief of Senator Dianne Feinstein and Former Senators Jon Kyl and Orrin Hatch As Amici Curiae in Support of Rehearing En Bane Letter from Sen. Jon Kyl to Attorney Gen. Eric Holder Jr (June 6, 2011) The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act Otto Warmbier Case under the Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act Jamal Khashoggi Case under the Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act http:/www.phschool.com/curriculum_support/interactive_constitution/index.htm 2PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Margaret S. Bozgoz, Austin R. Bozgoz, Robert E. Bozgoz, Lance R. Fulgium, James Ryan, and James “Jimmy” Ryan petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in this case. OPINIONS BELOW 26 June 2020, DC Court of Appeals Case Number 20-5149 26 August 2020. DC Court of Appeals Case Number 20-5149 29 October 2020, DC Court of Appeals Case Number 20-5149 3 November 2020, DC Court of Appeals Case Number 20-5149 16 November 2020, DC Court of Appeals Case Number 20-5149 JURISDICTION ‘The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Court of Appeals) denied the petitioner's motion for an Emergency Writ of Mandamus and Quo Warranto under Section 3771, Victims Criminals Rights Act three times on 26 June, 26 Aug, 29 Oct 2020, and 3 Nov 2020. This Court [and/or the Military] has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) due to the Japanese government involvement, the Supreme Court must take the case as it will set precedents for others to follow. However, if the Supreme Court {falls under a dissolved corporation, Jurisdiction goes to the {Department Of Defense as per the Law of War Manual].STATUTES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED Ist Amendment 5" Amendment 6" Amendment 7 Amendment 8 Amendment of Amendment 11 Amendment 14 Amendment Victim’s Criminal Rights Act Due Process Clause Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ‘Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) ADA Interference Act rrINTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE ‘This case was filed as a writ of mandamus and quo warranto under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Americans with Disabilities Act ‘Amendments Act (ADAAA), Title II and II], the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and the Global Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 a the Petitioners are protected under the ADA, ADAAA and the ADA Interference Act. “The main Petitioner is Margaret Bozgoz. Margaret Bozgoz is the ADA Advocate for the remaining petitioners, Robert Bozgoz, Austin Bozgoz, Lance Fulgium, James, “Jimmy” Ryan and James. Safety measures were requested by the ADA Advocate for each petitioner under Titles I and III of the 1990 ADA and ADA Interference Act. ‘The Petitioners allege that THE USA CORP, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LTD., and THE POSTAL SERVICE’s federal employees refused to provide safeguards and interfered with interstate commerce while secretly scheming behind their backs to dismiss their writs on 26 June, 26 Aug and 29 Oct 2020 while violating their Constitutional and Due Process Rights and willfully causing preventable harm/injury (e.g., financial, mental, and physical), and Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS) ‘The Petitioners further allege that THE USA CORP, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LTD, THE POSTAL SERVICE’s federal employees ignored their ADA reasonable accommodations requests on 18 May, 26 Jun, 28 Jul, 26 Aug and 29 Oct 2020 in violation of 28 CFR 35, 1990 ADA, and ADAAA by denying (1) equal access into the court, (2) to expedite and (3) their request to maintain [publish] all court records on file 15[media] for the public to review as this case is a public interest case and their decision [court clerks’ decisions] will affect the American public negatively, waste tax dollars and set Americans back 200 years. Why? Because the court clerks" decisions are illegal and unconstitutional. Marbury v. Madison established a particularly important precedent. A precedent is a legal decision that serves as an example in later court cases. Chief Justice Marshall's ruling interpreted the Constitution to mean that the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review. That is, the Court had the right to review acts of Congress and, by extension, actions of the President. If the Court found that a law was unconstitutional, it could overrule the law. Marshall argued that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land" and that the Supreme Court has the final say over the meaning of the Constitution, He wrote, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. ‘The Supreme Court of the Land also states: Thus, neither Judges nor Government attorneys are above the law. See United States v. Isaacs, 493 F. 2d 1124, 1143 (7th Cir. 1974). In our judicial system, few more serious threats to individual liberty can be imagined than a corrupt judge or judges acting in collusion outside of their judicial authority with the Executive Branch to deprive a citizen of his rights. ‘The United Supreme Court has stated that “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1, 78 S. Ct 1401 (1958). Any judge who does not comply with his/her oath to the Constitution of the United States, wars against that Constitution of the United States wars and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of Land. The 16Judge engages in acts of treason if: a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then her/his orders are void See: Sawyer, 124 US 200 (1888) he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she engaged in an actor acts of treason. A judge is not the court. People v Zajic, 88 III. App 34.477, 410 N.1 24 626 (1980). A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully, State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court People ¥, Zajic, 88 Ill App-34 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980). Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court", In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir, 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial funetion thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted." "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, ori a fraud perpetrated by officers ofthe court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication. " Kenner v. C.1LR., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. $12, 60.23. The 7th Cireuit further state a decision produced by frau upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.” "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that v7court, It is also clear and well-settled law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 29 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions, "); Allen F. Moore v. Staniey F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 ULApp.24 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything," ); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 II]. $89 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. y, Universal Oil Products Co., 338 IllApp. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas ‘Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935),Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges? Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if'an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." Liteky v. U.S., 114 8.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994) Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality ofa judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (1th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judgejs actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect gants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process."). That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cit. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v, Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.” The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610. 80 S.Ct, 1038 (1960), citing Offut v, United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14,75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954) [A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not aive the appearance of justice. "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989), Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Cireuit Court of Appeals further stated that We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even. iffno motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202. Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves, By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification ofthe judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself herself, None of the 19orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that the orders are void as a matter of law and are of no legal force or effect, Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is in violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, $21 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir, 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”), Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce", The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more awful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However, some judges may not follow the law. If anyone were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified hinvherself.. However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states, "disqualification is required” and that a judge "must be disqualified” under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court has also held that if judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. Ifa judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce. 20‘The point is, when ADA protected petitioners are ignored while the Judges allow Clerks to waste time by issuing void orders these actions cause LAS and the petitioners are forced to go down a rabbit hole until they reach out for help to THE USA CORP, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, LTD and THE US POSTAL SERVICE higher courts. On 26 June 2020, Petitioner and ADA Advocate Margaret Bozgoz challenged the DC District Courts Due Process Procedures in DC court of appeals via a Writ of Mandamus. Instead of reviewing the evidence, the DC Court of Appeal. denied the petitioners writ and issued a void order signed by a clerk. The order did not reflect what the petitioners had provided to the court. For example, the petitioners provide hard ‘evidence definitively showing why Judge Amy B. Jackson and Judge Randolph Moss had to recuse and remove themselves as a matter of law (DK 1-10). On | July 2020, the Petitioner, opposed the DC Court of Appeals Clerk’s court order dated 26 Jun 2020 and added the three (3) DC Court of Appeals Judges to their Writ of Mandamus and Quo Warranto for disrespecting the court for allowing the clerks to sign and deny their Writs. Title 5, US Code See. 556(d), See. 557, See.706: Counts lose jurisdiction if they do not follow Due Process. An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void and ‘can be attacked in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 LeD 897; 2Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; MeDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 LeD 608. The DC Court of Appeals agreed and rescheduled a new hearing. However, the court refused to provide the petitioners the date of the hearing, The DC Court of Appeals later retaliated against the Petitioners by ignoring their 3771 Emergency requests in violation of 28 CFR Part 35 which states public entity shall not exclude equal services , programs, or activities to an individual with whom the individual ot entity is known to have a relationship or association, It further states that a public entity may impose legitimate safety requirements necessary for the safe operation ofits services, programs, or activities. Instead of expediting the Petitioner's 3771 emergency request, the Court and Court Clerk ignored the request and attempted to dismiss Petitioner Jimmy Ryan as a petitioner knowing, Jimmy Ryan is currently on life support asa result of being used as a human experiment by the Japanese Military. The DC court, Senator Ben Cardin, Congressman Ruppersberger, DOD and DOJ ignored the fact that Jimmy Ryan is at risk of dying and a protected individual. Instead of helping as per their oath, they covered it up. Had the petitioners not called the DC Court of Appeal court clerk, on 11/25/2020, the petitioners would not have known the court had no intentions to respond or post their oppositional response to the courts records as a matter of law. ‘The recording is found at https://www-youtube.com/wateh?v=qlquRAb&Gj0&t~787sCongress saw fit to pass the 1990 ADA and 42 USC 12203 et seq., protecting advocates and their ADA Clients against any and all retaliation, coercion, threats and intimidations, specifically stating that “No litigant is to be forced to accept an ‘accommodation [or void orders] preventing the advocate or attorney -in-fact from acting fully and completely in the best interest ofthe litigant pursuant to 42 USC 12201. With the ADAAA in full force as of January 2009, the courts have a legal obligation to provide all litigants with equal accommodations that ensure full access to the judicial system. Furthermore, under the Department of Defense Law of War Manual Section 11, the military are required to provide protection against protected groups (e.g., women, children, disabled etc.) Title II addresses access to public services for all disabilities whether apparent or not, It provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability be excluded from participating in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subject to discrimination by any such entity or third party contractor who receives federal funds. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Tennessee v Lane, et al., 541 US 509 (2004) pointed out that Congress Constitutionally abrogated the States’ Eleventh Amended immunity, making suits for damage available to individuals who proceed under Title Il of the ADA with claims of violations of Due Process of Law. That means if Attorneys, Federal Employees. Clerks and Judges do not adhere to the ADAAA they lose their immunity from being sued. The Lane Court found that Congress enacted Title I against a pervasive unequal treatment of persons with disabilities in the administration of services and programs, including systematic deprivation of fundamental rights. Specifically, Congress intended Title Il to 23seek to enforce a variety of basic Constitutional guarantee, including the right of access infringements of which are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. The Lane Court also found that all courts have a duty to accommodate that is perfectly consistent with the well-established due process principle that all anyone who receive federal funds, must afford to all individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard in its, court (Tn v. Lane, 2004). The ADA Advocate is designed “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” The Supreme Court concluded in Lane, “the Title 11, as it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundament right of access to the courts, constitutes a valid exercise of ‘Congress’ authority to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Congressed also passed: (1)18 USC 3771, the Crimes Victims’ Right, (2) the Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, (3) The 1990 Americans with Disability Act, and (3) 2008, Americans with Disability Act Amendments (ADAAA), Specifically to use as tools to assist disabled individuals and/or vietims and to hold their perpetrators accountable for their human rights offenses. On 28 Jun 2020, the ADA Advocate informed the Court and several Federal Public Entities that they needed assistance as their lives were in danger. Equal Protection was denied, and justice was delayed. Senator Kyl explained, in support of Epstein Victims that [before the Acts] became law of the land, crime victims and individuals with disabilities were being ignored, cast aside, and treated as non-participants in a critical event in their lives”.