1 AMICUS CURVE, Lat. A friend of the court.

2 A by-stander (usually a counsellor) who interposes and volunteers information upon some matter of

3 law in regard to which the judge is doubtful or mistaken, Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Greathouse,
Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 418, 422; or upon a matter of which the court may take judicial
4
cognizance. The Claveresk, C.C.A.N.Y., 264 F. 276, 279; In re Perry, 83 Ind. App. 456, 148 N.E.
5
163, 165. Implies friendly intervention of counsel to remind court of legal matter which has escaped
6
its notice, and regarding which it appears to be in danger of going wrong. Blanchard v. Boston & M.
7 R., 86 N.H. 263, 167 A. 158, 160. (Black’s Law 4th Ed. Pg. 107)
8

9 FIDUCIARY OFFICERS OF THE COURT, PLEASE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE.

“The constitution and laws of a state are the basis of the public tranquility, the firmest support of
10
political authority, and a security for the liberty of the citizens. But this constitution is a vain
11
phantom, and the best laws are useless, if they be not religiously observed: the nation ought then to
12
watch very attentively, in order to render them equally respected by those who govern, and by the
13 people destined to obey. To attack the constitution of the state, and to violate its laws, is a capital
14 crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a
15 perfidious abuse of the power with which they are intrusted. The nation ought constantly to repress
them with its utmost vigour and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires.”
16

17 “To violate the spirit of the law while we pretend to respect the letter, is a fraud no less criminal than
18 an open violation of it; it is equally repugnant to the intention of the law-maker, and only evinces a

19 more artful and deliberate villany in the person who is guilty of it.”
- quoted from Emer de Vattel’s, The Law of Nations
20

21 Please take Judicial Notice of Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin, whom is NOW in CONTEMPT OF
22 DUE PROCESS, she has FAILED to Act under her obligated oath of public office pursuant to the

23 Ministerial Act and Ministerial Duty as a Ministerial Officer herself. Judge Araceli failed to inform
the United States Marshal Services enable for them to services the compliant and summons to the
24
opposing party as mandated by operation of law.
25
Judge Araceli committed contempt of due process. This is a direct violation of my Fathers “Secured
26
Constitutional” Rights which is the Supreme Law of the Land and “Stare Decisis” and a violation of
27 Judge Araceli Matinez-Olguin’s and Magistrate Alex G. Tse’s “Oath of Office”.
28
JUDICIAL NOTICE: AMICUS CURIAE - TITLE LXX – CRIMES – CH.4. CRIMES AGAINST - JUSTICE CONSPIRACY
TO DEFEAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS SECTION 5407 - 2
 1 I remind the officers of the court, to violate your oaths of public office of trust and honor, is to war
2 against the state and federal constitutions, and to war against the U.S. Constitution is to STRIKE

3 AGAINST the government pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 1918 - Disloyalty and asserting the right to
strike against the Government .
4

5 Amendment IX
6 “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage

7
others retained by the people”.

8 Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation,

9 which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125:

10
Most fundamentally, the Permission Society undermines the principle of equality. When freedoms
11 are seen as privileges that the government gives the citizen, that means the citizen stands beneath the
12 government—and must beg for the right to act. That’s the opposite of how freedom is supposed to

13 work. Rights aren’t permissions, because rights already belong to us—we don’t ask the government
for them, and the government can’t impose conditions on them. But when bureaucrats treat rights as
14
privileges, they empower themselves and reduce citizens to a subservient position that is equivalent to
15
the practice of slavery, and or piracy.
16
SLAVERY IS PROHIBITED BY THE 13TH AMENDMENT AND THE CALIFORNIA
17
CONSTITUTION.
18

19 MAXIM OF LAW: WHENEVER THERE IS A DOUBT BETWEEN LIBERTY AND

SLAVERY, THE DECISION MUST BE IN FAVOR OF LIBERTY.
20

21
AFFIDVIT OF FACT
22
1. Complaint against Juan Carlos Alvarez De Soto, Bruce Jackson, Erik Laney, Santander
23 Consumer USA Holdings Inc. Filed by Richard Cecil Howell August 21, 2024.

24 2. Motion for leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Richard Cecil Howell August 21,
25
2024.

26 3. Judicial Notice: In Forma Pauperis Status granted as an operation of law. Pursuant to APP -
015/FW-015-INFO INFORMATION SHEET ON WAIVER OF APPELLATE COURT FEES
27
(SUPREME COURT, COURT OF APPEAL, APPELLATE DIVISION), The court will waive
28
JUDICIAL NOTICE: AMICUS CURIAE - TITLE LXX – CRIMES – CH.4. CRIMES AGAINST - JUSTICE CONSPIRACY
TO DEFEAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS SECTION 5407 - 3
 1 your court fees and costs if: You are getting public assistance, such as Medi-Cal, Food
Stamps…, Under the law you are considered a low-income person if the gross monthly
2
income (before deductions for taxes) of your household is less than the amount listed below:
3 FAMILIY SIZE: 1, FAMILIY INCOME: $1,226.05.

4 4. IN FORMA PAUPERIS: Courts are authorized to allow plaintiffs to file suit in forma
5 pauperis by 28 U.S. Code §1915. Bringing a suit in forma pauperis is available for both
district court claims and appeals. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/in_forma_pauperis .
6
5. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 4. SUMMONS
7
(3) By a Marshal or Someone Specially Appointed. At the plaintiff's request, the court may
8 order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person
specially appointed by the court. The court MUST so order if the plaintiff is authorized to
9 proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §1915 or as a seaman under 28 U.S.C. §1916.
10 6. MUST. This word, like the word "SHALL," is primarily of mandatory effect; State ex rel.
McCabe v. District Court of Third Judicial Dist. (Black’s Law 4th Ed. Pg. 1171)
11

12 7. SHALL. In common or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary signification, the term "shall" is
a word of command, and one which has always or which must be given a compulsory
13 meaning; as denoting obligation. It has a peremptory meaning, and it is generally imperative
14 or mandatory. It has the invariable significance of excluding the idea of discretion, and has
the significance of operating to impose a duty which may be enforced, particularly if public
15 policy is in favor of this meaning, or when addressed to public officials, or where a public
16 interest is involved, or where the public or persons have rights which ought to be exercised or
enforced, unless a contrary intent appears. People v. O'Rourke, 124 Cal. App. 752, 13 P.2d
17 989, 992. (Black’s Law 4th Ed. Pg. 1541)
18
8. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin is in CONTEMPT OF DUE PROCESS, she has breached her
19 public office of trust-honor-office, she has committed fraud upon the court, she has violated
20 her oath to both federal and state constitutions, she, being authorized by the STATE to Act
Ministerially has defaulted on this account via obstruction of proceedings, and honest
21 services fraud, pursuant to her “CONTEMPT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.”
22
9. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin failed to respond to Summary Judgement by 10/29/2024,
23 pursuant to 13 CFR § 134.212(2), in addition she refused to notify the United States Marshal
24 Servies (USMS) of their obligation to serve summons and complaint as mandated by
operation of law. “If you are proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) – that is, you submitted
25 an application to the court to waive the filing fee and it was granted – you do not need to
26 serve the summons and complaint. The U.S. Marshals Service will carry out this process
and there is nothing you need to do to initiate it; it will be initiated by the Court’s Order of
27 Service.”
28
JUDICIAL NOTICE: AMICUS CURIAE - TITLE LXX – CRIMES – CH.4. CRIMES AGAINST - JUSTICE CONSPIRACY
TO DEFEAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS SECTION 5407 - 4
 1

2
10. If two or more persons, such as Aracelie Martinez-Olguin and Alex G. Tse, in any State or
3 Territory conspire for the purpose of impending, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any
manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny any person the
4
equal protection of the laws or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or
5 attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons to the equal protection of
the laws, each of such persons shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred and
6
more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment, with or without hard labor, not less than
7 six months nor more than six years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Title LXX –
CRIMES – CH.4. CRIMES AGAINST JUSTICE (Conspiracy to defeat enforcement of the
8
laws).
9
11. CONFESSION and EVIDENCE of violation of Title LXX – CRIMES – CH.4. CRIMES
10
AGAINST JUSTICE (Conspiracy to defeat enforcement of the laws) SEC. 5407. Court
11 Docket 10/25/2024 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge
Alex G. Tse for all further proceedings. Judge Araceli Martinez−Olguin no longer assigned
12
to case,. Signed by Clerk on 10/25/24. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2024).
13
12. CONFESSION and EVIDENCE of violation of Title LXX – CRIMES – CH.4. CRIMES
14
AGAINST JUSTICE (Conspiracy to defeat enforcement of the laws) SEC. 5407. Court
15 Docket 10/25/2024 *** FILED IN ERROR PLEASE DISREGARD**** ORDER
REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system
16
pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge Vince Chhabria for all further proceedings. Magistrate
17 Judge Alex G. Tse no longer assigned to case, Notice: The assigned judge participates in the
Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and
18 http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras.. Signed by Clerk on 10/25/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of
Eligibility for Video Recording)(ark, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2024).
19

20 13. CONFESSION and EVIDENCE of violation of Title LXX – CRIMES – CH.4. CRIMES
AGAINST JUSTICE (Conspiracy to defeat enforcement of the laws) SEC. 5407. Court
21
Docket 10/25/2024 Case Reassigned to Judge Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse for all further
22 proceedings. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated
with this entry.) (ark, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2024).
23

24 14. CONFESSION and EVIDENCE of violation of Title LXX – CRIMES – CH.4. CRIMES
AGAINST JUSTICE (Conspiracy to defeat enforcement of the laws) SEC. 5407. Court Docket
25 10/31/2024 Certificate of Interested Entities by Richard Ceil Howell (Attachments: # 1
26 Envelope)(hdj, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2024) (Entered: 11/04/2024).

27 15. CONFESSION and EVIDENCE of violation of Title LXX – CRIMES – CH.4. CRIMES
AGAINST JUSTICE (Conspiracy to defeat enforcement of the laws) SEC. 5407. Court Docket
28
JUDICIAL NOTICE: AMICUS CURIAE - TITLE LXX – CRIMES – CH.4. CRIMES AGAINST - JUSTICE CONSPIRACY
TO DEFEAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS SECTION 5407 - 5
 1 [11/01/2024] SCREENING ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse. (shy, COURT
STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2024)
2

3 1. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin has “SABOTAGED” this account in breach of public office
of trust-honor by refusing to notify the United States Marshal Service of their obligation; the
4
USMS had 90 days from August 15th to November 15th to complete service of process, of
5 which NO DAYS were given to the USMS. This is blatant evidence of honest services fraud,
warring against the U.S. constitution and We, the people.
6

7 2. Plaintiff remains in an equitable position with clean hands, I am forwarding this “NOTICE”
in the form of an affidavit, informing the clerk of the court, Mark B Busby of his obligations
8
to protect the rights of the people pursuant to 42 USC 1986, and to honorably proceed with
9 instructions given in JUDICIAL NOTICE: NOTICE UNDER 18 USC 1505
OBSTRUCTION OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND
10
COMMITTEES WITH DEMAND CLAIM BE MADE WITH COMMERCIAL BONDING
11 COMPANY AGAINST PUBLIC HAZARD/ DAMAGE COMMITTED BY JUDGE
ARECELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN, filed into this account 11/04/2024, #16 on the court
12
docket..
13
1. Maxim of Law: A good judge decides according to justice and right, and prefers equity to
14
strict law. Therefore, nothing inconvenient is lawful, nothing against reason is lawful, and
15 ignorance of facts excuses, but ignorance of law does not excuse, Judge Araceli Martinez-
Olguin has no excuse, no immunity to break the law, no one is above the law.
16

17 2. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA HOLDINGS INC. 1601 Elm Street Suite 800, Dallas
Texas 75201, was served November 6, 2024 with JUDICIAL NOTICE: NOTICE OF
18 SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN ACCORD WITH FRCP RULE
19 56, via Federal Express No.: 7797 6015 2501, overnight confirmation signature delivery by
H. Lopez. See https://www.scribd.com/document/788998972/CAUSE-NO-CV24-5588-
20 AMO-P-O-S-SUMMARY-JUDGMENT-AS-A-MATTER-OF-LAW .
21
3. Plaintiff is aware that Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin, agent for the STATE OF
22 CALIFORNIA, has obstructed the proceeding, said agent defaulted on this account, Plaintiff
23 proceeds with the operation of law in good faith and with hands.

24 4. The right to prior notice and a hearing is central to the Constitution’s command of due
25 process. “The purpose of this requirement is not only to ensure abstract fair play to the
individual. Its purpose, more particularly, is to protect his use and possession of property
26 from arbitrary encroachment to minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations of
27 property . . .” Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. at 80 - 81, 92 S.Ct. At 1994 - 1995.

28
JUDICIAL NOTICE: AMICUS CURIAE - TITLE LXX – CRIMES – CH.4. CRIMES AGAINST - JUSTICE CONSPIRACY
TO DEFEAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS SECTION 5407 - 6
 1 BLACK’S LAW DEFINITIONS
2
MINISTERIAL. That which is done under the authority of a superior; opposed to judicial; that
3
which involves obedience to instructions, but demands no special discretion, judgement, or skill.
4
Black’s Law 3rd Edition Page 1190.
5
MINISTERIAL ACT. One which a person performs in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the
6
mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety
7 of the act being done. Pennington v. Streight, 54 Ind. 376; Hair v. Struck, 29 Mont. 45, 74 P. 69, 63
8 L. R. A. 481; State v. Nash, 66 Ohio St. 612, 64 N. E. 558; Grider v. Tally, 7'[ Ala. 424, 54 Am. Rep.
9 65; In re Press Printers & Publishers (C. C. A.) 12 F.(2d) 660, 662; State v. Bartholomew, 103 Conn.

10 607, 132 A. 30, 34; First Nat. Hank v. Hayes, 186 Iowa, 892, 171 N. W. 715, 718 ; Boynton v. Brown
(Tex. Civ. App.) 164 S. W. 893,895. Black’s Law Dictionary 3rd Edition Page 1191.
11

12 MINISTERIAL DUTY. A ministerial duty, the performance of which may in proper cases be
required of a public officer by judicial proceedings, is one in respect to which nothing is left to
13
discretion; it is a simple, definite duty arising under circumstances admitted or proved to exist and
14
imposed by law. State v. McGrath, 92 Mo. 355, 5 S. W. 29; Missis-sippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 498, 18
15
L. Ed. 437; People v. Jerome, 36 Misc. 256, 73 N. Y. S. 306; Duvall v. Swann, 94 􀄒Id. 608, 51 A.
16 617; Gled-hill v. Governor, 25 N. J. Law, 351; Houston v. Boltz, 169 Ky. 640, 185 S. W. 76, 80; Mott
17 v. Hull, 51 Okl. 602, 152 P. 92, L. R. A. 1916B, 1184; Ham v. Los Angeles County, 46 Cal. A.pp.
18 148, 189 P. 462, 468. A ministerial duty arises when an individual has such a legal interest in its

19
performance that neglect of performance becomes a wrong to such in-dividual. Morton v.
Comptroller General, 4 S'. C. 473. Black’s Law Dictionary 3rd Edition Page 1191.
20

21 MINISTERIAL OFFICER. One whose duties are purely ministerial, as distinguished from
executive, legislative, or judicial functions, requiring obedience to the mandates of superiors and not
22
involving the exercise of judgment or discretion. See U. S. v. Bell (C. C.) 127 F. 1002; Waldoe v.
23
Wallace, 12 Ind. 572; State v. Loechner, 65 Neb. 814, 91 N. W. 874, 59 L. R. A. 915; Reid v. Hood, 2
24
Nott & McC. (S. C.) 169, 10 Am. Dec. 582. Black’s Law Dictionary 3rd Edition Page 1191.
25

26

27

28
JUDICIAL NOTICE: AMICUS CURIAE - TITLE LXX – CRIMES – CH.4. CRIMES AGAINST - JUSTICE CONSPIRACY
TO DEFEAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS SECTION 5407 - 7
 1 Ministerial Act: A ministerial act is an act performed in a prescribed manner and in obedience to a
2 legal authority, without regard to one’s own judgment or discretion. The distinction between

3 ministerial acts and acts that are discretionary is often important to determine whether a public
official is shielded by qualified immunity. Generally, ministerial acts are unshielded by qualified
4
immunity, which protects only actions taken pursuant to discretionary functions. In other words,
5
noncompliance with a ministerial duty bars qualified immunity.
6
MALADMINISTRA'TION, noun Bad management of public affairs; vicious or defective conduct
7
in administration, or the performance of official duties, particularly of executive and ministerial
8
duties, prescribed by law; as the maladministration of a king, or of any chief magistrate.
9 https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Maladministration .
10
CLERICAL MISPRISION. Mistake or fraud perpetrated by clerk of court which is susceptible of
11
demonstration by face of record, or a clerical error, which is an error by clerk in transcribing or
12 otherwise apparent on the face of the record. Ballew v. Fowler, 285 Ky. 149, 147 S.W.2d 65, 66. But
13 see Newman v. Ohio Valley Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 221 Ky. 616, 299 S.W. 559, 560. (Pg. 319).

14

15
SUMMARY
16
Ministerial Officers Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin and Magistrate Alex G. Tse have conspired
17

18
against the rights of plaintiff, and are now indebted to Plaintiff.

19
Clerk of Court Mark B Busby, in your public fiduciary / trustee capacity, you will need to file the
20
claim with the Public Hazard and Malpractice Bonding Company to get the conspiring malfeasant
21
public officials Judge Martinez-Olguin and Alex G. Tse prosecuted for their criminal malpractice
22
within (60) days, now only 44 days remaining being the notice was filed 11/04/2024.
23

24

25

26

27

28
JUDICIAL NOTICE: AMICUS CURIAE - TITLE LXX – CRIMES – CH.4. CRIMES AGAINST - JUSTICE CONSPIRACY
TO DEFEAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS SECTION 5407 - 8
 1 CONCLUSION
2 For the Clerk of Court, Mark B Busby to honor his obligation of Honest Services in Good Faith in

3 Performance of his Duty to report claims against Ministerial Officers Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin
and Alex G. Tse for violation of Title LXX – CRIMES – CH.4. CRIMES AGAINST JUSTICE
4
(Conspiracy to defeat enforcement of the laws) SEC. 5407, it is a felony for the Officer/Public Office
5
to receive and not report a Claim to its Public Hazard and Malpractice Bonding Company – and it is
6
a felony for the agent of a Bonding Company to not pay the Claim.
7
Mark B Busby, public trustee “Fully Personally Liable Now” on your honor and solemn Oath to
8
perform your obligations and duties to Protect My Father’s un-a-lien-able Rights in your Fiduciary
9 Capacity.
10
Return to my Father and I the name, address and telephone number of Judge Araceli’s and Magistrate
11
Alex’s public hazard and malpractice bonding company, the policy number of the bond and if
12 required, a copy of the policy describing the bonding coverage of their specific job performance.
13
I, Chief Executor Asim Najee-Asmar Bey, am witness to the constitutional violations and conspiracy
14
against my Father’s unalienable rights, violations committed by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin, and
15
Magistrate Alex G. Tse, that are pending tort claims against said conspiring officers of the court,
16

17
notice given pursuant to 42 U.S. Code § 1986 - Action for neglect to prevent.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JUDICIAL NOTICE: AMICUS CURIAE - TITLE LXX – CRIMES – CH.4. CRIMES AGAINST - JUSTICE CONSPIRACY
TO DEFEAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS SECTION 5407 - 9
To: Clerk of Court Mark B. Busby
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO.: CV24 5588 AMO
NORTHERN DISTRICE OF CALIFORNIA,
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102 Within Admiralty 28 U.S. Code § 1333

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL

NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC1-

207/308.4, 3-402(b)
NOTICE TO: Clerk of the Court, Mark B, Busby:

Upon receipt of an affidavit and/or related documents, it is recorded. Should you

refuse my affidavit and/or documents, once deposited with you, you are committing a crime
against justice under Revised Statutes of the United States First Section 43 Congress,
Section 5403, 5407 and 5408 totaling up to $9,000.00 in fines and up to 12 years in prison
per affidavit if you fail to record. Title18 United States Code Section 2071 carries fines,
imprisonment and disqualification of office. If your county attorney informed you not to file
documents such as these, you remain responsible, as third party interveners are unacceptable.
Attorneys , district attorneys, and anyone of the lawyering craft are deemed third parties and do
not have a license to represent Me or you. The clerk of the court, nor their cohorts have the
authority to represent Me. Should you fail to uphold your sworn oath and perform your duty, I
will have no choice but to record a criminal affidavit of complaint against you and a copy into
your bonding company.

1. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5 (d) states the following:

“(4) Acceptance by the Clerk. The clerk must not refuse to file a paper solely because it is
not in the form prescribed by these rules or by a local rule or practice.” (italicized for
emphasis)

2. Title 18 United States Code, Section 2071 states the following:

“(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or
destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record,
proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or
officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public
officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three
years, or both.”
 “(b) Whoever having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document,
paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates,
falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three
years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the
United States.” (italicized for emphasis)

3. Title 42 United States Code, Section 1985 states the following:

“(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;”
(italicized for emphasis)

4. “A judgment is void if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter,
or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process.” –Klugh v. United States,
610 F. Supp. 892, 901

5. “Accordingly, it is settled law that delivery of a pleading to a proper official is sufficient

to constitute filing thereof.” –Freeman v. Giacomo Costa Fu Andrea, 282 F. Supp. 525, United
States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73, 36 S. Ct. 508, 60 L. Ed. 897 (1916); Milton v. United States,
105 F.2d 253, 255 (5th Cir., 1939); Greeson v. Sherman, 265 F. Supp. 340 (D.C.Va.,1967)

6. Title LXX—CRIMES— CH.4. CRIMES AGAINST JUSTICE

(Destroying, & c., public records)
SEC. 5403. Every person who willfully destroys or attempts to destroy, or, with
intent to steal or destroy, take and carries away any record, paper, or proceeding of
a court of justice, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of such court, or any
paper, or document, or record filed or deposited in any public office, or with any
judicial or public officer, shall, without reference to the value of the record, paper,
document, or proceeding so taken, pay a fine of not more than two thousand
dollars, or suffer imprisonment, at hard labor, not more than three years, or both
[See §§ 5408, 5411, 5412.1]