WAIVER OF SOVERIEGN IMMUNITY!!

                       WAIVER OF SOVERIEGN IMMUNITY  

Defendant Kamala in her official capacity as San Francisco, California District Attorney(and successive “defacto” capacities)and/or individually, Merrick Garland in his official capacity as Chief Judge for the U.S.Court of Appeals D. C. Circuit Judge and defacto Capacity as Attorney General for the United States of America, Barry Soetoes(AKA Barak H. Obama), Joe Biden, Donald Trump in his official capacity et al has consented to be sued herein under the suits in admiralty and/or maritime law and federal government has waived sovereign immunity in this action under the “Admiralty and Martime Law,” and/or Racketeered Influence and Corrupt Organization Act and/or the “Stripping doctrine” .[1]  Plaintiff and/or Claimant sue Kamala in her official capacity as San Francisco, California District Attorney(and successive “defacto” capacities)and/or individually, Merrick Garland in his official capacity as Chief Judge for the U.S.Court of Appeals D. C. Circuit Judge, Barry Soetoes(AKA Barak H. Obama), Joe Biden, Donald Trump in his official capacity et al Joe Biden Obama and Lynch  in their official  capacities Barak H. Obama(AKA Barry Soertoes) (and predecessor) (2008- ), George W. Bush (2001- 2008), William Bill Clinton( 1993-2001),   George H. W. Bush (1989-1993) according to the context, the terms “Bush I Administration, Bush II Administration,” “Clinton Administration,” and “Obama Administration” denote, respectively, the presidential terms of office of and or, collectively, to the senior officials who comprised, from time to time, the policy-making governmental and political apparatus of each of those administrations. authority, plaintiff sues each of said defendants, in their official capacity and/or individually capacities as the acts or omissions complained of were not within the scope of such defendants’ official duties, but conspiracies under the color of federal law, and were crimes and unlawful acts outside the scope of such duties and such acts and omissions were done under color of Federal and/or State law and/or official right. in bad faith and with knowledge that their conduct violated well established and settled law; plaintiff seeks recovery for the acts and omissions of each such defendant  and from his or her personal assets, not against the government body that is (or was) such defendant’s employer at the time of the acts complained. A suit in admiralty may be brought against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty.  This complaint is further, actionable against  “ALL JUDGES,”  “co-conspirators,” Supreme Court Justices, US Federal District Court Judges, US Congressmen and US Representative, Prosecutors, under Title 42 U.S.C. 1985 (3), whose immunity does not extend to conspiracy under color of law. Section1985 (3) reaches both conspiracies under color of law and conspiracies effectuated through purely private conduct. In Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme Court held that a state official who acted unconstitutionally could be sued in his official capacity for prospective relief. Such a suit “does not affect the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity” because the official who commits an unconstitutional act is deemed “stripped of his official or representative character. Plaintiff had no knowledge of this combination and conspiracy or of any fact that might have led to the discovery of it prior to the institution of this proceedings.

                                   DELIBERATE PROCESS PRIVILEGE

The deliberative process privilege “is not absolute, however after the government makes a sufficient showing of entitlement to the privilege, the district court should balance the competing interests of the parties. The party seeking discovery bears the burden of showing that its need for the documents out-weights the government’s interest.” Redland Soccer Club v. Dept. of Army of the Untied States, 55 F. 3d 827, 854 (3d Cir. 1995). See also The Government Privileges Monograph at pp. 21-22. In balancing the interests, courts consider various factors, including: (i) the relevant of the evidence sought to be protected; (ii) the availability of other evidence; (iii) the ‘seriousness’ of the litigation and the issues involved; (iv) the role of the government in the litigation; [and] (v) the possibility of future timidity by government employees who would be forced to recognize that their secrets are violable.” 

                                   PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION

Congress incorporated the principles underlying this privilege in exemption (b)(7) of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. §552 (b)(7), which allows the Government to withhold:investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, butonly to the extent that the production of such records would (A)interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) deprive a person of aright to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) constitute anunwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) disclose the identityof a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by acriminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national securityintelligence investigation, confidential information furnished onlyby the confidential source, (E) disclose investigative techniquesand procedures, or (F) endanger the life or physical safety of lawenforcement personnel.See, e.g., NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 223 (1978); see also, UnitedStates Dept. of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165, 171-72 (1993); John Doe Agency v. John DoeCorp., 493 U.S. 146, 153-54 (1989).To successfully invoke this privilege, the Government must meet three requirements:(1) there must be a formal claim of privilege by the head of thedepartment having control over the requested information; (2)assertion of the privilege must be based on actual personalconsideration by that official; and (3) the information for which theprivilege is claimed must be specified, with an explanation why itproperly falls within the scope of the privilege. 

Page 2 of 5

Obama and/or Lynch has not met this burden. In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 686 (1974), the President of the United Statessought “to quash a third-party subpoena duces tecum issued by the United States District Courtfor the District of Columbia, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 17(c). The subpoena directed thePresident to produce certain tape recordings and documents relating to his conversations withaides and advisers,” to be used by a Special Prosecutor in a criminal case against third parties.The President argued, among other matters, that the Constitution provided “an absolute privilegeof confidentiality for all Presidential communications.” Id. at 703. However, the Supreme Courtrejected this claim, holding that confidential Presidential communications are onlyPursuant to the state secrets privilege, “matters the revelation of which reasonablycould be seen as a threat to the military or diplomatic interests of the Nation – are absolutelyprivileged from disclosure in the courts . to a Senate CommitteeThe Supreme Court explained:In this case the President challenges a subpoena served on him as athird party requiring the production of materials for use in a criminal prosecution; he does so on the claim that he has aprivilege against disclosure of confidential communications. Hedoes not place his claim of privilege on the ground they aremilitary or diplomatic secretsinvestigating “‘illegal, improper or unethical activities’ providing support to the enemy, money laudering, jeopardizing, national security of the United States of AmLorettaa, its citizen occurring in connection with theSelect Committee did not carry its burden of showing that “the subpoenaed evidence isdemonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of the Committee’s [legislative] functions.”the Select Committee’s alleged need for the tape recordings “to resolve particular conflicts in the voluminous testimony it has heard,” id. at 731, did not outweigh the presumption of confidentiality. 141 S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111 (1948), dealing with Presidential authority involving foreign policy considerations, the Court said: “The President, both as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation’s organ for foreign affairs, has available intelligence services whose reports are not and ought not to be published to the world. It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held secret.” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 710. The Court then weighed “the importance of the general privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communication in performance of the President’s responsibilities against” the interests in the “fair administration of criminal justice,” id. at 711-12, and concluded that the privilege was outweighed by those interests, stating: when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial. Id. at 713.135 Accord In Re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 745 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“the privilege is qualified, not absolute, and can be overcome by an adequate showing of need”). The Presidential communications privilege “is limited to communications ‘in performance of [a President’s] responsibilities . . . of his office’ . . . and made ‘in the process of shaping policies and making decisions. “[T]he law enforcement privilege is qualified. The public interest in non-disclosure must be balanced against the need of a particular litigant for access to the privileged information.” In re

Page 3 of 5

Sealed Case, 856 F.2d at 272. Accord Friedman, 738 F.2d at 1341. The District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that in applying this balancing test the district court should consider: (1) the extent to which disclosure will thwart governmental processes by discouraging citizens from giving the government information; (2) the impact upon persons who have given information of having their identities disclosed; (3) the degree to which governmental self-evaluation and consequent program improvement will be chilled by disclosure; (4) whether the information sought is factual data or evaluative summary; (5) whether the party seeking discovery is an actual or potential defendant in any criminal proceeding either pending or reasonably likely to follow from the incident in question; (6) whether the police investigation has been completed; (7) whether any interdepartmental disciplinary proceedings have arisen or may arise from the investigation; (8) whether the plaintiff’s suit is non frivolous and brought in good faith; (9) whether the information sought is available through other discovery or from other sources: (10) the importance of the information sought to the plaintiff’s case.

relief.

               NO FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVLEDGE FOR THE DEFENDANTS

Further, Kamala Harris, Barak Obama, Joe Biden et al, acted outside of scope of authority, acted in their private persons, conspired under the color of Federal and/or State law with two or more persons and/or Corporations violated international law A person and/or corporation who fears  a future criminal prosecution by a foreign country may not invoke the privilege. See United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666, 698-99 (1998). Moreover, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies only to natural persons, and not to corporations. See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74-75 (1906). See also Mason v. United States, 244 U.S. 362, 367 (1917) (holding that a witness lacked reasonable cause to fear incrimination from his sought testimony about his participation in a card-game that was not itself illegal); Martin-Trigona v. Gouletas, 634 F.2d 354, 360-62 (7^th Cir. 1980) (ruling that the Fifth Amendment privilege did not preclude a witness’ testimony about his financial transactions that had “only the most tenuous relationship to any potentially incriminating financial transactions”).  Aka Prince William, AKA King Charles, Queen Elizabeth, Obama, Hillary et al are subject to criminal prosecution thus the United States is entitled to extradict the International Prosecutor  and other co-conspirators                                 Heads of State.  

Page 4 of 5

THIS ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME COURT HAS JURISDICTION VIA EQUITABLE AUTHORITY

Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part,

thatA[t]he 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.   The “saving to suitors” clause in admiralty law allows Sharon and/or James S. Bridgewater to file a claim in this state court, and are entitled to “common law” remedies(to take matters into my own hand”)because there are no other adequate remedies at law.     Sharon Bridgewater ex rel Private Attorney General and/or Qui Tam Relator filed one or more formal criminal charges and affidivant and complaint of probable cause and argues there are not other adequate remedies at law and further argues equitable remedies are enforceable and the Defendants via Admiralty and maritime law are not entitled the  right to a jury trial.  Under these principles, the Plaintiff/Claimant have a wide variety of causes of actions via the Racketeered Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act of one or more actions for equitable relief,disgorgement of wrongdoersill-gotten gains, restitution of illegally obtained profits, divestiture or dissolution and forfeiture.

In addition in an 1893 case, the United States Attorney in Alabama refused to vacate his office, refusing to surrender books, papers and other materials in the position of that office to the newly appointed U.S. Attorney. The federal court in Alabama issued a writ directing the previous attorney to relinquish the documents. He, in turn, sought relief from the Supreme Court, which denied his application, saying it would not interfere with the properly conducted internal matters of a court. In the case In re: Parson, the United States Supreme Court wrote: “If the orders be regarded merely as directions in the administration of judicial affairs in respect of the immediate possession of property or custody of prisoners, we cannot be properly called to, by reason of anything appearing on these records, in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in this manner, to direct them to be set aside. And if the proceedings should be treated as involving a final determination as on issues joined to the right to such possession and custody, there was no complaint of want of notice or of hearing, and the summary made adopted did not in itself affect the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court upon the ground that it had exceeded its powers. A writ of Quo Warranto, and Executive via Capitol Punishment is the proper remedy.

Page 5 of 5

---

[1] Suits filed against state officials under the stripping doctrine permits a state official who used his or his or her position to act illegally to be sued in his or her individual capacity, and the  government is immune from being sued through respondeat superior.

Page 1 of 5