WAIVER OF SOVERIEGN IMMUNITY, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, NO EXECUTIVE PRIVLEDGE, NO FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVLEDGE ETC.

WAIVER OF SOVERIEGN IMMUNITY  

                     

Defendant STATUTORY CLASS REPRESENTATIVE Kamala Harris on behalf of others Statutory Class Members, and co-conspirators one or more Donald Trump individually in his official capacity President and/or Merrick Garland and Pam Blondi has consented to be sued herein under the suits in admiralty act..  The federal government has waived sovereign immunity in this action under the Racketeered Influence and Corrupt Organization Act(being employed and/or associated with a Foreign Racketeering Terrorist Criminal Enterprise) and/or the “Stripping doctrine” Plaintiff and/or Claimant sue one or more Donald Trump individually and/or in his official capacity Joe Biden in his official  capacities Barak H. Obama(AKA Barry Soertoes) (and predecessor) (2009-2017 ), George W. Bush (2001- 2008), William Bill Clinton( 1993-2001),   George H. W. Bush (1989-1993) via K. Harris Statutory Class Representative 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/claimant sues K. Harris on behalf of each of said defendants, in their official capacity 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(conspiracy to commit genocide, treason, rebellion and insurrection, violations of the Nuremberg Code- illegal experiments on both Sharon and/or James S. Bridgewater[and U.S. Citizens] without authorization or the right and other heinous
crimes); 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 intervention and affidavit & complaint is further, actionable against  “ALL JUDGES,”  “co-conspirators,” Supreme Court Justices, US Federal District Court Judges, US Congressmen and US Representatives, Prosecutors, et al 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.

---

[1] Suits filed against state officials under the stripping doctrine permits a state official who conspired with others and/or 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.

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (d), explicitly authorizes The “50 States” ex rel Sharon Bridgewater Private Attorney and Qui Tam Relator to invoke collateral estoppel to prove its civil RICO charges, and provides as follows: A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the United States in any criminal proceeding brought by the United States under this chapter shall estop the defendant from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense in any subsequent civil proceeding brought by the United States.

NO EXECUTIVE PRIVLEDGE

The United States ex rel Sharon Bridgewater allege Plaintiff  on or about Jan. 6, 2021: President Donald Trump conspired with one or ore Kamala Harris, Joe Biden Barry Soertoes(AKA Barack Obama) asserts executive privilege over some of the documents sought by Issa’s panel. The White House move means the Department of Justice can withhold some of the documents.June 19, 2012 and/or June 27, 2012 the House holds Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for withholding documents.   No US Attorney General has ever been held in criminal or civil contempt.  Plaintiff allege,Plaintiff allege,On or about June 20, 2012:Further, In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 686 (1974), the President of the United States sought “to quash a third-party subpoena duces tecum issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 17(c). The subpoena directed the President to produce certain tape recordings and documents relating to his conversations with aides 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 privilege of confidentiality for all Presidential communications.” However, the Supreme Court rejected this claim, holding that confidential Presidential communications are only Pursuant to the state secrets privilege, matters the revelation of which reasonably could be seen as a threat to the military or diplomatic interests of the Nation – are absolutely privileged from disclosure in the courts Once the court is satisfied that the information poses a reasonable danger to secrets of state, ‘even the most compelling necessity cannot overcome the claim of privilege .” Harkin v. Helm, 690 F. 2d 977, 990 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (quoting United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 11 (1953).   The Supreme Court explained: In this case the President challenges a subpoena served on him as a third party requiring the production of materials for use in a criminal prosecution; he does so on the claim that he has a privilege against disclosure of confidential communications. He does not place his claim of privilege on the ground they are military or diplomatic secrets. As to these areas of Art. II duties the courts have traditionally shown the utmost deference to Presidential responsibilities. In C. & S. Air Lines v. Waterman In a related case, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (en banc), the District of Columbia Circuit held that the Presidential communications privilege protected the President from complying with a subpoena duces tecum, directing him to produce original electronic tape recordings of five conversations between the President and his former Counsel, John W. Dean, III, to a Senate Committee investigating “‘illegal, improper or unethical activities’ occurring in connection with the presidential campaign and election of 1972.” Id. at 726. The appellate court held that the Senate Select Committee did not carry its burden of showing that “the subpoenaed evidence is demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of the Committee’s [legislative] functions.   Id. at 731. The court explained that: (1) the Senate Select Committee’s need for the subpoenaed  materials to perform its oversight functions was “merely cumulative” since the House Judiciary Committee had copies of the tape recordings at issue, id. at 732; and (2) because “Congress frequently legislates on the basis of conflicting information provided in its hearings,” id. at 732,  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 142 qualified, not absolute, and can be overcome by an adequate showing of need”) Plaintiff allege that all acts were outside of performance of professional duties(see complaint). Also

DELIBERATE PROCESS PRIVILEGE

The deliberative process privilege “is not absolute, however after  the government makes asufficient 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.”  The Plaintiffs

            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, but only 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 an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished onlyby the confidential source, (E) disclose investigative techniques and procedures, or (F) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel. See, e.g., NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 223 (1978); see also, United States Dept. of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165, 171-72 (1993); John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 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 the department having control over the requested information; (2)assertion of the privilege must be based on actual personal consideration by that official; and (3) the information for which the privilege is claimed must be specified, with an explanation why it properly falls within the scope of the privilege.  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 States sought “to quash a third-party subpoena duces tecum issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 17(c). The subpoena directed the President to produce certain tape recordings and documents relating to his conversations with aides 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 privilege of confidentiality for all Presidential communications.” Id. at 703. However, the Supreme Court rejected this claim, holding that confidential Presidential communications are only Pursuant to the state secrets privilege, “matters the revelation of which reasonably could be seen as a threat to the military or diplomatic interests of the Nation – are absolutely privileged from disclosure in the courts . to a Senate Committee. The Supreme Court explained: In this case the President challenges a subpoena served on him as a third party requiring the production of materials for use in a criminal prosecution; he does so on the claim that he has a privilege against disclosure of confidential communications. He does not place his claim of privilege on the ground they are military or diplomatic secrets investigating “‘illegal, improper or unethical activities’ providing support to the enemy, money laundering, jeopardizing, national security of the United States of America Kamala Harris, its citizen occurring in connection with the Select Committee did not carry its burden of showing that “the subpoenaed evidence is demonstrably 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 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 KAMALA HARRIS AND/OR DONALD TRUMP AND CO-CONSPIRATORS

Further, Kamala Harris and Co-Conspirators can not plead the fifth .  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 Queen Elizabeth, Obama, Hillary et al are subject to criminal prosecution in other countries, in Brussels, Lybia, and other countries unknown to the Plantiff.  Thus the United States is entitled to all books, documents, etc. in order to complete its civil or criminal investigation and is entitled to injunctive relief.

THIS ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME COURT

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 50 United States ex rel Sharon Bridgewater Private Attorney General and/or Qui Tam Relator et al have adjudicated criminal charges and filed affidivant and complaint are not other adequate remedies at law and further argues equitable remedies are enforceable by contempt of court or congress and there is not have a right to a jury trial to obtain equitable relief.  Under these principles, courts have ruled that a wide variety of causes of actions constitute actions for equitable relief, including injunctions, disgorgement of wrongdoers ill-gotten gains, restitution of illegally obtained profits, divestiture or dissolution, appointment of a receiver and others to assist the court in executing its duties, and constructive trusts. Moreover, an action for money damages is a remedy at law. ”Teamsters Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558, 570 (1990). However, an award of monetary relief is not necessarily legal relief.  The Supreme Court has characterized damages as equitable where they are restitutionary, such as in actions fora comprehensive discussion of equitable remedies, disgorgement of improper profits or when a monetary award  isincidental to orintertwined with injunctive relief. Aa claim could be deemed equitable if it sought a coercive remedy like injunction.”

As alleged in the complaint all associated with the Further  that Death Warrants and Writ of Execution instead of writ of mandamus is appropriate to these “Adolf Hilter Global Genocidist Foriegn Terrorist Racketeering Enterprize” compel surrender of “ALL PUBLIC OFFICES,” documents in the posSessions of attorneys or other persons that have been illegally obtained under the abuse of a writ of attachment

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 posSessions 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 possessions 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. DEATH WARRANT AND WRIT OF EXECUTION IS THE PROPER REMEDY INSTEAD OF A Mandamus(A remedy where a lower court) has clearly failed to issue compulsion to produce documents, or to allow the petitioner access to such documents as may be in the possession of the court or the parties to the action.