NO.
09-794
==========================================
In the
Supreme
Court of the United States
xxNOxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx
Petitioner
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent
On Petition For A Writ
Of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Ninth Circuit
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
-------♦-------
xxNOxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx
P.O. Box 1203
Bakersfield CA 93302
[702]
418-7710 ProSe
i
SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTION
PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
Will the federally regulated
DBS commercial media outlets be able to persuade this court to continue
their praise and worship services to a usurper regime?
ii
LIST
OF PARTIES
All
parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.
Supp. Brief 1
SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEF FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner, xxNOxxxx xxxxxx
xxxxxxx, respectfully files a supplemental brief calling attention to a
new case of intervening matter not available at the time of
petitioner’s filing, in support of writ of certiorari to be issued for
review in the procedure below.
OPINION
On January
21, 2010, the Court reached a decision and held that 2 U.S.C. Chapter
14, Subchapter I, Section 441b’s prohibitions on corporate and union
independent expenditures is a ban on speech which violates the Fist
Amendment. Hence, 441b’s restrictions on such expenditures are
invalid. The Court reasoned that the First Amendment has its
fullest most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for
political office. Discussion of
Supp. Brief 2
public issues and debate
on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of
the system of government established by our Constitution. For
these reasons political speech must prevail against laws that would
suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.
STATEMENT
Direct Broadcast Satellite “DBS” commercial license holders conspired
to topple and did topple the legitimate United States Government from
within. During the 2008 election cycle, commercial license holders
agreed to not perform their legal duty.
Commercial license holders continue to design and distribute content to
subvert the purpose of statutory Law.
Supp. Brief 3
FCC
has the oversight responsibility to regulate DBS license holders who by
law are required to validate candidates for all public offices. Resting
on the FEC Title 2 Chapter 14 Subchapter 1 § 441h, Fraudulent
misrepresentation of campaign authority.
Each broadcast enterprise continues in open and hostel defiance of
their duties or consequences.
The
FEC and the FCC qualified this deposing operation and continue
supporting the effect of their actions.
The
rights to speech and petition are enshrined in the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution. Free speech and healthy debate are
vital to the well-being of a democracy. This Court has said that the
right to petition the government is the very foundation of our
democracy.
Supp. Brief 4
The
FEC’s threat of personal attack did diminish petitioner’s public
participation. Both the FEC and the FCC continue to aid and abet the
commission of this crime promoted by the licensed commercial media
regulated by the FCC.
FACTS
October 1, 2008 petitioner received notice that campaign ad fees would
be returned.
October 2, 2008 petitioner’s second paid campaign advertising source
also canceled.
October 21, 2008 Chief United States District Judge Anthony W. Ishii
denied petitioner’s ex parte application writing “It is unclear if
Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies”.
Supp. Brief 5
Title
28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 & 1332, A Federal Question rose from the
district court ex parte denial and was the cause for petitioner’s
motion requesting Summary Judgment place before the district court and
served with Respondent’s Summons.
FCC
has a complaint process that includes the complainant waiting quietly
six months. FEC has a quicker response sequence.
Chief
United States District Judge Anthony W. Ishii was not presented with
administrative policy details surrounding the production of Exhibit A,
which was provided with the ex parte complaint to establish that
petitioner had exhausted all possible administrative remedies before
looking to the court for relief.
This
proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance and
substantially affects a rule of national application in which there is
an overriding need for
Supp. Brief 6
national uniformity.
FRCP 12 (d); Result of Presenting Matters Out-side the Pleadings: If,
on a motion under Rule 12 (b) (6) or 12 (c), matters outside the
pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion
must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties
must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that
is pertinent to the motion.
The
FEC submitted to the Federal District Court’s Jurisdiction once
respondent provided Exhibit “1”, and further construed a moot request
for change in venue.
PROTECTION OF
THE INNOCENT
This court may at any time during the course of deliberation call upon
the Secret Service and request a full fraud investigation.
Principals controlling respondent’s agenda will produce a series of
robust distractions in an attempt to take attention away from this
suggested court action.
Supp. Brief 7
Petitioner is subject to reprisals from government officials and or
private parties.
CONCLUSION
The
most precious possession petitioner has is a promise. Right of that is
the covenant within the Constitution of the United States.
Eligibility
is a fundamental issue free of favoritism, bias or impartiality.
Respectfully submitted:
February 13, 2010
xxNO xxxxxx xxxxxxx ~
Petitioner