Stillwater vs. United States of America: The journey continues...
I may or may not lose my lawsuit against the federal government at my court hearing on February 12, but just getting to see that fabuloous Stillwater vs. United States of America caption listed on the Ninth Circuit federal court docket is a victory all in
itself!
Hint: I do not own any battleships and the USS Abraham Lincoln is clearly not steaming to my rescue right now!
In any case, Defendant USA has filed a Motion to Dismiss
on the basis of its claim of "Sovereign Immunity". My argument in objection to this motion, however, is that
sovereign immunity is basically a "The king can do no wrong" argument --
and that the last time the sovereign-immunity argument was used successfully was back in
1776, by a dude named King George III.
Wish me luck!
PS: Here's the text of my Objection to Motion to Dismiss:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND: Plaintiff Jane Stillwater is
suing Defendant United States of America for failing to fix her mailbox lock
for a period of 155 days, causing Stillwater to be deprived of access to her
mailbox for 155 days. (See Plaintiff's
Complaint for Damages, Page 3, Paragraph 6, Statement of Facts)
1. Sovereign
Immunity: Defendant claims sovereign
immunity and cites Gilbert v. DaGrossa,
Hutchison v. United States as well as
other precedences cited by Defendant in support of its sovereign immunity
defense. However, Defendant's use of
the sovereign immunity argument is basically flawed.
Defendant's citations appear to allege that
the legal construct of sovereign immunity was established in order to protect
Defendant from frivolous lawsuits.
However, by establishing the sovereign immunity precedence, Defendant has
illegally shielded itself from liability against just and fair lawsuits
designed to improve Defendant's performance on behalf of its citizens in
matters of public well-being.
Sovereign immunity protects powerful entities from being held
accountable.
For this reason, sovereign
immunity should not be considered as a defense by a Republic such as the United
States of America wherein, according to Webster's Dictionary, "power
belongs to a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by the leaders
and representatives elected by those citizens to govern according to law." Merriam-Webster,
Inc. (2019).
Plaintiff argues that sovereign immunity is a
made-up construct designed to allow Defendant to avoid paying its debt to
Plaintiff as required by the XIV Amendment of the United States Constitution,
Section 4, to wit: "The validity of
the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned."
The Eleventh Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution states that "The judicial power of the United States shall
not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by
citizens or subjects of any foreign state."
This Amendment has been previously
interpreted as not allowing lawsuits against the federal government. However, Plaintiff is not a citizen of a
state suing another state. Neither is
Plaintiff a citizen of a foreign state.
Defendant cites various sovereign immunity
precedents, and yet neglects to refer to the sovereign immunity precedent set
by King George III of England to the effect that, "The king can do no
wrong". Use of a precedent set by
King George III as grounds for Defendant's sovereign immunity is spurious, has
no basis in the United States Constitution and ignores the entire circumstances
and rational for which the American Revolution was fought and won.
Plaintiff claims that this matter is being tried in the
correct jurisdiction. Defendant cites lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, stating that Plaintiff's allegations carry no presumption of
truthfulness. It is up to a Federal
court to make the decision regarding Plaintiff's truthfulness -- not the
Defendant's.
Defendant states that any FTCA claims
"shall not apply to…any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or
negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." However, Plaintiff is claiming damages due to
Defendant's negligence, lack of resources and/or carelessness to produce a lock for her mailbox, as well as for the
negligent transmission of Plaintiff's mail.
According to the United States Constitution,
Plaintiff is entitled access to "Post Offices and post Roads". Such access has been limited in Plaintiff's
case due to Plaintiff's disability, age and lack of transportation.
In addition, it was the lock to Plaintiff's
mailbox that caused injury, not just access to mail delivery.
Punitive Damages: Once again, Defendant cites sovereign
immunity, which is a spurious argument based on America's entire history and
ideology as set forth in the 1776 Declaration of Independence against King
George III's own sovereign immunity. For
this grievance alone, Plaintiff should be granted punitive damages. In addition, Plaintiff should be granted
punitive damages in order to encourage Defendant to spend more funds on its
postal services instead of on more trivial domestic matters and inappropriate
foreign adventures.
CONCLUSION: Plaintiff requests that this matter be
continued to trial as planned.
By: Jane Stillwater, Pro Se
*********************
Stop Wall Street, War Street, Big Pharma and Big Tech from destroying our world. And while you're at it, please buy my books: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Jane-Stillwater/author/B00IW6O1RM?ref=ap_rdr&store_ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true
Please support my channel through "Buy Me a Coffee". I'm currently saving up to go off to some unmentionable country in West Asia or Latin America or Africa or.... https://www.buymeacoffee.com/janestillwater
