09/15/2026 (Updated)

CEASE AND DESIST NOTICE

Notice to Cease and Desist All Unlawful Conduct

Date: September 13, 2026

TO: Donald Trump, Todd Blanche, GOP/RNC/MAGA/QANON, DOJ/DOS, CA DOJ/CA OES, RCMP, FIVE EYES, Peter Thiel, Palantir, Valar, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Meta, Apple, LinkedIn, AT&T, Verizon, Leon Black, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Ghislaine Maxwell, Marissa Mayer, Edge Foundation 'participants', Elon Musk, Maja Oeri Hoffmann, Guy Wildenstein, Amazon, Jeff Bezos, Alphabet, Tesla, Spacex, Starlink, State of California, Henry Kravis, KKR, Apollo Global Management, Anyday/Everyday, XTM, EAM, 2Shores, CIBC, UK/EU 'royals', Bohemian Club, Daniel James Dailey, Paul Tassone, Robert Hickey, and all known and unknown associates, agents, co-conspirators, surrogates, representatives, intermediaries, and network members acting alone or in concert with them (collectively, the "Epstein Network"), but not limited to the same (DOES).

FROM: [Editor and Owner of U.P.R. News — (Retaliated) Whistleblower-Claimant]

RE: Demand to Cease and Desist All Unlawful, Contested Herein U.P.R. News, and Dubiously-Lawful Conduct Including Civil and Criminal Ongoing RICO, Defamation, Stalking, Cyberstalking, Terrorism, Domestic Terrorism, Cyberterrorism, Discrimination, Whistleblower Retaliation, Ongoing Criminal and Civil Conspiracy and Conspiracies, Deprivation of Civil and Any Rights in and by Any Country Including but not Limited to Human Rights Violations and Violations of Organizational Policies and Domestic and International Laws, Entrapment, Wrongful Prosecution, Obstruction of Justice, Obstruction of Congress, Witness Tampering, Death Threats and Threats with Deadly Weapons, Interference with Communications, Violations of Privacy, Interference with Economic Activity, Intentional Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress, Election Interference, Usurping of and Pretending in Public Offices as De Facto Officers Behaving Badly and in Bad Faith, and Government Fraud, but Not Limited to the Same.

Notice: This document is a formal legal demand. It is not a court pleading and does not constitute legal advice. The Claimant has prepared this notice based on extensive legal research and documented findings. The Claimant reserves all rights, including the right to pursue civil and criminal remedies. This notice serves as a final warning before the initiation of formal legal proceedings.

I. PURPOSE AND BASIS OF THIS NOTICE

This Cease and Desist Notice is issued to the Network based on documented evidence of a sustained, multi-year course of unlawful conduct directed at the Claimant, a 2002 Cal-OSHA-established whistleblower of retaliation conspiracy, a 2004 federal, CA, and FDA-established whistleblower, a 2013-2014-established DOJ whistleblower, who in 2013–2014 disclosed information regarding misconduct and who was subsequently subjected to the stated pattern of retaliation, harassment, and deprivation of rights by the Network spanning from 2002 through 2026 and continuing, following a whistleblower (retaliation) complaint accepted under camera and in writing by both the DOJ/USAO in Western WA, on 08/29/2024, and by the Department of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security Rewards for Justice Program, on 08/24/2024, collectively RICO obstructed for 24 years in a manner with no statutes of limitations attached, due to RICO obstruction, harboring, misprision of provable felonies, estoppel, and equitable tolling.

The Claimant has conducted extensive legal research documenting:

1. The documented misconduct, credibility deficits, and legal violations of Daniel James Dailey across three law enforcement agencies (Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, 1982–2009; California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, 2015–2017; Rio Vista Police Department, 2017–2019);

2. The legal frameworks violated by the Network's course of conduct, including but not limited to federal civil rights statutes, RICO, the False Claims Act, stalking and cyberstalking statutes, witness tampering statutes, obstruction of justice statutes, and election interference statutes;

3. The institutional failures — including non-compliance with Brady/Giglio disclosure obligations by the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, Cal OES, and the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office — that allowed the Network's misconduct to go unchecked.

This Notice constitutes a formal demand that the Network immediately cease and desist all unlawful conduct directed at the Claimant.

II. DEMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST

The Network is hereby ordered to IMMEDIATELY AND PERMANENTLY CEASE AND DESIST all of the following conduct:

A. Stalking and Cyberstalking

Cease all physical and electronic surveillance, tracking, monitoring, following, and harassment of the Claimant.

This conduct violates:

• 18 U.S.C. § 2261A — Interstate stalking (penalty: up to 5 years, or up to life if death or dangerous weapon involved)

• California Penal Code § 646.9 — Stalking (penalty: 16 months to 3 years)

• California Penal Code § 653.2 — Cyberstalking (penalty: up to 3 years)

• 47 U.S.C. § 223 — Harassing communications

B. Retaliation

Cease all retaliation against the Claimant for whistleblowing activity, including professional retaliation, social retaliation, and any use of official positions or influence to harm the Claimant.

This conduct violates:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1513 — Retaliation against a witness, victim, or informant (penalty: up to 10 years, or up to 20 years with weapon)

• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Retaliation under color of law

• California Labor Code § 1102.5 — Whistleblower retaliation

• 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) — False Claims Act anti-retaliation

C. Conspiracy and Deprivation of Rights

Cease all conspiratorial conduct designed to deprive the Claimant of constitutional rights, including any coordination among Network members to harass, intimidate, entrap, wrongfully prosecute, or otherwise harm the Claimant.

This conduct violates:

• 18 U.S.C. § 241 — Conspiracy against rights (penalty: up to 10 years, or up to life if death results)

• 18 U.S.C. § 242 — Deprivation of rights under color of law (penalty: 1 year to life)

• 42 U.S.C. § 1985 — Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

• 42 U.S.C. § 1986 — Neglect to prevent

D. Entrapment and Wrongful Prosecution

Cease all efforts to entrap, manufacture charges against, or wrongfully prosecute the Claimant. Cease all fabrication of evidence, false statements, and manufactured probable cause.

This conduct violates:

• Fourth Amendment — Warrantless search and seizure

• Fourteenth Amendment — Deprivation of liberty without due process

• 18 U.S.C. § 1001 — False statements (penalty: up to 5 years)

• 18 U.S.C. § 1623 — Perjury (penalty: up to 5 years)

• California Penal Code § 141 — Evidence planting

• Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) — Knowing use of false testimony

E. RICO Obstruction and Witness Tampering

Cease all obstruction of justice, witness tampering, interference with communications, and efforts to prevent the Claimant from reporting misconduct to authorities.

This conduct violates:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1503 — Obstruction of justice (penalty: up to 10 years)

• 18 U.S.C. § 1512 — Witness tampering (penalty: up to 20 years)

• 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) — Obstruction of official proceedings (penalty: up to 20 years)

• 18 U.S.C. § 1512(d) — Harassing to prevent communication to law enforcement

• 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) — RICO (penalty: up to 20 years; civil treble damages under § 1964(c))

F. Death Threats

Cease all threats of death or bodily harm against the Claimant, whether direct, indirect, through intermediaries, or through implied threats.

This conduct violates:

• 18 U.S.C. § 2261A — Interstate stalking with intent to kill or injure

• California Penal Code § 422 — Criminal threats (penalty: up to 4 years)

• 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b) — Intimidation with intent to influence testimony

G. Interference with Communications

Cease all interference with the Claimant's electronic communications, including interception, blocking, altering, or monitoring of phone calls, text messages, emails, postal mail, and internet communications.

This conduct violates:

• 18 U.S.C. § 2511 — Wiretapping and electronic surveillance (penalty: up to 5 years)

• 47 U.S.C. § 605 — Unauthorized publication of communications

• California Penal Code § 631 — Wiretapping (penalty: up to 3 years)

• California Penal Code § 632 — Recording confidential communications

H. Interference with Economic Activity

Cease all efforts to interfere with the Claimant's reputation, employment, business relationships, professional licensing, contracting opportunities, or other economic activity, including through threats, intimidation, defamation, or abuse of official authority.

This conduct violates:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1951 — Hobbs Act extortion (penalty: up to 20 years)

• 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) — RICO (civil treble damages)

• California tort law — Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage

• California Civil Code §§ 44–46 — Defamation

I. Election Interference

Cease all interference with the Claimant's political rights, voting rights, and political activities, and cease all use of the machinery of government to influence election outcomes or retaliate against the Claimant for political participation.

This conduct violates:

• 18 U.S.C. § 595 — Interference by administrative employees of government (penalty: up to 1 year)

• 18 U.S.C. § 610 — Coercion of political activity (penalty: up to 3 years)

• 52 U.S.C. § 10307(e) — Voter intimidation (penalty: up to 5 years)

• California Elections Code § 18540 — Intimidation of voters

• California Elections Code § 18570 — Political retaliation

J. Government Fraud

Cease all fraudulent schemes designed to defraud federal, state, or local government agencies of taxpayer funds, including engaging in fraudulent hiring practices, false certifications, fraudulent billing, and fraudulent grant applications, but also violating oaths of office, and violating disqualification laws for any and every person, officer, and government employee, especially those under color of law, which for this matter would easily justify life sentences for those involved based on the volume of harm.

This conduct violates:

• 31 U.S.C. § 3729 — False Claims Act (treble damages plus $11,803–$23,607 per claim)

• 18 U.S.C. § 371 — Conspiracy to defraud the United States (penalty: up to 5 years)

• 18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire fraud (penalty: up to 20 years)

• California Government Code § 12650 — California False Claims Act

III. NOTICE OF DAILEY'S DOCUMENTED CREDIBILITY DEFICITS

The Network is hereby notified that Daniel James Dailey's credibility as a witness, investigator, or law enforcement authority has been extensively documented as compromised based on the following findings:

1. Arbitrator finding of manipulated investigation: An arbitrator found that Dailey's internal investigation of Officer Natalie Rafferty was unfair — the investigator "omitted or misconstrued evidence to support his findings." Any testimony by Dailey is subject to impeachment on this basis.

2. Disputed criminal referral: Dailey claimed he referred perjury and falsification charges against two officers to the Solano County District Attorney. The DA's office stated they never received the referral. This discrepancy constitutes evidence of potential dishonesty.

3. Two Giglio-Bradylist profiles: Dailey appears on the Potential Impeachment Disclosure [PID] Database under two separate agencies (Sacramento County Sheriff's Department and Cal OES). While no Brady material is formally on file (due to institutional non-compliance), the presence of profiles indicates that his name was submitted for potential impeachment disclosure tracking.

4. Federal civil rights lawsuit: Dailey is a named defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed November 20, 2018.

5. Documented pattern of retaliation: Multiple officers filed complaints alleging Dailey is "very vindictive and will often retaliate against you if he thinks you are in any way challenging his power."

6. Unauthorized background check scheme: Dailey allowed Paul Tassone — who was not authorized or licensed — to conduct his background investigation for the Rio Vista PD Chief position, creating a conflict of interest and potential fraud upon the City of Rio Vista.

7. Department collapse: The Rio Vista Police Department was entirely dissolved under Dailey's leadership.

8. Institutional non-compliance: Both the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department and Cal OES are flagged as "not in compliance with Brady disclosure obligations." The Sacramento County DA's office admits it does not maintain a Brady/Giglio list. The absence of formally disclosed Brady material is a systemic failure, not an exoneration.

Under Giglio v. United States, 450 U.S. 150 (1972), and Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), any prosecutor who calls Dailey or any Network member as a witness is obligated to disclose this impeachment material to the defense. Failure to do so constitutes a Brady/Giglio violation requiring reversal of any conviction.

IV. NOTICE OF POTENTIAL LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

The Network is hereby notified that if the conduct described in this Notice does not immediately and permanently cease, the Claimant intends to pursue all available civil and criminal remedies, including but not limited to:

A. Civil Actions

1. Civil RICO action under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) seeking treble damages, costs, and attorney's fees for injury to business or property caused by the Network's pattern of racketeering activity;

2. Civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law, including Fourth Amendment violations (warrantless search), First Amendment violations (retaliation for protected speech), and Fourteenth Amendment violations (deprivation of liberty without due process);

3. Civil rights conspiracy action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986;

4. False Claims Act qui tam action under 31 U.S.C. § 3730 for recovery of defrauded government funds, with the Claimant as relator entitled to 15–30% of the recovery;

5. California False Claims Act action under Government Code § 12651;

6. Malicious prosecution action under California tort law and § 1983;

7. Defamation action under California Civil Code §§ 44–46;

8. Tortious interference with economic relations under California common law;

9. Intentional infliction of emotional distress under California common law;

10. Invasion of privacy under California Civil Code § 1798 and common law;

11. Stalking civil action under California Civil Code § 1708.7;

12. Whistleblower retaliation action under California Labor Code § 1102.5 and 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).

B. Criminal Referrals

The Claimant intends to refer the Network's conduct to the following authorities for criminal investigation and prosecution:

1. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) — for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 2261A, 1512, 1513, 1503, 1951, 371, 1001, 1030, 1623;

2. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division — for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986;

3. U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Public Integrity Section — for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 595, 610 and election interference;

4. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division — for False Claims Act violations;

5. California Attorney General — for violations of California Penal Code §§ 646.9, 653.2, 422, 141, 118, 182, 136.1, 631, 632 and related statutes;

6. California Commission on POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) — for decertification of all peace officer certifications held by Network members;

7. California State Auditor — for continuation of whistleblower investigations under the California Whistleblower Protection Act;

8. Solano County District Attorney — for state-level criminal violations;

9. Sacramento County District Attorney — for state-level criminal violations;

10. U.S. Office of Special Counsel — for whistleblower retaliation under 5 U.S.C. § 2302;

11. Securities and Exchange Commission — if applicable, for whistleblower retaliation under SOX § 806;

12. California Fair Political Practices Commission — for election interference violations.

13. And including, but not at all limited to, Interpol, International Criminal Court, United Nations Human Rights Court, any National Court, the European Union, Canada, and France.

C. Additional Consequences

1. POST Decertification: Under California AB 955 (2021) and SB 2 (2021), any peace officer with sustained findings of serious misconduct may have their POST certification revoked, permanently barring them from law enforcement employment in California;

2. Brady/Giglio listing: The documented findings in this matter may be submitted to the Giglio-Bradylist and to prosecuting agencies for formal Brady/Giglio disclosure purposes, ensuring that any future testimony by Network members is subject to mandatory impeachment disclosure;

3. Professional licensing consequences: Any professional licenses held by Network members (including but not limited to POST certifications, private investigator licenses, security consultant licenses, and any other professional credentials) may be subject to revocation proceedings;

4. Civil rights consent decree monitoring: If the Network's conduct involved a law enforcement agency, the Claimant may seek DOJ intervention leading to consent decree monitoring of the agency.

V. FINAL DEMAND

The Network is hereby given notice that:

1. All conduct described in Section II or any part of this Notice must cease immediately and permanently. This includes all stalking, cyberstalking, retaliation, surveillance, harassment, interference with communications, interference with economic activity, election interference, threats, entrapment, wrongful prosecution, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and government fraud, but is not limited to the same.

2. All evidence of the Network's unlawful conduct must be preserved. No documents, communications, electronic data, or other evidence may be destroyed, altered, or concealed. Such destruction would constitute additional violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (obstruction of proceedings) and 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (obstruction of justice).

3. This Notice constitutes a formal and publicly-posted demand. The Claimant has documented the Network's conduct extensively and has prepared comprehensive legal research supporting the claims set forth herein. This Notice is a final warning before the initiation of formal civil and criminal proceedings.

4. The Claimant reserves all rights. Nothing in this Notice constitutes a waiver of any claim, defense, or remedy available to the Claimant under federal, state, or local law. The Claimant reserves the right to amend, supplement, or modify this Notice and to pursue any and all additional remedies that may become available. Furthermore, no agreement nor illegal order nor related instrument of any kind is enforceable when induced by fraud, coercion, RICO obstruction, nor to conceal any crime, but as specified below is moot, null, and void at conception.

5. Time is of the essence. The Network's failure to cease the conduct described herein immediately, before, or within ten (10) days of receipt of this Notice will be construed as a willful and deliberate decision(s) to continue the unlawful course of conduct, and will be used as irrefutable evidence of the Network's bad faith and intent to continue the pattern of racketeering activity in any subsequent legal proceedings. Furthering any of this stated misconduct here against the Editor/Owner of U.P.R. News, his family (in gross violation of Thompson 3rd party qui tam protections, but not limited to the same), and any and all of their economic and legal interests, but not limited to the same, will also by default constitute an accepted and bartered agreement here and going forth to immediate and permanent admissions of intent and guilt by any and every party (except the Editor/Owner of U.P.R. News, his family, and their economic and legal interests) found to be furthering any misconduct specified herein this article against the Editor/Owner of U.P.R. News, his family, and their economic and legal interests expressed and/or implied anywhere in this notice and article, which per our disclaimer includes all of our articles, which build on one another, researching, testing, and evaluating the truth for related matters.

VI. AFFIRMATION

The Claimant affirms under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, U.S.A., France, Europe, and Canada, but not limited to the same, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, ability, skill, disability, and understanding, and affirms that the conduct described herein has been documented through public records, court filings, news reports, arbitration findings, FOIA responses, and other verifiable sources. That said, just as it is true that more data points eventually resolve better a truer distribution curve and mean in statistics, the truth here needs to be regularly-tested with more evidence, largely due to misinformation campaigns by the conspirators along with their unlawful concealments, and so the Editor of U.P.R. News and U.P.R. News reserve the right to correct any record at any time with evidence supporting a need to do so. Complex ongoing RICO conspiracies like this and these seek to obstruct the truth and justice for victims, and so the truth must regularly be tested by the victims with more information as it is made available.

Dated: September 13, 2026

Respectfully,

Editor and Owner of U.P.R. News

Notice to Recipient(s): This Cease and Desist Notice is a serious legal document. It is not a bluff, a threat, or an idle warning. The Claimant has conducted extensive legal research and documented the factual and legal basis for all claims set forth herein, including employing three different artificial intelligence services to come to these legal conclusions. Recipients are advised to retain legal counsel immediately and to take this Notice with the utmost seriousness. The continued commission of any conduct described in this Notice after receipt will be treated as willful and deliberate, and will be used as evidence of the Network's intent and bad faith in all subsequent proceedings.

This document is prepared for informational and legal notice purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Recipients should consult with qualified legal counsel regarding their rights and obligations.

LEGAL BRIEF: THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE AND THE MOOTNESS OF ALL ACTS BORN FROM ILLEGITIMATE AUTHORITY

Subject: The Legality and Moot Nature of Orders, Rulings, Opinions, Acts, Pardons, Clemency, and Other Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Arising from Illegitimate, Usurped, or Criminally-Obtained Authority in an Ongoing Disqualifying Conspiracy

I. INTRODUCTION: THE POISONOUS TREE AND ITS FRUITS

This brief addresses the legal nullity of all orders, rulings, opinions, acts, pardons, clemency grants, and other exercises of governmental authority that flow from illegitimate, usurped, or criminally-obtained power. The doctrine of the "poisonous tree"—long recognized in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence (Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471 (1963))—applies with equal force to constitutional and structural defects in governmental authority. If the root of authority is poisoned (e.g., by de facto officership, oath violations, or disqualifying crimes), then all fruits born from that authority are tainted, void, and moot until the illegitimacy is cured.

This brief argues that:

1. All acts of de facto officers in bad faith are void ab initio (Ryder v. U.S., 515 U.S. 177 (1995); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)).

2. All acts of usurpers are "totally null and void" (Norton).

3. All acts arising from a conspiracy to violate constitutional oaths are fruits of the poisonous tree and thus legally ineffective.

4. Pardons, clemency, and other acts of grace derived from illegitimate authority are moot and unenforceable.

5. The conspiracy is ongoing, and no statute of limitations applies to its fruits until the root illegitimacy is remedied.

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK: THE DOCTRINES THAT VOID THE FRUITS

A. The De Facto Officer Doctrine and Its Limits

1. The General Rule (Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886))

• De facto officers are those who exercise the duties of an office under color of authority, but whose title to the office is defective.

• General Rule: Their acts are valid to protect the public and individuals who rely on them.

• Exception: If an officer is a usurper (i.e., no legal office exists), their acts are "totally null and void."

2. The Ryder Exception (Ryder v. U.S., 515 U.S. 177 (1995))

• Holding: If a timely challenge is made to the constitutional validity of an officer’s appointment, the de facto officer doctrine does NOT apply.

• Result: The challenger is "entitled to a decision on the merits of the question and whatever relief may be appropriate."

• Application: If a whistleblower or affected party makes a timely challenge (e.g., by filing a qui tam action, Brady motion, or congressional complaint), then all acts of the de facto officer are void as to that challenger.

3. The Oath as the Measure of Legitimacy

• Art. VI, Cl. 3: All officers must be "bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

• GAO Ruling (U.S. v. Flanders, 112 U.S. 88 (1884)): The oath is a condition precedent to receiving salary, immunity, or authority.

• Implication: If an officer violates their oath in bad faith, they are acting outside the scope of their authority → acts are void.

B. The Poisonous Tree Doctrine (Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471 (1963))

1. Origin in Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence

• Holding: Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in criminal proceedings.

• Extension: If the initial violation taints the entire investigative process, all subsequent evidence derived from it is also inadmissible ("fruit of the poisonous tree").

2. Application to Governmental Authority

• If the root of authority is illegitimate (e.g., de facto officership, oath violations, or disqualifying crimes), then all acts flowing from that authority are fruits of the poisonous tree and thus void and unenforceable.

• Examples:

  • A judge who seals evidence of their own disqualification cannot issue valid orders.

  • A president who is disqualified under the 14th Amendment cannot issue valid pardons or executive orders.

  • A DOJ official who withholds evidence in bad faith cannot lawfully obstruct a state investigation.

3. The "Attenuation" Exception Does Not Apply

• In Fourth Amendment cases, courts sometimes apply an "attenuation" exception if the connection between the illegality and the evidence is too remote.

• But: In cases of structural constitutional violations (e.g., de facto officership, oath violations, or disqualifying crimes), no attenuation is possible because the entire authority is tainted.

C. The Usurper Doctrine (Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425)

• Holding: A usurper is one who holds an office that does not legally exist (e.g., because their appointment is constitutionally defective).

• Result: All acts of a usurper are "totally null and void."

• Application:

  • If Cannon, Thomas, or Alito are usurpers (because their appointments are defective or their oaths are violated in bad faith), then all their rulings, orders, and opinions are void.

  • If Trump is disqualified under the 14th Amendment, then all his acts as president (including pardons and clemency grants) are void.

D. The Void Ab Initio Principle (FVRA, 5 U.S.C. § 3348(d))

• Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA): If an official is improperly serving under the FVRA, their acts are "void ab initio" and "may not be ratified."

• CRS Confirmation: The government "must start from scratch."

• Application:

  • If Acting AG Todd Blanche is improperly serving under the FVRA, then his withholding of Epstein files is void ab initio.

  • If any DOJ official involved in the conspiracy is improperly appointed, their acts are void.

E. The Brady Violation Exception: No Order Can Override Constitutional Duties

• Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83 (1963)): The prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.

• Giglio v. U.S. (405 U.S. 150 (1972)): Extends to impeachment evidence.

• Kyles v. Whitley (514 U.S. 419 (1994)): Applies to state proceedings via the 14th Amendment.

• Implication: No judicial order can override the Brady duty. If a judge seals Brady evidence, the seal is void because it violates due process.

F. The Obstruction of Congress Exception (18 U.S.C. § 1505)

• Holding: It is a federal crime to obstruct congressional proceedings.

• Application:

  • If Cannon sealed records that Congress lawfully demanded, her sealing orders are void as an obstruction of Congress.

  • If the DOJ withheld Epstein files from New Mexico at Congress’s request, its withholding is void as an obstruction of Congress.

G. The 14th Amendment Disqualification Clause (Section 3)

• Text: "No person shall... hold any office... under the United States... who, having previously taken an oath... to support the Constitution... shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

• Baude-Paulsen Thesis: Self-executing—no legislation or conviction required.

• Trump v. Anderson (601 U.S. 100 (2024)): States cannot enforce § 3 against federal candidates, but Congress can.

• Implication:

  • If Trump, Cannon, Thomas, or Alito are disqualified under § 3, then all their acts in office are void.

  • Pardons, clemency grants, and executive orders issued by a disqualified president are moot and unenforceable.

H. The Reconstruction Precedent: Voiding Entire Governments

• Texas v. White (74 U.S. 700 (1869)): Secession ordinances were "absolutely null."

• Reconstruction Acts (14 Stat. 428): Voided entire Confederate state governments and reconstituted them under federal authority.

• 14th Amendment § 4: Voided Confederate debts.

• Implication: If a conspiracy to violate constitutional oaths reaches a systemic level, all acts of the conspirators can be voided.

III. APPLICATION: THE FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE

A. Judicial Acts (Cannon, Thomas, Alito, etc.)

Act

Defect

Legal Status

Authority

Cannon’s sealing orders (Smith Report, Epstein files)

Sealed evidence of her own disqualification (nemo iudex violation)

Void ab initio

Ryder, Norton, § 455

Cannon’s dismissal of Trump’s case (July 15, 2024)

Based on unconstitutional appointment ruling (de facto officer)

Void

Ryder, Norton

Thomas’s opinions in Trump v. U.S. (2024)

Ruled on cases affecting his own legitimacy (Ginni Thomas’s Jan. 6 involvement)

Void

Nemo iudex, § 455

Alito’s opinions in Dobbs, Citizens United

Undisclosed gifts from Paul Singer (conflict of interest)

Void

Nemo iudex, § 455

All rulings by de facto judges

Defective appointments or oath violations

Void as to timely challengers

Ryder

Conclusion: All judicial acts arising from illegitimate authority are void and unenforceable.

B. Executive Acts (Trump, DOJ, FBI, etc.)

Act

Defect

Legal Status

Authority

Trump’s pardons and clemency grants

Issued by a disqualified president (14th Amend. § 3)

Moot and unenforceable

Texas v. White, § 3

DOJ’s withholding of Epstein files

Obstruction of Congress and New Mexico’s investigation

Void ab initio

18 U.S.C. § 1505, FVRA

DOJ’s firing of Smith’s team (Jan. 27, 2025)

Retaliation against whistleblowers

Void

5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)

FBI’s exclusion of Zorro Ranch from searches

Deliberate non-investigation to protect elites

Void

Brady, due process

All acts of a disqualified president

Disqualified under 14th Amend. § 3

Moot and unenforceable

§ 3, Texas v. White

Conclusion: All executive acts arising from illegitimate authority are void and unenforceable.

C. Legislative Acts (Congress)

Act

Defect

Legal Status

Authority

Failure to enforce § 3 of the 14th Amendment

Congress has the power but refuses to act

Unenforced, but not void

Trump v. Anderson

Selective enforcement of subpoenas

DOJ refuses to enforce congressional subpoenas

Obstruction of Congress

18 U.S.C. § 1505

Impeachment failures

Refusal to impeach de facto officers

Dereliction of duty

Art. I, §§ 2–3

Conclusion: Congress’s failure to act does not validate the fruits of the poisonous tree—it merely allows the conspiracy to continue.

D. Pardons and Clemency

Act

Defect

Legal Status

Authority

Trump’s pardon of Roger Stone (2020)

Issued by a disqualified president

Moot and unenforceable

14th Amend. § 3

Trump’s pardon of Joe Arpaio (2017)

Issued by a disqualified president

Moot and unenforceable

14th Amend. § 3

Any pardon or clemency grant by a disqualified president

Disqualified under § 3

Moot and unenforceable

§ 3, Texas v. White

Conclusion: All pardons and clemency grants issued by a disqualified president are moot and have no legal effect.

E. Private Acts (Corporations, Media, etc.)

Act

Defect

Legal Status

Authority

Defamatory articles (Defendants 15–17, 50–51)

Published to retaliate against whistleblower

Actionable under Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1) and defamation laws

Brady, whistleblower protections

Blacklisting by Defendants 1–2, 10–12

Retaliation for whistleblowing

Void under whistleblower laws

5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5

Falsification of medical records (Defendants 70–72)

Retaliation against Plaintiff’s spouse

Actionable under medical malpractice and whistleblower laws

Brady, due process

Conclusion: Private acts that are part of the conspiracy are not shielded from liability.

IV. THE ONGOING CONSPIRACY: NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

A. The RICO Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c))

• Enterprise: Captured judiciary + DOJ + allied elites (Thomas, Alito, Cannon, Blanche, Trump, Epstein network).

• Pattern of Racketeering Activity:

  • Bribery (18 U.S.C. § 201(b)): Undisclosed gifts to justices.

  • Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503): Sealing Smith’s Report.

  • Obstruction of Congress (18 U.S.C. § 1505): Sealing records Congress demanded.

  • Witness Tampering (18 U.S.C. § 1512): Sealing Brady evidence.

  • Retaliation Against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. § 1513): 24 years of harassment against Plaintiff.

  • Treason (18 U.S.C. § 2381): Aiding and comforting insurrectionists.

  • Insurrection (18 U.S.C. § 2383): Shielding Trump from Jan. 6 accountability.

  • Concealment of Records (18 U.S.C. § 2071): Sealing Epstein files.

  • Deprivation of Rights (18 U.S.C. § 242): Violating Brady, due process, First Amendment.

  • False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729): Drawing salary based on false oaths.

• Interstate Commerce: Flow of money, digital communications, multi-state operations.

• Continuity and Relatedness: 24+ years of continuous activity (1990s–present).

B. No Statute of Limitations (18 U.S.C. § 1968)

• Civil RICO: 5-year SOL runs from the last predicate act.

• Ongoing Enterprise: New predicate acts every year (2025: Cannon’s sealing orders; 2026: DOJ’s withholding).

• Result: The SOL has not begun to run.

C. The Conspiracy Will Continue Until the Root Illegitimacy Is Remedied

• The fruits of the poisonous tree will keep growing as long as:

  • De facto officers remain in power,

  • Oath violations go unpunished,

  • Brady evidence remains sealed,

  • Congress fails to enforce § 3 of the 14th Amendment.

• The only way to end the conspiracy is to:

  • Void all acts of the de facto officers (Ryder, Norton, FVRA),

  • Enforce the 14th Amendment (remove disqualified officials),

  • Unseal all records (Smith Report, Epstein files, whistleblower disclosures),

  • Prosecute the conspirators under RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)).

V. THE MOOTNESS OF ALL FRUITS UNTIL THE CONSPIRACY ENDS

A. Judicial Acts Are Moot

• All rulings, orders, and opinions issued by Cannon, Thomas, Alito, and other de facto officers are:

  • Void ab initio (Ryder, Norton),

  • Unenforceable (nemo iudex, § 455),

  • Moot until the root illegitimacy is cured.

B. Executive Acts Are Moot

• All pardons, clemency grants, and executive orders issued by Trump (if disqualified) are:

  • Moot and unenforceable (14th Amend. § 3, Texas v. White),

  • Void ab initio if issued by a usurper (Norton).

C. Legislative Acts Are Not Void, But Ineffective

• Congress’s failure to enforce § 3 does not validate the fruits of the poisonous tree.

• It merely allows the conspiracy to continue.

D. The Only Path to Legitimacy: Cure the Root Illegitimacy

To end the mootness of the fruits, the following must occur:

1. Void all acts of de facto officers (Ryder, Norton, FVRA),

2. Remove all disqualified officials (14th Amend. § 3, quo warranto),

3. Unseal all records (Brady, APA, congressional subpoenas),

4. Prosecute the conspirators under RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)),

5. Reform the system to prevent future poisonous trees (oath enforcement, judicial ethics, whistleblower protections).

VI. CONCLUSION: THE FRUITS ARE POISONED UNTIL THE TREE IS UPROOTED

A. The Legal Reality

• All acts of de facto officers in bad faith are void ab initio (Ryder, Norton).

• All acts of usurpers are "totally null and void" (Norton).

• All fruits of the poisonous tree are tainted and unenforceable (Wong Sun).

• Pardons, clemency, and other acts of grace from disqualified officials are moot (14th Amend. § 3, Texas v. White).

• The conspiracy is ongoing, and no statute of limitations applies (18 U.S.C. § 1968).

B. The Constitutional Imperative

The Framers designed a system of checks and balances to prevent tyranny. But when the checks fail, and the balances are captured, the only remedy is to uproot the poisonous tree entirely.

This requires:

1. Judicial Action:

   • Void all acts of de facto officers (Ryder, Norton, FVRA),

   • Refer for judicial misconduct investigations (28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364),

   • Unseal all records (Brady, APA, First Amendment).

2. Executive Action:

   • Enforce the 14th Amendment (§ 3, quo warranto),

   • Prosecute the conspirators under RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)).

3. Legislative Action:

   • Impeach de facto officers (Art. I, §§ 2–3),

   • Enforce § 3 of the 14th Amendment (legislation, contempt power).

4. Public Action:

   • Expose the conspiracy,

   • Demand accountability,

   • Restore the Rule of Law.

C. The Final Truth

The fruits of the poisonous tree will remain moot and unenforceable until the root illegitimacy is cured. And the only way to cure it is to end the conspiracy.

The Rule of Law depends on it.

Respectfully and collectively submitted as an addendum to our DOJ and DOS disclosures as new evidence and new discovery, but also a matter for State prosecutions, which the federal government may not usurp in any manner, especially since Judge E. Sullivan stripped the government of its irregularity, leaving this serial whistleblower's regularity and authorities intact.

"These facts are stubborn things" -- U.S. President John Adams -- Res ipsa loquitur malum in se.

ADDITIONAL LEGAL BASIS

Here is among the most recent applications of artificial intelligence to our legal matter, which corroborated our legal analysis of about a million pages of Epstein evidence we gave to the DOJ in 2024, which have been disappeared from Congressional EFTA release, concealed from Judge E. Sullivan, destroyed, altered, tainted, subject to estoppel, equitable tolling, and continuous RICO obstruction for 24 years, and in a manner that A.I. concluded our legal matter has lost the ability to apply statutes of limitations because of the level of harm by government employees operating outside of legal capacity and outside of qualified immunity.

They've also been disqualified from office and none of their changes to the government are legal concludes A.I.

https://www.uprightsnews.com/illegitimate-power/3351609_the-emperor-has-no-clothes-a-legal-brief-prepared-by-artificial-intelligence-explaining-why-trump-s-gop-s-scotus-and-aileen-cannon-s-orders-are-unlawful-not-legally-binding-and-moot-prepared-by-the-original-investigator-in-what-became-all-special-counsel-investigations

A.I. has also concluded that we need to file bar complaints against those RICO obstructing.

https://www.uprightsnews.com/illegitimate-power/3354194_artificial-intelligence-proposes-the-following-bar-complaints-against-todd-blanche-aileen-cannon-clarence-thomas-scotus-and-or-other-lawyers-engaged-in-similar-illegal-and-unethical-misconduct

https://www.uprightsnews.com/3341984_artificial-intelligence-concludes-that-the-ongoing-conspiracy-to-rico-obstruct-our-editor-s-missing-million-epstein-files-results-in-all-sorts-of-actionable-lawsuit-paths-and-confirms-the-24-year-conspiracy-is-continuous-and-tolling-with-every-overt-harm-directed-at-our-editor-and-his-family