THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LAWSUIT & LITIGATION

Frightening information about the history of the Pledge of Allegiance is at http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html (with shocking historical photographs).
For fascinating information about symbolism see http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html 
Hear audio on worldwide radio at http://rexcurry.net/audio-rex-curry-podcast-radio.html

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


WILLIAM MAYO, an Individual,                                                                                     NO. CIV.S-04-1920 FCD PAN
                                    Plaintiff,

vs.
                                
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, a California state agency,
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE, a California state agency,
STEPHEN E. BENSON, Individually, and as Judge of the Superior Court, and
JOHN J. GARAVENTA, Individually, and as Judge of the Superior Court,
                                    Defendants.    
_________________________________________________________/        

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (42 USC §1983)

Plaintiff WILLIAM MAYO (MAYO) alleges as follows:

    JURISDICTION
1.  This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 USC §1983, and as such, this Court has jurisdiction over the parties and controversy pursuant to 28 USC §§1331 and 1343 and, pursuant to Article 6, Section 2 to the U.S. Constitution, this Court has unique and particular jurisdiction over virtually all of the Defendants, and each of them, as they are mostly all State Court Judges, either individually or in assemblage.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
    2.  Plaintiff MAYO alleges a violation of his various civil rights, as well as those of his various clients, as a direct and proximate result of their (MAYO and his clients) being compelled by operation of state law to (a) attend the Superior Court of California, and once in attendance, (b) to be further compelled to either recite a judge-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (the Pledge - 4 USC §4) or, alternatively, Plaintiff and his clients are compelled to wage a rather conspicuous protest, silent or otherwise, in refusing to recite the Pledge or to salute the flag, or to do any of those things nominally commanded by 4 USC §4.
THE PARTIES
3.  Plaintiff MAYO is an individual, a citizen of the United States of America, a resident of Butte County, California, a duly licensed California attorney in good standing with the State Bar, and is also the defense counsel of record for numerous clients in Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA’S courtrooms.  MAYO sues the Defendants, and each of them, in his capacity as an injured individual and also in his capacity as defense counsel for all of his clients who are injured by the acts complained of herein.
    4.  Pursuant to the California State Constitution (Article VI, §6), Defendant JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA (JUDICIAL COUNCIL), consists of a twenty-seven (27) member council, including the Chief Justice of the State of California, and one (1) other judge of the Supreme Court, three (3) judges of the State Courts of Appeal, ten (10) judges of the State Superior Courts, two (2) nonvoting court administrators, and any other nonvoting members as determined by the voting membership of the council, each appointed by the Chief Justice pursuant to procedures established by the council; four (4) members of the State Bar appointed by its governing body; and one (1) member of each house of the State Legislature appointed as provided by the house.  The JUDICIAL COUNCIL is the policymaking body of the California state court system, the largest court system in the nation.  Under the leadership of the Chief Justice of the State of California, and in accordance with the express mandates of the California State Constitution, Defendant JUDICIAL COUNCIL is the independent state agency in California responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice under the rule of law.
5.  Pursuant to the California State Constitution (Article VI, §8), Defendant COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE (CJP) is composed of eleven (11) members: one (1) justice of a State Court of Appeal and two (2) trial court judges, all appointed by the Supreme Court; two (2) attorneys appointed by the Governor; and six (6) lay citizens, two (2) of which are appointed by the State Governor, and two (2) of which are appointed by the State Senate Committee on Rules and two (2) of which are appointed by the State Speaker of the Assembly.   Defendant CJP is the independent state agency in California responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity and for disciplining
Judges under the rule of law.  Defendant CJP’S jurisdiction includes all active California State court judges.
6.  Defendant STEPHEN E. BENSON (BENSON) is an individual and is also a sitting Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Butte, and is being sued herein individually and in his capacity as a Superior Court judge.
7.  Defendant JOHN J. GARAVENTA (GARAVENTA) is an individual and is also a  sitting Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Tehama, and is being sued herein individually and in his capacity as a Superior Court judge.
8.  Because the acts and omissions herein complained of were performed in Defendant BENSON and GARAVENTA’S respective official judicial, as well as individual capacities, albeit, extra-judicially and in the clear absence of any authority or jurisdiction to do so, and were similarly done under color of state law, albeit in clear violation of the rule of law, Plaintiff further alleges that, by virtue of, inter alia, the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, as that proposition is more fully set forth under Article 6, Sections 2 and 3, neither of the Defendants, nor any of them, enjoy absolute nor qualified immunity from suit herein, nor do they enjoy sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Ex Parte: Edward T. Young (1908) 209 U.S. 123.)
FACTS RELATIVE TO THIS ACTION
9.  Our legal system is based on the rule of law and the indispensable principle that an independent, fair, impartial and competent judiciary will faithfully interpret and apply the laws that govern us.  Therefore, the role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law.  Intrinsic to this notion of American justice are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must staunchly respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance, maintain and promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.  A judge is an important arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and, as such, is also a highly visible, respected and revered member of government under the rule of law.
10.  Because a judge is legally obligated to both follow and apply the rule of law and to uphold the integrity, impartiality and independence of the judiciary, a judge is also required to avoid impropriety as well as the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.  Of necessity then, is the fact that a judge must perform the duties of his or her judicial office impartially and diligently, and in so doing, must conduct the judge’s extrajudicial activities so as to minimize the risk of conflict with the judge’s overriding judicial obligations.  Moreover, a judge must perform his or her judicial duties without bias or prejudice.  Indeed, a judge may not, in the performance of his or her judicial duties, ever fail to apply the rule of law or to engage in speech, gestures, or other conduct that would reasonably be perceived as bias or prejudice, including but not limited to, bias or prejudice based on, inter alia, religion, national origin, political orientation or affiliation and/or socioeconomic status.
11.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times pertinent
herein, Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA have an official, albeit extrajudicial, practice and routine whereby they ascend to the bench on a regular daily basis in order to hold court.  Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that as part of this routine and practice, Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA order their respective bailiffs to, in turn, order all parties in attendance in the respective courtrooms to stand at attention and to face and to also salute the flag and to then and there recite the Pledge as the same is articulated in 4 USC §4.  The customary practices of Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA in this regard are such that the respective bailiffs, who are, at all times pertinent herein, uniformed and armed county deputy sheriffs, are ordered by Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA to give their courtroom instructions regarding the Pledge at the time Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA first enter their respective courtrooms in the morning.  Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times pertinent herein, Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA are the lone judges in their respective counties that engaged in the judge-led Pledge inasmuch as no other Butte or Tehama County judge engages in this type of extrajudicial activity.
12.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA’S respective courtroom recitations of the Pledge, as extrajudicial activities, are such activities so that none of the Defendants, nor any of them, have any subject matter nor personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff or his clients so as to compel Plaintiff or his clients to recite the Pledge or, alternatively, so as to compel Plaintiff or his clients to stand in silent or other protest as the Pledge is recited.  Rather, Plaintiff alleges that his and his clients’ compelled recitation of the Pledge, or in the alternative, Plaintiff’s and his clients’ compelled protest of the same, results in an unlawful and illegal infringement and, indeed, a palpable violation of Plaintiff’s as well as his clients’ respective rights and obligations, as those rights and obligations are guaranteed by the rule of law in First, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and as the same rule of law has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (Barnette), 319 U.S. 624, 642, 87 L.Ed. 1628, 63 S.Ct. 1178 (1943).)
13.  At no time has Plaintiff or his clients ever agreed to recite the Pledge on a voluntary basis, nor have they ever been requested to agree to recite the same, nor, at anytime pertinent herein, have they ever knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily executed an express waiver of any of their civil rights prior to the daily recitation of the Pledge.  Further, there is simply no feasible method whereby Plaintiff or his clients may opt out or avoid reciting the Pledge or, alternatively, avoid acting in a rather conspicuous manner of silent or other protest before the very court they are compelled to attend.  Rather, it is only through the coercive powers of the Defendants, and each of them, that Plaintiff and his clients have had their respective spheres of intellect and spirit invaded, and felt compelled to suffer through the indignation of the Pledge as it is daily recited in Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA’S respective courtrooms.
14.  Plaintiff further alleges that the Pledge, as the same is articulated in 4 USC §4, and particularly in the courtroom setting herein described, also results in a violation of Plaintiff’s and his clients’ respective rights and obligations, as those rights and obligations are set forth and guaranteed by the First, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and as such, 4 USC §4 is an unconstitutional law.  Moreover, the same complained of conduct acts as a further violation of Plaintiff’s, as well as his clients’ respective rights as are afforded them, and each of them, under Article I, §§1, 2, 4, 7, 15, 16, and 24 of the California State Constitution.
    15.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants CJP and JUDICIAL COUNCIL likewise are acting, or failing to act, under color of state law, and further, have overlapping jurisdiction over Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA so as to, inter alia, ensure and protect both Plaintiff’s as well as his clients’ civil rights in and over those matters herein complained of.  Moreover, Plaintiff has heretofore peaceably petitioned Defendants CJP and JUDICIAL COUNCIL over his and his clients’ grievances in terms of reasonably requesting that Defendants CJP and/or JUDICIAL COUNCIL order Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA to cease and desist their individual daily practice of reciting in their respective courtrooms the judge-led Pledge, but at all times pertinent herein, Defendants CJP and JUDICIAL COUNCIL have refused and failed to act, and continue to so refuse and fail to act, so as to prohibit and prevent Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA from engaging in their respective daily courtroom judge-led recitals of the Pledge.
    16.  Similarly, Plaintiff has heretofore peaceably petitioned Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA over Plaintiff’s and his clients’ grievances in terms of reasonably requesting that Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA dispense with their daily practice of reciting in their respective courtrooms the judge-led Pledge, but at all times pertinent herein, Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA have refused and failed to act, and continue to so refuse and fail to act, so as to altogether dispense with their respective daily courtroom judge-led recitals of the Pledge.
    17.  As a duly licensed and practicing California attorney, Plaintiff MAYO is compelled by operation of state law to regularly attend the court sessions of Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA, as these same judges direct and calendar from time-to-time the particular cases of Plaintiff’s clients’ wherein MAYO is the designated defense counsel of record in the
courtrooms of Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA.  In the event that MAYO does not appear in the courtrooms of Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA as directed and ordered by these same Defendants, and each of them, then serious and dire consequences follow including, without limitation, body attachments in the form of arrest warrants issued by Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA for MAYO and/or his clients, as well as potential contempt actions as a result of the inherent contempt powers of judicial officers and judges such as Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA.
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
          As and for a FIRST CLAIM OF RELIEF for Declaratory Relief, Plaintiff complains against the Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
    18.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 17, inclusive, of this complaint.
    19.  An actual controversy has arisen and currently exists between Plaintiff and the Defendants, and each of them, concerning their respective rights and duties as the same arise from the state-compelled attendance of Plaintiff and his clients in Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA’S respective courtrooms wherein Plaintiff and his clients are regularly and routinely subjected to a further compelled recitation of the Pledge or, alternatively, are compelled to wage a rather conspicuous protest (silent or otherwise) in refusing to recite the Pledge or to salute the flag, or to do any of those things ostensibly commanded by 4 USC §4.
    20.  Plaintiff further alleges that the federal statute, 4 USC §4, which codifies the
wording of the Pledge, together with the formalities of the Plaintiffs’ government-compelled conduct (in terms of standing at attention and saluting, etc.) regarding the Pledge, is an unconstitutional law, particularly, in the courtroom context and setting herein described, and the same results in a violation of Plaintiff’s and his clients’ respective rights and duties, as those rights and duties are set forth and guaranteed by the First, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and as those same rights and duties are also protected by similar corresponding provisions of the California State Constitution.
    21.  In this respect, Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate consequence of the daily judge-led Pledge as herein complained of, coupled with MAYO’S as well as any of his clients’ own particular protests, be they silent or otherwise, Plaintiff’s clients are denied due process of law and the equal protection of the law inasmuch as they are denied, inter alia, (a) reasonable access to state court, and (b) the right to an impartial judge, and (c) the right to a fundamentally fair public trial by an impartial jury, and (d) the right to the effective assistance of counsel.  And, by virtue of the denial of these enumerated rights, among other rights, Plaintiff’s clients are further subjected to the distinct proposition that they will surely suffer an unconstitutional loss of liberty and a loss of property, and all this in the complete absence of any due process of law whatsoever.
    22.  Further, Plaintiff alleges that, as a proximate result of the acts and the omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, as complained of herein, Plaintiff has, and will likewise continue to suffer a loss of freedom of conscience, as that same freedom is protected by both the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by Article 1, §4 of the California State Constitution.  Moreover, due to the inherent contempt powers of judicial officers and judges such as Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA, Plaintiff’s protests, be they silent or otherwise, are additionally suppressed, subdued and, indeed, completely muffled on an unconstitutional basis, and these very same contempt powers, or the dreadfully real threat of an exercise of them by Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA, serve only to further unconstitutionally chill and silence the objections and protests of Plaintiff and/or his clients.
    23.  Consequently, Plaintiff desires a judicial determination of the respective rights and duties of the parties under the situation and circumstances as herein set forth, including, without limitation, a determination whether the Defendants’ conduct, severely or jointly, is unconstitutional and, also, whether 4 USC §4 is an unconstitutional statute, and for a judicial declaration thereon. (Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. 137)
    24.  Such a declaration is reasonably necessary and appropriate at this time in order that the parties may ascertain their respective rights and duties towards one another.  Further, Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, subjected to an uncompensated and irreparable loss and injury after having gone to the expense and effort in the first instance to prosecute the present civil rights action in order to obtain the benefits which he and his clients
are entitled to under the laws of the State of California, as well as under the laws of the
United States of America.
    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth below:
//
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
          As and for a SECOND CLAIM OF RELIEF for Injunctive Relief, Plaintiff complains against the Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
    25.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 24, inclusive, of this complaint.
    26.  Plaintiff seeks temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, of both a mandatory and/or prohibitory nature, against the Defendants, and each of them, in terms of an order of this court essentially and practically restraining and otherwise preventing the Defendants, or any of them, from compelling the attendance of Plaintiff and/or his clients to any courtroom of, and or for, the State of California, only to then and there be subjected to a further state-compelled recitation of the Pledge, pursuant to the mandates of 4 USC §4 (or otherwise – i.e., with or without the wording, “under God”) or, in the alternative, to have to wage a rather conspicuous protest, be it silent or otherwise, in refusing to recite the Pledge or to salute the flag, or to do any of those things presumably commanded by 4 USC §4.
    27.  Plaintiff has suffered irreparable injury as herein complained of and requires such extraordinary injunctive relief against the Defendants, and each of them, as neither Plaintiff nor his clients have any other plain or speedy remedy at law in order to avoid their respective irreparable injuries.  
    28.  Such relief is reasonably necessary and appropriate at this time so as mitigate and, indeed, so as to prevent further irreparable harm and injury to Plaintiff and his clients, and each of them, as a result of the on-going compulsive attendance of Plaintiff in connection with the compulsive recitation of the Pledge by Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA, and each of them.  Additionally, such relief is particularly reasonable and necessary in light of the fact that virtually all Defendants, individually or in assemblage, are all State Court Judges and, thus, come with the express ambit of Article 6, Sections 2 and 3 to the U.S. Constitution, inasmuch as the rule of law as previously announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Barnette, supra, is, and has been since Flag Day, June 14, 1943, the law of the land.  Hence, by virtue of, inter alia, the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, as that proposition is more fully set forth under Article 6, Sections 2 and 3, Defendants and each of them are legally obligated to both be obedient to the rule of law, and to also apply the rule of law as those rules of law are promulgated pursuant to the regularly published U.S. Supreme Court opinions, and the same is, and forever shall be, the supreme law of the land.
    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth below:
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
    As and for a THIRD CLAIM OF RELIEF for Damages, Plaintiff complains against the
Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
    29.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28, inclusive, of this complaint.
    30.  Defendants, and each of them, by refusing to cease and desist from compelling Plaintiff and his clients to attend Defendants BENSON and GARAVENTA’S respective courtrooms, and to then and there either recite the Pledge by means of the formalities set forth in 4 USC §4, or to alternatively wage a rather conspicuous protest, silent or otherwise, in refusing to recite the Pledge or to salute the flag, or to do any of those things seemingly commanded by 4 USC §4, have irreparably injured and harmed Plaintiff and his clients, and have also violated Plaintiff’s, as well as his clients’ respective civil rights, as those rights are set forth in the First, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and as those same rights are otherwise protected by similar corresponding provisions of the California State Constitution.
    31.  Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, and each of them, by the acts and omissions
herein complained of, have duly conspired to deprive Plaintiff and his clients of their respective rights to due process of law and to the equal protection of the laws of both the United States of America and the State of California, and in furtherance of the object of that conspiracy, have irreparably injured and harmed Plaintiff and his clients, and each of them, and have, inter alia, deprived them of having and exercising the rights and privileges of being free citizens of the United States of America.
32.  Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant JUDICIAL COUNCIL, as the state agency responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice for all of its state citizens, including, without limitation, Plaintiff and his clients, as well as Defendant CJP’S corresponding constitutionally mandated responsibilities towards Plaintiff and his clients, have both wantonly, negligently and carelessly acted and failed to act so as to prevent the irreparable harms and injuries herein complained of, and occasioned to, Plaintiff and his clients, and each of them.  Moreover, at all times pertinent herein, Defendants JUDICIAL COUNCIL and CJP had both actual and constructive knowledge of the rule of law (Barnette) as well as the wrongs conspired to be done against Plaintiff and his clients, and each of them, and further, had the power and ability to prevent, or to aid in the preventing of the commission of the same, and these same Defendants simply failed to act, or refused to so act, so as to prevent the irreparable harms and injuries herein complained of, and occasioned to, Plaintiff and his clients, and each of them.
    33.  As a direct and proximate result of the violations of Plaintiff and his clients’ and each of their civil rights by the Defendants, and each of them, and as a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff and his clients, and each of them, have suffered irreparable injury in the form of the loss of their civil rights as herein complained of, as well as irreparable injury and harm in the form of being subjected to public humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, and Plaintiff and his clients will continue to suffer consequential damages in an amount which will be shown according to proof.
    WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth below:
//
PRAYER
              WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as against the Defendants, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth below:
1.    For a declaration of the illegality and/or unconstitutionality of 4 USC §4; and
2.    For a declaration of the illegality and/or unconstitutionality of the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, towards Plaintiff and his clients, and each of them; and
3.    For temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, both prohibitory and mandatory in nature, so as to essentially and practically restrain the
    Defendants, and each of them, from further holding court wherein the Pledge is
    recited; and
    4.    For reasonable general and special damages according to proof; and
    5.    For reasonable costs of suit incurred herein, including, but not limited to,
        reasonable attorneys' fees; and
6.    For such other and further relief as this Court deems meet and proper under the premises.
    Dated: September 15, 2004
    MAYO LAW CLINIC



    ______________________________
       By:  WILLIAM MAYO IN PRO SE

Charles Fenno Jacobs photographer http://rexcurry.net/nazi%20salute%206.jpg Charles Fenno Jacobs photographer Pledge of Allegiance
Charles Fenno Jacobs Photographer Pledge of Allegiance teachers schools education high schools elementary schools, instructors The Pledge of Allegiance & the original socialist salute to the U.S. flag
Charles Fenno Jacobs photographer http://rexcurry.net/nazi%20salute%206.jpg Charles Fenno Jacobs photographer Pledge of Allegiance

The government's obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) of robotic chanting and ubiquitous flags.

Charles Fenno Jacobs photographer http://rexcurry.net/nazi%20salute%207.jpg Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) Pledge of Allegiance
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder OCD Charles Fenno Jacobs Photographer Pledge of Allegiance The original socialist salute to the U.S. flag
Charles Fenno Jacobs photographer http://rexcurry.net/nazi%20salute%207.jpg Charles Fenno Jacobs photographer Pledge of Allegiance

Charles Fenno Jacobs photographer http://rexcurry.net/nazi%20salute%203.jpg Charles Fenno Jacobs photographer Pledge of Allegiance
Charles Fenno Jacobs Photographer Pledge of Allegiance the original socialist salute to the U.S. flag
Charles Fenno Jacobs photographer http://rexcurry.net/nazi%20salute%203.jpg Charles Fenno Jacobs photographer Pledge of Allegiance


sitemeter