COMPLAINT: HUVELLE J., U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WASHINTGON, D.C.

This is to advise I seek to administratively challenge the decision of Huvelle

J. dated 18 February 2014 as, most unfortunately, an instance of obstruction
of justice and conspiracy to commit same. Her Memorandum Opinion
dismissing my Complaint and with prejudice was unduly and unlawfully
influenced by ex parte communications with the proposed Defendant.

By way of background, Ive been a member of the Canadian Bar since 1990.
Additionally, my mother was a Provincial Court Judge in the Province of
Alberta (1964 1969) and a federal judge on the Tax Court of Canada
(1984 1996). She was appointed Queens Counsel (1977) and was also a
Law Society of Alberta Bencher and member of the Ethics Committee (1977
1981). Further, my father was a member of the same provincial Bar as
her and I (1955 1985). Consequently, my understanding about how
judges rule and the reasons that support their decisions is exceptionally well
informed.

The circumstances that led to her abdicating her judicial responsibilities to

the extent she violated D.C. Criminal Code 22-722 are described herein
and the factual context is articulated in the within proposed Complaint.

Sub-section (6) states A person commits the offense of obstruction of

justice if that person [c]orruptly ... obstructs or impedes or endeavors to
obstruct or impede the due administration of justice in any official
proceeding. In Cotey Wynn et al. v. United States, 48 A.3d 181 (D.C. 2012)
the Court stated As for due administration of justice, that term is used
primarily, if not exclusively, to describe the proper functioning and integrity
of a court or hearing. The United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit
stated in U.S. v. Galiffa, 734 F.2d 306, 310 (1984):

The key, of course, is that the person must know of the

conspiracy's existence at the time of his act. Without the crime of
aiding and abetting a conspiracy, an unintended loophole would
exist in the criminal justice system where an act is performed with
full knowledge that it will further the ends of the illegal conspiracy.

It is respectfully submitted as a result of her legal training, experience in the

profession and being a member of the Honorable Court she knew she was
taking improprietous and complicitous receipt of ex parte communications
that sought to and did sabotage the filing of the within Complaint.

A review of her reasons in the Memorandum Opinion demonstrates she had

violated said D.C. Criminal Code. The legal analysis begins with the reasons
for her decision to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.

First she states The complaint ... is mostly incoherent. By way of rebuttal
it is not factually unclear, confusing, unintelligible, incomprehensible, hard to
follow, disjointed, disconnected or illogical. It comprises a clear and concise
itemization of the facts that support the causes of action; the principal one
being the tort of deceit.

Second, The involvement of the United States ... is unclear. Pled is a

contract between myself and the proposed Defendant (para. 2.47) and one
that was based on deceit (para. 2.53 et seq.). Doing so establishes direct
and protracted involvement by the proposed Defendant.

Third, [The claim is] attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely

devoid of merit and [it is] patently insubstantial, presenting no federal
question suitable for decision. The causes of action are well known in law,
the facts pled fully support them and the U.S. District Court has jurisdiction.

Fourth, she cites the Federal Tort Claims Act stating:

In order to maintain a claim for monetary damages against the

United States for certain torts a plaintiff must exhaust
administrative remedies "first present[ing] the claim to the
appropriate Federal agency. [] Even if the instant complaint
stated a potential claim, it still would be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction because there is no indication that plaintiff had
exhausted his administrative remedies under the [FTCA].

In the materials provided the Honorable Court, I made no mention about

complying with said statute. Consequently, there were no facts in evidence
that allowed her to dismiss my proposed claim with prejudice on the basis of
not having complied with the FTCA.

Further, it is the exclusive role and responsibility of the proposed Defendant

to either plead a failure to comply with the statute or after filing its Answer
bring a motion to strike the claim on the basis of having so failed.
Consequently, her inexcusable bias in its favor is palpable; and it is
inexplicable except when understood in the context of conspiring to obstruct
justice with said Defendant.

In addition, the FTCA expressly exempts me qua proposed Plaintiff from

having to comply with the statute:

28 USC 2675 - Disposition by federal agency as

prerequisite

(a) An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the

United States for money damages for injury or loss of
property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent
or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the
 Government while acting within the scope of his office or
employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented
the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim
shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and
sent by certified or registered mail.

The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall
not apply to--

(h) Any claim arising out of assault, battery, false

imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of
process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or
interference with contract rights.

Technically, Huvelle J. erred both in fact and law and thus her decision is
easily reversible on appeal.

The motivation for the conspiracy was at all costs to prevent the filing of the
within Complaint and prevent national publicity and a political scandal that
would engulf the Obama administration. It pleads a successful but unlawful
military R&D program the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency became
involved in during the first quarter of 2004. Rogue personnel in Canada and
the United States military, intelligence and security communities have at
every turn sought to prevent me from attaining justice and to procure
reform and other forms of accountability.

Consequently, what occurred involving Huvelle J. that sabotaged the filing of

the Complaint is a continuation of the pattern of disruption, interference and
obstruction of justice and conspiracy to commit same.

Having regard to the principles of judicial immunity, since she cannot be

criminally prosecuted for her serious and stupefying malfeasance she ought
to be administratively disciplined. I respectfully submit that given the
seriousness and brazenness of her conduct she be removed from the Bench.