DOJ Tries to Prevent President Trump from Testifying in Local Lawsuit

Richard R. Lawless

30279 Redding Avenue

Murrieta, CA 92563

951-440-5230

richardrlawless@gmail.com

Plaintiff

United States District Court

For the Central District of California

Eastern Division

RICHARD R. LAWLESS No. 5:22-cv-148-JWH-SPx

Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF MOTION TO DISMISS EX PARTE APPLICATION

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hearing Date: May 6, 2022

Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.

Defendant. Ctrm: 2

______________________ Hon. John W. Holcomb

Defense Counsel

Paul B. Green – Assistant U.S. Attorney

Federal Building, Suite 7516

300 North Los Angeles Street

Los Angele, CA 90012

213-894-0805

Paul.green@usdoj.gov

PLAINTIFF MOTION TO DISMISS EX PARTE APPLICATION

The court is being asked to consider two important legal issues on the hearing of May 6, 2022. The first dispute is to determine if the Department of Justice can evoke the Westfall Act in cases where the federal employee likely engaged in criminal conduct outside of their color of authority. The second dispute is to determine if the federal government’s claim that the defendant acted within his allowable use of discretionary authority (DAE). The defense council is attempting to use these two points of law to dismiss this troubling public corruption case, pre-trial, denying the plaintiff their seventh amendment right to a jury trial and his fourteenth amendment rights to equal protection and the taking of his property.

The success or failure of these pre-trial dismissal efforts rests entirely on the Judges' belief that criminal conduct took place or criminal conduct did not take place. The plaintiff has provided a warehouse of evidence that would make any jury believe criminal conduct took place. However, the Courts and Judges, inexplicably grant great deference to government agencies and government attorneys even in the face of perjury and their obvious actions to prevent transparency and discovery.

In this case there are two key witnesses that can put to rest any and all doubts this court may have that illegal activity has taken place in this case and the defendant has played a major role in that criminal activity.

Sue Curtin was subpoenaed with the court's blessing to testify about her relationship with the plaintiff and her role as the senior investigative attorney for the SEC in the plaintiff’s whistleblower filing. Sue would have invaluable information about why the Chairman of the SEC forced her to drop the investigation.

President Trump was also subpoenaed with the blessing of the court and as the former President of the United States has invaluable information to share with the court. The plaintiff interviewed the former President and, in the interview, the former President admitted that there was little he could do to address the Puerto Rico Bond Fraud or the Puerto Rico Bankruptcy because everyone was involved. The former President specifically mentioned the U.S. Senators, the DOJ and the SEC. He is willing to testify about the massive government corruption that caused the Puerto Rico municipal bond default and bankruptcy.

To grant the defense counsels Ex Parte Application and then have the court rule that the defendant acted within his discretionary authority and the DOJ correctly used the Westfall Act would be the greatest miscarriage of justice, reinforcing the public perception that the courts are as corrupt as the congress. (50 Billion Dollars Stolen - 2,500 People Killed)

If, however, the court feels that sufficient evidence has already been presented to “reasonably” assume that criminal conduct took place and that the Westfall Act and the effort to dismiss the case under the DAE are unjustified, the plaintiff would happily defer this testimony until trial.

The plaintiff has made it clear to the court in the FOIA case, Lawless V. The Securities and Exchange Commission and in Lawless V. Gary Gensler and in Lawless V. The Securities and Exchange Commission that the government will never release any documents or allow any testimony in these cases because it would be “game over” for the government. The evidence of their criminal participation is overwhelming. Hence, the defense counsels’ desperate efforts to achieve a pre-trial dismissal.

The plaintiff has provided proof to the court of over one million documents related to the government’s criminal activity, a video, credible newspaper articles from expert investigative journalists and much more. In normal circumstances, pre-trial testimony would be unnecessary. In this case, it may be required.

In the meantime, the defense counsel has produced zero evidence and has made it clear through their actions they will claim and do anything to get this case dismissed before discovery.

When the plaintiff supplied the court with related case information regarding the Washington Superior Court case of Lawless V. The Washington Post the Defense Counsel immediately filed a motion that the related case had nothing to do with this case and the fact that the Washington D.C. The Appellate Court was about to rule in the plaintiff’s favor and should be completely ignored by this court. Yet, in this desperate pleading defense counsel seeks to use the overturned rulings in that case to justify his Ex Parte application. The defense counsel wants to have his cake and eat it too.

The plaintiff is also an accomplished journalist and the defense counsel would like the court to believe that his submission of articles to four hundred news outlets makes him somehow less credible.

The defense counsel also claims that the plaintiff will subpoena forty SEC employees. Wow, that’s a lot and as a pro se plaintiff I don’t see a need to do that and would not likely have the resources to make that happen.

When the evidence and the law are not favoring the defense counsel these personal attacks are all they have. I pray the court will see that. Truth be told the U.S. Government nor the defendant could possibly survive discovery. The U.S. Senators and the Agency leadership will raise hell and the corrupt Department of Justice will settle this lawsuit to avoid the possibility of criminal charges. The Defense Counsel knows this as well. If this court rules that there will be no pre-trial dismissal, a settlement will be reached in record time.

These subpoenas were served with the expectation that the two witnesses would testify via zoom and not have to travel to the court. The documents requested could also be delivered electronically and are readily available. There would be minimal inconvenience for all parties.

This is a last ditch, desperate attempt, to prevent testimony that would make it impossible for the defendant to avoid further discovery and trial and the defense counsel knows that. The plaintiff prays that the court will weigh the evidence and dismiss the defense counsel's ex parte application.

Proof of Service

Case No. CV-148

I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action. My address is:

30279 Redding Avenue, Murrieta, CA 92563, Telephone No. (951) 440-5230

On May 2nd, 2022, I caused to be served the document entitled Appellant's Response. This response was sent to Paul B. Green, Assistant United States Attorney.

☐ OFFICE MAIL: By placing in sealed envelope(s), which I placed for collection and mailing today following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this agency’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing; such correspondence would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business.

☐ PERSONAL DEPOSIT IN MAIL: By placing in sealed envelope(s), which I personally deposited with the U.S. Postal Service. Each such envelope was deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, with first class postage thereon fully prepaid.

☐ EXPRESS U.S. MAIL: Each such envelope was deposited in a facility regularly maintained at the U.S. Postal Service for receipt of Express Mail at Los Angeles, California, with Express Mail postage paid.

☐ HAND DELIVERY: I caused to be hand delivered each such envelope to the office of the addressee as stated on the attached service list.

☒ UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: By placing in sealed envelope(s) designated by United Parcel Service (“UPS”) with delivery fees paid or provided for, which I

deposited in a facility regularly maintained by UPS or delivered to a UPS courier, at Buffalo, New York.

☐ ELECTRONIC MAIL: By transmitting the document by electronic mail to the electronic mail address as stated on the attached service list.

☐ E-FILING: By causing the document to be electronically filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which effects electronic service on counsel who are registered with the CM/ECF system.

☐ FAX: By transmitting the document by facsimile transmission. The transmission was reported as complete and without error.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: May 2nd, 2022 /s/ Vicki Medlen