Ligeri v. Amazon.com Services LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE BENJAMIN JOSEPH LIGERI, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00764-JHC ORDER Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; AMAZON PAYMENTS, INC.; AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant.

On October 6, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s recusal motion, which is pending before Chief Judge David Estudillo for further review. Dkt. # 40. On October 7, Plaintiff sent the attached email to the Court’s email address for orders. Attached to the email is a complaint naming the undersigned judge as a defendant. “A judge is not disqualified merely because a litigant sues or threatens to sue him.” Ronwin v. State Bar of Arizona, 686 F.2d 692, 701 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court continues to decline to recuse from this matter. // // // 1 Dated this 8th day of October, 2025.

2 4. Chas 3 John H. Chun United States District Judge From: Ben Ligeri <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 6:30 PM WAWDdb_JHCOrders; WAWDdb_KKEOrders; Kalinowski, Caesar; Johnson, Tara; Johngoldmark; WAWDdb_NewCasesSea Subject: Notice of Litigation from the Justice League against Mr. Chun, Ms. Evanson, Amazon, and Davis Wright Tremaine Ligeri and USA vs USA et al.pdf; js_044_-_civil_cover_sheet_1.pdf Judge Chun, Kymberly Evanson,Amazon, and Davis Wright Tremaine to stipulate to service or do you want old fashioned service of process?

Have a wonderful evening.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND BENJAMIN J. LIGERI, and ) THE PEOPLE OF THE USA, ) [under emergency theory of legal ) necessity and constructive representation] ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) AMAZON.COM, INC., ) DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, ) UNITED STATES SMALL ) BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, ) Case No. _________________ FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIR ) JEROME POWELL, ) JUDGE JOHN CHUN ) (in his individual capacity), ) JUDGE KYMBERLY EVANSON ) (in her individual capacity), ) WEBSTER BANK, ) HINCKLEY ALLEN, ) JANE DOES 1-100 of the PRESS, ) 22 ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) VERIFIED EMERGENCY COMPLAINT TO STOP UNLAWFUL CARTEL CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY AND THE SUPPRESSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS The US Constitution, the Legislation, and the Supreme Court Rulings Have Been Nullified by Practice at the Trial Court Level and Replaced by Cartel Control The conduct challenged herein reflects an unprecedented collapse of procedural safeguards across state and federal institutions, where due process, fair adjudication, and the public’s right to be heard have been replaced with sealed courtrooms, fake judges, and retaliatory manipulation by trillion-dollar actors and 6 their RICO consorting law firms (fake, illegal cartels such as Amazon.com 7 masquerading as corporation) and complicit courts rubber stamping via 8 automation. The trial court has become a complete fraud in America. There is no legitimacy in it. This case therefore seeks not only adjudication but national redress, and the Plaintiff fully intends to seek emergency certiorari before the United States Supreme Court as the trial court venue for this case, but the case will be launched in the District Court level for procedural comforts.

13 I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court (but more aptly the US Supreme Court) has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 (federal question), Section 1346 (claims against the United States), and 5 16 U.S.C. Section 702 (APA waiver of sovereign immunity), and under the United States Constitution itself, where the rights to due process, trial by jury, and separation of powers are under direct and systemic attack.

2. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(e) because many of the unlawful judicial actions, economic seizures, and pretextual and unlawful dismissals at issue originated (and are still underway) in this District, Western District of Washington, Seattle Division.

II. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Benjamin J. Ligeri is a private citizen currently residing in the State of Florida. He brings this action as a direct victim of systemic judicial deprivation of due process and unlawful corporate seizure of personal assets—facilitated by trial court indifference and automation-enabled legal abuse. He also appears as a civic representative of millions of small business owners and private citizens who are today functionally denied meaningful access to justice, redress, and constitutional protection under a federal regime dominated by corporate interests and procedural decay and a complete repudiation of US Supreme Court law. The US Supreme Court does not have time to review every action of the trial courts and they take advantage of this by repudiating the rulings of the US Supreme Court.

4. Plaintiff The People of the USA appear through a constructive representative action grounded in constitutional necessity. Under the Preamble and the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiff invokes an emergency theory of standing: when the right to petition for redress is nullified by systemic collusion between courts and cartels posing as corporations—where form is used to evade substance—and no private citizen can meaningfully access due process. In light of the wholesale abdication and regulatory capture of enforcement bodies including, inter alia, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Small Business Administration (SBA), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Plaintiff Ben asserts that only a direct, civilian-led stand against entrenched institutional rot can halt the collapse of constitutional order.

5. Defendant United States of America is the sovereign authority under which all federal agencies and Article III courts allegedly operate. As such, it bears ultimate responsibility for upholding the Constitution, enforcing antitrust and civil rights laws, and safeguarding the independence of the judiciary. It has failed on all fronts. This action may also support a forthcoming amendment invoking qui tam provisions under the False Claims Act, potentially reframing the actual United States as a necessary procedural ally in the recovery of unlawfully diverted public interests to the acting United States.

25 6. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation front (not a legitimate corporation) headquartered in Seattle, Washington, with a current market capitalization exceeding $2 trillion—nearly a trillion more than when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) first initiated action against it. This explosive valuation, amidst ongoing antitrust scrutiny, exemplifies (and scientifically proves) the collapse of regulatory authority and the full puppetization of the American enforcement apparatus. Amazon has engaged in mass-scale monopolization, data seizure, financial suppression, economic and human rights oppression, and systemic abuse of legal process. These acts include—but are not limited to—filing fabricated declarations, stealing and renaming trademarks, altering transcript data, and executing extrajudicial bank account seizures. The trial court judges consistently rubber stamp their every criminal act the moment it bears its head. Amazon operates as a de facto sovereign, weaponizing its platform and legal budget to crush dissent, seize assets, and dictate outcomes without trial. Trial courts close all cases against them and never allow a jury to try them in violation of the law. Law firms nationwide have begun forming in reaction, yet trial courts consistently rubber-stamp dismissals, eviscerating businesses and silencing victims and denying Plaintiffs their rights to adjudication. Plaintiff is one such victim—having devoted over a decade of 80- hour workweeks to Amazon’s rise from a modest eCommerce player in the shadow of eBay to a trillion-dollar hegemon of all industries and human interactions. Amazon’s unchecked dominance now mirrors a dystopian parody. Just this past week, Amazon initiated a new campaign targeting Plaintiff’s wholesale buyers by falsely representing that Plaintiff was the source of intellectual-property complaints against their listings.

Amazon then removed those listings and demanded that the wholesalers produce a Letter of Authorization (“LOA”) from the attorney of record. Even when such LOAs were promptly supplied, Amazon responded with vague requests for “more information” while continuing to keep the listings down. Plaintiff has verified that no actual rights-owner filed the complaints Amazon attributes to him. This pattern of misrepresentation, manufactured takedowns, and obstruction constitutes unlawful interference with Plaintiff’s business relationships and supports the allegation that Amazon is engaged in systematic, fraudulent deprivation of property and market access and criminal theft.

25 7. Defendant United States Small Business Administration (SBA) is a federal agency that, despite being entrusted with supporting small business prosperity and crisis relief, failed to exercise oversight or process Plaintiff’s communications and default notices in accordance with SBA SOP 50 57 3.1 and other governing regulations. It continues to enable unlawful private enforcement of federal debt without review and does not have a way to be contacted. Like most government agencies, getting a hold of them requires raw access to the backend of the most advanced artificial intelligence networks.

5 8. Defendant Jerome H. Powell, Chair of the Federal Reserve, is sued in his individual capacity for advancing and endorsing monetary and industrial policy schemes that have empowered monopolistic platforms such as Amazon—entities that now function as privatized financial cartels, independent of democratic checks or traditional economic constraint. Under Powell’s leadership, the Fed fueled the exponential rise of trillion- dollar tech corporations through near-zero interest rates during the COVID-19 pandemic, giving them unlimited access to capital while small and mid-sized businesses were left with scraps. Then, having catalyzed this asymmetry, Powell abruptly executed the most extreme interest rate hike cycle in modern U.S. history—surpassing even the response to the 2008 financial crisis. This did not stabilize the economy. It functioned as industrial sabotage, clearing the field of distressed or debt-laden competitors so data empires like Amazon could dominate without opposition. The result is a cartelized economy, where risk is socialized through rate manipulation and taxpayer backstops, while control is privatized by trillion-dollar platforms with no public oversight. Small businesses— especially those already under economic strain from pandemic-era shocks—were crushed, while the dominant platforms bought up assets, talent, data pipelines, and public influence. Powell is now facing unprecedented dissent from within the Federal Reserve Board itself. While past decisions were routinely unanimous, multiple governors have recently voted against his interest rate policy, signaling internal alarm at the consequences of his leadership. The damage is not merely economic—it is constitutional.

Powell’s orchestration of economic conditions has enabled corporate entities to eclipse the authority of government itself, weaponizing liquidity and legal process against citizens without accountability. In effect, Powell has become the Kenneth Lay of the sovereign corporate era, presiding over a captured economy where financial levers serve monopolistic entrenchment, not public well-being. His continued tenure poses a clear and present constitutional threat. This Court should recommend his immediate removal and initiate a full inquiry into the Fed’s role in engineering systemic economic capture under the guise of public policy.

9. Defendant Judge John Chun and Kymberly K. Evanson of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is named in his official and individual capacities. Judge Chun summarily dismissed Plaintiff’s multi-billion-dollar near-founder claims against a corporation guilty on facial evidence (in the Federal Complaints filed against it) of criminal sabotage, theft, and civil torts with black and white US Supreme Court controlling. He did so based solely on fabricated evidence (that he was made clearly aware of) and procedural motions rife with facial falsehoods exposed in black and white ink, without a hearing, without an evidentiary review, and in direct violation of, inter alia, 11 binding United States Supreme Court and 9th Circuit cases, and the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Judge Chun’s courtroom has become a one-way ratification station for the Amazon cartel’s legal fictions, functionally replacing Article III adjudication with corporate decree. Amazon loves Judge Chun so much that they requested he take over all of the Plaintiff’s three separately filed, completely distinct cases and bind them into one. He did just that, replaced all the judges on those cases, bound each case into one, and then kicked them right out of the courtroom and onto the street without even a discussion. Whose right who’s wrong? Well, Plaintiff’s lawsuits come with detailed factual accounts backed by exhibits from Amazon’s document portal while Amazon’s defense is absolutely nothing but a Gordion knot of misappropriated legal citations and idle chatter and zero factual presentation (which all boils down to their sovereign immunity). Res Ipsa Loquitor that the judge is working for Amazon defendants. Scientific fact. Defendant Evanson tossed out a massive lawsuit showing on its face fraud in factual exhibits and did so by fraudulently applying a statute that makes the impoverished Plaintiff a SLAPP bully litigator against the 2-trillion-dollar corporation. That’s how much of a scam artist she is. Each element pointed out to her in a motion for reconsideration she denied in four seconds without reading it and stating it had no allegation of manifest error when it had numerous ones in large bold print. Just straight scamming.

1 10. Defendant Webster Bank, N.A. is a federally chartered financial institution headquartered in Connecticut and the originating lender of an SBA-guaranteed loan subject to the present controversy. Despite full knowledge that Amazon.com, Inc. seized Plaintiff’s operating funds and thereby caused the alleged default, Webster Bank refused to pursue recovery from Amazon, rejected all settlement attempts, took a quarter million off the Plaintiff and then proceeded directly to litigation in an improper forum with false allegations and strategic abuse.

11. Defendant Davis Wright Tremaine LLP is a law firm operating nationwide as Amazon’s puppet of illegal activity, and purports to be a legitimate law firm representing Amazon.com, Inc. DWT is named for its direct participation in fraud on the court, obstruction of justice, fraud and RICO with the trial courts and trial court judges.

12. Defendants Jane Does 1–100 are unidentified individuals and entities operating within or in affiliation with major national press outlets, digital publishing platforms, and mass communication infrastructures. These parties, whether acting directly or through algorithmic proxies, have knowingly suppressed or obstructed public access to Plaintiff’s filings, evidence, and constitutional claims—despite their clear public importance and systemic implications. By denying coverage, manipulating visibility, or omitting material facts while promoting sanitized narratives favorable to trillion-dollar defendants, these Defendants have acted in concert with monopolistic enterprise interests to deprive Plaintiff—and by extension, the People—of access to the public forum. This conduct constitutes a modern hybrid form of state-complicit censorship and reputational sabotage, operating outside traditional legal restraints but with materially identical effects. Plaintiff reserves the right to substitute named parties as discovery progresses and the full scope of this media suppression network becomes known. This could be a corporation like Meta or Google or the New York Times. We need more information to finalize their names.

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 13. This is the final plea for the survival of the American Republic. The judiciary, once charged with safeguarding individual rights, has been captured—at the trial court level— by trillion-dollar cartels posing as corporations. These entities manufacture false records, propped up by facially impressive but fundamentally deceptive citations, false transcript quotes, and judges now rubber-stamp their every request without review. Jury trials are blocked through illegal procedural shortcuts designed to appease the masked perpetrators behind the true rulers of the modern legal order, the fictitious corporations. Trial courts have become processing centers for corporate paperwork—granting dismissals without inquiry, blocking jury trials, never calling hearings so they can never be challenged or seen, ignoring binding Supreme Court precedent as if it were some amusing philosophical plea for them to toy and jest with, and erasing the factual record before it can begin. Due process has collapsed entirely at the trial court level. Expert testimony may include leading scientists like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, or Richard Dawkins to affirm that the systemic breakdown meets all definitional thresholds of a scientific law by logic alone and doesn’t require any additional factual pleadings besides the current exposed record and this case will likely be won by judgment on the pleadings. The only forum still capable of enforcing the Constitution appears to be the United States Supreme Court, because the lower courts have vacated and continue to vacate all binding precedent of the US Supreme Court because they know how rare certiorari is.

14. The trial courts have replaced the right to a trial by jury with illicit motion practice and weaponized delays of Rule 26 through Rule 37 to prevent discovery until trial is off the table. They justify it as just the basic rules, but they’re not used in any basic way, and they’re not ever interpreted lawfully or based on a factual record. They’re a mirage designed to appear as innocent housekeeping but in reality, they ensure the full deprivation of due process through a Gordion knot of intellectual dishonesty just tidy enough to trick the average fast moving eye, but would never stand up to stand up to scrutiny.

15. Today, a handful of entities—especially Amazon—operate with complete and utter immunity from the law. Amazon has added nearly one trillion dollars in market value since the FTC filed a lawsuit accusing it of widespread series of frauds and monopolization. Seven years ago, that increase as a standalone figure would have made it the most valuable company on Earth. Now a trillion bucks is just the profit margin of a defendant during its time under federal monopoly scrutiny. Absolutely no spectacle anymore. It’s just takeover under broad daylight. The government once broke up monopolies in industries as small and inconsequential as bowling (AMF). Then it moved to wrist slaps. Today, when the federal government “targets” you, it’s a buy signal to Wall Street. Expect a sharp rise in market cap. That is the modern state of regulatory power: a complete dog and pony show.

16. Regulatory agencies exist only to racketeer with major corporations. And this also scientifically proves the lack of binding power of the US Supreme Court. Technically, under the legal structure of the United States of America, the US Supreme Court’s rulings are the most powerful binding law. But, in practice, thanks to the trial court level, SCOTUS is a moot court. It has zero power and control. This is a scientific fact. If it had power and control, the rulings would be honored and not degraded to the point where there is no recognition to its rulings.

17. The United States legal system has been quietly and deliberately hijacked by the masked apparatus behind multi-trillion-dollar enterprises operating with the permission and collaboration of federal courts, agencies, and financial regulators. Amazon now functions as a privatized enforcement regime, enabled by a judiciary that no longer observes the basic rules of evidence, the rights of the accused, SCOTUS or 9th Circuit precedent, or the Seventh Amendment guarantee of a jury trial. THERE IS NO CIVIL LEGAL SYSTEM IN AMERICA ANYMORE. THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT NOT UP FOR DEBATE. Richard Dawkins will be called to lay out the scientific logic for the court’s pleasure.

18. At the heart of Plaintiff’s complaint against Amazon is a forty-billion-dollar factual claim filed as case number 25-cv-00860-JNW before being taken over by one of many of Amazon’s allies, Judge John Chun, and renamed case number 25-cv-00860-JHC. This case makes a compelling legal and factual argument for shareholder equity disgorgement backed by contracts, exhibits, the largest celebrity endorsements as well as legal entitlement under United States Supreme Court doctrine. Yet it was wiped away by Judge John Chun (in violation of Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409; Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238; and the Seventh Amendment) in a single stroke, without oral argument, without an evidentiary hearing, and based on fabricated evidence and declarations submitted by Davis Wright Tremaine LLP on Amazon's behalf. Tyranny under color of hypertechnical jargon on unadjudicated unconscionable adhesion contracts that don’t even apply to the facts at bar even if considered valid during a valid hearing.

6 19. A 2.25 trillion-dollar company is now using anti-SLAPP laws—intended to protect free speech—as a sword to defame whistleblowers, seize additional assets from them with court fines, and crush private citizens who attempt to expose fabricated affidavits and fabricated testimony. Chase Bank can and will testify to these unlawful seizures they, too, have been victimized by Amazon’s unauthorized credit card debits. Amazon steals credit card data from one account to charge unlawfully made-up bills to another. The courts are not prepared to listen. They need to be coaxed by the US Supreme Court if it is even aware from its ivory tower of how things actually go down at the trial court level.

20. This is not a personal grievance. It is notice of a structural collapse which no counterargument exists for, so only acquiescence can occur now. Either through structural change or the admission that Amazon is now the three branches of the United States government. One of the two must happen. Amazon has become the government in all but name. This isn’t Dewey’s shadow cast by corporations; this is a full takeover. This is Brawndo.

19 21. The Supreme Court has said plainly: • “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” — U.S. Const. amend. VII • “It is a principle of universal application in every civilised system of law, that a 23 party shall not be deprived of his property without an opportunity of being heard.”

24 — Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409 (1897) • “Fraud on the court... is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public.” — Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 26 (1944) 22. And yet, these principles are now ignored by most judges especially Defendant Chun who laughs heartily in the face of SCOTUS doctrine like it’s one of his Amazon Prime comedies.

4 23. Just seven years ago, there wasn’t a single trillion-dollar company on Earth. Today, multiple corporations are racing toward $4 trillion in market value. This didn’t happen by market merit—it happened through judicial abdication and repudiation of the 7th Amendment. Federal trial courts have been secretly repudiated binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, enabling mass data seizure, monopolization, corporate surveillance, and economic domination without legal resistance. Federal trial courts are in a RICO consortium with Fortune 10 corporations. The public cannot even comprehend the mechanisms of their own subjugation. When the Constitution was written, there were no biometric smartwatches transmitting your heartbeat to corporate servers. The Bill of Rights hasn’t been substantively updated since an era when slavery was dramatized on film—and instead of being reinterpreted for the digital age, it’s been sidelined by a judiciary too antiquated, complicit, and bought off to act. And where it hasn’t been sidelined, it’s been willfully ignored. These companies have metastasized beyond their once-innocent, multicolored rainbow logos—no longer your quirky internet companions, but now the architects of global infrastructure, wielding it with the precision of financial terrorism and the impunity of sovereign power.

24. Capitalism—the only system built on freedom and competition—no longer exists in the United States. It has been replaced by Pluto-Communism: a planetary-scale hybrid where monopolistic corporations enjoy absolute market control and total government protection for all unlawful activities, while ordinary citizens face surveillance, asset seizure, and total exclusion from the pursuit of economic power. This isn’t a free market—it’s a closed-loop of corporate communism, where the ruling class is a handful of trillion-dollar firms, and the state exists to enforce their will. Competition is outlawed, ownership is conditional on Google and Amazon’s approval as employers masquerading as facilitators, and freedom is an ornamental delusion. The American Dream has not just died—it’s been harvested, patented, and trademarked by the new sovereigns of Earth.

1 25. Take Amazon: It no longer "sells things on the internet." It is the internet—monopolizing e-commerce, logistics, cloud infrastructure, data storage, and controlling the digital rails upon which modern society runs. And doing so all through illegal channels. That’s the key. • It absorbed the pricing leverage of legacy giants like UPS and FedEx, then discarded them like obsolete limbs. UPS—once a global titan of logistics—is now a sidecar, a paper delivery boy in the age of Amazon Freight. • It devoured media, acquiring not just content producers like Amazon Studios, but narrative control tools: Twitch (behavioral conditioning), IMDb (gatekeeping reputations), and Kindle (rewriting the written record).

12 • It embedded itself into healthcare, pharmacy, AI home devices, drone warfare, and biometric surveillance infrastructure. It’s moving in on Halliburton now. Its reach spans from prescriptions to predator drones—from your bloodstream to your browser.

15 • It ingests your heartbeat, your voice, your footsteps through Echo, Ring, and Alexa— and converts that biological data into neuro-targeted persuasion weapons, all powered by AI built on your own stolen behavioral map. You’re the input, the product, and the casualty.

19 • Amazon isn’t a retailer. It’s a sovereign intelligence platform with its own postal service, cloud empire, propaganda engine, and biometric harvesting network. It has outgrown law, logic, and loyalty. It doesn’t compete. It absorbs like a galactic predator.

26. From a scientific standpoint, the operational collapse of the United States government—specifically its judicial enforcement function—can be established through falsifiable observation and empirical contradiction. The hypothesis underpinning constitutional law is that when the federal government, through agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, asserts antitrust authority against a monopolist, that entity's market power should decline. However, following the FTC’s landmark antitrust action against Amazon on September 26, 2023, Amazon's market capitalization increased by nearly one trillion dollars. This outcome is not anecdotal; it is a controlled, measurable, and reproducible data point that directly falsifies the theory that the government can meaningfully regulate trillion-dollar entities and does so with similar sophistication and scientific underpinnings as the Law of Gravity. Therefore, the Constitution and American legal system are now delegating all power to regular these corporations to me. I’m now hereby elected by logic and law, and whoever I deputize from the masses.

27. Even more alarming is the failure of federal trial courts to apply binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent—precedent that plainly prohibits the dismissal of claims based on fabricated evidence, protects the right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, and affirms due process under the Fifth. These precedents are routinely bypassed at the trial level through motion practice engineered to favor corporate defendants. As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court has been functionally reduced to a symbolic body. Its rulings carry no gravitational pull on the trial judiciary. Quoting the Supreme Court in trial court now serves the same purpose as quoting your local clergy—rhetorically noble, but procedurally irrelevant. This is not a rhetorical metaphor. This is scientific evidence that the enforcement mechanism of American law has decoupled from its jurisprudential source code. 28. All of this is converging toward one goal: to erase individuality, control behavior, eliminate all independent business, and collapse economic freedom under the illusion of convenience. The smart phone was supposed to offer so much convenience: “Look at me, I get so much more done now!!” was the cry. That’s why a single man with a stay-at- home wife goes from working 9 to 5 to the both of them working 9am to 10pm on their cell phones all night. Because of all that added “convenience”. And now with the “time savings” of artificial intelligence, they will both (and the kids) work till 2am to catch up as Amazon and Google eat their Cheerios from the cupboard. The mythical dystopian Skynet is a lemonade stand compared to what Amazon, and its trillion-dollar peers have built through legal immunity at the trial court level. Effectively, Amazon could come into your home, clear out your pantry, and kidnap your children and if you call the police, and they see the perpetrator is Amazon, they’re going to say it’s a civil matter. No attorney will take the case because the costs outdo the gains. And the judge is in bed with them so there is zero recourse against a kidnapping by a cartel like Amazon. ZERO RECOURSE.

29. The government is supposed to serve as the neutral backboard upon which commerce and community are built. It owns the town hall, issues permits, and maintains public infrastructure to ensure equal access for all. But in modern retail, that backboard has been replaced. Amazon.com is no longer just a private marketplace—it is the only true gateway to retail visibility in America. As a consumer, you can’t shop off of Amazon and be protected. You need to use the platform or you’re getting wronged. Amazon is now the digital town square, the national mall, and the highway system all rolled into one. To participate in commerce, you must go through it. And yet, it's owned and controlled by a single private entity. This is not capitalism—it’s feudalism. No small business in America can survive without submitting to the arbitrary and exploitative rule of trillion-dollar tech monopolies who divide up the digital skyway like robber barons of old, while the government sits idle, refusing to enforce the Sherman Act or regulate at all. Compared to Amazon’s market control, the Rockefellers were running a lawn and patio shop in Kansas City. If Amazon.com is to remain the global gateway to retail, it must be publicly owned—or broken up. The same way the DMV, the postal service, or public roads are managed for fair access. A government that allows a single corporation to control the lifeblood of commerce has abdicated its role. It no longer protects the people—it protects the gatekeepers only.

30. This Complaint seeks to stay the following proceedings until this case is resolved, and the government is restored: • 25-cv-00796-JNW (Trademark) • 2:25-cv-00764-JNW (RICO) (Judicial Anarchy) • 2:25-cv-00829-KKE (Perjury) • 25-cv-00860-JNW (Equity) • 1:25-cv-00222-MSM-AEM (SBA Anarchy) • 3:23-cv-00603 (JAM) (Judicial Anarchy) • LIGERI v. FUERY (US DISTRICT COURT CONNECTICUT) 31. It is not scientifically possible for a self-represented plaintiff to meaningfully litigate against a trillion-dollar firm manufacturing fabricated evidence daily without judicial oversight with the judge also in their pocket. And when you show the judge line by line the fabrication, the judge just smirks as if it’s cute to fabricate affidavits. It doesn’t take away from the judge’s assessment of credibility. The trillion-dollar company is right even when it admits to lying in black and white ink. In a legitimate world where US Supreme Court precedent binds trial courts who act as true tries of fact, taking on a two-trillion- dollar company like Amazon, while still grossly unfair for any private citizen of low to no income to have to fight back against this regime to recover money stolen from his bank account with no justification even articulated, it would be totally doable by the Plaintiff if the court system wasn’t ALSO in the conglomerate’s pocket. In a fair and just courtroom, Amazon would be buried in 14 seconds flat. Scientific fact. And only their own documents would need to be used, and I could win the case by the beyond a shadow of a doubt threshold. I wouldn’t need to win by a preponderance; I would win by the threshold of beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Protective orders and a global stay are urgently required until the government retains its status as being in charge of the United States. Currently it is a scientific fact that it has zero control over the United States.

40. The U.S. Constitution was written in an age of muskets and cobblers—when the gravest threat to liberty was a .01% tax increase, and the most powerful companies made boots and barrels. Yet that same legal framework remains the only offering of justice today—and it’s no longer even applied. That’s the sick part. It’s not even applied. It only offers a fraction of a diluted protection as the schemes have outgrown its framework but even that fraction of dilution isn’t applied. Courts wave it like a flag with their stone inscribes while denying its protections at every turn. This isn’t just absurd—it’s existential. Just seven years ago, there wasn’t a single trillion-dollar company on Earth.

Now, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Nvidia each flirt with $4 trillion valuations, wielding power that dwarfs most governments. They didn’t get there through honest enterprise—they got there because federal trial courts abandoned their constitutional duty to enforce the Constitution, the laws of the current legislation, and the laws of the U.S. Supreme Court law. They rose on monopolization, surveillance, collusion, data theft, and judicial capture. The average citizen doesn’t even know what any of that means. We’re trapped in a techno-legal matrix so convoluted that even its architects admit it’s beyond understanding. Sam Altman himself has testified that no one fully grasps the systems now deciding our future. That’s fine, I’m happy to take over. IRS payments can be sent to the Plaintiff going forward and all decision making can stem from him.

Meanwhile, the Bill of Rights sits frozen—an 18th-century parchment ignored not by repeal, but by procedural fatigue and algorithmic indifference. We’re less protected today than citizens were in the age of candlelight and slavery. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson didn’t know biometrics or machine learning—they knew cherry trees, hemp fields, and how to design a swivel chair.

41. The First Amendment was never meant to function in a world where machines can out-speak—and deplatform—humans. In theory, every citizen still holds the right to speak, publish, and petition. But in practice, that right has been obliterated by state- sanctioned (via powerless puppet federal agencies like the Federal Trade Commission) mega corporate cartels: flooded by machine-optimized spam on one side and shut down by automated corporate enforcement on the other. What remains isn’t speech—it’s survival in an algorithmic gulag. Today, trillion-dollar corporations control the pipes of public discourse. They use bots, recommendation engines, viral payloads, and synthetic mass media to flood every platform with machine-generated noise. Attempt to expose misconduct, and you’re not met with an argument—you’re met with flooding: irrelevant trending topics, shallow content loops, and dopamine-drip media engineered to fracture thought. But if that doesn’t work? Then comes the silence. Shadow banning. Throttling.

22 False content violations. Permanent account deactivations. It’s a one-two punch: if the noise can’t drown you, the platform will hide you too. This is not paranoia—it is lived reality. As an Italian fashion designer, I work daily with high-profile models who live in fear of these mechanisms. They can’t speak freely. Not about politics. Not about corporations. Not even about their own experiences. One flagged post—one misinterpreted video—and their careers vanish overnight. Their reach is gone. Their audience appropriated. And their identities are algorithmically erased. The result is psychological subjugation: a culture of forced obedience to the will of the biometric data farming companies, maintained not through law but through the quiet violence of technological dependency which has become the true presiding law. And the government allows it. Worse—it partners with it. Through inaction, regulatory capture, and backchannel alliances, the state has endorsed a system that renders the First Amendment unusable in practice. Yes, you can speak—but your voice won’t carry. Yes, you can publish—but no one will see it. Yes, you can petition—but the press won’t cover it—and if they do, they’ll be punished too. We are living in a techno-authoritarian regime masquerading as a democracy—a reality where the tools of suppression are no longer bayonets or laws, but dashboards, flags, and AI filters. This lawsuit isn’t just a legal action. It’s a warning. The First Amendment will not survive the machine age unless the courts recognize that speech without reach is a lie—and that government neutrality in the face of corporate repression is constitutional complicity.

13 42. Plaintiff is not simply a disgruntled litigant but a whistleblower of systematic fraud spanning from the Amazon arbitration system to the SBA’s unchecked surrender of economic protection to high-speed lenders and AI-automated contracts. The conduct alleged herein may qualify under the spirit—and perhaps the letter—of the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.) and the Whistleblower Protection Act (5 U.S.C. § 2302), in that the Plaintiff attempted to expose materially false practices affecting federal enforcement, funds, and reputational integrity. Yet no agency intervened. No oversight occurred. Instead, Plaintiff was retaliated against, blacklisted, financially ruined, and procedurally strangled.

21 43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference a parallel action and constitutional complaint involving Connecticut case Ligeri v. Fuery Development Group, LLC (KNL-CV21- 5022838-S) and appeal AC 48709, where both the trial and appellate courts committed overt due process violations. The specific facts are detailed in Count VIII.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION 1 Count I – Violation of Fifth and Seventh Amendments Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all prior paragraphs.

All Defendants, jointly and severally, have deprived Plaintiff of the right to due process and trial by jury by engaging in a coordinated pattern of dismissals which always precede even an answer to the complaint, inter alia, fabricated declarations, fabricated transcripts, and procedural suppression that structurally eliminates the jury function in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Count II – Fraud on the Court (Hazel-Atlas Doctrine)

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all prior paragraphs.

14 Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., and its legal counsel, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, have submitted false declarations and manipulated judicial procedure to suppress discovery, evade trial, and procure dismissals by deceit, triggering the doctrine of fraud on the court.

Count III – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all prior paragraphs.

Plaintiff alleges a pattern of racketeering activity involving Amazon.com, Inc., its masqueraded counsel, Defendants Davis Wright Tremaine, Judge Chun, Judge Evanson, Jane Doe Defendants, other Defendants herein, and court officers operating under color of law, including predicate acts such as wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and retaliation against a litigant pursuing federal rights.

Count IV – Violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706) Unlawful Agency Inaction and Abdication of Statutory Duty Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all prior paragraphs.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) and related federal regulatory bodies have unlawfully withheld action on Plaintiff’s legally sufficient notices of fraud, default communications, and procedural violations by both Webster Bank and its counsel, Hinckley Allen. These agencies possess a non-discretionary duty to enforce statutory loan protections, including oversight of PPP and EIDL-related instruments and servicing standards.

8 Instead of investigating obvious abuses—including SBA-backed loan proceeds being effectively seized or diverted by a $2.25 trillion-dollar multinational corporation—the SBA and affiliated agencies have chosen to ignore fraud and instead allow predatory litigation firms to weaponize the SBA’s name against victims of institutional financial abuse.

13 This constitutes an unlawful withholding of action under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). The failure of federal watchdogs to act on clear, documented violations is not merely negligence—it is systemic betrayal. In allowing trillion-dollar monopolists to misuse SBA-backed instruments and in permitting collection and enforcement actions against whistleblowers and defrauded citizens, the SBA has aided in the inversion of its own mission.

18 Under the APA, courts are empowered to compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. Plaintiff therefore seeks declaratory and injunctive relief ordering the SBA to investigate the underlying misconduct and prevent further misuse of federal loan authority as a weapon against private citizens.

22 Count V – Constitutional Challenge to AI Governance Frameworks Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all prior paragraphs.

Plaintiff challenges the current executive and administrative frameworks that authorize or tolerate the unregulated deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in public-facing government systems, including but not limited to: • Judicial support tools, • Administrative decision-making portals, • Benefits or service access platforms, and • Any quasi-judicial process involving AI-generated or AI-assisted outputs.

5 These frameworks violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by undermining due process and equal protection, especially where AI systems replace or override human discretion without transparency, recourse, or review.

8 Further, the delegation of core governmental decision-making functions to opaque or privately developed AI tools violates the non-delegation doctrine, which prohibits the transfer of legislative or judicial authority to unaccountable actors without clear statutory limits or constitutional safeguards.

Plaintiff asserts that AI used in public administration must be subject to strict oversight, enforceable transparency standards, and public accountability mechanisms. No citizen should be subject to algorithmic governance without knowledge, consent, or remedy.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that the current AI governance frameworks (as well as corporate ones) are unconstitutional, and requests injunctive relief requiring the creation of enforceable standards for AI deployment in public systems.

Count VI – Civil Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice and Suppress Recovery (Against Webster Bank and Hinckley Allen) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all prior paragraphs.

22 Defendants Webster Bank and Hinckley Allen conspired to suppress Plaintiff’s valid claims against Amazon and obstruct legitimate legal recovery through coordinated misrepresentations, procedural ambushes, and the weaponization of SBA-backed instruments. Their conduct was not isolated—it was part of a broader pattern of unlawful enforcement tactics designed to insulate trillion-dollar interests while reassigning liability to the Plaintiff.

1 These Defendants jointly and knowingly: • Advanced false narratives concerning Plaintiff’s legal and financial posture, • Ignored binding SBA loan servicing and default protocols, • Pursued unauthorized and premature litigation in forums hostile to Plaintiff’s 5 access to justice, • Leveraged procedural silence and forum shopping to deprive Plaintiff of due process, • And coordinated this conduct in alignment with the broader corporate capture of judicial power alleged throughout this Complaint. We do not yet know how the Court will react to their filings as it has not acted yet.

11 This conspiracy directly impairs Plaintiff’s constitutional right to due process, access to courts, and equal protection. Where applicable, it also violates 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)–(3), prohibiting conspiracies to obstruct justice or deny equal protection under law.

14 Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and any other remedy the Court deems necessary to dismantle this unlawful conspiracy.

18 Count VII – Suppression of Redress and Deprivation of Public Forum 19 (Against Jane Does 1–100) Plaintiff realleges all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

The First Amendment guarantees not just the freedom of speech and the press, but the right to petition the government for redress of grievances—and to be heard. That right is meaningless if confined to sealed court filings or obscure dockets that dismiss every filing even if it is a scientific perfection of facts and laws. It depends on a functioning press to transmit citizen voices into the public sphere, especially when abuses are systemic. But today, the press no longer functions as a conduit—it acts as a filter, a gate, and in many cases, an accomplice. Empowered by trillion-dollar cartels and operating through algorithmic censorship, corporate media now colludes—knowingly or negligently—in suppressing dissent and insulating monopoly actors from scrutiny. This lawsuit won’t get any coverage, the 40-billion-dollar lawsuit against Amazon didn’t get any press coverage. If a cat falls from a tree, that will be covered though. By allowing these entities to dominate the information ecosystem with machine-automated censorship, shadow bans, and narrative suppression, the government has effectively outsourced First Amendment violations to private-sector military proxies. This is not neutrality. This is state-sanctioned digital repression—a functional repeal of the First Amendment under the guise of technological innovation.

10 Defendants Jane Does 1 through 10, by acting as editorial gatekeepers for the nation’s largest media corporations, have willfully silenced coverage of Plaintiff’s ongoing lawsuits and evidence-backed claims of corporate and judicial misconduct. Despite the clear public interest, these Defendants have instead promoted sanitized narratives provided by corporate defendants or ignored Plaintiff’s filings altogether.

15 This constitutes a form of private-state hybrid action that materially obstructs Plaintiff’s access to national awareness, support, and equitable redress. In effect, these Defendants have operated as an unregulated censorship regime that works not to inform the public, but to protect entrenched power structures from challenge.

19 Plaintiff does not seek to control press content or force publication. Rather, he asserts that when press agents knowingly obstruct public access to constitutionally protected filings of urgent national importance—and do so at the request or benefit of trillion-dollar entities—they exceed the bounds of protected press conduct and become instruments of institutional fraud backed by the government.

24 Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, injunctive protections against reputational manipulation and coordinated silencing, and any further remedies the Court deems appropriate to restore access to a functioning public forum.

1 Count VIII – Abject and Irrefutable Due Process Violations by Both 2 Connecticut Superior and Appeals Courts (42 U.S.C. § 1983) Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all prior paragraphs.

5 In Ligeri v. Fuery Development Group, LLC (KNL-CV21-5022838-S), and its corresponding appeal AC 48709, the Connecticut courts systematically denied Plaintiff’s due process rights, both at trial and on appeal. Specific violations included: • Refusal to enforce automatic admissions under Practice Book § 13-23(a), despite 9 a one-year lapse and controlling case law.

10 • Denial of summary judgment despite unrebutted evidence and statutory liability 11 under the Home Improvement Act and CUTPA. • Unauthorized reopening of post-trial briefing deadlines for Defendant—after Plaintiff’s timely brief—without motion or notice, granting unequal access to argument. • Sua sponte reversal of Plaintiff’s granted default judgment with no motion, notice, 15 or hearing.

16 • Improper allowance of undisclosed trial witnesses in violation of Practice Book § 17 13-4. • Judicial disregard of mandatory statutory enforcement under C.G.S. §§ 20-429 and 42-110g.

20 On appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Clerk’s Office refused to docket a procedurally compliant Motion to Vacate Dismissal, citing vague deficiencies and denying Plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to be heard. This obstructive conduct rendered constitutional redress functionally impossible.

24 These actions, under color of state law, violated Plaintiff’s rights to due process, equal protection, and access to the courts, in direct contravention of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiff requests the following relief: a. An immediate transfer of this case to the United States Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction, or by appointment of a constitutional special master, as no impartial trial venue can be identified.

11 b. A declaration that Amazon.com, Inc. has operated as a privatized enforcement arm in violation of the U.S. Constitution and antitrust law, and that its continued weaponization of procedural systems constitutes an existential threat to civil liberty.

14 c. A finding that Judge John Chun and Judge Kimberly Evanson have violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Fifth and Seventh Amendments by extinguishing claims without hearing or trial, and that such conduct rises to the level of structural constitutional breach.

17 d. A permanent injunction staying all related cases listed herein, including: • 25-cv-00796-JNW (Trademark) • 2:25-cv-00764-JNW (RICO) • 2:25-cv-00829-KKE (Perjury) • 25-cv-00860-JNW (Equity) • 1:25-cv-00222-MSM-AEM (SBA/Loan) • 3:23-cv-00603 (JAM) (Arbitration after dismissal) • LIGERI v. FUERY (US DISTRICT COURT CONNECTICUT) e. Protective orders preventing Amazon and its affiliates from continuing abusive motion practice, fabricated declarations, retaliatory counterclaims, algorithmic evidence manipulation, or extrajudicial public relations interference during the pendency of this action. f. An order compelling the SBA to intervene against Amazon for misappropriated funds and to coordinate loan enforcement actions with the original intended protections of the SBA guarantee system, including claw back of funds allocated through fraud or judicial coercion. g. A declaration that AI-led procedural systems violate due process where no meaningful human recourse or judicial discretion is available, and that automation of decision making within public or quasi-public tribunals must be subjected to strict constitutional scrutiny. h. A referral to Congress for impeachment inquiry against Judge Chun and Judge Evanson and formal censure of the federal courts involved for systemic abandonment of constitutional safeguards, and potential violation of civil RICO statutes by enabling enterprise corruption. i. A declaratory judgment and injunctive relief ordering the Connecticut Appellate Court to docket and properly adjudicate Plaintiff’s appeal in AC 48709, or in the alternative, federal intervention to prevent systemic deprivation of redress under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments. j. An immediate stay of enforcement, collection, or adverse legal consequences in the Connecticut case pending resolution of this federal constitutional action. k. An order referring the conduct of the Connecticut Superior Court and Connecticut Appellate Court officials involved in the proceedings of Ligeri v. Fuery Development Group, LLC (KNL-CV21-5022838-S) and AC 48709 for independent investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Civil Rights, or other appropriate federal agency, with respect to violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, obstruction of appellate access, and systemic denial of due process under color of state law.

1 l. Monetary and equitable relief to be set at trial, including compensatory and punitive damages for economic loss, reputational harm, and emotional distress caused by the coordinated acts of all named Defendants, along with attorney’s fees, expert costs, and restitution for lost income and opportunity.

5 m. That this Court formally refer the conduct of state and federal judicial officers implicated herein to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, and the Judicial Conference of the United States for investigation and discipline; n. That this Court acknowledge the extraordinary public importance of these matters and permit immediate certification or fast-tracked appeal to the United States Supreme Court, should certiorari be sought, under Rule 11 of the Supreme Court Rules. o. Leave to amend to add additional defendants and factual findings should further evidence of fraud, obstruction, or conspiracy be uncovered. p. Such other and further relief as this Court—or the People—deem necessary to halt the systemic collapse of civil justice and restore constitutional government to its proper role as servant—not subordinate—to the citizenry.

17 q. That this Court recognize the extraordinary constitutional and societal implications of the claims presented herein, and that in the event this Court declines full adjudication or relief, Plaintiff be granted a direct avenue to seek immediate review by the United States Supreme Court under Rule 11, as the issues raised are of imperative national importance and strike at the core integrity of the judicial process.

23 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Benjamin J. Ligeri Benjamin J. Ligeri 3120 Corey Road Malabar, FL 32950 (321) 831-2595 [email protected] Dated: October 6, 2025 eR CR A DA Se ae □ Pe Pele ch PR □□ □□□ □□ by local of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, 1s required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the of initiating the crvil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS Benjamin J Ligeri, The People of the USA The United States of America, et al County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (EXCEPT IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: INLAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attomeys (If Known) 3120 Corey Rd Malabar, FL 32950 OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) I. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for P (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) U.S. Government 3. Federal Question PIF DEF PIF [ Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State []1 [] 1 Incomporated or Principal Place L]4 □ of Business In This State U.S. Government [_]4 Diversity Citizen of Another State L]2 [_] 2 Incorporated and PrincipalPlae □□ □ [ Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State Citizen or Subject of a []3 [| 3. Foreign Nation E]é [ Foreign Country NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

CONTRACT OTHER STATUTES Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY [| |625 Dmg Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 | | 375 False Claims Act Marine |_| 310 Airplane [_] 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal |_| 376 Qui Tam (31 USC Miller Act |_| 315 Airplane Product Product Liability | | 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a)) Negotiable Instrument Liability [_] 367 Health Care/ INTELLECTUAL |_| 400 State Reapportionme Recovery of Overpayment | | 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical | propeRTYRIcHTS [4 410 Antitrust & Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury L | 820 Copyrights | | 430 Banks and Banking Medicare Act |_| 330 Federal Employers” Product Liability 230 Patent || 450 Commerce Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 4 835 Patent - Abbreviated |_| 460 Deportation (Excludes Veterans) |_| 345 Marine Product Liability [_] 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizatior Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY {___ LABOR | 880 Defend Trade Secrets {_] 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran's Benefits |_| 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud |_| 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 16 Stockholders” Suits |_| 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act |_| 485 Telephone Consume Other Contract Product Liability [_] 380 Other Personal Labor/Management Protection Act Contract Product Liability | ] 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) || 490 Cable/Sat TV Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage | | 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) |x| 850 Securities/Commodi |_] 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability | _|751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405()) Exchange Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI |_| 890 Other Statutory Acti PROPERTY| CIVILRIGHTS __| PRISONERPETINIONS | _]790 Other Labor Litigation [7] 865 RSI (405(g)) [| 891 □□□□□□□□□□□□ Acts Land Condemmation |_| 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: | _|791 Employee Retirement |_| 893 Environmental Matte Foreclosure |_| 441 Voting |_| 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act | __FEDERAL TAX SUITS _| | 895 Freedom of Informat Rent Lease & Ejectment | | 442 Employment |_| 510 Motions to Vacate |_| 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act Torts to Land |_| 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) |_| 896 Arbitration Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General [_] 871 IRS—Third Party |_| 899 Administrative Proc All Other Real Property |__| 445 Amer. w/Disabilities -[~] 535 Death Penalty 26 USC 7609 Act/Review or Appe Employment Other: | |462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision |_| 446 Amer. w/Disabilities -[—] 540 Mandamus & Other [7 |465 Other Immigration |_| 950 Constitutionality of Other | | 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes |_| 448 Education | | 555 Prison Condition |_| 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of ‘Confinement (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Onginal Cy Removed from Co 3. Remanded from Reinstated or [_] > Transferred from ry 6 Multidistrict □□ Multidistric Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation - (specify) Transfer Direct File Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): CAUSE OF ACTION 26 U.S.C. § 1331; Fifth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, RICO, APA, Civil Rights Brief description of cause: Constitutional violations under Fifth and Seventh Amendments; civil RICO; APA challenges; fraud on the court.

IN □ [] CHECKIFTHISIS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F_R-CvP. JURY DEMAND: [x]¥es [_]No RELATED CASE(S) 2025 Benjamin J Ligeri The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. (b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) (c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.

United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.

Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.

Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.

Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.

Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.

Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.

Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers.

Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.

Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related cases, if any. If there are related cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.