motion for reconsideration

1NOTICE. THIS IS NOTICE TO THE COURT AND TO THE DEFENDANTS OF PLAINITFF MARY JONES’ MOTION FOR RE-CONSIDERATION OF THE MAGISTRATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE FILED APRIL 7, 2014.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mary Jones1805 El Cerrito Pl. #209Los Angeles, Ca [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY JONES, Plaintiff,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., ET. AL., Defendant,

CASE NO. 2:13-cv-8789-DMG-SHHONORABLE DOLLY M. GEEU.S.DISTRICT COURT JUDGENOTICE. THIS IS NOTICE TO THE COURT AND TO THE DEFENDANTS OF PLAINITFF MARY JONES’ MOTION FOR RE-CONSIDERATION OF THE MAGISTRATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE FILED APRIL 7, 2014.

MOTION DATE: May 23, 2014 9:30 A.M.LOCATION: CENTRAL DISTRICT FEDERAL COURT HOUSE FLOOR 2 ROOM 7

Plaintiff Mary Jones requests reconsideration of magistrate recommendation to dismiss her case without amendment on the basis


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

it is not warranted, the report is erroneous, inaccurate, irrelevant in big part and creates a miscarriage of justice. Plaintiff Mary Jones request re-consideration of the entire causes in her complaint of the deprivations of her guaranteed federal civil rights in Article IV, VI, 1 st ,4 th ,5 th ,6th 14th of U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution. And for the amendment made to the California Constitution which has deprived her of her Federal Constitution Article IV §4 rights. She makes this motion under Federal Rule 72. This motion is made following the attempt with both counsels pursuant to L.R. 7-3 on April 14, 2014. When Mary Jones called James Losee (415-703-5028) at about 9am counsel for Defendant Caplane the lady who answered the phone stated he was on vacation (she did not want to give her name). Mary Jones asked for Mr. Sullivan and she went to get him. She said he could not talk now so she left a message he return her call. Mr. Sullivan never returned the call. Mary Jones called Terry Barack on his cell phone and his number listed on his filing papers (213-897-2119). He did not answer the cell and no answering service picked up. The office phone had an answering machine where Mary Jones left a message for him to please return her call. Mr. Barack did not return the phone call.Mr. Barak returned my call on April 15, 2014. Mr. Sullivan never returned my call. April 14, 2014Respectfully submitted:________________________Mary Jones, Plaintiff, in pro se


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT PLAINITFF MARY JONES’ MOTION FOR RE-CONSIDERATION OF

THE MAGISTRATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE FILED APRIL 7, 2014

I. INTRODUCTION Mary Jones was employed by the Regents circulating on a major surgery with too little

help when she sustained injury hitting her head full body length from a fall to the concrete

floor and on sharp equipment on January 21, 2005. Because of pervasive and long term

continuing retaliation Regents refused to allow her to leave and seek medical help

although they wrote out an injury report that date. Even later after working ten hours and

finishing the case, Regents did not allow her to leave but made her start another surgery

for Dr. Churchill. Further on Monday, she was denied a doctor and denied her own doctor.

Later she was denied crucial normal medical care, tests, intravenous dexamethasone and

other normal emergency treatment for such etiology and symptoms. Mary Jones has

knowledge of this as she is the plaintiff as well she has been a RN working huge

emergency centers for years. UCLA is a Medicare licensed facility under EMTALA. For

over a month the Regents and their self-insured via the new WCAB SB889 which had

been signed and implementation by Defendant Schwarzenegger denied Plaintiff

emergency medical care. On March 7, 2005, Mary Jones entered Cedars Sinai Medical

Center and obtained a MRI of her neck and was later found to have a compressed spinal

cord at C-3and bulging herniation’s at C-4. No MRI was ever done of her head or her

back even though she had pain in her head and back between her shoulder blades from the

time of injury. At this time the Regents stopped all benefits and Plaintiff became

homeless, gave away her belonging in her large apartment in Beverly Hills, had no

medical care because it was industrial injury, no income, and quickly went into financial


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

disaster using all savings and ruining excellent credit. She stumbled into a lawyer’s office

that after some time got a treating doctor and benefits restored.

Prior to this injury Plaintiff was a whistleblower about the Regents unsafe care in surgery

in the basement. The whistleblowing started in 2003 in a monthly meeting before more

than a hundred operating room Registered Nurses where she voiced her concern about the

staff (and patients) who were not protected with “shields” during the shooting of radiation

sometime lasting over an hour using C scan. The director quickly shut her up. No one

cared. Several nurses had acquired breast cancer. There were gross unsafe acts regarding

counting of items used in the surgical wound, infection control, disposing of body parts,

hundreds of instruments trays being contaminated, equipment instrument malfunction and

ignoring surgical informed consent for surgery and anesthesia. The goal was to make a

profit as fast as they could which they did and at the expense of safety; these reports

(Hunter Report) were in circulation among staff.

Along this time due to loss of a staff the surgical instrument room went into chaos

resulting in gross contaminated instrument trays with hundreds of instruments. Plaintiff

submitted over hundreds incident reports and nothing was ever done. It was surreal. These

deprivations could not possibly have occurred but for the unconstitutional provisions for

the Regents. And, the DFEH and the health Department gave Regents a pass which

harmed Plaintiff. When Plaitiff filed in the Superior court the DFEH stated she had not

filed timely cutting off the beginning and most egregious adverse harm against her when

the USPS had provided a record of the DFEH signing for them and a report was written

by the DFEH initially but it was struck by the court. During this time Plaintiff had written

correspondence and Superior Court files sent to Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney

General Edmund Brown. Governor Schwarzenegger did have the director of the DFEH

replaced and the people there promised to set the record straight but it was too late for her

case. Only leaving the harm of her supervisor counseling her for attending jury duty one

day in the Superior court with documentation and order to not talk about anything prior to

the jury duty adverse harm. Months later the Plaintiff found out the family member of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Regent lawyer and loyal family to the Regents was the foreman. And leaving injury from

retaliation to the WCAB court which it said had exclusive control of the physical injury.

As a few months later, the California legislature quickly deleted the “punitive damages”

part of the California Whistleblower Act for the Regents as they had been stricken as a

result more fraud from the Regents power. The bottom line is not the fault of the court as

they were just upholding the California Constitution. But with this compliant there is no

more excuse as the cause is before this Federal court where the mandate is on to review

this cause of the unconstitutional placement in the regents depriving Plaintiff (and others)

if her constitutional rights. Mary Jones seeks this relief this for herself and all people as it

is right and just. She will not stop until someone has the braveness to uphold the United

States Constitution.

Under the WCAB with the Regents as the Defendant since January 2003, the Plaintiff has

received continuing harm of court denied trial until 2011 when finally the UCLA WCJ left

to be on the Board of the now current Regent lawyer in WCAB case. In 2012 -2014

Defendant Caplane kept ruling for Regents in their unlimited appeals to the higher WCAB

Board in San Fran over and over. For months the Regents lawyers harmed Plaintiff

wherein she filed motions for protection which no hearing was ever held. No hearing was

ever held for payment of arrear disability and penalties. The only appeal the Plaitiff

ever filed in the higher WCAB was for the arrears payment of disability which was the

attached order Defendant Caplane filed with their motion that the report talked about. In

2013, the Regents again filed for another postponement of trial after the higher WCAB

court had given them two more years with everything they wanted. Still that was not

enough because their goal is to postpone unlimited until the Plaintiff dies then the Regents

(read unconditional power house of wealth and power of the State of California) gets off from having to pay and make a profit while all other business in California are made for pay their share. This affects every citizen in the United States as their taxes are paying for the Regents expenses of doing business while the Regents a Billionaire Corporation who has


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

been given freedom from legislation and taxes and the power of the Governor and others to mix with rich Billionaires violating everyone’s right to a Republican government Article IV and equal protection under the 14 th amendment .

As a result of their unconstitutional status they had no worries about lawsuits as they got a pass in the courts if they ever had to go. Many of the Judges were graduates from Regents. All they were doing was upholding the law.Mary Jones knows this was she worked there for years while whistleblowing and watching her back as they tried to run her off. Mary Jones knows this as she worked for years as a Chief Administrator of Nursing and Hospital Department especially in the area of safe medical care and malpractice. Plaintiff received much harm from the Regents because of her whistleblowing and denied of justice in the courts. The courts were just holding the law. The Regents were God. The current amended California Constitution giving the Regents unconstitutional power of both the state benefits and benefits of a corporation in which it explicitly states in words there is no legislative control (means the people have no control…) and which explicitly states automatic members of the State of California along with wealthy big corporate wall street players are mixing the public elected officials and government with private for profit corporations. This machine of the Regents is insidiously utilized by a few people with power in California (oligarchy) to amass a fortune of wealth and power….at the expense of the civil rights of every American. It is similar to the foreign governments who have the worst human rights of abusing their citizens, child labor, pesticides in food,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

denying rights and then turning around and selling their products to the US although such conduct is not legal in the US but countries receive the money from the good non the less. The California Constitution Article 9 explicitly states the legislature has no control over the Regents, they own billions of dollars, there is no control for the people, they receive all the benefits of no taxes, no scrutiny from the government, no requirement for court fees, unlimited money to purse cases in courts, and the right to sue and own any property they wish. These are not the standard for a state government and it violates the Article IV§4 guaranteeing a republican government. This “unconstitutional placement” over the years created a huge monopoly amassing wealth, stock, and unconstitutional power in the courts. Plaintiff requests an injunction and or declaration against, this unconstitutional placement. It is the state of California acting in disguise to the people in the Regent form a separate Corporation which because it has automatic members of the Government and others is like conjoined twins with one a traditional state government and the other is a for profit corporation but the latter also reaps the lenient benefits of no legislative control, no taxes, no court fees, no reporting of racial hiring as others, and other. But the state portion of this “twin” is not able to wheel and deal their billions of dollars on the stock market, pay millions to lobbies, etc. It allows the Regents more than an antitrust monopoly. It has been a violation and deprivation of Plaintiff’s and the people in California’s right to a Republican form of government. It is the right of the people and all states to not compete with a state who is not at an equitable level, but is a state who has a government level and corporate public level but also has the law saying it is not subject to legislative control and has the power of California Governor,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

etc., and that which it can take its money and know no control…which causes it to be a hybrid form of dictator government. It is a state couple with a shadow side of the Regents with all the power, no legislative control, no taxes, etc., with its only goal to make a surreal profit which harmed Plaintiff and harms every person in the United States. It harms every person in the world because the State of California holds itself out as a state in the Union when it is but a insidious hybrid-oligarchical dictatorship.In the WCAB, it soon became plain to Mary Jones that her lawyer could not do anything with the Regents and the WCAB either as she asked for settlement in 2006 when it was decided the Plaintiff was permanent and stable. Mary Jones took over her own case to have a firsthand look at the system the injured people in California was going through. There is no adversarial system, it is whoever is the most powerful wins; especially if it is the self-insured Regents who contract with powerful Sedgwick-Fidelity ……Mary Jones filed and filed for trial until finally two judges signed her order for trial. Then the Regents hired another new law firm to re-do the case redone after exhibits and witnesses were exchanged. Everything in the WCAB is unjust with a complete lack of law and procedure and upholding the laws of California and the United States. And for sure is a local WCJ makes a fair decision against the Regents there will be no justice or trial. These new lawyers ignored the laws harming Plaintiff for deprivations of her rights and the WCAB court did keep ordering a trial date but did not act on any motions filed. The higher WCAB keeps giving unlimited appeals to the Regents (read California’s money making power machine). Justice is futile in the WCAB and the Plaintiff is finished with them. She asks for remedy


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for the harm she has already sustained under their administration and law. II.The Magistrate’s Report Was Erroneous, Non-Relevant In Parts, Was Not Accurate, And Showed Biased Toward The Defendants.The magistrate states in his own words he took the information for his understanding of the case from Defendant Caplane’s unsworn pleadings instead of from or with the Plaintiff…. “the following factual summary is taken from the WCAB defendants’ motion to dismiss”(p5,ln19-23).It was the court’s duty (de novo) to read all the papers and make a just assessment of what the Plaintiff had written not that it was confusing. If the court found it confusing most surely it did not find every line of her pleadings confusing. The court failed to make an assessment of the complaint and her many pages of oppositions. Instead the court in its own words took the words from the Plaintiff’s adversary. The law says the court must be non-partial except in the case of motions of dismissal and it mandates the court must look most favorably on the non-moving party. The magistrate did the opposite.“Caplane’s order”(late 2013) was not filed by Plaintiff with her complaint and it was in error to consider it and put it in a report according to Iqbal as cited by magistrate. This was the only time the Plaintiff had filed to the higher WCAB court because the lower WCAB court ignored her motion she had filed three times without hearings. If the local WCAB Judge does not hold hearings and makes an order which is just the higher WCAB will overturn them. So it can


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

make an unjust order or do nothing. It did nothing. None the less, the Plaintiff had the legal duty to move the case out and upward as there is futility. The higher WCAB court did not make the Regents pay arrears disability. But, they ruled in favor of Regents to allow the deprivations of Plaintiff’s basic civil rights to be deprived by the Regents over and over in …. “Appeals”. The Regents are protected by their placement. Ashcroft v.Iqbal 129 S. Ct.1937(2009) says the court may not consider in this type of documents in a motion to dismiss which are not filed by Plaintiff. The magistrate did write about it which should disqualify his report and the motion.In the case Iqbal cited by the court it says the court may not consider any other papers unless they were filed by the Plaintiff with her complaint. The magistrate used the higher WCAB order of 2013 which Caplane attached to its motion as the cause in the compliant. This order was never a cause as it occurred eight years after litigation was filed in WCAB, either right before or after this filing. It was merely part of the high amount of information which could never stand alone. The court was wrong to consider this attached order. The order could be used for evidence of “unlimited appeals” denying appellate review denying any doctrine such as Rocker-Felder. But the magistrate said he could not make a determination about Rocker Felder as he could not understand enough about Plaintiff’s pleading. This order in 2013 from Caplane evidenced unlimited appeals which since the Magistrate used it surely told him the Rocker-Felder or any abstention doctrine is not applicable.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The report dismissed the “Injunction” part of Plaintiff’s complaint listing remedies, but Federal law prohibits a magistrate determining issues on Injunctions without permission of all parties.The Magistrate cited in his report a case that says especially those in pro se should be given the opportunity to amend. (p5, ln9-15). The Magistrate does not head this but recommends dismissal without amendment even one time. This is inconsistent even in his own report.The Magistrate has listed several things which were not even a part of the filed documents in this case including Bivens, Supervisory Liability, naming the State and WCAB as Defendants, having the 2013 higher WCAB denial of ordering the Regents to pay arrears disability based on AME reports as a cause of Plaintiff’s complaint, which the Plaintiff will not address further as they are irrelevant to this case. The magistrate spent pages on why the Plaintiff can not sue the state or agency and then about immunity for the state when the Plaintiff did not plead this as well in her pleadings said why. It does not appears from the report the Magistrate read this case de novo. These pages are irrelevant to the issue. And on the converse, the Plaintiff did file in her complaint and pleadings as 42 U.S. C. §1983 as the protection she was seeking remedy under with her civil right deprivations. In this real instance, Magistrate Hillman did not even mention 42 U.S. C. §1983 anywhere in his report of fourteen pages. This again is suggestive he did not read this case de novo and Plaintiff ask his report not be upheld as a result.Magistrate Hillman said the Plaintiff was “dissatisfied” over the litigation before the WCAB. No, that was the words of Defendant


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Caplane. The Plaintiff was injured because her fundamental rights to first amendment grievance, due process, speedy trial, Mickey Mouse law and order with not one “order” being made other than several trial dates made which were all cancelled by the higher WCAB for the Regents. And, there were other deprivations of civil rights listed in the complaint. The futility, no judgment and no final judgment In the lower WCAB, with unlimited appeals denying appellate review was in the papers. Why did Magistrate Hillman not mention any of these but instead sought to influence the reader by using words like “dissatisfaction” with litigation when that is not the truth of this case and misleads. A reader for themselves can read the complaint and see if it is understandable. It is public record. Why say is at least three different places the compliant was rambling. It would seem for a judge saying it once was sufficient.Magistrate Hillman said the Plaintiff rights were violated before Defendant Caplane in a hearing. (p12 ln 7-8) This is untrue. The Plaintiff and Defendant Caplane have never seen one another. Only the local WCAB judge makes the final rulings and orders. However, the higher WCAB has the power to overrule any order and final judgment prevents the local WCAB from carrying out justice which they do. In Plaintiff’s case, the higher WCAB has prevented trial and final judgment in the local WCAB for about three years where before that the local WCAB had prevented judgment for about six years.Magistrate Hillman said he could not understand the pleading enough to know if the Rocker-Feldman was applicable. He never mentioned the doctrine of futility and the WCAB denying appellate review with


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

unlimited appeals to the higher WCAB. This would have surely told him none of these type doctrines would never apply where the appellate process is prohibited by law and practice as evidence by this order Magistrate Hillman used which Defendant Caplane had filed. If Magistrate Hillman had read the file he would have seen Plaintiff’s case in the WCAB began January 2005 and a final judgment or any judgment in the lower court has not been made except for repeated trial dates which the higher WCAB overturn. He would have counted from 2005 to current and reported in this report that denial of first amendment right to grievance has been denied. But Magistrate Hillman was silent on these issues. He was either silent because he did not read it or he was silent for other reason which in either case make his report erroneous and unrelated.And Magistrate Hillman used three pages to talk about Supervisor Liability when this was not a part of the Plaintiff’s complaint and had not been brought up by anyone. As well, the case he was citing was under Bivens not 1983. To get at the state one has to go thru an individual connected to the state under 42 U.S. Code §1983. The Plaintiff chose Defendant Brown and Schwarzenegger.III.Defendant Caplane did not have jurisdiction and was not performing judicial functions.

The magistrate judge wrote there are only two times a judge may not receive immunity and Mary Jones’ agrees. A.Defendant Caplane did not have jurisdiction on Plaintiff and subject matter.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant Caplane starting in 2012 allowed herself to be inflamed by the documents in the Regents appeal for reconsideration depriving Mary Jones of due process, search and seizure, go outside the California statues, cause harm without evidence, re-open discovery after the Plaintiff has worked long and hard to get a final judgment and trial for an injury which occurred in Jan. 2005, re-do AMEs when they had already been hashed over for years with that time being passed, give permission for documents (unknown and not required to be served on her and have not to date)to be sent to doctors by the Regents, etc. This is not justice in our justice system but is a dangerous dictatorship hidden away on the side by the WCAB/Regents. As in the Magistrate’s Report to Dismiss shows how pervasive the Regent power and the derogation of our U.S. Constitution has become as a result of the Regents unconstitutional placement.No judge has the jurisdiction to ignore the state and federal laws and make up their own. Defendant did this because she allowed the Defendant’s filings of Obama to inflame her. These legal filings about Obama had nothing to do with the industrial injury but were used by the Regents with the sole intent to inflame Defendant Caplane as they could serve no other purpose. Defendant Caplane as a councilperson had given money to the Obama campaign.Both the worker’s comp statue and the California Civil Procedure give definitive times after mandatory settlement conferences for discovery to be closed. Both explicitly state specific times within thirty days. Defendant Caplane ignored this and placed a retro order giving permission for the past where the Regents had aggressively re-done


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

their discovery and surveillance after these dates had closed by statue in 2011. It is outside the laws for Defendant Caplane to change explicit state law to feed her rage and intent to harm the Plaintiff. As well, there were these same examples which happened with basic civil rights such as due process, etc. B. Defendant Caplane Was Not Engaging In Judicial Acts.Defendant Caplane engaged in denying basic civil rights and well defined state statutes against Plaintiff. These acts are not part of Judicial Acts.IV. What Is Required in a Complaint Under A Motion To Dismiss

A short and plain statement showing the pleader is entitled to relief. A short statement as to why the court has original jurisdiction of the claim. Please some factual allegations which are plausible to create a cause of action. If the facts are believable and plausible then the court must make the assumption they are true (even if they may not be). Facts which cause a reasonable inference the Defendant may be liable for the misconduct alleged. Provides plausible facts above the speculative level. Detailed and "[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 US at 548.(2007) . These factual allegations must give rise to an entitlement of relief. If the compliant is absent of facts the action will not survive. The Supreme Court reiterated that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim cannot be granted merely because the factual allegations are not believed. A complaint must provide the grounds for entitlement to relief.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ashcroft v.Iqbal 129 S. Ct.1937(2009). Twombly was an anti-trust cause. Iqbal was a case filed under Bivens.

V . Why The Plaintiff Did Not Name The State And The State Agency WCAB In Her Compliant But Instead Named Defendants Brown, Schwarznegger And Caplane.As stated in Plaintiff’s pleadings and her complaint. A person can not obtain financial remedy from a state agency. That is why 42 U.S.C. §1983 was written by the Congress under Article 3. Using a type of “fiction” the compliant names a person who is somehow connected to this state agency. That person is the one named in the compliant. This person can be sued for damages under §1983.

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, OR CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…”42 U.S. Code §1983, Civil Action for Deprivation of rights.

To get at the state one has to go thru an individual connected to the state under 42 U.S. Code §1983. This is why Defendants Brown and Schwarzenegger are named, not the agency nor the state.VI.The California Constitution Article 9, Has Unconstitutional Provisions For The Regents To Evade Being Subject To Legislative Control, Providing The Governor And Many Other Elected Officials To Be Automatic Members Of The Board, Etc.,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mixing With Big For Profit Corporations To Form A Dictatorship Machine Pulling In Great Wealth With An Unequitable Advantage In A Union For Which It Is Prohibited By Article IV §4.This placement has deprived Mary Jones of her right to a republican form of government causing harm. The Regents are not required to pay taxes or court fees. They are not required to report their racial hiring stats as others. Their hospitals get a waiver from the stringent controls placed on others (such as expiration of sterile packing). They are given curtsy review if at all, for their safety in medical care (Mary Jones worked there and has firsthand knowledge and reviewed their Licensing records). This indicates how pervasive it has become over the year and expected as the norm.This placement gives the Regents an unconstitutional advantage over all other business and people. It has created an oligarchy in California and the Regents are a dictatorship in that it has no rules nor is accountable to the legislature (people). The Regents have already from 2003-to present deprived the Plaintiff of her right to grievance, speedy trial, due process, freedom of double jeopardy, right to protection under Constitutional law, state and federal statutes, fair and just legal proceedings, freedom from physical, mental and financial harm, right to a republican government, right to fair and orderly law and order court proceedings, and freedom from dictatorship and cruel and unusual punishment accruing from 2003-present time. All the harm in this complaint has the etiology and root from this Regent placement even though each protection from harm is guaranteed by the Constitution standing alone. Courts have upheld this placement and Regents power because that is the law of California. Courts are mandated to uphold the law until its Constitutionality is


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

questioned before them as a cause. It is with this compliant of Mary Jones she now brings this cause before this federal court asking to find this law unconstitutional. The federal court is mandated to uphold the law and decide this claim of unconstitutional Regents law (and WCAB law) which is brought before this court.When governments own Corporations it is Socialism/dictatorship and when private own Corporation it is Capitalism. When an entity such as the Regents is given special privileges of that not congruent with the Constitution Article IV §4 it provides the grounds for a dictatorship amassing unknown wealth and power and power in the courts. It was this which impacted Mary Jones who knew this was not right and whistle blew wherein she received continuing adverse action from the powerful Regents to today. Mary Jones remedies and relief is to this federal court. It is the mandate of Federal Judges to uphold the Constitution and it is their duty and honor to do so. The courts historical have been the place of last resort as identified in the Constitution. The Constitution provides for and guarantees every person a form of Republican government to prevent dictatorship, monarchy, or any other type growing in a state. Unfortunately, the Regents does just that and for thirteen years has harmed the Plaintiff. VII. Legal ArgumentA.Plaintiff’s compliant stated deprivations of well-established guaranteed Constitutional rights naming date, location and people to be relieved under 42 U.S.C§1983. She pleads the futility doctrine and is finished with the WCAB and now request remedy for her harm. In her complaint she lists her injury while working for the Regents occurred on January 21, 2005 with the case going directly into litigation. She plead to date she has been denied final judgment/trial or any judgment at the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WCAB local level. This is 2014. The WCAB denied final judgment for nine years. This is grounds to deny a motion to dismiss. (c-p4,ln21-28; p5 ln1-22). It is plausible that the WCAB in nine years of no final judgment and no judgment at the local level is depriving the Plaintiff of her right to grievances. And under 42 U.S.C.§1983 Plaintiff is entitled to damages for harm. The same goes for the other deprivations under the WCAB.For all these years Plaintiff has failed to get a hearing for the many motions she has filed in the WCAB to trial and for her protection. The WCAB at Marina del Rey denied her the right to court upstairs to the court without a court assistant. This court assistant was never available and had not obligation in any way to the injured worker. The Plaintiff found a way to go anyway. The Plaintiff was not allowed to take the court an ex parte although the other parties did without both sides present.Most of these have been in the last three years with increasing crescendo as the WCAB was depriving her of her right to grievance and other civil rights plead. The local trial court did not hold hearing and make orders. Nothing was done. And if the Plaintiff’s case if it was a just order like ordering trial the higher WCAB would delete it all with their unlimited appeals. When an agency has a mechanism or administration where in it denies final judgment and denies appellate review it must come to the federal courts and be heard as a cause. It is a Constitutional question. In this case harm has been accruing for years. Again, the root of this is the placement of the Regents in the state Constitution where it violates the IV Amendment §4 right to a Republican form of government.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. “The provisions for state board members for the Regents in the California Constitution deprive the civil rights of the Plaintiff.” (c-p6,ln4-6). It gives the Regents the right to be free of legislative control. It allows them to not pay taxes and court fees. It make automatic members from the elected officials including the Governor and combine them with others of the rich and powerful people. This is a match of private and public. The Regents can sue. They are not required to report their racial hiring stats like others. They get a wavier on the sides of public and private. This gives them a unjust and unfair advantage over all in the United States. They have easily amassed Billions of dollars where they over the years with this placement have gained great power in the courts with unjust deference against others and often those harmed in medical institutions. The Plaintiff has been one who has been deprived of her civil rights in continuing retaliation over the years of 2003-current. All the harm in this compliant gets it etiology from this placement of the Regents. They have unlimited money with their self-insured partnering with Sedgwick and Fidelity. They have unlimited money and lawyers to pursue cases in the court where by others are unable. The courts provide deference to them, because that is the law. But now, that law is being brought before this Federal Court to demand determination of its Constitutionality.Article 9 of the California Constitution provides liberties for the Regents which are not consistent with the Constitution and with Article IV Section IV. “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government. Article IV§4.There is no free press in California because of this Regents placement which down through the years has taken out the Constitution and the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

freedom and privileges it guarantees. The deprivation of basic civil rights such as denial of grievance, right to be free to harm and have a court (WCAB) act on motions when the Regents lawyers are harming the Plaintiff through ignoring of state statues and law and procedure for ordering and just court proceedings. It is a circus in the WCAB with the most powerful side winning. The lower judges in the WCAB are fine people trying to do right but this Regents machine and the higher WCAB Board will not let them.It is not a judge’s place to write or question the law but it is its mandate to uphold it.As with the Judges in California it was not their place to question or write the laws but to

uphold them as in the California Constitution Article 9 for the Regents. Until…..a

Plaintiff brings the cause before a judge.

It is the judge’s mandate to declare a law unconstitutional or order an injunction when and if it is presented to the court in the form of cause of action.“The Regents with their Unconstitutional placement above deprivesPlaintiff of her civil rights. It creates a form of oligarchy instead of arepublican government. California is now a state controlled by thehands of a few people of the Regents, Wall Street and the State insteadof by the People.”(c-p,ln3-8) The personal nature of this to Plaintiff personally is the ground of this complaint. This has been a continuing deprivation of civil rights to Plaintiff personally from 2003 to current. All the harm in this compliant is in some way a direct result of the Regents placement. It is this Regents placement which has understandably caused California to choose to ignore the Constitution which makes way for dictatorships and deleting of civil rights. “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this

Constitution , the Laws of the United States…”U.S. Constitution, Article III Section 2 .


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This action affects not only the Plaintiff but every person in the United States for many

ways but specifically here from a taxation standpoint as with the denial of paying

disability by the Regents and the WCAB, every American unjustly pays for the Regents cost of doing business.

C. Prior To Dismissal Amendment Is Just.In all Plaintiff’s objections to the motion to dismiss she requested permission for leave to amend with instructions of deficiencies. The court does not know what can be plead. This is on-going harm since 2003 which covers lots of time. Plaintiff does not believe her compliant is deficient according the standards identified in Ashcroft v.Iqbal 129 S. Ct.1937(2009). At no time did any Defendant refute or deny any of Plaintiff’s statements in her complaint. It is easily checked if a case has received final judgment as well Defendant Caplane filed in this court a copy of a denial order of Mary Jones’ appeal in the higher WCAB. These facts are pleaded with dates, places and names. The California Constitution is easily checked. The fact that WCAB administration is the opposite of the mandate of the California Constitution is easily checked. These are legal and court documents making it easy to be plausible. The civil rights are a mandate to Courts with federal law 42 U.S. C. §1983 right to remedy. According to Iqbal this lays the ground and remedy for the causes. The Plaintiff did fail to insert request for declaration, and maybe that is not necessary when a court acts.D. Naming Governor Brown in a case using §1983 was done in Perry v. Brown, 671 F. 3d 1052-2012 9th Circuit 381. Perry v. Brown, 3d 499(2011).Perry v. Brown 52 Cal. 4th 116-2011 58. This case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not one time was Governor Brown ever struck from the 1983 use because he was not personally involved directly. It has never said Defendant Brown has been involved in same sex


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

marriage or denied the same. He was but the Governor of California. The reason or this is the way it was written was to sue the state but not directly as you could not sue the state. So instead a party names a person who is connected to the state. This is what the Plaintiff did by naming Defendant Brown and Defendant Schwarzenegger as he was the actual person who signed the 899 WCAB reform bill and implemented it.If all these courts and the U.S. Supreme court did not throw it out, why can not the Judges in Los Angeles Federal Court follow higher precedent and the Constitution. Is not well established civil basic rights of Mary Jones not as valuable as the rights of unknown and unestablished same sex marriage. Why is there this discrimination only in Los Angeles against citizens.As well, this case represents the right to a Republican form of government. As well, there should be no difference when the names are exchanged because then justice changes to dictatorship.VII. SummaryPlaintiff Mary Jones asks this court not to accept the report and rule her complaint is sufficient. Otherwise, she request permission to amend with notice of particular defects.The Plaintiff prays the court will hear these controversy, provide right to remedy and determine that if the WCAB law and the Regent’s placement in the California Constitution are unconstitutional as well as deprived Plaintiff of basic civil rights.Dated: April 14, Respectfully submitted, __________________ Mary Jones, Plaintiff in pro se

motion for reconsideration

Documents