. . . History & Burial site of St. Peter, Saint Peter's tomb
After the crucifixion of Jesus in the second quarter of the 1st century AD, it is recorded in the
Biblical book of the Acts of the Apostles that one of his twelve disciples, Simon known as Peter, a
fisherman from Galilee, took a leadership position among Jesus' followers and was of great
importance in the founding of the Christian Church. The name Peter is "Petrus" in Latin and
"Petros" in Greek, deriving from "petra" which means "stone" or "rock" in Greek. It is believed by
a long tradition that Peter, after a ministry of about thirty years, traveled to Rome and met his
martyrdom there.
The Alter over St. Peter's burial tomb in the Basilica.
According to the traditional story, Peter was executed in the year 64 AD during the reign of the
Roman Emperor Nero. His execution was one of the many martyrdoms of Christians following the
Great Fire of Rome. He was said to have been crucified head downwards, by his own request, near
the obelisk in the Circus of Nero. This obelisk now stands in Saint Peter's Square and is revered as
a "witness" to Peter's death. It is one of several ancient Obelisks of Rome.
The traditional story goes on to say that Peter's remains were buried just outside the Circus, on
the Mons Vaticanus across the Via Cornelia from the Circus, less than 150 metres (490 ft) from his
place of death. The Via Cornelia (which may have been known by another name to the ancient
Romans) was a road which ran east-to-west along the north wall of the Circus on land now
4 of 256
5 of 256
covered by the southern portions of the Basilica and Saint Peter's Square. Peter's grave was
initially marked simply by a red rock, symbolic of his name, but meaningless to non-Christians. A
shrine was built on this site some years later. Almost three hundred years later, Old Saint Peter's
Basilica was constructed over this site. It is possible that the exact location of Peter's grave was
known with certainty by Christians throughout all this time and that therefore the traditional
location of Saint Peter's tomb is, in fact, its true location.
. . . On December 23, 1950, in his pre-Christmas radio broadcast to the world, Pope Pius XII
announced the discovery of Saint Peter's tomb.[9] This was the culmination of 10 years of
archaeological research under the crypt of the basilica, an area inaccessible since the 9th century.
The burial place appears to have been an underground vault, with a structure above it believed to
have been built by Pope Anacletus in the 1st century. Human remains were discovered, but it
could not be determined if they were, in fact, the bones of the Apostle Peter. Indeed, the area
now covered by the Vatican City had been a cemetery for some years before the Circus of Nero was built. It was a burial ground for the numerous executions in the Circus and for many years
after the burial of Saint Peter many Christians chose to be buried near him. It is likely that any
excavation anywhere on the Vatican grounds would discover human remains.
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT: U.S. SUPREME COURT & INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
. . . .1. WAR CRIME court venue: U.S. SUPREME Court Case 08-9595 filed in U.N.
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, (ICC, Prosecutor, Case # OTP-CR-100/08, PO Box
19519, 2500 CM, The Hague, The Netherlands, email [email protected] ,
http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en) :
. . . (1) U.S. Corporation Businesses are "Nuclear Crime" targets in Rome, Italy, and are "Nuclear
Crime" targets in Monaco, Vatican, & France, Europe, making these countries potential victims of
Nuclear Contamination Crimes. "Nuclear Radiological Crime" attacks in Italy mean 'Nuclear-Crime'
5 of 256
6 of 256
Contamination of Holy St. Peters & 'Nuclear-Crime' Contamination of 3.5 million St. Peter's
pilgrims in Rome, Italy.
U.S. SUPREME COURT BUILDING, WASHINGTON, DC
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . . . The following is a 'Nuclear Crime tort' Claim to the Attorneys General / Ministers of Justice in Italy and the other
European countries . The same 'Nuclear Crime' truths described in the following Claim to any Minister of Justice are
virtually "irrefutable." The same pleadings apply in Italy and Rome, Europe, UK, USA, and so-forth.
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, The Hague, The Netherlands
Al Qaida Terrorists have several times announced intent to destroy U.S. corporations in Western
countries. And, Plaintiffs are victims of Terrorist intent and efforts to destroy U.S. corporations in
Western countries. This means that Hilton Hotels and other large U.S. Corporation holdings will
6 of 256
7 of 256
be facing some questions in Italy and Rome, especially if the Holy St. Peters shows positive when
scanned by a Geiger Counter, now, or in the future.
. . . Remainder of this letter is attached at Appendix 1. 'Nuclear Crime Claim' follows.
Sincerely, Kenneth MacKenzie, Plaintiff and Claimant of U.S. Court Case H-08-60 filed in U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, (ICC, Prosecutor, Case # OTP-CR-100/08, PO Box 19519, 2500 CM, The Hague, The Netherlands
Notice of 'Qui Tam' Claim to Minister of Justice, Italy, For Damage, Injury And Death
Submitted To: Minister of Justice for Italy, Ministry of Justice Ufficio del Capo del Dipartimento per gli Affari di giustizia CAPO DEL DIPARTIMENTO – Italo OrmanniVICE CAPO DEL DIPARTIMENTO VICARIO – Maria Teresa SaragnanoVICE CAPO DEL DIPARTIMENTO – Alfonso MalatoVia Arenula, 70 – 00186 Roma, tel. +39 06.68851, fax +39 06.68897768
Claimants (See Appendix 1 for Claimants' addresses):
Claimant #1. Kenneth MacKenzie, Uncle of Kristian Menchaca, Claimant #2.Cesar Vasquez
Menchaca; Claimant #3. The Government and People of Italy and Rome (listed as 'presumed
Claimant' War Crime victims interested in justice); #4. All Other Claimants, . . .(See Appendix 1
for “Further Claimant” names & addresses) . . .,
Claimants
7 of 256
8 of 256
against
Defendants (See Appendix 2 for Defendant List and addresses):
D#1 Defendant Citicorp, Italy and Rome ; D#2 Defendant Chase Manhattan Bank, Italy and
Rome; D#3 "Morgan Stanley Italy and Rome" {represented by (1) debt collector Counsel Mann
Braken LLP of Counsel; by (2) debt collector Counsel Wolpoff & Abramson, Eskanos & Adler of Counsel ;
by (3) debt collector Counsel Freedman, Anselmo, Lindberg & Rappe LLC of Counsel}, "Morgan Stanley
Italy and Rome" in partnership with 'The Capital Group {“TCG”},' Italy and Rome; ; D#4
Defendant First Union Bank, Italy and Rome; D#5 Defendant Bank of New York, Italy and
Rome; D#6 Defendant Bank of America, Inc., Italy and Rome; D#7 Defendant JP Morgan
Chase, Italy and Rome ; D#8 Defendant CITICORP, Italy and Rome; D#9 Defendant Hilton
Hotels, Italy and Rome; D#10 Defendant Marriot Hotels, Italy and Rome ; D#11 Defendant
FORD, Italy and Rome (auto & truck sales) ; D#12 Defendant Daimler Chrysler (auto & truck
sales), Italy and Rome; D#13 Defendant General Motors (auto & truck sales), Italy and Rome;
D#14 Defendant Chevron-Texaco, Caltex Overseas Limited S A. Po Box 8939 21492, Italy and
Rome (heavy industry); D#15 Defendant DU PONT, Italy and Rome (heavy industry); D#16
CHAPTER 3 . . . War against All Defendants D#1 through D#17 , said “U.S. Military Industrial Corporation 'Combatants,” also known as “Nuclear Landmine Crime 'Magnet' Targets”
.35. However, in the nation of Italy and Rome , Interested Parties D#18 through D#20, al Qaida
Nuclear Jihad' insurgents lead by Ussama bin Ladin and al Shura Nuclear Jihad insurgents and al
Jimaya are at war with only the Coalition Countries and are at war against the United States, and
are at war against All Defendants D#1 through D#17 , said “U.S. Military Industrial Corporation
'Combatants,” also known as “Nuclear Landmine Crime 'Magnet' Targets” who own and operate
privately owned business property in the nation of Italy and Rome where IP#18 Interested
Partry 'al Qaida Nuclear Jihad' insurgents lead by Ussama bin Ladin, IP#19 Interested
0303, 1-800-877-3927, Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker were mutilation-
torture-murdered as indicated, and “simultaneously, concurrently, and at the same time,” during
this same time frame of June-2006, as said United States Code Title 1 money was paid out of the
U.S. Treasury and paid from Rewards for Justice, Washington, D.C.20522-0303, 1-800-877-3927,
on behalf of said members of these same al Shura and al Queda Terrorist Organizations (with
membership who were U.S.Reward-life-valued at multi-millions of dollars to $25 million), these
same U.S.mega-million dollar Reward-life-valued al Shura and al Queda Terrorist Organizations
were in-juxtaposition, “simultaneously, concurrently, and at the same time,” torture-murdering
(1) Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and (2) Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, who were “simultaneously,
concurrently, and at the same time,” denied U.S. Attorney General Gonzales the same mega-
million dollar Reward amounts bestowed by U.S. Attorney General Gonzales and
were denied the same 25 mega-million dollar Reward amounts, unchallenged,
by “Defendants D#1 through D#17 ,” in the nation of Italy and Rome , 25 mega-million dollar
Reward amounts bestowed by the U.S. on al Shura and al Queda Assassins of (1) Pfc. Kristian
Menchaca and (2) Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker.
.62. The deaths of (1) Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and (2) Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker worked to maintain
silence about the Nuclear Landmine shipments from Iraq to Italy and Rome claimed by 'al Qaida
Nuclear Jihad' insurgents lead by Ussama bin Ladin and 'al Shura Nuclear Jihad insurgents.
.63. Claimants, the family of Kristian Vasquez Menchaca, have been wrongfully thwarted and
denied at every turn by the United States District Court system from filing a Geneva Convention
“CRIME TORT” lawsuit against the 'al Qaida Nuclear Jihad' insurgents lead by Ussama bin Ladin
and 'al Shura Nuclear Jihad insurgents who barbarically murdered PFC Kristian Menchaca and PFC
Thomas Tucker in Yosifiya, Iraq, 2006; and Claimants, the family of Kristian Vasquez Menchaca,
have been wrongfully thwarted and denied at every turn by the United States District Court
system from filing a Geneva Convention “CRIME TORT” lawsuit against those in the U.S. Executive
37 of 256
38 of 256
Branch who, in violation of Geneva Conventions, contributed to defaming and slandering PFC
Kristian Menchaca's reward life value while he was most vulnerable as a disarmed Prisoner of War
in Iraq.
. . . SEE: "U.S. Judge Gray Miller, accessory to Geneva Convention War Crimes against U.S.Troops," : http://www.courthouseforum.com/forums/view.php?id=1047762
. . . SEE: Rewards for Justice, Washington , D.C.20522-0303, 1-800-877-3927; http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/index.cfm?page=wanted_captured&language=english http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/ ; [email protected] ;
.64. Claimants have been wrongfully and corruptly thwarted by U.S. Courts from filing a lawsuit
against those who shared in the “Bad Faith” wrongdoings and errors associated with PFC Kristian
Menchaca's death.
.65. “Defendants D#1 through D#17 ,” “U.S. Military Industrial Corporation 'Combatants” also
known as “Nuclear Landmine Crime 'Target Magnet' Corporations,” owe multi-billion dollar
damages to the people and nation of Italy and Rome and owe at least 3 to 8 Billion dollars
damages to the Kristian Vasquez Menchaca Family Claimants by reason of following facts:
.66. According to U.S. House Hearing 106-158 and U.S. Army interrogation records of U.S. Army
interviews, early 2006, with captured 'al Qaida Nuclear Jihad' insurgents and 'al Shura Nuclear
Jihad insurgents, said “Defendants D#1 through D#17 ” who are “U.S. Military Industrial
Corporation 'Combatants” are currently under threat or have been attacked with unexploded
Nuclear Landmine “Stealth” weapons in the nation of Italy and Rome that are not visible to the
naked eye when concealed. And, “Defendants D#1 through D#17 ,” “U.S. Military Industrial
Corporation 'Combatants” are threatened with imminent Nuclear Landmine War Crime annihilation
explosions in violation of the laws of Italy and Rome and also in violation of the Geneva
Conventions of 1949, and in violation of the Geneva Protocols of 1977, and in violation of the
Laws of The Holy Koran and in violation of laws related to the International criminal Court Rome
Statute, Article .15, under which the International Criminal Court (ICC) operates.
.67. By reason of the fact that “Defendants D#1 through D#17 ,” “U.S. Military Industrial
Corporation 'Combatants” are currently in violation of the laws of the Holy Koran, the government
of Italy and Rome has jurisdiction of these War Crime matters and has further jurisdiction under
those laws set forth in the Koran by Mohammed regarding treatment of “Prisoners of War.”
.68. “Defendants D#1 through D#17 ,” “U.S. Military Industrial Corporation 'Combatants” are U.S.
Military Industrial Complex Corporations operating within the military interests and war-making
capability of the government of the United States as U.S. war-machine component parts
functioning in the nation of Italy and Rome and also operating as parts of the United States
Military machine in Iraq, where Defendants “Defendants D#1 through D#17 ,” “U.S. Military
Industrial Corporation 'Combatants” supply motor vehicles and petroleum to U.S. Military forces
fighting Western Fundamentalist Groups identified as 'al Qaida Nuclear Jihad' lead by Ussama bin
Ladin, and 'al Shura Nuclear Jihad.
.69. Western Fundamentalist Groups identified as 'al Qaida Nuclear Jihad' lead by Ussama bin
Ladin, and 'al Shura Nuclear Jihad. formerly lead by Abu al Masri (Masri reported as deceased)
and led by Western Fundamentalist Groups known as al Jamiya, and lead by other Western
Fundamentalist Groups in the Nations of Iraq and Afghanistan have declared war against all U.S.
Corporation presence in all Western countries governed by the laws of the Koran and have
therefore targeted U.S. Corporation owned property and Coalition-Corporation owned property for
explosion-demolition attack to damage U.S. Military supplies facilitated through or originating in
Western countries, such as Italy and Rome , Egypt, Italy and Rome, and so forth, shipped to the
U.S. Expeditionary War efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
.70. “Defendants D#1 through D#17 ,” “U.S. Military Industrial Corporation 'Combatants” are
identified as “Nuclear attack” target magnets, which Western Fundamentalist Groups at war with
the United States claim they will destroy as effectively as al Qaida destroyed the U.S. world Trade
Center in New York by reason of the fact that “Defendants D#1 through D#17 ,” “U.S. Military
Industrial Corporation 'Combatants” provide petroleum and equipment to fuel the U.S.
Expeditionary Force at War against these same Nuclear Jihad Western Fundamentalist Groups in
39 of 256
40 of 256
the Nations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
.71. During U.S. Army 101st Airborne Division operations in Iraq of the year 2006, Pfc. Kristian
Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker were present as witnesses on several occassions when
captured al-Shura / al-Qaida Nuclear Jihad Terrorists informed their U.S. Army 101st Airborne
Division captors that several U.S. Corporations and Coalition Corporations including “Defendants
D#1 through D#17 ,” “U.S. Military Industrial Corporation 'Combatants” were targeted for
“Nuclear attack” by Western Fundamentalist Groups who planned to conceal Nuclear landmine
weapons on the soil of Italy and Rome while targeting the explosion blast and radiological radius
of said Nuclear Landmine weapons to destroy said “Defendants D#1 through D#17 ,” “U.S.
Military Industrial Corporation 'Combatants” inside the nation of Italy and Rome.
SEE: Nuclear Landmine weapons of U.S. House Hearing 106-158: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_house_hearings&docid=f:66968.wais) http://fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/hr_012400.htm ;
.72. “Defendants D#1 through D#17 ,” “U.S. Military Industrial Corporation 'Combatants” are U.S.
Military Industrial Complex Corporations and are “target magnets” for concealed Nuclear landmine
weapons and were most criminally wrongful in not notifying the government and people of Italy
and Rome that Defendants are a “target magnet” for concealed Nuclear landmine weapons, which
the United Nations International Court of Justice, during 1996, identified and condemned as a
“Nuclear Landmine War Crime” weapon and condemned deployment of said Nuclear Landmine
weapons concealed in any country as a “War Crime.”
.73. Thus, the government of Italy and Rome has Geneva Convention jurisdiction of War Crime
issues targeted against the Nation of Italy and Rome aided and abetted by “Defendants D#1
through D#17 ,” “U.S. Military Industrial Corporation 'Combatants” also known as “Nuclear
Landmine Crime 'Target Magnet' Corporations.”
.74. And, the U.N. International Criminal Court and the U.N. International Criminal Court have
jurisdiction of these Nuclear Landmine “deployment” War Crime matters aimed against the Nation
40 of 256
41 of 256
of Italy and Rome .
.75. “Defendants D#1 through D#17 ” who are “U.S. Military Industrial Corporation 'Combatants”
who are under threat with unexploded Nuclear Landmine “Stealth” weapons in the nation of Italy
and Rome as alleged by said 'Al Qaida' and 'al Shura Nuclear Jihad Militia Groups who claim to
have targeted radiological “Stealth” Nuclear Landmines aimed at “Defendants D#1 through D#17
” who are are “U.S. Military Industrial Corporation 'Combatants” and “Defendants D#1 through
D#17 ” claim to have targeted “Stealth” Nuclear landmines at the addresses other U.S. “Military
Industrial Complex Corporations” (see list at Appendix 2, herein) and said 'Al Qaida' and 'al Shura
Nuclear Jihad Militia Groups claim to have have targeted “Stealth” Nuclear landmines at Coalition
Corporations owning and operating bases of business on the soil of Italy and Rome . SEE:
The Basilica of Saint Peter (Latin: Basilica Sancti Petri), officially known in Italian as the Basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano and commonly known as St. Peter's Basilica, is located within the Vatican City. St. Peter's has the largest interior of any Christian church in the world, holding 60,000 people.[1] It is regarded as one of the holiest Christian sites and has been described as "holding a unique position in the Christian world" and as "the greatest of all churches of Christendom".[2] [3] [4] In Catholic Tradition, it is the burial site of its namesake Saint Peter, who was one of the twelve apostles of Jesus and, according to Tradition, first Bishop of Rome and therefore first in the line of the papal succession.
Catholic tradition holds that Saint Peter's tomb is below the altar of the basilica. For this reason, many Popes, starting with the first ones, have been buried there. There has been a church on this site since the 4th century. Construction on the present basilica, over the old Constantinian basilica, began on April 18, 1506 and was completed on November 18, 1626.[5]
St. Peter's is famous as a place of pilgrimage, for its liturgical functions and for its historical associations. It is associated with the papacy, with the Counter-reformation and with numerous artists, most significantly Michelangelo. As a work of architecture, it is regarded as the greatest building of its age.[6] Contrary to popular misconception, Saint Peter's is not a cathedral, as it is not the seat of a
bishop. It is properly termed a basilica. Like all of the earliest churches in Rome,[7] it has the entrance to the east and the apse at the west end of the building.
St. Peter's Basilica from the River Tiber. The iconic dome dominates the skyline of Rome.
The Basilica of St. Peter is one of four Major Basilicas of Rome, the others being the Basilica of St. John Lateran, Santa Maria Maggiore and St. Paul outside the Walls. It is the most prominent building inside the Vatican City. Its dome is a dominant feature of the skyline of Rome. Probably the largest church in Christianity,[1] it covers an area of 2.3 hectares (5.7 acres) and has a capacity of over 60,000 people. One of the holiest sites of Christendom in the Catholic Tradition, it is traditionally the burial site of its namesake Saint Peter, who was one of the twelve apostles of Jesus and, according to Roman Catholic Tradition, also the first Bishop of Antioch, and later first Bishop of Rome, the first Pope. Although the New Testament does not mention Peter's presence or martyrdom in Rome, Catholic tradition holds that his tomb is below the baldachin and altar; for this reason, many Popes, starting with the first ones, have been buried there. Construction on the current basilica, over the old Constantinian
58 of 256
59 of 256
basilica, began on April 18, 1506. At length on November 18, 1626, Pope Urban VIII solemnly dedicated the church[5].
St Peter's Basilica is neither the Pope's official seat nor first in rank among the Major Basilicas of Rome. This honour is held by the Pope's cathedral, the Basilica of St. John Lateran. However, it is most certainly the Pope's principal church, as most Papal ceremonies take place at St. Peter's due to its size, proximity to the Papal residence, and location within the Vatican City walls. In the apse of the basilica is Bernini's monument enclosing the "Chair of Saint Peter" or cathedra, sometimes presumed to have been used by Saint Peter himself, but which was a gift from Charles the Bald and used by various popes.[8]
[edit] History
[edit] Burial site of St. PeterMain article: Saint Peter's tomb
After the crucifixion of Jesus in the second quarter of the 1st century AD, it is recorded in the Biblical book of the Acts of the Apostles that one of his twelve disciples, Simon known as Peter, a fisherman from Galilee, took a leadership position among Jesus' followers and was of great importance in the founding of the Christian Church. The name Peter is "Petrus" in Latin and "Petros" in Greek, deriving from "petra" which means "stone" or "rock" in Greek. It is believed by a long tradition that Peter, after a ministry of about thirty years, traveled to Rome and met his martyrdom there.
According to the traditional story, Peter was executed in the year 64 AD during the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero. His execution was one of the many martyrdoms of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome. He was said to have been crucified head downwards, by his own request, near the obelisk in the Circus of Nero. This obelisk now stands in Saint Peter's Square and is revered as a "witness" to Peter's death. It is one of several ancient Obelisks of Rome.
The traditional story goes on to say that Peter's remains were buried just outside the Circus, on the Mons Vaticanus across the Via Cornelia from the Circus, less than 150 metres (490 ft) from his place of death. The Via Cornelia (which may have been known by another name to the ancient Romans) was a road which ran east-to-west along the north wall of the Circus on land now covered by the southern portions of the Basilica and Saint Peter's Square. Peter's grave was initially marked simply by a red rock, symbolic of his name, but meaningless to non-Christians. A shrine was built on this site some years later. Almost three hundred years later, Old Saint Peter's Basilica was constructed over this site. It is possible that the exact location of Peter's grave was known with certainty by Christians throughout all this time and that therefore the traditional location of Saint Peter's tomb is, in fact, its true location.
On December 23, 1950, in his pre-Christmas radio broadcast to the world, Pope Pius XII announced the discovery of Saint Peter's tomb.[9] This was the culmination of 10 years of archaeological research under the crypt of the basilica, an area inaccessible since the 9th century. The burial place appears to have been an underground vault, with a structure above it believed to have been built by Pope Anacletus in the 1st century. Human remains were discovered, but it could not be determined if they were, in fact, the bones of the Apostle Peter. Indeed, the area now covered by the Vatican City had been a cemetery for some years before the Circus of Nero was built. It was a burial ground for the numerous
59 of 256
60 of 256
executions in the Circus and for many years after the burial of Saint Peter many Christians chose to be buried near him. It is likely that any excavation anywhere on the Vatican grounds would discover human remains.
A conjectural view of the Old Saint Peter's Basilica by H. W. Brewer, 1891
[edit] Old St. Peter'sMain article: Old Saint Peter's Basilica
Old St. Peter's Basilica was the fourth-century church begun by the Emperor Constantine between 326 and 333 AD. It was of typical basilical Latin Cross form with an apsidal end at the chancel, a wide nave and two aisles on either side. It was over 103.6 metres (340 ft) long, and the entrance was preceded by a large colonnaded atrium. This church had been built over the small shrine believed to mark the burial place of St. Peter. It contained a very large number of burials and memorials, including those of most of the popes from St. Peter to the 15th century. Since the construction of the current basilica, the name Old St. Peter's Basilica has been used for its predecessor to distinguish the two buildings.[10]
[edit] The plan to rebuildBy the end of the 15th century, having been neglected during the period of the Avignon Papacy, the old basilica was in bad repair. It appears that the first pope to consider rebuilding, or at least making radical changes was Pope Nicholas V (1447–55). He commissioned work on the old building from Leone Battista Alberti and Bernardo Rossellino and also got Rossellino to design a plan for an entirely new basilica, or an extreme modification of the old. His reign was frustrated by political problems and when he died, little had been achieved. [11] He had, however, had 2,522 cartloads of stone transported from the Roman Colosseum.[12]
In 1505, Pope Julius II, failing to heed warnings that the death of Nicholas V was an omen to those who might interfere with St Peter's, in order to glorify Rome and also undoubtedly for his own self-aggrandizement,[6] made a decision to demolish the ancient building and replace it with something grander. A competition was held, and a number of the designs have survived at the Uffizi Gallery. A succession of popes and architects followed in the next 120 years, their combined efforts resulting in the present building. The scheme begun by Julius II continued through the reigns of Leo X (1513–1521), Hadrian VI (1522–1523). Clement VII (1523–1534), Paul III (1534–1549), Julius III (1550–1555), Marcellus II (1555), Paul IV (1555–1559), Pius IV (1559–1565), Pius V (saint) (1565–1572), Gregory XIII (1572–1585), Sixtus V (1585–1590), Urban VII (1590), Gregory XIV (1590–1591),
60 of 256
61 of 256
Innocent IX (1591), Clement VIII(1592–1605), Leo XI (1605), Paul V (1605–1621), Gregory XV (1621–1623), Urban VIII (1623–1644) and Innocent X (1644–1655).
[edit] Architecture
[edit] Successive plans
Bramante's plan
Raphael's plan
61 of 256
62 of 256
Michelangelo's plan, extended with Maderna's nave and facade
Pope Julius' scheme for the grandest building in Christendom[6] was the subject of a competition for which a number of entries remain intact in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. It was the design of Donato Bramante that was selected, and for which the foundation stone was laid in 1506. This plan was in the form of an enormous Greek Cross with a dome inspired by that of the huge circular Roman temple, the Pantheon.[6] The main difference between Bramante's design and that of the Pantheon is that where the dome of the Pantheon is supported by a continuous wall, that of the new basilica was to be supported only on four large piers. This feature was maintained in the ultimate design. Bramante's dome was to be surmounted by a lantern with its own small dome but otherwise very similar in form to the Early Renaissance lantern of Florence Cathedral designed for Brunelleschi's dome by Michelozzo.[13]
Bramante had envisioned that the central dome be surrounded by four lower domes at the diagonal axes. The equal chancel, nave and transept arms were each to be of two bays ending in an apse. At each corner of the building was to stand a tower, so that the overall plan was square, with the apses projecting at the cardinal points. Each apse had two large radial buttresses, which squared off its semi-circular shape.[14]
When Pope Julius died in 1513, Bramante was replaced with Giuliano da Sangallo, Fra Giocondo and Raphael. Sangallo and Fra Giocondo both died in 1515, Bramante himself having died the previous year. The main change in Raphael's plan is the nave of five bays, with a row of complex apsidal chapels off the aisles on either side. Raphael's plan for the chancel and transepts made the squareness of the exterior walls more definite by reducing the size of the towers, and the semi-circular apses more clearly defined by encircling each with an ambulatory.[15]
In 1520 Raphael also died, aged 37, and his successor Baldassare Peruzzi maintained changes that Raphael had proposed to the internal arrangement of the three main apses, but otherwise reverted to the Greek Cross plan and other features of Bramante.[16] This plan did not go ahead because of various difficulties of both church and state. In 1527 Rome was sacked and plundered by Emperor Charles V. Peruzzi died in 1536 without his plan being realised.[6]
At this point Antonio da Sangallo the Younger submitted a plan which combines features of Peruzzi, Raphael and Bramante in its design and extends the building into a short nave with a wide façade and portico of dynamic projection. His proposal for the dome was much more elaborate of both structure and decoration than that of Bramante and included ribs on the exterior. Like Bramante, Sangallo
62 of 256
63 of 256
proposed that the dome be surmounted by a lantern which he redesigned to a larger and much more elaborate form.[17] Sangallo's main practical contribution was to strengthen Bramante's piers which had begun to crack.[11]
On January 1, 1547 in the reign of Pope Paul III, Michelangelo, then in his seventies, succeeded Sangallo the Younger as "Capomaestro", the superintendent of the building program at St Peter's.[18] He is to be regarded as the principal designer of a large part of the building as it stands today, and as bringing the construction to a point where it could be carried through. He did not take on the job with pleasure; it was forced upon him by Pope Paul, frustrated at the death of his chosen candidate, Giulio Romano and the refusal of Jacopo Sansovino to leave Venice. Michelangelo wrote "I undertake this only for the love of God and in honour of the Apostle." He insisted that he should be given a free hand to achieve the ultimate aim by whatever means he saw fit.[11]
[edit] Michelangelo's contributionMichelangelo took over a building site at which four piers, enormous beyond any constructed since the days of Ancient Rome, were rising behind the remaining nave of the old basilica. He also inherited the numerous schemes designed and redesigned by some of the greatest architectural and engineering brains of the 16th century. There were certain common elements in these schemes. They all called for a dome to equal that engineered by Brunelleschi a century earlier and which has since dominated the skyline of Renaissance Florence, and they all called for a strongly symmetrical plan of either Greek Cross form, like the iconic St. Mark's Basilica in Venice, or of a Latin Cross with the transepts of identical form to the chancel as at Florence Cathedral.
Even though the work had progressed only a little in 40 years, Michelangelo did not simply dismiss the ideas of the previous architects. He drew on them in developing a grand vision. Above all, Michelangelo recognized the essential quality of Bramante's original design. He reverted to the Greek Cross and, as Helen Gardner expresses it: "Without destroying the centralising features of Bramante's plan, Michelangelo, with a few strokes of the pen converted its snowflake complexity into massive, cohesive unity."[19]
As it stands today, St. Peter's has been extended with a nave by Carlo Maderno. It is the chancel end (the ecclesiastical "Eastern end") with its huge centrally placed dome that is the work of Michelangelo. Because of its location within the Vatican State and because the projection of the nave screens the dome from sight when the building is approached from the square in front of it, the work of Michelangelo is best appreciated from a distance. What becomes apparent is that the architect has greatly reduced the clearly defined geometric forms of Bramante's plan of a square with square projections, and also of Raphael's plan of a square with semi-circular projections.[20] Michelangelo has blurred the definition of the geometry by making the external masonry of massive proportions and filling in every corner with a small vestry or stairwell. The effect created is of a continuous wall-surface that is folded or fractured at different angles, but lacks the right-angles which usually define change of direction at the corners of a building. This exterior is surrounded by a giant order of Corinthian pilasters all set at slightly different angles to each other, in keeping with the ever-changing angles of the wall's surface. Above them the huge cornice ripples in a continuous band, giving the appearance of keeping the whole building in a state of compression.[21]
63 of 256
64 of 256
[edit] Dome - successive designs and final solution
Bramante's dome
The dome of St. Peter's rises to a total height of 136.57 metres (448.1 ft) from the floor of the basilica to the top of the external cross. It is the tallest dome in the world.[22] Its internal diameter is 41.47 metres (136.1 ft), being just slightly smaller than two of the three other huge domes that preceded it, those of the Pantheon of Ancient Rome and Florence Cathedral of the Early Renaissance. It has a greater diameter by approximately 30 feet (9.1 m) than that of the third great dome, Constantinople's Hagia Sophia church, completed in 537. It was to the domes of the Pantheon and Florence duomo that the architects of St. Peter's looked for solutions as to how to go about building what was conceived, from the outset, as the greatest dome of Christendom.
[edit] Bramante and Sangallo, 1506 and 1513The dome of the Pantheon, 43.3 metres (142 ft), (the widest dome in the world until the 19th century), stands on a circular wall with no entrances or windows except a single door. The whole building is as high as it is wide. Its dome is constructed in a single shell of concrete, made light by the inclusion of a large amount of the volcanic stones tufa and pumice. The inner surface of the dome is deeply coffered which has the effect of creating both vertical and horizontal ribs, while lightening the overall load. At the summit is an ocular opening 8 metres (26 ft) across which provides light to the interior.[6]
Bramante's plan for the dome of St. Peter's (1506) follows that of the Pantheon very closely, and like that of the Pantheon, was designed to be constructed in tufa concrete for which he had rediscovered a formula. With the exception of the lantern that surmounts it, the profile is very similar, except that in this case the supporting wall becomes a drum raised high above ground level on four massive piers. The solid wall, as used at the Pantheon, is lightened at St. Peter's by Bramante piercing it with windows and encircling it with a peristyle.
64 of 256
65 of 256
Sangallo's design
In the case of Florence Cathedral, the desired visual appearance of the pointed dome existed for many years before Brunelleschi made its construction feasible.[23] Its double-shell construction of bricks locked together in herringbone pattern (re-introduced from Byzantine architecture), and the gentle upward slope of its eight stone ribs made it possible for the construction to take place without the massive wooden formwork necessary to construct hemispherical arches. While its appearance, with the exception of the details of the lantern, is entirely Gothic, its engineering was highly innovative, and the product of a mind that had studied the huge vaults and remaining dome of Ancient Rome.[13]
Sangallo's plan (1513), of which a large wooden model still exists, looks to both these predecessors. He realised the value of both the coffering at the Pantheon and the outer stone ribs at Florence Cathedral. He strengthened and extended the peristyle of Bramante into a series of arched and ordered openings around the base, with a second such arcade set back in a tier above the first. In his hands, the rather delicate form of the lantern, based closely on that in Florence, became a massive structure, surrounded by a projecting base, a peristyle and surmounted by a spire of conic form.[24] According to James Lees-Milne the design was "too eclectic, too pernickety and too tasteless to have been a success".[11]
[edit] Michelangelo and Giacomo della Porta, 1547 and 1585
St. Peter's Basilica from Castel Sant'Angelo showing the dome rising behind Maderna's facade
Michelangelo redesigned the dome in 1547, taking into account all that had gone before. His dome, like that of Florence, is constructed of two shells of brick, the outer one having 16 stone ribs, twice the
65 of 256
66 of 256
number at Florence but far fewer than in Sangallo's design. As with the designs of Bramante and Sangallo, the dome is raised from the piers on a drum. The encircling peristyle of Bramante and the arcade of Sangallo are reduced to 16 pairs of Corinthian columns, each of 15 metres (49 ft) high which stand proud of the building, connected by an arch. Visually they appear to buttress each of the ribs, but structurally they are probably quite redundant. The reason for this is that the dome is ovoid in shape, rising steeply as does the dome of Florence Cathedral, and therefore exerting less outward thrust than does a hemispherical dome, such as that of the Pantheon, which, although it is not buttressed, is countered by the downward thrust of heavy masonry which extends above the circling wall.[6] [11]
The ovoid profile of the dome has been the subject of much speculation and scholarship over the past century. Michelangelo died in 1564, leaving the drum of the dome complete, and Bramante's piers much bulkier than originally designed, each 18 metres (59 ft) across. On his death the work continued under his assistant Vignola with Giorgio Vasari appointed by Pope Pius V as a watchdog to make sure that Michelangelo's plans were carried out exactly. Despite Vignola's knowledge of Michelangelo's intentions, little happened in this period. In 1585 the energetic Pope Sixtus appointed Giacomo della Porta who was to be assisted by Domenico Fontana. The five year reign of Sixtus was to see the building advance at a great rate.[11]
The engraving by Stefan du Pérac was published in 1569, five years after the death of Michelangelo.
Michelangelo left a few drawings, including an early drawing of the dome, and some drawings of details. There were also detailed engravings published in 1569 by Stefan du Pérac who claimed that they were the master's final solution. Michelangelo, like Sangallo before him, also left a large wooden model. Giacomo della Porta subsequently altered this model in several ways, in keeping with changes that he made to the design. Most of these changes were of a cosmetic nature, such as the adding of lion's masks over the swags on the drum in honour of Pope Sixtus and adding a circlet of finials around the spire at the top of the lantern, as proposed by Sangallo. The major change that was made to the model, either by della Porta, or Michelangelo himself before his death, was to raise the outer dome higher above the inner one.[11]
A drawing by Michelangelo indicates that his early intentions were towards an ovoid dome, rather than a hemispherical one.[19] Stefan du Pérac's engraving shows a hemispherical dome, but this was perhaps an inaccuracy of the engraver. The profile of the wooden model is more ovoid than that of the engraving, but less so than the finished product. It has been suggested that Michelangelo on his death bed reverted to the more pointed shape. However Lees-Milne cites Giacomo della Porta as taking full
66 of 256
67 of 256
responsibility for the change and as indicating to Pope Sixtus that Michelangelo was lacking in the scientific understanding of which he himself was capable.[11]
Helen Gardner suggests that Michelangelo made the change to the hemispherical dome of lower profile in order to establish a balance between the dynamic vertical elements of the encircling giant order of pilasters and a more static and reposeful dome. Gardner also comments "The sculpturing of architecture [by Michelangelo]... here extends itself up from the ground through the attic stories and moves on into the drum and dome, the whole building being pulled together into a unity from base to summit."[19]
It is this sense of the building being sculptured, unified and "pulled together" by the encircling band of the deep cornice that led Eneide Mignacca to conclude that the ovoid profile, seen now in the end product, was an essential part of Michelangelo's first (and last) concept. The sculptor/architect has, figuratively speaking, taken all the previous designs in hand and compressed their contours as if the building were a lump of clay. The dome must appear to thrust upwards because of the apparent pressure created by flattening the building's angles and restraining its projections.[21] If this explanation is the correct one, then the profile of the dome is not merely a structural solution, as perceived by Giacomo della Porta; it is part of the integrated design solution that is about visual tension and compression. In one sense, Michelangelo's dome may appear to look backward to the Gothic profile of Florence Cathedral and ignore the Classicism of the Renaissance, but on the other hand, perhaps more than any other building of the 1500s, it prefigures the architecture of the Baroque.[21]
[edit] Completion
The dome was brought to completion by Giacomo della Porta and Fontana.
Giacomo della Porta and Fontana brought the dome to completion in 1590, the last year of the reign of Sixtus V. His successor, Gregory XIV, saw Fontana complete the lantern and had an inscription to the honour of Sixtus V placed around its inner opening. The next pope, Clement VIII, had the cross raised into place, an event which took all day, and was accompanied by the ringing of the bells of all the city's churches. In the arms of the cross are set two lead caskets, one containing a fragment of the True Cross and a relic of St. Andrew and the other containing medallions of the Holy Lamb.[11]
In the mid-18th century, cracks appeared in the dome, so four iron chains were installed between the two shells to bind it, like the rings that keep a barrel from bursting. As many as ten chains have been installed at various times, the earliest possibly planned by Michelangelo himself as a precaution, as Brunelleschi did at Florence Cathedral.
67 of 256
68 of 256
Around the inside of the dome is written, in letters 2 metres (6.6 ft) high:
Tv es Petrvs et svper hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Tibi dabo claves regni caelorvm("...you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. ... I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven..." Vulgate, Matthew 16:18–19.)
Beneath the lantern is the inscription:
S. Petri gloriae sixtvs pp. v. a. m. d. xc. pontif. V.(To the glory of St Peter; Sixtus V, pope, in the year 1590 and the fifth year of his pontificate.)
[edit] Discovery of Michelangelo draftOn December 7, 2007, a fragment of a red chalk drawing of a section of the dome of Saint Peter's, almost certainly by the hand of Michelangelo was discovered in the Vatican archives.[25] The drawing shows a small precisely drafted section of the plan of the entabulature above two of the radial columns of the cupola drum. Michelangelo is known to have destroyed thousands of his drawings before his death.[26] The rare survival of this example is probably due to its fragmentary state and the fact that detailed mathematical calculations had been made over the top of the drawing. [25]
The nave looking towards the entrance
[edit] The change of planOn the first day of Lent, February 18, 1606, under Pope Paul V, the demolition of the remaining parts of the Constantinian basilica began. The marble cross set at the top of the pediment by Pope Sylvester and the Emperor Constantine was lowered to the ground. The timbers were salvaged for the roof of the Borghese Palace and two rare black marble columns, the largest of their kind, were carefully stored and later used in the narthex. The tombs of various popes were opened, treasures removed and plans made for reinterment in the new basilica.[11]
The Pope had appointed Carlo Maderno in 1602. He was a nephew of Domenico Fontana and had
demonstrated himself as a dynamic architect. Maderno's idea was to ring Michelangelo's building with chapels, but the Pope was hesitant about deviating from the master's plan, even though he had been dead for forty years. The Fabbrica or building committee, a group drawn from various nationalities and generally despised by the Curia who viewed the basilica as belonging to Rome rather than Christendom, were in a quandary as to how the building should proceed. One of the matters that influenced their thinking was the Counter-Reformation which increasingly associated a Greek Cross plan with paganism and saw the Latin Cross as truly symbolic of Christianity.[11]
Another influence on the thinking of both the Fabbrica and the Curia was a certain guilt at the demolition of the ancient building. The ground on which it and its various associated chapels, vestries and sacristies had stood for so long was hallowed. The only solution was to build a nave that encompassed the whole space. In 1607 a committee of ten architects was called together, and a decision was made to extend Michelangelo's building into a nave. Maderno's plans for both the nave and the façade were accepted. The building began on May 7, 1607, and proceeded at a great rate, with an army of 700 labourers being employed. The following year, the façade was begun, in December 1614 the final touches were added to the stucco decoration of the vault and early in 1615 the partition wall between the two sections was pulled down. All the rubble was carted away, and the nave was ready for use by Palm Sunday.[11]
[edit] Maderno's façade
Maderno's facade
The façade designed by Maderno, is 114.69 metres (376.3 ft) wide and 45.55 metres (149.4 ft) high and is built of travertine stone, with a giant order of Corinthian columns and a central pediment rising in front of a tall attic surmounted by statues of Christ, John the Baptist, and eleven of the apostles. The inscription on the facade reads:
“ IN HONOREM PRINCIPIS APOST PAVLVS V BVRGHESIVS ROMANVS PONT MAX AN MDCXII PONT VII ”
(Paul V Borghese, Roman, Pontiff, in the year 1612, the seventh of his pontificate, erected in honor of the Prince of Apostles)
The façade is often cited as the least satisfactory part of the design of St. Peter's. The reasons for this, according to James Lees-Milne, are that it was not given enough consideration by the Pope and committee because of the desire to get the building completed quickly, coupled with the fact that Maderno was hesitant to deviate from the pattern set by Michelangelo at the other end of the building.
69 of 256
70 of 256
Lees-Milne describes the problems of the façade as being too broad for its height, too cramped in its details and too heavy in the attic storey. The breadth is caused by modifying the plan to have towers on either side. These towers were never executed above the line of the facade because it was discovered that the ground was not sufficiently stable to bear the weight. One effect of the façade and lengthened nave is to screen the view of the dome, so that the building, from the front, has no vertical feature, except from a distance.[11]
The narthex
[edit] Narthex and portalsBehind the façade of St. Peter's stretches a long portico or "narthex" such as was occasionally found in Italian Romanesque churches. This is the part of Maderno's design with which he was most satisfied. Its long barrel vault is decorated with ornate stucco and gilt, and successfully illuminated by small windows between pendentives, while the ornate marble floor is beamed with light reflected in from the piazza. At each end of the narthex is a rather theatrical space framed by ionic columns in each of which is set and equestrian figure, Charlemagne by Cornacchini (18th century) to the south and Emperor Constantine by Bernini (1670) to the north.
Five portals, of which three are framed by huge salvaged antique columns, lead into the basilica. The central portals has a bronze door created by Antonio Averulino in 1455 for the old basilica and somewhat enlarged to fit the new space.
[edit] Maderno's nave
70 of 256
71 of 256
Maderno's nave, looking towards the chancel
To the single bay of Michelangelo's Greek Cross, Maderno added a further three bays. He made the dimensions slightly different to Michelangelo's bay, thus defining where the two architectural works meet. Maderno also tilted the axis of the nave slightly. This was not by accident, as suggested by his critics. An ancient Egyptian obelisk had been erected in the square outside, but had not been quite aligned with Michelangelo's building, so Maderno compensated, in order that it should, at least, align with the Basilica's facade. [11]
The nave has huge paired pilasters, in keeping with Michelangelo's work. The size of the interior is so "stupendously large" that it is hard to get a sense of scale within the building.[11] [27] The four cherubs who flutter against the first piers of the nave, carrying between them two Holy Water basins, appear of quite normal cherubic size, until approached. Then it becomes apparent that each one is over 2 metres high and that real children cannot reach the basins unless they scramble up the marble draperies. The aisles each have two smaller chapels and a larger rectangular chapel, the Chapel of the Sacrament and the Choir Chapel. These are lavishly decorated with marble, stucco, gilt, sculpture and mosaic. Remarkably, there are very few paintings, although some, such as Raphael's "Sistine Madonna" have been reproduced in mosaic. The most precious painting is a small icon of the Madonna, removed from the old basilica.[11]
Maderno's last work at St. Peter's was to design a crypt-like space or "Confessio" under the dome, where the Cardinals and other privileged persons could descend in order to be nearer the burial place of the apostle. Its marble steps are remnants of the old basilica and around its balustrade are 95 bronze lamps.
[edit] Bernini's furnishings
[edit] Pope Urban VIII and BerniniAs a young boy Gianlorenzo Bernini (1598–1680) visited St. Peter's with the painter Annibale Carracci and stated his wish to build "a mighty throne for the apostle". His wish came true. As a young man, in 1626, he received the patronage of Pope Urban VIII and worked on the embellishment of the Basilica for 50 years. Appointed as Maderno's successor in 1629, he was to become regarded as the greatest architect and sculptor of the Baroque period. Bernini's works at St. Peter's include the baldacchino, the Chapel of the Sacrament, the plan four the niches and loggias in the piers of the dome and the chair of St. Peter.[11] [19]
[edit] Baldacchino and nichesMain article: St. Peter's baldachin
Bernini's first work at St. Peter's was to design the baldacchino, a pavilion-like structure 30 metres (98 ft) tall and claimed to be the largest piece of bronze in the world, which stands beneath the dome and above the altar. Its design is based on the ciborium, of which there are many in the churches of Rome, serving to create a sort of holy space above and around the table on which the Sacrament is laid for the Eucharist and emphasizing the significance of this ritual. These ciborium are generally of white
71 of 256
72 of 256
marble, with inlaid coloured stone. Bernini's concept was for something very different. He took his inspiration in part from the baldachin or canopy carried above the head of the pope in processions, and in part from eight ancient columns that had formed part of a screen in the old basilica. Their twisted barley-sugar shape had a special significance as the column to which Jesus was bound before his crucifixion was believed to be of that shape. Based on these columns, Bernini created four huge columns of bronze, twisted and decorated with olive leaves and bees, which were the emblem of Pope Urban.
The altar with Bernini's baldacchino
The baldacchino is surmounted not with an architectural pediment, like most baldacchini, but with curved Baroque brackets supporting a draped canopy, like the brocade canopies carried in processions above precious iconic images. In this case, the draped canopy is of bronze, and all the details, including the olive leaves, bees, and the portrait heads of Urban's niece in childbirth and her newborn son, are picked out in gold leaf. The baldacchino stands as a vast free-standing sculptural object, central to and framed by the largest space within the building. It is so large that the visual effect is to create a link between the enormous dome which appears to float above it, and the congregation at floor level of the basilica. It is penetrated visually from every direction, and is visually linked to the Cattedra Petri in the apse behind it and to the four piers containing large statues that are at each diagonal.[11] [19]
As part of the scheme for the central space of the church, Bernini had the huge piers, begun by Bramante and completed by Michelangelo, hollowed out into niches, and had staircases made inside them, leading to four balconies. There was much dismay from those who thought that the dome might fall, but it did not. On the balconies Bernini created showcases, framed by the eight ancient twisted columns, to display the four most precious relics of the basilica: the spear of Longinus, said to have pierced the side of Christ, the veil of Veronica, with the miraculous image of the face of Christ, a fragment of the True Cross discovered in Jerusalem by Constantine's mother, Helena, and a relic of St. Andrew, the brother of St. Peter. In each of the niches that surround the central space of the basilica was placed a huge statue of the saint associated with the relic above. Only St. Longinus is the work of Bernini.[11] (See below)
72 of 256
73 of 256
[edit] Cattedra Petri and Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament
Bernini's "Cathedra Petri" and "Gloria"
Bernini then turned his attention to another precious relic, the so-called Cathedra Petri or "throne of St. Peter" a chair which was often claimed to have been used by the apostle, but appears to date from the 12th century. As the chair itself was fast deteriorating and was no longer serviceable, Pope Alexander VII determined to enshrine it in suitable splendour as the object upon which the line of successors to Peter was based. Bernini created a large bronze throne in which it was housed, raised high on four looping supports held effortlessly by massive bronze statues of four Doctors of the Church, Saints Ambrose and Augustine representing the Latin Church and Athanasius and John Chrysostum the Greek Church. The four figures are dynamic with sweeping robes and expressions of adoration and ecstasy. Behind and above the Cattedra, a blaze of light comes in through a window of yellow alabaster, illuminating, at its centre, the Dove of the Holy Spirit. The elderly painter, Andrea Sacchi, had urged Bernini to make the figures large, so that they would be seen well from the central portal of the nave. The chair was enshrined in its new home with great celebration of January 16, 1666.[11] [19]
Bernini's final work for St. Peter's, undertaken in 1676, was the decoration of the Chapel of the Sacrament. To hold the sacramental Host, he designed a miniature version in gilt bronze of Bramante's Tempietto, the little chapel that marks the place of the death of St. Peter. On either side is an angel, one gazing in rapt adoration and the other looking towards the viewer in welcome. Bernini died in 1680 in his 82nd year.[11]
73 of 256
74 of 256
This wide-angle view of the interior shows the transept arms to right and left, and the chancel beyond the baldicchino.
[edit] St. Peter's PiazzaMain article: Saint Peter's Square
To the east of the basilica is the Piazza di San Pietro, (St. Peter's Square). The present arrangement, constructed between 1656 and 1667, is the Baroque inspiration of Bernini who inherited a location already occupied by an Egyptian obelisk of the 13th century BC, which was centrally placed, (with some contrivance) to Maderno's facade. The obelisk, known as "The Witness", at 25.5 metres (84 ft) and a total height, including base and the cross on top, of 40 metres (130 ft), is the second largest standing obelisk, and the only one to remain standing since its removal from Egypt and re-erection at the Circus of Nero in 37 AD, where it is thought to have stood witness to the crucifixion of St Peter.[28] Its removal to its present location by order of Pope Sixtus V and engineered by Domenico Fontana on September 28, 1586, was an operation fraught with difficulties and nearly ending in disaster when the ropes holding the obelisk began to smoke from the friction. Fortunately this problem was noticed by a sailor, and for his swift intervention, his village was granted the privilege of providing the palms that are used at the basilica each Palm Sunday.[11]
74 of 256
75 of 256
Two fountains form the axis of the piazza.
The other object in the old square with which Bernini had to contend was a large fountain designed by Maderno in 1613 and set to one side of the obelisk, making a line parallel with the façade. Bernini's plan uses this horizontal axis as a major feature of his unique, spatially dynamic and highly symbolic design. The most obvious solutions were either a rectangular piazza of vast proportions so that the obelisk stood centrally and the fountain (and a matching companion) could be included, or a trapezoid piazza which fanned out from the façade of the basilica like that in front of the Palazzo Publicco in Siena. The problems of the square plan are that the necessary width to include the fountain would entail the demolition of numerous buildings, including some of the Vatican, and would minimise the effect of the facade. The trapezoid plan, on the other hand, would maximise the apparent width of the façade, which was already perceived as a fault of the design.[19]
Bernini's ingenious solution was to create a piazza in two sections. That part which is nearest the basilica is trapezoid, but rather than fanning out from the façade, it narrows. This gives the effect of countering the visual perspective. It means that from the second part of the piazza, the building looks nearer than it is, the breadth of the façade is minimised and its height appears greater in proportion to its width. The second section of the piazza is a huge elliptical circus which gently slopes downwards to the obelisk at its centre. The two distinct areas are framed by a colonnade formed by doubled pairs of columns supporting an entabulature of the simple Tuscan Order.
The part of the colonnade that is around the ellipse does not entirely encircle it, but reaches out in two arcs, symbolic of the arms of "the Roman Catholic Church reaching out to welcome its communicants".[19] The obelisk and Maderno's fountain mark the widest axis of the elipse. Bernini balanced the scheme with another fountain in 1675. The approach to the square used to be through a jumble of old buildings, which added an element of surprise to the vista that opened up upon passing through the colonnade. Nowadays a long wide street, the Via della Conciliazione, built by Mussolini after the conclusion of the Lateran Treaties, leads from the River Tiber to the piazza and gives distant views of St. Peter's as the visitor approaches.[11]
Bernini's transformation of the site is entirely Baroque in concept. Where Bramante and Michelangelo conceived a building that stood in "self-sufficient isolation", Bernini made the whole complex "expansively relate to its environment".[19] Banister Fletcher says "No other city has afforded such a wide-swept approach to its cathedral church, no other architect could have conceived a design of greater nobility...(it is) the greatest of all atriums before the greatest of all churches of Christendom."[6]
75 of 256
76 of 256
View of Rome from the Dome of St. Peter's Basilica
[edit] Treasures
[edit] Tombs and relicsMain article: List of papal tombs
There are over 100 tombs within St. Peter's Basilica (extant to various extents), many located in the Vatican grotto, beneath the Basilica. These include 91 popes, St. Ignatius of Antioch, Holy Roman Emperor Otto II, and the composer Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina. Exiled Catholic British royalty James Francis Edward Stuart and his two sons, Charles Edward Stuart and Henry Benedict Stuart, are buried here, having been granted asylum by Pope Clement XI. Also buried here are Maria Clementina Sobieska, wife of Charles Edward Stuart, and Queen Christina of Sweden, who abdicated her throne in order to convert to Catholicism. The most recent interment was Pope John Paul II, on April 8, 2005. Beneath, near the crypt, is the recently-discovered vaulted fourth-century "Tomb of the Julii". (See below for some descriptions of tombs)
76 of 256
77 of 256
[edit] Artworks
[edit] The towers and narthex
The Holy Door is opened only for great celebrations.
In the towers to either side of the facade are two clocks. The clock on the left has been operated electrically since 1931. Its oldest bell dates from 1288. One of the most important treasures of the cathedral is a mosaic set above the central external door. Called the "Navicella", it is based on a design by Giotto (early 13th century) and represents a ship symbolising the Christian Church. At each end of the narthex is an equestrian figure, to the north Emperor Constantine by Bernini (1670) and to the south Charlemagne by Cornacchini (18th century). Of the five portals, three contain notable doors. The central portal has the Renaissance bronze door by Antonio Averulino (1455), enlarged to fit the new space. The southern door, the "Door of the Dead", was designed by 20th century sculptor Giacomo Manzù and includes a portrait of Pope John XXIII kneeling before the crucified figure of St. Peter.
The northernmost door is the "Holy Door" which, by tradition, is opened only for holy years such as the Jubilee year. The present door is bronze and was designed by Vico Consorti in 1950. Above it are inscriptions commemorating the opening of the door: PAVLVS V PONT MAX ANNO XIII and GREGORIVS XIII PONT MAX. Recent commemorative plaques read:IOANNES PAVLVS II P.M.PORTAM SANCTAMANNO IVBILAEI MCMLXXVIA PAVLO PP VIRESERVATAM ET CLAVSAMAPERVIT ET CLAVSITANNO IVB HVMANE REDEMPMCMLXXXIII – MCMLXXXIV
IOANNES PAVLVS II P.M.ITERVM PORTAM SANCTAMAPERVIT ET CLAVSITANNO MAGNI IVBILAEIAB INCARNATIONE DOMINIMM-MMI
PAVLVS VI PONT MAXHVIVS PATRIARCALISVATICANAE BASILICAEPORTAM SANCTAMAPERVIT ET CLAVSITANNO IVBILAEI MCMLXXV
In the jubilee year of human redemption 1983-4, John Paul II, Pontifex Maximus, opened and closed again the holy door closed and set apart by Paul VI in 1976.
John Paul II, Pontifex Maximus, again opened and closed the holy door in the year of the great jubilee, from the incarnation of the Lord 2000-2001.
Paul VI, Pontifex Maximus, opened and closed the holy door of this patriarchal Vatican basilica in the jubilee year of 1975.
77 of 256
78 of 256
[edit] The nave
The statue of Saint Peter, attributed to Arnolfo di Cambio
• On the first piers of the nave are two Holy Water basins held by pairs of cherubs each 2 metres high, commissioned by Pope Benedict XIII from designer Agostino Cornacchini and sculptor Francesco Moderati, (1720s).
• Along the floor of the nave are markers showing the comparative lengths of other churches, starting from the entrance.
• On the decorative pilasters of the piers of the nave are medallions with relief depicting the first 38 popes.
• In niches between the pilasters of the nave are statues depicting 39 founders of religious orders. • Set against the north east pier of the dome is a statue of St. Peter Enthroned, sometimes
attributed to late 13th century sculptor Arnolfo di Cambio, with some scholars dating it to the 5th century. One foot of the statue is largely worn away due to centuries of pilgrims kissing it.
• The sunken Confessio leading to the Vatican Grottoes (see above) contains a large kneeling statue by Canova of Pope Pius VI, who was captured and mistreated by the Napoleon's army.
• The High Altar is surmounted by Bernini's baldachin. (See above) • Set in niches within the four piers supporting the dome are the statues associated with the
basilica's holy relics: St. Helena holding the True Cross, by Andrea Bolgi); St. Longinus holding the spear that pierced the side of Jesus, by Bernini (1639); St. Andrew with the St. Andrew's Cross, by Francois Duquesnoy and St. Veronica holding her veil with the image of Jesus' face, by Francesco Mochi.
Saint Helena Saint LonginusSaint Andrew Saint Veronica
78 of 256
79 of 256
[edit] North aisle
The Pietà sculpted by Michelangelo
Truth, by Bernini, tramples England beneath her foot.
• In the first chapel of the north aisle is Michelangelo's Pietà.[29] • On the first pier in the right aisle is the monument of Queen Christina of Sweden, who
abdicated in 1654 in order to convert to Catholicism. • The second chapel, dedicated to St. Sebastian, contains the tombs of popes Pius XI and Pius
XII. • The large chapel on the right aisle is the Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament which contains the
tabernacle by Bernini (1664) resembling Bramante's Tempietto at San Pietro in Montorio supported by two kneeling angels and with behind it a painting of the Holy Trinity by Pietro da Cortona.
• Near the altar of Our Lady of Succour are the monuments of popes Gregory XIII by Camillo Rusconi (1723) and Gregory XIV.
• At the end of the aisle is an altar containing the relics of St. Petronilla and with an altarpiece "The Burial of St Petronilla by Guercino (Giovanni Francesco Barbieri), 1623.
[edit] South aisle
• The first chapel in the south aisle is the baptistry, commissioned by Pope Innocent XII and designed by Carlo Fontana, (great nephew of Domenico Fontana). The font, which was previously located in the opposite chapel, is the red porphyry sarcophagus of Probus, the 4th century Prefect of Rome. The lid came from a different sarcophagus, which had once held the remains of the Emperor Hadrian and in removing it from the Vatican Grotto where it had been
79 of 256
80 of 256
stored, the workmen broke it into ten pieces. Fontana restored it expertly and surmounted it with a gilt-bronze figure of the "Lamb of God".
• Against the first pier of the aisle is the Monument to the Royal Stuarts, James and his sons, Charles Edward, known as "Bonnie Prince Charlie" and Henry, Cardinal and Duke of York. The tomb is a Neo-Classical design by Canova unveiled in 1819. Opposite it is the memorial of Charles Edward Stuart's wife, Maria Clementina Sobieska.
• The second chapel is that of the Presentation of the Virgin' and contains the tombs of Pope Benedict XV and Pope John XXIII.
• Against the piers are the tombs of Pope Pius X and Pope Innocennt VIII. • The large chapel off the south aisle is the Choir Chapel which contains the altar of the
Imacculate Virgin Mary. • At the entrance to the Sacristy is the tomb of Pope Pius VIII • The south transept contains the altars of St. Thomas, St. Joseph and the Crucifixion of St. Peter. • The tomb of Fabio Chigi, Pope Alexander VII, towards the end of the aisle, is the work of
Bernini and called by Lees-Milne "one of the greatest tombs of the Baroque Age". It occupies an awkward position, being set in a niche above a doorway into a small vestry, but Bernini has utilised the doorway in a symbolic manner. Pope Alexander kneels upon his tomb, facing outward. The tomb is supported on a large draped shroud patterned red marble, and is supported by four female figures, of whom only the two at the front are fully visible. They represent Charity and Truth. The foot of Truth rests upon a globe of the world, her toe being pierced symbolically by the thorn of Protestant England. Coming forth, seemingly, from the doorway as if it was the entrance to a tomb, is the skeletal winged figure of Death, its head hidden beneath the shroud, but its right hand carrying an hour-glass stretched upward towards the kneeling figure of the pope. [11]
CHAPTER 7 . . . Pg. 81 . . . Radiological landmines on the soil
of Italy and Rome aimed at U.S. Corporation Nuclear 'Target Magnets' . . .
equivalent to the 20 kiloton Russian RA115 . . . described in U.S. House hearing
106-158 . . . same Radiological damage as U.S. Nuclear bombs inflicted on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan during World War Two.
'Nuclear Crime' letter to Italy and Rome.19 Jan 2009 SUBJECT: Qui-Tam War Crime Claim and Complaint litigation to the Attorneys General / Ministers of Justice in Middle East countries . . . .1. WAR CRIME CLAIM: Potential of Radiological Contamination of Holy St. Peters & Radiological Contamination of 3.5 million St. Peter's pilgrims in Vatican, Italy and Rome : A War Crime Claim against U.S. Attorney General Mukasey & former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. . . .2. WAR CRIME court venue: U.S. Court Case H-08-60 filed in U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, (ICC, Prosecutor, Case # OTP-CR-100/08, PO Box 19519, 2500 CM, The Hague, The Netherlands, email [email protected] , http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en) : (1) U.S. business targets in Monaco, Vatican, & France, Europe, potential victims of Nuclear Contamination Crimes : 'Nuclear-Crime' Contamination of Holy St. Peters & 3.5 million St. Peter's pilgrims in Maccah, 2008:
Sistine Chapel ceilingFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The iconic image of the Hand of God giving life to Adam.
88 of 256
89 of 256
The interior of the Sistine Chapel showing the ceiling in relation to the other frescos
For images see: Gallery of Sistine Chapel ceiling
The Sistine Chapel ceiling, painted by Michelangelo between 1508 and 1512, is one of the most renowned artworks of the High Renaissance. The ceiling is that of the large Sistine Chapel built within the Vatican by Pope Sixtus IV, begun in 1477 and finished by 1480. The chapel is the Papal Chapel within the Vatican, and is the location for Papal Conclaves and many important services.
The ceiling's various painted elements comprise part of a larger scheme of decoration within the Sistine Chapel which includes the large fresco of The Last Judgment on the sanctuary wall, also by Michelangelo, wall paintings by a team of the most highly regarded painters of the late 15th century including Botticelli and Perugino, and a set of large tapestries by Raphael, the whole illustrating much of the doctrine of the Catholic Church.[1] [2] (Main article:Sistine Chapel)
Central to the ceiling decoration are nine scenes from the Book of Genesis of which the Creation of Adam is the best known, having an iconic standing equalled only by Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, the hands of God and Adam being reproduced in countless imitations.[3]
89 of 256
90 of 256
History
Pope Julius II by Raphael
In 1506 Pope Julius II conceived a program to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.[4] Around the central area of the walls of the chapel there already existed a complex scheme of paintings illustrating the Life of Christ and the Life of Moses. It had been carried out by some of the most renowned Renaissance painters, Perugino, Botticelli, Ghirlandaio, Pintoricchio and Cosimo Rosselli.[1]
Michelangelo, who was not primarily a painter but a sculptor, was reluctant to take on the work. Also, he was occupied with a very large sculptural commission for the Pope's own tomb. The Pope was adamant, leaving Michelangelo no choice but to accept. But a war with the French broke out, diverting the attention of the Pope who was a powerful military leader, and Michelangelo fled from Rome to continue sculpting. The tomb sculptures, however, were never to be finished because in 1508 the Pope returned to Rome victorious and summoned Michelangelo to begin work on the ceiling. The contract was signed on 10 May 1508.[4]
The proposed scheme was for twelve large figures of the Apostles. But Michelangelo changed the scheme for a much more complex design which eventually comprised some three hundred figures and took four years, being completed in 1512.[4] [5]
Contrary to popular belief, he painted in a standing position, not lying on his back. According to Vasari, "The work was carried out in extremely uncomfortable conditions, from his having to work with his head tilted upwards".[5] [6] Michelangelo described his physical discomfort in a humorous sonnet accompanied by a little sketch.[7]
90 of 256
91 of 256
Michelangelo's illustration to his sonnet“ Here like a cat in a Lombardy sewer! Swelter and toil!
With my neck puffed out like a pigeon,
belly hanging like an empty sack,
beard pointing at the ceiling, and my brain
fallen backwards in my head!
Breastbone bulging like a harpy’s
and my face, from drips and droplets,
patterned like a marble pavement.
Ribs are poking in my guts; the only way
to counterweight my shoulders is to stick
my butt out. Don’t know where my feet are-
they’re just dancing by themselves!
In front I’ve sagged and stretched; behind,
my back is tauter than an archer’s bow!”
91 of 256
92 of 256
[edit] Michelangelo's scheme realised
The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, "an artistic vision without precedent" [8]
[edit] Method
The location of the scaffolding is evident on this lunette
In order to reach the chapel's ceiling, Michelangelo designed his own scaffold, a flat wooden platform on brackets built out from holes in the wall near the top of the windows, rather than being built up from the floor which would have involved a massive structure and would have meant that the chapel was unavailable for services. The areas of the wall covered by the scaffolding still appear as unpainted ares across the bottom of the lunettes. The holes were re-used to hold scaffolding in the latest restoration.
92 of 256
93 of 256
The scaffolding did not occupy the entire area of the ceiling. The painting was done in three stages.
The reports of Michelangelo's pupil and biographer Condivi, indicate that the brackets and frame which supported the steps and flooring were all put in place at the beginning and some sort of light-weight screen, possibly of cloth, was suspended beneath them to catch plaster drips, dust and splashes of paint, but only half the building was scaffolded at a time.[9]
The painting technique employed was fresco, in which the paint is applied to damp plaster. Michelangelo was experienced with this method of painting, having been trained in the workshop of Ghirlandaio, one of the most competent and prolific of Florentine fresco painters, who completed several important fresco cycles in churches in Florence and whose work was represented on the walls of the Sistine Chapel.[10]
At the outset, the plaster, intonaco, began to grow mold because it was too wet. Michelangelo had to remove it and start again. He then tried a new formula created by one of his assistants, Jacopo l'Indaco, which resisted mold, and entered the Italian building tradition.
The evidence of the plaster laid for a day's work can be seen around the head and arm of this ignudoBecause he was painting fresco, the plaster was laid in a new section every day, called a giornata. At the beginning of each session, the edges would be scraped away and a new area laid down. This is more apparent in the Last Judgement than on the ceiling. The reason that Michelangelo employed the fresco technique is that if the artist worked onto completely dry plaster, then the medium in every brushstroke sank in immediately and the pigment could not be manipulated as well, and did not bond as well to the plaster. The disadvantage of fresco painting is that the plaster becomes very hot while it is setting and gives off fumes.
It was customary for fresco painters to use a full-sized detailed drawing, a cartoon, to transfer a design onto a plaster surface—many frescoes show little holes made with a stiletto, outlining the figures. Here Michelangelo broke with convention; once confident in the application of fresco, he drew directly onto the ceiling. His energetic sweeping outlines can be seen scraped into some of the surfaces,[11] while on others a grid is evident, indicating that he enlarged directly onto the ceiling from a small drawing.
Michelangelo painted onto the damp plaster using a wash technique to apply broad areas of colour, then as the surface became drier, he revisited these areas with a more linear approach, adding shade and detail with a variety of brushes. For some textured surfaces, such as facial hair and woodgrain, he used a broad brush with bristles as sparse as a comb. Altogether, Michelangelo's techniques show the skill that one would expect of Ghirlandaio's greatest pupil. He employed all the finest workshop methods and best innovations, combining them with a diversity of brushwork and breadth of skill far exceeding
The work commenced at the end of the building furthest from the altar and coinciding with the latest of the narrative scenes, rather than the earliest. The first three scenes, from the story of Noah, contain a much larger number of small figures than the later panels. This is partly because of the subject matter, which deals with the fate of Humanity, but also because all the figures at that end of the ceiling, including the prophets and ignudi, are smaller than in the central section. The scale further increased in the third section. As the scale got larger, so did Michelangelo's style become broader, the final narrative scene of God in the act of Creation was painted in a single day.
This image of God was painted in a single day.
The bright colours and broad, cleanly-defined outlines make each subject easily visible from the floor. Despite the height of the ceiling the proportions of the Creation of Adam are such that when standing beneath it, "it appears as if the viewer could simply raise a finger and meet those of God and Adam". The colours, which now appear so fresh and spring-like with pale pink, apple green, vivid yellow and sky blue against a background of warm pearly grey, were so discoloured by candlesmoke as to make the pictures seem almost monochrome. The long restoration (1981 through 1994) has removed the filter of grime to reveal the colours again.
Vasari tells us that the ceiling is "unfinished", that its unveiling occurred before it could be reworked with gold leaf and vivid blue lapis lazuli as was customary with frescoes and in order to better link the ceiling with the walls below it which were highlighted with a great deal of gold. But this never took place, in part because Michelangelo was reluctant to set up the scaffolding again, and probably also because the gold and particularly the intense blue would have distracted from his painterly conception.
Some areas were, in fact, decorated with gold:- the shields between the ignudi and the columns between the prophets and sybils. It seems very likely that the gilding of the shields was part of Michelangelo's original scheme since they are painted to resemble a certain type of processional shield, a number of which still exist.[12]
Section reference.[5] [2] [6] [13] [14]
[edit] ContentThe subject matter of the ceiling is the doctrine of humanity's need for Salvation as offered by God through Jesus. It is about Humankind's need for a covenant with God. The old covenant of the Children
94 of 256
95 of 256
of Israel through Moses and the new covenant through Christ Jesus had already been represented around the walls of the chapel.[15]
The Downfall of Adam and Eve and their Expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
The ceiling illustrates that God made the World as a perfect creation and put humanity into it, humanity fell into disgrace and was punished by death, and by separation from God. God sent Prophets and Sibyls to tell humanity that the Saviour or Christ, Jesus, would bring them redemption. God prepared a lineage of people, all the way from Adam, through various characters written of in the Old Testament, such as King David, to the Virgin Mary through whom the Saviour of humanity, Jesus, would come. The various components of the ceiling are linked to this doctrine.
But there was another factor. During the 15th century in Italy, and in Florence in particular, there was a strong interest in Classical literature and the philosophy of Humanism. Michelangelo, as a young man, had spent time at the Humanist academy established by the Medici family in Florence. He was familiar with early Humanist-inspired sculptural works such as Donatello's bronze David, and had himself responded by carving the enormous nude marble David which was placed in the piazza near the Palazzo Vecchio, the home of Florence's council. The Humanist vision of humanity was one in which people responded to other people, to social responsibility and to God in a direct way, not through intermediaries, such as the Church. This conflicted with the Church's emphasis. While the Church emphasised humanity as essentially sinful and flawed, Humanism emphasised humanity as potentially noble and beautiful. These two views were not necessarily irreconcilable to the Church, but only through a recognition that the unique way to achieve this "elevation of spirit, mind and body" was through the Church as the agent of God. To be outside the Church was to be beyond Salvation.
The prophet Daniel
In the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo has presented both Catholic and Humanist elements in a way that does not appear visually conflicting, but the inclusion of "non-Christian" figures can appear as an ideological conflict to those more familiar with the intensely "religious" works of the
95 of 256
96 of 256
Counter Reformation and unfamiliar with the rationalising of Humanist and Christian thought of the Renaissance.
The main components of the design are nine scenes from the Book of Genesis, of which five smaller ones are each framed and supported by four naked youths or "ignudi". At either end, and beneath the scenes are the figures of twelve men and women who prophesied the birth of Jesus. On the crescent-shaped areas, or "lunettes", above each of the chapel's windows are the Ancestors of Christ, identified by name. In the triangular spandrels above them are a further eight groups of figures, the identity of which is not known and which is subject to speculation. The scheme is completed by four large corner pendentives each showing a dramatic Biblical story. The iconography of the ceiling has had various interpretations in the past, some elements of which have been contradicted by modern scholarship[16] and others of which continue to defy interpretation. Of interest to some modern scholars is the question of how Michelangelo's own spiritual and psychological state is reflected in the iconography and the artistic expression of the ceiling.[17]
Section reference[2] [5]
[edit] Architectural scheme
Plan of the architectural elements, real and illusionary
[edit] RealThe Sistine Chapel is 40.5 metres long and 14 metres wide. The ceiling rises to 20 metres above the main floor of the chapel. The vault is of quite a complex nature and it is unlikely that it was originally
96 of 256
97 of 256
intended to have such complex decoration. Pier Matteo d'Amelia provided a plan for its decoration with the architectural elements picked out and the ceiling painted blue and dotted with gold stars, similar to that of the Arena Chapel decorated by Giotto at Padua.
The chapel walls have three horizontal tiers with six windows in the upper tier down each side. There were also two windows at each end, but these have been closed up above the altar when Michelangelo's Last Judgement was painted. Between the windows are large pendentives which support the vault. Between the pendentives are triangularly shaped arches or spandrels cut into the vault above each window. Above the height of the pendentives, the ceiling slopes gently without much deviation from the horizontal. This is the real architecture. Michelangelo has elaborated it with illusionary or fictive architecture.[1]
[edit] Illusionary
God dividing the waters, showing the illusionary architecture, and the positions of the ignudi and shields
The first element in the scheme of painted architecture is the defining of the real architectural elements by painted decorative courses that look like stone moldings.[18] The decorative courses have two repeating motifs, a formula common to such decorations in Classical Roman buildings.[19] In this case one motif is the acorn, the symbol of the Pope's family, the Rovere.[20] The other motif is the scallop shell, one of the symbols of the Blessed Virgin Mary to whom the chapel is dedicated.
Part of Michelangelo's painted design are broad architectural ribs of travertine which appear to cross the ceiling from one pendentive to another, further supported by similar architectural bands at either end of the chapel. The ten painted cross-ribs divide the ceiling into alternately wide and narrow pictorial spaces.
Above the level of the spandrels, where the ceiling flattens, is painted a strongly-projecting cornice that runs right around the ceiling, enclosing the main pictorial areas. These fictive architectural elements form a grid in which all the figures have defined spaces.
Integrated with the painted architecture are a great number of small figures the purpose of which appears to be purely decorative. These include two seemingly-marble putti below the cornice on each rib, stone rams-heads above the spandrels, figures like animated book-ends hiding in the shadows of the ribs and little putti, both clothed and unclothed who strike a variety of poses as they support the name-plates of the prophets and sybils.
97 of 256
98 of 256
Above the cornice and to either side of the smaller scenes are an array of round shields. They are in part supported by twenty more figures, not part of the architecture, but sitting on inlaid plinths, their feet planted convincingly on the fictive cornice. They are the so-called ignudi.[21] [4]
[edit] Pictorial scheme
Plan of the pictorial elements of the ceiling showing the division of the narrative scenes into three parts themes
[edit] Nine scenes from the Book of GenesisAlong the central section of the ceiling, Michelangelo depicted nine scenes from the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. The pictures fall into three groups of three.
The first group shows God creating the Heavens and the Earth. The second group shows God creating the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, and their disobedience of God and consequent expulsion from the Garden of Eden where they have lived and where they walked with God. The third group of three pictures shows the plight of Humanity, and in particular the family of Noah.
The pictures are not in strictly chronological order. If they are perceived as three groups, then the pictures in each of the three units inform upon each other, in the same way as was usual in Medieval paintings and stained glass.[22]
98 of 256
99 of 256
Detail of the Face of God
The scenes are painted so as to be viewed looking from the altar towards the main door and are ordered accordingly, as follows:
1. The Separation of Light and Darkness 2. The Creation of the Sun, Moon and Earth 3. The Separation of Land and Water 4. The Creation of Adam 5. The Creation of Eve 6. The Temptation and Expulsion 7. The Sacrifice of Noah 8. The Great Flood 9. The Drunkenness of Noah
[edit] CreationThe three Creation pictures show scenes from the first chapter of Genesis, which relates that God created the Earth and all that is in it in six days, resting on the seventh day. In the first scene, the First Day of Creation, God creates light and separates light from darkness. Chronologically, the next scene takes place in the third panel, in which, on the Second Day, God divides the waters from the heavens. In the central panel, the largest of the three, there are two representations of God. On the Third Day, God creates the Earth and makes it sprout plants. On the Fourth Day, God puts the Sun and the Moon in place to govern the night and the day, the time and the seasons of the year. On the Fifth Day, God created the birds of the air and fish and creatures of the deep, but we are not shown this. Neither do we see God's creation of the creatures of the earth on the Sixth Day.[4] [23] [2]
These three scenes, completed in the third stage of painting, are the most broadly conceived, the most broadly painted and the most dynamic of all the pictures. Of the first scene Vasari says "...Michelangelo depicted God dividing Light from Darkness, showing him in all his majesty as he rests self-sustained with arms outstretched, in a revelation of love and creative power."[5]
99 of 256
100 of 256
[edit] Adam and Eve
The Creation of Adam
For the central section of the ceiling, Michelangelo has taken four episodes from the story of Adam and Eve as told in the first, second and third chapters of Genesis. In this sequence of three, two of the panels are large and one small.
In the first of the pictures, and one of the most widely recognised images in the history of painting, Michelangelo shows God reaching out to touch Adam, who, in the words of Vasari, is "a figure whose beauty, pose and contours are such that it seems to have been fashioned that very moment by the first and supreme creator rather than by the drawing and brush of a mortal man."[5]
The central scene, of God creating Eve from the side of the sleeping Adam has been taken in its composition directly from another Creation sequence familiar to Michelangelo from his youth, the relief panels by Jacopo della Quercia that surround the door of the Basilica of San Petronio, Bologna.[24]
In the final panel of this sequence Michelangelo shows two contrasting scenes, that of Adam and Eve taking fruit from the forbidden tree, Eve trustingly taking it from the hand of the Serpent and Adam eagerly picking it for himself; and their banishment from the Garden of Eden, where they have lived in the company of God, to the world outside where they have to fend for themselves and experience death.[4] [25] [2]
Detail from the Great Flood.
100 of 256
101 of 256
[edit] Story of NoahAs with the first sequence of pictures, the three panels concerning Noah, taken from the sixth to ninth chapters of Genesis are thematic rather than chronological. In the first scene is shown the sacrifice of a sheep. Vasari, in writing about this scene mistakes it for the sacrifices by Cain and Abel, in which Abel's sacrifice was acceptable to God and Cain's was not. What this image almost certainly depicts is the sacrifice made by the family of Noah, after their safe deliverance from the Great Flood which destroyed the rest of Humankind.[2]
The central, larger, scene shows the Great Flood. The Ark in which Noah's family escaped floats at the rear of the picture while the rest of humanity tries frantically to scramble to some point of safety. This picture, which has a large number of figures, conforms the most closely to the format of the paintings that had been done around the walls.
The final scene is the story of Noah's drunkenness. After the Flood, Noah tills the soil and grows vines. He is shown doing so, in the background of the picture. He becomes drunk and inadvertently exposes himself. His youngest son, Ham, brings his two brothers Shem and Japheth to see the sight but they discreetly cover their father with a cloak. Ham is later cursed by Noah and told that the descendents of his son Canaan will serve Shem and Japheth's descendents forever. Taken together, these three pictures serve to show that Humankind had moved a long way from God's perfect creation. However, it is through Shem and his descendants, the Israelites, that Salvation will come to the world.[26] [2]
[edit] ShieldsAdjacent to the smaller Biblical scenes and supported by the ignudi are ten circular pageant shields, painted to resemble bronze or leather and with their details picked out in gold leaf. Each is decorated with a picture drawn from the Old Testament or the Book of Maccabees from the Apocrypha.
The subject in almost every case is one of the more gruesome or shameful of Biblical episodes, the only exception being that of Elijah being swept up to Heaven in a Chariot of Fire, leaving Elisha in a state of despair.[27] In four of the five most highly finished medallions the space is crowded with figures in violent action, similar to Michelangelo's cartoon for the Battle of Cascina.
The technique that Michelangelo has employed is unusual in fresco, and may be original in its employment on this scale, but is not unique. He has utilised the same technique that was employed for decorating shields used in pageants and is similar to that used when drawing in metal point and white chalk on a coloured ground. The ground colour (in this case red ochre streaked with black) makes the background and all the mid tones in the composition. The shadowed edges are then painted or rather, drawn with a brush and the shadows drawn in a highly linear manner that defines the contours of the forms. On coloured paper, the highlights and brightly lit contours would usually be drawn with white chalk or finely painted in white paint. But in this case, gold leaf entirely replaces the white and has been applied exactly as if it had been drawn on, using the same method of defining contour as the black lines.[12]
This application of gold serves to link the ceiling frescoes to some extent with those around the walls. In the latter, gold leaf has been applied lavishly to many details and in some of the frescoes, notably those by Perugino, has been most expertly used not just to detail the robes but to highlight the folds by subtle graduation in the density of golden flecks. It is this technique that Michelangelo has picked up
101 of 256
102 of 256
on and carried a step further, inspired also perhaps by the medallions that appear on a Roman triumphal arch in Botticelli's episode from the Life of Moses, showing the punishment of the Sons of Corah.
Detail of The Idol of Baal, showing the linear use of black paint and gold leaf defining forms.
The medalions represent:-
• Abraham about to sacrifice his son Isaac • The Destruction of the Statue of Baal • The worshippers of Baal being brutally slaughtered. • Uriah being beaten to death. • Nathan the priest condemning King David for murder and corruption. • King David's traitorous son Absalom caught by his hair in a tree while trying to escape and
beheaded by David's troops. • Abner sneaking up on Joab to murder him • Joram being hurled from a chariot onto his head. • Elijah being carried up to Heaven • On one medalion the subject is either obliterated or incomplete.
Section references[2] [1] [4]
[edit] Twelve prophetic figuresOn the five pendentives along each side and the two at either, Michelangelo painted the largest figures on the ceiling: twelve people who prophesied or represented some aspect of the Coming of Christ. Of those twelve, seven were Prophets of Israel and were male. The remaining five were prophets of the Classical World, called Sibyls and were female. The prophet Jonah is placed above the altar and Zechariah at the further end. The other male and female figures alternate down each side, each being identified by an inscription on a painted marble panel supported by a putto.
102 of 256
103 of 256
The Libyan Sibyl
• Jonah (IONAS) - above the altar • Jeremiah (HIEREMIAS) • Persian Sibyl (PERSICHA) • Ezekiel (EZECHIEL) • Erythraean Sibyl . (ERITHRAEA) • Joel (IOEL) • Zechariah (ZACHERIAS) - above the main door of the chapel • Delphic Sibyl . (DELPHICA) • Isaiah (ESAIAS) • Cumaean Sibyl . (CVMAEA) • Daniel (DANIEL) • Libyan Sibyl (LIBICA)
[edit] ProphetsThe seven prophets of Israel chosen for depiction on the ceiling include the four so-called Major Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel. Of the remaining twelve possibilities among the Minor Prophets, the three represented are Joel, Zechariah and Jonah. Although the prophets Joel and Zechariah are considered "minor" because of the comparatively small number of pages that their prophecy occupies in the Bible, each one produced prophesies of profound significance.
103 of 256
104 of 256
The prophet Joel
They are often quoted, Joel for his "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your elderly shall dream dreams and your youth shall see visions".[28] These words are significant for Michelangelo's decorative scheme, where women take their place among men and the youthful Daniel sits across from the brooding Jeremiah with his long white beard.
Zechariah prophesied "Behold! Your King comes to you, humble and riding on a donkey".[29] His place in the chapel is directly above the door through which the Pope is carried in procession on Palm Sunday, the day on which Jesus fulfilled the prophecy by riding into Jerusalem on a donkey and being proclaimed King.
Jonah's main prophesy concerned the downfall of the city of Nineveh. This alone does not seem to warrant him a place above the High Altar. But there is another factor involved. It is the person of Jonah himself that is of symbolic and prophetic significance, a significance which was commonly understood and had been represented in countless works of art including manuscripts and stained glass windows.[22] Jonah, through his reluctance to obey God, was swallowed by a "mighty fish".[30] He spent three days in its belly and was eventually spewed up on dry land where he went about God's business.[31] Because of this, Jonah was seen as a forerunner of Jesus, who having died by crucifixion, spent a time which spanned part of three days in a tomb, and was resurrected on the third day. So, on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, Jonah, with the "great fish" beside him and his eyes turned towards God the Creator, represents a "portent" of the Resurrection of Christ.
In Vasari's description of the prophets and sibyls he is particularly high in his praise of the portrayal of Isaiah: "Anyone who studies this figure, copied so faithfully from nature, the true mother of the art of painting, will find a beautifully composed work capable of teaching in full measure all the precepts to be followed by a good painter."
Section references[5] [2] [32]
104 of 256
105 of 256
[edit] Sibyls
The Persian Sibyl
The sibyls were prophetic women who were resident at shrines or temples throughout the Classical World. The five depicted here are each said to have prophesied the birth of Christ. The Cumaean Sibyl, for example, is quoted by Virgil as declaring that "a new progeny of Heaven" would bring about a return of the "Golden Age". This was interpreted as referring to Jesus.
In Christian doctrine, Christ came not just to the Jews but also to the Gentiles. It was understood that, prior to the Birth of Christ, God prepared the world for his coming. To this purpose, God used Jews and Gentiles alike. Jesus would not have been born in Bethlehem (where it had been prophesied that his birth would take place),[33] except for the fact that the pagan Roman Emperor Augustus decreed that there should be a census. Likewise, when Jesus was born, the announcement of his birth was made to rich and to poor, to mighty and to humble, to Jew and to Gentile. The wise men or so-called "Magi" who sought out the infant King with precious gifts were pagan foreigners.
In the Church of Rome, where there was an increasing interest in the remains of the city's pagan past, where scholars turned from reading Medieval Church Latin to Classical Latin and the philosophies of the Classical world were studied along with the writings of St Augustine, the presence, in the Sistine Chapel of five pagan prophets is not surprising.
It is not known why Michelangelo selected the five particular sibyls that were depicted, given that, as with the Minor Prophets, there were ten or twelve possibilities. It is suggested by John O'Malley[2] that the choice was made for a wide geographic coverage, with the sibyls coming from Africa, Asia, Greece and Ionia.
Vasari says of the Erythraean sibyl "Many aspects of this figure are of exceptional loveliness: the expression of her face, her headdress and the arrangement of her draperies: and her arms, which are bared, are as beautiful as the rest."
Section reference[5] [2] [34]
[edit] PendentivesIn each corner of the chapel is a triangular pendentive filling the space between the walls and the arch
105 of 256
106 of 256
of the vault and forming the spandrel above the windows nearest the corners. On these curving shapes Michelangelo has painted four scenes from Biblical stories that are associated with the salvation of the Jewish people.
• The Brazen Serpent • The Punishment of Haman • David and Goliath • Judith and Holofernes
The first two stories were both seen in Medieval and Renaissance theology as prefiguring the Crucifixion of Jesus. In the story of the Brazen Serpent, the people of Israel become dissatisfied and grumble at God. As punishment they receive a plague of poisonous snakes. God offers the people relief by instructing Moses to make a snake of brass, set up on a pole, the sight of which gives miraculous healing.
The pendentive of the Brazen serpent with its crowded composition was imitated by Mannerist painters. (unrestored state)
In the book of Esther it is related that Haman, a public servant, plots to get Esther's husband, the King of Persia, to slay all the Jewish people in his land. The King, who is going over his books during a sleepless night, realises something is amiss. Esther, discovering the plot, denounces Haman and her husband orders his execution on a scaffold he has built. The King's Eunuchs promptly carry this out.
The other stories, those of David and Judith, while showing the Salvation of Israel, were both portrayed with great frequency in the art of Florence as they demonstrated the overthrow of tyrants, a popular subject in the Republic. In this image, the shepherd boy, David, has brought down the towering Goliath with his sling, but the giant is alive and is trying to rise as David forces his head down to chop it off.
The depiction of Judith and Holofernes has an equally gruesome detail. As Judith loads the enemy's head onto a basket carried by her maid and covers it with a cloth, she is distracted by the limbs of the decapitated body threshing around.
There are obvious connections in the design of the Slaying of Holofernes and the Slaying of Haman at the opposite end of the chapel. Although in the Holofernes picture the figures are smaller and the space
106 of 256
107 of 256
less filled, both have the triangular space divided into two zones by a vertical wall, allowing us to see what is happening on both sides of it. There are actually three scenes in the Haman picture because as well as seeing Haman punished, we see him at the table with Esther and the King and get a view of the King on his bed. Mordechai sits on the steps, making a link between the scenes.[8]
While the Slaying of Goliath is a relatively simple composition with the two protagonists centrally placed, the only other figures being dimly-seen observers, the Brazen Serpent picture is crowded with figures and separate incidents as the various individuals who have been attacked by snakes struggle and die or turn towards the icon that will save them. This is the most Mannerist of Michelangelo's earlier compositions at the Sistine Chapel, picking up the theme of human distress begun in the Great Flood scene and carrying it forward into the torment of lost souls in the Last Judgement which was later to be painted below.[2]
[edit] Ancestors of Christ
[edit] Subject
The composition is similar to a Flight into Egypt
Between the large pendentives that support the vault are windows, six on each side of the chapel. There were two more windows in each end of the chapel, now closed, and those above the High Altar covered by the Last Judgement. Above each window is an arched shaped, referred to as a lunette and above eight of the lunettes at the sides of the chapel are triangular spandrels filling the spaces between the side pendentives and the vault, the other eight lunettes each being below one of the corner pendentives.
Michelangelo was commissioned to paint these areas, as part of the work on the ceiling. the structures form visual bridges between the walls and the ceiling, and the figures that are painted on them are midway in size (approximately 2 metres high) between the very large prophets and the much smaller figures of Popes which had been painted to either side of each window in the 15th century. The subject of the pictures is the Genealogy of Christ.
Centrally placed above each window is a painted marble tablet with a decorative frame. On each is painted the names of the male line by which Jesus, through his Earthly father, Joseph, is descended
107 of 256
108 of 256
from Abraham, according to the Gospel of Matthew.[35] The arrangement seems a little erratic as one plaque has four names, most have three or two, and two plaques have only one. Moreover, the progression moves from one side of the building to the other, but not consistently.
On either side of each plaque and occupying the greater part of each lunette, are figures. In each case they seem to comprise some sort of a family, but it is extremely difficult to determine who the painted characters represent, as they do not coincide closely with the listed names. There are babies in most of the pictures suggesting a parental relationship between the males and females depicted, but not in every case.
The lunette of Jacob and Joseph, the Earthly father of Jesus. The suspicious old man may represent Joseph.[36]
There is also an indeterminate relationship between the figures in the spandrels, which are predominantly women with babies, and the lunettes beneath them. Because of the constraints of the triangular shape in each picture the figures are seated on the ground. In six of the eight spandrels the compositions resemble traditional depictions of the Flight into Egypt.
Of the two remaining, one shows a woman with shears trimming the neck of a garment she is making while her toddler looks on. The Biblical woman who is recorded as making a new garment for her child is Hannah, the mother of Samuel, whose child went to live in the temple, and indeed, the male figure behind is wearing a distinctive hat that might suggest that of a priest. But the actual identity is unknown, and is possibly associated with the family on the lunette.[37]
The other figure who differs from the rest is a young woman who sits staring out of the picture with prophetic intensity. It may be that she represents the Blessed Virgin Mary. Her position is directly above the tablet on which are engraved the name of Jesse of whom it was prophesied "There shall come forth a rod out of the stump of Jesse and a branch shall grow out of his roots".[38] Jesse is in fact the key to understanding the tradition behind these paintings. While the depiction of the Ancestors of Christ in fresco are rare, the subject was a common one in stained glass.[39] It is often shown as a Jesse Tree with Jesse lying prone and a tree growing from his side with the ancestors on each branch.[40]
Section References[2] [6] [4]
108 of 256
109 of 256
[edit] Treatment
Detaile of the Eleazar and Mattan lunette
The figures in the lunettes appear to be families, but in every case they are families that are divided. The figures in them are physically divided by a name plate but they are also divided by a range of human emotions that turn them outward or in on themselves and sometimes towards their partner with jealousy, suspicion, rage. In them Michelangelo has portrayed the anger and unhappiness of the human condition. Michelangelo uses these families to indicate to the viewer the problems that are inherent to humanity's nature and shows clearly the reason why Humankind was in need of the saviour, Christ Jesus.[41] In their constraining niches, the ancestors "sit, squat and wait".[8]
Of the fourteen remaining lunettes, the two that were probably painted first, the families of Eleazar and Mathan and of Jacob and Joseph are the most detailed. They become progressively broader towards the altar end, one of the last being painted in only two days.[42]
The Eleazar and Mathan picture has two figures with a wealth of costume detail that is not present in any other lunette. The female to the left has had as much care taken with her clothing as any of the sibyls. Her skirt is turned back showing her linen petticoat and the garter that holds up her mauve stockings and cuts into the flesh. She has a reticule and her dress is laced up under the arms. On the other side of the tablet sits the only male figure among those on the lunettes who is intrinsically beautiful. This blonde young man, elegantly dressed in white shirt and pale green hose, with no jerkin but a red cloak, postures with an insipid and vain gesture, in contrast to the ignudi which he closely resembles.
Prior to restoration, of all the paintings in the Sistine Chapel, the lunettes and spandrels were the dirtiest. Added to this, there has always been a problem of poor daytime visibility of the panels nearest the windows because of halination.[43] Consequently, they were the least well known of all Michelangelo's publicly accessible works. The recent restoration has made these masterly studies of human nature and inventive depiction of the human form known once more.
Section References[2] [6]
109 of 256
110 of 256
This impassive figure is one of the most reproduced on the ceiling.
[edit] IgnudiThe Ignudi[44] are the 20 athletic, nude males that Michelangelo painted as supporting figures at the four corners of the five smaller narrative scenes of central part of the ceiling. The figures hold or are draped with or lean on a variety of things which include pink ribbons, green bolsters and enormous garlands of acorns. The acorns are the symbol of the family of Michelangelo's patron, Pope Julius, and can also be seen as the finials on his chair in Raphael's portrait.[45]
The Ignudi, although all seated, are less physically constrained than the Ancestors of Christ. While the pairs of the monochrome male and female figures above the spandrels are mirrors of each other, these ignudi are all different. In the earliest paintings, they are paired, their poses being similar but with variation. These variations become greater with each pair until the postures of final four bear no relation to each other whatsoever. Their painting demonstrates, more than any other figures on the ceiling, Michelangelo's mastery of anatomy and foreshortening and his enormous powers of invention.[46]
The meaning of these figures has never been clear. They are certainly in keeping with the Humanist acceptance of the classical Greek view that “the man is the measure of all things”.[47] Their presence and nudity angered a number of critics, including Pope Hadrian VI who described the ceiling as "a stew of naked bodies" and wanted it stripped.[5]
But Michelangelo knew the Bible well.[2] He would have been well aware of the fact that although seraphim and cherubim are described as being winged creatures, angels are not. They are described as looking like men.[48] When Michelangelo later painted the altar wall of the chapel, he included a great number of angels, particularly in the lunettes which are decorated with scenes of angels carrying the symbols of the Passion. Other angels are employed sounding the trumpets which call forth the dead, displaying books in which the names of the saved and the damned are written and casting sinners down to Hell. In all, the Last Judgement contains more than forty angels, all closely resembling the ignudi. It is reasonable to conclude that the ignudi represent angels.[49] If the ignudi are indeed angels, they are the ever-present attendants and messengers of God, impassively watching and waiting on the fate of
110 of 256
111 of 256
Humankind.
[edit] Stylistic analysis and artistic legacy
Raphael's Isaiah was painted in imitation of Michelangelo's prophets.
Michelangelo was the artistic heir to the great 15th century sculptors and painters of Florence. His learnt his trade first under the direction of a masterly fresco painter, Domenico Ghirlandaio, known for two great fresco cycles in the Sassetti Chapel and Tornabuoni Chapel, and for his contribution to the cycle of paintings on the walls of the Sistine Chapel. As a student Michelangelo studied and drew from the works of the two most renowned Florentine fresco painters of the early Renaissance, Giotto and Masaccio.[50] Masaccio's figures of Adam and Eve being expelled from the Garden of Eden had a profound effect on the depiction of the nude in general, and in particular on the use of the nude figure to convey human emotion. Helen Gardner says that in the hands of Michelangelo "the body is simply the manifestation of the soul, or of a state of mind and character".[50]
Michelangelo was also almost certainly influenced by the paintings of Luca Signorelli [50] whose paintings, particularly the Death and Resurrection Cycle in Orvieto Cathedral contain a great number of nudes and inventive figurative compositions. In Bologna, Michelangelo saw the relief sculptures of Jacopo della Quercia around the doors of the cathedral. In Michelangelo's depiction of the Creation of Eve the whole composition, the form of the figures and the relatively conservative concept of the relationship between Eve and her Creator adheres closely to Jacopo's design.[8] Other panels on the ceiling, most particularly the iconic Creation of Adam show "unprecedented invention".[8]
111 of 256
112 of 256
The Deposition by Pontormo. The Mannerist style developed from Michelangelo's painting.
The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was to have a profound effect upon other artists, even before it was completed. Vasari, in his Life of Raphael, tells us that Bramante, who had the keys to the chapel, let Raphael in to examine the paintings in Michelangelo's absence. On seeing Michelangelo's prophets, Raphael went back to the picture of the Prophet Isaiah that he was painting on a column in the Church of Sant'Agostino and, according to Vasari, although it was finished, he scraped it off the wall and repainted it in a much more powerful manner, in imitation of Michelangelo.
There was hardly a design element on the ceiling that was not subsequently imitated: the fictive architecture, the muscular anatomy, the foreshortening, the dynamic motion, the luminous colouration, the haunting expressions of the figures in the lunettes, the abundance of putti. Gabriele Bartz and Eberhard König have said of the ignudi, "There is no image that has had a more lasting effect on following generations than this. Henceforth similar figures disported themselves in innumerable decorative works, be they painted, formed in stucco or even sculpted."[8]
Within Michelangelo's own work, the chapel ceiling led to the later and more Mannerist painting of the Last Judgement in which the crowded compositions gave full rein to his inventiveness in painting contorted and foreshortened figures expressing despair or jubilation. Among the artists in whose work can be seen the direct influence of Michelangelo are Pontormo, Andrea del Sarto, Correggio, Tintoretto, Annibale Carracci, Paolo Veronese and El Greco.
In January 2007, it was claimed that as many as 10,000 visitors passed through the Vatican Museums in a day and that the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is the biggest attraction. The Vatican, anxious at the possibility that the newly-restored frescoes will suffer damage, announced plans to reduce visiting hours and raise the price in an attempt to discourage visitors.[51]
Five hundred years earlier Vasari had said "The whole world came running when the vault was revealed, and the sight of it was enough to reduce them to stunned silence."[5]
[edit] QuotationsVasari
112 of 256
113 of 256
This painting by Tintoretto shows the influence of the ignudi, this time in female form.
“The work has proved a veritable beacon to our art, of inestimable benefit to all painters, restoring light to a world that for centuries had been plunged into darkness. Indeed, painters no longer need to seek for new inventions, novel attitudes, clothed figures, fresh ways of expression, different arrangements, or sublime subjects, for this work contains every perfection possible under those headings.”[5]
Waldemar Januszczak The art critic and television producer Waldemar Januszczak wrote that when the Sistine Chapel ceiling was recently cleaned, he "was able to persuade the man at the Vatican who was in charge of Japanese TV access to let me climb the scaffold while the cleaning was in progress."
"I sneaked up there a few times. And under the bright, unforgiving lights of television, I was able to encounter the real Michelangelo. I was so close to him I could see the bristles from his brushes caught in the paint; and the mucky thumbprints he’d left along his margins. The first thing that impressed me was his speed. Michelangelo worked at Schumacher pace. Adam’s famous little penis was captured with a single brushstroke: a flick of the wrist, and the first man had his manhood.[52] I also enjoyed his sense of humour, which, from close up, turned out to be refreshingly puerile. If you look closely at the angels who attend the scary prophetess on the Sistine ceiling known as the Cumaean Sibyl, you will see that one of them has stuck his thumb between his fingers in that mysteriously obscene gesture that visiting fans are still treated to today at Italian football matches."[53]
Gabriel Bartz and Eberhard König "In a world where all experience was based in the glorious lost past of Antiquity, he made a new beginning. Michelangelo, more even than Raphael or Leonardo, embodies a standard of artistic genius which reveals a radically changed image of human beings and their potential..."[8]
"...witnessing to the beauty of man created by God...", Pope John Paul II.
113 of 256
114 of 256
Pope John Paul II “It seems that Michelangelo, in his own way, allowed himself to be guided by the evocative words of the Book of Genesis which, as regards the creation of the human being, male and female, reveals: "The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame".[54] The Sistine Chapel is precisely - if one may say so - the sanctuary of the theology of the human body. In witnessing to the beauty of man created by God as male and female, it also expresses in a certain way, the hope of a world transfigured, the world inaugurated by the Risen Christ……”[55]
Michelangelo"Whatever beauty here on earth is seen,
To meet the longing and perceptive eye,
Is semblance of that source divine,
From whence we all are come.
In this alone we catch a glimpse of Heaven."[56]
[edit] RestorationMain article: Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes
The frescoes of the Sistine Chapel were restored between June 1980 and December 1999, with preliminary tests taking place in 1979.
The first stage of restoration, the work upon Michelangelo’s lunettes, was achieved in October 1984. The work then proceeded on the ceiling, completed December 1989 and from there to the Last Judgement. The restoration was unveiled by Pope John Paul II on 8 April, 1994. The restoration team comprised Gianluigi Colalucci, Maurizio Rossi, Piergiorgio Bonetti, Bruno Baratti and others. The final stage was the restoration of the wall frescoes by Botticelli, Ghirlandaio, Perugino and others, This was unveiled on 11 December, 1999.[57]
The restoration, which revealed the frescoes in bright pastel colours, was met with both praise and criticism. Those who are critical believe that much original work by Michelangelo was lost in the removal of various accretions.[58]
. . . NRA. The proceedure being audited was often non-existent, out of date, inadequate, ignored, or inaccurate. Complicating the situation was the fact that management was slow to respond and often failed to respond for months.
To: HRH Prince Turki Al-Faisal Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud; Care of: KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD & EVANS, P.L.L.C.1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400, Sumner Square, Washington, DC 20036-3209Tel: (202) 326-7900 ; Fax: (202) 326-7999Counsel for HRH Prince Turki Al-Faisal Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, and The Kingdom of Italy and RomeMark C. Hansen, Esquire, Kelly P. Dunbar, Esq.: [email protected] , Michael K. Kellogg, Esquire, [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected]
TO: Notification of Attorney General's Office - England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, 20 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0NF , General Inquiries: 020 7271 2492; Fax: 020 7271 2434 E-Mail addresses: All queries: [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] TO: Postal Address: Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, Greater London Authority, email: [email protected] , City Hall, The Queen's Walk, More London, London SE1 2AA ; Telephone: 020 7983 4100 Minicom: 020 7983 4458 ; Fax: 020 7983 4057
TO: Matthew W. Friedrich, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division , 950 Pennsylvania Ave. , Washington, D.C. 20530-0001; [email protected] switchb:202-514-2000; http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/links/contact.html ("...advises the Attorney General, Congress, the Office of Management Budget and the White House on matters of criminal law; provides legal advice and assistance to federal prosecutors and investigative agencies; and provides leadership for coordinating international as well as federal, state, and local law enforcement matters...") To: Lee Caplan & John B. Bellinger III, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, (202) 647-0748; [email protected]; Kimberly A. Gahan, Attorney-Adviser, International Claims & Investment Disputes Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, tel: (202) 776-8431; email: [email protected] Attaché Office, US Embassy, 24 Grosvenor Square, London W1A 1AE ; Phone:[44] (0) 20 7894-0723; Fax:[44] (0) 20 7499-7688 ; Email: [email protected] ; [email protected] TO: United States Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 10th and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 2053 ;US Attorney General, 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC - (202) 353-1555 ,
Appendix 7 of Atrocities:(1) SEE:Video Of Beaheadings Of Americans Kristian Menchaca And Thomas ...(2) SEE:Kristian Menchaca - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia(3) SEE: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-06,GGLD:en&q=kristian+menchaca+video(4) SEE: http://www.google.com/search?
Certiorari.APPENDIX: (1) Letter from:Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk Washington, DC 20543-001 William K. Suter Clerk of the Court (202) 479-3011 April 2. 2009 Mr. Kenneth MacKenzie
Re: Kenneth MacKenzie, Guadalupe Vasquez, Ceasar Vasquez Menchaca v. United States No. 08-9595
Dear Mr. MacKenzie:
The petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on December 3, 2008 and placed on the docket April 2, 2009 as No. 08-9595.
A form is enclosed for notifying opposing counsel that the case was docketed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Kenneth MacKenzie,Guadalupe Vasquez, Caesar Vasquez Menchaca, (Petitioners) v. No. 08-9595 United States (Respondent) To: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Counsel for Respondent: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Rule 12.3 that a petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed in the Supreme Court of the United States on December 3, 2008 and placed on the docket April 2,2009. Pursuant to Rule 15.3, the due date for a brief in opposition is Monday, May 04, 2009. If the due date is a Saturday, Sunday, or federal legal holiday, the brief is due on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or federal legal holiday.
Unless the Solicitor General Of The United States represents the respondent, a waiver form is enclosed and should be sent to the clerk only in the event you do not intend to file a response to the petition.
Only counsel of record will receive notification of the court's action in this case. Counsel of record must be a member of the bar of this court.
Mr. Kenneth MacKenzie
129 of 256
130 of 256
Note: This notice is for notification purposes only, and neither the original nor a copy should be filed in the Supreme Court.: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
08-9595
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, DC 20543-001(1) Kenneth MacKenzie, appearing Properia Persona as Plaintiff “Pro Se” appearing on his own behalf with family class members similarly situated, (2) Julieta Vasquez-MacKenzie, as Plaintiff, Aunt of Pfc. Kristian Vasquez Menchaca (sister of Claimant Guadalupe Vasquez), (3) Guadalupe Vasquez, as Plaintiff, Mother of Pfc. Kristian Vasquez Menchaca, Mother of (4) Caesar Vasquez Menchaca, as Plaintiff, Brother of Pfc. Kristian Vasquez Menchaca, family class members similarly situated — PETITIONERS
Class Action regarding: (1) The four Geneva Conventions (I,II,III,IV) of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims
Vs.Defendant #1, U.S. Justice Department, United States Executive Branch Of Government, Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States — RESPONDENT(S)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
130 of 256
131 of 256
TO U.S. Court Of Appeal For the Fifth Circuit ------------------------------------------------------PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Kenneth MacKenzie (Uncle of PFC Kristian Menchaca) and Cesar Menchaca (brother of PFC Kristian Menchaca),
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ IV. QUESTION(S) PRESENTED OF ISSUE:
QUESTION (1). This matter presents several U.S. Constitutional questions to this U.S.
Supreme Court:
There exists a conflict between the decision of District Court and a prior decision of the
U.S. Supreme Court which allowed waiver of filing fee in Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S.
371 (1971)}; therefore, review is sought on Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971)}
precedent of filing fee of U.S. District Court Case H-08-60, Houston, Texas, filed by
indigent Plaintiff family victims who ought not be required to pay filing fee to pursue
litigation of Terrorist War crimes against U.S. veteran and his family when family is
suing Terrorists in U.S. Courts.
Comparatively, there is no filing fee required of veteran's family to file U.S. form 95
Administrative Claim on same issue with Executive Branch as an Administrative Tort
Claim and no fee should be charged by the U.S. Court to resolve issues filed as
Administrative Claims against the government in the Judicial Branch, especially when
War Crimes have been consummated..
Thus, the courts applying doctrine of fairness ought not charge a filing fee when the
Executive Branch does not charge . Furthermore, as this U.S. District Court Case H-08-
131 of 256
132 of 256
60 complains of War Crime violations of the Geneva Conventions, there should be no
filing fee demanded in such Geneva Convention Complaint matters before a U.S. Court,
the U.S. being signatory to Geneva Conventions.
QUESTION (2). Moreover, regarding Geneva Conventions prohibiting War Crimes of
Mutilation, Torture, Murder of Prisoners of War: Plaintiffs complain that there are
disagreements among lower courts about specific legal questions relating to U.S. Court
Filing Fees for the indigent family of Terrorist tortured and murdered U.S. veteran,
Kristian menchaca, tortured to death in iraq, 2006, with PFC Thomas Tucker, both
victims of War Crimes prohibited against Prisoners of War by Geneva Conventions . A
United States required court filing fee interferes with filing of lawsuits of Geneva
Convention War Crime questions for which no filing fee is described as required or
provisioned in the Geneva Conventions, which if specified according to the political
cunning of a U.S. Court judge would thwart and limit court hearings on violations of
Geneva Conventions thereby making them meaningless.
Indigent War Crime Victim Families of Terrorism War Crimes against one of their family
members should not be required to pay court filing fees and not treated with less court
access in U.S. Courts than War crime victims of Hitler's Third Reich.
War Crime Victim Families of Terrorism War Crimes against a U.S. soldier family
member should be able to file lawsuits in U.S. Courts to seek compensation in War Crime
litigation and should not be denied court access by by U.S. Court rules to thwart the
Geneva Conventions and not be denied court access by contrived "Limitations of Actions"
132 of 256
133 of 256
and not treated with less court access than War crime victims of Hitler's Third Reich
when seeking access to U.S. courts on Complaints of War Crimes perpetrated in the Iraq
War.
Indigent family of 'Terrorist-tortured-to-death' U.S. soldier / veteran victim of Geneva
Convention prohibited War Crimes should not be required to pay U.S. Court filing fee to
litigate Geneva Convention War Crime issues in U.S. Courts any more than the U.S.
Courts would charge a Jewish victim of Hitler's Third Reich in a War Crime Case!
Therefore, the U.S. District Court's demand for Court filing fees against Plaintiffs and
denial of Plaintiff's filing of this Court Action without payment of fees is also a violation
of U.S. laws prohibiting racial discrimination.
Moreover, there are no limitations of Actions imposed within the Geneva Conventions
and therefore judge-imposed time limitations for the filing of papers in Geneva
Convention War Crime litigation should not be created outside the Geneva Conventions
to thwart and nullify the Geneva Conventions and thwart litigation against those who
have clearly violated and claimed (Abu al Masri Islamic al Shura Council) to have
violated the Geneva Conventions against terrorist captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War:
U.S. Army PFC Kristian Menchaca, PFC Thomas Tucker, PFC Joseph Anziak, Sgt. Keith
Maupin, PFC Byron Fouty, Spec. Alex Jimenez .
QUESTION (3): Plaintiff did not receive the U.S. District Court Clerk's 'insecure regular
U.S. mail' Notice of U.S. District Judge Gray Miller's "25 Feb 2008 Denial of Forma
Pauperis," whatsoever.
133 of 256
134 of 256
Court Clerk's notification of of U.S. District Judge Gray Miller's "25 Feb 2008 Denial of
Forma Pauperis," to Petitioner/Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail was deficient in U.S. mail
security, was never delivered to Plaintiffs and therefore insufficient to commence time
tolling, which should not commence as Plaintiffs never received U.S. District Judge Gray
Miller's "25 Feb 2008 Denial of Forma Pauperis," in the mail as it was not sent or
delivered by certified U.S. mail:
1. The first reason time tolling should not commence is that a lawsuit of Geneva
Convention War Crimes has "no limitations of actions," including time within which to
file complaint or court papers, which if specified would thwart and limit and deny the
Geneva Conventions regarding Geneva Convention War Crime violations of Geneva
Conventions of which U.S. is signatory and ratifier.
2. Moreover, the U.S. District Court Clerk, Southern District of Texas, did not notify
Plaintiffs by verifiable "certified mail service" of U.S. Court decision to deny Pauperis as
described in court's own rules requiring litigants to establish proof of "mail-service." Such
U.S. District Court manipulation is dishonest and trivializes the Geneva Conventions.
Court Clerk U.S.-mailed-Notice of decision to deny Pauperis to sidewalk mail box was
deficient in security compared to certified mail with signed receipt as required in Court's
own mailing rules to achieve service.
U.S. Judge Gray Miller manipulated all of these events after usurping jurisdiction of this
U.S. Case H-08-60 in violation of 28 USC, Section 455.
Miller was fully informed that this U.S. Case H-08-60 sought U.S. Fourteenth
134 of 256
135 of 256
Amendment parity, sufficiency, and equality to raise upward and increase U.S. $25,000
Rewards for the lives of Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War to be at least equal to
U.S. Mega one Million to Twenty Five Million Dollar Rewards offered to save their
Terrorist executioners who were torturing said Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War to
death while benefitting from the life-saving contrivance of said mega million dollar
rewards while said Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War were denied by Miller the
Fourteenth amendment equality of mega million rewards to be life-value-equal to the
very same enemies who tortured them to death.
Instead, terrorist Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- U.S. Army PFC Kristian
Menchaca, PFC Thomas Tucker, PFC Joseph Anziak, Sgt. Keith Maupin, PFC Byron
Fouty, Spec. Alex Jimenez -- were cursed with said U.S. $25,000 Rewards that caused
them to be tortured to death and murdered in Iraq.
QUESTION (4): The reward life values assigned for terrorist Captured U.S. soldier
Prisoners of War -- U.S. Army PFC Kristian Menchaca, PFC Thomas Tucker, PFC Joseph
Anziak, Sgt. Keith Maupin, PFC Byron Fouty, Spec. Alex Jimenez -- should never be
lower than the reward life values for Captured enemy terrorist soldier Prisoners of War.
It is a guarantee of torture and death for Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War to be
reward life valued at less than Captured enemy terrorist soldier Prisoners of War.
Insufficient U.S. $50,000 Reward life values assigned for Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners
of War do discourage enlistment into the U.S. armed services when the american people
discover that their government devalues and thereby defames, slanders, and libels their
135 of 256
136 of 256
lives as "American Untermenchen" enlisted Soldiers -- Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of
War -- at 20 to 500 times less Reward Life Value than captured enemy terrorist Prisoners
of War, thereby causing torture and death to be inflicted on Captured U.S. soldier
Prisoners of War whose life value is comparatively demonstrated as $25,000
"Untermenchen 'UnderTrash.'"
And, when the american people discover that "All" one hundred percent of Captured U.S.
soldier Prisoners of War Reward life valued at $50,000 in Iraq have been barbarically
tortured to death in Iraq, U.S. Military enlistment rates will go down further.
Moreover, virtually all 100% of Captured enemy terrorist soldier Prisoners of War -
Terrorists -- survived their capture in Iraq, maintained alive, because they were life
valued at one Million to twenty five Million dollars for Reward purposes -- from 20 to 500
times more than Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War .
Of importance to the public-- "We-The-People" -- is that related primary question of U.S.
""Fifty Thousand Dollar 'Reward life-values' " published, proclaimed, and offered for
recovery of captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War to be "NOT-LESS-THAN-Fourteenth-
Amendment -EQUAL" to U.S. Published, Proclaimed, and Offered "One-to-Twenty-Five-
Million-Dollar" Reward life value Protection provided for "Mega-Million-Dollar" Jihad
Terrorists, virtually all one hundred percent saved alive, who are higher reward-life
valued up to five hundred times more by U.S. Executive Branch than "Fourteenth-
Amendment-Equality-DENIED 'Fifty Thousand Dollar'" U.S. soldier Prisoners of War in
Iraq and in Afghanistan War theaters during War, thereby "Fifty Thousand Dollar"
136 of 256
137 of 256
Rewards are inflicting Death on "ALL" U.S. soldier Prisoners of War in Iraq and
Afghanistan, "ALL" one hundred percent who have been captured have been tortured to
death on said "Fifty Thousand Dollar" Rewards.
The Reward life values for Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War could be increased and
reward life valued at higher amounts while reward life values for Captured enemy
terrorist soldier Prisoners of War can be lowered until both are equal and equality is
achieved.
V. List of Parties On the page provided, check either the box indicating that the names of all parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page or the box indicating that there are additional parties. If there are additional parties, list them. Rule 12.6 states that all parties to the proceeding whose judgment is sought to be reviewed shall be deemed parties in this Court, and that all parties other than petitioner shall be respondents. The court whose judgment you seek to have this Court review is not a party. Defendant U.S. Department of Justice Attorney General
VI. Table of Contents SEE Page 35 On the page provided, list the page numbers on which the required portions of the petition appear. Number the pages consecutively, beginning with the “Opinions Below” page as page 1.
VII. Index of Appendices List the description of each document that is included in the appendix beside the appropriate appendix letter. Mark the bottom of the first page of each appendix with the appropriate designation, e.g., “Appendix A.” See Rule 14.1 pertaining to the items to be included in the appendix.
VII. Index of Appendices
A. Federal Courts If you are asking the Court to review a decision of a federal court, the decision
137 of 256
138 of 256
of the United States court of appeals should be designated Appendix A. decision of the United States court of appeals should be designated Appendix A.
Appendix A should be followed by the decision of the United States District Court and the findings and recommendations of the United States magistrate judge, if there were any. If the United States court of appeals denied a timely filed petition for rehearing, a copy of that order should be appended next.
If you are seeking review of a decision in a habeas corpus case, and the decision of either the United States District Court or the United States Court of Appeals makes reference to a state court decision in which you were a party, a copy of the state court decision must be included in the appendix.
B. State Courts If you are asking the Court to review a decision of a state court, the decision of which review is sought should be designated Appendix A.
Appendix A should be followed by the decision of the lower court or agency that was reviewed in the decision designated Appendix A. If the highest court of the state in which a decision could be had denied discretionary review, a copy of that order should follow. If an order denying a timely filed petition for rehearing starts the running of the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 13.3, a copy of the order should be appended next.
As an example, if the state trial court ruled against you, the intermediate court of appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, the state supreme court denied discretionary review and then denied a timely petition for rehearing, the appendices should appear in the following order:
Appendix A. decision of the United States Court of Appeals
Decision of State Court of Appeals Appendix B Decision of State Trial Court Appendix C Decision of State Supreme Court Denying Review Appendix D Order of State Supreme Court Denying Rehearing
VIII. Table of Authorities On the page provided, list the cases, statutes, treatises, and articles that are referenced: Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971)}
138 of 256
139 of 256
On the page provided, list the cases, statutes, treatises, and articles that are referenced: Geneva Conventions (I,II,III,IV), of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims,
The page number of petition where each authority appears: Pages. 1 , 2, 6, 8, 9,
IX. Opinions Below In the space provided, indicate whether the opinions of the lower courts in your case have been published, and if so, the citation for the opinion below. For example, opinions of the United States courts of appeals are published in the Federal Reporter. If the opinion in your case appears at page 100 of volume 30 of the Federal Reporter, Third Series, indicate that the opinion is reported at 30 F. 3d 100. If the opinion has been designated for publication but has not yet been published, check the appropriate space. Also indicate where in the appendix each decision, reported or unreported, appears.
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971)}
X. Jurisdiction The purpose of the jurisdiction section of the petition is to establish the statutory source for the Court’s jurisdiction and the dates that determine whether the petition is timely filed.
139 of 256
140 of 256
.1. PRELIMINARY SHORT, PLAIN STATEMENT OF WHY THE COURT HAS
JURISDICTION AND VENUE: There are multiple causes of action and jurisdictions in
this matter. This U.S. court has jurisdiction of this matter under Geneva Conventions (I,
III, IV), 12 August, 1949, And Geneva Convention Protocols I And II, Of 08 June 1977, to
which the U.S. is signatory, relative To Terrorist-captured U.S. Soldiers who are
“Prisoners Of War” and has jurisdiction of U.S. reward money in the U.S. Treasury to be
paid for captured U.S. Soldiers and paid for captured Terrorists and terrorists “at large”
during wartime; this U.S. court has jurisdiction under the Torture Victim Protection Act
of 1991, 28 U.S.C. § 1350: The Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which provides a
cause of action for damages to anyone - aliens and citizens alike - who suffered torture
anywhere in the world at the hands of any individual acting under the law of any foreign
nation. 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note: The Torture Victim Act does not contain its own
jurisdictional provision. But, it is clear that any case brought pursuant to that statute
would arise under federal law and thus come within 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the grant of
general federal question jurisdiction; this U.S. court has jurisdiction under (1) Federal
Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. Sections 1346, 2671-80, and under 28 USC, Section
1391, Where Plaintiff Resides; Under 18 USC, Section 1964 - Civil remedies, 18 USC,
Section 1965 - Venue and process; under (2) USC Title 18, Part I, Chapter 96,
Section 1961, et.seq., RICO Act, Section 1964, Civil remedies, et.seq., under (3) Any act
that is indictable under any provision listed in TITLE 18, Section 2332b (g)(5)(B), under
(4) Title 18 USC, Sectiion 2339A. Providing material support to terrorists, under (5) Title
140 of 256
141 of 256
28 U.S.C., Section 1331. Federal question; under (6) Title 42, Section 1983; under (7) Title
28 U.S.C., Section 1350. Alien's action for tort; under (8) 28 U.S.C., Section 1361. Action
to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty; JURISDICTION AND
VENUE UNDER TITLE 18, SECTION 2334:(a) General Venue. - Any civil action under
section 2333 of this title against any person may be instituted in the district court of the
United States for any district where any plaintiff resides or where any defendant resides
or is served, or has an agent. Process in such a civil action may be served in any district
where the defendant resides, is found, or has an agent. (b) Special Maritime or Territorial
Jurisdiction. - If the actions giving rise to the claim occurred within the special maritime
and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as defined in section 7 of this title, then
any civil action under section 2333 of this title against any person may be instituted in
the district court of the United States for any district in which any plaintiff resides or the
defendant resides, is served, or has an agent. (c) Service on Witnesses. - A witness in a
civil action brought under section 2333 of this title may be served in any other district
where the defendant resides, is found, or has an agent. (d) Convenience of the Forum. -
The district court shall not dismiss any action brought under section 2333 of this title on
the grounds of the inconvenience or inappropriateness of the forum chosen, unless - (1)
the action may be maintained in a foreign court that has jurisdiction over the subject
matter and over all the defendants; (2) that foreign court is significantly more convenient
and appropriate; and (3) that foreign court offers a remedy which is substantially the
same as the one available in the courts of the United States. U.S. Court Jurisdiction
and, Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, (Protocol I), 8
June 1977; and, Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,
(Protocol II), 8 June 1977.
.2. A STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM THAT ENTITLES THE PLAINTIFF TO RELIEF,
INCLUDING A CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: Defendant’s deliberately
wrongful acts and negligence caused the death of Kristian Menchaca, a son of Plaintiff
Guadalupe Vasquez, brother of Plaintiff Ceasar Menchaca, nephew of Julieta Vasquez
(sister of Guadalupe Vasquez) and Kenneth MacKenzie. During the time frame of June-
2006, while, at the same time as said United States Code Title 1 money was paid out of
the U.S. Treasury on behalf of Terrorists, said members of the same U.S. Life-reward
protected al Shura and al Queda Terrorist Organizations, life-protected by U.S. multi
million dollar reward money offered by Defendant Attorney General Gonzales, by U.S.
Executive Branch, and offered by Interested Party #1, Secretary of State Rice, were in-
progress torture-murdering United States Soldiers who said Terrorists had captured in
Yosifiya, Iraq, (1) Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, and (2) Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, who,
during this same time of June 2006, were treasonably denied by Defendant Attorney
General Gonzales and U.S. Executive Branch the equal life-saving treatment of said
United States `Counterterrorism Funds' in the area of Yosifiya, Iraq, during June 2006.
As a consequence, (1) Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, and (2) Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, were
tortured to death by reason of being assigned said “$50,000 Death Rewards” and
simultaneously denied rewards equal to the $25 million dollar rewards proclaimed by
142 of 256
143 of 256
Defendants to save the lives of the same Terrorist who savagely tortured (1) Pfc. Kristian
Menchaca, 23, and (2) Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25 as a result of Defendants’ denial of equal
rewards on their behalf. If (1) Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, and (2) Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker,
25 had been life-valued at $25 Million equal to Bin-Ladin, equal to Hussein, and equal to
other terrorists listed at the U.S. “Rewards For Justice” web site, their chances of
survival would have been equal to that of Terrorists. Instead Defendant Gonzales, and
Interested Party U.S. Executive Branch and Interested Parties Rice-Rumsfeld assigned a
paltry life value of $50,000 for each of terrorist-captured U.S. Soldiers’ lives while paying
out mega million dollar rewards for terrorist lives that they valued at higher dollar
amounts than for (1) Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, and (2) Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25. This
behavior is obviously a violation of said RICO Act proscribed crime predicates
The form sets out the pertinent statutes for federal and state cases. You need provide only the dates of the lower court decisions that establish the timeliness of the petition for a writ of certiorari. If an extension of time within which to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted, you must provide the requested information pertaining to the extension. If you seek to have the Court review a decision of a state court, you must provide the date the highest state court decided your case, either by ruling on the merits or denying discretionary review.
U.S. District Court lower court decision, 25 Feb 2008: Forma Pauperis denied.
XI. Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved Set out verbatim the constitutional provisions, treaties, statutes, ordinances and regulations involved in the case. If the provisions involved are lengthy, provide their citation and indicate where in the Appendix to the petition the text of the provisions appears.
United States Constitution , Amendment 14 - "1. All persons born or naturalized in the
143 of 256
144 of 256
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Cited in U.S. Case H-08-
XII. Statement of the Case Provide a concise statement of the case containing the facts material to the consideration of the question(s) presented; you should summarize the relevant facts of the case and the proceedings that took place in the lower courts. You may need to attach additional pages, but the statement should be concise and limited to the relevant facts of the case.
1. PRELIMINARY SHORT, PLAIN STATEMENT OF WHY THE COURT HAS
JURISDICTION AND VENUE: There are multiple causes of action and jurisdictions in
this matter. This U.S. court has jurisdiction of this matter under Geneva Conventions (I,
III, IV), 12 August, 1949, And Geneva Convention Protocols I And II, Of 08 June 1977, to
which the U.S. is signatory, relative to Terrorist-captured U.S. Soldier Prisoners of War
who were Terrorist captured “U.S. Soldier Prisoners of War ” tortured to death by
Terrorist captors as a consequence of U.S. insufficient and unequal life Reward offers of
$50,000 that were deliuberately kept insufficient to make display examples of “U.S.
Soldier Prisoners of War ” who U.S. Attorney General Gonzales knew would be put to
death as a consequence of deliberately low and insufficient $50,000 Rewards to prove the
144 of 256
145 of 256
U.S. does not deal with Terrorists.
The U.S. Attorney General has jurisdiction of U.S. reward money in the U.S. Treasury to
be paid for captured U.S. Soldiers and paid for captured Terrorists and terrorists “at
large” during wartime; this U.S. court has jurisdiction under the Torture Victim
Protection Act of 1991, 28 U.S.C. § 1350: The Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, which
provides a cause of action for damages to anyone - aliens and citizens alike - who suffered
torture anywhere in the world at the hands of any individual acting under the law of any
foreign nation. 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note: The Torture Victim Act does not contain its own
jurisdictional provision. But, it is clear that any case brought pursuant to that statute
would arise under federal law and thus come within 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the grant of
general federal question jurisdiction; this U.S. court has jurisdiction under (1) Federal
Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. Sections 1346, 2671-80, and under 28 USC, Section
1391, Where Plaintiff Resides; Under 18 USC, Section 1964 - Civil remedies, 18 USC,
Section 1965 - Venue and process; under (2) USC Title 18, Part I, Chapter 96,
Section 1961, et.seq., RICO Act, Section 1964, Civil remedies, et.seq., under (3) Any act
that is indictable under any provision listed in TITLE 18, Section 2332b (g)(5)(B), under
(4) Title 18 USC, Sectiion 2339A. Providing material support to terrorists, under (5) Title
28 U.S.C., Section 1331. Federal question; under (6) Title 42, Section 1983; under (7) Title
28 U.S.C., Section 1350. Alien's action for tort; under (8) 28 U.S.C., Section 1361. Action
to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE UNDER TITLE 18, SECTION 2334:(a) General Venue. -
145 of 256
146 of 256
Any civil action under section 2333 of this title against any person may be instituted in
the district court of the United States for any district where any plaintiff resides or where
any defendant resides or is served, or has an agent.
Convenience of the Forum. - The district court shall not dismiss any action brought under
section 2333 of this title on the grounds of the inconvenience or inappropriateness of the
forum chosen, unless - (1) the action may be maintained in a foreign court that has
jurisdiction over the subject matter and over all the defendants; (2) that foreign court is
significantly more convenient and appropriate; and (3) that foreign court offers a remedy
which is substantially the same as the one available in the courts of the United States.
U.S. Court Jurisdiction exists under Geneva Convention (I), Geneva Convention (III),
Geneva Convention (IV); and, Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12
August 1949, (Protocol I), 8 June 1977; and, Protocol Additional to the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949, (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.
.2. A STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM THAT ENTITLES THE PLAINTIFF TO RELIEF,
INCLUDING A CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: Defendant’s deliberately
wrongful acts and negligence caused the death of Kristian Menchaca, a son of Plaintiff
Guadalupe Vasquez, brother of Plaintiff Ceasar Menchaca, nephew of Julieta Vasquez
(sister of Guadalupe Vasquez) and Kenneth MacKenzie. During the time frame of June-
2006, while, at the same time as said United States Code Title 1 money was paid out of
the U.S. Treasury on behalf of Terrorists, said members of the same U.S. Life-reward
protected al Shura and al Queda Terrorist Organizations, life-protected by U.S. multi
146 of 256
147 of 256
million dollar reward money offered by Defendant Attorney General Gonzales, U.S.
Executive Branch, and offered by Interested Party #1, Secretary of State Rice, were in-
progress torture-murdering United States Soldiers who said Terrorists had captured in
Yosifiya, Iraq, (1) Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, and (2) Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, who,
during this same time of June 2006, were treasonably denied by Defendant Attorney
General Gonzales and U.S. Executive Branch the equal life-saving treatment of said
United States `Counterterrorism Funds' in the area of Yosifiya, Iraq, during June 2006.
As a consequence, (1) Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, and (2) Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, were
tortured to death by reason of being assigned said “$50,000 Death Rewards” and
simultaneously denied rewards equal to the $25 million dollar rewards proclaimed by
Defendants to save the lives of the same Terrorist who savagely tortured (1) Pfc. Kristian
Menchaca, 23, and (2) Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25 as a result of Defendants’ denial of equal
rewards on their behalf. If (1) Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, and (2) Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker,
25 had been life-valued at $25 Million equal to Bin-Ladin, equal to Hussein, and equal to
other terrorists listed at the U.S. “Rewards For Justice” web site, their chances of
survival would have been equal to that of Terrorists. Instead Defendant Gonzales, and
Interested Party U.S. Executive Branch and Interested Parties Rice-Rumsfeld assigned a
paltry life value of $50,000 for each of terrorist-captured U.S. Soldiers’ lives while paying
out mega million dollar rewards for terrorist lives that they valued at higher dollar
amounts than for (1) Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, and (2) Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25. This
behavior is obviously a violation of said RICO Act proscribed crime predicates and is a
147 of 256
148 of 256
violation of Geneva Convention III
Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to relief and payment of damages under provision of the
United States RICO Act and USC Title 18, Section 2381 – Treason, and is in violation of
other provisions of United States laws. Once life-valued after capture to virtual
worthlessness, (1) Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, and (2) Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25 had no
chance to survive capture alive. In truth, their chances were less than zero of surviving
after Defendant Gonzales, and Interested Party U.S. Executive Branch and Interested
Parties Rice-Rumsfeld assigned a low life-value $50,000 “Death-Sentence” ‘Reward’ for
each of their lives.
.3. TORTS AGAINST THE VASQUEZ FAMILY: the doctrine of "the thing speaks for
itself" (Res ipsa loquitur) applies. USC Title 18, § 3071 – “Information for which rewards
authorized“ and USC Title 18, Section 3072 - Determination of entitlement; maximum
amount; Presidential approval; conclusiveness - The Attorney General shall determine
whether an individual furnishing information described in section 3071 is entitled to a
reward and the amount to be paid.
TITLE 22, § 2708 – “Department of State rewards program” indicate that both Attorney
General Gonzales and Secretary of State Rice are responsible for assigning said larger
preferential reward amounts for terrorists. USC Title 18, § 3071 – “Information for which
rewards authorized“- and TITLE 22, § 2708 – “Department of State rewards program”
indicate said underfunded $50,000 rewards offered for the safety of captured U.S, soldiers
during war time treacherously discriminated unto death against U.S. soldiers, during
148 of 256
149 of 256
wartime. Both USC Title 18, § 3071 and TITLE 22, § 2708 provide that “the rewards
program shall be administered by the Secretary of State, in consultation, as appropriate,
with the Attorney General...” Defendant Attorney General Gonzales and U.S. Executive
Branch and U.S. Secretary of State Rice, and Secretaries of Defense Rumsfeld and Gates
do not have ministerial scope or authority under U.S. laws or under Geneva Conventions
to issue any proclamation of “Fifty Thousand Dollar ($50,000) Death Reward
Proclamations” after U.S. Soldiers have laid down their arms when captured by
Terrorists and are under the the provisions of the Geneva Conventions
.4. “Twenty-Five-Million-Mega-Dollar-Life-Rewards” advertised and paid by the United
States of America to save captured terrorist lives have consistently proven to save the
lives of captured terrorists at “one hundred per cent of the time.” However, said “Fifty-
Thousand-Low-Dollar-Death-Rewards” consistently have proven to cause death for the
soldiers of the United States of America at “one hundred per cent of the time.”
.5. When these two profoundly contrasting conditions of “’Life’ and ‘Death’ Rewards are
examined alongside the Geneva Conventions (I, III, IV) of 12 August 1949, ARTICLE 3 &
ARTICLE 11, and Geneva Convention Protocol I, ARTICLE 11 and Protocol II, of 08 June
1977,
Defendants’ proclaimed “Fifty Thousand Dollar ($50,000) Reward,” for captured U.S.
soldiers, when observed in reality alongside Defendants’ proclaimed “Twenty Five Million
Dollar Rewards” offered at the same time frame for and on behalf of terrorists, was
deliberately so insignificant and was so manipulatively low-level that it is immediately
149 of 256
150 of 256
seen as a symbolic “Token-Reward” that, in its final truthful interpretation by all who
perceived it, operated as more of an actual “$50,000 Death Sentence” (SEE: Geneva
Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; August 12, 1949 : Part 1,
ARTICLE 2; ARTICLE 3, “…(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all
kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture”; “(d) the passing of sentences…”) than of
anything else. Said “Fifty Thousand Dollar Reward” ($50,000) was obviously not
proclaimed to save the lives of the U.S. Soldiers it identified while Defendants proclaimed
“Twenty Five Million Dollar Rewards” offered and paid out $77 million dollars in Reward
money, in the same time frame, for and on behalf of terrorists.
.6. TORTS REGARDING WRONGFUL BREACH OF U.S. MILITARY CONTRACT: at the
point of voluntary enlistment into the U.S. Military forces under a written contract,
enlistees, most who are U.S. Citizens, are not forewarned by U.S. Military Enlistment
Recruiters of the United States Military Forces that after enlistment, if Volunteer U.S.
Soldiers are captured by terrorists, their lives are evaluated by the U.S. Executive
Branch at five hundred times less for “Reward” to be paid for their living recovery at Fifty
Thousand dollars each, than the Terrorist enemies of the United States whose lives are
evaluated by the U.S. Executive Branch at five hundred times more for “Reward” to be
paid for their living recovery at Twenty Five Million Dollars ($25,000,000) each, who said
Volunteer U.S. Soldiers are fighting against in Iraq and Afghanistan.
.7. TORTS REGARDING WRONGFUL BREACH OF U.S. MILITARY CONTRACT AND
NEGLIGENCE, FOR WHICH A CIVIL SUIT CAN BE BROUGHT: enlistees, most who
150 of 256
151 of 256
are U.S. Citizens, are not forewarned by U.S. Military Enlistment Recruiters of the
United States Military Forces that after enlistment, if Volunteer U.S. Soldiers are
captured by terrorists, only five hundred times less “Reward” will be offered by the U.S.
Defense Department for their living recovery at Fifty Thousand dollars ($50,000) each,
this $50,000 is five hundred times less than Terrorists are U.S. life-valued at Twenty five
Million Dollars ($25,000,000) each for Rewards. Due to the fact that U.S. soldiers lives
are “unexpectedly” life-under-valued by their government at five hundred times less
“Reward” ($50,000) than Terrorist enemies of the United States are highly life valued for
Rewards of Twenty Five Million Dollars ($25,000,000), all said captured U.S. Soldiers in
Iraq have been recovered by the United States Military in a tortured-to-death condition
because of said “unexpectedly” low $50,000 rewards; and, those whose bodies have not
been recovered have been videoed by terrorists while they were murdered as represented
in Terrorist murder videos.
.8. Thus, the U.S. Executive Branch, in its “unexpected” breach of U.S. Military Contract,
has unreasonably breached a duty of care for the interests of Terrorist-captured United
States Soldiers held as “Prisoners of War” in Iraq by not forewarning them at enlistment
of the manipulated “Death Sentence” (SEE: Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War; August 12, 1949 : Part 1, ARTICLE 2; ARTICLE 3, “…(a)
violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment
and torture”; “(d) the passing of sentences…”) that the U.S. Executive Branch assigns to
them in the guise of an offered $50,000 Reward if they are captured by Terrorists in Iraq
151 of 256
152 of 256
or Afghanistan. In essence, U.S. Military Recruiters act in “Bad Faith” by not explaining
that all one hundred percent of captured U.S. soldiers are limited to fifty thousand dollar
reward life values in Iraq and have been tortured to death for which a civil suit can be
brought against the U.S. Military for writing contracts without full disclosure that
subsequently leads to Torture Death of the enlistee one hundred percent (100%) of the
time if he is captured by terrorists in Iraq.
.9. Under the doctrine of "the thing speaks for itself" (Res ipsa loquitur), the $50,000
dollar low reward for captured U.S. Soldiers is a Death Sentence (SEE: Geneva
Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; August 12, 1949 : Part 1,
ARTICLE 2; ARTICLE 3, “…(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all
kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture”; “(d) the passing of sentences…”) when
contrasted alongside the $25,000,000 the U.S. government offers for “at large” and
“captured” terrorists in Iraq. Said $50,000 low dollar level reward signifies that further
details are unnecessary to prove it is a “Death Sentence”; the proof of the case is self-
evident. "The thing speaks for itself" doctrine (Res ipsa loquitur) applies under said
conditions: Defendants Gonzales and U.S. Executive Branch unreasonably and
negligently breached a duty of care for the interests of Terrorist captured United States
Soldiers by not offering Rewards equal to the Twenty Five Million Dollar Rewards it
regularly offers for “At Large” Terrorists and “captured Terrorists.”
.10. "THE THING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF" (RES IPSA LOQUITUR) APPLIES: it is the
profound “five hundred ‘times’ fifty thousand dollar difference in Rewards” that indicates
152 of 256
153 of 256
to any observer that "the thing speaks for itself" (Res ipsa loquitur) that there is such a
vast “five hundred times” difference in said fifty thousand dollar U.S. Reward offers, and
"the thing speaks for itself" that said “U.S. proclaimed fifty thousand dollar reward offer”
to informants for information on the whereabouts of captured U.S. soldiers cannot be
taken as seriously as the U.S. offer of Twenty five million dollars to informants for
information on the whereabouts of “At Large” or “Captured” terrorists, anywhere, inside
or outside of Iraq. Thus, the doctrine of "the thing speaks for itself" (Res ipsa loquitur)
applies to “ultra hazardous” low $50,000 Reward conditions meaning, literally, "the U.S.
proclaimed $50,000 Reward” as an “obvious-beyond-obvious” death catalyst operating
against a Terrorist-captured U.S. soldier during wartime in Iraq and speaks for itself."
"The U.S. proclaimed $50,000 Reward” signifies that further details are unnecessary; the
proof of the case is self-evident that a captured U.S. soldier in mortal danger of being
tortured to death or murdered will most certainly be tortured to death or murdered when
his government offers said "U.S. proclaimed $50,000 ultra hazardous low Reward” as a
message that U.S. proclaimed $50,000 Reward” payment for any captured U.S. Soldier’s
life is deliberately 500 times lower than the $25,000,000 million dollars the U.S. is
offering to pay as reward for “at-large” or “captured” terrorists in Iraq at the U.S.
“Rewards For Justice” Web site maintained by Defendants and Interested Party Rice.
XIII. Reasons for Granting the Petition
The purpose of this section of the petition is to explain to the Court why it should grant certiorari. It is important to read Rule 10 and address what compelling reasons
153 of 256
154 of 256
exist for the exercise of the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction. Try to show not only why the decision of the lower court may be erroneous, but the national importance of having the Supreme Court decide the question involved. It is important to show whether the decision of the court that decided your case is in conflict with the decisions of another appellate court; the importance of the case not only to you but to others similarly situated; and the ways the decision of the lower court in your case was erroneous. You will need to attach additional pages, but the reasons should be as concise as possible, consistent with the purpose of this section of the petition:
There is more than one issue of national importance of having the Supreme Court decide
the questions involved:
Said current "$50,000 REWARD FOR U.S. SOLDIER POW VERSUS THE $1 MILLION
TO $25 MILLION REWARD FOR TERRORIST POW" appears to be Treason. It appears
to be Treason beacause "$50,000 REWARD FOR U.S. SOLDIER POW VERSUS THE $1
MILLION TO $25 MILLION REWARD FOR TERRORIST POW" "is" Treason to an
unambiguous Mathmatical truth-certainty, which is most extraordinary in U.S. history.
Said perversely unequal reward system "speaks for itself" that "life rewards" for captured
U.S. soldier Prisoners of War should never be lower than the dollar amount offerred by
the U.S. as life Rewards to be paid for capture and preservation of the lives of enemies of
the United States.
Otherwise, "the thing speaks for itself" that volunteer enlistees in the ranks of the U.S.
Military and state National Guards will become demoralized that their own government
is publishing higher value reward money having effect of saving lives of enemies of the
United States during war at a twenty hundred percent to fifty thousand percent higher
rate than lower $25,000 rates while denying Terrorist-captured United States Soldier
154 of 256
155 of 256
Prisoners of War at least life reward equality with enemies of the United States during
war.
Once word of this perverse reward system becomes well known, a percentage volunteer
enlistees and officers could become so demorlaized as to leave U.S. military service. Those
who stay will remain demoralized. New enlistees will become harder to find. In a Drafted
Army, such perverse reward conditions encourage mutinies and desertions.
XIV. Conclusion
Enter your name and the date that you submit the petition.
XV. Proof of Service
You must serve a copy of your petition on counsel for respondent(s) as required by
Rule 29. If you serve the petition by first-class mail or by third-party commercial
carrier, you may use the enclosed proof of service form.
If the United States or any department, office, agency, officer, or employee thereof is a
party, you must serve the Solicitor General of the United States, Room 5614, Department
of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D. C. 20530–0001. The lower courts
that ruled on your case are not parties and need not be served with a copy of the petition.
The proof of service may be in the form of a declaration pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1746.
regarding this matter as it has been presented as a Crime Tort Claim to the Minister
of Justice for Italy and Rome and to the Minister of Justice for Indonesia.
. . . If the U.S. government will continue to waive its right to defend, Plaintiffs earnestlybelieve that this matter should be settled without further litigation and concurrentdamaging controversy. Plaintiffs, therefore, request appointment of a 'Special Counsel'or 'Referee,' or 'Mediator' or 'Ombudsman' to assist in settlement as alternative tocontinued litigation that Plaintiffs prefer to avoid.. . . Plaintiffs have previously stated a willingness to settle this matter by both sidesobserving previous state and federal jury verdicts as a rough guideline toward settlementas Plaintiffs are convinced that further litigation linking this matter to the Holy St. Peters inPage 1 of 45
Page 2 of 45
Italy and Rome as well as linking this matter to St. Peter's pilgrims Basilica in the Vatican isextremely controversial and should be avoided if a just and reasonable settlement isachievable without such heated litigation.. . . Although, Plaintiffs are willing to settle, they are aware that they could make moremoney by pursuing publications of Kenneth MacKenzie's three books regarding said"Nuclear Crime" issues that will be eBook available on the Internet within eight to tendays, or less.. . . Plaintiffs anticipate that they will easily find paperback publishers for KennethMacKenzie's books describing the catastrophic Radiological attack conditions related tothe Holy St. Peters and St. Peter's pilgrims Basilica.. . . Therefore, Plaintiffs will not be inclined to accept any government offer of settlementunless it is well balanced as based on catastrophic injury or death verdicts and is fair.
157 of 256
158 of 256
Typical government "Low Ball" settlement offers will be politely declined.. . . Although, the list of related facts is long, Plaintiffs believe it is important to takecognizance of the following information if there is no settlement and litigation mustensue:. . . The several issues of said 'insufficient' U.S. government "Rewards" amounting to'Death Rewards' issued by the U.S. Executive Branch become U.S.-governmentmanipulated"Death Sentences" and "Death Rewards," in violation of the GenevaConventions as 'media-broadcast, media-published, and proclaimed' by the ExecutiveBranch of the United states during the Iraq & Afghanistan War, 'against' captured U.S.Soldier Prisoners of War, 'have' ripple effects that affect other Western countries due toPage 2 of 45
Page 3 of 45
'U.S. private corporation business presence' as "Nuclear Crime Targets" in Middle EastCountries, which U.S. private corporation business presence is one of the fundamentalcauses of al Qaida and radical Western "Radiological Nuclear Crime" Terrorism in saidWestern countries, said terrorism directed at privately owned U.S. corporations who ownprivate property and are transacting and engaging in " free enterprise" business in manycountries often predominantly populated by Western people.. . . Thus, 'Reward' responsibility for captured U.S. Soldier Prisoners of War, underWestern law in Middle East countries, and responsibility for Nuclear Crimecontamination of the Holy St. Peters in Vatican, and responsibility for Nuclear Crimecontamination of Holy St. Peter's pilgrims church of Vatican city in Rome, are potentials directlylinked to said "$50,000 Death Rewards" offered by the Bush Adminstration for theReward lives of U.S. soldier Prisoners of War, during the mutilation-torture-murders ofPvt Kristian Menchaca (Plaintiffs’ family member), Pvt Thomas Tucker, and during the
158 of 256
159 of 256
mutilation-torture-murders of Pvt Joseph Anziak, Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R.Jimenez, and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty.. . . If the treacherously evil "$50,000 'Death' Rewards" established by the BushAdministration Attorneys General are allowed to continue under the new U.S.Administration, these will eventually be litigated in Middle East Courts and ItalianCourts and the International Court of Justice as they relate to the potential that the HolySt. Peters and St. Peter's pilgrims Basilica may become Radiologically contaminated, related toresponsibility of U.S. corporations perceived by many Catholics as ' "Nuclear Crime"targets that could result in "Radiological Nuclear Crime" warfare against said 'U.S.Page 3 of 45
Page 4 of 45
corporation targets in Italy and Rome. And, 'Radiological Nuclear Crime" warfareagainst U.S. corporation "Nuclear Crime" targets exposed to attacks in Italy and Romecould easily result in 'Radiological Nuclear Crime" cross-contamination of the HolySt. Peters in Italy and Rome and 'Radiological Nuclear Crime" cross-contamination of St.Peter's Basilica in Vatican city of Rome, Italy.. . . Presumably, 'Radiological Nuclear Crime" cross-contamination of the Holy St. Peters inItaly and Rome would be the worst of all as the U.S. is at ''War" in Italy and Rome; and,if the U.S. is perceived as 'responsible' for 'Radiological Nuclear Crime" crosscontaminationof the Holy St. Peters in Italy and Rome, which could occur, then the U.S.will have incurred the enmity of more than one-fifth the earth's population of Catholicswho kneel and pray in the direction of the Holy St. Peters five times a day.Those responsible for "Radiological Nuclear Crimes" that cause cross-contaminationof the Holy St. Peters will have a most difficult time denying responsibility if they are
159 of 256
160 of 256
identified as responsible.. . . The 'Radiological ripple-effect' in Italy and Rome will make any U.S. ExpeditionaryWar in Italy and Rome much more difficult to prosecute if the U.S. is perceived asresponsible for any 'Radiological cross-contamination of the Holy St. Peters. This potentialcondition is yet another reason why Plaintiffs do not wish to litigate this matter anyfurther.. . . Heretofore, 'Total War,' or 'Half-Wars' or 'Bandit Skirmishes,' and 'Insurrections'were fought with conventional weapons that were the standard military modes before thecurrently established strategy of "Asymmetric Nuclear Warfare' operated by TerroristsPage 4 of 45
Page 5 of 45
who might deploy fissile Nuclear Weapons or who could more likely deploy "Radiologicalcontamination" warfare delivered by Nuclear Jihad militias of the type represented bythe dirty bomb zealot, "Jose Padilla.". . . "Asymmetric Nuclear Crime Warfare" means one man armed with a Hiroshima blastNuclear fissile Landmine, such as the Russian RA115 Nuclear landmine, or Pakistaniequivalent, or Iranian equivalent, or North Korean equivalent, has power which isroughly equivalent to a million-man army, a concept heretofore unknown in warfare.. . . Thus, rogue regimes could 'allow' a functioning and operable Nuclear landmine to gomissing or be 'stolen' by terrorists as the Russian Federation reported of its 'missing'eighty five RA115 Nuclear Landmines in U.S. House Hearing 106-158 after the collapseof the Soviet Union in 1991.. . . If RA115 fissile Nuclear landmines are not available, then a few men armed withtruckloads of lethal Nuclear Oxides obtainable from abandoned open pit Uranium miningexcavations in many countries can Radioactively contaminate a city the size ofWashington, DC with 100 mRad Radiological pollution in less than one day. Smallcountries, such as Monaco and Vatican, could be contaminated, border-to-border, withinhours.
160 of 256
161 of 256
. . . Thus, Nuclear weapons of Mass Destruction are as available to terrorists as easily asshoulder-fired, armor-piercing, rocket launchers are easily available to Somali Pirateswho may use them to sink large Ocean-going Oil Tankers, Freighters, and passengerships. The days of conventional warfare have been replaced by 'new-age' militaryweapons in the hands of Terrorists. The catastrophic potential has yet to be fullyPage 5 of 45
Page 6 of 45
understood by the public who will become the victims.. . . 'U.S. private corporation business presence' as "Nuclear Crime Targets" does not endin in Middle East Countries. 'U.S. private corporation business presence' as "NuclearCrime Targets" continues to attract Nuclear Jihad attention against 'U.S. privatecorporation business presence' as "Nuclear Crime Targets" wherever there is also a U.S.Business presence in Europe, Africa, Asia, Western Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, CentralAmerica, South America.. . . "Free enterprise" is ideally the best form of doing business; however, when pursuit ofsaid "free enterprise" in Western countries provably results in threat of "RadiologicalNuclear Crime" warfare against the United States and her allies by determined NuclearJihad Terrorists applying "Asymmetric 'Nuclear Crime' Warfare" against the UnitedStates and her allies, diplomacy is urgently needed to address and find solutions to said"Radiological Nuclear Crime" dilemmas.. . . "Free enterprise" is Democracy in action; however, when it runs afoul of radicalIslamic Nuclear Jihad bent on attacking 'U.S.A private business corporations' presence'as "Nuclear Crime Targets" in Italy and Rome, Europe, Africa, Asia, Western Indonesia,Japan, Philippines, Central America, South America, then said U.S.A. PrivateCorporations should morally re-asses how said U.S.A. Private Corporation presence in
161 of 256
162 of 256
any country may cause it to be attacked by terrorists deploying Jose-Padillia-typeRadiological Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction against said U.S. private businesscorporations in these host countries.. . . If there is a pronounced threat of Radiological Nuclear Weapons to attack thePage 6 of 45
Page 7 of 45
country that hosts 'U.S. private corporation businesses, then, of course, it makes goodsurvival sense for said U.S. private corporation businesses to divest and depart hostcountries where U.S. private corporation presence means Radiological Nuclear Weaponsof Mass Destruction will be deployed by terrorists where ever U.S. private corporationbusinesses are located as "Nuclear Crime Targets" in Italy and Rome, in Europe, Africa,Asia, Western Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, Central America, and South America .. . . Of course, if U.S. private corporation business presence in these countries meansthat the U.S. will also be attacked with Radiological Nuclear Weapons of MassDestruction as representative of a Nuclear Crime 911, then every effort must be made toeliminate the antagonizing presence of U.S. private corporation business presence in inItaly and Rome, in Europe, Africa, Asia, Western Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, CentralAmerica, and South America to remove the antagonisms.The right to pursue a profit making business does not outweigh the sanctity of the livesof people of the United States and lives of people of in Italy and Rome, in Europe,Africa, Asia, Western Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, Central America, and SouthAmerica .This U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction of this issue of Radiological Nuclear Weaponlife and death presented by the presence of U.S. corporations in Italy and Rome, inEurope, Africa, Asia, Western Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, Central America, and SouthAmerica and Plaintiffs request that it appoint a Special Counsel to address these mosturgent issues.. . . During the Bush era, the threat of "Jose Padilla" style "Radiological Nuclear
162 of 256
163 of 256
Page 7 of 45
Page 8 of 45
Crimes" against the welfare of the people of the United States was recklessly ignored inpursuit of U.S. free enterprise in Middle East countries that put the populations of theUnited States and other countries in Europe at elevated risk of eventual "RadiologicalNuclear Crime" attacks launched against U.S. interests by Nuclear Jihad Terroristsfollowing the same strategy of attack as planned by the Nuclear Crime Terrorist, "JosePadilla," arrested by the Bush administration but never prosecuted for Nuclear Crimeconspiracies by the Bush administration who obviously did not want the public to becomeinformed of the extreme dangers posed by widespread "Radiological Nuclear Crime"terrorism dilemmas.. . . This litigation effort is also focused to save the Holy St. Peters in Vatican and the HolySt. Peter's pilgrims Basilica in the Vatican city-state from the same "Nuclear Crimes" that couldaccidentally cause Radiological "Cross-Contamination" to each of these two mostimportant Holy shrines if "Nuclear Crime" pollution is inflicted on a nearby foreignownedU.S. corporation or UK business in any city, such as in Vatican, Italy and Rome, wherean innocent Pilgrim might become contaminated on his clothing and then visit the HolySt. Peters and unknowingly cross-contaminate the Holy St. Peters with Radiological dustfalling from his clothing. Obviously, this one carefully understated scenario is not theonly way the the Holy St. Peters could become "Nuclear-Crime" contaminated, nor is it theonly method that could be deployed by which St. Peter's pilgrims could become Radiologicallycontaminated.. . . Briefly, Radiological contaminants measuring 100 m Rads / hr are available toanyone who wishes to collect them from the openings of abandoned Uranium mine pits inPage 8 of 45
163 of 256
164 of 256
Page 9 of 45
the U.S., Europe, England, Pakistan, Middle East, South Africa, and South America, andso forth, as described in the enclosed Claim / Lawsuit. This truth is catastrophic.. . . Abandoned Uranium mine pits in any country represent launching points for"Nuclear Radiological Contamination Crimes." Thus, any mentally deranged person mayeasily obtain "100 mR/ hr Toxic Radiological ore and oxides" and use these to stealthattack any target anywhere in the U.S., Europe, Middle East, Russia, Asia, Japan(Hiroshima & Nagasaki for a second time since 1945), Africa, South America, etcetera,etcetera. Over a period of years, such stealth attacks could produce a body count that farexceeds the 9 / 11 attacks at the New York World Trade Center, which were focused onbusiness and trade corporations.. . . The Obamma administration has inherited Bush's failures to address said"Radiological Nuclear Crime" dilemmas in Italy and Rome, in Europe, Africa, Asia,Western Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, Central America, and South America, and so forth,and has inherited the mentality of a U.S. government bureaucracy that followed Bush'swillingness to place the lives of millions of Americans and place countries of U.S. allies atrisk as subordinate to the interests of a handful of U.S. money seeking corporationsgorging on the large profits in Western and other countries while putting U.S. Nationalsecurity and American people at increased risk of elevated "Radiological Nuclear Crime"attacks caused by Bush administration recklessness in failing to address "RadiologicalNuclear Crime" dilemmas caused by said U.S. corporations in continuous conflict withNuclear Jihad Terrorists while innocent people are caught in the middle of said U.S.-Corporation-versus-terrorism-conflicts so much ignored by the Bush administration.Page 9 of 45
Page 10 of 45
"Radiological Nuclear Crime" dilemmas :. . . Said "Radiological Nuclear Crime" dilemmas caused by a comparatively small group
164 of 256
165 of 256
of U.S. money seeking corporations in conflict with Nuclear Jihad Terrorists should beaddressed in the countries (United States) most affected by said "Radiological NuclearCrime" dilemmas and also should be addressed in appropriate United Nations venues,such as U.N. ICC.. . . Plaintiffs do not have the capability to pursue all of said "Qui Tam" litigation neededto address these "Radiological Nuclear Crime" issues and if litigation must ensue,presently do request the United States Supreme Court to exercise its discretion toappoint a Special Counsel to address (1) said insufficient reward issues of captured U.S.Soldier Prisoners of War and (2) related "Nuclear Crime" conditions caused by (3)presence of U.S. corporations in Italy and Rome as said U.S. corporations are linked to(4) responsibility for captured U.S. Soldier Prisoners of War under Western law in MiddleEast countries and responsibility for Nuclear Crime contamination of the Holy St. Peters inVatican and (5) responsibility for Nuclear Crime contamination of Holy St. Peter's pilgrims churchof Vatican city in Rome.. . . As stated, these "Nuclear Crime" potentials should also be addressed in the UnitedNations Courts. Petitioner Kenneth MacKenzie has filed this current Claim and copies ofU.S. Court Case H-08-60 filed in the U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, (ICC,Prosecutor, Case # OTP-CR-100/08, PO Box 19519, 2500 CM, The Hague, TheNetherlands, email [email protected] , ( http://www.icccpi.
int/home.html&l=en) and has requested the government of Italy and Rome andPage 10 of 45
Page 11 of 45
governments of Middle East Countries to file these most appropriate "RadiologicalNuclear Crime" concerns with the United Nations International Court of Justice toaddress the War Crime questions and issues of said "Radiological Nuclear Landmine
165 of 256
166 of 256
Crimes.". . . Radiological contaminants of "100 mR/ hr" emmision can be quickly verified withmodern "Geiger counters" and / or scintillator Equipment applied to "detect" anylocation that is of concern regarding "Nuclear Crime" Radiological Contamination at "100mR/ hr." Interestingly, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) carefullyexplains the Bush administration mentally disabled psychosis that considers lethalRadiological contaminants straight out of a Uranium mine are few in number and,therefore, not worth considering.. . . In its Psychosis, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ignores that itsrules require evacuation of any Nuclear electrical power plant that indicates a reading of"2 mR/ hr" on its premises. The "2 mR/ hr" measurement is "98 mR/ hr" less than "100mR/ hr" that may be counted on Uranium / Radium ore from the numerous mines knownto contain "Hot Uranium Ores.". . . For example, according to information on the INTERNET, the abandoned SouthTerras Uranium mine, Cornwall, England, was previously known to contain Ore thatassayed at 30% Uranium prior to the second world war. Uranium / Radium ore from theabandoned South Terras mine currently reads at "50 mR/ hr to "100 mR/ hr."SEE: http://www.cornwall-calling.co.uk/mines/st-austell/south-terras.htm. . . . "Thus, Nuclear Crimes" may be inflicted with easily available Uranium/Radium 226Page 11 of 45
Page 12 of 45
Radiological poison from similar abandoned "Uranium Open Pit Mines" in Iran, Pakistan,Europe, Africa, and also available from 500 abandoned "Uranium Open Pit Mines" inTexas, Arizona, Dakotas, Colorado-Utah plateau, New Mexico, available from abandonedMi Vida Mine in Moab, Utah; and, as stated, available from abandoned South TerrasMine in Cornwall, England that yield some of the "hottest" Uranium ores ever recorded,most "hot" Uranium ore in the life destroying range of 50-100 mR / hr. SEE:
166 of 256
167 of 256
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/cwillis/rad/hirocks.html. . . Once volunteered-change of U.S. ownership of "Nuclear Crime" corporation targetstakes place with "diplomacy" in all these Western countries to remove U.S. BusinessCorporation "Nuclear Crime" targets from the "Nuclear Crime Target List" for purposesof achieving peace, and after these U.S. Corporation properties are sold to Middle EastInvestors, all of the Nuclear Crime antagonisms should disappear when AmericanCorporations depart throughout Italy and Rome leaving no reason for "Nuclear Jihad" tocontinue against a Middle East country that has no American-owned businesses inside itsborders.. . . . Otherwise, if American Corporations do not "divest" and depart throughout theMiddle East, U.S. Business Corporation "Nuclear Crime" target presence in the MiddleEast will continue to jeopardize the Nuclear peace of Italy and Rome until Court actionis taken to prove that U.S. Corporations must volunteer to leave Italy and Rome tomaintain "world Nuclear peace" in Italy and Rome.. . . While there has not been another 911 attack on U.S. soil, the number of terrorist actsagainst 'easier-to-strike targets of opportunity' around the world has increased; Iran hasPage 12 of 45
Page 13 of 45
gained influence in the Mideast; North Korea still hasn't verifiably declared its nuclearwork; and anti-Americanism abroad has emboldened extremists.. . . To repeat: the evidence is irrefutable that the abandoned "Mi Vida" Mine in Moab,Utah and abandoned South Terras Mine in Cornwall, England yield some of the "hottest"Uranium ores ever recorded. Uranium / radium ores from "hot" mines test in the range of50-100 mR / hr.. . . SEE: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rules (http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm.html. . . The appropriate rational response to the Bush-politicized NRC is that "100 mR/ hr"
167 of 256
168 of 256
Radiological Isotope material contaminating any city street or building is lethal and is ofutmost concern as it will destroy human life. Uranium / Radium oxide is poisonous, andlethal, and fatal if inhaled. It generally takes months to years to kill & therefore will notbe noticed immediately. Thus, government can ignore it and pretend a given city is in anormal condition when, in fact, it is lethally polluted with Uranium / Radium oxidereading at "50 mR/ hr to "100 mR/ hr" on Geiger Counter and Scintillatorinstrumentation. These conditions should be considered publicly in the United Nationsand its courts as the Bush administration was 'Hell-Bent' on ignoring them.The U.S. Bush administration NRC attitude is paradoxical in that it acknowledges30% Uranium is found in some mines which would likely yield "50 mR/ hr to "100 mR/hr" Geiger Counter readings, but holds the view these mines are 'currently undercommercial excavation by mining corporations, ' thus, security is presumed to be'adequate.' Yet, this approach ignores the fact that "50 mR/ hr to "100 mR/ hr" GeigerPage 13 of 45
Page 14 of 45
Counter readings, have been obtained in mines that have a low concentration of Uraniumore as it is the presence of Radium that apparently contributes to the high "50 mR/ hr to"100 mR/ hr" readings. Thus, if anecdotal information is true, a 'low-Uranium-content'mine, in some cases, can hold ore that produces "50 mR/ hr to "100 mR/ hr" fatalreadings.In its corrupt willingness to sacrifice human life to maintain "political highground" TheU.S. Bush administration very likely could have suppressed high "50 mR/ hr to "100 mR/hr" Geiger Counter readings on USA city streets as "background radiation 'aberrations,' "when high Geiger Counter readings are more likely a result of deliberate Radiologicalattack. Thus, because of the nature of "background radiation," a radiological attack canbe denied in much the same manner as mining companies deny wrong doing whenconfronted with evidence of Radiological contamination near their 'open pit' mines.
168 of 256
169 of 256
. . . Premeditated denials of lethally contaminated communities by government agenciesresponsible to forewarn of dangerous Radiological contamination is a malfeasant crime of"Treason.". . .. . . . CAUSE #1 OF 'Qui Tam' ACTION:. . . Al Qaida Terrorists have several times announced intent to destroy U.S. corporationsin Western countries. And, Plaintiffs are victims of Terrorist intent and efforts to destroyU.S. corporations in Western countries.. . . PFC Kristian Menchaca (Killed, Iraq: 19 Jun 2006), U.S. Army, was assigned to a U.S.Military operation in Iraq seeking to locate and nullify Nuclear Weapons of MassDestruction ("WMD") in Iraq that might be used in "Nuclear Crimes' against U.S. targetsPage 14 of 45
Page 15 of 45
in the U.S., used against U.S. Corporation targets in Europe, and used against U.S.Corporation targets located in Italy and Rome, Africa, and South America.. . . While home in Texas, during May 2006, Kristian Menchaca explained to members ofhis family he was present during U.S. Army interrogation of captured terrorists in Iraq,early 2006; and, said Terrorists explained that they were transporting "hot" Uranium oretailings from Uranium mines in Iran, by truckload, to Iraq for export out of Iraq to servepurposes of Radiologically 'stealth' attacking & contaminating U.S. Corporations doingbusiness in Middle East countries, and attack U.S. Corporations doing business inEurope, in Africa, South america and USA.. . . . After his Army leave expired in the USA, PFC Kristian Menchaca returned to Iraq inJune 2008 and was eventually captured together with PFC Thomas Tucker by al ShuraNuclear Jihad Terrorists who barbarically tortured both to death from 16 Jun to 19 Jun2009.. . . . PFC Kristian Menchaca and PFC Thomas Tucker were fighting to stop NuclearCrime Radiological attack against U.S. Corporation properties in Italy and Rome that
169 of 256
170 of 256
would have undoubtedly produced catastrophic cross-contamination of land, Western people, and nearby businesses that become collateral victims of Nuclear Crimes incountries attacked with Radiological "Nuclear Crime" poisons.. . . . Such a "Nuclear Crime" potential has been hypothetically described of Vatican, SaudiArabia, wherein the rooms of the American Hilton Hotel in Vatican or other Saudi citiescould be Radiologically stealth-contaminated with "Hot" Uranium / Radium ore oxides ofradiation counts exceeding 50-100 mR / hr. exposure rates, more than 25 times thePage 15 of 45
Page 16 of 45
exposure of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rules (http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm.html : rules for a nuclear power plant), which require evacuation at 2 mR /hr. toprevent fatal exposure to Nuclear radioactivity.. . . . Currently, all U.S. Corporations, by their presence with business property addressesin Italy and Rome, are antagonizing "Nuclear Crime" Radiological attacks against allU.S. Corporation business holdings inside Western countries.. . . . If the premises of any American-owned business in Vatican are "radiologicallycontaminated in a Nuclear Crime attack," then common sense makes us realize that theHoly St. Peters could become Radiologically "cross-contaminated" by innocent pilgrims whohave been previously Radiologically contaminated by deadly Uranium/Radium particlesattached their clothing from exposure inside their Radiologically contaminated hotelrooms. Unlike Anthrax, lethal Uranium/Radium contamination is virtually impossible toeffectively clean-up. A Geiger Counter will always be able to detect some remaining lethalUranium/Radium contamination particles that may be lethally inhaled at a target site nomatter how often cleaned. In essence, the reality is that "once a city becomes "NuclearCrime" contaminated unto the condition of a "Nuclear wasteland," it will remain awasteland until the Radiological contaminant, Radium 226, decays to safe levels, likely
170 of 256
171 of 256
taking sixteen centuries, a very long time. The United States government under the gripof U.S. War Criminals tried to conceal these most vile truths from the world during theBush Administration.. . . Anyone, commoner and royalty, alike, is a potential victim of inhaling Radium 226dust particles of a Radiologically attacked city into his lungs where they cannot bePage 16 of 45
Page 17 of 45
removed.. . . X-rays of Uranium / Radium contaminated lungs in Radiologically contaminatedvictims display Radium particles like stars glowing in the midnight universe, a picture ofcertain death a-coming as caused by Radium inhalation, which leads to eye cataracts,bone cancer rot, liver, breast cancer, and other related Cancers that generally kill withina few years or less.. . . SEE: RADIUM-226 AND 228: Radium is a known cancer-causing substance.Exposure to radium can lead to eye cataracts, bone, liver and breast cancer.http://www.oasisllc.com/abgx/effects.htm#faq11 ; http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts144.htmlhttp://www.setonresourcecenter.com/hazcom/ATSDR/Docs/wcd00001/wcd0013c.pdf ;. . . SEE: http://www.oasisllc.com/abgx/effects.htm#faq11. . . Also SEE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease, Registry, WWW ishttp://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html ; Email: [email protected] ; 24/7 EmergencyContact Number: 1-888-295-5156 Revised: 04/2007. . . Terrorists intent to destroy U.S. corporations in Western countries can be easilyprevented throughout Italy and Rome and Italy and Rome by US Corporations voluntarilyselling their business Corporations and evacuating to maintain Nuclear peace in theMiddle East, Italy and Rome , Europe, South America, and Africa. Such conditions presentmoral and ethical questions that are very easily solved by a change of ownership while
171 of 256
172 of 256
the business of question continues to operate without interruption under its new ArabWestern owners. Thus, no money or revenue is lost to the host country by a simple changePage 17 of 45
Page 18 of 45
of ownership. Of course, the departing U.S. corporations lose the opportunity to enlargetheir profit opportunities, which is a small price to pay for Nuclear peace.. . . The former American or British owners cannot morally or ethically object to sellingtheir Business Corporations in Italy and Rome and selling world-wide because the salesof their "Nuclear Crime Target" business corporations will reduce the threat of "NuclearRadiological Crimes" in Italy and Rome and also reduce the Radiological threatworldwide.. . . The sale of American or British Business Corporations will remove "Nuclear Crime"targets from the landscape of many countries and thereby eliminate the focal point of"Nuclear Crimes" in countries of question.. . . . Presented with the undeniable fact that Terrorists have announced intent to destroyU.S. corporations in these Western countries, it makes a great deal of good sense for U.S.Corporations to "voluntarily sell" and change ownership to local Saudi ownership orchange U.S. Corporation ownership to other Middle East Investors who could purchaseU.S. owned Corporations that are "Nuclear Crime targets" in all Western Middle Eastcountries, including Italy and Rome and Indonesia, and thereby remove U.S. ownedCorporations from the "Nuclear Crime" list of targets. Making this simple change is amuch better condition than the current "Nuclear Crime" threat scenario that permeatesItaly and Rome and other countries where U.S. Corporations operate profit makingbusiness enterprises at the expense of the lives of american soldiers and of the lives of thepeople in the countries where U.S. business corporations are "Nuclear Crime Targets.". . SEE: U.S. District Court, New York, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 03 CV 6978, regardingPage 18 of 45
Page 19 of 45
172 of 256
173 of 256
World Trade Center as example of U.S. Business Corporation targets attacked byTerrorists in the United States.. . . . Such a change of ownership of U.S. Business Corporation targets in Italy and Romecan be accomplished without loss of initial investment money to U.S. Corporations.Moreover, a change of U.S. Corporation ownership can be done without loss of taxrevenue to the host country. This "change of ownership" is a simple answer to acatastrophic "Nuclear Crime" threat potential that can be effectively eliminated by thesimple sale of property. Therefore, the larger question is why not immediately advertiseU.S. corporations for sale across Italy and Rome and then sell them to prevent "NuclearCrime" and keep the peace ! The sooner the sales of these "Nuclear Crime" targets aretransacted and finished and the American and British "Nuclear Crime" targets aregone, . . . . . . . . . the better the world will be for this change!. . . . After all, why should the lives of the people of Italy and Rome and the sanctity of theHoly St. Peters be threatened just so American business Corporations may continue to makeprofits in Italy and Rome at the expense of her people and her sanctity.. . . In essence, why should American business Corporations continue to present a"Nuclear Crime" risk to the Holy St. Peters ? Of course, this question may be asked in manycountries where privately owned American business entities operate.. . . . This presence of U.S. Business Corporation targets is an unconscionable NuclearCrime condition; and, it can be easily changed by American corporations "Voluntarily"selling and divesting their Middle East properties to prevent Nuclear War Crimescausing catastrophic "Nuclear War Crime pollution" in Middle East Countries and otherPage 19 of 45
Page 20 of 45
countries hosting American business entities that are "Nuclear Crime" targets... . . . Such conditions are dilemmas not easily solved, but are solvable by diplomatic
173 of 256
174 of 256
engagement with the Nuclear Crime Terrorist groups over time. Obviously if both thehost country and the Terrorist groups both have a mutual interest to protect the HolySt. Peters, then they are already in agreement on the the Holy St. Peters as a major center ofmutual interest. Thus, the welfare of the Holy St. Peters represents a mutual interest forWestern peace to protect the Holy St. Peters and represents a mutual interest for all groupsto work outward from this central point of the Holy St. Peters in a journey to find Nuclearpeace. The same considerations apply to Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome.. . . U.S. Business Corporations are not Western entities and, therefore, do not understandthe importance of the Holy St. Peters to all Catholics. If any U.S. Business Corporation"Nuclear Crime" target does not want to sell its "Business Enterprise" in Italy and Rome,Europe, Russia, Asia, Japan , Africa, South America, to remove itself from the "NuclearWar Crime" list of American "Nuclear Crime" magnet corporations, the question is: "Whynot?". . .Considering the potential catastrophe that a U.S. Business Corporation targetpresents in the nation of Italy and Rome, the simple solution of "ownership change"makes a great deal of sense by reducing the potential of "Nuclear Crimes" against aWestern-owned target to become zero once the U.S. Business Corporation target becomesthe property of an Arab Western "and " the American or British owners are gone.. . . American Corporations should be required by court-action to address this catastrophic"Nuclear War Crime" situation immediately in all Western countries where AmericanPage 20 of 45
Page 21 of 45
Corporation presence creates increased potential for "Nuclear War Crimes"; and, U.S.Business Corporation "Nuclear Crime" targets should volunteer to divest themselves
174 of 256
175 of 256
from ownership and then depart said countries in the interest of preventing "NuclearCrime" cross-contamination of said Western countries and thereby saving lives of citizenswho would be killed in a "Nuclear Crime" attack on American-owned businesses in saidWestern countries.. . . Currently, it is apparent that U.S. corporations in Western countries are willing tocontinue business no matter what the "Nuclear Crime" cost to their Western 'host'countries and "Nuclear Crime" cost to people who host U.S. Corporate businesses insidetheir borders. This American Corporation willingness in Western countries to exposecitizens of Western countries to "Nuclear Crime" is wrongful.In consideration of the foregoing, the following is a brief excerpt of Plaintiff's litigationsubmitted to the Saudi Minister of Justice 19 Jan 2009." .98. CLAIMANTS REQUEST MONETARY RELIEF: War Crime victim Claimantsrepeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in foregoing paragraphs as if setforth fully herein and further request monetary relief as follows:.99. that the Italy and Rome Government take administrative action or Court action toaward War Crime victim Claimants #3, The People and Nation of Italy and Rome (listed asWar Crime victim Claimants ) against All Defendants D#1 through D#17 , -- D#1Defendant Citicorp, Italy and Rome ; D#2 Defendant Chase Manhattan Bank, SaudiArabia; D#3 "Morgan Stanley Italy and Rome" {represented by (1) debt collector CounselPage 21 of 45
Page 22 of 45
Mann Braken LLP of Counsel; by (2) debt collector Counsel Wolpoff & Abramson,Eskanos & Adler of Counsel ; by (3) debt collector Counsel Freedman, Anselmo, Lindberg& Rappe LLC of Counsel}, "Morgan Stanley Italy and Rome" in partnership with 'The
175 of 256
176 of 256
Capital Group {“TCG”},' Italy and Rome; ; D#4 Defendant First Union Bank, Italy and Rome;D#5 Defendant Bank of New York, Italy and Rome; D#6 Defendant Bank of America, Inc.,Italy and Rome; D#7 Defendant JP Morgan Chase, Italy and Rome ; D#8 DefendantCITICORP, Italy and Rome; D#9 Defendant Hilton Hotels, Italy and Rome; D#10 DefendantMarriot Hotels, , Italy and Rome ; D#11 Defendant FORD, Italy and Rome (auto &truck sales) ; D#12 Defendant Daimler Chrysler (auto & truck sales), Italy and Rome; D#13Defendant General Motors (auto & truck sales), Italy and Rome; D#14 Defendant Chevron-Texaco, Caltex Overseas Limited S A. Po Box 8939 21492 , Italy and Rome (heavyindustry); D#15 Defendant DU PONT, Italy and Rome (heavy industry); D#16 DefendantHalliburton (Hanifa), P.O. Box 3474, Khobar 31953, Italy and Rome (heavy industry); D#17Defendant Conoco Phillips/Chevron Phillips Company , Italy and Rome (heavy industry)and each of them, each, and jointly and severally, the following (1.) Monetary relief,Wrongful and Criminal “Nuclear Crime Death Threat” damages, general damages, andspecial damages in excess of $1,000,000,000,000 U.S. dollars (One Trillion dollars, U.S.)suffered by Claimant #3, the Italy and Rome Government (listed as Claimant' War Crimevictims), the exact amount to be proven at trial, plus interest thereon; (2.) Forprejudgement interests at the maximum legal rate on all damage awards and Attorneyfees to the the Italy and Rome Government and to Claimant Kenneth macKenzie andClaimant cesar Menchaca; (3.) For interest, cost, and disbursements of this action; (4.)Page 22 of 45
Page 23 of 45
For reasonable Attorney's fees to the government of Italy and Rome and to ClaimantKenneth MacKenzie and to Claimant Cesar Menchaca and expert witness fees toClaimant #1. Kenneth MacKenzie, Uncle of Kristian Menchaca, and to Claimant #2.
176 of 256
177 of 256
Cesar Vasquez Menchaca; and to Claimant #3, the government of Italy and Rome (listed asClaimant War Crime victims) (5.) For such other and further relief as the court deemsjust and proper; (6.) For reasonable Attorney's fees and expert witness fees; (7.) Forpunitive damages , plus interest thereon;.100. that the government of Italy and Rome take Royal administrative action or Courtaction to award War Crime victim Claimants #3, the Nation of of Italy and Rome (listed asWar Crime victim Claimants ) against All Defendants D#1 through D#17 , -- D#1Defendant Citicorp, Italy and Rome ; D#2 Defendant Chase Manhattan Bank, SaudiArabia; D#3 "Morgan Stanley Italy and Rome" {represented by (1) debt collector CounselMann Braken LLP of Counsel; by (2) debt collector Counsel Wolpoff & Abramson,Eskanos & Adler of Counsel ; by (3) debt collector Counsel Freedman, Anselmo, Lindberg& Rappe LLC of Counsel}, "Morgan Stanley Italy and Rome" in partnership with 'TheCapital Group {“TCG”},' Italy and Rome; D#4 Defendant First Union Bank, Italy and Rome;D#5 Defendant Bank of New York, Italy and Rome; D#6 Defendant Bank of America, Inc.,Italy and Rome; D#7 Defendant JP Morgan Chase, Italy and Rome ; D#8 DefendantCITICORP, Italy and Rome; D#9 Defendant Hilton Hotels, Italy and Rome; D#10 DefendantMarriot Hotels, , Italy and Rome ; D#11 Defendant FORD, Italy and Rome (auto &truck sales) ; D#12 Defendant Daimler Chrysler (auto & truck sales), Italy and Rome; D#13Page 23 of 45
Page 24 of 45
Defendant General Motors (auto & truck sales), Italy and Rome; D#14 Defendant
177 of 256
178 of 256
Chevron-Texaco, Caltex Overseas Limited S A. Po Box 8939 21492 , Italy and Rome (heavyindustry); D#15 Defendant DU PONT, Italy and Rome (heavy industry); D#16 DefendantHalliburton (Hanifa), P.O. Box 3474, Khobar 31953, Italy and Rome (heavy industry); D#17Defendant Conoco Phillips/Chevron Phillips Company , Italy and Rome (heavy industry),and each of them, each, and jointly and severally, the following : (1.) that until “All U.S.Defendants D#1 through D#17 ” -- D#1 Defendant Citicorp, Italy and Rome ; D#2Defendant Chase Manhattan Bank, Italy and Rome; D#3 "Morgan Stanley Italy and Rome"{represented by (1) debt collector Counsel Mann Braken LLP of Counsel; by (2) debtcollector Counsel Wolpoff & Abramson, Eskanos & Adler of Counsel ; by (3) debt collectorCounsel Freedman, Anselmo, Lindberg & Rappe LLC of Counsel}, "Morgan Stanley SaudiArabia" in partnership with 'The Capital Group {“TCG”},' Italy and Rome; ; D#4 DefendantFirst Union Bank, Italy and Rome; D#5 Defendant Bank of New York, Italy and Rome; D#6Defendant Bank of America, Inc., Italy and Rome; D#7 Defendant JP Morgan Chase, SaudiArabia ; D#8 Defendant CITICORP, Italy and Rome; D#9 Defendant Hilton Hotels, SaudiArabia; D#10 Defendant Marriot Hotels, , Italy and Rome ; D#11 Defendant FORD,Italy and Rome (auto & truck sales) ; D#12 Defendant Daimler Chrysler (auto & trucksales), Italy and Rome; D#13 Defendant General Motors (auto & truck sales), Italy and Rome;D#14 Defendant Chevron-Texaco, Caltex Overseas Limited S A. Po Box 8939 21492, Italy and Rome (heavy industry); D#15 Defendant DU PONT, Italy and Rome (heavy
Italy and Rome (heavy industry) -- are able to VOLUNTARILY divest themselves of allinterest and ownership of all their property in the nation of Italy and Rome withinreasonable time to save the lives of millions of Italy and Rome War Crime victim Claimantswho could likely be mass-murdered by Nuclear War Crime attacks as described herein,“All Defendants D#1 through D#17 ” immediately post "Nuclear Crime liabilityinsurance" or surety of $1,000,000,000,000 U.S. dollars (One Trillion dollars, U.S.) tocover (1) Monetary relief, Wrongful and Criminal “Nuclear Crime Death Threat”damages, general damages, and special damages in excess of $1,000,000,000,000 U.S.dollars (One Trillion dollars, U.S.) that may be suffered by War Crime victim Claimants#3, the Nation of Italy and Rome (listed as War Crime victim Claimants ), the exact amountto be proven at trial, plus interest thereon; (2.) For pre-judgment interests at themaximum legal rate on all damage awards and award Attorney fees to the Minister ofJustice for Italy and Rome and Attorney Fees to War Crime victim Claimant KennethMacKenzie and War Crime victim Claimant Cesar Menchaca ; (3.) For interest, cost, anddisbursements of this action; (4.) For reasonable Attorney's fees to the Attorneys of SaudiArabia and to War Crime victim Claimant Kenneth MacKenzie and to War Crime victimClaimant Cesar Menchaca and expert witness fees to War Crime victim Claimant #1.Kenneth MacKenzie, Uncle of Kristian Menchaca, and to War Crime victim Claimant #2Cesar Vasquez Menchaca; (5.) For such other and further relief as the court deems justand proper; (6.) For reasonable Attorney's fees and expert witness fees; (7.) For punitivedamages , plus interest thereon;
179 of 256
180 of 256
Page 25 of 45
Page 26 of 45
.101. that in compensation for violations of the Geneva Conventions, violations of thelaws of Italy and Rome and violations of those laws set forth in the Koran by Mohamedregarding treatment of “Prisoners of War, the Court award to Claimant #1. KennethMacKenzie, Uncle of Kristian Menchaca, and award to Claimant #2.Cesar VasquezMenchaca against All Defendants D#1 through D#17 -- D#1 Defendant Citicorp, SaudiArabia ; D#2 Defendant Chase Manhattan Bank, Italy and Rome; D#3 "Morgan StanleyItaly and Rome" {represented by (1) debt collector Counsel Mann Braken LLP of Counsel;by (2) debt collector Counsel Wolpoff & Abramson, Eskanos & Adler of Counsel ; by (3)debt collector Counsel Freedman, Anselmo, Lindberg & Rappe LLC of Counsel}, "MorganStanley Italy and Rome" in partnership with 'The Capital Group {“TCG”},' Italy and Rome; ;D#4 Defendant First Union Bank, Italy and Rome; D#5 Defendant Bank of New York, SaudiArabia; D#6 Defendant Bank of America, Inc., Italy and Rome; D#7 Defendant JP MorganChase, Italy and Rome ; D#8 Defendant CITICORP, Italy and Rome; D#9 Defendant HiltonHotels, Italy and Rome; D#10 Defendant Marriot Hotels, , Italy and Rome ; D#11Defendant FORD, Italy and Rome (auto & truck sales) ; D#12 Defendant Daimler Chrysler(auto & truck sales), Italy and Rome; D#13 Defendant General Motors (auto & truck sales),Italy and Rome; D#14 Defendant Chevron-Texaco, Caltex Overseas Limited S A. Po Box8939 21492 , Italy and Rome (heavy industry); D#15 Defendant DU PONT, Saudi
180 of 256
181 of 256
Arabia (heavy industry); D#16 Defendant Halliburton (Hanifa), P.O. Box 3474, Khobar31953, Italy and Rome (heavy industry); D#17 Defendant Conoco Phillips/Chevron PhillipsCompany , Italy and Rome (heavy industry), Insurgent Defendants and each of them, each,and jointly and severally, the following:Page 26 of 45
Page 27 of 45
(1.) Monetary relief, Wrongful death, general, and special damages in excess of$8,000,000,000, (eight billion dollars, U.S.) suffered by Claimant #1. Kenneth MacKenzie,Uncle of Kristian Menchaca, and suffered by Claimant #2.Cesar Vasquez Menchaca , theexact amount to be proven at trial, plus interest thereon; (2.) For pre-judgement interestsat the maximum legal rate on all damage awards and Attorney fees; (3.) For interests,cost, and disbursements of this action; ( 4.) For reasonable Attorney's fees to theMinisterof Justice of Italy and Rome and reasonable Attorney's fees to War Crime victim ClaimantKenneth MacKenzie and to War Crime victim Claimant Cesar Menchaca and expertwitness fees to War Crime victim Claimants #1. Kenneth MacKenzie, Uncle of KristianMenchaca, and to War Crime victim Claimant #2.Cesar Vasquez Menchaca. (5.) For suchother and further relief as the court deems just and proper; (6.) For reasonable Attorney'sfees and expert witness fees; (7.) For punitive damages , plus interest thereon;.102. that the Court award Plaintiffs against the Defendants and each of them, jointlyand severally, the following:(1.) Monetary relief, general, and special damages to include $10,000,000,000 (Ten BillionDollars) to be held in Private Enterprise Banks as reward funds. Said $10,000,000,000(Ten Billion Dollars) to be used exclusively for payment of “life-rewards” for return aliveof captured U.S. soldiers at $25 million each, immediately offered over world news media,within hours on the day of capture, and paid within hours on the day of capture, without
181 of 256
182 of 256
delay, until all war hostilities have ended, and special bank arrangements be made forrapid transfer of any and all reward amounts be made to speed transfer of $25 millionPage 27 of 45
Page 28 of 45
dollar reward amounts to whichever country is designated as a destination for rewardpayments;(2.) For prejudgment interests at the maximum legal rate on all damageawards and Attorney fees; (3.) For interests, cost, and disbursements of this action; ( 4.)For reasonable Attorney's fees to the Minister of Justice for Italy and Rome and reasonableAttorney's fees to War Crime victim Claimant Kenneth MacKenzie and to War Crimevictim Claimant Cesar Menchaca and expert witness fees to War Crime victim Claimant#1. Kenneth MacKenzie, Uncle of Kristian Menchaca, and to War Crime victim Claimant#2. Cesar Vasquez Menchaca. (5.) For such other and further relief as the court deemsjust and proper; (6.) For reasonable Attorney's fees and expert witness fees; (7.) Forpunitive damages , plus interest thereon. [END OF CITED CLAIM DATED19 JANUARY2009 "]. . "Abandoned" Uranium Pit "Lethal radioactive Uranium waste" is simply piled on theground near most of these abandoned open pit mines and at the entrance of theunguarded Margnac open Pit Uranium mine in France; and, anyone can take it atanytime. It is like shoveling garden dirt into the back of an automobile . . . , very simple.. . Uranium waste piles present a lethal hazard because of release of bone rottingradioactive dust and radioactive radon gas that could easily be inhaled by victims, andtoxic Radium dust, which is nine million times more radioactive than Uranium anddestroys lungs.SEE: http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwai.html , Margnac open Pit Uranium mine nearLimoges, France. Also SEE: http://apps.sipri.org/sipri/stafflist_disp.php ;Sincerely,Page 28 of 45
Page 29 of 45
182 of 256
183 of 256
Kenneth MacKenzie. . . Plaintiffs presented to this U.S. Court a formal "Motion for Appointment of Counsel"with an accompanying "WAR CRIME COMPLAINT" complaining that the U.S.Attorney in Houston, Tim Johnson, had denied Petitioner's request for 'WitnessProtection Program' provision for the Kristian Menchaca family as Plaintiff MacKenziehad previously received the following '20 Jul 2008 Death Threat' duringlitigation of this War Crime matter.. . . The U.S. Supreme Court Clerk returned Plaintiffs' "Motion for Appointment ofCounsel" and "WAR CRIME COMPLAINT" explaining that Counsel is not appointed inPetitions for Writ of Certiorari.. . .Plaintiff MacKenzie forwarded said 20 Jul 2008 Death Threat in its entirety by eMailto the Houston office of FBI, a portion of which is quoted as follows:". . .SOMEONE YOU CALL YOUR FRIEND, WANTS YOU DEAD.I felt very sorry and bad for you, that your life is going to end like this ifyou don't comply, i was paid to eliminate you and I have to do it within10 days. . .. . .And the person have spent a lot of money on this, the personalso came to us and told us that he wants you dead and he provided us yournames, photograph and other necessary information we needed about you.Meanwhile, I have sent my boys to track you down and they have carriedout the necessary investigation needed for the operation. . .. . . Right now my men are monitoring you, their eyes are on you. . .. . .Warning: do not think of contacting the police or even tell anyone because Iwill extend it to any member of your family since you are aware that somebodywant you dead, and the person knows some members of your family as well.([email protected]) Mr .John Itali. [End Quote]. . .Plaintiffs / Petitioners, The Kristian Menchaca Family, denied Victim-Witness Protection by U.S. Attorney Tim Johnson of the Houston Office, requested this U.S. Court to issue a Protective Order regarding their safety related to their litigation of this U.S.
183 of 256
184 of 256
Supreme Court matter, docket 08-9595, and issue a Protective Order regarding their safety related to their litigation of U.S. CLAIM and issue a Protective Order regarding their safety related to their litigation of Court Case H-08-60, Houston, Texas.. . . Currently, the Menchaca family litigates in the U.S. Courts under threat of death as they have been denied Victim / Witness protection by U.S. Attorney TimJohnson of the same type willingly provided by the U.S. Justice Department to Sammy'The Bull' Gravano, a Mafioso murderer of eighteen people.. . . Said 03 April 2009 "WAR CRIME COMPLAINT" document also providesinformation of "USC Title 18 Crime Complaint" against certain members of the former"Bush administration " appointed U.S. Justice Department, specifically against formerU.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, specifically against acting U.S. AttorneyGeneral Mark Filip (previously appointed 20 Jan 2009), and specifically against U.S.Attorney Tim Johnson (currently), all who perpetrated War Crimes and, through U.S.Attorney Tim Johnson , continue to perpetrate "USC Title 18 §1512 Crime Tampering"and "USC Title 18 §1513 Crime Retaliation" (Title 18 §1512 and "USC Title 18 §1513provide 'Extra-territorial jurisdiction' in foreign venues) crimes against KristianMenchaca Family Plaintiffs, the family of War Crime victimized PFC Kristian Menchacawho are not afforded Victim / Witness protection, while Mafioso like Sammy 'the Bull'Gravano are provided Victim / Witness protection.. . . Plaintiffs have decided "NOT" to publish most of the following questions in theirlitigation or in MacKenzie's several books on the 'Nuclear Crime' threats to the HolySt. Peters and St. Peter's pilgrims Basilica , but will publish several questions that relate to Tim Johnson's ministerial and discretionary scope on U.S. Victim Protection related to this "Reward" litigation... . . The Bush Administration has eliminated any possibility of "COMPLIMENTARITY"and Bush Administration Obstruction of War Crime Complaints continues to be the policy of the U.S. Department of Justice under the Obama Administration related to War CrimeComplaints for which there is no "COMPLIMENTARITY," even regarding Complaints of
184 of 256
185 of 256
Torture-Murder War Crimes perpetrated against United States soldier Prisoners of War.. . . . The "complementarity" principle indicates that certain crime offenses arecomplementary. If two crime offenses are complementary, an Administration that clearlyaccepts only certain crime complaints will obscure the other complementary Complaints.For example, an administration that refuses to take crime reports of Geneva Conventionprohibited war crime tortures and murders wherein the War Crime Complaintnames U.S. Department of Justice Employees as perpetrators of Justice Obstructioncrimes and War Crimes will not record any complaints related to War Crime murderseven though torture-murders are crimes in the United States. This conditionalso establishes that only certain kinds of information can be submitted in a particularCrime Complaint recorded by the U.S. Department of Justice. Some other informationthat is equally important under the principal of "complementarity" will notbe considered simultaneously and is obstructed.. . . For example, when Plaintiff MacKenzie complained to U.S. Department of JusticeFBI Houston Office that U.S. Attorney Tim Johnson had denied the Menchaca familyVictim protection related to said enclosed and cited Criminal death threat, the FBI DutyAgent explained he would not 'take' such a report and would not 'take' a crime report of18 USC Tampering and Retaliation crime offenses, and the Menchaca family shouldrealize that litigation brings 'death risks' that "go with the territory."The FBI Duty Agent then disconnected his phone contact with Plaintiff MacKenzie.. . . When Plaintiff MacKenzie complained to Governor Rick Perry in "Care of" ChiefMaster Sergeant Gonda Moncada, Public Affairs Chief, Texas National Guard, Comm512-782-5050; DSN 954-5050, [email protected] and same office of ColWilliam Meeham, Texas National Guard 512-782-1034 ;[email protected] ; [email protected], Public Affairs ChiefMoncada disconnected her phone contact with Plaintiff MacKenzie after he explainedthat Texas National Guard troops faced the same "$50,000 'Death Sentence' Rewards"and consequential mutilation-torture-murders suffered by Pvt Kristian Menchaca
185 of 256
186 of 256
(Plaintiffs’ nephew), Pvt Thomas Tucker, Pvt Joseph Anziak, Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc.Alex R. Jimenez, and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty as U.S. soldier Prisoners of War, all who weretortured and murdered during various capture time periods from 2004 through July2008.. . . Petitioner Kenneth MacKenzie has filed this current Claim and copies of U.S. CourtCase H-08-60 filed in the U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, (ICC, Prosecutor,Case # OTP-CR-100/08, PO Box 19519, 2500 CM, The Hague, The Netherlands, [email protected] , ( http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en) . The Prosecutor ofthe U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT has notified MacKenzie that theProsecutor's Office will investigate the violations of the Geneva Conventions set forth inMacKenzie's filed U.S. District Court case H-08-60 and those cases MacKenzie has filedwith the Ministers of Justice in Italy and Rome, Indonesia, and other Middle East.countries.. . . Plaintiff MacKenzie has complained to the Prosecutor of the U.N. INTERNATIONALCRIMINAL COURT that U.S. Department of Justice employees will not record anycomplaints related to War Crime murders even though torture-murders are crimes underUnited States Codes.. . . This U.S. Department of Justice obstruction of "complementarity" conditionalso establishes that only certain kinds of information can be submitted regarding CrimeComplaints recorded by the U.S. Department of Justice. Crime Complaint informationrelated to War Crimes that is equally important under the principal of"complementarity" is ignored by the remaining Bush administration FBI, headed by FBIDirector Robert Mueller, who Obstruct Justice and misprision felonies by refusing toenforce U.S. laws under the principal of "complementarity" by not recording crimecomplaints against U.S. Department of Justice employees who regularly obstruct justiceby refusing to investigate War Crime violations of the Geneva Conventions.. . .Crime Complaint information related to War Crimes that is equally important underthe principal of "complementarity" is also ignored by Governor Perry of the state of
186 of 256
187 of 256
Texaswho has ignored the fact that U.S. Attorneys General have treasonably Life Rewardvalued Texas National Guardsmen at "$50,000 'Death' Rewards" when they are serving in a federalized situation while U.S. Attorneys General are offering 100 to 500 times more Reward life value for the lives of Terrorists .. . . Plaintiffs request this Court to issue Defendant U.S. Department of Justice, andDepartment of State, and Department of Defense, a Protective Order to protect the livesof captured U.S. Soldier Prisoners of War in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Middle EastCountries , said Protective Order of this Court directing all U.S. governmentDepartments and Agencies to "NOT" publish or proclaim U.S. rewards for eachcaptured U.S. Soldier Prisoners of War that are lower in value than the highest amount,$25,000,000, the U.S. advertises it will pay for the highest reward valued enemy of theUnited States, Usama Bin Ladin, currently valued at twenty five million U.S. dollars($25,000,000), said Protective Order of this Court further directing all U.S. governmentDepartments and Agencies to "NOT" violate the Geneva Conventions relative tocaptured U.S. Soldier Prisoners of War and "NOT" fail to "EQUALLY" publicize,worldwide, with media advertising that is at least physically EQUAL, inch by inch, tovisual media advertising of display ads published regarding Rewards for Terrorists thatRewards of twenty five million U.S. dollars ($25,000,000) will be paid for live recovery ofcaptured U.S. Soldier Prisoners of War in Iraq and Afghanistan and radio advertisingthat also provides "EQUAL" or better advertising time and word count in radioadvertising that Rewards of twenty five million U.S. dollars ($25,000,000) will be paidfor live recovery of captured U.S. Soldier Prisoners of War in Iraq and Afghanistan, andapply these same principles to TV advertising of sound word count, ad time duration, andphoto-picture size to be at least "EQUAL" to ads on behalf of terrorists or better than adsfor terrorists, said Protective Order of this Court further directing all U.S. governmentDepartments and Agencies to "NOT" ignore any part of the Geneva Conventions of1949 and the Geneva Protocols of 1977 and 2005, and particularly note that provision is
187 of 256
188 of 256
stated under Geneva Convention 3, Art 10 that "The High Contracting Parties may atany time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention.". . .This Article 10 provision and others enable liaison between the U.S. and variousMosques in Afghanistan and Iraq to enable provision of Geneva Convention Law andKoranic Law mandated by Mohamed to protect Prisoners of War in cooperation with allparties.. . . Plaintiffs request this Court to issue a Protective Order to protect the lives of theMenchaca family until such time as these Terrorism threats are no longer an issue.. . . Plaintiffs request this Court to issue a Protective Order to protect the Holy St. Petersfrom "Nuclear Crime" attack related to the U.S. War prosecution in Iraq and Afghanistan.. . . Plaintiffs request this Court to issue a Protective Order to protect the Tomb ofMohamed in Medina, Italy and Rome from "Nuclear Crime" attack related to the U.S. War prosecution in Iraq and Afghanistan.. . . Plaintiffs request this Court to issue a Protective Order to protect Holy St. Peter's Basilica from "Nuclear Crime" attack related to U.S. War prosecution in Iraq andAfghanistan.. . . Plaintiffs request this Court to issue to Defendant an Order to Show Cause why theU.S. should or should not offer "Radiological Crime" Protection to the Holy St. Peters,Vatican, Italy and Rome.. . . Plaintiffs request this Court to issue to Defendant an Order to Show Cause why theU.S. should or should not offer "Radiological Crime" Protection to the Tomb ofMohamed, Medina, Italy and Rome.. . . Plaintiffs request this Court to issue to Defendant an Order to Show Cause why theU.S. should or should not offer "Radiological Crime" Protection to the U.S. BusinessEntities in Italy and Rome in an effort to protect the Holy St. Peters, Vatican, Italy and Rome from
188 of 256
189 of 256
Radiological Cross-Contamination as is expected to come from Radiological attack againstU.S. Business property in Italy and Rome.. . . Plaintiffs request this Court to issue to Defendant an Order to Show Cause why theU.S. should or should not offer "Radiological Crime" Protection to the U.S. BusinessEntities in Italy in an effort to protect Holy St. Peter's pilgrims Church, Vatican City, in Rome,Italy from Radiological Cross-Contamination as is expected to come from Radiologicalattack against U.S. Business property in Italy.. . . Plaintiffs request this Court to issue to Defendant and to fifty US state governors to"show cause" why they should not forewarn State National Guard troops of saidinsufficient "$50,000 'Death' Rewards" that directly impact Texas National Guard troopswhen 'federalized' into the federal military of the United States.. . . Plaintiffs request this Court to issue to Defendant and to fifty U.S. state governorsand U.S. Attorney General and U.S. Secretary of State and "Order to 'Show Cause' " whyU.S. Bush administration "fifty thousand dollar torture-death 'rewards'" offered by U.S.for captured U.S. soldier prisoners of war should continue to remain in effect after bushadministration has vacated office of presidency of the United States.
BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX #1, of Internet Addresses regarding Terrorist torture
videos showing the torture deaths of PFC Kristian Menchaca and PFC Thomas Tucker :Disclaimer Warning: These web addresses contain shocking atrocity photos, not for
children and
teenage persons under 18 years of age:
“Click” or shade & paste Web address in browser bar, then click “GO.”
(1) SEE: Video Of Beaheadings Of Americans Kristian Menchaca And Thomas
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm ;Submitted by Plaintiff Kenneth MacKenziePlaintiff ’s signature : S/ Kenneth MacKenzie,title : Pro Se, Properia Persona, Plaintiff / Petitioner / ComplainantPlaintiff member of Kristian Menchaca Familyof U.S. Court Case H-08-60 - Houston, TX;Home address: Page 39 of 45
Page 40 of 45
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES(1) Kenneth MacKenzie, appearing Properia Persona as Plaintiff “Pro Se”appearing on his own behalf with family class members similarly situated, (2) JulietaVasquez-MacKenzie, as Plaintiff, Aunt of Pfc. Kristian Vasquez Menchaca (sister of ClaimantGuadalupe Vasquez), (3) Guadalupe Vasquez, as Plaintiff, Mother of Pfc. Kristian Vasquez
191 of 256
192 of 256
Menchaca, Mother of (4) Caesar Vasquez Menchaca, as Plaintiff, Brother of Pfc. Kristian VasquezMenchaca, family class members similarly situated — PETITIONERSClass Action regarding:(1) The four Geneva Conventions (I,II,III,IV)of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victimsVSDefendant #1, U.S. Justice Department, United States Executive Branch Of Government,Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States — RESPONDENT(S)PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Kenneth MacKenzie, do swear or declare that on this date, 30 April 2009, as required by Supreme Court
Rule
29 I have served the enclosed U.S. Supreme Court Rule 15: PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTALBRIEF on each party to the above proceeding
or that party’s counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by depositing
an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed
to each of them and with first-class postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party
commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days.
The names and addresses of those served are as follows: U.S. Justice Department, United StatesExecutive Branch Of Government, Alberto Gonzales, former Attorney General of the UnitedStates; Erik Holder, Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice, 10th and
Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20530;
TO: Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Office of the Solicitor General, Care Of Neal Katyal, Room5614, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, DC 20530-0001Phone: 202-514-2217/18 hours 9:00 am to 5:30 pm, M-F [email protected] ,. . . . . To: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Lee Caplan & John B. Bellinger III, Office of LegalAdviser, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520 , (202) 647-0748; [email protected];Kimberly A. Gahan, Attorney-Adviser, International Claims &Investment Disputes Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC20520 , tel: (202) 776-8431; email: [email protected]. . . . . To: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, (ICC, Prosecutor, Case # OTP-CR-100/08, PO Box 19519, 2500 CM, The Hague, The Netherlands, email otp.informationdesk@icccpi.
192 of 256
193 of 256
int , ( http: / / www.icc-cpi.int /home.html&l=en)I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on , 30 April 2009
(Signature)
Printed name: Kenneth MacKenzie
No.08-9595
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES(1) Kenneth MacKenzie, appearing Properia Persona as Plaintiff “Pro Se”appearing on his own behalf with family class members similarly situated, (2) JulietaVasquez-MacKenzie, as Plaintiff, Aunt of Pfc. Kristian Vasquez Menchaca (sister of ClaimantGuadalupe Vasquez), (3) Guadalupe Vasquez, as Plaintiff, Mother of Pfc. Kristian VasquezMenchaca, Mother of (4) Caesar Vasquez Menchaca, as Plaintiff, Brother of Pfc. Kristian VasquezMenchaca, family class members similarly situated — PETITIONERSClass Action regarding:(1) The four Geneva Conventions (I,II,III,IV)of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victimsVsDefendant #1, U.S. Justice Department, United States Executive Branch Of Government,Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States — RESPONDENT(S)PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Kenneth MacKenzie, do swear or declare that on this date, 30 April 2009, as required by Supreme Court
Rule
29 I have served the enclosed U.S. Supreme Court Rule 15: PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTALBRIEF on each party to the above proceeding
or that party’s counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by depositing
an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed
to each of them and with first-class postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party
commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days.
The names and addresses of those served are as follows: U.S. Justice Department, United States Executive
Branch Of Government, Alberto Gonzales, former Attorney General of the United States; ErikHolder, Attorney General of the United States, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE:
193 of 256
194 of 256
Houston /Galveston Division:
Mail: P.O. Box 61129 , Houston, TX 77208; TO: Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Office of theSolicitor General, Care Of Neal Katyal, Room 5614, Department of Justice, 950 PennsylvaniaAvenue, N. W., Washington, DC 20530-0001 Phone: 202-514-2217/18 hours 9:00 am to 5:30pm, M-F 202-514-2203 [email protected] ,. . . . . To: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Lee Caplan & John B. Bellinger III, Office of LegalAdviser, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520 , (202) 647-0748; [email protected];Kimberly A. Gahan, Attorney-Adviser, International Claims &Investment Disputes Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC20520 , tel: (202) 776-8431; email: [email protected]. . . . . To: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, (ICC, Prosecutor, Case # OTP-CR-100/08, PO Box 19519, 2500 CM, The Hague, The Netherlands, [email protected] ,( http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en)I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on , 30 April 2009
(Signature)
Printed name: Kenneth MacKenzie
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (X Via ECF). . . . . To: Mailing Address of the Solicitor General of the United States (see Rule 29.4). .TO: Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Office of the Solicitor General, Care Of NealKatyal, Room 5614, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.,Washington, DC 20530-0001 Phone: 202-514-2217/18 hours 9:00 am to 5:30 pm, M-F202-514-2203 [email protected] ,. . . . . To: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, (ICC, Prosecutor, Case # OTPCR-100/08, PO Box 19519, 2500 CM, The Hague, The Netherlands, [email protected] , ( http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en). . . . . To: President of The United States and Counsel to President of the United StatesFax: 202- 456-2883; Phn: 202 456-2632
194 of 256
195 of 256
. . . . . To: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Lee Caplan & John B. Bellinger III, Officeof Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520 , (202) 647-0748;[email protected]; Kimberly A. Gahan, Attorney-Adviser, International Claims &Investment Disputes Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, Washington,
DC
20520 , tel: (202) 776-8431; email: [email protected] Attaché Office, US Embassy, 24 Grosvenor Square, London W1A 1AE ; Phone:[44] (0) 20 7894-0723; Fax:[44] (0) 20 7499-7688 ; Email: [email protected] ;[email protected]. . . . . TO: United States Attorney General Erik Holder, U.S. Department of Justice, 10thand Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 2053 ;US Attorney General, 950Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC - (202) 353-1555 , [email protected] ,[email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] ,[email protected] ,. . . . . TO: United States Attorney Attorney General Mukasey, Care Of: UNITED STATESPage 42 of 45
. . . TO: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. Special Counsel; jeffrey.kerr ; heather.cartwright ;cathy.spears; Office of U.S. Special Counsel, and To U.S. National Security Division, U.S.Department of Justice (U.S. DoJ), Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism; andan Executive Office. or 202-514-1057; jeffrey.kerr: 202-616-3581 ; heather.cartwright:202-514-1057; ; cathy.spears: 202 307 -6649 ; eMail : [email protected] ;[email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ;[email protected] ;. . . TO: George Hephner, Deputy U.S. Marshall, 515 Rusk, Houston, TX 77002, 713 7184800; [email protected]___________________________________. . I hereby certify that the above and foregoing instrument was served upon Defendantsand Interested Parties and their counsel in the above entitled and numbered cause attheir office eMail addresses as indicated at their "published" Internet Web sites byPlaintiff Kenneth MacKenzie, Attorney Pro SE, Uncle of PFC Kristian VasquezMenchaca, H. Phone: 713-225-0123 ; Cell : 281 684 6028;[email protected] , [email protected] , U.S. Court Case H-08-60;KENNETH MACKENZIE, the undersigned, further certifies that he has served the U.S.Attorney and U.S. Attorney General numerous times at their Web site Electronic Mail
Complainant’s signature : S/ Kenneth MacKenzie,Printed name : Kenneth MacKenzie;title : Pro Se, Properia Persona, Complainant /Plaintiff member of Kristian Menchaca Familyof U.S. Court Case H-08-60 - Houston, TX;
U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL ELANA. . . . . } PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF #3KAGAN, Counsel for Respondent,. . . . . . . . }(Respondents) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . }. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .U.S. Supreme Court Rule 15: PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF #3 :. . . Plaintiffs submit Rule 15 PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF #3 as follows:Supreme Court of the United StatesWashington, DC 20543-001,[email protected] States of America . . . . . . . . } Case No. 08-9595v.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . } WAR CRIME COMPLAINTGray Miller, Defendant . . . . . . . . . .} U.S. Judge Gray Miller (Defendant Gray Miller). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CRIMINAL COMPLAINT #3I, Kenneth MacKenzie, the complainant in this case, state that the following is true to thebest of my knowledge and belief. On or about the date of February 2008 in the county ofHarris in city of Houston, the Southern District of Texas, the defendant violated offensesdescribed as follows:. . . Defendant Gray Miller acting outside his ministerial and descretionary scope havingusurped jurisdiction of a court case in conflict of interest and in violation of 28 USC,
Section 455, taking wrongful jurisdiction not his to take, "violated" (1) The four Geneva
Conventions (I,II,III,IV) of 12 August 1949 for the protection of warvictims. SEE: http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/genevaconventions ;http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm ; http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/law
ofwar/geneva03.htm ; http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm ; "violated"(2) Protocol I and II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to
Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Also SEE: Protocol I,Page 1 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 2 of 31
Article 11 – Protection of persons, 8 June 1977. See: Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/genevaconventions ;
. . . Defendant Gray Miller also "violated" TITLE 18 - CRIMES, CHAPTER 73 -
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE; Defendant Gray Miller violated Title 18 USC, § 1512.
198 of 256
199 of 256
Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. . . " . . .There is extraterritorialFederal jurisdiction over an offense under this section."(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1512 ; Title 18 USC
§ 1512. Defendant Gray Miller, in "violation," Tampered with captured U.S. soldier
Prisoners of War Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty;Defendant Gray Miller violated 18 USC; TITLE 18 § 1513 - Defendant Gray MillerRetaliated against a witness, victim, or an informant. " . . .There is extraterritorialFederal jurisdiction over an offense under this section."http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/73/sections/section_1513.html ; "Title 18 USC § 1513 Defendant Gray Miller Retaliated against captured U.S.soldier Prisoners of War Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W.Fouty); Defendant Gray Miller violated 18 U.S.C., § 4. Misprision of felonies againstcaptured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War, in the mutilation-torture-murders of Pvt KristianMenchaca (Plaintiffs’ family member), Pvt Thomas Tucker, and Pvt Joseph Anziak, Sgt.Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty; Defendant Gray Millerviolated Title 18 USC, Sec. 2382 - MISPRISION OF TREASON (18 U.S.C., § 2382MISPRISION OF TREASON perpetrated to a math certainty by former U.S. Attorney General
Gonzales in manipulating his own designed $50,000 Death Rewards against captured U.S.soldier Prisoners of War Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W.Fouty, meanwhile posting life-saving Mega Million dollar rewards for al Qaida and alShura Terrorists while said Terrorists, in violation of Geneva Convention 3, tortured todeath U.S. soldier Prisoners of War life-valued by Gonzales at $50,000 while Gonzalesdenied any reward increases on their lives while Gonzales's Higher life valued Terroristssurrogates tortured said U.S. Prisoners of War to Death in violation of GenevaPage 2 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 3 of 31
Convention 3).
199 of 256
200 of 256
Defendant Gray Miller's MISPRISION is understood as follows: In its larger sense, this wordis used to signify every considerable misdemeanor, which has not a certain name given to it in thelaw; and it is said that a misprision is contained in every treason or felony whatever. In itsnarrower sense it is the concealment of a crime.
Defendant Gray Miller's MISPRISION OF TREASON is the concealment of treason, by beingmerely passive for if any assistance be given, to the traitor, it makes the party a principal, asthere are no accessories in treason. It is the duty of every good citizen, knowing of a treason orfelony having been committed to inform a magistrate. Silently to observe the commission of afelony, without using any endeavors to apprehend the offender, is a misprision.Misprisions which are merely positive, are denominated contempts or high misdemeanors; as, forexample, dissuading a witness from giving evidence.
Defendant Gray Miller's MISPRISION OF FELONY - Whoever, having knowledge of the actualcommission of a felony cognizable by a court of the U.S., conceals and does not as soon as possiblemake known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the U.S.18 USC. Misprision of felony, is the like concealment of felony, without giving any degree ofmaintenance to the felon for if any aid be given him, the party becomes an accessory after thefact.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel officer of United States to perform his duty.Defendant Gray Miller did not perform his duty while he did nothing while capturedU.S. soldier Prisoners of War Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W.Fouty were tortured and murdered from February to July 2008.. . . . Also see: Koranic Law of Middle East Countries.This criminal complaint is based on these facts:. 1. The information of this issue indicates that captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War Sgt. Keith
Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty were murdered during the time period of 22
Feb 2008 to 08 July 2008, during the same time period that U.S. Judge Miller, outside his ministerial
and discretionary scope, did deny Plaintiffs’ efforts to provide $25 Million Dollar Rewards to save the
lives of captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt.
Byron W. Fouty -- on a Reward life value equal to said $25 Million U.S. Reward dollars bestowed byPage 3 of 31
200 of 256
201 of 256
08-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 4 of 31
the U.S. Executive Branch on Terrorists.
. 2. SEE: Rewards for Justice, Washington , D.C.20522-0303, 1-800-877-3927; [email protected];
. 3. This statistic and the dollar difference in Rewards is profound evidence that "$50,000 'Death
Sentence' Rewards" are a catastrophic part of mutilation,torture, and murder "War Crimes" motivated
against captured U.S. soldier Prisoneers of War in Iraq and in violation of Geneva Convention III of
1949 and Geneva Protocols of 1977.
. 4. U.S. Citizens who volunteer for Military Service are not forewarned that if they are captured by
Terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan their own government will betray them and offer rewards for them that
are 500 times lower than the U.S. government offers for the very same Mega Million / $25 Million
Dollar valued terrorists who will mutilate and torture the same captured U.S. soldier Prisoneers of War
reward-valued 500 time less at "$50,000 'Death Sentence' Rewards." The irony and treachery are
astounding and most shocking.
.5. Complaint against U.S. Judge Gray Miller as corruptly acting in Private Persona outside his
ministerial and discretionary scope:
. 6. . This “5th Circuit Rule, Judicial Misconduct Complaint” against U.S. Judge Gray Miller (1)
describes pre-jurisdiction and pre-decision disqualification conditions that were a matter of record and
obvious from the facts available to Judge Gray Miller before he wrongfully acted to expropriate
wrongful jurisdiction and then issue a decision in U.S. Case H-08-60 while he was disqualified
pursuant to 28 USC, Section 455, in “conflict-of-interest,” while he was “disqualified” outside his
ministerial and discretionary scope, by reason of the fact that Miller was a President-GW-Bush
nominee / appointee had knowingly taken jurisdiction of Case H-08-60, which listed Bush and several
of his Cabinet Secretaries as Interested Parties who were likely to become “Defendants.”
. 7. . Miller possessed obviously available information that Miller was a nominee / appointee of
President G.W. Bush to Miller’s position of U.S. District Court Judge.
. 8. Miller possessed obviously available information from the Caption (See Appendix 1, appended
herein) in Plaintiff’s case H-08-60 that President G.W. Bush was named as an “interested Party” in
Plaintiff’s case H-08-60.
201 of 256
202 of 256
. 9. Miller possessed obviously available information that Plaintiff’s Case H-08-60 named in thePage 4 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 5 of 31
caption former U.S. Attorney General Gonzales (a Bush nominated / appointed U.S. Attorney General)
and was informed that Plaintiff’s Case H-08-60 named, in the caption (See Appendix 1, appended
herein), a substantial number of Bush nominated / appointed Cabinet Secretaries as “Interested
Parties.”
. 10. Miller possessed obviously available information of “USC Title 28, Section 455 - Disqualification
of justice, judge, or magistrate judge (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States
shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
. 11. “The thing speaks for itself” (Res Ips Loquitor) that USC Title 28, Section 455 was clearly
applicable or, at least, of question for Miller in Plaintiff’s Case H-08-60.
. 12. “The thing speaks for itself” (Res Ips Loquitor) that Miller did not query the Judicial Council of
the Fifth Judicial Circuit to ask an opinion regarding Miller’s plans to commandeer jurisdiction as
President Bush’s protégé, nominee / appointee, to expropriate jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s Case H-08-60
away from other U.S. District Court judges who were “NOT” protégés, nominees, or appointees of
President G.W. Bush and were not linked as nominees / appointees of the U.S. Executive Branch
Culture of Torture that has provably worked to destroy the lives of captured U.S. soldier prisoners of
War. “The thing speaks for itself” (Res Ips Loquitor).
. 13. Plaintiff’s complaint focuses on several basic areas regarding said unlawfully expropriated
decision of Miller to take jurisdiction away from other better qualified U.S. judges despite Miller’s
obvious “conflict of interest” disqualification under 28 USC, Section 455, before Miller issued
decisions in Case-08-60.
.14. Miller took jurisdiction by snaking around the proscriptions of 28 USC, Section 455 and
surreptitiously not notifying Plaintiffs of his identification as a Bush nominee / appointee; and, Miller
took jurisdiction by not querying the Judicial Council of the Fifth Judicial Circuit to determine its
opinion on Miller’s decision to take jurisdiction when there were numerous valid questions against
Miller taking jurisdiction of Case H-08-60 fully informed he was a Bush nominee / appointee and
disqualified under Title 28, Section 455 prior to taking jurisdiction.
. 15. Furthermore, Miller did not take jurisdiction under verification or sworn oath that he was not
202 of 256
203 of 256
subject to disqualification under Title 28, Section 455, or under verification or sworn oath that he was
not acting outside his ministerial and discretionary scope in conflict as a Bush Nominee / Appointee.
. 16. The information of Case H-08-60 explained that part of Plaintiffs’ litigation of Case H-08-60Page 5 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 6 of 31
was seeking and offering rewards of $25 Million (See Appendix 2 and also see
http://kristianmenchaca.com/) expected to come from jury verdicts in Case H-08-60 on behalf of
captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W.
Fouty. In conjunction with information of Case H-08-60, Plaintiffs were offering rewards of $25
Million on the internet (See Appendix 2) linked to litigation of Case H-08-60 in efforts to save the lives
of Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty who were facing mutilation,
torture, and death in Iraq .
. 17. Miller ignored the plight of Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty
when he snaked around the proscriptions of USC Title 28, Section 455 and wrongfully took jurisdiction
apparently focused on dismissing Plaintiffs’ Case H-08-60 against his mentor, Bush, and his mentor’s
Attorneys General and Cabinet Secretaries.
. 18. Miller denied Plaintiffs’ Application To Proceed Without Payment Of Fee in Case H-08-60 on
25 Feb 2008; and, Plaintiffs never received information of Miller’s said denial from the Court Clerk.
Miller’s said “Denial” was issued outside his Ministerial and Discretionary scope by reason of the facts
indicating he was not qualified to take jurisdiction because he was disqualified pursuant to 28 USC,
Section 455 in his “Conflict of Interest.”
. 19. Miller’s wrongful denial of 25 Feb 2008 thereby had catastrophic consequences for captured
U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty --
who Miller ignored when he issued his denial, which had the effect of allowing unchallenged
continuance of said U.S. Executive Branch issued “$50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Rewards,” effectively
motivating Terrorists to mutilate, torture, and murder captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War in “War
Crime” violations of Geneva Convention III of 1949 and Geneva Protocols of 1977 as further
explained, herein.
. 20. Linked to Miller’s Denial and bizarre refusal to address the life and death issues of Case H-08-
60 and Miller instead focus on the $450 filing fee marks Miller and reveals his unbalanced state of
203 of 256
204 of 256
mind in that he focused on trivia while the lives of three captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War hung in
the balance endangered by Miller’s Denial and delays of Case H-08-60.
. 21. Miller, by taking jurisdiction outside his ministerial and discretionary scope as disqualified under
28 Section 455 and by wrongfully denying Plaintiffs’ life saving efforts of Case H-08-60 on 25 Feb
2008, Miller effectively removed any lawful potential for change in said U.S. Executive Branch issuedPage 6 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 7 of 31
“$50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Rewards.”
. 22. Thus, Miller, disqualified under Title 28, Section 455 and then acting in his Private Persona,
issued an unlawful denial in Case H-08-60 which prevented Case H-08-60 from going forward to make
life saving efforts on behalf of captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War, Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R.
Jimenez, and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty.
. 23. Disqualified under Title 28, Section 455 and by denying Case H-08-60 to go forward in a timely
manner to publich “equal-to-terrorist-$25-Million-reward-conditions” of $25 million dollar Rewards on
behalf of the lives of captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R.
Jimenez, and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty, Miller, acting in his Private Persona, did interfere with Plaintiffs’
Case H-08-60 and prevented “equal-to-terrorist-$25-Million-reward-conditions” from being heard by a
jury in a timely manner.
. 24. As a connected result of Miller’s wrongdoing in making the $450 filing fee a more important
focus of Case H-08-60 than the lives of captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War, while Miller acted
outside the ministerial and discretionary scope of U.S. District Court Judge and, instead, acted in his
Private Persona as “Gray Miller,” the body of Sgt. Keith Maupin was recovered in Iraq on 30 March
2008, and the bodies of Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty were recovered on 09 July
2008.
. 25. The fact that Miller acted in the above described manner indicates Miller is unbalanced in his
mental abilities to recognize that there is a profound difference between life and death issues compared
to the trivia of his emphasis on the $450 filing fee.
. 26. In conformance with 5th Cir. R., Plaintiff is not disputing Miller’s wrongful denial of Plaintiffs’
Application To Proceed Without Payment Of Fee in Case H-08-60 even though Miller’s denial should
have no standing. Plaintiff MacKenzie is pointing out the obvious conditions that existed before Miller
204 of 256
205 of 256
took wrongful jurisdiction and issued his wrongful Denial.
. 27. It should be noted that there are four family Plaintiffs listed in Case H-08-60. Julieta Vasquez-
MacKenzie the Aunt of Kristian Menchaca is unemployed, without funds, and should have right to
proceed under Forma Pauperis, yet was denied by Miller while acting outside his ministerial and
descretionary scope disqualified under Title 28 Section 455, then acting in his Private Persona as Gray
Miller (not “U.S. Judge Gray Miller”).
. 28. Cesar Menchaca, brother of Kristian Menchaca is unemployed, without funds, and should havePage 7 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 8 of 31
right to proceed under Forma Pauperis, yet was denied by Miller while acting outside his ministerial
and descretionary scope disqualified under Title 28 Section 455, then acting in his Private Persona as
Gray Miller (not “U.S. Judge Gray Miller”).
. 29. Maria Guadalupe Vasquez, mother of Christian Menchaca, under employed based on her
economic condition, should have right to proceed under Forma Pauperis, yet was denied by Miller
while acting outside his ministerial and descretionary scope disqualified under Title 28 Section 455,
then acting in his Private Persona as Gray Miller (not “U.S. Judge Gray Miller”).
.30. Kenneth MacKenzie was allowed to proceed in U.S. District Court to U.S. Supreme Court twice
under his current economic profile in U.S. Supreme Court cases 95-9090 and 97-7616, yet was denied
Application To Proceed Without Payment Of Fee in Case H-08-60 in Miller’s denial of 25 Feb 2008, by
Miller while acting outside his ministerial and descretionary scope disqualified under Title 28 Section
455, then acting in his Private Persona as Gray Miller (not “U.S. Judge Gray Miller”)..
. 31. Plaintiffs’ filed Case H-08-60 seeking orders to make rewards equally available to captured U.S.
soldier Prisoners of War; and, Plaintiffs sought damages to be paid by Defendant Gonzales to the
Vasquez Menchaca family, while listing several “Interested Parties” including Bush as possible
Defendants should investigation indicate they were culpable in the wrongful death of Plaintiffs’ family
member, PFC Kristian Vasquez Menchaca, who was captured by Terrorist insurgents, during June
2006, together with PFC Thomas Tucker in Yosifiya, Iraq and both barbarically tortured to death
largely as a consequence said discriminatory “U.S. $50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Rewards” broadcast by
the U.S. government after their surrender / capture (not before surrender / capture).
. 32. Plaintiffs’ complaint is that Judge Gray Miller wrongfully took jurisdiction of this Case H-08-60
205 of 256
206 of 256
in disregard of Title 28, Section 455; and, after taking jurisdiction, Miller’s Denial of Plaintiffs’
Application to Proceed Without Payment was made outside Miller’s ministerial and discretionary scope
and made in a condition that was a violation of Title 28, Section 455 regarding Case H-08-60.
. 33. In retrospect of Miller taking jurisdiction of Case H-08-60, after the facts are considered that
former Attorney General Gonzales is listed as a Defendant, President Bush’s name is listed as a
“PARTY,” and a large number of Bush Cabinet Secretary appointees are listed as “Interested Parties” in
H-08-60, why did Judge Miller not “do what is easy” and simply allow another judge who was not a
Bush nominee / appointee take jurisdiction of H-08-60? The obvious answer to the obvious answer is
that Miller obviously was obviously motivated by some interest to protect his Mentor, G.W. Bush andPage 8 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 9 of 31
his several Cabinet Secretaries from facing the unpleasant prospect of answering for their structured
and minipulated U.S. “$50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Rewards” against captured U.S. soldier prisoners of
War that targeted them after capture motivating the very same Terrorist groups who were beneficiaries
of life saving Mega Million/$25 Million Dollar Rewards to mutilate, torture, and murder “$50,000
‘Death Sentence’…” targeted U.S. soldiers ruthlessly denied “Fourteenth Amendment” equality of
Terrorist life saving Mega Million/$25 Million Dollar Rewards that proveably saved the lives of all
100% of Terrorists who surrendered in Iraq, while U.S. “$50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Rewards” ruthlessly
targeted and motivated the mutilation, torture, and murder of all 100% of captured U.S. soldier
prisoners of War in Iraq, said Mega Million/$25 Million Dollar life Rewards contrasting to “$50,000
‘Death Sentence’ Rewards” and thereby illustrating a relentlessly targeted low life value to captured
U.S. soldier prisoners of War in criminal violation of Geneva Conventions and also in criminal
violation of the U.S.RICO Act and U.S. Treason Act by encouraging and motivating Terrorist
organization enemies of the United States (whose members benefitted after surrender by said Mega
Million/$25 Million Dollar Rewards that motivated their Iraqi Sunni and Shiite and Kurdish captors not
to mutilate, torture and murder them after capture) to mutilate, torture, and murder all 100% of
captured U.S. soldier prisoners of War.
. 34. From Petitioners’ common sense point of view in this matter, Judge Gray Miller appears to be
mentally disabled, or worse, which indicates he may be as mentally disabled as those in the U.S.
Executive Branch whose life destroying reward policies he appears to support.
206 of 256
207 of 256
. 35. Judge Gray Miller’s decision to take jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ U.S. District Court Case H-08-60,
Houston, after being presented with the Case H-08-60 caption listing former Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales as Defendant (Gonzales was a President-G.W.-Bush-appointee, like Miller), after being
presented with the Case H-08-60 caption listing as “Interested-Parties,” members of the U.S.
Executive Branch selected by Bush, and after being presented with the Case H-08-60 caption listing
President G.W. Bush as an “Interested Party,” President G.W. Bush being the very same party who had
nominated Miller to his decision-making position as District Court judge, Miller wrongfully took
“conflict-of-interest” jurisdiction of Case H-08-60 when it was flooded with “Interested Parties,”
including President Bush, whose presence in Case H-08-60 indicated an “extreme-conflict-of-interest”
should Miller take jurisdiction of Case H-08-60.
. 36. SEE: “USC Title 28, Section 455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judgePage 9 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 10 of 31
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
. 37. Miller took jurisdiction informed by the caption in Case H-08-60 of the names of the listed
Executive Branch Defendant, Attorney General Gonzales (nominated by Bush), and the Interested
Parties, including Miller’s mentor, President G.W. Bush, listed on the caption of Case H-08-60, which
jurisdiction was immediately apparent as a “conflict of interest” to Miller due to the fact that Bush had
nominated Miller to Miller’s position as District Court judge; and, obviously if Miller took jurisdiction,
then Miller could repay Bush’s nomination favor by dismissing Case H-08-60 civil crime tort
complaints against Bush and his Executive Branch Attorney Generals and Bush’s Cabinet Secretaries
and dismissing Case H-08-60 civil crime tort complaints against Bush, himself, wherein Bush and his
Executive Branch Secretaries and Attorneys General could reasonably be named as
Defendants in Case H-08-60 should further facts indicate Bush and his Secretaries ought to be named
as Defendants.
. 39. Miller took jurisdiction of Case H-08-60 informed that :
207 of 256
208 of 256
(1) he was in “conflict of interest” outside his ministerial and descretionary scope in disqualification
under “USC Title 28, Section 455, thereby acting in his Private Person Persona.
(2) Miller took jurisdiction of Case H-08-60 informed that “USC Title 28, Section 455 applied: “(a)
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding
in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned . . .”
(3) Miller took jurisdiction of Case H-08-60 surreptitiously without informing Petitioners he was a
Bush nominee / appointee,
(4) took jurisdiction in “conflict of interest” outside his ministerial and descretionary scope in
disqualification under “USC Title 28, Section 455, thereby acting in his Private Person Persona
obviously intent on issuing a denial that would likely operate to also deny “Terrorist Captured U.S.
soldier Prisoners of War” in Iraq and Afghanistan any opportunity at equal Life saving $25 Million
Rewards that could come from Case H-08-60 and thereby save their lives in the same manner as said
$25 Million dollar Rewards were saving the lives of Terrorists who surrendered in Iraq;Page 10 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 11 of 31
(5) Miller in “conflict of interest” outside his ministerial and descretionary scope in disqualification
under “USC Title 28, Section 455, thereby acted in his Private Person Persona while ignoring “USC
Title 28, Section 455, … ‘(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding’;
(6) Before Miller took jurisdiction of Case H-08-60, in “conflict of interest” outside his ministerial and
descretionary scope in disqualification under “USC Title 28, Section 455, thereby acting in his Private
Person Persona, he was informed by Case H-08-60 of the following concerns on pages 343 and 344 of
damages and Court orders in an effort to save the lives of “Terrorist Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of
War” targeted with U.S. “$50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Rewards” offered in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Plaintiffs’ litigation of Case H-08-60 offering rewards of $25 Million expected to come from jury
verdicts on behalf of captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez
and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty – and Plaintiffs offering rewards of $25 Million on the internet linked to
litigation of Case H-08-60, said Reward Life Values sought by Plaintiffs to come from expected
judgements in Case H-08-60 and to come from Reward donations sought by Plaintiffs to be made by
208 of 256
209 of 256
the U.S. public to Reward Funds that Plaintiffs sought to establish as connected to Case H-08-60, under
jurisdiction of the Court.
. 40. SEE: U.S. Case H-08-60 ( Houston, Texas ) ¶ “...488. order that that U.S. Attorney General
Mukasey (In Office: 09 Nov 2007)-Rice-Gates be restrained from administratively ‘bad-faith’
manipulating further torture-murders together with terrorist accessories, at large, and all previous
reward offers based on said Title 1, “Counterterrorism fund,” Title 18, Title 22, and other U.S. Code
Titles on “Rewards” for captured U.S. troops and “Rewards” for captured Terrorists be totaled and
future rewards from said fund be offered as a $25 million dollar reward offered for each captured U.S.
soldier returned alive into U.S. custody, said $25 million dollar rewards for U.S. Soldiers’ life-value to
at least equal for U.S. Soldiers the rate of $25 million dollar rewards currently offered ($77 million
previously paid) to save the lives of terrorists.
. 41. Apparently, the current U.S. Attorney General Mukasey (09 Nov 2007) , and Secretary Of State
Rice intend to continue to administratively ‘bad-faith’ violate the U.S. Treason Act and deny equal life
saving rewards allocated from said U.S. `Counterterrorism Fund' reward money provisioned under
USC TITLE I, Section 101 and under “TITLE 18, §ection 3071, Section 3072, and 22 U.S.C. SectionPage 11 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 12 of 31
2708, money provisioned for the release of Spc. Alex R. Jimenez, 25, of Lawrence, Massachusetts, and
(5) Pvt. Byron W. Fouty, 19, of Waterford, Michigan, captured 12 May 2007, 2007 in Al Taqa, Iraq;
and, … intend to stand by to allow Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty
to be tortured to death as were 101st Airborne Division soldiers Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of
Houston, Texas, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Oregon. Therefore, it is most urgent that
Mukasey (09 Nov 2007) -Rice-Gates be restrained from administratively ‘bad-faith’ manipulating
further torture-muders together with terrorist accessories, at large, who have demonstrated they commit
war crimes against $50,000 low reward captured U.S. soldiers and violate the Geneva Conventions (I,
III, IV), and, Geneva Convention Protocols I and II relative to the treatment of PRISONERS OF
WAR.”
.42. Therefore, again, more U.S. Soldiers are certain to be tortured, while the current U.S. Attorney
General Michael Mukasey (09 Nov 2007) and Secretary Of State Rice watch, meanwhile withholding
previously allocated reward money, already to be paid from said U.S. `Counterterrorism Fund,' reward
209 of 256
210 of 256
money provisioned under USC TITLE I, Section 101 and under “TITLE 18, §ection 3071, Section
3072, and ignoring 22 U.S.C. Section 2708 to save the lives of war prisoners Maupin, Jimenez and
Fouty...
. 43. Without signing any oath directly answering Title 28, Section 455, in “conflict of interest”
outside his ministerial and descretionary scope in disqualification under “USC Title 28, Section 455,
thereby acting in his Private Person Persona, Miller took jurisdiction of Case H-08-60 and issued his
denial which somehow never reached Plaintiffs in the mail; and, Miller then did nothing while said
captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W.
Fouty – were murdered, while denied by Bush and Miller the higher $25 million Dollar Rewards that
protected the terrorists Bush and Miller protected with said $25 million Dollar Rewards while denying
same to captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt.
Byron W. Fouty.
.44 While Miller did nothing in “conflict of interest” outside his ministerial and descretionary scope
in disqualification under “USC Title 28, Section 455, thereby acting in his Private Person Persona, the
death notifications regarding all three of said captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Sgt. Keith
Maupin (body found 30 Mar 2008), Spc. Alex R. Jimenez (body found 09 Jul 2008) and Pvt. Byron W.
Fouty (body found 09 Jul 2008) -- became published in the news media.Page 12 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 13 of 31
. 45. Miller’s said denial in “conflict of interest” outside his ministerial and descretionary scope in
disqualification under “USC Title 28, Section 455, thereby acting in his Private Person Persona on Case
H-08-60 and essential denial of immediate jury trial and delays caused by the circumstances of Miller’s
behavior essentially maintained the operation of U.S. Executive Branch treasonable “$50,000 ‘Death
Sentence’ Rewards,” which previously had been instrumental in the mutilation-torture-murders of Pvt
Kristian Menchaca (Plaintiffs’ family member), Pvt Thomas Tucker, and Pvt Joseph Anziak, all who
were not informed at enlistment that the U.S. Executive Branch had plans to slander, defame, betray,
and otherwise lower their Reward life values 500 times below the lives of Terrorist enemies of the
United States during Wartime to such an extent that said treasonable “$50,000 ‘Death Sentence’
Rewards” essentially established that the lives of “Terrorist Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War”
were essentially valued at a level of “TRASH,” at 500 times less than the lives of Terrorist enemies of
210 of 256
211 of 256
the United States.
. 46. Said treasonable “$50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Reward” that Miller manipulated to "continue-
inprogress"
was maintained by Miller making the U.S. Court filing fee more important than higher life
saving $25 Million Rewards for captured US soldier Prisoners Of War, thereby in “conflict of interest”
outside his ministerial and descretionary scope, in disqualification under “USC Title 28, Section 455,
thereby acting in his Private Person Persona not allowing immediate processing of Plaintiffs’ Case H-
08-60, which sought to raise the “$50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Rewards” to a higher level of $25 Million
equal to those life saving $25 Million Rewards the U.S. advertised and paid on behalf of terrorist
enemies of the United States, while Pvt Kristian Menchaca (Plaintiffs’ family member), Pvt Thomas
Tucker, and Pvt Joseph Anziak, Sgt. Keith Maupin (body found 30 Mar 2008), Spc. Alex R. Jimenez
(body found 09 Jul 2008) and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty (body found 09 Jul 2008) were tortured to death and
murdered by the very same terrorists who were beneficiaries of said higher “mega-million-to-$25-
Million-dollar” life Rewards as advertised by Defendant Gonzales and the U.S. Executive Branch
“Interested Parties,” Attorney Generals Ashcroft and Mukasey, Secretaries Rice, Rumsfeld, and Gates
at U.S. Department of State and Department of Justice “Rewards For Justice” Web sites.
. 47. SEE: Rewards for Justice, Washington , D.C.20522-0303, 1-800-877-3927; [email protected]; http://
. 48. There are many reasons why Judge Gray Miller obviously should have not taken wrongfulPage 13 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 14 of 31
“Conflict-of-Interest” jurisdiction of Case H-08-60; however, Miller’s wrongful application of “Bush-
Conflict-of-Interest” misappropriation of jurisdiction and Miller’s wrongful application of “Bush-
Conflict-of-Interest” authority could have easily been assigned to another U.S. District Court judge,
essentially assigned to a non-Bush nominee not in conflict.
. 49. However, Miller grabbed a “Bush-Conflict-of-Interest” expropriation- control of Case H-08-60
and enabled himself as a self-appointed surrogate of Bush in “conflict of interest” outside his
ministerial and descretionary scope, in disqualification under “USC Title 28, Section 455, thereby
acting in his Private Person Persona to deny Plaintiffs any opportunity for a public trial that would
211 of 256
212 of 256
expose the treasonable “$50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Reward” structures of the U.S. Executive Branch
targeting “Terrorist Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War” with U.S. “$50,000 ‘Death Sentence’
Rewards” in violation of Geneva Convention III of 1949 and Geneva Protocols of 1977, as described in
Case H-08-60.
.50. Miller’s “conflict of interest” outside his ministerial and descretionary scope, in disqualification
under “USC Title 28, Section 455, thereby acting in his Private Person Persona had catastrophic death
consequences for the remaining three terrorist-captured U.S. soldier Prisoners Of War -- Sgt. Keith
Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty – whose lives might well have been saved by
timely application of the U.S. Rewards that Plaintiffs sought to equalize, in balance with the
equalprotection-
of-the-law provisions of the U.S. Fourteenth Amendment, as equal in value to the Mega-
Million dollar rewards the U.S. Executive Branch was then currently advertising and paying-out, and
paying-out on behalf of captured terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, which had the effect of saving the
lives of “at-large” terrorists who surrendered, as said U.S. mega-million-dollar Rewards were
advertised at U.S. government Department of Justice and Department of State published “Rewards For
Justice” Web sites.
.51. SEE: Rewards for Justice, Washington , D.C.20522-0303, 1-800-877-3927; [email protected]; http://
. 52. Miller’s wrongful “conflict of interest” outside his ministerial and descretionary scope, in
disqualification under “USC Title 28, Section 455, thereby acting in his Private Person Persona in
application of “Bush-Conflict-of-Interest” judicial authority to deny Plaintiffs’ Application to proceed
to hearing and immediate trial of Case H-08-60, essentially interfered with life saving U.S. RewardPage 14 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 15 of 31
publications of “Fourteenth Amendment Equal-to-terrorist-$25 Million Dollar Rewards for Captured
U.S. Soldiers” on behalf of the lives of Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W.
Fouty, who were then, 22 Feb 2008 being held as terrorist-captured U.S. soldier Prisoners Of War in
Iraq and facing barbaric mutilation, torture, and murder at the hands of their terrorist captors. Hearing
and immediate trial of Case H-08-60 would undoubtedly have changed all this had not Miller
212 of 256
213 of 256
expropriated jurisdiction away from other U.S. judges who were not self-appointed Henchmen for the
U.S. Executive Branch White House.
. 53. Plaintiffs waited on Miller’s decision regarding their “Application to Proceed Without Payment
of Fee” (Forma Pauperis) from February to June 2008. Plaintiff Kenneth MacKenzie then contacted the
Court Clerk to determine if the Court assessed additional charges to issue Summons in Case H-08-60.
The Clerk explained that Miller had denied Plaintiffs’ “Application to Proceed Without Payment of
Fee” on 25 Feb 2008 and the Clerk had mailed him a copy of Judge Miller’s Denial during February
2008.
. 54. Plaintiff Kenneth MacKenzie explained he was unaware of Miller’s denial, had never received
notice of Miller’s Denial in the mail, and requested a copy from the U.S. District Court Clerk.
. 55. Plaintiff Kenneth MacKenzie then filed an Appeal of Miller’s said denial with the U.S. Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans .
. 56. Subsequently, Plaintiff Kenneth MacKenzie learned from U.S. News media that Sgt. Keith
Maupin’s body remains had been found, 30 March 2008, in Iraq after the U.S. Defense Department had
paid more than $200,000 to Informants to reveal the location. Later, 09 Jul 2008, the U.S. News Media
announced the body recoveries of Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty.
. 57. Based on U.S. Army intelligence that Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron
W. Fouty were alive at the time Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit Case H-08-60, then Miller’s denial in
“conflict of interest” outside his ministerial and descretionary scope, in disqualification under “USC
Title 28, Section 455, thereby acting in his Private Person Persona on Plaintiffs’ “Application to
Proceed Without Payment of Fee” on 25 Feb 2008 effectively interfered with and blocked Plaintiffs’
Case H-08-60 efforts to save Sgt. Keith Maupin’s life by Plaintiffs’ seeking higher $25 Million Dollar
‘Fourteenth Amendment Equal’ Rewards on behalf of “Terrorist Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of
War” who were apparently evaluated as “Undermen” by the Miller-supported U.S. Executive Branch at
$50,000 Dollar ‘Death Sentence’ Reward, each.Page 15 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 16 of 31
. 58. Hence, Miller’s denial in “conflict of interest,” outside his ministerial and descretionary scope, in
disqualification under “USC Title 28, Section 455, thereby acting in his Private Person Persona on
Plaintiffs’ “Application to Proceed Without Payment of Fee,” on 25 Feb 2008, effectively interfered
213 of 256
214 of 256
with and blocked Plaintiffs’ Case-H-08-60-sought “Fourteenth-Amendment-EQUAL-To-Terrorists”
$25 Million life-saving Rewards on behalf of “Terrorist Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War”; and,
Miller thereby corruptly and criminally denied the “U.S. Bush White House $50,000-Dollar-‘Death-
Sentence’-Reward-targeted Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez, and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty an
“equal chance” to be $25 Million “Reward-equal” to terrorist enemies of the United States during
wartime. Essentially, in bad faith and conflict of interest, Miller deliberately, corruptly and criminally,
with malice aforethought, expropriated jurisdiction of Case H-08-60 apparently with the premeditated
purpose of murderously denying “Terrorist Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War” the possibility of
“equal” life saving Rewards of $25 Million that had already proven to save the lives of 100% of all
Terrorists who had surrendered in Iraq.
. 59. Miller’s murderously treasonable denial of Case H-08-60 efforts to save “U.S. Bush White
House $50,000-Dollar-‘Death-Sentence’-Reward-targeted Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez
and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty from the treasonable effects of the “U.S. Bush White House $50,000-
Dollar-‘Death-Sentence’-Rewards clearly revealed Miller’s murderous Treason against the soldiers and
national defense of the United States that is outside Miller’s ministerial and discretionary scope, which
proveably indicates Miller must be impeached and prosecuted for his murders and treasons against the
people and military personel of the United States.
. 60. Miller premeditatedly taking jurisdiction, when Title 28 Section 455 clearly indicated he should
recuse himslef, shows that Miller intended to issue denials that would treasonably cost the lives of
“Terrorist Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War” as Bush’s and Miller’s record clearly illustrates.
Said captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron
W. Fouty – were savagely murdered by their Terrorist Captors, while said U.S. soldier Prisoners of War
were denied by Bush and Miller the higher $25 million Dollar Rewards that saved the lives of terrorists
Bush and Miller protected with said $25 million Dollar Rewards while ruthlessly, relentlessly, and
treasonably denying same life saving protection to captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Sgt. Keith
Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty.
. 61. The facts indicate that Miller had information that indicated “U.S. $50,000-Dollar-‘Death-Page 16 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 17 of 31
Sentence’-Rewards had targeted Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty,
214 of 256
215 of 256
before Miller took jurisdiction of Case H-08-60. Miller took jurisdiction that was not his to take by
snaking around Title 28, Section 455 and issuing denials against Plaintiffs’ efforts to save the lives of
said captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron
W. Fouty – who were savagely murdered by their Terrorist Captors, while said U.S. soldier Prisoners of
War were denied by Bush and Miller the higher $25 million Dollar Rewards that saved the lives of
terrorists who Bush and Miller protected with said $25 million Dollar Rewards while ruthlessly,
relentlessly, and treasonably denying same life saving protection to captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of
War -- Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty.
. 62. Should another U.S. District Court judge, instead of Miller, have taken jurisdiction of Case H-
08-60 and allowed $25 Million dollar Rewards in defiance of the Bush U.S. Executive Branch $50K
Death Rewards, it would be almost impossible for the Bush U.S. Executive Branch to appeal in front of
the public as at that perticular juncture the Bush Administration would be then be publicly recognized
as appealing to restore its treasonably low $50,000 Death Sentence Rewards to continue motivating
Terrorists to mutilate, torture, and murder “Terrorist Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War” as
contrasted alongside Bush-Gonzales-Rice $25 Million dollar Rewards for terrorists, which said $25
Million dollar Rewards if allowed for captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War would be 14th
Amendment Equal and thereby would create higher potential to save the lives of captured U.S. soldier
Prisoners of War.
. 63. Miller was informed of this and instead elected to corruptly expropriate jurisdiction of Case H-
08-60 when other U.S. District Court Judges could have been assigned to Case H-08-60 had Miller not
expropriated Case H-08-60 for his own wrongful decision making process, which directly and
indirectly aided and abbeted life destroying Terrorism against said captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of
War -- Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty – who were savagely
murdered by their Terrorist Captors, while said U.S. soldier Prisoners of War were denied by Bush and
Miller the higher $25 million Dollar Rewards that saved the lives of terrorists who Bush and Miller
protected with said $25 million Dollar Rewards while ruthlessly, relentlessly, and treasonably denying
same life saving protection to captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War.
. 64. Miller was informed that such an Executive Branch Appeal would reveal the U.S. Executive
Branch had been committing furtive and surruptitious life-destroying Treason against captured U.S.Page 17 of 31
215 of 256
216 of 256
08-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 18 of 31
soldier Prisoners of War in violation of Title 18 US Code once the Appeal was seen alongside the body
count of $50,000 Death Sentence U.S. soldiers in the light of Public Opinion.
. 65. Moreover, the tortured bodies of captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War in direct correlation of
Miller’s Treasons in denying them right to higher and equal Rewards of $25 Million U.S. provided to
Terrorists would also expose Miller’s U.S. Code Treasons against captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of
War as Miller had operated his U.S. Code Treason violations when he administratively and judicially
murdered Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty by means of his said
denials in Case H-08-60. Whle “murder” appears to be a strong term, this stronng term murder is
exactly what was inflicted on captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War in direct correlation of Miller’s
Treasons in denying U.S. soldier Prisoners of War right to higher and equal Rewards of $25 Million
U.S. provided to Terrorists by Miller’s mentally unbalanced behavior of Miller insisting that a $450
Court fee was more important than the lives of said captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Sgt. Keith
Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty – who were savagely murdered by their
Terrorist Captors, while said U.S. soldier Prisoners of War were denied by Bush and Miller the higher
$25 million Dollar Rewards that saved the lives of terrorists who Bush and Miller protected with said
$25 million Dollar Rewards.
. 66. Miller’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Case H-08-60 effectively identified Miller as an “Anti-American”
judge issuing “Auschwitz-type” judicial decisions in support of “Auschwitz-type” U.S. Attorney
Generals and “Treasonable U.S. Executive Branch Secretaries” that produced “Auschwitz-type”
‘Death-Sentences’ against “Terrorist Captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War.”
. 67. It is not hyperbole to say “Cain slew Able”; and, Miller slew Maupin, Fouty, and Jimenez, by
means of denying Case H-08-60 Plaintiffs’ efforts to proceed. While it is obvious that Miller’s judicial
denial of Plaintiffs’ Case H-08-60 did relate to the Terrorist murders of Maupin, Fouty, and Jimenez,
and was both indirect and direct, this condition does not make Miller’s slaying of Maupin, Fouty, and
Jimenez any less truthful.
. 68. Miller’s Forma Pauperis denial interfered with Plaintiffs’ Case H-08-60 efforts to increase U.S.
Reward amounts to $25 Million each for captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War and on behalf of
captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War in direct correlation of Miller’s Treasons in denying Maupin’s,
Fouty’s, and Jimenez’s Fourteenth Amendment right to higher and equal Rewards of $25 Million U.S.
216 of 256
217 of 256
Reward dollars already bestowed to Terrorists by Attorney Generals Ashcroft, Gonzales, andPage 18 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 19 of 31
Mukaysey, said $25 Million U.S. Reward dollars having been criminally and treasonably denied to
Maupin, Fouty, and Jimenez by Attorney General Ashcroft, Attorney General Gonzales, Sectretaries
Rice & Rumsfeld denying $25 Million U.S. Reward dollars, then later treasonably denied to Maupin,
Fouty, and Jimenez sucessively by Attorney General Mukaysey, Secretary Rice, and Gates.
. 69. Miller’s wrongful expropriation of Case H-08-60 and refusal to recuse himself indicates “the
thing speaks for itself (‘Res Ips Loquitor’),” a Pattern of behavior by Miller that incorporates the same
manipulation of “U.S. $50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Rewards” that Miller continued when he ignored the
fact that he was a Bush Nominee / Appointee, and concealed from Plaintiffs the fact that he was a Bush
Nominee, who most wrongfully ignored USC Title 28, Section 455, and wrongfully took jurisdiction
which was outside Miller’s Ministerial and Discretionary scope according to the provisions of USC
Title 28, Section 455, thereby Miller issuing Miller’s denial in Case H-08-60 that effectively blocked
Plainfiffs; and, furthermore, following from Miller’s denial, the U.S. Court Clerk did not notify
Plaintiffs in a timely manner by certified U.S. Mail regarding these most important “life-and-death”
issues as Miller’s Denial applied to Maupin, Fouty, and Jimenez. The Clerk’s notification by regular
U.S. mail proved to be inadequate as Plaintiffs never received any word of Millers denial until Plaintiff
Kenneth MacKenzie contacted the Clerk in June 2008 to determine if the Court charged for issuance of
Summons.
. 70. Miller’s entire pattern of conduct from his wrongful expropriation of Case H-08-60 to hispredictable “Denial” of “Plaintiffs’ Application to Proceed Without Payment of Fee (FormaPauperis)” indicates that Miller had decided to subordinate the “U.S. $50,000 ‘Death Sentence’Reward” considerations to the even lower amount of a $450 filing fee for Case H-08-60 before hewrongfully expropriated jurisdiction of Case H-08-60 to manipulate his wrongful denial ofPlaintiffs efforts to proceed to a speedy trial and hearing.. 71. Before unlawfully usurping and expropriating jurisdiction of Case H-08-60, Millerapparently premeditated a criminal plan whereby after wrongfully expropriating jurisdiction,Miller ignored and furthermore trivialized Case H-08-60 by criminally subordinating the life anddeath reward issue considerations of the U.S. Executive Branch “U.S. $50,000 ‘Death Sentence’Reward” offers to Miller’s even lower criminal amount of a $450 filing fee for Case H-08-60
217 of 256
218 of 256
requiring a $450 filing fee to be paid before Miller would consider the fact that captured U.S.soldier Prisoners of War -- Maupin, Fouty, and Jimenez -- in Iraq would be murdered by theirTerrorist Captors while Miller trivialized their lives at an even lower amount of a $450 CourtPage 19 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 20 of 31
filing fee compared to “U.S. $50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Rewards”.. 72. While there were several ways said $450 Court filing fee for Case H-08-60 could havebeen processed or handled, Miller manipulatively and unecessarily selected the single conditionthat created the most delay and liklihood of mutilation, torture, and “certain-murder” againstcaptured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Maupin, Fouty, and Jimenez – by Miller selectivelydenying “Plaintiffs’ Application to Proceed Without Payment of Fee (Forma Pauperis)” for Case H-08-60, which sought to change the Bush Executive Branch “U.S. $50,000 ‘Death Sentence’Reward” against captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War to become equal to higher life-savingRewards of $25 Million that Bush’s Executive Branch was offering and paying to save lives ofsurrendered terrorists and “at large” terrorists from April 2004 through 09 July 2008 and to thepresent time, but was treasonably denying to captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War unto torture,mutilation and murder prohibited by Geneva Convention III of 1949 and The Geneva Protocols of1977..73. Plaintiffs’ Case H-08-60 set forth higher life-saving Rewards of $25 Million each forcaptured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Maupin, Fouty, and Jimenez – that Miller treasonablydenied as equal $25 Million dollar rewards to captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Maupin,Fouty, and Jimenez -- while Miller was actively and deliberately in violation of USC Title 28,Section 455 and thereby acting outside of his Ministerial and Discretionary scope.. 74. When the overall pattern of Miller’s behavior is examined, from the time prior to hiswrongful taking jurisdiction of Case H-08-60, in conflict as a Bush appointee surruptitiously notinforming Plaintiffs, a Bush appointee denying captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Maupin,Fouty, and Jimenez – the $25 Million Dollar Rewards sought by Plaintiffs in Case H-08-60, it ismost apparent that Miller intended to insure that the White House Reward Treasons againstcaptured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War would continue to motivate terrorist enemies of the UnitedStates to inflict mutilation, torture, and murder against captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War,whose Reward life values had obviously been slandered and defamed by “U.S. $50,000 ‘Death
218 of 256
219 of 256
Sentence’ Rewards” to the “lowest life value” in Iraq and Afghanistan, in fact slandered to 500times less than the most wanted Terrorists, bin Ladin and Zawahiri, thereby portraying capturedU.S. soldier Prisoners of War as virtually valueless “trash” to their Muslim captors who wellunderstood the Muslim tradition of “Blood Money.”. 75. The horiffic consequences of said treasonable Executive Branch “U.S. $50,000 ‘DeathSentence’ Reward” policy were that Terrorist captors consistently and predictably mutilated,tortured, and murdered captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War in violation of Geneva ConventionIII of 1949 and Geneva Protocols of 1977 as inspired by “U.S. $50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Rewards”.. 76. What is most revealing about Miller’s wrongful behavior is that Case H-08-60 redunantlyset forth the details of said treasonable Executive Branch “U.S. $50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Reward”policy and plainly explained how said $50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Reward” policy had produced anever increasing body count of predictably mutilated, tortured, and murdered captured U.S. soldierPrisoners of War in violation of Geneva Convention III of 1949 and Geneva Protocols of 1977..77. Yet, Miller, with this information of Case H-08-60 in hand, surruptitiously tookjurisdiction apparently with the most vile and criminal of intentions to deny Plaintiffs’ efforts toincrease rewards on behalf of captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War who were Victims of theWhite House Executive Branch “U.S. $50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Reward” policy.. 78. Miller’s wrongful expropriation of Case H-08-60 and refusal to recuse himself indicatesthat his deliberate denial of Plaintiffs’ “Application to Proceed Without Payment of Fee (FormaPauperis)” was premeditatedly made with hostile and murderous indifference to the fate ofcaptured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Maupin, Fouty, and Jimenez.. 79. Miller wrongfully interfered with Case H-08-60 by denying it from being heard by a trailjury and Grand Jury. It is obvious that Miller intended to prevent higher Rewards for capturedU.S. soldier Prisoners of War and intended to stand by to allow Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R.Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty to be tortured to death by Terrorist captors in Iraq . And, this isessentially what happened as a result of Miller denying Case H-08-60 going forward to trial,thereby treasonably denying equal $25 Million dollar rewards to captured U.S. soldier Prisonersof War -- Maupin, Fouty, and Jimenez -- while Miller was actively and deliberately in violation ofUSC Title 28, Section 455 and thereby acting outside of his Ministerial and Discretionary scope.. 80. This sequence of events is so obvious in Miller’s behavior that “the thing speaks for itself(‘Res Ips Loquitor’)”: Miller’s behavior and denial of Case H-08-60 as being connected to the
219 of 256
220 of 256
deaths of Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty by denying Case H-08-60 from going forward to trial based on Miller’s perverse demand that the $450 court filing feebe paid instead of waiving it in the interest of captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Maupin,Fouty, and Jimenez, thereby denied and prevented higher Rewards to save their lives as equallyas the U.S. Executive Branch was saving Terrorist lives with the higher $25 Million dollarRewards it advertised at its several “Rewards for Justice” Web Sites located at the U.S.Department of Justice and U.S. Department of State, at the same time Miller’s treasonable denialwas in effect from 25 Feb 2008 to the present, August 2008.. 81. SEE: Rewards for Justice, Washington , D.C.20522-0303, 1-800-877-3927; [email protected];http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/index.cfm?page=wanted_captured&language=english. 82. Maupin, Fouty, and Jimenez had U.S. Fourteenth Amendment rights to higher and equalRewards of $25 Million U.S. Reward dollars to be treated with at least the same life-savingreward equality as Terrorist enemies of the United States and not to be treasonably slandered sofar downward as to be publicly announced in the media as being assigned by their owngovernment as at the lowest reward values, “U.S. $50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Rewards,” in Iraq,unto 500 times less reward life value than the terrorist enemies of the United States..83. At this particular juncture, it is most appropriate to question whether the U.S. ExecutiveBranch in its advocacy of the lowest reward values, “U.S. $50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Rewards,” inIraq , unto 500 times less reward life value than the terrorist enemies of the United States was aviolation of Title 18, Section 2381 – Treason, by deliberation or by error.. 84. SEE: USC Title 18, Section 2381 – Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the UnitedStates, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort withinthe United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisonednot less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall beincapable of holding any office under the United States.. 85. Plaintiff concedes that it is possible for high ranking persons in U.S. government,deficiently educated in the law, even unbalanced U.S. Court Judges like Miller, to ignorantlyperpetrate and commit acts that violate United States Codes, including ignorant violations ofRICO (especially RICO) and ignorant violations of Treason, completely oblivious of the violations.. 86. However, ignorance, if true, does not mean that ignorant perpetration of a serious U.S.
220 of 256
221 of 256
Code violation linked to atrocities and War Crimes against captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War-- Maupin, Fouty, and Jimenez -- should be ignored or forgiven.. 87. U.S. Judge Miller, after reading and learning the contents of Case H-08-60, obviouslyplanned to expropriate wrongful jurisdiction with the purpose in mind of delaying considerationof U.S. Case H-08-60 in direct correlation of denying Maupin’s, Fouty’s, and Jimenez’s FourteenthAmendment right to higher and equal Rewards of $25 Million U.S. Reward dollars to be Rewardequal to Terrorists who were surviving surrender and capture in Iraq at a 100 % survival ratebecause they were blessed with Mega-Million dollar rewards while U.S. soldiers were cursed with“U.S. $50,000 ‘Death Sentence’ Rewards,” which obviously caused them to be tortured to deathand murdered as targets of Bush’s White house Culture of Torture.. 88. The information of this issue indicates that captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War Sgt.Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty were murdered during the timeperiod of 22 Feb 2008 to 08 July 2008, during said time period that U.S. Judge Miller, outside hisministerial and discretionary scope, did deny Plaintiffs’ efforts to provide $25 Million DollarRewards to save the lives of captured U.S. soldier Prisoners of War -- Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc.Alex R. Jimenez and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty -- on a Reward life value equal to said $25 Million U.S.Reward dollars bestowed by the U.S. Executive Branch on Terrorists.. 89. Miller’s denial was in “conflict of interest,” outside his ministerial and descretionary scope,in disqualification under “USC Title 28, Section 455, thereby acting in Miller’s Private PersonPersona In decisions that impact the question of human-life during administration of any privateor government institution, meanwhile understanding there are many ways to administrativelysave or destroy lives, directly and indirectly, or by manipulation of nonfeasance, misfeasance, ormalfeasance.. 90. Thus, Miller’s denial of Case H-08-60 did have the same detrimental and life-destroyingeffect as applied by the U.S. Executive Branch against Sgt. Keith Maupin, Spc. Alex R. Jimenezand Pvt. Byron W. Fouty. Miller’s wrongful behavior in not recusing himself is very obvious on theface of the record in the matter of Case H-08-60, in that “the thing speaks for itself (‘Res IpsLoquitor’).”
. 91. Complainant / Plaintiff requests this Court to appoint a 'Special Counsel' to presentinformation of the herein alleged Felonies to a U.S. Grand Jury if the U.S. Department ofJustice, U.S. Attorney General, fails or refuses to present information of the listed
221 of 256
222 of 256
Crimes, herein, to a Grand Jury, and Complainant / Plaintiff requests these wrongdoingsbe publicly investigated by U.S. law enforcement agencies to include FBI, HomelandSecurity Agency, and BATF; and, said Crime reports be provided to these agencies and tothe various U.S. Grand Juries and courts having jurisdiction of the Crimes reported byPlaintiff Kenneth MacKenzie of the Kristian Menchaca Family and, within this Court'sJurisdiction.. 92. The Kristian Menchaca Family petitions this Court issue a Protective Order toinclude the protection of the U.S. Victim/Witness program to Protect the Family ofKristian Menchaca .Complainant’s signature : S/ Kenneth MacKenzie,Printed name : Kenneth MacKenzie;title : Pro Se, Properia Persona, Complainant /Plaintiff member of Kristian Menchaca Familyof U.S. Court Case H-08-60 - Houston, TX andU.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT Case # OTP-CR-100 /08
(1) Kenneth MacKenzie, appearing Properia Persona as Plaintiff “Pro Se”appearing on his own behalf with family class members similarly situated,(2) Julieta Vasquez-MacKenzie, as Plaintiff, Aunt of Pfc. Kristian Vasquez Menchaca(sister of Claimant Guadalupe Vasquez), (3) Guadalupe Vasquez, as Plaintiff, Motherof Pfc. Kristian Vasquez Menchaca, Mother of (4) Caesar Vasquez Menchaca, asPlaintiff, Brother of Pfc. Kristian Vasquez Menchaca, family class members similarlysituated — PETITIONERSClass Action regarding:(1) The four Geneva Conventions (I,II,III,IV)of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victimsVsDefendant #1, U.S. Justice Department, United States Executive Branch Of Government,Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States — RESPONDENT(S)
223 of 256
224 of 256
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Kenneth MacKenzie, do swear or declare that on this date, 02 MAY 2009, as required by
Supreme Court Rule 29 I have served the enclosed U.S. Supreme Court Rule15: PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF on each party to the above proceeding
or that party’s counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by depositing
an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed
to each of them and with first-class postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party
commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days.
The names and addresses of those served are as follows: U.S. Justice Department, United
States Executive Branch Of Government, Alberto Gonzales, former Attorney General of the UnitedStates; Erik Holder, Attorney General of the United States, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S
TO: Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Office of the Solicitor General, Care Of Neal Katyal, Room5614, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, DC 20530-0001Phone: 202-514-2217/18 hours 9:00 am to 5:30 pm, M-F [email protected] ; [email protected] , [email protected] ,
. . . . . To: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Lee Caplan & John B. Bellinger III, Office of LegalAdviser, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520 , (202) 647-0748; [email protected];Kimberly A. Gahan, Attorney-Adviser, International Claims & Investment Disputes Office of theLegal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520 , tel: (202) 776-8431; email:
(1) Kenneth MacKenzie, appearing Properia Persona as Plaintiff “Pro Se”appearing on his own behalf with family class members similarly situated,(2) Julieta Vasquez-MacKenzie, as Plaintiff, Aunt of Pfc. Kristian Vasquez Menchaca(sister of Claimant Guadalupe Vasquez), (3) Guadalupe Vasquez, as Plaintiff, Motherof Pfc. Kristian Vasquez Menchaca, Mother of (4) Caesar Vasquez Menchaca, asPlaintiff, Brother of Pfc. Kristian Vasquez Menchaca, family class members similarlysituated — PETITIONERSClass Action regarding:(1) The four Geneva Conventions (I,II,III,IV)of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victimsVSDefendant #1, U.S. Justice Department, United States Executive Branch Of Government,Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States — RESPONDENT(S)Page 26 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 27 of 31PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Kenneth MacKenzie, do swear or declare that on this 02 MAY 2009 , as required by Supreme Court Rule
29
I have served the enclosed U.S. Supreme Court Rule 15: PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF #2
on each party to the above proceeding
or that party’s counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by depositing
an envelope containing the above documents in the United States mail properly addressed
225 of 256
226 of 256
to each of them and with first-class postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party
commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days.
The names and addresses of those served are as follows: U.S. Justice Department, United StatesExecutive Branch Of Government, Alberto Gonzales, former Attorney General of the UnitedStates; Erik Holder, Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice, 10th and
Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20530;
TO: Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Office of the Solicitor General, Care Of Neal Katyal, Room5614, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, DC 20530-0001Phone: 202-514-2217/18 hours 9:00 am to 5:30 pm, M-F [email protected] ,. . . . . To: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Lee Caplan & John B. Bellinger III, Office of LegalAdviser, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520 , (202) 647-0748; [email protected];Kimberly A. Gahan, Attorney-Adviser, International Claims & Investment Disputes Office of theLegal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520 , tel: (202) 776-8431; email:
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on , 02 MAY 2009 ,
(Signature) S/ Kenneth MacKenzie
Printed name: Kenneth MacKenzie
226 of 256
227 of 256
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Certificate of Service - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Certificate of ServiceIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. . I hereby certify that the above and foregoing instrument was electronically servedupon Defendants and Interested Parties and their counsel at their Web site electroniceMail addresses in the above entitled and numbered cause by Plaintiff KennethMacKenzie, Attorney Pro SE, Uncle of PFC Kristian Vasquez Menchaca, H. Phone: 713-Page 27 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 28 of 31
225-0123 ; Cell : 281 684 6028;[email protected] , [email protected] , U.S. Court Case H-08-60;. . . KENNETH MACKENZIE, the undersigned, further certifies that he has served theU.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General numerous times at their Web site ElectronicMail addresses, served them at U.S. White House Electronic Mail Addresses, at theDepartment of Defense Electronic Mail addresses:: [email protected] , [email protected],[email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] ,[email protected], [email protected],S/ Kenneth MacKenzie, Attorney Properia Persona (in his own personI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Return of Service of Crime Complaint and Protective Order Motion to U.S. District CourtCase H08-60 & War Crime Information to U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT,Page 28 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 29 of 31
(ICC, Prosecutor, Case # OTP-CR-100/08, PO Box 19519, 2500 CM, The Hague, TheNetherlands, email [email protected] ,http://www.icc-cpi.int/home.html&l=en ):.Complainant’s signature : S/ Kenneth MacKenzie,
Submitted by: : . . 1. Plaintiff Kenneth MacKenzie, Uncle of PFC Kristian Vasquez Menchaca, H.
Phone: 713-225-0123 ; Cell : 281 684 6028 ; [email protected] , U.S. Court Case H-08-
60;
. . 2. WAR CRIME court venue: U.S. War Crime Court Case H-08-60 filed in U.N. INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT, (ICC, Prosecutor, Case # OTP-CR-100/08, PO Box 19519, 2500 CM, The
Hague, The Netherlands, email [email protected] , http://www.icccpi.
. . . . . To: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, ICC, Case OTP-CR-100/08, Hague , The
Netherlands
. . . . . To: President of The United States and Counsel to President of the United States Fax: 202- 456-Page 29 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 30 of 31
2883; Phn: 202 456-2632
. . . . . To: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Lee Caplan & John B. Bellinger III, Office of Legal
Adviser, U.S. Department of State, (202) 647-0748; [email protected]; Kimberly A. Gahan,
Attorney-Adviser, International Claims & Investment Disputes Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S.
. . I hereby certify that the above and foregoing instrument was served upon Defendantsand Interested Parties and their counsel in the above entitled and numbered cause atPage 30 of 3108-9595 tssb MacKenzie, Vasquez, Menchaca # 3 Crime Complaint: U.N. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CT Page 31 of 31
their office eMail addresses as indicated at their "published" Internet Web sites byPlaintiff Kenneth MacKenzie, Attorney Pro SE, Uncle of PFC Kristian Vasquez
230 of 256
231 of 256
Menchaca, H. Phone: 713-225-0123 ; Cell : 281 684 6028;[email protected] , [email protected] , U.S. Court Case H-08-60;KENNETH MACKENZIE, the undersigned, further certifies that he has served the U.S.Attorney and U.S. Attorney General numerous times at their Web site Electronic Mailaddresses, served them at U.S. White House Electronic Mail Addresses, at theDepartment of Defense Electronic Mail addresses: [email protected] , [email protected],[email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] ,[email protected], [email protected],Complainant’s signature : S/ Kenneth MacKenzie,Printed name : Kenneth MacKenzie;title : Pro Se, Properia Persona, Complainant /Plaintiff member of Kristian Menchaca Familyof U.S. Court Case H-08-60 - Houston, TX;
