How To Lose A $100,000.00 A Year Job

Kini Cosma
2660 Shasta Way #4
Klamath Falls, OR 97603
541-884-1085

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

Case No.: 1:05-CV-01201-LAS

Kini Cosma, Plaintiff,

Vs.

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT-NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT-EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, et. al. Defendants.

SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS

TO: THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et. al.; THE NAPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:

PLEASE TAKE NOTE under the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Section 1987(c), And, the provision of the Anti-Terror Patriot Act authorizing the Inspector General to review complaints about civil liberties and civil right abuses involving Justice Department Personnel, Plaintiff Kini Cosma hereby demands that on or before the date set for trial in the matter of this case, FAILURE TO AWARD, et. seq., produce the documents described as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, at the above-entitled Court, addressed as follows:

Clerk of the United States Court of Federal Claims
717 Madison Place, NW, Room 103
Washington, DC 20005

Since the 24th of May, 1996
Kini Cosma

Exhibit A
I.

The witness, the Napa Superior Court, has possession or control of the following documents or other things and shall produce them at the time and place specified in page 1.

(1) The WORKPLACE RESTRAINING ORDER that should have been signed by the E M P L O Y E R in the criminal matter of XXXXXXXXX, Case No. CR26838, filled out, signed and filed in the Superior Court of Napa County, State of California executed on or about: October 12, 1995 by then Police Sargeant RANDY BOWMAN, E M P L O Y E E of the City of Napa Police Department.

(2) POWER OF ATTORNEY signed by Principal, E M P L O Y E R and Police Sargeant Randy Bowman, E M P L O Y E E of the City of Napa Police Department, State of California in regards to the legal document specified in paragraph (1), page 3.

(3) PRINCIPAL’S MANIFESTATION OF CONSENT for the execution of the said legal document in paragraph 1, page 3 (i.e. payroll checks signed by said E M P L O Y E E, procuration letter, search warrants)

(4) The CALIFORNIA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION CARD of Police Sargeant Randy Bowman, E M P L O Y E E of the City of Napa Police Department, State of California in regards to the legal document described in paragraph 1, page 3.

II.

Good cause exists for the production of the documents or other things described in paragraphs 1-4 of page 3 for the following reasons:

(1) To show that California Judicial Counsel Form XXXXX of 1995: THE WORKPLACE RESTRAINING ORDER, was designed to bring about past and present prosecutions, and distinct and palpable injuries described in damage reports WAS NEVER VALID IN THE FIRST PLACE.

(2) To display the fairly traceable UNAUTHORIZED SIGNATURE and/or indorsement by Police Sargeant Randy Bowman, an E M P L O Y E E of the City of Napa Police Department, State of California.

(3) To show THERE WAS NOT A FORMAL APPOINTMENT OF AGENT AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW who executed this legal document. And, to prove the extent of negligent and reckless instruction and supervision by the Principal who gave the actual, implied, or apparent authority for such professional services against Plaintiff who was engaged in constitutionally protected activity.

(4) To show the onset when PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OFFICIALS BEGAN TO FLOUT THE LAW with ongoing patterns of propensities for extortion, violence, deliberate indifference, and retaliation against Plaintiff as a result of her being a complaining witness while redressing her grievances.

(5) To show that, inter alia, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT-EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA would not be held accountable, nor have to pay Plainitiff’s claims and summary judgments so that:

(a) Plaintiff could not afford effective counsel
(b) Malicious prosecutions could be justified
(c) Whatever financial resources Plaintiff had left would be exhausted
(d) Plaintiff could be compelled to submit by force or by threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain or kidnapping;
(e) To substantially impair Plaintiff’s power to appraise or control her conduct.

III.

These documents or other things described in paragraph 1-4, page 3, are material to the issues involved in this case for the following reasons:

(1) TO SHOW THERE WAS AN ORCHESTRATED LITANY OF PLAINIFF’S BEDROCK RIGHTS VIOLATED. That it could be said Plaintiff suffered the present prosecution and coinciding injuries described in the Complaint as a result of not being appointed Assistance Of Counsel for her defense (Amendment VI) while incarcerated at the onset of the extortion by public officials (Subtitle D-Equal Justice For Women in the Courts Act section 40401. Short title)

(2) To show the pattern, NOT PREDICATED UPON A SINGLE ACT, but consisting of a persistent and continuous course of conduct that has had the ultimate effect of rendering authorized violations of the law by both public officials and private persons. (Extortion, retaliation, deliberate indifference, violence)

(3) To show THERE WAS NOT ANY CONCERTED EFFORT TO INVESTIGATE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSTANTIATED COMPLAINT(S) SINCE JULY 1995. All of Plaintiff’s reports and complaints were ignored, dismissed, and unresponded to.

I, Kini Cosma, hereby declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: November 15, 2005 Kini Cosma