Citizen Sues for Arrest of Bush and Cheney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the District of Columbia

Richard Allen Hohensee,
plaintiff
v. Civil Action No._________

United States Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan,
Unites States of America,
defendants

PETITION TO REVIEW AN AGENCY

Plaintiff Richard Allen Hohensee complains of defendants and shows the Court the following:

I. JURISDICTION

Being the origination of an action on an entirely federal matter of judicial review actionable
under U.S.C. Title 5, s.s. 702, which the district courts have original jurisdiction over, involving
the negligent per se inaction of a director of a federal agency, defendant Mark Sullivan,
Director of the United States Secret Service, said inaction being vis-a-vis suspects of federal
crimes which suspects commited crimes alleged hereunder through their official capacities as
Constitutional officers of the United States of America operating primarily in the
District of Columbia, and being a complaint of a citizen of the United States of America
residing in the District of Columbia, plaintiff Richard Allen Hohensee, this complaint is
hereby properly submitted to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
as per U.S.C. Title 28, s.s. 1331.

II. PARTIES

Richard Allen Hohensee, plaintiff.
Mark Sullivan, Director, United States Secret Service since May 31st
2006, defendant.
United States of America, defendant

III. CAUSE OF ACTION

1. There is no lack of "reasonable grounds" under the typical empowerment of a federal
law enforcement officer to make arrests of suspected felons without warrant,
and specifically under U.S.C. Title 18, s.s. 3056 and s.s. 3056A
defining the United States Secret Service, to arrest George Walker Bush and
Richard Bruce Cheney for war crimes and other heinous crimes and seditious
conspiracies still on-going. Therefor the failure to arrest Suspect A, Bush,
and Suspect B, Cheney, is negligence per se on the parts of the defendants.

2. The evidence of the criminality of the suspects is massive, and in some cases beneath
debate involving anything legally supportable as "reason". Subjectively, the world
as a whole regards Suspect A, Bush, and Suspect B, Cheney, as despicable and
dangerous, and the small minority of Americans who still support them do so in
conscious support of their criminality, or out of a form of misplaced faith which
simply refuses to accept the idea that a President might even be
a criminal, i.e. for no real "reason".

3. Explicitly, for one example, the fact that Suspect A, Bush, invaded Iraq in violation of
the UN Charter, failing to gain approval of the UN Security Council for that aggression,
is not subject to questions of evidence. The criminality of that act by Suspect A, Bush,
is also obvious. Treaties such as the UN Charter are US law under the Constitution, in
fact passed by at least 2/3 of the Senate, and the invasion of Iraq was uniquely the act
of Suspect A, Bush, since he violated certain conditions given him by Congress for that
act in Public Law 107-243.

4. This and many other details of Suspect A, Bush's criminality are spelled out in the
Articles of Impeachment that United States Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio
introduced to the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives in
the June 2008 timeframe, viewable at
http://kucinich.us/impeachment/articles.pdf
and included by reference in this complaint as Exhibit A. Exhibit A is historically
remarkable for it's extent, and the fact that it did not emerge from the Judiciary
Committee has no bearing on whether the suspects constitute as an on-going menace
or not.

5. Representative Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment against Suspect B, Cheney, are also
included here by reference as Exhibit B at
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=78044

6. Exhibits A and B are not exhaustive descriptions of the criminality of the suspects, and
are now somewhat out of date, since the menace of Suspect A, Bush, and Suspect B,
Cheney, continues, and given that criminals don't like to give things up, they may now
be at their most dangerous. Exhibit A makes no mention of the disturbing mishandling
of nuclear weapons between Minot North Dakota and Barksdale Louisiana
that began on August 29th 2007.
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_nuclear_weapons_i...
Plaintiff, Richard Allen Hohensee, finds the government's explanation that
this event was due simply to "failure to follow procedures" without any motive, is
implausible on its face. Most disturbing is the relatedness of some of the facts of the
Minot-Barksdale episode with some of the aspects of Article III in Exhibit B.
The government's explanation of this matter is fraught with suspicious conflicts.
The Washington Post says they were told that some 200 missiles were transported
in the same way as alleged for the 6 that made the news. Why did the Air Force
admit that? Nothing would be gained from such an admission except as a red
herring. That is, they seem to have been up to something worse than a regular
illegal air freight run of nuclear weapons across the heart of the country.

7. Plaintiff, Richard Allen Hohensee, holds that when obvious criminals can't credibly
explain what they're doing with nuclear weapons it's time for somebody to arrest
them. Plaintiff holds that that somebody in this instance is defendant, Mark Sullivan.
Plaintiff holds that the negligence per se of the defendants is as intolerable
as anything in American history, and has been since November 2007, when the
bogosity of the Minot-Barksdale story was evident, and in which timeframe the
Washington Post did a series of some four successive Sunday featured, headline
articles with the remarkable feature of red headlines to call attention to this deeply
disturbing matter.

8. Secret Service is the agency in by far the best position to arrest a criminally suspect
President and Vice President, and "protection" does not mean protection
from the rule of law, and FBI's mandate to lead investigations of assassinations and
so on is also not pertinent, nor is the Park Service's custodianship of the White House
and appurtenances thereto.

9. Like all American citizens, plaintiff Richard Allen Hohensee has suffered a profound
decrease in his quality of life from the failure of the defendants to arrest the
suspects, by the normalizing of criminality this causes, even if the suspects were to be
found innocent of all charges in a legitimate trial thereof.

WHEREFORE the plaintiff demands:
A. the immediate arrest of the Suspect A, George Walker Bush,
and Suspect B, Richard Bruce Cheney
B. the credible prosecution of Suspect A, George Walker Bush,
and Suspect B, Richard Bruce Cheney, which would necessarily involve:
B.1. their immediate removal from office
B.2. extraordinary measures such as a special prosecutor, given the seditious
hiring practices at the Department of Justice under Suspect A, Bush, and
which the plaintiff pro se does not presume to specify to the
Court, but which might benefit from the involvement of persons such as
plaintiff, Representative Kucinich, and so on.

November 17, 2008
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee, pro se
c/o CCHFP
4713 Wisconsin Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
rick_hohensee@email.com
no voice phone