DeSantis-Draft v.2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION
ERIC W. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No:
RONALD D. DESANTIS,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL COMPLAINT
Ron DeSantis, Governor of the State of Florida (aka Chief Constitutional Officer) is
standing guard for violence against children (re routine/ritual infant circumcision). He is
withholding law enforcement services from an identifiable group of citizens (re newborn male
citizens) contrary to the Fundamental Rights of those citizens as enumerated in the US Bill of
Rights. He is in default of his Constitutional Duty.
No other identifiable group of citizens (or individual citizens) in the State of Florida is subject to
forced surgery (re https://youtu.be/W2PKdDOjooA), without due process. This complaint is
submitted to this honorable court for Summary Judgment.
It is worth noting as case history that when an identifiable group of Citizens is denied their
Constitutional Rights, war results. For example, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney & the US Civil
War, and Adolph Hitler & WWII.
Routine/ritual infant circumcision is genocide of the psyche, and a crime against humanity. In the
intactivist movement it is often noted that (in addition to the obvious battery inherent in the
1
PLAINTIFF’S INTIAL COMPLAINT
neonatal circumcision procedure) national governments have fallen into the habit of using the
rights of its newborn male citizens as geo-political currency (re
https://youtu.be/LKkgUqZE6ZA), and that the medical community has fallen into the habit of
selling neonatal foreskins—of selling the very ill-gotten skin of US citizens—to cosmetic
companies. These are practices offensive to the normal human conscience. No legal right exists
for the Governor to be protected from the federal courts while in violation of his Constitutional
Duty.
Plaintiff has written a short book regarding his injury-in-fact, but as a matter of expediency refers
the court to the Center for Disease Control's more brief explanation entitled Adverse Childhood
Events.
No right exists for the Governor to hold an identifiable group of citizens as less than the rest of
the Citizenry. The State (i.e. Florida State Constitution, Section 2, Basic Rights: “All natural
persons, female and male alike…”) and Federal Constitutions require equal treatment.
Plaintiff sues to compel the Governor to his Constitutional duty.
I plead with any and all respect due this Court—knowing that the court favors expediency—that
this court immediately injunct the Governor from any longer withholding law enforcement
services from newborn male citizens, and to provision those services instead (NB such an
injunction would in no way impede any adult citizen, male or female, from pursuing elective
prepuce amputation surgery of their own volition, wherein if they afterward feel defrauded, they
may then pursue a legal remedy within the allotted time). If any statute of limitations applies to
this complaint it will not start to run until after the Governor comes into compliance with his
Constitutional Duty.
2
Abusing a child, and then telling the man he becomes that the statute of limitations has expired,
is evil. It is the exact same human rights error as telling a Black person that they have no rights,
or telling a Jewish person that they have no rights. To be dismissive of the Constitutional Rights
of newborn male citizens is unfair and inhumane, in addition to illegal. The day of filing must be
taken as the day of discovery in such a case where Constitutional protections were denied the
unknowing newborn citizen (Plaintiff). The act of filing this Complaint is proof-positive that the
matter has been properly discovered, and it must be taken as just discovered. It is a tautology.
Newborn male Citizens (aka Birthright Citizens, aka Plaintiff) deserve corrective Summary
Judgment. Any defense could only demonstrate that mesmerization is no defense in the law (i.e.
failing to act while having full knowledge of the law). Any defense will only manifest itself as a
child who, while adding zeros, gets for their answer the number of zeros added; that having no
greater bearing in a court of law than the singing of a bird. A psycho-social murmuration—a
culturally embedded meme—is a very difficult thing from which to break. It is a very very hard
thing to do. But we have a Federal Constitution that makes the duty to do so clear, and
unavoidable, obligatory by way of the US Constitution.
To wit (re Fundamental Rights):
Amendment 1 protects the newborn Citizen’s right to choose their own religion, including that of
natural whole man.
Amendment 5 guarantees the newborn Citizen the Right to Due Process.
Amendment 9 provides that even though freedom from genital cutting is not enumerated for
male citizens—as it is enumerated at the state and federal level for female citizens—the male
child's rights are not abrogated; the laws against Child Abuse are not overcome even without the
enumeration. NB Smith v Oregon disallows any exception for ritualistic cutting.
3
Amendment 11 explicitly, explicitly does not bar a Citizen within the state from bringing suit
against it. Sovereign Immunity is the proverbial Weasel Clause. Such a ban would break
democracy at its very foundation, preventing it from repairing itself organically (i.e.
democratically). Additionally, the Ex parte Young exception applies in this case, precisely.
Amendment 14 requires that male and female Citizens be treated equally by the Courts,
establishes that Constitutional Rights are obtained at birth, and contains the Due Process Clause
(i.e. “No state…” none, nil, zero, zip, zilch, inclusive of the State of Florida, “...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.”).
Plaintiff petitions this honorable court to order the Defendant to stop the conduct that is—
violative of the State and Federal Constitutions—allowing mayhem to continue unabated in
Plaintiff’s State. Namely, that the Governor of the State of Florida be ordered to cease & desist
withholding law enforcement services from newborn male citizens, and to provide siad services,
“with all deliberate speed.” A ruling in favor of the Plaintiff—in favor of the Constitution—will
put the onus on the Governor, where it belongs.
Additional note to the esteemed Federal Judge: In the antecedent case (6:22-cv-826) Plaintiff
was asked whether he knew of any bias of the assigned Magistrate Judge. This case constitutes
an emergency. Please declare lack of bias against newborn male citizens, or be so kind as to refer
this Complaint to the appropriate Judge, that the case be heard on its merits, and not dismissed
because it required filing from a citizen formally trained in the law. Plaintiff was maimed and he
knows what is befalling his fellow man at this very time. It is unconscionable.
4
Respectfully Submitted By:
/s/ Eric W. Anderson

Eric W. Anderson
7 Soco Trail
Ormond Beach, FL 32174
(352) 239-3774
Email
Plaintiff, Pro Se

DeSantis-Draft v.2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DeSantis-Draft v.2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DeSantis-Draft v.2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL COMPLAINT

Rights. He is in default of his Constitutional Duty.

forced surgery (re https://youtu.be/W2PKdDOjooA), without due process. This complaint is

submitted to this honorable court for Summary Judgment.

War, and Adolph Hitler & WWII.

rights of its newborn male citizens as geo-political currency (re

Plaintiff sues to compel the Governor to his Constitutional duty.

unavoidable, obligatory by way of the US Constitution.

To wit (re Fundamental Rights):

natural whole man.

Amendment 5 guarantees the newborn Citizen the Right to Due Process.

enumeration. NB Smith v Oregon disallows any exception for ritualistic cutting.

violative of the State and Federal Constitutions—allowing mayhem to continue unabated in

put the onus on the Governor, where it belongs.

/s/ Eric W. Anderson

You might also like