Objection to Order Granting IFP Request and Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss — Alvarado v. CUIAB

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California · No. 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK · Doc. 5 · 2024-02-29 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

A pro se objection by plaintiff Lance Delon Alvarado, filed February 29, 2024 as Doc. 5 in Alvarado v. California Unemployment Appeals Board, No. 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. It objects in part to the order granting his IFP request and the findings and recommendations to dismiss, while stating that he agrees with the grant of IFP status. The filing objects to the screening of the complaint under 28 USC 1915(e)(2) and argues that the master who issued the findings must be disqualified under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It contends that the defendants breached a contract with the United States over Pandemic Unemployment Assistance funds. It asks for a hearing or mediation, seeks punitive damages and offers to settle for $69.3 billion annually.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

10

i

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5 Filed 02/29/24 Page 1of16

LANCE DELON ALVARADO

IN PROPER PERSON
SPECIAL APPEARANCE
803 EVERGREEN #A
CITY OF WHEATLAND
COUNTY OF YUBA
CALIFORNIA 95692
(775) 899-2632

delonlalvarado@ gmail.com

FEB 29 2024

CLERK, US OR AL IFORNIA

EASTERN DISTRIAT &
DEPUTY CLERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTRA STATE COMMERCE PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE

LANCE DELON ALVARADO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS BOARD

CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
DECISION

ALL UNKNOWN INTRA STATE PARTIES

Defendant

Case No.: 2:23-CV-3041 TLN KJN (PS)
Jury trial requested

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST
AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT
PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5 Filed 02/29/24 Page 2 of 16

COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF IN PROPER PERSON LANCE DELON ALVARADO WHO OBJECTS IN PART
TO THE ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS (ECF Nos,
2, 3.) FILED THE 16" DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024.

THAT ALL REFERENCES WITHIN THIS OBJECTION AS WELL AS THE COMPLAINT FILED DECEMBER 29
2023 REFER TO THE PLAINTIFF NAMED LANCE DELON ALVARADO WHILE IN SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND
IN PROPER PERSON. AN UNEMPLOYED NOT FOR HIRE PRIVATE CONTRACTING UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA TAX PAYING CITIZEN WHOM FILED THE ABOVE MENTIONED COMPLAINT AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT(S). THE PLAINTIFF WHOM TAKES THE DECEMBER 29° 2023 FILED COMPLAINT, THE
PLAINTIFF’S FINANCIAL PERSONAL BUISNESS!

THE PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES CONTINUE TO ACCUMULATE IN APPRECIATION DAILY! THANKS TO THE
STATE COURTS WHOM ARE ALSO STATE AFFILIATES WITH THE DEFENDANT(S) THE CALIFORNIA
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD AND THE CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION AND ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES INVOLVED!

MOTION TO SET OR MOTION FOR MEDIATION? PLAINTIFF LETS THE DEFENDANT(S) DECIDE A
SUITABLE DATE FOR HEARING TO BE HELD AND/OR TO MAIL AN OFFER FOR SETTLEMENT TO THE
PLAINTIFF’S ADDRESS ON RECORD.

THE DEFENDANT(S) WHOM WILLINGLY AND PURPOSELY BREECHED A CONTRACT. WITH WILLFUL
DISREGARD FOR THE WELL BEING OF THE PLAINTIFF ABOVE NAMED LANCE DELON ALVARADO FOR
THE DEFENDANT(S) PERSONAL CORPORATE GAINS AND ENRICHMENTS AT THE PLAINTIFF'S EXPENSE.
MALUM UN SE

THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT SPEAK FOR, NOR DOES THE PLAINTIFF SPEAK AGAINST OR REPRESENT
THE CO-PLAINTIFF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

PLAINTIFF AGREES WITH ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 2

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5 Filed 02/29/24 Page 3 of 16

PLAINTIFF OBJECTS TO THE FINDINGS OF THE MASTERS DETERMINATION OF SCREEN THE PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT AS “frivolous or malicious” fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek
monetary relief against an immune defendant under 28 USC 1915(e)(2).

PLAINTIFF OBJECTS TO THE MASTERS FINDINGS OF THE MASTER BEING AN INDEPENDENT DUTY TO
ENSURE IT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE UNDER United Investors Life
Ins. Co v. Waddell and Reed Inc. 360 F 3d 960, 967 (9* Cir. 2004).

PLAINTIFF REMINDS THE COURT OF ITS OWN RULES. THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 53 (2).
DISQUALIFICATION.

THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT AGREED TO A MASTER NOR WAS A HEARING EVEN HELD THAT THE
PLAINTIFF WAS GIVIN NOTICE OF.

THE PLAINTIFF MERELY AWAITING FOR THE COURT TO APPROVE THE PLAINTIFF’S IFP REQUEST
BEFORE SERVING NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT(S) IN THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALSO BEFORE
DISCOVERY FOR AN ACCURATE ACCOUNTING CAN BE CALCULATED.

THE PLAINTIFF QUESTIONS THE COURT HOW IS AN INFORMA PAUPER PLAINTIFF GOING TO AFFORD
MAKING COPIES OF THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT TO BE SERVED UPON THE DEFENDANT(S) OR THE
NEED TO DO SO IF THE PLAINTIFF’S IFP REQUEST HAD BEEN DENIED EVEN NOW WHEN THE PLAINTIFF’S
IFP HAS BEEN APPROVED?

FURTHER THE PLAINTIFF OBJECTS TO THE MASTER'S FINDINGS AND ARGUES THE MASTER HAS TIES
TO THE COURT BEING A MASTER APPOINTED BY A JUDGE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS AND IS IN DIRECT
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

ALSO THE MASTER WISHES TO SITE CASE LAW?

THE PLAINTIFF WAS INFORMED NOT TO SITE CASE LAW WITHIN THE PRO SE COMPLAINT PACKET

THAT THE US DISTRICT COURT PROVIDED FOR PRO SE LITIGANTS WITHIN A ( .GOV) WEBSITE.

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 3

12

13

14

15

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5- Filed 02/29/24 Page 4of 16

UTILIZING CASE LAW WITHIN THE MASTER’S OPINION JS IRRELEVANT TO THE FACTS WITHIN THE
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BEING HOW THE EXHIBITS FILED ON THE 29 DAY OF DECEMBER 2023
KNOWN AS EXHIBIT A AND EXHIBIT B PROVE BEYOND ANY

REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT(S) HAVE BREECHED THEIR CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA. A CONTRACT THAT FAR EXCEEDS $ BILLIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SECURITIES
FOR PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE RELIEF. ALLOTTED FOR CITIZENS WHO DO NOT
QUALIFY FOR REGULAR UNEMPLOYMENT AND APPLIED FOR PANDEMIC RELIEF FUNDING.

NOT FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TO KEEP FOR THEIR OWN CORPORATE USAGE.

THE PLAINTIFF BEING ONLY ONE EXAMPLE OF HOW UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FALLS UNDER A
“R.1.CO.” FRAUD SCHEME STANDARD. WITH THE STATE COURTS WORKING TOGETHER TO ACCOMPLISH
THEIR OWN MAIN OBJECTIVE . THAT BEING TO EXPLOIT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC UTILIZING FEDERAL
FUNDING NOT MEANT FOR STATE GOVEENMENT AND THE LEGAL PROFFESSION PROFITS THAT ENRICH
THEIR OWN CORPORATE GREED.

A DELIBERATE SCHEME DEALING WITH INSIDER TRADING AND BRIBE PAYOFFS IN THE FORM OF
COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES LAUNDERED IN THE FORM OF LEGAL BONDS, INSURANCE
INVESTMENTS FOR STATE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENTS FOR JUDGES, CLERKS OF THE COURT AND
ATTORNIES WHO LAUGH ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK WHILE HONEST CITIZENS LIKE THE PLAINTIFF
SUFFER AND CONTINUE TO SUFFER!

PLAINTIFF HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ONCE DISCOVERY IS GRANTED THAT THE PLAINTIFF CAN
ALSO PROVE THE ABSURD NUMBERS IN STATE COURT CASES THAT HAVE BACKED UP STATE COURT
HEARINGS REGARDING PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT FUNDING THIS SUBJECT MATTER WHERE
JURISDICTION MUST BE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL NOT STATE COURT LEVEL WHERE THE STATE COURTS

CONTINUE TO GET RICH WHILE ROBBING THE POOR AND DEFENSLESS PUBLIC GIVING TO THE RICH

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 4

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5 Filed 02/29/24 Page 5of16

WHO ALREADY HAVE SALERY BASED PAY AND OR BANK ACCOUNTS AND STATEMENTS THAT WILL
PROVE THEIR GUILT AND THAT A WARRANTS OR SUPEONAs BE ISSUED FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS FOR A PAPER TRAIL LEADING THE Way THAT TRACES THE TRACKS

OF WHERE THE PANDEMIC FEDERAL FUNDING FOR PUA RELIEF HAS BEEN SPENT.

PLAINTIFF STILL AWAITING FOR THE PLAINTIFF'S SET ASIDE AMOUNT THAT THE DEFENDANT(S)
HAVE NOT EVEN RELEASED A SINGLE CENT ($0.01) CAUSING CULPIBLE DAMAGES MALUM IN SE.
PLAINTIFF NOW SEEKING PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN RESPONSE TO THE MASTERS RECOMMENDATION
WITH THIS OBJECTION.

INSURANCE NOW BEING MANDATED LAW ARE DENYING NEW POLICIES TO CITIZENS WHILE
MAKING ABSURD PROFITS SO LARGE AS TO DAMAGE THE ENTIRE US ECONOMY. WHILE CITIZENS LIKE
THE PLAINTIFF CONTINUE TO SUFFER LEGAL ABUSES AS SHOWN IN PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AS
EXHIBT C FILED THE 29™ DAY OF DECEMBER 2023. BEING AGAIN ONE EXAMPLE OF HOW MANY
OTHER CASES.

THE PLAINTIFF ONLY A MERE UNEDUCATED VICTIM OF LEGAL ATTROCITIES IN NEVADA.
ATTROCITIES SUCH AS BEING EXPLOITED AND HUMAN TRAFFICKED. CAUSED MERELY BY BEING A
RESIDENT OF NEVADA WHERE CONTINUOUS LEGAL ABUSES UPON THE PLAINTIFF CONTINUE TO
OCCURE WHEN PLAINTIFF CROSSES THE NEVADA CALIFORNIA BORDER AND NOW THESE SAME ISSUES
ARE NOW BEING EXPLOITED IN CALIFORNIA. THE PLACE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S BIRTH.

UTILIZING INSURANCE INVESTIGATIONS WHERE PLAINTIFF'S PAST WORK HISTORY WITHIN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA ARE REFLECTED AND NOT USED IN FAVOR FOR BUT AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.
EVEN AFTER THE PLAINTIFF IMMEDIATLY PROVIDED THE PLAINTIFF’S SOCIAL SECURITY STATEMENT

UPON THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD REQUEST.

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 5

10

11

12

13

14

15

\7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5 Filed 02/29/24 Page 6 of 16

IT 1S NOT THE PLAINTIFF’S FAULT THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA INVESTED THE PLAINTIFF’S
PAYED EARNINGS PRIOR TO THE YEAR 1991.

ANOTHER REASON WHY PLAINTIFF FILED FOR PUA ASSISTANCE WHEN THE PLAINTIFF WAS HONEST
WITHIN THE PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR PUA RELIEF AS TO THE PLAINTIFF’S WHEREABOUTS WHEN
PLAINTIFF'S UNEMPLOYMENT BEGAN.

IF PLAINTIFF FILED FOR REGULAR UNEMPLOYMENT WITHIN CALIFORNIA THE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE
LIED. LIKE THE DEFENDANT(S) HAVE LIED TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHEN IT WENT INTO
CONTRACT TO DISPURSE PANDEMIC RELIEF TO THOSE THAT DO NOT QUALIFY FOR REGULAR
INSURANCE. BY FORCING CLAIMENTS TO GO TO STATE COURTS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE A PROMICED
CLAIM!

WHAT EVIDENCE IS THE CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS GOING TO WITHOLD AFTER DISCOVERY OF ALL
THE FACTS WITHIN THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT? PLAINTIFF HAS NOTHING TO HIDE!

NUMBERS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES AND A SIMPLE SEARCH ON THE INTERNET SHOWS THE INCREASE
OF COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE IN AN UN PRECIDENTED AMOUNT
WITHIN STATE COURTS NATION WIDE!

THE PLAINTIFF WILL GLADLY TESTIFY IN OPEN COURT AND BEFORE ANY JURY OF PLAINTIFF’S PEERS
AS TO THE TRUE CULPIBLE DAMAGES THROUGH EXPLOITATION OF INFORMATION THAT THE
INSURANCE CORPORATIONS CONTINUE TO NEGLECT AND IGNORE SIMPLE FACTS THE COURT HAS NO
EXCUSE TO WITHOLD A NEW AMOUNT TO BE NEGOTIATED IN MEDIATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
INTRA STATE PUA CLAIM AS EVIDENCED IN AN AMOUNT THAT FAR EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM US DISTRICT

COURT REQUIRED SUM FOR FILING.

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 6

10

il

13

14

15

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5 Filed 02/29/24 Page 7 of 16

HOW DOES A POOR AND HELPLESS LITIGANT LIKE THE PLAINTIFF ESTIMATE A FAIR AND JUST
AMOUNT WITHOUT SHOWING THE COURT AN ABSURD AMOUNT? AS SUCH THE ABUSE CONTINUES
NOW BY A SO CALLED MASTER RENDERING AN OPINION NOT AN ORDER.

FOR A MASTER IS NOT A JUDGE.

ONLY AN ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED BY A JUDGE. WHO CLEARLY HAS TIES WITHIN A LEGAL
INSTITUTION OR HAS PASSED A BAR EXAM WHERE A CONTRACT WAS SIGNED TO NOT HURT THE
LEGAL PROFFESSION.

THEREFORE MUST DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
53(1)(C)(228 U.S.C. §455 AS HAVNG A DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN A COMPLAINT THAT IS NOT
ONLY INTRA STATE AND INSURANCE BUT IS LITERALLY WORTH BILLIONS OF UNITED STATES FEDERAL
CURRENCIES BEING TRADED WORLD WIDE AS LEGAL TENDER. A MASTER WHO MUST ALSO HAVE
SOME SORT OF PERSONAL INSURANCE POLICY BE IT EITHER AUTO, HOME, OR LIFE, INCLUDING WORK
RELATED BENEFITS INCLUDING HEALTH INSURANCE, RETIREMENT OR EVEN 401K INVESTMENTS
MAYBE EVEN MORE? DUE TO INSURANCE CORPORATIONS NOW BEING A LLAWAND REQUIRED FOR
ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENS. INSURANCE CORPORATIONS HAVING PAYED INSURANCE LOBBYISTS
AND INSURANCE WISHES NOW GRANTED ARE NOW TO BE HELD LIABLE BY THE PLAINTIFF FOR
INSURANCE’S OWN LEGAL ACTIONS AND AS SUCH CANNOT DENY THE DAMAGES TO THE PLAINTIFF
WHEN PRE TRIAL DISCOVERY IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF WHO NOW LEGALLY OFFERS A SMALL SUM FOR SETTLEMENT OF SAY $69.3 BILLION
ANNUALLY FOR DRAFTING AND SIGNING THIS CONTRACT OF OBJECTION.

FOR INSURANCE CORPORATIONS RAPE AND ABUSE BY FORCING THE PLAINTIFF TO FURTHER ENDURE
MORE AFFILIATES THROUGH MORE OF THE EXECUTIVE PROCESSES BY ANOTHER “MASTER” WHO

APPEARS TO BE INFLUENCED AND ONLY MOTIVATED BY MONEY AND THE PEERS OF THE MASTER’S

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 7

10

1]

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5 Filed 02/29/24 Page 8 of 16

PROFFESSIONAL MONITARY INTERESTS !N FAVOR OF INSURANCE CORPRATE “LIABILITY’ MINIMAL
PRICE. WHILE BANKING ON THE MASTER'S SALARY TO RELIEVE INSURANCE CORPORATIONS BURDEN OF
FACING TRIAL.

IF THE COURT BELIEVES THIS IN OUTRAGIOUS AMOUNT. THE PLAINTUFF PROVIDES A SIMPLE VIEW
AS TO THE PROFITS THE INSURANCE CORPORATIONS HAVE MADE OFF OF THE UNITED STATES WORK
FORCE BELOW.

THE PROPER PERSON LITIGANT PRAYS THE COURT TO STOP IGNORING THE TRUE FACTS WITHIN THE
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT EMPHASIS ON “OTHER CONSIDERATIONS” AS WELL AS MOTION TO SET A
HEARING OR PLACE PARTIES IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS MEDIATION

THE MASTER CLEARLY CONTINUING INSURANCE EXPLOITATION MALUM UN SE, SINCE THE MASTER
1S CLEARLY IGNORING WHAT IS ACTUALLY COVERED UNDER PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE
AND WHAT THE NAME OF THE CUIAB STANDS FOR AND THAT IS INSURANCE.

AS SHOWN IN PLAITIFF’S COMPLAINT IN QUESTION (Exhibits A and B filed 29" day of December 2023)
INCLUDING THE NEVADA STATE COURTS AND NEVADA'S CULPIBLE DAMAGES ON THE PLAINTIFF.
(Exhibit C filed 29" day of December 2023)

THE PLAINTIFF NOW FORCED TO DRAFT THIS OBJECTION DUE TO THE US DISTRICT COURT’S
“MASTER” VIOLATING THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ALSO GETS PAID? THEN WHY NOT THE
PLAINTIFF FOR PLAINTIFF’S CULPIBLE TIME WORKING AS WELL AS CONTINUING PLAINTIFF'S EDUCATION
ON HIS OWN?

THE PLAINTIFF WHO LIVES IN CONSTANT FEAR OF LEGAL RETRIBUTION NOW HAS TO FURTHER THE
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BY FILING THIS OBJECTION ALL THE WHILE THE PLAINTIFF BEING THE ONLY

PARTY TO THIS COMPLAINT WITH THE ENTIRE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY IN MIND!

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 8

10

11

12

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5 Filed 02/29/24 Page 9 of 16

THE PLAINTIFF RENDERING CARE FOR A DISABLED VETERAN WHILE STUDYING TO BECOME A
PARALEGAL WITH HOPES OF ONE DAY PASSING A STATE BAR EXAM IS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED NOW
FOR ATTORNIES FEES NOR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED FOR THE RESEARCH, THE COUNTLESS HOURS OF
STUDYING ON HIS OWN HAS BROUGHT A VALID ARGUMENT WITH A STRONG FOUNDATION AND HOLDS
MERIT AND IS WORTH THE US DISTRICT COURTS TIME AND COVER THE US DISTRICT COURT COSTS IN
SUCH A WAY THAT IS IMPECABLE. YET THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT MADE MONEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF’S
WORK. SO WHY SHOULD INSURANCE? INSURANCE IS A “WHAT IF”, NOT A “GOING TO HAPPEN”
SUBJECT AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT MAKE A PROFIT OFF OF “FEAR TACTICS” AND “SUFFERAGE”
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

INSURANCE IS THE SAME A DICTATORSHIP WHO OFFERS TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

OH WHAT A PREDICUMENT THE DEFENDANT(S) FIND THEMSELVES IN? FOR THE PLAINTIFF JUST
ANSWERED THE ABOVE QUESTION THAT INSURANCE HAS ALWAYS MADE A PROFIT OVER. THE
QUESTION “WHAT IF” AND THE PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION IS “YES THIS OBJECTION
JUST HAPPENED”!

PLAINTIFF ASKS THE COURT IS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IS WORTHLESS?

IN THE OPINION OF A MERE MASTER WHO GOES HOME AND ENJOYS THE FRUITS THEIR LABOR IT IS.

BUT NOT TO THE PLAINTIFF IT IS NOT!

HAS THE COURT’S OWN RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PREVENTED ITSELF AND IN PARTNERSHIP
HELPING FURTHER CORPORATE GREED AND THE CONTINUED EXPLOITATION OF THE PLAINTIFF WHILE
THE COURT IGNORES PLAINTIFF’S UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIM THAT LITERALLY SAVES INSURANCE
CORPORATIONS AN UN CALCULATED AMOUNT OF MONEY IN INTRA STATE COMMERCE FOR INTRA

STATE UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS IN CASE OF ANOTHER PANDEMIC?

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 9

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5- Filed 02/29/24 Page 10 of 16

ALSO REFLECTED AND ADDED ON DECEMBER 164 2023 WITHIN THE CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS (REFERENCE TO THE CHANGES MADE BY LAW DRAFTERS MAKING IT NOW MANDATORY
TO FOR ALL CLAIMENTS TO FILE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS WITHIN THE STATE THE CLAIMANT(S)
ARE PHYSICALLY LOCATED AT THE TIME UNEMPLOYMENT BEGINS. DO THE DEFENDANT’S WISH TO
ARGUE THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHANGES MADE TO THE FCR?

THE PLAINTIFF ASKS THE COURT IS $68.3 BILLION PAID TO PLAINTIFF ANNUALLY FOR PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT AGAINST INSURANCE

CORPORATE EXPLOITATION AND ILLEGAL INTRA STATE INVESTIGATIONS UTILIZING TACTICS OF
INFORMATION SHARING THAT INSIDER TRADING FOR CORPORATE INSURANCE PROFITS WOULD BE
CONSIDERED ILLEGAL IN THE STOCK EXCHANGE MARKET AND ONLY INFORMATION LIKE THIS IS
GRANTED FOR NATIONAL SECURITY RISK ASSESSMENT NOT CORPORATE PROFIT SHARING!

DOES THE DEFENDANT(S) HAVE ANY DEFENSE(S) TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S PUA CLAIM? AN ARGUMENT
WITH ANY MERIT BASED FOUNDATION FOR ANY SUCH DENIAL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S DAILY
ACCUMULATING DAMAGES? OR ONLY AN AMOUNT IN CONTRAVERSY BEFORE SETTLEMENT?

MUST THE PLAINTIFF REMIND THE COURT THAT PLAINTIFF IS RENDERING CARE FOR HIS BIOLOGICAL
MOTHER WHOM IS DISABLED AND UNABLE TO CARE FOR HERSELF? OR DOES THE COURT WISH TO
CONTINUE HARRASSING THE PLAINTIFF OVER SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS WHEN OFFERS AND COUNTER
OFFERS CAN BE DONE BY US POSTAL SERVICE AND NOT IN SOME INTIMIDATING COURT OR CONFRENCE
ROOM WHERE THE DEFENDANT(S) MIGHT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PLAINTIFF.

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST OFFER TO SETTLE:

PETITION FOR DEFENDANT(S) TO RENDER A COUNTER OFFER TO SETTLE AND TO CONSIDER THE
FOLLOWING AMD TO NOT LIMIT THEMSELVES FOR PLAINTIFF’S OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

Legal abuse

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 10

10

11

12

13

14

15

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5- Filed 02/29/24 Page 11 of 16

Defamation of Character malum in se
Religious and Ethnic Discrimination
Exploitation
Plaintiff's continued education denied
Plaintiff's salary based pay working within a new Profession } ,
Court costs fe TOF’. 0 Vera? TOS 4 ad CGS4t5 a
INTEREST
PUNATIVE DAMAGES

A REASONABLE AMOUNT IN TODAYS ECONOMIC STANDARD OF FINALIZING IS TO BE EXPECTED FOR
ANY OFFER MADE BY THE DEFENDANT(S) TO THE PLAINTIFF FOR INSURANCE CORPORATIONS SEEM TO
BE THE HIGHEST PROFIT MAKING BUISNESS. AND AS A FUTURE ISSUER OF PLAINTIFFS OWN INSURANCE
CORPORATION THE PLAINTIFF WILL NEED A LOT OF CAPITOL TO START HIS SMALL BUISNESS!
THE PLAINTIFF IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERING STARING A SMALL INSURANCE CORPORATION ON HIS OWN
WITHOUT BEING BOTHERED BY INVESTORS ESPECIALLY AFTER CONSIDERING WHAT IS A FAIR OFFER FOR
THE DEFENDANT(S) TO MAKE TO THE PLAINTIFF, AND HOW THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD INVEST HIS

SETTLEMENT MONEY EVEN THOUGH IT IS NONE OF THE DEFENDANT(S) BUISNESS BUT PLAINTIFF WILL

FULLY DISCLOSE AND IS PROVIDED BELOW:
A SMALL AND FAIR PRICE FOR BIG CORPORATE INSURANCE WHO in 2022,
insurance companies had $1.25 trillion in revenue and $69.3 billion in profits. This is a 300%
increase in revenue and a 287% increase in profits from 2012.

BIG INSURANCE 2022: Revenues reached $1.25 trillion thanks to sucking

billions out of the pharmacy supply chain — and taxpayers' pockets

Feb 27, 2023

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING SFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 11

10

i

13

14

15

16

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5- Filed 02/29/24 Page 12 of 16

Insurance companies make money primarily from premium income, fees for policy services, and
commissions from partnering with agents and brokers. They also invest the accumulated
premiums in financial instruments to generate investment income.

The profit margin for different types of insurance companies in 202} are:

Life insurance: Around 4.1%

Insurance brokers: Around 8.7%

Accident and health insurance: Around 5.5%

Most insurance agency owners operate with an average profit margin between 2 percent and 10

percent.
This is not professional financial advice. Consulting a financial advisor about your particular

circumstances is best.

Is an insurance company a profitable business?
Which insurance company makes the most money?
How much is the insurance industry worth?

THE PLAINTIFF WISHES A JURY OF PLAINTIFF’S PEERS FOR THEIR OPINION SO THAT “INSURANCE” MAY
CONTINUE DOING CORPORATE BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

THE PLAINTIFF IS CURIOUS AND WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE AVERAGE TAX PAYER’S HONEST OPINION!

PLAINTIFF IS ALSO BRINGING TO MEDIATION FOR INSURANCE CORPORATIONS TO RECSIND THEIR
LEGAL ENTITLEMENT OVER THE AMERICAN CITIZENS BY REMOVING THEIR INDUSTRY FROM THE LAW
BOOKS AS A MANDATORY NECESSITY TO BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND ORDERED TO PAY
INSURANCE WHO IS MERELY A CORPORATE ENTITY NOT A DICTATOR AS WELL AS RESCIND PRE

EMPLOYMENT DRUG TESTING. AS WELL AS RANDOM TESTS.

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 12

10

ll

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5- Filed 02/29/24 Page 13 of 16

PLAINTIFF ARGUES THESE ARE TWO MAJOR FACTORS OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND EARLY LAYOFF OR
TETIREMENT WHEN THE ELDRRLY HAVE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS THAT ARE SYNTHETIC HEROIN AND THAT
IS A RISK IN THE DEFENDANT(S) BUISNESS PLAN.

AS AN AMERICAN WHO IS CONSIDERING INVESTING THE PLAINTIFF'S SETTLEMENT MONEY INTO THE
PLAINTIFF’S VERY OWN INSURANCE CORPORATION AFTER THIS COMPLAINT IS SETTLED.

THE PLAINTIFF FEELS THAT EMPLOYERS ARE ABLE TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES HAVING THEIR
OWN BEST INTERESTS IN MIND AND ONLY IF THERE HAPPENS TO BE AN INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT WHILE
EMPLOYEES ARE iN PERFORMANCE OF THEIR JOBS WOULD ANY OF THE PLAINTIFF'S POLICY HOLDERS Bu
DRUG TESTED.

AS ONE OF A FEW SIMPLE CORPORATE MANDATES AS FUTURE ISSUER. PLAINTIFF DOESN’T WANT TO
PUT OTHER INSURANCE CORPORATION COMPETITORS OUR OF BUISNESS BY TAKING THEIR CLIENTELE
BY OFFERRING A BETTER “BANG FOR THEIR BUCK”!

AS WELL AS ONLY HAVE TO PAY THE MINIMUM OF LIABILITY TO THOSE MOST UNFORTUNATLY
AFFECTED! PLAINTIFF'S COMPETETORS MIGHT HAVE TO APPLY FOR PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT
ASSISTANCE AFTER THIS CASE GOES TO TRIAL!

WHO COULD SUE THEMSELVES FOR NOT COVERING THEIR OWN POLICY HOLDERS LIKE INSURANCE IS
SUPPOSED TO COVER! DUE TO THE DEFINITION OF “ACCIDENT” WHICH THE PLAINTIFF ALSO REMINDS
THE COURT THAT “ACCIDENT DOES NOT MEAN “ ON PURPOSE” LIKE THE “MASTER'S” ACTIONS HAVE
BEEN TOWARD THE PLAINTIFF.

THE PLAINTIFF ALSO BRINGS TO MEDIATION A FEW OTHER IISSUS DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THOSE
IN STATE GOVERNMENTS WHO ARE ALSO NEGLIGENT AND HAVE MADE PROFIT OFF OF THE AMERICAN

TAXPAYER LIKE THE PLAINTIFF THROUGH INVESTMENTS AND INSURANCE LIABILITY CLAIMS DUE TO

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 13

10

11

{2

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5 Filed 02/29/24 Page 14 of 16

THEIR “IMMUNITY WHILE WORKING AND MAKING THOSE CRUCIAL DECISIONS” THAT INSURANCE
NOW BEING HELD LIABLE TO PAY FOR!

POLITICIANS, AND CIVIL SERVANT,S INCLUDING STATE EMPLOYEE AND STATE GOVERNMENT
INCLUDING PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSIONS AND BOARD MEMBERS, PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD AND

TEACHERS SHOULD HAVE PRE EMPLOYMENT AND POSSIBLE DAILY AND WEEKLY BREATH-A-““LIE””-
SIR TESTS FOR ALCHOL AND DRUGS RANDOMLY WHILE SERVING THE PUBLIC INTERESTS AFTER ALL!

LEAD BY EXAMPLE!.

NOT

DO AS I SAY NOT AS! DO!

THAT IS CONSIDERED POOR LEADERSHIP!

PLAINTIFF AWAITS A COUNTER OFFER BY THE DEFENDANT(S)

THE PLAINTIFF WHO REMINDS THE COURT OF THE INSURANCE INDUSTRIES ANNUAL PROFIT MARGIN
AND MUST JUDGE AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES A FRIVILUOS AMOUNT FOR SETTLEMENT OR IN THE
INSURANCE CORPORATION FRIVILOUS PROFITS AND WISHES TO RELAY AND DIVULGE PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST OFFER WILL DOUBLE IN COSTS IF THE DEFENDANT(S) AND THE COURTS CONTINUE TO “BULLY”
THE PLAINTIFF

A WELL ROUNDED AMOUNT HAVING NOW BEEN PROVIDED AS PER THE “MASTERS” REQUEST AN
ESTIMATED VALUE TO THE REAL CULPIBLE DEFENDANT(S). AND PLAINTIFF'S FULL AND TOTAL RESPECT
FOR JUDICIAL ECONOMY.

PLAINTIFF LANCE DELON ALVARADO’S JURY OF PEERS WOULD CONSIST OF UNINSURED JOBLESS AND
HOMELESS CITIZENS STILL LOOKING FOR WORK SINCE THE PLAINTIFF IS CURRENTLY JOBLESS AND
HOMELESS DUE TO UNEMPLOYMENT CAUSED BY THE PANDEMIC ALSO REMINDING THE COURT JURY

MEMBERS EVEN GET PAID! YET IS THAT NOT CONSIDERED TO BE A BRIBE?

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 14

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

{8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5 Filed 02/29/24 Page 15 of 16

SPECIAL APPEARANCE PLAINTIFF IS UTTERLLY CONFUSED!

HOWEVER LUCKILY THE PLAINTIFF IN PROPER PERSON COMPLETELY COMPREHENDS THE SITUATION!
THE PLAINTIFF ALSO WISHES THAT UPON THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT THE PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR THE
FOLLOWING IN WAKE THAT ALL COURT COSTS BE PAID BY THE DEFENDANT(S)

PLAINTIFF WILL FINILIZE THE PLAINTIFF'S INCORPORATION INTO THE FEDERAL SECURITIES COMMISSION
WITH AN ACCURATE AMOUNT AFTER SETTLEMENT WITHIN THE PLAINTIFF’S PARTIALLY COMPLETED
APPLICATION FOR PLAINTIFF DOES NOT WISH TO SPECULATE OR GUESS AN AMOUNT THAT IS BEING
REQUESTED FOR PLAINTIFF’S NEW CORPORATE BUISNESS INSURANCE VENTURE!

ALSO FOR THE DEFENDANT(S) TO PAY THE PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL TAXES IN FULL INCLUDING A 10%
TITHING DONATION BE MADE TO THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS! SENT WITH
THE PLAINTIFF’S NAME LANCE DELON ALVARADO AS THE DONOR!

PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF'S ACCEPTANCE OF ANY OFFER FOR REVIEW!

THE DEFENDANT(S) OFFERS OF SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DRAFTED ON AN INVOICED FORM AND BE
SENT TO THE PLAINTIFF’S ADDRESS ON RECORD!

FOR THE SAYING IS SO... SO... TRUE! THAT BUISNESS IS BUISNESS AND

THAT THE ONLY SURE THING IN LIFE ARE DEATH AND TAXES!

“GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”

Dated this: F2k 2G Zo ty
Signed as = tle ae

LANCE DELON ALVARADO

IN PROPER PERSON

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 15

10

ll

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 2:23-cv-03041-TLN-CSK Document5- Filed 02/29/24 Page 16 of 16

Signed:=———— ——a

Lance Delon Alvarado

Special Appearance

eee

[ATTORNEY NAME] ———

OBJECTION TO ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS
WITH NOTICE TO SET OR ACCEPT PETITION WITH OFFER TO SETTLE - 16

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.caed.439404.5.0.pdf

Size

180,812 bytes

SHA-256

f97d538920e262cfa32877120c01e6553918954d6338050f6ed86ba96949f254

Our copy

gov.uscourts.caed.439404.5.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)