Whether the Fifth Amendment requires that defendants answer allegations against them

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) knowingly falsified its review of an offshore wind farm, concealing contamination harmful to human health, the project's cost ($2 billion), procurement manipulation, and other material facts. It approved the project based on its own deceit. BOEM has neither answered the complaint (7/20/2022) or the amended complaint (11/2/2022) nor responded to allegations of fraud. The court of appeals admitted the : district court did not consider or allow argument on fraud claims (or parties named under those claims) before transferring the case. The transferee court did not recognize claims of fraud (or parties) before, without power, denying injunctive relief. Petitioner pro se first learned of that denial three weeks later. 1. Whether the Fifth Amendment requires that defendants answer allegations against them? 2. Whether fraud by a federal regulatory agency sends the wrong message to developers, regulators, and the public, and is the harm that flows from that message irreparable? 3. Whether construction, the plans for which the developer secured approval via fraudulent means, is a valid contributing economic injury when weighing the equities in contemplation of injunctive relief , seeking to prevent that construction? 3. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1404 requires consideration of the convenience of parties and witnesses before transferring a case three hundred miles from three federal agency defendants’ offices, nine officials (defendants in fraud claims), potential witnesses, and seventeen causes of action to an inconvenient forum prejudicial to claims filed in a permissible venue? | | @ | | | | | | | | | PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS Petitioner who was the is Simon V. Kinsella, pro se. Respondents that were are U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM); and in their official capacities working for BOEM: Director Elizabeth Klein; Chief Michelle Morin, Environment Branch for Renewable Energy; Program Manager James F. Bennett, Office of Renewable Energy Programs; Environmental Studies Chief Mary Boatman, Office of Renewable Energy Programs; Economist Emma Chaiken; Economist Mark Jensen; Biologist Brian Hooker; and Jennifer Draher; and Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, U.S.. Department of the Interior (DO]); Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Laura Daniels-Davis, Land and Mineral Management; and Administrator Michael S. Regan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Respondent that was is South Fork Wind LLC (SFW) (formerly Deepwater Wind South Fork LLC). Note: BOEM Director was Amanda Lefton when filing the complaint on July 20, 2022, but Ms. Lefton resigned effective January 19, 2023. ; (ii | | | | | | | RELATED CASES The Supreme Court of the United States: Simon Kinsella, Applicant v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, et al., (22A1097), Application for injunctive relief and a stay, submitted to The Chief Justice (dated June 12, 2023), Supplemental Brief (filed June 16, 2023). United States Court of Appeals (D.C. Cir.): In re: Simon V. Kinsella, No. 22-5317. Petition for a writ of mandamus seeking review of the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.). Judgment entered upon petition for writ of mandamus affecting the transfer and an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction entered May 17, 2023 (denied) (App 4a-5a). Judgment upon petitioner's motion to stay the mandate, treated as a motion to stay the effectiveness, entered June 9, 2023 (denied) (App 3a). Simon V. Kinsella v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, et al., No. 22-5316. Judgment upon motion to dismiss entered February 23, 2023 (granted). United States District Court (D.D.C.): Simon V. Kinsella v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, et al., No. 1:22-cv-02147 (JMC). Judgment upon federal defendants’ motion to transfer entered November 10, 2022 (granted). See Order (App 8a) and Opinion (App 9-