Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: "Sweet Nuggets" / Judicial Incompetence

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pocono Mountains of PA
    Posts
    138

    "Sweet Nuggets" / Judicial Incompetence

    While many a "man on the street" may be bitter about the current state of law these days, he/she is not alone. Many in the judiciary, at the federal, state and local levels are as well.

    In another thread an individual stumbled across and posted what he chose to call "Sweet Nuggets" regarding several rather good judicial opinions but and as is the case here, that which follows, these are but just the tip of the proverbial "iceberg,"

    If you have any interest what-so-ever in the law and how it has evolved to this day, the following may be of some interest to you.



    *REDRESS*corruption,judges,attorneys/lawyers,police
    misconduct,prosecutorial misconduct,Injustice corruption,judges

    */Redress, Inc. maintains a file on each case cited. We are currently
    in process of "shephardizing" the cases; this means that portions
    of some cases are "red-lined" (a lot of it was overturned) or
    "yellow-lined" (some of it was over-turned). When this project is
    complete, we will notate the information accordingly. /*

    *CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS:*



    */Boyd v. United/, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885)*

    *Justice Bradley, "It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its
    mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get
    their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and
    slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be
    obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for
    the security of persons and property should be liberally construed.
    A close and literal construction deprives them of half their
    efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it
    consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the
    Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens,
    and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should
    be Obsta Principiis."*



    */Downs v. Bidwell/, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)*

    *"It will be an evil day for American Liberty if the theory of a
    government outside supreme law finds lodgement in our constitutional
    jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this Court than to exert
    its full authority to prevent all violations of the principles of
    the Constitution."*



    */Gomillion v. Lightfoot/, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also in Smith v.
    Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644*

    *"Constitutional 'rights' would be of little value if they could be
    indirectly denied."*



    */Juliard v. Greeman/, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)*

    *Supreme Court Justice Field, "There is no such thing as a power of
    inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States... In
    this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can
    exercise power which they have not, by their Constitution, entrusted
    to it. All else is withheld."*



    */Mallowy v. Hogan/, 378 U.S. 1*

    *"All rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments
    to the federal Constitution are equally applicable."*



    */Miranda v. Arizona/, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603*

    *"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can
    be no 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them."*



    */Norton v. Shelby County/, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442*

    *"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it
    imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it
    is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never
    been passed."*



    */Perez v. Brownell/, 356 U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958)*

    *"...in our country the people are sovereign and the government
    cannot sever its relationship to them by taking away their
    citizenship."*



    */Sherar v. Cullen/, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)*

    *"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of
    his exercise of constitutional rights."*



    */Simmons v. United States/, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)*

    *"The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted
    into a crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process
    of law".*



    */Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas.,/ 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996)*

    *Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for
    prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in
    violation of federal law.*



    *CORRUPTION OF AUTHORITY:*

    */Burton v. United States/, 202 U.S. 344, 26 S. Ct. 688 50 L.Ed 1057*

    *United States Senator convicted of, among other things, bribery.*



    */Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106
    U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882)/*

    *"No man [or woman] in this country is so high that he is above the
    law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with
    impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to
    the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it."*



    */*Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d
    678, 694/*

    *Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct,
    particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements
    of fairness and due process.*



    */*Geiler v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1973) 10 Cal.3d
    270, 286/*

    *Society's commitment to institutional justice requires that judges
    be solicitous of the rights of persons who come before the court.*



    */*Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal. 3d
    359, 371, 374/*

    *Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct,
    particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements
    of fairness and due process.*



    */Olmstad v. United States/, (1928) 277 U.S. 438*

    *"Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it
    breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto
    himself; it invites anarchy."*



    /*Owen v. City of Independence */

    *"The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental
    authority is assured that he will be compensated for his injury."*



    */Perry v. United States/, 204 U.S. 330, 358*

    *"I do not understand the government to contend that it is any less
    bound by the obligation than a private individual would be..." "It
    is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from
    falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the
    government from falling into error."*



    */*Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1988) 45 Cal. 3d 518, 533/*

    *Before sending a person to jail for contempt or imposing a fine,
    judges are required to provide due process of law, including strict
    adherence to the procedural requirements contained in the Code of
    Civil Procedure. Ignorance of these procedures is not a mitigating
    but an aggravating factor.*



    */U.S. v. Lee,/ 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882)*

    *"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No
    officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All
    the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are
    creatures of the law are bound to obey it."*

    *"It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and
    every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is
    only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to
    observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the
    authority which it gives*."



    */Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas,/ 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996)*

    *Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for
    prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in
    violation of federal law.*



    *DISMISSAL OF SUIT:*

    /*Note: [Copied verbiage; we are not lawyers.] It can be argued that
    to dismiss a civil rights action or other lawsuit in which a serious
    factual pattern or allegation of a cause of action has been made would
    itself be violating of procedural due process as it would deprive a pro
    se litigant of equal protection of the law vis a vis a party who is
    represented by counsel.*/

    */Also, see Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60 - Relief from
    Judgment or Order (a) Clerical Mistakes and (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence;
    Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc./*



    */Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas,/ 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996)*

    *Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for
    prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in
    violation of federal law.*



    */Walter Process Equipment v. Food Machinery/, 382 U.S. 172 (1965)*

    *... in a "motion to dismiss, the material allegations of the
    complaint are taken as admitted". From this vantage point, courts
    are reluctant to dismiss complaints unless it appears the plaintiff
    can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would
    entitle him to relief (see /Conley v. Gibson/, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)).*



    *EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW*



    */Cochran v. Kansas, 316 U.S. 255, 257-258 (1942)/*

    *"However inept Cochran's choice of words, he has set out
    allegations supported by affidavits, and nowhere denied, that Kansas
    refused him privileges of appeal which it afforded to others. ***
    The State properly concedes that if the alleged facts pertaining to
    the suppression of Cochran's appeal were disclosed as being true,
    ... there would be no question but that there was a violation of the
    equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."*



    */Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894)/*

    *Due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured
    if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual
    to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government."*



    */Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657, 662 (1893), Citations Omitted/*

    *"Undoubtedly it (the Fourteenth Amendment) forbids any arbitrary
    deprivation of life, liberty or property, and secures equal
    protection to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their
    rights... It is enough that there is no discrimination in favor of
    one as against another of the same class. ...And due process of law
    within the meaning of the [Fifth and Fourteenth] amendment is
    secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the
    individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government."*



    */Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337 (1885)/*

    *"The rule of equality... requires the same means and methods to be
    applied impartially to all the constitutents of each class, so that
    the law shall operate equally and uniformly upon all persons in
    similar circumstances".*



    */Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 332/*

    *"Our whole system of law is predicated on the general fundamental
    principle of equality of application fo the law. 'All men are equal
    before the law,' "This is a government of laws and not of men,' 'No
    man is above the law,' are all maxims showing the spirit in which
    legislatures, executives, and courts are expected to make, execute
    and apply laws. But the framers and adopters of the (Fourtheenth)
    Amendment were not content to depend... upon the spirit of equality
    which might not be insisted on by local public opinion. They
    therefore embodied that spirit in a specific guaranty."*



    *HABEUS CORPUS:*



    */Duncan v. Bradley, No. 01-55290 (9th Circ., 12-24-02)/*

    *A state trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on an entrapment
    defense, in a second trial on drug sale charges, amounted to
    prejudicial constitutional error where evidence presented at a first
    trial warranted such an instruct. To read entire text of the
    opinion, see
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...h/0155290p.pdf
    <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0144290p.pdf>*



    *JUDICIAL IMMUNITY:*



    *See Judicial Immunity <http://www.redressinc.org/JudicialImmunity.html>
    page for more citations (links) and news articles regarding the topic.*

    *See also, 42 USC 1983 - Availability of Equitable Relief Against Judges.*

    *Note: [Copied verbiage; we are not lawyers.] Judges have given
    themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges
    have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or
    conniving with others who perform a criminal act or for their
    administrative/ministerial duties, or for violating a citizen's
    constitutional rights. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not
    have discretion - he is then not performing a judicial act; he is
    performing a ministerial act.*

    *Nowhere was the judiciary given immunity, particularly nowhere in
    Article III; under our Constitution, if judges were to have
    immunity, it could only possibly be granted by amendment (and even
    less possibly by legislative act), as Art. I, Sections 9 & 10,
    respectively, in fact expressly prohibit such, stating, "No Title of
    Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and "No state
    shall... grant any Title of Nobility." Most of us are certain that
    Congress itself doesn't understand the inherent lack of immunity for
    judges.*

    *Article III, Sec. 1, "The Judicial Power of the United States shall
    be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts, shall
    hold their offices during good behavior."*

    *Tort & Insurance Law Journal, Spring 1986 21 n3, p 509-516,
    "Federal tort law: judges cannot invoke judicial immunity for acts
    that violate litigants' civil rights." - Robert Craig Waters. *



    */Ableman v. Booth/, 21 Howard 506 (1859)*

    *"No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any
    lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the
    court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it
    beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence."*



    */Chandler v. Judicial Council of the 10th Circuit/, 398 U.S. 74, 90 S.
    Ct. 1648, 26 L. Ed. 2d 100*

    *Justice Douglas, in his dissenting opinion at page 140 said, "If
    (federal judges) break the law, they can be prosecuted." Justice
    Black, in his dissenting opinion at page 141) said, "Judges, like
    other people, can be tried, convicted and punished for crimes... The
    judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising
    under this Constitution".*



    */Cooper v. Aaron, /358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)*

    /*Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the
    Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and
    engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The
    judge is engaged in acts of treason.*/

    *The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or
    executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution
    without violating his undertaking to support it". See also /In Re
    Sawyer, /124 U.S. 200 (188); /U.S. v. Will, /449 U.S. 200, 216, 101
    S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980)/; Cohens v. Virginia, /19
    U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).*



    */Cooper v. O'Conner/, 99 F.2d 133*

    *There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts
    wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a
    civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign.*



    */Davis v. Burris/, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)*

    *A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter
    and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts.*



    */Forrester v. White/, 484 U.S. at 227-229, 108 S. Ct. at 544-545
    (1987); /Westfall v.Erwin, /108 S. Ct. 580 (1987); /United States v.
    Lanier/ (March 1997)*



    *Constitutionally and in fact of law and judicial rulings,
    state-federal "magistrates-judges" or any government actors, state
    or federal, may now be held liable, if they violate any Citizen's
    Constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities, or guarantees;
    including statutory civil rights.*

    *A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely
    Administrative, non-judicial capacity.*



    */Gregory v. Thompson, /F.2d 59 (C.A. Ariz. 1974)*

    *Generally, judges are immune from suit for judicial acts within or
    in excess of their jurisdiction even if those acts have been done
    maliciously or corruptly; the only exception being for acts done in
    the clear absence of all jurisdiction.*



    */Hoffsomer v. Hayes/, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417*

    *"The courts are not bound by an officer's interpretation of the law
    under which he presumes to act."*



    */Marbury v. Madison/, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803)*

    *"... the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United
    States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be
    essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the
    constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments,
    are bound by that instrument."*

    *"In declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the
    Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the
    United States generally, but those only which shall be made in
    pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank".*

    *"All law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the
    Constitution are VOID".*

    *Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states "NO State
    (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
    rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the United States
    nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property, without due
    process of law, ... or equal protection under the law", this
    renders judicial immunity unconstitutional. *



    */Piper v. Pearson/, 2 Gray 120, cited in /Bradley v. Fisher, /13 Wall.
    335, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872)*

    *"Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion, for
    discretion is incident to jurisdiction."*



    */Pulliam v. Allen/, 466 U.S. 522 (1984); 104 S. Ct. 1781, 1980, 1981,
    and 1985*

    *In 1996, Congress passed a law to overcome this ruling which stated
    that judicial immunity doesn't exist; citizens can sue judges for
    prospective injunctive relief.*

    *"Our own experience is fully consistent with the common law's
    rejection of a rule of judicial immunity. We never have had a rule
    of absolute judicial immunity. At least seven circuits have
    indicated affirmatively that there is no immunity... to prevent
    irreparable injury to a citizen's constitutional rights..."*

    *"Subsequent interpretations of the Civil Rights Act by this Court
    acknowledge Congress' intent to reach unconstitutional actions by
    all state and federal actors, including judges... The Fourteenth
    Amendment prohibits a state [federal] from denying any person
    [citizen] within its jurisdiction the equal protection under the
    laws. Since a State [or federal] acts only by its legislative,
    executive or judicial authorities, the constitutional provisions
    must be addressed to those authorities, including state and federal
    judges..."*

    *"We conclude that judicial immunity is not a bar to relief against
    a judicial officer acting in her [his] judicial capacity."*



    *Mireles v. Waco, 112 S. Ct. 286 at 288 (1991)*

    *A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely
    Administrative, non-judicial capacity; however, even in a case
    involving a particular attorney not assigned to him, he may reach
    out into the hallway, having his deputy use "excessive force" to
    haul the attorney into the courtroom for chastisement or even
    incarceration. A Superior Court Judge is broadly vested with
    "general jurisdiction." Provided the judge is not divested of all
    jurisdiction, he may have his actions excused as per this poor
    finding. *



    */Scheuer v. Rhodes/, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)*

    /*Note: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts
    not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a
    judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow
    the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges'
    orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect.*/

    *The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a state officer acts under
    a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he
    comes into conflict with the superior authority of that
    Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or
    representative character and is subjected in his person to the
    consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to
    impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
    authority of the United States."*



    */Stump v. Sparkman/, id., 435 U.S. 349*

    *Some Defendants urge that any act "of a judicial nature" entitles
    the Judge to absolute judicial immunity. But in a jurisdictional
    vacuum (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong
    necessary to absolute judicial immunity is missing.*

    *A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely
    Administrative, non-judicial capacity.*



    */Rankin v. Howard/, 633 F.2d 844 (1980)*

    *The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Arizona District
    Court dismissal based upon absolute judicial immunity, finding that
    both necessary immunity prongs were absent; later, in /Ashelman v.
    Pope/, 793 F.2d 1072 (1986), the Ninth Circuit, /en banc/,
    criticized the "judicial nature" analysis it had published in
    /Rankin/ as unnecessarily restrictive. But /Rankin's/ ultimate
    result was not changed, because Judge Howard had been independently
    divested of absolute judicial immunity by his complete lack of
    jurisdiction.*



    */U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co./ (State use of), 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d
    697*

    *When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or
    without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held
    civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a
    decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction.*



    */U.S. v. Lee/, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882)*

    *"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No
    officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All
    the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are
    creatures of the law and are bound to obey it."*

    *"It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and
    every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is
    only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to
    observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the
    authority which it gives."*



    */Zeller v. Rankin/, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326*

    *When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face
    of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction,
    judicial immunity is lost.*



    *JURISDICTION:*



    /*NOTE: It is a fact of law that the person asserting jurisdiction
    must, when challenged, prove that jurisdiction exists; mere good faith
    assertions of power and authority (jurisdiction) have been abolished. */

    /*Albrecht v. U.S.*/



    */Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico/, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)*

    *"The United States District Court is not a true United States
    Court, established under Article 3 of the Constitution to administer
    the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is
    created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted
    under Article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules
    and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United
    States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United
    States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of
    resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not
    change its character as a mere territorial court."*



    */Basso v. UPL/, 495 F. 2d 906*

    */Brook v. Yawkey/, 200 F. 2d 633*

    */Elliot v. Piersol/, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)*

    *Under federal Law, which is applicable to all states, the U.S.
    Supreme Court stated that "if a court is without authority, its
    judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not
    voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a recovery sought,
    even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no
    justification and all persons concerned in executing such judgments
    or sentences are considered, in law, as trespassers."*





    */Griffin v. Mathews/, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272*

    */Hagans v. Lavine/, 415 U.S. 528*

    */Howlett v. Rose,/ 496 U.S. 356 (1990)*

    *Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases.*





    */Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Mottley/, 211 U.S. 149*

    */Mack v. United States,/ 07-27-97, Justice Antonin Scalia*

    *"The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the
    States to address particular problems, nor command the States'
    officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or
    enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy
    making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or
    benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible
    with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."*

    */Mack v. United States/, 07-27-97, Justice Antonin Scalia*

    *"Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the
    Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental
    powers, but only discrete and enumerated ones."*

    */Maine v. Thiboutot/, 448 U.S. 1*

    */Mookini v. U.S/., 303 U.S. 201 (1938)*

    *"The term 'District Courts of the United States' as used in the
    rules without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its
    historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts
    created under Article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the
    Territories are Legislative Courts, properly speaking, and are not
    district courts of the United States. We have often held that
    vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested
    in the district courts of the United States (98 U.S. 145) does not
    make it a 'District Court of the United States'.*

    *"Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts
    of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the
    omission of provision for the application of the rules the
    territorial court and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act
    clearly shows the limitation that was intended."*

    */McNutt v. General Motors/, 298 U.S. 178*

    */New York v. United States, /505 U.S. 144 (1992)*

    *"We have held, however, that state legislatures are not subject to
    federal direction."*

    */Owens v. The City of Independence/, 445 U.S. 622, 100 S. Ct. 1398 (1980)*

    */Thomson v. Gaskill/, 315 U.S. 442*

    *JUSTICE DEPARTMENT:*

    */United States v. Chadwick/, 433 U.S. I at 16 (1976)*

    *"It is deeply distressing that the Department of Justice, whose
    mission is to protect the constitutional liberties of the people of
    the United States, should even appear to be seeking to subvert them
    by extreme and dubious legal argument."*


    *PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY (DEMONSTRATIONS):*


    */Elrod v. Burns/, 427 U.S. 347; 6 S. Ct. 2673; 49 L. Ed. 2d (1976)*

    *"Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of
    time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury."*

    */Miller v. U.S./, 230 F. 2d. 486, 490; 42*

    *"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one, because of
    his exercise of constitutional rights."*


    /*Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105*/

    */"/No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a
    fee therefore."*


    */Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham/, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262*

    *"If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the
    citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right
    (liberty) with impunity."*


    /*United States Constitution, First Amendment*/

    *Right to Petition; Freedom of Association.*


    *PROBABLE CAUSE:*

    */Brinegar v. U.S.,/ 388 US 160 (1949) *

    *Probable Cause to Arrest - Provides details on how to determine if
    a crime has been or is being committed.*


    */Carroll v. U.S.,/ 267 US 132 (1925)*

    *Probable Cause to Search - Provides details on the belief that
    seizable property exists in a particular place or on a particular
    person.*


    */Draper v. U.S. (1959)/*

    *Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a
    reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of
    reasonable caution in the belief that a crime has been or is being
    committed. Reasonable man definition; common textbook definition;
    comes from this case.*


    *PRO SE RIGHTS:*

    */Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, /377
    U.S. 1; /v. Wainwright, /372 U.S. 335; /Argersinger v. Hamlin, /Sheriff
    407 U.S. 425*

    *Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial
    proceedings.*


    */Conley v. Gibson/, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957)*

    *"Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall
    be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules
    reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one
    misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the
    principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper
    decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which
    holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.*


    */Davis v. Wechler/, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S.
    359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449*

    *"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made,
    are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."*


    */Elmore v. McCammon/ (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905*

    *"... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most
    important rights under the constitution and laws."*


    */Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend"/*

    *A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to
    tend to his or her own interest.*


    */Haines v. Kerner/, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)*

    *"Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however
    inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less
    stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."*


    */Jenkins v. McKeithen,/ 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); /Picking v.
    Pennsylvania R. Co., /151 Fed 2nd 240/; Pucket v. Cox,/ 456 2nd 233*

    *Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to
    technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the
    same high standards of perfection as lawyers.*


    */Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co/., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)*

    *"Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving
    Last edited by tyc; 05-01-2011 at 03:20 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    Thank You for posting those cases. I have a lot of them but some are new to me.
    You do realize a lawyer won't use anything older than Erie Railroad V. Thomkins 1937/38.
    That is where the federal common law was thrown out.
    And all the States adopted the Uniform Commercial Code in 1964 to match the fed's UCC.
    And put the Gold Fringe U.S. Flag in State Office and Court Buildings, denoting Admiralty/Maritime/International Contract Law.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •