tyc
Regular Member
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/circs/9th/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
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/circs/9th/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: