Tuesday, February 16, 2021

Black History Month, Dred Scott & Me

Montgomery Blair
Montgomery Blair
Dred Scott
Dred Scott

I thought it appropriate at the half-way mark of "Black History Month" to add my two bits of Black History which necessarily includes "White History"; as if the two really can be separated.

On July 4, 1854, Dred Scott publishes a pamphlet, concluding: "I have no money to pay anybody at Washington to speak for me.  My fellow-men, can any of you help me in my day of trial?  Will nobody speak for me at Washington, even without hope of other reward than the blessings of a poor black man and his family?  I do not know.  I can only pray that some good heart will be moved by pity to do that for me which I cannot do for myself; and that if the right is on my side, it may be so declared by the high court to which I have appeal.

By December 30, 1854, when the Supreme Court docketed Dred Scott v. Sandford, no attorney had stepped forward.  Yet, Montgomery Blair agreed to take up a case so unpopular that no one in D.C. was willing to take it and risked his career.  Why?

Montgomery Blair stated in a letter on December 24, 1856, “I believe in the Southern Sates, almost every lawyer feels bound to give his services when asked in such a case arising in the community to which he belongs.”

 In 2007, I gave a 25-minute lecture on Montgomery Blair and the Dred Scott case and how it impacted Montgomery Blair personally.

While I won't here sketch out the history and impact of the Dred Scott case as that is a book length chore, the March 6, 1857 decision by Chief Justice Taney held that the federal Constitution created a "perpetual and impassible barrier" between whites and blacks. This barrier defined blacks as a "subordinate and inferior class of being," with no natural rights. 

We have come a long way, though obviously not far enough.


Monday, January 25, 2021

The future Attorney General and Me

Update February 1, 2020I have given a 40 minute interview on the letter I sent to the judiciary which can be viewed on YouTube.

I would be remiss in my duties as a Citizen to raise the "hue and cry" about President Biden's nominee for the Office of Attorney General if I were to remain silent.  As such, I have this day mailed to the Senate Judiciary Committee a letter detailing my concerns about Judge Garland.  In that letter, I describe Judge Garland's use of his discretion to hide the misfeasance of a fellow judge which makes him unsuitable, in my mind, to be Attorney General - an office of unlimted discretion. The letter has three parts:

Elizabeth Anna Duke:  The Fugitive, Capitol Bombing, Domestic-Terrorist

The time-line and location of the U.S. v. Elizabeth Anna Duke events are as follows:

November 7, 1983 – A bomb was detonated inside the United States Capitol.

May 24, 1985 – Elizabeth Anna Duke (“Duke”) was arrested and arraigned for that Capitol bombing.  She jumps bail and is a fugitive wanted by the FBI. Duke was connected with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1970s anti-war movement and the organizers of “Progressives for Obama.”  In 1995, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a gathering in their home for Obama and raised funds for and promoted his candidacy.

Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson Dismisses the Indictment of Elizabeth Anna Duke

Twenty-five (25) years later, on June 17, 2009, Attorney M. Jeffery Beatrice, from Obama's Department of Justice, appears before Magistrate Judge Robinson for a hearing in the matter of U.S. v. Duke. At that hearing, Beatrice makes an oral motion to dismiss the Indictment of and quash the outstanding fugitive arrest warrant for Duke.  On the record before her, Magistrate Judge Robinson grants this extraordinary oral motion and in her Order dismissing the Indictment signs it as an Article III  “United States District Court Judge” ‒ a position the Article I Magistrate Judge Robinson does not hold.  Too,  in that Order, Magistrate Judge Robinson stated that the dismissal was: “for the reasons set forth in the government’s motion and for good cause shown” – a clear misrepresentation of what actually transpired at the hearing as no such “reasons” or “good cause” was mentioned as the Transcript clearly reveals.

Chief Judge Merrick Brian Garland Buries The Misfeasance Of Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson
Merrick Brian Garland is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He has served on that court since 1997. President Joe Biden has nominated Garland for the position of United States attorney general.
Merrick Brian Garland is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He has served on that court since 1997. President Joe Biden has nominated Garland for the position of United States Attorney General.

January 15, 2014 – Chief Judge Garland enters his order dismissing my Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Magistrate Judge Robinson stating for his reasons that: “Because the allegations lack[] sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred on the part of the magistrate” the complaint against Magistrate Judge Robinson “must be dismissed.” This is absurd.

Falsifying a federal record is a felony.  By entering her Order stating that “good cause was shown” when no such cause was shown, Magistrate Judge Robinson falsified the record. Moreover, by dismissing the Duke indictment, the Article I Magistrate Judge Robinson knowingly exceeded her Congressionally-granted jurisdiction. Last, Magistrate Judge Robinson is an Article I judge, not an Article III judge.  Hence, by signing the order of June 17, 2009, as the latter and not the former, she violated 18 U.S. Code § 912 - “Officer or employee of the United States”, another felony.

Our Country has been here before. In Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115, 124-125 (1956), the Supreme Court stated: “The untainted administration of justice is certainly one of the most cherished aspects of our institutions. Its observance is one of our proudest boasts. . . . Therefore, fastidious regard for the honor of the administration of justice requires the Court to make certain that the doing of justice be made so manifest that only irrational or perverse claims of its disregard can be asserted.” (Emphasis added).     The "claims of disregard" by Judge Garland of the "administration of justice" that I raised above fall well below the standard set in Communist Party of "irrational or perverse claims". That is to say my two claims of felonious behavior by Magistrate Judge Robinson are not "irrational or perverse"; indeed, supported by irrefutable documentary evidence, I believe they are due to be heard by a grand jury.

So by my letter to the Senate Judicial Committee I have beseeched those permitted to ask question of Judge Garland to inquire of him about the Elizabeth Duke/Magistrate Robinson matter described above and if that is his idea of "honor[ing the] administration of justice"?


Friday, November 20, 2020

I Really Didn’t Want To File Suit To Remove A Federal Judge From Office . . .

The Honorable Frank Geraci, Jr.
As I have documented in prior posts, I have been challenging New York’s Handgun licensing scheme in both State and Federal Courts for the last eight hundred and fifty six (856) days. That effort continues at the speed of treacle: New York has been directed to file its Answer Briefs in the State cases in early January 2021. The Federal case is still in the motion to dismiss phase which will linger on into 2021 as well.

What I have not made public is that I found myself faced with a choice back in May of this year whether to sue the federal judge handling my federal Second Amendment case ‒ the Honorable Frank Geraci ‒ to remove him for “misbehaviour” in office. Family and friends will tell you I never shied away from filing a lawsuit when I believe the cause was just, so you can imagine my choice.  What was the “misbehaviour” of a federal judge which might authorize removal from office?  That is a complicated question requiring context of a completely un-illuminated clause in the Federal Constitution.  So let me start there:

It was the common law of the United States that existed before the federal Constitution was ratified in June 1788 – and subsequently and expressly reserved to the People by the Ninth Amendment in 1791 – that there were three grounds for forfeiture of a judicial office: (i) abuse of office, (ii) non-use of office, and (iii) refusal to exercise an office.

The U.S. Constitution at Article III, §1 states in pertinent part: “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour . . .”.  Ergo, an inferior District Court Judge  ‒ such as the Honorable Frank Geraci ‒ may be removed from office for the antithesis of “good behavior”, i.e., “misbehavior”.

Importantly, the Ninth Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  I maintained in my Complaint against the Honorable Frank Geraci that among those rights “retained by the people” was the right in a judicial proceeding to remove judicial actors for “misbehaviour”.

Clearly, the Constitution delegates to the Legislative Branch only the right to remove “civil officers” – which necessarily includes District Court Judges – in only very limited circumstances.  Article I, §2 states: “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole power of impeachment.”  Article I, §4 states: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Ergo, Congress can only remove a civil officer  ‒ such as the Honorable Frank Geraci ‒ upon an impeachment and conviction in only three instances: (i) "treason", (ii) "bribery", or (iii) other "high crimes and misdemeanors".  A priori, Congress cannot remove a civil officer for “misbehavior” that does not rise to the level of: ((i) "treason", (ii) "bribery", or (iii) other "high crimes and misdemeanors" as such power was never granted – and indeed was expressly prohibited – to Congress.

A fortiori, there must exist a range of judicial behavior which is not: (i) “treason”, (ii) “bribery”, or (iii) other “high crime and misdemeanor” but that does constitution “misbehavior” sufficient to breach the “good behavior” requirement  of  Article III, §1 for holding judicial office.

Let me put this proposition graphically:

Against that brief legal backdrop, on to the particular facts of Sibley v. Geraci, et al.:

On July 9, 2019, I filed my Second Amendment lawsuit challenging New York’s Handgun licencing scheme in federal court in Rochester, New York.  At the same time, I also filed a Motion for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Motion for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis asked the Court to waive the $400 filing fee which is required to file a federal lawsuit.  The Honorable Frank Geraci was assigned the case.

After waiting for seventy-nine (79) days, on September 26, 2019, as it was apparent to me that the Honorable Frank Geraci was not going to rule upon my Motion for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis, I, as my work had picked up, was able to tender the filing fee of $400.00 which finally allowed the case to move forward.

The U.S. Supreme Court has left no doubt that access to court is a fundamental right and is also guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution in five different areas: (i) The Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, (ii) The First Amendment Petition Clause, (iii) The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, (iv) The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, (v) The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

In my lawsuit against the Honorable Frank Geraci, I maintained that his refusal to rule upon my Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis for seventy-nine (79) days denied to me my absolute right to access court for redress of my grievances and to seek protection of my fundamental, constitutional and statutory rights.

What, you may ask, is wrong with ignoring my Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis for seventy-nine (79) days?  The problem is this: To those with money, the Honorable Frank Geraci granted immediate access to his Court but made impoverished litigants stand outside the Courthouse waiting his grace to enter thus denying equal protection of the laws between rich and poor.  Such denial by the Honorable Frank Geraci I maintained was evidence of abuse, non-use and/or refusal to exercise his office warranting a finding of “misbehavior” in that office by the Honorable Frank Geraci.  As such, I requested a judgment rendered after ‒ and only upon a jury verdict ‒ directing the forfeiture of the Honorable Frank Geraci’s office as a United States District Court Judge.

Now as you might imagine, when I filed this suit against the Honorable Frank Geraci on May 13, 2020, in federal court in Rochester, N.Y., the result was preordained.  Without allowing me to be heard, the Honorable Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, immediately dismissed the suit and deemed it frivolous.  How dare I raise a “first impression” Constitutional issue which created an existential threat to the Article III hegemony of federal judges?

Needless to say, I don’t take “no” for an answer lightly and so this matter now pends at the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City.  My Initial Brief details all this in greater detail.

More to follow when the Second Circuit makes its decision.