Me vs. The Supremes -- Part V

The Rule of Law, according to Wikipedia, is a “maxim intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance. The word ‘arbitrary’ (from the Latin arbiter) signifies a judgment made at the discretion of the arbiter, rather than according to the rule of law."  As the United States Supreme Court was about to confirm in my second suit against them, the Rule of Law has left these United States and we are now being governed by a judicial oligarchy. . .

My second suit against the Justices of the Supreme Court reached that Court on September 11, 2007, where it was assigned Case No.: 07-6522 by the Clerk of the Court. As is the practice of the Supreme Court, the case was set for conference on October 12, 2007. On that date, the matter was remarkably re-set for October 26, 2007. Clearly, something was up.

On October 29, 2007, the seven Defendant/Justices of the United States Supreme Court did something that – to my knowledge after careful research – has never happened before in the annals of the jurisprudence of that Court – disqualification of seven justices from hearing a matter. The Court entered its order stating:

Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. §1, and since a majority of the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances the Court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided Court. Justice Stevens, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

However, Case No.: 07-6522 was far from over. For I would file a pleading within two weeks that would set those seven Justices on the path to a potential forfeiture of their offices and a criminal investigation.