Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Me vs. The Supremes -- Epilogue -- Part II

Following up on the implications my second suit against the Justices of the United States Supreme Court has for the future of judicial tyranny, a little background is necessary to understand "the precise issues presented” by that second suit.

In 2004, I first sued the then-Justices of this Court seeking a declaratory decree that they violated my rights when they repeatedly denied certiorari review of matters I brought before them. I was properly challenging the “discretionary” appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which I claimed the Supreme Court had improperly assumed with the complicity of Congress thereby destroying the rule of law as the Founding Fathers envisioned it. See: The Justicide Brief for an extended analysis of this position.

When those Justices denied certiorari of that first suit without disqualifying themselves from that first suit, I then filed my second suit for damages against seven of the Justices claiming that under 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the fundamental rights secured to me by the Ninth Amendment, those Justices were obligated to disqualify themselves because they were named defendants in that first action and I was entitled to money damages for their failure to follow the law.

Predictably, the District Court dismissed the second suit holding that the doctrine of judicial immunity barred the second suit. That dismissal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Thus, I then took to the United States Supreme Court one “precise issue”: Whether the judicially-created doctrine of judicial immunity may be extended to erase the fundamental right of a litigant to the protections of Constitutional right of nemo judex parte sua ("no man shall judge his own case") and the Congressionally-created right found at 28 U.S.C. §455 both of which guarantee an impartial tribunal.

Unlike the first case in which the entire Supreme Court ruled, in the second case, seven of the Justices disqualified themselves because they were parties to the second suit. Thus, lacking a quorum, the Court by statute affirmed the Court of Appeals in holding that Justices can break the law and have no personal liability as a result. See: Sibley v. Breyer, Case No.: 07-5009, (D.C. Cir., May 15, 2007), affirmed, ___ U.S. ___ , 128 S.Ct. 514 (2007).

Nice work if you can get it.


Post a Comment

Play nice!