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

Finally, the implications of my third suit against the Supremes are, like the second suit, profound. Again, a little background is necessary to understand "the precise issues presented” by that third suit.

My third suit against the U.S. Supreme Court sought the forfeiture of their offices as Justices for "misbehavior" in office in violation of Article III's "good behavior" requirement. As I expected, eight of the nine justices disqualified themselves from hearing the case as they were Defendants to the suit. I have detailed the particulars of that third lawsuit before. In sum, on petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, three issues were presented:

1. WHETHER, sua sponte dismissals and summary affirmances violate the Rules Enabling Act?

2. WHETHER, the Constitution authorizes a judicially-ordered forfeiture of an Article III actor’s office for lack of “good behavior”?

3. WHETHER, a clerk of the Supreme Court is entitled to absolute judicial immunity from suit regardless of the factual allegations against him?

By disqualifying themselves, the Justices of the Supreme Court “affirmed” the District Court of Appeal’s decision which had answered these questions. Accordingly, it is now the law of this land that: (i) judges can dismiss cases without allowing the filing party to be heard, (ii) only Congress can remove a federal judge, but there is no removal for misbehavior by a judge and (iii) Court clerks can throw-out pleadings and suffer no consequence. See: See: Sibley v. Alito, et al., , Case No.: 09-5069, (D.C. Cir., November 30, 2009), affirmed, 559 U.S. ___ , (2010).

Quite a system we now have.