Thursday, April 16, 2009

Me vs. The Supremes -- Part II

My first lawsuit against the United States Supreme Court and it nine justices was filed on July 9, 2004. In that lawsuit the first seven counts sought declaratory relief against the United States Supreme Court claiming that the United States Supreme Court had violated my rights secured under the United States Constitution and Federal Statutes by: (i) enacting and/or employing the Rooker-Feldman and Younger doctrines, (ii) enacting and/or employing Rules of the United States Supreme Court - Rule 10, and (iii) ignoring the common law requirements of Stare Decisis. Second, the Complaint’s remaining four counts sought damages personally against Defendants Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, David Hackett Souter, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas for refusing to review Supreme Court Cases Numbered: 00-1921, 03-1205, 03-1544, 03-370, 03-682, 03-1430 filed by me, resulting in their committing judicial treason for declining the exercise of jurisdiction which was given to them.

On October 13, 2004, the District Court dismissed the First Lawsuit. I, of course, timely filed a notice of appeal on October 18, 2004, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On June 10, 2005, the Eleventh Circuit entered an opinion affirming the District Court’s decision in dismissing the First Lawsuit. Accordingly, on October 11, 2005, I timely file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari of the First Lawsuit with the United States Supreme Court which was assigned Case Number: 05-459.

On November 14, 2005, Supreme Court Justices and Defendants Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, John G. Roberts, Jr., Antonin Scalia, David Hackett Souter, John Paul Stephens and Clarence Thomas entered an order in Case Number: 05-459 denying my petition for Writ of Certiorari – a case in which those Supreme Court Justices were named defendants. By so doing, those Supreme Court Justices had decided a case in which they were named parties.

This is a BIG No-No. A federal statute found at 28 U.S.C. §455(b)(5)(i) “Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge” requires that a Supreme Court justice shall disqualify himself when: “He . . . is a party to the proceeding . . .” Moreover, the right to an impartial tribunal is pre-dates the Constitution and was recognized – and thus preserved – by the Ninth Amendment as a fundamental right. Indeed, nemo judex in parte sua – no one shall judge their own case – is more than a Constitutional right: it is a fundamental right. “Unquestionably it is a fundamental principle that no man shall be judge in his own case.” Duncan v. McCall 139 U.S. 449, 454 (1891). See also: Publius Syrus (42 B.C.), Moral Sayings 51, (D. Lyman translation, 1856) (“No one should be judge in his own cause.”); Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Thoughts, Letters and Opuscules 182 (O. Wight translation 1859) (“It is not permitted to the most equitable of men to be a judge in his own cause.”); 1 W. Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 91 (“[I]t is unreasonable that any man should determine his own quarrel.”)

Indisputably, the Supreme Court Justices had violated the law in deciding Case Number: 05-459. But what was the consequence? In Latin, legal scholars ask: “Qui custodiet ipsos custodies?"That quote translate as “Who is the custodian of the custodians?” Here, our Supreme Court Justices are the custodians of our legal rights – yet in my case they had ignored my right to have an impartial tribunal decide my case against them.

Thus, with no other alternative, my second suit against the Supreme Court Justices was certain to be filed.

End of Part II


Post a Comment

Play nice!