|
Red emphasis is by Me. ----- Original Message ----- From: We The People for
Independent Texas To: wtpfit@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 2:37 PM Subject: Misc RM 14
Misc reference material. Misc RM 14 Misc
reference material Reference Material - For Information
Only! Over time we have collected a lot of
reference material. We figured it would be better to
share with all rather than just delete it. If you want it, keep it, otherwise
just delete it. Due to the volume it will take more
than one mailing. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: [God-given Rights
protected by The Constitution which are not to be infringed upon] Boyd v. United, 116 U.S.
616 at 635 (1885) Justice Bradley,
"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but
illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that
way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of
procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that
constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be
liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half
their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it
consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be
watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any
stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta
Principiis." Downs v. Bidwell, 182
U.S. 244 (1901) "It will be an evil
day for American Liberty if the theory of a government outside supreme law
finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon
this Court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violations of the
principles of the Constitution." Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also
in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644
"Constitutional 'rights' would be of little value
if they could be indirectly denied." Juliard v. Greeman, 110 U.S.
421 (1884) Supreme Court Justice
Field, 'There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the
government of the United States... In this country, sovereignty resides in the
people, and Congress can exercise power which they have not, by their
Constitution, entrusted to it. All else is withheld." Mallowy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 "All rights and
safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal Constitution
are equally applicable." MIRANDA v. ARIZONA , 384 U.S. 436 (1966) 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603 "Where rights
secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no 'rule making' or
legislation which would abrogate them." Norton v. Shelby County,
118 U.S. 425 p. 442 "An
unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as
inoperative as though it had never been passed." Perez v. Brownell, 356
U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958) "...in our country
the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to
them by taking away their citizenship." Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) 'There can be no
sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional
rights." Simmons v. United States , 390 U.S. 377 (1968) 'The claim and exercise
of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a crime... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of
law". Warnock v. Pecos County,
Texas., 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does
not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is
alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law. CORRUPTION OF AUTHORITY: Burton v. United States , 202 U.S. 344, 26 S. Ct. 688 50 L.Ed
1057 United States Senator convicted of, among other things, bribery. BUTZ v. ECONOMOU, 438
U.S. 478 (1978) United States v. Lee,
106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882) "No man [or woman]
in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may
set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from
the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey
it." *Cannon v. Commission on
Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal.
3d 678, 694 Acts in excess of
judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge
deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process. *Geiler
v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1973) 10 Cal.3d 270, 286 Society's commitment to
institutional justice requires that judges be solicitous of the rights of
persons who come before the court. *Gonzalez v. Commission
on Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal.
3d 359, 371, 374 Acts in excess of
judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge
deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process. Olmstad v. United States ,
(1928) 277 U.S. 438 "Crime is
contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law;
it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it
invites anarchy." OWEN v. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE , 445 U.S. 622 (1980) 'The innocent individual
who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority is assured that he will be
compensated for his injury." Perry v. United States , 204 U.S. 330, 358 "I do not
understand the government to contend that it is any less bound by the
obligation than a private individual would be..." "It is not the
function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is
the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into
error." *Ryan v. Commission on
Judicial Performance, (1988) 45 Cal.
3d 518, 533 Before sending a person
to jail for contempt or imposing a fine, judges are required to provide due
process of law, including strict adherence to the procedural requirements
contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Ignorance of these procedures is not
a mitigating but an aggravating factor. U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S.
196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) "No man in this
country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that
law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the
highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law are bound to obey it." "It is the only
supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting
office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit
to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the
exercise of the authority which it gives." Warnock v. Pecos County , Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does
not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is
alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law. DISMISSAL OF SUIT: Note: [Copied verbiage;
we are not lawyers.] It can be argued that to dismiss a civil rights action or
other lawsuit in which a serious factual pattern or allegation of a cause of
action has been made would itself be violating of procedural due process as it
would deprive a pro se litigant of equal protection of the law vis a vis a party who is
represented by counsel. Also, see Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, Rule 60 - Relief from Judgment or Order (a) Clerical Mistakes
and (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence;
Fraud, etc. Warnock v. Pecos County , Texas, 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) Eleventh Amendment does
not protect state officials from claims for prospective relief when it is
alleged that state officials acted in violation of federal law. Walter Process Equipment
v. Food Machinery, 382 U.S. 172 (1965) ... in
a "motion to dismiss, the material allegations of the complaint are taken
as admitted". From this vantage point, courts are reluctant to dismiss
complaints unless it appears the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support
of his claim which would entitle him to relief (see Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41 (1957)). EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER
THE LAW Cochran v. Kansas , 316 U.S. 255, 257-258 (1942) "However inept
Cochran's choice of words, he has set out allegations supported by affidavits,
and nowhere denied, that Kansas refused him privileges of appeal which it
afforded to others. *** The State properly concedes that if the alleged facts
pertaining to the suppression of Cochran's appeal were disclosed as being true,
... there would be no question but that there was a violation of the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Duncan v. Missouri , 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894) Due process of law and
the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike,
and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of
government." Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S.
657, 662 (1893), Citations Omitted "Undoubtedly it
(the Fourteenth Amendment) forbids any arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty
or property, and secures equal protection to all under like circumstances in the
enjoyment of their rights... It is enough that there is no discrimination in
favor of one as against another of the same class. ...And due process of law
within the meaning of the [Fifth and Fourteenth] amendment is secured if the laws operate on all alike,
and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of
government." Kentucky Railroad Tax
Cases, 115 U.S. 321, 337 (1885) 'The rule of equality...
requires the same means and methods to be applied impartially to all the constitutents of each class, so that the law shall operate
equally and uniformly upon all persons in similar circumstances". Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 332 "Our whole system
of law is predicated on the general fundamental principle of equality of
application of the law.'All men are equal before the
law,' 'This is a government of laws and not of men,' 'No man is above the law,'
are all maxims showing the spirit in which legislatures, executives, and courts
are expected to make, execute and apply laws. But the framers and adopters of
the (Fourteenth) Amendment were not content to depend... upon the spirit of
equality which might not be insisted on by local public opinion. They therefore
embodied that spirit in a specific guaranty." HABEUS CORPUS: Duncan v. Bradley, No.
01-55290 (9th Circ., 12-24-02) A state trial court's
refusal to instruct the jury on an entrapment defense, in a second trial on
drug sale charges, amounted to prejudicial constitutional error where evidence
presented at a first trial warranted such an instruct. To read entire text of
the opinion, see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0155290p.pdf JUDICIAL IMMUNITY: See Judicial Immunity
page for more citations (links) and news articles regarding the topic. See
also, 42 USC 1983 - Availability of Equitable Relief Against
Judges. Note: [Copied verbiage;
we are not lawyers.] Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their
judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding,
assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act or for their
administrative/ministerial duties, or for violating a citizen's constitutional
rights. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion - he is
then not performing a judicial act; he is performing a ministerial act. Nowhere was the
judiciary given immunity, particularly nowhere in Article III; under our
Constitution, if judges were to have immunity, it could only possibly be
granted by amendment (and even less possibly by legislative act), as Art. I,
Sections 9 a 10, respectively, in fact expressly prohibit such, stating,
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" and
"No state shall... grant any Title of Nobility." Most of us are
certain that Congress itself doesn't understand the inherent lack of immunity
for judges. Article III, Sec. 1,
'The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts, shall hold their
offices during good behavior." Tort Et Insurance Law
Journal, Spring 1986 21 n3, p 509-516, "Federal
tort law: judges cannot invoke judicial immunity for acts that violate litigants'
civil rights." - Robert Craig Waters. Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859) "No judicial
process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of
the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and
an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless
violence." Chandler v. Judicial
Council of the 10th Circuit, 398 U.S. 74, 90 S. Ct. 1648, 26 L. Ed. 2d 100
Justice Douglas, in his dissenting opinion at page 140 said, "If (federal
judges) break the law, they can be prosecuted." Justice Black, in his
dissenting opinion at page 141) said, "Judges, like other people, can be
tried, convicted and punished for crimes... The judicial power shall extend to
all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution". Cooper v. Aaron, 358
U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958) Note: Any judge who does
not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against
that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the
land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason. The U.S. Supreme Court
has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can
war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support
it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S.
200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens
v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821). Cooper v. O'Conner, 99 F.2d 133 There is a general rule
that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully,
although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot
claim the immunity of the sovereign. Davis v. Burris, 51
Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938) A judge must be acting
within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to
immunity from civil action for his acts. Forrester v. White, 484
U.S. at 227-229, 108 S. Ct. at 544-545 (1987) Westfall v.Erwin, 108 S. Ct. 580 (1987) United States v. Lanier
(March 1997) Constitutionally and in
fact of law and judicial rulings, state-federal "magistrates-judges"
or any government actors, state or federal, may now be held liable, if they
violate any Citizen's Constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities, or guarantees;
including statutory civil rights. A judge is not immune for tortious
acts committed in a purely Administrative,
non-judicial capacity. Gregory v. Thompson,
F.2d 59 (C.A. Ariz. 1974) Generally, judges are
immune from suit for judicial acts within or in excess of their jurisdiction
even if those acts have been done maliciously or corruptly; the only exception
being for acts done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32,
227 F. 417 'The courts are not
bound by an officers interpretation of the law under which he presumes to act Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch)
137, 180 (1803) ... the
particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and
strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written
constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that
courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." "In declaring what
shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned;
and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be
made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank". "All law (rules and
practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are VOID". Since the 14th Amendment
to the Constitution states "NO State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens
of the United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law, ... or equal protection
under the law", this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional. Piper v. Pearson, 2 Gray
120, cited in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed.
646 (1872) "Where there is no jurisdiction, there can be no discretion,
for discretion is incident to jurisdiction." Pulliam v. Allen, 466
U.S. 522 (1984); 104 S. Ct. 1781, 1980, 1981, and 1985 In 1996, Congress passed
a law to overcome this ruling which stated that judicial immunity doesn't
exist; citizens can sue judges for prospective injunctive relief. "Our own experience
is fully consistent with the common law's rejection of a rule of judicial
immunity. We never have had a rule of absolute judicial immunity. At least
seven circuits have indicated affirmatively that there is no immunity... to
prevent irreparable injury to a citizen's constitutional rights..." "Subsequent
interpretations of the Civil Rights Act by this Court acknowledge Congress'
intent to reach unconstitutional actions by all state and federal actors,
including judges... The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state [federal] from
denying any person [citizen] within its jurisdiction the equal protection under
the laws. Since a State [or federal] acts only by its legislative, executive or
judicial authorities, the constitutional provisions must be addressed to those
authorities, including state and federal judges..." "We conclude that
judicial immunity is not a bar to relief against a judicial officer acting in
her [his] judicial capacity." Mireles v. Waco , 112 S. Ct.
286 at 288 (1991) A judge is not immune
for tortious acts committed in a purely Administrative, non-judicial capacity; however, even in a
case involving a particular attorney not assigned to him, he may reach out into
the hallway, having his deputy use "excessive force" to haul the
attorney into the courtroom for chastisement or even incarceration. A Superior
Court Judge is broadly vested with "general jurisdiction." Provided
the judge is not divested of all jurisdiction, he may
have his actions excused as per this poor finding. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687
(1974) Note: By law, a judge is
a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private
individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when
a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction
and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or
effect. The U.S. Supreme Court
stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into
conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that
case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in
his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no
power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme
authority of the United States." Stump v. Sparkman, id.,
435 U.S. 349 Some Defendants urge
that any act "of a judicial nature" entitles the Judge to absolute
judicial immunity. But in a jurisdictional vacuum (that is, absence of all jurisdiction) the second prong necessary to absolute
judicial immunity is missing. A judge is not immune
for tortious acts committed in a purely
administrative, non-judicial capacity. Rankin v. Howard, 633
F.2d 844 (1980) The Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed an Arizona District Court dismissal based upon absolute
judicial immunity, finding that both necessary immunity prongs were absent;
later, in Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (1986), the
Ninth Circuit, en banc, criticized the "judicial nature" analysis it
had published in Rankin as unnecessarily restrictive. But Rankin's ultimate
result was not changed, because Judge Howard had been independently divested of
absolute judicial immunity by his complete lack of jurisdiction. U.S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co. (State use of), 217 Miss.
576, 64 So. 2d 697 When a judicial officer
acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction
requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his
act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S.
196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) "No man in this
country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that
law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the
highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it."
"It is the only
supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting
office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit
to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the
exercise of the authority which it gives." Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S.
939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326 When a judge knows that
he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly
depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. JURISDICTION: NOTE: It is a fact of
law that the person asserting jurisdiction must, when challenged, prove that
jurisdiction exists; mere good faith assertions of power and authority (jurisdiction)
have been abolished. ALBRECHT v. U.S. , 329 U.S. 599 (1947) Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico ,
258 U.S. 298 (1922) 'The United States
District Court is not a true United States Court, established under Article 3
of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States
therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional
faculty, granted under Article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful
rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States.
The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in
offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject
to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court."
Basso v. UPL, 495 F. 2d
906 Brook v. Yawkey, 200 F. 2d 633 Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) Under federal Law, which
is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "if a
court is without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities.
They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a recovery sought,
even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no
justification and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences
are considered, in law, as trespassers." Griffin v. Mathews, 310
Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272 Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S.
528 Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) Federal Law and Supreme
Court Cases apply to State Court Cases. Louisville & N.R. Co.
v. Mottley, 211 U.S.
149 Mack v. United States , 07-27-97, Justice Antonin
Scalia 'The Federal Government
may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular
problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions,
to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether
policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or
benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our
constitutional system of dual sovereignty." Mack v. United States , 07-27-97, Justice Antonin
Scalia "Residual state
sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution's conferral upon
Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete and enumerated
ones." Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 Mookini v. U.S. , 303 U.S. 201
(1938) 'The term 'District
Courts of the United States ' as used in the rules without an addition expressing
a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the
constitutional courts created under Article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of
the Territories are Legislative Courts, properly speaking, and are not district
courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial
court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the district courts of the
United States (98 U.S. 145) does not make it a 'District Court of the United
States'. "Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts
of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision
for the application of the rules the territorial court and other courts
mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was
intended." McNutt v. General
Motors, 298 U.S. 178 New York v. United States , 505 U.S. 144 (1992) 'We have held, however,
that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction." JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: United States v.
Chadwick, 433 U.S. I at 16 (1976) "It is deeply
distressing that the Department of Justice, whose mission is to protect the
constitutional liberties of the people of the United States, should even appear
to be seeking to subvert them by extreme and dubious legal argument." PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY
(DEMONSTRATIONS): Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S.
347; 6 S. Ct. 2673; 49 L. Ed. 2d (1976) "Loss of First
Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably
constitutes irreparable injury." Miller v. U.S. , 230 F. 2d. 486, 490; 42 'There can be no
sanction or penalty imposed upon one, because of his exercise of constitutional
rights." Murdock v. Pennsylvania , 319 U.S. 105 "No state shall
convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore." Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham ,
Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 "If the State
converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license
and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity." United States
Constitution, First Amendment Right to Petition; Freedom of Association. PROBABLE CAUSE: Brinegar v. U.S. , 388 US 160
(1949) Probable Cause to Arrest
- Provides details on how to determine if a crime has been or is being
committed. Carroll v. U.S. , 267 US 132 (1925) Probable Cause to Search
- Provides details on the belief that seizable
property exists in a particular place or on a particular person. Draper v. U.S. (1959) Probable cause is where
known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are
sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution in the belief that a crime
has been or is being committed. Reasonable man definition; common textbook
definition; comes from this case. PRO SE RIGHTS: RAILROAD TRAINMEN v.
VIRGINIA BAR, 377 U.S. 1 (1964) GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT,
372 U.S. 335 (1963) Argersinger v. Hamlin 407 U.S. 25 (1972) 70-5015 Litigants can be
assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings. in Argersinger "No
accused may be deprived of, his liberty as the result of any criminal
prosecution, whether felony or misdemeanor, in which he was denied assistance
of counsel." CONLEY v. GIBSON, 355
U.S. 41 (1957) "Following the
simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do
substantial justice... 'The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is
a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome
and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper
decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds
that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice. Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24 Stromberb v. California , 283
U.S. 359 NAACP v. Alabama , 375 U.S. 449 'The assertion of
federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under
the name of local practice." Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ... the right to file a
lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights
under the constitution and laws." Federal Rules of Civil
Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" A next friend is a
person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) "Allegations such
as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully
pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold
to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959) Picking v. Pennsylvania
R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 24 Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 Pro se pleadings are to
be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are
not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical
Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) "Pleadings are
intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of
controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent
the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance
consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just
judgment." NAACP v. Button, 371
U.S. 415) United Mineworkers of
America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 Johnson v. Avery, 89 S.
Ct. 747 (1969) Members of groups who
are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of
the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with
"unauthorized practice of law." Picking v. Pennsylvania
Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals The plaintiffs
civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as
"inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro
se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to
construe Plaintiffs Pleadings without regard to technicalities." Puckett v. Cox, 456 F.
2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) It was held that a pro
se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per
Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights
Section). Roadway Express v. Pipe,
447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) "Due to sloth,
inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in
dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration
with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law." Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) 'There can be no
sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional
Rights." Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353
U.S. pages 238, 239.
'The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State." Sims v. Ahern, 271 SW
720 (1925) 'The practice of law is
an occupation of common right." Regarding Attorneys: Nowhere can be found a
competent attorney that is able to execute the proper remedy without
embarrassing the Court, Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS) 2d Vol. 7 section 25. At the present time, Bar
Attorneys (Public Vessels) are not Assistance of Counsel and defense is
severely limited by being represented by an attorney since the Texas Code of
Professional Conduct permits a defendant to have only four choices of input in
his defense, 1) what plea to enter, 2) whether to testify, 3) whether to
appeal, and 4) whether to opt for a jury trial. Disclaimer: We are just people that
get together and exchange information. To cancel your class e-mail click
"reply" and type "stop messages". |
The following web pages will provide much more information:
and made it available to all who will take the time to review it and possibly use it.
We make no quarantees and no assurances as to any of its viability.
It is placed here for educational, reference, and information purposes only.
|
|
080321