Civil Rights Claims
Instructions for Civil Rights Claims Under Section 1983
Statement of Relevant Facts
This matter arose out of a traffic stop and resulting traffic court that the defendant violated Plaintiff traffic constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiff was traveling in her private owned conveyance that is a Ford Mustang traveling on February 24, 2025. Plaintiff admits she is an Ordained Minister and that her “ministerial parking plaque” was displayed on the dashboard.
Standard of Review
“The judicial power here conferred by the Constitution is the
power to hear and determine those matters which affect the life,
liberty, or property of the citizens of the state”
-City of Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okla. 22, 27 (Okla. 1924)
A court is an agency of the sovereign created by it directly or
indirectly under its authority, consisting of one or more officers,
established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and
determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and
alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law,
authorized to exercise its powers in due course of law at times and
places previously determined by lawful authority.
Corpus Juris Secundum Volume 7 ATTORNEY, Starts on page 781
An attorney is by definition an agent when acting in his
professional capacity.
The Constitution of this State provides: "In criminal prosecutions
the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person
and by counsel" Const. art. 1, § 12. Courts of last resort in several
states have construed similar constitutional provisions in their
application to facts quite similar to those in the instant case.
“in which the meaning of the word is traced back through Kent and
Sharswood to Blackstone, through which original sources we derive
our best definition of civil or municipal law as being "a rule of civil
conduct prescribed by the supreme power of a state."”
-Sevier v. Riley, 198 Cal. 170, 175 (Cal. 1926)
The civil laws effective in an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction
are Federal law, notwithstanding their derivation from State laws,
and a cause arising under such laws may be brought in or
removed to a Federal district court under sections 24 or 28 of the
former Judicial Code (now sections 1331 and 1441 of title 28,
United States Code), giving jurisdiction to such courts of civil
actions arising under the color of law.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no
courts are bound to enforce it." -16 AM Jurisprudence 2 d Constitutional Law 256
“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.”
-Norton vs Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, p. 442
"An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law.
An offence created by it is not a crime."
Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 376 (1880),
-Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 408 (1963)
"it never became a law and was as much a nullity as if it had been the act or declaration of an unauthorized assemblage
of individuals."
-Ryan v. Lynch, 68 Ill. 160
An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government.
-Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F. Supp. 94
Officers of the court have no immunity, when
violating a constitutional right, for they are deemed
to know the law.”
-Owens v Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398
“Judge loses his absolute immunity from damage actions only when he acts in clear absence of all jurisdiction or performance of an act which is not
judicial in nature.” -Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202 When enforcing mere statutes, judges of all courts do not act judicially and thus are not protected by
“qualified” or “limited immunity,”
Owen v. City, 445 U.S. 662;
Bothke v. Terry, 713 F2d 1404
“the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative
officer, and not in a judicial capacity”
-Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, (Va. 1930)
“No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding that he has it. In all
such cases, every officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at
his peril.”
-Middleton v. Low, 30 Cal. 596, 607 (Cal. 1866)
Administrative is defined as follows: “Commonly the word has been defined as ministerial; pertaining to administration, particularly, having the character of executive or ministerial action; and, when particularly applied to official duties connected with government, executive, a ministerial duty; one in which nothing is 'left to discretion.”
2 C.J.S. p. 56.
-Mauritz v. Schwind, 101 S.W.2d 1085 (Tex. App. 1937)/
“Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment.”
-Trinsey v. Pagliaro, 229 F. Supp. 647, 649 (E.D. Pa. 1964)
Statement of Counsel can never be entered into the Evidence file,
as it is nothing but hearsay, and not up to the level of Fact.
Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment." 229 F. Supp. at 649. This is an uncontroversial statement that argument by counsel is not the same as evidence.”
-Sundsmo v. Calkins, 15-cv-2-jdp, 3 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 14, 2016)
Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while
enlightening to the Court are not sufficient for purposes of
granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment." Id. Here,
although Defendants made arguments in the answer and briefs,
the Magistrate Judge did not rely on those unsupported
statements and arguments of counsel in making recommendations...
-Penn v. Ogg, Case No.: 1:14-cv-76, 2014 Ohio 5481 (2014)
79
"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time," and
"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and
must be decided."
-Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 395 F 2d 906, 910
"Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
may be raised at any time, even on appeal." Hill Top
-Developers v. Holiday Pines Service Corp. 478 So. 2D, 368
Fla a DCA 1985)
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it
must be proved to exist."
-Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 289
"There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction."
-Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215
"Where jurisdiction is contested, the burden of
establishing it rests upon the plaintiff."
-Loos v American Energy Savers, Inc., 168 I11.App.3d 558, 522
N.E.2d 841(1988)
"the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party
asserting it."
-Bindell v City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017(1st
Dist. 1991)
"Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts
related to the jurisdiction asserted."
-Lantana v. Hopper,102 F. 2d 188;
Chicago v. New York 37 FSupp. 150
Where there is no jurisdiction there is no judge; the proceeding is
as nothing. Such has been the law from the days of the
Marshalsea, 10 Coke 68; also Bradley v.
Fisher, 13 Wall 335,351."
-Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948.
“A void judgment is one which, from its inception, was
a complete nullity and without legal effect”
-Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d
645, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 298 (C.A. 1 Mass. 1972).
Hobbs v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 485 F.Supp.
456 (M.D. Fla. 1980).
“Void judgment is one which has no legal force or
effect whatever, it is an absolute nullity, its invalidity
may be asserted by any person whose rights are
affected at any time and at any place and it need not
be attacked directly but may be attacked collaterally
whenever and wherever it is interposed.”
-City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510 S.W. 2d 141
(Tex. Civ. App. – Beaumont 1973).
An act wrongfully done by an officer,
under the pretended authority of his office,
and grounded upon corruption, to which the office is a mere shadow of color.
41 N. Y. 464.
"Color of office" is defined by the law dictionaries, as “champagne,
an act wrongfully done by an officer, under the pretended
authority of his office, and grounded upon corruption, to which the
the office is a mere shadow of color.”
-Griffiths v. Hardenbergh, 41 N.Y. 464
The words color of office necessarily imply an illegal claim of right
or authority to take the security, or to do the act in question, by
virtue of his office, which claim is a mere color or presence on the
part of the officer.
"color of office" is when an act is evilly done, by the countenance
of an officer; and is always taken, in the worst sense, being
grounded upon corruption, to which the office is as a mere shadow
or color.”
-Burrall v. Acker, 23 Wend. 606
“"Colorable" is a word legally defined as "That which has or gives
color; that which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it
purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance
of truth."”
-Windle, Adm'x v. Flinn, 251 P.2d 136, 196 Or. 654 (1952)
“In Texas no act or omission is a crime unless made so by statute.”
-Dawson v. Vance, 329 F. Supp. 1320, 1326 (S.D. Tex. 1971)
"But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective
group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and
duties nor to be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather
they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial
entity or association of which they are agents or officers and they
are bound by its obligations. In their official capacity, therefore,
they have no privilege against self-incrimination. And the official
records and documents of the organization that are held by them
in a representative rather than in a personal capacity cannot be
the subject of the personal privilege against self-incrimination, even
though production of the papers might tend to incriminate them
personally." -Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 110-11 (1988)
...the judgment of conviction was contrary to the weight of
evidence adduced at the trial, in other words, that the facts
elicited by the prosecution were not sufficient to prove said
defendant-appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is
believed that all of the authorities hold that a violation of the
instant section under consideration, even though it is deemed to
be an "infraction", rather than a crime, must be proved in all of its
essential elements, beyond a reasonable doubt.
-People v. Marsellus, 4 Misc. 2d 211, 213 (N.Y. Cnty. Ct. 1956)
“Service of an appearance ticket on an accused does not confer
personal or subject matter jurisdiction upon a Criminal Court.”
-People v. Giusti, 176 Misc. 2d 377, 381 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1998)
“It is well settled that an appearance ticket is not an accusation.
“It is well settled that an appearance ticket is not an accusatory
instrument and its filing does not confer jurisdiction over
defendant”
-People v. Gabbay, 175 Misc. 2d 421, 421 (N.Y. App. Term 1997)
“Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but
must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of
the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.”
-Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)
It is thus fraud where the court or a member is corrupted or
influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not
performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial
functions of the court have been directly corrupted.
-Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985)
18 USC 241: Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the
United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
You are still presumed innocent, and the government carries the burden of proof.
“"In the exercise of any power or authority — "
(a) No sanction shall be imposed or substantive rule or order be
issued except within jurisdiction delegated to the agency and as
authorized by law." -June 11, 1946, c. 324, § 9, 60 Stat. 242.”
-Olesen v. Stanard, 227 F.2d 785, 788 n.7 (9th Cir. 1955)
When it appears, as it does here, that a court does not
have jurisdiction, it is the duty of the court to immediately dismiss
the action.”
-Stanard v. Olesen, 121 F. Supp. 607, 610 (S.D. Cal. 1954)
No officer can acquire
jurisdiction by deciding that he has it. In all such cases, every
officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his peril.”
-Middleton v. Low, 30 Cal. 596, 607 (Cal. 1866)
Where there is no jurisdiction over the subject matter, there is, as
well, no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction. See F.R.Civ.P.
12(h)(3), supra note 1
-Joyce v. United States, 474 F.2d 215, 218 n.1 (3d Cir. 1973)
“Although lack of probable cause may not be inferred from malice,
malice may be inferred from lack of probable cause.”
-Pauley v. Hall, 124 Mich. App. 255, 266 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)
“The Court of Appeals, Krucker, J., held that State Bar Act of 1933
creating State Bar Association as public corporation has no
viability and designation of State Bar as public corporation has no
legal efficacy”
-Bridegroom v. State Bar, 550 P.2d 1089, 27 Ariz. App. 47 (1976)
there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the
government of the United States. It is a government of delegated
powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless
outside of it. In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and
Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their
Constitution, entrusted to it; all else is withheld.
-Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 467 (1884)
A delegate cannot delegate; an agent cannot delegate his
124Constitution Academy
functions to a subagent without the knowledge or consent of the
principal; the person to whom an office or duty is delegated
cannot lawfully devolve the duty on another, unless he be
expressly authorized to do so.”
9 Coke, 77;
Broom, Max. 840;
2 Kent, Comm. 633;
2 Steph. Comm. 119
“A delegated power cannot be delegated again.”
-2 Inst. 597; Black's, 2d. 347; 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1300
“Unsupported contentions of material facts are not sufficient.
Material facts must be supported by affidavits and other
testimony and documents that would be admissible in evidence at
trial”
-Cinco Enterprises, Inc. v. Benso, 890 P.2d 866, 871 (Okla. 1994)
“Mere contention that facts exist or might exist is not sufficient to
withstand summary judgment.”
-Loper v. Austin, 596 P.2d 544, 546 (Okla. 1979)
This Court has previously held that the mere contention that facts
exist or might exist is not sufficient to withstand summary
judgment. The party responding to a motion for summary
judgment has an obligation to present something which shows that
when the date of trial arrives, he will have some proof to support
126Constitution Academy his allegations
-Davis v. Leitner, 782 P.2d 924, 926 (Okla. 1989)
Serving the summons warrant upon the defendant must be served by a processor with a Notice in New Jersey.
A court of justice, or judicial tribunal;
a place of jurisdiction;
a place where a remedy is sought; a place of litigation.
3 Story, 347.
An attorney cannot make accusations and statements against you
when they are not representing anybody. They have to be
representing an actual injured party in order for them to make a
statement or a brief or an argument against you. If there is no
injured party.
The Plaintiff asked the judge Clement what was the cause of action in writing about a court appearance that did not exist. the judge, “if this complaint is a
civil action or criminal action?” If they say a criminal action then
demand to see the sworn statement from an injured party or
subpoena this supposed witness/or injured party to the
crime...because you have the right to face your accuser and it
cannot be a cop or attorney.
The legal principle is called corpus delicti, the body of the crime,
“Who?” is the biggest question! Who accused me? Who was
injured? Who made the statement against me? Who? Who? Who?
A cop can’t be a “who”. A prosecutor can’t be a “who”. An attorney
cannot be a “who”. Please remember this. “Is this a criminal action?”
“Who’s the plaintiff?” “Where’s the complaint?”
NOTICE IT DOESN’T SAY “MADE BY” AN OFFICER.
SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF THE GOVERNMENT
HAS TO MAKE THE COMPLAINT!
A citation is not “EVIDENCE” a “crime” has been committed.
A citation is just a summons to appear in court or answer.
An information is a written accusation made by a public prosecutor,
without the intervention of a grand jury.
-Salvail v. Sharkey, 271 A.2d 814, 108 R.I. 63 (1970)
the corpus delicti must he proved independently of extra-judicial
confessions, and beyond reasonable doubt; and without such
proof of the corpus delicti, evidence of the confession is
inadmissible at the trial.
The corpus delicti must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by
evidence other than such extrajudicial confessions. If there be no
evidence that a crime has been committed, it is improper to admit
upon the trial, evidence of the confession of the accused.
-Pitts v. State, 43 Miss. 472, 2 Morr. St. Cas. 1655 (1871)
It is a well-settled principle of criminal law that a conviction for
crime cannot be had unless the corpus delicti—that is, the fact
that a crime has actually been perpetrated (the fact of injury or
harm and the existence of some person criminally responsible
therefor)—is first established by the prosecution.’
In other words, the prosecution must establish the actual
commission, by some-one, of the particular offense charged.
The accused is not required in any case to answer a charge
against him in the absence of evidence upon the part of the
prosecution sufficient to establish the corpus delicti...
and if an accused is found guilty despite the failure of the
prosecution to establish the corpus delicti, the verdict may be set
aside and a new trial ordered.*
-American Jurisprudence 2D, Volume 29 Evidence
Section 149, page 182: Corpus Delicti
-American Jurisprudence 2D, Volume 29 Evidence
Section 149, page 182: Corpus Delicti
-McCormick on Evidence 3rd edition by Edward W. Cleary (1984)
Section 145, pages 365-367
New Jersey
“The term “corpus delecti” embraces occurrence of loss or injury
and criminal causation thereof.”
-State v. Hill, 221 A.2d. 725, 728, 47 N.J. 490.
"Proof of the corpus delicti ‐ the fact of injury or, in a homicide
case, of death, by a criminal agency ‐ may be supplied by direct or
circumstantial evidence.
-State v. Zarinsky, 362 A.2d. 611, 621.
"Proof of the corpus derelict is required in all criminal cases...There
are three basic elements in the proof of a crime: (1) the occurrence
of loss or injury, (2) criminal causation of that loss or injury and (3)
the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime.
However, it is firmly established in this State that the term corpus
delecti embraces only the first two of these elements‐loss or injury
and criminal causation."
-State v. Hill, 221 A.2d. 725, 728.
"It is true that the above care all cases of felonious homicide, but
the doctrine [of corpus delecti] is in nowise peculiar to such cases;
it is equally applicable to all criminal cases."
-State v. Gelzeiler, 128 A. 240.
239 Understanding The Courts
“Standing in no way depends on the merits of the plaintiff’s
contention that particular conduct is illegal.”
-Watkins v. Resorts Intern. Hotel & Casino, 591 A.2d. 592, 601 (N.J.
1991).
“Normally, an individual will only be permitted to seek judicial
vindication of his own rights.”
-State v. Norflett, 337 A.2d. 609.
“Standing requires only a substantial likelihood of some harm
visited upon the plaintiff in the event of an unfavorable decision."
-In re Camden County, 790 A.2d. 158.
it will be helpful to define the term corpus derelict. There are three
basic elements in the proof of any crime.
First, the occurrence of loss or injury (a death in murder, a burnt
dwelling house in common law arson, etc.);
secondly, criminal causation of the loss or injury as opposed to
accident (i. e.j some one committed a crime),-and lastly, the
defendant’s identity or connection with the crime (i. e., that the
defendant in fact was the perpetrator of the crime)
Dean Wigmore has suggested that in its correct meaning the term
corpus derelict has reference only to the first of these elements,
namely, the fact of the specific loss or injury sustained.
-State v. Lucas, 152 A.2d 50, 30 N.J. 37 (1959)
The municipal court is not a court of remedy the case of action taken the court is unconstitutional, which is not in conformity with the course of the common law or constitution where a court of general jurisdiction has a special authority upon it by statue, it quoad hoc, an inferior or limited court.
-Gunn V. Howell, 27 Ala. 663 (18550
Harlow vs. Fitzgerald (19820)
28 USC Paragrph 1746.
Hazel Atlas vs. Hartford (1944)
Judicial complaint if the judge ignores the perjury.
-Caperton v. Massey (2009)
Jurisdiction must be established on record
-Steel Co. V. Citizens for a Better
Evt. 523 U.S. 83 (1998)
Defendants must be tried on valid charger support by evidence.
Cole vs. Arkansas 33 U.S. 196 (1948)
Mathew v. Eldrige, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)
Goldberg vs. Kelly, 397 U.S. 234 (1970)
You cannot punish people for exercising a constitutional protect right.
-Shuttlesworth vs. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147
Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first forting in the way.
-Body vs. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)
Ex parte McCardie, 74 U.S. 506 (1969)
Court created by statute have only powers expressly granted by law; they can not exceed their statutory authority.
-Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879)
Hodge v. Jones Holding Co.
USA LLC v Jefferson county 380 S.W. 3d 52, 63-65 (Tenn 212)
USA, LLC v. Jefferson City
Douglas v.s Straw (2024)
Scheuer vs Rhode (1974)
Milliken vs. Bradeley (1977)
Verizon Maryland, Inc. vs. Public Service Commission of Maryland (2002)
Constitution Laws
Injury in Fact
Economic injury-Spoliation of food
Access to Justice
State Power in American Federalism
State power-While the national government can exercise only such powers as are expressly or implied delegated in the constitution, state have inherent police power to act for the heath, morals, and well-being of their citizens. Such limitations may take the form of constitutional rights and liberties or limitations arising from constitutional allocation of powers.
Federalism values are reflected in the Tenth Amendment which reserves all non-delegated powers to the “state receptively, or to the people”. The majority interpretation details Federalism in favor of the national government aruging that State has only such reserved powers, which it had before ratification and that the source of National power is the people of the entire Nation.
The minority view would enlarge state power, interpreting the Tenth Amendment to limit the national government only to powers delegated by the people of each state.
All powers not delegated remain with the people of individual states, who either delegate them to the state or retain them. Where the constitution is silent, it raised no bar to action by state or the people of the states.
The rationalizing principle is that where a subject of the state regulation is by its national concerns, the states may not regulate in the absence of congressional authorization.
Primacy of Federal Regulation
When a state regulation conflicts with a federal law in a shared ares or impedes the achievement of the federal object, the federal regulation must prevail by force of the Supremacy Clause Article VI.
First Amendment rights.
-Younger vs. Harris (1971)
The principle of -Younger vs. Harris (1971) been extended to civil proceedings analogous to state criminal proceeding enjoying operation of a state public nuisance statute. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. (1975).
No pending proceeding where there is no pending stat court proceeding a federal court need not abstain from granting either declaratory or injunctive relief where a statute is alleged to be a vague and over brand invasion of First Amendment right s even though there is no showing of bad faith harassment. Steff vs. Thompson (1974) declaratory relief Wooley vs Maynard (1977) injunctive relief.
Unconstitutional Official Acts
A suit for injunctive relief again a state officer acting unconstitutionally or contrary to a statute is not suit against the stat and Eleventh is therefor not a bar. Ex parte Young (1908)
The Eleventh Amendment does bar a suit against state official where the official action violates only state law-federal court review is not assure supremacy of federal law. -Pennhurst State School and Hopsital vs. Holderman (1984)
Marbury vs. Madison, retroactively require an Article 3 court to reopen final decision in violation this case law.
-Plait vs. Spend Thrift Farm Inc. (1995)
The Supremacy Clause
Article VI, Cl. 2 provides, This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges is every state shall be bound there by, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to Contrary not withstanding. Under this critical clause, a constitutional exercise of the national legislative poser can operate to override contrary state law.
Traditional Equal Protection,
Mobile vs. Bolden (1980)
State Statute on Equal Protection Clause. Hunter vs. Underwood (1985)
It is original enactment was motivated by a desire to discriminate againt blacks on account of race and the provision continue to have a racially discriminatory impact today. Racial impact intent of disenfranchising blacks Hunter vs. Underwood (1985).
Mc Cleskey vs. Kemp (1987)
Check a case law for Federal lawsuits claiming statutory and constitutional violation.
In re Griffiths (1973) Safeguarding of its interests.
Bernal vs. Fainter (1984)
Preemption Article VI Supremacy Clause.
Equal Protection Clause access of justice under fundamental rights and interests.
Shapiro vs. Thompson (1969)
Did the municipal court violates due process and equal protection when he did not dismissed the case due to no show of cause case, and Motion to challenge jurisdiction?
The Original Constitution – Express Rights contained few express rights. Article 1, 9.
Federalist argue that since this is a government of limited power. No specification of rights was necessary. Further, they argued that inclusion of some rights might be used to deny other rights not enumerate or provide a basis of federal government claiming powers beyond those delegated.
The Taking Clause
Naomi’s private owned conveyance property constitution text Fifth Amendment provides that private property is not to be taken for public use without just compensation. A principal purpose of the taking clause is to bar government from forcing some people alone to bear public burden which in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. Armstrong to United States 1960.
Agins vs. City of Tburon (1980)
The state law of property or nuisance had previously limite the ownership of the properly -Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992).
Unconstitutional condition doctrine. “The government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right. Dolan vs. City of Tigard (1994)
Traditional substantive due process. Based on the common law were almost presumptive unconstitutional. The police and court intruded on Naomi’s substantive economic concept such as freedom.
Express right, implied and enumerated rights. Significant liberty interest by the due process clause.
Proceures Required
Second, in the particular factual context what procedures are required to assure fundamental fairness. Putting people race does not show fairness.
Violation equal protection of law.
Constitutional: Clause- The other clause the municipal state and traffic court is not court. They are bond by the Republic Guarantee Article 4 section 4. The United State shall guarantee all the states in it union a republic form of government require separation of powers, due process of law, trial by jury and independent courts of records. They violate of these There is no fare haring.
The police infringe on my 14th Amendment violation when they stop Plaintiff and seizure you without a suspicious of a crime. This court has interesting to make revenue not justice.
The 6th Amendment violated because we see these administrative hearing. We are unable to confront our accuser. It is supposed to be an affidavit with an inured party. The stat supposed to be protector our rights.
The 7th Amendment violation by re-labeling a lot of these fine as civil so they try to tell you that they don’t have to give you a jury trial. Under the constitution we are guarantee that.
The defendant violating the constitution serveral provision rights they are sworn an oath by to up hold the New Jersey and United State Constitution.
Article 3 Section 2 destroy their jurisdiction in many ways. The guarantee clause.
Article 4 exposed their fraud it is a fire wall. Each public official needs to held accountable of their action.
Article 3 standing based on their showing that they had a resonable (not merely subjective).
Causation-Fairly Traceable
Warth vs Seldin (1975)
Allen vs. Wright (1984)
Individual rights and liberties
State Action-civil rights cases (1883)
Civil rights law 42 USC 1988
