Civil Rights Claims
Instructions for Civil Rights Claims Under Section 1983
Section 1983 Litigation
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
