THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CASE, THE PROTEST & THE CASE STATUS
I AM NOW FORMULATING THE MANDAMUS/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CASE HERE IS SOMETHING I HAVE COMPLETED AND POSTED REGARDING THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THIS CASE PLACES BEFORE THE HONORABLE COURT
[The comment section with my work posted is no longer available after the article so I have removed the link since you can now only read the article I commented on]
and will be a main part of my MANDAMUS.
Once I complete the petition and file a copy will be posted here to ensure if I disappear justice & the truth will endure…their victories are over the flesh and cannot touch the spirit…GOD is NOT frivolous and when he condemns these scum to hell it will be for very good reason, howevah their victories over the flesh are temporary and in the end meaningless…FACT!
ON STATES’ RIGHTS AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
HERE IS WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WROTE, AND THE STATES RATIFIED WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS ATTACHED:
So first off- we have two constitutional provisions at odds with one another: ONE written by the founding fathers and that ESTABLISHED THE THIRD CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF THE REPUBLIC OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which was then ratified by the states and thereby became:
THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND;
AHHHHHND The other emerging from the machinations of a reactionary activist legislature in concert with the States to overthrow the ALL CORRECT decision made by our founding fathers amongst them John Jay in the CHISHOLM decision, AND to usurp the CO-EQUAL JUDICIARY POWERS ceded properly by the people with an AMENDMENT to the very same constitution whose article they sought to overthrow…and then we have two foundations we can look to in resolving this conflict & contradiction.
“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,”
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned…”
NOW THE SIMPLE, PLAIN LANGUAGE, & THE MEANING OF THIS ARTICLE DELINEATING THE THIRD CO-EQUAL POWER- THE JUDICIAL POWER IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS ABSOLUTELY UNAMBIGUOUS & CLEAR.
THE DECISION IN CHISHOLM BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS INCLUSIVE OF THE FIRST CHIEF JUSTICE OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JOHN JAY A FOUNDING FATHER AND CO-EQUAL OF HAMILTON & MADISON IN THE FEDERALIST PAPER PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN AGAINST GOVERNOR CLINTON’S RESISTANCE TO RATIFICATION IN THE POPULOUS STATE OF NEW YORK…UPHOLDS AND AFFIRMS THIS ARTICLE AND CO-EQUAL VESTING BY THE PEOPLE OF POWER PROPERLY CEDED TO THE JUDICIARY….AND WHICH THEN THE ACTIVIST LEGISLATURE & STATES UNLAWFULLY USURPED THAT ARTICLE III POWER BY SEDITIOUSLY ATTEMPTING TO TRUMP A CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL ANTI-AMENDMENT- THE 11TH:
NO ONE FAMILIAR WITH THE STARE DECIS THAT HAS POURED FORTH FROM THIS ANTI-AMENDMENT WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE FAILURE OF THIS AMENDMENT TO EVEN MENTION ‘CITIZENS OF A STATE’ PREVENTED THE TOTAL ABLATION OF JUDICIAL POWERS IN REGARD TO ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WHERE A STATE IS A PARTY EITHER COMMENCED AGAINST OR PROSECUTED BY…THUS NO ONE EXCEPT THE IGNORANT IMBECILES WHO SHOULD HANG THEMSELVES WOULD SUGGEST WE DO NOT HAVE A CONTRADICTION AND CONFLICT BETWEEN ARTICLE III AND THE ANTI-AMENDMENT THE 11TH A REACTIONARY MEASURE BY AN ACTIVIST LEGISLATURE THAT CANNOT CAN NEVER GO SO FAR AS TO ABLATE A CO-EQUAL BRANCHES POWER FROM WHAT WAS CEDED PROPERLY BY THE PEOPLE AND RATIFIED WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS AT INITIO…THIS ANTI-AMENDMENT DOES NOTHING EXCEPT ACT AS A NEGATIVE TO POWERS ESTABLISHED AND CEDED PROPERLY AT CONSTITUTIONS ADOPTION. SO WHAT IS THE PROPER COURSE ALLOW THE UNLAWFUL USURPATION OF POWER FROM A CO-EQUAL BRANCH BY A SUPPOSED CO-EQUAL BRANCH OR NOT. IF NOT THEN THE 11TH MUST YIELD…FACT!
NOW I WILL IN MY MANDAMUS ADDRESS COROLLARY ISSUES SUCH AS DOES THE CONSTITUTION GIVE THE LEGISLATURE THE POWER TO USURP A CO-EQUAL BRANCHES POWER, (AN ABSURDITY I KNOW) AND WHAT PROPER POWERS THE CONGRESS HAS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTION- ITS THREE CO-EQUAL BRANCHES AND PROPERLY CEDED POWERS AND THE STATES RESERVED POWERS, (NOT RIGHTS- SEE INFRA). FOR NOW THE ARGUEMENT IN AFFIRMATION WILL THEN GET TO THE ‘HEART’ OF THE MATTER AND EXAMINE THESE TWO CONFLICTING ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO THEIR GENESIS, THEIR RAISON D’ETRE AND THEIR PROPER FOUNDATIONS…PERHAPS THEN WE WILL SEE ANTI-AMENDMENT NOTWITHSTANDING WHICH IS THE ELEMENT THAT SHOULD YIELD.
I thusly begin with the opposition’s position that states have rights and sovereign immunity. A ‘false’ foundation, to wit:
THEY DO NOT…FACT!
If you read the 9th amendment and the 10th amendment you SEE two things
One amendment deals with rights the other with powers
The second thing you notice is that PEOPLE are in BOTH, states ONLY appear in ONE
The founding fathers did NOT run out of ink!
That is not all, IF they had intended the states to have rights it is NOT merely a case of forgetting to put states in BOTH amendments…it makes TWO SEPARATE AMENDMENTS WHOLLY UNECESSARY…FOR IF STATES HAD RIGHTS LIKE THE PEOPLE THEN THE FOUNDERS COULD HAVE HAD THE 9TH AMENDMENT SAY STATES & PEOPLES RIGHTS & POWERS…BUT THEY DID NOT…FACT!
Thus when we look to the foundations that support the conflicting elements we must recognize that one foundation is obscure…as demonstrated- it does not rest on states’ rights. So we must first articulate the issue and then perhaps we will see more clearly the foundations
Article III and the 11th amendment are CONTRADICTORY…the legislative activism that occurred in the wake of Chisholm and the Judgment of OUR FOUNDING FATHER FIRST CHIEF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE John Jay, and his able FRAMER ASSOCIATES Cushing, Wilson, & Blair gave rise to absurdity of THE STRIKING DOWN BY LEGISLATIVE FIAT NOT MERELY THE CORRECTLY DECIDED CHISOHOLM LANDMARK DECISION AND THE TOTALLY ILLEGITIMATE AND UNLAWFUL USURATION OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SUCH THAT THE PEOPLE WHO FORMED BOTH THE STATE AND UNION BODIES WERE FOREVER THEN FORCLOSED FROM THE PEACEFUL COURSE OF RIGHTING WRONG AND REDRESSING GRIEVANCE WITH JUDICIAL REMEDY BUT THAT ABSURDITY ARRIVED AT A MOST SEDITIOUS AND EGREGIOUS TRECHERY IN RAPING THE CO-EQUAL JUDICAL BRANCH OF ITS PROPERLY PLACED POWERS AT INITIO.
NEITHER BY ANY MEANS OF THE OTHER BRANCHES IN UNISON OR UNILATERALLY NOR BY AQUIESENCE BY AND/OR OF IT’S OWN ACCORD CAN ANY OF THE THREE CO-EQUAL BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TAKE, LIMIT, DENY, OBSTRUCT, RENDER MOOT, CONTRADICT, DEMEAN, DISPARAGE OR IN ANY OTHER WAY BY ANY MEANS REDUCE OR REMOVE THE POWERS PROPERLY PLACED BY THE PEOPLE IN EACH OF THESE CO-EQUAL BRANCHES AT INITION IN CONSTITUTING THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
WHAT THEN IS THE REAL & TRUE FOUNDATION OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY?
A chimerical dialogue between an earnest wiggamore reformer intent on establishing a judiciary and a sovereign king may be instructional in understanding the creation of this doctrine SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY amongst the nation-states of man- and then we will glimpse then the bedrock upon which it rests, to wit:
TROLL OF THE MANOR BORN (a sovereign king of a country)
Earnest Hedgefornow (a wigamore reformist intent on establishing a judiciary)
Troll(OTMB): ah my lige and counsel Hedgefornow, the bishop has informed me that you have a most worthy idea for the arrangement of the sovereign affairs that may prove of benevolence and great utility, pray tell:
E. Hedgefornow: GREAT SOVEREIGN OF SOVEREIGNS (insert much poetry bombast and colorful ingratiating adjectives for much like GOD here….)…I humbly beseech your wise consideration over an idea flowing forth as it has from the impoverished mind and inadequate tongue of this loyal common servant of your majesteriuness…
Troll(OTMB): ok dude get on with it times a wasting
EH: have you noticed that you provide payment to your earls who are given stewardship over your military, that often they have disputes and that when you decide the issue inevitably one or more earls is then aggrieved at being the losing party in the dispute, and that often sedition takes root and the earl or conspiring in concert earls will then use your army to unseat you and install themselves in your place?
TOTMB: Did you just refer to me by my former title the earl of sackthecrown
EH: No not at all (insert more poetry etc as above here), I am merely suggesting that if you were to have a judiciary that could resolve these disputes you could stay safely above the fray and even enjoin in a most brotherhoodly manner the sorrows of your good loyal friendly earls who have your utmost agreement though it be in a losing cause…and thus no harm or sedition can spring forth as you yourself were not the author of the misfortune
TOTMB: I like the concept howevah- it sounds a lot like you want some of my power and that IS NOT IS NEVER EVER GOING TO HAPPEN…
EH: No not at all your most gracious and benevolent sovereign (much groveling here)…YOU will be protected in ALL things with this judiciary even in your sovereign authority…for we will acknowledge your SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY…
TOTMB: SOVEREIGN….what was that last part…I like the sound of that SOVEREIGN but what was that last bit exactly?
EH: SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY…what it means is that before a case is heard by the judiciary you may invoke your SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY…you do not have to have any reason or rational, you will not have to explain yourself, nor even appear…if you merely invoke your SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY- THE CASE WILL NEVER BE HEARD…
TOTMB: That sounds delightful but it still sounds like you want my power…
EH: No not at all ANY CASE ANY TIME WITH OR WITHOUT ANY REASON you just invoke your sovereign immunity and no case
TOTMB: ANYTIME, Without ANY explanation or reason
EH: TOTALLY CORRECT…you are after all the SOVEREIGN, all we ask is that if you chose NOT to invoke your sovereign immunity then you will abide by that SOVEREIGN and DIVINE will and not disturb the decision after it is made, that way the judiciary will not be ridiculed and co-insigned to the junk bin of history as a failure and spectacle that meant nothing and rested upon the whim of chance…
TOTMB: what if I don’t like the decision
EH: If for any reason there is a case where even the possibility of a decision unfavorable to your countenance is possible just INVOKE YOUR SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY and that decision can never be reached
TOTMB: well that sounds like a pretty good plan…especially the resolve disputes between the earls and they never have to know what my view is of the decision to avoid usurpation….I really like that idea, and the whole SOVEREIGN thing I really enjoy….still kind of luke warm on the NOT being able to change a decision I do not like though…
EH: but troll of the manor born you are the sovereign…you rule by divine right…GOD himself approves of all you do and you can do no wrong…what use is there to you of a power to displace your own SOVEREIGN DIVINITY…once you make your decision heaven and earth affirm that decision do they not….?
So we see that the foundation of SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY is the DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS…no harm even to the SOVEREIGN could be done by the SOVEREIGN for it is DIVINE LEADERSHIP.
Now, let’s turn to the foundation that ARTICLE III rests upon.
The declaration of Independence is not some cute & clever antiquated historical document with no legal legitimacy or force of law…FAR FROM IT….FACT!
It is also NOT MERELY a great writ providing the fact and reasoning impelling the colonists to their separation. It is NOT MERELY the first legal instrument where we find the words these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, or mention a few of the innumerable rights possessed by humanity.
No one of sound mind would suggest that Rene Descartes great work on reasoning well could stand without his axiom: “Cogito Ergo Summa”, or that Einstein’s special and then general theories could stand without the axiom of the inertia of bodies and frames of reference, nor could Euclid sans a point is that which has no part…nor Russell and Whiteheads great principia without the commutative, distributive, associative principles derived from the axiomatic principles of number & variable identity and a whole new definition of FUNCTION. Could Shakespeare write hamlet without saying amen to the axioms of grammar and identities of words themselves as axiomatic…I am a carpenter and I tell you absent a foundation NO HOUSE WILL STAND…no different absent a foundation no legal argument can prevail, no language makes sense…no country of constitution will long endure…REPUBLIC if you can keep it indeed!
WE DO NOT LIVE IN A GOVERNMENT
The first thing the founders did WAS NOT CONSTITUTE THE GOVERNMENT…this is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…our HOUSE is not a prefab or trailer park fixture…it has a tred true and tested foundation and that foundation was laid first before the constitution came into being…the raison d’etre for that is that IN ADDITION TO LIVING IN A SOCIETY NOT A GOVERNMENT…we are INDIVIDUALS FIRST & FOREMOST free even to NOT live in society if we so choose, we may also be the CHURCH…so there are 5 primary elements that ALL rest on the SAME FOUNDATION:
1. The individual people
2. The individual people as a society
3. The Church
4. The Government
5. The tie that binds us as a people for surely the United States of America has an identity that arises from relationship NOT GENUS & DIFFERENTIA
Thus the first thing the founders did was:
LAY A FOUNDATION:
The Declarative Axiom
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
So we have two contrasting elements in the constitution:
Article III that rests on our declarative Axiom and the 11th amendment an activist legislative enactment of a legislature run amok…trampling otherwise firm stare decis in affirmation of the constitutional schema as the founders envisioned with a full and unfettered acknowledgement of the GOD GIVEN rights of the people and the constitutional restraint on government powers so placed properly by the people in the several sister states and the union at declaration & in constitution. Founded upon the divine right of kings and that UNLAWFULLY usurps the powers of the co-equal branch of the United States Government the judiciary OVERTHROWING ART III by the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH…
So we have two elements in conflict:
ART III and the 11th Amendment one is founded upon our DECLARATIVE AXIOM whereby POWER must yield at GOD GIVEN RIGHT, the other is founded upon the divine right of kings…I’ll leave it to you all to decide which side you are on in that…
My name is Liam Brent Kelly my GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO DUE process has been ablated for 21 years by the mormons, their corporofacists jew banker overlords and their gangster co-conspirators the kkk, bible dumpers, white & black supremacists, the masonic army of satan on earth…while protesting at the Supreme Court the police broke my rib and I have been assaulted & battered 8 times while in DC, I can’t get showers and my access to food has been reduced almost to nothing…the court wants a petition for mandamus from me and I am right now trying to put that together while homeless…I intend to get on the october docket and place the question properly before the Supreme Court of These United States of America:
Article III or the 11th amendment
One or the other…your call
If you would like to help me with this situation and trade me excellent carpentry for a place to live while working on my case please email me at
my blog can be found at:
my youtube account is here:
Republic IS NOT police state and empire
Democracy IS NOT socialism
Capitalism IS NOT corporofacism
Christianity IS NOT supporting the deniers of christ
torture IS NOT ‘freedom tickling’
killing people without TRIAL IS NOT LAWFUL OR AN AMERICAN TRADITION
LEAVE YOUR GANG…
PEACE IS NOT war
copyright 9 2 14
2013 makes 20 years in violation of DUE process of law…
PART I: A QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
When a state passes laws that are unconstitutional, that is one thing, HOWEVER after two years when they see that their unconstitutional laws are vulnerable to being struck down…and they decide to try and create a firewall to protect the unconstitutional laws from being struck down through states’ rights and sovereign immunity by passing an article to their state constitution…a problem arises
for when the prosecution specifically quotes that article AND the unconstitutional laws in a case to bring direct harm to an innocent man who then files a notice of appeal…it places not just the unconstitutional law BUT ALSO THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE under the heightened scrutiny of judicial review.
Everyone in all branches of state government take an oath to uphold the state constitution, (also the U.S.Constitution)- this represents a VESTED INTEREST, and as such THE STATE IS A PARTY TO THE CAUSE, thus they are incompetent to take jurisdiction over the case and it triggers under Article III of the Constitution of these United States of America:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION JUSTICIABILITY
Article III Section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court,
In all Cases… in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
This IS NOT certiorari- it is ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, hence the Supreme Court SHALL exercise Original Jurisdiction over this question as to whether a state constitutional article in fact is at variance with the United States Constitution. It is not tolerable to have state constitutional articles that deconstruct the United States Constitution.
PART II: THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS & ARTICLE
In utah laws have been passed entitled: THE VICTIMS’ RIGHTS LAWS. These laws suggest that it is lawful to provide ‘victims’ with a right to a speedy trial. Sounds fair to some at first glance I suppose, however rudimentary analysis demonstrates such a law is ABSOLUTELY constitutionally offensive, to wit:
In the instant case the police showed up and saw without doubt that the false accuser was lying and that someone not even present when the supposed criminal malfeasance occurred helped construct the THIRD DIFFERENT VERSION of the false accusation…this perjury occurred right before their eyes and this third version contradicted the oral story & notes first taken by the officers when they arrived about 1/2 hour previously. That original oral testimony by the false accuser also was full of contradictions and was a constantly changing story as the officers asked questions. The police USED THE PHONE OF THE FALSE ACCUSER to call me a taxi and helped me load the trunk and back seat of the taxi with my tools & machinery- then they sent me home. NO ARREST WAS MADE. I have NO EXPLANATION as to what reason the state of utah decided to override THE CORRECT CALL of the police and move to prosecute about 6 mths (?) later.
Now I KNOW that I am innocent, and that the false accuser is lying- but lets consider a case where an actual crime has been committed and the victimhood is real- nevertheless even in such circumstances the defendant IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and thus despite the victim being an actual & real victim: the defendant IS NOT the perpetrator UNTIL AFTER TRIAL IF a conviction occurs. Thus the victims’ rights are NOT operative AT THE DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL, as the victims are not victims of the defendant until AFTER TRIAL if he is PROVEN GUILTY and convicted.
So, what are the victims’ rights laws?!!? IN FACT THEY ARE NOT RIGHTS AT ALL BUT ANTI-RIGHTS that have no functionality except to ablate the tried, true, tested, real, absolute, and supposedly- uninfringeable GOD endowed rights of the people which in this case (DUE Process) act as the limit on government power ceded & established under the constitution by being articulated as that LIMITING POWER OF GOVERNMENT demarcation point in The Amendments to The Constitution.
Article I Section 28 utah state constitution: Victims’ Rights Laws: Declaration of the rights of crime victims.
Title 77 chapter 37 & 38 utah criminal code: Victims’ Right To A Speedy Trial:
§ 77-38-7 Victim’s right to a speedy trial
(1) In determining a date for any criminal trial or other important criminal or juvenile justice hearing, the court shall consider the interests of the victim of a crime to a speedy resolution of the charges under the same standards that govern a defendant’s or minor’s right to a speedy trial.
Even if these laws were not on the face of it contrary to our law and the doctrine of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY- they would still have to yield according to TWO CONTROLLING CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATORY & PROHIBITIVE DIRECTIVES for Article VI of The Constitution Of These United States Of America is the SUPREMACY CLAUSE WHICH STATES:
“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 in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”
But that is not all, for EACH of the several states of the Union have also codified this doctrine in their own state constitutions also termed THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, in utah it states:
Article I Sec. 3. [Utah inseparable from the Union.] The State of Utah is an inseparable part of the Federal Union and the Constitution of the United States IS the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
PART III: OPERATIVE EFFECT AT TRIAL TO ENSURE THAT AN INNOCENT MAN WAS ILLEGALLY CONVICTED IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW
The Judge did many things which turned the court into a kangaroo court but three things must be recognized in the analysis of the Original Jurisdiction Case as possessing absolute validity:
- The Judge DATED AND SIGNED the subpoenas for the DAY AFTER TRIAL!??!
Had the subpoenas been dated & signed properly so that they could have legal & binding effect to deliver the evidence (911 audio/transcript contradictory false accusation statements) & witnesses to court on the day of trial then the officers would have taken the stand and one question would have sufficed:
What reason did you have to USE THE ‘SUPPOSED’ VICTIMS’ PHONE TO CALL A TAXI & SEND ME HOME INSTEAD OF ARRESTING ME…?
- The Judge stated: “…Sit down shut up and stop quoting the United States Constitution to me we have our own constitution here in the state of Utah…”
Now in addition to being extremely prejudicial, such a statement is corruptive and abusive for other reasons:
a judge can sustain an objection, overrule an objection, or ask for a briefing on the merits…however she can never tell a lawyer (AND I AM THE LAWYER WHETHER ANYONE LIKES IT OR NOT- the defect is in the trial court NOT in me!) that they cannot quote the supreme law of the land at trial…IF the transcripts are ever examined and the AD HOMINIM attacks justifying the continuing ablation of DUE process ever end in order to apparently get that to happen it will be demonstrated that not only did I quote the law appropriately in context: I WIN THE ARGUMENT– for regardless of the joke laws of utah a defendant’s right to confront their accuser, to get a fair trial, and to raise an adequate defense: ARE United States Constitutionally recorded uninfringeable GOD given rights that act as THE LIMIT ON GOVERNMENT POWER so ceded under the Constitution AND ARE THUS IN FACT UNINFRINGEABLE GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. Thus the objection should have been sustained and the defect in the trial courts recognition of the unconstitutional laws and article could have been thereby CURED.
- The Judge stated: “…Stop objecting I am tired of hearing you object…sit down you cannot object anymore…”
This is an absurdity that demonstrates clearly if it isn’t clear already that the judge is incompetent to be a lawyer, let alone a judge: IT IS A UNIVERSALITY OF ALL COURTS IN ALL COUNTRIES EVERYWHERE ON EARTH THAT IF A LAWYER DOES NOT OBJECT, AND OBJECT TIMELY, ON THE RECORD, THEN HIS ISSUES BECOME MOOT FOR APPELLATE REVIEW AND NO COURT WILL EXERT JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE
The denial of the continuance motion that would have corrected the judges improperly dated and signed subpoenas which led to the conviction of an innocent man was based on the victims’ rights to a speedy trial and in support BOTH the laws AND State Constitutional Article were quoted to bring that harm: A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL DUE PROCESS VIOLATION.
PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS GIVEN 3 DIFFERENT WAYS:
- Due to the Judges abuse in NOT allowing objections BEFORE trial began I requested if I could file a ‘Motion To Preserve’ which had 22 specific objections and 1 general first right of appeal type objection from the record as I am a carpenter not a lawyer…it stated that the purpose of the filing was TO PRESERVE UPON THE RECORD IN A TIMELY MANNER OBJECTIONS SUCH THAT IF AN INNOCENT MAN WAS CONVICTED DUE TO THE MYRIAD ERRORS THE ISSUES WOULD NOT BE MOOT UPON APPEALLATE RECOURSE…( in words to that direct effect). The Judge agreed to accept the motion IF I COULD GET IT DONE, (there was about 15 minutes until the kangaroo court commenced), I had the motion and certificates of service ready…I had the court clerk make copies served them on the prosecutor, trial court and kept a copy for myself…all certificates of service were signed & in order…IT GOT DONE! IT IS A PART OF THE RECORD- EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGE IN OPEN COURT REFUSED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE RECORD AND THE CLERK AT THE MATHESON COURTHOUSE SET ASIDE A CLERK WHO WAS GETTING ME COPIES AND THEN HAD SECURITY ESCORT ME OUT OF THE BUILDING.
- On the record ORALLY after the illegal conviction occurred…the Judge stated: “…stop saying you are innocent you have been convicted…” to which I stated: “…well your honor I am innocent but I guess that’s something I will have to prove upon appellate review…” or words DIRECTLY TO THAT EFFECT!
- On the day of my birth- the FINAL DUE DATE for the notice of appeal to be filed. I also quoted FALLEN V U.S.
Floyd Charles FALLEN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
378 U.S. 139 (84 S.Ct. 1689, 12 L.Ed.2d 760)
Argued: April 30, 1964.
Decided: June 22, 1964.
concurrence, STEWART, CLARK, HARLAN, BRENNAN
It IS HELD: that a notice of appeal filed by an incarcerated pro-se indigent appellant IS NOT considered filed when the court clerk receives it or the Judge reads it, it is filed the day the incarcerated pro-se indigent appellant deposits it in the prison mailbox AND/OR hands it to prison staff for such purposes.
THERE IS SIMPLY NO EXCUSE FOR THE JUDGE TO REFUSE TO STAMP THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND MAIL IT TO THE APPROPRIATE COURT OF JURISDICTION (CERTIFICATION) WHICH IN THIS CASE IS THE SUPREME COURT OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNDER Article III Section. 1:
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court,
In all Cases… in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
Refusing to so stamp and mail the notification of appeal KNOWING I TIMELY FILED THREE WAYS, is not merely obstruction…it is HIGH TREASON and 2013 makes 20 years I have been left twisting in the wind without DUE Process while the: mormon, kkkk, bible-dumpers, british, sas, ulster-orange, fake Christian, nazi, commie, socialist, and jew army of satan attack the arguee instead of the argument in ad hominem attacks that attempt to justify the ablation of my DUE Process and every other GOD GIVEN RIGHT through their ever present perversion of Christianity and amalgamation of church & state.
DUE Process is a process DUE…not long overdue not withheld until the crosses burn, & the army of satan self justifies & self rationalizes their criminal, treason, & abuse…just to say o.k. NOW he can be heard because NOW we say he checks out…if ever.
I reject the perversion of Christianity and of Republic & I am living on the sidewalk of the Supreme Court until my case is heard
OR UNTIL HELL ITSELF FREEZES OVER
Please Visit My youtube account to view video & other pictures:
ALSO Please consider leaving a comment in the comments section, thanks.
AFTERWORD: My protest began at about 3pm on October 3rd 2012 and continued until March 28 2013 when the Supreme Court Police came out in the middle of the night and broke my rib hoping I would fight back so they would have a ‘reason’ to remove me ‘lawfully’. This may have resulted in getting the case heard- I will keep you posted on this page of my Blog as events transpire.
IT IS AUGUST 12 2014 AND I AM AT WORK ON MY MANDAMUS DESPITE BEING HOMELESS, ITS TOUGH SLOGGING, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THE CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS IN DC ARE WORKING TO DEPRIVE ME OF SHOWERS. FOOD, ECT. I WOULD HOPE EVERYONE WHO READS THIS BLOG WILL BOYCOTT HARRIS TEETER FOR SURRENDERING TO ALL THE TROLLS WHO HAVE GOTTEN ME KICKED OUT OF THEIR SEATING AREA WHERE YOU CAN USE WI-FI IF YOU BUY SOMETHING, I WAS DRINKING A HARRIS TEETER TEA EATING HARRIS TEETER POPCORN I SPECIFICALLY BOUGHT TO SNACK ON SO THAT THEY COULD SEE I WAS A PAYING CUSTOMER I ALSO BOUGHT A BANANA FOR BREAKFAST SO THEY ARE TOTALLY ON BOARD WITH THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO EXIST AND CONTINUING EXISTING- IN ORDER TO GET A CASE HEARD WHILE THE HEAD CLOWN-IN-CHIEF & ALL THE CLOWN GANGS, SEND THEIR CLOWNS IN TO TAKE THINGS SIDEWAYS. IF YOU USE THEIR MICROWAVE YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF AGO A LADY CAME IN AND COOKED HER DEFECATION IN A TUPPERWARE BOWL IN THE MICROWAVE AND THE MANAGEMENT REFUSED TO REPLACE THE MICROWAVE AND INSTEAD JUST CLEANED IT…SO ESSENTIALLY THE MANAGER & HIS SECURITY GUARD HAVE AS LITTLE RESPECT FOR YOU AS THEY DO FOR ME…LET ME FIND OUT THEY ARE SNICKERING ABOUT HOW ALL OF YOU ARE EATING SH*T EVERYTIME YOU USE THEIR MICROWAVE…FACT!
PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT HARRIS TEETER FOR THEIR HARMING EVEN IF THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS THEY ARE HARMING- IN THIS CASE A REALLY IMPORTANT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CASE WHERE DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN ABLATED FOR 21 YEARS.
I AM POSTING HERE SOMETHING I WROTE A WHILE AGO AS I AM INCORPORATING IT INTO MY MANDAMUS ORDER SO MIGHT AS WELL INCLUDE THE ORIGINAL ON MY BLOG:
ANALYSIS: THE NECESSITY OF HOLDING THAT OUR INCARCERATION FACILITIES ARE BOTH CORRECTIVE AND FUNCTIONAL
- FIRSTLY WE ASSERT THAT PUNISHMENT IS IN FACT A GOVERNOR, AND NOT AN END IN ITSELF- FOR IF PUNITIVE MEASURES ARE AN END IN THEMSELVES THEN THEY ARE AN END WITHOUT PURPOSE INNATELY OF THEMSELVES OR THERE PURPOSE IS OF SOME SATISFACTION OR BENEFIT TO THE DISPENSER OF THE PUNITIVE MEASURE- BUT THAT IS ABSURD FOR IN NO INSTANCE DO WE BELIEVE IN THE DISPENSER BEING ANYTHING BUT ABSOLUTELY IMPARTIAL AND OBJECTIVE IN DISPENSING A PUNITIVE MEASURE- ANYTHING ELSE WOULD BE BARBARISM AND ENCOURAGING IMMORALITY & MALFEASANCE IN THE DISPENSER OF WHAT IS AFTER ALL SUPPOSED TO BE AN ELEMENT OF JUSTICE SOUGHT. THUS, AXIOMATICALLY WE DO ASSERT THAT AS AN ELEMENT OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS THAT PUNITIVE MEASURES ARE A GOVERNOR. IT IS NOT BORN OUT OF NECESSITY TO SO ASSERT AXIOMATICALLY THAT THIS IS TRUE, HOWEVER IT IS BORN OUT OF NECESSITY TO DO SO IF WE ARE TO BE GENUINELY CHRISTIAN, GENUINELY CONCERNED WITH OBTAINING JUSTICE, AND GENUINELY OF THE DESIRE TO TURN OUR BACK ON A HISTORY RIFE WITH EXAMPLES OPPOSITE TO THIS ASSERTION AND THE BARBARISM THAT WAS REAPED BY SOWING SUCH DEFECTIVE SEED.
IF WE WERE TO HOLD THAT OUR INCARCERATION FACILITIES ARE MERELY PUNITIVE IN NATURE THIS THEN WOULD FORECLOSE THE POSSIBILITY OF THE OVERARCHING PURPOSE AS MADE MANIFEST IN JESUS AND TO WHICH EACH OF US WHO ARE BAPTIZED CLEAVE: A BELIEF IN CORRECTIVENESS AND/OR REFORM
CORRECTIVENESS FOR THE CHRISTIAN IS TWO PRONGED IN NATURE, FOR IN THE TRUE CHRISTIAN IS AN INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY AND RIGOR DEDICATED TO SELF-EXAMINATION, THUS OUR CORRECTIVENESS IS GEARED INWARD AS WELL AS OUTWARD…THIS COMPORTS WITH OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM BECAUSE WHEN ERROR OCCURS WE BELIEVE IN DISCOVERING THE ERROR AND IMPROVING OUR SELVES AND SYSTEM AS MUCH AS WE WOULD WANT TO CORRECT ANOTHER FOR IF WE UNDER THE GUISE OF ‘CORRECTIVENESS’ AND IN ERROR BRING PUNISHMENT UPON AN INNOCENT MAN- WE THEN WOULD BE ENGAGED IN PERSECUTION AND THAT MUST, IF WE BE CONCERNED WITH JUDICIOUSNESS, BE A FINITE ENGAGEMENT. IN FACT BY LIMITING ALL PUNITIVE MEASURES THEY, IN THAT FACET ALONE, HAVE A CORRECTIVE MEASURE IN THEM SINCE IN ORDER TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF CORRECTIVENESS FROM ERROR ONE MUST FIRST STOP THE ERROR. IN ADDITION PUNITIVE MEASURES BEING FINITE IN BREADTH- PRESUMES THAT A CORRECTION HAS OCCURRED PUNITIVE MEASURES BEING A GOVERNOR, NOT AN END IN ITSELF. THAT BEING ASIDE FROM THE MAIN THRUST OF THE SPECIFIC ARGUMENT- THAT IN ORDER FOR OURSELVES & OUR SYSTEM TO BE CORRECTED AND EXPERIENCE IMPROVEMENT WE MUST FIRST STOP ERROR AND RECOGNIZE THAT IN FACT ERROR HAS OCCURRED. SO ACCEPTING THAT CORRECTIVENESS HAS TWIN PRONGS AND THAT HAND IN HAND WITH DISPENSING PUNITIVE MEASURES IS A CONTINUAL VIGIL OF SELF- EXAMINATION LEST WE BE IN ERROR, AND A DEDICATION TO BE AS ZEALOUS IN RECOGNIZING & CORRECTING OURSELVES WHEN IN ERROR AS WE ARE IN OTHERS, WE NOW TURN TO AN EXAMINATION OF THE IMPLICITLY ASSERTED CORRECTIVE NATURE OF THE FACILITIES OF INCARCERATION AND THEIR FUNCTIONALITY.
- UPON LEAVING A FACILITY OF INCARCERATION WE HOLD THAT CORRECTIVENESS HAS IN FACT OCCURRED, WHEN A SENTENCE IS HANDED DOWN IT IS DEFINITIVE, EXACT, AND LIMITED. A DATE OF RELEASE EXISTS AND WE HOLD THAT SHOULD ALL OF THAT SENTENCE BE EXECUTED AND SERVED THEN REDRESS FOR THE MALFEASANCE HAS OCCURRED BUT THAT IS NOT ALL IMPLICIT IS ALSO THE BELIEF THAT OUR SYSTEM FUNCTIONS FOR IF NOT THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO ACT TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM IN ORDER THAT IT DID FUNCTION. THUS EVERY RELEASE IS IN AND OF ITSELF AN ASSERTION THAT:
- CORRECTIVENESS HAS OCCURRED, AND;
- THE SYSTEM FUNCTIONED PROPERLY TO BRING ABOUT THAT RESULT
THUS IT IS AN ABSURDITY TO CONTINUE PUNITIVE MEASURES IN ANY MANNER FOR THAT IS TO EMPHATICALLY ASSERT THE OPPOSITE:
- THAT CORRECTIVENESS HAS NOT OCCURRED AND;
- THE SYSTEM DOES NOT FUNCTION
UNDERSTANDING THIS NECESSARILY CORRECTIVE NATURE AND FUNCTIONALITY OF OUR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES CANNOT BE LEFT SIMPLY AS A MATTER OF ASSERTION AND PRESUMPTION. THERE IS A GRAND PURPOSE AT WORK AND FOR THIS WE NOW TURN TO AN EXAMINATION OF JUSTICE.
- THE NATURE OF JUSTICE
FIRSTLY JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE ARE EITHER/OR PROPOSITIONS AND THERE IS NO STATE OF EXISTENCE THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER. THERE EXISTS EITHER A STATE OF JUSTICE OR A STATE OF INJUSTICE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A STATE OF JUSTICE THAT HAS A SMIDGIN OF INJUDICIOUSNESS INVOLVED…THAT IS AN ABSURDITY AND PERHAPS IT CAN BE ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO GREATER INJUSTICE THAN AN INJUSTICE CLOAKED IN JUSTICE MAKING THAT PARTICULAR STATE OF PARTICULAR ODIOUSNESS IN THE RANK OF INJUDICIOUS STATES OF EXISTENCE. BECAUSE THIS IS TRUTH AND IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT, THERE IS ALWAYS PRESENT A STATE OF JUSTICE OR INJUSTICE. THUS, JUSTICE IS BY NATURE SOMETHING THAT IS MADE MANIFEST AND IS ALWAYS MENABLE TO EXAMINATION AS IS THE STATE OF INJUSTICE.
JUSTICE AND INJUSTICE ARE ALSO INERTIAL, IN THAT THEY WILL PERPETUATE THEMSELVES AND THAT STATE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY ARE RECTIFIED, GOVERNED. UNTIL AND UNLESS ONE STATE SUPERSEDES THE OTHER THAT STATE WILL CONTINUE INDEFINITELY.
IT IS THUS ALWAYS AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION & DISCERNMENT SINCE IT IS ALWAYS PRESENT OR ABSENT IN MANIFESTATION. JUSTICE THEN ONE WOULD THINK IS EASILY OBTAINED FOR ANYTHING YOU CAN EXAMINE IS EASY TO REPLICATE.
NOT SO, FOR JUSTICE IS ALSO NOT ELEMENTAL AND HOMOGENEOUS, IT IS IN FACT A COMPOSITE, A MIXTURE OF MANY ELEMENTS. UNLIKE SOME THINGS THAT EXIST THE CONSTITUENTS OF JUSTICE CHANGE IN THEIR MEASURE AND IN THEIR VERY NATURE- THUS JUSTICE IS EVER PRESENT OR ABSENT BUT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT CHILD TO BIRTH.
WHAT THEN IS JUSTICE, OR AT LEAST WHAT ARE SOME OF ITS CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS?
THERE IS DEFINITELY A COMMENSURATE CRIMINAL SANCTION FOR EACH & EVERY CRIMINAL MALFEASANCE.
THERE IS THE OVERRIDING PRIMACY AND ABSOLUTE NECESSITY OF PROTECTING THE INNOCENT
THERE IS THE NECESSITY THAT JUSTICE BE SEEN TO BE DONE AS WELL AS BEING DONE
THERE IS THE NECESSITY TO UPHOLD AND AFFIRM HUMAN DIGNITY
THERE IS THE EMBRACEMENT AND FULFILLMENT OF IDENTITY
THERE IS THE DEFINITIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF RELATIONSHIP
THERE IS THE AFFIRMATION OF AXIOMATIC PRINCIPLES, THE RIGOR & ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUFFICIENT & NECESSARY CONDITIONS
THERE IS AS WRITTEN ABOVE THE TWIN PRONGED NATURE OF CORRECTIVENESS AS MUCH A SELF-EXAMINATION AS AN OUTWARD ONE.
JUSTICE IS INDEED MANY THINGS, AND THE MEASURE OF EACH CONSTITUENT AND THE PRESENCE OF EACH CONSTITUENT IS AN EVER-CHANGING CONGLOMERATE THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY IS MADE MANIFEST IN JUSTICE OBTAINED AND RENDERED EXPLICIT OR IS ABSENT AND INJUDICIOUSNESS FESTERS.
THUS THERE IS ALWAYS WITH JUSTICE THE CYCLIC NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS THAT HAS CONSTANT CAUSE TO EXAMINE WHAT HAS COME INTO BEING AND WHAT STATE OF EXISTENCE HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT.
IT SHOULD THEN BE OBVIOUS THAT THE NATURE OF JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT AS WE EXAMINE OTHERS WE EXAMINE OURSELVES AND AS WE SEEK JUDICIOUS ACTION WE ARE BEHOLDEN DUTIFULLY TO EXAMINE TRUTHFULLY WHAT IS THE RESULT OF THOSE ACTIONS.
THUS, CORRECTIVENESS IS BORN OUT OF THE VERY NATURE OF JUSTICE AND TO SEEK JUSTICE IS SUFFICIENT TO CALL INTO BEING NECESSARILY A CORRECTIVENESS THAT IS BOTH GEARED INWARD & OUTWARD.
THERE THEN MUST ALSO BE AN END, FOR SINCE THE STATE OF JUSTICE OR THE STATE OF INJUSTICE MANIFESTS ITSELF ALWAYS THERE MUST BE AN ENDPOINT AT WHICH JUSTICE HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT AND THIS IS AT THE HEART OF WHY IT IS THAT NECESSARILY WE HOLD THAT OUR INCARCERATION FACILITIES ARE BOTH CORRECTIVE AND FUNCTIONAL FOR THEY ALONG WITH THE ENTIRE JUDICIAL PROCESS HAVE THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT A STATE OF JUSTICE AND TO DO SO OUT OF A PREEXISTING CONDITION OF INJUSTICE.
WE DO NOT LIVE BY LAW NOR DO WE FRAME LAWS FOR LAWS SAKE, HISTORY HAS BEEN CLEAR AND ABSOLUTE IN ITS DEMONSTRATIONS THAT WHEN A SOCIETY ATTEMPTS TO REPLACE THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE WITH THE LAW, AN EASILY OBTAINED PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE, IT IS A VERY SHORT TIME BEFORE THE LAW IS REPLACED BY MAN, AND MAN MOVES FROM HOLDING AN AUTHORITY UNDER LAW TO ASSUMING HIMSELF THE DEFACTO LAW.
WE FRAME THE LAW AS ONE ELEMENT IN THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE FOR AS IS SEEN BY THE INEXHAUSTIVE LIST ABOVE JUSTICE IS MANY THINGS BUT ONE THING IT IS SURELY NOT AND THAT IS THE LAW. THUS CONFLATING JUSTICE AND THE LAW IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS TYRANNY AND IT FOLLOWS AS NIGHT FOLLOWS DAY.
WE SEE THEN, THAT IT IS NOT MERELY THE ABSURDITY OF HOLDING THAT OUR FACILITIES ARE NOT FUNCTIONAL AND THE RELEASED INDIVIDUAL HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTED THAT DRIVE US TO OUR POSITION IT IS IN ESSENCE A DUE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE GRAND PURPOSE OF SEEKING JUSTICE WHICH BY ITS VERY NATURE ESCAPES THE THEORETICAL AND IS MADE MANIFEST IN EITHER ITS OBTAINMENT OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INJUSTICE THAT WILL NOT HALT UNTIL THAT INJUDICIOUSNESS CEASES AND JUSTICE IS AGAIN ESTABLISHED.
MY MANDAMUS WILL BE UTILIZING SOME OF THIS MATERIAL AND ONCE THE MANDAMUS IF FILED I WILL POST A COPY ON MY SITE SO EVERYONE CAN READ ABOUT THIS IMPORTANT CASE, AS IT DOES OR DOES NOT FINALLY GET HEARD.