JUSTICE
“Justice will not be served until those who
are unaffected are as outraged as those who
are.” Benjamin Franklin
Ignorance will lead to ridicule almost every time. The single most obnoxious ridicule based in ignorance and bias intent came in 2015 by Professor William Baude. Baude: “currently serving as a professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School and the director of its Constitutional Law Institute,”[3] quoted the term ‘shadow docket’. There already was a ‘shadow government’ in the lexicon. It is not surprising that an attack was levied against the Supreme Court during that period and today.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito said it right:
“… the court’s emergency docket allows it to make quick decisions when necessary. He also said the term “shadow docket,” coined in a 2015 law review article, is partly to blame for the misperceptions and criticism surrounding the court’s use of this procedure.
‘The catchy and sinister term shadow docket has been used to portray the court as having been captured by a dangerous cabal that resorts to sneaky and improper methods to get its ways,’ he said. ‘This portrayal feeds unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court or damage it as an independent institution.’
He also blamed politicians and the media for portraying the court’s expedited rulings — that often come without full opinions from the court — in a negative light.”[4]
Ignorance in the press, among other causes: results in personal attacks levied against Justices for ‘rejecting’ or ‘denying’ issues, when in reality the merits had nothing to do with the issue. Nobody teaches civics anymore. Social media erupts in anger when a Justice refuses a petition on procedural or jurisdictional grounds. The press imposes ‘deny’ upon a simple refusal to review. A refusal to address a viewpoint is considered to be against that viewpoint. A refusal to hear a topic close to the hearts of many results in attacks for Justices not standing up and Justices going against the reasons they were supported for the position. That ignorance does not help in the exercise of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. The emergency docket becomes the target whenever a party fails to gain advantage through its use.
The issues raised in IN Re: Lee Kent Hempfling et. ux.; invokes article 3 of the United States Constitution: in that the issues raised and the topics presented, directly involve the United States, and the action makes the United States a party thereof through the Executive Branch and the Department of Justice.
The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States:
U.S. Constitution Section 2:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
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, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.” [5][6]
The requirements for being one of the micro-collection of cases that actually make it onto the emergency docket, are far from easy.
1: The petition must show how the writ will be in aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction
Since the power of a court to hear appeals from lower courts is appellate jurisdiction: it is obvious to any prudent and sentient observer that not one of the cases included in the issues raised in IN Re: Lee Kent Hempfling et.ux. has ever issued a full and final ruling, so none can be attached. Orders in District courts are not final yet appeals taken have become cloaked in dust awaiting some mythical criminal process to evolve from inside a dead and comatose case.
Facts and evidence in all cases indicated the defendants in each case, lost the case and have enjoyed unparalleled and totally unwarranted immunity ever since the orders were stopped from being issued.
Prosecutors, far exceeding statutes of limitations[22], have no legal authority to withhold jurisdiction from the appeals, districts and state courts. The literal escape from prosecution this series of massive delays has created is reprehensible in a free and fair society.
“In an opinion released May 26, 2015, Kellogg Brown & Roots Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that whistleblowers cannot extend the statute of limitations for war-related civil false claims under the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (“WSLA”), reinstating an already generous statute of limitations period under the civil False Claims Act (“FCA”).”[23] This prohibition must apply to the practice of capturing and hiding civil cases that involve crimes. The only people being protected are the perpetrators. Prosecutors should be held accountable for their discretionary decisions. If a decision was made not to prosecute: that requires return of the cases to the Civil Court or due process comes to a halt. Prosecutors, as officers of the court should be required to inform the court of every decision that causes a hold or a release.
“Rule 20 (3): (a) A petition seeking a writ of prohibition, a writ of mandamus, or both in the alternative shall state the name and office or function of every person against whom relief is sought and shall set out with particularity why the relief sought is not available in any other court. A copy of the judgment with respect to which the writ is sought, including any related opinion, shall be appended to the petition together with any other document essential to understanding the petition. “
“A copy of the judgment with respect to which the writ is sought, including any related opinion, shall be appended to the petition together with any other document essential to understanding the petition. “ When there is no order upon which an appeal can be taken there is no opinion to provide. Placeholders are not dispositive and the rule does not require an order or opinion it requires one be submitted, which can only occur if one exists and the rule does not require that. The petition includes a great deal of evidence, far in excess of that required to prove the condition claimed.
Where no legal final judgment exists in any of the mentioned cases, no copy of a judgment can be provided. That is the problem. No judgments have issued. No cases have ended. No justice has been served.
2: what exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers
It requires a great deal of specificity to qualify for an emergency docket ruling. It should. It should not be easy to inundate the Supreme Court with useless paper. Since ‘circumstance’ means a fact or condition connected with or relevant to an event or action[9] and exceptional means unusual; not typical[10]: it literally takes an unusual or atypical condition or fact to gain entry.
Here are cases in the Charleston South Carolina district, the Phoenix Arizona District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Arizona State Superior Court in Pinal County that all have the very same circumstance and all have surpassed . They are all withheld from completion by the only place on earth that could take jurisdiction away from a civil court for a Constitutional reason.
The counter-claim in the 4th Circuit case (Hempfling v LM Communications LLC et.al.) involves ‘direct action’ from the NAACP into the EEOC’s business practices, and fraudulent radio station license processes before the FCC.
The entire fiasco can only be described as a failure to prosecute. Abandonment. Failure to prosecute occurs in a case when a claimant fails to continue to pursue an action but does not withdraw the claim.[11] A civil case is abandoned when that happens. Criminal cases should be protected so as to not expect witnesses to testify correctly after multiple decades of hidden action. Prosecutors faced with criminal violations, all of which are in defense of the Court as the Court is victim to those crimes, have failed to prosecute, and have failed to engage discretion and not prosecute. A moment past expiration of the legal ability to prosecute and the issue has been abandoned.
When court procedure becomes so bogged down it cannot escape the confines placed upon it, a court able to exercise supervisory power to regulate procedure in all involved courts is required.
In 142 S.Ct. 1024 (2022) UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Dzhokhar A. TSARNAEV. Decided March 4, 2022 the court admits: “Art. III, § 1. Much like the grant of “[t]he judicial Power” carries with it inherent authority over local procedure, this Court’s designation as “supreme” might carry with it some inherent authority to prescribe procedural rules for inferior federal courts.” [12] “To be sure, this Court has squarely asserted supervisory power to regulate procedure in lower federal courts. See McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943).”
While prosecutors have sequestered multiple pro se civil cases and managed to keep their existence a secret, the victims of those crimes remain victims. The Courts have been and continue to be victim. The person or persons responsible for mail theft, censorship, bribery and long list of other violations mentioned are, for the most part, except the Ninth Circuit) long past their ability to be charged with those crimes. The withholding of the jurisdiction away from courts has benefited the accused, benefited the losing parties to the cases and have maintained a false reality. Prosecutorial Discretion is to decide on a defendant by defendant basis whether to charge or not to charge, not whether a case is to be packed away from prying eyes.
The potential for unbridled corruption is evident when felonies committed against the United States (Judicial branch) can be hidden by a technique that has no sunlight, nor review. People can be protected. Civil cases can be destroyed without recourse. In fact, this one specific issue (holding civil jurisdiction away even past legal limitations to prosecution) has no recourse in law. Law is centered around the legality of “actions”. In this instance, the legality of “inaction” has a devastating result to justice when it casts civil rights not only to follow criminal rights but to not be relevant. That improper withholding is taking advantage of a condition where no remedy exists. It must.
FRCP Rule 41.[13] deals with Dismissal of Actions. There is no rule to deal with the dismissal of In-actions. The only logical means of addressing what has happened is to seek a stop to the violation of rights. Not of the rights of a victim in a crime (that would be the Courts!) but the rights of a party to a legal proceeding. Once a Court of competen.t jurisdiction assumes, acquires or accepts the filing of a legal action, the most important part of due process is the knowledge that the Constitution guarantees a ruling. If the Constitution did not guarantee a ruling, there would be no reason to question any ruling. Rulings would simply not be made. That would eliminate the justice of the justice process. But that is exactly the existence that has been created by no recourse to civil cases taken away in jurisdiction due to crimes that took place inside, before or after the civil case. The rights of the accused are being abused by those who should protect.
The rights of the accused must be preserved. That means crimes that are the same issue, the same person and the same events should be prosecuted before a civil case of the same content is ruled on. But when the legal ability to prosecute has expired there is no reason legal or otherwise that can keep cases held from publication to be published. Any moment past that afforded by the statutes of limitations is abuse and should not be tolerated by the Supreme Court. The Courts suffering under this abhorrent practice do not have jurisdiction over the cases. They would have to receive jurisdiction back before any Court could rule to stop the inaction. Except the Supreme Court.
3: Why adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court
The cases in question are withheld. All of them are completed. All of them are far past ripe. Luckily, justice does not become rancid with age. As is evident in the Arizona cases, any attempt to resolve issues is met with yet another prosecutor’s hold. There is no chance a court, already stopped from jurisdiction, will be able to rule on a motion to retake jurisdiction, in cases where that very court is the victim of a crime: be it postal in both the 9th and 4th Circuits or censorship in the 9th Circuit, or bribery in the Arizona Superior Court. It would have to be a separate action, which would be immediately locked down from publication yet again, each of them has. No adequate remedy at law is possible in lower courts.
Add to that the multiple district, multiple state presence of these cases. They all have crimes committed either inside, before or after the case trials. All of the cases have resulted in the courts hearing those cases becoming victim to crime. It is logical the cases would be held to deal with that prosecution. But it is NOT logical they have stayed that way well past the legal ability to charge anyone with anything.
When U.S. Mail is addressed to a Court Clerk’s office and then is stolen en-route to that court, the court is the victim of that crime (mail is owned by the receiver of it the moment it is placed in USPS custody) and cannot under any circumstances adjudicate the guilt or innocence of any person or entity connected to that theft.
When a court itself is the victim of a crime, whether its before, during or after trial: the court is the victim and any person representing that court must respect that position.
In the specific instance related to SCOTUS in re Lee Kent Hempfling et.ux. The Fourth Circuit’s Charleston District Court was the victim of mail theft, more than one time. USPS management personnel found the stolen mail and completed its delivery. The Charleston District Court is the victim of mail theft and CANNOT adjudicate anything related to that mail theft. Since jurisdiction was taken from the court by the DOJ many years ago the Court has no ability to address the case again and will not receive jurisdiction over it until the DOJ releases the criminal prosecution hold placed on it.
Only a Court NOT involved in the facts of the collection of cases may rule about those cases. Only the Supreme Court!
In the specific instance related to SCOTUS in re Lee Kent Hempfling et.ux. The Ninth Circuit’s Phoenix District Court was the victim of multiple mail thefts directed by someone. [16] USPS management personnel found each stolen document and completed its delivery. Likewise the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had been the victim of mail theft, censorship and other issues resulting in the inability of any Judge in the Ninth Circuit to sit without question over the issues involved.[14]
Jurisdiction was taken by the DOJ in the Ninth Circuit cases as well, making the Ninth and the Fourth Circuits unable to address the cases, long after statutes of limitations expired to prosecute those crimes. The civil cases are still held back without legal cause. A judge cannot divest “himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.”[2]
Crimes must be prosecuted within the jurisdiction of commission. Unless that jurisdiction cannot do so because of an institutional involvement, a conflict.
“Although state actors are generally governmental employees’ including the state and local levels, private parties may be deemed a state actor for the purposes of a Section 1983 action if “(1) the state compelled the private party’s conduct, (2) the private party acted jointly with a state, or (3) the private party fulfilled a role that is traditionally a public function performed by a state.” Baez v. JetBlue Airways, 745 F. Supp. 2d 214, 221 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Sybalski v. Indep. Grp. Home Living Program, Inc., 546 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 2008)).”[15]
Without the petition IN Re: Lee Kent Hempfling et.ux. Granted, being the only available remedy: the country would never know Google has already been caught long before the election of 2020 literally taking state actor orders from a politician to censor the United States district Court of Arizona and then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from permission to have any judicial product from either court be available to be known by the public if it mentions the name HEMPFLING. The state actors censored the Google search result for anything published by those courts. But failed to include the U.S. Printing Office copy. State sponsored censorship employing willing state Actors. Civilly Proven. [17] The Court even performed its own investigation (on the docket.)
One can only imagine the different world we would live in today if the DOJ had not stolen Justice and imposed the penalty of perpetual victim upon the United States Courts. How many other pro se cases has the DOJ simply taken away?
Each case in this string of missing justice is in the condition it is in today because some human did not want the acts enshrined in and around each case to be publicly known. There can exist no other possibility. It took a human being to take jurisdiction away from a civil court. It took purpose. Purpose that quite obviously never involved prosecution.
The emergency docket is used when the Court believes an applicant will suffer “irreparable harm” if its request is not immediately granted. Irreparable harm means: “no adequate remedy at law” and it is unfair/unjust to make the plaintiff wait for an injunction.”[7] It is also that same emergency docket that is ridiculed as the ‘shadow docket’.
Since Appellate Jurisdiction means the authority of a court to hear and decide appeals to decisions made by lower courts, any refusal or prohibition of exercising that authority is inimical to the very existence of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
It is that very issue that rises to the top of IN Re: Lee Kent Hempfling et.ux. No remedy at law for a condition that has no consequence to abuse.
The conditions created by the capturing of jurisdiction for civil cases, having now exceeded all possible legal outcomes (most cases have far exceeded any statues of limitations for prosecution), are irreparable and forever forced into a perpetual state of legal purgatory. A civil court that has passed jurisdiction to the criminal process is by very definition not able to engage jurisdiction, and there is no means by which a civil court may gain its authority to address an abandoned prosecution: therefore unable to provide any relief. Irreparable harm has resulted and continues and grows with every day justice has not been served.
The Brady Rule [18] was enacted to deal with prosecutors who are required to disclose any evidence favorable to the accused. There is no Rule that would keep a prosecutor honest by making cases no longer able to be hidden. There is no rule or law that requires a prosecutor to track a case so it does not disappear into the cave of perdition. There is no rule in procedure for a court to monitor cases and cause them to return to the civil court when the criminal process can no longer proceed. There are no checks and no balances available to keep a civil case from falling victim to a prosecutor with a criminal case he can hide. There needs to be a rule. At least there needs to be sunlight for all persons who have been caught up in civil cases coming to a hold and never starting again. And there needs to be freedom. Freedom for the Courts to exercise their jurisdiction: appellant or original and no longer be captive to the prosecutor’s complete disregard for due process.
The prosecutor who holds a civil case in abeyance should be required to report to the court the case belongs in, every 90 days, what the status is. The court taking the status report shall withdraw the hold if the present moment exceeds the time limit for prosecution of the crimes involved. Prosecutors must notify the court immediately when statues of limitations have expired and must return the case to the originating court within 10 days of the end of the statute’s limit.
Without that rule: civil cases (pro se and represented) will continue to disappear, civil cases will continue to be ignored, civil cases will tie up court resources never to clear the docket: and most importantly: most pro se litigants will continue to erroneously blame Judges for delays outside of their control.
Taking a civil case’s jurisdiction in order to prosecute should result in prosecution, before time expires to do so: while conveniently forgetting about it is actually tyranny.
Justice: is not its process; not its procedure; not what it takes to reach it, but rather wholeness of the victim. Without the victim being whole justice has not been served no matter how many arrests or indictments result.
“There is no greater tyranny
than that which is perpetrated
under the shield of the law and
in the name of justice.”
Montesquieu [21]
———-X————
REFERENCES:
[1] https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/marbury-v-madison-the-supreme-court-claims-its-power
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Baude
[4] https://www.ncronline.org/news/justice/notre-dame-justice-alito-defends-courts-use-shadow-docket
[5] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
[6] 28 U.S.C. § 1651 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure § 1651. Writs (a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. (b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.
[8] https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_20
[9] https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZLBR&pc=MOZI&q=circumstance
[10] https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZSBR&pc=MOZI&q=exceptional+
[12] https://www.leagle.com/decision/insco20220304f84
[13] https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41
[14] 28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455
[15] https://www.thesandersfirmpc.com/can-private-parties-be-sued-as-state-actors
[16]Bang v. Utopia Restaurant, 923 F. Supp. 46, 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
[17] Dahlberg v. Becker, 748 F.2d 85, 93 (2d Cir. 1984).
[18] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
[19] https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0512.htm
[20] https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0512.htm
[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montesquieu Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu French: 18 January 1689 – 10 February 1755, generally referred to as simply Montesquieu, was a French judge, man of letters, historian, and political philosopher. He is the principal source of the theory of separation of powers, which is implemented in many constitutions throughout the world.
[22] https://www.federalcharges.com/federal-statutes-of-limitations/ The origination of the statute of limitations is the speedy trial clause in the US Constitution. This clause prevents a person from having an unreasonable delay between the indictment and trial. Statutes of limitation and due process laws protect the accused from these kinds of unreasonable delays in prosecution.Statutes of limitations often encourage law enforcement officers to investigate suspected criminal activity quickly. This leads to a better outcome in cases both for the plaintiff and for the defense.
[23] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/scotus-no-unlimited-suspension-statute-limitations-under-false-claims-act-first-to-f#:~:text=In%20an%20opinion%20released%20May%2026%2C%202015%2C%20Kellogg,period%20under%20the%20civil%20False%20Claims%20Act%20%28%E2%80%9CFCA%E2%80%9D%29. SCOTUS: No Unlimited Suspension of the Statute of Limitations Under the False Claims Act; “First-to-File” Doctrine Does Not Bar Related Suits in Perpetuity