INTO THE FIRE__AGAIN!
Back in 2010, when I filed the two largest civl rights lawsuits in the nation, ever, Brock et al vs. Herbert et al, a $357 million securities suit, for violation of 6 federal statutory and constitutional civil rights, by state officers, acting under color of law, in a section 1983 lawsuit, with 29 violations under the Utah Constitution, in another list of violations by these same state of Utah, SEC regulators, attorneys, investigators, and fraud unit members, followed by a $56.7 million lawsuit, for corruption by Iron County, Utah, cops, sheriffs, prosecutors, judge, and division of child and family services, for at least 15 violations of civil and constitutional rights, under both the U.S. and the Utah Constitutions, when I was listed as the second highest attorney, in the United States for civll rights defense, I had a dream, one night around that time . . . I was wearing my black pantsuit, and white blouse, my standard fare for court, and I had legal files under my arm, and I was running in front of a wall of fire . . . and the country song, when your going through hell, just keep on running . . . was in my mind, and as I would look back, the wall was getting closer and closer, so I ran harder and harder! Well, here we are AGAIN, with shit rulings, coming out, no doubt of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT? GOD? WHAT THE FUCK . . . JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, in her dissent, mentions statutory interpretation: (1) plain language of the statute; (2) intent of the founding fathers or legislative body; and (3) the historical context for which the statute or constitutional provisions were written in . . .
Fact Pattern of the Utah, Of Course, Case
- officers stop guy without the constitutionally required "probable cause" and when they ask for I.D., and do a search of his records, they find out that he has an outstanding warrant for a minor traffic ticket
- so the officer, proceed to search the guy, and find, methamphetamines, and arrest him on drug possession
- I would imagine, the issue before the court, is that the officers, did: (1) an illegal and unconstitutional stop; (2) failing to have PC or the necessary probable cause to believe that the man had committed a crime; (3) then they did an illegal search of his records without having any PC to do so, and after finding he had a warrant out; (4) they did another search and seizure, in violation of his 4th amendment rights, without a warrant, presented to a magistrate or judge, to proceed with a further search and seizure, listing this "particularity" or "specificity" the items to be searched or seized! So, can the evidence discovered from the illegal stop, search and seizure, be used against the defendant, being "FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE?" That is the long standing, legal, standard and term used to describe, a stop, search and seizure of this nature . . . and there are long standing rights and protections, that would suppress this evidence, obtained in such and UNLAWFUL MANNER!
SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND . . . 4TH AMENDMENT
Search and Arrest Warrants
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The "Declaration of Independence"--Addressed to King George of Britain or England, As Colonists, List of Grievances!
- He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing to accent to laws establishing judiciary powers.
- He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
- He has erected a multitude of new officers, and sent hither, Swarms of officers to Harass the People, and eat of their substance.
- He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
- He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil powers.
- He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his asset to their acts of pretended legislation.
- For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
- For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of the states . . .
- For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighbouring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government and enlarging its boundaries, so as in render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;
- For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our government! . . .
- In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated INJURY! A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may be define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
- They have been deaf to the voice of JUSTICE and Consanguinity.
- We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and holm them, as we hold the rest of Mankind. Enemies in war, in peace, friends.
- THESE UNITED COLONIES ARE, AND OF RIGHT OUGHT TO BE, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES . . .
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE III
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
- The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during GOOD BEHAVIOR . . .
- The judicial powers shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the CONSTITUTION, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.
ARTICLE VI
SUPREMACY OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
[2] This Constitution, and the laws of the Unites 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, IN THE CONSTITUTION or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
[3] The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several states legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be BOUND by oath and affirmation, to SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States.
THE LAW, IS THE LAW, IS THE LAW . . . KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!
Get Your Lawsuits on My Fellow Criminal Defense Lawyers, Civil Rights Attorneys . . . other BAD ASS CON LAW CHICKS AND DUDES!
U.S. SUPREME COURT JUST GAVE YOU YOUR GET RICH PLAN FOR RETIREMENT!
KISSES, HUGS, LOVES!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.