About SPAN

The Student Peace Action Network (SPAN) is a grassroots peace and justice organization working from campuses and communities across the United States.

We organize for an end to physical, social, and economic violence caused by U.S. militarism at home and abroad.
We campaign for nuclear abolition, disarmament, and an end to weapon trafficking.
We oppose the complex webs of corporate and military power that perpetuate racism, damage the environment, deprive people of basic needs, and violate human rights.
War is not inevitable. We push for practical alternatives.

9 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Walter Lee  |  November 2, 2006 at 5:43 am

    I have yet to get beyond the fact that our soldiers who are often publicly praised as the best trained and the best equipped military in the world, went to war in Iraq, after over 18 months of planning without bullet proof vests, and armored personnel carriers. At one point CNN reported that 20% of all fatalities could have been prevented if the soldier killed was wearing a bullet proof vest, and or traveling in an armored personnel carrier. In my opinion, this is not just sufficient cause for the firing of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, but sufficient cause for an inquiry of impeachment. The merits of the claims below, are sufficient to demand a moratorium on the death penalty, legislation creating a public works act, thereby putting Americans back to work, restoring the +13 Billion that was taken out of Education, the impeachment of a D.C. Superior Court Judge by the name of Robert R. Rigsby, et al, and this is just the beginning. The seriousness of the ramifications of these civil claims receiving public scrutiny, is evidenced in the fact that you will not find one national, or local network or cable broadcast company, newspaper, magazine, or radio station that will report truthfully what these civil claims represents. Get Informed, and then Get Involved!

    Walter Lee v. District of Columbia, 531 U.S. 1054, 1186, (2000)
    Walter Lee v. John Ashcroft, No. 01-2610
    Walter Lee v. U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, No. 02-1418
    Walter Lee v. Stephen L. Verkamp, et al, No. 02-1643
    Walter Lee v. Office of Corporation Counsel, D.C., No. 02-554
    Walter Lee v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0091-05-2
    Walter Lee v. Wilma Lewis, No. 01-0841

    Reply
  • 2. Walter Lee  |  November 2, 2006 at 6:08 am

    Mr. Walter Lee, Pro se P.O. Box 92 Warsaw, VA 22572 11 Oct 06 U.S. Representative Dennis Hastert, (R-Ill) Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives 27 North River Street, Batavia, IL 60510 Phone: 630-406-1114 Fax: 630-406-1808 Certified Mailing No. Del. William J. Howell, R – 28th District Speaker of the VA House of Delegates General Assembly Building P.O. Box 406, Richmond, Virginia 23218 Phone: (804) 698-1028 Fax: (804) 786-6310 Certified Mailing No. EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A NATIONWIDE MORATORIUM ON THE DEATH PENALTY AN INQUIRY OF IMPEACHMENT AND EVIDENCE SUPPORTING AMENDING THE U.S. AND VA CONSTITUTIONS (Evidence demanding an immediate nationwide moratorium on the death penalty) IAW the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and IAW the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. Therefore, the federal and state governments do not possess the judicial power to kill another human being without first providing that human being with due process of law. IAW Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, page 516, due process is legally defined as; “The conduct of legal proceedings according to established rules and principles for the protection and enforcement of private rights, including notice and the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal with the power to decide the case – Also, termed due process of law; due course of law.” IAW Article III, Sec. 1, “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 Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” IAW Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, page 701, good behavior is legally defined as; “A standard by which judges are considered fit to continue their tenure.” IAW Article III, Sec. 2, cl 3, and the 6th Amendment, all crimes, except in cases of Impeachment shall be tried before a public jury, and in that trial, entitled to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of the State, entitled to be confronted with the witnesses against them, entitled to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor, and the assistance of counsel. IAW Article II, Sec. 4, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” IAW Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, page 378, high crime is legally defined as; “A crime that is offensive to public morality, though not necessarily a felony.” However, there is a recently enacted Congressional precedent that Perjury and Obstruction of Justice are high crimes. IAW Article I, Sec. 8 Section, of the VA Constitution, in all criminal prosecutions a man has the right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, and to call for evidence in his favor, and he shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty. He shall not be deprived of life or liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers, nor be compelled in any criminal proceeding to give evidence against himself, nor be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense. IAW Article I, Sec. 9, of the VA Constitution, a man shall not be inflicted with cruel and unusual punishment. IAW Article I, Sec. 11, of the VA Constitution, no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law. (Jurisdiction For an Inquiry of Impeachment and Legal Argument for Legislative Review of an Act of the U.S. Supreme Court) IAW Article I, Sec. 2, cl 5, and IAW Article I, Sec. 3, cl 6, of the U.S. Constitution, the House shall have sole Power of Impeachment, and the Senate shall have sole Power to try all Impeachments. However, in order to determine if the Supreme Court is not sitting in good behavior, the U.S. House of Representative must first convene an Inquiry of Impeachment. IAW Article IV, Sec. 17, of the Virginia Constitution, The Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, judges, members of the State Corporation Commission, and all officers appointed by the Governor or elected by the General Assembly, offending against the Commonwealth by malfeasance in office, corruption, neglect of duty, or other high crime or misdemeanor may be impeached by the House and prosecuted before the Senate, which shall have the sole power to try impeachments. Therefore, to determine if the judges on the Virginia Supreme Court, and inferior courts in the Commonwealth of Virginia, are guilty of Impeachable Offenses, the Virginia House of Delegates must convene an inquiry of Impeachment. Therefore, when a person is being tried for a Crime in a United States or State court that person is entitled to due process of law whereby their private rights are protected and enforced; they are entitled to a fair hearing before a tribunal that is sitting in good behavior, and therefore possessing the power to decide the case, and in that fair hearing, entitled to a legal proceeding according to established rules and principles. These established rules and principles include the aforementioned civil rights stated in the United States and Virginia Constitutions. Therefore, when every person sentenced to death by the federal and or state government has a legal right to petition the Supreme Court for a stay of execution, in order for the Supreme Court to possess the judicial power to rule in that petition, the Supreme Court must be sitting in good behavior. If it is determined upon review of an act of the Supreme Court that they are guilty of committing a high crime then there must be an immediate moratorium on the death penalty. When the Supreme Court denies a petition for a stay of execution while they were sitting in bad behavior where that citizen petitioning the Supreme Court is executed; then that person would have been deprived of their right to go before a Supreme Court that had the power to rule on and decide their case. Death is an irreparable harm, and is cruel and unusual punishment if inflicted unlawfully, proving this would be nothing less than 1st Degree Premeditated Murder! It is axiomatic that 1st Degree Premeditated Murder is not just a High Crime, but a Capital High Crime, whereby in many states, inc., the Commonwealth of Virginia is punishable by death, and therefore represents an Impeachable Offense IAW Constitutional Law, i.e., Article II, Sec. 4. (Evidence proving the U.S. Supreme Court is guilty of Impeachable Offenses) (Walter Lee v. District of Columbia, 531 U.S. 1054, 1186, (2000) On 1 May 95, I was injured on the job in the performance of my assigned duties while an employee of the District of Columbia. The injuries sustained were disabling in nature, and even though all proper documents for receiving entitled disability benefits were provided to the District of Columbia, I was still refused the entitled disability benefits prescribed by no less than 3 independent examining physicians. Repeated requests for these treatments were met with apathy. On 18 Jul 95, I notified the District of Columbia in a letter of my intent to sue. (I am going to skip the ramifications of this notice, and come back to it a bit later in this petition) On 16 Apr 97, I filed a civil claim in the D.C. Superior Court via Robert Ford of Capital Hill Legal Services seeking 500k, plus costs in monetary damages. On 16 Oct 98, Shellie F. Bowers dismissed this claim erroneously citing a violation of D.C. Code 12-309 (Notice to D.C. Mayor of my intent to sue). However, upon review of the court order, it is readily apparent that the court order was prepared prior to my response to the District of Columbia’s motion to dismiss. Additionally, when this case was taken on a contingency basis, it is axiomatic that prior to taking my case that Mr. Robert Ford, Esq, would have checked the documents proving my case, including the statute of limitations, and found them satisfactory. I proved that proper notice was made, but Mr. Ford declined to represent me any further in the case which required me to immediately appeal this decision and begin learning the laws of the land. On 14 May 99, and 16 Jul 99, the District of Columbia in the form of Robert R. Rigsby, et al, knowingly conspired to commit (13) Counts of Perjury, (13) Counts of Obstruction of Justice, and (2) Counts of Fabricating Evidence in a Motion to Dismiss and a Revised Motion to Dismiss in order to deprive me of my 7th and 14th Amendment civil rights to due process and equal protection of the laws in a public trial by jury before a 3 judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals (Sr. judge George Gallagher, and Associate judges Vanessa Ruiz, and Inez Smith Reid). On 17 Mar 00, despite providing this three judge panel with unalterable evidence that proves my case, these three judges knowingly and with malice aforethought conspired to aid and abet in the aforementioned high crimes by committing (8) Counts of Perjury, (8) Counts of Obstruction of Justice, and (2) Counts of Fabricating Evidence in a Memorandum and Order of Dismissal in order to perpetuate the deprivation of my 7th and 14th Amendment civil rights. On 21 Jun 00, Annice M. Wagner, at all times relevant, the Chief Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals after having been made aware of the evidence proving my case, knowingly and with malice aforethought aided and abetted in the aforementioned high crimes by Robert R. Rigsby, et al, in order to continue the perpetual deprivation of my 7th and 14th Amendment civil rights. On 10 Oct 00, the Supreme Court docketed this civil claim that never received a full, fair and open hearing IAW state law, i.e., D.C. Code 1-624.28, or a public trial by jury IAW the 7th Amendment, as No. 00-6477. IAW USSC Rule 15.2, the District of Columbia is admonished to file a brief in opposition to dispute any misstatements made in the petition prior to certiorari being granted, but the District of Columbia, i.e., Robert R. Rigsby, et al never filed a brief in opposition denying any of the legally filed statements proving that the D.C. judges/lawyers cited in the petition were guilty as charged for committing perjury, fabricating evidence/obstruction of justice Therefore, on 10 Oct 00, there is a legal and public record that the Supreme Court placed on their docket a petition that stated factual claims of numerous high crimes being committed by state officers of the court against me that went uncontested, as no brief in opposition was filed. On 11 Dec 00, the Supreme Court denied certiorari despite the fact that this claim never received a hearing on the merits, a trial by jury, or that the high crimes stated went unchallenged by the District of Columbia, thereby allowing the 17 Mar 00, order to stand as the law of the land. On 20 Feb 01, the Supreme Court denied a petition to be reheard, thereby knowingly allowing the commission of numerous high crimes to become the law of the land on this subject matter in complete defiance of Constitutional (Article VI, cl 2/3) and Federal (28 USC 453) Law Therefore, when the legal and public record proves that a Congressional precedent has been set whereby the criminal acts of Perjury and Obstruction of Justice by a Federal Official is a high crime, and as such an Impeachable Offense, then when no one is above the law, to include the Supreme Court, then as of 11 Dec 00, the Supreme Court is sitting in bad behavior, having aided/abetted with malice aforethought the commission of high crimes and Impeachable Offenses Therefore, as of 11 Dec 00, the Supreme Court was no longer in possession of the judicial power to rule in cases and controversies, having been found guilty of knowingly aiding and abetting in the facilitation and accomplishment of the aforementioned Impeachable Offenses. The seriousness of the Supreme Court not sitting in good behavior was presented to the U.S. Congress, the Office of the President of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Solicitor General, Director of the FBI, and many, many other federal and state officers, offices, agencies and departments, to include the filing of civil claims. The record proves that I informed these federal and state officials that the U.S. Supreme Court must either reverse and grant certiorari in Walter Lee v. District of Columbia, 531 U.S. 1054, 1186, (2000), or reverse and remand this matter back to the lower court for proper review consistent with ensuring that I receive a full, fair and open hearing on the merits, and a public trial by jury IAW U.S. and VA Constitutional and Statutory Law. All requests for an investigation were denied! Subsequently, a civil claim entitled Walter Lee v. Wilma Lewis, No. 01-0841, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, whereby I sought monetary damages in excess of twenty dollars for the violations of my civil rights via the commission of high crimes. On 21 Jul 01, Chef Judge Thomas F. Hogan reviewed the merits of a civil claim entitled Walter Lee v. Wilma Lewis, No. 01-0841, where I sued Wilma Lewis, then U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to investigate/prosecute D.C. Lawyer Robert R. Rigsby, et al for violating federal and state criminal and civil laws. The U.S. Government in the form of Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled as follows; “In dismissing the complaint, the Court made no finding whether plaintiff’s civil rights have been violated, or whether any criminal offenses had been committed. The complaint was dismissed because plaintiff seeks a hearing to review the exercise of discretion by the United States Attorney, a review that cannot be conducted by this court.” With this ruling, the U.S. Government placed on the public and legal record that a U.S. Attorney has the discretion to support or not support the Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution, and our Civil Rights contained therein, in complete violation of Article VI, cl 2, and 3, and their Oath. Obviously, when this ruling cites precedents by the Supreme Court that supports a U.S. Attorney possessing the discretion to support or not support the U.S. Constitution, then this is an immediate concern that must be vented through the citizens of the United States via an Inquiry of Impeachment. Such immediacy is due to the Judiciary placing on the public and legal record that a person’s opinion, which is what discretion represents, can supplant the Supremacy of the U.S.C. When you consider that every federal and state official has publicly sworn an Oath of Office to support the Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution prior to taking their office, and that they are bound to support the Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution, then it is impossible to reconcile the fact that the Supreme Court has issued rulings that says a U.S. judge or U.S. attorney can use their discretion on whether to support the U.S. Constitution without proving Perjury, and High Treason inter alias which are Impeachable Offenses, but more importantly decides if a man lives or dies! On 18 Dec 01, the U.S. Government in the form of U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, reviewed the evidence legally challenging the ruling of the Supreme Court in George W. Bush, v. Al Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), in a civil claim entitled Walter Lee v. John Ashcroft, No. 01-2610, and ruled, “the success of plaintiff’s claims necessarily requires the invalidation of the current presidency” of George W. Bush. For the presidency of George W. Bush to be ruled invalid based upon the facts articulated thus far, represents a prima facie case for the Impeachment of the Supreme Court, as the only way for me to have proven my case, is to have proven that the Supreme Court did not possess the judicial power to rule in that case, because the case was decided on 12 Dec 00! As previously stated, when the Supreme Court aided and abetted the high crimes of Robert R. Rigsby, et al, on 11 Dec 00, from that date forward, the Supreme Court was not sitting in good behavior. The Supreme Court was fully aware of their actions, whereby the repercussion of their acts manifests the commission of High Treason, Seditious Treason & Misprison of Treason, et al. Legally proving the illegitimacy of the presidency of George W. Bush, simply because the Supreme Court refuses to support my civil rights is not just a public display of arrogance, but proves an intentional assault against the Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution, and against the sovereign power of the citizens of the United States of America! However, when you consider that this assault on the Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution is selective, and I am a descendent of Africans, then this is prima facie evidence in support of the public demonstration of racism! Even so, this civil claim was dismissed by an unconstitutional law 28 USC 1915(e)(2), that deprives a U.S. Citizen of their right to a Public Trial by Jury. This unconstitutional federal law takes the decision making process of a civil case out of the hands of a jury in a public trial in complete violation of the 5th, 7th and 14th Amendments, et al and places it in the hands of a judge. In dismissing my civil claim the U.S. Government in the form of Thomas Penfield Jackson, actually ruled that my civil claim was frivolous, failed to state a claim and was moot. However, any civil claim proving the illegitimacy of the U.S. Presidency can never be frivolous, as a frivolous civil claim lacks legal merit. This civil claim sought the presentation of evidence by USAG John D. Ashcroft, to a grand jury IAW Federal Law 18 USC 3332, proving that the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in George W. Bush, et al, v. Albert Gore, et al, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) is unconstitutional and Treasonous. The federal law cited dictates that this is a civil claim where the relief sought could have been granted by the USAG, and a U.S. District court. However, the courts will not grant a civil claim that they can not legally defeat, nor award the damages sought, because it is much too embarrassing for their to be a legal and public record of a citizen of the United States who happens to be a self-professed unlearned disabled indigent of African descent, proving the Presidency of the United States is invalid because the Supreme Court was found guilty of knowingly committing Impeachable Offenses, as attempting to commit 1st Degree Premeditated Murder to them is much easier! This civil claim could never be moot, as the legitimacy of the U.S. Presidency is always relevant, as IAW Art II, Sec. 1, cl 3 and the 12th Am every U.S. citizen is entitled to a legally/lawfully elected President IAW Constitutional Law, so to state that this civil claim is a moot issue is not only legally wrong, it is a bald-faced lie! However, imagine sitting as a federal judge and receiving a civil claim whereby the facts, the law and the evidence contained in that civil claim would necessarily require the invalidation of the current presidency of George W. Bush, and instead of providing the civil litigant with the entitled restitution sought, a federal judge places in a written ruling, “the success of plaintiff’s claims necessarily requires the invalidation of the current presidency” of George W. Bush! This is the level of intellect that I have encountered in the federal and state judiciary, and if you had occasion to take note of the legal positions that are stated in the numerous rulings that I have received, you would conclude that there is evidence demanding proficiency tests and mental examinations of all federal and state judges to be made part of Constitutional and Statutory Law. Death is an irreparable harm where the victim can not recover from the demonstrated acts of cruel and unusual punishment inflicted by federal and state officials, and in my opinion when such evidence exists, it is deserving of a Congressional Investigation in the form of an Inquiry of Impeachment, and in the interim an immediate nationwide moratorium on the death penalty! When the U.S. Government declared that the presidency of George W. Bush was invalid, the U.S. Government also declared every bill/treaty signed into law, every executive order issued, and every person nominated by George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate as being invalid. One amazing aspect of this grievance is that the inferior courts created by Congress and all state courts, have lined up to place on the legal/public record their support for the Supremacy of the U.S. Supreme Court, and not their support for the Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. Another amazing aspect of this matter is not the arrogance of legally acknowledging that there is an argument that has been made in a U.S. Court of law, that invalidates the written ruling of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, and therefore, invalidates the Bush presidency, but the fact that verifiable acts of High Treason, War Crimes, Mass Murder, 1st Degree Premeditated Murder, Torture, the Attempted Assassination of a Foreign Leader of a Sovereign Land, Genocide, and Domestic and International Terrorism has been knowingly committed by so called Christians and Patriots who know that these high crimes carry no statute of limitations in the U.S. or in the U.N! Now, imagine our allies being made aware of these facts, proving that foreign countries sent their loved ones to fight in a war based upon lies, and then to compound the deaths of those citizens sent to war, to find out that their deaths are due to the illegitimate order to fight in an illegitimate War by an illegitimate U.S. president. Our allies sent their citizens to war based upon their belief that the presidency of George W. Bush was in full compliance with Constitutional and Statutory U.S. Law. This proves that the U.S. Government is monetary liable to the families of the American and Foreign citizens who have died, were injured, or whose property was destroyed based on the illegitimate order of an illegitimate president to fight in an illegitimate War! MOTIVE FOR MURDER On 10 May 02, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona sent me a minute order to show cause on 10 Jul 02, in the Sandra Day O’Connor United States Courthouse @ 4:45pm, in Phoenix AZ, why a civil case entitled Walter Lee v. John McCain, et al, should not be dismissed. On 2 Jul 02, I purchased roundtrip airfare, hotel and transportation accommodations to attend this show cause hearing online, and then learned my internet traffic was being monitored. On 3 Jul 02, unbeknownst to me, the U.S. Government cancelled this show cause hearing and did not make any attempt to notify me of this cancellation on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, or the 6th, by phone, but sent a letter to me on the 8th of July, knowing full well that I would not receive a letter traveling from Phoenix to Richmond until after I boarded my flight to Arizona on the 9th of July. On 5 Jul 02, I received physical verification of an attempt on my life, whereby I was informed that if it were not for the two little boys that were with me, that I would be dead, and if I were to get on that flight to Arizona, that I would endanger the lives of those citizens on the flight These facts were placed in a civil claim in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona entitled Walter Lee v. Stephen L. Verkamp, et al, No. 02-1643. Now consider the ruling! On 6 Sep 02, the U.S. Government in the form of U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick, Chief Justice of the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in Anchorage ruled in a civil claim entitled Walter Lee v. Stephen L. Verkamp, et al, No. 02-1643, that the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government created a doctrine of man called judicial immunity to shield federal judges and federal clerks from civil prosecution even when they are found guilty of conspiring to commit 1st Degree or Attempted 1st Degree Premeditated Murder, and ruled that this doctrine of judicial immunity is erected to such heights that it supplants our 1st Am. Civil Right to Redress. On 9 Sep 02, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, filed and agreed with this ruling, that a federal judge has judicial immunity from civil prosecution even when found guilty of conspiring to use the judicial power of the United States to commit the Capital High Crime and Impeachable Offense of 1st Degree and or Attempted 1st Degree Premeditated Murder! On 21 Jan 03, in a subsequent appeal of this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, my appeal of this decision was denied because I was too poor to pay for court costs. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently refused to acknowledge my petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby upholding the lower courts ruling. This fact placed on the legal and public record that two U.S. District Courts, one U.S. Appellate Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court were in agreement that federal judges/clerks enjoy absolute judicial immunity from civil prosecution for 1st Degree and Attempted 1st Degree Premeditated Murder of a U.S. Citizen and civil litigant. The U.S. Supreme Court by virtue of their refusal to support my Civil Rights are on record as setting a precedent whereby citizens who file a civil claim seeking excess of twenty dollars, but who are too poor to pay court costs can be denied the support of their 7th, and 14th Amendment Civil Rights to Due Process and Equal Protection of the Laws in a Public Trial by Jury, which is in complete violation of the U.S. Constitution, thereby proving Constitutional Error Now, before I go any further, I want you to consider that for over four years I have had to live my life knowing that just because I exercised my 1st Amendment Civil Right to Redress, federal/state officials not only plotted/planned to murder me, but issued a ruling stating that they can kill me, and any other citizen with impunity! So, what sort of psychosis are we dealing with? In any event, the Preservative Clause of the 7th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is controlling law in this matter, and dictates that since I filed a civil claim seeking excess of twenty dollars, that I still have the right to a public trial by jury to prove the merits of my claims today. Obviously, the legal argument in this ruling could never be made in a public trial by jury, as the American people would consider the government’s position psychotic! But how dense, judicially obtuse and mentally deranged do you have to be to think that just because you are a federal judge that you can use the judicial power of the United States in order to commit a Capital High Crime of 1st Degree Premeditated Murder, simply because you can not defeat a civil claim? There are no provisions in the U.S. Constitution or citations in Statutory Law that allows for the creation of a doctrine of man to shield federal judges from civil prosecution for 1st Degree Premeditated Murder, nor for this same doctrine of man to be erected to such heights that it usurps and supplants the Supremacy of our Civil Rights in the U.S. Constitution. These facts prove this ruling to be unconstitutional and fatally flawed and that the U.S. Supreme Court and inferior courts created by Congress are not sitting in good behavior IAW Art III, Sec. 1, which is a Constitutional Mandate that federal judges must obey in order to possess the judicial power of the United States to rule in cases and controversies. It is a Constitutional fact that every U.S. citizen is entitled to go before and petition a U.S. Supreme Court and inferior court that is sitting in good behavior and especially when petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of execution! This ruling spits in the face of Art I, Sec. 2, cl 5, Art I, Sec. 3, cl 6, Art I, Sec. 8, cl 14, and 18, Art II, Sec. 1, cl 8, Art II, Sec. 3, Art II, Sec. 4, Art III, Sec. 1, Art IV, Sec. 1, 2, and 4, and Art VI, cl 2 and 3, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Ams and U.S. Statutory Laws, 4 USC 101, 5 USC 3331, 28 USC 453 & 42 USC 1983, et al. So, Mr. Speaker (Hastert), when you have in your possession, unalterable, irrefutable, overwhelming physical evidence of the use of discretion, the erecting of a doctrine of man, and the creation of an unconstitutional federal law that deprives U.S. Citizens of their guaranteed civil rights IAW the 5th, 7th and 14th Amendments to due process and equal protection of the laws in a public trial by jury, is this sufficient evidence for you to determine that the guaranteed right to a Republican form of government IAW Article IV, Sec. 4, is being violated to such degree that the judiciary must be checked by the legislature in an Inquiry of Impeachment, while further enacting legislation that the federal and state judiciary has no power, authority or jurisdiction to overturn Acts of Congress, as an Act of Congress represents the will of the people who are sovereign; but when an Act of Congress is repugnant to the U.S. Constitution, the Judiciary does possess the power to issue a ruling citing the same, whereby the matter is brought before the We the People in a full, fair and open hearing with testimony under penalty of perjury and evidence presented on both sides to test before the We the People the Constitutionality of the federal law challenged! On 17 Jul 06, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, (R-WI), introduced house resolution 916, in support of an inquiry of Impeachment of a U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real, from the Central District of California. Regrettably, today I am forced to introduce this Resolution calling for an inquiry into grounds for the impeachment of U.S. District Court Judge Manuel L. Real, from the Central District of California. This Resolution has become necessary due to a breakdown in the judicial branch’s enforcement of the judicial discipline statute Congress enacted in 1980.When the judicial branch has failed to address serious allegations of judicial misconduct, as the Ninth Circuit arguably has in this matter, the Constitution provides the Congress only one course of action: opening an impeachment inquiry. I would caution my colleagues and others not to jump to any conclusions in this matter. Today’s Resolution merely allows the House Judiciary Committee to open an investigation to determine the facts. Only after the House Judiciary Committee has conducted a fair, thorough, and detailed investigation, will Committee members be able to consider whether Articles of Impeachment might be warranted. The introduced Resolution ensures that the investigation will be referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It is modeled after the last three impeachment resolutions that the House used to investigate, respectively, Judge Harry E. Claiborne (1986), Judge Alcee L. Hastings (1988), and Judge Walter L. Nixon (1989). All three were later impeached and removed from office based on the drafting of more detailed articles reported by the Committee after the investigations were completed. The grounds upon which this inquiry of Impeachment is based are as follows; • His intercession on behalf of a litigant known to him; • His alleged ex parte communications with the litigant known to him; • His assertion of jurisdiction over proceedings in which he lacked jurisdiction; • His alleged failure to explain his assertion of jurisdiction to counsel; • His alleged failure to provide any legal authority for his actions; • His reply, on at least one occasion, to counsel when questioned as to the basis of a ruling (“Just because I said it, Counsel.”). I expect the next step in this process to involve the establishment of a bipartisan impeachment inquiry team in the near future. When the above cited justifications are sufficient cause for Rep. Sensenbrenner, (R-WI) Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to submit a resolution to the House for a bipartisan inquiry of impeachment, then it is axiomatic that uncontested criminal acts of High Treason, and 1st Degree Premeditated Murder, is sufficient cause for you as Speaker of the House to submit a resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for a bipartisan inquiry of Impeachment against the Supreme Court of the United States, and inferior courts created by the United States Congress! EVIDENCE DEMANDING AN INQUIRY OF IMPEACHMENT OF THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT, ET AL, AND A MORATORIUM ON THE DEATH PENALTY The Commonwealth of Virginia in the form of Dr. Dominic A. Sica, M.D., has testified under penalty of perjury, and has signed a written confession to the commission of the high crime of forgery, fraud and identity theft being committed not by himself, but by a medical colleague who is also employed by the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Medical College of Virginia, on the campus of Virginia Commonwealth University. Dr. Sica, shows his knowledge of the corrupt nature of the federal and state judiciary by inviting me to bring forth a team of attorneys to litigate this matter after conferring with University Legal Counsel, Mr. David L. Ross, even after he has acknowledged the commission of high crimes, and violation of my 4th Amend Civil Rights, et al. Chief Judge Theodore J. Markow, of the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, who was the presiding judge who heard Dr. Sica, confess to these high crimes, refused to support my 7th and 14th Amendment Civil Rights to due process and equal protection of the laws in a public trial by jury, and allow me to legally proceed against the Commonwealth of Virginia, by citing that my civil claim was frivolous, and not in compliance with the rules of the VA Supreme court. The Commonwealth of Virginia also refused to criminally prosecute this matter. The reason why was never placed in writing, but no doubt because I am a Man of African Descent, and uncovered facts proving that federal and state officials are involved in a conspiracy to sell the medical and other personal data of U.S. citizens to major corporations like Bristol-Myers Squibb for a profit. I find it appalling when the federal government states that a federal official had permission to take home a laptop computer containing the private data of over 26.5 million people, and on the same day that it was taken to his house, that the laptop was somehow stolen! But not to be alarmed, the laptop in a week or so was suddenly found, and the FBI told the American people that an investigation revealed that he laptop was not tampered with! This is the same FBI that said no crimes were committed by former D.C. Lawyer Robert R. Rigsby! However, this was just the beginning, because suddenly we had computers and laptops from the Commerce Department, the Veteran’s Administration, and various hospitals reporting a loss of former and current patient’s records! However, the good part is when we travel back to the 18th of July, 1995, when I notified the District of Columbia of my intent to sue. I did not think about this until later, but when you read the 13th Amendment, you find that slavery is still alive and well in the United States of America, because it is condoned by the Supreme Law of the Land If you are “duly” convicted of a crime, the state can treat you like a slave! On 18 Jul 95, I was a U.S. Citizen who had never been arrested, or charged with any criminal offense, even in my juvenile years, but that soon all changed. The District of Columbia was fully aware of the fact that if I received the support of my civil rights, that I would prevail on the merits of my case, and so they conspired with the Commonwealth of Virginia to charge and arrest me for a felony. Now, briefly stated, three days after I notified the District of Columbia that I was going to file a lawsuit, I was stopped, arrested, and charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. However, at the time of the stop, no drugs were produced, I was just ordered out of my vehicle and told to walk approximately 30 feet from my car, and all of this is on the record in the form of a court transcript. Subsequently, I was informed by the presiding judge that I would not be allowed a public trial by jury, and when I spoke up for my rights, I was told that I would be held in contempt of court and placed in jail if I wanted a jury trial, and that I would stay in jail until the presiding judge felt like holding the trial. Again, this is all on the record. At trial, I was informed by my lawyer, that even though I could prove that the arresting police officers committed multiple counts of perjury, fabricating evidence and obstruction of justice in their testimony in the preliminary hearing, that the judge would not believe me against their testimony. The Commonwealth of Virginia offered a plea deal, which was 5 years with 4 years 4 months suspended, and I rejected it because I was innocent. However, my lawyer informed me that I could get anywhere from 5 to 40 years for this fraudulent charge even when I am innocent! This lawyer went on to inform me that he had no defense for me, because the judge would side with the testimony of the police officers even if he knew they were lying through their teeth. So, I had to make a choice of spending 5 to 40 years in a state penitentiary for a crime I did not commit, or take a deal and be out of jail in about 6 months. Oh, and before I forget, it just so happens to be the case, that where I was arrested, the Commonwealth of Virginia had just built a brand new jail, and that brand new jail was in need of some inmates! Well, I served time in jail, but because of my perpetual writing, I was sent to prison for the last month of my incarceration. Now, when I filed my civil claim on 16 Apr 97, after getting out of prison, the District of Columbia treated me like a slave IAW the 13th Amendment, and denied my civil rights as if I had none. The record bears witness to the fact that my civil claim traveled all the way from the Department of Employment Services, to the D.C. Superior court, to the D.C. Appellate court, and to the Supreme court, and I never had a full, fair and open hearing on the merits of my case IAW state law, i.e., 1-624.28, or a public trial by jury IAW the 7th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is the civil claim Walter Lee v. District of Columbia, 531 U.S. 1054, 1186, (2000), that proved the commission of high crimes and Impeachable Offenses were knowingly made by Robert R. Rigsby, et al. However, when the Supreme Court denied my petition for a writ of certiorari, and denied my petition to be reheard, I began filing civil claims as previously stated. One civil claim of interest is Walter Lee v. Office of Corporation Counsel, D.C., et al, No. 02-554, whereby on 7 Dec 01, I filed a civil claim via certified mail, legally accusing then D.C. Corporation Counsel, Robert R. Rigsby, et al, of knowingly conspiring to commit (13) Counts of Perjury, (13) Counts of Obstruction of Justice and (2) Counts of Fabricating Evidence on 14 May 99, and 16 Jul 99, in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. As you can see, some how in the midst of this civil claim, and a summons addressed to Robert R. Rigsby, a notice for Robert R. Rigsby, a schedule of events for this civil claim, and the denial of my 7th Amendment Civil Rights to a Public Trial by Jury, when I sought monetary restitution in excess of twenty dollars, Robert R. Rigsby, was nominated and confirmed by George W. Bush and the U.S. Senate to sit as a judge on the bench of the D.C. Superior Court! Oh, and by the way, on 5 Jul 02, he responded to these factual claims of high crimes with the same lies he stated in the previous case! This brings us back to the point where the U.S. Government, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the District of Columbia conspired to kill me in July of 02. After the written ruling of Walter Lee v. John Ashcroft, No. 01-2610, I began citing this ruling in subsequent civil claims, and the fact that I had been unduly convicted of a crime by the Commonwealth of Virginia. After the Ninth Circuit refused my appeal on 8 Jan 03, and the Supreme Court refused to docket, or even acknowledge receipt of my petition for a writ of certiorari, I began a more concerted effort of notification of what was happening to me via e-mail. The record proves that I have many letters from members of Congress, as well as the Department of Justice, Cabinet Level Officials, and the White House, refusing to support my civil rights. Undeterred, I began a more concerted e-mailing of law schools, law professors, lawyers, businesses, and civil groups, et al, and received the same replies. In December of 03, I began publicly distributing these documents in Tappahannock, Virginia, and if you recall, the FBI at that time stated that a Terrorist had been reported in either Tappahannock or Rappahannock Virginia. In fact, film producer Micheal Moore, made note of this in his movie Fahrenheit 9/11, and Mr. Biff Henderson from the David Letterman Show came to the small town of Montross. Well, on 9 Apr 04, on Good Friday, I was stopped, arrested, and charged with Attempted Assault and Battery of a Police Officer, Eluding a Police Officer, and Obstruction of Justice. The magistrate judge Suzanne F. Lowe denied me a bail hearing in direct violation of state law, and on 12 Apr 04, I was additionally charged with the Capital High Crime of Attempted 1st Degree Premeditated Murder of a Police Officer, and a violent crime of Assault and Battery of a Police Officer, so I would not receive a bond, et al. The fraudulent nature of these charges are so transparent, until the Commonwealth of Virginia does not even try to hide the fact that the evidence proving my actual innocence of these charges, and the guilt of the Commonwealth of Virginia in conspiring to commit multiple counts of Perjury, Suborning Perjury, Fabricating Evidence, Obstruction of Justice, Assault and Battery, False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution, Filing a Fraudulent Police Report, Conspiracy, and Attempted 1st Degree Premeditated Murder under color of law is axiomatic. The evidence of my actual innocence of these fraudulent charges is contained in the criminal matter of Walter Lee v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0091-05-2, as the Commonwealth of Virginia sought to introduce this past wrongful conviction in the sentencing stage, and this act of Richard H. Stuart, brought to life my ability to argue the unconstitutional nature of this prior conviction! Now, in order for you to have a better appreciation of Richard H. Stuart, and the local politics of Westmoreland County, consider these statements that were made in a political debate by Westmoreland County Commonwealth Attorneys Peggy Garland and Richard H. Stuart. On 24 Oct 03, Mr. Frank Delano of the Free Lance Star Newspaper reported the following; Most of this year’s outsiders are Democrats who say it’s time for a change from Republican incumbents. But Garland, the incumbent commonwealth’s attorney, proudly considers herself a Democratic outsider in the Republican-dominated world of county politics. Republican challenger Stuart is a member of an old county family with long-standing ties to the Westmoreland establishment. He argues that it is time for the commonwealth’s attorney to belong to and work with the Republican fold that includes most county officials. Now in her seventh year as prosecutor, Garland sees herself as the virtuous heir of a dismal succession of Westmoreland County commonwealth’s attorneys. Her immediate predecessor was “the worst commonwealth’s attorney imaginable,” Garland said in a 2001 speech at the University of Virginia. Another prosecutor was charged with embezzlement. The one before him was busted for selling cocaine. And the one before him was “well known for drinking to excess in public,” Garland said. Furthermore, Garland said that during her first term in office, a circuit judge and Sheriff C.W. “Buddy” Jackson “continued to try to get rid of me.” Even court clerks, Garland said, whispered rumors against her after a botched murder trial in May. Now, there are a couple of items that I want you to take careful note of, the first is that Richard H. Stuart publicly informs citizens of this community that if he is elected that he will belong to, and work with Republican County Officials. Now, am I mistaken when I take the legal position that when a public servant is being paid by “We the People” to serve “We the People”, that if Richard H. Stuart is going to belong to anybody, than he must belong to “We the People”, and not a political party? However, the fact that this person could publicly state these words and still win the election to not represent “We the People”, but the interests of the Republican Party is almost beyond words. However, this is the hill (apathy/ignorance) that the Petitioner must climb Now, take note of the long history of incompetence and criminality that was committed by judicial and other officers of the court. Westmoreland County Commonwealth Attorneys were selling cocaine, embezzling money, cited for public drunkenness, and exhibiting incompetence to such degree that their tenure in office was categorized based upon facts, as the worst yet known. Now, Richard H. Stuart, who is guilty of conspiring to commit 1st Degree Premeditated Murder, along with Dean J. Atkins, and Ronald G. Roberts, as well as suborning perjury, et al, has recently resigned from public office to spend more time with his family. One aspect I noted while proceeding in this case is the state attorneys do not have to prove the crime charged was committed, because the state judges take over at that point and administer their brand of racism! Now, take note of the order from the Commonwealth of Virginia in this case; On appeal, appellant argues his Sixth Amendment rights to present witnesses on his behalf was violated, his civil rights were violated when he was not permitted to introduce evidence that he was denied the right to vote based upon a prior unconstitutional conviction, his right to present evidence on his behalf when the trial judge would not permit the jury to visit the scene of the traffic stop, Officer Roberts committed perjury, the Commonwealth conspired to fraudulently charge and prosecute him, and his civil rights were violated when the trial judge threatened him with contempt of court if he continued asking certain questions of officer Roberts. Now, when the Commonwealth of Virginia does not dispute the fact that I was denied my 6th Amendment right to present witnesses, and evidence in my behalf, denied my right to visit the scene to prove the arresting officer committed multiple counts of perjury before the magistrate judge, the general district judge, the grand jury, the circuit court judge and the trial jury, thereby proving that the stop, arrest, charges, indictments, prosecution, sentencing and imprisonment are not only unconstitutional, but proves malfeasance in office, neglect of duty, and corruption in the Virginia Supreme Court. Additionally, even when saddled with these blatant deprivations of my civil rights, the presiding judge actually is on the record threatening me with criminal contempt of court and jail if I continued to pursue a line of questioning that proves my actual innocence of the charges filed, and the guilt of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This is proof of a racist judiciary! However, based on the testimony of chief justice John G. Roberts, in his confirmation hearing regarding his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, this position of racism is proven. In other areas the courts precedents dictate the approach this is not something that is purely a matter of academic exercise for example on the 7th Amendment, the right to a jury trial the court has been very specific, we have a historical approach there, the job of a judge is to sort of look at whatever action is and try to analogize it, what would that be most like in 1787 and if you got a jury trial for that you get one today, and you didn’t you don’t. It’s a purely historical approach. Now, if we were to take this historical approach that has been construed as an originalist or textualist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, a Man of African Descent in the year of 1787, when slavery was condoned by the federal and state governments would not have the civil right to a public trial by jury. In fact an African would not have any civil rights at all because in 1787, as the U.S. Constitution was not written to embody Africans with civil rights as they were slaves. So when chief justice John G. Roberts testifies under penalty of perjury that the job of a judge is to look at a claim and interpret the U.S. Constitution in an historical manner whereby if the citizen received a public trial by jury in 1787 for this action, then he will receive a public trial by jury today, and if not then he will not receive one today, then chief justice John G. Roberts is advocating racism by telling all federal and state jurists that the job of a judge is not to support the Civil Rights of a Man of African descent, et al, to have a public trial by jury, because when the Constitution was written by the founding fathers, those men and women of African descent had no guaranteed civil rights to a public trial by jury because they were not only slaves, but they were considered less than human, i.e., 3/5th human, and inferior to the white man in intellect. Therefore, when reading the U.S. Constitution in its original form, those of African, Asian, Hispanic, Jewish or Native American descent, including women, have no 7th Amendment civil rights today, since the U.S. Constitution was written to embody only White Protestant Male Land Owners with these civil rights. Additionally, nor is there consideration for any amendment but in the Bill of Rights for anyone, as these amendments were none existent in 1787, and 1791! So, when there is a public record in the United States Senate of the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, testifying that he will interpret and instruct the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution whereby citizens of African descent will not have a civil right IAW the 7th Amendments to a public trial by jury, then “This is The Public Confession of a Racist!” To place on the legal and public record the actual demonstration of this interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by chief justice John G. Roberts, the evidence of my wrongful conviction was brought before him on two occasions seeking judicial review of the civil matter entitled Walter Lee v. District of Columbia, 531 U.S. 1054, 1186, (2000), and petitioning him for a writ of certiorari in Walter Lee v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0091-05-2. The former was denied On 22 May 06, the latter was submitted in the form of a petition for a writ of certiorari from the Virginia Court of Appeals to this court, because the Virginia Supreme Court refused to rule on this appeal, attempting to run the time out, and below is a portion of the petition/response. “PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THE VIRGINIA COURT OF APPEALS ORDER DATED 22 FEB 06 “The Petitioner was “unduly” convicted of crimes the Petitioner did not commit. The Respondent does not deny this fact. The Petitioner cites the 6th and 14th Amendments, as well as Blakely, as controlling precedents to overturn this fraudulent conviction. The Petitioner also cites racial prejudice and bias due to the Petitioner’s impoverished status, and litigation in various federal and state courts as a factor to be considered. Submitted 22 May 06 Copy to Va Atty Gen via email /s/Walter Lee” This court responded to this timely filed petition for a writ of certiorari as follows: “Dear Mr. Lee: The enclosed papers were received on May 30, 2006. These papers fail to comply with the Rules of this Court and are herewith returned. You may seek review of a decision only by filing a timely petition for a writ of certiorari. The papers you submitted are not construed to be a petition for writ of certiorari. Should you choose to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, you must submit the petition within the 90 day time limit allowed under Rule 13 of the Rules of this Court. A Copy of the Rules of this Court and a sample petition for a writ of certiorari are enclosed. Your case must first be reviewed by a United States court of appeals or by the highest state court in which a decision could be had 28 USC 1254 and 1257. Sincerely, William K. Suter, Clerk By Gail Johnson (202) 479-3038” Enclosures:” RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER DATED 30 MAY 06 There are too many Constitutional, Statutory (Criminal and Civil) and Ethical Violations in this court order to have been authorized by the Chief Justice, or any other justice on this court. Therefore, to ensure the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of this petition sets forth the plain Constitutional, Statutory and Ethical violations of the law that are contained in this court order the Petitioner will enumerate some by revisiting the language comprising the same. “The enclosed papers were received on May 30, 2006. These papers fail to comply with the Rules of this Court and are herewith returned.” This petition was dismissed for not being in compliance with the rules of this court, and therefore, it becomes axiomatic that the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court is ignorant of Constitutional and Statutory Law, and the past precedents the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on regarding the submission of legal pleadings by Pro se litigants proceeding IFP. IAW Article III, Sec. 2, cl 3, “The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases In Impeachment, shall be by Jury”. 6th Amendment, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” These two provisions of the U.S. Constitution guarantee that all crimes shall be by jury, and the Petitioner has the Civil Right to obtain witnesses, and counsel for his defense in this trial by jury, and federal laws 4 USC 101, and 28 USC 453, proves that all Article VI jurists are bound to support, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. The 1st three Judicial Canons of Ethics sets forth the moral standard that all jurists should comply with. Because “most pro se plaintiffs lack familiarity with the formalities of pleading requirements, [the court] must construe pro se complaints liberally, applying a more flexible standard to evaluate their sufficiency than [it] would apply when reviewing a complaint submitted by counsel.” Lerman v. Bd. Of Elections, 232 F. 3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 2000) citing; Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 521 (1972) (per curiam) A pro se complaint should not be dismissed for inartful pleading unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Haines, 404 U.S. at 521 (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). The Petitioner has cited Constitutional, and Statutory Law proving that he is entitled to a public trial by jury in order to present the evidence that proves his innocence of all charges, and Case law in support of a more liberal reading of this petition, as the Petitioner is an unlearned disabled indigent. The criteria the court sets forth as the legal threshold upon which this petition should not be dismissed is whether the Petitioner can prove any set of facts in support of the Petitioner’s claim. The Petitioner informed the court that the 6th, and 14th Amendments, as well as the Blakely decision were controlling law in this case. This compels the Petition to cite this; LEGAL STATEMENT OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP/ENTITLEMENT TO CIVIL RIGHTS The Petitioner is a U.S. Citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia who has never been “duly convicted” of any crime by any government, state or territory, and therefore is vested with the sovereign power to demand the support of his Constitutional Civil Rights, et al. 14th Am, Sec. 1, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property w/o due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This provision sets forth the Civil Right that I possess as a U.S. Citizen to Due Process and Equal Protection of the Laws in a Public Trial by Jury. The legal and public record contained in a court transcript proves beyond all doubt that the Petitioner was denied this civil right whereby he could present witnesses and evidence, et al, in his behalf to a jury to prove the Petitioner’s innocence and the guilt of the Commonwealth of VA of a criminal conspiracy. These facts prove that this is a clear violation of Constitutional Law, i.e., the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, et al, Federal Statutory Laws, 4 USC 101, 42 USC 1983, et al, the 1st three Ethical Canons for Judicial Conduct, at least three past precedents of the Supreme court, and VA Supreme court, as well as Rule 3A of the Virginia Supreme Court. IAW Article VI, cl 2, and 3, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treatise 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.” Now, unless the Commonwealth of Virginia is prepared to legally represent to this court in the form of a brief in opposition IAW USSC Rule 15.2, that the Petitioner is not a human being and citizen of the United States, or there was no violation of the Petitioner’s 6th/14th Amendment Civil Rights then this court order is in violation of Article III, Sec. 2, cl 3, and the 6th and 14th Amendments. On 24 Jun 04, the court ruled in Blakely that a state violation of the 6th Am Civil Right of a U.S. Citizen invalidates that state’s criminal conviction. Therefore, proving these violations of criminal and civil law committed by the Commonwealth of Virginia proves that the Petitioner’s claim satisfies the legal threshold that this court has established in granting certiorari. “You may seek review of a decision only by filing a timely petition for a writ of certiorari. The papers you submitted are not construed to be a petition for writ of certiorari. Should you choose to file a petition for a writ of certiorari, you must submit the petition within the 90 day time limit allowed under Rule 13 of the Rules of this Court.” The court also falsely represented that the filing of this petition for a writ of certiorari was not timely filed, when clearly an order dated 22 Feb 06 in which a petition for a writ of certiorari was submitted on 22 May 06, represents a timely filed petition within 90 days of the order. As a graduate of Harvard University’s School of Law, and now Chief Justice of the United States, are you not required to at least be able to count prior to obtaining a law degree, or are graduates of this institution of higher learning not required to have mastered the basic elements of arithmetic? This court also falsely represented that the Petitioner’s writ of certiorari was construed as something other than a petition for a writ of certiorari, when the words “Petitioner for a Writ of Certiorari from the Virginia Court of Appeals” are written on the petition. It takes some effort to misconstrue a document entitled as a petition for a writ of certiorari as being something else! In point of fact, the only effort that is required is for a white man to practice racism, by looking upon a black man as if he possesses the power to treat this black man as if he is somehow subservient too, and or less intelligent than this white man. Therefore, allow the record to put that to the test The court also showed its ignorance of the language that comprise USSC Rule 10(c), which governs review of petitions for a writ of certiorari by this court, which states as follows; “Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:” “(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.” Federal Question: What provision of the U.S. Constitution states that a U.S. Citizen does not have a Constitutional Civil Right to Redress from the highest court of the United States? When this court can not cite that provision, then this rule is unconstitutional/must be repealed forthwith. Federal Answer: All U.S. Citizens who petition’s this court are entitled to their 1st Amendment Civil Right to Redress. The Petitioner maintains that all petitions not accepted, must be provided with the Constitutional and Statutory Law, and precedent that has already settled the issues raised, and this will allow the U.S. Citizen to examine the laws and opinions of this court. As the record reflects, the multitude of criminal and civil violations that have been gleaned from this order is a testament of the need for the Impeachment, Conviction and subsequent criminal prosecution of this court, and a Constitutional Amendment demanding periodic proficiency testing of all judges! Your case must first be reviewed by a United States court of appeals or by the highest state court in which a decision could be had 28 USC 1254 and 1257. Federal Law 28 USC 1254 references petitions from U.S. courts of appeals and therefore is not applicable in this case, as this petition is from a state court of appeal and with regards to the other federal law cited, i.e., 28 USC 1257(a)(b) the following is stated; (a) Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States. (b) For the purposes of this section, the term “highest court of a State” includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. There is absolutely nothing within this statute that says when the highest court of a state refuses to rule on an appeal, that the appellant can not petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari from the last order entered on the record. This is exactly what the Petitioner did, and this unalterable, irrefutable legal fact is completely supported by USSC Rule 10(c)/28 USC 1257. Now, when this petition states on the cover page that it is a writ of certiorari, and based upon the dates of the order and the submission of the petition, it is timely filed, and in your own rule book you cite that a decision by “a Reply
  • 3. Walter Lee  |  November 2, 2006 at 6:17 am

    Now, when this petition states on the cover page that it is a writ of certiorari, and based upon the dates of the order and the submission of the petition, it is timely filed, and in your own rule book you cite that a decision by “a state court” is sufficient to file for a petition for a writ of certiorari, and the federal statute you cite conflicts with your own order, then this court order is evidence of this court obstructing justice, having knowingly committed multiple acts of perjury to aid and abet in a Capital High Crime; namely Attempted 1st Degree Premeditated Murder, et al, in order to kill me because this and any other court can not legally defeat the merits of my claims.

    Clearly, when the Commonwealth of Virginia has ruled in a rebellious and contemptuous manner in this case which aids and facilitates the violation of the Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment Civil Rights to a Public Trial by Jury while knowingly conspiring to Attempt with Premeditation to kill the Petitioner under color of law, and committing multiple counts of perjury, et al, and the Commonwealth of Virginia does not deny this fact, then the order of the U.S. Supreme court is supporting a fraudulent criminal conviction in violation of Constitutional and Statutory Law.

    The Petitioner represents to this court that this petition must be reviewed so that this court can demand the Commonwealth of Virginia to offer testimony under penalty of perjury as to what provision of the U.S. Constitution, or citation of Statutory Law did they interpret that gave them the authority to deprive the Petitioner of his 4th, 6th, 8th, 14, and 15th Amendment Civil Rights, et al, and why they failed to rule consistent with the aforementioned precedents of this court.

    One Constitutional argument in support of the immediate need for this court to grant certiorari in this matter to demand testimony under penalty of perjury by the Commonwealth of Virginia is Article IV, Sec. 1. Whereby “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” This courts refusal to hear this petition necessarily proves that this court is allowing the lower court ruling to stand as the law of the land. However, when the Commonwealth of Virginia is guilty of not just violating Constitutional and Statutory Law, as well as a signed enforceable Treaty, and precedents by this court, et al, but the Commonwealth of Virginia is guilty of committing High Treason, Seditious Treason, Misprison of Treason, Misprison of Felony, 1st Degree Premeditated Murder, Attempted 1st Degree Premeditated Murder, Perjury, Suborning Perjury, Fabricating Evidence, Conspiracy, Racketeering, Forgery, Fraud, Identity Theft, Grand Larceny, Assault and Battery, and Obstruction of Justice, and these High Crimes legally represent Impeachable Offenses, this necessarily proves that this court is guilty of knowingly and with malice aforethought aiding the facilitation of these high crimes!

    Article III, Sec. 1, of the U.S. Constitution is specific in stating that the U.S. Supreme Court and all inferior courts created by Congress possesses the judicial power of the United States only while they are sitting in good behavior. The commission of Impeachable Offenses by the U.S. Supreme Court necessarily requires a Congressional Investigation to determine if the U.S. Supreme Court Constitutionally possesses the Judicial Authority to legally preside over cases and controversies to include all petitions for a stay of execution of which demands a Congressional Investigation, and an immediate nationwide moratorium on the death penalty to prevent Murder!

    Now, when the Virginia Supreme Court is presented with unalterable evidence of my actual innocence of these crimes, and the guilt of the Commonwealth in the commission of a Capital High Crime, and other high crimes against me, and still refuses to reverse this fraudulent criminal conviction, then the Virginia Supreme Court is aiding and abetting in the facilitation and accomplishment of these high crimes, and therefore in complete violation of Article IV, Sec. 17, as this is definitely the manifestation of malfeasance in office, corruption, and neglect of duty.

    Obviously, when the Supreme Court and the Virginia Supreme Court are not sitting in good behavior, and can not disprove these facts then they must be Impeached. Until the U.S. House of Representatives, and the VA House of Delegates convene an Inquiry of Impeachment to provide chief judge John G. Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court, and chief judge Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr., of the VA Supreme Court the opportunity to come before the members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the VA House of Delegates respectively, and testify under penalty of perjury before these legislative bodies that possess the power, authority and jurisdiction to impeach these judicial officers, to disprove these stated facts, then there must be a nationwide moratorium on the death penalty. Enough horror stories about the death penalty has arisen to where it is time for this matter to be brought before and revisited by the citizens of the United States in Congressional Hearings, where testimony by persons on both sides of the death penalty are made, and the decision placed on the ballot of the 2008 Presidential Election. Additionally, when the Supreme Court is unable to disprove the merits of Walter Lee v. District of Columbia, 531 U.S. 1054, 1186, (2000), then this is sufficient evidence for the creation of a pauper’s court, which is a court higher than the U.S. Appeals Court, and lower than the U.S. Supreme Court. The purpose of this court is to ensure justice, the first pillar of the preamble by hearing all cases involving a poor person, or any person legally proceeding pro se to inc. civil and criminal cases.

    The logistics can be revealed upon request. Also, the Impeachment of Robert R. Rigsby, as a judicial officer is paramount, as the nomination and confirmation of this individual manifests the folly of all three branches of government, i.e., the legislature in confirming him, the executive in nominating him, and the judiciary in aiding and abetting his multiple Impeachable Offenses.

    For this cause the continuation of Robert R. Rigsby to sit on a bench as a judicial officer, and possessing a license to practice law is repugnant to the Supreme Laws of the Land, and to all citizens of the United States who believe in a Republican form of Government, whereby the citizens of the United States are sovereigns, and therefore “Kings and Queens” in our own right!

    In closing, it is my understanding that John G. Roberts, and Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr., are both graduates from that famed institution of higher learning, Harvard University, and as such must be able to legally engage and defeat the merits of a self-professed unlearned disabled indigent on maters of law, in televised proceedings before the American People, and the Nations of the World. But, when it is proven that they cannot, nor do they dare to open up their mouth to utter the 1st syllable, that forms the 1st word, that begins the 1st sentence in defense of their heresy, and treasonous acts, then let the multitude of their crimes be measured by the same yardstick that they used to measure my actual innocence! Personally, I would be embarrassed and humbled to be in possession of a Law Degree from Harvard University, and residing as the Chief Judge of the United States Supreme Court, and the Chief Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court, and the record proves that you are afraid to test your knowledge of the law in the light of day, where your words and your deeds can and will be examined under the scrutiny of the citizens of the United States!

    You see, the one good thing about the truth, is that you can tell it over, and over again, and not miss a beat, but when your desire is to lie, cheat, steal, kill and destroy, then committing High Treason, War Crimes, Mass Murder 1st Degree Premeditated Murder, Genocide, Torture, and Domestic and International Terrorism appears to be easier than acknowledging judicial error.

    This is because the legislative bodies of the federal and state governments have rolled over and allowed the executive and the judicial branches to usurp the functions of We the People!

    Case in Point: When George W. Bush, crafted the language in this terrorism bill stating that he possessed the power to interpret and enforce this law, and where there was no consultation with the citizens of the United States, the U.S. Congress aided and abetted in the creation of a law that was not known to be the will of the people! This is not Social Security, Tax Cuts, Medi-caid, Abortion, or about any other subject that the citizens of the United States have spoken regarding their choice of representative. Who asked their constituents if you want your government going around torturing people in the name of the War on Terror, when knowing full well that this could possibly occur to our men and women in uniform? Additionally, what sort of War on Terror could this possibly be, when even after the tragic event of 9/11, our national borders are porous, our ports allow cargo into the United States unchecked, we allow foreign countries to manage and monitor our ports, we refuse to properly equip our men and women for War, by ensuring that they have bullet proof vests, and travel in armored vehicles, and we refuse to demand that our taxes be used to employ enough man power to do the job that we need done to protect our borders, and manage and monitor our own ports, while equipping our men and women with proper gear?

    As I begin to close this petition, I thought about Mrs. Sandra Day O’Connor, former justice of the Supreme Court, and how federal judges who practice their craft in a federal court named after her have been legally and publicly accused of conspiring to commit the Capital High Crime of 1st Degree and Attempted 1st Degree Premeditated Murder, and their response is to say so what, we have judicial immunity to commit these high crimes, because we know that members of the federal and state legislatures will not honor their sworn oath of office/hold us accountable!

    The legislative branch is the only branch of government that is vested with the power to create law! The executive is bound by Constitutional and Federal law to enforce the law created by the legislature, and the judiciary is bound by Constitutional and Federal Law to rule upon the laws that are presented in criminal and in civil cases and controversies, proving their boundaries!
    This proves that there is no Constitutional support for this erroneous doctrine of man entitled co-equal branches of government. The equality of the branches of government is only in their ability to check one another from running amok when stepping outside of their particular boundaries, i.e., usurping and supplanting the functions of another branch of government, and or the commission of an Impeachable Offense, which need not be felonious in nature. This doctrine of co-equal branches of government comes from a Supreme Court precedent Marbury v. Madison

    As stated, the historical record proves that in 1791, the High Crimes committed against me, a Man of African Descent would not have violated any laws, (outside of property laws benefiting a slave owner) nor raised an eyebrow, and as such consistent with the racist originalist or textualist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution in the antebellum south, and the subsequent laws of Jim Crow after the Civil War. However, you can not talk about judicial acts of 1787, and 1791 without talking about the precedent that ruled into existence the unconstitutional doctrine of co-equal branches of government, i.e., William Marbury v. James Madison, 5 U.S. 137, (1803).

    You see, when you allow the judiciary to rule unilaterally that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional then you have allowed the judiciary to usurp the legislative functions of Congress, since in essence by ruling a law unconstitutional, the judiciary is creating law! But, as we have seen when the judiciary is allowed to have multiple interpretations of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Statutory law by the legislature, then judicial chaos is the result, as those judges who are racist can utilize their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution to perpetuate racism, which is really the purported “tour de force” of William Marbury v. James Madison, 5 U.S. 137

    “The critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant. As such, the Supreme Court became in fact as well as in theory an equal partner in government, and it has played that role ever since.” http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/info When you take note of the fact that the legislature mounted a tepid defense to this ruling which in essence extended the judicial powers of the courts past their Constitutional Boundaries, a Cabal was born!

    The U.S. Constitution does not provide the Judiciary with the power to declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional; this power was assumed via a false interpretation of Constitutional Law and fear of their rulings being disregarded. The U.S. Supreme Court was aware that the U.S. Constitution established the Judiciary as a subservient Branch of Government, and they decided to change that via court precedents. This is why the assumption of powers can be construed as an act of High Treason, because the U.S. Supreme Court assumed powers not delegated to them by the U.S. Constitution which gives aid and comfort to enemies of the U.S. When the legislature failed in their Constitutional Duty to check the Judiciary by establishing the creation of law as the providence of the U.S. Congress, and establishing that the U.S. Constitution does not give the judiciary the authority to unilaterally declare acts of Congress unconstitutional without a public debate, in the form of public Congressional Hearings under Oath, the Congress was weakened!

    The U.S. Congress is the federal body which encompasses the legislators who were elected by the citizens of the United States to represent their civil rights. The United States is not weak, nor is the collective strength of We the People, because they are one in the same. This then proves that when the U.S. Congress is weakened by their own dereliction of duty, that it is due to their failure in representing We the People and our collective wisdom by representing themselves and their personal gain and interests that holding such an office of public trusts presents itself.

    My point is proven when you ask yourself, who gave the judiciary the power to create a doctrine of man that allows them to think that they can commit 1st Degree Premeditated Murder with impunity, and where this same doctrine of man is more important, and therefore usurps and supplants the supremacy of our 1st Amend Civil Right to Petition the government for redress?

    Mr. Speaker (Howell), when was the last time you read the Virginia Constitution? As a citizen of the United States, and domiciled resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I am entitled to the expressly stated rights, privileges and immunities in the U.S. and VA Constitutions

    Article I, Sec. 1, speaks on the equality and rights of men by stating, ”That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” – Simply stated, unless the Commonwealth of Virginia can legally prove that I am less than a human being, and not a man, then I have the inherent rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and acquiring and possessing property. This proves that for the Commonwealth of Virginia to have deprived me of my liberty, and threatened my life, and my ability to pursue happiness, without providing me with the inalienable rights in the U.S. and VA Constitutions, that these two criminal convictions are fraudulent on their face and must be expunged, and the guilty parties prosecuted to the same extent in which I was prosecuted.

    Article I, Sec. 2, speaks on the people being the source of power by stating, “That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.” – Simply stated, this proves that all power in the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary comes from the consent of the people, and that judges are at all times held accountable for their actions to the people. This proves that chief judge John G. Roberts, and chief judge Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr., must be able to come before the people and prove why they have denied my civil rights to due process and equal protection of the laws in a public trial by jury, and why they have denied my rights to liberty, privacy, to bear arms, to vote and to pursue a college education if I choose to do so. When they can not, then again, these fraudulent criminal convictions must be expunged, my civil rights fully restored, provided with monetary and other forms of restitution consistent with the cruel and unusual punishment proven to have been committed against me, and the offenders prosecuted to the extent I was prosecuted.

    Article I, Sec. 3, speaks on the government being instituted for the common benefit of man by saying, “That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.”

    Simply stated, is it in the best interest of the people, the community, and the nation for the federal and state governments to deprive the least and lowliest of its citizenry of the inherent civil rights previously stated, to the point where they actually conspire to steal not just their identity through forgery, and fraud, and arrest, charge, prosecute, sentence and imprison them for crimes they did not commit, but steal the presidency of the United States, and conspire to commit the Capital High Crime of 1st Degree Premeditated Murder in order to kill its citizenry, when their corruptible deeds have been brought to light, in an effort to destroy their lives and their family?
    The obvious answer is of course not, but the fact that this is what has occurred is proof of the dereliction of duty, malfeasance in office, and corruption in the federal and state judiciary, and the apathy towards the plight of the poor, the unlearned, the elderly, the disenfranchised, the incarcerated, those of ethnic origins, and all those who voice a dissenting opinion toward the course and direction that our federal and state governments are currently taking, etc.

    Therefore, when the U.S. and VA Constitutions stipulate that Impeachment is the sole province of the House of Representatives, and the House of Delegates may impeach a state judge upon a finding of neglect of duty, malfeasance of office, and corruption, then the argument and the accompanying physical evidence presented in this petition is sufficient for the U.S. Congress and the VA House of Delegates to convene an Inquiry of Impeachment, and in the interim issue an immediate nationwide moratorium on the death penalty in all federal and state cases!

    IAW Article IV, Sec. 1, it is the U.S. Congress who, “may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof”, when speaking on states having full faith and credit on the public acts, records and proceedings of other courts. Therefore, the record proves that there is a Constitutional Obligation for the U.S. Congress to exercise its jurisdiction in this matter to prove if the Acts, Records, and Proceedings of the Supreme Court in Walter Lee v. District of Columbia, 531 U.S. 1054, 1186, (2000), and the Acts, Records, and Proceedings of the VA Supreme Court in Walter Lee v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 0091-05-2 can be supported by any provision of the U.S. and VA Constitutions.

    The 2006, midterm elections are in a couple of weeks, and therefore, this matter can easily be resolved with a subpoena to chief justice John G. Roberts, and chief judge Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr., instructing them to appear before the U.S. House of Representatives, and the VA House of Delegates respectively, to provide testimony under penalty of perjury proving their decisions, and when they cannot prove their decisions in these cases, the U.S. Government, Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia will be held liable for their actions.

    For the record, it is difficult to make medical, dental and other appointments when my license to drive has been stolen by the Commonwealth of Virginia based upon a fraudulent crime and therefore, expediting this matter is requested. Additionally, let the legal and public record reflect the fact that U.S. Representative Jo Ann Davis, (R-VA), VA Senator John Chichester, (R), and VA Delegate Robert Wittman, (R), all house members, have been notified repeatedly, and the written denials of Rep. Davis, and an email from Delegate Wittman, proves this fact, although Senator Chichester never responded in any fashion for the requested support of my civil rights!

    The reasons for not supporting my civil rights by these and many other public servants, was that the policy of separation of powers prevented them from intervening in a judicial matter.

    However, this policy did not seem to prevent U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Davis, (R-VA), from actually co-cosponsoring legislation for the U.S. Congress to intervene in an ongoing judicial matter to support the 14th Amendment Civil Rights of a citizen in another state, when that citizen was a white woman by the name of Mrs. Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, (RIP), as their intervention was up to and including the crafting and passing of legislation to enforce her 14th Amendment civil rights to a public trial by jury in a federal court via judicial review de novo.

    These denials prove that the statements made by Peggy Evans, are not only true, but that this Republican Establishment in Westmoreland County, the City of Richmond and in the federal government are racist to the core! Now, in the event someone would like to challenge these facts, then this is the reason for having a public trial by jury, and public hearings under penalty perjury.

    This is the statement of Rep. James Sensenbrenner, (R-WI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and his reasons for submitting a resolution for an Inquiry of Impeachment;

    This Resolution has become necessary due to a breakdown in the judicial branch’s enforcement of the judicial discipline statute Congress enacted in 1980.When the judicial branch has failed to address serious allegations of judicial misconduct, as the Ninth Circuit arguably has in this matter, the Constitution provides the Congress only one course of action: opening an impeachment inquiry. I would caution my colleagues and others not to jump to any conclusions in this matter. Today’s Resolution merely allows the House Judiciary Committee to open an investigation to determine the facts. Only after the House Judiciary Committee has conducted a fair, thorough, and detailed investigation, will Committee members be able to consider whether Articles of Impeachment might be warranted. The introduced Resolution ensures that the investigation will be referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It is modeled after the last three impeachment resolutions that the House used to investigate, respectively, Judge Harry E. Claiborne (1986), Judge Alcee L. Hastings (1988), and Judge Walter L. Nixon (1989). All three were later impeached and removed from office based on the drafting of more detailed articles reported by the Committee after the investigations were completed.

    Now, when there is a public and legal record of a federal judge issuing a written ruling that the success of a civil claim necessarily requires the invalidation of the presidency of the United States and that federal judges are immune from prosecution even when guilty of using the judicial power of the United States to commit the High Crime of 1st Degree Premeditated Murder, and where state judges aids and abet the high crimes of forgery, fraud and identity theft, and where state judges aids/abets in the commission of Attempted 1st Degree Premeditated Murder, Perjury, Suborning Perjury, Assault and Battery, Fabricating Evidence, Obstruction of Justice, and Conspiracy, et al, then this is evidence of a breakdown in the judiciary, at the federal and state level, and its failure to address the serious factual claims of judicial misconduct. These facts and the Constitutional duty of the U.S. House of Representatives provides only one recourse, and that recourse is to investigate these factual claims thoroughly, with a bipartisan team of the members of the House Judiciary Committee, and the same for the VA House of Delegates.

    In the Blakely decision the Supreme Court was asked to decide the following question;

    “Petitioner Ralph Howard Blakely, Jr., pleaded guilty to the kidnapping of his estranged wife. The facts admitted in his plea, standing alone, supported a maximum sentence of 53 months. Pursuant to state law, the court imposed an “exceptional” sentence of 90 months after making a judicial determination that he had acted with ‘deliberate cruelty.’ App. 40, 49. We consider whether this violated petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.”

    On 24 Jun 04, associate justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority and ruled;

    “Because the State’s sentencing procedure did not comply with the Sixth Amendment, petitioner’s sentence is invalid”

    This ruling proves that the Supreme Court stated that a violation of a citizens 6th Am, civil rights is sufficient for the invalidation of a state sentence, even when there is a plea of guilty.

    Associate justice Anthony Kennedy dissented, and wrote the following;

    Unlike Mistretta, the case here implicates not just the collective wisdom of legislators on the other side of the continuing dialogue over fair sentencing, but also the interest of the States to serve as laboratories for innovation and experiment. See New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 )1932) (Brandeis, J. dissenting).
    On the highest court of the land, we have judges who believe that citizens of African descent are less than human, and therefore to be treated as slaves, we have judges on the highest court of the land who believe that they can conspire to commit 1st Degree Premeditated Murder, i.e., the unlawful killing of another human being without fear of prosecution or accountability, we have judges on the highest court of the land who believe that the violation of a citizens civil rights in a criminal proceeding even when innocent does not invalidate the state conviction, we have judges on the highest court of the land who believe that imprisoning a citizen for a wrongful prosecution is more important than exposing the flawed premise of the existence of a collective wisdom of legislators, we have judges on the highest court of the land who believe that utilizing state courts as laboratories, for innovation and experiment, as if the citizens of the United States were guinea pigs, or lab rats. These are the mental midgets that we allow to sit in judgment of our actions, when they are entirely too stupid to recognize that this story has already been written!

    Let the record reflect the fact that I do not give my consent to be governed by morally bankrupt individuals, who seek to steal, kill and destroy, and do so with the blatant ignorance of believing that they will not be held accountable, as if there is a statute of limitations on Murder!

    SAVING PRIVATE RYAN

    You owe it to yourself to watch this movie, again, and again, and again, until something in your mind clicks, and you comprehend the horror of being in the midst of a War, and on the front lines of major engagement, and hear you are, a military fighting machine from the World’s lone Superpower, in a foxhole, or low crawling to a designated spot, without a bullet proof vest!

    PUBLIC MESSAGE TO GEORGE W. BUSH

    Then you hear your Commander in Chief, speak about the dead, and those wounded, by saying that the sacrifices that have been made by our military, and their family, is in his minds but a comma in the annals of history! This is the same man who said “Bring it On”, while aboard an Aircraft Carrier, and wearing a flight suit. This job is too big for George W. Bush, and this fact is displayed nightly on the national and local news. However, this is just one man’s opinion!

    The record must continually reflect the fact that I do not desire continual litigation, or the dissemination of documents proving the abhorrent nature of federal and state officials who opine routinely about their Christianity, and Patriotism. My position is that there is nothing Christian about a public servant knowingly refusing to honor and obey their publicly sworn Oath of Office to God to support the Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution, and there is nothing Patriotic about a public servant sending our military through death’s door without first being properly equipped.

    Please inform me at your earliest of your decision in this matter, and hopefully, it goes without saying that all executions must be stayed pending the outcome of this matter by subpoenaing the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, and the judges on the VA Supreme Court to file a brief in opposition to these stated facts, and present them to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Speaker of the VA House of Delegates respectively, prior to their public appearance before these legislative bodies to provide testimony under penalty of perjury to provide the American People with the Constitutional and Statutory Laws that supports their acts in these Judicially Recorded Proceedings, and therefore why they should not be Impeached. In the event additional information is required to substantiate the merits of these stated facts, then please do not hesitate to write me @ P.O. Box 92, Warsaw, VA 22572, as this is life and death!

    Reply
  • 4. Mita  |  April 19, 2007 at 6:57 pm

    Please search for “Green Alert for Fearless Peace” and take the time to read and explore the hidden dynamics of war and the real causes that drives the huge war complex.

    It would take great reflection and contemplation, patience and courage, insight and wisdom to bring genuine peace and prosperity for all in the planet.

    Be mindful, stay alert and wake up soon to create a new world.

    Reply
  • 5. Federal Government and Politics  |  August 25, 2007 at 5:27 am

    Federal Government and Politics

    I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting

    Reply
  • 6. DPC  |  April 25, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    The DPC has linked your web page to our: Censored News & Progressive Perspectives list.

    Thankyou for the work you do… if there is ever any data you need spread round the growing number of friends within the DPC myspace, let us know.
    Also, if you could let your student/etc. viewers know wthe DPC exist, so as to spread more data to more minds and hearts, your assistance would be much appreciated in helping raise human awareness about the pertinent matters affecting our existence and Earth’s overall health.

    Sincerely
    Agent X of the DPC

    Reply
  • 7. DPC  |  April 25, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    Link repaired…

    Reply
  • 8. public court record search  |  August 23, 2009 at 7:00 pm

    public court record search…

    I have the same opinion as yours on this. What you said is true….

    Reply
  • 9. http://ecokidspreschool.co.za/  |  March 9, 2014 at 3:50 am

    I would definitely not recommend these as ways to break the ice however.
    Think of this as a way to document your improvements over time, and eventually it will be a very effective
    PR tool. If it feels weird coming out of your mouth, fake it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


%d bloggers like this: