Know your rights in jail

3 posts / 0 new
Last post
SJC
Know your rights in jail

Manual--www.jailhouselaw.org

 

www.prisonlegalnews.org

 

www.prisonacfivist.org

 

Resources: www.ejfi.org

 

www.brownslegalresearch.com* A federal ex-convict turned law researcher

 

 

I have posted numerous resources and research for education rights purposes only. Each person should make their own assumption of what will work for them.

SJC
Due Process case law quotes, etc.

"Due process requires that litigant claim be heard by fair and impartial fact finder…" PORTER v. SINGLETARY, 49 F3d 1483 (11th Cir. 1995). "Judges must not only be scrupulously fair in administration of justice, but must foster an aura of fairness." U.S. v. BROOKS, 145 F3d 446 (1st Cir. 1998); "Judge is required to disqualify himself if a reasonable person would have a rational basis for questioning his impartiality…" Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988).

Anyone who walks into ANY COURT in the country has a "[r]ight to a fair trial [that] is [a] basic requirement of due process and includes right to an unbiased judge." HAUPT v. DILLARD, 17 F3d 285 (9th Cir. 1994). Denying a fair trial denies DUE PROCESS. In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955); see also Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972). "Justice must satisfy the appearance of Justice." Murchison, quoting Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954); because "…fundamental unfairness is at war with due process." LISENBA v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 314 US 219; see also Murchison "Our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness."; Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 469 (1971) so that "[t]he appearance of even-handed Justice . . . is at the core of due process."

"[W]hen a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974). Also, "[w]henever a judge acts where [he/she] does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821). If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), [he/she] is without jurisdiction, and [he/she] has engaged in an act or acts of treason.

To impose a burden upon an average citizen that ignorance of the law is no excuse, who is not versed or skilled in matters of the law, and then to afford a judge immunity for improper actions gives rise to tyranny and a usurpation of the power and authority of the Supreme Law of the Land. For a judge by nature and virtue of the oath, responsibility, training, and obligation of their position are assumed to know the law. Director, OWCP v. Perini North River Associates , 459 U.S. 297, 103 S.Ct. 634, 74 L.Ed. 2d 465 (1985); Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U.S., at 562. Conferring immunity on the judiciary, or ignoring complaints as so many judicial review boards do, gives rise to so many little tyrannical dictatorships under color of law.

"... [J]udicial verbicide is calculated to convert the Constitution into a worthless scrap of paper and to replace our government of laws with a judicial oligarchy." Senator Sam Ervin

 

"The Constitution ... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please." -- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819.

SJC
More case law quotes

"Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes a risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority,
… even though the agent himself … may be unaware of the limitations upon his authority."
See Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 409; United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 70, 108, and see, generally, In re Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall. 666.
Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947)

"Public officers are merely the agents of the public, whose powers and authority are defined and limited by law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does not bind the principal, and all persons dealing with such agents are charged with knowledge of the extent of their authority,
Continental Casualty Co. v. United States, 113 F.2d 284, 286 (5th Cir. 1940)

"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error;
it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.
"
American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442 (1950)

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection, it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." see, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, Quoting from Marbury v. Madison (1803), Marbury holds that a void act is void ab initio. "… the Constitution requires the judiciary to refrain from enforcing laws enacted contrary to the Constitution…”

"The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure, absent contract." see, Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, "…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature.
He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.”
CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
as per Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47

McNally v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372 (1987), Quoting U.S. v. Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307: "Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit - and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir. 1985) - includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud.

"The law creates a presumption, where the burden is on a party to prove a material fact peculiarly within his knowledge and he fails without excuse to testify, that his testimony, if introduced, would be adverse to his interests." citing Meier v. CIR, 199 F 2d 392, 396 (8th Cir. 1952)
quoting 20 Am Jur, Evidence, Sec 190, page 193

Notification of legal responsibility is "the first essential of due process of law". See also: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d.297."Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading."

"Sovereign immunity does not apply where (as here) government is a lawbreaker
or jurisdiction is the issue."
Arthur v. Fry, 300 F.Supp. 622

"Knowing failure to disclose material information necessary to prevent statement from being misleading, or making representation despite knowledge that it has no reasonable basis in fact, are actionable as fraud under law."
Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 1990

[a] "Party in interest may become liable for fraud by mere silent acquiescence
and partaking of benefits of fraud."
Bransom v. Standard Hardware, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 919, 1994

Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. Out of fraud no action arises; fraud never gives a right of action.
No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act.
As found in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 509.

"Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters,"
Nudd v. Burrows, 91 U.S 426.

"Fraud vitiates everything."
Boyce v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210

"Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents and even judgments."
U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61

When a Citizen challenges the acts of a federal or state official as being illegal, that official cannot just simply avoid liability based upon the fact that he is a public official. In United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220, 221, 1 S.Ct. 240, 261, the United States claimed title to Arlington, Lee's estate, via a tax sale some years earlier, held to be void by the Court. In so voiding the title of the United States, the Court declared:

"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.
"Shall it be said... that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the president has ordered it and his officers are in possession? If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights.
"

See Pierce v. United States ("The Floyd Acceptances"), 7 Wall. (74 U.S.) 666, 677 ("We have no officers in this government from the President down to the most subordinate agent, who does not hold office under the law, with prescribed duties and limited authority"); Cunningham v. Macon, 109 U.S. 446, 452, 456, 3 S.Ct. 292, 297 ("In these cases he is not sued as, or because he is, the officer of the government, but as an individual, and the court is not ousted of jurisdiction because he asserts authority as such officer. To make out his defense he must show that his authority was sufficient in law to protect him... It is no answer for the defendant to say I am an officer of the government and acted under its authority unless he shows the sufficiency of that authority..."); and Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 287, 5 S.Ct. 903, 912

WHEREAS, officials and even judges have no immunity (See, Owen vs. City of Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398; Maine vs. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer vs. Melo, 502 U.S. 21; officials and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law; officials and judges cannot claim to act in good faith in willful deprivation of law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, even the Citizen cannot plead ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for learned officials and judges to plead ignorance of the law therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise, in matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the United States of America. See: Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

"When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity." Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).

"Personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights is prerequisite to award of damages, but defendant may be personally involved in constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violation." (Gallegos v. Haggerty, N.D. of New York, 689 F. Supp. 93 (1988).

"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and
all administrative proceedings."
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533

"If you´ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness."
U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346

 

Log in or register to post comments