In The
United States Supreme Court
At times when we are debating, it is necessary to
define what our Nation stands for. Not an easy task considering those many decisions, precedents, and several centuries of defining interpretations based upon changing societal orientation. Never mind our generational language
use contained within our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and The United States of America Constitution.
The phrase “due process of law” appears twice in the Constitution: once each in the 5th
and 14th Amendments. The 5th Amendment applies to the federal government: the 14th, to the states. Since the phrase is not defined in the Constitution, it is helpful to look to its origins.
Since antiquity, every society has had some concept of due process – what an individual is “due.”
What was considered due largely depended on historical and cultural context. The extent of "due
process" in a society’s customs is an important measure of its stability and decency.
Historical records from those periods seem to indicate the founding fathers thought of "due
process" as fairness.
Marbury v. Madison,
established judicial review – power to decide whether laws and administrative actions meet "due process" and other requirements of the Constitution.
This case set a precedent that such matters are decided by an independent third party rather than by an entity that creates laws or an entity
that administers them.
"
Fairness" as a key word has many meanings and interpretations depending upon certain parameters. There is a simple three-word definition that underpins its relevance - "Just and Honest".
Accusations that in America's courts there is relatively little of this true definition even as various United Sates Supreme Court decisions attempt to define this concept. It becomes apparent that officers of the court who are not legally held accountable for ignorance of the law, but their clients are has new meaning when considering how much deception is perpetrated upon those seeking "what is due".
In a May 7, 2008 filing through a "Writ of Mandamus" a seemingly simple question with two follow ups offers the court some
guida
nce in its discussion and clarification
using several examples of denied due process.
This Writ is about Third Party interference:
- Officers of the Court / Lawyers tampering with evidence
- A government agency without full
jurisdiction limiting relief
- An Attorney General committing fraud on the court
- an empolyee stealing ID documents then stating a machine destroyed enveloped contents
...all to deny what is considered due process rights, the right to be heard, but fails to consider those Plaintiff's seeking relief from
deprivation of "what is due" - money.
Questions asked of the Court to decide are:
(1) To
what extent is a third party (the Respondent, a law firm) - liable for damages if it intercedes under false pretences and interferes in ongoing civil cases by performing the following actions: knowingly searching, seizing
and tampering with property containing evidence; removing evidence; withholding evidence from the court; attempting to extort monies for return of evidence, submitting perjured testimony to the court which is contradicted by
seized evidence; forging opinions of the court; and, using the US Postal Service to disseminate across state lines the forged opinions to courts in other jurisdictions?
(2) Is
a defendant let off the hook when third party interference blows up the case?
(3)
Is Petitioner wrongly denied adequate relief due when third party (Respondents) interference denies Petitioner process to legal remedies, after exhausting all administrative options, and has been
victim of fraudulent pleadings?
Under these exceptional circumstances petitioner was denied due process in every level of court without factual and complete opinions kept hidden from published record. Respondents have either claimed out of statute filings when in fact it was their delays, lack of response within a timely manner under various Titles, illegal seizure of critical evidence, forging court orders and opinions, tampering with evidence including removing documents from The Records, theft of government requested documents while offering incomprehensible cover up, and lack of jurisdiction to offer remedies under certain Constitutional and Statutory Provisions including United States Codes and Military Codes.
You can download "Petition For Rehearing for $1,000
You can download "Writ of Mandamus" for $2,000.00
You can download "Extraordinary Writ" for $500.00
Copyright 04/2008 Zarwell Marketing