Tagged: Article III

my docket still does not show the most recent pleading submitted to the Supreme Court…

Read my September 10, 2015 Application to Stay Extension to Submit Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pending Resolution of July 18, 2015 Motion to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb LLP, or in the Alternative, Application to Exceed Word Limits here:

Exhibits A thru F:

I have a confirmation from USPS that my package was delivered on Monday, September 14, 2015.

For the last two months, Cynthia Rapp and the Clerk of Court have been trying to Kim Davis me. Why would I submit a petition for a writ of certiorari if the Supreme Court cannot even follow its on procedural rules? Without procedural due process, how can I expect the Justices to impartially uphold the law?

it’s RACIST and PITIFUL individuals like “Hon.” Robert P. Patterson, “Hon.” P. Kevin Castel & “Chief Judge” Loretta A. Preska of the Southern District of New York, the majority white members of Congress, etc. that are holding America back from reaching its FULL POTENTIAL.

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” — Abraham Lincoln

“The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment.”

The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.

Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.

In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “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, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”

Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.

Those who think judges may only be removed by impeachment might suppose that history reveals that “good Behaviour” was a term of art that meant something like “tenure for life defeasible only by impeachment.” History actually proves that good behavior was independent of impeachment.

Source: Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith. Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment. 116 Yale L.J. Pocket Part 95-96. 2006.

read Leonard Rowe’s Motion to Disqualify the dishonorable Judge Robert P. Patterson

After 90 year old, Republican appointed  judge Robert P. Patterson denied Leonard Rowe’s FRCP 60 Motion to reopen his case after establishing “fraud upon the Court” with clear and convincing evidence, Leonard sought to have Patterson recuse himself from his case due to his extreme appearance of bias, prejudice and impropriety. To further demonstrate his partiality in favor of the Defendants, he denied Leonard’s motion. Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then that judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. See United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”) I don’t think a pro se litigant has ever ripped into a racist and corrupt judge like this! Read for yourself.

“SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE.”

First video I found on youtube after trying to learn the correct pronunciation of ‘spoliation’ after reading about it in various texts about electronic discovery. haha.

Definitely sums up what happened to Leonard Rowe by his former attorneys and counsel for the Defendants. This is one of many reasons that Judge Patterson’s order denying Leonard Rowe’s case from being reopened is erroneous as a matter of law!! These corrupt attorneys should be immediately disbarred (plus sanctioned, then imprisoned) for their serious unethical and criminal conduct and Judge Patterson (as well as other federal judges) should be impeached for their “high crimes and misdemeanors”  for being involved in this conspiracy to interfere with the civil and human rights of Americans of African descent  and other non-Whites/Jews (which ultimately means maintaining global white supremacy).

Click here to read the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys practicing in the state of New York: http://www.nysba.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ForAttorneys/ProfessionalStandardsforAttorneys/NYRulesofProfessionalConduct4109.pdf.

Click here to read the Code of Conduct for United States Judges: http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct/CodeConductUnitedStatesJudges.aspx.

a question for any “objective person” throughout the universe: should this 90 year old, [racist] judge be disqualified and impeached from the bench?

Read this racist and corrupt judge’s opinion as he attempts to justify why Leonard Rowe’s — the victim of this overall conspiracy to interfere with the civil rights of African Americans — FRCP 60 Motion to have his case reopened was denied and why he possibly deserves to be SANCTIONED, while four of Rowe’s former attorneys and the Defendants that were caught engaging in “fraud upon the Court” have not (in his distorted and possibly senile mind) committed any wrongdoing. And we wonder how such a great nation could be headed down toilet?? If you really want to know, start paying attention to the behaviors of those in positions of power and authority (who are typically all White).

supreme court justice Stephen G. Breyer on the importance of an independent judiciary.

George Washington claimed that “the [true] administration of justice is the firmest pillar of [good] government.” . . . . The good that proper adjudication can do for the justice and stability of a country is only attainable, however, if judges actually decide according to law, and are perceived by everyone around them to be deciding according to law, rather than according to their own whim or in compliance with the will of powerful political actors. Judicial independence provides the organizing concept within which we think about and develop those institutional assurances that allow judges to fulfill this important social role.

Source: Justice Stephen G. Breyer (appointed by President Bill Clinton), Judicial Independence in the United States, 40 St. Louis U. L.J. 989, 996 (1996).

Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 390 (2001) (quoting United States v. Miss. Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 562, (1961)).

‎”Democracy works ‘only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption.'”

What were race relations like in 1961, the year those words were originally articulated? Has much changed?