China Want You To Be A Prisoner in Your Own Home (8:27)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=kyBRybfxnio
"predicted" by Illuminati master Kissinger (12:54)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/3i0wXVX6vyKd/
need regime change in Russia': Pro-Ukraine protesters in NYC ask for more
U.S. assistance (bbbbaaaaahhhhhhhhh sleepy sheepys. 6:11)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/rAoG-9QpaCw/
NYC WARNS OF "BIG ONE". (just in case i need to be clear. i didnt find what
i have been pointing out for years on "some website", i have been getting
all of this shit myself with easy proof if you look around no one else is
pointing out most of the cases/things i have, or i verified it myself by
hand. for everyone that needs a refresh on how things work here:
Justice SOTOMAYOR, dissenting:..In this country, the federal government
"deriv[es] its powers directly" from the sovereign people, McCulloch v.
Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 404-405 (1819), and is empowered to act only in
accord with the terms of the written Constitution the people have approved,
Mabury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176-177 (1803). Empires and duchies in
Europe may have subscribed to the "doctrine . . . that the people were made
for kings, not kings for the people." The Federalist No. 45, p. 289 (C.
Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). "Monarchical and despotic governments" may
possess the power to act "unrestrained by written constitutions." Downes,
182 U. S., at 380 (Harlan, J., dissenting). But our Nation's government
"has no existence except by virtue of the Constitution," and it may not
ignore that charter in the Territories any more than it may in the States.
Id., at 382. United States v. MADERO, Supreme Court 2022 No. 20-303 (April
21, 2022)
tuaua v us (2015) BROWN, Circuit Judge: In our constitutional republic,
Justice Brandeis observed, the title of citizen is SUPERIOR to the title of
PRESIDENT.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, concurring in the Court's opinion except as to Part
VII:...It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from
falling into error; it is the function of the *443 citizen to keep the
Government from falling into error. American Communications Assn. v. Douds,
339 U.S. 382 (May 8, 1950)...COMBS, C.J., CONCUR:..The People are, after
all, the parent of this government, not its child, and it is "the function
of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error,"[33]
OKLAHOMA INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM v. Potts, 414 P. 3d 351 (March 21, 2018)
Private Attorney General
A private citizen who commences a lawsuit to enforce a legal [or lawful]
right that benefits the community as a whole [with the power of the
attorney general. CARDINALE, v. KEANE, CARDINALE, v. JONES et al. Nos.
A21A1718, A21A1719 [[February 15, 2022]].
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale
Group, Inc.
Retrieved June 23, 2022 from Encyclopedia.com:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/private-attorney-general
JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court: Section 706 (k) of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides:
"In any action or proceeding under this title the court, *414 in its
discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney's
fee . . . ."[1]..In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U. S. 400, the
Court considered a substantially identical statute authorizing the award of
attorney's fees under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[8] In that
case the plaintiffs had prevailed, and the Court of Appeals had held that
they should be awarded their attorney's fees "only to the extent that the
respondents' defenses had been advanced `for purposes of delay and not in
good faith.'" Id., at 401. We ruled that this "subjective standard" did not
properly effectuate the purposes of the counsel-fee provision of Title II.
Relying primarily on the intent of Congress to cast a Title II plaintiff in
the role of "a `private attorney general,' vindicating a policy that
Congress considered of the highest priority," we held that a prevailing
plaintiff under Title II "should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee
unless special circumstances would render such an award *417 unjust." Id.,
at 402. We noted in passing that if the objective of Congress had been to
permit the award of attorney's fees only against defendants who had acted
in bad faith, "no new statutory provision would have been necessary," since
even the American common-law rule allows the award of attorney's fees in
those exceptional circumstances. Id., at 402 n. 4.[9]
In Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, the Court made clear that
the Piggie Park standard of awarding attorney's fees to a successful
plaintiff is equally applicable in an action under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act. 422 U. S., at 415. See also Northcross v. Memphis Board of
Education, 412 U. S. 427, 428. It can thus be taken as established, as the
parties in this case both acknowledge, that under § 706 (k)
of Title VII a prevailing plaintiff ordinarily is to be awarded attorney's
fees in all but special circumstances.[10]. CHRISTIANSBURG GARMENT CO.
v. EEOC 434 U.S. 412 (January 23, 1978)
revan-bennett act 2017 public law 53-1 sec 4
Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV-B,
concluding:
1. The limited reach of the Bivens action informs the decision whether an
implied damages remedy should be recognized here. Pp. 1854-1859.
(a) In 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Congress provided a specific damages remedy for
plaintiffs whose constitutional rights were violated by state officials,
but Congress provided no corresponding remedy for constitutional violations
by agents of the Federal Government. In 1971, and against this background,
this Court recognized in Bivens an implied damages action to compensate
persons injured by federal officers who violated the Fourth Amendment's
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. In the following
decade, the Court allowed Bivens-type remedies twice more, in a Fifth
Amendment gender-discrimination case, Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 99
S.Ct. 2264, 60 L.Ed.2d 846, and in an Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual
Punishments Clause case, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64
L.Ed.2d 15. These are the only cases in which the Court has approved of an
implied damages remedy under the Constitution itself. Pp. 1854 — 1855.
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 - Supreme Court 2017 (June 19, 2017)
The statute involved here, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, allows the award of "a
reasonable attorney's fee" to "the prevailing party" in various kinds of
civil rights cases, including suits brought under § 1983. Most of our
decisions addressing this provision have concerned the grant of fees to
prevailing plaintiffs. When a plaintiff succeeds in remedying a civil
rights violation, we have stated, he serves "as a `private attorney
general,' vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest
priority." Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88
S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968) (per curiam). Fox v. Vice, 563 US 826
(June 6, 2011)...Galbreath v. Hale County Civil Action No. 15-308-CG-N
[United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division] (August 17,
2017)...A. Hourly Rate. KO EX REL. IE v. New York City Department of
Education No. 20-cv-10277 (LJL) [United States District Court, S.D. New
York.] (May 26, 2022)
"`The people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments
to the Constitution, * * *. This power so reserved to the people should not
be crippled, avoided, or denied by technical construction by the courts. It
is the duty of the courts to construe and preserve this right as intended
by the people in adopting the Constitution and thereby reserve unto the
people this power.'" Adams v. Gunter, 238 So. 2d 824 238 So.2d 824 (1970)
T]he deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes
irreparable injury.’” Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir.
2012) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) ["Loss of First
Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably
constitutes irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347; 6 S. Ct.
2673; 49 L. Ed. 2d (1976)]). Thus, evidence of an ongoing constitutional
violation (i.e., a policy or practice) satisfies the second element of the
injunctive relief test. See id. Finally, “it is always in the public
interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Id.
(quoting Sammartano v. First Judicial District Court, 303 F.3d 959, 974
(9th Cir. 2002)). Riley's American Heritage Farms v. Elsasser, No. 20-55999
D.C. No. 5:18-cv-02185-JGB-SHK (March 17, 2022)
Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land,
(constitution) it is superseded thereby..no one is bound to obey an
unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. 16 Am Jur 2d
177, Late Am Jur 2d. 256
The stare decisis doctrine and its exceptions do not apply where a lower
court is compelled to apply the precedent of a higher court. See 20
Am.Jur.2d Courts § 183 (1965).
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436, 491.
15:50)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/BTpN01kkqA9t/
Starvation: The Mass Murder Long Game Bill Gates Buys Over 250 Thousand
Acres Of Farm Land (14:12)
https://rumble.com/v1bwpmb-starvation-the-mass-murder-long-game-bill-gates-buys-over-250-thousand-acre.html
Ready for the BIG KILL (28:15)
https://brandnewtube.com/watch/ready-for-the-big-kill_5sJT4WmEolmHELy.html
PASTOR TRACY UPDATE: Church's lawyer on 80K fine for blocking health
inspector during service..(18:49)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/NrqMNOIOZKk/
Casket Salesman Blows Whistle: Child Caskets Being Ordered In Bulk, Never
Seen In Business Before (11:04)
https://rumble.com/v1bwqm3-casket-salesman-blows-whistle-child-caskets-being-ordered-in-bulk-never-see.html
Child Extermination Sites Set Up In NY: Large Crowd Gathers, Begging
Parents To Spare Kids (6:40)
https://rumble.com/v1bwr2j-child-extermination-sites-set-up-in-ny-large-crowd-gathers-begging-parents-.html
genomics expert censored over concerns about vaccine stability (1:03)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/hD8Vux4FKfQ/
Netherlands Bill Gates Supermarket Up in Flames (2:13)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=aH3l7qX1GJM
protests Against Chinese Banks (7:42)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/unofIiF6Es58/
