[administrating-your-public-servants] Re: fires of freedom special edition: kendrick lamar- family ties pt 11

From: veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Administrating-your-public-servants <administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 07:43:57 -0600

don, almost forgot because im rushing. thank you for posting.

On Wed, Dec 1, 2021, 12:53 AM Don Mashak <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

COMMENTS ON MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL DEBATE 30NOV2021 & COMENTARIOS
SOBRE EL DEBATE DEL FISCAL GENERAL DE MINNESOTA 30NOV2021 &
对明尼苏达州律师一般性辩论的评论 2021 年 11 月 30 日
https://donmashakshennepincountymnfreepressnews.wordpress.com/2021/12/01/comments-on-minnesota-attorney-general-debate-30nov2021-comentarios-sobre-el-debate-del-fiscal-general-de-minnesota-30nov2021-%e5%af%b9%e6%98%8e%e5%b0%bc%e8%8b%8f%e8%be%be%e5%b7%9e%e5%be%8b/

[image: Inline image]

[image: Inline image]

Those were my thoughts.

Thank you for your time.

In Liberty,
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021, 05:43:59 PM CST, Shining Emperor <
nrcwinner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Veritas:

This ia good stuff, very useful that I save it in my notebook.

How do you find those pertinent information?

Thanks for sharing! You are so helpful, intelligent and considerate, man
of good morality.

You earn my respect.

Shining Emperor

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021, 06:13 veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"...in our country the people are sovereign and the government cannot
sever its relationship to them by taking away their citizenship." Perez v.
Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958) [state
citizenship is a vested substantial property right that cannot be divested
or impaired by the government. favot v kingsbury]

If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the
license and fee and engage in the right with impunity. Shuttlesworth v.
City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are
not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechler, 263
U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375
U.S. 449

"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)

"The courts are not bound by an officer's interpretation of the law under
which he presumes to act." Hoffsomer v. Hayes, 92 Okla 32, 227 F. 417

"I do not understand the government to contend that it is any less bound
by the obligation than a private individual would be..." "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." Perry v. United States, 204 U.S. 330, 358. butz v economou No.
76-709

Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly
where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due
process. Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, (1975) 14 Cal. 3d
678, 694. Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal. 3d
359, 371, 374

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his
exercise of constitutional rights." Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946

"The claim and exercise of a Constitution right cannot be converted into a
crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law".
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)

Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from claims for
prospective relief when it is alleged that state officials acted in
violation of federal law. Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas., 88 F3d 341 (5th
Cir. 1996)

"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." Norton
v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442

"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. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603

"All rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the
federal Constitution are equally applicable." Mallowy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1

"Constitutional 'rights' would be of little value if they could be
indirectly denied." Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), cited also
in Smith v. Allwright 321 U.S. 649.644

"... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important
rights under the constitution and laws." Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F.
Supp. 905

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are
not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechler, 263
U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375
U.S. 449

Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro
se litigants pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of
perfection as lawyers. Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 151 Fed. 2nd 240;
Pucket v. Cox 456 2nd 233.

"Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully
pleaded,
are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519

Additionally, pro se litigants are to be given reasonable opportunity to
remedy the defects in their pleadings. Platsky v. C.I.A. 953 F.2d. 25.
Reynoldson v. Shillinger 907F .2d 124, 126 (10th Cir. 1990); Jaxon v.
Circle K. Corp. 773 F.2d 1138, 1140 (10th Cir. 1985)

Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro
se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of
perfection as lawyers. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959);
Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233

The respondent in this action is a nonlawyer and is moving forward in
Propria persona. Haines v. Kerner (92 S.Ct. 594).

Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of
the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged
with "Unauthorized practice of law." NAACP v. Button (371 U.S. 415); United
Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs (383 U.S. 715); and Johnson v. Avery 89 S.
Ct. 747 (1969).

Litigants may be assisted by unlicensed layman during judicial
proceedings. Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar
(377 U.S. 1); Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin,
Sheriff 407 U.S. 425.

Federal Law and Supreme Court Cases apply to State Court Cases Howlett v.
Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990)

Federal Rules Civil Proc., Rule 17, 28 U.S.C.A. "Next Friend" A next
friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or
her own interest...

Oklahoma Court Rules and Procedures, Title 12, sec. 2017 (C) "If an infant
or incompetent person does not have a duly appointed representative he may
sue by his next friend or by a guardian ad litem."

Inadequate training of subordinates may be basis for 1983 claim.
Mandonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez, 23 F.3d 576 (1st Cir. 1994)

Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D. Wis.
1972). Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1973). Each citizen
acts as a private attorney general who 'takes on the mantel of sovereign',

Oklahoma is a Right to Work State Bill SJR1 Its ok to practice God`s law
with out a license, Luke 11:52, God`s Law was here first There is a higher
loyalty than loyalty to this country, loyalty to God U.S. v. Seeger, 380
U.S. 163, 172, 85 S. Ct. 850, 13 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1965)

The practice of law can not be licensed by any state/State. Schware v.
Board of Examiners, United States Reports 353 U.S. pgs. 238, 239. In Sims
v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925) "The practice of law is an occupation of
common right." A bar card is not a license, its a dues card and/or
membership card. A bar association is that what it is, a club, A
association is not license, it has a certificate though the State, the two
are not the same

Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial
proceedings. Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State
Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v.
Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425

Note: Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of
the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in
violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of
treason. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)

"no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the
Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". Re Sawyer,
124 U.S. 200 (188); 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).

There is a general rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully,
although in good faith, is nevertheless liable in a civil action and cannot
claim
the immunity of the sovereign. Cooper v. O'Conner, 99 F.2d 133

A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and
person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts. Davis v.
Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)

Constitutionally and in fact of law and judicial rulings, state-federal
"magistrates-judges" or any government actors, state or federal, may now
be held liable, if they violate any Citizen's Constitutional rights,
privileges, or immunities, or guarantees; including statutory civil rights.
A judge is not immune for tortious acts committed in a purely
Administrative, non-judicial capacity. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. at
227-229, 108 S. Ct. at 544-545 (1987); Westfall v.Erwin, 108 S. Ct. 580
(1987); United States v. Lanier (1997)

In 1996, Congress passed a law to overcome this ruling which stated that
judicial immunity doesn't exist; citizens can sue judges for prospective
injunctive relief. "Our own experience is fully consistent with the common
law's rejection of a
rule of judicial immunity. We never have had a rule of absolute judicial
immunity. At least seven circuits have indicated affirmatively that there
is no
immunity... to prevent irreparable injury to a citizen's constitutional
rights..." "Subsequent interpretations of the Civil Rights Act by this
Court acknowledge Congress' intent to reach unconstitutional actions by all
state and federal actors, including judges... The Fourteenth Amendment
prohibits a state from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection under the laws. Since a State acts only by its
legislative, executive or judicial authorities, the constitutional
provisions must be addressed to those authorities, including state and
federal judges..." "We conclude that judicial immunity is not a bar to
relief against a judicial officer acting in her judicial capacity." Pulliam
v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984); 104 S. Ct. 1781, 1980, 1981, 1985

The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when 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)

When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of
clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial
immunity is lost. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed
2d 326 (put this at the top under first quote with sovereign.)

"The United States District Court is not a true United States Court,
established under Article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial
power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the
sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article 4, 3, of that
instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the
territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its
jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an
opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local
influence, does not
change its character as a mere territorial court." Albrecht v. U.S. Balzac
v. People of Puerto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)

"The term 'District Courts of the United States' as used in the rules
without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic
significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under Article
3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are Legislative Courts,
properly speaking, and are not district courts of the United States. We
have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar
to that vested in the district courts of the United States (98 U.S. 145)
does not make it a 'District Court of the United States'. "Not only did the
promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its
historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the
application of the rules the territorial court and other courts mentioned
in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended."
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1
Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938)

Follow-Ups:
- [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: fires of freedom special edition: kendrick lamar- family ties pt 11
  - From: Charley Dan

References:
- [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: fires of freedom special edition: kendrick lamar- family ties pt 11
  - From: Don Mashak

[administrating-your-public-servants] Re: fires of freedom special edition: kendrick lamar- family ties pt 11

Other related posts: