Michael's Law: Is it over?

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Is it over?

Our blogger just received an Order from the Ninth Circuit regarding the Order to Show Cause. They are blowing off the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Here's the Order:

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and CHRISEN, Circuit Judges.

A review of the record and the response to the January 11, 2012 order to show cause indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Looks to us like the Ninth sidestepped the issue. They are affirming the lower court's decision to dismiss, implying the Justices are immune from suit. Even when there are no monetary damages.

The Motions Panel said "the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument." They cite an early case about this, where some prisoner filed an appeal to reduce his sentence, which wasn't an appropriate appeal.

But the Order to Show cause was supposed to narrowly focus only on the question of whether the Arizona Supreme Court Justices had absolute immunity from suit when no money is involved. (The WSJ reported last week about Delaware judges being sued in federal court. Immunity wasn't an raised there.) The Motions Panel didn't rule on immunity per se. There were no other questions "on appeal." The case hadn't gotten that
far.

Ironically, this was a case of first impression. It is not insubstantial, by definition. Looks like they don't want to deal with it. (Usually the court will take a few pages to tell you why you're so wrong. We figure here, as with the prejudiced Judge Snow's Pontius Pilate-like three sentence ruling, that when they don't take the time to tell you why you're wrong, you're probably right.)

The upshot is that the Arizona Supreme Court justices can make up whatever law they want (by promulgating an internal rule of procedure as law) and it can't be challenged.

Lawless.

Funny how the Ninth will take time to rule on Michael Newdow's "under God" suits, but not a Second Amendment constitutional issue.

If you prayed, thanks for your prayers. We think our country is reaping what we've sown.

If our blogger can figure out if he's allowed to do it and how, he may file to have the entire Ninth circuit weight in on this matter.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Suing two cheating judges and a cheating prosecutor + a religious twist

The civil rights law Congress gave us says you can sue "Every person" who deprives you of a civil right under the color of law. The law goes back to the civil rights era and the Ku Klux Klan.

Sadly, as in Orwell's Animal Farm, judges say that "every person" doesn't mean them. And it doesn't mean prosecutors. Judges say that they have "absolute immunity." (What, there were no biased KKK white judges in the Deep South in the 60's?)

I say that "Absolute immunity corrupts absolutely." As evidenced by the corrupt prosecutors of the late Senator Ted Stevens. Not even a Federal judge would punish the federal prosecutors for their willful wanton misconduct. Poor Senator Stevens died without having any recourse for justice.

This has got to stop. In essence, this policy by judicial fiat is a deprivation of the our First Amendment right to redress for grievances. So, let's "Redress for Success!" (Even Liberal Law Professor / Dean Erwin Chemerinsky is sympathetic!)

It's an uphill battle, but I'm suing a bunch of cheaters. See my two civil right lawsuits - one against two small town judges who cheated, the other against a small town prosecutor who cheated both now in the Ninth, appealing perfunctory procedural matters. In the first, the judges aren't arguing they didn't do anything wrong. Just that they can.

To wit, there's proof that one judge tampered with a court file (a felony in Arizona, but Yavapai County prosecutor Sheila Polk is obstructing justice and Arizona AG Tom Horne's staff wouldn't touch it), suspended the rules of court procedure, acted as attorney at trial for one of the parties, and so on. The other judge "un-recused" himself to cover for the first!

There's an interesting twist to this, as the first judge should have recused, per motion, due to religious bias. When you read about the temple ceremony and the oaths of allegiance some take to their church in there, it may give you some idea why you may not want a Mitt Romney in the White House.