by Laurie Azgard
Is the U.S. district court in Greensboro and Winston-Salem in North Carolina acting outside of it’s original authority delegated by the Constitution of the United States of America?
Is the federal court system throughout the “Middle District of North Carolina” even acting as a legitimate judicial tribunal authority or has it over-exceeded that legal authority?
It all goes back to the principal of Magna Carta Libertatum, and as of why Courts in the first place have the authority to interpret the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress as well as executive orders passed by Presidents. We have three branches of government. One of the branches is the executive branch also known as the President of the United States. Second branch is the legislative branch which is that of Congress. The third branch of government is the judicial branch which is what of the courts. Originally the only court with the original power of legal interpretation was the Supreme Court, and no other court was mentioned in the Constitution. It was Congress that had passed a law to create the lower courts as the Supreme Court could be overwhelmed with cases across the country, and regional courts had to be set up to even out the case load and controversies.
Can a lower court such as a district court and court of appeals act to disregard the Constitution and disregard the case law precedent that was originally set by the United States Supreme Court?
The case law that this blogger MaryGSykes had originally put on this post has some answers to these very important questions of law and authority:
“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.
“There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.
“The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
“A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.
“Where a court failed to observe safeguards, it amounts to denial of due process of law, court is deprived of juris.” Merritt v. Hunter, C.A. Kansas 170 F2d 739.
Read US v. Lopez and Hagans v. Levine both void because of lack of jurisdiction. In Lopez the circuit court called it right, and in Hagans it had to go to the Supreme court before it was called right, in both cases, void.
Challenge jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, right off the bat. If you read the Supreme Court cases you will find that jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and in the case of Lopez it was a jury trial which was declared void for want of jurisdiction. If it [jurisdiction] doesn’t exist, it can not justify conviction or judgment. …without which power (jurisdiction) the state CANNOT be said to be “sovereign.” At best, to proceed would be in “excess” of jurisdiction which is as well fatal to the State’s/ USA ‘s cause. Broom v. Douglas, 75 Ala 268, 57 So 860 the same being jurisdictional facts FATAL to the government’s cause ( e.g. see In re FNB, 152 F 64).
In the case of Brian David Hill, the U.S. district court had ignored the case law even going as far as the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “actual innocence” is not subject to the one-year statute of limitations under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s prohibition on habeas corpus petitions filed after one year of the final judgment in a criminal case.
Yet in Brian’s case the U.S. magistrate judge coward Joe Webster said that even if the Court were to reach the merits, it would deny them. Also said that merits do not matter as it does not impact the claim of a timeliness analysis.
Quotes from the Magistrate judge’s pleading:
“Second, the potential merits of a claim do not impact the timeliness analysis, so any argument along these lines must also fail.”https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4304407/210/united-states-v-hill/
“g. The Merits: As explained above, all of Petitioner’s grounds are time-barred. However, if the Court were to reach the merits of Petitioner’s grounds for relief, it would deny them.”https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4304407/210/united-states-v-hill/
You heard it right from the Judge’s own words, even if the “court were to reach the merits of Petitioner’s grounds for relief, it would deny them.” So actual innocence, jurisdictional defects, and fraud upon the court does not matter to those judges, and that contradicts the decades-old case law rulings from the Supreme Court and other higher courts with decisions that fraud upon the court is not subject to a statute of limitations, and that actual innocence is not subject to a procedural time bar as such time bar would constitute an unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment against a man/woman innocent of a crime but wrongfully convicted of.
The U.S. district court run by DisHonorable chief judge Thomas David Schroeder who deserves impeachment for high treason, and he knowingly operates an illegitimate federal courthouse and uses the U.S. marshals as the thugs to defend his tyranny. Even the U.S. marshals are getting tired of his court’s corruption. Just ask them yourselves.
When a federal court rebels against the case law precedent of the United States Supreme Court and rebels against the Constitution and erodes the rights guaranteed by case law, that court is acting in complete excess of jurisdiction. That court is acting in rebellion to the U.S. Constitution. That court is acting under no lawful authority when the lawful authority comes from that of the Constitution.
The district court stating that no potential merits impact the timeliness analysis, and that the arguments must also fail. Anytime evidence is submitted under oath or affirmation and the record disproves the factual basis of guilt, there normally should have been an evidentiary hearing on the ground of actual innocence or fraud by the government as the Court would have jurisdictional authority to hear the case upon the claim of “actual innocence” and any jurisdictional defects in the criminal case. The opinion of the U.S. district court and the adoption of the U.S. magistrate’s legal judicial fiat opinion by the DisHonorable Thomas David Schroeder shows their blatant disregard for the case law precedent set by the original court of Constitutional interpretation, that the activist judges act in rebellion and disagreement with the Supreme Court that they feel the need to make their own erroneous rulings as they are being protected by the Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. The rulings are rubber stamped. The fate is sealed.
It doesn’t matter how many rulings are being rubber stamped by some court of appeals, “A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.” If a court had that kind of power, then it declare the Constitution as null and void, the court can become an autonomous zone like CHAZ/CHOP, it can decide what Supreme Court case laws to follow and act under impunity to arrest or harass anyone they see fit as a regional dictatorship under black robes. It would no longer be a constitutional republic but a judicial fiat and that of a kingdom where the royal aristocrats of corrupt lawyers are rewarded while the citizens are consistently reprimanded and punished by fraud and fiat.
The United States is not a monarchy where the aristocrats, the special legal sisterhood/brotherhood elites can be held to an entirely different standard of laws compared to that of the citizen.
A federal judge may be appointed by our elected representatives but they are not above the Constitution, they cannot act in any way, shape, or form in contrary to the Constitution. When they act in excess of jurisdiction, they are acting outside of law, an illegitimate court system operating an unlawful and tyrannical case system to oppress the very people that they dislike. If the government attorneys want to ruin somebody, they can under an anti-jurisdictional or want-of-jurisdictional tyranny.
How long must the “Middle District of North Carolina” federal court system act outside of law with impunity with their council of clowns of unelected people working to dictate the lives of their subjects??????