Strollin' Pettifoggers - Part 7 - US Supreme
Court Bid Library
of Congress Copyright No.
The Petitioner |
The Respondent |
Issues presented
and to be later presented after remand |
Influence of US Supreme Clerks and
Influence of Appeals Clerks and the results of unpublished opinions. |
|
TX4-487-022 dated 1 Apr 1996
TX4-558-085 dated 11 Jun 1997
TX4-640-452 22 Dec 1997
by Robert Hedges ©
The Petitioner is Robert H. Hedges, the last farmer in an
ancient family of yeoman farmers, deprived of his substantive
constitutional rights, paid-off business, paid-off ancestral farm
and multi-generation good will by state-paid individuals. He was
also Plaintiff and Appellant.
The Respondents are :
Kentucky Appeals Court Judges Janet L. Stumbo, Thomas D.
Emberton, & J. Wm. Howerton,
(1) who reduced the number of days in which to file a Notice of
Appeal to less than 30 days, contrary to existing state law, and
then denied themselves jurisdiction to compel compliance upon an
errant state court.
This violated the Equal Protection rights of a Pro Se litigant
HEDGES. This is but one of several technically denied appeals,
usually dismissed without clear explanation, (technicalities used
as docket control) which imposes extra-hardship upon a Pro Se
non-lawyer litigant, who due to the constant violations of Rule
52. has had to file lengthy shotgun appeal briefs.
Richard L. Hinton, Kentucky Circuit Court Judge assigned to the
53rd Judicial Circuit from the 16th Judicial Circuit :
(1) who violated the specific wording of KRS 389. that always
results in a violation of the just compensation clause of the 5th
Amendment, applicable to the states under the 14th. Amendment. KY
case law requires absolute statute compliance in all land-taking
cases or the results are a nullity.
(2) who signed a document presumed to be an Injunction against
any filing in case 91-CI-0021, (in rem lien and in personnam tort
case) which directly violates KY law ( Rule 60.02 among others)
and thus must be a nullity.
(3) who twice violated the constitutional right of Notice and
Opportunity to appear/respond/appeal/file, or the like, and has
continuously violated the right of meaningful access to the
court, leaving multiple unresolved disputes up in the air.
(4) who held court without any adversarial hearings involving the
establishment of facts by any testimony and without appearing in
the courthouse or county. [one deposition was taken in 90-CI-0070
but it contained no facts which construction of KRS 389.
specifically require.]
William Stewart, Kentucky District Court Judge from the 53rd
Judicial District. (justice of the peace court
level-jurisdiction only by statute)
1) who directly violated the specific wording of KRS 383.
required to confer jurisdiction upon his court, which resulted in
a false arrest, false imprisonment, and deprival of the use and
benefit of real and personal property, owned by Movant HEDGES. KY
case law supports tort action for injury for this
without-jurisdiction deprivation. He has no mutually signed
document of agreement specifically required by the legislative
statute.
Harold Y. Saunders, Spencer County Circuit Judge, retired -
(1) who directly violated the specific wording of KRS 372.,
which resulted in a constitutional deprivation of the deprival of
the use and benefit of real and personal property, owned outright
or else attached under statue lien law from the deceased H HEDGES
by Movant R HEDGES.
(2) who held court without any adversarial hearings involving the
establishment of facts by any testimony. (excepting HEDGES
pleadings are all signed fact-laden first-hand-knowledge
document)
(3) who upheld the violation of the specific wording of KRS 383.,
rather than setting that nullity aside, while concentrating on
document deficiencies by a bankrupt defendant fast being reduced
to living on the street.
(4) who attempted to create unidentified unwritten non-existent
procedural technicalities to void the substantive property right
known as lien law - the common law form of which is 500 years old
black letter lien law.
(5) who stated before witnesses from the bench he intended to
make an appeal an impossibly huge task by refusing to follow Rule
52. so that issues would never be clear for the application of
actual existing state law. This is a violation of the
constitutional right of meaningful access, after which the
appeals court denies any appeal based upon a technical limit of
pages allowed in a brief.
John D. Dale JR., Esq., member of the Kentucky Bar Association,
(whose constant barrage of frivolous cases and motions resulted
in each lower court nullity and several constitutional
deprivations described within this Federal Court case. KY case
law supports tort action for injury against this non-immuned
participant.
Julia L. Field, Oldham County District Judge, assigned special
probate judge. (1) who failed to set aside the nullity of William
Stewart, and left questions of unaccounted real property,
missing safety deposit box, unidentified automobile, etc.
unanswered;
(2) who held court without any adversarial hearings involving the
establishment of facts by any testimony.
Phyllis Shafar, Spencer County Circuit Clerk,
(1) who refused to file a Notice of Appeal, and accept the
accompanying fee, in direct violation of KY state law, under the
auspices of "Injunction against any filing in case 91-CI-0021".
(2) whose court once failed to serve a judgment, violating the
constitutional right of Notice and Opportunity to file notice of
appeal, or the like.
Raymond E. Lape, Administrator of Circuits, Kenton Circuit Court,
Retired - replaced by Judge Wm J Wier, Newport, KY.
(1)who failed to assign a judge to hear Motions pending in the
state courts, if filed [see Clerk Shafar above]. The Motions were
served on him by dated certified mail. He allowed a violation of
KY state law concerning yearly hearings in all active cases.
Several state court motions are pending now more than four years.
Harold Summers, Spencer County Commissioner,
(1) who participated in the completion of the direct statute
violation of KRS 372. under Judge Saunders.
(2) who participated in the direct violation of the right to just
compensation under Judge Hinton.
John Doe(s) 1-25, as individuals and in their capacity as
judicial officers if any.
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS :
ROBERT V. BULLOCK, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION,
LEAD COUNSEL OF RECORD.
PO BOX 2000, FRANKFORT, KY 40602-2000 (502) 564-4047
JOHN D. DALE JR, ESQ, PRO SE DEFENDANT, ADMITTED TO 6TH CIRCUIT
1978.
PO BOX 494, TAYLORSVILLE, KY 40071
I. DOES A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION OF FAILURE OF
NOTICE ALLOW A MOTION OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
BE CONSIDERED WHEN FILED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF
ACTUAL NOTICE, THOUGH ONE YEAR HAD ELAPSED ?
II. WILL A PRO SE NON-LAWYER BE ALLOWED TO
FILE A MOTION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN A
LAND AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATION CASE,
AFTER BOTH THE JUDGMENT AND MANDATE REMAINED
UNSERVED UPON THE UNCHANGING ADDRESS OF THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/ MOVANT ?
III. WILL THE US SUPREME COURT USE IT'S
SWEEPING JURISDICTION TO COMPEL THE RECALL
OF THE MANDATE AFTER THE 6TH CIRCUIT DENIED
THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE, UPON SWORN
AFFIDAVIT SENT ONE DAY AFTER
ACTUAL NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY MOVANT ?
IV. CAN THE ROOKER FELDMAN BAR TO FEDERAL
JURISDICTIONAL SCRUTINY BE SUPPORTED BY
NULLITIES OF STATE CREATION ?
V. IN THE LIGHT OF ROOKER-FELDMAN AND THE
INSTANT CASE, IS THE "SACRED COW" THE (VOID)
STATE RULING OR IS THAT 'SACRED COW' ACTUALLY
THE INVIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE,
DEPRIVATION OF WHICH COMPELS FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL
SCRUTINY ?
VI. DOES THE ARBITRARY REDUCTION IN TIME FOR
FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL IN A STATE COURT ESCAPE
FEDERAL SCRUTINY BY HIDING BEHIND THE ROOKER FELDMAN
DOCTRINE, OR DOES THAT EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATION
INVOKE FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE FORM OF A
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS ?
VII. DOES ROOKER-FELDMAN BAR THE FEDERAL COURT
FROM JURISDICTION TO DECLARE SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER A STATE COURT ACTUALLY
PREVIOUSLY VIOLATED THOSE RIGHTS ?
VIII. DOES ROOKER-FELDMAN BAR THE FEDERAL COURT
FROM JURISDICTION TO EXPUNGE A RECORD OF FALSE ARREST,
CAST ASIDE NULLITIES , COMPEL A PRO SE LITIGANT'S
RIGHTS TO MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE STATE COURT,
HEAR TORT SUIT AGAINST NON-IMMUNED LAWYERS, COMPEL
STATE TRIAL WITH ACTUAL TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, COMPEL
NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TIMELY, AND
EXAMINE STATE PROCEDURES IN PRO SE LITIGANT'S CASES ?
IX. WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE ROOKER-FELDMAN BAR TO
CREATE A SHIELD FOR LITIGANTS IN CASES IN WHICH
ISSUES WERE SETTLED UNDER THE WATCHFUL EYE OF THE
STATE HIGH COURT, OR TO CREATE A SWORD TO CUT OFF
FEDERAL SCRUTINY OF ALL MANNER OF ARBITRARY
CONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATIONS WHICH STATE COURTS
COULD DEVISE ?
Robert Hedges, a student of law, historian, angry farmer, etc.