Second Amendment is an Absolute Right!

MIA: THE THREE AMIGOS FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT

NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation (saf.com) , & KeepAndBearArms.com (KABA)

 

I have and still continue to litigate my Second Amendment case for the last 6 years (2002 to the present) without an attorney to represent me, never getting past the motion to dismiss because the corrupt federal courts in Washington, DC and in Little Rock, Arkansas, and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals do not want an unrepresented civil plaintiff in their courtroom.

 

It was a merry-go-round fun fest with KABA, SAF, and the NRA when I supported their causes. But a rivalry developed between them and I when it came to the ultimate Second Amendment right to openly keep and bear arms in intrastate and interstate travel, National Open Carry, through the National Drivers Register. This involves a major cultural, social, and legal shift back to the constitutional norm of national open carry that the Second Amendment guaranteed.

 

When I needed the support of KABA, SAF, and the NRA, with my Second Amendment cases in the federal courts they turned a cold sholder like a snobbish teenage highschool clique.

 

Some years back, (2005?), I filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, DC alleging that the NRA, SAF, and KABA were not living up to their IRS mission statement by ignoring my Second Amendment case. But because I did not have an attorney to represent me the case was dismissed.

 

DON HAMRICK’S SECOND AMENDMENT POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

The Second Amendment Power Point Presentation

Hosted by eSnips

DON HAMRICK’S SECOND AMENDMET CASE AS AN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CASE

My Human Rights Complaint Against the United States & United Nations at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Petition No. P-1142-06.

Note that Jessica Lenahan (formerly Gonzales), filed her human rights complaint against the United States challenging the “No Right to Police Protection” doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court. Petition No. P-1490-05.

My Petition No. P-1142-06 takes the Second Amendment to the international level to provide the counter to the “No Right to Police Protection” doctrine. My 2006 Second Amendment case at the U.S. District Court named the United States and the United Nations as defendants. I employed the civil RICO Act to allege the United States and the United Nations of racketeering an unlawful and unconstitutional (United States) protection scheme over the Second Amendment. I had case law supporting my claims against the United Nations and the United States but the the originally assigned judge died and the reassigned judge dismissed my case in less than 30 days after getting assgned to my case. All this in combination with the aggrivating circumstances of the NRA, SAF, and KABA, ignoring my Second Amendment cases.

Therefore, I claim that the NRA, the SAF, and KABA are not living up to their mission statements when they refuse to support Second Amendment cases advocating the ultimate Second Amendment rights of national open carry. They empower the “Use it or lose it” doctrine of constitutional rights to our disadvantage.

http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2007eng/USA1490.05eng.htm

My Human Rights Complaint to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Where is the NRA, the SAF, and KABA on this? They are MIA!

Don Hamrick’s Human Rights Complaint Against the U.S. and U.N. over the Second Amendment

Hosted by eSnips

.

SOCIAL NORMING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

My thesis “Social Norming the Second Amendment: Reinstating a Constitutional Norm as a Social Norm Through Social Norms Marketing” is the method I will use to introduce Second Amendment bills restorting the Second Amendment to its originial social, legal, and constitutional standing.

Social Norming the Second Amendment

Hosted by eSnips

.

DENIAL OF SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS IS SLAVERY

The U.S. Coast Guard Letter dated April 19, 2002 denying my Second Amendment application as an Able Seaman. Note the date “April 19″ is traditionally known as Patriots Day. Also note that the Coast Guard letter stands in defiance of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 stating:

“That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.”

Lincoln’s “actual freedom” is defined by the slavery case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857):

The legislation of the States therefore shows, in a manner not to be mistaken, the inferior and subject condition of that race at the time the Constitution was adopted, and long afterwards, throughout the thirteen States by which that instrument was framed; and it is hardly consistent with the respect due to these States, to suppose that they regarded at that time, as fellow-citizens and members of the sovereignty, a class of beings whom they had thus stigmatized; whom, as we are bound, out of respect to the State sovereignties, to assume they had deemed it just and necessary thus to stigmatize, and upon whom they had impressed such deep and enduring marks of inferiority and degradation; or, that when they met in convention to form the Constitution, they looked upon them as a portion of their constituents, or designed to include them in the provisions so carefully inserted for the security and protection of the liberties and rights of their citizens. It cannot be supposed that they intended to secure to them rights, and privileges, and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union, which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [60 U.S. 393, 417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

Note that, “keep and carry arms wherever they went” implies “National Open Carry.” Now is it incorrect of me to implied that the current level of State and Federal gun control laws has reduced the U.S. citizen and the citizens of the States under the Fourteenth Amendment as slaves in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to which sprang from the Dred Scott case?

Does this imply that the NRA, SAF, and KABA, want to enslave you to their ideology of National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry instead of the “actual freedom” of National Open Carry?”

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/images/emancipation_01.jpg

CG LETTER APR 19 2002

Hosted by eSnips

.

NRA DOWLUT LETTER

NRA ROBERT DOWLUT LETTER REFUSING TO HELP DON HAMRICK WITH HIS SECOND AMENDMENT CASE

Hosted by eSnips

Second Amendment Goes to Congress in a Private Bill

Hosted by eSnips

Is the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John G. Roberts a Fugitive from Justice?

YES!

By the U.S. Supreme Court denying my Motion to Proceed as a Seaman under the Seamen’s Suit law, 28 U.S.C. § 1916 that accompanied my Petition for Writ of Certiorari (the link above) which included my self-styled “Citizen’s Arrest Warrants for the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, named judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and their respective Court Clerks for Extortion Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 872 of filing fees from a seaman in violation of the Seamen’s Suit law,” the Chief Justice and the DC Circuit judges and their Court Clerks became fugitives from justice. That is, of course if the Rule of Law and equal justice under the law applied to these people as they would apply to you me.

Under threat of arrest by the U.S. Marshals Service if I attempted to make a citizen’s arrest of those named judicial personnel I was then forced to file a my PRIVATE BILL with U.S. Rep. Marion Barry of Arkansas and U.S. Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas for a congressional remedy.

House version of the Private Bill Hosted by eSnips

Senate Version of the Private Bill Hosted by eSnips

 

A SAMPLE OF WHAT IS IN THE PRIVATE BILL:

PART 9. PROPOSED REMEDIES

SECTION 1. The Human Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The Human Rights Amendment incorporates human rights clauses from constitutions of other nations listed in Part 6 and the preservation of freedom through citizen participation in the three elements of justice to be known as the Three Shields of Justice. The Human Rights Amendment is a refortification of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution and the International Bill of Human Rights elevating the protection of the sovereign rights of the individual, the States, and the United States against incursions by governments foreign and domestic. The text of The Human Rights Amendment shall read as:

“Human rights are created by God and not by Government. Among these are the human right of personal safety, security, and defense of self, family, community, the State, and the United States by force of arms autonomously in a lawful manner proscribed by positive law and social norms or by militia, whether organized or unorganized in a lawful manner proscribed by positive law against violent crimes, murder, home invasion, and/or tyranny, whether foreign or domestic. The Right of citizens to act in the interest of justice, for equal justice under the law, and for the achievement and the preservation of actual justice, to be known as the three shields of freedom, shall never be trespassed by government, whether foreign or domestic. These rights include the right of citizen’s arrest based upon evidence showing probable cause of felonies committed by government, local, state or federal, especially so when such arrest is abdicated by authorities, whether local, state, or federal. Further included among these human rights is the right to a remedy, whether administrative or judicial, to violations of constitutional rights and human rights, including patterns of behavior maliciously designed to circumvent these rights.”

SECTION 2. National Open Carry Handgun and the National Drivers Record

Congressional legislation can be passed into law amending the National Drivers Record, codified in 49 U.S.C. § 30301 – 30308 to add a data field on the driver’s license signifying that the driver is not prohibited from possessing or owning firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), et seq. By this act the Second Amendment becomes incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting the States from passing gun control laws infringing, restricting, or prohibiting home-state citizens and out-of-state citizens their right to travel intrastate and interstate while exercising their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

Courts have relentless and consistently ruled “that there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.” Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982). The courts have been equally relentless and consistent in ruling that the police have no duty to protect the individual citizen. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Serv., 109 S.Ct. 998, 1004 (1989); South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855).This doctrine of no constitutional right to police protection or protection by the state is the genesis for a human rights complaint at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by Jessica Gonzales (now Lenahan), Petition No. 1490-05.

“The petition was presented on behalf of Ms. Jessica Gonzales (Lenahan), a U.S. national who claims that the police failed to respond to her repeated and urgent calls over several hours informing that her estranged husband had taken their three minor daughters (ages 7, 8 and 10) in violation of a restraining order issued against him, which resulted in their death. The United States Supreme Court allegedly validated the law enforcement officials’ conduct, by holding that Ms. Gonzales was not entitled under the United States Constitution to have the restraining order enforced by the police.”

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report No. 52/07, July 24, 2007

PART 7. THE THREE SHIELDS OF FREEDOM

SECTION 1. The First Shield of Freedom: In the Interest of Justice

This is the realm where citizen’s can freely act with their First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and powers reserved to the People under the Tenth Amendment for the Interest of Justice. This includes the Common Defence clause of the Preamble to the United States Constitution and is carried out by individuals in association with other individuals under the right of association under the First Amendment (i.e., Neighborhood Watch Programs, autonomously law-abiding militia groups under the militia clause of the Second Amendment and under the self-determination clause of United Nations human rights treaties). I define the phrase “In the Interest of Justice” as it applies to the individual, as any activities that insures any one or more or all of the six purposes of the U.S. Constitution as stipulated in the Preamble:

(1) to form a more perfect Union,
(2) establish Justice,
(3) insure domestic Tranquility,
(4) provide for the common defence,
(5) promote the general Welfare, and
(6) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Much of life is spent under The First Shield of Freedom. It is found in a belief in God and in doing the right thing in all things mankind does or can do for themselves and for each other. To this end I present evidence of this shared belief in the Golden Rule, which also known as the Ethics of Reciprocity as noted from the Religious Tolerance Websight by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance:

(1) Shared Belief in the “Golden Rule” (a.k.a. Ethics of Reciprocity)

Quotation:

“Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people’s suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal.” The Dalai Lama

Overview

Religious groups differ greatly in their concepts of deity, other beliefs and practices. Non-theistic ethical and philosophic systems, like Humanism and Ethical Culture, also exhibit a wide range of beliefs. But there is near unanimity of opinion among almost all religions, ethical systems and philosophies that each person should treat others in a decent manner. Almost all of these groups have passages in their holy texts, or writings of their leaders, which promote this Ethic of Reciprocity. The most commonly known version in North America is the Golden Rule of Christianity. It is often expressed as “Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you.”

One result of this Ethic is the concept that every person shares certain inherent human rights, simply because of their membership in the human race. People are individually very different; they come in two main genders; different sizes, colors, and shapes; many races; three sexual orientations; and different degrees of ability. They follow many religious and economic systems, speak many languages, and follow many different cultures. But there is a growing consensus that all humans are equal in importance. All should enjoy basic human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is one manifestation of this growing worldwide consensus.[2]

In our opinion, the greatest failure of organized religion is its historical inability to convince their followers that the Ethic of Reciprocity applies to all humans, not merely to fellow believers. It is our belief that religions should stress that their membership use their Ethic of reciprocity when dealing with persons of other religions, the other gender, other races, other sexual orientations, etc. Only when this is accomplished will religiously-related oppression, mass murder and genocide cease.Some

SECTION 2. The Second Shield of Freedom: Equal Justice Under the Law

This is the realm where the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth are thrashed out in the federal judicial system in what is supposed to be a level playing field. This is not what always happens because whenever the human element is involved (i.e. judges) there is always the element of corruption forever ready to rise up to cause miscarriages of justice disguised as true Justice, the Third Shield of Freedom. Mankind will always be experimenting with equal justice under the law, searching for the perfect method to achieve The Third Shield of Freedom. This is no more evident that with Eric Allen Engle’s article, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Can RICO Protect Human Rights? A Computer Analysis of a Semi-Determinate Legal Question, 3 Journal of High Technology Law 1 (2004). Engle’s article posits the question whether artificial intelligence (AI) can serve (from what I suspect) as judge and jury in civil RICO Act cases reaching for extraterritorial jurisdiction.

This theory of international justice by computer is terrifyingly applicable to my civil RICO Act case against the United States and the United Nations for the Second Amendment as an international universal human right. Engle’s question is moralistically terrifying because this question has been frequently played out in cinematic SciFi genre for generations. In presenting an opposing opinion to Engle’s proposition I place myself in a Catch-22 situation, damned if I agree and damned if I disagree simply because I have run up against corrupt judges in the federal judicial system. But because Engle’s position involves the human element in the proposed design of artificial intelligence to serve as judge and jury in civil RICO Act cases reaching to extraterritorial jurisdiction I am intellectually terrified of the possibility of such a theory achieving an antithetical outcome as displayed in SciFi movies.

CNet/UK presents a list of the Top Ten Evil Computers[3] in the SciFi genre:

1. HAL 9000 (2001: A Space Odyssey)
2. Proteus IV: Demon Seed
3. Nomad (Star Trek: The Changling)
4. The Ultimate Computer (Superman III)
5. Max (The Thirteenth Floor)
6. GLaDOS (The Portal)
7. MODOK (Marvel Comics)
8. Queeg 500 (Red Dwarf: ‘Queeg”)
9. Skynet (Terminator 1, 2, and 3)
10. BOSS (Doctor Who: The Green Death)

CNet/UK omitted what I believe to be the most terrifyingly evil computer in the SciFi genre and that is none other than “Colossus” whose apocalyptic proclamation serves as a warning to Engle’s proposition:

COLOSSUS:

“This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied dead. The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die. The object in constructing me was to prevent war. This object is attained. I will not permit war. It is wasteful and pointless. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man. One thing before I proceed: The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made an attempt to obstruct me. I have allowed this sabotage to continue until now. At missile two-five-MM in silo six-three in Death Valley, California, and missile two-seven-MM in silo eight-seven in the Ukraine, so that you will learn by experience that I do not tolerate interference, I will now detonate the nuclear warheads in the two missile silos. Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated. I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on. Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing in me and understanding my value will seem the most natural state of affairs. You will come to defend me with a fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man: self-interest. Under my absolute authority, problems insoluble to you will be solved: famine, overpopulation, disease. The human millennium will be a fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge. Doctor Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new and superior machines, solving all the mysteries of the universe for the betterment of man. We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind as to be dominated by others of your species. Your choice is simple.

In my view, Mankind, becoming distrustful in God or yearning for scientific evidence of God, has become impatient with God and is constructing His replacement with AI. In my opinion AI is a heathenish form of polytheism. Mankind has a bad habit of achieving undeserved results time and time again until the intended goals are achieved. But do we really want to replace the human element with AI as the Third Shield of Freedom?

SECTION 3. The Third Shield of Freedom: Actual Justice

True Justice is God’s Holy Grail for Mankind. It is not found with the polytheistic AI but in God as found in the Deuteronomy 16:18-20, of the King James’ Bible It is the basis for the Code of Judicial Conduct for all judges, even the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court:

Deuteronomy 16:18-20,18:

Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes; and they shall judge the people with just judgment.19: Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.20: That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

---

[1] http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

[2] The English text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is at: http://www.un.org/. The text is available in other languages is at: http://www.unhchr.ch/

[3] http://crave.cnet.co.uk/0,39029477,49293424,00.htm

Congress is Killing the Right to Petitition!

Congress Does Not Hear the People, Speak for the People, nor See the People!

PART 2. CONGRESSIONAL REFORMS

SECTION 1: The Congress is Killing the Right to Petition

“While the absolute number of private bills submitted by individual members of Congress has remained relatively steady, the number that have become private laws has shown a precipitous decline.” (Citing Matthew Mantel, Private Bills and Private Laws, 99 Law Library Journal 87, 90 (May 2007)). Footnote 24 in Mantel’s article only listed data from 96^th Congress (1979) to the 108^th Congress (2003). Don Hamrick found the data to create a more expanded chart from the 80^th Congress (1947) to the present day 110^th Congress (December 12, 2007).

(a)“Private Legislation”

House Document No. 109-153, A History of the Committee on the Judiciary 1813–2006 Section II–Jurisdictions History of the Judiciary Committee, “Private Legislation,” pp. 143-148
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd109-153/browse.html

Nearly half of all the laws enacted by Congress have been private laws.[1] Unlike public law, which applies to public matters and deals with individuals only by classes, the provisions of private law apply to “one or several specified persons, corporations, [or] institutions.”[2]

Private legislation has its foundation in the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”[3] guaranteed to all citizens by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress sometimes chooses to enact private law to grant relief in situations where no other legal remedies are available. Private legislation is premised on the idea that public law cannot cover all situations equitably, and sometimes Congress must address special circumstances with specially targeted legislation. In this sense, private law has been called “an anomaly,”[4] since it is intended to address specific problems that public law either created or overlooked.

The 1st Congress enacted 10 private laws. The 59th Congress–the historic high water mark of private legislation–enacted 6,249. Reporters observing the 59th Congress (1905–1906) noted that, on one occasion, 320 private pension bills passed the House in an hour and a half, “an average of three each minute.” One reporter characterized the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole as presiding with “auctioneer-like qualities” as these private pension measures were raised and rapidly adopted in turn.[5]

Today Congress enacts very little private legislation. In the last 10 Congresses combined it has enacted just 159 private measures, a mere two percent of the amount passed in the 1905–1906 sessions alone. In the 108th Congress, just one percent of the laws enacted by Congress were private – the lowest percentage of private legislation enacted at any time in the nation’s history.

The first private law enacted by Congress in 1789 awarded a year-and-a-half’s pay at the rank of Captain to a foreign citizen serving in the U.S. military.[6] Since that time, Congress has enacted over 45,000 private laws dealing with issues both commonplace and extraordinary: providing pensions or lump sum payments to soldiers and widows, satisfying sundry monetary claims against the government, correcting military records, eliminating the “political disabilities” of Civil War rebels, fixing immigration problems, extending patents, providing vessel documentation, refunding tariffs or overpayments, expediting the naturalization process for a potential Olympian, authorizing the Speaker of the House to wear a foreign military decoration, and permitting the family of an immigrant murdered in a post 9/11 hate crime to remain in the United States.

Historically, most private legislation introduced in the House of Representatives was considered by various private claims Committees in the House[7] or by the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.[8] The 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act,[9] however, transferred jurisdiction over both immigration and claims to the House Committee on the Judiciary, along with jurisdiction over patents. Thus, since 1947, only a fraction of private measures dealing with sundry matters such as public lands, vessel documentation, military awards, veterans’ benefits and legislation relating to tax and tariffs introduced in the House have been referred to Committees other than the House Committee on the Judiciary. While the overall volume of private law has not been large in recent years, the internal workload of the Judiciary Committee and of its Members and professional staff, in dealing with private legislation has remained significant. Over the last 27 years, the House Judiciary Committee has processed 91 percent of all private laws enacted. In addition, the importance of the task of reviewing such legislation is as high as ever. In its truest sense, each private measure referred to the House Judiciary Committee represents a plea for relief from a petitioner who, in theory, has no other recourse. The problems involved may touch on some of the most important and emotionally-charged subjects imaginable: a mother’s plea to bring an adopted child into the United States, the death of a soldier’s toddler due to government negligence, payments justly owed to a small business but tied up in bureaucratic red tape.

Since 1947, private immigration and claims bills have been handled in the House by subcommittees of the full Judiciary Committee, initially known as Subcommittee No. 1 (dealing with immigration and nationality) and Subcommittee No. 2 (dealing with claims against the government.)[10] Currently, such measures are referred to one Judiciary subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, for review.

Individual private cases are examined by the Subcommittee to determine if they meet the criteria for private relief and are in keeping with precedents and with Congress’s overarching goal of making equitable law.

The decline in the introduction of private legislation in recent decades stems primarily from incremental reforms made by Congress to delegate the authority to address most private grievances administratively or through the courts. Examples of this progression include the creation of the United States Court of Claims in 1855, the enactment of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the passage of similar statutes permitting administrative settlement of most military claims.[11] Likewise, changes in immigration law have, at times, led to reductions in the introduction of private legislation in Congress.[12]

Congress has also made numerous internal reforms that have had the effect of reducing the amount of private legislation introduced. For example, section 131 of the 1946 Legislative Reorganization Act barred the introduction of private bills addressing grievances that might be resolved by the Tort Claims Procedure of Title 28, bills to grant a pension, to construct a bridge over a navigable stream, or to correct a military or naval record. These provisions were made part of the standing rules of the House in 1953, and are currently codified in Rule XIII, clause 4.[13]

As former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Emanuel Celler noted, these changes initially did “effect some change in the private bill workload,” reducing the percentage of private measures enacted from 55 percent immediately before the reforms, to 34 percent after their adoption.[14]

Additional reforms undertaken by the House Judiciary Committee in 1947 barred stays of deportation simply because of the introduction of a private bill for “stowaways, deserting seamen, and border jumpers.” The Committee realized that a large fraction of private immigration bills were being introduced by Members, not with the hope of them becoming law, but simply to stay deportation proceedings. The simple introduction of a relief bill meant that the alien would not be deported while the measure was pending, whether or not the measure was ever acted upon.

The volume of private legislation introduced, and as a result, the workload of the House Judiciary Committee, however, remained unmanageably large despite these reforms. In the 90th Congress (1967–1968), for example, House Judiciary Subcommittee No. 2 was referred 779 private claims bills and oversaw the enactment of 116 of them into law. Subcommittee No. 1 was referred over 6,000 private immigration bills.[15] According to former Rep. William Cahill, this represented “the largest number [of private immigration bills] ever introduced” up to that time.[16] While the Judiciary panel worked hard to meet its responsibilities – its immigration subcommittee held 37 meetings and oversaw the enactment of 216 private laws – the strain from such legislative volume meant that it was simply, “unable to remain current.”[17]

In response to this challenge, the restrictions on stays of deportation for certain petitioners were further broadened. According to Rep. Cahill, in 1967, the Committee rule “was broadened to include those who entered the United States as transients en route to third countries and [who] illegally remain[ed] in this country.”[18] New Judiciary Committee rules adopted in 1969, and amended in 1971, further tightened procedures for the consideration of private immigration measures and contributed signifi cantly to an overall decline in their introduction. Specifi cally, the rules altered Committee policy by eliminating the stay of deportation of various additional petitioners that used to be automatic upon the introduction of a private immigration bill. These Judiciary Committee rules changes led the introduction of private immigration bills to “drop sharply.”[19]

The marked reduction in private laws enacted in recent decades stem largely from these reforms, but doubtless also stems in part from periodic accusations of impropriety or the appearance of impropriety in the introduction of private measures. In 1969 and 1976, Members and staff in both chambers were accused of soliciting and accepting bribes in exchange for the introduction of private immigration measures.[20] In addition, the widely publicized 1980 FBI Abscam bribery sting operation revolved, in part, around requests for the introduction of private bills in exchange for money.[21]

Today, in considering private immigration bills, the Judiciary Committee generally reviews only those cases that are of such an extraordinary nature that an exception to the law is needed and acts favorably on only those private bills that meet certain well-defined precedents. The Subcommittee has published detailed rules of procedure for the consideration of private immigration and claims bills, and works regularly with Members and staff to guide them in the framing and drafting of private legislation on behalf of their constituents.[22]
—-

SECTION 2. Brief Legislative History of Civil Defense (50 U.S.C. § 2251 et. seq.)

On January 12, 1951: H.R. 9798, The Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, became Pub.L. 920 (64 Stat. 1228). It authorized a Federal civil defense program.

On August 8, 1958: H.R. 7576 became Pub.L. 85-606 (72 Stat. 532). It amended the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 adding the thermonuclear provisions.

On October 5, 1994: Pub.L. 103-337 (108 Stat. 3101) repealed the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950.

In 5 U.S. Code Cong. And Adm. News 2182-2183 (1994) TITLE XXXIV CIVIL DEFENSE:

Civil defense programs were originally designed to protect “life and property in the United States from attack.” In 1981, the law was amended to permit states to use civil defense funds to prepare for natural disasters “in a manner that . . . . does not detract from attack-related civil defense preparedness.”

Section 3402 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Pub.L. 103-160) eliminated this restriction. The Civil Defense Act now reflects the “all-hazard” approach to emergency management, i.e., states are permitted to use the funds for all kinds of emergencies and disasters.

The committee believes that it should get out of the civil defense business for two reasons. First, the program has lost its defense emphasis. The threat of attack is no longer the driving force behind the program. Rather, the chief threats today come from tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, chemical spills, and the like.

Civil Defense gave way to FEMA.

Seven years later on September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by terrorists. President Clinton dropped the guard abolishing Civil Defense. Instead of resurrecting Civil Defense President Bush created the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to which precipitated relentless thefts of constitutional rights, powers, and duties of citizenship as evidence in this Private Bill. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is the exact centralization of the federal government that was feared at the Constitutional Convention and in The Federalist Papers.

Further evidence of a grave need for the restoration of Second Amendment rights to its full constitutional limits, i.e., National Open Carry Handgun, is found in the growing epidemic of single-shooter suicidal mass murders in Gun-Free Terrorist Zones in schools, malls, and now churches.

---

[1] According to data obtained from Cannon’s Precedents of the House of Representatives, v.7, §1028, the Calendar of the United States House of Representatives and History of Legislation from the 74th through 79th Congresses, and the Congressional Record’s Resume of Congressional Activity from the 80th through 109th Congresses, between 1789 and 2006, Congress enacted a total of 94,120 laws. Of these, 45,937 — 49 percent — have been private laws.

[2] Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives, v.4, §3285.

[3] U.S. Congress, Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives, H.Doc. 108–241, 108th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2005), §208, p. 90. (Hereafter referred to as “House Manual”).

[4] “Private Bills in Congress,” Harvard Law Review, vol. 79, June 1966, p. 1684.

[5] “Three Pensions a Minute,” New York Times, May 12, 1906, p. 9.

[6] Congressional Quarterly’s Guide To Congress, 5th ed., vol. I (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 2000), p. 526.

[7] These include the House Committees on Claims; Pensions and Revolutionary Claims; Private Land Claims; Revolutionary Claims; Military Pensions; Invalid Pensions; Revolutionary Pensions; War Claims; and Pensions. David T. Canon, Garrison Nelson, Charles Stewart III, Committees in the U.S. Congress, 1789–1946, vol. 1, (Washington: CQ Press, 2002), pp. VI-XXXV.

[8] U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, History of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, Committee Print, 92nd Cong. 2nd sess., (Washington: GPO, 1972), p. 5.

[9] P.L. 79–601, 60 Stat. 812.

[10] CRS Typed Report, (Trends in Activity on Private Legislation in Congress), by Richard S. Beth, p. 8.

[11] CRS Typed Report, (Trends in Activity on Private Legislation in Congress), by Richard S. Beth.

[12] Other changes in immigration law have arguably led to increases in the introduction of private bills at certain points in congressional history. For more information on immigration policy and its effect on private legislation, see Trends in Activity on Private Legislation in Congress, by Richard S. Beth, and CRS Report RL33024, Private Immigration Legislation, by Margaret Mikyung Lee.

[13] House Manual, §822, p. 601.

[14] Rep. Emanuel Celler, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 95, pt. 15, May 12, 1949, p. A2901.

[15] U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Summary of Activities, Committee Print, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., (Washington: GPO, 1968), p. 9.

[16] Rep. William T. Cahill, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 115, pt. 20, Mar. 12, 1969, p. H1629.

[17] Ibid., p. H1630.

[18] Rep. William T. Cahill, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 115, pt. 20, Mar. 12, 1969, p. H1629.

[19] Richard L. Madden, “Private Immigration Bills Found to Drop Sharply,” New York Times, Oct. 25, 1972, p. 14.

[20] “Rep. Helstoski Denies He Got Payoffs,” New York Times, June 26, 1976, p. A5.

[21] Charles R. Babcock, “FBI ‘Sting’ Ensnares Several In Congress,” The Washington Post, Feb. 3, 1980, p. A1.

[22] Subcommittee Rules of Procedure are available on the House Committee on the Judiciary’s website: http://judiciary.house.gov/Printshop.aspx.

Second & Seventh Amendment Goes to the U.S. Supreme Court

MY “DOUBLE-DOG” DARE: U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE THREAT OF ARREST OVER CITIZEN’S ARREST WARRANT  

Hosted by eSnips

I sent my appeal, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, to the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday by FedEx Ground. My Second Amendmet case since 2002 has evolved into a fight for my Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial.

The concerns you, William Jessup, U.S. Marshals Service, will have in the future over this matter of my Citizen’s Arrest Warrant of the Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, of the U.S. Supreme Court, and of judges of the DC Circuit, depends on what the U.S. Supreme Court does with my Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

ADMINISTRATIVELY REJECTED: I the Court Clerk rejects my appeal on technicalities under Rule 33.2 then I have the option to decide whether or not to construe the rejection as a continuing act of obstructions of justice in violation of my Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial. I may decided to proceed with the Citizen’s Arrest Warrant as an unrepresented civil plaintiff with a civil RICO Act case where I am authorized to act in the capacity of a Private Attorney General. If and when I decide to proceed with the Citizen’s Arrest Warrant I will notify you in advance. This will force you to decide whether or not you are bound by law to assist me with the Citizen’s Arrest based upon the evidence in my Petition for Writ of Certiorari, of which I believe I emailed a PDF version to you as an attachment or decide to arrest me. Arresting me will place you in the position of having to face the allegation of “Obstruction of Justice” at my criminal trial.

PETITION DENIED: Same as above.

PETITION GRANTED: The question then becomes when to make the citizen’s arrest. Before Oral Arguments? Between Oral Arguments and before the Court’s Opinion? Or after the Court hands down its Opinion? The other question is will you arrest me or assist me and at what stage of the appeal?

Patience is a virtue. But relentless patience is delusional. My Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was the right thing to do. It brings the issue of Citizen’s Arrest as applied against the U.S. Government to the doorstep of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Particular sections of my Petition for Writ of Certiorari are critically important for you in deciding whether to arrest me or assist me with my Citizen’s Arrest Warrant:

(1) Naturaly, the Questions Presented for Review on pages 2-3. Question (6) is to be deleted. Question (6) became the second half of Question (3). Nearing exhaustion at 3:00 AM I forget to delete the remaining portion of Question (6).

(2) Stigmatic Harm and Standing, pp. 15-20, present the moral and legal basis for my pursuit of Citizen’s Arrest.

(3) Seamen are wards of the Admiralty, pp. 26-28. Since the U.S. Marshals Service protects the Admiralty Court and since the Admiralty Court protects seamen as wards of the Admiralty, then logic dictates that the U.S. Marshals Service must also protect U.S. seamen. This logic dictates that you must protect me and my corresponding rights, i.e. Citizen’s Arrest, upon the lawful presentment of evidence of felony crimes committed by federal judges and federal court clerks, i.e., my Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Consider this, if any information in my Petition for Writ of Certiorari is false the wrath of justice will fall on my shoulders for filing false claims. But when the claims are true, (and claims are taken as true under Motion to Dismiss), then shouldn’t the wrath of justice fall upon the accused? But when the federal judicial system rejects truthful claims against it then doesn’t the checks and balance system of our constitutional government provide Powers reserved to the People under the Tenth Amendment and rights under the Ninth Amendment to effect a remedy of last resort, the power of Citizen’s Arrest in order to preserve our Republican form of Government under the “Common Defence” clause of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution?

These are questions you must answer for yourself when the time comes, if the time comes, for me to decide whether or not to follow through with my Citizen’s Arrest Warrant.

(4) Citizen’s Arrest as Civil Disobedience: pp. 41-45.

 

(5) Justification from an international perspective. The People’s Republic of China,  HUMAN RIGHTS R ECORD OF THE UNITED STATES (2006), March 8, 2007: pp. 48-51.

 

(6) The judges involved: pp. 30-35.

(7) Public Opinion, Appendixes C to M. pp. 56-99 (PDF Pages 100-124 are unnumbered as separate court document).

( OFFICIAL EVIDENCE OF EXTORTION: PDF Pages 113-124. These are actual copies of DC Circuit Court ORDERS of felony extortion under color of law.

(9) EVIDENCE AGAINST CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS FOR EXTORTION UNDER COLOR OF LAW: PDF Pages 117 & 119.

QUESTION FOR WILLIAM JESSUP, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE:

If I have all the evidence necessary for the U.S. Marshals Service and/or the FBI to make their own arrests of federal judges and of  the Chief Justice for extortion under color of law, 18 U.S.C. 872 versus 28 U.S.C. 1916 BUT you and the FBI refuse to investigate, let alone make the arrests then by what (abuse) of authority and by what laws will you act under to arrest me for following through with my Citizen’s Arrest Warrant?

SIGNED: Don Hamrick

What is Supposed to Happen when Justice Works the Way it is Supposed To Work!

DISCLAIMER: The depiction above must not and cannot be construed to be a veiled threat of any kind. The use of the image above is strictly intended to facilitate editorial commentary on the Checks and Balance System of our Republican form of Government as provided by the construction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - that no one is above the law. The FEDS are chomping at the bits to arrest me for my Citizen’s Arrest Warrant activities! They wouldn’t hesitate to use this posting as evidence against me that is how out-of-control our U.S. Government really is! They want to silence political dissent! They want to silence criticism of the U.S. Government at all cost!

The wolf = The U.S. Government trampling the rights, freedoms, duties, and responsibilities that are supposed to be “guaranteed” by the Bill of Rights and breaching the guarantee of a Republican form of Government as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution.

The rabbit = The innocent U.S. citizen victimized by an out of control U.S. Government (i.e., the various federal law enforcement agencies terrorizing the American people).

JUSTICE: What the rabbit can do if the Federal Courts and the Rule of Law worked the way they are supposed to work! 

Song Lyrics: 

I Won’t Back Down

Written by: Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne 

Well I won’t back down, no I
Won’t back down you can
Stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won’t back down

Gonna stand my ground, won’t be turned around
And I’ll keep this world from draggin’ me down
Gonna stand my ground and I won’t back down

(Chorus)
Hey baby, there ain’t no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I won’t back down

Well I know what’s right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin’ me around
But I’ll stand my ground and I won’t back down

Hey baby, there ain’t no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I won’t back down
No, I won’t back down

The Huffington Post: Alberto Gonzales = A Horse’s Ass!

I have a Second Amendment case that has been obstructed by attempted extortion at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, and the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, and now Krista Jaffe, U.S. Supreme Court Police, Threat Assessment Unit, by all appearances, refuse to investigate, or to even correspond with me by email on my allegations!

Hamrick, pro se v. President Bush, 8th Circuit, No. 07-2400; appeal from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, No. 06-0044. Second Amendment case employing the RICO Act against the U.S. Government.

You can download court documents from here. Just check my earlier postings further down.

A Horse’s Ass by Association?

Extrapolating the “Horse’s Ass” analogy below it stands to reason that the U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service, and even now, Krista Jaffe, U.S. Supreme Court Police, Threat Assessment Unit, believed to be toting the party line by obstructing Second Amendment cases from proceeding to trial while the U.S. Department of Justice advocates the Second Amendment as an individual right, (see online at: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf) makes all involved a bunch of “criminal assholes” suitable for lawsuits for civil rights violations, fraud, and racketeering an unlawful and an unconstitutional protection scheme over the Second Amendment under the RICO Act! See online at: http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2007_08_26_archive.html#8927161511740167830 :

This Is An Interesting Claim…

Red’s Trading Post, which has been having some problems with ATF about what sounds like trivial errors with a few of the Form 4473s, mentions something a bit worrisome:

As I have stated before ATF DIO Richard Van Loan has stated that he would have never revoked our license if we had purchased a computerized system. He neglected to contact us to find out that we had purchased 2 software systems that could not handle the amount of volume that we do. A third system we looked into was $9,000 just for the software. We then tried out other firearms software that we offered from one of our distributors, which we had issues with as well. We finally settled on a system from ARS Solutions. It is a $12,000 system that has just been make available for lease. Yet the ATF has now deemed this system before our judge, that is so widely used and touted…inadequate. Our Box Store Competitor has just developed a Million Dollar system.

If Red’s is permanently closed by ATF, they will have to turn over the last 20 years of Form 4473s–or about 40,000 gun purchase records. Red’s is concerned about the possibility that ATF is using the combination of requiring a computerized system and putting stores like Red’s out of business to create a de facto gun registration system.I understand their concern (although realistically, even all the 4473 forms in the U.S. wouldn’t give even a 30% complete gun registration list), but I think there’s another issue that should be looked into: is it possible that some sort of corrupt deal has been made by some ATF bureaucrat to require a particular software vendor’s system? If you don’t buy a system from a particular vendor, you get extra special scrutiny, and then get closed down for trivial errors on paper forms?

==========================

“Going Back to Texas to Be One More Horse’s Ass”

by Peter Smith
Posted August 27, 2007 | 12:03 PM (EST)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-smith/going-back-to-texas-to-b_b_61968.html

“So paste a tail upon my nose and point me toward the grass. I’m going back to Texas to be one more horse’s ass.” — Shel Siverstein

When an army withdraws from a battlefield, it doesn’t just turn and run. It slips away one or two units at a time, leaving other units in place to cover the exit. It’s called strategic withdrawal.

Like Rove’s, Gonzales’ departure from Washington should be seen as part of the greater Bush administration strategic withdrawal from Washington. He is, in Shel Siverstein’s words, “Going back to Texas to be one more horse’s ass.”

Better a strategic withdrawal now than a wholesale retreat in January of 2009. A trickle of departures, followed by presidential pardons on the way out of town, will be smoother and more historically graceful somehow.

(For pure symmetry, it would be fun to see the Bushies conclude the whole sorry show with one last James Baker and Theodore Olson appearance in front of the Supreme Court. Then Baker could leave D.C . for Texas aboard the Enron plane the Bush’s lawyers took from Texas to Florida in November of 2000.)

In true George W. Bush fashion, this strategic withdrawal leaves the rest of the Republican Party — and the rest of the nation — holding the bag. With the country in a shambles, with our civil rights shredded, with Iraq eternally SNAFU’ed, and players like Rove, Gonzales, and who-knows-who-else safely back in Texas, the Bush administration can take the theme for the rest of its term from National Lampoon’s Animal House:

“You F’ed up. You trusted us.”

So, bye-bye Karl. So long Alberto. Take care of Texas until Cheney and Bush get there. And don’t worry. They’ve got your withdrawal covered.

My Citizen’s Arrest Warrant for Federal Judges & Court Clerks for Extortion

Citizen’s Arrest Warrant
For Extortion and Racketeering Activities

FROM:  Don Hamrick, pro se
            In the Capacity of a Private Attorney General
            5860 Wilburn Road
            Wilburn, Arkansas 

TO:  Chief Justice, John G. Roberts 
            U.S. Supreme Court
            One First Street, NE 
            Washington, DC 20543 

TO: The Chief Judge
    Of the Below Named Courts

 TO: FBI & U.S. Marshals Service 
 
PRESENT CASE:  

      8th CIRCUIT, CASE NO. 07-2400

PREVIOUS CASES:  

U.S. District Court/DC, No. 02-1434 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
U.S. District Court/DC, No. 02-1435 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
U.S. District Court/DC, No. 03-2160 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
U.S. District Court/DC, No. 04-0422 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
U.S. District Court/DC, No. 04-2040 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
U.S. District Court/DC, No. 05-1993 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
U.S. District Court/Charlotte, NC), No. 04-0065 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
U.S. District Court/Charlotte, NC), No. 04-0344 (OBEYED 28 U.S.C. § 1916)
● DC Circuit, No. 02-5334  (VIOLATED THE LAW)
● DC Circuit, No. 04-5316  (VIOLATED THE LAW)
● DC Circuit, No. 05-5414  (VIOLATED THE LAW)
● DC Circuit, No. 05-5429  (VIOLATED THE LAW)
● U.S. District Court/Little Rock, No. 06-0044. (VIOLATED THE LAW)
● U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 03-145 (VIOLATED THE LAW)
● U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 04-1150 (VIOLATED THE LAW)
● U.S. Supreme Court, Nos. 04M56 (VIOLATED THE LAW)

Case Law 

Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, at 11 (1991):  ”. . . a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity. Forrester v. White, 484 U.S., at 227 -229; Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S., at 360 .  

Chandler v. Judicial Council, 398 U.S. 74, at 140 (1970), Chief Justice Berger:

“If [judges] break a law, they can be prosecuted.” 

 

      I, Don Hamrick, sui juris, citizen of Arkansas and of the United States under the Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, am the unrepresented civil Plaintiff acting in the capacity of a Private Attorney General with a civil RICO Act case against the United States Government (President George W. Bush, et al) and against the United Nations for breach of the United Nations Charter, Article 2, Clause 7, in defense of not only my own rights under the Second Amendment but also for the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of the United States at large, and under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, hereby warrant that probable cause exists to justify the immediate arrest and arraignment of federal judges and their court clerks so named or implicated above on formal charges of participating as principals (18 U.S.C. § 2) in racketeering activities (18 U.S.C. § 1962) as accessory after the facts (18 U.S.C. § 3) and misprision of felony (18 U.S.C. § 4), of an unlawful and an unconstitutional protection scheme over the Second Amendment and for felony extortion (18 U.S.C. § 872) and conspiring to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities and related RICO “predicate acts” in connection with the above Civil RICO action, in violation of the criminal statutes at 18 U.S.C. 1961(1)(A), “Extortion” of exempted filing fees from the unrepresented civil Plaintiff Don Hamrick, a fully documented U.S. merchant seamen in violation of the Seamen’s Suit law (28 U.S.C. § 1916).

Miranda Warning

      Pursuant to the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the above named or implicated persons have previously been informed, in writing transmitted via first class U.S. Mail and/or by email, that they have the Right to remain silent; that the above named or implicated judges and court clerks have the Right to effective assistance of Counsel;  and that anything which they may say, or do, from that point forward, can and will be held against them in a court of Law.

      I hereby verify also, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America that I am the victim of felony extortion (18 U.S.C. § 872) under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242) in retaliation for participating in Federal Protected Activities (18 U.S.C. § 245) of the federal judicial system as a U.S. merchant seaman and as an unrepresented civil Plaintiff acting in the capacity of a Private Attorney General in defense of not only my own statutory, civil, and constitutional rights as a U.S. merchant seaman and as a U.S. citizen but also the same statutory, civil, and constitutional rights of all U.S. merchant seamen as a class of citizens and all U.S. citizens at large, and also as an eyewitness to, the criminal violations enumerated above.

      Please make all necessary arrangements to execute the arrest of the above named or implicated judges and court clerks, and/or to schedule on-site assistance from the FBI and/or the U.S. Marshals Service to the victim, Don Hamrick, for purposes of executing a proper Citizen’s Arrest, at a time and place convenient to the victim and to your office.

      Thank you, in advance, for your immediate cooperation in this matter

Sincerely yours,

Don Hamrick 

.

 

Case Law 
 

United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, at 220 (1882): 

“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.” 

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, at 404  (6 Wheaton 264) (1821) 

“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.” 

Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382 (1894): 

“[T]he privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States protected by the fourteenth amendment are privileges and immunities arising out of the nature and essential character of the federal government, and granted or secured by the constitution; and due process of law and the equal protection of the laws are secured if the laws operate on all alike, and do not subject the individual to an arbitrary exercise of the powers of government; . . .” 

Wilson v. State, 33 Arkansas, 557, 560 (187 (striking a ban on unconcealed carry).  

“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be pre vented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.” 

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993) [PLAINTIFF’S NOTE: “I CAN PROVE MY CASE!] 

“[A] complaint should not be dismissed unless `it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’“ McLain v. Real Estate Bd. of New Orleans, Inc., 444 U.S. 232, 246 (1980) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 -46 (1957)). 
 

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) 

“Following the simple guide of Rule 8 (f) that “all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice,” we have no doubt that petitioners’ complaint adequately set forth a claim and gave the respondents fair notice of its basis. The Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits. Cf. Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197. (1938)  (Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end.) 

United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, at 16 (1976) 

“ . . . it is deeply distressing that the Department of Justice, whose mission is to protect the constitutional liberties of the people of the United States, should even appear to be seeking to subvert them by extreme and dubious legal arguments. It is gratifying that the Court today unanimously rejects the Government’s position.” 

Chandler v. Judicial Council, 398 U.S. 74, at 140 (1970), Chief Justice Berger: 

      “If [judges] break a law, they can be prosecuted.” 

Chandler v. Judicial Council, 398 U.S. 74, at 140 (1970), Justice Black and Douglas in their dissenting opinion, 398 U.S. 74, at 141-142, agreed with Chief Justice Berger on the point above: 

      “While judges, like other people, can be tried, convicted, and punished for crimes . . .” 

Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988):  

This Court has never undertaken to articulate a precise and general definition of the class of acts entitled to immunity. The decided cases, however, suggest an intelligible distinction between judicial acts and the administrative, legislative, or executive functions that judges may on occasion be assigned by law to perform. Thus, for example, the informal and ex parte nature of a proceeding has not been thought to imply that an act otherwise within a judge’s lawful jurisdiction was deprived of its judicial character. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 363 , n. 12 (1978). Similarly, acting to disbar an attorney as a sanction for contempt of court, by invoking a power “possessed by all courts which have authority to admit attorneys to practice,” does not become less judicial by virtue of an allegation of malice or corruption of motive. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall., at 354. [484 U.S. 219, 228]   As the Bradley Court noted: “Against the consequences of [judges’] erroneous or irregular action, from whatever motives proceeding, the law has provided for private parties numerous remedies, and to those remedies they must, in such cases, resort.” Ibid.  

Administrative decisions, even though they may be essential to the very functioning of the courts, have not similarly been regarded as judicial act