Home > Uncategorized > Forthcoming Admiralty/Maritime Lawsuit for Second Amendment from a U.S. Merchant Seaman’s Point of View

Forthcoming Admiralty/Maritime Lawsuit for Second Amendment from a U.S. Merchant Seaman’s Point of View

Thursday, April 22, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments

Here it is! [UPDATED MAY 28, 2010 with Filing Date, Case Number, and Name of the Judge.]

DOWNLOAD the perfect Second Amendment lawsuit that the NRA and SAF refuses to get involved with because my National Open Carry lawsuit from a U.S. Merchant Seaman’s point of view runs counter to their National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry pet agenda. They don’t like my National Open Carry position but I push on anyway with the real truth to the “full scope” of Second Amendment rights that even the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to address. I have the likes of Justice Clarence Thomas confessing to HIGH TREASON that the U.S. Supreme Court is evading the Obama eligibility issue.

DOWNLOAD the full Admiralty/Maritime lawsuit Hamrick v. United States, et al, U.S. District Court for DC, No. (PENDING – NOT YET FILED) (386 pages; 4.5 MB)

OR DOWNLOAD the Admiralty Lawsuit in Parts:

The Title Pages (12 pages)
Table of Contents (12 pages) (Best part to view for quick overall synopsis of the lawsuit)
Table of Authorities (11 pages) (Second best part to view)
Part 1 – The Preliminaries (44 pages)
Part 2 – The Parties (3 pages)
Part 3 – The Multi-Level Nature of the Case (51 pages)
Part 4 – Background of Plaintiff’s Case (42 pages)
Part 5 – Demand for De Novo Review of Hamrick v. President Bush (10 pages)
Part 6 – Demand for De Novo Review of U.S. Coast Guard Final Agency Action (19 pages)
Part 7 – Claims Against All Defendants (35 pages)
Part 8 – Claims Against Defendant United States (29 pages)
Part 9 – Claims Against President Obama (27 pages)
Part 10 – Claims Against Chief Justice John G. Roberts (27 pages)
Part 11 – Claims Against John F. Clark, U.S. Marshals Service (6 pages)
Part 12 – Claims Against Janet Nepalitano, Secretary Homeland Security (38 pages)
Part 13 – Claims Against Admiral Thad Allen, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard (10 pages)
Part 14 – Demand for Damages and Other Relief (2 pages)

I printed the first copy today. Hopefully, I can get the rest of the copies printed and the accompanying civil cover sheet, the summons, and the motions and then get them mailed off to the U.S. District Court for DC very soon.

EXCERPT FROM PART 10 OF MY LAWSUIT:

Racial Discrimination by the Federal Courts in Regard to the Absolute Privilege Doctrine Between President Nixon and President Obama over the Disclosure of Certain Documents

To wake up stupefied federal judges protecting the alleged usurper occupying the Office of the President one must present undeniable information to a federal judge on the grave consequences of judicial complicity in the conspiracies to protect President Obama under the People’s suspicion of treason against the Constitution over his birth status as a natural born citizen. Because the passage of the Health Care Reform Bill is the latest change ushering in a Socialist Government there are now (unstable?) people making calls for assassinations.

The reaction of the American people at large must now be gaged to determine the next course of action by the Government itself. Will the Executive Branch ratchet up the oppression and tyranny forcing the American People back into submission? Will the Federal Courts continue dismissing lawsuits seeking to restore the limits on the Government thus further advancing the cause of despotism?

President Obama has not proven his eligibility to hold the Office of the President as a natural born citizen as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States. Unresolved allegations of ineligibility continue to be the the topic of public debate casting serious doubt on President Obama’s legitimacy as president.

By refusing to present an authentic long-form birth certificate to the Federal Election Commission, to the U.S. Congress, and to the American People proving when and where he was born during his presidential campaign for “Hope” and “Change” but has never defined exactly what kind of hope and change he meant combined with his actions as President of the United States in taking over the banking industry, the mortgage industry, the auto industry, the student loan industry, and the health care industry reveals a true intent under constitutional and criminal law that President Obama and his administration has committed and continues to commit not only treason against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 2381) but also boastfully advocates the overthrow of our free-market based Republic Form of Government with a Marxist-Socialist Form of Government (18 U.S.C. § 2385) which is predicted to lead to economic collapse.

There have been a large number of Quo Warranto lawsuits in State and Federal Courts all across the United States challenging Obama’s eligibility but in every case to date those lawsuits have been wrongfully dismissed for lack of standing without any opinions on the merit of the claims in those lawsuits. By these State and Federal Court judges blocking with dismissals every attempt by the American People to determine Obama’s eligibility on the natural born citizen requirement those State and Federal judges have committed Misprision of Treason ((18 U.S.C. § 2382) by refusing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

President Obama is unconditionally obligated and compelled to produce his original long-form birther certificate under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States. See United States v. Nixon 418 U.S. 683, 705-707 (1974):

However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide. [418 U.S. 683, 707]  

The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III. In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence.

While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S., at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring).

To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of a workable government and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.

The same rule of law should also apply to civil proceedings seeking a judicial remedy against President Obama and his refusal to prove his eligibility to hold the Office of President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

On one hand we had a white president in 1974 who resigned under threat of impeachment over the Absolute Privilege Doctrine for presidential communications to which the federal court enforced its Article III powers over the Executive Branch. Today we have a black president who hasn’t yet proven his eligibility to occupy the Office of the President to which the federal courts refuse to enforce its Article III powers over the Executive Branch. Is this Affirmative Action in practice or is it unmitigated racism because it is definitely NOT equal justice under the law.

——

We now have a black justice of the Supreme Court confessing that the U.S. Supreme Court is evading the Obama eligibility issue in contradiction to when the U.S. Supreme Court did not ignore the Rule of Law on disclosure of certain documents under a white president Nixon. Are we now fighting racism in the U.S. Supreme Court itself now?

Go figure!

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: