My Two Misdemeanor FALSE CONVICTIONS are now Appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court

I filed my Amicus Curiae Brief in Favor of the Six Class Action Plaintiffs against Judge Mark Derrick of the Kensett District Court.

Mandatory Judicial Notice to the Arkansas Supreme CourtMandatory Judicial Notice to the Arkansas Supreme CourtMandatory Judicial Notice to the Arkansas Supreme Court

MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS FOR WHITE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT (Amicus Curiae Brief in Favor of the Six Class Action Plaintiffs against Judge Mark Derrick.)

White County Circuit Court Docket

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN MAHONEY CASE
The Arkansas Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court appointed retired Circuit Court Judge David Laser to preside over the Nakita Mahoney et al v. Judge Mark Derrick, White County Circuit Court, Case No. 73CV-18-874 (filed November 14, 2018 case at White County Circuit Court because all the White Couty Circuit Court judges recused themselves from the Mahoney case because the case is against Judge Mark Derrick.
 
That Amicus Curiae Brief became my Mandatory Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts at the Arkansas Supreme Court in Don Hamrick v. Judge Robert Edwards, Special Judge Milas Hale, and Judge Mark Derrick, Ark. SCt No. CR-19-164. I deep-dived into my research for Latin Maxims and their translations of the 1800’s. I included the most directly applicable to Judge Mark Derrick and Prosecutor Don Raney specifically and to all state and federal judges and prosectuors generally.
 
In Judge Mark Derrick’s ANSWER to Nakita Mahoney et al’s COMPLAINT Judge Mark Derrick asserts every immunity within his grasp as AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (page 13 in his Answer) against the allegations in Mahoney’s Complaint.
 
Nullus commodim caperepotest de injuridsuapropria.
(Co. Litt. 148.)
“No one can take advantage of his own wrong.”
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Judge Derrick denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief as requested within the Complaint and further denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any other form of relief.
2. Judge Derrick is entitled to sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, qualified immunity, and statutory immunity against Plaintiffs’ claims.
3. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
4. Judge Derrick avails himself to all available defenses under Rules 8 and 12 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. Judge Derrick is not legally responsible for the alleged acts and/or omissions of any other person, whether named or unnamed in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
6. This action is barred by res judicata to the extent any claims have been previously litigated.
7. Judge Derrick denies each and every material allegation stated in Plaintiffs’ Complaint that is not specifically admitted herein.
8. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of mootness and standing.
9. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by any and all applicable statutes of limitation.
10. Judge Derrick reserves the right to object to venue and jurisdiction if those defenses are determined to be applicable after further investigation.

11. Judge Derrick specifically reserves the right to amend his Answer or file other appropriate pleadings and allege any additional affirmative defenses that might be available after he has had reasonable opportunity to further investigate the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

 
My closing argument in my Mandatory Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts is included herein:
 
George Frederick Wharton, of the English Bar, LEGAL MAXIMS WITH OBSERVATIONS AND CASES, PART II. EIGHT HUNDRED MAXIMS, WITH TRANSLATIONS, Baker, Voorhis & Co., Law Publishers, New York (1878), (pages 147, 271 (#572))
MAXIM LXVI (66)
Omnis innovatio plus novitateperturbatquamutilitateprodest.
(2 Bulst. 338.)
“Every innovation disturbs more by its novelty than benefits by its utility.”
“THIS is the rule adopted by the Legislature in considering proposed new laws, and by the courts of law and equity in reference to adjudged cases; the rule being, that where the existing law or established precedents reasonably meet the evil to be remedied, or the case to be decided, neither the one nor the other ought to be disturbed. The Legislature do not, however, hold to the rule so strictly as the courts; the former being obliged to yield to pressure from without, and therefore many novelties contravening this maxim become law; the latter, not being generally subject to such influence, “delight with measured step, for safety and repose, strictly to tread the beaten path of precedent.”
I am going for the Holy Grail of Prosecutorial, Judicial, and Court Reforms. Absolute immunity must be abolished. Qualified immunity must be reduced to limited or restricted immunity.
 
Immunities have gone too far when constitutional rights of the poor become targets in an unconstitutional debtors’ prison scheme followed by political retaliation to my campaign for Mayor of Kensett. Blatant criminal activities of prosecutors and judges under the protections of immunities from prosecution is tantamount to letting the fox run loose in the chicken coop. That must end. The checks and balance system must be restored to the judicial branch of state and federal government.
The first two paragraphs in my Mandatory Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts to the Arkansas Supreme Court are:
My PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS has a direct impact on Nakita Mahoney, et al. vs. Judge Mark Derrick, White County Circuit Court, Case No. 73CV-18-874. The issues presented in my appeal are controlling over the issues in Mahoney.
 
The first paragraph in Mahoney’s Complaint alleges, “This action seeks declaratory relief for thousands of people in White County, Arkansas, who have been and will be deprived of state and federal rights by the policies and practices of District Court Judge Mark Derrick. Those policies and practices have created an illegal, modern-day debtors’ prison in White County.”
The section after Judge Derrick’s AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES in is ANSWER to the Mahoney Complaint is this:
 
PROSECUTOR DON RANEY
SHOULD HAVE BEEN A NAMED DEFENDANT IN MAHONEY
A judge cannot convict anyone without a prosecutor to present a case at trial. A prosecutor has the due diligence duty to make sure the conduct of a defendant matches the alleged offense. It is a travesty of justice to convict an innocent person of a crime not committed. This due diligence is an absolute necessity as part of the checks and balance system between the Police and the Prosecutor to rule out Police Mistakes, i.e. the police arresting an innocent person for a crime not committed. That is a fundamental cause why the United States has the most people in prison than any country in the world.
 
In my case, Don Raney failed in his due diligence duty to conduct his pre-trial interview to determine whether or not the police arrested an innocent man before proceeding to trial. This negligent conduct combined with the Mahoney case of convicting and trapping thousands of people in White County in a debtors’ prison scheme is enough evidence for state and federal conspiracy offenses against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracies to obstruct justice, to falsely convict, and many other criminal offenses.
Rex peccarenonpotest
THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG
Absolute Immunity & Qualified Immunity leading to false convictions are stealthy encroachment upon the rights, freedoms, and liberties of the American people.2 Abuse of process and court proceeds by bad prosecutors and bad judges hiding behind qualified and absolute immunities have revived the British maxim, THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG” in American jurisprudence today. Today it’s prosecutors and judges doing the wrongs. Judicially created immunities have expanded to other agencies beyond the original intent to the extent that not only bad prosecutors and bad judges are immune from malicious conduct but these immunities have extended to other state and federal agencies.
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) A state prosecuting attorney who, as here, acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the accused’s constitutional rights. Pp. 424 U. S. 417-431. || The same considerations of public policy that underlie the common law rule of absolute immunity of a prosecutor from a suit for malicious prosecution likewise dictate absolute immunity under § 1983. Although such immunity leaves the genuinely wronged criminal defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty, the alternative of qualifying a prosecutor’s immunity would disserve the broader public interest in that it would prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor’s duty that is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system and would often prejudice criminal defendants by skewing post-conviction judicial decisions that should be made with the sole purpose of insuring justice. Pp. 424 U. S. 420-428.
Imbler v. Pachtman case law fails on the application of the constitutional right for every wrong there is a remedy.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT IN MY COURT DOCUMENTS
BUT I MAKE SIMILAR ARGUMENTS THAT INCLUDES BLACKSTONE’S QUOTATION
 


When crimes occur, societies often cannot know for certain if a suspect is guilty or innocent. Consequently, societies must grapple with what type of “mistakes” they will tolerate more—sometimes punishing or scrutinizing innocent people or sometimes allowing guilty people go free.

The American system, grounded in the British Common Law, has long erred on the side of protecting innocence. Thus we presume an accused person’s innocence until they are proven guilty. As the preeminent English jurist William Blackstone wrote,”[B]etter that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.” This principle can also be found in religious texts and in the writings of the American Founders. Benjamin Franklin went further arguing “it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.”

Other notable historical figures have worried more about punishing the guilty. For instance German chancellor Otto von Bismarck is believed to have remarked: “it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape.”Che Guevara and 20th century communist movements in China, Vietnam, and Cambodia, also employed similar reasoning.

I included a chart of the Top 10 Countries with the most people in prison. The United States takes the Top Number 1 position because the United States has disgarded Blackstone’s Ratio quotation protecting the innocent and adopted antithesis of Blackston’s Radio, that is far betther to convict everyone so that no guilty go free even if innocent people get convicted. The numbder of False Convictions have gotten so bad that the Fox Channel now has a knew TV series, PROVEN INNOCENT.
It is time for the American people to wake up and fight back against FALSE CONVICTIONS!
Don Hamrick

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s