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 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
(Co. Litt. 148.)
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.
Omnis innovatio plus novitateperturbatquamutilitateprodest.
(2 Bulst. 338.)
“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.”
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.”
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.
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 DOCUMENTSBUT I MAKE SIMILAR ARGUMENTS THAT INCLUDES BLACKSTONE’S QUOTATIONCiting Cato Institue, Blackstone’s Ratio: Is it more important to protect innocence or punish guilt?:
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.