My Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court & the Denigrated Stare Decisis Doctrine

National Open Carry is
Built Into The U.S. Constitution

THE PREAMBLE TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

National Open Carry is the Gold Standard and the original intent for the Second Amendment when it is combined with the COMMON DEFENCE CLAUSE in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and in Article I, Section 8 and the PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE of Article IV, Section 2, that no one exercising their Second Amendment rights in a lawful manner shall be harassed by law enforcement or the judicial system.

The spelling of Defence is the original spelling in the U.S. Constitution to which I construe is We, the People providing for the Common Defence as opposed to the current spelling of Defense to mean the military defense.

That’s when National Open Carry will establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, by providing for the common defence, promoting the general Welfare, and thereby securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Gun Control is NOT working.

National Open Carry will work
because an Armed Society is a Polite Society.

Gun Control along with Absolute Immunity is a delusional false doctrine. Gun control will never work because it is based on the presumption that criminals will obey gun control laws based on the honor system. That’s a national joke.

It is my hope and prayer that my appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court combined with their new denigrated Stare Decisis Doctrine (See, Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, Case No. 17–1299, Decided May 13, 2019) will be a case of first impression that will cause a Butterfly Effect[1] of acceptance and conversion from the gun control doctrine to the National Open Carry Doctrine. The new denigrated Stare Decisis Doctrine blows the doors wide open for constitutional challenges on antiquated Stare Decisis opinions on all controversial constitutional issues. My National Open Carry appeal will be the first test case.

[1] The Butterfly Effect is defined, with reference to chaos theory, as the phenomenon whereby a minute localized change in a complex system can have large effects elsewhere. See also, Jamie L. Vernon, Understanding the Butterfly Effect, American Scientist | Physics, May-June 2017, Vol. 105, No. 3, page 130.

NEW STARE DECISIS DOCTRINE PARAPHRASED:

“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command and it is
at its weakest when interpreting the Constitution.”

APPEAL FROM ARK SUPCT TO SCOTUS1

The following two SCOTUS Appeals are from my previous attempt last year. Three times I filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. But each time they were administratively returned for alleged errors my my Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. These two appeals are Appendixes 19 and 20 in my forthcoming appeal. I will get my appeal printed and filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, May 31, 2019 or soon thereafter.

EXHIBIT 16:

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI – FALSE CONVICTION

EXHIBIT 17:

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI – SECOND AMENDMENT

My appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court may very well be a CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION under the following precedents:

(1). The new denigrated Stare Decisis Doctrine. See, Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, Case No. 17–1299, Decided May 13, 2019. The new Stare Decisis Doctrine paraphrased here, “Stare decisis is not an inexorable command and it is at its weakest when interpreting the Constitution” blows the doors wide open for constitutional challenges on antiquated Stare Decisis opinions on all controversial constitutional issues. I applied this new Stare Decisis Doctrine to all the issues in my appeal. If my appeal gets accepted and put on the docket then that will mean my appeal is the first use of the new Stare Decisis Doctrine in the U.S. Supreme Court. The will also mean that I will have twice made judicial precedent history using the new Stare Decisis Doctrine. See the next paragraph for my first use of the doctrine.

(2). I presume my Amicus Curiae Brief in favor of the 6 plaintiffs asgainst Judge Mark Derrick in the class action case in Nakita Mahoney, et al. v. Judge Mark Derrick, White County Circuit Court, Arkansas, Case No. 73CV-18-874 for running a Debtors’ Prison out of the White County Jail from the Kensett District Court, the same judge and court who presided over my two misdemeanor False Convictions. I presume my Amicus Curiae Brief is the first use of the new Stare Decisis Doctrine in a State case. If that proves true, then I have made judicial precedent history as a pro se poor defendant.

(3). Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions response to President Trump’s Executive Order 13777 Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda by rescinding 25 Guidance Directives on December 21, 2017. Of those 25 directives, it is the Guidance Directive No. 11, Dear Colleague Letter on Enforcement of Fines and Fees (March 2016) that caused the resurgence of Debtors’ Prisons all across America spurring False Convictions of innocent poor defendants. It was widely reported in the media that the Dear Colleague Letter is responsible for the resurgence of Debtors’ Prisons across America. Judges who run debtors’ prisons have turned their courts into kangaroo courts. I am a veteranm, age 63, living on a V.A. Non-service Connected Disability that puts me $3,368.00 below the 2019 Federal Poverty Guidline. I live in White County, Arkansas what is believed to be the most corrupt county in Arkansas. It has to be the most corrupt county in Arkansas because I was falsely convicted in two separate misdemeanor cases. The appeal I will be filing challenges my two misdemeanor False Convictions. In my research I traced the corruption to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the rescinding of the Guidance Directive No. 11, Dear Colleague Letter on Enforcement of Fines and Fees (March 2016) that caused the resurgence of Debtors’ Prisons all across America spurring False Convitionsof innocent poor defendants.

(4) I have constitutional challenges in my appeal. The most history-making challenge, IF I succeed is abolishing Absolute Immunity for judges and restrict Qualified Immuity to the bare essential for prosecutors. Absolute and Qualified Immuites violate the checks and balance system of our American republican form of government. No one is susposed to above the law. No judges, prosecutors, or Hilary Clinton. Everyone is susposed to be held accounty for their criminal acts. Judges, prosecutors, and Hilary Clinton must be held to the same accountability as the people of the United States. Absolute Immunities is a False Doctrine.

 

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