Clayton Higgins, U.S. Supreme Court Case Analyst, screwed up applying judicial bias against my appeal.
|PERSONAL INJURY: On May 27, 2019 I suffered I congestive heart failure polishing my appeal at FedEx in Fairfax, Virginia, before printing, under the stress of knowing that every case I filed from 2002 to the present in all the federal courts I filed in, including the U.S. Supreme Court was dismissed or denied, check PACER. I spent 7 days at the V.A. hospital in Washington, D.C. where I had a stent inserted into my heart.||$1 million|
|On June 6, 2019, filed my appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court by delivering my appeal to the police booth.||n/a|
|On or about June 8, 2019 my rejected appeal arrived at my residence.||$1 million|
|PERSONAL INJURY: On June 10~11, 2019 I suffered a mini-stroke and a full stroke that landed me at the White County Medical Center’s Emergency Room in Arkansas.||$1 million|
|On June 12, 2019, I transferred to V.A. hospital North Little Rock for speech, physical and occupational therapies.||n/a|
|The U.S. Supreme Court in Hamrick v. President Bush, et al, 540 U.S. 940, SCt. No. 03-145, Cert. was Wrongfully Denied October 6, 2003 violating U.S. Supreme Court Rule 10(a).||$1 million|
|U.S. Supreme Court Rule 28.8. predisposes the appeals of unrepresented appellants to denial of their appeals. This violates the First Amendment right to petition the Government for redress of grievances.||$1 million|
|The U.S. Supreme Court’s Guide For Prospective Indigent Petitioners For Writs Of Certiorari contains the one-form-fits-all for all income brackets titled Affidavit or Declaration `In Support Of Motion For Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperis. This form is unconstitutional on its face because the form does not take into account the poor in income brackets below the Federal Poverty Guidelines. The Supreme Court’s form is based on the Court’s prejudice against the poor in like manner to Rule 28.8.||$1 million|
My Amicus Curiae Brief in favor of the six class action Plaintiffs in Nakita Mahoney, et al. v. Judge Mark Derrick, White County Circuit Court (Arkansas) No. 73CV-18-874, filed November 14, 2018, (See Exhibit 1) is the presumed first use of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion denigrating the old Stare Decisis Doctrine, in a State case. See Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, Case No. 17–1299, Decided May 13, 2019
I presume that my appeal herein is the first use of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion denigrating the old Stare Decisis Doctrine in an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. See Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, Case No. 17–1299, Decided May 13, 2019
And if I am correct in both instances then I have twice made judicial precedent history as a pro se poor appellant. Ain’t that a slap in the face! (Criticism is not disrespect. Critcicsm is my First Amendment right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances.) My appeal defends the rights of the poor in America. It’s only right that I point out the irony of a pro se poor appellant filing his appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court pointing out the hostilities of the U.S. Supreme Court against the poor, in addition to the United States Government, the Arkansas judicial system, and apparently in a lot of courts across the country are showing similar hostilities against the poor. This appeal does NOT deserve to be denied by the U.S. Supreme Court for my criticism. Take it on the cheek and change things for the better! My appeal deserves to be heard! This criticism is why you added Rule 28.8 to the Rules of the Supreme Court in the first place. The U.S. Supreme Court disdains the Morality v. Legality argument from pro se poor appellants out of fear the poor appellant will have the winning argument. That’s what’s going on! Isn’t it? It’s NOT right! And you know it! 
 National Constitution Center Staff, So Who Can Argue a Case in Front of the Supreme Court?, Constitution Daily (blog), January 10, 2014. ([I]n the past 35 years, the Court has made it clear through custom and then through a rules change last year, that only lawyers are allowed to appear before the Justices. In July 2013, the Court said it had updated the official Rules of the Court to make it clear that only attorneys are allowed to argue cases.
New U.S. Supreme Court Precedent
Denigrating “Stare Decisis”
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt
Case No. 17–1299, Decided May 13, 2019
NEW STARE DECISIS DOCTRINE PARAPHRASED:
“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command and it is at its weakest when interpreting the Constitution.”
FROM THE SYLLABUS
(c) Stare decisis is “ ‘not an inexorable command,’ ” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 233, and is “at its weakest” when interpreting the Constitution, Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 235. The Court’s precedents identify, as relevant here, four factors to consider:
the quality of the decision’s reasoning,
its consistency with related decisions,
legal developments since the decision, and
reliance on the decision.
See Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S. ___, ___–___. The first three factors support overruling Hall. As to the fourth, case-specific reliance interests are not sufficient to persuade this Court to adhere to an incorrect resolution of an important constitutional question. Pp. 16–17.
FROM PAGES 16–17.
With the historical record and precedent against him, Hyatt defends Hall on the basis of stare decisis. But stare decisis is “ ‘not an inexorable command,’” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 233 (2009), and we have held that it is “at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution because our interpretation can be altered only by constitutional amendment,” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 235 (1997). The Court’s precedents identify a number of factors to consider, four of which warrant mention here: the quality of the decision’s reasoning; its consistency with related decisions; legal developments since the decision; and reliance on the decision. See Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) (slip op., at 34–35); United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506, 521 (1995).
 Emphasis mine.
The first three factors support our decision to overrule Hall. We have already explained that Hall failed to account for the historical understanding of state sovereign immunity and that it failed to consider how the deprivation of traditional diplomatic tools reordered the States’ relationships with one another. We have also demonstrated that Hall stands as an outlier in our sovereign-immunity jurisprudence, particularly when compared to more recent decisions
As to the fourth factor, we acknowledge that some plaintiffs, such as Hyatt, have relied on Hall by suing sovereign States. Because of our decision to overrule Hall, Hyatt, unfortunately, will suffer the loss of two decades of litigation expenses and a final judgment against the Board for its egregious conduct. But in virtually every case that overrules a controlling precedent, the party relying on that precedent will incur the loss of litigation expenses and a favorable decision below. Those case-specific costs are not among the reliance interests that would persuade us to adhere to an incorrect resolution of an important constitutional question.
The new Stare Decisis Doctrine is a game changer for the federal and state judicial systems. No longer can federal or state judges drift away from the original intent of their respective Constitutions and expect longevity for their disconnected opinions with unconstitutional provisions.
In the Guide for Prospective Indigent Petitioners for Writs of Certiorari, Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, October 2018, Section II Nature of Supreme Court Review, states, “The primary concern of the Supreme Court is . . . to decide cases presenting issues of importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved.” The U.S. Supreme Court must consider Appendixes 16 & 17 as my Evidentiary Exhibits supporting this appeal in accordance with the above Supreme Court directive to pro se in forma pauperis appellants because Appendixes 16 & 17 substantially contribute to the issues of importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved, like my two misdemeanor False Convictions.
The U.S. Supreme Court has no logical or legally justifiable reason or cause to deny this appeal for its precedent-setting potential as a CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION under the new Stare Decisis Doctrine. See, Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, Case No. 17–1299, Decided May 13, 2019.
This appeal exposes the blatant judicial prejudice of state and federal court judges, including the U.S. Supreme Court justices, on a national scale, against the poor who cannot afford attorneys to represent them in addition to overturning my two misdemeanor False Convictions and affirming my rights to remedies for my two False Convictions.
Kangaroo Courts All Across the County
Through intended or unintended consequences, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ response to Executive Order 13777 Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda caused the resurgence of Debtors’ Prisons all across the country transforming legal courts into kangaroo courts when he rescinded 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 the Innocent.
 See President Trump’s Executive Order 13777 Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, dated February 24, 2017. Available online at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-03-01/pdf/2017-04107.pdf. See also, Attorney General Jeff Sessions Rescinds 25 Guidance Documents, dated December 21, 2017. Available online at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-rescinds-25-guidance-documents. See item 11 in that list of 25 Guidance Documents: 11. Dear Colleague Letter on Enforcement of Fines and Fees (March 2016) Available online at https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/832541/download. It is widely reported in the media that the Dear Colleague Letter is responsible for the resurgence of Debtors’ Prisons across America.
Arkansas has a law against debtors’ prisons and kangaroo courts. That law is Arkansas Code § 5-53-116 Simulating Legal Process.
Arkansas Code § 5-53-116 Simulating Legal Process.
(a) A person commits the offense of simulating legal process if, with the purpose of obtaining anything of value, he or she knowingly delivers or causes to be delivered to another a request, demand, or notice that simulates any legal process issued by any court of this state.
But judges in Arkansas adapted to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ rescinding Guidance Directive No. 11, Dear Colleague Letter on Enforcement of Fines and Fees (March 2016). It is a safe bet that all Arkansas courts have become kangaroo courts. I present enough evidence in this appeal under the Res Ipsa Loquiter Doctrine to prove the Kensett District Court, the White County Circuit Court, and the Arkansas Supreme Court in the State of Arkansas, and the federal courts up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court dismissing and denying my federal and state civil rights and constitutional rights cases in violation of Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, at 404 (6 Wheaton 264) (1821), in fact and law, are kangaroo courts.
Judges who run debtors’ prisons have turned their courts into kangaroo courts. A kangaroo court is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted; and as a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures.
Referring to something as a kangaroo court  usually carries with it a negative inference because of the manner in which they are conducted. Applying Laws Retroactively, Lack of Impartial Judges, Absence of the Most Basic Constitutional Rights are three features of a kangaroo court that set it apart from normally accepted principles of fairness and justice. Court proceedings that lack the due process protections people associate with courts of law have earned the name “kangaroo court.” As a general rule, a kangaroo court is any proceeding that attempts to imitate a fair trial or hearing without the usual due process safeguards including the right to call witnesses, the right to confront your accuser and a hearing before a fair and impartial judge. Kangaroo court proceedings are usually a sham carried out without legal authority in which the outcome has been predetermined without regard to the evidence or to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
 https://thelawdictionary.org/article/three-features-kangaroo-court/ (Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.)
For a treatise on the frequent use of the term “kangaroo court” see, Parker B. Potter, Jr., Antipodal Invective: A Field Guide to Kangaroos in American Courtrooms, 39 Akron Law Review 73 (2006).
I cannot stress enough the comparison of bad judges looking down on poor people and caregivers in Geoffrey P. Miller, Bad Judges, 83 Texas Law Review 431 (December 2004). I am a poor person, age 63, and my only income is a V.A. pension that puts me $3,368 below the 2019 Federal Poverty Guidelines and a caregiver to my own mother, age 85:
[Geoffrey P. Miller’s] article explores the problem of bad judges—jurists who are incompetent, self-indulgent, abusive, or corrupt. These bad judges terrorize courtrooms, impair the functioning of the legal system, and undermine public confidence in the law. …
In jurisdictions across the country, complaints are heard about judges and magistrates who are incompetent, self-indulgent, abusive, or corrupt. These bad judges terrorize courtrooms, impair the functioning of the legal system, and undermine public confidence in the law. They should not be allowed in office, yet many retain prestigious positions even after their shortcomings are brought to light. The situation, moreover, does not appear to be under control. If recent scandals in New York and other states are a guide, incidents of judicial misconduct may be on the rise.
The problem of bad judges is embedded in broader considerations about the optimal design of the judiciary in American political culture. A basic tradeoff exists between independence, accountability, and quality. To preserve independence, it is necessary to insulate judges from external controls over their behavior. If judges are protected from external controls, however, they have fewer incentives to provide quality services. To ensure accountability, judges must be subject to democratic processes, but influence and patronage, enemies of good judging, are inevitable when judges are chosen by political means. The challenge is to select, retain, supervise, and remove judges in such a way as to maintain independence and accountability, while not unduly sacrificing quality.
[BAD JUDGES] look down on poor people, … and caregivers.
I am a veteran, age 63, living on a V.A. Non-service Connected Disability $1,127.00 every month. At $1,127 X 12 months = $13,524. I am my mother’s live‑in caregiver. She is age 85. She has her own SSI for her own expenses that is not included in the calculations for this appeal. The 2019 Federal Poverty Guidelines for a two-person household is $16,910. The math? $16,910 – $13,524 = $3,386. That puts me $3,386 below the 2019 Federal Poverty Guidelines.
On that basis I am qualified to file in forma pauperis at the White County Circuit Court in Arkansas and at the Arkansas Supreme Court. But both, the White County Circuit Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court, denied my Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis based on my only income being my V.A. pension.
My appeals are intended to overturn my two misdemeanor False Convictions and restore the First Amendment right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances to the poor in the United States, to which I am one of the poor.
The White County Circuit Court refused to even put my appeal on the docket to show my Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was denied. There is no record of my appeal other than a written letter from the White County Circuit Court Judge Robert Edwards and the Court Clerk. That violates my due process rights. That’s not the only evidence of judicial prejudice against the poor in Arkansas.
Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 72(d) Suits in Forma Pauperis states: “No person shall be permitted to prosecute any action of slander, libel or MALICIOUS PROSECUTION in forma pauperis.” Combine that with the Arkansas Code § 5‑53-131 Frivolous, Groundless, or MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONS, that emboldens prosecutors to slander, libel, a poor innocent defendant with a frivolous, groundless, or malicious prosecution with the intent to achieve a False Conviction, as has happened to me, hence this appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Then there’s the Arkansas Rules of Evidence, Rule 303 Presumptions in Criminal Cases legitimizing the Presumption of Guilt against the accused with no caveat on the Presumption of Innocence, especially when the prosecutor withholds evidence proving innocence (Brady violations).
And the worst of all, is the U.S. Supreme Court’s Rule 28.8 stating: “Oral arguments may be presented only by members of the Bar of this Court. Attorneys who are not members of the Bar of this Court may make a motion to argue pro hac vice under the provisions of Rule 6.”
Rule 28.8 of the Rules of the U.S. Supreme Court has not changed in the new Rules of the Supreme Court, adopted April 18, 2019, effective July 1, 2019. Rule 28.8, unconstitutional on its face, will be the first rule of the U.S. Supreme Court to FALL under the new Stare Decisis Doctrine. Rule 28.8 violates the First Amendment right of the poor who cannot afford an attorney to represent them at Oral Argument in the U.S. Supreme court, to petition the Government for redress of Grievances. Rule 28.8 is gone! God forbid that the U.S. Supreme Court would have to hear from common citizen non-lawyers of the United States. (My justified sarcasm for the U.S. Supreme Court’s abuse of due process.)
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.
On that basis I put forth the U.S. Supreme Court’s on violation of Rule 10(a) by wrongfully denying my 2003 National Open Carry as a Gold Standard for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in Hamrick v. President Bush, et al, 540 U.S. 940, SCt. No. 03-145, Denied October 6, 2003. The new Stare Decisis Doctrine gives me the right to resurrect my case because there are no state of limitations on wrongful denials in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s own Rule 10(a).
The first Rule of the U.S. Supreme Court to be REINFORCED with greater protections from the prejudice of the U.S. Supreme Court, is Rule 10(a) by adding the text of Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, at 404 (6 Wheaton 264) (1821):
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.”
Citing the Conclusion in Samuel R. Gross, Convicting the Innocent, 4 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 173–92 (2008):
“We have little direct information about false convictions for lesser crimes—misdemeanors, routine felony guilty pleas, juvenile adjudications—but they may well consist overwhelmingly of commonplace investigative and bureaucratic errors. …
Whatever we do, however, some false convictions will continue to occur. For those cases, the lesson of the past 30 years is clear. We must be more willing to reconsider the guilt of convicted defendants when substantial new evidence of innocence emerges.”
Or when the prosecutor and judge ignore exculpatory evidence proving innocence provided by factually innocent defendant as is the case in this appeal.
The Mammatus Clouds in my blogger ID represent the turbulent nature of the human race in every country in the world. Weather is global. So is corruption. Corruption has been a part of the human race throughout the history of mankind. The human race through the ages tried to live by the law, high legal, religious, and moral codes. The Culture of Corruption or the Corruption Culture if you want to describe it that way, is the opposition against the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule, also known as the Reciprocity of Ethics, is part of almost every religion in the world. The Reciprocity of Ethics become a Unilateral Code of Ethics when other people have no ethics at all.
It is because federal judges and justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and State courts are not immune to personal predilections, biases, prejudices, and cognitive dissonance (the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change) about high profile constitutional rights cases. Their oath of office does not cure their prejudices.
“Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.
This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
SOURCE: On August 3, 1857, Frederick Douglass delivered a “West India Emancipation” speech at Canandaigua, New York, on the twenty-third anniversary of the event. Most of the address was a history of British efforts toward emancipation as well as a reminder of the crucial role of the West Indian slaves in that own freedom struggle. However shortly after he began Douglass sounded a foretelling of the coming Civil War when he uttered two paragraphs that became the most quoted sentences of all of his public orations. They began with the words, “If there is no struggle, there is no progress.” The entire speech appears is published online at http://www.blackpast.org/1857-frederick-douglass-if-there-no-struggle-there-no-progress.