I am not a braggadocian when I say the truth about my undocumented Ph.D. level of education in Behavioral Psychology and in The Rule of Law and Justice from 30+ years of study as my educational hobby at the University of the Internet for Self-Study. It is the proverbial life scholar’s motto “No matter where I go in the world there I am,” studying something from my merchant seaman’s perspective:
Proof of this is in my political poems on the Second Amendment and the Common Defence (the original spelling was Common Defence in the United States Constitution now stolen from the People by the term of National Defense of the United States by its military.
I predicted today’s extremist anarchic Antifa infiltrated delusional Left Wing Liberal Socialists Political Civil War today that is intended to destroy the United States as it was not meant tobe destroyed but to exist to the end of time. The delusional Socialists falsely believe the utopian grass is always greener on the other side of the fence where reality ends and the fantasy begins in the LA LA Land of their delusion. On the last page of my political poems the highlighted line,
Defiant lines are drawn! Is civil war sensed?
Our highest court split by globalists’ sophistry.
Judicial review in league to conspire against,
Popular constitutionalism finding its place in history.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 at 180 (1803) ” a law repugnant to the Constitution is void” is the origin of Judicial Review. But Marbury was a theft of Popular Constitutionalism from Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (Dallas) 419 at 479 (1793), “that the people are the sovereign of this country“ (i.e., the Tenth Amendment Powers reserved to the PEOPLE to say what the constitution means, as we must, and the Ninth Amendment’s “certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Combine the Second Amendment, the Common Defence in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the Tenth Amendment’s Powers Reserved to the People Themselves and Ninth Amendment’s “certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people“ and you get “National Open Carry” as it existed when the Constitution was ratified so that no matter where you go there you are, armed to protect the “establishment of Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” National Open Carry was confirmed in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 at 417 (1856), “. . . to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” National Open Carry is the Dirty Secret we are never supposed to remember or know about.
In Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 at 404 (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.
On September 11, 2001 I was a civilian merchant seaman (able seaman) aboard the U.S. Military Sealift Command cargo ship, the USNS 1ST LT JACK LUMMIS (I flew from Seattle, Washington to Gladstone Australia to board the ship on June 2, 2001. The ship transitted Westward all the way around the world to nearing Saipan in the Pacific Ocean where I would leave the ship to fly back to Seattle on September 20, 2001, just 9 days after the terrorist attacks. (Data from my U.S. Coast Guard Sea Service Record.)
In 2002, I intentionally brought a National Open Carry case from U.S. merchant seaman’s perspective to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., the political hotbed for the political religion of gun control. That federal court dismissed my case. The DC Circuit dismissed my appeal.
AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
SUPREME COURT RULE 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari
Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:
(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;
Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), Ninth Circuit ruling that the Second Amendment did not guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. SILVEIRA WAS OVERRULED BY District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militia.
Because of the District of Columbia’s status as a federal enclave (it is not in any state), the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment’s protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. This point was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), in which it was found that they are.
United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 (2002), is a decision by the Fifth Circuit holding that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms.
BECAUSE I HAD THE NINTH CIRCUIT SILVEIRA CASE AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT AND THE FIFTH CIRCUIT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT I WAS TOLD BY A MEMBER OF STAFF AT THE SUPREME COURT THAT HAVING OPPOSING OPINIONS ON THE SAME ISSUES WILL GUARANTEE MY CASE WILL GO TO THE SUPREME COURT. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
The Supreme Court denied my Petition for Certiorari. (Don Hamrick v. President George W. Bush, et al., SCt. No. 03-145; 540 U.S. 940. Cert. denied October 6, 2003.
The SUPREME COURT OF POLITICS WAS OFFICIALLY BORN OCT. 6, 2003.
THE SUPREME COURT COURT’S OWN TREASON AGAINST THEIR OWN RULE 10(a) GAVE ME INCENTIVE TO STUDY BEHAVIORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE RULE OF LAW AND JUSTICE TO GET TO THE ROOT OF CORRUPTION.
QUOTATION ON TREASON
(Published in 1618)
Treason doth not prosper, what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, None dare call it Treason.
Sir John Harington, “Of Treason,” The Letters and Epigrams of Sir John Harrington . . . , ed. Norman E. McClure, book 4, epigram 5, p. 255 (1977). The complete edition og his epigr ams was published in 1618. In Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotatons Requested From the Congrtessiona; Reserch Service. Edited by Suzan Platt, Congressional Research Division, 1989.
MORE ON JUDICIAL TREASON
Citing the Summary from Pat McPherron, Proof that Absolute Immunity from Suit is Not Constitutional, (July 9, 2011)
The long and winding road to removing absolute immunity from suit for judicial acts is coming to an end. With Vodak v. City of Chicago, 09¬2768 (CA 7, March 17, 2011) exposing municipalities to significantly higher levels of liability, and Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (decided March 29, 2011) inducing strong responses from several Supreme court justices, the trend on absolute immunity from suit is on the wane. There is hope the dissent of Justice Souter in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) will be revived, as modeling social equity in the markets for justice implies he is correct in that the Constitution was a rejection of significant areas of common law. Note that shortly after ratification, Justice Chase asserts equal justice is new.
The Founders clearly did not expect judges to be so independent as to be free from suit. It was after the Constitution was signed that the courts introduce common law from the early 1600’s in order to grant judicial acts absolute immunity. These assumptions ignore that by the end of the 1600’s, holding magistrates more accountable was under consideration.
American courts public policy assumptions as to absolute immunity from suit can be summed up as ‘BALANCE OF EVILS’ arguments. The expected result on the markets for justice is a return to conditions existing during the INTOLERABLE ACTS, which cannot be socially equitable, AND THEREFORE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.