I am writing you directly, after several (rejected) attempts to push through wide scope pro se cases. I am seeking your permission to proceed through to appeal as timely, despite having missed the deadline. I will attempt to address some very legitimate concerns, especially in the light of standard operating procedures.
You cannot be un aware of the acquittal and protests yesterday in Baltimore, the most recent case of healthy people dead after an encounter of with law enforcement. The trend noted in the case- the true legal questions, of which there are several, are critical at this juncture, and if they are unanswered, will lead to further civil unrest. Are infractions being treated evenly for people working with the law, or are they a protected class, expressly forbidden by the Constitution? Are there due process violations occurring? What are the federal government’s responsibilities in ensuring Constitutional baseline for the states and the municipalities? To what extent is the current morass a bug in the system? And most importantly, how do we restore justice, and faith in the legal system, as one that works fairly for all?
Questions you raised-
Standus locii- I was beaten by police, in an incident that you have confirmed occurred,constitutes credible standing to seek a solution for addressing this problem more than a “general interest in the functioning of government”.
Addressing the federal government instead of the state- This is a core, Constitutional issue, involving the federal government’s role and responsibility in administering justice. While state courts can handle Constitutional cases, this would seem to be the definition of a Federal question case.
I do believe municipal liability, and extending that concept to the federal gov/ vs the states relationship is quite apt. If a multinational beverage company with fully owned subsidiaries had dozens of settled cases for the same category of complaint, expressly forbidden by the parent companies’ by laws, a patterns and practices complaint against the parent company, rather than the fully owned subsidiary would be possible, particularly if the subsidiaries had a greater number of settlements than entire beverage companies of comparable or even larger size. Further, I would think the failure of the parent company to even track the number of such settlements, would be worthy of notice, and somewhat damning in it’s own right.
But the statistics- and here I use police killings as a representative statistic that is non-controversial as to the outcomes, if not the reasons, have the US as 1200+ police killings per year, 50x that the next highest country, Canada, at 25.
That there is a blue wall of silence, is not something I would presume to prove to an esteemed leader of the legal system, anymore than I would suggest brands of black robes to you. That the rest of the legal system seems to have a predictable bias in these matters that involve sending co-workers to jail, is also unlikely to be revealing to you, but the statistics are eye-popping. Grand jury indictment rate is 90% for citizens, in of itself potentially problematic in that it seems to a time consuming and expensive process of limited utility, until you get to the indictment rate of law enforcement officers, which is <1%, which would seem to be the creation of a legally protected class, by de facto law, expressly forbidden by the Constitution.
There is a question here, of how, if not through wide scope cases, would these disturbing trends in the American legal system be addressed? Is it necessary to address each narrow slice of a legal question, or can some greater principles be decided as a whole? When do issues occurring in multiple states, that are addressed in the Constitution itself become national priority, and what bodies should be addressing them? Are these matters to be left to the discretion of the office holder? Which is of a higher priority, the court’s self decided processes, dates and deadlines or the well documented and widely accepted violations by the government of it’s own principles, of which it was at least in large part, founded to prevent?
The question of my usage of the Declaration of Independence, was specifically to address some of these questions, and seems consistent with the following.
In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the Court stated:
The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. “While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government.”
So the passage that forms the spirit of the answer to the questions posed, addressing as it does, life and liberty, as well as at the very least due process of the 5th and 14th amendments, cruel and unsusal punishment of the 8th, as well as equal protection under the 14th, is below.
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
I hope that this provides some context to the very reasonable objections you raised in your prior closings of my case, and will allow you to recommend my case as timely based on the larger context of the issues at hand, as well as providing your thoughts on the best way to address the larger systemic issues in play.
I thank you for your time, and careful consideration,