John Everyman Trumane, Sui Juris
c/o General Delivery
Minneapolis [zip code exempt]
MINNESOTA STATE
In Propria Persona
All Rights Reserved
without prejudice
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
FOURTH DIVISION
John Everyman Trumane, ) Docket Number: xx-x-xx-xx
)
Plaintiff, ) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT
) OF COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
v. ) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:
) First Amendment,
United States, ) Petition Clause;
James Jones Judge, ) International Covenant on
and Does 2-99 ) Civil and Political Rights;
Respondents. ) Universal Declaration of Human
______________________________) Rights, with reservations
COMES NOW John Everyman Trumane, Sui Juris, Citizen of Minnesota
state, and Plaintiff in the above entitled matter (hereinafter
"Plaintiff"), respectfully to request mandatory judicial notice,
pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, of
this, Plaintiff's SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, and to provide Notice of same
to all interested party(s).
The Right to Petition in Courts
Is a First Amendment Right
In stressing the importance of the Petition Clause, the
Supreme Court of the United States recognized its central role to
all civilization, saying in Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R.,
207 U.S. 142, 148 (1907):
The Right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative
of force. In an organized society, it is the right
conservative of all other rights and lies at the foundation
of orderly government. [emphasis added]
Supplemental Brief in Support of FOIA Complaint:
Page 1 of 6
As an "exceptional circumstance," the Right to petition in
courts is a fundamental Right guaranteed by the First Amendment.
See California Transport v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510
(1972). The United States (federal government) is now bound by
treaty commitments to the world in order to expand the
effectiveness of judicial remedies for violations of fundamental
rights, notwithstanding that the violation is committed by
persons acting in an official capacity. See International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Universal Declaration of
Human Rights; explicit Reservations enacted with said treaties.
There is an inherent ambiguity in the Petition Clause.
Because government controls all judicial processes, any lawsuit
can be said to be a "Petition to Government to Redress
Grievances," whether the grievance is with private persons or
with government. That, generally and without distinction, is the
context in which the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the issue
and recognized that access to courts and petitioning through the
courts are both First Amendment Rights.
But, in a much stronger sense, the Petition Clause is the
focal point of the First Amendment when a petition to the courts
is a petition to redress grievances with the courts themselves.
One case addressing this distinction is City of Long Beach v.
Bozek, 31 C.3d 527.
Supplemental Brief in Support of FOIA Complaint:
Page 2 of 6
In this latter sense, the Right to petition government for
redress implies the Right to effective, compulsory means to
obtain redress for wrongs by government. In this special sense,
the Petition Right is the most important of all rights because,
without it, government cannot be held to account for its wrongs;
and with it, every Person has the effective Right to compel
government to obey the law with respect to His Rights, and to
command just compensation for injuries He has suffered. See
Chambers supra. Plaintiff believes that, in this latter sense,
the Treaties mentioned supra give depth and meaning to our own
Petition Clause, upon which they were based. See caption supra.
Is a civil suit against judges for violating fundamental
Rights, such as the Oath of Office provision, a Petition to
Government for Redress of Grievances within the meaning of the
Petition Clause of the First Amendment?
The affirmative answer seems self-evident. It is self-
evident. But, given its prominent position in the Constitution,
few cases have addressed the issue, especially in the context of
distinguishing, as we do here, "the Right to sue," on the one
hand, from the Right to Sue Government for Redress of its
Constitutional Wrongs, on the other.
The Supreme Court has declared, "Certainly the right to
petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right
of access to the courts is but one aspect of the right of
petition." See California Transport v. Trucking Unlimited, 404
U.S. 508, 510 (1972).
Supplemental Brief in Support of FOIA Complaint:
Page 3 of 6
The California Supreme Court, based on an exhaustive
analysis of pertinent U.S. Supreme Court holdings, found that:
The authorities make it clear that the right of petition
protects attempts to obtain redress through the institution
of judicial proceedings as well as through importuning
executive officials and the Legislature. It is equally
apparent that the right encompasses the act of filing a
lawsuit solely to obtain monetary compensation for
individualized wrongs, as well as filing suit to draw
attention to issues of broader public interest or political
significance. As the Supreme Court declared in Mine Workers
v. Illinois Bar Assn., supra, 318 U.S. 217, 223, "The First
Amendment does not protect speech and assembly only to the
extent it can be characterized as political." (See also
Thomas v. Collins, supra, 323 U.S. 516, 531.) Hence, the
act of filing suit against a governmental entity represents
an exercise of the right of petition and thus invokes
constitutional protection." City of Long Beach v. Bozek, 31
Cal.3d 527, at 533-534 (1982). [emphasis added]
That court went on to address the issue at page 535:
The right of petition is of parallel importance to the right
of free speech and the other overlapping, cognate rights
contained in the First Amendment and in equivalent
provisions of the California Constitution. Although it has
seldom been independently analyzed, it does contain an
inherent meaning and scope distinct from the right of free
speech. It is essential to protect the ability of those who
perceive themselves to be aggrieved by the activities of
governmental authorities to seek redress through all the
channels of government. A tort action against a
municipality is but one of the available means of seeking
redress. City of Long Beach v. Bozek, 31 Cal.3d 527, at
535. [emphasis added]
In U.S. v. Hylton, at 710 F.2d 1111, the Fifth Circuit held
that filing a complaint against federal officers with state
agencies is a petition for redress protected by the Petition
Clause, quoting:
As the U.S. Supreme Court has held, the right to petition
for redress of grievances is "among the most precious of the
liberties safeguarded in the bill of rights" [cites
omitted]. Inseparable from the guaranteed rights entrenched
in the First Amendment, the right to petition for redress of
grievances occupies a "preferred place" in our system of
representative government and enjoys a "sanctity and a
sanction not permitting dubious intrusions." Thomas v.
Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 65 S.Ct 315, 322. Indeed, "It was
not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in
speech and press were coupled in a single guarantee with the
rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition
for redress of grievances." Id. at 323. [emphasis added]
It seems to reason that, if the filing is protected, then
surely the object of the protected Right -- of obtaining a due
process guaranteed fair hearing of Plaintiff's FOIA grievance and
redress thereon -- is the very essence of the Petition Clause.
Supplemental Brief in Support of FOIA Complaint:
Page 4 of 6
In fact, the characteristic which distinguishes petitioning
through courts from other forms of petition is the access to
compulsory process of law, wherein the parties are equal before
the law. Without ultimate recourse to that compulsory process,
there is no reason for government to listen to grievances at all,
let alone to redress them fairly. See Sixth Amendment.
It is therefore axiomatic that, underlying all civil
relations between government and the governed, is the fundamental
Right of the Governed to compel government's obedience to law,
through the compulsory process of the law. If that is not so, We
can end this discussion now, for you will say that Our only
Rights to redress are really gifts of government, and We will not
accept your substitution of "gifts" for Our fundamental Rights.
VERIFICATION
I, John Everyman Trumane, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under
penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of
America, without the "United States", that the above statements
of fact are true and correct, to the best of My current
information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Dated: ______________________________
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John Everyman Trumane
_____________________________________
John Everyman Trumane, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Supplemental Brief in Support of FOIA Complaint:
Page 5 of 6
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, John Everyman Trumane, Sui Juris, hereby certify, under
penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of
America, without the "United States," that I am at least 18 years
of age, a Citizen of one of the United States of America, and
that I personally served the following document(s):
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:
First Amendment, Petition Clause;
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with reservations
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first
class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly
addressed to the following:
Attorney General James Jones Judge
Department of Justice United States District Court
10th & Constitution, N.W. 110 South Fourth Street
Washington [zip code exempt] Minneapolis [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MINNESOTA STATE
Solicitor General Henry Shea
Department of Justice United States Attorneys
10th & Constitution, N.W. 110 South Fourth Street
Washington [zip code exempt] Minneapolis [zip code exempt]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MINNESOTA STATE
Dated: __________________________________
/s/ John Everyman Trumane
__________________________________________
John Everyman Trumane, Sui Juris
Citizen of Minnesota state
(expressly not a citizen of the United States)
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Supplemental Brief in Support of FOIA Complaint:
Page 6 of 6
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
Freedom of Information Act