Time: Fri Jan 05 18:11:47 1996
	(Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0tYO6i-000TtEC; Fri, 5 Jan 96 18:11 PST
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 1996 18:11:25 -0800
To: moore1955@aol.com
From: bwild@spider.lloyd.com (Paul Mitchell)
Subject: gettin' bak 2 u
Cc: bwild@spider.lloyd.com

lotsa new stuff:  U.S. v. Lopez, US S.Ct., April 26, 1995, stunning support
for main thesis of The Federal Zone:  federal government's powers are
limited and enumerated.  William B. Conklin v. United States, Tenth Circuit
case number 94-1213:  there is no law requiring people to file income 
tax returns.  We are trying to get the decision.  Hawks v. County of Butte
got rejected by the Clerk of the S.Ct. because of some clerical omissions
(we were using 1990 rules in which in forma pauperis filings only required
one brief;  now they require 10) and some other minor details we can fix
inside of a week, working part-time.  Word is going out over the Internet
and snail mail that we are seeking advice and financial assistance for
this pro bono counseling.  Major decision is to choose now between 
Certiorari or Mandamus, since Ninth Circuit "automatically" dismissed
Plaintiff for failing to pay fees (this in face of IFP petition and 2 motions
to strike, and one brief in opposition to motion to strike, Circuit's order
certifying Her second appeal is in "bad faith" (judicial immunity is a 
frivolous issue, we guess)).  That disqualified her IFP status under 28
USC 1915(a).  Certiorari would drag in the whole wax ball, including 
the constitutional and treaty challenges to judicial immunity and 
judicial discrimination against poor people.  Mandamus would simply
restore the appeal to its normal state, thereby requiring the Ninth Circuit
to rule on constitutionality of judicial immunity.  Several Patriot orgs have
opposed the idea of invoking the two human rights treaties in this context 
("we're playing right into the hands of the U.N.").  What do you think?
The issue IS enforcement, as you said at our last lunch, Bill.  Who is going
to judge the judges (and enforce the judgments).  If Congress won't
impeach, what other remedy is there besides jury verdicts and executive
action?  The treaties require state parties to provide "effective remedies"
for violations of fundamental rights, "notwithstanding that the violation
was committed by persons acting in their official capacity."  The U.S.
is also obligated to "develop the possibilities of judicial remedy."  The
Supremacy Clause elevates these treaties to the status of supreme law,
quite apart from anything the U.N. may or may not do.  I like the Mandamus
option better than the Cert. option, because it gives the High Court a lot
of advance warning that this issue will be a-comin' back around to them
in due time.  We think they are likely to take as much time making their
decision on judicial immunity as they did in the Lopez case (a stunning 
win for our side;  it will be cited frequently henceforth, like Marbury v.
Madison).  Give our best to Robert, and do stay out of trouble.  


      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail