Involving The US Postal Service, Google Search Engine, SC NAACP, NAACP, FBI, DOJ, FCC, EEOC, Prosecutor Corruption, Mark Brnovich; Former Arizona Attorney General, Susan Brnovich District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Michael G. Bailey former Chief of Staff for Brnovich, former U.S. Attorney, Cynthia J. Bailey Circuit Judge Arizona Court of Appeals, US. Postal Inspectors and Constitutional questions far reaching in scope in both the 4th and 9th Circuits.
Original Jurisdiction Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 13, 2023) http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-6734/254377/20230209164624730_20230209-163608-95758775-00001130.pdf
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-6734/254377/20230209164624433_20230209-163608-95758775-00001129.pdf
Proof of Service
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-6734/254377/20230209164626254_20230209-163608-95758775-00001132.pdf
Introduction
Chief Justice John Marshal[1] ruled in Marbury v Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803), that Marbury had been properly appointed in accordance with procedures established by law, and that he therefore had a right to the writ. In the instant case, petitioners have a right to the rulings withheld. Petitioners also have a right to appeal if necessary, but not this action.
Secondly, Marshall stated that because Marbury had a legal right to his commission, the law must afford him a remedy. There is no remedy in law for the condition placed upon the cases listed in this petition.
The Chief Justice went on to say that it was the particular responsibility of the courts to protect the rights of individuals — even against the president of the United States. The United States through its department of Justice is a party to this petition.
He continued; To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction. The Department of Justice has been improperly and illegally maintaining jurisdiction over issues it no longer has legal authority to hold. This petition seeks release and execution of those cases in custody.
This petition is not an appeal. It is not a request to review anything in the cases the instant case addresses. No appealable orders have issued. This petition is the only means available to reap the protected rights of individuals. The entire point of this petition is to enable the courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction they do not now enjoy, and in doing so; issue a Writ of Prosedendo to the lower courts that they regain jurisdiction of their cases and proceed to execute them. And a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Department of Justice to release the cases from any and all holds. This court is NOT being asked to exercise its appellate jurisdiction. It is being asked to return appellate jurisdiction to the courts below and stop this fiasco of stolen justice from happening to others in the future. It is also asked to provide restitution for the withheld cases.
“…or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction…”
THAT is exactly what this petition is. Return Appellant Jurisdiction. To understand the need for this petition one must understand the cases below. All are finished and closed. None have issued final rulings that can be appealed.
The Fourth Circuit case from the Charleston District Court involved employment discrimination: being fired for trying to hire a black female full time.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. The counterclaim was never addressed by the court.
A rule 62 violation took place in the order issued March 25th, 2014 in Arizona Superior Court in Pinal County, in that it based its authority on the Mandate of the special action[7] [8] .
No final order, or a ruling on the default motion has ever issued[9] [10].
Pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1651 (a)[11], 42 U.S. Code § 1988 (a) – Proceedings in vindication of civil rights; and Supreme Court Rule 20 Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ, Supreme Court Rule 33.2, Supreme Court Rule 39, and the Private Attorney General Doctrine: Applicants respectfully request an Emergency Writ of Procedendo, under Original Jurisdiction under the All Writs Act related to holds placed on civil cases in violation of Applicants’ First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights among others.
Applicants thus also respectfully request that the Court grant the requested relief of a Writ of Mandamus, to compel the Department of Justice and a Writ of Procedendo to the respective courts, to stop withholding publication of the cases listed herein, and to issue a Writ of Procedendo to the Pinal County Court of the State of Arizona (Arizona Appeals and Supreme Court have declined anything to review) and the Federal Fourth and Ninth Circuits and the Charleston and Phoenix District Courts to stop withholding the listed cases from completion.[12].
[1] Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803),
[2] “I need to be able to think and right now … I can’t think about anything else … I know what these people did to Lee … my God Billy, what’s going to happen to me next? So, if I all of a sudden end up injured or dead … this is becoming scary…” (Exhibit “GG” 7th paragraph. Exhibit “HH” Page 124. 8/20/2003)
[3] “We did what we did with Lee for a variety of different reasons, and you know what, Lee was a really good guy and a really bright guy but, there were other issues… so now its just a function of exploring what the possibilities are.” (Exhibit “FF” 7th paragraph.) Thompson recorded the meeting. It is full evidence in the SC court.
[4] “In fact a white manager tried to get them to hire me to a full time job and they refused and forced him out.” (Exhibit “II”)
[5] Exhibit “HH” Page 124. 8/20/2003
[6] Direct Action control. (See Exhibit “JJ” page 126)
[7] That had nothing to do with the case itself. It could not have been closed by the special action mandate. Exhibit “BB” page 110. A motion for default is still pending in that court. There not having been a final order or a case mandate presented by the court; has nothing to do with the Rooker-Feldman defense offered in District Courts.
[8] April 02, 2014 Chad Roche Clerk of Court Pinal County. Exhibit page 82: “The ORDER that shows up on the 25th would be the draft of the order filed on the 27th… Once the final order is completed and signed the draft will be deleted and replaced with the actual order.”
[9] These facts make the Rooker-Feldman defense in two district court cases to be fictional at best and purposely misleading and false on its face.
[10] Jeffrey P. Handler assistant clerk of the 2nd division Arizona Court of Appeals. See Exhibit “Y” page 106. “I assume that since only the special action was decided the “final order” in the case must await further proceedings in the trial court…” (No one has ever seen the special action decision either.)
[11] See Exhibit “EE” 28 U.S.C. §1651(a) Checklist page 116 Exhibits.
[12] Because the Applicants are pro se, the Court has a higher standard when faced with a motion to dismiss White v. Bloom, 621 F.2d 276. A court faced with a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint alleging violations of civil rights must read the complaint’s allegations expansively, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).
THE UNITED STATES JUDICIARY BRANCH HAS BEEN CENSORED BY A STATE!!!
Disclosing the hidden URL blocking mechanism used by Google and Lumen Database to control speech on the Internet.
Disclosing the corrupt mail interception process used by unscrupulous individuals and The State of Arizona.
Questions Presented
1: Whether the listed state and federal court actions are parallel to any legally invoked criminal investigation of prosecution stemming from crimes reported inside and around the listed cases and whether those listed cases should be released from any hold placed on them for abandonment: a failure to prosecute.
2: Whether civil courts reporting crimes taking place against them, and the courts that maintain jurisdiction over them should be ordered to publicly complete the process of the within cases, given no common facts, no common parties and no common relationship to the crimes committed against the respective courts: plus the reasons set forth herein.
3: What constitutes censorship on the Internet?
4: What is protected speech in regards to the Judicial Branch? If what a court says is not protected speech nothing can be protected speech. A court ordering freedom of speech could be silenced if the court’s product is not protected speech.
1 thought on “in Re. Lee Kent Hempfling et. ux. SCOTUS Petition”