Dear John Cross, Pro Se Coordinator
Thank you for replying
The idea of "Due Process" is well over 800 years old, dating back to
the time of the Magna Carta. The founding fathers of this great nation
used many of its ideas to form our Constitution. In fact, Due Process
is mentioned in both the 5th and 14th Amendments. Perhaps, the 14
amendment, section 1 is the most applicable to my particular issue:
... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has said that the above statement applies to state
actors of which Judge So and So is legally and gainfully employed by
the state.
Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Judge Manzi, have denied me Due Process as allowed by the Constitution and in direct violation of The Commonwealth Judicial Cannon of Ethics. While you may not be able to intervene in individual
cases, you do have the power to stop this clearly illegal, unconstitutional stall tactic. Therefore, the practice of permission to file should be stopped or seriously curtailed. It is an effective tool, that deprives litigants of their rights, And speaking of litigants Another practice that must stop and stop now, is the practice of the Lawyers for the Department of Child support representing the woman who files complaints for contempt These lawyers are there ONLY to provide the court with assistance in the litigants financial records, (That's it) They are not there to speak for the woman, add money to the woman's claims, and they are not allowed to do so under the law , But this practice has been going on since 1992 This practice also deprives a litigant from their due process, and it must stop
Thank you for replying
The idea of "Due Process" is well over 800 years old, dating back to
the time of the Magna Carta. The founding fathers of this great nation
used many of its ideas to form our Constitution. In fact, Due Process
is mentioned in both the 5th and 14th Amendments. Perhaps, the 14
amendment, section 1 is the most applicable to my particular issue:
... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has said that the above statement applies to state
actors of which Judge So and So is legally and gainfully employed by
the state.
Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Judge Manzi, have denied me Due Process as allowed by the Constitution and in direct violation of The Commonwealth Judicial Cannon of Ethics. While you may not be able to intervene in individual
cases, you do have the power to stop this clearly illegal, unconstitutional stall tactic. Therefore, the practice of permission to file should be stopped or seriously curtailed. It is an effective tool, that deprives litigants of their rights, And speaking of litigants Another practice that must stop and stop now, is the practice of the Lawyers for the Department of Child support representing the woman who files complaints for contempt These lawyers are there ONLY to provide the court with assistance in the litigants financial records, (That's it) They are not there to speak for the woman, add money to the woman's claims, and they are not allowed to do so under the law , But this practice has been going on since 1992 This practice also deprives a litigant from their due process, and it must stop
RSS Feed
