AFTER A LONG TEN YEAR SPAN 2001-2012 OF VARIOUS TYPE COURT CASES IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS AND EXTERNAL SUPPORTING EVIDENCES, J2J HAS BUILT AND MADE ITS CASE AGAINST PER CURIAM WITHOUT WRITTEN OPINIONS AS REFLECTED IN THE APPELLATE PROCESS OF THE U.S.A.
SOME PER CURIAM WRITTEN OPINIONS MANDATE COMPLIANCE WITH BINDING PAST RULES OF LAW, IF ADEQUATE REFERENCE TO THE CASES FACTS ARE GIVEN, THIS IS NOT SO FOR PER CURIAM WITHOUT WRITTEN OPINIONS AS TO ANY APPEAL. ALL APPEALS RESULTING IN WRITTEN OPINIONS WHICH ARE NOT PER CURIAMS ARE SUBJECT TO STARE DECISIS OR CREATE NEW OR CLARIFY EXISTING PRECEDENT, BUT THOSE RESULTING IN NO WRITTEN OPINION ARE SUBJECT SOLELY TO THE DISCRETION OF THE JUDGES. COMPLIANCE WITH STARE DECISIS, OR CREATING NEW OR CLARIFYING EXISTING PRECEDENT ARE IRRELEVANT AND INAPPLICABLE TO PER CURIAMS WITHOUT WRITTEN OPINION.
PROS AND CONS
MANY MAY ARGUE OTHERWISE TO NO AVAIL AS THE EVIDENCE OF THOUSANDS OF PER CURIAMS A YEAR HAVE NO PAPER TRAIL OF ANY PROOF THAT LAW WAS ACTUALLY FOLLOWED AT ALL, NOTHING IS WRITTEN AS TO THE FACTS AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES NOR, AT A MINIMUM, CITE ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY AS TO WHAT FORMED THE BASIS OF THE COURT’S DECISION. THAT’S THE POINT, BECAUSE NOTHING IS WRITTEN ALL ONE HAS IS A ONE PAGE RUBBER STAMPED JUST TRUST US WE’RE THE JUDGES. WITH THAT BEING THE SOLE RESULT ONE ALSO HAS NO ASSURANCE NOR CAN ONE DETERMINE IF THE JUDGES ARE ADHERING TO THE OATH OF OFFICE AND THEIR POWERS AND DUTIES OF SUCH OFFICE. SO THERE IS TRULY NO ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE JUDICIARY, AN EXAMPLE OF THIS IS HOW IN THE U.S.A THERE ARE INCREASING AMOUNTS OF WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS AND INCARCERATIONS BEING DISCOVERED.
FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS UNJUSTLY INCITE AND PROCURE FROM THOUSANDS OF THEIR CITIZENS EVERY YEAR GOVERNMENTAL FEES, FINES, COSTS AND BENEFIT TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS. THE BASIS BEING THAT PER CURIAMS WITHOUT WRITTEN OPINIONS ARE PREDETERMINED CASES, IN FACT, ARE IMPLIED FRIVOLOUS APPEALS SUPPOSINGLY SUBJECT TO SANCTIONS, YET COURTS DO NOT IMPOSE SUCH SANCTIONS. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A CONTRADICTION HERE BY JUDGES TO BE DISCUSSED LATER AS TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL VERSUS A PER CURIAM WITHOUT WRITTEN OPINION.
THE COURTS WITH NOT A FEW LAW PROFESSORS AND SCHOLARS HAVE ATTEMPTED OVER AND OVER IN WRITTEN OPINIONS, TREATISES AND WHITE PAPERS FROM TIME TO TIME TO GIVE THEIR REASONS AND THE NEED FOR SUCH PER CURIAMS, HAVE EVEN SOUGHT TO SELL SUCH CONFUSION TO MANY LAW INSTITUTIONS, PROFESSORS AND SCHOLARS TO NO AVAIL AS NO ABSOLUTE OR CERTAIN REASON IS GIVEN, IN FACT, IT IS ALWAYS GENERAL AND BROAD, POSING MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS, LEAVING ONE SUSPECT.
TO HAVE MANY CITIZENS OVERLOOK THE PER CURIAM DILEMMA THE COURTS WILL WRITE SOME OPINIONS TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE NOTHING IS WRONG IN THE PROCESS. THIS IS DONE BY TAKING ON CERTAIN HIGH PROFILE CASES BROUGHT TO APPEAL THAT THE MEDIA OR POLITICS COVERS WITH A FEW TRIVIAL CASES ON THE SIDE . THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE, AT LEAST TO THE PUBLIC, WHO MOSTLY HAVE NEVER HAVE ENCOUNTERS WITH THE COURT SYSTEM, THINK THE COURT IS DOING JUST FINE. WELL THAT CHANGED TO SOME DEGREE WHEN THE BUSH/GORE AND TERRI S. SCHAVIO CASES WERE THE CENTER OF INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION SURROUNDING THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
THE INEQUITIES, IMPROPRIETIES AND OFFENSES
HERE’S JUST SOME OF THE INEQUITIES AND IMPROPRIETIES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THAT OCCUR WHEN A PER CURIAM WITHOUT WRITTEN OPINION IS ISSUED TO A PARTY:
A. DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION: STARE DECISIS/RULE OF LAW NOT APPLIED IN EVERY APPEAL WHERE APPLICABLE; SELF/NON-LAWYER VERSUS HIRED LAWYER, PUBLIC DEFENDER VERSUS PROSECUTOR REPRESENTATION LOOKED AT AS TO WHICH PARTY RECEIVES ATTENTION OR THE FAVORABLE RULING.
HERE’S JUST SOME OF THE INEQUITIES AND IMPROPRIETIES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THAT OCCUR WHEN A PER CURIAM WITHOUT WRITTEN OPINION IS ISSUED TO A PARTY:
A. DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION: STARE DECISIS/RULE OF LAW NOT APPLIED IN EVERY APPEAL WHERE APPLICABLE; SELF/NON-LAWYER VERSUS HIRED LAWYER, PUBLIC DEFENDER VERSUS PROSECUTOR REPRESENTATION LOOKED AT AS TO WHICH PARTY RECEIVES ATTENTION OR THE FAVORABLE RULING.
B. DENIAL OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS: CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND PARTIALITY OF JUDGES AS TO WHAT PARTICULAR ISSUES BOUGHT ON APPEAL WILL BE REVIEWED, IF THERE WILL BE A WRITTEN OPINION OR NOT AND/OR WHAT PARTICULAR LAWYER IS APPEARING THEREBY LACKING NEUTRALITY IN EVERY APPEAL; PER CURIAM DECISION VERSUS A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL CONTRADICTION REVEALING UNCERTAINTY AS TO BRINGING ANY APPEAL BY A PARTY OR THEIR HIRED LAWYER; ILLUSORY REVIEWS LACKING FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
C. DENIAL OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS: ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS DECISION HAVING NO REAL BASIS AS TO HOW THEY ARE DETERMINED; FAILURE TO WRITE AN OPINION WHERE PRECEDENT IS NOT ESTABLISHED ON A PARTICULAR MATTER OF LAW OR NEEDS CLARIFICATION; SHOCKING TO THE CONSCIENCE DO TO THE THOUSANDS OF APPEALS DISPOSED IN SUCH MANNER FLAGRANTLY VIOLATING RIGHTS OF THOUSANDS OF LITIGANTS AND THE RULE OF LAW.
D. DENIAL OF PUBLIC TRUST: JUDGES VIOLATE FEDERAL AND STATE OATH OF OFFICE U.S. CONST. ART. VI. CL. 3/4 U.S.C 101/FL. CONST. ART. 2 SEC. 5(B)/F.S. 876.05 RESULTING IN THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PERJURY 18 U.S.C 1621/F.S. 876.10. SEE ALSO 28 U.S.C 453/5 U.S.C 3331
E. DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS: GENERATING LEGAL/ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS FOR LAWYERS AND GOVERNMENTAL FEES, FINES, AND COSTS FROM UNSUSPECTING PERSONS NOT KNOWING APPEALS ARE FIXED/STAGED PRIOR TO FINAL DISPOSITION.
THE FOREGOING COMBINED FIVE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITIONS REVEAL ALLEGATIONS OF FEDERAL OFFENSES BY JUDGES UNDER 18 U.S.C 241, 242, 245 AND STATE OFFENSES OF MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE, NONFEASANCE AKA MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE, AMONG OTHERS. LASTLY, RACKETEERING(RICO) OFFENSES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE INTEGRATED BARS AND ASSOCIATIONS CONTROLLED AND DICTATED BY THE JUDICIARY.
THE GAME AND GAMBLE
THE COURTS MANAGE TO IMPLEMENT SUCH POLICY/CUSTOM BY CONDUCTING ILLUSIVE AND SUPERFICIAL PROCEEDINGS WHILE PATRONIZING AND UNDERMINING THE LITIGANTS OR THEIR COUNSEL TO BELIEVE DUE PROCESS OF LAW HAS BEEN ADMINISTERED. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE JUDICIAL STAFF ATTORNEYS AND LAW CLERKS WITHIN THE COURTS SYSTEM CONTRIBUTE TO THIS TRAVESTY. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT A PER CURIAM AS DEFINED OR RESORTED TO BY FLORIDA COURTS IN Newmons V Lake Worth Drainage District, 87 So 2d 49, 50-51[1,2](Fla 1956), THE RESULTING INJUSTICE IN USING A PER CURIAM IS OBVIOUS, WHERE ANY LITIGANT OR LAWYER MUST GUESS AS TO WHY OR HOW THE DETERMINATION WAS ADVERSE, AND IN ALL REALITY MAY NEVER FIGURE IT OUT DUE TO THE MYRIAD OF GENERAL GROUNDS CITED THEREIN AS TO WHAT MAY HAVE PROMPT SUCH AN OPINION, AND A BASIS OF SUCH A OPINION IS TO DISPOSE OF HEAVY CASELOADS AS EXPRESSED IN WHIPPLE V. STATE, 431 SO. 2D 1011, 1115(FLA. 2DCA 1983).
SUCH RESORTS AND BASIS ARE EGREGIOUS AND DANGEROUS, BASICALLY RENDERING OF A OPINION ON A WHIMSICAL, A CLEAR VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.THAT BEING THE CIRCUMSTANCES A PARTY OR THEIR COUNSEL IS LEFT WITH NO RECOURSE IN LAW WHERE THE COURT HAS DELIBERATELY AVOIDED/IGNORED THE LAW OR MATERIAL EVIDENCE WHERE PERTINENT AND APPLICABLE OR FAILS TO CLARIFY EXISTING OR CREATE NEW PRECEDENT WHEN OBVIOUSLY NECESSARY.
AGAIN, TO HAVE MANY CITIZENS OVERLOOK THE PER CURIAM DILEMMA THE COURTS WILL WRITE SOME OPINIONS TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE NOTHING IS WRONG IN THE PROCESS. THIS IS DONE BY TAKING ON CERTAIN HIGH PROFILE CASES BROUGHT TO APPEAL THAT THE MEDIA OR POLITICS COVERS WITH A FEW TRIVIAL CASES ON THE SIDE . THIS MAKES IT LOOK LIKE, AT LEAST TO THE PUBLIC, WHO MOSTLY HAVE NEVER HAD ENCOUNTERS WITH THE COURT SYSTEM, THINK THE COURT IS DOING JUST FINE. WELL THAT CHANGED TO SOME DEGREE WHEN THE BUSH/GORE AND TERRI S. SCHAVIO CASES WERE THE CENTER OF INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION SURROUNDING THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
OTHER READINGS
AN ARRAY OF STUDIES, REPORTS, ARTICLES AND ADVOCACY HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE PAST FIFTEEN YEARS ON PER CURIAMS. HERE ARE SOME LINKS CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION OF FLORIDA COURTS:
No comments:
Post a Comment