|
A rare opportunity to see
the concrete evidence that for the first time in the 207 year history of
the U.S. Supreme Court ,all of the presently seated Justices knowingly,
maliciously, engaged in a criminal enterprise. Also with the written
approval of the U.S. Department of Justice specifically Janet Reno,
Deval Patrick and William Barr.
Does Stephen Breyer's "NOT FOR PUBLICATION OPINION" satisfy all of the elements of Perjury 18 U.S.C. § 1621, § 1622, § 1623; [see note 8 page 10 citation to Board of Regents v. Roth ,408 U.S. 564,577-78 (1972) no such sentence or twisted fabrication exists] ( see also note 10 page 13 Justice Powell no such interpretation exists see Novotny, but more importantly see Powell in Regents Of University v. Ewing 474 U.S,. 214,229(1985) citing to Roth decision correctly interpreted not fabricated ,as indulged in by Breyer; also see Breyer in a correct interpretation of Roth ,in Amsden v Moran, 904 F.2d748(1990) B. Assuming that all of the elements of perjury are satisfied, the U.S.Supreme Court Justices are faced with a subornation of perjury charge, among other substantive criminal acts. Examples: 1. Ignoring a Constitutional mandate to supervise the lower courts, and abdication of the Supreme Courts Constitutional responsibilities. The function of a Petition of Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court is clearly to correct substantial errors of law committed by a Judge or tribunal. see. Johnson v. Walgreen U.S. Supreme Court No. (92-7558) cert. Denied March 29,1993.] C. The right to deliberately alter quotations is not a concomitant of a judicial system in an alleged Democracy. D. It is also well settled that citations and quotations guarantee to the reader, that Breyer or the writer is transmitting the words literally, without alteration, contains no interpretations, and come directly from the cited case. D. Narrowly, the record indicates that William Rehnquist wrote the Roth decision during his first term after confirmation, so he was well aware of what Roth meant, as did the other Justices. 2.Since a long procession of cases have established that the requirements of procedural due process only apply to a deprivation of interests within the Vth and XIV Amendments protection of "Property" and "Liberty " can the lower federal courts as well as the U.S. Supreme Court ignore and refuse to address this substantive Constitutionally protected interest, in written opinions as well as non written opinions, ie denial of cert.? 2B As a threshold matter it is clear that Johnson has a "property" interest in his license to practice the profession of pharmacy, sufficient to invoke the protection of the "due process" clause, based; on a state created "property right", to repeat, state law created a Constitutionally protected "property" interest. The" not for publication opinion" contains not one scintilla of evidence to suggest that a state created, Constitutionally protected right is involved.. In Marbury v. Madison Chief Justice Holmes states, Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that in using it the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises ? This is to extravagant to be maintained But that is exactly what Breyer and the Justices on the Supreme Court maintain. 3. Does this procedure followed by Breyer and the Supreme Court ignore their duty under Roth to rely on State law as the source of "property" interests for the purpose of applying the "due process" clause of the XIV Amendment ? 4. Similarly Holmes states , that it is a necessary and well settled rule that the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court to protect Constitutional rights can not be declined when it is plain that the fair results of the decision is to deny the rights.[ clearly wasted on the present Justices.] 5. Does Breyer and the Supreme Court have the
power and the authority to create two classes of citizens, one white,
and one black ,as has been done in the "not for publication opinion",
and denial of Certiorari.? Can public officials sworn to uphold the
Constitution ,and laws of the United States avoid a Constitutional duty?
? Sworn to with their The writer Leroy H. Johnson Jr., is a 65 year old Black
American, What is worse,the writer has never been given a real opportunity to demonstrate that he is minimally as intelligent as any registered pharmacist in the United States,and minimally as good as any pharmacist dispensing in the United States. I therefore demand that my God given
rights under the Declaration
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF REGISTRATION IN PHARMACY AS A REGISTERED PHARMACIST ISSUES THIS LICENSE TO LEROY H JOHNSON JR P0 BOX 381147 CAMBRIDGE MA 02238-1147 20736 12/31/98 321956 LICENSE NO. According to the principles of Stare Decisis ,Johnson
v. Walgreen should be a replica of all of the following.
The concrete evidence that two classes of citizens were created by Breyer and the U.S.Supreme Court ,eviscerating the principles of Stare Decisis, hubristically discarding their unanimous assent to principled decisions as stated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey,120 L.Ed 2nd 674. Stare Decisis: Doctrine that ,when Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties and property are the same Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition The Exhaustion requirement is expressly limited to § 1983 actions brought by an adult convicted of a crime 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a)(1)(1976) ed. Supp IV) Pastsy v.Florida Board of Regents 457 U.S. 496,510 The legislative history of Title VII manifests a Congressional intent to allow an individual to pursue independently his rights under both Title VII and other applicable state and Federal statutes. Alexander v. Gardner -Denver Co. 415 U.S. 36,48 (1974)
Controlling cases: Where conduct is covered by both § 1981 and Title VII , the detailed procedures of Title VII are rendered a dead letter, as the plaintiff is free to pursue a claim by bringing suit under § 1981 without resort to those statutory prerequisites. We agree that, after Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S 160 (1975) there is some necessary overlap between Title VII and §1981, and that where the statutes do in fact overlap we are not at liberty to infer any positive preference for one over the other. Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. 421 U.S. at 461, cited in Patterson v. McClean Credit Union, 491 U.S.164,181 (1989) It is well settled among the Federal Courts of Appeals and we now join them, that 42 U.S.C. §1981.affords a federal remedy against discrimination in private employment on the basis of race . Johnson v. Railway Express Agency , 421 U.S. 454,460 (1975). Alexander v. Gardner Denver Co.,415 U.S. 36,48 (1974) Moreover, the legislative history of Title VII manifests a Congressional intent to allow an individual to pursue independently his rights under both Title VII and other applicable state and federal statutes. The clear inference is that Title VII was designed to supplement rather than supplant existing laws and institutions relating to employment discrimination . In sum, Title VII's purpose and procedures strongly suggest that an individual does not forfeit his private cause of action. The report of the Senate committee responsible for the 1972 Act explained that neither the provisions regarding the individuals right to under Title VII, nor any other provisions of this bill are meant to affect existing rights granted under other laws's. S. Rep. No. 92-415 p.24 (1971) page 48 Alexander supra.
"Due process" requirements are implicated when licensing decisions affect a property interest. To have a property interest in a license, an applicant must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. "Property" interests protected by "due process" are not created by the U.S Constitution but, rather, are created, and their dimensions defined, by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law. Relative to the "due process" clause provision that substantive rights of "life"," liberty" and "property" cannot be deprived except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures, the categories of substance and procedure are distinct; once it is determined that the "due process" clause applies, the question remains what process is due. Massachusetts Practice Vol. 18, Douglas A. Randall & Franklin Citing Goldsmith v. U.S. Board of Tax Appeals (application to practice under the Board's rules) and Willner v. Committee on Character and Fitness (application for admission to the bar) the Supreme Court of Massachusetts concluded that the right to engage in a particular occupation was of sufficient constitutional stature that due process of law required that denial of such a right be based upon facts determined after a full and fair hearing. The Court stated: (2) that fundamental considerations, require that such decisions (particularly those resting upon adjudications of facts)be made objectively, under reasonable procedures, and with appropriate opportunity for judicial review. Thus due process has finally been read into the Administrative Procedure Act's definition of adjudicatory proceeding, which, of course, is exactly what the drafters of the act intended.(In fact, it is clear that reference to Constitutional rights would have to be implied had it not specifically been included, in order to make the sections in question consistent with the requirements of "due process". The Supreme Judicial Court is clearly justified in saying that the result carries out the broad remedial purpose of the State Administrative Procedure Act to provide comprehensively for procedural "due process" in administrative proceedings. The importance of this decision cannot be overstated. The Court has clearly come down on the side of the right of the individual to engage in the occupation of his choice without arbitrary interference by regulatory agencies. Annual Survey of Massachusetts Law, Administrative Law by William I. Cowin (1965) id at pg. 175. The Massachusetts Board of Registration in Pharmacy is expressly authorized to conduct adjudicatory proceedings and thus is an agency within the definition of an agency in the State Administrative Procedure Act, M.G.L.A. ch.30A ( 1 et seq) Milligan v. Mass. Board Of Registration in Pharmacy 348 Mass.491,204 N.E.2d 504.
801 CMR 1.01: Formal Rules (2)(c)1.Adjudicatory Proceeding. A proceeding before an agency in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specifically named persons are required by constitutional right, by provision of M.G.L. c. 30A or by any other provision of the General Laws to be determined after opportunity for an agency hearing. 247 CMR 8.03: Fair Employment. Fair Business Practices and the Law (1) Every applicant for registration and every registrant shall comply with the equal employment and fair business practices required by the provisions of M.G.L.c.151B. M.G.L.A. c. 112 § 27 Complaint: notice: hearing The board shall hear all complaints made to it against any person registered as a pharmacist charging him in his business as a pharmacist with violating any of the rules or regulations of the board or any laws of the Commonwealth or with engaging with or aiding or abetting another in the violation of said rules, regulations or laws: or, if he himself is not the owner and actively engaged in such business, with suffering or permitting the use of his name or certificate of registration by others in the conduct of the business of pharmacy. Such complaints shall set out the offence alleged, and be made within six months after the date of the act complained of or within six months after a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction. Strasnick v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy 408 Mass 654: The provisions of M.G.L.A. c.112, § 27, establishing a six-months limitation period within which an aggrieved third party may make a complaint to the Board of Registration in Pharmacy, did not limit the time within which the board could take action based on its own investigation, pursuant to G.L. c. 112, §§ 42A and 61.[657-660] As we read the legislative scheme, the Board of Registration in Pharmacy has the power to adopt a code of professional conduct, to decide when these professional standards have been violated and to discipline any violations. G.L. c. 112, § 5 as amended 247 CMR 9.01: Code of Professional Conduct for Registered Pharmacists,Pharmacies and Pharmacy Departments 1. A registered pharmacist shall at all times conduct professional activities in conformity with federal, state, and municipal laws, ordinances and/or regulations, including the regulations of the Board. See above 247 CMR 8.03: Fair Employment, Fair Business Practices and the Law. M.G.L.A. c.112 § 42A, Rules and Regulations; suspension or revocation of license or permit; hearing. Every person who holds a certificate, license, registration or permit to practice pharmacy or engage in the retail drug business in this commonwealth shall be governed and controlled by the board and regulations of professional conduct by the board (CVS & Walgreen are permit holders) The board may suspend or revoke any certificate, registration or permit to practice pharmacy or engage in the retail drug business for any violation of the rules and regulations established hereunder or for aiding or abetting in any violation of such rules or regulations; The rules of professional conduct adopted by the board shall be printed as part of the application blank for permits, licenses, certificates and registration and for renewals thereof, and every applicant shall subscribe thereto when making an application. [see 247 CMR 8.03: Fair Employment ,Fair Business Practices and the Law: 247 CMR 7.00 Code Of Professional Conduct (1)Every applicant for registration and every registrant shall comply with the equal employment and fair business practicwes required by the provisions of M.G.L. c. 151B Breyer in Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748 (1990) Stare decisis mandates that the "not for publication opinion" should be a duplicate of Amsden. pg 748 1. Constitutional Law 287.2(5) Licenses 38 Revocation of land surveying license constituted deprivation of property interest sufficient to animate due process protections. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend 14. Constitutional Law 251.6 Basic purport of Constitutional requirement of "procedural due process" is that, before a significant deprivation of liberty or property takes place at the state's hands, affected individual must be forewarned and afforded an opportunity to be heard at "a meaningful time and in meaningful manner." U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14 " Substantive due process" rests on idea that government's conduct regardless of procedural swaddling, was in itself impermissible as being arbitrary and capricious, counter to " concept of ordered "liberty" or "shocking" or violative of universal standards of decency." U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14 . Amsden at pg. 749 ,The BLS is a state regulatory authority whose members are appointed by the governor. It is empowered to determine and set standards of admission to the practice of land surveying; to promulgate rules anent licensure; and to adopt ethical and professional guidelines...The BLS may institute disciplinary proceedings against licensed land surveyors on its own initiative or upon written complaint. ... Where " misconduct has been found, the BLS may impose a variety of sanctions, ranging from reprimand to revocation of the surveyor's license.[sound familiar, it is identical to the MGL above. Amsden at pg. 750, On May 1,1983 the Board revoked Amsden's license . The Board withdrew the revocation on July 1, 1983 [note a 60 day period.] Amsden at pg. 745, Plaintiff's licensure directly affects his ability to earn a livelihood and is therefore a matter of considerable concern.Breyer was well aware of the following
concrete facts . they were a matter of court record. The "not for publication" opinion is devoid of any suggestion that Johnson's licensure directly affects his ability to earn a livelihood and is therefore a matter of considerable concern.[minimally rather twisted to be concerned about two months in Amsden where he was still employed and not a word in Johnson's complaint where the record demonstrated that Johnson had been unemployed for two years.], Similarly Breyer in Amsden states on page 756 "to sum up, the risk of any lasting deprivation was miniscule." Referring to the two month revocation of Amsden's license. Contrast this with the concrete lasting erroneous deprivation which is still ongoing in Johnson's case. Also in Amsden at page 753 you will see " The basic purport of the constitutional requirement is that, before a significant deprivation of "liberty" or "property" takes place at the state's hands, the " affected individual must be forewarned and afforded an opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner". Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S.545,552 ...As the rubric itself implies , "procedural due process" is simply " a guarantee of fair procedure".Zinermen v. Burch,110 S.Ct.975,983(1990) Which begs the question , simply " a guarantee of fair procedure for whom" ? Certainly not for Johnson. Likewise on page 757 of Amsden, you find the statement ,... (a procedural due process "violation actionable under § 1983 is not complete when the deprivation occurs; it is not complete unless and until the State fails to provide due process") In Johnson's cause of action the state still hasn't provided" due process" nor has the federal government. THE ANALYSIS AND RAMIFICATIONS OF Breyer's " MERE SLOWNESS " STATEMENT. The question of Breyer's mental condition. No normal prudent person in a democracy would ever suggest that 10 years of a human being's life is of no value . No normal prudent person in a democracy would ever state that a person after being subjected to a 10 year wait should return to Rodrigez, the chairman of the MCAD for a possible additional 10 year wait.[a total of 20 years] Nor would a normal, prudent, person return to Rodriguez , assuming that it was required ,which it is not ,as concretely proven by established controlling case law included in this commentary.. In a case closely in point, Justice Blackmun writing the opinion for the Supreme Court stated, This is a rigid demanding curriculum in terms of what the pharmacy student is expected to know about drugs .Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Inc. 425 U.S. 748, 752 (1976) Similarly, due to the severe and exacting tests now generally required before a person can legally follow a profession at the present , this right can only be acquired after years of arduous effort and closest application.[ clearly not a concern for Breyer.] Again , please note that "not for publication" opinion never mentions the state created . Constitutionally protected by "due process," license to practice the profession of pharmacy. However on page 13 Breyer comes close, by stating " to the extent that Johnson attempts to vindicate some other "independent " federal right" or on page 15 "Johnson has not show that the defendant's actions adversely affected any interest in "real" or "personal " "property" within the intended reach of that statute. The
mountain of evidence against Breyer's fiction in law can not be ignored.
Just to add one more nail to the coffin, The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts has written, it is recognized that the right to follow a
legitimate calling is both a "liberty" and "property" and is protected
by the Constitution of the It is thus clear that no normal person in a true democracy , would ever chisel into stone that a human beings life, accomplishments , future goals have no intrinsic value ,which the evidence has made "nose on the face plain " .There is not one scintilla of evidence to suggest that the "not for publication opinion" is nothing more than an unprincipled product of an undemocratic process. The seminal question remaining is why no one person has uttered one word about this shocking, perjorative, criminal ,twisted , unconstitutional , egregious ,insult to the canons of decency of English speaking law. Even more shocking is the fact that a copy of this "not for publication" opinion was sent to almost every member of the Senate Judicial Committee prior to Breyer's confirmation. The only member of the Committee who got up from his knees, at the alter rail created by the media , for Breyer's " ascendency to the Supreme Court " was Senator Biden , who supplied the only negative note in the proceeding. Unfortunately, it was stated in the form of a conclusion rather than a question directed toward the undemocratic contentions of the Book. [ Breaking the Vicious Circle] In the book ,Breyer contends that the American people are to stupid to make their own decisions, therefore a small elite would make all decisions for the masses. What Biden should have asked him was the conjectural question posed to Judge Bork during his confirmation, "Are you going to overturn Supreme Court decisions"? An unfortunate question, because some of the briefs written by Bork ,when he was before them were adopted verbatim by the Supreme Court, and became controlling cases. Logic suggests that Bork would not overturn his own controlling cases. Therefore the question directed at Breyer would have been not are you, but Breyer have you ever overturned Supreme Court decisions ? The "not for publication " opinion which Biden had in his possession was concrete proof that he had overturned many U.S. Supreme Court decisions ,and also indulged in the criminal act of perjury in the process. It is clear that the Lincoln bedroom is not the only item that can be purchased in Washington. Needless to say the second question posed by the recently published Breaking The Vicious Circle would have been, have you ever applied the axioms from your book while a Justice at the 1st Circuit Court. Breyer had decided that Johnson was not a person or citizen as defined by the Constitution ,therefore it could not be applied to his cause of action. i.e . Johnson was not worthy of being a registered pharmacist in the United States In addition it is appropriate to note that all of the Senate Judiciary committee members have law degrees, therefore it should have been a simple task to see that the "not for publication " opinion was a gross, invidious ,profane ,document. Minimally it should have raised a question about Breyer's mental health. An explanation is in
order, Breyer has chiseled into stone that the life, Bachelor of Science
degree in Pharmacy, national exam for certification to practice pharmacy
,future goal of advanced work in Organic Chemistry were of no value.
[note the above average grades in Organic Chemistry and in Extracting a chapter from Organic Chemistry , i.e. Sterioisomerism, chirality. Mirror images, Enantiomeres ,choose one, Breyer has thrown down the gauntlet in stating that Johnson's life has no value. Therefore what you are reading is simply a mirror image of his "not for publication " opinion, so no one should be offended. Assuming that there is no public clinical record of his mental state, one can conclude that it is cloaked. Therefore, it is no stretch to conclude, that since his wife is currently employed as a certified staff psychiatrist at Dana Farber Hospital in Boston , it would suggest that his mental well being is being monitored by her, hence no retrievable medical record. Also if the reader closes his or her eyes, concentrates, and silently repeats the words "mere slowness", you will see a sneering Breyer , with a thick, purulent, ooze emanating from the corners of his mouth. If your first impression is that the ooze is saliva, repeat the process, for the thick purulent ooze is a product from a retrograde ejaculation , one of the manifestations of a chronic delusional psychosis. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S.833 (1992)
You might be asking the question why does this case appear in the commentary? It will become obvious to you when you read the verbatim quotes. The entire case is approximately 196 pages long. [note; the page number after the quote identifies the location of the quote] Please note that the decision in the Planned Parenthood was handed down on June 1992 and the denial of Johnson's Petition for Writ of Certiorari was dated March 29,1993 less than .10 months later. To all those who will be tested by following, the Court implicitly undertakes to remain steadfast, lest in the end a price be paid for nothing. The promise of constancy , once given, binds its maker for as long as the power to stand by the decision survives and the understanding of the issue has not changed so fundamentally as to render the commitment obsolete. From the obligation of this promise this court cannot and should not assume any exemption when duty requires it to decide a case in conformance with the Constitution . A willing breach of it would be nothing less than a breach of faith, and no Court that broke its a faith with the people could sensibly expect credit for principle in the decision by which it did that. page 868 It is true that diminished legitimacy may be restored, but only slowly. Unlike the political branches, a Court thus weakened could not seek to regain its position with a new mandate from the voters, and even if the Court could somehow go to the polls, the loss of its principled character could not be retrieved by the casting of so many votes. Like the character of an individual, the legitimacy of the Court must be earned over time. So, indeed, must be the character of a Nation of people who aspire to live according to the rule of law. Their belief in themselves as such a people is not readily separable from their understanding of the Court invested with the authority to decide their Constitutional cases and speak before all others for their Constitutional ideas. page 868 [ The Supreme Court justices most emphatically do not speak for Johnson's Constitutional ideals .emphasis.] If the Court's legitimacy should be undermined, then so would the country be in its very ability to see itself through its Constitutional ideals. The Court's concern with legitimacy is not for the sake of the Court but for the sake of the Nation to which it is responsible. It is patently clear that the Supreme Court's concern was not for the sake of the nation, but for the sake of Breyer to whom they were evidently responsible. Erroneous decisions in such constitutional cases are uniquely durable, because correction through legislative action, save for Constitutional amendment is impossible. Example Johnson's petition for writ denied . It is therefore our duty to reconsider
Constitutional interpretations that" depar[t] from a proper
understanding "of the Constitution. [how about criminal departure as in
the "not for publication" opinion.] Is there any doubt that the Justices bowed to Breyer ,and the force of fascist reasoning, breathing new life into the stillborn" Black Codes" of yesteryear, with not a hint of the logic of the physical sciences . The underlying substance of this legitimacy is of course the warrant for the Court's decisions in the Constitution and the lesser sources of legal principle on which the Court draws. That substance is expressed in the Court's opinions, and our contemporary understanding is such that a decision without principled justification would be no judicial act at all. page 865 [an apt description of Johnson's case no judicial act at all, minimally.]But even when justification is furnished by apposite legal principle, something more is required. Because not every conscientious claim of principled justification will be accepted as such, the justification claimed must be beyond dispute. The Court must take care to speak and act in ways that allow people to accept its decisions on the terms the Court claims for them, as grounded truly in principle, not as compromises with social and political pressures having, as such, no bearing on the principled choices that the Court is obliged to make. Thus, the Court's legitimacy depends on making legally principled decisions under circumstances in which their principled character is sufficiently plausible to be accepted by the Nation. The need for principled action to be perceived as such is implicated to some degree whenever this, or any other appellate court, overrules a prior case. Page 866 [ Applying the stated axioms in this paragraph, to the "not for publication" opinion and the denial of cert by the Supreme Court , the only conclusions that logical follow are the "not for publication opinion" as written by Breyer, while occupying the position of chief justice is, it was a illegal ,unprincipled action, with no justification offered, and therefore no judicial act at all., (for emphasis) So to overrule [as Breyer did)... in the absence of the most compelling reason to reexamine a watershed decision would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question . page 867. Breyer did not reexamine the watershed decisions he eviscerated them, twisted them ,and fabricated them, and the Supreme Court stood by, and In essence concurred with the unprincipled , illegal ,unprecedented, unjustified , act. Continuing, the opinion states To all those who will be so tested by following, the Court implicitly undertakes to remain steadfast, lest in the end a price be paid for nothing .The promise of constancy, once given, binds its maker for as long as the power to stand by the decision survives and the understanding of the issue has not changed so fundamentally as to render the commitment obsolete. From the obligation of this promise this Court cannot and should not assume any exemption when duty requires it to decide a case in conformance with the Constitution . A willing breach of it would be nothing less than a breach of faith, and no Court that broke its faith with the people could sensibly expect credit for principle in the decision by which it did that. Page 868[ 10 months after this was written , all of the Justices apparently developed a psychogenic amnesia manifested as an inability to recall any of the substantive holdings of Planned Parenthood. Scalia on page 993 states, the Court's reliance upon stare decisis can best be described as contrived . It insists upon the necessity of adhering not to all of Roe, but only to what it calls the "central holding." It seems to me that stare decisis ought to be applied even to the doctrine of stare decisis, and I confess never to have heard of this new, keep-what- you want-and-throw -away-the-rest version Clearly the "not for pub lication opinion" is an example of this new version, devoid of stare decisis would be an accurate description of Breyer's "not for publication" opinion , contrived misses the mark.So now we have come full circle from," we must remain steadfast" to contrived, as stated by Scalia, to eviscerated, non existent,STARE DECISIS,along with criminal acts of perjury by Breyer, with the full approval of the highest Court of the nation . Stare decisis, and thus the American people, who see themselves through the Court's opinion have been brutally raped by the "Imperial judiciary" .In closing Scalia state's;" We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining." Page 1002. Scalia is quite correct , from pale pink to coal black, they should all get out of the U.S. Supreme Court where they don't belong. Johnson is not demanding special treatment, affirmative action, or preferential treatment. Simply just as Dent's dental license, Barchi's horse trainer's license, Bell's driving license, Schware's Lawyers license, Goldberg's welfare rights ,Amsden's surveyor's license and the holdings in Roth,Johnson demands the application of opinions of the Supreme Court, Stare Decisis , to his Petition of Writ for Certiorari. In brief Johnson demands his God given rights as stated in The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution be vindicated immediately. The "not for publication opinion" represents a grave miscarriage of justice, an unprinciple twisted product of an undemocratic process, which can not be allowed to stand, if this is a democracy. The "not for publication opinion" was designed for one purpose, and that was to deliver a fatal wound, and to destroy Johnson's unflinching reverence for the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution's holdings, a brutal sadistic act, committed, knowingly, willfully, and maliciously,all with the full approval of the U. S. Supreme Court justices. It goes without saying that being an Afro American is neither a source of rights ,or an alleged basis for denying them, as the "not for publication opinion" clearly demonstrates. THE OMNIBUS COUNTER TERROISM ACT OF 1995 H.R. 2703- 2768
Again , I demand that my God given rights under the Declaration of Independence , and the Constitution be vindicated immediately by a principled decision, applying stare decisis by the justices of the highest court in the United States. The writer, Leroy H. Johnson Jr., would like to clearly state that he was not put on this earth by God to destroy mankind, his sole purpose is to help mankind. 28 § 453 OATH OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: ÒI ______ _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ____________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So Help Me God.
The reader will be allowed to draw his or her own conclusions about the significance of the oath taken with a hand on The Bible. There are still laws on the books in many states with regard to the crime of Blasphemy. (example Massachusetts) Someone should remind the Justices about the Old Testament passage which states ,He it is who reduces rulers to nothing, who makes the judges of the earth meaningless and not the reverse ,that it is the justices of the United States that render God meaningless, as is suggested by Breyer's, as well as the Justices conduct,while under oath, in the matter of Leroy H. Johnson Jr. THIS IS NOT A DEMAND FOR:
|
