IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT, UNITED STATES
Citizens of the united States
Plaintiff
vs.
U.S. Marshal Darcy Smith
U.S. ‘Deputy’ Marshal Ruiz
Judge A. Howard Matz
Judge Alex Kozinski
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
persons or persons unknown
Defendants
)
)
Proposed Class Action In Defense of the First Amendment
LAW CITATIONS:
18 USC 241 Conspiracy Against Rights
18 USC 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
42 USC 1981 Equal Rights Under The Law
42 USC 1983 Civil Action For Deprivation of Rights
42 USC 1985 Conspiracy to Interfere With Civil Rights
42 USC 1987 Prosecution of Violation of Certain Laws
42 USC 1988 Proceedings in Vindication of Civil Rights
42 USC Chapter 21B – Religious Freedom Restoration
42 USC 2000bb-1 Free exercise of Religion Protected
42 USC 2000bb-2 Definitions
42 USC 2000bb-2 Establishment Clause Unaffected
LANDMARK U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION
Crawford-El v. Britton ( DC May 4, 1998, 96 U.S. 827) On government retaliation: +
“The reason why such retaliation offends the Constitution is that it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right. Pickering, 391 U.S. at 574. Retaliation is thus akin to an “unconstitutional condition” demanded for the receipt of a government-provided benefit. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972).
CASE LAW PRECEDENCE – (18 USC 241 ANNOTATED):
Constitutionality:
This section pertaining to conspiracy against rights of citizens encompasses due process and equal protection clauses of U.S.C.A. Constitution’s Amendment 14 and is not unconstitutionally vague. U.S. v. Guest, Ga. 1966, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 383 U.S. 745, 16 L.Ed 239
Congress has the power to protect the citizen in the exercise of rights conferred by the Constitution Ex parte Yarbrough, Ga. 1884, 4 S.Ct. 152, 110 U.S. 651, 28 L.Ed. 274. See also, Logan v. U.S., Tex. 1892, 12 S.Ct. 617, 144 U.S. 263, 36 L.Ed. 429; Baldwin v. Franks, Cal. 1887, 7 S. Ct. 656, 120 U.S. 678, 30 L.Ed. 766; U.S. v. Waddell, Ark. 1884, 5 S.Ct. 35, 11 U.S. 76, 28 L.Ed. 673; U.S. v. Lackey, D.C. Ky, 1900, 99 F. 952, reversed on other grounds 107 F. 114, 53 L.R.A. 660, certiorari denied 21 S.Ct. 925, 181 U.S. 621, 45 L.Ed. 1032.
A citizen has no rights within the protective power of Congress, except such as are expressly or by necessary implication granted and secured to him by the Constitution of the United States and the power to protect all rights not so granted and secured rests exclusively with the states. U.S. v. Cruikshank, La. 1876, 92 U.S. 542, 2 Otto. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588.
Congress has power by appropriate direct legislation guard against the invasion of and protect a citizen’s fundamental rights, whether those rights be threatened or ignored by unfriendly or insufficient state legislation, by state judicial construction, or by state executive inaction, U.S. v. Hall, C.C.Ala. 1871, 3 Chicago Leg.N. 260; 26 Fed.Cas.No. 15,282.
With Other Laws:
This section and section 242 of this title proscribing conspiracy against the rights of citizens and deprivation of rights under color of law provide no basis for civil suit under federal Civil Rights Act, section 1981, et seq. Of Title 42. Agnew v. City of Compton. C.A.Cal. 1957, 239 F.2d 226, certiorari denied 77 S.Ct. 868; 353 U.S. 959; 1 L.Ed.2d 910.
Purpose:
Purpose of this section calling for imposition of penalties for conspiracy to hinder a person in enjoyment of his constitutional rights is to procure criminal remedies or imposition of penalties. Sinchak v. Parente. D.C.Pa. 1966, 262 F.Supp. 79.
Congress in enacting former section 51 of this title [now this section] intended it for the protection of the free enjoyment of any right or privilege under the Constitution or laws of the United States. U.S. v. Ellis, D.C.S.C. 1942; 43 F.Supp. 321.
Generally
When a conspiracy is directed against a citizen in the exercise of a federal right or privilege with the intent to prevent the exercise of such right or privilege, there is an interference with national authority, and the criminal acts done pursuant thereto are within former section 51 of this title , \and come within the legitimate cognizance of the federal courts. U.S. v. Patrick, C.C.Tenn. 1893, 54 F. 338.
As between a conspiracy designed to achieve a goal violative of state law and a conspiracy seeking to effect persons in the exercise of specific federal rights, only the latter conspiracy is punishable under this section. U.S. v. O’Dell, C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1972; 462 F.2d 224.
To warrant conviction under this section relating to conspiracy against rights of citizens, the acts which violated federal rights must have been committed for the primary purpose of conspiracy rather than for an incidental purpose. U.S. v. Ehrlichman, D.C.D.C. 1974; 376 F.Supp. 29, on subsequent appeal 546 F.2d 910; 178 U.S.App.D.C. 144, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 1155, 429 U.S. 1120; 51 L.Ed.2d 570.
Any conspiracy to deprive a person of any of his constitutional rights is reprobated. Martynn v. Darcy, E.D.La. 1971; 333 F.Supp. 1236.
Persons Liable:
In prosecution under this section providing that “if two or more persons” conspire to perform certain acts, “they shall be fined” and “they shall be subject to imprisonment” in manner specified, it was not necessary that all coconspirators be prosecuted. U.S. v. Crum, W.D.Pa. 1975; 404 F.Supp. 1161.
Rights or Privileges Protected-Generally:
It must appear that the right, the enjoyment of which the conspirators intended to hinder or prevent was one granted or secured by the constitution or law of the United States. U.S. v. Cruikshank, La. 1876; 92 U.S. 542, 2 Otto. 542; 23 L.Ed. 588.
Travel:
If predominant purpose of conspiracy is to impede or prevent exercise of right of interstate travel or to oppress person because of his exercise of that right, then whether or not motivated by racial discrimination conspiracy becomes proper object of this section, pertaining to conspiracy against rights of citizens. U.S. v. Guest, Ga. 1966; 86 S.Ct. 1170; 383 U.S. 745; 16 L.Ed.2d 239.
Intent:
Since gravamen of offense under this section pertaining to conspiracy against rights of citizens is conspiracy, requirement that offender must act with specific intent to interfere with federal rights in question is satisfied. U.S. v. Guest, Ga. 1966; 86 S.Ct. 1170; 383 U.S. 745; 16 L.Ed.2d 239.
In civil rights conspiracy indictment, not only must specific intent to interfere with federal right be alleged but it must be proven by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Wilkins v. U.S.; C.A.Ala. 1967; 376 F.2d 552, certiorari denied 88 S.Ct. 342; 389 U.S. 964; 19 L.Ed.2d 379.
Conviction under this section requires proof that offender acted with a specific intent to interfere with federal rights in question; such requirement does not mean that defendant must have acted with subjective awareness that his action was unlawful; it is enough that he intentionally performed acts which, under circumstances of case, would have been clearly in violation of federal law, absent any other defense. U.S. v. Barker, C.A.D.C. 1976; 546 F.2D 910; 178 U.S.App.D.C. 144, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 1155; 429 U.S. 1120; 51 L.Ed.2d 570.
Proof that defendant actually knew that it was a constitutional right that he was violating or was conspiring against is not essential to conviction of violation of this section and section 242 of the title. U.S. v. O’Dell, C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1972; 462 F.2d 224.
Overt Acts:
Under this section penalizing conspiracy to deprive person of rights secured to him by the federal Constitution or laws, the crime is completed by the agreement, and no overt act is necessary. Williams v. U.S., C.A.Fla. 1950; 179 F.2d 644, affirmed 71 S.Ct. 581; 341 U.S. 70; 95 L.Ed. 758.
29 Indictment or information – Generally
An indictment charging a conspiracy to injure a citizen with intent to prevent his exercise of rights secured by the Constitution must show that it was the intent of the defendants, by their conspiracy, to hinder or prevent the enjoyment of some right granted or secured by the Constitution, and must charge positively and not inferentially everything essential. U.S. v. Cruikshank, La. 1876, 92 U.S. 542; 2 Otto. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588.
I am talking about judge howard matz, the howard matz, the corrupted judge matz in the central district of california, you know judge matz of the central district, not judge matz in glendale, but judge matz of california, judge matz in los angeles, that judge.
Like this:
Like Loading...
