RAILTON 2013 & STLMPD PROTECTIVE CUSTODY SUMMARY RELATED TO TORTURE AND DOMESTIC TERRORISM BY STATE ACTORS.
STATE OF MO DOES NOT RECOGNIZE MILITARY AUTHORITY OR BOLO AS OTHER STATES MIGHT. MO IS UNIQUE IN THAT THE GOV IS COMMANDER AND CHIEF AND CAN WITHDRAW MONAG OR RETURN RESOURCES TO STATE MILITIA.
HOWEVER, THERE MAY BE SOME CONFLICT IN DOD POLICY THAT ALLOWS THE MILITARY TO INTERVENE IN UNREST AND ESTABLISH MARTIAL LAW AND MILITARY GOVT MUCH IS THE MODEL OVERSEAS. THOUGH IN MO THE FEDERAL RESPONSE MAY BE ABSENT THE HOME GUARD UNABLE TO FEDERALIZE VERSUS DIRECT DRAFT.
IS THE PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF JOINT FORCE AND ITS CONTRACTORS AN ACT OF WAR ONMTHE STATE OF MISSOURI?
Military justice (or military law) is the body of laws and procedures governing members of the armed forces. Many nation-stateshave separate and distinct bodies of law that govern the conduct of members of their armed forces. Some states use special judicial and other arrangements to enforce those laws, while others use civilian judicial systems. Legal issues unique to military justice include the preservation of good order and discipline, the legality of orders, and appropriate conduct for members of the military. Some states enable their military justice systems to deal with civil offenses committed by their armed forces in some circumstances.
JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS NOT AN EXCUSE.........MILITARY LAW SIMILAR TO CIVIL QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.......NO EXCEPTION.
In United States v. Keenan, the accused was found guilty of murder after he obeyed an order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal". The soldier who gave the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity.[28]
SUPERVISOR AND CHAIN OF COMMAND RESPONSIBLE
Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability because, unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability.[1] The law has developed the view that some relationships by their nature require the person who engages others to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing of those others. The most important such relationship for practical purposes is that of employer and employee.[2]
MILITARY, FED, LOCAL, STATE SUPERVISORS AND CHAIN OF COMMAND LIABLE FOR MILITARY OR SECURITY CONTRACTOR
The Peculiar Risk Doctrine is a form of vicarious liability where an owner or employer can be held directly liable for damagecaused by an independent contractor negligently performing his or her work.
FAIL TO ACT LIABILITY
US COMMANDER AWARE OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMAND
CRIMINALLY LIABLE
WAR CRIME
I ASSERT JOINT FORCE/FUSION OF MILITARY, CONTRACTOR, FEDERAL, LOCAL AND STATE GOVT RESPONSIBILITY ACTING AS AGENTS.
CLASS ACTION PATTERN AND PRACTICE
RAILTON 2013 TO PRESENT. ST LOUIS MO
MY LAI MASSACRE EXAMPLE
Command responsibility, sometimes referred to as the Yamashita standard or the Medina standard, and also known as superior responsibility, is the legal doctrine of hierarchical accountability for war crimes.[1][2][3][4][5]
The term may also be used more broadly to refer to the duty to supervise subordinates, and liability for the failure to do so, both in government, military law, and with regard to corporations and trusts.
Furthermore, the so-called "Medina standard" clarified the U.S. law to clearly also encompass U.S. officers, so that those as well as foreign officers such as General Yamashita can be prosecuted in the United States. The "Medina standard" is based upon the 1971 prosecution of U.S. Army Captain Ernest Medina in connection with the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War.[11] It holds that a U.S. commanding officer, being aware of a human rights violation or a war crime, will be held criminally liable if he does not take action. However, Medina was acquitted of all charges.[9][12][13]
US CONSTITUTION VIOLATIONS OF:
1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 13th 14th AMENDMENTS.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which respect an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights
.
3rd Places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes.
4th Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause
5th Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy
6th Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel
8th Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment
9th Protects rights not enumerated in the Constitution
13th Abolishes slavery, and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime
14th Defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and deals with post–Civil War issues
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER
TORTURE
NO SUCH THING AS DOMESTIC EXTRA JUDICIAL ANYTHING TO NON-COMBATANTS/CIVILIANS.
RAILTON DEATH SQUAD-EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING-MY EXPERIENCE AS A VICTIM
A death squad is an armed group that conducts extrajudicial killings or forced disappearances of persons for the purposes such as political repression, assassinations, torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing, or revolutionary terror.[citation needed] These killings are often conducted in ways meant to ensure the secrecy of the killers' identities. Death squads may have the support of domestic or foreign governments (see state terrorism). They may comprise a secret police force, paramilitary militia groups, government soldiers, policemen, or combinations thereof. They may also be organized as vigilantes. When death squads are not controlled by the state, they may consist of insurgent forces or organized crime, such as the ones used by cartels. Extrajudicial punishment is punishment for an alleged crime or offense carried out without legal process or supervision from a court or tribunal through a legal proceeding. Such actions are carried out by state actors.
SOP OF DAMAGE CONTROL BY JOINT FORCE ACTORS
The Lawfare Project defines lawfare as the use of law as a weapon of war, or the wrongful manipulation of international and national law to pervert the original intent of the law.[7]
KILLER DRONES AND AIRCRAFT
OPERATORS INDISCRIMINATE USE OF FORCE WITH NO ROE OR REPORTING
One of the most recent issues regarding extrajudicial killing has been the debate about the legal and moral status of targeted killing by unmanned aerial vehicles by the United States. UNITED STATES TORTURE PROTECTION ACT SECTION 3(a)
TITLING
DAMAGE CONTROL INVESTMENT OF EXPLOITING TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS JOINT FORCE CAPABILITIES TO DESIGN BEHAVIOR PREDICTION MODELS OF FAILURE INCLUDING A DATA DUMP OF UNSUBSTANTIATED INFO IN A VARITY OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS TO CREATE PROFILES AND TRIGGER INVESTIGATIONS OR LABELING OR FAILURES TO DAMAGE FUTURE AND REPUTATION SPINNING EXPONENTIAL IN OTHER DATA BASES TO GET HIT BLIND UNABLE TO ADVOCATE. A COMMON MILITARY TACTIC TO DEFEAT OPPONENTS WITH A SEPARATE MILITARY JUSTICE LEGAL STUDY AREA EMPLOYING DEFENSE LAWYERS TO ACCOUNT AND REMOVE INNUENDO OR FALSE INFO. TACTIC UNABE TO CATCH UP WITH THE WIND OF INFORMAL COMMUNICATION BUILDING ON A GROWING PAPER SAND CASTLE. NOW TRICKLED DOWN TO CIVIL LAW AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WANTED PLACED INTO DATA SYSTEMS WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEIZE A PERSON OFTEN WITH NO REPORTING ESTABLISHING PATTERN AND PRACTICE TO CONTINUALLY INSERT WANTEDS AND TAKE THEM OUT WHICH CAUSES A SEIZURE BY ENTRY ALONE. THE OUTCOME IS CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT OF DISASTER PLACING RESPONDING OFFICERS AT LEGAL AND PHYSICAL RISK.
A titling is basically the indexing of a subject in national criminal data bases. In other words, when a law enforcement agency like NCIS, OSI, or Army CID places your name in the "title" block of an investigative report, you are titled. There are certain reporting requirements that the agency then complies with to enter your name in databases like DCII (Defense Central Index of Criminal Investigations). The standard required is only "credible information." Even if you are later exonerated, your name remains in the database unless you can show that there was no credible information to support the titling decision. APPLICATIONS TO MISSOURI AND US DATA BASES INCLUDING NON LAW ENFORCEMENT NOW MERGING IN ONE STOP BLUR OF JOINT FORCE TOTAL INFORMATION AWARENESS TO BE EXPLOITED BY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ACTORS.
US PATRIOT ACT IDENTIFIES MY EXPERIENCES AS DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
Under the 2001 USA Patriot Act, domestic terrorism is defined as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."
CRUEL AND UNUSAL,PUNISHMENT NEED NOT SHOW INJURY.
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992), is a United States Supreme Court decision where the Court on a 7-2 vote held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though the inmate does not suffer serious injury.
JUNE 2013 - SEPTEMBER 2013
INTIAL ATTACK AND SEIZURE
DOMESTIC TERRORISM
ST LOUIS MO
RAILTON APARTMENTS
GOVT COLLUSION FAIL TO ACT
Ref: Railton 2013 and Infrasonic, active denial and direct energy used by area aircraft military and law enforcement: Continuing to this date.
Commander Darrell Bigham USN/CIA Military was not active duty nor was he authorized to perform for the US Govt in placing me in extra judicial custody. Mr Bob Baer a retired CIA Analyst was not authorized either. Who would authorize such action having to prove he had authority to do so producing an accounting and receipt of personnel involved for an outcome reviewed by Command Staff or Supervising Agent or Prosecutor. Otherwise a rogue expedition acting independent of all known authority and jurisdiction was performed corrupting all involved.
NO NOTIFICATION OR TRIAL
NO WITNESSES
NO CRIME
NO REPORTS OR SUPPLEMENTS
NO COUNSEL
NO COMPETENT COUNSEL
"IN PART, NO PERSON SHALL...BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE OR LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.....AND THE SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES, IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY....AND BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION; TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES IN HIS FAVOR, AND TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE". 5th & 6th Amendments. 1, 4 ,14 ,9 ,8 ,3 ,amendment violations.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to counsel. For that right to be meaningful, a lawyer must meet “at least the minimum standard of competence.” [ 1 ] Criminal defendants are not entitled to the best representation, but only representation that falls “below an objective standard of reasonableness.”
HAVE A RIGHT TO REFUSE COUNSEL
TRIAL BY ORDEAL
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.
The historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[14] The meaning of "compelled testimony" under the Fifth Amendment – i.e., the conditions under which a defendant is allowed to "plead the Fifth" to avoid self-incrimination – is thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber.[14]
As the U.S. Supreme Court described it, "the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed."[15]
DOMESTIC EXTRA JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT , TORTURE, DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS, POLICE, JUDICIAL, ATTNY, PROSECUTOR MISCONDUCT BY GOVT AGENTS RECRUITING COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE POLICE AND FIRE. PATTERN AND PRACTICE TO THIS DATE THAT ALSO RESULTED IN A TARGETED PSYCH COMITT WITH NO CAUSE OR FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN CONSPIRACY OF SAME AGENTS PRINCIPLE KIMMIE WILLIAMS ACTING MULTI VOCATION ASSERTING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/MISCONDUCT AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT BY BARNES JEWISH PSYCH CITING NO METHODOLOGY OF SPECIFICITY REPORTING. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED A DISPOSITION AND STRICT SCRUTINY WAS IGNORED. NO PROBABLE CAUSE OF A CRIME AND NO REASON TO BE IN MY BUILDING QUARTERING OF TROOPS ON MY FLOOR. AN EN BANC RECORD MAY BE AVAILABLE .
DOMESTIC TERRORISM COMPLAINT 2013
RAILTON APARTMENTS
ST LOUIS MO
6/2013. RAILTON Apts / RAILTON Master Tenant LLC / St Louis, MO/
I want to know why Commander Darrell Bigham,USN and Retired CIA Agent Robert Baer believed they could conduct an operation in my apartment building to deprive me of my rights threatening death and enlisting a consortium of contractors and law enforcement personnel to seize and torture me without probable cause or warrant. I want to know their justification and belief that I was in Judicial Custody acting on pre-text of a bomb never recovered and that I was member of the US Navy oddly on furlough for forty years. Commander Bigham claimed a relationship in that I flew with him and that I am a USMC Veteran of Urgent Fury and classifieds. Noted is that a check of the Personnel Record Center reveals no records in any service branch. Oddly, prior to this event a former St Louis County Part Time Park Ranger revealed she had stolen and destroyed my military records while employed at the Overland MO location. St Louis County Police may have my background records and may have contacted this Ranger I can only describe as Rene with a French surname. Jon Hall, Security Contractor/US Army Reserve was present perform , apparently, a US Marshal function. This is one incident identified with a contiuum of events to deprive me of my rights and it would seem to cripple or kill me. Imprinted is Commander Bigham outside me door screaming he has the kill shot for a breach blaming me for the murder of his wife, Jenny.
With no evidence or cause for a crime I was unlawfully imprisoned for three months in my apartment threatened with injury, terror and death by security contractor consortium acting under color of law. WITNESS in Air Support: Rachel Ray Cusamano(the tv Rachel and STLCO Det) and Tom Brocaw NBC News Air Support. Note: Bigham and Baer have had security relationships with NBC
CHECK US PASSPORT WITH STATE OR OTHER FOR SECURITY CLEARANCE IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION IN THAT I HAVE NO PREDISPOSITION TO COMMIT CRIMES OR DEVIANCIES, NOR DO I HAVE AN ARREST OR POLICE RECORD. I HAVE A GOOD CREDIT RATING DESPITE MY CHALLENGES. IT WAS EVIDENT NO COMPREHENSIVE BACKGROUND OF SUBSTANCE WAS CONDUCTED TO EMPLOY SUCH USE OF FORCE OR TO BE IN MY APARTMENT BUILDING/FLOOR TO BEGIN WITH. MY DAILY WALK AND FRIEND WAS COMMANDER BIGHAM WHERE AN ENVIRONMENT WAS CREATED WITHOUT CAUSE WITH INTENT TO KILL,OR SERIOUSLY INJURE ME RECRUITING MANY ACTORS TO ACCOMPLISH MISSION ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW AND VALIDATED BY STLMPD WHERE THESE OPERATIONS MAY BE SOP IN HUD BUILDINGS AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTS.
CIA MILITARY OR US NAVY OR CIA CONTRACTOR OPERATION NOT AUTHORIZED AS A MILITARY TRIBUNAL NOR IS THERE EVIDENCE OR REPORTING AT TIME OF INCIDENT THAT I AM SUBJECT MILITARY JUSTICE HAVING NO MILITARY RECORDS WITH ORAL VOUCHING OF SERVICE OR PEER ASSERTION NOT EVIDENCE.
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. In this particular case, the Court was unwilling to give PresidentAbraham Lincoln's administration the power of military commission jurisdiction, part of the administration's controversial plan to deal with Union dissenters during the American Civil War. Justice David Davis, who delivered the majority opinion, stated that "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails", and when it was a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown. Chief Justice Chase and three associate justices filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority in the judgment, but asserted that Congress had the power to authorize a military commission, although it had not done so in Milligan's case.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861) (No. 9487), is a well-known and controversial U.S. federal court case that arose out of the American Civil War.[1] It was a test of the authority of the President to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" under the Constitution's Suspension Clause, when Congress was in recess and therefore unavailable to do so itself.[2] More generally, the case raised questions about the ability of the executive branch to decline enforcement of orders from the judicial branch when the executive believes them to be erroneous and harmful to its own legal powers.
WHY WAS'NT A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED REGARDING THE RAILTON, BARNES OR PRESENTLY? IN WHAT SEEMED TO BE MY APARTMENT ON A MONITOR WHY WAS MY PLEADING OF ARRESTING ACTORS - POLICE DENIED AND WHY WAS THIS OPERATION ALLOWED TO CONTINUE?
When a person is detained by police or other authority, a court can issue a writ of habeas corpus, compelling the detaining authority either to show proper cause for detaining the person (e.g., by filing criminal charges) or to release the detainee. The court can remand the prisoner to custody, release him on bail, or release him outright. Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, which mostly consists of limitations upon the power of Congress, says:
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
IT MAY BE THE CIA ACTING THRU CONTRACTORS AND THE MILITARY WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE US ARMY AND US NAVY HAVE ACTED IN THE DOMESTIC LANDSCAPE WITH NO INVOCATION OF MARTIAL LAW. IT SHOULD BE NOTABLE THAT THE USA HAS BEEN IN A DECLARED STATE OF EMERGENCY SINCE 1979 FOLLOWING THE IRAN HOSTAGE CRISIS. AT NO TIME HAS MARTIAL LAW BEEN DECLARED AND AT NO TIME HAS A GENERAL DECLARED EMERGENCY POWERS OF MARTIAL LAW AS MAY HAVE LOOMED OVER FERGUSON, MO REGARDING SPECIFICITY OF OBJECTIVE AND AS NARROWED IN GEO-MILITARY DISTRICTS. THE USA IS NOT IN A STATE OF WAR WITH ANYONE.
United States ex rel. Murphy v. Porter, 2 Hawy. & H. 394, 27 F. Cas. 599, was a case decided by the United States Circuit Courtfor the District of Columbia in October 1861.
The case arose when John Murphy asked the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus to release his son from service in the United States Army during the Civil War on the grounds that he was underage. The case was decided at a time when habeas corpus had been suspended in the District of Columbia. General Andrew Porter, to whom the writ was directed, arrested Murphy's lawyer when he attempted to serve Porter with the writ, and Porter also had Judge William Matthew Merrick placed under house arrest in order to prevent him from proceeding in the case.
The court objected that this disruption of its process was unconstitutional as the president had not declared martial law (while acknowledging that he did have the power to do so), but noted that it was powerless to enforce its prerogatives.
IT MAY BE ARGUED THAT I HAVE BEEN SEIZED AND IN PERPETUAL APPREHENSION AND TORTURE AS A US CITIZEN NON COMBATANT TO THIS DATE.
al-Marri v. Spagone, 555 U.S. 1220 (2009), was a legal case in which the United States Supreme Court had to decide whether individuals can be imprisoned indefinitely for suspected wrongdoing without being charged with a crime and tried before a jury.[1][2]The case was dismissed as moot on March 6, 2009, by the application of the Acting Solicitor General to transfer petitioner from military custody to the custody of the Attorney General.[3]
Case history
Prior Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Subsequent Dismissed as moot
Questions presented
Whether U.S. residents can be imprisoned indefinitely for suspected wrongdoing without being charged with a crime and tried before a jury.
THERE IS NO MILITARY JURISDICTION ON US CITIZEN NON MILITARY.
The Fourth Circuit had ruled that a United States resident cannot be held on suspicion of terrorist activities, but must be charged in a domestic court or released.
Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote the plurality opinion, which held that, as a legal resident of the United States who was originally detained in the United States, al-Marri could not be held in military custody as an enemy combatant. The court also held that the Military Commissions Act does not strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from alleged enemy combatants arrested and detained within the borders of the United States. The court ordered the government to either charge al-Marri with a crime, initiate deportation proceedings, or release him.
RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS VIOLATED TO THIS DAY. IN A CONTINUED TRIAL BY ORDEAL AND PUNISHMENT WITH NO NOTIFICATION OF VICTIM, CHARGE, WITNESS, REPORTING OFFICER OR REPORT. IT MAY BE ASSERTED A CONSPIRACY TO COMITT MURDER.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the power of the U.S. government to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the rights of due process, and the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial authority.
NEEDS A WARRANT FOR ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE. PLAIN VIEW SEARCHES ARE BY ORDINARY HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL MEANS UNAIDED BY ADVANCED SURVEILLANCE.
United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), also known as the Keith case, was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that upheld, in a unanimous 8-0 ruling, the requirements of the Fourth Amendment in cases of domestic surveillance targeting a domestic threat.
Government officials are obligated to obtain a warrant before beginning electronic surveillance even when domestic security issues are involved. The "inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept" and the potential for abusing it to quell political dissent make the Fourth Amendment protections especially important when the government engaged in spying on its own citizens.
KATZ IS LANDMARK REGARDING EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes "searches" and "seizures" with regard to the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] It extended Fourth Amendment protection beyond the traditional confines of citizens' homes and property, and a concurring opinion filed by Justice John Marshall Harlan II set forth what is now known as the "Katz test" that inquires whether a person in a certain circumstance has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" against intrusion by government or law enforcement.[2] The Katz test has been used in thousands of cases, particularly with the advancement of technology that pose new questions on expectations of privacy.[3]
KYLLO requires a warrant for FLIR / THERMAL IMAGING commonly applied on aircraft or handheld devices in public safety and military.
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001),[1] held in a 5–4 decision that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant.
HOW WAS CERTIORARI NOT USED BY PERSONS BELIEVED TO REPRESENT MY INTERESTS WHEN SUCH OBVIOUS MISCONDUCT WAS COMMITTED AT THE RAILTON AND AT BARNES AND PRESENTLY?
In the administrative law context, the common-law writ of certiorari was historically used by lower courts in the United States for judicial review of decisions made by an administrative agency after an adversarial hearing. Some states have retained this use of the writ of certiorari in state courts, while others have replaced it with statutory procedures. In the federal courts, this use of certiorari has been abolished and replaced by a civil action under the Administrative Procedure Act in a United States district courtor in some circumstances a petition for review in a United States court of appeals.
Certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or administrative agency. The term comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review.
STRICT SCRUTINY
NO COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST IN ACTS AGAINST ME CONTINUING TO THIS DATE.
WHY WAS STRICT SCRUTINY AND RATIONAL REVIEW NOT PETITIONED FOR OR WHY WOULD SUPERVISORS NOT REVIEW IN SAME MANNER CREATING VICARIOUS LIABILITY UNDER SEVERAL LAYERS OF ROUTINE POLICE REVIEW?
In American constitutional law, strict scrutiny is the highest and most stringent standard of judicial review, and results in a judge striking down a law unless the government can demonstrate in court that a law or regulation: one, is necessary to a "compelling state interest"; two, that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling purpose; and three, that the law uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to determine which is weightier, a constitutional right or principle or the government's interest against observance of the principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are used to test statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.
1st AMENDMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR STLMPD INTEL AND JOINT FORCE INTERNET TASKFORCE TO ASSIGN PROHIBITED SPEECH INFLAMMATORY INVESTIGATION TO FLOP INTO BARNES PSYCH UNDER SEVERAL,PRETEXTS TO FAIL ME INTO LEVERAGE AND POVERTY WITH THREATS FROM COMMAND STAFF TO STOP INTIMIDATING WITH FLASH OF POLICE BLACK HELICOPTER WHOSE PILOT IS MULTI VOCATIONAL IN BARNES PSYCH AND POLICE INTEL AND MILITARY. PROMPTED FROM FEDERAL HOUSING VIOLATION COMPLAINTS COUNTER MEASURED PROTECTING INTELLIGENCE INTEREST IN PROPERTY OF TRAFFICKED PERSONS IN HOUSING AND ON THE STREET.
Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)[1] (previously known as Lee v. Tam), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed unanimously the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act's prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.
APPLICATION OF STRICT SCRUTINY:
U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification", such as race or national origin.
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT EN BANC WAS HELD WITH A DISPOSITION AND THERE IS JUDICIAL AND PROSECUTOR MISCONDUCT PER MO BAR ASSN RULES WHERE NO PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTED OF A CRIME, NO WITNESSES OF A CRIME, NO VICTIM OF A CRIME, NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME, NOT EVEN A WRITTEN REPORT OF A CRIME JUST AN INFORMAL COMMUNICATION OF GOSSIP AS IS THE NATURE OF AN OPEN SOURCE RUNNING INTELLIGENCE OPERATION CREATING OUTCOMES WITH EACH ACTOR EITHER NOT KNOWING THE PART PLAYED BY THE OTHER OR EACH CONTRIBUTING A DATA DUMP OF NOTHING VALIDATING EACH OTHER IN BELIEF OR FOLLOWING PROCESSES FACILITATED BY A COMMAND INCREASINGLY BUFFERED IN LAYERS SHARING LIABILITY OR ESCAPING ACCOUNTABILITY. EACH RELYING ON CULTURAL AND PROFESSIONAL: " THE WORD" AND A "HINKYNESS" OF JUST KNOWING OR FORWARDING BIAS OR POLITICAL AND CULTURAL PROTECTIONS OFTEN CREATING CAPITAL. PROTECTING OUR OWN WITH OUTCOMES OF DAMAGE CONTROL AND LEVERAGE TO SUBMISSION AND SILENCE.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY: CAN'T BE TRIED FOR MURDER TWICE EXAMPLE.
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), is a Supreme Court of the United States decision concerning double jeopardy. Bentonruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states.[1] In doing so, Benton expressly overruled Palko v. Connecticut.[2]
Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court decision invalidating a New York law under the Fourth Amendment, because the statute authorized electronic eavesdropping without required procedural safeguards.
Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that a federal officer may not, without warrant, physically place themselves into the space of a person's office or home to secretly observe or listen and relate at the man's subsequent criminal trial what was seen or heard.
CELLPHONE RECORDS
STINGRAYS MAY BE COMMON TACT TO NOT JUST DATA MINE PHONE NUMBERS BUT TO EXAMINE AND CAPTURE SPECIFIC INFO IN ESTABLISHING A SEIZURE TO PHONE INFO CREATING A SEIZED AND TRAFFICKED PERSON COERCING TO PERFORM. LIKE CORPORATE ESPIONAGE TO ALSO ATTACH IPAD COMPUTER TO SMARTPHONE. HOMELESS FREE GOVT PHONES TYPICAL TACT MISSION CREEP TO EVERYONES PHONE IN CATCH ME IF YOU CAN MOST PROBABLY IN JOINT FORCE FEDERAL EXCUSES.
Carpenter v. United States, No. 16-402, 585 U.S. ____ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the privacy of historical cellphone location records.[1] The Court held, in a 5–4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, that the government violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by accessing historical records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant.
LIKE THE ABOVE MY LAI MASSACRE CASE, CIVIL LEGAL DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY DOES NOT PROTECT THOSE WHO KNOWINGLY VIOLATE THE LAW PROVEN IN PATTERN AND PRACTICE AND OBVIOUS CRIMES. THERE WOULD BE NO EXCUSE TO THOSE WHO ARE INCOMPETENT TO DO THEIR JOB OR THE SUPERVISORS WHO VALIDATE OR DIRECT THEIR ACTIONS.
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in United States federal law that shields government officials from being sued for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violated "clearly established" federal law or constitutional rights.[1] Qualified immunity thus protects officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions,"[2] but does not protect "the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law".[3]
42 USC 1983
ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
Bivens and 42 USC § 1983 lawsuits
Qualified immunity frequently arises in civil rights cases,[4] particularly in lawsuits arising under 42 U.S.C § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.[5] Under 42 U.S.C § 1983, a plaintiff can sue for damages when state officials violate her Constitutional rights or other federal rights. The text of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 reads as follows:
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 ...[6]
Similarly, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, plaintiffs may sue for damages if federal officials violate their Constitutional rights. However, not all Constitutional violations give rise to a Bivens cause of action.[7] Thus far the Supreme Court has recognized Bivens claims for violations of the Fourth Amendment,[5] the Fifth Amendment's equal protection component of due process,[8] and the Eighth Amendment.[9]
INCOMPETENT COUNSEL
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.[1]
ASSERTION OF INCOMPETENCY MUST INFORM AND ALLOW RIGHT TO HAVE COMPETENCY EXAMINATION PERFORMED BEFORE PROCEEDING TO TRIAL. IF I WAS DEEMED INCOMPETENT THAT IS NEWS TO ME........
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial.[1] The Court outlined the basic standards for determining competency.[2]
This case set the current standard for adjudicative competence in the United States. Although the statutes addressing competency vary from state to state in the United States, the two elements outlined in the decision are held in common:
The defendant must understand the charges against him or her
The defendant must have the ability to aid his or her attorney in his or her own defense.[1][3]
Felhous (2011), who argues that many state statutes and the federal statute do not incorporate the rationality standard enunciated in Dusky.[4]
An Objective Unreasonableness Standard Should be Utilized in the Application of Governing Law for Determinations of Competence
In Maynard v. Boone, 468 F.3d 665 (10th Cir. 2006), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered the legal standards for determining competence to stand trial and to waive counsel. Applying an objective unreasonableness standard of review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), § 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2005), during a retrospective hearing, the court of appeals affirmed the finding of competence and the acceptance of the waiver of counsel made by the trial court.
TO ESTABLISH COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL.
Adjudicative competence, also referred to as competence to stand trial, is a legal construct describing the criminal defendant's ability to understand and participate in legal proceedings.[1][2] This includes the defendant's current ability to participate in various pleas and waivers of rights. It is unrelated to any possibility of an insanity plea. It is also unrelated to the ability of the defendant to represent himself, or to any evaluation of mitigation factors.[3] The definition of adjudicative competence was provided by the United States Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States.
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal, state, and local governments of the United States, or any other government, or any corporation, private enterprise, group, or individual, from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments, in any part of the US, on US property (i.e. a US embassy), or against any US citizen, or any resident of the US. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights.[1] The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL,PUNISHMENT
Regarding pattern and practice from 2013 Railton Extra Judicial Custody/Killing and Trial by Fire incident to admission into Barnes Psych ward also showing Conspiracy to Deprive that continues to this day where psych tech and advanced weapons and surveillance continue to be used by a continuum of providers and agencies.
Extrajudicial punishment is punishment for an alleged crime or offense carried out without legal process or supervision from a court or tribunal through a legal proceeding. Such actions are carried out by state actors.
The CIA has been accused of operating secret detention and interrogation centres known as black sites. These are allegedly located in countries other than the US, thus evading US laws as they are outside US jurisdiction.[citation needed]
THE INTENT WAS TO REMOVE ME FROM MY RESIDENCE BY CIA CONTRACTORS WITH LEGITIMIZED SUPPORT FROM US MARSHAL CONTRACTORS BY AMBULANCE TO AN UNDISCLOSED LOCATION FOR FURTHER " TREATMENT".
Concept can be further related in attempt at Forensic Evaluation pattern and practice that Barnes and Metropolitan Psych may hay as conspirators with law enforcement and social service agencies to profit by creating cases thru abuse, coercion and torture.
Coercive Psychiatry a Torture System. By Alice Halmi on 12 April 2010. Retrieved 18 February 2015. Magazine on the International Association of Psychiatric Assault. No 2 Sept 2004
NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON TORTURE……….
In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."
The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."
Justice Brennan also wrote that he expected no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles. In this way, the United States Supreme Court "set the standard that a punishment would be cruel and unusual [if] it was too severe for the crime, [if] it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty."[23]
RAILTON 2013 Confined in room without correctional response and recording or medical needs not met to standard of care resulting in starvation.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of what a prisoner must plead in order to claim a violation of Eighth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, the Court held that a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Though the Court credited Gamble's complaint that doctors had failed to provide appropriate care, it held that medical malpractice did not rise to the level of "cruel and unusual punishment" simply because the victim is a prisoner
NO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY RELEVANT TO EXCESSIVE FORCE WITH CONSIDERATION OF INTENT BY USE OF ADVANCED WEAPONS TO PUNISH, CONTROL OR HARM-KILL. THE USE OF SUCH WEAPONS BY SKILLED AND TRAINED PERSONS ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW OR INDIVIDUALLY REVOKE THIS STAUS MERELY BY SIGHTING AND PULLING THE TRIGGER REGARDLESS OF HITTING A TARGET WITH PATTERN AND PRACTICE AND VALIDATION BY MANAGING SUPERIORS
.
Davis v. City of Las Vegas, 478 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2007), was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined whether a Las Vegas, Nevada police officer utilized excessive force when making an arrest.[1]
In its summary of the case, the McQuillin Municipal Law Report stated that the Court "had no question" that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity.[8]University of Georgia School of Law professor Michael L. Wells argued that in Davis, the Ninth Circuit assumed a role "between judge and jury" by making an independent assessment of the "reasonableness" of the officer's actions.[9] In the Ninth Circuit's 2010 opinion in Luchtel v. Hagemann, the court cited Davisas a case that affirmed the "continuing viability" of circuit precedent that recognized "causing fractures and dislocating shoulders while handcuffing a suspect is excessive force."[10]
THIS CONCEPT MAY APPLY TO TRIAL BY FIRE AND EXTRA JUDICIAL CUSTODY IN THE RAILTON 2013 INCIDENT AND THE USE OF FORCE BY STLMPD IN A PRETEXTUAL PROTECTIVE CUSTODY AND THE SUBSEQUENT ASSAULTING BLOOD DRAW AND FORCED TREATMENT AT BARNES JEWISH HOSPITAL WHEN NO INCOMPETENCY, NO INTOXICATION, NO EVIDENCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS FURTHER PROVIDED BY A CLEAR NO LESION MRI SCAN AND NO EVIDENCE OF IMMINENT HARM TO SELF OR OTHERS.
EXCESSIVE FINES CLAUSE
The Supreme Court has held that the Excessive Fines Clause prohibits fines that are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law." The Court struck down a fine as excessive for the first time in United States v. Bajakajian (1998). Under the Excessive Bail Clause, the Supreme Court has held that the federal government cannot set bail at "a figure higher than is reasonably calculated" to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applies to the states as well as to the federal government. On February 20, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Timbs v. Indiana that the Excessive Fines Clause also applies to the states.
APPLIES TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unique among constitutional provisions in that some scholars believe it was substantially read out of the Constitution in a 5–4 decision of the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873.[12] The Clause has remained virtually dormant since, but in 2010 this clause was the basis for the fifth and deciding vote in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, regarding application of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to the states.
In the Slaughter-House Cases the court recognized two types of citizenship. The rights citizens have by being citizens of the United States are covered under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, while the rights citizens have by being citizens of a state fall under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four.
EXCESSIVE FINES
THOUGH NOT CHARGED OR ARRESTED I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MY INCARCERATION BILLS IN THE PSYCH WARD OF BARNES WHERE PUBLIC SAFETY OF ST LOUIS SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR BILLS.
The example may be the pattern and practice of area law enforcement and the State of Missouri and NGO Places For People or St Patrick Center and US Government Psych OPS and institutions like Barnes Jewish Psych and Agents and Behavior Analysis Units that can also operate from Joint Force or Emergency Operation Centers or Real Crime or Traffic Centers and Fire Department Behavior Responses. To select persons for admission into Protective Custody or for Admission into Psych Wards with the outcome of punishment when no crime has been committed bypassing Due Process often dependent on Administrative Law with outcomes of excessive fines in being coerced to submit, tortured with psych abuse and forced drug use, in the population of dangerous persons, with an ever increasing "fine" of a hospital bill that one may not recover from together with the leverage of a now created mental profile to be vulnerable to increased failures and control by agencies and institutions with the common outcome of loss of housing, wages, credit ratings, mired in homelessness in the name of therapeutic intervention seeming to be more like social engineering and pain compliance and a profiting from the failure of others establishing dependencies and a market segmentation of a person as a product with life cycle of use.
IF YOU DONT BEHAVE A CONTINUUM OF PROVIDERS ACTING WITHOUT EVIDENCE AND OFTEN FROM SURVEILLANCE USING ADVANCED METHODS MAY IDENTIFY, SELECT , AND NEUTRALIZE THE THREAT BY THE GREATER PROFESSIONAL ORIENTATIONS ESTABLISHING AND DEFINING NORMS. With the examples of custody in the six county Rosie Homeless data base or that of disabled persons submitting to MO Medicaid Implied Consent or persons on the rolls of Social Service Support and persons now evaluated in pre crime analytics captured in public arenas merging behavior and human recognition with whatever feeling or personal or vocational agenda to engineer outcomes assessed in Fusion or EOC or Fire/Police or Behavior Analysis Units or by other means.
Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court dealt with the applicability of the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment to state and local governments in the context of asset
In February 2019, the Court unanimously ruled that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of excessive fines is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.
INTENT TO TAKE PROPERTY AND LOSE HOUSING AND BENEFITS OR VOCATION BY CONTINUED UNSUBSTANTIATED ENTRIES INTO DATA BASES TO FAIL AND TO ADMIT INTO PROTECTIVE CUSTODY AND OR PSYCH WARD NOT BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME AND NO EVIDENCE OF IMMINENT THREAT TO SELF OR OTHERS.
In Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86 (1909), the Supreme Court held that excessive fines are those that are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law".
Although, applied to the inequality forfeiture example of a drug conviction punished with a $250.00 fine and forfeiture of a $45,000 Land Rover vehicle the same may be related in the punishment of psych admission and stays responsible for nills with continued failure outcomes of loss of shelter and transportation and benefits annd vocation etc
In essence, the government must not be able to confiscate such a large amount of property without following an established set of rules created by the legislature.[16]
RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Example of STLMPD and its Agents vetting and restricting movement from one defined location to another. Applied equally to travel from one political jurisdiction to another in the greater St Louis area with imposed military security districts. The ability to travel thru subdivisions to look at houses. THE SEIZURE OF HOMELESS AND OTHERS AS TRAFFICKED PERSONS USED FOR EMPLOYMENT AND RESTRICTION OF MOVEMENT MANY FORCED TO PROSTITUTION OR DRUG SALES OR OTHER CRIMES.
The right of citizens to travel from one state to another was already considered to be protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the original, unamended Constitution.[23] For example, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court listed a number of rights of citizens which "it cannot be supposed that [the founders] intended to secure" for free black people, one of which was "the right to enter any other State whenever they pleased".[24] Moreover, the right to travel has additional components, such as the right to take up residence and become a citizen of a different state. The Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause addresses residency: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside".
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
FAILURE OF COUNSEL MISCONDUCT INCOMPETENCE
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.[1]
BARNES JEWISH PSYCH
CONTINUOUS RICO COLLUSION OF EVENTS
FROM RAILTON AND BEFORE IMPLICATING STLMPD
FORCED MEDICATION AND TREATMENT
FURTHER NO FORENSIC REPORTING OR TESTING TO, DIAGNOSE OR TREAT WAS DONE...
CASCADE EFFECT IN MEDICINE
In biology, according to Mold and Stein, the term cascade refers to "a process that, once started, proceeds stepwise to its full, seemingly inevitable, conclusion".[2] The main cause of a cascade of injury in medicine is by misdiagnosis and medical error. These result in iatrogenic injury and from medical error flows a cascade of effects and results often including pain, disability, loss of job, poverty and homelessness which obviously cause mental health problems and may cause death. In medicine, a cascade effect may also refer to a chain of events initiated by an unnecessary test, an unexpected result, or patient or physician anxiety, which results in ill-advised tests or treatments that may cause harm to patients as the results are pursued. An example would be ordering a full body CT scan without a clear reason, finding an incidentaloma and undergoing a debilitating surgery to remove it, despite the fact that the condition was asymptomatic and possibly benign.[3][4]
Rennie v. Klein, 462 F. Supp. 1131 (D.N.J. 1978), was a case heard in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in 1978 to decide whether an involuntarily committed mental patient has a constitutional right to refuse psychiatric medication. It was the first case to establish that such a patient has the right to refuse medication in the United States.[1]
Several months after issuing his initial ruling that asserted a right to refuse treatment grounded in a constitutional right to privacy, Judge Brotman made the case into a class action that included all involuntarily committed patients at the five mental health facilities operated by the state of New Jersey, and held an additional seventeen days of hearings.[1]
An involuntarily committed patient who has not been found incompetent, barring an emergency, has a qualified right to refuse psychotropic medication, especially when forced treatment violates his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech or to practice his religion, or his Eighth Amendment rights to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. New Jersey's administrative policies, which provide for a second psychiatric opinion in the case of refusing patients, must give adequate scope for the exercise of that right to satisfy constitutional requirements. Additionally, due process must be followed in order to forcibly medicate an individual against his will. Judge Brotman's order that the least restrictive alternative concept applied to choice of medications was upheld upon appeal.[2]
Before this case, although attention had been focused on involuntary commitment standards, it was assumed that once the patient was hospitalized, hospitals could administer psychoactive medication without consulting either the patient or the family. This was the first case in which the focus shifted from standards of commitment to standards of treatment once hospitalized. This was the first of a series of cases that increasingly acknowledged patient rights to refuse treatment and right to least restrictive treatment by way of a variety of First Amendment rights including freedom of religion and thought as well as the ultimate right to privacy, control over one's own body.[3]
I WAS NOT FOUND TO BE INCOMPETENT
United States District Court for the District of New JerseyFull case nameJohn E. Rennie v. Ann Klein, Commissioner of Human Services, Michail Rotov, Director, Division of Mental Health and Hospitals, Richard Wilson, Chief Executive Officer of Ancora Psychiatric Hospital, Max Pepernik, Acting Medical Director of Ancora Psychiatric Hospital, Edward Wallace, Assistant Administrator of Ancora Psychiatric Hospital, and Josefina Bugaoan, Assistant Medical Director of Ancora Psychiatric HospitalDate decidedNovember 9, 1978Docket nos.Civ. A. No. 77-2624Citations462 F. Supp. 1131Judge sittingStanley BrotmanCase historySubsequent actionsMotion for preliminary injunction denied, December 12, 1978.
I WAS NOT AN INMATE OR INCOMPETENT:
Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which an incarcerated inmate sued the state of Washington over the issue of involuntary medication, specifically antipsychotic medication.[1]
Respondent Harper, an inmate in the Washington prison system since 1976, had a history of becoming violent when not on antipsychotic medication. Twice he was transferred to the Special Offender Center (SOC), a state institution for convicted offenders with serious psychiatric problems. While there, Harper was forced to take psychiatric medication against his will. The SOC followed its policies of institutional review for making a treatment decision to forcibly medicate an inmate.[1]
Upon his second hospitalization at the Center, Harper filed suit in state court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the Center failed to provide a judicial hearing before involuntarily medicating him, thus violating the due processclause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court rejected his claim but the State Supreme Court reversed the decision and remanded the case back to the trial court stating that the State could administer antipsychotic medication to a competent, nonconsenting inmate only if, in a judicial hearing, at which the inmate had full adversarial procedural protections, the State could prove by "clear, cogent, and [494 U.S. 210, 211] convincing" evidence that the forced medication was necessary and effective for furthering an important state interest, weighing the individuals interest against that of the state.[1][2]
The United States Supreme Court granted a Writ of Certiorari.[3]
The American Psychological Association submitted an amicus brief in support of the inmate's right to a due process hearing, stating forced medication of an incarcerated inmate violated the due process, equal protection, and free speechclauses of the Constitution of the United States.[4]
THE KANGAROO COURT HEARING BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WHERE I WAS CONFINED TO A WHEEL CHAIR WITH INCOMPETENT COUNSEL AND FURTHER INTIMIDATION TO COMPLY AND NOT APPEAL WITH APPOINTED COUNSEL IN THAT I WOULD BE IN THE CONTROL AND CARE IN A MEDICATED STATE WITH OPPORTUNITIES FOR MISCHIEF WAITING ANOTHER 30 DAYS FOR A HEARING. THE OUTCOME OF DEMANDING A DUE PROCESS HEARING WAS A TRANSFER COSTING ME MORE MONEY AND PLACING ME IN PERIL IN A MORE RESTRICTIVE PENAL FORENSIC UNIT. YES, WITHOUT BEING CHARGED FOR A CRIME I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF INVOLUNTARY PROTECTIVE CUSTODY BY THE STLMPD.
An issue in this case was the institutional policy of forming a treatment decision team made up of two mental health professionals and one associate superintendent. This three person committee evaluated issues such as the severity of the inmate's mental disorder and the risk to himself or others and then made the treatment decision. Six members of the Court disagreed with Harper's argument that he had a right to due process through the court. In this decision the United States Supreme Court weighs in on the side that it is preferable for medical professionals to make treatment decisions rather than have those decisions made through judicial proceedings.[2]
INCOMPETENT COUNSEL AND PROCESS COERCIVE REGARDING HEARING
NO EVIDENCE OF BEHAVIORS. MERE PSYCO TERMS OR DEFINITIONS DO NOT MEET EVIDENCE STANDARD OF DATE AND TIME AND SPECIFICITY OF BEHAVIOR REPORTING . PATTERN AND PRACTICE.
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that set the standard for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons for psychiatric treatment from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence".[1]
The Reid technique is a method of questioning suspects that was developed in the 1950s in the United States by John E. Reid (d. 1982), an American consultant and polygraph expert who was a former Chicago police officer. Supporters argue that the Reid technique, a psychological method, is useful in extracting information from otherwise unwilling suspects. But critics have found that the technique can elicit an unacceptably high rate of false confessions from innocent people, especially juveniles.
THERE IS NO GOOD FAITH EXEMPTION:
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in United States federal law that shields government officials from being sued for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violated "clearly established" federal law or constitutional rights.[1] Qualified immunity thus protects officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions,"[2] but does not protect "the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law".[3
AT THE TIME OF THE STLMPD FLOP CHERRY PICKING ME AS I WALKED TO LUNCH I WAS RECEIVING A PENSION AS A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER WITH HUD AND MEAGER FOOD STAMP SUBSIDY CONTINUING TO GROW OUT OF MY POVERTY WITH NO CRIMINAL OR POLICE RECORD AND NO MENTAL IMPAIRMENT, NOR WAS I A DANGER TO SELF OR OTHERS AND AN ACTIVE LIFE ENJOYING ST LOUIS OFFERINGS. HAD AN INCOME AND A HOME AND A GOOD CREDIT RATING WITH SAVINGS IN THE BANK AND TWO CREDIT CARDS AND A CHECKING ACCOUNT...........the outcome was the loss of my home and forced medicaid coverage to pay for my bills backsliding impoverished with stigma and more discrimination challenges where now the state and its contractors have complete access and control,of my records identifying me as a ward of the state thru mo medicaid implied consent to create dependency, leverage and anticipation to create failures and social engineering to cherry pick me for behavior modification at will. A COMMON TACT OF AIR SUPPORT AND OTHERS TO CULL AND EXPLOIT THE HERD.
IAM NON-DANGEROUS, DOING MORE THAN SAFELY SURVIVING IN FREEDOM NO EVIDENCE TO FALSLY ARREST AND SEIZE ME OR ADMIT ME INTO A ER FOR PSYCH OBSERVATION SOLE INTENT WAS LEVERAGE TO SILENCE BY STLMPD.
O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), was a landmark decision in mental health law. The United States Supreme Courtruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. Since the trial court jury found, upon ample evidence, that petitioner did so confine respondent, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's conclusion that petitioner had violated respondent's right to liberty.[1][2][3
O'Connor v. Kenneth Donaldson
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 15, 1975
Decided June 26, 1975Full case nam eDr. J. B. O'Connor v. Kenneth DonaldsonCitations422 U.S. 563 (more)
95 S. Ct. 2486; 45 L. Ed. 2d396; 1975 U.S. LEXIS 81
Case history Prior Cert. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Holding A State cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
Case opinions Majority Stewart, joined by unanimous Concurrence Burger
The Privileges or Immunities Clause is Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. Along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, this clause became part of the Constitution on July 9, 1868.
A POSSIBILITY AND ARGUMENT OF MISCONDUCT BY THE LES MISERABLE DRAMA OF CRIMINAL STATE ACTORS. THERE MAY BE A CURRENT EN BANC RECORD AND A MEDICAID CARD APPROVED ON MY BEHALF.
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction.[1] As described by the U.S. Supreme Court in its unanimous decision concerning Ball v. United States 163 U.S. 662 (1896), one of its earliest cases dealing with double jeopardy, "the prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial."[2]
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case clarifying the standard of review of a criminal defendant's allegedly coerced confession.
Interpretation of the Fulminante decision is a major plot element in the Law & Order episode Confession.[1]
18 U.S.C. § 1961. As currently amended it includes:
Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and many other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Embezzlement of union funds;
Bankruptcy fraud or securities fraud;
Drug trafficking; long-term and elaborate drug networks can also be prosecuted using the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute;
Criminal copyright infringement;
Money laundering and related offenses;
Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Acts of terrorism.
Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who use the courts as a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers or victims or to silence another's speech. RICO could be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts.[citation needed]
NARRATIVE OF RAILTON 2013 COMPLAINT
Threatened with injury, terror and death by security contractor consortium acting under color of law.
No warrant, want or probable cause or other legal mechanism to justify actions that did not follow police standards and reporting or military code of Justice requirements. There was no background baseline or history to form a conclusion I was a threat to myself or others. On the contrary I was cited consistently as a police officer in personnel evaluations my reliance on situational soft skills to mitigate disturbances with rare need for any use of force. I had no arrest or police record to suppose a predisposition to any criminal offense. There is no diagnosis of medical or psychiatric malady to claim associated temperament trigger or other organic brain illness. I do not use drugs or alcohol . I have been isolated and alienated from family and friends that no baseline could be formed for a created profile of convenience. I am quiet and value privacy and individualistic pursuits where my background would have revealed creative and entrepreneurial skills and leadership roles and jobs requiring individual judgement and self initiated actives emphasizing critical thinking and challenges experiential are the norm. One man was depended on initiating exponential multi displinary responses with no one verifying the legitimacy of the information and operation or checked on the timeline to determine if the conduct should be continued. Miranda and Due Process and other issues casualties to one mans ego and pretention of professional license and psychological/physical stability. I suppose the environment created was to kill me with Bigham screaming he had the kill shot blaming me for the death of his wife, Jenny. I was made incompetent and counsel was appointed or other advocates appointed without my consent and not representing my interests that enabled the running Intel story created without substantiation for my failure to cover the expensive use of air support and other resources and to create probable cause or mental incompetence. It is plausible a secret court similar to Feinstein legislation was conducted where I received no disposition on what may have been the pretext of my neighbor illegally entering my apartment discovering an explosive device that responding contractors failed in establishing exigencies to enter and kept a three month siege stand off. Where I heard my neighbor, believed to be on the RAILTON Secret police staff directed by the manager was beaten several times to establish cause by responding contractors. Where the Manager allowed the siege and seizure of residents without warrant considering the Erin Williams Marriott Case.
Where I seem to be continued tracked and monitored as if I am on double secret probation granted conditional release. Where I am an example of person in the Contiuum of Care community preyed upon to fail. I am a competent person making no assignments to agency or person . How can I advocate as Feinstein is the example if I do not have access to charge or discovery or disposition to enable Due Process?
--------------------------------
PRESIDENT OBAMA AND STAFF MY ATTNY RAILTON 2013
I ASSERT INCOMPETENCY AND MISCONDUCT
3/6/13 Attorney General Eric Holder responded that the President is not authorized to deploy extrajudicial punishment without due process, against non-combatant citizens.
6/2013. St Louis, MO: President Obama did.
On March 6–7, 2013, Paul engaged in a filibuster to delay voting on the nomination of John O. Brennan as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Paul questioned the Obama administration's use of drones and the stated legal justification for their potential use within the United States. Paul held the floor for 12 hours and 52 minutes.[101] He ceded to several Republican senators and Democratic senator, Ron Wyden, who generally also questioned drone usage.[102][103] Paul said his purpose was to challenge drone policy in general and specifically as it related to noncombatants on U.S. soil. He requested a pledge from the Administration that noncombatants would not be targeted on U.S. soil.[104] Attorney General Eric Holder responded that the President is not authorized to deploy extrajudicial punishment without due process, against non-combatant citizens. Paul answered that he was "quite happy" with the response.[105] The filibuster was ended with a cloture vote of 81 to 16, and Brennan was confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 63 to 34.[106]
6/2013. RAILTON Apts / RAILTON Master Tenant LLC / St Louis, MO/
I want to know why Commander Darrell Bigham,USN and Retired CIA Agent Robert Baer believed they could conduct an operation in my apartment building to deprive me of my rights threatening death and enlisting a consortium of contractors and law enforcement personnel to seize and torture me without probable cause or warrant.
).[86] In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923),[87] the Court stated that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause
[w]ithout doubt ... denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.[88]