SCOTUS circa 1999
Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari served as precedent to Repeal 13th Amendment.
Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. The full legal effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari is often debated, it is thought not to creates no binding legal precedent and does not reflect the Supreme Court’s agreement or disagreement with the lower court’s decision generally speaking, however, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s ‘judicial discretion’ is leveraged to aid and abet state court’s cover-up of re-prosecuted void judgments, to the extent that, within the framework of litigation, the Supreme Court marks the boundaries of authority between state and nation, state and state, and government and citizen, therefore, the Supreme Court of the United States, is the final court of appeal and final expositor of the Constitution of the United States, logic then follows that, not only can this judicial discretion creates ‘binding legal precedent,’ it establishes ‘the full legal effect of the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari’ because the court cannot confer jurisdiction where none exist and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is in this framework of litigation, circa 1999, that the U.S. Supreme Court quietly repealed the 13th Amendment, by way of the judiciary, usurping Congressional powers to enforce amendment through appropriate legislation.
In Brown vs New York, 528 U.S. 860 (1999), void criminal actions that were terminated and sealed in favor of the accused pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L. § 160.50, on October 7, 1996, were re-prosecuted absent jurisdiction. New York State Unified Court System is using C.P.L. § 160.50, to re-prosecute procedurally flawed cases against an accuse by working with friendly court-appointed defense counsel, who does not inform the accuse that cases have been terminated in favor of the accuse pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L. § 160.50, and although the Court Order pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L. § 160.50, is indictment and docket number specific, at the District Court level, the order is entered as opposite sex of the actual accused and the year of birth is change in order to nullify operation of law, in that, The effect of such a termination is outlined in Section 160.60, “Upon the termination of a criminal action or proceeding against a person in favor of such person, as defined in subdivision two of section 160.50 of this chapter, the arrest and prosecution shall be deemed a nullity and the accused shall be restored, in contemplation of law, to the status he occupied before the arrest and prosecution. The arrest or prosecution shall not operate as a disqualification of any person so accused to pursue or engage in any lawful activity, occupation, profession, or calling. Except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of a superior court, no such person shall be required to divulge information pertaining to the arrest or prosecution” (i.e., https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/thurman-brown-7a621b88_the-people-of-the-state-of-new-york-v-thurman-activity-6717068275995463680-YOjW).
New York State Unified Court Systems are masquerading void judgment through the judiciary that are reaching finality absent jurisdiction before the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a form of judicial slavery that is in violation of the “duly convicted” clause in the 13th Amendment. SCOTUS has the absolute discretion to decide what case(s) to bring up under Rule 10, however, there is absolutely no discretion absent jurisdiction because the court cannot confer jurisdiction where none exist and cannot make a void proceeding valid, hence binding legal precedent and a new form of judicial slavery in America.
Dred Scott circa 1999.