US Supreme Court’ adjudication of void criminal action is extrajudicial punishment & slavery

In Thurman J. Brown vs United States Supreme Court Justices, et, al, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices were shielded from liability under the doctrine of collateral estoppel which states, in pertinent part, “The doctrine of collateral estoppel provides that once a court has decided an issue of fact or law to its judgment, that decision may preclude re-litigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case.” Eastern District Judge Jacob Mishler used this legal analysis to bar action against US Supreme Court defendants and others (See link at p.14-15: https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/thurman-brown-7a621b88_invalid-civil-and-criminal-decisions-activity-6716405049272107008-vwPt )(but the doctrine of double jeopardy does not bar re-prosecution of the same offense twice).

This legal reasoning is predicated on void criminal processes that lacked subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over Thurman J. Brown, in that, indictment 96469-96, that the Court analysis depend on was terminated in favor of the accused on October 7, 1996, pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L. § 160.50 ( See link: https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/thurman-brown-7a621b88_the-people-of-the-state-of-new-york-v-thurman-activity-6717068275995463680-YOjW ), that state court continued to re-prosecute in an extra-judicial proceedings. I am not privy to who over-ruled who, or whether CPL§ 160.50 serves as a backchannel for judiciary-backed forgery of new court records, what I do know is that, by operation of law,  N.Y.C.P.L. § 160.50, exonerates the accused on October 7, 1996.  In a Court of Laws, Double Jeopardy bars any further prosecution of the same offense twice. Judge Victor M. Ort and the Office of Nassau County District Attorney Denis Dillon, on its own,  recycled void criminal indictment number 96469, and masqueraded the fa?ade of judicial legitimacy on top of terminated accusatory instrument with the full force of Due Process and Equal Protection under the Law. That is the facts. And the onus of determining why the court went rogue, is not for the plaintiff to shoulder.

This charade has profound consequences on so many levels not to mention the proper characterization of the extrajudicial punishment & slavery that the judiciary subjected Thurman J. Brown to for approximately 4,673 days. Enforcement of my CPL§ 160.50 status and expungement of any reference of 1997 convictions on the Rap sheet. The State and Federal Court must vacate every decision and order that corresponds to convictions in 1997, including but not limited to Thurman J. Brown vs United States Supreme Court Justices, et, al (  https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/thurman-brown-7a621b88_invalid-civil-and-criminal-decisions-activity-6716405049272107008-vwPt ).

No one is above the law in America, not even the United States Supreme. Some fights are worth fighting. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them. In Thurman Brown v New York, 528 U.S. 860 (1999), a void criminal process, the US Supreme Court stripped me of American Citizenship that was issued to the enslaved and their offspring by the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. I stand “duly convicted” of no crime(s) pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L. § 160.50. I am a American.