Corrupt arizona public servants need to be indited finally here! Violation of constitutional rights / civil rights / color of law / racial profiling phoenix arizona (ok that this is so general?)
The Original complaint Text:
Before seriously considering Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano for the position of Director of Homeland Security, I beg Mr. Obama to take a long and close look at the plethora of civil cases in which the State of Arizona, under her administration, has capitulated when charged with the violation of Constitutional rights; as well as the numerous live civil rights cases pending against Napolitano and the State of Arizona.
It is an affront to the very principles upon which this country was founded to appoint Ms. Napolitano to any position of authority when she should, in fact, be prosecuted for acts of treason during time of war. From Wyat Earp through Miranda versus Arizona, to the present day torture of American citizens in Arizona's State prisons, virtually every sworn officer in this State is guilty of treason, and Janet Napolitano is no exception.
The Constitution for the United States of America clearly states the source of sovereignty in our nation with the first words of the Preamble: "We, the People of the United States..."
As the Constitution begins with the declaration of sovereignty, the body closes (immediately prior to the clause for ratification) in Article VI with the words: "all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The first ten Amendments to the Constitution recognize, guarantee and protect my rights and my sovereign status. Failure by any sworn public servant to uphold the letter of the entire Constitution is prima facie evidence of violation of oath of office, cause for criminal and civil actions, and grounds for immediate removal from office.
In spite of Miranda, the County Sheriffs' offices throughout the State of Arizona under Janet Napolitano's governance continue to exhibit the following policies or practices which foster a pattern of misconduct:
Lack of, or improper training of officers. Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions. A citizen complaint process which treats complainants as adversaries. Officers not providing justification or not reporting incidents involving force.
It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Criminal acts under color of law include acts not only done by local, state, or federal officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of their lawful authority.
Color of law may include public officials who are not law enforcement officers, for example, judges and prosecutors, as well as, in some circumstances, non governmental employees who are asserting state authority, such as private security guards. The Supreme Court has had to interpret the United States Constitution to construct law regulating the actions of those in the law enforcement community. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.
Governor Napolitano has acted repeatedly in violation of the Eighth Amendment and Title 18, USC subsections (g) and (n) of section 922, and knew, or should have known, that under the Supreme Law of the Land:
"Courts are the mere instruments of the law, and can will nothing. When they are said to exercise a discretion, it is a mere legal discretion, a discretion to be exercised in discerning the course prescribed by law, and, when that is discerned, it is the duty of the court to follow it. Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law." [Emphasis in original]. Littleton v. Berbling, 468 F. 2d 389,412 (7th Cir. 1972), citing Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat (22 U.S.) 738,866, 6 l. Ed 204 (1824); U.S.V. Simpson, 927 F. 2d 1088,1090 (9th Cir. 1991).
When a [public official] knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F. 2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S. Ct. 451 U.S. 939,68 l. Ed 2d 326.
Governor Napolitano has consistantly conscientiously, arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and knowingly engaged in conduct in violation of their duty as an elected official, and further engaged in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. "We [elected officials] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution." [clarification added] U.S.V. Will, 449 U.S. 200,216, 101 s. Ct. 471,66 l. Ed. 2d 392,406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264,404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821).
Janet Napolitano should not have engaged in treason against the Constitution, a Constitution to which they have each taken a personal oath to support. Immunity does not exist for officials who engage in criminal activity, for officials who connive with, aid and abet the criminal activity of another, or to an official for damages sustained by a person who has been harmed by the judge's connivance with, aiding and abetting, another's criminal activity.
"The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law."
The above is applicable to this court by application of Article VI of the United States Constitution and Stone v Powell, 428 US 465,483 n. 35,96 s. Ct. 3037,49 l. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976).
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,94 s. Ct. 1683,1687 (1974) stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he "comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States." [Emphasis supplied in original].
By law, a governor is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). If any elected official does not fully comply with the Constitution, then he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.
Janet Napolitano has furthermore been involved in the unlawful act of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1951.
Violations of Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights) by combined elements of the Arizona State Government under Napolitano's governance may be furthermore be construed as a Hate Crime under Federal law.
I implore president-elect Obama to choose anyone other than Janet Napolitano for the position of Director of Homeland Security.
She and her band of bandits at the Attorney Generals Office use there agents to intentionally, deliberately, knowingly engage in conduct in violation of their duty as an elected official and engaged in violation of the law of the land. Proofs have been given to numerious agencies on these corrupt public officials but all of the offices turn a deaf ear.
They are affraid if the look into this type of misconduct that they would rattle a few bones of there own. So the alternative is to just turn the other way on your good friends when breaking the law and a citizens civil rights. The color of law protects us from unlawful search and seizure that they think they can act out on with fabricated false statements to the courts.
Kevin Ross Former Maricopa County Assessor states in the news that Goddard is manufacturing cases, to indict people and then search around for a crime to stick it to the person. Western Union made statements to the ARizona Republic that states agents fabricated affidavits to seize assets from Western Union. Convictions have been overturned for even simple falsifications due to the implications that arise from the impact of considering false testimony. All you have to do people is research the Arizona Republic classifieds to see who they have attached and won and ones they have lost.
This type of misconduct needs the Justice Dept or US Attorney's office of even the White house to look into these types of injustice to our citizens of this great nation. Obama is exposing Arpio for profiling and wrongful search and seizures why not look also into the daily breaking of the law for there needs and that is not what the constitution states.
Again The constitution clearly states that the first ten amendments to the constitution recognize, guarantee and protect our rights and our sovereign status. Failure by any sworn public servant to uphold the constitution is in violation of the oath of office and cause for criminal and civil action is needed.
Some one needs to look into what they do here to go against the oath they took and action is needed now to protect our citizens from corrupt public servants. Constitutional rights scottsdale, arizona
U.S.A
0 comments