Source: http://www.majesticpublishers.com/u-s-supreme-court-denying-constitutional-rights-and-the-rule-of-law/
Timestamp: 2017-11-19 05:05:59
Document Index: 188016094

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2403', '§ 2', '§ 9', '§ 10', 'Art 21', '§ 821', '§ 9', '§9', '§ 948', '§ 9']

U. S. Supreme Court Denying Constitutional Rights and the Rule of Law | Majestic Publishers
U. S. Supreme Court Denying Constitutional Rights and the Rule of Law
Posted on October 27, 2017 by Majestic Publishers
In re: Dale B. Adams,
– Public Citizen
United States Senator Mitch McConnell
– Defendants – Respondents
ON PETITION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) May Apply
• Should the United States Supreme Court graciously allow the Executive or Legislative Branch to regularly violate the United States Constitution and common law they create as binding law, without any enforcement for contempt of court as held in United States v. Shipp, 214 U.S. 386 (1909)?
Dale B. Adams, Pro se
Cherie L. Adams – Life in Jeopardy – Silent Petitioner
Clarence D. Adams; Deceased [June 6, 2010] – Silent Petitioner
Joel D. Adams; Unborn Child Deceased [ March 8, 2010] – Silent Petitioner
Linda F. Gattis, Deceased [January 1, 2011] – Silent Petitioner
Robert Sean Adams, Deceased [April 9, 2016] – Silent Petitioner
Nancy Ellen Mayberry, Deceased [December 26, 2016] – Silent Petitioner
Although all official parties appear in the caption of the cover page, the silent parties involved have been added because this Court should be aware of how their decisions of law that are being deliberately disobeyed by the Executive and Legislature, have adversely affected them.
Dedicated in Loving memory of my Father; Clarence Dale Adams; Retired, Master Sergeant, USAF [Disabled Veteran from voluntary service in Vietnam War] (DOB: April 27, 1940) [Deceased: June 6, 2010]
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED…………………………………………………………5
BASIS FOR JURISDICTION ………………………………………………………………..6
PETITION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT…………………………………………………..7
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OPINIONS……………………………………….10
STANDING ARTICLE III……………………………………………………………….….18
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798) ………………………………………………………[11]
Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm., 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) …………………..[15]
Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1867) ……………………………………….…..[13]
Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727,733 (1878) ……………………………………………[8,15]
Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866) …………………………………………[16]
Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 249 (2000) …………………………………………….[17]
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) ……………………………………….….[17]
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) ………………………………….……..[12]
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) .………………………………………..[13,14]
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) ………………………………….……………[11]
I Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 305 (1965) ……………….………..[8,15]
Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2484 (2003) ………………………….………….[12]
Milwaukee Pub. v. Burelson, 255 U.S. 407, 437 (1921) ……………………….……..[8,15]
Miranda vs. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966) ………………………………………..[12]
People v. Gersewitz, 294 NY 163, 167, 61 NE2d 427, 429…………………………….[17]
People v. Glen, 173 N.Y. 395, 400, 66 N.E. 112, 114 ……………………….………..[17]
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 408-09 (1974) ……………………………..…[8,15]
United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965) ……………………………………………[13]
United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946) ……………………………………….…..[13]
United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) ………………………………….…….[8]
United States v. Richard Milhous Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (8-0 unanimous) ………[10]
United States v. Shipp, 214 U.S. 386 (1909) ………………………………………….[2,6,7]
United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 314 (1972) ……………….[10]
United States v. Van Leeu wen, 397 U.S. 249, 251 (1970) …………………….……..[8,15]
Church Committee Report ……………………………………………………..………..[9]
A Supreme Case of Contempt (ABA Journal) ………………………………….….……[8]
Introduction to Conflict of Criminal Laws ……………………………….……………..[16]
This court has original jurisdiction “of all justiciable matters” under United States Constitution Art. III, § 2, and pursuant to the United States Constitution and federal common law. This Court has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the defendants. This court also has jurisdiction pursuant to United States v. Shipp, 214 U.S. 386 (1909).
The United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over decisions they make which are being violated on a regular basis by the defendants in Washington, D.C., of the United States of America.
II. PETITION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
I, Dale B. Adams, pro se, come now and move the court to find the defendants, United States President Donald Trump and United States Senator Mitch McConnell in contempt of the United States Supreme Court for disobeying court orders, ultra vires.
Recently the defendants both went to the State of Alabama and campaigned for United States Senator Luther Strange urging the American public not to elect Roy Moore, a former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Reason being is because the defendants do not want another member of Congress who feels a duty to honor the United States Constitution and case law from the United States Supreme Court. The voters overruled the defendants and elected Roy Moore, seeming to agree that the rule of law and our values need to be upheld.
During the administration of United States President [redacted] our government created a legal mess by ignoring our values and the rule of law, thrusting military powers above civil authority. I allege the defendants are acting with an ad hoc manner continuing to violate law of the United States Supreme Court and the limitations of the United States Constitution to conceal legal wrongs within the government. It appears the defendants will continue to abuse their authority and the rule of law, stripping the rights of every American until they have carefully crafted my incarceration – while being unable to obtain the full facts with discovery. The defendants have wrongfully denied my ability for Constitutional liberty.
In United States v. Shipp, 214 U.S. 386 (1909), the United States Supreme Court gained nationwide respect for the rule of law by finding public officials guilty of contempt of court. (Curriden, M., 2009). In Shipp, Sheriff Joseph Shipp allowed the mob rule to hang, shoot and kill Mr. Ed Johnson to further his own political aspirations. This case is similar because Adams is also faced with mob rule persecuted as an enemy of the state by private and public officials because he was labeled as a “suspected terrorist,” contrary to law and Constitutional authority. The defendants have and continue to violate the United States Constitution and United States Supreme Court case law to have my family and I unlawfully and arbitrarily targeted with mob rule. The defendants use “law” instead of a “rope.” Law, or lack thereof, was used to create slavery, burn witches, legalize torture and indefinite detention so it is far more dangerous, especially when those in power forget the importance of ethics. United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928) “Decency, security, and liberty alike…” Honorable Justice Louis Brandeis Originalists realize the Constitution was formed to forever eradicate arbitrary government misconduct of torture and indefinite dungeons and that check and balance systems are layered throughout the Constitution to permanently eliminate government abuse to, “We the People…”
Curriden, Mark, (June, 2009), “A Supreme Case of Contempt” ABA Journal. Publicly
available at http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_supreme_case_of_contempt/
It is important to note that in 1976, the Church Committee Reports noted in PART IV: [redacted] 1. INTRODUCTION AND MAJOR FACTS (K) that the executive branch of the federal government had violated United States Supreme Court case law for more than 30 years. It also listed past abuses of the [redacted] of opening the United States mail while it was in transit of the United States Postal Service. The Church Committee noted that it was a violation of statutes; “18 U.S.C. Sec. 1701, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1702, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1703, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1717(c), 39 U.S.C. Sec. 4057 and 39 U.S.C. 3623(d),” in addition to violating United States Supreme Court case law; “Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727,733 (1878), United States v. Van Leeu wen, 397 U.S. 249, 251 (1970), Milwaukee Pub. v. Burelson, 255 U.S. 407, 437 (1921), I Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 305 (1965), and Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 408-09 (1974). The Church Committee stated,
“The only persons who can lawfully open first class mail without a warrant, in short, are employees of the Postal Service for a very limited purpose-not agents of the [redacted]. In the face of the Constitution and these statutes, mail was surreptitiously opened for more than three decades-without a warrant; without [redacted] authority; frequently without approval by senior agency officials; and in the case of the most massive program, despite critical internal evaluations as well…”
“The legal issues raised by the use of mail opening as an investigative technique were apparently not seriously considered by [redacted] officials while the programs continued. In 1970, however, after the [redacted] mail opening programs had been terminated, [redacted] wrote that mail opening was “clearly illegal.” (emphasis added).
In 1976, although the United States Supreme Court must have been aware that the executive had been in contempt, “more than three decades” this court took no actions against those parties. The result is that the government continues to violate this United States Supreme Court case law to interfere with the transit of United States mail of our family and others which can cause severe harm. Clearly, there is a flaw in our federalist government where the executive branch does not enforce the law over itself and has no respect for the law as set forth by the United States Supreme Court. This dangerous precedent led to the formation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which has been eroding our nations’ freedoms since its inception. It may be prudent for the United States Supreme Court to take a second look at this petition for contempt of court and consider the ramifications if their laws have no force and effect. When the executive branch is using selective enforcement of the law there needs to be another check and balance system available to the court to enforce the rule of law. This court should act now.
Report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, S. Rep. No. 94-755, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976) (“Church Committee Report”)
Retrieved from http://aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports.htm
III. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OPINIONS
The defendants individually and collectively have and are intentionally violating the United States Supreme Court cases of;
1. United States v. Richard Milhous Nixon, President of the United States, et al., 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (8-0 unanimous) “That nobody is above the law.” The defendants, United States President Donald Trump and United States Senator Mitch McConnell are making laws and Executive Orders placing every government official, including themselves above the law to harm our family, contrary to United States Supreme Court common law
2. United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 407 U.S. 297, 314 (1972)
“The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and discussion of Government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society.” “The Court here announced a significant boundary, refusing to extend the nascent “foreign intelligence exception” to include the warrantless surveillance of domestic persons in ordinary criminal investigations. Keith supra note 2, at 297 (quoting Justice Powell).
This United States Supreme Court case law held First Amendment rights of dissent over warrantless surveillance and the government is in contempt of court to use surveillance under the pretext of national security for a domestic criminal investigation. It appears the government began investigating me in or before 1999, during the administration of United States President Bill Clinton. Moreover, it appears that the United States military were leading the investigation although that is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Notice that this is prior to enactment of anti-terrorism laws that began in 2001, yet the defendants are stretching anti-terrorism laws to cover up and conceal these legal wrongs – in contempt of U. S. Supreme Court case law. The defendants are acting ultra vires. It seems the government violated the civil and criminal penalties of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the defendants are using any means necessary to …
3. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) In Hamdi, the court noted, “The serious constitutional problem arising out of a statute that, in these circumstances, permits an indefinite, perhaps permanent, deprivation of human liberty without any such [Due Process] protection is obvious.” “[The Court] need go no further” to find the Executive branch’s treatment of Hamdi unconstitutional.” See Kennedy, 472 U.S. at 167. The defendants are affirmatively in contempt of court of Hamdi because they are torturing yet not detaining Adams, to evade this court’s supervision. Adams’ Life, Liberty and Property are being deprived, unlawfully without due process of law by the defendants. Although Dale Adams is only 53 years old, the torture tactics of the defendants have him feeling like he is 83 years old and is susceptible to death from their unlawful conduct. Hamdi, 542 U.S. At 536 (plurality opinion) “A state of war is not a blank check for the President.” I allege defendant United States President Donald Trump is strong arming other nations I have visited such as Australia (1999) forcing them to allege some type of unfounded criminal charges against me so that he can ensnare me under military authorities with the “foreign intelligence exception”
4. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798) Defendant United States Senator Mitch McConnell has violated the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, transgressing his boundaries of authority. This defendant sponsored Bills of Attainder that became laws such as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Protect America Act of 2007, designed to specifically harm Adams. Defendant Mitch McConnell seems to be deliberately violating both the U.S. Const. Bill of Attainder Clause, Art. I, § 9 and the Ex post Facto Clause, Art. I, § 10. In July of 2007, United States Attorney General, [redacted] formed a law and presented it to U. S. Senator Mitch McConnell who sponsored it to the Senate titled the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA), (Pub. L. 110-55, 121 Stat. 552 enacted by S. 1927). This is a diabolical law that was supposed to sunset within 180 days. However, defendant Mitch McConnell used crafty procedures to keep the indomitable features of the PAA valid and secretly hiding within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which eliminates Fifth Amendment rights. Victims of the PAA have every protection of the Constitution eliminated – there is no valid oversight
“There are then but two lights, in which the subject can be viewed: 1st.) If the Legislature pursue the authority delegated to them, their acts are valid…they exercise the discretion vested in them by the people, to whom alone they are responsible for the faithful discharge of their trust… 2nd.) If they transgress the boundaries of that authority, their acts are invalid…they violate a fundamental law, which must be our guide, whenever we are called upon as judges to determine the validity of a legislative act.”
5. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) The United States Supreme Court upheld marital privacy. Adams alleges the defendants have audio and video surveillance in every room inside and outside of the sanctity of our home at 2313 Anvil Drive, Harrison, Arkansas, 72601, deliberately in contempt of Griswold
6. Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2484 (2003) Prohibits government intrusion into certain intimate private conduct and Dale Adams and his disabled wife have no private intimate conduct due to the defendants being in contempt of court
7. Miranda vs. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966) “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Defendants continue to be in contempt of this court creating contrary laws and Executive Orders to deprive our “guaranteed” fundamental and enumerated rights
8. United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946) “Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a trial, are ‘bills of attainder’ prohibited under this clause.” Defendant United States Senator Mitch McConnell is knowingly violating the Bill of Attainder clause and engaged in proscribed conduct established by this court. [e.g., Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277 (1867) and United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965)]
9. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) This court noted the [redacted] administration’ Military Commissions which held trials for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba “lack power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949, ruling that the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated.”
The court stated there is nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) “even hinting” at expanding the President’s war powers beyond those enumerated in Art 21. Instead, the AUMF, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) “at most acknowledge” the President’s authority to convene military commissions only where justified by the exigencies of war, but still operating within the laws of war. In Hamdan, United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent argued that the war against [redacted] didn’t start on September 11, 2001, he stated it began in 1996, when [redacted] began to plot the terrorist attacks. Justice Thomas made that statement because every branch of government became aware in 2003, after interrogating the 9/11 terrorist mastermind, that [redacted] didn’t even begin planning the 9/11 attacks until August of 1996. That was eight years after Adams may have made an indiscretion and it proves the government is intentionally and arbitrarily harming Adams without legal authority although they are fully aware that Adams’ conduct had nothing to do with 9/11. Thus, the defendant’s use of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Adams is invalid. Defendant United States President Donald Trump is allowing, public, private officials, Adams’ physicians, military and/or private contractors to threaten, coerce and intentionally harm Adams to provoke him to acts that may defeat First Amendment rights or defenses – with no protection from the court. Defendant Donald Trump is in contempt of United States Supreme Court case law to reach these aggressive objectives to ensure Adams’ incarceration with no chance of Constitutional liberty.
In Hamdan this court said, “If the Government wanted to charge Hamdan with aiding and abetting terrorism or some other war crime that was sufficiently rooted in the international law of war (and thus covered by 10 U. S. C. § 821) at the time of Hamdan’s conduct, it should have done so.” The government has not detained Adams since 2000, because their actions were clearly illegal, so instead defendants are enacting and enforcing military laws to deny his rights with the AUMF as they allow State governments to secure an ironclad criminal case. With a State criminal case the federal government can evade discovery which would display their unlawful conduct contrary to U.S. Supreme Court case law and even Blackletter law. Also note there is a treacherous federal case law that permits the federal government to delay federal prosecution until after a State sentence is served. Thus, Adams could die from a State conviction by the government using egregious criminal conduct that is never revealed or in federal court
10. Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm., 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) This case law upheld First Amendment rights to unlimited spending in elections. United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy held, “(d) The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech…”
There is evidence that defendant U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell is targeting me with legislation to eliminate my enumerated rights and jail me for engaging in political speech. The list herein is not exhaustive. Defendant Senator Mitch McConnell introduced legislation for the “Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006” (2005-2006) S.3931 109th Congress on 09/21/2006, modified on 09/22/2006 when Dale B. Adams typed and emailed letters to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) titled, “Patriot Act a.k.a. Communist Act” stating, “our government may be violating my 4th Amendment rights among others.” This evidence is publicly available at the website of [redacted] on the blog. So it is clear Senator Mitch McConnell is targeting Adams making laws for the specific purpose to ensure he is unable to obtain legal redress to expose abuse of anti-terrorism laws. Defendant Mitch McConnell is knowingly in contempt of Citizens United
11. Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727,733 (1878), United States v. Van Leeu wen, 397 U.S. 249, 251 (1970), Milwaukee Pub. v. Burelson, 255 U.S. 407, 437 (1921), I Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 305 (1965), and Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 408-09 (1974) Defendant United States President Donald Trump has unlawful jurisdiction over me pursuant to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. He is abusing that authority delegating subordinates to tamper with the United States mail of our family, including legal mail in contempt of the above statutes. Exhibits can be provided to this court which show the United States Postal Service is not delivering some of Adams’ legal mail or even ripping up our U. S. mail before we get it
12. Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866) Defendant Mitch McConnell has violated this common law since 2006, trying to sponsor bills into law that will punish me for an indiscretion that I may have made in 1988, while outside of the United States jurisdiction. That possible indiscretion for self-preservation may have carried a criminal penalty for five years, but I have been punished by ordeal for about 20 years. The standard federal statute of limitations was 5-10 years which expired in 1993-1998, respectively. Yet in 2007, defendant Mitch McConnell co-sponsored S. 1984 and S. 2294, “Immigration Enforcement and Border Security Act of 2007” which increased criminal penalties, “imprisoned for not more than 15 years…” The “retroactive” Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) would punish Adams for life contrary to U.S. Const. Art. I, §§ 9-10 “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Senator Mitch McConnell introduced the Senate Bill, Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S.3930), on September 22, 2006 and it passed the Senate September 28, 2006
“The opinion [Exparte Milligan] neglects to emphasize the important principle that jurisdiction in all matters of criminal law is primarily territorial, not personal, except for military personnel or militia personnel in actual federal service, in accordance with Art. I. Sec. 8 Cl. 14 and 16. This means there is no criminal authority for acts committed outside U.S. Territory, except for military personnel (since militia personnel may not be used outside U.S. Territory), regardless of where the effects of the acts might occur. The word in the Constitution is “committed” not “occurred”, Art III. Sec 2 Cl. 3, which means the location of a crime is that of the offender at the moment actus reus is united with mens rea.” (emphasis added).
Edward S. Stimson, (1936), Introduction to Conflict of Criminal Laws,
Retrieved from http://www.constitution.org/ussc/071-002jr.htm
13. Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 249 (2000) The Ex Post Facto clause (U.S. Const. Art. I, §9) prohibits laws that increase the punishment for a crime after its commission.
Defendant Mitch McConnell crafted the MCA, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 948a(A)(ii)
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
(ii) “refers to any person who “before”, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by the Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.” (emphasis added).
Defendant United States President Donald Trump has delegated parties to coerce, threaten and provoke me so that the government can label me as an “enemy combatant,” although I have absolutely nothing to do with violence or any terrorists. Both defendants are in contempt of Garner engaged in a criminal conspiracy to evade the Constitutional prohibitions of U. S. Const. Art. I, §§ 9-10
14. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) The United States Supreme Court accepted a hand-written letter from Mr. Clarence Earl Gideon as a sufficient pleading. Mr. Gideon claimed in court, “The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by Counsel.” The defendants are enacting or enforcing laws preventing Adams from obtaining legal counsel in contempt of Gideon
Before this court uses any number of reasons to reject this petition I ask that they consider the gracious conduct of this court towards Mr. Clarence Gideon and the wise words from a lower court;
People v. Gersewitz, 294 NY 163, 167, 61 NE2d 427, 429, the New York court said:
“The court has nonetheless recognized, at the same time that courts have always asserted and exercised authority which, though not expressly established by statute, is `based upon the inherent right and duty of the courts to protect the citizen in his constitutional prerogatives, and to prevent oppression or persecution.’ `It is a power,’ the court said, `which the legislature can neither curtail nor abolish, and, to the extent that legislative enactments are designed to effect either of these ends, they are unconstitutional.’ (People v. Glen, 173 N.Y. 395, 400, 66 N.E. 112, 114.)”
The Federalist Paper No. 78 written by Alexander Hamilton said it best, “[W]ithout this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing…” (Public Domain). (emphasis added).
VI. STANDING ARTICLE III.
Dale B. Adams, pro se can hurdle the current Article III standing requirement of a criminal persecution that is “certainly impending,” and moves the United States Department of Justice to abide by and uphold the law of the land. There are no ethical, nor legal limits the government will not forsake to ensure Dale B. Adams is a victim of, “the very definition of tyranny.” (James Madison) (Public Domain).
Wherefore I, Dale B. Adams, pro se, come now and move the court to find the defendants, United States President Donald Trump and United States Senator Mitch McConnell in contempt of the United States Supreme Court for disobeying court orders. A copy of the foregoing was submitted to the U. S. Solicitor General for appropriate investigation and action.
Signed on this 2nd day of October, 2017.
T: 870-204-5317
This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Majestic Publishers. Bookmark the permalink.