(“Plaintiffs
Slaves”) for estate of wealthy slave owner realleges and incorporates fully set
forth all facts, supporting exhibits, evidence involving RICO Enterprise Slave
Trade criminal deceit fraud
“Slavery” (2013) February 6th still ongoing in the Jurisdiction of
Parallel 36°30′ north area of land under the jurisdiction of a slave trade rule
(Defendant) The Confederate States of America et al
hereby being “direct cause of actions” venue continuance before the (Utah)
Federal Court System, (ICC) International Criminal Court, UN Security
Council, The International Court of Justice,
(Sworn) herein and filed Notice of Motion before the (ICJ)
International Court of Justice (Sworn) herein and filed Notice of Motion before
(Defendants) United Nation, United Nations Security Council, (Sworn) herein and
filed Notice of Motion before (Defendants) NATO (Sworn) herein and filed
Defendant Trump Foundation et al, Defendant (Trump For
President) (Defendant) 45th President Donald John Trump Sr., (Defendant)
Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr. (“Defendants”) Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III hereby collectively and individually active roles in a criminal international syndicate did so
concealing all information about related activities of
“Slavery” (2013) February 6th still ongoing in
the Jurisdiction of Parallel 36°30′ north area of land under the jurisdiction
of a slave trade rule (Defendant) The Confederate States of America et al
hereby being “direct cause of actions” venue continuance before the (Utah)
Federal Court System, (ICC) International Criminal Court, UN Security
Council, The International Court of Justice,
Venue hereby announced under (Military) actions continuance
being introduced before International MILITARY TRIBUNALS on
(all) International Indictments Certain (defendants) are further charged
as 1865 – 2018 civil war criminals, charges that the (whites supremacy)
defendants herein participated in a Common Design or Conspiracy to commit and
did commit continuance 1865 – 2018 (December) ongoing Criminal War Crimes
and with membership in a International Syndicate of
Criminal continuance crimes against humanity enslavement of the International
(“Plaintiffs Negro DNA Race of Humans”) being continual forced into
“International Human Trafficking and Human Organs
Trafficking scheme of things” by (Defendant) The Confederate States of
America, “whites supremacy defendant GOP Political party of self imposed
supreme humans” scheme of things well into ungodly 2018 (December) this
actual ongoing (International Slave Trade) Organization, against the
will, peace, rights, dignity, international freedom, of
all (“Plaintiffs Negro DNA Race of Humans”) being(Defendant)
The Confederate States of America, “whites supremacy defendant GOP
Political party Judicial Confederated appointed Judges
As mention “above” Legal Notice of Motion filed before International
MILITARY TRIBUNALS (Plaintiffs) negro Slaves, (“Plaintiffs’”) collective fully
affirm, declare taking effect Defendant Trump Foundation et al, Defendant
(Trump For President) (Defendant) 45th President Donald John Trump
Sr., (Defendant) Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr. (“Defendants”) Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III hereby collectively and individually active roles in a “whites supremacy Political
GOP Party membership being engaging as a “Gang” of whites supremacy criminal international syndicate committed to life in criminal
violation 18 U.S. Code § 1001 –
false Statements upon the freedom of (“Slaves”)
still captive further criminal actions engaging in
“Direct Fraudulent
Published of these ongoing 1865 – 2013 (enslavement) facts of an “entire” negro
race being “captive” as property before the “International Community” under
such “Government” Manipulated fraudulent statements, omission continuance
on or about the 27th day of February 2013, precisely 20 days prior “Defendant”
State of Mississippi Join The Plaintiff Union Government of United States of
America, all events, accounts, SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. “Published Deceitful Fraudulent Artifact” criminal
deliberately concealing the actual “borders
boundaries” of “Defendant State of Mississippi”
Being (“Defendants”)
The Confederate States of America et al”, pursuant to Pacer Case
Locator 1 – 33 Federal Case filed Defendant “State of Mississippi was not in
the Union and Join February 7th
2013, fraudulent
3 days later after dismissal case load entry (33) Hamilton vs. North Texas
State Hospital et al
Defendant Trump Foundation et al, Defendant (Trump For
President) (Defendant) 45th President Donald John Trump Sr., (Defendant)
Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr. (“Defendants”) Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III hereby collectively and individually active roles in engaging committed
fraud , collective “Obstruction of Justice, Conspire to Commit Obstruction of
Justice on Behalf of (“Defendants”) criminal actions conceal, cover-up,
committed to “fraud under direct by federal confederate court” criminal actions
by having among other things
Legal document of government seal, propounded
forgery, counterfeit, and very “Fraudulent Judicial Decree Artifacts” under
(International Law) violations involving (“Defendants”) United Nations, (“Defendant”)
NATO being a RICO party to each submitting false statements, omissions,
destruction of slavery records, “direct manipulation of the international
transatlantic slavery records of the “Defendant Confederate Government”, being
(“Defendants”) continuance conspire, collusion, against US Case
No. 7:2012-CV-00053 923.
Thereby (“Defendants”) violations
of statue 18 U.S.C. § 371— Conspiracy to Defraud the (Plaintiffs Slaves of United
States Union Government) hereby Defendant (5th Cir.) (Texas Southern District)
Federal Court System, the District of Columbia
Federal
Court System (already) being RICO party against the undersigned
council of record pursuant to each (Judicial Decree) hereby knowing willful, deceitful
acting under color of law
(Judges) listed herein did
so consciously, in professional legal schooling of “higher education’s” of some
sorts of variously fraudulent voided, criminal issuance confederate states of America
1861 – 2013 (February 6th) Colonial America of 1800s timeless prehistoric
“law degrees” maintain submitting false
statements, omissions, destruction of slavery records, “direct manipulation of
the international transatlantic slavery records of Appeals
ROA.17- 40068.4190 - 17- 40068.4190
Defendant Trump Foundation et al, Defendant (Trump For
President) (Defendant) 45th President Donald John Trump Sr., (Defendant)
Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr. (“Defendants”) Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III hereby collectively and individually active roles 923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the Plaintiffs United
States of America Union government in a described ongoing
2018 (December) hostile “international negro human Traficant scheme of things”,
crimes against humanity pursuant to fraud
against (“Plaintiffs”) Negro Slaves described in
Pacer Case Locator 1 –
33 Federal Case filed by the undersigned “Pro Se” (Hamilton) Proof, in “law and
equity” Defendant “State of Mississippi was not in the Union and Join
fraudulent after dismissal case load entry (33) Hamilton vs. North Texas State
Hospital et al US Case No. 7:2012-CV-00053
“Exhibit” filed before
Defendant (5th Cir.) Appeals ROA.17- 40068.4190 - 17-
40068.4190 with this hostile 10/05/1998 – 02/05/2012 RICO continuance citing “Obstruction
of Justice”, Conspirer to commit Obstruction of Justice (“Plaintiffs”) Negro
Slaves, #BlackLivesMatter hereby indeed a specific Federal Rule of Evidence that covers the “motion to strike,” Notice
before (Utah) federal court system
Hereby (Defendant) the Confederate
States of America et al Parallel 36°30′ north refusal to (Join) “Plaintiffs
United States of America Union Government official Historical
grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation on false data
Hereby (Defendant State of
Mississippi) was thereby not a Party to the oath of office of the President of
the United States from the exact date 1865 – February 6th 2013 leading
to a contract for each office of the President of the United States being
“absolutely” Fraudulent Oath Sworn before a (United States of America
Union Government which did not exist from1865 – February 6th 2013
Thereby (Defendant) Ron Clark,
United States District Judge Parallel 36°30′ north did so concealing
all information about related activities of “Slavery” still ongoing in the
Jurisdiction of Parallel 36°30′ north area of land under the jurisdiction of a
slave trade rule (Defendant) The Confederate States of America et al hereby
being “direct cause of actions” as defined the
“Complaint of the undersigned council of
record -KFG Hamilton v. United States of America et al Doc. 23 LOUIS
CHARLES HAMILTON, II, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § PRESIDENT
ANDREW JOHNSON, § and PRESIDENT RUTHERFORD B. § HAYES, Defendants CIVIL ACTION
NO. 1:10-CV-808
“Strike” all fraudulent
material facts in the dates of March 11th 1861 – Feburary 6th
2013 contained in the matter SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY
GENERAL, et al. direct continuance cause
of actions of Fraud by non-disclosure as so Argued 20 days later after “Defendant”
The Confederate States of America et al, hereby
Defendant State of
Mississippi Join Union, on (February 7th 2013) in the matter SHELBY
COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. before the court on February 27, 2013—Decided June 25, 2013 No.
12–96.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district
of columbia circuit
Argued February 27, 2013—Decided June 25, 2013 No. 12–96.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to
address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, “an insidious and pervasive
evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through
unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution.” South Carolina v.
Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301 . Section 2 of the Act, which bans any
“standard, practice, or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgement of
the right of any citizen . . . to vote on account of race or color,”
42 U. S. C. §1973(a), applies nationwide, is permanent, and is not at
issue in this case. Other sections apply only to some parts of the country.
Section 4 of the Act provides the “coverage formula,” defining the “covered
jurisdictions” as States or political subdivisions that maintained tests or
devices as prerequisites to voting,
and
had low voter registration or turnout, in the 1960s and early 1970s. §1973b(b).
In those covered jurisdictions, §5 of the Act provides that no change in voting
procedures can take effect until approved by specified federal authorities in
Washington, D. C. §1973c(a). Such approval is known as “preclearance.”
The coverage formula and preclearance requirement were
initially set to expire after five years, but the Act has been reauthorized
several times. In 2006, the Act was reauthorized for an additional 25 years,
but the coverage formula was not changed. Coverage still turned on whether a
jurisdiction had a voting test in the 1960s or 1970s, and had low voter
registration or turnout at that time. Shortly after the 2006 reauthorization, a
Texas utility district sought to bail out from the Act’s coverage and, in the
alternative, challenged the Act’s constitutionality. This Court resolved the
challenge on statutory grounds, but expressed serious doubts about the Act’s
continued constitutionality. See Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One
v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193 .
Petitioner Shelby County, in the covered jurisdiction
of Alabama, sued the Attorney General in Federal District Court in Washington,
D. C., seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 4(b) and 5 are
facially unconstitutional, as well as a permanent injunction against their
enforcement. The District Court upheld the Act, finding that the evidence
before Congress in 2006 was sufficient to justify reauthorizing §5 and
continuing §4(b)’s coverage formula. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. After
surveying the evidence in the record, that court accepted Congress’s conclusion
that §2 litigation remained inadequate in the covered jurisdictions to protect
the rights of minority voters, that §5 was therefore still necessary, and that
the coverage formula continued to pass constitutional muster.
Held: Section
4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be
used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance. Pp. 9–25.
(a) In Northwest Austin, this Court noted that the Voting Rights Act
“imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs” and concluded
that “a departure from the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty requires
a showing that a statute’s disparate geographic coverage is sufficiently
related to the problem that it targets.” 557 U. S., at 203. These basic
principles guide review of the question presented here. Pp. 9–17.
(1) State legislation may not contravene federal
law. States retain broad autonomy, however, in structuring their governments
and pursuing legislative objectives. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment reserves to
the States all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government,
including “the power to regulate elections.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501
U. S. 452 –462. There is also a “fundamental principle of equal
sovereignty” among the States, which is highly pertinent in assessing disparate
treatment of States. Northwest Austin, supra, at 203.
The Voting Rights Act sharply departs from these basic principles. It requires
States to beseech the Federal Government for permission to implement laws that
they would otherwise have the right to enact and execute on their own. And
despite the tradition of equal sovereignty, the Act applies to only nine States
(and additional counties). That is why, in 1966, this Court described the Act
as “stringent” and “potent,” Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 308, 315, 337. The
Court nonetheless upheld the Act, concluding that such an “uncommon exercise of
congressional power” could be justified by “exceptional conditions.” Id., at
334. Pp. 9–12.
(2) In 1966, these departures were justified by
the “blight of racial discrimination in voting” that had “infected the
electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century,” Katzenbach,
383 U. S., at 308. At the time, the coverage formula—the means of linking
the exercise of the unprecedented authority with the problem that warranted
it—made sense. The Act was limited to areas where Congress found “evidence of
actual voting discrimination,” and the covered jurisdictions shared two
characteristics: “the use of tests and devices for voter registration, and a
voting rate in the 1964 presidential election at least 12 points below the
national average.” Id., at 330. The Court explained that “[t]ests and devices
are relevant to voting discrimination because of their long history as a tool
for perpetrating the evil; a low voting rate is pertinent for the obvious
reason that widespread disenfranchisement must inevitably affect the number of
actual voters.” Ibid. The Court therefore concluded that “the coverage formula
[was] rational in both practice and theory.” Ibid. Pp. 12–13.
(3) Nearly 50 years later, things have changed
dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act, “[v]oter turnout and
registration rates” in covered jurisdictions “now approach parity. Blatantly
discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates
hold office at unprecedented levels.” Northwest Austin, supra, at 202. The
tests and devices that blocked ballot access have been forbidden nationwide for
over 40 years. Yet the Act has not eased §5’s restrictions or narrowed the
scope of §4’s coverage formula along the way. Instead those extraordinary and
unprecedented features have been reauthorized as if nothing has changed, and
they have grown even stronger. Because §5 applies only to those jurisdictions
singled out by §4, the Court turns to consider that provision. Pp. 13–17.
(b) Section 4’s formula is unconstitutional in light of current
conditions. Pp. 17–25.
In 1966, the coverage formula was “rational
in both practice and theory.” Katzenbach, supra, at 330. It looked to cause
(discriminatory tests) and effect (low voter registration and turnout), and
tailored the remedy (preclearance) to those jurisdictions exhibiting both. By
2009, however, the “coverage formula raise[d] serious constitutional
questions.” Northwest Austin, supra, at 204. Coverage today is based on
decades-old data and eradicated practices.
The formula captures States by reference to
literacy tests and low voter registration and turnout in the 1960s and early
1970s. But such tests have been banned for over 40 years. And voter
registration and turnout numbers in covered States have risen dramatically. In
1965, the States could be divided into those with a recent history of voting
tests and low voter registration and turnout and those without those
characteristics. Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today
the Nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act
continues to treat it as if it were. Pp. 17–18.
(2) The Government attempts to defend the formula
on grounds that it is “reverse-engineered”—Congress identified the jurisdictions
to be covered and then came up with criteria to describe them. Katzenbach did
not sanction such an approach, reasoning instead that the coverage formula was
rational because the “formula . . . was relevant to the problem.” 383
U. S., at 329, 330.
The Government has a fallback
argument—because the formula was relevant in 1965, its continued use is
permissible so long as any discrimination remains in the States identified in
1965. But this does not look to “current political conditions,” Northwest
Austin, supra, at 203, instead relying on a comparison between the States in
1965. But history did not end in 1965. In assessing the “current need[ ]”
for a preclearance system treating States differently from one another today,
history since 1965 cannot be ignored. The Fifteenth Amendment is not designed
to punish for the past; its purpose is to ensure a better future. To serve that
purpose, Congress—if it is to divide the States—must identify those
jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current
conditions. Pp. 18–21.
(3) Respondents also rely heavily on data from
the record compiled by Congress before reauthorizing the Act. Regardless of how
one looks at that record, no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching
the “pervasive,” “flagrant,” “widespread,” and “rampant” discrimination that
clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the Nation in
1965. Katzenbach, supra, at 308, 315, 331. But a more fundamental problem
remains: Congress did not use that record to fashion a coverage formula
grounded in current conditions. It instead re-enacted a formula based on
40-year-old facts having no logical relation to the present day.
Pp. 21–22.
679
F. 3d 848, reversed.
Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia,
Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring
opinion. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, Sotomayor,
and Kagan, JJ., joined.
+POTUS Obama +Hillary Clinton +BRITISH QUEEN +Prince Harry +Meghan Markle +HMS Prince of Wales +British Parliament +USNavySEAL +Us Navy +Tina Fey +SNL Group +Alec Baldwins Forehead +BBC World Service +NBC Chicago +Washington Post +The Rachel Maddow Show +CBS This Morning +ABC World News Tonight +Yahoo News +Donald Trump News +President Donald Trump +North Korea +South Korea +Xi Jingping +Sherlock Holmes +United States Air Force +UNITED NATIONS Headquarters +NATO +National Museum of American History +City of New York +BBC Africa +ABC NEWS +CBS Evening News +NBC News +Yahoo News +Jackie Chan +Samuel L Jackson +Black Lives Matter !!!!!!! +MLK jr. +Vladimir Putin +USSR Gov +Russia +Nasdaq +Washington Post +The Huffington Post UK +Art/is +UNITED NATIONS Headquarters +National Museum of American History +Santa Claus +Pope Francis Visit USA +The British Royal Family
+President Donald Trump Official +NATO +ABC News +Cbs News +NBC +Washington Post +The New York Times +MSNBC +CNBC +Al Jazeera America +BBC News +CNN International +Pinky Rose De Chavez +United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) +USNavySEAL +US Senate +FEDERAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION +NSA Agent +Fox News +Prince Harry +BRITISH QUEEN +Hillary Clinton +Vladimir Putin +USSR Gov +Russia +Xi Jingping +North Korea +Iran ♥ (ايران) +Yahoo News +NFL +NBA +MLB +ESPN +Nasdaq +Navy Federal +SNL Group +Pope Francis +NATO +NATIVE FOLKS +POLICE INTERPOL +NASA +Thomas Magnum +Jackie Chan +Samuel L Jackson +Robert Downey Jr. +Sherlock Holmes +GOP +US Senate
No comments:
Post a Comment