Refuses to Guarantee
and Protect
Constitutional Rights
by: CJRHMH
Ex-law student, legal researcher,
closely observing this case and
other cases in Alabama
May 13, 2004
letter and spirit of federal law in this country.
To refuse flatly to protect the
Consititutionally-guaranteed rights of US citizens
in a manner which displays the very epitomy
of arrogance is unconscionable!
When any State attempts to limit guarantees
of the Bill of Rights
against any citizen of the state it is the duty,
nay the very purpose,
of the federal courts to ensure protection!
Any federal court that refuses
to uphold citizen rights under the
United States Constitution is violating
that law under which their
very existence is formulated.
Further, for a federal magistrate
to receive a claim that contains compelling accusations,
in any format whatsoever by a pro se litigant,
related to double jeopardy
and severe violation of due process,
and for that magistrate to recommend dismissal
of that claim outright on immunity grounds
or any other without demanding a defense from the party
who committed the Constitutional violation
is proof that justice cannot be
procured in the federal courts!
The federal courts are, therefore, without reasonable
purpose and should be abolished as they fail to serve
the purposes of the
People of the United States.
When federal courts sentence citizens
for cases brought to them by federal attorneys
yet refuse to properly adjudicate claims
brought by citizens for violation of those rights
guaranteed by the United States Constitution
then the federal courts are nothing more
than players in a system of fascism.
The United States Constituion be damned
and the People along with it!
The Judicial branch of the United States
is established to interpret the intent
of the Constitution and federal law.
When federal courts determine that a claim
brought before them stating Bill of Rights
violations by ANY person
within the confines of the borders of the United States
is immediately without merit or dismissable
under immunity grounds or any other
comity doctrine, federal courts fail to serve
the very purpose for which they were designed.
The tax money of citizens,
used to pay the costs
of holding these courts open, is money better
spent on citizen-devised courts of law
that WILL serve the purpose of the citizenry
and protect the rights of that self-same citizenry!
American citizens are led to believe
that the federal courts serve some useful purpose
in enforcement of the Bill of Rights;
however, in practice that is not the case
as any citizen will discover when they are in a position
to need the SERVICES of a federal court.
The federal courts are anathema to
the letter and intent of the law.
Representation to taxpaying citizens,
that federal courts enforce the Bill of Rights
FOR citizens is gross misrepresentation,
total lack of integrity, and extortion against
the citizens of these United States!
The instant case,
Beverly Brabham vs. State of Alabama, et. al.
is a case of an indictment
issuing for a crime that never occurred,
imprisonment on false information
sworn by a non-existent Grand Jury
(but by D. A. Boyd Whigham acting alone),
sentences - three times imposed
for the same non-existent crime,
and fines imposed and paid
on an illegal indictment
for a crime that never occurred.
All of these acts by paid representatives
of the State of Alabama
are illegal under the United States Constitution
and clearly-established federal law.
Yet the Middle District of Alabama,
Northern Division Federal Court
summarily dismissed her claims
on the word of a magistrate
without even requiring that the State
offer any defense whatsoever.
One doesn't have to be a lawyer to see
that the Middle District is making no attempt
whatsoever to protect the
rights of an American citizen.
We may all be tempted to say,
"we don't have all the facts to decide
whether the federal judge
properly adjudicated this case."
Well it's TIME the citizens of the United States
took the time to find out all the facts!
Any person who has been charged
with a crime already knows the federal courts
have no interest in protecting the rights
of those illegally indicted,
illegally imprisoned,
and illegally fined.
Must every citizen in this nation
be in a similar position to that of Brabham
before they'll bother to assess the usefulness
of the federal courts?
My guess is that the federal
courts are counting on that.
IMMUNITY LAWS
by: CJRHMH
Ex-law student, legal researcher,
closely observing this case and
other cases in Alabama
May 13, 2004
Immunity laws were devised and implemented
to protect those in public service jobs
from retaliation and retribution
for performing those tasks
defined within the jobs they are paid to perform.
The United States Sentencing Commission
recognized that the potential exists,
in positions of public service,
for individuals to commit egregious acts
that fall outside of their duties
and within the category of illegality
during performance of those jobs.
The USSC defines those acts as being performed
"under color of law"
and provides for additional sanctions in those cases,
as is right and just.
Any person in a position of power over others,
has the additional duty to base
his actions upon integrity.
If that individual does not possess
a high degree of integrity
then he cannot be relied upon
to perform a public service.
A court's interpretation of immunity laws
speaks also to the integrity of that court.
If a public servant can shock the public conscience
and escape retribution through immunity laws,
then immunity is nothing more than legally-protected hegemony
with the blessing of those public servants
who are tasked with adjudication of these matters.
To ignore the spirit of immunity laws
is to deny American jurisprudence altogether.
The courts, then, become
a contradiction of jurisprudence
and themselves shock the public conscience.
The foundation of American jurisprudence is justice
as it applies equally to all citizens.
Citizens who have been egregiously wronged
by individuals who perform their jobs
behind the curtain of immunity,
are literally denied access to the courts
when the courts minimize the intent of immunity laws.
The job of the judicial system is to
interpret the intent behind the law.
The intent behind immunity laws is clear
and simple, therefore, it is possible
to recognize where immunity ends.
When actions of a public servant
are so egregious as to shock the conscience,
that person has acted outside
of the protection of immunity.
The federal courts' duty is to adjudicate
Constitutionally-protected rights of U.S. citizens.
Those rights include protections
against being subjected to double jeopardy.
When a citizen has been forced
to serve a sentence
multiple times for the same crime,
that is a violation of the U.S. Constitution
and clearly-established federal law.
When a citizen is forced to live in fear
of consistent egregious actions by public servants
who are adjudicated "immune" by the courts,
then that citizen is living
in a system that is in contradiction
to its own stated purpose.
When a public servant lacks integrity,
subjecting citizens to egregious violations of law,
and the courts dismiss the citizens' rights,
the Court is acting in concert
as it is the courts' duty
to uphold the spirit of the law.
If the courts refuse this duty
then American jurisprudence
is no better than that which
took place behind the iron or
bamboo curtains,
shocking the conscience
of every American citizen.
documents on the case
Follow the link
at the end of each page,
and the last page will
direct you back to this page.
Exhibits that were before the court
when the summary dismissal
was ordered
Click any of the Links
below to quickly reference
Documents and Exhibits
Complaint alleged in Federal Court
Magistrate Judge's Recommendation
Federal Judge's Opinion
Federal Judge's Judgement
Federal Judge's Order
Exhibits
Links to Other Documents on the Case
BEVERLY BRABHAM'S STORY
Beverly Brabham's mother
witnessed the above case:
June 1996
kangaroo ordeal.
Beverly Brabham
and
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
This was the SECOND sentence
on the same
falsely conspired lie.
Judge Smithart's order
after the August 1999 hearing
where Judge Gaither testified
under oath that
Beverly Brabham was not on probation
in April 1999 when Smithart
"revoked a probation"
which did not exist.
Judge Gaither's Affidavits
Judge Gaither wrote the second Affidavit
after discovering that Judge Smithart lied
about Judge Gaither's testimony
in the above order
Dial-an-Order
Bullock County Alabama
style
The THIRD Sentence
was "phoned in"
to Beverly's mother
at night
Details surrounding
the telephone sentencing
CRIMINAL COP
WITH MULTIPLE FELONIES
COMMITTED WHILE IN UNIFORM
RECEIVES ONLY PROBATION
Click here to Read About It!
Beverly Brabham
Back to
