Category Archives: Supreme Court

US Supreme Court decision to uphold mandated arbitration further erodes our rights, Our day in court, “deprivation of consumers’ rights to seek redress for losses”

US Supreme Court decision to uphold mandated arbitration further erodes our rights, Our day in court, “deprivation of consumers’ rights to seek redress for losses”

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”…Karl Marx

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”…Matthew 7:15

“Our right to our day in court has been severely eroded.”…Citizen Wells

 

People around me and online may try to put me in a nice neat box such as Republican.

I do not fit.

What I am is an American who adheres to the US Constitution and rule of law.

I am not against arbitration on principle. Mutually agreed to.

I am against forced, mandated arbitration which strips away one of our basic rights.

Our day in court.

From the New York Times.

“Supreme Court Upholds Workplace Arbitration Contracts Barring Class Actions

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that companies can use arbitration clauses in employment contracts to prohibit workers from banding together to take legal action over workplace issues.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s more conservative justices in the majority. The court’s decision could affect some 25 million employment contracts.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said the court’s conclusion was dictated by a federal law favoring arbitration and the court’s precedents. If workers were allowed to band together to press their claims, he wrote, “the virtues Congress originally saw in arbitration, its speed and simplicity and inexpensiveness, would be shorn away and arbitration would wind up looking like the litigation it was meant to displace.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, a sign of profound disagreement. In her written dissent, she called the majority opinion “egregiously wrong.” In her oral statement, she said the upshot of the decision “will be huge under-enforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well being of vulnerable workers.”

Justice Ginsburg called on Congress to address the matter.

Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who studies arbitrations and class actions, said the ruling was unsurprising in light of earlier Supreme Court decisions. Justice Gorsuch, he added, “appears to have put his cards on the table as firmly in favor of allowing class actions to be stamped out through arbitration agreements.”

As a result, Professor Fitzpatrick said “it is only a matter of time until the most powerful device to hold corporations accountable for their misdeeds is lost altogether.””

“Under those contracts, Justice Ginsburg wrote, it is often not worth it and potentially dangerous to pursue small claims individually. “By joining hands in litigation, workers can spread the costs of litigation and reduce the risk of employer retaliation,” she wrote.

The contracts may also encourage misconduct, Justice Ginsburg wrote.

“Employers, aware that employees will be disinclined to pursue small-value claims when confined to proceeding one-by-one, will no doubt perceive that the cost-benefit balance of underpaying workers tips heavily in favor of skirting legal obligations,” she wrote, adding that billions of dollars in underpaid wages are at issue.

Justice Ginsburg added that requiring individual arbitrations can produce inconsistent results in similar cases, particularly because arbitrations are often confidential.”

“In a 2015 dissent, Justice Ginsburg, citing a New York Times article examining arbitration agreements, wrote that the 2011 decision and later ones “have predictably resulted in the deprivation of consumers’ rights to seek redress for losses, and, turning the coin, they have insulated powerful economic interests from liability for violations of consumer protection laws.””

Read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/business/supreme-court-upholds-workplace-arbitration-contracts.html

Having experienced the abuse of mandated arbitration first hand, I agree with Justice Ginsburg.

It may be the only time it happens, but injustice is injustice.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Advertisements

Vermont Supreme Court decision in Paige natural born citizen lawsuit, June 16, 2017, H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont Secretary of State James Condos Ted Cruz Marco Rubio, 3-2 decision

Vermont Supreme Court decision in Paige natural born citizen lawsuit, June 16, 2017, H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont Secretary of State James Condos Ted Cruz Marco Rubio, 3-2 decision

“If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”…Marbury V Madison

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”…Thomas Paine

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

From  H. Brooke Paige.

“A quick read finds that the court chose not to reach the merits and
rendered a split (3-2) decision on the issue of mootness. While not
stated, it appears that they did not find that plaintiff/appellant lacked
standing or that the court lacked jurisdiction.  The court erred in
assigning blame for procedural delays entirely on plaintiff as I did not
make requests for elongation of time in filing while the defendants did so
on five occasions.

Robinson, with Eaton concurring, took exception with the court’s failure
to find that case presented a permissible exception to mootness.”

From the decision:

“¶ 12. As to the second prong, appellant recognizes the change in the facts, acknowledging in his brief that “[w]e are beyond the primary election in Vermont.” In response, he re-directs his argument away from the fall 2016 election and toward future elections. First, he maintains that
addressing the issue of whether Senators Cruz and Rubio are constitutionally qualified to appear on future ballots not only would redress his injuries but also would be practical for the public as a whole:
The Court can give plaintiff a remedy which will redress his injuries,
that remedy being a declaration that Cruz and Rubio are not Article
II natural born citizens and that the Vermont Secretary of State is
not to place their names on the primary or general election ballot in
future presidential elections. . . . At this stage, it will not cause the
State of Vermont any inconvenience or extra expense for it to follow
a judgment of this Court as to whether the names of Cruz or Rubio
should be allowed to be printed on future election ballots.
Addressing the issue at this early stage will avoid any confusion or
interference with the rights of Vermont voters to cast their ballots
during future elections. (Emphasis added)
And later appellant directly argues that the issue is bound to come up again:
The issue of what is a natural born citizen and the state’s role in
answering that question as it applies to placing candidates for
president on the state election ballots remains even though the
election is over . . . this issue just keeps coming up but is never
resolved for one reason or another. (Emphasis added)
¶ 13. Without assessing the first prong of the test for cases that are capable of repetition but evading review, we determine that appellant is unable to satisfy the second prong—he is unable to show that there is a reasonable expectation that he “will be subjected to the same action again.”
Id. ¶ 6. Appellant’s argument here boils down to mere speculation: “Cruz and Rubio will probably be running for President again in 2020.” While it is true that the Senators may run for president during the next election, appellant must show that it is more than just “theoretically possible” that the situation he currently objects to will repeat itself; rather, he must show a “demonstrated probability” that he will become embroiled again in this same situation. In re Green Mountain
Power Corp., 148 Vt. 333, 335, 532 A.2d 582, 584 (1987). But appellant offers nothing to support his speculation—no legal filings by either Senator and no statements by either Senator to the effect that they will run for president in the future.
¶ 14. A decision by this Court regarding the meaning of the phrase “natural born
Citizen”—and, ultimately, whether the Senators may run for president in Vermont—cannot be based on mere speculation. Appellant’s case is similar to those in which we have found that the capable-of-repetition-but-evading-review exception does not apply. See In re P.S., 167 Vt. at 68,
702 A.2d at 101 (holding that appeal of revocation of nonhospitalization order of mental patient who had later been released under separate order did not meet mootness exception because court’s findings regarding first order were specific to month in which they were made and any future revocations would “be based on new fact patterns”); Dor ia, 156 Vt. at 119-20, 589 A.2d at 319
(finding that mootness exception did not apply in case in which defeated gubernatorial candidate objected to poll conducted by university professor, because candidate did not “show any reasonable expectation that he will be subjected to the same type of political poll” in future elections); see also State v. Gundlah, 160 Vt. 193, 196, 624 A.2d 368, 370 (1993) (holding that no
mootness exception applied in journalist’s appeal of contempt-of-court conviction for refusing to testify at prosecution of prison escapee who subsequently pleaded no contest, because “[a] repetition of the fact pattern presented seems highly unlikely and certainly does not rise to a
reasonable expectation.”). ”

“¶ 17. Appellant’s case is moot because it no longer involves an actual controversy, appellant no longer has a legally cognizable interest in its outcome, and it does not meet either exception to the mootness doctrine argued by appellant. At this time, any opinion issued by this Court on the issues raised by appellant would merely be advisory, and would not be within our
constitutional authority to render. See Doria, 156 Vt. at 117, 589 A.2d at 318. We therefore affirm its dismissal by the trial court.”

https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documents/op16-202.pdf

Thank you Mr. Paige for your efforts.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Montgomery Sibley US Supreme Court Application to be relieved from Restraining Order distributed for Conference of April 29, 2016, DC madam phone list could impact 2016 presidential election, Ted Cruz listed in records?

Montgomery Sibley US Supreme Court Application to be relieved from Restraining Order distributed for Conference of April 29, 2016, DC madam phone list could impact 2016 presidential election, Ted Cruz listed in records?

“You could drive down the streets of Washington and look at every building on your left and right and in each and every one of those buildings, we had clients.”…DC Madam

“Since 2007, I have been under court order restraining me from publically releasing those records. Those records contain information relevant to the 2016 presidential election,”…Montgomery Blair Sibley

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

Montgomery Sibley’s US Supreme Court Application to be relieved from Restraining Order distributed for Conference of April 29, 2016.

No. 15A1016
Title:
Montgomery Blair Sibley, Applicant
v.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Docketed: April 1, 2016
Lower Ct: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
  Case Nos.: (1:07-cr-00046-RWR-1)

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mar 28 2016 Application (15A1016) for a stay, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Apr 4 2016 Application (15A1016) denied by The Chief Justice.
Apr 6 2016 Application (15A1016) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
Apr 13 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 29, 2016.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles%5C15a1016.htm

From Montgomery Blair Sibley April 6, 2016.

“Yesterday, Chief Justice Roberts denied myApplication to be relieved from the Restraining Order which prohibits me from releasing any of the D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records.  This follows: (i) the refusal of the U.S. District Court to allow me to file a Motion to Modify that Restraining Order and (ii) the refusalof the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to rule upon my Petition which sought to Order the District Court Clerk to file my Motion to Modify.

Before I simply release the records in my possession, I must exhaust all judicial remedies. Accordingly, invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, I am renewing the Application with a second Justice, the estimable Clarence Thomas.  I will wait to see what he says before taking my next step.”

Read more:

http://amoprobos.blogspot.com/

Renewed application to SCOTUS:

Read more here:

https://citizenwells.com/

Montgomery Sibley D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records update April 6, 2016, Invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, Renewing Application with a second Justice, Clarence Thomas

Montgomery Sibley D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records update April 6, 2016, Invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, Renewing Application with a second Justice, Clarence Thomas

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“COMING CLEAN: From what I know, at least 2 of the women named as Cruz mistresses by the National Enquirer are accurate”…Drew Johnson, Twitter

 

From Montgomery Blair Sibley April 6, 2016.

“Yesterday, Chief Justice Roberts denied myApplication to be relieved from the Restraining Order which prohibits me from releasing any of the D.C. Madam Jeane Palfrey’s Escort Service Records.  This follows: (i) the refusal of the U.S. District Court to allow me to file a Motion to Modify that Restraining Order and (ii) the refusalof the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to rule upon my Petition which sought to Order the District Court Clerk to file my Motion to Modify.

Before I simply release the records in my possession, I must exhaust all judicial remedies. Accordingly, invoking Supreme Court Rule 22.4, I am renewing the Application with a second Justice, the estimable Clarence Thomas.  I will wait to see what he says before taking my next step.”

Read more:

http://amoprobos.blogspot.com/

Renewed application to SCOTUS:

http://montgomeryblairsibley.com/library/Clerk2a.pdf

Ted Cruz PA eligibility challenge appeal fast tracked in Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Elliott v. Cruz, Elliott represented by attorney David J. Farrell, Cruz a natural born citizen?, PA primary scheduled for April 26

Ted Cruz PA eligibility challenge appeal fast tracked in Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Elliott v. Cruz, Elliott represented by attorney David J. Farrell, Cruz a natural born citizen?, PA primary scheduled for April 26

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

From The Legal Intelligencer March 21, 2016.

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has set a quick timetable in the appeal of a ruling allowing Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to remain on the state’s presidential primary ballot.

The court said Monday that challenger Carmon Elliott had until 4 p.m. Tuesday to submit his brief in Elliott v. Cruz. Presidential hopeful Cruz then has until 4 p.m. Wednesday to file his response. There was no indication of whether or when oral arguments would be scheduled in the case. Pennsylvania’s primary is scheduled for April 26. The court did say in its order that the parties could submit the same briefs they submitted to the Commonwealth Court.

Elliott, who represented himself before the lower court, is now being represented by Norristown attorney David J. Farrell, who had initially submitted his own challenge to Cruz’s ballott eligibility but withdrew it in advance of the Commonwealth Court hearing.

Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini rejected earlier this month Elliott’s claim that Cruz was not a “natural-born citizen” as defined by the U.S. Constitution because he was born in Canada to a mother who was a citizen of the United States.

Pellegrini spent half of his decision determining whether the judiciary had jurisdiction over questions of eligibility to run for president. Cruz argued it was a question only for the Electoral College or Congress to determine, and that the court should be barred from hearing it under the political-question doctrine. But Pellegrini rejected that contention, finding there was no support for it under various sections of the U.S. Constitution, nor under the 12th Amendment. In doing so, he became what appears to be the first judge in the country hearing Cruz ballot challenges to address the merits of the issue.

The dispute as to whether Cruz was a ­citizen eligible for the presidency came down to the interpretation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “‘no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.'”

Pellegrini said the term “natural-born ­citizen” was not defined and the U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed its meaning within the context of the eligibility of a candidate.

Elliott is a registered Republican voter in Pennsylvania. He argued “natural-born citizen” required a candidate to be born within the geographical boundaries of the United States to be eligible. Cruz, on the other hand, argued he was a natural-born citizen regardless of where he was born because his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born and Cruz was therefore a U.S. citizen from the time of his birth, Pellegrini said.”

Read more:

http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202752679252/Appeal-of-Cruzs-Ballot-Eligibility-FastTracked#ixzz4478Divhp

From the Indiana Law Review:

“D. Whether a State May Refuse To Put a Presidential Candidate on the Ballot Because It Concludes the Candidate Is Not Qualified ”

” If a state chooses to evaluate the qualifications of presidential candidates, there is no inherent power of Congress standing in its way,”

“Just as there was historical precedent for states including unqualified candidates on the presidential ballot, so, too, is there precedent for states excluding unqualified candidates from the ballot. In fact, there has been a trend of state regulation increasingly scrutinizing the qualifications of presidential candidates, even apart from pending legislation in the “birther” context.”

“They arguably have the power to add qualifications to candidates seeking the office of President.359 The less intrusive step of examining existing constitutional qualifications is likely within the purview of state control.”

“The 20th Amendment does not prevent a state from excluding a presidential or a vice presidential candidate who is not qualified to hold the office.”

“A state inquiry into qualifications could take one of several forms.377 It might be simply ministerial, requiring candidates to verify that they are qualified. It could include a certification, such as a signature under penalty of perjury affirming that one meets the qualifications. It may require a low level of verification, such as an attachment of copies of documentary support for proof of residence and citizenship. Or it may require a high level of verification, such as original source documents (like a “long-form birth certificate”). The inquiry might be required as a disclosure when a candidate seeks to file for office, or as one that an election official is authorized to make under certain circumstances. Such state regulations would be permissible as long as they simultaneously existed within other constitutional boundaries.”

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11145&context=ilj

Hat tip to CDR Charles Kerchner.

 

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal opposition brief filed by Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. former Obama Deputy Counsel, Brief filed Feb 19 but does not show up on site, Fox guarding the hen house

Blagojevich US Supreme Court appeal opposition brief filed by Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. former Obama Deputy Counsel, Brief filed Feb 19 but does not show up on site, Fox guarding the hen house

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

More mysterious goin ons in the Rod Blagojevich prosecution and incarceration.

I don’t expect efficiency or accountability from government.

I see it on the local and national level.

If you follow Citizen Wells, you know that we follow closely the Blagojevich cases.

Friday, February 19, 2016 was the extended deadline for a response.

There was none listed on Friday or over the weekend.

Just checked this morning and found:

No. 15-664
Title:
Rod Blagojevich, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: November 19, 2015
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  Case Nos.: (11-3853)
  Decision Date: July 21, 2015
  Rehearing Denied: August 19, 2015

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 17 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)
Dec 16 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016.
Dec 21 2015 Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al. filed.
Jan 7 2016 Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 19, 2016.
Feb 19 2016 Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.

The brief is no where to be found.

http://www.justice.gov/osg/supreme-court-briefs

By the way, the US Solicitor General is Donald B. Verrilli Jr. former Obama Deputy Counsel.

Think that might be a problem?

The fox guarding the hen house.

Scalia dead with pillow over head, No autopsy, Blagojevich appeal before conference Feb 19, Ted Cruz eligibility ruling likely which affects Obama, Obama has been eager to appoint SCOTUS justice, Strongest constitutional justice gone, Reason for conspiracy theories?

Scalia dead with pillow over head, No autopsy, Blagojevich appeal before conference Feb 19, Ted Cruz eligibility ruling likely which affects Obama, Obama has been eager to appoint SCOTUS justice, Strongest constitutional justice gone, Reason for conspiracy theories?

“We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled,”…John Poindexter, owner of ranch

“Who benefited most from the suicide/murder of Orlando Jones?
Who benefited most from the murder of Donald Young?
Who benefited most from the murder of Lt. Quarles Harris Jr.?
Who benefited most from the suicide/murder of Christopher Kelly?
Who benefited most from the murder of Bill Gwatney?
Who benefited most from the death/murder of Andrew Breitbart?
And now
Loretta Fuddy?”…Citizen Wells

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

Justice Scalia was found dead with a pillow over his head.

There was no autopsy.

This Friday, February 19, 2016, the Blagojevich appeal is scheduled for conference.

The US Supreme Court will likely be called on to rule on Ted Cruz’s eligibility as a natural born citizen. This of course affects Obama too.

The SCOTUS justice with the strongest record of adhering to the US Constitution is gone.

Obama has been eager to appoint another liberal justice to add to his left wing legacy.

Any reason for conspiracy theories?

Nah.

Read more about how Justice Scalia was found here:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php

Read more about the Blagojevich appeal and associated Amicus Brief:

https://citizenwells.com/2016/02/15/justice-scalia-blagojevich-obama-blagojevich-appeal-response-due-by-february-19-in-us-supreme-court-no-scalia-to-respond-has-protecting-obama-reached-a-new-high/