JURISDICTION
Federal Jurisdiction
The Federal Courts are the only way to correct an Administrative Court in
any state, operating unlawfully under Administrative Law. This will
become obvious as we proceed.
Plaintiff appreciates the Court’s detailed response and the additional light it has shed on the complex question of jurisdiction. We trust the Court would agree that virtually all of the cases cited in the response would fall into the category of “Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make” in Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution. That phrase refers to cases for which the Supreme Court (and federal courts created under it) shall have appellate jurisdiction.
Any such exceptions enacted by Congress or by case law precedent are most certainly subordinate to the Constitution itself, not only to Article III, but to the 14th Amendment in particular, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It is therefore clear that Plaintiff has been denied “due process of law.” and “the equal protection of the laws” by the state of Oregon. Oregon has clearly violated the 14th Amendment, which takes precedence over any “such regulations as the Congress shall make” in Article III, Section 2. Therefore, the causes of action that the state has violated DO in fact fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts and Federal Constitution, which supersedes all federal laws, federal case laws, and federal regulations. Thus, the $75,000, Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and other exceptions mentioned are all irrelevant in light of flagrant violations of the 14th Amendment that Defendants have committed, and the state of Oregon has shamelessly ignored. It is incumbent upon the Federal Court in any such matter to step in and correct these flagrant state court errors.
This position has been fortified by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roper decision, which forbids “all courts” from allowing Administrative Law to override the U.S. Constitution and Federal laws made in pursuance thereof. Article VI, Section 2 in particular specifies that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and 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;
It is thus incumbent upon all “judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States” to take notice and not shirk this sacred duty as applied to the instant case, “any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” All Oregon state judicial Officers have failed in this duty and while we would not be so bold as to accuse them of 17) 18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of Felony: are they not violating the spirit of this principle in the common law by allowing these violations to go unpunished?
According to CriminalDefenseLawyer.com, “Misprision of felony” is a crime that occurs when someone knows a felony has been committed but fails to inform the authorities about it. The crime originated in English common law and required that citizens report crimes or face criminal prosecution. (Common law is law originating from custom and court decisions rather than statutes.) Due to the harshness of imprisoning people merely for failing to report a crime, most states chose not to include misprision of felony in their criminal laws. Instead, conduct that would fit the misprision definition is covered by other laws, such as those dealing with accomplice liability.
Oregon Appeals Court Attorney, Jeff Smith, sums it up well: “this divorce case is fatally flawed by incorrect rulings in 21DR02783, Wrong Opinion in A179571” Also by the Oregon Supreme Court refusing to review and correct these unjust decisions in S070434 clearly operating as an administrative law court and not an Article III, Constitutional Court.”
All Justices and Judges are sworn to uphold the State and Federal
Constitution, which they have failed to do. This ruling is retroactive because it is merely reaffirming the original intent of the Constitution of the United States, under which these cases should have been adjudicated.
Therefore, the Federal Court does in fact have jurisdiction to dismiss the illegal ruling of August 4, 2022 and resultant illegal judgement of September 1, 2022. Also dismiss the illegal rulings in A179571 and S070434.
The domestic-relations exception to Federal jurisdiction is no longer relevant under an Article III, U.S. Constitution Court, according to the recent Supreme Court ruling 6) listed above. Federal jurisdiction extends to ALL cases of law and equity under Article III of the US Constitution section 2.
Although Plaintiff has shown in ECF1 that such exceptions are irrelevant, for the record, one defendant lives in Sammamish Washington while Plaintiff resides in Portland Oregon. Therefore, Article III paragraph 2 of the US constitution applies here also. And, by 5) US Copyright law 17.17 the final Ruling of 21DR02783 is not based on any transcripts or exhibits. It is also well documented 2) Perjury of TCJ. In addition, Plaintiff has suffered extreme emotional distress from these proceedings, which would easily bring the total in dispute up to $84,000.