Since the Democratic Party at its highest levels want to destroy the other main party it is fair to go after them by way of criminal law. This election year first writing is going after members of Congress and how to go after people who like that the political people violated federal criminal law under federal criminal law. The next one will be going after Governor Gavin Newsom for violating federal criminal law and with that one I will show how to destroy the Californian Democratic Party and the Environmental Movement. After that I have a few other ones planned such as putting Supervisor Janet Parker of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors and Steve McShane in prison for violation of one of my Constitutional rights which means they violated a federal criminal law in the formation of Monterey Community Power which now goes by the name of Central Coast Community Power and then various state school systems. At the time of my constitutional right being violated by Monterey Community Power I emailed the company and pointed out that the company was violating federal criminal law and the response was get a lawyer in and sue them. I plan to do that as a class action suit after putting Supervisor Janet Parker in prison because then I will have a criminal conviction on my side which will make the case easy. If you think that she is protected from criminal matters due to the free speech and debate clause of the US Constitution you will be wrong since the US Supreme Court in United States v Gillock 445 US 360 stated that in federal criminal matters state politicians have no rights under the free speech and debate clause and legislative acts can be used in a criminal court of law since that part of the US Constitution only applies to the federal government.
I will begin with the criminal law which all these people violate and only the members of the federal government who are members of Congress or work for Congressmen and Congresswomen can get around due to the free speech and debate clause of the US Constitution. Section 18 of the USC section 242 derives from section 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and was incorporated into the Enforcement Act of 1870 and makes it a crime for any person acting “under color of” legal authority to willfully subject any inhabitant of the United States to the deprivation of federal constitutional or statutory rights. This is the law which Democrats willfully violate all the time. The US Supreme Court stated in United States v Price 383 US 787 that private individuals who conspirer with government officials can be tired under the law for conspiracy to deprive people of their rights. Thus one can go after the individuals who support these federal politicians. Thus the supporters of Congressmen Ro Kanna, Don Beyer and Joe Kennedy III who support their bill to limit the term of US Supreme Court justices and amount of times a president can nominate US Supreme Court justices can all be sued in civil court due to tort law based upon violating federal criminal law. The problem with the bill is that the only legal way to change the US federal constitution is by way of a constitutional amendment. One cannot do it under regular congressional laws. Article VI states that and the US Supreme Court stated a very long time ago in Marbury v Madison that acts of Congress due to Article VI must not violate the US Constitution.
Now let us look at what the US Federal Constitution states on this matter which is stated in Article III Section 1 of the federal constitution. The constitution states “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to ordain and establish.” As you can see from a word by word reading of what was written that the people who voted on the Constitution wanted two different courts. The people who wrote the bill before Congress stated that it was constitutional to send US Supreme Court judges to the lower court when their term is up if you pass a term limit for the Supreme Court. As you can see it is not the same court. It gets even worst when you read the next part of the Constitution which is “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” Now you can see the word both when referring to the courts and it is referring to them separately. Thus you have two courts. Next one cannot remove the judges because of term limits because the US Constitution states that.
Now I come to the part on the president being limited on the number of Supreme Court judges he can nominate during his term or terms. It violates the US Constitution. Article II section 2 stated that the president “shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court.” As you can see the US Constitution does not give him a limit on the number of times he can do it. Also this section states “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” The words I want to point out to you are “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies.” With these words the Constitution states that the president has the power to do the appointments which require consent of the senate as many times as necessary.
Another problem with the bill is that it violates the rights of all US citizens. The First Amendment has in it the right for people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This right came out of English law which also applied to the American colonies. If you studied either English or American Colonial History a petition had as one of its meanings the right to sue the government. Associated with that right comes the right to win and in order to win one must have the judges agree with you. People normally only sue when they think they can win. One looks at the judges that will sit and judge the case and determine whether or not to proceed with the case based upon the outlook of a judge. If one has a case that a conservative court would decide in his favor he or she will want a conservative court and the same approach is also true for liberals. When people vote for a president one is also voting for the kinds of judges they want appointed to the federal court system if vacancies happen. People want the court stack to their way of thinking in order to use the court system. Thus the bill interferes with the First Amendment rights of all citizens.
Now since politicians love to talk to news people and send out newsletters to the people they represent one has a way to go after federal Congressmen. In Hutchinson v Proxmire 443 US 111 99 SCt 2675 the US Supreme Court ruled that for civil liability a federal congressman is not protected under the free speech and debate clause of the US Constitution for newsletters to his people, press releases or radio and television interviews since these things have nothing to do with a passage of a bill. Thus one can use these items in a federal criminal case and also since the court ruled okay for civil suits these things one can use to go after politicians for the violation of people’s rights protected by federal criminal law under federal tort law. I am going to show you that the federal government can go after Congressmen Ro Khanna, Don Beyer and Joe Kennedy III and give you the way that these people can be sued under federal tort law without worrying about the free speech and debate clause of the federal Constitution and at the same time should willful intent under the law being done. Congressmen Ro Khanna and Joe Kennedy III both had not only press releases on this subject but also put up this fact on their personal web pages. Since things like this come and go I made copies of all this. I went to the sites and copied the web pages. I also got copies of the press releases. The news items on this subject back up the items I copied. Now one has a conspiracy here because you have more than one person involved and one has a paper tail showing that conspiracy from the lead conspirators. Now the next thing I am going to show is willful intent to violate Constitutional law. The US Supreme Court in Screws v United States 325 US 91 stated what willful intent is under section 242 of the law and it is when a defendant acts with a conscious purpose of bringing about a result that can clearly be seen to be forbidden by the Constitution (violation of the US Constitution). Both Ro Khanna and Joe Kennedy III are lawyers. Ro Khanna got his law degree from Yale University and for a time at San Francisco State University was a teacher of Jurispurdence which is a field of law. Joe Kennedy III got his law degree from Harvard Law School and for a while worked as an assistant district attorney. As you can see both of them had to study Constitutional law in order to get their degree thus they had to study the US Constitution and it gets even better since they had to study how the US federal court system is set up under the US Constitution. Due to their law degrees both Ro Khanna and Joe Kennedy III commented a willful criminal act as defined by US Supreme Court when they came up with the idea that a plain congressional law could change the Constitution and deprive people of their federal rights.
The reason I am putting this out is that the DOJ will not normally go after people who violate section 242 of the criminal code. The only time that the federal agency goes after people who violate that law is when there is a public outcry that is big enough to make the agency look real bad. If you think I am making that up just read things put out by the Black Lives Matter people because one of the things these people are mad at is that the DOJ does not want to use section 242 against public people who kill or injury people in the Black community. I have lost money due to actions of people protesting that issue because police sent me home from the store I was to work in due to the fact the next city over that company had a store destroyed by rioters and the police did not want people hurt if the rioters came to their city to do the same thing. I rarely work in the city I live in.
If you agree with me please call the Department Of Justice in Washington DC or write to them and ask for criminal action be taken against these politicians and mention the law and how these people violated it along with the fact they can be prosecuted since the free speech and debate clause can be gotten around. I already emailed the FBI on this matter and I sure theyb don't care.
I should state a future one will have Safeway, Inc. in it and this due to the fact the company fired me for protesting the fact it gives out false health information which causes people to die and UFCW Local 5 would not stand up for me because the union thought jobs were more important than lives. I saved all the paper work on the subject including the ones from the union showing that the union stated I was terminated before I was and I have pay slips from Safeway, Inc. which show that I was still working for Safeway, Inc.. I am going to include that paper work when I send that one out with proof that Safeway Inc. has lied to the public and in federal court papers and gets away with it. I lost my retirement and ended up with low paying job when I was making what was considered good wages in the retail industry (considered management wages outside the grocery industry).
Thank you for reading this,
Marcus Horton
Replies