Federal jurisdiction is used in circular court logic to defeat forever unpleasant lawsuits.
The United States has filed its motion to dismiss regarding our lawsuit challenging the constitutionally of federal statutes that enable systemic lawlessness within the federal government. We know where they stand now. It is weak and does not respect the rule of law. For liberty loving people, the document is disheartening.
The statutes we challenged in our constitutional lawsuit purport to provide citizens with a remedy against federal employees whenever they break the law. Instead, the federal remedy statutes exacerbate the problem of systemic lawlessness by providing total personal immunity for federal employees’ intentional violation of the law. Effectively, the statutes undo deterrence for lawless behavior of federal employees.
The United States’ central argument is that all our claims have been justly dismissed because, they assert, federal employees do not have to appear in court as a result of far reaching federal immunities. The courts have so far agreed with the United States by dismissing the lawsuits. The courts also reasoned that federal immunities insured that it had no authority to even consider the lawsuits. The courts called this a “federal jurisdiction” dismissal. Nevertheless, in every federal jurisdiction dismissal the courts would also add a “dismissal” on the lawsuit on “the facts”. The court would then argue that both that the lawsuit was over, because it did not have the power to hear the case, and that we could never file a future lawsuit on the same issues since they had also “decided” the case on the issues. I hope the ridiculousness of the court’s position is obvious to you.
They are mistaken (or worse). When a court lacks “federal jurisdiction”, it has no legal authority to find judgment on any claim against any party. There has been no determination on the facts. Our lawsuit has just been delayed. This dirty trick is another creepy attempt by federal employees to deny due process. I bet this stunt is pulled all the time to pro se plaintiffs. Here’s what the Supreme Court had to say about the issue:
Whether the complaint states a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law and just as issues of fact it must be decided after and not before the court has assumed jurisdiction over the controversy. Bell v. Hood, 327 US 678 (United States Supreme Court 1946)
If any portion of the justice system is just, federal employees will not be able to escape liability. In any event, the dirty trick described by this post is the point of our constitutional lawsuit. Previous (and just) courts under stood the issue:
“[W]hen the judgment of a state court … is challenged for want of due process it becomes the duty of this Court to examine the course of procedure in both litigations to ascertain whether the litigant whose rights have thus been adjudicated has been afforded such notice and opportunity to be heard as are requisite to the due process which the Constitution prescribes” Hansberry v. Lee, 311 US 32 (United States Supreme Court. 1940).
Our constitutional lawsuit is proper.