Pat Hamer

I couldn't fit my response on that page, so I choose this forum.

My Response:

Nice Article, I especially appreciated the more informative subject matter that I claim from your article, and that is, “such is the consequence of the misapplication of a once honorable civil rights doctrine…”

“Misapplication” is the devil the details, but stating “…of a once honorable civil rights doctrine…” is a “misapplication” in itself.

Civil Right abuse is none other than willful retaliation against those who object to abuse of power perpetrated upon them, and it is not “misapplied.” But “misapplication” is how “due process” simulates a false perception of justice to the misinformed proletariat. It is the use of undue influence gained by position as an alleged assumed “trusted official;” who may or may not “swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.” However, upholding the Constitution in context with the 11th amendment cultivates a propensity for corruption and this is stated by the supreme court as a constitutional right, that officials, be removed from the scrutiny of a citizens redress allegations, “even if the official is corrupt.” Our only remedy for personal recovery of damages, or to stop further abuse would be through the courts. I explain later, Bogan v. Scott-Harris discussion on how corruption is “misapplied” as a constitutionally protected right due to the 11th amendment. So attacking categorical examples of civil right abuse, such as “teachers” is a fallacy missing the point, don’t you agree? All civil right abuse can be facially ended, by removing the “inestimable right.” History repeatedly shows that if due process don’t work, people form rebellions and even revolt, to end that abuse. Our Declaration of Independence explains when it ratified the legal manslaughter through war, by killing those who abuse power, where there is “Judicial Tyranny,” “Mock Trials” solely due to an “irrational basis” they called a “right inestimable and formidable to tyrants only.” Today, I believe, this is catching up on the officials who live in utopia, under zero liability that private citizens could not even dream of having. The 11th amendment cultivates corruption, and the proponents declare that protecting the government from the people is necessary calling it the “over-deterrence theory.” That theory contradicts every revolution that ever took place, ultimately making the 11th amendment a coup that took place silently in a diabolically brilliant “misapplication” of despotism, made to look like democracy.

What is that right of tyrants? Sovereign power and none other! The 11th amendment reinstated Sovereign rule, under our newly formed democracy, after 19 years of officials losing lawsuits for “continued abuse of power,” mainly breaching payments for “war debt contracts,” see Chisholm v. Georgia S. Ct. 1793, opinion Justice James Wilson.

When you say, “once honorable civil rights doctrine” are you referring to when it was “once honored?” History records that with the exception of slavery, [in context with the 3/5 compromise] could only be, prior to 1795? Before the 11th amendment, this reinstated sovereign immunity [better stated as the “doctrine of immunity] which is, the catalyst of all revolutions.” Arguing that my facts are moot due to slavery, is artful, in that slaves where not considered human beings by the south, but holding for the north let us assume they believe in human rights, and evidence shows they did. That is why paradigm shifts occur! Why they let the south in the Union, God only knows, I am sure it was tax revenue in some way. The next great paradigm shift will be when logical thinking humans recognize the doctrine of immunity, under the guise of the 11th amendment as the “right inestimable and formidable to tyrants.” Oh what a glorious event that will be! The first time it happened was in 1776 and it only lasted 19 years.

First, the “misapplication” is the “fundamentally misconstruing” of human rights, to civil rights when it is assumed only to affect selected individuals. So let us not refer to “fundamentally misconstruing” reality and call it “misapplication,” as if it is a mere inconvenience. To non-victims, it may seem that way. I state this not to be argumentative but my personal experience, as a victim of human right abuse, per our constitution, has led me to a rational basis, far from irrational personal opinion that seems to dictate civil right issues, as you say the basis are “misapplied.” I am waiting for a rational argument that would end my frustration, and cause me to embarrassingly go into hiding for what can be “misapplied” as delusions of grandeur, pointing to a “holy grail” doctrine of immunity, that if reversed, would restore the rights of citizens to have his day in court, with “MEANINGFUL redress.” “Judges' refusal to consider evidence and psychologist reports denies due process right to "meaningful hearing" ARMSTRONG V.MANGO, 380 US 545, 552; 85 S.Ct.1187 (1965). Nothing has changed since 1965, other than the courts are denying meaningful due process. As you state, the “misapplication of civil rights doctrine, has “consequences.” The popular opinions in common law precedence I read would have humans believe a fallacy that there must be some class based animus, only in regards to humans who have undergone disparate treatment that has been overt. So those non “class based” are subjected to dehumanizing stigma and have no “representation.” However, this is changing see “Enquist v. Oregon S. Ct. “class-of-one.”

This “disparate treatment doctrine” actually belongs, “in the land of the blind, where the one eyed man is king.” I do not particularly acquiesce to this willful ignorance of facts. I think it may be by design to position those who segregate humans by class, to an area that would not frustrate the agenda’s of political parties that one prefers over the others. If there is a conspiracy, could it be perpetrated by the disinformation by dis-educating, even very intelligent individuals? It isn’t a slippery slope to induce that those who ignore the use of fallacy to deceive and logic to recognize deception, not out of ignorance, but because logic in the USA is not a mandatory course of study, and yes as you say, “consequences” of cause and affect, devastate one human at a time, and groups are more evident? Do not ignore the individual, because that is the basis of our constitution! I am not suggesting all citizens should have a full understanding of the seemingly complicated square of oppositions, but a strong understanding of fallacy, more than a semester in study taught incrementally for 12 years, at least. No graduate degree should be void a few semesters of more intense study. If we are giving degrees to people who cannot discern fallacy, what a tragedy, you’d end up with Republicans fighting Democrats [visa versa,] perhaps! The wool would no longer be pulled over the majority of voters eyes. I make this argument about logic, because I am not able to find one layman who knows that sovereign power, was reinstated allowing abuse of power, exactly the cause of action that caused the civil war, and all other revolutions that ever existed. Professors offer no studies of this, as if I speak of delusional non existing perceptions. However, the basis is facially plausible within the 11th amendment, in context with court interpretation, and its introduction 2 days following Chisholm v. Georgia. History is recorded during the invention, following the dark ages, of the intellectual property holders treatise on the “doctrine of immunity;” see Bartolus of Sassoferrato 14th century. Consider, the 11th amendment, “doctrine of immunity” as dogmatic and archaic granting immunity for human right abuse not equally as absurd as the “flat world theory, but more violently devastating! Flat world theory was of no significance to Jews and Heretics being barbequed for speech contrary to their beliefs! Immunity gave the right to the kings court to burn humans for witchcraft.

History shows that German citizens allowed the rise of Hitler with the doctrine of Immunity, and in 1945, Jurgen Brohmer, Proffesor of University of Saarland, Germany, Author of "State Immunity and the Violation of Human Rights," cites that, "Germany adhered to the absolute doctrine until 1945. That is, the Germans who were not hung in Nuremburg for war crimes that ended this doctrine. In his book, he also states, "The former communist states, however, by and large remained principle defenders of the absolute doctrine of immunity (citations to USSR. . .and their allies) (pg 20)."

Consider the benefits of deterring corruption, the opposite of the “over-deterrence” argument that contradicts the perception as stated by our forefathers, that it is necessary for the people to be protected from abusive government, and not the contrary that over-deterrence, protects the government from the people. Put it to popular scrutiny and vote! Maybe I am wrong and the people want the government to be able to abuse under the 11th amendment! I didn’t invent this mandate for a paradigm shift! Unlike others who point this out, it is politically incorrect, and perhaps political suicide to express this ultimate attack. That is what is so appealing to me, it is revolutionary, but without the necessity for Bloodshed! Call it the “Bloodless Revolution” if you will.

Politics has been jokingly analogized as, “poli” defined as “many” and “tics” defined as “blood sucking leaches.” Thus, it is common knowledge that Lawyers and Politicos use a bit of deception in order for their position to be won in a hurried venue such as a court hearing panel or 20 minute speech, but logic is the key to deterring those who relying on fallacy! They would be tar and feathered! Thus political factions see to it that the study of logic would be excluded as “mandatory” “essential” teaching hid from the populace, another abuse of power of a “dummied down” electorate. Let us say to increase proletariat-“ism” if you will. However, “Justice for all” is excluded when the study of logic is not viewed as essential for proletariat to discern cogency and soundness; of any “so called” “doctrine.”

So what are “civil rights” really? It is the right of a civilian to be free from government retaliatory discrimination without rational basis, when similarly situated individuals enjoy the same right without retaliation! In the United States, out of the other side of the Supreme courts “forked tongue” they proclaim as affective as an “opiate for the masses” meaningless poetry like, “Governmental "action designed to retaliate against and chill political expression strikes at the heart of the First Amendment." Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir.1986),” so what! What did Bogan say about the “First Amendment?”

One who has not suffered as a victim, has no idea of what retaliation for speech can do to a man or woman, who rely on the premises in the Constitution, that are barred by the Supreme Court somehow. Last week Obama somewhat spilled the beans from the holy grail, threatening the Supreme Court with rhetoric touching on my thesis, stating, “who is the supreme court but a bunch of un elected individuals, alluding to “sovereign power.” Obama could claim a Pulitzer outing our system for what it is, our future could hinge on the outcome of national healthcare, before I can profess this fact of sovereign power that is synonymous with a dictatorship, as Obama tongue in cheek alludes to. They might even replace Lincolns place on the penny with Obama!

Non-victims can only glean from Justices and activists who recite poetry, that does not point to the “right inestimable and formidable to tyrants,” very poetic prose itself I might add! Since the beginning of time, Herodotus points to the Persians trying to understand their alleged barbarianism, while his statesmen fellow Greeks display the first account of “Stockholm syndrome” he called “Medism.” Spartacus, for instance, “objected to abuse of power, and was punished before he could end Roman Sovereign abuse of power over humans.” Copernicus contradicted Papal decree when he argued with empirical data that the earth was no the center of the universe. However, we know that he had to recant his position, by retaliatory officials who also believed witches floated and innocent accused criminals would drown proving innocence. Similarly over-deterrence theory, absurd as it is, remains unanswered, and virtually not understood, by keeping it out of public debate! That is very telling, why is something that affects civil rights, not a part of civil right reform debate?

Copernicus is a model of the elements of civil right abuse most common in the USA today. Retaliatory abuse on a person for speaking contradictory to the “band wagon” fallacy that rules the day continues from the dark ages! I pose the question, why? I also provide the answer. The answer is evident in the forcing of the “Doctrine of Immunity” upon civil right abuse victims, barring them from “meaningful redress of grievance,” another “misapplication” of the cause of action in the Declaration of Independence referred to as “judicial tyranny and mock trials.” Simply ending this doctrine, narrows the playing field, and after a few years of culling and overcrowded courts, officials who can behave themselves, will seek office, and the sociopaths that gravitate to a constitutional right to influence peddle corruption, free from “liability” will revert back to private sector white collar crime and go to prison! I find after 4 years of activism resulting from issues of “abuse of power” harming my family as a crime victim denied due process under the “crime victims bill of rights.” Those acting “under the color of official right” that I have personally experienced, as a business owner or a citizen who suffered harmful retaliation, on several occasions for constitutionally protected redress. Particularly for expressing truthful matters revealing official negligence causing a correctible danger to public safety. I was shocked and amazed that at the hands of certain officials who could use their positions to make fraud and deceit seem palatable, as if no one was watching! This is a sign of “standard operating procedure” of a “Monell v. City of New York” unconstitutional policy that abrogates immunity for municipalities only.
Though most responsible for our civil right victimization, have been fired or punished by authorities, the redress process under the First Amendment and 14th amendment due process, can only be described in a 200 year old document called the “Declaration of Independence.” I only read it a few years ago, but nothing has changed since it was authored in the “citizen’s desire to stop tyranny from depriving them of rights. Rights not alien to the Constitution and for that matter, the magna Charta and documents like it! We actually have caused the admonishment of a Superior Court Judge, with the cjp.ca.gov in El Dorado County, we are the “couple in the 2009 complaint referred to as prior violations committed by the Judge. Undaunted by his crimes he was punished for against us, he personally under his own power arrested a woman civil right activist resulting in broken bones and an arrest record for committing no crime. That is the 2011 case. So my allegations outside of Sacramento and El Dorado County are not obstructed, in violation of obstruction of justice statutes…look at http://www.ricoact.com for the elements when officials use the county as an “enterprise” for personal gain and wire fraud for purposes of deception.

Having stated that, in closing, I would point you to Macias v. Ihde, 219 F.3d 1018, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2000): In Macias, id. the district court stated that it was arbitrary government denial of services that caused Maria Teresa’s murder:

[quote]The Appellants contend that the district court "fundamentally misconstrued" the
constitutional deprivation at issue in this case. They maintain that the alleged constitutional deprivation occurred when the defendants failed to provide Mrs. Macias with equal police protection in the months leading up to her death. Their brief states: 35
The district court erred in determining that there was insufficient evidence of actual causation in part, by misconstruing [the Appellants'] constitutional injury as `murder' rather than `lack of equal protection.' By so doing, the court ignored the evidence that [the Appellees'] arbitrary failure to enforce the law caused [Mrs. Macias] to suffer not only her murder on April 15, 1996, but the three months of harassment, stalking, and death threats that proceeded it. [unquote Macias v. Ihde].

So, as you seem to focus on “misapplication” as a correctable but excusable negligence, I see it a malice aforethought, when it is so popularly used to controvert justice. More than likely, per capita it is rare that officials who have lost empathy for humanity can use “arbitrary denial of due process equal rights” it as “murder by proxy.” However, this abuse to this level of heinousness disregard for human life is ongoing, and we have evidence it is used locally by very callous of officials. It escapes scrutiny and continues! I personally did not dream up this phenomenon, that shows how arbitrary Nazi type officials can be the “cause of murder” or even act as a choreographer under pretext using arbitrary inaction that essentially is a “murder by proxy.” It’s the perfect crime and it can be orchestrated. I don’t think the Macias case was so “orchestrated,” but circumstances, point to the turning a blind eye to the murder of John O’Sullivan, and the removing legal obstacles that condoned criminal assaults and the rational belief that a mentally ill sociopath could carry out murder threats! I am only repeating appellate court observations, and there are many like the Macias Case, and I am witness to one case that resulted in silencing a civil right activist by allowing his murder, when pre murder events would have triggered intervention, in a non corrupt jurisdiction. This is especially evident when they have an “animus” retaliatory motive to “turn a blind eye” and allow the death of a complainant, to silence complaints from focusing the light of scrutiny on their bad or negligent behavior. Maria Teresa Macias was annoying the police with what they viewed as excessive cries for help! However, the annoyance stopped when police “arbitrarily” denied her services. I’m not saying this is common, but I have personally seen the lightning strike twice in the same place, an actual murder by proxy, as a pattern of conduct in an elected D.A.. See the atrocious case, Gonzalez v. Castle Rock, to name a few, and the DeShaney Case. John O’Sullivan was murdered by his neighbor, after suing a D.A. in Federal Court to redress a grievance. The neighbor, a “retired sheriff” was favored over O’Sullivan, an immigrant. The retired sheriff, now serving a life sentence could still be free, and John alive had law enforcement used a “rational basis” in the investigations, however due to his professional status as a colleague in the same profession as the D.A., the sheriff was favored.

Ironically, without any prior knowledge of this, I filed a similar suit where our neighbor is recorded on video threatening or attempting to murder myself and my employees at my place of business, a favored friend of this same D.A.. This was in violation of several restraining orders, but the police ignored the court order and allowed 3 years of stalking, assaults, vandalism, robbery, and murder threats affecting several dozen people. They cannot provide a rational basis to justify it, but who is listening to our complaints? Not the redress co called “due process!” The courts ignored our claims, but took our money! It was frightening actually! Again, ironically, we had the same Federal Magistrate. Within the same matter of weeks that O’Sullivan was murdered, we filed a request for the Federal Courts to grant an injunction to force our county, the same malicious hateful D.A. that allowed the murder of O’Sullivan by stigmatizing O’Sullivan and denying equal protection thus removing all obstacles to prevent a murder, contrary to “rational basis theory.” The Magistrate Judge, who denied O’Sullivan his rights, knowing O’Sullivan was murdered by his neighbor, favored the D.A. motions to dismiss, by ignoring our claims and objections. Thus making way for our neighbor, a “mentally ill individual” see public record, psych medical billing exhibit B, to kill us by carrying out his witnessed murder threats or taped assaults. We were under a false sense of security granted to us in a a restraining order in an “evidentiary hearing.” Ignoring the order, irrational and uncogent, the D.A., refused to enforce it, perhaps hoping that we too would be silenced as murder victims, like the late John O’Sullivan of Fiddletown California, a few miles away from us. He then gets to be the hero prosecutor prosecuting the murderer he allowed to do the murder! This is an amazing phenomenon, but it is not far fetched! These things happened. We had to move away from our home, it was like our county was the Mafia and we had no “secret witness protection.” They seemed to want us dead, and we were violently victimized, assaulted, vandalized, our dogs shot, our truck shot, and police would just stand there as smug as can be! “So what,” the court said, “we are immune” they proclaimed! Our claim was not about the assaults, but about the retaliation for the web site we posted telling the story! We settled on appeal, with the county, so they would not, steal our property, a threat they made if we did not drop the appeal. The Judge who would not bar acts that suggested we could be murdered, would simply by court order steal our property, and nothing we could do to stop it, other than have our silence bought through intimidation and coercion.

Welcome to USA! Sovereign rule under the 11th amendment to the Constitution makes our democracy unique in that we get to vote for our “sovereigns” and choose who the Constitution under the 11th amendment grants as a constitutionally protected right, “corrupt acts done by officials.” Don’t take my word for it, it states this fact in Bogan v.
Scott-Harris U.S. Supreme Court that is upheld by Kaahumanu v. Cnty. of Maui, 315 F.3d 1215, 1220 (9th Cir. 2003), upheld in Norse v. City of Santa Cruz (9th Cir. - March 12, 2010).

And you think teachers are having problems….boo hooo!

Which leads me to “misapplication” as you put it, which is a basis for district or superior court nullification of law? Bogan grants immunity under the 11th amendment for “corrupt” acts by officials, and the Justice states in the Opinion that, “even if corrupt…we will not tolerate a citizen redressing [a grievance] a wrong that may have been done to him.” Nevertheless, the misapplication occurs, when the court states, “anything done by an official is done in “legislative capacity.” Bogan contradicts this, and the other circuits expound and the “ad hoc” decision officials make abrogate immunity.” Bogan states that decisions, “even if corrupt” made by officials will cover them with immunity, if the decision has “far reaching affects” affecting “many people.” Contradictorily, decisions that only affect an individual, outside the “public employment” context are “ad hoc,” see Norse, and Kaahumanu, and that abrogates immunity. Misapplication, outside of the courts is fraud. In the courts, it is nullifying the law, and there is no remedy except for more futility in a 10 year appellate court due process. In totalitarian governments, they don’t deceive their populace about justice. They all know it is rigged. Here we walk into the courtroom all proud of our first amendment only to be kicked in the face and traumatized!

So Bogan reminded us that the 11th amendment overturned the First Amendment right to “redress a grievance” and it never made the funny papers. Not one peep from a professor! So I get frustrated when professors expound on sub categories of civil right issues that, according to the Supreme Court, will not tolerate a citizen redressing a grievance. Please read the Jurgen Book I mention, it may helpMind you that when the news is scrutinizing them, they rule on matters, usually remanding it back to a district court who then pays off the plaintiff without arguing the cogency of the 11th amendment contradiction of the bill of rights, particularly the First Amendment “right to redress.” And by the way, no, the “over-deterrence theory” belongs in the “land of the blind where the one eyed man is king! Thanks for you time!

Pat Hamer
Founder of the Modern Copernicus Project, “ a paradigm shift from the archaic dogma presented by the “doctrine of immunity.” If “Par in Parem Imperium Non Habet” is true, then our constitution forbids the 11th amendment that originates from this basis, as non sequitur, and is “misapplied” and devastating to liberty and justice for all,!