Archive for the ‘US Supreme Court’ Category

“neither america nor canada is afraid of ‘disappearing’ people who they think actually pose a threat to them”

August 25, 2015
“neither america nor canada is afraid of ‘disappearing’ people who they think actually pose a threat to them. So the fact that you are here and not gitmo, some yukon cell, or six feet under ALONE should tell you that they jut don’t give a damn about what you think.” This is what I received when I was posting on Yahoo message board about my story of being racially persecuted by Canada and US governments. He further goes on to tell me that those Defendants of my human rights case would rather “get rid of you” in stead of “having to face your endless lawsuits”. The poster stated he is an American. He spoke in such a certainty and such an open and blatant way, that I am sure he must be a government insider. The US government never denied my allegation the poster is a US government agent.
All law enforcement agencies in the US refuse to investigate this death threat against me. So, while I became a criminal only for being coerced by the Canadian government to testify my thoughts that “If they are going to kill me, I’m going to kill them, too”, the agent goes scot free for threatening to kill me and disappear me by the US government, blatantly in public. And while my testimony at the human rights tribunal was guaranteed immunity from prosecution under the Constitution, there is nothing at the US laws that can allow the poster to evade prosecution for his death threats. I sued the US law enforcement authorities. The court ruled the application of criminal laws in US is an absolute free choice/discretion of government agents, so it is LEGAL for the US law enforcement authorities to deny protection of criminal justice to colored persons like me. This is the so called “legal discrimination”.
Yet the UN’s human rights bodies endorses such a discrimination for US and Canada, literally  offering them the “impunity of human rights violations”. Because the UN refuses to even acknowledge the receipt of my human rights complaint against Canada and the US.

Criminalized for the Concept of Beauty P4

March 6, 2015

Part 4: Criminalized for the concept of beauty.

 

This part maybe particularly interesting to those Asians/Chinese who fantasize about marrying into the Whites to gain memberships of the privileged class. Probably the biggest mistake I ever made in my case is that I, from my Chinese cultural perspective, believed that marriage means acceptance and respect of the spouse including her/his ethnic background, so that I trusted a White professor James Cahill of UC Berkeley, who married a Chinese woman and chose him as an “expert” for the academic dispute involved in my human rights case. But the outcome proves that an inter-racially married White person may not be free of racism, and even worse, may harbor even more racial bias and contempt on the Asian/Chinese than the ordinary American Whites, like this White professor Cahill who willfully took a part in the conspiracy to persecute me a Chinese student.

I wish that I had never worked in Royal Ontario Museum, because it was in there I learned about Cahill’s marriage to a Chinese woman when those Whites there made this old man marring a Chinese woman of 27 years’ his junior a laughing stock in my presence. My story is a wake up call to all Chinese/Asians: we have to rely on our own struggle to advance ourselves.

At the time, my term paper for Waterhouse’s course was also in dispute because I claimed that the grade (B) Waterhouse gave to my paper did not fairly reflect the academic merits of my paper, but was caused by Waterhouse’s retaliation and his prejudice that “poor Chinese still want to claim historical inventions.” According to the university’s policy, any such dispute shall be resolved by an “external rereading” by experts in the field, but the university was unable to reach an agreement with me, for I disagreed with the way the university proposed everything, believing the method would enable them to choose candidates not objective to me.

The OHRC then took over the re-evaluation of my paper on the terms of U of T’s policy, and asked me to designate two experts and university professors in Chinese art history to reread my paper.

I chose two professors, one was Professor Sullivan from the UK, and the other was James Cahill, in the Chinese Art History Department at the University of California, Berkeley. They both are renowned professors, and also, both were married to Chinese women, which I believed, would make them not racist. Professor Sullivan got married to a Chinese woman decades ago. At first, I had little hesitation on Cahill, since Cahill had only recently married his current wife, a student of his from mainland China, 27 years’ his junior, and since once in the class, Waterhouse told us that James Cahill, although famous, “not all his works were done by himself”, implying that his students should take the credit. Nevertheless, I thought even if that meant that his morals might be in issue, but one thing is certain that Cahill would not have some kind of personal connection with Waterhouse. Little did I know…

The Commission sent a clean copy of my term paper to these two experts along with the course evaluation criteria that Waterhouse pre-set for the course. It was made very clear to the experts that the re-reading must be independent, objective and confidential as the U of T’s external re-reading policy requires.

On November 22, 1994, Cahill called the OHRC officer in charge of my case, Alan Strojin, and commented that my paper was “Quit good”, as quoted by Strojin in his telephone message to me. When I called back, Strojin told me that although Cahill gave an oral evaluation of my paper as “Quite good”, he was reluctant to give a written grade as he was supposed to do, and said he would not get involved in an unknown situation, as he himself had problems with some of his Chinese students before as well. I was not surprised by that since Waterhouse already told us in class that Cahill exploited the intellectual products of his Chinese students to get his fame.

Cahill then inquired about the situation surrounding my paper at the OHRC. Strojin told me that he “briefly informed” Cahill about my human rights complaint against Waterhouse at the OHRC. This was in violation of the U of T’s re-reading confidential rule that for external re-reading of student works, the circumstances surrounding the paper can not be disclosed to the re-reader. Cahill then requested to get a copy of waterhouse’s article in dispute from the OHRC, and said it would be the most interesting thing that he would do at his retirement, (months after, he retired from the UC Berkeley.)

 

The OHRC decided to send Waterhouse’s article to Cahill, despite of my objection for reason of the University policy. I then requested that I make a written submission to be sent out together with Waterhouse’s article to describe my dispute with Waterhouse in the class on the concept of beauty. Although little alarmed about Cahill’s admitted problems with his Chinese students, I still trusted Cahill’s ethics as a scholar and his compassion for me because of his marriage formed bond to the Chinese. I also did not have other choices since Strojin told me that he had never heard back from the other expert Professor Sullivan of UK.

 

In April of 1995, Cahill faxed his written Opinion to Strojin, and then Strojin called me from Hamilton to tell me about it. When Strojin read it to me, I was totally shocked because Cahill’s oral assessment of my paper “Quit good” now became a low B grade, and at the first beginning of his opinion, Cahill himself already openly acknowledged the change and its cause that “At the beginning, when I thought it was simply a matter of assessing the paper and saying what I thought a fair grade would be, the matter seemed fairly straight forward. Of course the basic issue is still that. But some knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the paper and the grade certainly complicates the matter.” This is a confession of the change of his assessment – political consideration upon my human rights Complaint.

 

Cahill further deliberately disclosed in this Opinion that he had acquired even very detailed knowledge and supposedly confidential information on the disputes on my paper, clearly implying that behind my back, in violation of the university’s re-reading rules, he had already made intimate exchange of information with U of Toronto or even Waterhouse himself.

 

For example, Cahill himself clearly indicated in the Opinion his detailed knowledge about Waterhouse’s viewpoints on my paper: “from P’s viewpoint…”, (“P” denoted Waterhouse, “S” for the student, as Cahill made clear in the Opinion); “from the instructor’s point of view…”. Obviously there was an intimate exchange of information between the U of T and Cahill. And, not only was the grade B that he gave to my paper consistent with that of Waterhouse, so were his reasons for giving the grade – mainly for my “poor English”. This violated the University’s grading policy that evaluation of student works should be based on the assessment criteria pre-set for the course, but English fluency level was not required by the criteria pre-set by the course instructor Waterhouse.

 

At the same time, in his opinion Cahill also commented on Waterhouse’s article and my dispute with Waterhouse. In the face of Waterhouse’s own written admission to me at the end of our dispute on the concept of beauty “Here I have to agree with your findings”, Cahill found that I “misunderstood” Waterhouse’s theory because of my poor English, without giving any explanation as to how I actually misunderstood it; and contrary to what I misunderstood, what Waterhouse really meant in English when he described in his article that the concept of beauty is one “we can safely identify as a European concept”.

 

In finding that I misunderstood Waterhouse, Cahill could only give out the reason as that I “quotes P as saying things I can’t imagine he did, since they also don’t make sense”, although in fact, what I quoted is black and white in Waterhouse’s paper.

 

As if a well tailored design, on basically every issue that he concluded against me in his Opinion, Cahill would at the same time acknowledge that he was in fact fully aware of the truth contrary to his conclusion.

 

For instance, for my paper, while blaming my “poor English”, Cahill also says: “in spite of having attained an admirable degree of proficiency for a non-native user”; while blaming my citation problems etc., Cahill says “As for S’s paper: it is a very ambitious piece of work, with notable strengths; a good mind is clearly at work here. Good points are made, and valuable insights expressed.”

 

This was an admission of a deliberate wrong doing by Cahill that he did the wrong thing despite he actually knew it was contrary to the truth, and that he did it for a political/racial purpose. It appears that Cahill had close connections with the Chinese, but that doesn’t mean he treats the Chinese people as his equals. Using his Chinese students’ works to get ahead in the Chinese art history field, marrying a Chinese woman a 27 years’ of his junior, having 2 half Chinese blooded young twin kids…means not only nothing to him, but perhaps even giving him more contempt on the Chinese since he could so easily exploit the Chinese, using the power of his position and as a White man. When it comes to a conflict between the Chinese and the Whites that he identifies himself with, he can do anything to ambush the Chinese, perhaps even including his own Chinese spouse. Yet I made a mistake to assume from my Chinese cultural perspective that a marriage is based on at least the respect to the ethnic background of one’s own spouse.

 

Further, this admission by Cahill was to serve a purpose – to provoke my rage using such flagrant disregard of any decency as a scholar and such blatant racism, in order to set me up for criminal prosecution. As the evidence shows that, Cahill, U of T and the OHRC had already planned the outcome of this re-reading and dismissal of my case together, and particularly prepared for my devastated reaction together, for they already knew I had already been very devastated and might get emotional.

 

16 days before Cahill’s opinion was completed, the lawyer for U of T Margot Blight wrote a letter to OHRC, in expecting the devastating shock that I could feel, asked the Commission to take precaution to give U of T advanced notice before the release of Cahill’s Opinion, for Liao “might react negatively to the release of your report and/or the release of her mark for the course”, and she “urged Alan STROJIN to take steps to have a physician available when the final result is made to her”.

 

Indeed, their plan worked. When I was informed by the OHRC officer Strojin over the phone about Cahill’s opinion and that this Opinion would “stand at the Commission” so that my case would be dismissed, I was overwhelmed with rage and disbelief, so that I began to panic and cry. When Strojin asked me at this point “what are you going to do now?” I burst out: “If they are going to kill me, I’m going to kill them too…”.

 

One hour later after this conversation, I called back Strojin to apologize for my emotional break down, and claimed that I would have to challenge Cahill’s Opinion as it was apparently biased. Strojin encouraged me, suggesting I could use the fact that Cahill had problems with his own Chinese students. Following that I made further move to send Strojin faxed letter, and made phone calls to assert my objection to Cahill’s Opinion on the grounds that it was apparently biased.

 

I received no response from OHRC to my objection. The only thing happened to me next was that I was arrested by the police for Uttering Death Threats against Waterhouse on May 10th, since Strojin behind my back informed the U of T on April 26 that I had made death threats to Waterhouse. Immediately at my arrest, a bail condition was imposed on me that I “can not initiate any contact with any member of the Ontario Human Rights Commission”.

 

Since the alleged target of my threats was not any one of the Commission, and since I had made similar angry expressions previously to Strojin but never got even a warning, this bail condition and the criminal prosecution itself clearly had an immediate political purpose: to forbid me to pursue my challenge to Cahill’s Opinion at the OHRC and to insist that the OHRC obtain the other expert’s opinion, so that the conspirators can assure the standing of Cahill’s Opinion at the OHRC.

 

My pursuit of my human rights case at OHRC was successfully cut off by this prosecution, so that the OHRC never needed to respond to the problem that I raised for Cahill’s Opinion, and to obtain the other expert’s opinion as the all parties agreed re-reading condition required. The OHRC then conveniently dismissed my complaint based on Cahill’s Opinion in 1997.

The “Expert Opinion” by James Cahill, Chinese art history professor, University of California

Criminalized after disputing “beauty is a European concept” Part III

January 22, 2015

Until today when I’m posting my story online, I still get some Whites to tell me by email or message: Mind you, beauty is a European concept.

Don’t get fooled by their “free speech” talking. This is not about free speech, it’s about racism, & White supremacy. In the West, you may need to be White to tell a White professor that his theory “beauty is a European concept” is incorrect. Unfortunately me, not White but did so, and got criminalized.

After I was fired by U of T from my cafeteria position, I applied for unemployment insurance, but it was running out and I was unable to locate a job, because of lack of “Canadian experience” as my Canadian experience had only been as a student, and I was not skilled for the job market, I could not find even a cleaning or baby sitting job though I had registered with many domestic employment agencies (keep in mind, this was during the peak of the serious economic recession in Canada with a 17% unemployment rate). At one point, there was only a double digit balance in my back account; at one time there were only $27 dollars. I panicked.

At the same time, the Commission appeared very positive, I was advised that they accepted my filing of a formal complaint even before I had exhausted the University’s internal appeal channels, as an exception to their regular practice. In July of 1994, I was advised that the Commission made a decision that my case be sent to the Commission’s Hamilton/Niagara Office for “expedite handling” since there was no “back logged cases.” It gave me great hope and confidence about my case at the Commission, since I had never requested an “expedite handling,” and had not even contacted the Commission for quite a while.

So I began to view the OHRC as my only hope to survival, and began to pursue my case vigorously.

Initially, when I filed the complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), I was cautious at the OHRC. In its Toronto office, an officer drafted my Complaint for me, and asked me for something about my supervisor professor, I declined to answer. The officer then told me about the Commission’s “confidentiality rule,” and that I had the duty to tell the Commission everything true – “everything you tell the Commission is only between you and the Commission.” When I came out, I took an OHRC’s pamphlet and did find that in it. I later telephone consulted a legal practitioner, and learned that I must answer a legal tribunal’s questioning as a witness by law, and that my testimony could not be used against me in anyway, as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights. So I began to answer all the Commission’s questions freely.

In the OHRC’s Hamilton Office, my case was assigned to an investigator, Allan Strojin. In our first conversation over the phone on October 21, 1994, he asked me what I lived on, I told him my situation and said I probably would not be able to survive, and cried. He then asked, “what are you going to do if your case can’t be resolved at the Commission?” I answered: “then I’m going to die.”

Strojin comforted me and advised me that I should be eligible for social assistance, which I never knew about as a foreign student. I immediately investigated and confirmed that, and later after the UI I did receive social assistance. I felt the Commission rescued me during a time of extreme devastation and panic, and was particularly grateful to Strojin for that.

What I said was only an honest answer to the question of the Commission’s officer. It was only out of temporary agitation. I only knew that everything I said to the Commission was “confidential,” which was also confirmed to me by Strojin, so I could not have formed any intent to “threaten” Waterhouse. Such agitated expressions were not uncommon, as Strojin later testified at trial that he had regularly witnessed the human rights complainants before the OHRC saying similar things.

Then Strojin, as if out of sympathy, befriended me by sharing with me his background and family matters, etc. He told me that he, as a mix of being Native Indian and White, resented the racist brutality encountered by his people in history, and in his own family history. He educated me about racism in Canada which I as a foreign student barely had any knowledge of. When I said I was going to write a book entitled “The Concept of Beauty” about my experience to reveal this hypocritical Western democracy, Strojin gave me positive comment and added he would write a “Preface” to my book to tell the immigrant-wannabes not to feel like the grass is always greener on the otherside”. At one point, when the U of T offered to settle with me with $5,000 for compensation and I hesitated, Strojin encouraged me to go on with my case at the OHRC, saying that they thought your life was only worth $5,000. I therefore decided to reject the offer and continue with my case.

My human rights case site has been blocked

May 24, 2010

My Web site http://www.wliao.159m.com has been blocked by the host site. This is so called American “freedom of speech”. The following is a revised version of the site summary:

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS:

In 1991, as a Master student, I challenged a White professor Waterhouse’s White supremacy theory that beauty is a European concept and Asians did not have the concept in history. He lost and retaliated against me through a series of fraud and violations of the university rules. I complained to the University but was retaliated with a wrongful dismissal from my cafeteria position, causing me the loss of life’s means. I complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC). At first I declined to answer some of the Commission’s questions, but the OHRC compelled me to testify “everything true”, and offered me an unconditional confidentiality guaranty.  Then the OHRC officer Strojin, knowing my devastation for the loss of surviving resources and later for the overt racist oppressions organized by the OHRC itself and joined  by US government agent University of California at Berkeley professor James Cahill, repeatedly asked me to testify my state of mind as to that what I would do if my case couldn’t be resolved at the Commission, and then used my devastative ranting “If I die, not only me, die” in my testimony to inform the U of T behind my back that I made  “death threats to Waterhouse”, causing a first count of criminal charge of “Uttering Death Threat to Waterhouse” laid against me. When I inquired about if the OHRC had breached its confidentiality guaranty to me, Strojin denied and lied to me that it was someone at the U of T who did something. The wrongful criminal charge and Strojin’s deception further provoked my rage and my rant. Strojin again informed the U of T, causing the second count of same charge laid against me. I was later convicted by a judge. My human rights complaint was dismissed by the OHRC during the criminal prosecution process.

This is a Fascist racial persecution because I was unlawfully prosecuted and convicted. First, if what I testified were a crime, it was not me but the Canadian government and its witness compellability laws to cause it to happen, for the alleged threats would have never occurred but for the government’s compulsion on me to testify my thoughts. As by compelling me to testify my state of mind, the government transformed my thoughts into act – spoken words. Without these words, my desperate thoughts could have never become known to others and got alleged as threats. Since no one can be punished for thinking criminal thoughts at law, and no one can be punished for lawfully complying with the government’s requirements and its witness compellability laws to testify one’s thoughts, I have no any criminal liability. Yet the government prosecuted me for the crime procured by its own self. Second, the alleged threats never actually happened since my rantings were merely radomly made in which Whaterhouse was never referred to, yet the court convicted me for a guessing that I “meant Waterhouse”. Third, I never had intention to threaten Waterhouse for because of the OHRC’s “confidentiality rule”, I never expected that Waterhouse would know my words at the OHRC and get threatened. This was a bogus criminal prosecution that has grossly deprived my basic human rights – right to security of person and freedom, and right against self-incrimination, (testimony use immunity and derivative use immunity, etc.) guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the meantime, all the American and Canadian White perpetrators and their accomplices who committed felony crimes against me got away Scot Free from their criminal liabilities. These crimes include: perjuries committed by the American government agent James Cahill; perjuries committed by the OHRC officer Alan Strojin at my criminal trial; forgery of court document and criminal fraud committed by US District Court judges Saundra Brown Armstrong and Phyllis Hamilton; death threats, threats of government forced disappearance against me made by an American government agent on Internet Yahoo newsgroups; forgery of court document committed by a California Superior Court Supervisor Maura Ramirez; etc. Despite that all these crimes are proven on written documents, the both governments and the government controlled the so-called “grand jury” have refused to prosecute them.

I filed civil suits in civil courts of Canada and US against the racial persecution. But all my cases have been dismissed and I have been unlawfully barred from access to court by court order in Canada, forbidding me to file any civil suits. The US federal court dismissed

my claims either without even any adjudication, or on basis of “procedural defects” that were created by the judges and clerks through their conspired criminal forgery, fraud, and open violation of the procedural rules in order to avoid dismissing my claims on their merits which are too indisputable to be denied without appearing outrageously unlawful. Even the US’s highest court would commit unlawful and fraudulent act to sanction the lower courts’ conducts. The same happened in California State court, and I have been partially barred from filing suits in state courts.  

All of these are done under a tight government organized cover-up. All the major American media refuse to publish my story, and some of them, such as CNN, even conspired with the US government to unlawfully set up secret automatic filters to filter out any information on my case on their web sites to ban my own publication attempts.  

Further more, those so-called “human rights groups” such as the “Human Rights Watch”, “Amnesty International”, etc. ignored my request for investigation, and the cover ups have expanded to the United Nations where the then Office of “High Commissioner for Human Rights” of UN, headed by Louise Arbour, a former judge of Supreme Court of Canada, seized all the complaints I sent to UN’s human rights bodies, in violation of the UN’s human rights complaint procedures. My story is the best illustration of hypocrite and racist nature of the “Western democracy and freedom”.

Congressman Chris Smith sued for racism in his global human rights advocacy

January 16, 2009

On December 23, 2008, I filed my First Amended Complaint, in which I edited my claims against CNN, and added parties – Judge Saundra Armstrong  and US Congressman Chris Smith.  This is excerpt of my complaint against Smith:

 

In February 2006, I was very excited to learn that the Congress, the highest law making authority of the US, had launched a campaign to intervene those major US based Internet private companies’ conducts to restrict Chinese people’s rights to freedom of expression on Internet communications in China. Mr. Christopher Smith, Chairman of

 

 

 

In the Complaint I also brought in other issues such as that American government agent colluded with the former Supreme Court of Canada judge, High Commissioner for Human Rights at UN Louis Arbor to cover up for US and Canadian governments, seized all my complaints sent to the UN’s international human rights bodies, in violation of the UN’s human rights complaint rules, and the death threat I received on Yahoo’s message board while posting my story, etc.

 

I claimed in this Complaint:

 

 

 

    “I have this standing to bring this complaint, as the Congress of United States has been known as most adamantly committed to human rights cause of the whole world, takingon the individual human rights abuse complaints from over the wold for hearing and public condemnation. Particularly notable is that numerable individual human rights complainants from China have been invited to speak before the Congress, alleging a wide range of human rights abuses in China. I am a Chinese and my human rights complaintinvolves the same and even more brutal abuses, as compared to those abuses cited for Chinese government in the 2005 Country Human Rights Practice Report (Report) issued by the US Department of State. And most crucially, my human rights complaintis not against China, but your own US government, and the government of your political ally Canada. I trust it is accepted by every person with common sense that you do nothave the right and the standing to demand other nations to do things that you yourself refuse to do. Therefore, I believe that the Congress will treat my complaint not only same as those from China and other nations, but also give it priority for investigative hearing.”However, I never received any response from Smith. Defendant Smith’s silence on my complaint can only mean that my arguments are indisputable – that the human rights abuses committed by US and Canadian governments on me are even more serious compared to those cited for Chinese government in the US 2005 Country Human Rights Practice Report.

And compared to his leading role in vigorously criticizing the Chinese and other governments for the same kind (and less serious than that in US) of human rights abuses as the Chairman of the US Congress human rights caucus, Defendant Smith had no any justifiable reason not to investigate my complaint. Therefore, the silence of Defendant Smith on my complaint can only mean that he condones and endorses the gross human rights abuses committed by his own US government and Canadian government.

Such a discrepancy in Defendant Smith’s human rights practice towards different nations reveals the hypocrisy of the “global human rights cause” that he has been advocating, and the racism nature of this “global human rights cause”. Because if Smith has no interest to support and protect me, this Chinese, for my human rights, what is his purpose to protect and support human rights for those Chinese in China? It can only mean that what he really concerned is not whether the Chinese enjoys human rights or not, but rather to claim the “moral supremacy” of the American and Western nations for purpose of maintaining their racial/political hegemony. And once a Chinese person exercises this same right but against his own and other Western nations’ governments, he supports the prosecution on this Chinese much more brutally than the Chinese government does to its people.

 

For reasons stated above, Defendant Christopher Smith is hereby sued in his official capacity, for a declaratory judgment for violations of 14th Amendment of United States Constitution – equal protection clause, and

 

 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 26: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

 

 

 

the 109th Congress Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations, held an investigative hearing and publicly condemned the conducts of those companies, Yahoo, Google, MSN, etc., who had helped the Chinese government restrict Chinese people’s rights to freedom of expression on Internet. Further, the Congress was in a process to make laws to regulate these companies’ conducts in China to comply with US’s values on human rights, particularly, freedom of expression, and study the possibility of bringing down the “Great Firewall of China” that censors the Chinese Internet.

How UNLAWFUL is the Supreme Court of the United States?

October 29, 2008

Now the highest court of US: Supreme Court of the United States, has shown the true face of “American justice”. After I fought for my right to file petition in the Spreme Court, the court accepted my filing. Then in December of 2007, the Supreme Court issued order, dismissing my petition.

 

By denying my petition, the US Supreme Court has blatantly violated the law of the US. Because by doing so the court endorsed that:

 

1) In US, a court is allowed to terminate a litigant’s claims without any adjudication on the merits of the claims and even without ever addressing the merits. This means the denial of a basic human rights – the rights to access to court, to have an issue heard and adjudicated by the court.

 

2) A judge of the US court has jurisdiction to dismiss an action with prejudice after the action has already been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the complainant and the dismissal has already been filed by court pursuant to rules of the court. this is contrary to the Rules that gives a litigant the right to voluntarily dismiss his own action and retain the right to file it again.

 

3) A court clerk’s act of forging a court summons, filing it in court and issuing it to a litigant is within the clerk’s jurisdiction so that she is protected by quasi-judicial

immunity.

 

People of the world, wake up and see the true face of “justice”, “democracy”, “human rights” of the United States!

US Supreme Court Joined The Cover Up Of The Racist Injustice By Unlawful And Fraudulent Means

December 18, 2007

Now finally it is the turn of the highest court of the US, the Supreme Court of the United States, to show the true face of “American justice”. It used the same kind of unlawful and fraudulent means like that employed by the lower courts to deny my access to court:              

On September 17, 2007, I sent a Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari and motion to proceed in forma pauperis to the US Supreme Court (SCT). The court refused to file my petition and returned it to me with a Letter on Sept. 25, 2007 , for reason “The petition is out-of-time.” The letter from the Clerk faked a “fact” that my petition was received by the Clerk’s Office on September 25, 2007, and reasoned that “the petition was due on or before September 23, 2007”.      

On October 12, 2007, I sent a letter to SCT clerk to clarify the facts: 

My petition was received by your office on September 24, 2007, not as you said on September 25, 2007. This is confirmed by Xpresspost USA of Canada Post that delivered the package for me (Attachments – the delivery confirmation certificate, the tracking records and the customer receipt). By Rules of the Supreme Court, the last day of the 90 calendar days for me to file the petition was September 23, however, that was a Sunday. Then the deadline was the next Monday, which was September 24, 2007. This is because the Rules of the Supreme Court stipulates:  Rule 30. Computation and Extension of Time  1. In the computation of any period of time prescribed or allowed by these Rules, by order of the Court, or by an appli- cable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period begins to run is not included. The last day of the period shall be included, unless it is a Satur- day, Sunday, federal legal holiday listed in 5 U. S. C. § 6103, or day on which the Court building is closed by order of the Court or the Chief Justice, in which event the period shall extend until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, federal legal holiday, or day on which the Court building is closed. (Emphasis added)  So the last day of this 90 day period shall be September 24, not September 23.   And Rule 29 provides that  “A document is timely filed if it is received by the Clerk within the time specified for filing”.  Therefore when your office received my petition on September 24, 2007, it was filed, and was timely.              My petition was timely filed also because it was deposited in express mail, postage prepaid, and bears a postmark, showing that the document was mailed on September 18, 2007, (see the attachment) which was before the last day of filing  – September 24, 2007. Rule 29 provides: 

Rule 29. Filing and Service of Documents; Special          Notifications; Corporate Listing    2. A document is timely filed if it is received by the Clerkwithin the time specified for filing; or if it is sent to the Clerkthrough the United States Postal Service by first-class mail(including express or priority mail), postage prepaid, andbears a postmark, other than a commercial postage meterlabel, showing that the document was mailed on or beforethe last day for filing; or if it is delivered on or before thelast day for filing to a third-party commercial carrier fordelivery to the Clerk within 3 calendar days. If submittedby an inmate confined in an institution, a document is timelyfiled if it is deposited in the institution’s internal mail systemon or before the last day for filing and is accompanied by anotarized statement or declaration in compliance with 28U. S. C. § 1746 setting out the date of deposit and stating thatfirst-class postage has been prepaid. If the postmark ismissing or not legible, or if the third-party commercial carrierdoes not provide the date the document was received bythe carrier, the Clerk will require the person who sent the document to submit a notarized statement or declaration incompliance with 28 U. S. C. § 1746 setting out the details ofthe filing and stating that the filing took place on a particulardate within the permitted time. (Emphasis added) 

  I sent the same letter again on October 19, 2007. Since there was no response to my letters, I called the clerk, Gail Johnson twice but all my messages were never returned. I re-sent my petition with a declaration on mailing date for my Petition to the SCT, but on Nov. 27, 2007, it was returned to me again “for the reasons stated in prior correspondence from this office”.  Apparently, the issues that I presented in my petition are so significant in revealing the racist nature of the “justice” in US towards racial minorities, the Supreme Court of US prefers to hid its endorsement of all the injustice in this case, even by such shameful ways. This American justice system and this American government, from the very top to bottom, have no sense of decency in oppressing racial minorities by any means possible.   Here, by denying my petition, the highest court of US endorsed all the unlawful acts by the federal District Court, which have been outlined in my petition.