Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

Can the Constitution be applied 2 completely opposite ways?

Discuss legal theories and the merit thereof

Can the Constitution be applied 2 completely opposite ways?

Postby country_hick » Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:18 pm

Is Maine's Constitution truly Schizophrenic or do the Justices apply the Constitution inconsistently and thereby violate the federal equal protection clause?

In State v Anton 1983 the Court misread Maine's Constitution. The court declared that providing a civil trial by jury today required proof that a similar case in 1819 before Maine left Massachusetts had a trial by jury for that type of civil suit.

State v. Anton, 463 A. 2d 703 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 1983
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16693892415763929812&q=state+v+anton&hl=en&as_sdt=10000006
That provision, substantially similar to article 15 of the Declaration of Rights in the Massachusetts Constitution, preserves the right to jury trial in civil actions where that right existed when the Maine Constitution was adopted...The provision does not apply to suits in equity or other civil proceedings not then tried by jury in the common law courts...We are aware of no civil suit in 1819 that would have been comparable to such a proceeding.

City of Portland v. DePaolo, 531 A. 2d 669 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 1987
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2285810419881971086&q=portland+v+depaolo&hl=en&as_sdt=10000006

4 years later in City of Portland v. DePaolo 1987 the Court declared they had improperly applied Maine's Constitution in Anton. The Court said "In language plain and broad article I, section 20 guarantees to parties in all civil suits the right to a jury trial, except where by the common law and Massachusetts statutory law that existed prior to the adoption of the Maine Constitution in 1820 such cases were decided without a jury. We today overrule any intimations or statements in our earlier cases that are incompatible with the broad view of the guarantee of a jury trial in civil cases contained in article I, section 20 of the Maine Constitution."

Smith v. Hawthorne, 2006 ME 19 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 2006
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7853711772713572557&q=smith+v+hawthorne&hl=en&as_sdt=10000006

in Smith v Hawthorne 2006 the Court declared "The Maine and Massachusetts constitutional provisions have historically been construed as guaranteeing the right to a trial by jury in civil cases unless it is demonstrated that such a right did not exist at the time of the adoption of each Constitution. " " our practice . . . is to find that there is such a right unless it is affirmatively shown that a jury trial was unavailable in such a case in 1820".

The Court can present no pre-1820 case to constitutionally deny trial by jury for traffic infractions violating this judicially recognized requirement.

A naïve man would believe the Court has great honor and integrity. If this evidence was presented to the Court it would apply Maine's Constitution according to the proper understanding of Maine's Constitution by refuting all decisions the Court overturned in 1987. Nothing could be further from the truth. In 1991 the Court in State v. Arnheiter said "We ruled precisely to the contrary in State v. Anton, 463 A.2d 703 (Me.1983), and we find no reason to depart from that authoritative precedent."

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11656024877698302201&q=State+v.+Arnheiter,+&hl=en&as_sdt=10000006
State v. Arnheiter, 598 A. 2d 1183 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 1991

The Court actively ignores the equal protection clause by treating civil suits known as traffic infractions differently than other civil suits when determining how to apply Maine's Constitution.

In 2017 in State v Chase the Court said "We have held that neither the Maine Constitution, nor any other authority, requires that a jury trial be available in a traffic matter. State v. Nugent...;[T]here is no civil jury trial right for traffic infraction proceedings afforded by article I, section 20 of the Maine Constitution; State v. Arnheiter (Me. 1991); State v. Anton (Me. 1983); Thus, the court did not err by denying Chase's jury trial request."


The Court by saying "we have [up]held" an overturned foundation means the Court violated both the Maine and U.S. Constitutions. "We have held" means the Court refused to apply the federal (and Maine) equal protection clause(s) by violating the overturning of the legal basis used to decide Anton 4 years later in Depaolo. Why does the Court claim Maine's Constitution has two completely opposite meanings for the same Constitutional article?

The Court violated its own precedent that changed how to apply Maine's Constitution or all civil suits. The Court chose to violate the US Constitution equal protection clause by not providing equal protection under Maine's Constitution for all civil suits. All 7 Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justices committed an act of sedition by undermining the authority of the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution by not always applying the same legal basis when applying Maine's Constitution.

Maine's Constitution must be applied equally to all civil suits. Maine's Constitution has not been amended to deny trial by jury for traffic infractions or workers compensation. All 7 Maine Justices require immediate removal from office in disgrace for their acts of sedition against the United States and the people of Maine by acting under color of law to violate the rights of the people of Maine by improperly denying trial by jury to a civil suit that is not proven to have been denied trial by jury in 1819.

Federal law 18 USC § 242 says "If two or more persons conspire to...oppress...any person in any State...in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States...They shall be fined...imprisoned...or both."

Federal rights include equal protection and due process as required by Maine's Constitution. Maine's Justices violate the equal protection clause and 18 USC § 242 by denying required jury protections to all civil suits.

Can anyone see a flaw in this analysis?
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 54 time

 

Re: Can the Constitution be applied 2 completely opposite wa

Postby lostandfound » Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:33 pm

Things similar,are not the same.

Is there a difference in the
jury trial and the trial by jury?

Might be worth a peek?
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2199
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 335 time
Have thanks: 189 time

Re: Can the Constitution be applied 2 completely opposite wa

Postby country_hick » Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:24 pm

I always used the correct constitutionally recognized phrase "trial by jury". The court always seems to say "jury trial". I have no idea why.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 858
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 54 time


Return to Legal Theory Analysis

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred