6.2 Sample Ruling: Sequester D. A. Henry WadeSample Ruling, Sequester: Dallas County D. A. Henry Wade et al
Sequester: Dallas County D. A. Henry Wade et al
Update Concerning Trial and Legal Standing.....
In a simple brief lifetime review of Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade (JFK, Oswald, Ruby) in the article below, it is VERY CLEAR about the reputation of Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade - not the legacy wished - that aligns D.A. Wade in any realm of the legal instrument of "impingement"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/impinge (as with evidence) as to set aside all involvement with the Murder/Assassination Investigation of President John F. Kennedy, and this includes of course Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby events.
Article Review / Read:
NBC News Article:
DALLAS — After Dallas DA’s death, 19 convictions undone Most cases involved black defendants; some praise preservation of DNA....
www.nbcnews.com/id/25917791/Henry Wade
(Dallas County District Attorney - JFK, Oswald, Ruby)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_WadeHowever appropriately worded and invoked, should lay to the side as sequestered (
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sequester)
All involvement by Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade and ALL under him, involved. This concludes that jurisdiction over the Murder/Assassination Investigation of President John F. Kennedy (includes of course Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby events) can not be relied on or accepted and not jurisdiction of the investigation. This means all involvement by Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade and all under him is in review for investigation.
It is plain and evident that in these areas historically resulting in actual Civil War to secure Due Process of Law under the United States Constitution as Law of the Land. In other words, any public and fair trial did not even exist until victory - and then necessarily adding so many laws to enforce Liberty and Justice for over 100 years. This is not even mentioning Jury. It is mentioning simple basic Bill of Rights Law.
And so district authority is removed in the cases, and in place the remedy by Law as to whether Federal necessary upon inquest. What applies.... "...which district shall have been previously ascertained by law..." .....
The Bill of Rights and Other Amendments - U.S. Constitution
http://usconstitution.com/bill-of-rights(Bill of Rights)
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Ironically, this is as well a basis for Atty. Mark Lane who agreed with Mrs. Oswald to defend Lee Harvey Oswald before the Warren Commission, as is the Rights of all Americans as Due Process of Law.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Again, district authority is removed in the cases is apparent until.....
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 25
3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)
Original Law states....
"....until the Disability be removed...."
This is extended as inference to all positions of Government - Federal, State, Local, other - and certainly applies to all involvement by Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade and all under him in the Murder/Assassination Investigation of President John F. Kennedy (includes of course Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby events). In the least is saying a review is in order. In the least is saying to reopen the case in that jurisdiction requires these such events of impingement and sequestration. Much as US Courts of Appeals (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals) sat to hear Appeals for the Supreme Court, whether valid to proceed, there must be a similar Judicial authority in place of the Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade and ALL under him involved as well extends to the Presidential Commission as the Warren Report and its validity or even jurisdiction or to be itself sequestered as impingement itself to the case(s).
Of course I hold that America has an "appellate jurisdiction" meaning no intervention by any body of Law or Judicial has any legal right to say or declare what cases they will hear or not.....
Article III
Section 2.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
And so apparently "politics, the science of spin city" has turned the Law as "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction" somehow now means they have the right by and with "such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make" - has turned the Law into being unlawfully interpreted as meaning these have the right to judge what appeal the Supreme Court will accept to hear, with their bullcrap excuses and reasons for the others they decide not to hear. This is denial of Due Process. The Law, "...the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction" is defining the role, authority, and power of the Supreme Court in the United States as being the appeal receiver from lower courts to rule on it, as these Justices are to be our best as understanding our Law. It is defining them as having some despot power or all power in all court and Law of the Land and so on. It defines them as not having some tyrannical position, but is defining them rather as a last resort in America per Appeal in hearing a case that seems to be above understanding of position, or some unlawfulness in fact or witness etc etc etc. not in hearing in lower courts. This the Founding Fathers made Law of the Land by and with Americans so that for any nefarious (dark) reason a lower court could not wrongfully and illegally put Americans to hurt with some political view and interpretation of the Law as convenient to serve their means against someone. All Americans have the Right Of Appeal in the United States. In less terms, there is no attachment to the Right of Appeal in America - period.
I site the foundation by Imminent Domain (and as upheld by God) as to the interpretation of Law as precedent being the Declaration of Independence being cause and reason for the institution of the United States Constitution.... "transient causes"...
"IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance....."
Need I say more about Chief Justice William Howard Taft ?
THE UNLAWFUL CHANGE...
This is unconstitutional in my opinion and anyone American or sane....
"....The right of automatic appeal for most types of decisions of a court of appeals was ended by an Act of Congress, the Judiciary Act of 1925. This law was urged by Chief Justice William Howard Taft, and it also reorganized many other things in the federal court system. ...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appealsAgain, I hold that America has an "appellate jurisdiction" meaning no intervention by any body of Law or Judicial has any legal right to say or declare what cases they will hear or not hear. That is denial of due process of the law - appellate jurisdiction as Law of the Land, period, and all Judges are bound by it. Or this means no one from the lower court has any right to determine "validity" or 'grounds" for any appeal. The Appeal is heard by the higher court and no one else for any reason, simply for validity as like Probable Cause for any arrest. Obviously the lower court decision being appealed against is in conflict of the law or as a "hostile witness". Under appellate jurisdiction, how could those possibly be considered as "hearing grounds for appeal" ? If in the higher court it is determined this was other than realistic and genuine as superfluous - then that party is to be charged with that. What lawyer would go to jail and lose practice over some bad defendant trying to buy time with an appeal against a sentence etc, or pulling a prank for spite, or trying simply to remain in a less secure local prison to attempt escape while waiting for hearing ? And so the Defendant Lawyer has their reputation on the line as well, and will not engage frivolous nonsense, and nonetheless will not attain Appeal in those type events.
