Porter, Could Ya Tell MI the Stories of Jesus, I Love to Hear? LOL
I Can't Wait for the Movie. LOL
Conclusion
1. Paragraphs 1 to 123 are incorporated by reference.
2. The litigation, as a preliminary matter, is subject to a prefiling injunction, requested by Respondent, and approved by the Circuit Court, s enjoining Petitioner “from filing any motion, pleading, [or] other filing without (1) obtaining the services of a practicing attorney, or, in the alternative, (2) obtaining leave of court to file any pro se pleading”, Dismissal Order, p. 1. April 26, 2021, had been filed with the Circuit Court on April 24, 2024.
3. Yet, in an infamous case arising from a smallpox vaccine mandate, which had been brought to the nation’s highest court by two attorneys, “Mr. George Fred Williams, with whom Mr. James A. Halloran was on the brief, for plaintiff in error”, Staff, “Jacobson v. Massachusetts,” Legal, https://www.leagle.com/decision/1905208197us111206?gt_o=1714088380 (accessed April 25, 2024), these learned and licensed practitioners had “’offered to prove and show by competent evidence’ these so-called facts”, “[e]ach of them, in its nature, . . . such that it cannot be stated as a truth, otherwise than as a matter of opinion”, while Justice John Marshall Harlan, speaking for the majority, had observed that “[t]he only ‘competent evidence’ that could be presented to the court to prove these propositions was the testimony of experts, giving their opinions”, of which they brought none, Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 11, suggesting that the remedy is at least not perfect.
4. According to that infamous case upon which some “constitutional experts” had relied to endorse the proposition that, “’as a pure issue of constitutional law, I think that any governor, pursuant of the police power, should be able to mandate the wearing of masks”, subject to the caveat that “[a] lot would depend on the actual wording of the Virginia Constitution and of the Virginia public health laws”, Kaylyn Kluck & Jeff Keeling, “Law professor: Virginia mask mandate is constitutional,” WJHL, May 26, 2020[1]; however, “no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the Preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied therefrom”, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (citing 1 Story’s Const. § 462).
5. Moreover, in this exercise of the police powers, in contingencies involving public health emergencies, the Supreme Court has made clear that: 1) “[t]he only ‘competent evidence’ that could be presented to the court to prove these propositions was the testimony of experts, giving their opinions”; and 2) “’if a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is, beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.’” Id. (quoting Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887); Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313 (1890); Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U. S. 207 (1907)).
6. Nonetheless, acknowledging that the “Preamble [merely] indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments”, Id., yet and still, a “We the People of the United States,” did, “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. . . ordain and establish. . . [a] Constitution for the United States of America.” Preamble, Constitution.
7. It was the notable opinion of one infamously American prosecutor that “we already know what justice is”, and that “[i]t is the decision of the people passing on the evidence”, including “the jury system”, in a case in which the Government had been alleged to have engaged in “conduct in concealing the evidence”, an “issue of humanity as opposed to power”, and he decided: “I have chosen humanity, and I will do it again without any hesitation”, adding, “I hope every one of you will do the same.” Jim Garrison, Closing Arguments, State of Louisiana v. Shaw, 198-050 1426 30 (LACrimDist 1967)[2].
8. It was that prosecutor’s mere opinion, posing the query, “What can you do for your country?”, that:
You can cause justice to happen for the first time in this matter. You can help make our country better by showing that this is still a government of the people. And if you do that, as long as you live, nothing will ever be more important. Id.
9. In another made-for-the-silver-screen scene in American jurisprudence, Two of the defendants, E.G. Barnett, a candidate for sheriff, and Edgar Ray Killen, a local minister, had been strongly implicated in the murders by witnesses, but the jury came to a deadlock on their charges and the Federal prosecutor decided not to retry them.” Id. (citing “Neshoba Murders Case – A Chronology”, Arkansas Delta Truth and Justice Center, retrieved September 11, 2011).
10. “On May 7, 2000, the jury revealed that in the case of Killen, they deadlocked after a lone juror stated she ‘could never convict a preacher’” Id. (citing Jerry Mitchell, The (Jackson, Miss.) Clarion-Ledger, “Congressional honor sought for Freedom Summer martyrs,” USA Today, February 4, 2014.
11. While in one trial decided before jurists, the tribunal had found incredulous counsel’s arguments in “excuse”, and had concluded that the claim “given by the Accused in his evidence (Session 81, Vol. IV, p. xxxx5), that all he did was to pass on a message which he received from Cracow, is not plausible,” Eichmann, 36 I.L.R., at 5; the Mississippi State Supreme Court had rejected the presumptively meritorious arguments brought by his licensed and practicing attorneys that “Killen claims that the State intentionally used delay to obtain a tactical advantage, pointing to the change ofthe political climate in Mississippi in 2005 as compared to 1964, so that a jury was much more likely to convict him in 2005.” Killen v. State of Mississippi, 2005-KA01393-SCT (Miss. 2005).
12. “Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.” Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail, supra, and, perhaps, “[i]f men were angels, no government would be necessary”, James Madison, Federalist No. 51, February 6, 1788.
13. The Fourth Circuit had observed that “’[a]ll power may be abused if placed in unworthy hands’,” U.S. v. Chalk, 441 F.2d 1277 (4th Cir. 1971) (quoting Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) (1849)), while acknowledging that “[t]he courts cannot prevent abuse of power, but can sometimes correct it.” Chalk, 441 F.2d, at 1277, and, for this reason, “[p]remised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints. Citizens United, Record No. 08-205, 558 U.S., at 310 (2010) (citing U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 813 (2000).
14. “The ultimate purpose of the judicial process is to determine the truth”, Caldor, Inc. v. Bowden, 330 Md. 632 (1993), and “[a] lie is a lie, no matter what its subject, and, if it is in any way relevant to the case, the district attorney has the responsibility and duty to correct what he knows to be false and elicit the truth”, Com. v. Manigo, 2010 WL 468084 (Va.Cir.Ct. 2010).
15. And in one early case brought in mandamus, the nation’s highest court, in an opinion penned by a resident of Virginia had stated, “[i]t is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Petitioner prays the Circuit Court to reconsider the prior Prefiling Injunction Order, and, in the alternative, to grant leave of court for filing this motion for reconsideration of the Dismissal Order, and, accordingly, in accordance with due process and “‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’’”, Richards v. Newrez LLC, Civil Action No. ELH-20-1282 (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2021) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (citation omitted)), further prays that the Circuit Court, on reconsideration, reverse the dismissal of the Verified Complaint, and grant such other equitable relief as deemed appropriate by the Court.
[1] “’And the Supreme Court basically said the State has the power, effectively to strap you down and stick a needle in your arm, and make you get vaccinated,” said Harris. “Which quite frankly is far more intrusive than putting you under quarantine. And certainly much, much more intrusive than mandating you wear a mask when you’re out in public.’” Id.
[2] “I do this because I love my country and because I want to communicate to the government that we will not accept unexplained assassinations with the casual information that if we live seventy-five years longer, we might be given more evidence.” Id.