Is There More to "Due Process of Law" Than Just Being Heard

Is there more to "Due Process of Law" than just being heard, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution? Relating to criminal proceedings. Is there more to "Due Process of Law" than just a notice, and an opportunity to be heard, in a criminal case?

Perhaps if you would outline what happened you might get a more focused reply rather than trying to guess blindly at a subject that can cover volumes of material.

A Municipal Court Judge was working illegally under state law, and prosecuted me for a speeding ticket that was out of the municipal Court's jurisdiction under state law, the municipal court judge used illegal evidence to prosecute me, the Municipality and Municipal Court Judge had closed Court Trials, the the trials were closed to the public. Does that violate my Fourth Amendment right to the U.S. Constitution, "Right to be Free from Unreasonable Seizures," and Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to the U.S. Constitution right to "Due Process of Law," does that violate my right not to be deprived of Liberty and Property without Due Process of Law?

Does that make the traffic stop unlawful? Does that make the seizure illegal? Does that make the prosecution malicious?

My case was dismissed with prejudice in a state court, and so was another person's for the same reasons. Both cases were "ab initio" for two legal reasons, the judge was working illegally under state law (two paid civil servant jobs at the same time) and the court trials were closed to the public, two state law violations. It was not a mere error of state law, it was the municipality's policies, customs, and practice.

Apparently the system functioned well under appeal.

What state was this?

And how do you know the judge was working "illegally" as a judge?

If you have already had the case overturned, what is it you are hoping to achieve now? Are you looking for a civil suit? If so, have you consulted an attorney? It sounds as if you are goin gto attempt to bring some sort of federal court action ... be forewarned that these are not things to be done lightly or in pro per.

As a note, the traffic stop would not have been unlawful (on this issue) as it would have had nothing to do with the judicial malfeasance that may have occurred later on.

What state was this? WV



And how do you know the judge was working "illegally" as a judge? The municipality admitted to their judge working illegally in a state court, at trial, the issues were raised on motions to dismiss.

If you have already had the case overturned, what is it you are hoping to achieve now? Are you looking for a civil suit? If so, have you consulted an attorney? It sounds as if you are goin gto attempt to bring some sort of federal court action ... be forewarned that these are not things to be done lightly or in pro per. I've already been through a civil jury trial pro se. In my civil action the judge said that my Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to Due Process of Law weren't violated, because the judge said that my due process of law rights weren't violated because I had a notice, and an opportunity to be heard. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court. I'm thinking about filing a Writ of Certorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As a note, the traffic stop would not have been unlawful (on this issue) as it would have had nothing to do with the judicial malfeasance that may have occurred later on. I would have to disagree with that legal interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, I believe that "ab initio" meaning from the beginning makes the whole thing illegal which would be unreasonable. I believe that under current and existing case law, that violated the proscription of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. Usurpations is a better political or legal word to describe their policies, customs, official acts etc., that violated my constitutional rights. Federalist Essay no. 51.

an ambitious little fellow, aren't you.

You need to learn a few things. Start with learning how to spell certiorari. Then learn that you do not write a writ of certiorari. You petition for a writ of certiorari. The court issues the writ of certiorari if they accept your case/

and you aren't even close to this being a SCOTUS issue.

Hey, if you can convince a civil court that the municipal court's actions violated the 4th Amendment, more power to ya. But, don't expect to sue the police for not having the foresight (and ESP) to predict that the municipal court judge might err at some time down the road. I believe you are misapplying the concept of ab initio in this instance and it will provide no fault to the detaining/citing/arresting officers, but I will leave it to others who might be able to explain it better than I.

So, if I get this right, you have had your matter dismissed, and an appellate court has already ruled that your rights were not violated. Now, you intend to challenge the appellate court's ruling on Constitutional grounds while acting in pro per? That oughta be entertaining.

Have you looked into the stats in your state on pro per litigants prevailing at the appellate level or even the federal level? I haven't, but I suspect they are quite minuscule. But, it is your time and money to waste (and the taxpayer's).

Jurisdictional issues are resolved via a motion to dismiss .. can be brought up at any time .. 1st on appeal too

I would have to write a Petition for Certiorari, with certworthy questions, (legal questions). I've read the U.S. Supreme Court Rules, Rules 12-15, I have U.S. Supreme Court cases that I cited in my Informal Opening Brief at the Court of Appeals, that I believe the Circuit Court failed to apply and that those cases are conflicting. I believe that gives me grounds to file the Petition for Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court if I choose to. Also, I believe that it was a "Plain Error" to retry the ticket, there's no need to retry the ticket the speeding ticket case was dismissed with prejudice, "ab initio."

Quote:

---

Quoting grantyium

---

Is there more to "Due Process of Law" than just being heard, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution? Relating to criminal proceedings. Is there more to "Due Process of Law" than just a notice, and an opportunity to be heard, in a criminal case?

---

There's a lot more to the due process clause. It essentially deals with fairness in the legal process. The problem is that it's so vague that it's not always clear when it applies. Determining when a fundamental right exists that would be protected by the due process clause is a typical role of the United States Supreme Court, so you definitely have the type of issue that they review.

The problem is that it's hard to tell exactly what you're claiming as a fundamental right that needs protecting. What right do you think you hold that was unfairly violated? If you can't articulate the right that the court failed to protect in your traffic case, then it's unlikely that any court will entertain your case for review. Because you've already had your case heard by two courts, it might be too late to attempt to restate your argument. It's also a bit of a weird situation because it sounds like you actually won your case. Typically you would make these kinds of claims after a loss.

If you're serious about taking this to the Supreme Court, you should consult a lawyer. If you actually have a case, it probably wouldn't be difficult to find a lawyer or even a law firm that is willing to help you for little cost. Law Firms love being able to claim that they have litigated cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court because it brings in business.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You need to learn a few things. Start with learning how to spell certiorari.

---

I bet even Gideon misspelled certiorari.