Refresh   Tag(s): Power; Public Interest
Add to My Group

March 23, 2008 at 19:22:15     Permalink The response from the court to my petition for a writ of mandamus, and my reply Diary Entry by Ed Martin (about the author)

SAVE AS FAVORITE VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

An article published on OEN on Feb. 13 gave the text of my petition to the District of Columbia, District Court. The following is the text of a letter to the court with my reply to the court's response, which explains the utter futility of trying to deal with this court.

::::::::

On 13 Feb 08 I filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the District Court of the District of Columbia to be directed to George Bush, President of the United States, requiring George Bush to do his duty as a public servant by upholding his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, which he has not done.

The following is the text of a letter to the court with my reply to the court's response to my petition.

21 Feb 08

United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20001

In response to my petition for a writ of mandamus of 14 Feb 08, I have received from the court a form re-framing the petition as a complaint and requiring that I re-submit it as a complaint, filing a "new case" and listing "all parties to the suit."

The First Amendment to the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people...to petition the government for a redress of grievances."  The "no" is unconditional and admits of no bureaucratic impositions on this right.

Since a petition is "An application made to a court praying for the exercise of the judicial powers of the court in relation to some matter which is not the subject for a suit or action," I cannot provide the information that would convert the petition to a complaint resulting in a suit, as that would require changing it from what it is to what it is not.

From the nature of the requests on the form for information that was clearly provided in the petition, I can only assume that the court was considering another matter entirely, and not the petition, and had the misconception that it was something other than a petition for a writ of mandamus.

All knowledge is valuable, particularly knowledge about what not to do.  From my experience with this matter I have learned to refrain from petitioning for a writ of mandamus to a court that has either a misconception as to what it is, or quite possibly, is confusing it with an unrelated matter or something else entirely.

I therfore formally withdraw the petition and any and all claims upon this court, implied or explicit, and chose not to exercise my right to petition my government for a redress of grievances in this venue, relieving this court from any obligation or need for further action, bringing the matter to an end. 

It is obvious that further pursuit of the matter will be futile and unproductive.

Ed Martin

 

 

Ed Martin is an unindicted curmudgeon. He is not a Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, deist, atheist, or a member of any -ism.

 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Diary?

---

 

 

 

Tell a Friend:

Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews Powered by Populum