XXV
“Judicial Fraud"
We Thee continue abused (Negro) Race 2015-2099, “Affirm”, “State”, and
“declare” legally,
Appearance Respectfully before his/her “World Honorable Presiding
“Justices”, To the Honorable “World Court of Justice” The Hague
Upon which We Thee continue abused (Negro) Race, affirm,
state and fully declare all allegation, contention, disputes, disputation,
argument, conflict and disharmony, fully cause of action as follows:
Deep Dark Ages Defendant
“United States of America” et al 1000% criminal committing 1000% “Judicial Fraud” Pursuant forever to “Dred Scott” Vs. Sandford,
60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Petitioner) having no legal standing before a
Federal Court of Laws being a “Slave” 1865-Feburary 7th 2013
Upon which the Deep Dark
ages Defendant “United States of America”
“Judicial Fraud” inbreed “Obstruction of Justice in addition denied (Petitioner) legal
civil standing in that “Slavery Servitude” committed to false publication of
U>S. Docket No: 3:01-CV-00095,
Which was “legally” filed
Louis Charles Hamilton II and all “African American” and other Citizens similarly
the same in and for the States of North Dakota Vs. State of
North Dakota; North * Dakota Department of Labor; * Disciplinary Board of the
Supreme *
Court of the
State of North Dakota; * Governor John Hoeven, as the deep dark ages defendant “United
States of America” forever fraudulent Pursuant forever to “Dred Scott” Vs. Sandford, 60
U.S. 393 (1857)
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 02-1565 ___________ Louis Charles
Hamilton, II, and all * other Citizens in and for the State of * North Dakota,
* * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the *
District of North Dakota State of North Dakota; North * Dakota Department of
Labor; * [UNPUBLISHED] Disciplinary Board of the Supreme * Court of the State
of North Dakota; * Governor John Hoeven, * * Appellees. * ___________
Submitted: July 5, 2002 Filed: July 15, 2002 ___________ Before McMILLIAN,
BOWMAN, and BYE, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM.
Louis Charles Hamilton, II,
appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1 for the District
of North Dakota, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -2- action for lack of
standing and for failure to state a claim. For reversal, Hamilton argues he has
a fundamental right to challenge the constitutionality of state laws.
For the reasons discussed below,
we affirm the judgment of the district court. We review the dismissal de novo.
See Whitmore v. Harrington, 204 F.3d 784, 784 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)
(Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal); Burton v. Central Interstate Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Compact Comm’n, 23 F.3d 208, 209 (8th Cir.) (dismissal for
lack of standing), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 951 (1994).
We agree with the district court
that Hamilton lacked standing to challenge the state laws in question, and that
defendants were not subject to suit or liable for damages. See Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (requirements for standing);
Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989) (state and its officials acting in their
official capacities are not “persons” within meaning of § 1983); Treleven v.
University of Minnesota, 73 F.3d 816, 818 (8th Cir. 1996) (Eleventh Amendment
prohibits § 1983 suit seeking monetary damages from individual state officers
in their official capacities). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Hamilton
v. North Dakota, State, et al
North Dakota District Court, Case No. 3:01-cv-00095
District Judge Patrick A. Conmy, presiding
docket://gov.uscourts.ndd.3-01-cv-00095
North Dakota District Court, Case No. 3:01-cv-00095
District Judge Patrick A. Conmy, presiding
docket://gov.uscourts.ndd.3-01-cv-00095
No comments:
Post a Comment